Diminutives in English [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110929553, 9783484304796

Citation preview

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 submitted 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 invaluable 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 0. Aims, claims and structure of the present study

XI 1

1. Introduction 1.1. What are diminutives? 1.1.1. Word class of input 1.1.2. Word class of output 1.1.3. Formation processes 1.1.4. Diminutive meaning 1.1.5. Summary 1.2. Related terms and concepts 1.2.1. Augmentatives 1.2.1.1. Prototypical augmentatives 1.2.1.2. Augmentative formation 1.2.1.3. Augmentative meaning 1.2.2. Other related terms and concepts 1.3. Conclusion

4 4 5 6 7 10 15 16 16 16 17 18 20 21

2. Researching diminutives: the state of the art 2.1. Overview 2.1.1. Historical and quantitative dimension 2.1.2. Languages covered 2.1.3. Topics 2.2. Grammatical approaches to diminutives 2.2.1. Diminutives in traditional grammar 2.2.2. Diminutives in structuralism 2.2.3. Diminutives in generative grammar 2.2.4. Recent post-generativist approaches 2.2.4.1. Diminutives in optimality theory 2.2.4.2. Pre- and protomorphological approaches 2.3. Pragmatic approaches to diminutives 2.3.1. Diminutives as emotive signs 2.3.2. Diminutives across cultures 2.3.3. Diminutives as speech act modifiers 2.3.4. The morphopragmatics of diminutives 2.3.5. Diminutives in discourse 2.4. Summary and perspectives

23 23 23 25 27 29 29 31 32 35 35 36 37 37 39 47 49 53 55

3. Researching diminutives: integrating grammatical and pragmatic perspectives... 3.1. The object of analysis 3.2. General outline of the research programme

57 57 58

Vili 3.3. The grammatical perspective: diminutive formation 3.3.1. The morphonological perspective: diminutive form 3.3.2. The semantic perspective: diminutive meaning 3.4. The pragmatic perspective: diminutive use 3.4.1. The micropragmatic perspective: diminutive function 3.4.2. The macropragmatic perspective: diminutive distribution 3.5. Method 3.5.1. Units of analysis 3.5.2. Data types and data quality 3.5.3. The corpus of the present study 4. Grammatical aspects of English diminutives 4.1. Some controversial issues 4.1.1. The status of diminutives in English 4.1.2. The inventory of diminutive suffixes 4.1.3. Subclasses of diminutive suffixes 4.1.4. Historical variation 4.1.5. Productivity 4.1.6. Non-suffixal formation 4.1.7. Summary 4.2. Synthetic diminutive formation 4.2.1. {IE} 4.2.2. {ETTE} 4.2.3. {LET} 4.2.4. {LING}, {KIN}, and {EEN} 4.2.4.1. {LING} 4.2.4.2. {KIN} 4.2.4.3. {EEN} 4.2.5. {S}, {ER}, {O}, {A}, and {LE} 4.2.5.1. {S} 4.2.5.2. {ER} 4.2.5.3. {0} 4.2.5.4. {A} 4.2.5.5. {LE} 4.2.6. {POO}, {POP}, and {PEG} 4.2.6.1. {POO} 4.2.6.2. {POP} 4.2.6.3. {PEG} 4.2.7. Multiple and competing diminutives 4.2.7.1. Multiple diminutivisation 4.2.7.2. Competing diminutives 4.2.8. Summary 4.3. Analytic diminutive formation 4.3.1. Status 4.3.2. The word field SMALL 4.3.3. The competing adjectives small and little

60 60 61 63 64 66 68 68 69 72 74 74 75 76 78 80 82 84 85 85 86 92 96 103 103 105 106 108 108 110 Ill 112 112 113 113 114 115 117 117 119 119 122 123 124 126

IX 4.3.4. The specific nature of little 4.3.5. Analytic diminutive forms 4.3.5.1. The position of little in noun phrases 4.3.5.2. Semantic classes of base words 4.3.5.3. Co-occurrence of modifiers 4.3.6. Summary: analytic diminutive formation in English 4.4. The relationship between synthetic and analytic diminutive formation in English 5. Diminutive use in English conversation 5.1. Vocative acts 5.1.1. Interactional characterisation and specification 5.1.2. Realisation strategies 5.1.3. Social norms 5.1.4. Diminutives as modifiers 5.1.4.1. Titles 5.1.4.2. Names 5.1.4.2.1. First names 5.1.4.2.2. Last names 5.1.4.3. Kinship terms 5.1.4.4. Descriptors 5.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in vocative acts 5.2. Directive acts 5.2.1. Interactional characterisation and specification 5.2.2. Realisation strategies, directness levels and politeness values 5.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers 5.2.3.1. General functions, forms, and positions 5.2.3.2. Interaction between diminutives and realisation strategies. 5.2.3.3. Interaction between diminutives and communicative goals 5.2.3.3.1. Asking for action 5.2.3.3.2. Asking for material goods 5.2.3.3.3. Asking for permission 5.2.3.3.4. Asking for patience 5.2.3.3.5. Asking for information 5.2.4. Sequential aspects 5.2.5. Summary: diminutive use in directive acts 5.3. Commissive acts 5.3.1. Offers 5.3.1.1. Specification 5.3.1.2. Realisation strategies and diminutives 5.3.1.3. Offer responses 5.3.1.4. Discourse positions of offers 5.3.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in offers 5.3.2. Announcements 5.3.3. Suggestions

127 129 129 131 134 135 136 138 140 140 140 141 143 144 144 144 148 149 152 157 160 160 162 164 164 165 167 167 168 172 172 174 176 177 178 181 181 183 186 189 190 191 193

χ 5.3.3.1. Interactional characterisation 5.3.3.2. Realisation strategies 5.3.3.3. Diminutives as internal modifiers 5.3.3.4. Sequential aspects 5.3.3.5. Summary: diminutive use in suggestions 5.3.4. Summary: diminutive use in commissive acts 5.4. Expressive acts 5.4.1. Compliments 5.4.1.1. Interactional characterisation 5.4.1.2. Realisation strategies 5.4.1.3. Diminutives as modifiers 5.4.1.4. Sociopragmatic aspects 5.4.1.5. Variation across varieties of English 5.4.1.6. Sequential aspects 5.4.1.7. Summary: diminutive use in complimenting behaviour.... 5.4.2. Insults 5.4.2.1. Interactional characterisation 5.4.2.2. Realisation strategies 5.4.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers 5.4.2.4. Sociopragmatic aspects 5.4.2.5. Sequential aspects 5.4.2.6. Summary: diminutive use in insults 5.4.3. Summary: diminutive use in expressive acts 5.5. Assertive acts 5.5.1. Interactional characterisation 5.5.2. Specification 5.5.3. Realisation strategies 5.5.4. Reference to persons 5.5.4.1. Speaker reference 5.5.4.2. Reference to addressee 5.5.4.3. Reference to bystander 5.5.4.4. Reference to non-participant 5.5.5. Reference to objects 5.5.5.1. Reference to body parts 5.5.5.2. Reference to possessions 5.5.5.3. Reference to locations 5.5.5.4. Reference to'dangerous pastimes' 5.5.6. Sequential aspects 5.5.7. Summary: diminutive use in assertive acts 5.6. Summary: diminutive use in English conversation

193 193 194 196 199 199 200 201 201 202 203 205 206 207 208 209 209 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 215 215 216 216 217 218 218 220 221 221 223 224 224 225 227 229

6. Summary and perspectives

236

References

239

Abbreviations

ALB ALB-G AMI BAR BEC BIR BLU BON BRO BRO-G BYA CID COBI COB2 COD6 CRY DCE2 DCE3 DOY DWA EDM KMS

KUR LEI

Albee, Edward (1965): Who 's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1962). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Albee, Edward (1963): Wer hai Angst vor Virginia Woolf...? Translated by Pinkas Braun. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer. Amis, Kingsley (1962): Take a Girl Like You. (1960). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barnes, Julian (1992): Talking It Over. New York: Vintage. Beckett, Samuel (1965): Waitingfor Godot. (1956). London: Faber. Pinter, Harold (1965): The Birthday Party. (1957). London: Methuen. Blundell, Jon/Higgens, Jonathan/Middlemiss, Nigel (1982): Functions in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bond, Edward (1969): Saved. (1965). London: Methuen. Brown, Rita Mae (1989): Bingo. (1988). New York: Bantam. Brown, Rita Mae (1990): Bingo. Translated by Margarete Längsfeld. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Byatt, Antonia S. (1986): Still Life. (1985). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Irving, John (1986): The Cider House Rules. (1985). London: Black Swan. Sinclair, John (ed.) (1987): Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London/Glasgow/Stuttgart: Collins/Klett. Sinclair, John (ed.) (1999): Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. London: Harper Collins. Sykes, J.B. (ed.) (1976): The Concise Oxford English Dictionary of Current English. 6th ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Crystal, David/Davy, Derek (1975): Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman. Summers, Della (ed.) ( 1987): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Summers, Della (ed.) (2000): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 3rd ed. London: Longman. Doyle, Roddy (1992): The Van. London: Mandarin. Pinter, Harold ( 1966): The Dwarfs. In: A Slight Ache and Other Plays. London: Methuen, 89-117. Edmondson, Willis (1988-1990): Unpublished Corpus ofParent-ChildInteractions. Hamburg: University of Hamburg. Willmann, Helmut/Messinger, Heinz: "Der Kleine Muret-Sanders". Vol. 1: Deutsch-Englisch (1982); Vol. 2: Englisch-Deutsch (1985). Berlin etc.: Langenscheidt. Kureishi, Hanif (1990): The Buddha of Suburbia. London: Faber & Faber. Leigh, Mike (1983): Abigail's Party./Goose Pimples. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

XII LLC MCE MEA NED NOD OED1 OED2 OMA OSB RUS SHA WAT WEL WEL-G

Svartvik, Jan/Quirk, Randolph (eds.) (1980): A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund: Gleerup. McEwan, Ian (1991): The Innocent. London: Picador. Irving, John (1989): A Prayerfor Owen Meany. London: Corgi. Murray, James (ed.) (1897): A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Oxford: Clarendon. Pearsall, Judy ( 1998): The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murray, James et al. (eds.) (1933): The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. Simpson, John/Weiner, Edmund ( 1989): The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. O'Malley, Mary ( 1978): Once a Catholic. New York/London: Faber. Osborne, John (I960): Look Back in Anger. (1956). London: Faber. Rushdie, Salman (1990): Haroun and the Sea of Stories. London: Granta. Shaffer, Peter (1968): Black Comedy. London: Methuen. Irving, John (1980): The Water Method Man. (1972). London: Corgi. Weldon, Fay (1984): The Life and Loves of a She Devil. London: Coronet. 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 connotations. I suggest that these problems exist because a) 'diminutive* is a term of traditional grammar 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 English; 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 repeatedly (e.g. by Würstle 1992: 50) that diminutives can only be adequately interpreted in context, 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 depends on the given context. However, systematic studies of diminutive use are rare, probably 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 diminutives." The situation has not changed much since. However, functional aspects should not be analysed independent of form either. Therefore, 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 understand 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 'diminutive' 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 languages. 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 diminutives 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 convey '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 interaction between diminutives and contextual variables on the other hand. For instance, wifelet 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 attitude (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 primarily on pragmatic factors, not least on the illocution of the speech act in which the diminutive 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 directives, 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 conversation. 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 define the term 'diminutive' beyond its traditional understanding and to determine the theoretical 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 approach is developed which serves as a framework for the integrative study of diminutives. While the grammatical component of this framework combines morphonological and semantic 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 conversation. In this chapter, the emphasis is on the interplay between diminutives and illocutions, and especially between diminutive forms and speech act realisation strategies. Interactional 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 linguistic 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, consisting of the meaning of the base word plus the component(s) [+'smalP (+attitude)], expressed through the suffix. As word class is also retained in the process of diminutive formation, 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 differentiate between diminutive form and diminutive meaning, and between the processes of diminutive 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 Jurafsky 1996). This complex concept is expressed through diminutives.

1

Cf. van Os (1989: 219), who establishes strong links between concepts of quantification and concepts 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 prototypical 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, suffixation, [+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 instance, 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 employed in these cases are also used to derive diminutives from nouns and adjectives. Furthermore, 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, interjections 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, adjectives 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 = diminutive, 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 retained 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 deadjectival 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 pattern 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 human 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 4 5

For an alternative position, cf. Plag (1999:143-145). When used as nicknames, such forms are sometimes capitalized, e.g. Shorty or Fats. 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 translate 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 nonIndo-European languages. Mayerthaler (1981: 98) distinguishes between 'morphological diminution' and 'syntactic diminution'. For the morphological type, Mayerthaler mentions two processes, viz. affixation 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 derivational prefixation, inflectional affixation, repetitive and rhyming reduplication, compounding, 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 probably 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 different 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 7

Elsewhere, I have used 'analytical' (cf. Schneider 2000; cf. also Fischer 1962). Fleischer/Barz classify Gemían Mini- as a 'confix' ('Konfix'), and formations with Mini- as 'confix 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 category 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. According 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 concerned. 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 spoken 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 formation; 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 semantically empty; consider, however, lovey-dovey. This process can be classified as a secondary 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 'smallpatterned' 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 compound diminutives; cf., e.g., (colloquial) baby tree or (more technical) dwarf tree. In German 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

9

Cf., e.g., Coelho (1999) on reduplication in diminutive formation in Thompson River Salish. 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 sometimes 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 demonstrated 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.) Clipping 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 morphological structure of base words, it does, however, observe the syllabic structure. It is rulegoverned 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 monosyllabic. The syllable which is retained is either the first syllable of the base word or another 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 clippings 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, homonymy 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, diminutives 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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

synthetic formation > analytic formation, word-formation > inflection, additive processes > subtractive processes, morpheme combination > morpheme repetition, affixation > (affixoid formation >) compounding 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 syntactic (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 language processing in both reception and production. In general, suffixation occurs more often across languages than prefixation (cf. Bauer 1988). Furthermore, in English, for instance, 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 formation 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 language 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 processes 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 controversial. 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 correlates with adding the semantic feature [+small] to the meaning of this noun. Correspondingly, 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 members 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 prototypical 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 respective category. In this context, it must be emphasised that smallness is not absolute, but depends entirely on the category in question. A small elephant, for instance, is still considerably 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 diminutive: 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 determined 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 11

For a dicussion of'small X' ('petit X') constructions, cf. Delhay (1996). 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 diminutives (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 smallness 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 undergone 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 understanding than Bybee's. More importantly, Strang postulates a natural link between smallness and attitude. It is thought that such a link is created in the early stages of native language 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 parentchild 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 appears (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 depends 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 dictionary, 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 appropriate. 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 attitude 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 'morphological 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, according to Mayerthaler, Väterchen, for instance, would be a morphological, but not a semantic 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 relational terms. For relational terms, there is no prototypical size. Typically, diminutives derived 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

13

Combinations of three letters are used to indicate the data source (cf. list of Abbreviations). The number which follows is the respective page number. 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 relationship. 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 considered sexist as Väterchen seems to occur less frequently and as no male counterpart to Muttchen exists (cf. Schneider 1991a, Schneider/Schneider 1991). Speakers who use such diminutives unjustifiedly claim familiarity by selecting a word otherwise used between children 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 deficient, 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 morphological 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 component 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 'delicate' ("zart", "fein"). Thus, and especially in the relationship of an adult to a child, diminutives 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 German 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 intensity 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 comparability and makes it possible to relate the findings from (typologically) different languages 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, depending 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 apparent from these examples, prototypical augmentatives are found in Southern Romance languages 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 instance, 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 augmentatives. 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), Crowhurst (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 languages which posses augementative suffixes, the same suffixes can, as a rule, be used to form substantival and adjectival augmentatives. It seems that suffixal augmentative formation is restricted to nouns and adjectives. Word class is retained in both cases. Augmentatives can also be formed analytically. Analytic augmentatives are A+N constructions. 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, augmentatives 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 German, both large and big, and both small and little normally translate as groß and klein respectively. 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 MAclass 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, megaloss, and megabureaucracy. Super- and hyper- may also be considered augmentative prefixes. 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. Hansen/Hartmann 1991: 38ff.). Such German forms are rendered in English by using the adjective 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 German prefixoids include Spitzen-, Bomben-, and Mords- (literally 'peak', 'bomb', and 'murder') 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, negatively 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 referents 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 considered 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 useless. 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 derived 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 deference 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 complementary for augmentatives and diminutives. These preferences are summarized in the following 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 bellone '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 augmentatives*. 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 relation 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 synthetic 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 augmentative 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 generative 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 unmarked 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

17

Cf. also Stump (1993: 1), who uses Italian examples to demonstrate that both morphological diminutives and augmentatives may express appreciative as well as depreciative meaning. Cf. also Lyons' (1977: 275) discussion of 'morphological relatedness', where happy versus unhappy/sad is used as an example.

20 be characterized as both [-large] and [-small]. It constitutes the norm. By contrast, diminutives and augmentatives express concepts falling short of or exceeding this norm respectively. In the prototypical case, the norm is the average size of prototypical category members. This trichotomy seems to be a universial cognitive structure for perception and processing (cf. Croft 1992: 92). In some languages, this trichotomy can be expressed by morphologically 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 'pejorative'. These are also traditional terms, defined in a number of different ways, and sometimes used interchangeably with the term 'diminutive'. The original Greek term hypokoristikón means 'pet name' (cf. Bussmann 1996: s.v. 'hypocoristic'). 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 distinctions are possible, they are not made consistently in actual descriptions (cf., e.g., Stefanescu 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 cherished 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. Consequently, 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 diminutives 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 express 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 negative 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 historical linguistics to classify types of semantic change. While pejoration (also known as 'deterioration' 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 'depreciative', should be used, for positive and negative connotations. Thus, diminutive forms conveying 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 'delicate' 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 diminutives 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 always discrete from those of endearment and contempt.

The terminological chaos connected with diminutives and augmentatives results predominantly from three sources: 1) confusing formal and semantic aspects; 2) sweeping generalizations across classes of base words; and 3) ignoring referents, contexts and situations. While such a reductionist approach can never be successful, it may work comparatively 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 diminutive 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 referent, 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 addressed 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 systematically. 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 accessible. 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 century. 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 diminutive research prior to the early 1990s. The most comprehensive source is Ettinger's bibliographical research report (Ettinger 1974b), which supplements his doctoral thesis on diminutive 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 attention 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 Romance 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 century 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 published 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 increasingly larger number of languages (cf. 2.1.2.). While an exhaustive list of these publications 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 diminutives. While the vast majority of these publications are articles in journals and edited volumes, 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 dissertations (written in German), which compare diminutives in (translations of) fictional literature (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, written 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 sociopragmatics 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, Ukrainian or Lithuanian.

25 2.1.2. Languages covered While diminutives are prototypically associated with Southern Romance and Slavic languages, they are actually found in all languages (cf. 1.1.). This claim is supported in particular 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 Romance group, these are, in alphabetical order, Catalan, French, Galician, Italian, Portuguese, 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 Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.5

1

2

3

4

5

On diminutives in Lithuanian, cf., e.g., Ambrazas (1991) and (1994), Wojcik (1994), and Savickiene (1998). Recent publications on Spanish diminutives include Prieto (1992), Hummel (1997), Mendoza (1998), Miranda Miranda (2000). 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). 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). 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, Bartakova (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 Algonquin 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, Würstle 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 studies 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 Afrikaans, 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 Standard 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), Mexican 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 dialect 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 research. 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 diachronic 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 diminutives 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 instance, 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 Romance 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. Characteristically, 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 particular 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 increasingly less attention in diminutive research (cf. 2.1.2.). As mentioned in the preceding section, the interest in historical, diachronic and dialectological 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 specifically on diminutives in present-day standard language. The vast majority of all investigations 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. Spanish -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 diminutive formation. There are, however, some studies which deal exclusively with semantic 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 diminutives. However, other recent investigations which adopt a more comprehensive perspective on language, combine the analysis of semantic and pragmatic aspects, thus acknowledging 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 consistent approach or theory, but defined solely via its object. Thus diminutive research depends 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) generative 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, focusing 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 preSaussurean linguistics, particularly in the 19th century. A common denominator is the use of categories and terminology originally developed for the description of Latin. Furthermore, 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, neogrammarians 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 productive 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 exclusively. 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 suffixes), he also sheds some light on those features of diminutives perceived as peculiar today. 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 substantially 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 diminutives and augmentatives in Southern Romance languages is a case in point. By contrast, Marchand (1969), in his standard work on English word-formation, combines 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 beyond Jespersen 1942), Marchand (1969: ch. III and IV) deals with the respective affix inventories, 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 diminutive 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 chronological 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 English, he specifies these exceptions as follows: nominal diminutive suffixes (as, e.g., in booklet, 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 patter).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" (Marchand 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 derivation and compounding. Thus, structuralist approaches have emphasised the peculiar nature of diminutive suffixation, 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, diminutive 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 primarily interested in individual languages, but rather in the universale shared by all languages 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 developing theories on the basis of so-called introspection, i.e. the researcher's intuitions and fabricated 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 neogrammarian 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 speakerhearer'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 constructions. First, different (though formally similar) constructions may share the same deep structure. For example, 'boat driven by steam' can be assumed for steamboat, steampowered 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 diminutive 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 approach'. 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. Therefore, 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 anywhere else in the lexicon (with the exception of synthetic augmentative formation and related 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 inflection 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 morphological processes are interpreted as rules, which are grouped together in the lexicon in interacting 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) 2) 3) 4)

diminutive suffixes, e.g. -ino-, augmentative suffixes, e.g. -one\ pejorative suffixes, e.g. -accio, -ucolo\ 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) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Evaluative suffixes (ES) alter the meaning of the base lexeme. ER can be applied recursively. ES do not change the word class of the base. ES do not change the syntactic properties or the subcategorisation of the base. ES occur to the right of derivation suffixes and to the left of inflection suffixes. 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 diminutive suffixes of these languages cannot be attached to the same base recursively (cf. *wifelet-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 structuralism 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 modifiers 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 developments 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 theory 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. Optimal 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 diminutives along with other phenomena. Examples of this type include Brandstötter (1997) who investigates umlaut in German, and Féry (1997a and 1997b) who analyses German iformations in the broader context of discussing unmarked prosodie feet across languages 15

Cf. also Bauer (1997) for a critical discussion of Scalise's analysis. 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.). 16

36 (German, French, and Japanese) and their relationship to 'hypocoristics' and words in secret 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 developed language competence of an adult or an ideal speaker. By contrast, pre- and protomorphology (PPM) examines diminutives in the early stages of language development. In particular, PPM investigates the acquisition of diminutives, and more specifically of diminutive 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 morphology 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 published in the international "Crosslinguistic Project on Pre- and Protomorphology in Language 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 (Ceccherini 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 conducted 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 Andrews (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 providing essentially new perspectives on diminutives are dealt with in more detail in the following 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 diminutives (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 additive model of diminutive meaning, based on the prototypical understanding of the semantics 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 heterogeneous 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 proposes 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 concentrates, 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 quantification' (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 purpose 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 relevant to the interpretation. While it is potentially present, it is at best supportive. The dominant 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 diminutives (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 diminutives are of a general and ad-hoc nature. Examples include 'poetic use', 'introducing a jocular 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.

39 combined type. In the case of her synthetic type, an emotive attitude is triggered by the referent of the base word (Volek 1987: 155ff.), whereas in the case of her analytical type, the stimulus is the addressee of the utterance (Volek 1987: 158ff.). Finally, the third type combines the features of the other two types (Volek 1987: 164). According to Volek, her synthetic type is the most basic and the most frequent of the three. In the concluding chapter of her book, Volek (1987: 250) emphasises that her study is a 'systemic' study, which should give rise to 'textual* studies (in a Hallidayan sense). Thus, the author suggests that the complete context of an interaction should be considered in the semantic analysis of emotive processes. In sum, Volek contributes to the study of diminutives in at least two significant ways. First, she develops a consistent approach for the description of diminutive meaning. Second and more importantly, she highlights the interaction between emotive signs and the context in which they are used. Furthermore, she makes valuable suggestions for the investigation of the pragmatics of diminutives, despite the fact that her main interest is the semantic description of Russian diminutive nouns in a semiotic theory of emotive signs.

2.3.2. Diminutives across cultures In her seminal article "Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts", Anna Wierzbicka contrasts Polish and English and includes diminutives in her comparison (cf. Wierzbicka 1985b: 166ff.; cf. also Wierzbicka 1991: ch. 2). The central aim of her article consists in challenging claims of universality made implicitly or explicitly by proponents of speech act theory. Wierzbicka rejects any such claims. Instead, she postulates cultural relativity in the realisation of speech acts, attributing linguistic differences to differences in underlying cultural values. Furthermore, Wierzbicka criticises the dominant versions of speech act theory, which, by and large, refer to the English language exclusively, as ethnocentric. For instance, she maintains that certain phenomena in language use, such as imperative avoidance and a preference for interrogatives and conditionals in requesting, cannot be explained by universal principles of politeness, but must be considered as features characteristic of the English language and culture. In her comparison of English and Polish, Wierzbicka accounts for differences in language use by referring to two sets of cultural values for which she uses the terms 'spontaneity, directness, intimacy, affection' on the one hand and 'indirectness, distance, tolerance, anti-dogmatism' on the other hand - everyday terms for pre-theoretical concepts not defined by the author. The first set, she considers characteristic of Polish, the latter, characteristic of English language and culture. Thus, Wierzbicka perpetuates traditional clichés and national stereotypes. After dealing with (allegedly) specific features of English in the first part of her article, Wierzbicka turns to features she considers typical of Polish. In section 12, titled "Cordiality as a cultural value", she deals with diminutives, understood narrowly in the sense of synthetic formations. Wierzbicka regards diminutives as salient representatives of expressive derivation and as indicators of cordiality and emotional warmth. She writes (Wierzbicka 1985b: 166):

40 The central place of warmth, of affection, in Slavic as well as in Mediterranean cultures is reflected, among other things, in the rich systems of expressive derivation, in particular, in the highly developed systems of diminutives (involving not only nouns, but also adjectives and adverbs).

By contrast, English culture is characterised by a "lack of warmth", which, according to Wierzbicka, is reflected in the fact that "productive diminutive derivation hardly exists at all". In this context, she mentions derivations with the suffix -ie, such as Handies, doggie or birdie, which she classifies as "isolated baby forms" (p. 166). However, that these are not isolated forms has been documented empirically. In fact, -ie is one of the most productive affixes of the English language (cf., e.g., Cannon 1986). Moreover, the use of such formations is not restricted to child or caretaker speech, as will be demonstrated in chapter 5 of the present book. Wierzbicka tries to support her claim by pointing out restrictions on the suffixation with -ie and gaps in the derivational pattern. For instance, she mentions girlie and auntie, and maintains that mannie and unclie cannot be derived. It is true that unclie does not exist, which is not surprising as this form violates the relevant formation rules (cf. 4.2.1.). Onde, however, does exist and is attested. It does not violate the relevant rules, or, put more properly, it violates fewer constraints. In short, uncie is the better of the two competing forms in terms of optimality theory (cf. 2.2.4.1.). And while mannie is not attested in my corpus (possibly because it might be confused with homophonous many), it is worth mentioning that manikin, obsolete in referential usage, is still used to address young boys, and that boysie exists analogous to girlie (the -s- is necessary as boy ends in a vowel). It seems that Wierzbicka's observations do not concern grammatical restrictions, but sociopragmatic restrictions reflected in an asymmetry in use. In general, diminutives are used much more often to refer to females than to males (cf., e.g., Poynton 1989, Schneider/Schneider 1991), which does not mean that diminutives referring to males cannot be derived. After all, it is worth remembering that gaps do occur in word-formation, even in productive patterns (cf. 2.2.3.). After her remarks on diminutive formation, Wierzbicka deals with aspects of diminutive use. In particular, she examines the interplay between diminutives and the illocution of the speech acts in which they occur. She concludes (Wierzbicka 1985b: 166): "I would suggest that there exist many subtle ways in which expressive derivation interacts with speech acts. The topic deserves a separate study."22 To illustrate this type of interaction, Wierzbicka chooses two types of speech acts, offers and suggestions on the one hand, and requests on the other hand. In the former case, only offers are discussed; in fact, offers and suggestions are not properly distinguished or defined. Once again the author tacitly relies on an everyday understanding of these metacommunicative labels. Wierzbicka (1985b: 166f.) observes that it is characteristic of Polish offers that the noun referring to the offered dish is used in its diminutive form. For illustration, she quotes the following utterance:

22

Chapter 5 of the present book is a study of this type. However, that study is not restricted to 'expressive derivation', i.e. to suffixal diminutives. Rather, it also includes other means of conveying diminution in English, most notably the analytic type, typically formed with little.

41 (2) Wezjeszcze sledzika! Koniecznie! 'Take some more dear-little-herring (Dim.). You must!' This Polish example is contrasted with the following English utterance: (3) Would you like some more herring? Are you sure? In this juxtaposition, the author - naively or intentionally - compares what cannot be compared. The examples suggest that a realisation equivalent to the Polish utterance does not exist in English. Yet this is not the case, as is borne out by a number of instances from my corpus (cf. S.3.1.); consider the following example: (4) ... take a little cigar, enjoy yourself, go on take one. This example from my data shows at least three things. First, diminutives do occur in English offers. Second, imperatives can be used to realise English offers. Third, imperatives can also be used in supportive moves for direct emphasis. In these respects, English offers do not differ from Polish offers. The only apparent difference is that the Polish diminutive is a synthetic form, whereas in English an analytic form is employed. Yet this is a grammatical and not a pragmatic difference, a structural and not a conceptual or semantic issue. In this context, it must be borne in mind that little contrasts with small in the same way that diminutive suffixes contrast with equivalents of small in other languages which, as a rule, do not have equivalents of little·, cf., e.g., German -chen versus klein (cf. ch. 4.3.). In other words, little is more 'subjective' or 'emotional' than small, a quality usually attributed to diminutive suffixes of other languages when contrasted with adjectival expressions of smallness of the same languages. In short, there are no pragmalinguistic differences between Polish and English offers, i.e. no differences concerning realisation strategies and modification. However, there may be sociopragmatic differences relating, among other things, to the following questions: - Who would use the Polish offer quoted by Wierzbicka vis-à-vis who in what type of situation? - Likewise, who would use the English offer quoted by Wierzbicka vis-à-vis who in what type of situation? - How do the situations differ? - When are Polish offers realised without diminutives? And how do the contexts differ in which offers with and without diminutives occur? Wierzbicka does not address any of these questions, neither in her 1985 article nor in her 1991 monograph. Needless to say, questions of this nature could only be answered, if contextual information was provided. As such information is not included in Wierzbicka's texts, it can be assumed that her examples are fabricated. However, as Sinclair (1987: XV) points out, language use cannot be invented, it can only be recorded. In the case of requesting, her second sample speech act, Wierzbicka does not directly compare English and Polish utterances. It is implied, however, that speakers of English use the strategy "interrogative-cum-conditional" (e.g., Could you ...?) for realising requests in

42 all conceivable contexts. Speakers of Polish, by contrast, would use imperative constructions instead in speaker constellations characterised by minimal distance. Interactions between spouses and between parents and their children are mentioned as examples. While the degree of directness of an imperative seems appropriate in such constellations, the force of a request realised in this manner is mitigated by using a diminutive. Wierzbicka claims that this particular use of diminutives is specific to Polish. However, analogous utterances are also found in English. Consider, for instance, the following examples. (5) Monisienko, jedz zupkq! 'Monica-Dim.-Dim., eat your soup-dim.!' (Wierzbicka 1985b: 167) (6) Give your handy. (Stefanescu 1992: 340) Both utterances are addressed to children, both are produced by an adult (parent or caretaker). In both cases, the request is realised by employing an imperative. In both languages, the grammatical object appears in its diminutive form; both diminutives are suffixed nouns, i.e. prototypical synthetic formations. The only difference between the two utterances is that the Polish request is prefaced by a vocative, realised by using a double diminutive derived from a first name. However, this difference is superficial as English requests can also be prefaced by vocatives, which can also be realised by multiple diminutive forms derived from first names. Examples in my corpus include, e.g., Lizzikins, Mikeypoodles, Rosiepops, and Brinnie-Winnie (cf. 5.1.). Incidentally, multiple formations of this type seem to occur especially frequently in Australian English, the variety Wierzbicka focuses on in particular. In a further Polish example, a request addressed by a wife to her husband, the imperative is mitigated externally only, viz. by using a diminutive realisation in an initial vocative. Examples of this kind can easily be found in English as well (cf., e.g., Brown/Levinson 1987: 107f.). Elsewhere in her article, Wierzbicka (1985b: 169) discusses morphological and semantic properties of a particular class of diminutives derived by suffixation with -ie, such as lippie < lipstick, barbie < barbecue, and mushies < mushrooms. She considers such forms characteristic of Australian English and claims that they differ from other diminutives with the same suffix. About morphological differences, she writes (Wierzbicka 1985b: 169): Formally, they differ from English diminutives because they are abbreviations: baby words such as birdie, fishie or doggie add a diminutive suffix to the full form of the base word; but words such as barbie or lippie add a suffix to a truncated form of the base word.

Apparently the author does not notice that in either case the result of the suffixation process is the same. All diminutives with the suffix -ie consist of two syllables, irrespective of how long the base words are (cf., e.g., Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 112). If the base word happens to be monosyllabic, then, of course, the full form is retained. In all other cases, however, the base is shortened to only one syllable (cf. 4.2.1.). This is not particular to Australian English, nor is it particular to the English language (cf., e.g., Féry 1997b on German derivations in with -i)· English diminutives in which the suffix is added to a truncated form of the base word include bottie < bottom, nightie < nightgown/nightshirt, hanky < handkerchief, undies < underclothes, and newsie < newspaper boy. Most of these could

43 be called "baby words", and all of these are commonly used in many if not all (national) varieties of English. Apart from morphological differences, Wierzbicka claims that there are semantic differences between diminutives in -ie derived from monosyllabic bases on the one hand (which she considers as "true diminutives"), and diminutives derived from polysyllabic bases on the other hand. To describe these differences in meaning, she uses paraphrases, the format of which is characteristic of her overall approach to semantics (cf., e.g., Wierzbicka 1984 and 1996; for criticism cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 90). The following paraphrase, Wierzbicka (1985b: 169) postulates, captures the "core meaning of true diminutives": (7) I think of it as something small. Talking about it I feel good feelings (towards you) of the kind one feels in contact with small children. By contrast, her paraphrase for derivations from polysyllabic base words, which she considers typical of Australian mentality, is formulated as follows: (8) I don't think of it as of a big thing. I assume you think of it in the same way as I do. Talking about it I feel in a good mood. Such paraphrases appear to be arbitrary. It is not clear at all how they are arrived at, which format they should take, and what their status is. For instance, it is not clear why the paraphrase in (8) begins with a negation of the first sentence in (7), and why a second sentence before the description of the speaker's feelings is missing in (7). More specifically and more importantly, however, neither paraphrase covers the negative feelings and attitudes which can be communicated by diminutives, including English formations with the suffix -i'e(cf. ch. 5, esp. 5.1.). The importance of Wierzbicka's article for diminutive research does not consist in her remarks on the morphology and semantics of English -ie-diminutives. Indeed, the value of her contribution is that she goes beyond a discussion of form and meaning of isolated diminutives and analyses diminutives in context, especially their communicative functions. To my knowledge, Wierzbicka is the first researcher who chooses the speech act as her unit of analysis in the study of diminutives. Furthermore, her analysis considers the interaction not only between diminutives and illocutions, but also between diminutives and the locutions, i.e. the realisation strategies, of the respective speech acts. That the latter perspective is not pursued systematically, let alone exhaustively, goes without saying, bearing in mind the limitations of a journal article which does not even deal with diminutives alone, but addresses a range of different topics. The same applies to the treatment of sociopragmatic aspects. While some situational factors are mentioned briefly, e.g. the relationship between the interactants (in terms of social distance), most variables are not considered. These aspects deserve further elaboration. Regrettably, Wierzbicka (1991), which also includes a cross-cultural study of diminutive use, does not provide any deeper insights into the topic (cf., however, ch. 5 of the present study). The most problematic aspects of Wierzbicka's analysis are the questions concerning how cross-linguistic differences are established and,

44 above all, how they are interpreted. The categories used in the interpretation are ad hoccategories such as 'spontaneity' and 'cordiality', everyday concepts which are not defined by the author, and which serve to perpetuate national stereotypes and prejudice. Interestingly, positively connotated concepts as, for instance, cordiality, affection and emotional warmth are associated with the author's native culture, Polish, and not with English. In her comparative analysis of Greek and English diminutives, Sifianou (1992) explicitly refers to Wierzbicka's (1985b) approach. Sifianou's study derives from her doctoral thesis on politeness markers in Greek and English (1987). Accordingly, diminutives are regarded as a politeness phenomenon. The theoretical framework for this study is Brown and Levinson's (1987) model of verbal politeness. The focus of Sifianou's paper is on Greek, her native tongue. English merely serves to demonstrate that Greek diminutives differ significantly from diminutives in English. Referring to the synthetic type, Sifianou claims that diminutives are formed and used more frequently in Greek than in English. Thus, Greek, whose diminutives had not been studied extensively before that time (cf. Daltas 1985),23 belongs to those Mediterranean languages which, according to Wierzbicka, resemble Slavic languages regarding their inventory and use of expressive morphology. Sifianou suggests that the prototypical "function" (i.e. meaning) of diminutives is the expression of 'smallness', whereas their pragmatic function is the expression of 'endearment and affection'. Therefore, she rejects Brown and Levinson's idea that diminutives serve to minimise an imposition. She claims that Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is ethnocentric, that the concept of imposition differs across cultures, and that in Greek culture an imposition is not minimised by using diminutives, but by employing other linguistic devices. By contrast, Sifianou states, Greek diminutives serve to indicate 'friendly, informal politeness' and, thus, to create and maintain basic solidarity in interaction. The author assumes that the underlying cultural values differ from those cherished in England: Informality and intimacy are typical of Greek culture, while formality and distance are typical of English culture. In this respect, Sifianou's approach is also characterised by sweeping generalisations. Language communities and cultures are treated as monolithic units and reduced to one or two ill-defined norms or values. At the same time, however, Sifianou's study is superior to Wierzbicka's in that Sifianou works empirically. Her study is based on a corpus of contemporary Greek and English plays and of conversational data collected in the course of three years (Sifianou 1992: 156). In her article, all diminutives are presented in context, mostly in the context of an individual utterance or an adjacency pair. Furthermore, information about the situation is provided, relating to place, occasion or the relationship between the interactants. Examples are "in the open-air market", "a gift is given on a friend's birthday", and "between female friends". Disappointingly, Sifianou does not discuss any English utterances. Contrary to the title of her paper and the information about her corpus, only Greek data are analysed. Concerning English diminutives, general reference is made to Quirk et al. (1972) and Brown/Levinson (1987), but no material from her corpus is presented.

23

Cf., however, Alexopoulos (1994), Dalalakis (1997), and Terkourafi (1999); cf. also Mladenova (2001).

45 The central section of her article deals with the pragmatic functions of synthetic diminutives in Greek (Sifianou 1992: 158-168). Initially, the author observes that while diminutives are often used by and vis-à-vis children, their use is not restricted to this particular register (which may be the register in which diminutives originally developed; cf. 2.2.4.2.). This empirical statement contradicts the popular view held still today that diminutives are a phenomenon specific to 'baby talk', 'motherese' or 'caretaker speech'. In her analysis of diminutive use in parent-child dyads, Sifianou (1992: 158) states that children are often addressed or referred to by using diminutive forms derived from their first names. Unfortunately, however, the author fails to mention that English diminutives can be used in a very similar, if not identical, function (cf. 5.1.). The domain in which Greek diminutives typically occur is characterised in general as 'informal everyday speech'. More specifically, interactions in which 'free social goods' are exchanged are considered as typical contexts. The concept 'free social goods' is adopted from Brown/Levinson (1987: 80) (cf. also Edmondson/House 1981: 112). The general pragmatic functions of diminutives are described by referring to concepts such as 'selfpraise' and 'modesty' - concepts which could have been dealt with more consistently in the framework of Leech's (1983) theory of politeness than in Brown/Levinson's (1987) theory. 24 The specific part of Sifianou's pragmatic analysis is speech act-based. Apart from requests and offers, also considered in Wierzbicka (1985b), Sifianou examines compliments and, genetically, a number of other acts, primarily assertives and erotetics.25 In requests, Sifianou (1992: 160ff.) maintains, diminutives do not serve to minimise the imposition for the addressee. She argues that diminutives are also used in those requests which appear in situations in which an imposition does not occur due to fixed participant roles, as, for instance, in shop encounters. Instead, the author claims that their function is to signal solidarity and in-group membership, and to express equal status and reduced social distance. In short, diminutives in requests indicate positive politeness (Sifianou 1992: 161). Furthermore, she finds that diminutives are employed in all realisation strategies, not only in imperatives. In the case of offers, however, Sifianou (1992: 164) postulates a pragmatic function specific to this particular illocution - a position which seems to contradict her analysis of diminutives in requests. In her view, diminutives minimise the obligation to return a favour or service involved in the act of offering. In doing so, they reduce any threat to the addressee's negative face. Again, it seems that an analysis in Leech's framework would have yielded more convincing results (cf. 5.3.1.). The same applies to Sifianou's analysis of diminutives in compliments (cf. also 5.4.1.), in which diminutives are classified as devices employed to maximise the force of the illocution. It remains unclear, however, how this maximising

24

25

Cf. Chen's (1993) study of compliment responses in American English and Chinese, in which the author demonstrates that Leech's theory is more suitable particularly for cross-cultural investigations. Originally, in Searle's famous taxonomy of illocutionary types (1976), assertives were called 'representatives'. The term 'erotetics' ("Erothetica") was introduced by Wunderlich (1978). It is used for 'requests for information', commonly referred to as 'questions', which Wunderlich does not classify as directive acts.

46 function is compatible with the general meaning of diminutives, also assumed by Sifianou, i.e. the designation of smallness. Referring to other speech acts, the author addresses general aspects of diminutive use not specific to individual illocutions. The questions whether diminutives are characteristic of female speech behaviour, and whether females use more diminutives than males are answered in the negative. Sifianou emphasises that the frequency of diminutives does not depend on the sex of speakers, but on their gender roles. She claims that a high frequency correlates with the role of rearing and caring for children (cf. Daltas 1985: 86; also Harden 1992 and Laalo 1998). The function of synthetic diminutives in Greek is summarized as follows. Sifianou (1992: 168) maintains that they communicate positive emotions such as intimacy, familiarity, and informality, and that their frequency decreases as the degree of formality increases. The author concedes (1992: 168) that diminution can also be expressed by analytic forms, in Greek as well as in English. For English, she considers both little and small as diminutive markers, even though in general small is not classified as such (cf. 4.3.3.). Following Wierzbicka, Sifianou claims that formations as, for instance, little doggie and little footsie (formed analytically and synthetically!) belong to "baby talk" and can be formed from few base words only. Her analysis of 'syntactic modification' (i.e. the analytic type of diminutive formation) in Greek concentrates on the equivalent of 'a little' (Sifianou 1992: 169f.). While in its literal meaning this expression functions as a quantifier, it can also assume a pragmatic function. Irrespective of the communicative purpose of an utterance, this pragmatic function consists in expressing informal politeness. According to Sifianou, the use of analytic diminutives cannot be classified as a strategy of negative politeness. She does not share Brown and Levinson's (1978: 176) view that expressions such as a little and a tiny bit minimise an imposition. In her opinion, such expressions are used only in those speech acts in which the imposition is regarded as minimal anyway, whereas they cannot be used in cases in which the imposition is high. The function of these expressions consists in signalling informality and familiarity. Sifianou classifies analytic diminutives in Greek as politeness markers devoid of affective meaning. By contrast, synthetic diminutives are classified as in-group markers, supporting the positive face of the addressee by expressing smallness as well as affection. The connection between smallness and affection is explained as a feature characteristic of the domain from which, presumably, diminutives originated. Sifianou (1992: 171) elaborates this idea as follows: Diminutives in both Greek and English are closely linked to children's needs and environment, and imply affection and liking through the emphasis of smallness. Their use and connotations extend to adults, especially in Greek, and usually imply the same kind of endearment and affection, sometimes teasing (and rarely, contempt).

In this summarising statement, Sifianou assumes that, on principle, diminutives in these two languages have the same functions. The primary difference, it seems, concerns the frequency with which diminutives occur in the communication between adults. The (comparatively) high frequency of diminutives in Greek conversation is interpreted as evidence of a 'positive politeness orientation' of Greek culture. Correspondingly, the (assumed) relative lack of diminutives in English is interpreted as the opposite, i.e. a 'negative polite-

47 ness orientation*. In fact, the existence of this dichotomy was Sifianou's initial hypothesis and the starting point for her analysis. The strength of Sifianou's study is that she works empirically. Diminutives are analysed in context and sufficient information is provided about the situations in which they are used. Surprisingly, however, she does not discuss any English data from her corpus, despite the title of her paper. Yet, the most problematic aspect concerns the way in which apparent linguistic differences are interpreted in terms of underlying cultural values. This problem occurs in Sifianou's and in Wierzbicka's study alike. Apart from the fact that unspecified everyday terms are used to name these values in an ad-hoc manner, an interesting pattern emerges. In either study, the author's native culture, i.e. Greek and Polish respectively, is associated with positively connotated concepts such as 'informality', 'intimacy', and 'affection', whereas English culture is associated with more negatively connotated concepts such as 'lack of emotional warmth', 'formality' and 'distance'. Furthermore, these characterisations perpetuate prejudice and national stereotypes in an undifferentiated fashion. 26 A similar, but much more ideologically biased (and much less substantial) example of this approach is Stefanovski's (1997) study of Macedonian diminutives, in which the (allegedly) frequent occurrence of diminutives in this particular Slavic language is explained against the background of Macedonia's history of oppression and foreign rule. Referring to Wierzbicka's (1980: 55) concept of diminutive use as an 'apologetic strategy', the author, who also advocates the language and culture specificity of diminutives, argues that diminutives convey a sense of cautiousness typical of "younger" languages and nations (Stefanovski 1997: 378).

2.3.3. Diminutives as speech act modifiers In their 1991 paper, Carla Bazzanella, Claudia Caffi and Marina Sbisa deal with diminutives in the framework speech act modification, which they consider as a special case of intensification (cf. Labov 1984). Taking empirically-based models of speech act analysis from sociolinguistics (Holmes 1984) and interlanguage pragmatics (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b) as their starting point, Bazzanella et al. assume that the illocutionary force of a speech act can be downgraded as well as upgraded.27 They point out that this assumption, for which there is empirical evidence, has serious consequences for traditional speech act theory (Bazzanella et al. 1991: 63f.). The authors further assume that each language possesses an inventory of linguistic devices of speech act modification specific to this language, and that cultures differ in how they use these devices and which social meaning is associated with the respective modification strategies. The aim of their study consists in identifying the modificational devices specific to the Italian language, and in establishing how these devices are employed and how they interact.

26

27

For detailed criticism of communities and cultures For an older concept of based. Cf. also Haverkate

approaches which prematurely attribute differences between language to national stereotypes, cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994:409ff.). mitigation, cf. Fraser (1980), on which Holmes's (1984) approach is (1992) for an overview of concepts of mitigation and downgrading.

48 The corpus on which the analysis is based comprises semi-official oral interactions such as television talk shows and therapeutic, classroom, and courtroom discourse. However, as the article is a research-in-progress report originally delivered at a conference, no data material is presented, but only the inventory of modificational devices of Italian is introduced. The study rests on the assumptions that illocutionary acts are complex entities, which can be modified in all aspects, and that each speech act is determined by several illocutionary force indicating devices (or IFIDs). Given this complex structure, interferences may arise when different factors co-occur. Bazzanella et al. distinguish four levels of illocutionary acts which can be modified, i.e. either upgraded or downgraded. These levels, termed 'scalar dimensions of illocutionary force', are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the propositional content, expressed inner states, modal roles of the participants (e.g., obligations), perlocutionary goals.

The authors emphasise that this list is heterogeneous as not all phenomena are actually a component of the illocutionary act, but merely connected to it, either by influencing the illocutionary force or by being influenced by the illocutionary force. Three of the four dimensions are dealt with in more detail. On the propositional level, both what is said and how it is said modify the illocutionary force. Accordingly, a distinction is made between indeterminacy and precision of content on the one hand, and between diminution and augmentation on the other hand. Diminution and augmentation are used for quantification if a quantity is modified, or for qualification if an intensity is modified. Regarding the modal roles, three aspects are distinguished: first, the authority which entitles the speaker to perform the speech act; second, obligations allocated to the addressee; and third, obligations to which the speaker commits herself. Finally, on the perlocutionary level the relevant aspects are the persistency with which a perlocutionary goal is pursued, and the readiness to enter into a conflict when negative effects on the relationship between the interactants can be expected. The modificational devices of Italian established in the project are correlated with the scalar dimensions and their relevant aspects. They are found on different linguistic levels: phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and textual devices are identified (Bazzanella et al. 1991: 70ff.). 28 In their model of speech act modification in Italian, diminutives and augmentatives are understood exclusively as morphological categories, i.e. as prototypical, synthetic formations. As such, they can modify two of the scalar dimensions. On the one hand, they modify the way in which the propositional content is expressed. Diminutives (with the suffixes

28

Cf. also Holmes (1984), who distinguishes between prosodie, syntactic, lexical, and discursive devices for both 'attenuation' (i.e. downgrading) and 'boosting' (i.e. upgrading) in English. Lexical devices are further differentiated into speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and content-oriented 'downtoners' and 'boosters' respectively, but no morphological modifiers are identified.

49 -etto and -ino) and also un po ' on the lexical level, and litotes on the textual level, downgrade the propositional content. By contrast, augmentatives (with the suffix -one), and hyperboles, upgrade this dimension. On the other hand, diminutives and augmentatives modify the expressed inner states, in which case both devices serve as upgraders. Regrettably, further details are not provided. After describing the inventory of modiñcational categories, Bazzanella et al. (1991) analyse the interaction between co-occurring modifiers and the synergies they produce. However, the diagrammatic synopsis specifies categorical patterns only and does not provide information about possible combinations of individual linguistic devices, such as diminutives (with -ino, for instance). The devices of speech act modification identified in this paper are considered language specific, i.e., in this case, specific to Italian. The scalar dimensions, however, are considered as sufficiently abstract to count as language-independent categories, suitable as 'tertium comparationis* for cross-cultural comparison. The approach developed by Bazzanella et al. (1991) remains rather basic as it deals with speech acts in general, irrespective of the specific nature and functions of the different speech act classes and the illocutions belonging to these classes. Diminutives are treated globally as devices downgrading the propositional content or upgrading the expressed inner states potentially of any speech act. Unfortunately, empirical evidence to support these categorisations is not even quoted for illustration. While the studies by Wierzbicka (1985b) and Sifianou (1992) are lacking in theoretical underpinning and methodological consistency, the study under discussion is lacking in specificity and empirical support. At the same time, Bazzanella et al. (1991) contribute to diminutive research in two substantial ways. First, they outline a theory-based framework for a differentiated treatment of diminutives as speech act modifiers, and second, they establish a link between speech act theory and the linguistic analysis of speech act realisations, thus bridging the gap between pragmatics and grammar.

2.3.4. The morphopragmatics of diminutives The most elaborate contribution to the pragmatic analysis of diminutives is included in the monograph Morphopragmatics by Wolfgang Dressier and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (1994: ch. 3).29 As their book-length chapter on diminutives can not be discussed here in detail, the discussion will focus on the general aspects relevant in the present context. Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi's work on morphopragmatics is based on the hypothesis that all components of language possess their own semantic and pragmatic perspectives (1994: 28). Against this background, morphopragmatics is postulated as the interface between morphology and pragmatics. It is considered on par with the established subdisciplines morphotactics and morphosemantics.

29

Previous work on which this monograph is based includes Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1987/1991 and 1989) and Dressler/Kiefer (1990) (cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 49ff. for a comprehensive list).

50 While morphosemantics is defined as "semantic meaning of morphological rules, i.e., regular semantic change between inputs and outputs of a morphological rule", morphopragmatics is defined as "general pragmatic meanings/effects of morphological rules, i.e., regular pragmatic change between input and output of such rules" (Dressler/Kiefer 1990: 69; cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 55). These two fields are distinguished from the lexical semantics and the lexical pragmatics of morphology, which deal with the semantic and pragmatic idiosyncrasies of individual complex words resulting from the application of a morphological rule (cf, Dressler/Kiefer 1990: 69). By contrast, morphosemantics and morphopragmatics is only concerned with invariant changes in meaning resulting from the application of a morphological rule independent of the lexical units involved. From a semiotic perspective, morphopragmatics encompasses two aspects: on the one hand, the universal pragmatic foundations of morphology, and on the other hand, the relations between morphological rules and their interpreters as well as the interpretation of potential or actual output of such rules, i.e. primarily word-formation rules, and secondarily inflection rules (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1991). As a discipline, morphopragmatics deals with phenomena which have so far been marginalised in linguistics research, in particular affixes and other morphological devices, the meaning of which, according to Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 1), is best dealt with in pragmatics. Apart from diminutive suffixes, these phenomena include augmentative, elative, and excessive affixes, and also specific areas of inflection, such as problems of local and personal deixis, or honorifics in Japanese. The most extensive chapter of Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi's book (1994, ch. 3: 84414) deals with diminutives. Their analysis focuses in the first place on diminutives of Italian, but also on diminutives of German, particularly in its Viennese variety. For comparison, English diminutives are also examined, not least because it is the language of publication. All Italian and German examples are glossed in English. However, a systematic comparison of the three languages, in the sense of a contrastive analysis, is not aimed at, as the authors explicitly point out (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 84). Occasionally, further languages are also referred to. The aim of their morphopragmatic analysis of diminutives is "the systematic treatment of the regular uses of diminutives as strategic means to pragmatic effects" (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 84). Elsewhere, the authors describe their aim as identifying the context dependency of the pragmatic connotations of diminutives metaphorically related to their denotative meaning. They claim that the denotative meaning of diminutives is 'smallness', and emphasise that only those connotations are examined which occur with all diminutives, independent of the lexical meanings. At the beginning of their analysis, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 9Iff.) summarise the morphological aspects of diminutive formation in Italian and German. In this context, they also refer to English, focussing on the analytic type little + N, which is outside the scope of morphopragmatics, but considered the best connotational equivalent of synthetic formations in Italian and German (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 112ff.). Following this, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 116ff.) deal with the relationship between morphosemantic and morphopragmatic meanings of diminutives, in other words with the relationship between their denotation and their connotations. They discuss two diverging positions referred to as 'maximalist view' and 'minimalist view' (1994: 141 ff.). According to the first position, only the denotation, i.e. the feature 'small', belongs to the

51 morphosemantic level, while all connotations are treated on the pragmatic level. By contrast, according to the minimalist view, all invariant denotations and connotations belong to the semantic level, and only variable connotations are dealt with in pragmatics. The latter position is rejected by the authors, who advocate the maximalist view. They point out that in the minimalist view, morphopragmatic meanings of diminutives are treated merely as phenomena of performance, and not of competence. As constitutive for the morphopragmatic meaning of all diminutives, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi postulate an invariant feature, 'non-serious'. They write (1994: 144): A [non-serious]-feature added is, among other things, a strategy for lowering one's responsibility towards the speech act performed, or more specifically, for lowering one's commitment to its illocutionary force...

This is the starting point for their morphopragmatic analysis of Italian diminutives in the central section of the chapter on diminutives (1994, ch. 3.5.: 170-394), succinctly entitled "Data and their interpretation".30 The data which are interpreted consist of material of various types from a range of different sources. The corpus comprises fictional and natural material, spoken as well as written language, data from different genres and different situations. It also includes a share of fabricated utterances (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 170ff.). Italian examples are contrasted with German, and sometimes English examples, to indicate interesting similarities or differences. Most of the English examples, however, are translations. Crucial to the analysis is the distinction between a static and a dynamic dimension of communication (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 5f.). The static dimension is the speech situation, whereas the dynamic dimension is the speech event (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 18ff.). The constitutive element for speech events are speech acts as the minimal units in communication (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 24ff.). In addition to the distinction between speech situation and speech event, a range of further parameters are considered, which are referred to as 'regulative factors'. These are, among others, 'playfulness', 'sympathy/empathy', 'understatement', 'euphemism', 'sarcasm', and 'stylistic choice' (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 173). The theoretical status of these categories remains unclear. Their heterogeneity suggests that they have been arrived at inductively. They are not, in any case, integrated into any model of language use. Finally, Staverman's (1953) classification of diminutive connotations plays an important role in the analysis (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1987/1991). The analysis comes in three parts. First, three types of situations are considered. These are 'child-centered', 'pet-centered', and 'lover-centered speech situations' (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 173ff., 191ff., and 193ff.). The second part is speech act-based. In this part, the focus is on diminutives in requests and assessments (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 228ff. and 263ff.). Other speech acts are dealt with in much less detail (Dressler/Merlini

30

Unfortunately, the wealth of data and observations is not easily accessible. Even though section 3.5., the empirical section of their chapter on diminutives, is more than 200 pages long, subdivisions are listed neither in the table of contents nor at the beginning of the chapter or section. A more transparent structure and a consistent use of section titles would help the reader immensely.

52 Barbaresi 1994: 285ff.)· The remaining part of the analysis investigates the role of the socalled regulative factors. The second part is the most extensive part of the analysis. It is based on Searle's taxonomy of illocutionary types (in its 1985 version; cf. Searle/Vanderveken 1985). After dealing with requests and assessments as representatives of the directive and assertive types, the other types of Searle's classification are considered. Apart from declaratives (Dressier/ Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 285ff.), a total of fifteen different speech acts of the expressive and commissive types are analysed. Among these are apologies, thanks, and greetings on the one hand, and promises, threats, and offers on the other hand (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 288ff. and 295 ff.). Finally, three further types of illocutions are examined which Wunderlich (1978) introduces in his extension of Searle's taxonomy, viz. erotetics (i.e. questions/requests for information as an illocutionary type in its own right), retractives and vocatives (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 31 Iff.). The description of the morphopragmatic meanings of diminutives relative to illocutions is based on the model of speech act modification developed by Bazzanella et al. (1991).31 According to this model, diminutives modify the illocutionary force of a speech act by downgrading its propositional content and by upgrading the expressed inner states (cf. 2.3.3.). Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi consider this model incomplete. They conclude a) that all dimensions can be modified by diminutives, b) that, on principle, all dimensions are downgraded, and c) that downgrading takes place simultaneously in all dimensions. An upgrading of expressed inner states could only be observed in the case of emotional or empathie attitudes. Based on these findings, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 315f.) formulate their hypothesis of'overall parallel downgrading'.32 At the end of their speech act-based analysis, the authors point out that the dynamic dimension of communication plays a greater role than the static dimension (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 326f.). This means that the speech event is more decisive for the use and interpretation of diminutives than the speech situation. This explains why the authors devote much more space to the study of the interaction between diminutives and speech acts than to the other parts of their analysis. In essence, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi's morphopragmatic approach to diminutives does not go beyond a speech act theoretical perspective. The unit of analysis is the speech act, i.e. a sentence-length monological utterance. However, the interactive status of a speech act, preceding and following acts, and other sequential aspects are not considered in their analysis. In other words, the authors adopt a micro-pragmatic approach. Macropragmatic aspects such as discourse features are explicitly excluded (Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 7). More importantly, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic parameters are not 31

32

Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi quote from the 1990 conference paper by Bazzanella et al., which was published in 1991. Further results of their speech act-based analysis of morphopragmatic meanings of diminutives are reported on in Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 314ff.). Moreover, the reader is referred to the summary of the linguistic findings of the chapter on diminutives, in which three theoretical perspectives are adopted: 1) universels, 2) typological aspects, and 3) language-specific 'systemadequacy' (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 394ff., 400ff., and 407). In the final section, the implications for research on first language acquisition, adopted and elaborated in later work in preand protomorphology (cf. 2.2.4.2.), are outlined (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 407f.).

53 systematically included either. Relevant parameters are speech act realisation strategies, levels of directness, politeness values, and situational variables. The interaction between diminutives and these parameters should be central to any study of the pragmatics of diminutives.

2.3.5. Diminutives in discourse The pragmatic approach adopted in this book was developed approximately at the same time as the approaches discussed in the preceding sections. The original idea to investigate diminutives from a specifically pragmatic perspective was first conceived in the late 1980s. Subsequently, a series of conference papers and articles appeared, paving the way for the present study. The first paper (Schneider 1991a) deals with fundamental issues. Here, problematic aspects of traditional definitions of the term 'diminutive* are addressed, and a conceptual base is proposed for this term in connection with public perceptions and social evaluations. An 'affect hierarchy' is postulated for the positive and negative evaluations which can be expressed by diminutives and augmentatives. Furthermore, with reference to non-IndoEuropean languages such as Swahili, the following claims are made: a) 'Diminutive' is a category which is not particular to Southern Romance and Slavic languages, but universal; b) all languages which possess augmentatives also possess diminutives, but not vice versa; and c) while there seems to be a general preference across languages to express the concept of diminution by suffixation, there are also alternative types of diminutive formation. Further papers focus on the use of diminutives in everyday communication (Schneider 1991b, 1993a and 1993b). The analyses are based on an integrative model of spoken discourse, which combines findings from a range of different fields of study (cf. 3.4.). Against this background, an analytic apparatus is developed and applied to material taken predominantly from the German language. A comparison of the communicative functions of German and English diminutives in discourse is included in Schneider (1991b). Sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects are treated in Schneider/Schneider (1991). This article focuses on diminutivisation in gender-specific forms of address and on sexist uses of diminutives. The data which are used in these studies of the functions of diminutives in everyday spoken communication include field notes and transcripts of naturally occurring discourse, and Actional dialogue from novels, plays, and cartoons. By contrast, newspaper articles and other written materials are used to analyse the functions of diminutives in texts (Schneider 1992). Five parameters have been identified which determine the use of diminutives in spoken discourse and which, therefore, must be considered in the description and explanation of diminutive use. These are (cf. Schneider 1993a: 346Í): (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

the relationship between the interactants, the illocutionary force of the utterance, the relevant politeness maxims, the co-text of the diminutive form, the semantics of the base word (and its social meaning).

54 These parameters capture social, intentional, co-textual, and situational dimensions of diminutive use. Parameter (e) is relevant to pragmatic analysis, insofar as the question whether or not a diminutive form is used in a particular speech act, can depend not only on functional (i.e. illocutionary) aspects, but also on aspects of (propositional) content. What is crucial in this respect is not so much the referential, but the social meaning of the base or the assessment of its referent. In illustrative analyses, examples of the following speech acts have been examined: requests, offers, offer acceptance, suggestions, announcements, compliments, and insults (Schneider 1991b, 1993a, and 1993b). As a result, it is assumed that the general pragmatic function of diminutives is minimisation, which operates on the respective pragmatic factor relevant to a given speech act. The category 'pragmatic factor' relates to Leech's (1983: 123ff.) notion of 'pragmatic scales' which involve social values observed in polite verbal behaviour. These values (e.g. 'cost to hearer') are based on the factors 'cost' and 'benefit', 'praise' and 'dispraise', 'agreement' and 'disagreement', 'sympathy' and 'antipathy' - in short, on those factors on which Leech's politeness maxims are based (cf Leech 1983: 13Iff). Since Leech correlates these factors not with individual speech acts, but with illocutionary types, it is assumed that the results of my analyses regarding the pragmatic functions of diminutives can be extended to the illocutionary types to which the analysed speech acts belong (Schneider 1993a: 350). This hypothesis is tested in chapter 5 of the present study. The approach described in this section was adopted by Dirk Köhler (1994) in his contrastive analysis of the pragmatic functions of German and English diminutives, in which he examines the speech acts request, offer, offer acceptance, announcement, and also address (which had been considered only marginally in my own work; cf. Schneider/Schneider 1991). Köhler's analysis is largely based on his own material. The German data were collected in and around Berlin, and the English data in and around Dublin. Predominantly, the corpus consists of field notes about private conversations between family members. Based on this material, Köhler establishes that while the communicative functions of diminutives are largely the same in English and German, their forms differ across these two languages. In German, synthetic formation with the suffix -chen dominates, whereas in English analytic forms with little are preferred. In addition to the parameters (a) - (e) mentioned above, further parameters which influence the use of diminutives have been identified empirically (cf. Schneider 1993a and 1993b). These are the interactional characteristics of a given speech act, the realisation strategies available for this act, its interactional status and its discourse position. The impact of the last two parameters can be seen, e.g., by comparing offers and offer acceptance on the one hand and initial and subsequent offers on the other (cf. also Schneider 2000). The quantifier another, prefacing a diminutive, is an indicator of subsequent offers and other subsequent acts (cf. 5.2.4. and 5.3.). An approach which systematically connects the microand macro-pragmatic parameters briefly discussed in this section is elaborated in the following chapter of this book (ch. 3).

55

2.4. Summary and perspectives

Despite the huge number of publications on diminutives, the range of aspects studied is quite limited. The analysis of formal aspects has dominated, while other aspects have been left largely neglected. Today, diminutives are still primarily considered a morphological category. Research on semantic and especially pragmatic aspects is still in demand, even though many studies emphasise the fact that diminutives, and particularly their meanings, depend heavily on co-text and situation. Overall, there seem to be two parallel developments in contemporary diminutive research, one which focuses on form, and more particularly on substance, and the other which focuses on meaning, and more particularly on meaning in context. While prosodie issues gradually dominate the former development, pragmatic issues increasingly dominate the latter. This fundamental divide is reflected in the choice of language material. In formal approaches, isolated diminutive forms are analysed, as a rule individual words, whereas in functional approaches, contextualised diminutives are analysed, as a rule diminutives in individual utterances or speech acts. To date, the vast majority of studies has dealt with prototypical diminutive forms, i.e. with diminutive nouns derived by suffixation. This also applies to the limited number of studies outside morphology. However, contrastive studies which use translations as their material are an exception. Often, such studies compare a language which possesses prototypical diminutives of the suffixal type with a language which expresses diminution by different linguistic means. A small number of languages has been considered over and over again in diminutive research. Indo-European languages in particular have been studied more intensively than any other language family, and in the Indo-European family, Romance and Slavic languages have received more attention than others, notably Spanish and Russian. Despite the fact that the productivity of the German suffix -chert is uncontroversial, and despite the fact that a number of recent publications examine aspects of German diminutive forms, there is no monograph on diminutives in German. Nor is there a monograph on diminutives in English. As a rule, English, if considered at all, is used for contrastive purposes. In grammatical studies, English is compared to those languages which possess synthetic diminutives, and since English, as an analytic language, does not seem to possess as many synthetic diminutives, it is claimed that English does not possess any diminutives at all. In pragmatic studies, the observation that English has no, or only comparatively few, prototypical diminutives is explained by claiming that English is spoken in anti-emotional, non-cordial, and negatively polite cultures, whereas languages which possess prototypical diminutives are spoken in cultures considered emotional, cordial, and positively polite. In effect, the existence of prototypical diminutives is regarded as an indicator of emotionality and cordiality. Needless to say, such comparisons are superficial, ideologically biased, and based on prejudice, and, thus, methodologically not sound. There is not much point in comparing English to languages such as Polish or Greek in this way. Instead, all linguistic devices of expressing diminution in English, suffixal and otherwise, must be considered and analysed

56 in the broader context of the structural system of English as an analytic language. Furthermore, English should be compared in the first instance to those languages which do not possess any prototypical diminutives at all. In any case, not morphological form, but the concept of diminution should be the starting point of any contrastive analysis or language comparison of diminutives, as, indeed, all cross-linguistic or typological studies should start from an onomasiological perspective. Concerning the quality of data, there seems to be a recent, but growing, trend to use attested forms from empirical material, rather than the fabricated, outdated or obsolete examples predominantly used in the past 150 years. Material from naturally occurring spoken discourse should be considered to a significantly higher degree and analysed systematically. Written material should also be taken from non-fiction, and fictional sources should also include contemporary literature. Semantic studies must not be restricted to the analysis of individual decontextualised forms, and pragmatic studies must not be restricted to the analysis of individual speech acts in isolation. Indeed, context and situation are essential for interpreting diminutives, specifically their semantic meanings and their communicative functions. Against this background, a consistent research programme for diminutive research will be outlined in the following chapter. This programme can be used in the analysis of diminutives in all languages, irrespective of whether or not they possess prototypical diminutive forms. The core of this programme is an integrative approach which combines grammatical and pragmatic perspectives. Given the comparative lack of pragmatic studies and the importance of contextual and situational factors, the emphasis will be on the pragmatic component.

3. Researching diminutives: integrating grammatical and pragmatic pespectives

The purpose of this chapter is to formulate a consistent approach to diminutives which integrates grammatical and pragmatic perspectives. The starting point is Leech's notion of a formal - functional paradigm which is based on the central claim that the nature of language can only be understood, if grammar and pragmatics and, equally importantly, the interplay between these are studied (cf. Leech 1983: 4). Accordingly, it is claimed here that the nature of diminutives can only be fully understood, if grammatical and pragmatic aspects are examined and also the interaction between them. In this dichotomous model of language, pragmatics comprises all aspects of language use in communication, whereas grammar involves all levels of the language system, including semantics, which is the interface between the two domains (cf. Leech 1983: 12). After a brief definition of the object of study in 3.1. and a general outline of the overall approach in section 3.2., the grammatical and pragmatic perspectives are developed in 3.3. and 3.4. respectively. In section 3.5., some methodological issues are addressed.

3.1. The object of analysis

In this section, the understanding of diminutives underlying the integrative approach is summarised. Diminutives are linguistic forms expressing the dimensional concept 'size', also expressed by augmentatives (cf. Szymanek 1988). Specifically, diminutives convey the notion of 'smallness' (or, rather, 'littleness'). They add a semantic component 'small' (or 'little') (cf. 4.3.) which interacts with the respective meaning of the base word and can be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Since smallness and largeness are not absolute, but relational, 'size' is a tripartite concept, involving the poles 'small' and 'large', and a neutral value in between. This middle value represents the dimensional norm implicitly referred to by either of the two other values, which express a deviation from this norm. In the case of augmentatives, this deviation is in excess of the norm, whereas in the case of diminutives, it is short of the norm. It must be emphasised that each category has its own norm (cf. Wierzbicka 1985a: 81, in. 6). For instance, a small elephant is larger than a large dog (cf., e.g., Stefanescu 1992: 345f.; cf. also Hansen et al. 1982: 217ff.). Apart from a quantifying meaning component, diminutives characteristically possess a (potential) qualifying component, referred to in the literature as 'emotional', 'emotive', 'expressive', 'evaluative', 'attitudinal', etc. The expressed emotion, evaluation or attitude can be positive or negative. Examples would be endearment on the one hand and contempt on the other. While the quantifying component belongs to the denotation of diminutives, qualifying components belong to their connotations. This distinction is based on the traditional dichotomy of denotation and connotation. According to Leech's (1981) taxonomy,

58 however, which differentiates between seven types of meaning, the denotative component is classified as conceptual meaning or 'sense', while the qualifying connotations are classified as a particular type of associative meaning, termed 'affective meaning' (cf. Schneider 1991a), which Leech (1981: 23) defines as follows: "What is communicated of the feelings and attitudes of the speaker/writer." As diminutives characteristically possess affective meaning components, Szymanek (1988: 106ff.), after careful deliberation, rejects the idea of assuming an underlying concept 'size' (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 186). Yet, 'size' is crucial to the analysis of diminutives and clearly more central than attitudinal components, which can be derived from perceptions of size (cf. also Jurafsky 1996). As 'size' is a universal concept, 'diminution' is also universal (cf. Croft 1990: 92). However, while 'smallness' can be expressed verbally in all languages, the ways in which it is expressed differ across languages, as do the ways in which these expressions are used across cultures (cf., e.g., Wierzbicka 1985b). Although structural preferences across languages seem to exist (cf., e.g., Nieuwenhuis 1985, also Bauer 1997), diminutive formation essentially depends on the overall structural make-up of the respective language. This will be demonstrated in the present study, which focuses on English. The following research programme, however, is principally language-independent.

3.2. General outline of the research programme

In an integrative approach to diminutives, the central research question can be phrased as follows: Which linguistic devices are available to express diminution and how are they used? Accordingly, the first step in the analysis involves identifying the diminutive markers in a given language. A shortcut would be to consider only those elements traditionally classified as diminutive markers. Yet this approach entails two dangers. First, traditional classifications may not be exhaustive, and second, traditional classifications do not exist for all languages. Therefore, the first task is to map form onto meaning, where the concept of diminution serves as the starting point. Fulfilling this task is a prerequisite to the integrative analysis proper. The first part of this analysis deals with the grammar of diminutives. The task here is to establish how the diminutive markers of a given language are used to form diminutives, and also which meanings the resulting forms have. The second part deals with pragmatic aspects. In this step, the communicative functions of diminutive forms are identified, and their positions in discourse examined. The different aspects of diminutives addressed in an integrative analysis stem from a number of disciplines in linguistics. The interrelations between these aspects and the relevant disciplines are summarised in figure 1. The upper half of this diagram portrays the different formal and functional aspects of expressions which realise the concept of diminution (i.e. diminutives), while the lower half represents the respective linguistic subdisciplines which investigate these aspects. The intensity of study and the number of publications decreases from left to right. Most investi-

59

Figure 1: Aspects of diminutives and the relevant fields of linguistic study

60 gâtions deal with morphological aspects, whereas studies of discoursal aspects of diminutive use, such as the functions and the distribution of diminutives in interaction, are virtually non-existent (cf. 2.). Even Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi, who have provided the most comprehensive pragmatic treatment of diminutives to date, explicitly exclude these particular aspects, i.e. a macropragmatic perspective on diminutives in discourse (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 7 and 85). Given that no established theory of pragmatics exists, there is no doubt but that a pragmatic analysis of diminutives is a challenging exercise - much more so than a grammatical analysis. Each of the existing approaches covers only a part of the field of language use. This may, of course, be explained by the fact that pragmatics is a considerably younger discipline than grammar. Yet, it must be emphasised again that diminutives can only be studied adequately if pragmatic aspects are included in the analysis (cf., e.g., Mühlhäusler 1983: 89, cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 2001). Finally, it should be pointed out that the proposed integrative approach captured in figure 1 facilitates a comparison of studies on individual aspects of diminutives.

3.3. The grammatical perspective: diminutive formation

3.3.1. The morphonological perspective: diminutive form The formal aspects of diminutive formation, notably morphological and phonological aspects, are dealt with here. Ultimately, the aim is to determine the formal properties of possible diminutives and also the rules and restrictions which govern their formation. This aim is rather wide-ranging, involving questions concerning the following issues: -

1

Inventory of diminutive markers in a given language: how many? which? Morphological status of the markers: affixal or non-affixal? If affixal: derivational or inflectional? Position of affixal markers: suffix or prefix (or different type of affix)? If non-affixal: lexical or grammatical (or, possibly, in between)?1 Word class of non-affixal marker? Phonological shape of markers: number of syllables, syllable structure? Alternative pronunciations? Sound quality: "iconic" vowels? Graphological shape of markers? Alternative spellings?

Cf. the discussion of strong and weak forms of little in Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 114ff.); cf. also 4.3.

61 Similar questions can be posed about the relevant morphological, phonological and graphological aspects of the base words involved in diminutivisation and about the resulting diminutives. Questions about the base words include the following: -

Word class? Morphological structure: simple or complex? If complex: derivative or compound (or other)? Phonological shape: number of syllables, syllable structure? Alternative pronunciations? Word stress? Graphological shape? Alternative spellings?

Regarding the output forms, the focus is not primarily on the formal properties of the output, but on the changes effected in the process of diminutive formation. Crucial questions involve the following: -

Are word class and word stress of the base retained? If not, how are they altered? Is the morphological structure and syllable structure of the base changed? If so, how? Does phonological and graphological shape undergo changes? Which, if any?

Further issues dealt with on the morphonological level concern specific features of diminutivisation not encountered in other formation processes. In particular, these relate to Scalise's (1986) findings about evaluative suffixes (cf. 2.2.3.). - Can the same diminutive marker be combined with the same base recursively? - Can different diminutive markers co-occur? Which? In which order? - Which factors determine the choice of diminutive marker for any given base? Are alternative choices possible? These last questions relate to the general problem whether or not the diminutive markers of a given language can be considered as allomorphs of the same diminutive morpheme (cf. also Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 15If., and Miranda Miranda 2000). Needless to say, the above lists are not exhaustive. They do, however, comprise the most relevant questions. Answering these questions requires a descriptive framework which provides the necessary categories and permits generalisations (cf. 2.2.).

3.3.2. The semantic perspective: diminutive meaning Aspects of diminutive meaning are dealt with on this level, in particular semantic and, where relevant, stylistic aspects. Ultimately, the aim is to establish the semantic properties

62 of possible diminutives. To achieve this aim, a range of questions must be answered, of which the following two are the central: 1) Which semantic classes of base words are permissible in the process of diminutive formation? 2) How does the meaning of the output differ from the meaning of the input, in other words, how does diminutivisation modify the meaning of the base word? Answering the first question presupposes a system of semantic word classes, i.e. subclassifications of each grammatical word class. For nouns, for instance, relevant distinctions include proper versus common nouns, concrete versus abstract nouns, nouns referring to beings versus nouns referring to objects, nouns referring to persons versus nouns referring to animals, nouns referring to females versus nouns referring to males, etc. These distinctions can be described in terms of meaning contrasts involving pairs of semantic features such as [+animate]/[-animate] or [+human]/[-human] (cf., e.g., Leech 1981: ch. 6 & 7, Hansen et al. 1982: 162ff., and Aitchison 1994: ch. 7). It is an open question as to how many semantic classes should be distinguished to arrive at insightful results (cf. Stefanescu 1992: 349ff.). Another relevant classification which cuts across word classes concerns the level of categorisation. As a rule, three levels are differentiated: generic, basic, and specific (cf., e.g., Rosch et al. 1976). Lexemes illustrating this tripartite hierarchy of concepts are, e.g., animal (or mammal), dog, and beagle. Prototypically, basic level words, such as dog, are simple words of native origin consisting of only one syllable and learnt first in native language acquisition. It seems that basic level words constitute the default category of base words which enter the process of diminutive formation. Furthermore, basic level terms from which diminutives are formed represent categories which may be modelled on Richards' concept of 'word familiarity' (Richards 1971). That is, these categories reflect beings and objects in the immediate surroundings of users or addressees of diminutive forms. Against this background, cognitive categories and conceptual approaches seem more relevant to the study of diminutive meaning than purely semantic approaches and categories based on logic.2 The second of the above questions, the question concerning semantic modification in diminutivisation, presupposes a model of lexical meaning which distinguishes between denotative and connotative meaning on the one hand, and between literal and metaphorical meaning on the other. Assuming that diminutive markers modify the meaning of the base lexeme by adding the (invariant) semantic feature 'small' (cf. 2.3.4.), a distinction must be made between 'small' in a literal and 'small' in a metaphorical sense since the literal sense is not applicable to all word classes. Put another way, the concept of smallness interacts with the general meaning of the semantic class to which a given base word belongs and can only be interpreted literally, if 'size' is a relevant parameter in the respective class meaning. In all other cases, metaphorical interpretations are applied, as, e.g., in the case of kinship terms. For instance, the meaning of auntie cannot be glossed as 'small aunt' - rather it is

2

Cf. also Würstle (1992: 38ff.) for a discussion of previous treatments of diminutive meaning, and Delhay (1996) and also Inchaurralde (1997) for recent conceptual approaches.

63 usually paraphrased as 'dear aunt'. The question is whether the expression of endearment is a component of the denotation (as a metaphorical extension of 'small') or an affective connotation, added to the semantics of the base word in the process of diminutivisation. A more convincing account of diminutive meaning may be this: A diminutive relates an individual referent to the semantic (sub-)class to which the base word belongs. This semantic class implies a norm or standard which may be spatial (as mentioned before), temporal or social (cf. also Wierzbicka 1985a: 81, fn. 6). A diminutive form portrays its referent as a subnormal class member relative to the respective norm for members of the given class. It is worth noting that the term 'subnormal' is not negative per se. In fact, marking a referent as diverging from the relevant norm may be a purely quantitative statement. For instance, 'small cube' seems to be a perfectly adequate gloss for cubelet, which does not seem to have any attitudinal connotations or evaluative overtones. Playlet, on the other hand, may either denote a short play in purely quantitative terms, or refer to a play which falls short of being a "real play", thus expressing a negative evaluation. Finally, squireling is always used derogatorily, referring to a person who does not live up to the role of a squire. However, qualifications are not necessarily negative ones; cf., e.g., the so-called pet forms (cf. 5.1.). Certain suffixes which are categorised as diminutive markers by some researchers are categorised as style markers by others. For example, -ie, usually classified as a diminutive suffix of English, is classified as a 'familiarity marker' by Quirk et al. (1985: 1584) (cf. 4.1.3.). This means that all formations containing this suffix are marked as 'familiar' and, thus, associated with informal situations. Arguably, however, informality is signalled by all diminutives - a view which may translate into Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi's (1994: 144) claim that all diminutives share the feature [non-serious]. Yet this particular feature is considered as the invariant pragmatic, and not semantic, feature of diminutives (cf. 2.3.4.). Generally speaking, it seems impossible to interpret the meaning of diminutives without taking pragmatic factors into consideration (cf., e.g., Würstle 1992: 50).

3.4. The pragmatic perspective: diminutive use

Diminutives do not occur in isolation, but in context. In fact, they can only be adequately understood relative to the respective contexts they occur in (cf. 3.3.2.). Therefore, a pragmatic analysis aims at establishing the contexts in which diminutives are used and the communicative functions they realise. A further aim is to determine the principles which motivate the employment of diminutives in communication. Regarding the fundamental division between oral and written communication, the question could be posed whether diminutives are employed in both mediums, and how their employment differs across these two media. However, given the history and the contemporary state-of-the-art in pragmatics, the present study focuses predominantly on the use of diminutives in oral communication. On the most basic level, oral communication can be differentiated into monologue and dialogue. Further relevant distinctions include, among others, institutional versus noninstitutional, business versus private, and formal versus informal discourse. These distinc-

64 tions can be used to define and differentiate between types of spoken discourse, such as sermons, interviews, or talk shows. For practical as well as theoretical and methodological reasons, the present study focuses on everyday conversation, generally considered the unmarked discourse type (cf., e.g., Schneider 1988: 39). As previous research shows, it is a type of discourse in which diminutives are definitely used (cf. 2.3., especially 2.3.2.). The following two sections serve to outline a framework for investigating diminutives in conversation. The analysis starts on the micropragmatic level of individual utterances or speech acts (3.4.1.) before turning to larger units on the macropragmatic level of discourse (3.4.2.).3

3.4.1. The micropragmatic perspective: diminutive function To establish the communicative functions of diminutives, micropragmatic analysis focuses on the. interaction between diminutives and speech acts (cf. Wierzbicka 1985b: 166). Thus, the illocutionary act, "the minimal unit of linguistic communication" (Searle 1972: 137), is the central category in the analysis of diminutive function. The approach developed in the present section is based on fundamental insights of speech act philosophy and, more importantly, on more recent findings from empirical pragmatics and politeness research.4 Micropragmatic analysis aims at answering the following questions: 1) Are diminutives used - in all illocutionary types? - in all illocutions belonging to the same type? - in all subtypes of a given illocution? - in all realisation strategies available for this illocution (or illocutionary subtype)? 2) What are their specific functions? This type of analysis presupposes a definition of speech acts and their internal structure, a taxonomy of illocutionary types, a classification of illocutions, a specification of illocutionary subtypes, an inventory of realisation strategies for each illocution (or illocutionary subtype), and a set of categories capturing possible communicative functions of diminutives. The definition of speech acts and their internal structure, as well as the taxonomy of illocutionary types, can be adopted from classical speech act theory, notably Searle* s version thereof (cf., e.g., Searle 1969). The assumption that speaking is doing, i.e. intentional behaviour, is generally established, as is the distinction between several partial acts within the speech act, of which the illocutionary act is the most crucial for pragmatics (cf., e.g., Schneider 1988: 2.4.1.). Furthermore, Searle's taxonomy of illocutionary types is widely accepted, despite numerous competing proposals.5 A definitive classification of illocutions 3

For this distinction, cf. also Mey (1993: parts II & III, especially ch. 9). 4 Cf., e.g., Leech (1983), Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), Thomas (1995) and Trosborg (1995). 5 On Searle's taxonomy, cf., e.g., Searle (1976) and Searle/Vanderveken (1985). Despite all criticism, Ballmer (1979) considers this taxonomy as the most advanced and versatile classification. For alternative taxonomies, cf., e.g., Ulkan (1992).

65 is not, however, available to date. It is not known how many illocutions exist, or how many should be distinguished (cf., e.g., Ballmer/Brennenstuhl 1981). The classification developed by Edmondson/House (1981: 48ff.) which differentiates between 25 different illocutions, may seem incomplete and idiosyncratic in places. It is, however, based on a set of clearly defined criteria, which distinguishes this model from most others (cf. also Edmondson 1981: 136ff.). In recent years, the focus has shifted from classifications to individual illocutions. Empirical pragmatics in particular has concentrated on a very limited number of speech acts, most notably on requests and apologies, and also on complaints, compliments and thanks (cf., e.g., Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b, Trosborg 1995, Holmes 1995, and Aijmer 1996). While subcategories of these and other illocutions have been identified, they have not gained wide-spread currency, even though it has been demonstrated that specifications are socially relevant and reflected in communicative behaviour (cf., e.g. Volek 1987: 164ff.). By contrast, inventories of so-called realisation strategies have received considerably more attention. The observation that the proposition of a speech act can be uttered in a number of different ways gave rise to a host of empirical studies aiming at systematically establishing these different realisations and the differences between them.6 The study of realisation strategies for requests is a paradigmatic case (cf., e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976, House/Kasper 1987, and Aijmer 1996: ch. 4). It has been found that the strategies available differ in their degree of directness. For instance, an imperative construction such as Take out the garbage! is maximally direct, whereas a question format, such as Can you take out the garbage?, is conventionally indirect, and a hint such as Garbage day is tomorrow. is nonconventionally indirect (or implicit).7 Each strategy can be modified by a set of lexical, phrasal, and syntactic modifiers; cf., e.g., Take out the garbage, please!, and Could you (perhaps) take out the garbage?, etc. In these examples, the modifiers function as downgrades, mitigating the imposition involved in asking somebody to do something. It is a valid assumption that diminutives function as modifiers, and more specifically downgrade s , given their general denotation (cf. Bazzanella et al. 1991, and Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: esp. 314ff.). It is worth noting that the study of speech act realisation and modification provides a missing link between the study of language forms and the study of language functions. In this field, the interaction between grammar and pragmatics can be investigated. Despite the fact that the realisation strategies identified for requests can be translated into the politeness strategies determined by Brown/Levinson (1987),8 directness and polite-

6

For a survey of the literature, cf. Trosborg (1995). 7 In the model developed in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), the three strategies illustrated here are termed 'mood derivable' (as the illocutionary force can be derived from the syntactic mood), 'query preparatory' (as the utterance refers to the preparatory conditions for requests), and 'strong hint' (cf. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 18). In this version of their model, which is widely accepted, nine different strategies for realising requests are distinguished, whereas in other versions seven are listed (cf. House/Kasper 1987). For alternative classifications, cf. esp. Trosborg 1995: ch. 8, and Aijmer 1996: ch. 4). - The examples quoted to illustrate these strategies are found in Wolfram/Schilling-Estes (1998: 82). 8 E.g., the realisation strategy termed 'mood derivable' in the CCSARP (i.e. using a grammatical imperative) can be employed as a politeness strategy termed 'bald on record' by Brown and Levinson (1987), whereas a 'strong hint' represents an 'off-record strategy'.

66 ness are not the same phenomenon. While the level of directness is an intrinsic property of a realisation strategy, the politeness value of an utterance can only be determined relative to a social situation. A grammatical imperative, as the maximally direct realisation, may be perfectly appropriate, and, thus, polite, in a given situation, and totally impolite in another situation - depending on the relationship between the interactants. Therefore, the pragmalinguistic dimension of micropragmatic analysis must be supplemented by a sociopragmatic dimension. While pragmalinguistics aims at identifying the linguistic devices available for performing a given speech act (in terms of realisation and modification), sociopragmatics aims at establishing which choices are considered appropriate or polite in a given situation, e.g. who may request what of whom by using which strategy.9 Apart from Brown/Levinson's (1987) theory of verbal politeness, Leech's (1983) theory is widely accepted.10 The pragmatic scales on which his politeness maxims are based seem directly relevant to an analysis of the communicative functions of diminutives (cf. Leech 1983: 123fF.). Depending on the illocutionary type to which a speech act belongs, different scales apply. For example, the cost-benefit scale is relevant to directives and commissives, while the praise-dispraise scale is relevant to expressives and assertives. In polite communication, disfavourable aspects (e.g., cost or dispraise) must be minimised for the addressee, and favourable aspects (e.g., benefit or praise) minimised for the speaker - minimisation being a crucial concept in Leech's model (1983: 13Iff.). In this context, diminutives, as downtoners, appear as politeness markers, or, more specifically, minimisers operating on the respective pragmatic scales (cf. Schneider 1993a).

3.4.2. The macropragmatic perspective: diminutive distribution Speech acts may be the minimal units of communication (cf. 3.4.1.), but essentially they are monological units. Spoken communication, however, is primarily dialogical. Therefore, micropragmatic analysis is supplemented by a macropragmatic perspective. The macropragmatic analysis of diminutives deals with the employment of diminutives in discourse, concentrating, in particular, on interactional and sequential features of use. Macropragmatic analysis is based on a model of spoken discourse originally developed in the Birmingham school of discourse analysis (cf., e.g., Coulthard 1977, and Edmondson 1981: ch. 6.1. for an elaboration). This model incorporates a set of vertical and horizontal hierarchies. Vertically, five units can be distinguished. These are the move, exchange, sequence, transaction, and interaction. Each of these units includes the preceding one. The exchange is "the minimal unit of social interaction" (Edmondson 1981: 86). A simple exchange consists of two moves, an initiating and a responding move; e.g. question - answer, or offer - rejection.11 Initiating and responding moves are the two basic move types. A third type, the countering move, occurs in complex exchanges. Complex exchanges consist of at least three moves, the second of which is a countering move, i.e. a type of move which 9 10

11

On the distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, cf. Leech (1983: 10f.). For criticism of these two theories and alternative models, cf., e.g., Kasper (1990), Thomas (1995: ch. 6), and Turner (1996). Simple exchanges are termed 'adjacency pairs' in ethnomethodology (cf., e.g., Levinson 1983: ch.

6.2.1.2.).

67 responds to the preceding move, but does not close the exchange, as it itself calls for a response. 12 An example would be argument - counter-argument - withdrawal of initial argument. According to Edmondson (1981: 86f.), an exchange is closed as soon as a conversational outcome is arrived at. This means that problematic exchanges may comprise many moves, particularly countering moves. Exchanges combine into sequences, which in turn form transactions. Corrective sequences, for instance, consist prototypically of three exchanges: 1) offence (verbal or nonverbal) - complaint, 2) apology - forgive, and 3) thank - minimise (cf., e.g., Holly 1979: S 8). In this sequence, the last two are subsequent exchanges, each depending on the preceding one, whereas the first one is an independent exchange. The transaction, on the next level of the model, corresponds in length to the notion of discourse topic, which is, however, a content unit and as such does not belong to interactional structure (cf. Schneider 1988: ch. 2.6.). Transactions and sequences are not distinguished in all models, and the term 'sequence* is sometimes used non-specifically for any unit above the level of the exchange and below the level of the interaction. The interaction constitutes the top-most level of the vertical hierarchy. Interactions are surrounded by non-interaction, i.e. they represent complete communicative events. On each level of the vertical hierarchy, a distinction can be made between heads and supportives. Head units are obligatory constituents, whereas supportive units are considered optional. Yet, while they may be optional from a logical perspective, they are indispensable from a socio-psychological perspective (cf., e.g., Edmondson 1981: ch. 6.2.). Supportives are employed to avoid or mitigate socially undesirable effects. For instance, a request for money, figuring as a head move, can be made (more) acceptable by giving a reason for this request, which could be provided in an accompanying supportive move. This particular type of supportive move has been termed 'grounder* (cf. Edmondson 1981: 122ff.). On the level of exchanges, pre-exchanges constitute one type of socially motivated supportives employed to avoid rejections (cf. Edmondson 1981: 116ff.). For example, What are you doing on Sunday? can be used to initiate a supportive exchange preceding an invitation. By using a pre-exchange, the (prospective) inviter aims at getting a commitment from the addressee. In the case of a negative response, the invitation is unlikely to be uttered. Further detail concerning interactional structure does not, at this stage, seem relevant to the macropragmatic analysis of diminutives. The central issue addressed in this type of analysis is to what extent the use and functions of diminutives depend on their position in interactional structure. In particular, the following questions require an answer: - What is the interactive status of a speech act which contains a diminutive? - Do diminutives occur in all move types? - Does the use of a diminutive in an initiating move effect the realisation of the following move (i.e. the addressee's reaction)? - Under what circumstances do diminutives occur in responding moves?

12

In the Birmingham school of discourse analysis, countering moves are referred to as 'Response/Initiation* (cf., e.g., Stubbs 1983), emphasising their hybrid nature. Edmondson (1981: 89) distinguishes 'Counters' from 'Contras*. This distinction, however, is not relevant to the present discussion.

68 - Are diminutives used in both head moves and supportive moves? - Do diminutives appear in all positions of a sequence? - Which sequential features constrain the use of diminutives in discourse? It is worth noting that so far diminutives have not been studied from a macropragmatic perspective. Even Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 7 and 85), in the most detailed analysis of diminutives available to date, explicitly exclude this particular perspective (cf., however, Schneider 1993a and 2000).

3.5.

Method

In this section, the integrative approach to diminutives developed so far is supplemented by methodological considerations concerning the choice of analytical unit (3.5.1.), the selection of data type, and data quality (3.5.2.). Finally, the corpus on which the study of English diminutives in chapters 4 and 5 is based is described in section 3.5.3.

3.5.1. Units of analysis The choice of analytical unit depends entirely on the research perspective adopted. In a morphonological analysis, the central unit is the diminutive form, i.e. context-free diminutives, consisting of base word plus diminutive marker. In the case of synthetic formation, these are individual complex words, prototypically suffixed nouns. This unit type is sufficiently large to determine the rules and restrictions governing the morphonological aspects of diminutive formation. For a semantic analysis, however, this unit type may not be large enough. Minimal context is required to warrant an appropriate interpretation. Noun phrases are the default case. In complex noun phrases, modifiers other than analytic diminutive markers, especially evaluative adjectives, help to work out the intended meaning of diminutive forms. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to consider full sentences, or even sequences of sentences. Micropragmatic analysis, by contrast, focuses on individual speech acts, i.e. sentencetype utterance formats. Basically, these essentially monological units are suitable for examining the interplay between diminutives and illocutions. The relationship between diminutive form and realisation strategy is of particular interest, also the syntactic position occupied by the diminutive in the realisation. Furthermore, if diminutives function as internal speech act modifiers, as hypothesised, then the co-occurrence of other modificational devices must, of course, be considered in the analysis. Modifiers, as socially motivated elements, link the domains of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Sociopragmatic aspects can only be studied if situational variables are integrated into micropragmatic analysis. Consequently, at least the relationship between speaker and addressee must be taken into account when analysing diminutives in speech acts. Minimally, this relationship must be

69 characterised in terms of social distance and relative social status (cf., e.g., Brown/Levinson 1987: ch. 3.4.2., and Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 15).13 Yet, as previous research on diminutives suggests, age and gender differences are also relevant (cf. 2.1.2. and 2.2.4.2.), as well as social roles such as parent, teacher, or host (cf., e.g., Schneider 1993a). Needless to say, macropragmatic analysis requires the largest type of analytical unit. The smallest unit which can be used is the simple exchange (or adjacency pair), i.e. two consecutive speech acts, by default a combination of an initiating and a responding move. For some purposes, however, e.g. the analysis of negotiation patterns, longer stretches of discourse are required. In other cases, it may be necessary to analyse complete interactions, or even sequences of interactions, or at least the respective discourse history. A case in point is the study of recurring discourse elements such as offer sequences in party talk, for which obligations from previous meetings may be relevant (e.g. for counter-invitations). It must be borne in mind, however, that the larger the unit, the fewer the findings from general pragmatics research.

3.5.2. Data types and data quality An analysis of diminutives can be based on different kinds of language material. For the present purposes, four basic data types are distinguished. These are natural, Actional, fabricated, and experimental data. The term 'natural data* refers to all spoken and written material produced for no other purpose than meeting genuine communicative needs. As it is not produced for research purposes, material of this type is considered as material of the best quality and the most authentic, or even the only authentic, data type.14 Therefore, the claim could be made that, ideally, natural data should be analysed exclusively in research on diminutives, particularly in research on diminutive use in communication, since: "Usage cannot be invented, it can only be recorded" (Sinclair 1987: xv). However, natural data also have disadvantages. One is that spoken material has to be recorded first to make it available to analysis. One way of doing this is to take field notes, but field notes may not be very reliable, depending on the aim of an investigation. While it may be possible to jot down individual diminutive forms, it is not possible to adequately write down longer stretches of discourse. The best way to record spoken material is to use audio equipment (e.g. tape recorder, dictaphone, or MD player). However, electronically recorded material must be transcribed, and transcription work can be extremely time consuming (cf., e.g., Henne/Rehbock 1979: 53ff., and Stubbs 1983: 222). A further problem concerning the collection of natural data is that the occurrence of diminutives in spoken discourse cannot be predicted which renders electronic recording a difficult task. It is for these reasons that naturally occurring spoken data have not been used in diminutive research in the past. Fortunately, today a number of large electronic text corpora are available containing natural spoken and written material. Examples include the British National Corpus, the Corpus of

13

14

Relative social status has also been referred to as 'power* (e.g. by Brown/Levinson 1987) or 'dominance' (e.g. by Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a). Cf., e.g., Kasper (2000) for discussion.

70 Spoken American English, the International Corpus of English, and the Bank of English. 13 By and large, however, these and similar corpora are more suitable for grammatical analysis. If they are tagged or coded, they are tagged or coded for grammar and not for pragmatics. Extracting pragmatic categories from the electronic corpora available is not a trivial task. Moreover, many variables relevant to pragmatic analysis, particularly to sociopragmatic analysis, cannot, as a rule, be controlled. So far, large electronic corpora have not been used in diminutive research to any significant extent. Dossena's (1998) study of -ie in Scottish Standard English is a rare exception. This author employs the unpublished Miller-Brown Corpus of Scottish English, which contains 250,000 words of spoken language recorded in and around Edinburgh in the late 1970s. 16 Yet smaller corpora, usually compiled by the researchers themselves, have been employed in some recent studies of pragmatic aspects of diminutives, e.g. in Sifianou (1992). Studies of this type concentrate predominantly on spoken discourse. Studies of naturally-occurring non-fictional written discourse also exist, but are rare by comparison. Among the few examples are Schneider (1992), who uses journalistic genres, and Schneider/Schneider (1991), who use among other sources, printed advertisements. 17 As large electronic corpora have only been available in the last few decades, and as recording facilities in general have been relatively poor in the past, natural data have not played a major role in the development of diminutive research. There is, however, a long history of using fictional material. In traditional linguistics, fictional material, mostly prose, has been used especially in the following three areas: a) historical and diachronic studies, b) stylistic investigations into diminutives in the literary oeuvre of individual writers, and c) contrastive analyses based on translations (cf. 2.1.3.). A recent investigation based on fictional material is Volek's (1987) monograph on diminutives as emotive signs (cf. 2.3.1.), in which semantic and pragmatic aspects are studied in a corpus of contemporary Russian plays. Plays have also been used repeatedly in pragmatics outside diminutive research, notably in speech-act based studies (cf., e.g., Burton 1980). While many reject the idea of using fictional dialogue in empirical pragmatics for its poeticity or artificiality, the proponents of this data type emphasise three advantages (cf. Schneider 1988: 114ff.). First, plays can be analysed immediately, whereas naturally occurring dialogues have to be transcribed first - a very time-comsuming task. Second, plays reflect all properties of naturally occurring discourse necessary for an adequate interpretation, otherwise audiences would not be able to follow the dialogue. Third, dramatic dialogue represents a competence model of dialogue, devoid of all accidental features of linguistic performance and the redundancies of naturally occurring conversation. Furthermore, plays provide crucial information about the relationship between the interactants, the situation, the discourse history and other aspects directly relevant to sociopragmatic analysis not easily accessible in the case of naturally occurring discourse. Admittedly, not all genres of drama are equally usable, 1 8 but at least

15

Detailed information about these and many other large electronic corpora of English can be accessed at . 16 The recordings can be accessed in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. 17 Cf. also Stríteská (1994) for a quantitative analysis of a 240,000-word-corpus of contemporary Czech prose in which children's literature is compared to literature for adults. >® Cf. Schneider (1988: 116) for criteria.

71 those plays generally referred to as conversation pieces (cf. Burton 1982) make useful material for pragmatic analyses, particularly for exploratory studies (cf., e.g., Short 1996: ch. 6 and 7). Needless to say, fictional material must be triangulated with other data types, notably with natural data. Researchers in empirical linguistics work with both types of data material, fictional and, increasingly, natural. In other branches of linguistics, however, neither type is used. Instead, researchers rely on their own intuitions about a language. Using intuitions, usually referred to as introspective or fabricated data, is characteristic of investigations conducted in a generative framework. In more general terms, fabricated data are used in deductive approaches. They are employed to illustrate linguistic phenomena rather than to find out about them. Material written for teaching purposes, including model dialogues, also belongs to this category. While fabricated data are used considerably more often in grammatical analysis, they are also used occasionally in pragmatic analysis. Wierzbicka's (1985b) cross-cultural study of diminutives is a case in point (cf. 2.3.2.). Studies of grammatical aspects of diminutives are often based on second-hand material, i.e. words or sentences found in textbooks or reference works. Some of these examples have a long history. For instance, many of the forms listed in Marchand (1969) for suffixes such as -let or -ling are already listed in Jespersen (1942), and all of the sample sentences quoted in the OED2 (1989) under 'diminutive' are the same as in the NED (1897). Fortunately, most of the dictionaries of English published in the past one or two decades include more recent examples, as they are based on large electronic corpora of contemporary speech and writing. This applies to learner dictionaries in particular. Grammar books based on corpora are also available for English. For many other languages, however, notably nonIndo-European languages, such sources do not exist. Thus, those researchers focusing on universal features of diminutives in a range of typologically different languages often have to resort to reference works which are quite old. For example, Stump (1993) took his material on Zulu from the sixth edition of a grammar book published more than seventy years ago (Doke 1930). Given the relative speed with which evaluative expressions in general and diminutive suffixes, in particular, seem to vanish and new ones appear (cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974: 249), data selection should be governed by the principle 'the newer the better'. Finally, the last type of data material to be mentioned here is experimental data. Experimental data are first-hand, empirical and non-fictional material, but do not occur naturally. They are elicited for research purposes (and, thus, arguably more artificial than fictional material). One advantage of this data type is that relative large samples of controlled and comparable data can be collected within a comparatively short time, e.g. by employing questionnaires, standardised interviews, or role play simulations.19 However, researchers wishing to elicit diminutive data are faced with a problem. While it seems possible to construe tasks for deriving diminutives from base words and for producing individual diminutive forms, 20 it seems difficult, if not impossible, to design role play situations which make the use of diminutives in spoken interaction predictable. By comparison, it seems easier to design reception tasks, e.g. for eliciting interpretations of diminutive forms. However, an

19 20

Cf., e.g., Kasper (2000) for an overview of instruments for data collection in empirical pragmatics. Cf., e.g., Svaib (1993), who uses naming tasks to study young children's use of English -iediminutives.

72 informal experiment with ten native speakers of English, originally intended as a pilot study, has shown that even college students majoring in a language subject are not able to distinguish between e.g. booklet and kinglet on the one hand, and inlet and outlet on the other hand. Mühlhäusler (1983: 77f.) reports on similar experiments with "a large number of native speakers of English", who were students and teachers of linguistics. His informants were unable to recognise the diminutive suffix -s in forms such as weewees, milkies, and cuddles·, many considered it a plural marker. Therefore, Mühlhäusler (1983: 89) concludes: As a general principle, it is proposed that those areas of language which are developmentally early are the least accessible to introspection and observation. This is particularly noticeable in the area of connotative meaning and non-referential language functions.

Thus, Mühlhäusler attributes the difficulties encountered in experimental work on diminutive suffixes to their ontogenetical status as pre- or protomorphological phenomena, a status which also serves to explain other irregularities and peculiarities of diminutives (cf. 2.2.4.2.). Due to the difficulties with experimental data, this data type is not used systematically in the present study. All other types, however, are used and combined in order to compensate their respective shortcomings. Details about the material on which the analyses in chapters 4 and 5 are based are provided in the following section.

3.5.3. The corpus of the present study The corpus on which the present study is based is a mixed corpus consisting of English language material of different types. Thus, it is possible to triangulate data, i.e. to compensate for the disadvantages of individual data types, and, more importantly, to avoid artefacts of data collection, such as focusing on features of diminutives which are particular to only one type of data.21 In the grammatical analysis of English diminutives presented in chapter 4, both primary and secondary data are used. One source of secondary data are textbooks and monographs on morphology, word-formation, lexicology, and semantics, another source are reference works, i.e. predominantly dictionaries and grammar books, most of which appeared in the 1980s (cf. 4.1. for bibliographical data). Among reference works, monolingual learner dictionaries are of particular value as they are based on large electronic text corpora including both written and spoken language, and also quote sentence-length examples; cf., e.g., the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987; COBI).22 The standard work A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language is also based on corpus material, viz. the Survey of English Usage corpus, the Brown Corpus, and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 33). This material is supplemented by primary data from 21 22

On the methodological concept of triangulation, cf., e.g., Stubbs (1983: 237f.) and Denzin (1988). Most of the original data for the present study were collected before 1995. In the meantime, dictionaries have been published which are based on considerably larger corpora, such as the 100million-word British National Corpus (cf. DCE3) or the over 300-million-word Bank of English (cf. COB2) (For information on these and other electronic corpora, cf. 3.5.2.).

73 newspaper articles (e.g. from The Guardian, The Times, and Time Magazine) and contemporary prose, and from the dialogical material primarily used in the pragmatic analysis. The data employed in the pragmatic analysis consist predominantly of naturallyoccurring and fictional material. The natural data are taken from three sources. These are the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (LLC = Svartvik/Quirk 1980), a collection of fifteen excerpts from everyday conversations (Crystal/Davy 1975), and an unpublished corpus of parent-child interactions, which were recorded in a private home between October 1988 and May 1990 (EDM).23 EDM represents the prototypical context associated with the use of diminutives, i.e. a type of situation in which diminutives (allegedly) occur with high frequency, but which is not easily accessible (cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974: 249). By contrast, diminutives seem to appear much less frequently in the LLC, which is the digitalised version of the spoken part of the Survey of English Usage, originally recorded at University College London in the 1960s and 1970s. These data are complemented by fictional material, consisting mainly of present-day drama, but also of dialogical passages taken from contemporary prose literature. Two plays in particular are examined extensively in the pragmatic analysis. These are Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1965) and Leigh's Abigail's Party (1983). These plays are especially suitable as they constitute complete interactions and provide sufficient information about the discourse history and the participants - information which is not normally available in naturally occurring discourse. Both plays are conversation pieces representing the type of everyday communication commonly referred to as party talk. The number of participants and the participant constellations, as well as some of the topics, events and conflicts are very similar in both plays. Leigh's piece differs from Albee's in three aspects. It is written in British and not in American English, it is almost twenty years younger, and it has been collectively developed from scratch by improvisation and is, thus, less artificial than the older play. Albee's piece, on other hand, is remarkable for containing a wide variety of different diminutive forms. Markers used in analytic forms include not only little, but also tiny, teensie and teensy-weensy (and also small and petite), whereas the markers used in synthetic forms include -iel-yl-ey (e.g. in nursie, sonny, and Missey), -let (e.g. in wifelet), -ette (in snoozette), and -poo (e.g. in barie-poo and Martha-poo). Furthermore, reduplications are used (e.g. Georgie-Porgie) as well as derivations from non-substantival bases (e.g. All rightie and Goodie). Whether this astounding variety is only found in fictional dialogue or an expression of the characters' originality and playfulness is an open question. In any case, in Leigh's play, which also contains a large number of diminutives, analytic forms including little clearly dominate. Finally, it must be stressed that the present investigation of diminutives is not a quantitative corpus analysis but a qualitative, exploratory study. However, the integrative approach formulated in this chapter and applied to the corpus described here in the following two chapters provides a framework for a more systematic analysis of larger corpora.

23

I am most grateful to Willis Edmondson for providing these unique data, for which the abbreviation EDM is used.

4. Grammatical aspects of English diminutives

The present chapter presents a grammatical study of diminutives in the analytical framework outlined in chapter 3. This study is based on the assumption that grammar is the system of language which interacts with the complementary domain of pragmatics, the use of language (cf. chapter 5.). The study aims at determining the linguistic devices for diminutive formation available in English and at describing their phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic properties. Section 4.1. provides an overview of the literature on English diminutives concentrating on the aspects relevant to the present analysis. It ends with a summary of the approach adopted in the description of synthetic and analytic diminutive formation in sections 4.2. and 4.3. Finally, section 4.4. characterises the relationship between these two formation types in English.

4.1. Some controversial issues The following discussion is based on recent studies of English diminutives1 as well as on surveys of the English language,2 grammars of English3 and standard works on English lexicology and word-formation.4 Some older studies of English diminutives are also included.' The discussion focuses on the following issues, all of which are controversial in the literature: 1) the status of diminutives in English, 2) the inventory of English diminutive suffixes, 3) the subclassification of diminutive suffixes, 4) historical variation, 5) productivity, and 6) alternative, i.e. non-suffixal, formation types. In particular, the following questions will be addressed: 1) What is the status of diminutives in English?, Which criteria are used in this assessment?, Which forms are considered? 2) How large is the inventory of English diminutive suffixes?, Which suffixes are considered diminutive suffixes?, Which criteria are used in this categorisation? 3) Are there any distinct subclasses of diminutive suffixes?, How can they be distinguished? 4) Has the inventory of diminutive suffixes undergone changes?, Which?, How can they be accounted ι Especially Mühlhäusler (1983), Poynton (1989), Würstle (1992), and Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: ch. 3.3.5.). 2 In particular Gramley/Pätzold (1992), also Strang (1968) and Leisi (1969). 3 Zandvoort (1969) and Quirk et al. (1985). - Mühlhäusler (1983) criticizes the inadequate treatment of English diminutive formation in linguistic studies and in reference works. He criticizes in particular that Leech/Svartvik (1975) ignores this subject completely: "No mention of diminutive endings was found in a grammar which one would have expected to cover this area of 'communicative competence', namely Leech/Svartvik's A communicative grammar of English (1975)." (Mühlhäusler 1983: 79). 4 Especially Marchand (1969), Hansen et al. (1982), Bauer (1983), also Urdang (1982) and others. 5 In particular, Rotzoll (1910) and Charleston (1960:120ff.).

75 for? 5) How productive are English diminutive suffixes?, How can the productivity of diminutive suffixes be measured?, Is the concept of productivity relevant to diminutive formation? 6) Are there any alternative linguistic means to express diminutive meaning in English?, Which?, How are they related to synthetic formation? The discussion ends with a summary of the approach adopted in sections 4.2. and 4.3. which deal with synthetic and analytic diminutive formation respectively.

4.1.1. The status of diminutives in English English is generally considered a language which does not have many diminutives, if any. For example, Jespersen (1948: 9) remarks, "It is worth observing, for instance, how few diminutives the language has and how sparingly it uses them." Jespersen claims that only few diminutive suffixes ( 'fondling-endings' in his terms) exist, and that they are not frequently used. He contrasts English with languages such as Italian, German, Russian, and Basque in which the suffixal type of diminutive formation is generally considered highly productive. Thus, Jespersen's judgement about the status of diminutives in English refers to prototypical diminutive forms exclusively. Similarly, Wierzbicka (1985b: 166), in her comparison of Polish and English, observes: "By contrast, in English, productive diminutive derivation hardly exists at all, despite the existence of isolated baby forms such as handies, doggie or birdie ..." Wierzbicka also explicitly refers to suffixed forms alone, claiming that they are almost non-existent in the English language. Even "baby forms" ending in -ie, which in principle she regards as diminutives, are classified as "isolated" formations (cf. 2.3.2.). In Turner's (1973) opinion, British English does not have any diminutives at all, while Scottish English is among the languages in which suffixal formation is productive. Turner (1973: 84) states "... a deficiency in our vocabulary, which lacks 'diminutives', the affective variants found in Scottish English (mousie, beastie, breastie) or Russian or German." These views are representative of the vast majority of authors writing on the subject. Two points are important here. First, only prototypical diminutives are considered, and second, the languages used for comparison are only those which possess prototypical diminutives. The question is, however, a) whether comparability is given, b) whether a purely form-oriented approach focusing on suffixal formation alone is adequate, and c) whether there is any empirical foundation for claims about productivity and frequency of use. In this context, it is important to note that English differs from other languages, most notably from those used for comparison in analyses of English diminutives, in a number of grammatical features, including word-formation processes. For instance, conversion is an extremely productive non-additive process in English (cf., e.g., Bauer 1983: 226),6 which does not play any role in languages such as Russian. This example shows that focusing on additive morphology alone leads to inaccurate conclusions. Leisi (1969: 88) aptly remarks that adopting the methods of traditional word-

6

Cf. also Aitchison (1994: 160f.), who observes that conversion is frequently employed to create nonce-formations in English conversation.

76 formation analysis in the description of English yields results which may be accurate in detail, but which fail to adequately describe English word-formation as a whole ("Beim Englischen kommt man, wenn man die Methode der traditionellen Wortbildungslehre anwendet, leicht zu Resultaten, die zwar im einzelnen richtig, fur die Charakteristik im ganzen falsch sind.")· A further problem is that the 'methods of traditional word-formation analysis' are not corpus-based. This explains why English diminutives have not been adequately analysed to date. If, however, a functional approach is adopted, it becomes clear that diminutive meaning is also, or even predominantly, expressed in English by linguistic means other than suffixation, in line with the general make-up of the English language. Regarding gradation, for instance, nobody would claim that English has no comparative forms, just because English comparatives are predominantly formed analytically and not synthetically, as e.g. in German. The same applies to diminutives. As Charleston (1960: 126) observes: In accord with the general analytic tendency in modem English, the English speaker tends to make a rather sparing use of endearing diminutives formed with suffixes, preferring the adjective little (...), tiny, tiny wee. wee, little tiny, etc.7

Considering the characteristics of English, analytic formation with little (and other, more expressive adjectives from the same word field) appears to be the more natural type of diminutive formation. It cannot, therefore, be ignored in the analysis of English diminutives. Furthermore, and more importantly, synthetic diminutive formation exists in English to an extent previously unacknowledged. There are a whole range of diminutive suffixes, which are, in fact, much more frequently used than generally assumed. For instance, Cannon's (1987) quantitative study, which is discussed in 4.1.5., demonstrates that diminutive suffixes are among the most productive affixes of present-day English.

4.1.2. The inventory of diminutive suffixes There is no agreement in the literature regarding which suffixes of English are diminutive suffixes and how many diminutive suffixes exist in the English language. - Wierzbicka (1985b: 166ff., quoted in 4.1.1.) claims that -ie is the only diminutive suffix of English. This view is shared by other authors (cf., e.g., Kufner 1962: 53). - According to Leisi (1969), the diminutive suffixes of English are -ie and -ette. - Hansen et al. (1982) list three suffixes, -ie/-y, -ette and -let. - Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994), who largely concentrate on -ie/-y, -ette and -let, also mention -s. - For American English, Galinsky (1952) identifies -ie/-y, -ette, -let and -sky. - Quirk et al. (1985) name only three diminutive suffixes, viz. -ette, -let and -ling. The suffixes -y/-ie and -s, on the other hand, are classified as 'familiarity markers' (cf. 4.1.3.).

7

The combination little tiny does not occur in my data. In my material, tiny always precedes little (cf. 4.3.).

77 - Some authors treat -y and -ie as two different suffixes, e.g. McArthur (1992), who lists -ette, -ie, -let, -ling, -y. - Apart from -y/-ie, -ette, -let and -ling, Zandvoort (1969) mentions -et and -kin. - In addition to these, Koziol (1967) includes -een, but does not consider -ling. - Mühlhäusler (1983), who is primarily concerned with -s, further mentions -ie, -kin and -poo(h). - In her investigation of address terms in Australian English, Poynton (1989) also analyses -y, -kin, -poo and -s, but she also includes -a, -ers, -le, -o and -pops. - Marchand (1969) provides a detailed description of ten different diminutive suffixes (fourteen including variants). - Apart from -ie and -ette, which he considers the only productive diminutive suffixes of English today, Leisi (1969) lists sixteen further suffixes. - Urdang (1982) identifies 32 word-fmal elements expressing diminutive meaning. - Charleston's (1960) inventory comprises 34 diminutive suffixes. - Finally, Rotzoll (1910) examines approximately 50 suffixes.8 As can be seen from this list, the suffix inventories identified by individual authors overlap to some extent, but there are also great divergences. These divergences result from the use of different criteria in deciding which suffixes should be included. Some of these criteria are explicitly mentioned in Leisi's account of English diminutive suffixes, while in most other accounts they are not mentioned at all. In all, Leisi (1969: 89) lists eighteen diminutive suffixes, which he subdivides into two groups based on their origin. The suffixes -ock, -incel, -ling, -kin, -ie, -en, -k, -t, -le, -el are classified as 'native' ("einheimisch"), the suffixes -el, -rei, -in, -on, -ot, -et, -let as 'foreign' ("fremd"). All of these suffixes, Leisi claims to be obsolete or integrated into the word stem. In his view, -ie constitutes the sole exception. It is still fully productive in Scottish English, whereas in British English it is only used in child language or as a 'familiar substitute for the second element in compounds' ("familiärer Ersatz eines zweiten Kompositionsgliedes"). The substitute function is illustrated by forms such as bookie and undies, derived from bookmaker and underclothes. However, such forms, according to Leisi, do not express 'genuine' ("eigentliche") diminutive meaning. Finally, Leisi adds -ette to his list of 'foreign' suffixes. At the same time, he observes that this suffix can express meanings other than diminutive meaning and that it is used almost exclusively in business language. In conclusion, in Leisi's view there is, strictly speaking, only one productive diminutive suffix in one particular variety of present-day English, viz. -ie in Scottish English. Interestingly, parameters such as register (e.g. child language or business language) and polysemy (as in -ette) are criteria used to exclude morphemes from the inventory of diminutive suffixes. Overall, a total of eighty-six different formatives are classified as diminutive suffixes of English. These are listed here in alphabetical order.

8

It is difficult to determine the exact number of diminutive suffixes analysed by Rotzoll as the distinction between alternative spellings/pronunciations and dialectal variants is not sufficiently clear.

78

-a, -acutus, -chik, -cule, -cuius, -die, -ee, -een, -el¡, -elj, -ella, -ellus, -em, -en, -eolus, -eon, -er, -erel, -ers, -et, -ette, -ey, -ickie, -icle, -icule, -iculus, -idium, -ie, -ikie, -ikin, -il, -illa, -ille, -ilio, -illus, -in, -ina, -incel, -ing, -iolus, -ion, -k, -kie, -kin, -kins, -l, -le, -let, -ling, -lot, -n, -nel, -nie, -no, -o, -ock, -ockie, -ol, -ole, -om, -on, -oon, -ot, -podicum, -poo(h), -pops, -r, -rei, -s, -sie, -sky, -sy, -t, -tie, -to, -ton, -ulat, -ulav -ule, -uleus, -ulous, -ulum, -ulus, -unculus, -usculus, -y. The enormous size of the suffix inventory9 suggests that English is a language rich in diminutives. However, this size results from the very heterogeneous composition of the inventory, which comprises a number of subclasses of different status. These subclasses are analysed in the following section.

4.1.3. Subclasses of diminutive suffixes The 86 formatives found in the literature (cf. 4.1.2.) may be considered the total number of word-final elements which express (or expressed) diminutive meaning in English, but they do not represent the inventory of diminutive suffixes in present-day English, the focus of the present study. The first step in drawing up such a present-day inventory is to omit two irrelevant subclasses, the first being that subclass consisting of elements which are (or were) diminutive suffixes of other languages, and which entered the English language in loan words but never acquired the status of word-formation suffixes in English. The largest group within this first subclass consists of Latin suffixes. Together with their anglicised variants, they account for almost one third of the complete list. These are: a) the suffixes with -ul- (-ulus, -ulat, ula2, -ulum; -cuius, -acutus, -iculus, -unculus, -usculus) and the anglicised variants -ule, -cule, -icule, -icle as well as -ulous, -uleus·,10 b) the suffixes with -II- (-illus, -ilia, -ille, -ilio; -ellus, -ella);'1 c) -eolus, -iolus; -idium, -podicum. The -us suffixes (along with a number of Italian and Spanish suffixes) are dealt with in Rotzoll (1910: 88ff.) under the heading "Entlehnte lateinische und romanische Deminutive mit Formantien, die im Englischen nie deminutive Kraft gewannen" ('Borrowed Latin and Romance diminutives including formatives which never acquired diminutive force in English') (cf. also Charleston 1960: 121). The remaining suffixes of Latin origin are listed by Urdang (1982), whose aim is to identify all word-final elements in English and their (origi-

9

10

11

The number of diminutive suffixes listed here is extremely high compared to the total of all suffixes of English. For example, Cannon (1987) identifies 98 different suffixes (not counting 'terminal combining forms'), and the DCE2 lists 161 'word endings'. In natural science, -ule and -cule are used today to coin technical terms, but as such formations do not express any affective meaning, they are not considered diminutives (cf. Charleston 1960: 121; cf. also Urdang 1982). This subgroup overlaps with diminutives of Southern Romance origin.

79 nal) meaning. None of these elements have acquired the status of an English diminutive suffix. The second major subclass consists of diminutive suffixes, productive at different times in the history of English, but not used or perceived as diminutive suffixes today. This group comprises suffixes from Proto-Germanic, Old English, Old French and Middle English, which are today obsolete. These are, among others, -ina; -en, -incel; -ol, -oon, -ot, -rei. These suffixes are examined in detail in Rotzoll (1910) (and also in most surveys of the history of English, cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974, Strang 1970).12 It is worth noting that some Middle English suffixes were used to express both diminutive and augmentative meaning (e.g. -oon; cf. Rotzoll 1910:48ff.). The omission of these two subclasses does not pose any problems. However, problems occur in deciding which of the remaining suffixes are still used and perceived as diminutive suffixes today. On this point, grammarians and scholars of word-formation diverge. The differences between individual inventories documented in 4.1.2. are largely based on diverging assessments of this issue. Before the criterion of current use and perception as diminutive suffixes is used to exclude further subclasses or individual suffixes, the list can be shortened on purely formal grounds. First, spelling variants of the same suffix can be treated as one suffix. This applies to -ie, -y, -ey and unstressed -ee (as in bootee), which all represent the suffix /i/. These variants are summarised as {IE} (cf. 4.2.1.). Second, the list includes a number of suffix combinations consisting of two suffixes which also appear alone. This concerns -ock+ie and its variants -ick+ie, -s+ie/-s+y, -er+s, -kin+s and -ikin, a combination of -ie and -kin (cf. 4.2.4.2., 4.2.5.1., 4.2.5.2., and 4.2.7.1.). Furthermore, a number of elements can be omitted which are not suffix combinations, but extensions of -ie, viz. -die, -nie, -tie, -kie and -ikie (cf. Rotzoll 1910: 209ff.). Thus, the complete list is reduced to the following eighteen suffixes: -a, -chik, -een, -er, -et, -ette, -ie, -ing, -kin, -le, -let, -ling, -o, -ock, -poo(h), -pops, -s, -sky. Of these suffixes, five will not be considered, as they are not attested in my data. These are: - the two suffixes of Slavic origin, -chik and -sky, which are (or were) used in American English (cf. Galinsky 1952, Urdang 1982); - the suffix -et, historically related to -ette and -let, which is listed in surveys of English word-formation or grammar until the 1960s (cf., e.g., Marchand 1969, Zandvoort 1969); - the suffixes -ing, also included in -ling, and -ock, both classified as diminutive suffixes of Modern English in older publications (cf., e.g., Rotzoll 1910). The remaining thirteen suffixes will be analysed in detail in 4.2. To this list, -pegs is added, which is not discussed anywhere in the literature, but found in my corpus (cf. 4.2.6.3.). Only Charleston (1960: 125) mentions in passing the form toothy-pegs as an example of "non-rhyming extensions", but she does not comment on this form. The suffixes considered diminutive suffixes in the present study belong to three different classes established by Quirk et al. (1985) in their appendix on word-formation, viz. affixes

12

Cf., e.g., Höge (1910) and Tmka (1956) for detailed studies of diminutive suffixes in Old and Middle English.

80 for diminutives, affixes for hypocoristics, and familiarity markers. However, these classes, which are referred to in different places, are not clearly defined and distinguished.13 The suffixes -ette, -let and -ling are listed under suffixes used to derive concrete denominal nouns (1985: 1549). In this context, the authors refer to so-called 'familiarity markers', defined elsewhere as "types of abbreviation with affixation that have in common a highly informal tone and a mode of referring that indicates close community with (together with familiar, and often affectionate, knowledge of) what is referred to" (1985: 1584).14 This class includes -ie, -o, -er and -s. In this context, Quirk et al. also mention "other affixes for diminutives and analogous 'pet' forms (also known as hypocoristics)" [original emphasis]. This formulation implies that familiarity markers constitute one type of diminutive or hypocoristic suffixes. Here the authors list as examples of diminutive/hypocoristic suffixes -let and -ette as well as mini- "and a few others". Elsewhere in their discussion of familiarity markers the authors refer to "other such informal affixes", but no examples are given. Arguably, -poo(h), -pops and -pegs can be classified as such informal affixes. The discussion in Quirk et al. (1985) shows the difficulties in classifying expressive word-formation devices. It is clear that these devices constitute an area of related phenomena which are not easily distinguished. More importantly, the discussion suggests that the class of 'informal affixes' is an open class. This issue is addressed in the next section (4.1.4.).

4.1.4. Historical variation The discussion in 4.1.3. shows that a large number of diminutive suffixes from the complete list found in the literature (cf. 4.1.2.) is obsolete today. Those suffixes had currency in a certain period, but were then replaced by other suffixes. In other words, the inventory of diminutive suffixes is subject to historical change, which appears to take place more rapidly than in other areas of language. This point can be illustrated by looking at three older publications, chosen at random. These are Key (1856), Chambers (1876), and Whitney (1899), together covering the second half of the 19th century. For instance, Key lists -em and -ing as diminutive suffixes, which are not found in the two more recent publications by Chambers and Whitney. Key and Chambers list -el, which is not found in Whitney. Chambers and Whitney include -let, which is not included in Key, the oldest source. Finally, -ie is mentioned only by Whitney, the most recent of the three sources. All sources mention -kin, -ling and -ock, but none of them includes -ette. Although -let was used as early as the 17th century to derive diminutives from English nouns, a large number of derivations was formed only in the course of the 19th century (cf. Strang 1970: 90).15 Presumably, this explains why Key (1856) does not include this suffix. 13

14

15

Cf. Koll-Stobbe's (1994) criticism of the unsystematic treatment of word-formation in this comprehensive standard work on English grammar. Cf. Leisi's (1969: 89) notion of a 'familiar substitute for the second element in compounds', referred to in 4.1.2. Strang does not only refer to lexicalised formations, but also mentions "innumerable nonceformations".

81

Stressed -ette appeared in the late 19th century but did not gain currency until the 20th century (cf. 4.2.2.)· It is for this reason that -ette is not mentioned in either of the three sources. Key, Chambers, and Whitney seem to agree that -kin, -ling and -ock formed the core of the inventory of diminutive suffixes in the 19th century. In the 20th century, -ock is not included in synchronic descriptions of present-day English diminutives after 1960. While Charleston (1960: 123) still mentions this suffix, she remarks that it only occurs in more conservative dialects. Marchand (1969) does not list -ock as a diminutive suffix. These observations illustrate that the inventory of diminutive suffixes is an open class, which is subject to constant and rapid change.16 With reference to Rotzoll (1910), who examines such changes,17 Charleston (1960: 121) offers the following explanation: The findings of the author go to confirm the theory that the makers (i.e. speakers and writers) of a language are constantly discarding old words that have become faded, wom thin, weakened by constant use, and adopting instead new words and new formations which are felt to be more vital, alive, and hence effective. Since most of these diminutives were at one time undoubtedly emotional and affective, we may hazard the opinion that their emotional force gradually wore so thin that only the "core of meaning" remained, surrounded by no "aura of emotional association".

Given the dynamics in expressive word-formation (and other areas of expressive language as well), it is important to look at contemporary language material. Often, examples of diminutive forms quoted in the literature on word-formation can be traced back over a century, being copied over and over again (cf. 3.5.2.). Also, recent descriptive and applied work is based on relatively outdated accounts of English diminutives as, e.g., Würstle's contrastive study of diminutives in German prose and English and French translations (cf. Würstle 1992: 85ff.). At the same time, attention is rarely paid to recent developments. It has been pointed out, for instance, that -i and -o have become highly productive in German in recent years, as in Schiaffi, Fundi, Reato, etc. (cf. Linke et al. 1991: 66, and Féry 1997b). However, such formations are not mentioned in Wellmann's (1975) comprehensive work on word-formation in German nouns. Therefore, up-to-date accounts of recent developments in diminutive formation are a desideratum. Finally, the persistence of outdated examples and obsolete suffixes in descriptions of English word-formation in general and in descriptions of English diminutives in particular is due to the fact that unsuitable data are often used, if empirical material is used at all. Traditionally, only written sources were employed (often older fiction), since authentic oral sources were not available for technical reasons. Even large corpora of contemporary English available today include written language exclusively (e.g. Brown, LOB, FROWN, FLOB) or predominantly (only ten per cent of the BNC consist of oral language).18 Also,

16

17

18

While the suffixes change, the concepts expressed through diminutives remain the same; cf., e.g., sofiling and softie, coined at different times to express largely the same notion. The title of Rotzoll's book is Die Deminutivbildungen im Neuenglischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Dialekte ('Diminutive formations in Modem English, focusing in particular on dialects'). However, the focus of her work is expressed more clearly in the original title of her dissertation as submitted in 1908, Das Aussterben alt- und mittelenglischer Deminutivbildungen im Neuenglischen ('The extinction of Old and Middle English diminutive formations in Modern English·). These corpora are described in Aijmer/Altenberg (1991: 315ff.).

82 corpora of spoken English are rather prescriptive, including only language produced by educated speakers and mostly discourse types other than casual conversation (this is at least partially true of the London-Lund Corpus; cf. Svartvik/Quirk 1980). In other words, what is not available and what has not been used in analyses of English diminutives are data from those discourse types in which a high frequency of diminutives (including a high number of nonce-formations) can be expected according to the literature on diminutives, namely parent-child interactions, intra-family conversations, and party talk, etc. This point is also made by Pinsker (1974: 249) who formulates a position similar to Charleston's position quoted above: ... die meisten typischen Deminutivsuffixe dürften aber einzelsprachlich immer wieder neu entste- hen, sind eine Zeit modern und hochproduktiv - aber wenig belegt, weil sie vorwiegend in der Kinderstube vorkommen - verlieren durch Abnützung ihren Gefühlswert und sterben wieder aus. (... presumably, however, most of the typical diminutive suffixes are created anew over and over again in individual languages, are fashionable and highly productive for some time - but rarely attested, since they predominantly occur in the nursery - loose their emotional value by wear and tear and become extinct again. - Translation mine, KPS.)

Even though it is an inaccurate cliché that diminutives are used only in the nursery, Pinsker addresses an important point here, which is crucial both methodologically and theoretically to the study of diminutives. High productivity of diminutive suffixes and high frequencies of diminutive use can be observed in those discourse types which have not been observed. This issue is further discussed in the following section (4.1.5.).

4.1.5. Productivity Authors who state that synthetic diminutive formation does not exist or hardly exists in present-day English (cf. 4.1.1.) claim that the available suffixes are not very productive, if at all. For example, Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 112) write, with reference also to -ie: "The productivity of diminutive formation rules is low." In most cases, however, such claims are based on subjective judgements and traditional stereotypes, not on empirical research.19 At the beginning of his statistical study of English word-formation, Cannon observes that stereotypical assumptions prevail in the discussion of word-formation in general and in particular in the debate on the productivity of word-formation processes. Therefore, Cannon's aim is to contrast "impressions, intuitions, and general feelings" with "solid tangible data" (Cannon 1987: xi). He writes (Cannon 1987: xii):

19

Cf. also Bauer's (1983: 100) criticism of the concept of 'semi-productivity*. - Following the discussion in 4.1.4., it must be emphasised that diminutives seem to be especially productive in those domains and discourse types which have been notoriously understudied to date (cf. also Mühlhäusler 1983). In this context, the reader is referred to Plag et al. (1999), the only study to my knowledge which demonstrates empirically that productivity can only be determined relative to particular domains and discourse types.

83 These data demonstrate that lexical comments about Present-Day English in current histories of the language are omissive and out of date, as are most morphological comments in other sources.

Cannon's findings contradict the assumption that productive synthetic diminutive formation does not exist in contemporary English. For instance, -y, -ette and -let are among the most productive suffixes of English today. However, it must be emphasised that Cannon studied only lexicographical material, i.e. material which does not include many, if not most, of the diminutive forms used in everyday conversation. Thus, Gramley and Pätzold (1992:30) comment on Cannon's results: It has to be bome in mind, however, that native suffixes as -y or -ish are likely to be more productive than suggested by Cannon's list, although not all are recorded because they often appear in nonce formations in the spoken language ...

In other words, Gramley and Pätzold address the fundamental data problem of diminutive research mentioned in 4.1.4. Lexicographical reference works do not include diminutive forms as these are not new lexemes, but rather nonce formations, or, more appropriately, 'new non-lexicalised formations'.20 As a rule, only lexicalised diminutives are entered into dictionaries.21 Consider also Gramley and Pätzold's (1992: 45) remark concerning the status of expressive forms:22 Most new meanings and new formations are created on the spur of the moment and are unlikely to be recorded in dictionaries. Frequently used word-formation elements are non-, megaani semi-, as well as the suffixes -y, -like and -wise, (...).

At this point, the question must be raised whether the concept of productivity, a central concept in word-formation, is relevant to diminutive formation at all. If word-formation is understood as lexeme formation, and productivity as the potential for creating new lexemes in a narrow sense, then the question must be answered in the negative. In this case, it appears more adequate to consider diminutive formation as word-form formation outside inflection or as lexeme modification in its own right and not to speak of productivity, but rather of frequency of use. Needless to say, lexicographical material cannot be used to establish the frequency of use of diminutive suffixes. What is needed are corpora of spoken discourse. As pointed out in 4.1.4., the corpora available today are suitable only to a limited extent, since they do not, as a rule, include those registers, interactant constellations and discourse types needed for diminutive research.2^ Casual conversation and familiar or intimate everyday communication, the specific domain of diminutive use,24 is often excluded from existing corpora of English. As Gramley and Pätzold (1992: 45) observe about affixes such as mega- or -ie: 20 21

22

23

24

I am grateful to Ingo Plag for suggesting this term. It is not true, as Sifianou (1992: 157) claims, that English diminutives, unlike Greek diminutives, have separate entries in dictionaries. Cf. also the detailed discussion of methodology including dictionary-based productivity measures in Plag (1999). The situation has improved since the original version of the present book was written. Meanwhile, e.g., the Corpus of Spoken American English is available (cf. 3.5.2.). The term 'domain' is used here in the sociolinguistic sense, as established by Fishman (1964) (cf. Mioni 1987).

84 "Note that few of the above listed categories and items are the exclusive fonction of the spoken medium, but rather of medium and informality together." Even though diminutives are frequently used in informal spoken English, they seem to escape the attention of language users. Mühlhäusler (1983), who observes this problem of perception in interviews with non-expert informants as well as in the literature on grammar, claims that adult speakers are not aware of concepts which are acquired in early years to the same extent that they are aware of concepts acquired in later stages of language development. 25 This also applies to "those who are in the business of proposing linguistic theories", and, in particular, to "the perception of non-referential dimensions of language" (Mühlhäusler 1983: 76f.). Thus, the alleged unproductivity of synthetic diminutive formation in contemporary English is an artefact, which can be attributed to inadequate methods, ünsuitable data, and a problem of perception. Finally, suffixed diminutives seem to be used with differing frequencies in different varieties of English. Many authors claim that -ie is "more productive" in Scottish English than in English English (cf., e.g., Leisi 1969: 180 and Turner 1973: 84; also Nieuwenhuis 1985). Others claim that in Australian English, -ie and a number of further suffixes are used with high frequencies (cf., e.g., Mühlhäusler 1983, Wierzbicka 1985b, Poynton 1989). Empirical support for these claims is, however, lacking.

4.1.6. Non-suffixal formation Since diminutives are predominantly considered a morphological category, alternative formation types are usually ignored. From a functional perspective, however, this is a reductionist view. In 4.1.1., it was pointed out that the general analytic make-up of present-day English is reflected in analytic diminutive formation. Strang (1968: 136ff.), who proposes a positional classification of English adjectives, maintains that unstressed little, which is used to form English diminutives, and purely quantifying little occupy different positions in the noun phrase (cf. 4.3. for detailed discussion): "It is often said that English lacks diminutives; in fact little (position 2) is a diminutive as contrasted with little (position 3)." (Strang 1968: 138). Prefixation is another option. Quirk et al. (1985: 1584) classify mini- as an affix for diminutive formation. Cannon (1987) finds that 'initial combining forms' (ICFs) are more productive than genuine prefixes, 2 6 and that micro- is the most productive ICF in Modern English. However, micro- seems to be used exclusively to form technical terminology. It does not express diminutive meaning. Also, it seems that mini- is usually used in a nonaffective quantitative meaning. 2 7 Therefore, prefixes and ICFs are not considered in the present study.

25

26 27

Pinsker's (1974: 249) observation that diminutives occur in the nursery (cf. 4.1.4.) is accurate in that diminutives are acquired and used in early childhood (cf., e.g., Clark 1993; cf. also 2.2.4.2.). However, they are not used exclusively among children or in caregiver-child interactions, as Mühlhäusler's (1983: 78f.) data material shows. For a discussion of 'combining forms' cf. Bauer (1983: 213f.). Numerous recent formations with mini- and micro- are found in Sinclair et al. (1991).

85 Truncation and reduplication are closely connected to suffixal formation. Thus, polysyllabic nouns are truncated when -ie (or other suffixes such as -a, -er, -s) are attached, cf., e.g., Lizzie, hankie, and commie. The suffix -ie is also involved in reduplication, cf., e.g., Annie-Pannie and piggie-wiggie. Poynton (1989) classifies reduplicative and suffixal formations as 'augmented diminutive forms', while unsuffixed clippings are classified as 'truncated diminutive forms'. In her functional approach, Poynton also considers the repetitive type of reduplication (e.g. Joe-Joe) as a means of diminutive formation in English. Zandvoort (1969: 355) mentions not only synthetic and analytic diminutives, but also inherent diminutives (cf. 1.1.4. and 1.2.1.3.), which he calls 'implied'. For instance, he considers cottage an example, which he compares to its Dutch equivalent huisje, a prototypical form derived from huis 'house' by suffixation. Thus, inherent diminutives can be established interlingually, but they can also be established intralingually. In spoken discourse, they can be used like explicit, i.e. formally marked, diminutives, either ironically or in contrast to the undiminished expression (e.g. this is only a cottage, not a house).

4.1.7. Summary Contrary to popular belief, present-day English has diminutives, which are frequently created on the spur of the moment and frequently used not only "in the nursery" but also in informal everyday communication. English diminutives are formed analytically or synthetically. Inherent diminutives also exist, but play only a marginal role in the present study. The remaining sections of this chapter examine the two major types of diminutives. Section 4.2. provides an overview of the peculiarities of the diminutive suffixes used in English today. Fourteen suffixes are analysed in detail. The analysis also involves truncation, reduplication, and multiple suffixation. In section 4.3., the analytic formation type is investigated. While the focus is on little, other adjectives from the word-field SMALL are also considered, especially small, tiny, and wee. Finally, section 4.4. addresses the relationship between analytic and synthetic formation in present-day English.

4.2. Synthetic diminutive formation

This section provides a survey of fourteen diminutive suffixes of present-day English (cf. 4.1.3.). These are, in alphabetical order, {A}, {EEN}, {ER}, {ETTE}, {IE}, {KIN}, {LE}, {LET}, {LING}, {0}, {PEG}, {POO}, {POP}, and {S}.*» The aim of this section is to describe the rules and restrictions governing diminutive formation with these suffixes, i.e. in analysing the properties of the suffixes and the phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic features of input and output forms. The present study is exploratory and qualitative. While empirical non-intuitive material is used in the analysis, quantifications are outside the scope of this study. The primary con-

28

Morphological representation is used in the remaining sections of this chapter.

86

cern is to outline the overall picture. Therefore, each suffix deserves a more detailed description than can possibly be given within the limitations of the present chapter and should include a statistical analysis. Any quantitative account of synthetic diminutives must be based on data from large corpora of spoken discourse, particularly of informal familiar speech, comprising a representative amount of new non-lexicalised formations. The following analysis starts with those suffixes which are considered in the literature as the most productive diminutive suffixes in English today (cf. 4.1.2.), viz. {IE} (4.2.1.), {ETTE} (4.2.2.) and {LET} (4.2.3.). In 4.2.4., the originally Germanic suffixes {KIN} and {LING} and Irish English {EEN} are examined, while 4.2.5. deals with the suffixes sometimes referred to as 'familiarity markers'. In particular, these are {S}, {ER}, {O}, {A}, and {LE}. The three

-initial suffixes {POO}, {POP}, and {PEG}, rarely discussed in the literature, are investigated in 4.2.6. Finally, multiple suffixation and competing diminutives are analysed in section 4.2.7., and the findings of the suffix studies in this section are summarized in 4.2.8.

4.2.1. {IE} The suffix discussed in this section consists of a short unstressed vowel and has the phonological shape l\l. There are three different spellings for this suffix, namely , , and .29 The morphological representation {IE} is chosen to avoid confusion with homonymous suffixes spelled . These include {Y,} used to derive adjectives from nouns (e.g. sexy), and {Y2} used to derive approximative forms predominantly from adjectives (e.g. pinky as in a pinky purple).30 The graphological form is considered the original spelling. It is the preferred form in Scottish English and Australian English,31 while is preferred in English English and American English. The third variant, , usually appears in diminutives derived from base words ending in , e.g. lovey and wifey (also attested as lovie and wifie), but it also appears in diminutives derived from other bases, e.g. Miss > Missey. Despite varietal and combinatorial preferences, there are no strict spelling rules. Generally speaking, , and seem to occur in free variation. All variants may occur in tokens of the same word; cf., e.g., Charlie, Charly, and Charley. Alternative spellings of the same diminutive even occur in texts produced by the same writer. For instance, the (unpublished) EDM transcripts of parent-child interactions used in this study include the following variants: Charlie/Charly, Blackie/Blacky, bottie/botty, Whitie/Whitey and lovie/lovey. Competing realisations of the same word also appear in published books, as, e.g., in Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, which contains Goody, and Goodie. (ALB 46 and 74) as realisations of adjectival turn-size global assessments of the situation. 29

30

For completeness' sake, is mentioned as a fourth variant, which is, however, no longer in use. It occurs in historical diminutives such as coachee and bargee, and in the lexicalised forms bootee and coatee for baby garments (according to COD6, coatee can also refer to a woman's coat) (cf. Harder 1964, Marchand 1969: 268, and Bauer 1983: 244).

{Y2} competes with {ISH} as in pinkish. Arguably, these two morphemes are adjectival diminutive suffixes. They will, however, not be further discussed in the present study. 31 Cf. Dossena (1998) and Wierzbicka (1985b).

87 According to Leisi (1969: 89), {IE} is the only "native" diminutive suffix of contemporary English which is neither integrated nor obsolete. For many scholars, it is the prototypical diminutive suffix of the English language, for some even the only one (cf., e.g., Kufher 1962: 53, and Wierzbicka 1985b). Wierzbicka's claim that formations with {IE} are rare is unfounded. In fact, only few restrictions constrain the choice of base words in the derivation with this suffix. Based on analyses of the COBUILD corpus, Sinclair et al. (1991: 188) observe: "-y ... combines with almost any noun or name". Moreover, Cannon's statistical study (1987) reveals that {IE} is not only the most productive English diminutive suffix, but actually one of most productive suffixes of present-day English. Among the 96 most productive suffixes and suffix combinations, -y occupies the sixth and -ie the twelfth position, together they occupy position four (Cannon 1987: 185). While the productivity of {IE} is generally acknowledged, its status as a diminutive suffix is controversial. Marchand (1969), for instance, considers it a hypocoristic suffix, whereas Quirk et al. (1985) classify it as a 'familiarity marker'. Both terms are ill-defined and not easily distinguished from 'diminutive' (cf. 1.2.2.). While the term 'familiarity marker' refers to suffixes which indicate informal style and/or a relationship between the interactants which is characterised by social closeness, the term 'hypocoristic' usually refers to suffixes conveying positive attitudes, such as endearment. Thus, either term highlights only one aspect of the complex concept of diminution. As {IE} can be employed to express appreciation or depreciation, it cannot be referred to as a hypocoristic suffix and is, therefore, best defined as a diminutive suffix which usually indicates familiarity between speaker and hearer, and may express appreciation or depreciation, depending on the respective context, i.e. particularly the base word and the situation. According to Marchand (1969: 298Í), the earliest formations with {IE} date back to fifteenth century Scotland. However, the history of this suffix is unknown. Various theories have been proposed about its origin. For instance, Urdang (1982: 137) suggests that the suffix goes back to unattested proto-Romance *-itta, adopted in Scottish Middle English, whereas Charleston (1960: 123) claims that -ie originates in Old English -ig. Marchand (1969: 298), however, who rejects such claims as speculations, assumes "that Ν arose spontaneously as an expressively motivated morpheme". He shares Jespersen's position that Ν has "symbolic value" (cf. Jespersen 1933). Similarly, proponents of natural morphology maintain that Ν is the prototypical vowel signalling diminutive meaning (cf. Mayerthaler 1981: 98ff.)." Finally, Pinsker (1974: 249) argues that the 'endearing symbolic value' ("kosender Symbolwert") of this suffix originates in parent-child interaction. Indeed, irrespective of its alleged sound symbolism and actual historical origin, {IE} is acquired very early in childhood (cf., e.g., Svaib 1993). All diminutives formed with {IE} are bisyllabic nouns stressed on the first syllable, thus conforming to the 'trochaic ideal' (cf. Féry 1997a).33 Base words may be monosyllabic or polysyllabic. Examples of diminutives derived from monosyllabic words are birdie, handy, and Johnny. If, however, base words are polysyllabic, they are truncated. As a rule, the syllable carrying primary stress is retained; cf., e . g f o o t b a l l > footie, daffodil > daffy, and

32

33

Cf., however, Bauer (1997) for a contrary position based on evidence from over fifty genetically unrelated languages. Cf., however, Lappe (2002) for a more differentiated view.

88

navigator > navvy. Australian > Aussie, in which the first, unstressed syllable is retained, is an exception. As can be seen from the examples, the spelling of output forms follows the general rules of English orthography. Thus, consonant graphemes after short vowels are doubled before {IE}; cf., e.g., Bobby, daddy, doggie, potty, and Lizzie. This rule does not apply to those words in which consonants follow short vowels represented by digraphs, as in, e.g.,footie and cooky. There are no morphological constraints on the input. Base words can be monosyllabic or polysyllabic simple words (e.g. dog > doggie, tobacco > baccy), suffixed words (e.g. evacuee > vacky), compounds (e.g. lipstick > lippie), or lexical phrases (e.g. conscientious objector > conshie). The last example shows that the spelling of the diminutive forms is based On the pronunciation rather than the orthography of the base word which may reflect historical pronunciation or etymology. If the input is pluralised, then the diminutive is also pluralised; cf., e.g., underclothes > undies, moving pictures > movies, and Wellington boots > wellies.24 Of all morphological input categories, the most frequent ones are monosyllabic simplex words and compounds. As truncation is a purely phonological process, it is not justifiable to treat diminutives derived from these two input categories in different ways, as in some traditional accounts. For instance, Leisi (1969: 89) claims that forms such as birdie and doggie are essentially different from forms such as nightie and footie, derived from nightgown and football. His observation, that in diminutives of the latter type the suffix merely replaces the right-hand component of the compounds, is superficial. If this observation were true, the diminutive derived from, e.g., underclothes, should be *underies. In other words, since truncation does not follow morpheme boundaries, Leisi's observation applies only to those compounds in which the left-hand component is monosyllabic and, therefore, retained. Regarding word class, input forms can be nouns (e.g. pig > piggy), adjectives (e.g. short > shorty), verbs (e.g. weep > weepie), adverbs (e.g. alright > alrightie), and, arguably, exclamations (e.g. Lord! > Lordyl). Overwhelmingly, however, the base words are nouns. Adjectives are also used frequently, but verbs, adverbs, and exclamations occur extremely rarely. While, as a rule, all diminutives formed with {IE} are nouns, irrespective of the word class of the base, very few exceptions exist in which the base word is not a noun and word class is retained. A standard textbook example, also found in my data, is the adjective comfy < comfortable, as in The waiting room at Vigneron 's is comfy. (WAT 168). According to Zandvoort (1969: 377), comfy is the only adjectival diminutive formed with {IE}. Other exceptions in my data are goody/goodie (ALB 46 and 74) and all rightie (ALB 54 and 126), used as turn-size assessments of the situation (cf. 5.5.). Needless to say, goodie can also be used as a noun, referring to a person as the opposite of baddie, or (usually in its plural form) as a synonym of sweets. Diminutives with {IE} can be derived from common nouns as well as proper nouns. Among proper nouns, first names occur much more frequently than last names. As a rule,

34

By contrast, singular and plural forms of the most common types of German diminutives, i.e. derivations with {CHEN} and {LEIN}, are not formally distinguished.

89 diminutives can be formed from all first names, for both males and females, e.g. Johnny, Bobby, Ritchie, Billy, Freddie and Annie, Rosie, Susie, Katie, Betty. While such forms are used extensively in everyday communication, notably private conversation (cf. 5.1.), diminutives formed from last names occur much less frequently as their use is restricted to specific domains. Specifically, they are employed among students referring to their teachers (cf. Charleston 1960: 126), or in the media to refer to public figures such as politicians, artists or sportsmen (cf. Poynton 1989). Examples include Monty < Montgomery, Boney/Bonny < Bonaparte, Fergie < (Sarah) Ferguson, and Platty < Piatt (English soccer player). Diminutives from polysyllabic first names are derived from their truncated forms, which can be used as short names; cf., e.g., Frederick > Fred > Freddie. They are formed from short names even if unstressed syllables are retained; cf., e.g., Albert > Bertie. If more than one short name exists for the same name, diminutives can be formed from each short name; cf., e.g., Robbie/Bobby < Robert, and Lizzie, Betty and Bessie < Elizabeth. If changes occur in the short name, they are retained in the diminutive form; cf., e.g., Katherine > Kate > Katie, Thomas > Tom > Tommy. Harry < Harold, despite the existence of Hal, is an exception. If short names are open syllables, they cannot be suffixed; cf., e.g., *Diey or *Suey. Joey, however, is a counter example.35 Particular semantic classes are prominent where common nouns are the base words. These are, in particular, nouns referring to persons, nouns referring to animals, and nouns referring to concrete objects. Diminutives denoting abstract nouns are not found in the present data. Among nouns referring to persons, the following subclasses can be empirically established: kinship terms, generic terms, professionalisms, and affiliative terms. Diminutives formed from kinship terms include mommy, daddy, granny, auntie, hubby, wifie and sonny, i.e. they refer to the closest family members and relatives, while diminutives formed from generic terms include buddy, chappie and kiddies, in which case reference is mostly to male persons and mixed groups, but not to female persons. Diminutives derived from professionalisms are less commonly found. Typical examples often quoted in the literature are goalie, newsie, and bookie, used in informal language as abbreviations for the compounds goalkeeper, newsagent, and bookmaker. In my corpus, nursie is the only nonce formation derived from a professionalism. Finally, diminutive forms of affiliative terms comprise two subgroups, first derivatives from terms expressing national or regional membership (e.g. Aussie < Australian, Newfie < Newfoundlander), and second derivations from terms expressing ideological membership (e.g. commy < communist, veggie < vegetarian).36 Diminutives referring to persons can also be derived from nouns which do not refer to persons; cf., e.g., lovey and druggy. In general, diminutives referring to persons can be used as appreciative or depreciative terms. The intended reading or understanding essentially depends on the context in which such forms are used, notably on the relationship between speaker and addressee (cf. 5.1.). Animal nouns used as input refer to creatures commonly found in the environment of the speaker, mostly to domestic animals. Prototypically, such nouns are monosyllabic basic

For further details, cf. Lappe (2002). 36 Needless to say, veggie is also used as the diminutive of vegetable. In this case, however, it is usually used in its plural form.

90 level terms; cf., e.g., the diminutives doggy, piggy, duche, horsie, sheepie, birdie and fishy. While {LET}, when attached to animal terms, adds the semantic feature [+young] (cf. 4.2.3.), {IE} adds the feature [+little], meaning 'small and sweet' (cf. also 4.3.3.). For example, the form piglet refers to a non-adult member of its species, whereas piggie communicates in the first instance the speaker's usually positive attitude towards the referent, perceived or represented as 'sweet looking', probably because it is small, which, as a rule, means that it is young. Thus, size and age also play a role, but the attitude is most important. In other words, {IE} is suffixed to animal terms when the cuteness of the referent is relevant in communication, i.e., prototypically in communication with or by children. Diminutives, such as horsie and doggy, are used to refer not only to cute little living animals, but also to toy animals, which, as a rule, are considerably smaller than the creatures on which they are modelled. At the same time, children have an affectionate relationship to them. Furthermore, diminutives are employed as (endearing) names for toy pets (for instance in role play) as well as for animals in children's stories, specifically for animals in picture books for young children, where these forms are capitalised. Tiggie and Woolfy are two such examples in my corpus. Finally, some diminutives derived from animal terms can be used metaphorically to refer to humans, mostly as nicknames or terms of address. In my corpus, such forms refer predominantly to children and women, at least forms conventionally used for this purpose, as, e.g., duckie (cf. 5.1.4.4. ). Other diminutives employed as nicknames or address terms for persons are derived from adjectives, a formal pattern which is very productive. In this case, the adjectives denote a quality, while the resulting diminutive nouns denote humans of who this quality is (considered) a characteristic feature. The qualities referred to are either features of outer appearance or inner values. Examples of the former category are darkie, blackie, fatty, shorty, lefty, Blondie, and cutie (some of which may not be regarded as politically correct today), whereas examples of the latter are dearie, sweetie, goody, baddie, toughie, softie, and weirdie, some of which relate to positive traits, others to negative traits. All of these terms imply social norms and subcultural values, relative to which speakers decide who is a fat or short person, or a bad or weird guy. Furthermore, the quality concepts expressed in the base words are all simple concepts. This is reflected in the fact that the adjectives which occur as bases in the present data are all monosyllabic. If such diminutives serve as proper names, they are capitalised. Diminutives are derived from nouns for objects (in a broad sense of the word), in two cases in particular: 1) when the objects belong to children, and 2) when the nouns denote everyday objects, but display a complex structure. The first case is directly related to diminutives referring to the cuddle toys discussed above. Objects belonging to small children are referred to by diminutives because they are miniature versions of the adult world, which constitutes the norm, and because such smallness evokes positive feelings otherwise evoked by the young owners of the respective objects. Salient subclasses are: -

Body parts: handy, footie, leggy, tummy, bottie, toothie; Garments: panties, undies, longies, nightie, nappies·, Food and drink: drinky, milkie, bicky, cookie, cakie; Utensils: hanky, buggy, potty·, Toys: housey·, Furniture: beddie.

91 A classification of this type remains relatively superficial. More relevant findings may be gleaned in a frame semantic approach relating these diminutives to the recurrent key events and routines in the day of a young child, viz. dressing, eating and drinking, brushing teeth, going to the toilet, playing, and going to bed. For the respective diminutives, Mühlhäusler (1983: 77) postulates the syntactic frame "Time for now", as e.g., Time for beddie-byes now. Thus, beddie refers to the activity of going to bed, rather than the piece of furniture as an object. Consider also example (1), which also demonstrates the requestive character of utterances in which beddie-bye(s) appears. Apparently, the use of the diminutive form diminishes the unpopular activity and, thus, makes it more acceptable to the addressee. The diminutive in example (2), which is also a request, has a similar function (cf. also 5.2.). (1) One more game, and then beddie-bye. (ALB 12If.) (2) Give your handy. (Stefanescu 1992) If object terms do not refer to items belonging to children, and are not used primarily or exclusively by or to young children, then, Wierzbicka (1985b: 169) claims, forms derived from these terms by attaching {IE} cannot be classified as diminutives. For this category, she quotes examples such as lippie < lipstick, sunnies < sunglasses, mushie < mushrooms, and barbie < barbecue, which she contrasts with "baby words" such as doggie and birdie. "Baby words", she argues, express 'endearment', while the 'adult words' do not. On the other hand, Wierzbicka maintains that forms such as lippie and sunnies are specific to Australian English and reflect the national character of Australians. However, Wierzbicka does not notice that consistently the bases of her examples are phonologically, morphologically and semantically more complex than most "baby words" and, therefore, shortened and combined with {IE} just as any diminutive derived from polysyllabic input used to and by children or indeed among adults in private contexts, inside and outside Australia, as, e.g., granny < grandmother, hanky < handkerchief, undies < underclothes, telly < television (set), and ruckie < rucksack. These examples are all attested in British English data. Moreover, it seems doubtful whether hanky and undies express more endearment than lippie and sunnies. Needless to say, however, all of these forms are marked as informal. Finally, mention must be made of the fact that {IE} is one of the two suffixes frequently used in multiple diminutivisation and predominantly occuring in the left-most position of suffix combinations (cf. 4.2.7.1.). Furthermore, it must be pointed out that {IE} plays an important role in rhyming reduplication, which is, in fact, the most productive type of reduplication in English. In the present data, all reduplicative forms of this type consist of two constituents, viz. a diminutive with {IE} as the left-hand component and a (usually semantically empty) rhyming form as the right-hand component. The following examples demonstrate that such reduplications can be formed from various semantic classes of base words, cf. Annie-Pannie,footie-tootie, housey-wousey, and piggy-wiggy.

92 4.2.2.

{ETTE}

This suffix is monosyllabic and consists of a short front vowel and an unvoiced plosive. Its phonological shape is /et/, and its graphological shape . There is no variation in spelling or pronunciation. The suffix carries primary stress in all derivations. {ETTE} was borrowed from French. It has the same origin as the diminutive suffix {ET} in e.g. floweret, coronet, and hatchet (cf. Marchand 1969: 288), a suffix which is no longer productive in present-day English. In English, both the masculine and the feminine form of this Old French diminutive suffix, and , were spelled . In French, the feminine form developed into {ETTE}, a form adopted into English in the second half of the 19th century where, unlike {ET} and related {LET}, it retained the original French stress pattern (cf. 4.2.3.). Leisi (1969: 89) maintains that {ETTE} is the only 'non-native* diminutive suffix of English still productive today. According to Cannon's quantitative study (cf. also 4.1.5.), {ETTE} belongs to the most productive suffixes of contemporary English. In a subcorpus involving the most frequent thirty positions, {ETTE} occupies position 17, together with six other suffixes, among them {LET} and {0} (cf. Cannon 1987: 177). Among the total of 96 suffixes and suffix combinations used to create new English words in the past decades, {ETTE} occupies position 20 (cf. Cannon 1987: 185). This means that (ETTE) is as productive as {ERY} and {EE}, but more productive than {IVE} and {OR}. Despite its undisputed productivity, the status of {ETTE} as a diminutive suffix is sometimes challenged. Leisi (1969: 89), for instance, claims that it is restricted to business language and that it is not unambiguously diminishing. However, it is precisely its polysemous nature which makes this suffix interesting for diminutive research. The different semantic patterns which can be identified are linked via the conceptual basis underlying all diminutives - a basis which, following Pinsker (1974: 249), can be summarised as 'not quite as' or 'substandard' (cf. also Jurafsky 1996). Three main classes of input can be distinguished, listed here according to decreasing importance in terms of relative frequency. These are: 1) Bisyllabic words stressed on the first syllable, as, e.g., kitchen, statue, novel, usher, sailor, and leather. 2) Trisyllabic words : a) stressed on the first syllable, as, e.g., balcony, parasol, and officer, or b) stressed on the second syllable, as, e.g., piano, partition, and conductor. 3) Monosyllabic words, as, e.g., room, snack, and plush.37 According to Hasselrot (1972), French words ending in Ν or /d/ cannot be suffixed with {ETTE} (however, there are a few exceptions in the case of /d/). These restrictions seem to apply to English as well. Furthermore, no English nonce formations have been attested in which the suffix follows Ibi (cf. Bauer 1983, 88f.).

37

Longer words are also possible as input, but extremely rare; cf., e.g., pentasyllable undergraduate (yielding undergraduette, which has also five syllables).

93 The base words are predominantly nouns, but verbs are also possible as input; cf., e.g., launderette < launder. Marchand (1969: 290) assumes that dinette is derived from a truncated version of dining-room, as its meaning can be paraphrased as 'small dining-room'. By analogy, he further assumes that slumberette (a trade name for a particular type of seat used on airplanes; cf. Leisi 1969: 89) must be derived from a truncated form of unattested *slumber-room. Interestingly, however, both base forms coincide with the respective verb stems, dine and slumber.3» Finally, in the case of launderette, Marchand refrains from postulating analogous truncation, claiming that this particular form was "somewhat irregularly formed". All derivations with {ETTE} are nouns and stressed on the suffix. Typical output is trisyllabic, as, e.g., kitchenette, lobsterettes and sardinettes. Bisyllabic output, derived from monosyllabic bases and tetrasyllable output, derived from trisyllabic bases ending in a consonant, also occur, but less frequently. Examples of the former type include dinette, snackette, and plushette, examples of the latter and rarer type, parasolette and conductorette. Input ending in a vowel or in Ν is truncated; cf., e.g., piano > pianette, balcony > balconette, cosmonaut > cosmonette, and undergraduate > undergraduette.39 Three semantic patterns can be distinguished, each of which is dealt with in turn: 1) the diminutivisation of object nouns, 2) the derivation of feminine nouns, 3) the modification of material nouns.

1) Diminutivisation of object nouns A set of derivations belonging to this first pattern is related to architecture, and to interior design, furnishings and furniture, in particular. The most concrete words from this group are balconette, parasolette, partitionette, pianette and statuette, each denoting a small exemplar of the object at hand. Other diminutives in this group express more complex concepts. Examples are kitchenette and dinette denoting small rooms or parts of rooms functioning as a kitchen or dining room respectively. In these cases, the general meaning component 'small' can be interpreted as 'compact' (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1549). Other examples of this type mentioned in the literature, but slightly old-fashioned, include dinerette, roomette, waggonette (railway compartments), and slumberette (seat on airplane). The function of the room is expressed in the derivations from verbal bases. In this case, the suffix seems to have acquired a local meaning; cf., e.g., a dinette is a room for dining. Likewise, a launderette is a place for laundering, i.e. a public establishment for washing and drying laundry. Similarly, a luncheonette is a public establishment for having a light lunch. Here the base is not verb, but the pattern is essentially the same. Originally, the meaning of luncheonette was 'light luncheon' (cf. Marchand 1969: 290). Later, this word acquired the

3» Cf. NOD, s.v. dinette: "formed irregularly from DINE + -ETTE." 39 Base words ending in IM are truncated as this consonant is identical to the consonant in the suffix. This seems to be a general phonological constraint on English word-formation (cf. Raffelsiefen 1999).

94 meaning which it has today, viz. 'establishment serving light lunches' (COD6). Marchand assumes that the word, in its original meaning, was used as a brand name for a chain of snack bars. A similar pattern is found in snackette, glossed in the DCE3 as "a very small meal" and in the NOD as "a small shop selling snacks, cigarettes, and minor groceries".40 A very small meal also tends to be a very fast meal. The food served in luncheonettes and snackettes is fast food. In other words, the use of{ETTE} in terms for food expresses not only a small quantity, but also a short duration of a meal. Short duration is also the relevant reading of the diminutive meaning of snoozette, a nonce formation in the present data denoting a 'brief nap'. Unlike diminutives referring to objects formed with other diminutive markers, the diminutives with {ETTE} discussed so far are not derived from basic level terms and do not refer to common artefacts. Instead, they refer to entities which may seem disparate on superficial inspection, but which all relate to aspects of life-style and reflect changes in everyday life which have developed in particular in the second half of the 20th century. Specifically, these changes concern the way people dwell, eat, travel, etc. It appears that a frame semantic approach is more adequate here than any more traditional approach to the analysis of word meanings based on systematic logic. The suffix {ETTE}, stressed in all derivations and, thus, discernibly foreign, seems to evoke the notion of French chic and therefore appears to be particularly suitable for naming new, fashionable items. While at least some of the formations examined here seem slightly old-fashioned today, the underlying pattern is still productive; cf., e.g., diskette and vanette (= a product name for a minibus). A more homogeneous set of diminutives is derived by attaching {ETTE} to genre names. Examples of this type, rarely discussed in the literature, include leaderette, sermonette, novelette, storyette/storiette, lecturette, letterette, articlette, essayette, and featurette. These diminutives also denote 'small ones of their kind', which as a rule means 'a short specimen of the respective category'. While the exact measures of the length of particular genres sometimes postulated in, e.g., handbooks for journalists, are prescriptive, arbitrary, or incorrect (cf. I. Schneider 1993), genre conventions seem to include at least approximate notions of prototypical extension. Thus, the form sermonette refers to what is perceived as a short sermon. Alternatively, these diminutives can be employed to express an assessment of quality. In this case, the intended reading is 'a specimen which fails to meet the qualitative criteria of the respective genre'. This reading is not relevant to those diminutives which are themselves established genre names, as, e.g., novelette.

2) Derivation of feminine nouns {ETTE} is employed in a distinctly different pattern to derive feminine from masculine nouns. In this function, {ETTE} competes with other femininity markers, notably {ESS} as in princess, duchess, waitress, and authoress, a marker which can also be used to derive terms for female animals such as lioness, pantheress, and tigress. By contrast, {ETTE}

40

According to the NOD, this meaning, the only meaning quoted for snackette in this dictionary, is restricted to West Indian English.

95 cannot be used in derivations of animal nouns or titles (cf., e.g., *lionette or *princette). This suffix is restricted to formations with professionalisms. Examples include usherette, farmerette, chauffeurette, officerette, weiderette, conductorette, sailorette, tractorette, and yeomanette. As a rule, {ETTE} is attached to agent nouns in -er/-or. Masculine nouns ending in suffixes with final Ν are truncated;41 cf., e.g., cosmonaut > cosmonette, and undergraduate > undergraduette, cf. also suffragist > suffragette.42 The pattern under inspection was highly productive in the mid-20th century, but increasingly has been considered sexist, as Quirk et al. (1985: 1549) observe: "Changing attitudes to women and sex discrimination have much reduced the use of -ess, -ette, and compounds in woman-, girl-." (cf. also Hansen et al. 1982: 103 fn., Baron 1986: 114, 123f., and 132ff., Hellinger 1990: 73f.). Feminine professionalisms are regarded as sexist because they are the marked case, whereas the unsuffixed masculine professionalisms represent the unmarked case and are, therefore, also used genetically. Furthermore, derivations with {ETTE} have negative connotations. A welderette, for instance, is not a "real welder", but somehow deficient. In this regard, McArthur (1992: 314, s.v. 'diminutive') maintains: "Whereas the -ette in cigarette conveys smallness, in usherette it conveys femaleness and, generally, lesser status than usher."43 Thus, feminine forms in {ETTE} often express derogation (cf. Hansen et al. 1982: 104). Thus, derivations, such as usherette, have the same connotations as derivations with other diminutive suffixes referring to persons which do not express femininity; cf., e.g., kinglet, princeling, and squireen (cf. 4.2.3., 4.2.4.1., and 4.2.4.3.). Interestingly, in a German newspaper article about the Irish Ploughing Championships, published in 1992 (Sotschek 1992), the term farmerette was translated into German using the diminutive form Bäuerchen 'little farmer', instead of the feminine form, Bäuerin 'female farmer' (or 'farmer's wife'). Finally, {ETTE} can be used to form female names from male names; cf., e.g., Bernadette, Claudette and Jeannette. It is worth noting that the complementary process of deriving male from female names by suffixation does not exist. At the same time, {ETTE} can be employed to form diminutives from female names; cf., e.g., Annette, Suzette, and Lisette. In neither case, however, were these names formed productively in English. Presumably, they were borrowed as derivatives from French.

3) Modification of material nouns The third pattern distinguished here is used to derive names for imitation materials. For this purpose, {ETTE} is added to names of natural, and often valuable, materials, especially fabrics and textiles, such as linen, satin, and cashmere, yielding output forms such as linenette, satinette, cashmerette, suedette, plushette, flannel(l)ette, and leatherette, which denote synthetic imitation materials. Some of these derivatives are actually product names as are other formations with the same suffix (e.g. slumberette and vanetté). The basic (defi4

· Cf. footnote 39 on page 93. According to Marchand (1969: 290), suffragette, first attested in 1906, is the first form in which {ETTE} is employed as a feminine marker. 43 Cf. also: "... an usherette is a frivolous little woman hired to replace a bona fide usher." (Miller/Swift 1977:142; cited by Hellinger 1990: 73). 42

96 cit) meaning of diminutives, which can be paraphrased as 'not quite as' (cf. 1.1.4.), also seems to apply to this third pattern. For instance, leatherette is not quite as good as 'normal' leather. The three semantic patterns identified and discussed in this section can be summarised as follows: 1) Ν 'object' + {ETTE} > Ν 'small object'; 2) Ν 'professionalism' + {ETTE}> Ν 'female professionalism'; 3) Ν 'materials {ETTE} > Ν 'imitation material'. For the first pattern, a number of subpatterns can be distinguished, the output of which is represented, e.g., in 'compact room', 'quick meal', and 'short specimen of a text genre'. These three patterns (and their subpatterns) are considered as so essentially different that some authors assume homonymous suffixes rather than polysemy (cf., e.g., Hansen et al. 1982: 90, also Leisi 1969: 89). However, the general 'deficit' meaning of diminutives seems to be the common denominator of these three patterns. In each case, the referent of a suffixed form is implicitly compared to the norm relevant to the category represented by the unsuffixed form. Compared to this norm, the referent of a suffixed form is classified as 'deficient' in terms of size, length, duration, value, etc., including the sexist view of women as deficient professionals (if not humans). How this 'deficit' is evaluated in communication is a different matter. In general, suffixed forms following the first pattern are more positively connotated than other derivatives with {ETTE}.

4.2.3. {LET} While {IE} and {ETTE} are undisputedly productive suffixes of present-day English, their status as diminutive suffixes has often been challenged. By contrast, {LET} is considered by some authors as the "purest", best, or most important diminutive suffix of the English language (cf., e.g., Rotzoll 1910: 30). This was true at least for the second half of the 19th century in which this suffix was extremely productive in everyday language.44 At that time, a number of lexicalised formations commonly used today were coined, as, e.g, booklet and leaflet. Furthermore, "innumerable nonce-formations" (Strang 1970: 90) were created. In Marchand (1969: 326), the occurrence of such nonce formations is mentioned solely in the discussion of {LET}, but not in the discussion of any other suffix. According to Cannon's statistics, {LET} is still one of the most productive English suffixes (cf. Cannon 1987: 176f.). Among the thirty most frequent suffixes of present-day English, {LET} occupies position 17, together with six other suffixes, including {ETTE} and {0} (cf. 4.2.2. and 4.2.5.3.). {LET} is a closed syllable displaying a CVC structure. It is pronounced [let] or [lit] and always spelt . Marchand (1969, 326) assumes that this suffix came into existence by

44

Marchand (1969: 326) points out that {LET} was employed to form technical terms, particularly in biology, as early as the 18th century.

97 secretion from French loan words such as hamlet, gauntlet, and frontlet, in which the Old French masculine diminutive suffix -et was attached to the final -I of the base words.45 While {ET} was also productive in English for some time (cf. Marchand 1969: 288f.), {LET} was established as an English diminutive suffix in its own right. That {LET} is synchronically perceived as a Germanic suffix (cf. also Rotzoll 1910: 109) can be attributed to two features. First, {LET} has in its onset a consonant generally associated in the literature with diminutives at least in Indo-European languages (cf., e.g., Mayerthaler 1981: 98f.). This sound is shared by other diminutive markers, e.g., little (cf. 4.3.), {LING} in English and German (cf. 4.2.4.1.), and German {LEIN} (cf. 2.2.1.). Second, unlike {ETTE}, {LET} never carries word stress, despite the fact that it shares the same French origin. In the present corpus, all derivations with {LET} are, without exception, bisyllabic words with trochaic feet consisting of the suffix and a monosyllabic base noun ending in a consonant, as, for instance, book, flat, king, pig, and stream. All of these nouns are concrete terms. No diminutive forms are derived from abstract nouns or from names, a remarkable fact as names constitute the most important input class for most other diminutive suffixes of English. Pluralisations of the derived forms are common, since they are not used as names or address terms; cf., e.g., cubelets, kinglets, skunklets and thieflets. Three semantic patterns can be identified, viz. diminutivisation of object nouns, animal nouns, and personal nouns. These are now dealt with in turn.

1) Diminutivisation of object nouns If the base word refers to an object, the suffix adds a purely quantitative component. Thus, the respective diminutive forms represent their referents as small members of their kind. Examples from the present data include cubelet, droplet, playlet, and ringlet. These expressions are used for entities which are smaller than average or smaller than prototypical members of their categories with reference to the relevant dimensional norm. Consider the following excerpt from Talking it over by Julian Barnes: (3) Mme Wyatt, with whom I was à côté, seemed to enjoy it, or at least to relish the salmon. But she pushed rather at the pinkish translucent cubelets which surrounded the fish, then turned to me and asked, 'What exactly would you say this might be? ' 'Tomato, ' I was able to inform her. 'Skinned, cored, depipped, cubed. ' (BAR 12; emphasis mine, KPS) As can be seen from the context, the form cubelets refers to small cubes of tomato accompanying a fish dish. In other words, the diminutive refers to cubes which are smaller than the average cube which can be cut from an average tomato. Since COD6 defines the verb cube as "cut (food for cooking etc.) into small cubes", cubes cut for cooking are as such smaller than a prototypical cube. The size of prototypical cubes can in turn be inferred, e.g., from dictionary definitions, in which a sugar cube (DCE2) or ice cubes (COBI) are

45

In French, however, -let was a double suffix, merged from -el and -et (cf. Strang 1970: 90).

98 mentioned as typical representatives. While the exact norms for the size of, e.g., a sugar cube, which undoubtedly exist in the world of business and administration, are irrelevant for cognition and everyday communication, the size of such artefacts is not arbitrary, but in fact determined by the function for which they are made (cf. Wierzbicka 1985a). By contrast, the diminutives in the next examples refer to natural phenomena, viz. quantities of liquid. The passages from which these examples are taken are from Ian McEwan's novel The Innocent (emphasis mine, KPS). (4) When she stirred and whispered something, the words poured like mercury droplets, but fell like feathers. (MCE 141) (5) Otto had doused his face and had only partially dried himself Lank, dripping hair hung over his forehead and a droplet had formed at the end of his nose. He wiped it with the back of his hand. Perhaps it was mucus. (MCE 152) (6) MacNamee passed the untouched beer across to him. There was condensation on the glass through which two droplets of water were carving an erratically parallel path. (MCE 213) Droplet, an established diminutive form listed in some dictionaries, is defined as "a very small drop of liquid" (DCE2). The prototypical size of a drop, in turn, seems to be the size of a raindrop, which is invariably mentioned in dictionary entries for drop. The relative size of drops of other liquids may also depend on the physical properties of the respective liquid. For instance, drops of mercury seem to be so small by comparison to an average raindrop that they are standardly referred to as droplets; cf., e.g., Into this aperture a droplet of mercury was poured. (Sinclair et al. 1991, s.v. -let), and example (4) above. By contrast, drops of mucus and water may vary in size. If they are much smaller than average members of their categories or prototypical representatives of drops of liquid, then they are referred to as droplets. As such quantifications are purely descriptive, these diminutives do not express an attitude. In the case of physical objects such as cubes and drops, diminutivisation relates to physical size. In the case of other categories, other dimensions are, of course, relevant. For instance, plays are measured in time. Accordingly, the form playlet is used for spectacles considerably shorter than a full-length play, the duration of which in turn depends on cultural factors and is conventionalised. The following passage from a review in Time Magazine illustrates this point. (7) Having enlisted the audience's sympathies, and its knowing nods that the first playlet shows what life is really like, Sherman reveals in the second half that Table is not reality but invention. (Henry III 1989; emphasis mine, KPS) So far, the discussion has shown that within the class of objects, distinct subclasses can be identified which differ regarding the dimension relevant for diminutivisation. These subclasses, as well as the respective prototypical size of each subclass, is part of our lexical knowledge. Some derivations with {LET} which refer to objects are lexicalised as, e.g., booklet and leaflet (two textbook examples). Another lexicalised form is ringlet, the meaning of which

99 is restricted to reference to hair (cf. Zandvoort 1969: 356), as in the following example from Kureishi's novel The Buddha of Suburbia: (8) Eleanor sat beside me in a black suit and dark-red silk shirt with a high collar. She'd put her hair up, but a couple of ringlets had escaped, just right for me to slip my finger through. (KUR 196; emphasis mine, KPS) Most of the derivations referring to objects listed in Marchand are also lexicalised, "many words belonging to the terminology of anatomy, botany, entomology, zoology" (Marchand 1969: 326). Non-technical terms often quoted in the literature include streamlet, wavelet, townlet and flatlet (cf., e.g., Koziol 1967: 58, and Hansen et al. 1982: 109), forms which do not, however, occur in the present corpus.

2) Diminutivisation of animal nouns If the base word refers to an animal, this suffix adds the component [+young]. Thus, the respective diminutive forms are used only to refer to non-adult members of the respective species. Arguably, the model for this semantic subtype is piglet, which is the standard textbook example. Further formations include froglet, crablet, troutlet, owlet and eaglet (cf. Charleston 1960: 121). In some cases, however, such derivations are blocked as simple words denoting non-adult animals already exist; cf., e.g., lamb, calf and foal instead of *sheeplet, *cowlet and *horselet (cf. also Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 47ff.). Galinsky (1952: 81) also lists AmE doglet, which he considers an equivalent to doggie and not to puppy. While {IE} diminutives derived from animal nouns express littleness and a positive attitude, and as a rule, but not necessarily young age, their competing {LET} forms express youngness and corresponding smallness, but not necessarily a positive attitude. Thus, e.g. lamb and foal block the formation of *sheeplet and *horselet, but not of sheepie and horsie, formations which may be use to refer to non-adult animals, to physically small adult animals, or to toy animals of the respective categories. The semantic pattern employed to derive diminutives denoting non-adult animals can be used to create nonce formations if necessary, i.e. if no established term exists. The following passage, an excerpt from Rita Mae Brown's novel Bingo, serves as an example. (9) Before we could recover to reply, the skunk made a reappearance, this time with four little heads sticking out of the hole. She turned, gave a signal, and the skunklets followed. (BRO 312; emphasis mine, KPS) In the given context, skunklets is readily interpretable, not least on account of the cooccurrence with undiminished skunk and co-reference with little heads. However, the underlying pattern does not seem to be equally available in language production, as revealed in an informal experiment. English learners of German were asked to re-translate the official German translation of this passage. They rendered the German translation of skunklets, viz. Stinktierkinder (literally 'skunk children') predominantly as little skunks, but also as baby skunks. German learners of English asked to do the same task also preferred little skunks, but individual learners used the form skunkies instead. The fact that neither group

100 actually used {LET} suggests that nonce formations with this suffix may be restricted to written language and fictional texts.

3) Diminutivisation of personal nouns Finally, the third semantic pattern concerns the derivation of diminutives from base words referring to an adult person. In the literature, this pattern is usually illustrated by quoting kinglet. Other forms often quoted are princelet, dukelet, and lordlet. Further examples mentioned in this context include AmE bosslet (cf. Hansen et al. 1982: 109) and godlet (cf. Marchand 1969: 327). Diminutives of this type are usually depreciatives expressing a negative assessment of the referent and conveying contempt (cf., e.g., Koziol 1967: 148). Thus, the referents are represented as incompetent or unimportant. In this pattern, the meaning of the suffix is usually glossed as 'petty'. However, these negative connotations may not occur if the referent is a child, as in the following example: ( 10) Three diminutive Kinglets, carrying a Kelly lamp, a silver sugar castor, Mrs Ellenby 's Chinese enamelled cigarette box, bowed, wobbled, kneeled. (BYA 40) This example is taken from A.S. Byatt's novel Still Life. The scene depicted in this passage is a nativity performed by young children. In this context, the form Kinglets refers to the children who play the roles of the Three Magi (hence the capitalisation of the diminutive). The adjectival modifier diminutive indicates that the actors are very young, the form Kinglets conveys that they are not real kings. At the same time, this diminutive expresses affection towards the child actors and shows that the person who uses this form is moved by watching them. Thus, while a deficit is expressed, this deficit is not evaluated in a negative way, since the relevant adult norms do not apply in the given situation. This diminutive cannot, however, be adequately analysed without consideration of the context involved. The diminutive in the next example, which is taken from Salman Rushdie's novel Haroun, also refers to a child. (11) How much have you seen, eh, Thieflet? (RUS 63) In this utterance, Thieflet serves as a term of address for a child who has stolen a tool from the speaker of this utterance.46 While the addressee is called a thief, he is, at the same time, not taken seriously. Thus, the speaker simultaneously expresses annoyance about the theft and condescension and contempt for the seemingly inferior boy. The diminutive wifelet also expresses contempt, although it differs from both thieflet, which is derived from a negative term, and kinglet, etc., derived from titles implying a role norm. Wife is a neutral word, and though it also implies a social role, this role is not relevant to interpreting the diminutive form, at least not in the following utterance.

46

In this novel, the form Thieflet is used repeatedly by the same speaker to the same addressee and in the same function.

101 (12) ... ;your little wifelet isn't here. (ALB 121) This utterance is taken from Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The speaker is George, who uses wifelet to refer to the addressee's wife, Honey. By using this diminutive form, George, who is considerably older than Honey, unflatteringly expresses his attitude towards this young woman. He despises her, yet not as a wife, but as a woman, or as a person. Thus, wifelet is used condescendingly, but the choice of the kinship term (i.e. relational term) wife as the base for diminutivisation is motivated solely by the fact that the speaker is talking to the referent's husband. The derogatory meaning of wifelet is intensified by adding the analytic diminutive marker little (cf. 4.3.). Yet the relevant interpretation of wifelet as 'childish', 'immature' or 'silly person' largely depends on the context, notably ôn the discourse preceding the utterance quoted above. However, the consideration of such factors is outside the scope of grammatical analysis. Finally, let us discuss the lexicalised form starlet briefly. This form is also a diminutive referring to a person.47 It is derived from the noun star, used metaphorically for famous performers, notably in entertainment or sport. Derivations from this base such as superstar and megastar, which can be classified as augmentatives, are much more recent than the diminutive form starlet. Marchand glosses the meaning oí starlet as "young film star" (cf. also Zandvoort 1969: 356) and claims that this form - unlike formations such as kinglet, etc. - has "no derogatory tinge" (Marchand 1969: 327). However, this description is neither accurate nor complete. First, starlet is always perceived as a diminutive of star. In other words, starlet always implies a comparison to the standard of a star and marks a deficit relative to this norm. Accordingly, starlet does have a "derogatory tinge", as it does comprise the component 'unimportant' or 'petty' (like kinglet, etc.). This is illustrated by the following example from a satirical text which includes three diminutive forms. (13) Wifey's a mini-series starlet. (M. Conway: Perfect couple, Punch 12/1992: 33) Wifey, without an article and capitalised throughout (like Thieflet), is used as the name for the female partner of the pair described in this text, while the male partner is referred to in the same fashion as Hubby. Both these forms express contempt towards the referent (like wifelet). Wifey in this case is only an unimportant actress in an unimportant television series. Moreover, this example illustrates that starlet is only used to refer to female persons. This is not just an aspect of use, but actually part of the meaning of starlet. Some of the negative connotations connected with this diminutive are explicated in the following passage from Irving's novel A Prayer for Owen Meany. (14) Tabby Wheeleright looked like a starlet - lush, whimsical, easy to talk into anything; she looked eager to please, or 'a little simple, ' as my Aunt Martha observed;... (MEA 50)

47

In the 19th century, the original meaning of this form was 'a starfish* (cf., e.g., Strang 1970:90).

102 In the light of these illustrative examples it should be clear that starlet does not just mean "young film star", as Marchand maintains, since at least the components 'female' and 'unimportant' are missing. However, these components are mentioned in recent dictionary definitions, paraphrasing starlet, e.g., as "a young actress who plays small parts in films, hoping to become famous" (DCE2). Needless to say, the negative connotations usually associated with this (lexicalised) diminutive and the specific concept expressed through it are not captured in this definition. It is worth mentioning that no complementary term exists for 'young actors who play small parts in films, with aspirations to become a star' (cf. also NOD, s.v. starlet). The three semantic patterns discussed in this section can be summarised as follows (cf. also Hansen et al. 1982: 109, who distinguish two patterns): 1) Ν ' o b j e c t ' + {LET} > Ν'small object'; 2) Ν 'animal' + {LET} > Ν 'young animal'; 3) Ν 'person' + {LET} > N 'despicable person'. For the sake of completeness, a fourth pattern often discussed in the context of diminutive formation with {LET} is also briefly discussed here (cf., e.g., Marchand 1969: 327, Sinclair et al. 1991: 99f.). In this particular process, input forms are terms for body parts, whereas the output refers to jewellery worn on these body parts. Examples include armlet, wristlet, anklet, and necklet. Despite the fact that the suffix used in this process has the same origin as diminutive {LET}, this process is not a diminutivisation process. Obviously, the underlying concept is not related to the concept of diminution. The terms bracelet and circlet, however, are historical diminutives. In conclusion, three aspects of the use and distribution of diminutive forms with {LET} must be addressed. The first aspect concerns the parameters medium and style. The formation and use of nonce formations and the use of established diminutives with the suffix under inspection, seems to be restricted to written communication. In my corpus, all derivations with this suffix occur in written material, predominantly in fictional texts. Furthermore, while Sinclair et al. (1991: 99) label non-lexicalised derivations with {LET} as "fairly informal", the derivations in the present data are mostly of a neutral or elevated style. The second aspect concerns the parameters domain and discourse type. Diminutives derived by {LET} do not, as a rule, appear in informal conversation. If they are used, however, they are stylistically marked and employed to achieve a particular rhetorical effect. Also, they do not seem to appear in caretaker speech or child language, i.e. in that domain prototypically associated with diminutives. Finally, the third aspect concerns the regional distribution of {LET}. While Marchand (1969: 326) claims that nonce formations with this suffix are a specific feature of AmE, more recent descriptions do not mention any such restriction (cf., e.g., Sinclair et al. 1991: 99). The examples in my corpus are taken from American as well as European sources.

103 4.2.4. {LING}, {KIN}, and {EEN} The suffixes examined in this section are phonologically similar in that they comprise a combination of high front vowel + nasal consonant. Presumably, they go back to the same root -în, a Gothic diminutive suffix merged with the hypocoristic suffixes -kal-kô and -lal-lô to form German -lln and Low German -fan (cf. 2.2.1.). While the suffixes dealt with in the preceding sections, viz. {IE}, {ETTE} and {LET}, are generally considered the most important diminutive suffixes in English (cf. 4.1.2.), the status of the suffixes analysed in the present section is not equally clear. In traditional literature they are mentioned consistently, especially {LING} and {KIN}. They are not, however, always included in recent studies. For instance, Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 112ff.) do not treat either of these, whereas Quirk et al. (1985: 1549) explicitly mention {LING} as a diminutive suffix of Modern English. Poynton (1989), on the other hand, maintains that {KIN} is frequently employed in Australian English to form address terms (cf. also Mühlhäusler 1983: 79). Finally, Pinsker (1974: 250) claims that {EEN}, predominantly used in Irish English, is highly productive.

4.2.4.1. {LING} The suffix {LING} is an old Germanic suffix also available in Modern German. It originates in {ING}, a suffix indicating origin or affiliation which was highly productive in Old English (cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974: 215f.). Marchand (1969: 327), for instance, believes that {LING} came into existence by secretion (from lytling), whereas Urdang (1982: No. 1049) assumes that it merged with the diminutive suffix {EL}. Either way, {LING} has been attested since Old English times and has been used in derivations from words denoting living beings, as it is only for these that the concept of origin, in the sense of extraction and descent, is relevant. Arguably, this explains why to this day {LING} is suffixed to bases denoting humans, animals, and also plants, but not objects. Nor is it suffixed to names. Referring to animals and plants, formations with {LING} are interpreted as 'off-spring'. In other words, the meaning of the suffix can be glossed as 'young' (cf., e.g., Marchand 1969: 328). Referring to animals in particular, the meaning of the derivation product is 'young one of its kind', or, more precisely, 'young one of the category denoted by the base word'. Examples are duckling, catling, and wolfling (cf. also manling in Rudyard Kipling), all of which can be referred to generically as youngling. In some cases, derivations with {LING} compete with derivations with {LET}, as, e.g., pigling versus piglet, and gosling versus gooselet. These are, as a rule, regional variants. Other formations denoting young animals or plants follow other semantic patterns; cf., e.g., midling, fledgeling, seedling, sapling, suckling, and nurs(e)ling. However, these forms are lexicalised, and some are no longer in use (e.g. midling is not listed in contemporary dictionaries). Yet, this does not mean that {LING} cannot be employed to produce nonce formations in present-day English. Consider, for instance, the following example from Aitchison (1994: 157): (15) 'Come and see my fishling', said a friend who hadjust acquired a tiny fish.

104 Aitchison classifies fishling as a 'novelty', i.e. as a nonce formation created on the spur of the moment. Formally, it corresponds to the pattern represented by, e.g., duckling, a pattern which may be stored as a model in the component of the mental lexicon termed 'back-up store' by Aitchison (1994: 166). The format of the respective entry would be duck-ling. In the case o f f i s h l i n g , the input is monosyllabic, a basic level term denoting an animal. 48 Furthermore, word class is retained, and the output is stressed on the initial syllable. According to Aitchison, these types of information would be contained in another component of wordformation competence in the mind, viz. the so-called 'lexical tool-kit' (1994: 166). Regarding its semantics, however, fishling does not match the model. The paraphrase tiny fish in the example reveals that the addressee of the request interprets fishling as a prototypical diminutive, i.e. in terms of size and attitude rather than age. Admittedly, it is not trivial, if at all possible, for ordinary pet owners to determine the age of their pet fish, but age does not seem relevant anyway in the given example. Thus, it is argued, that while the pattern for deriving diminutives from animal nouns by attaching {LING} is still available today, size and attitude play a greater role in their formation and interpretation than before. Furthermore, as {LING} is used comparatively rarely in present-day language, contemporary derivations are marked stylistically as 'old-fashioned', which may create humorous effects as, presumably, in the example quoted by Aitchison. Neither size nor age, 'littleness' or 'youngness' are, however, relevant to the interpretation of forms suffixed with {LING} referring to adult humans. As with other diminutive suffixes, such forms convey negative evaluations. This applies in particular to the subset of derivations from titles usually quoted in literature on this suffix, including lordling, princeling, and squireling. As a rule, their meaning is paraphrased as 'petty, unimportant', as in the DCE2, in which minor Prussian princelings is quoted as an example. The suffix here expresses a deficit: a princeling is not a 'real' prince, he is not 'up to standard'. Competing forms involving other diminutive suffixes can also be derived from this particular semantic class of titles; cf., e.g., princelet and squireen (cf. 4.2.3. and 4.2.4.3.). Zandvoort (1969: 357) maintains that derivations with {LING} bear more negative connotations than derivations with {LET}. Other types of derivations with {LING} which refer to humans also express a negative attitude. One type are deadjectival nouns focusing on a negative trait of the referent; cf., e.g., weakling and softling, the latter being replaced by softie in contemporary English (cf. also fatty, shorty, and lefty in 4.2.1.). Another type is where {LING} is attached to bases of other word classes yielding nouns which refer to persons. These nouns also highlight a particular feature of the referent, which is negatively assessed. Examples include firstling, foundling, underling, and shaveling ('monk'). However, neither of these forms have become a model pattern, and the examples themselves are seldom used in present-day English. Yet while derivations with {LING} seem, in general, to have become increasingly rare, this suffix is still 'alive'. Unlike other diminutive suffixes of English as, for instance, {OCK} (cf. 4.1.4.), {LING} is still used occasionally to create formations such as fishling, which are still understood. Squirelings do not play the same role in society as in the past,

48

Indeed, monosyllabic input is the default case, but bisyllabic input is also possible, though rare; cf., e.g., squireling, hireling, underling, and oysterling. It is worth mentioning that with this suffix truncation of polysyllabic bases is not attested in my corpus.

105 piggie is preferred over pigling (and presumably also piglet), and softling has been replaced by softie - consequently, {LING} is increasingly considered old-fashioned, a quality which can be employed intentionally to achieve a comical or humorous effect.

4.2.4.2. {KIN} The suffix {KIN} was borrowed from Dutch in the 13th century and has the same origin as Low German {KE(N)} and Modern Standard German {CHEN} (cf., e.g., Jespersen 1942: 462). However, {KIN} seems far less productive than {CHEN}, which is much more frequently used than any other diminutive suffix in Modern German. In the literature, the meaning of {KIN} is controversial. For instance, Marchand (1969: 321) describes {KIN} as a "suffix with diminutive or endearing force", whereas Urdang (1982: Nr. 1202) characterises it as a "suff. meaning 'small (or inferior) one'". Neither of these two seemingly contradictory positions is adequate, as neither of them provides the full picture. These two examples illustrate once more the problems of system-oriented approaches in which diminutives are analysed independent of context and situation. Derivations with {KIN}, like derivations with other suffixes, may express an appreciative or a depreciative meaning, depending on the given circumstances. In other words, together Marchand and Urdang are right in their descriptions, but either of them alone is wrong. In the DCE2, in which the meaning of {KIN} is explicated as "small and usu. charming", four features of derivations with this suffix are mentioned: 'informal', 'oldfashioned', 'humorous', and 'used esp. to children'. As far as the present data is concerned, at least the first and the last of these four characterisations seem to hold. The definition "usu. charming" seems to relate specifically to the last feature, i.e. the interaction with children. By contrast, the feature 'humorous', which could be derived from 'non-serious', the invariant pragmatic meaning of all diminutives postulated by Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994), seems to apply to adult communication in particular. For example, the utterance Poor babykins. (SHA 146), addressed by a young woman to her fiancé in the presence of others, is meant jocularly, if mildly ironically, to express mock consolation. However, the phrase a little babykins (DCE2), used in parent-child interaction to refer to a little baby, would not be meant jocularly or ironically. With reference to the productivity of this suffix, Jespersen (1942: 463) quotes Bradley's observation that "we can, at least in jocular speech, add -kin to almost any noun to form a diminutive". Today, the use of {KIN} seems much more restricted. At least, the formations listed in older standard works such as Jespersen (1942) and Marchand (1969) are no longer in use, with the sole exception of perhaps lambkin, a fossilised diminutive apparently still used in parentese and invariably quoted as an example of suffixation with {KIN} in the literature. In my corpus, lambkin is the only form not used as an address term. Most of the other forms are derived first names (cf., e.g., Poynton 1989). According to Jespersen (1942), the first attested formations with {KIN} were also names still in use today in last names with the patronymical suffix {S(ON)}, as, e.g., Perkins < Peter + kin + s. Further examples include Jenkins, Hawkins, Wilkins(on). However, Peterkin (or Perkin) exemplifies a pattern no longer productive in present-day English. In the present data, such forms derived from names are formed by attaching {KIN} to a bisyllabic base, usually ending in {IE}, i.e. to

106 forms which may be used independently as diminutives (cf. 4.2.1.).49 Put another way, {KIN} is employed to form multiple diminutives from common simple diminutives. Furthermore, in the present material, {KIN} is always followed by {S}, cf., e.g., Katiekins, Lizzikins, and also Franklekins, which includes the diminutive suffix {LE} in place of {IE} (cf. 4.2.5.5.). The {S}-suffix, which in these forms may originate in the patronymic suffix mentioned above, is another diminutive suffix which may appear alone or in other combinations of diminutive suffixes; cf., e.g., Debs, Rosiepops, and Daddypegs (cf. 4.2.5.1.). Gramley and Pätzold (1992: 289) point out that {KIN} cannot be added to bases ending in /k/; cf., e.g., *Mike + -kin. While this example seems to illustrate a more general rule, i.e. that (diminutive) suffixes cannot be attached to bases ending in a sound which is identical to the sound in the onset of the suffix (cf. also *Di + -ie, and German *Bäll + -lein, derived from Ball 'ball'), this rule does not seem relevant here. At least in the light of my data, the occurrence of Mikekin is not very likely, first, because this form does not end in {S}, and second and more importantly, because this form is bisyllabic, whereas the derivations from names in my data are all trisyllabic. However, *Mikiekins does not seem possible either, because final /ki/ in Mikie clashes with initial /ki/ in the suffix (cf. Raffelsiefen 1999). This renders *Frankiekins equally impossible. This explains why Franklekins is instead found in my data. By analogy, Mikelekins should be possible. This is, of course, tantamount to adding {KIN+S} to the full form of this name, i.e. Michaelkins. The properties of present-day derivations with {KIN} can be summarised in a nutshell as follows. 1) {KIN} is predominantly used to form address terms from first names. 2) This suffix is employed to form multiple diminutives. 3) Typically, these forms are trisyllabic. As a rule, the second syllable includes a diminutive suffix. This suffix is mostly {IE}, but after /k/, it is {LE}. The third syllable is always {KIN+S}. Historically, {KIN} is a suffix combination, merged a long time ago. It seems that in contemporary English the suffix combination {KIN+S}, or even {IE+KIN+S}, is, in turn developing into a complex suffix. This development can also be assumed for suffix combinations displaying very similar features, as, for instance, {IE+PEG+S}and {IE+POP+S} (cf. 4.2.6.).

4.2.4.3. {EENJ50 The suffix {EEN} is borrowed from the Irish language. The phonological shape of this Irish diminutive suffix is /i:n/. In English, it is graphologically represented as , in 49

50

In this context, cf. the historical forms manniken and manikin quoted in Whitney (1899: s.v. 'diminutive') and Pinsker (1974: 250). Considering such forms, some authors distinguish an independent diminutive suffix -ikin in addition to -kin (cf., e.g., Marchand 1969: 321f., also Wtlrstle 1992: 88). I am grateful to my Irish informants for providing me with data and sharing their intuitions, particularly to Caitriona Leahy, Bebhinn Ni Dhonaill and Anne Barron.

107 accordance with the orthographical rules of the English language, while its original Irish spelling is . Contrary to views voiced in the standard literature on English wordformation, this suffix does not seem to attract main stress. For instance, Pinsker (1974: 250) maintains that in all derivations with {EEN} word stress falls on the suffix, whereas Marchand (1969: 269) claims that girleen is the only exception to this rule. These accounts seem inaccurate. Unlike {ETTE}, which always carries primary stress (cf. 4.2.2.), {EEN} does not seem to be stressed. Its vowel, however, is a long one. Possibly, authors who claim that {EEN} carries stress mistake the 'fada', the diacritic mark used in Irish to indicate length of vowel, as a stress marker.51 Many derivations quoted in the literature (e.g. in Jespersen 1942, Urdang 1982, and the COD6) are, in fact, not English diminutives, but Irish loans which are orthographically adapted. Examples which fall into this category are colleen (= girleen), boreen 'little street', spalpeen 'migrant worker', and the mavourneen 'my darling' < mo mhuirnin (mo 'my', muirnin dim. of muirn 'love'; COD6). Examples derived from English bases quoted in the literature, as e.g. squireen, suggest that older written material was used (if any at all). My own data, however, show that {EEN} is used in everyday language and can be attached to common everyday words. In addition to girleen, which is frequently heard, typical examples include houseen and jobeen. Diminutives can also be derived from names; cf., e.g., lexicalised Noreen, and nonlexicalised Peteen, and Jimmeen. Dubliners call themselves jackeens (and refer to outsiders, particularly to those from the rural parts of Ireland, as culchies). In all cases, the suffix is added to a closed syllable and word class is retained. Polysyllabic input is truncated as in other processes of diminutive formation ( cf.. e.g., 4.2.1. and 4.2.5). Diminutives with {EEN} compete with other diminutives, especially those with {IE}; e.g. girleen versus girlie,S2 houseen versus housey, Peteen versus Petey, also squireen versus squireling. The former, Irish English forms in these pairs are marked as regional variants. Pinsker (1974: 250) claims that {EEN} is highly productive in Irish English, but this does not seem to be true today. While Irish diminutives with this suffix are in frequent use in the Gaeltacht, this suffix is not frequently employed to form English diminutives. If it is used at all, it is used by native speakers of Irish, particularly by older speakers, who are forced to speak English. A prototypical scenario would be a shop encounter in the West of Ireland in which the local shopkeeper talks to an English speaking customer. In such a situation, a young female customer would be addressed as girleen. Outside such situations, {EEN} is either used by speakers of English in Ireland who wish to give their speech an "Irish flavour", or used jocularly or ironically as, for instance, by a housewife who refers to her big house as houseen before she reluctantly starts cleaning it. Since such uses occur comparatively infrequently, the impression that {EEN} is frequently employed in English could be an artefact of data collection (cf. 3.5.2.) which may have been caused by analysing fictional texts produced by Synge, Yeats, and other authors

51

52

However, among my informants, there was no agreement about the stress pattern of diminutives with {EEN}. It was suggested that in some diminutives the suffix does carry main stress. More empirical research using audio data is required to shed more light on these issues. Recently, girlie has acquired a meaning more specific than its diminutive meaning.

108 of the Celtic Revival who employ this particular suffix, among other (stereotypical) linguistic features of Irish English, to give their texts an Irish tinge.

4.2.5. {S}, {ER}, {O}, {A}, and {LE} In this section, five suffixes are discussed which are not normally dealt with in the mainstream of diminutive research. These are {S}, {ER}, {O}, {A} and {LE}. Arguably, these suffixes are not diminutive suffixes in the narrow sense of the word, but should be referred to as expressive, affective or evaluative suffixes, since they express an attitude, while they do not denote smallness. Quirk et al. (1985: 1584) classify {S}, {ER}, and {O}, together with {IE} "and other such informal affixes" which are not mentioned, as 'familiarity markers'. On the other hand, Mühlhäusler (1983), who - following Thielke (1938/1939) and Langenfeldt (1941/1942) - provides an in-depth study of, among others, the suffix {S}, classifies this suffix as a diminutive suffix (cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 113). Finally, Poynton (1989) explicitly considers all five forms as diminutive suffixes of English, used productively to derive address terms, particularly in Australian English.

4.2.5.1. {S} While in contemporary English, {KIN} seems to be used productively only in the combination {IE+KIN+S}, as, e.g., in Paulikins and Suzykins (cf. 4.2.4.2.), {S} can be used independently as a diminutive marker and attached directly to the base; cf., e.g., Babs, Debs, Lyds, Moms, Pops, Fats, Carrots, ducks, cuddles (cf. Mühlhäusler 1983 for further examples). All of these forms have singular reference. In these forms, {S} does not indicate plurality, but expresses the speakers attitude towards the referent. Mühlhäusler uses the term 'nursery -J' for a particular set of derivations occurring in caretaker speech. His examples of this type include milkies, weewees, dindins, stinkiepoos, little jobbies, a little tries, and beddie-byes. These forms refer to recurring events in a young child's day and are typically used in the syntactic frame "Time for now." (cf. Mühlhäusler 1983: 77). As this frame is employed to realise directive acts, the adult speakers probably use the diminutive forms to play down the requested activity, thus anticipating the young addressees' reluctance (cf. 5.2.). At the same time, some of these diminutives may be seen as euphemisms referring to tabooed activities. Older children also use diminutives in {S}; cf., e.g., rats, derived from ratatouille, overheard in a school refectory. However, the vast majority of derivations refer to persons and are used as nicknames or terms of endearment. Basically, {S} can be added to all semantic categories commonly used to form terms of address, i.e. first names, kinship terms, animal names used metaphorically, and adjectives denoting a property (cf. 5.1.). Consider, e.g., Debs, Moms, ducks, and Fats. These more concise monosyllabic forms compete with bisyllabic derivations with {IE}; cf. Debbie, Mommie, duckie, and Fatty. Furthermore, {IE}, and also {O}, can be added to monosyllabic {S}-diminutives; cf., e.g., Momsie, ducksie, and Fatso (cf. also 4.2.5.3.). While {S} is usually attached to a closed syllable, as in Babs, Chucks, and Lyds, it may also be attached to open syllables in which {S} is represented graphically as , as in Baz,

109 Shaz, Tez, and Choz. However, this pattern is restricted to a small group of male and female names which include an /r/, usually in intervocalic position, as e.g. Barry, Sharon, Terence, and also Charles (cf. Poynton 1989). Apart from these relatively neutral diminutives derived from commonly used names, a large number of derivations in the present corpus relate to a perceived or ascribed trait of the individual referred to. They are, however, often formed much more creatively than, e.g., Fats. For these, three major patterns can be distinguished. First, monosyllabic output, in which {S} is attached to a closed syllable from the base word. Examples include Bugs, Chucks, Nibs, Paws, Snoods, Snoops, Squibs, Toots, and fVriggs. Second, bisyllabic derivations from verbs in {LE}, which are considered historical diminutives; cf., e.g., Cuddles, Tiddles, and Nibbles (cf. 4.2.5.5.). Third, trisyllabic output comprising "flowery" examples such as Flossy Chops, Piggy Wigs, Honky Balls, Furry Ears, and Misty Eyes. Such phrases, sometimes spelled together (cf., e.g., Goldilocks, Poshypaws, and Sexylegs), are adjective + noun constructions in which the left components are typically bisyllabic adjectives derived from nouns by suffixation with {Y}, while the right components are monosyllabic nouns to which the {S} is added. Thus, these nouns (or noun phrases) appear to be plural forms. However, they are always used to address or refer to individuals. As they are stressed on the first syllable, and as h i always appears in the second syllable, these forms display prosodie features shared by multiple diminutives in which {S} occurs in the (relatively stable) suffix combinations {IE+KIN+S}, {IE+POO+S}, {IE+POP+S}, or {IE+PEG+S} (cf. 4.2.4.2. and 4.2.6.). Parallel cases include Flossy Chops versus Rosiepops, Poshypaws versus Stickypoos, and Sexylegs versus Daddypegs. These examples demonstrate that prosodie features seem to play a much greater role in diminutive formation than semantic and morphosyntactic categories. Langenfeldt (1941/1942) suggests that the diminutive suffix {S} originates in metonymical names, such as skirts 'woman', tatters 'ragged person', and thicklips 'black person', first attested in the 15th century, and also found in the slang of the gypsies who came to England in the 16th century; cf., e.g., darkmans 'night'. This account seems more convincing than the traditional explanation according to which {S} became a diminutive suffix by secretion. For instance, Marchand (1969) and Pinsker (1974) assume the existence of an independent diminutive suffix {SIE} which has evolved from an incorrect analysis of the syllabic structure of names, such as Elsie. They claim that {S} was derived from this suffix by backformation. Further to Langenfeldt's (1941/1942) study, Mühlhäusler (1983: 81) mentions Davies' (1977) book of Australian nicknames, which also includes a large number of metonymical slang names in {S}, as, for instance, Bets 'a mad gambler', Sooty pipes 'a heavy smoker', and Buckets 'after the shape of her lower anatomy'. These Australian nicknames resemble British and Irish English derivations such as Toots, Misty Eyes, and Carrots, used extensively as address terms among young lovers, as illustrated by "Valentine's Greetings" published in newspapers.53 Typical examples are Bugs, I still remember, and Darling Tiddles, I love you now andfor all time.

53

Mtthlhäusler's examples are taken from the issues of The Times and The Guardian, published on February 13, 1982 (cf. Mühlhäusler 1983: 78f.), my own material is token from the issue of the Irish Times published on February 14,1996.

110 Diminutives in {S} not derived from names are formally, and in several cases also semantically, indistinguishable from inflectional word forms, especially plural forms. This applies, in particular, to metonymical formations such as Furry Ears and Poshypaws, but also to forms such as ducks and milkies as well as tries and Cuddles,54

4.2.5.2. {ER} This suffix is pronounced as central /a/ or semi-vocalic Irl (possibly preceded by schwa), depending on the rhoticity of the variety of English in which it is used. According to COD6, {ER} is a polysemous suffix mainly used to derive agent and instrument nouns from action verbs, as, for instance, painter and computer (cf. also Grimm 1991). As such, it is one of the most productive derivational affixes in present-day English (cf., e.g., Cannon 1987: 185). In COD6, it is further assumed that the attitudinal meaning, which is relevant here, is an additional meaning of this same suffix. This assumption may seem problematic because of the pragmatic and grammatical differences between, e.g., painter or computer on the one hand and footer, derived from football, on the other hand. Despite these differences it could, however, be interpreted as an extremely polysemous suffix. Diminutive {ER} behaves like other diminutive suffixes and differs from agentive and instrumental {ER} in the following features: a) b) c)

Word class is retained in the suffixation process. Base words are truncated. The denotative meaning of the base words is essentially left unchanged, while an affective component is added. d) The derivations are stylistically marked. Since neither word class nor cognitive information (denotation) are changed, derivations with {ER} could, in principle, be replaced in discourse by their neutral bases. In this case, however, a style clash may occur in most contexts. Typically, derivations with {ER} are bisyllabic nouns with trochaic feet in which the suffix is attached to the first syllable of the base which carries primary stress. Examples include nipper < nip, rugger < rugby, and topper < tophat. Polysyllabic bases - simple words, derivations, and compounds alike - are truncated as in the suffixation with {IE} (cf. 4.2.1.). In fact, competing forms exist in some cases; cf., e . g f o o t e r versus footie < football, and prepper versus preppie < preparatory) school. Comparing competing {ER}- and {IE}-forms, Pinsker (1974: 250f.) refers to the former as 'coarse forms' and 'rude names' ("Rauhformen" and "Grobnamen") which originate in typical diminutives (as in Latin or Italian).55 The latter, on the other hand, include a 'soft' or 'effeminate' ("weichlich") suffix. Indeed, formations with {ER} are associated with 54

55

Considering such examples, Mühlhäusler (1983: 82ff.) draws far-reaching, and contentious, conclusions concerning the relationship between derivational and inflectional morphology in particular, and linguistic theory and methodology in general. Cf. also Rotzoll (1910: 48ff.).

Ill "rough and tough" males and stylistically marked as slang (cf., e.g., COD6: "si. distortion of word with other ending"). Quirk et al. (1985: 1584), who classify {ER} as a familiarity marker, label derivations with this suffix as "chiefly British". However, Poynton (1989) points out that {ER} is commonly used in Australian English to form address terms from names, particularly in combination with {S} (cf. 4.2.5.1.). The present data support these classifications. Derivations with {ER} or {ER+S} occur chiefly in in-group communication among males in British academic institutions such as public and boarding schools, colleges and universities. This situational frame helps to make sense of the otherwise semantically disparate forms, also sometimes formed from base words other than nouns. In addition to the examples already quoted, typical formations include fresher < freshman, tucker 'food' < tuck in 'eat heartily', shampers < champagne, also starkers < stark naked, preggers < pregnant, and bonkers 'crazy' (COD6: "origin unknown"). Nicknames are also formed with this suffix. For example, the late Kingsley Amis was called Kingers. Consider also the specific names listed in Quirk et al. (1985: 1584) as, for instance, Lighters 'Professor Lightfoot, Oxford', Staggers 'St. Stephens Hall, Oxford' (in which the base is rather opaque), and Diwers 'Divinity Honour Moderations'. In Australian English, derivations in {ER(+S)}, especially names, also seem to be used in male in-group interaction, particularly in sports (cf. Poynton 1989). It is worth mentioning that, apart from footer and rugger, the lexicalised form soccer, derived from Association football, also stems from this sphere.

4.2.5.3. {0} Stereotypically, the suffix {0} is perceived as a masculinity marker, at least in IndoEuropean languages. In Italian, for instance, masculine nouns as well as male names often end in -o; cf., e.g., orso, lago, palazzo, and Fernando, Antonio, Georgio. English Stevio, derived from Steven, seems to be formed by analogy. However, Stevio is more convincingly analysed as a double diminutive, in which {0} is attached to Stevie. {0} cannot be used to derive diminutives from female names. Predominantly, however, {0} is not suffixed to first names, but used to derive forms competing with derivations from the same base words in which the suffix {IE} is used. Typical examples include the pairs kiddo versus kiddie, weirdo versus weirdie, Fatso versus Fatty, etc. All of these forms refer to persons, but the forms suffixed with {IE} seem to convey primarily positive attitudes, whereas forms suffixed with {0} express negative rather than positive attitudes. In my data, {0} is often attached to negative adjectives (cf. also wrongo), whereas derivations from positive adjectives do not occur. Thus, formations with {0} correspond to the notion of "rude names" in traditional terminology, which, according to (Pinsker 1974: 250f.), are derived by suffixes originating in diminutive suffixes. It is an empirical question whether "rude names" such as weirdo or Fatso can be used to refer to females. Quirk et al. (1985), who classify {0} as a familiarity marker, list forms derived from base words consisting of three or four syllables ; cf., e.g., ammo < ammunition, aggro < aggravation (a slang word for 'mob mischief), and Australian English arvo < afternoon. However, in these, as in most other cases, only one syllable, viz. the first stressed syllable, is retained from the base as a closed syllable. As a rule, {0} is attached to a voiced conso-

112 nant (cf. also 4.2.5.4. and 4.2.5.5.). The only exceptions in the present corpus are Stevio and Fatso, which can both be analysed as double diminutives.

4.2.5.4.

{A}

Superficially, {A} could be considered the female counterpart of {O}, since in languages in which {0} serves as a masculinity marker, {A} serves as a femininity marker (cf., e.g., Italian and Spanish). Furthermore, female names such as Roberta, derived from male names by adding {A}, are also used in English. As a diminutive marker, however, {A} can be used to derive names referring to either males or females. 56 For instance, Tezza may be derived from either Teresa or Terence?1 Typically, {A} is attached to short names in which the first syllable of the base form is retained as an open syllable closed by an /z/, possibly the voiced variant of {S} (cf. 4.2.5.1.). Both first and last names serve as input. Examples are Shazza < Shaz < Sharon, Bazza < Baz < Barry, and Jezza < Jesaulenko (an Australian football player). While this process seems to be particularly productive in Australian English (cf. Poynton 1989: 62), it also occurs in other varieties of English; consider, for instance, American English Chazza < Chaz < Charles, and English English Gazza < Gascoigne (an English soccer player). As can be seen from these examples, Izl replaces either /s/ or /r/ in the base word.

4.2.5.5.

{LE}

The suffix {LE}, which is always spelled , consists of semi-vocalic Ν (possibly preceded by a schwa sound). This suffix is related to {LET} and {LING} (cf. 4.2.3. and 4.2.4.1.), and also to German {LEIN}, of which it became part by gemination (cf. 2.2.1.). In other words, {LET}, {LING}, and {LEIN} were originally suffix combinations which merged into one suffix in the course of time. Currently, similar processes seem to be taking place with {KIN}, {POO}, {POP}, {PEG}, and also {LE} (cf. 4.2.4.2. and 4.2.6.). In present-day language, {LE} seems to have survived only in regional varieties. In Bavarian German, it is highly productive, being the main diminutive marker (cf., e.g., Hansl and Trautl derived from names, and Würstl derived from Wurst 'sausage'). In Standard German, however, it exists only in lexicalised diminutives such as Büschel < Busch 'bush'. Similarly, {LE} seems to be obsolete in Standard English. In Australian English, however, it seems to be one of the productive diminutive suffixes, used to form terms of address in particular (cf. Poynton 1989). In contemporary Australian English, {LE} is used to derive diminutives from first names. My data suggest that only male names occur as input. {LE} is either attached to short names or diminutive forms with other suffixes; cf., e.g., Bobbles < Bob {Robert) and

56 57

{A}, pronounced hi, could be considered a spelling variant of (non-rhotic) {ER}. Cf. also Russian, in which {A} is both a femininity marker and a diminutive marker used to derive hypocoristic forms form female as well as male names, e.g. Sasha can be used to address an Aleksandra as well as an Aleksandr.

113 Mikeypoodles < Mike (Michael). As these examples show, {LE} is always followed by {S} and occurs in this combination in the last syllable, irrespective of the total number of syllables or the overall number of diminutive suffixes in one form. This pattern is supported by the existence of nicknames and terms of endearment derived from verbs by adding {S}, as, for instance, Cuddles, Nibbles, and Tiddles. In fact, these verbs are historical diminutives (e.g., cuddle, nibble, cf. also scribble, etc.). The noun knobble 'small knob', listed in Marchand (1969: 324), bears witness to the fact that {LE} could also originally be used to derive diminutives from common nouns. Interestingly, in all forms {LE} is attached to a voiced plosive, namely to either Ibi or /d/.58

4.2.6. {POO}, {POP}, and {PEG} The suffixes dealt with in this section are rarely, if at all, mentioned in the literature on English word-formation. In traditional literature, they are referred to as 'phonetic extensions' rather than as morphemes (cf., e.g., Charleston 1960: 12S, on {PEG}). In recent studies, however, they are classified as diminutive suffixes (cf. Mühlhäusler 1983 and Poynton 1989, on {POO} and {POP}). The three suffixes share at least three formal properties. First, they have the same voiceless plosive in the onset, second, they are (almost) always preceded by /i/,59 and third, they are mostly followed by {S}. In fact, {S} is always attached to {POP} and {PEG}, but only occasionally to {POO}. Thus, the suffixes are usually realised as {IE+POO}, {IE+POP+S}, and {IE+PEG+S}. While these combinations could be described as individual suffixes, it is preferred here to analyse them as combinations of individual suffixes. This decision is based on the following observations: 1) {IE} and {S} exist as diminutive suffixes, which may be attached alone or in various combinations (cf. 4.2.1. and 4.2.S.), 2) {S} may or may not occur after {POO}, and 3) all other diminutive suffixes are monosyllabic, but may occur in polysyllabic combinations (cf. 4.2.7.).

4.2.6.1. {POO} The suffix {POO} consists of an unvoiced plosive and a long back vowel. Its phonological shape is /pu:/, a sound combination with onomatopoeic qualities. It is spelled in American English, and in British and Australian English. Possibly, this suffix has evolved from the informal inteijection pooh!, exclaimed in response to an unpleasant smell. This inteijection gave rise to poo as a noun denoting a piece of excrement, used in informal situations, particularly to and by young children. For this noun, more explicit stinkiepoo is sometimes used. Mühlhäusler (1983: 77), who discusses "-poo(h·)" as a suffix, lists stinkiepoos, with an additional -s, which does not indicate a plural, but is in fact the diminutive suffix {S} examined in 4.2.5.1., which is also found in weewees and little jobbies, i.e. euphemisms mentioned by MUhlhäusler (1983) in the same context.

58 59

Cf. also Franglekins as a spelling variant of Franklekins < Frank. In the form Martha-poo, {POO} does not, however, follow {IE}.

114 Characteristically, {POO} is attached to derivations with {IE}. This also applies to suffixation with {POO+S}. Typical examples include Mikeypoo, Katiepoo, baby-poo, bariepoo (derived from bar), and kissypoos. In all cases, primary stress falls on the first, and secondary stress on the last syllable. Albertipoo and Martha-poo, for instance, diverge from this pattern. In Albertipoo, which comprises four syllables, not only the first stressed syllable of the base is retained (as in regular formations with {IE}), but also the preceding unstressed syllable. In Martha-poo on the other hand, {POO} is not attached to {IE}, but to the final vowel of the fully retained name Martha. A wide range of further types of variation can be observed in Mühlhäusler's (1983: 78f.) corpus of 'Valentine messages' from newspapers (cf. 4.2.5.1.), which include the following formations with {POO+S}: Stickypoos, Brendy Poo's, Corks Poos, Pooze, Poozie Pots, Mikeypoodles, and Janepoons. As can be seen from the examples, words suffixed with {POO} or {POO+S} are mostly derived from first names and predominantly used as terms of endearment or nicknames (cf. Poynton 1989). They are used to address lovers or young children. Derivations with {POO} may also be used among adults playfully pretending to be small children, as in the following excerpt from Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (15) Martha: [...] Well, then, you just trot over to the barie-poo... George (taking the tone from her):... and make your little mommy a gweat big dwink. (ALB 35) The form barie-poo contained in this excerpt is atypical considering the semantics of the base word. In this example, {POO} seems to be employed merely as a marker of child language, which is imitated in this dialogue.

4.2.6.2. {POP} The suffix {POP} also has onomatopoeic qualities. Its phonological shape is /pop/, its graphological shape . There are no alternative spellings or pronunciations. It is assumed that this suffix originates from the inteijection pop! Arguably, the model for derivations with {POP} is the word lollipop. Indeed, {POP} always follows III. Furthermore, in all occurrences in the present corpus, {POP} is followed by Is/. This chain, , is interpreted as a cluster of diminutive suffixes, as, for instance, in Rosiepops < Äose+{IE+POP+S}. Put another way, typical input for the suffixation with {POP+S} are derivations with {IE}, i.e. bisyllabic words with trochaic feet. In these words, the first syllable is closed and the only material retained from the base word. The suffix {IE} is attached to this syllable (cf. 4.2.1.). Accordingly, all diminutives with this suffix cluster consist of three syllables, of which -pops is the last. This last syllable carries secondary stress, while primary stress falls on the first syllable. The only exception found in my data is Jupops, probably derived from Judith. Jupops comprises only two syllables. In this case, {POP+S} directly follows the vowel of the open syllable retained from the base.

115 In the present corpus, all formations with {POP} are derived from first names and used as terms of address in casual conversation between persons with a close relationship (cf. 5.1.4.2.).

4.2.6.3. {PEG} The suffix {PEG} has the phonological shape /peg/, and the graphological shape . There are no alternative spellings or pronunciations. This suffix is not discussed in the literature on diminutives. Charleston (1960: 125), who refers to reduplications such as Jenny-Penny as "affectionate 'rhyming extensions'", also mentions 'non-rhyming extensions', for which she quotes toothy-pegs. According to the OED2 toothy-peg is a "nursery word" for tooth, but can also be used jocularly in other contexts. Apart from toothy-pegs, all derivations in my data with this suffix are taken from Peter Shaffer's play Black Comedy (1968). Derivations with {PEG} occur repeatedly throughout the play. Fourteen types are used in total. These are, in alphabetical order: (16) Daddypegs disgustipegs drearypegs forgettipegs foxipegs gaudipegs goddipegs ladypegs messipegs profoundipegs reallypegs sexipegs soulipegs sweetipegs Most of these forms (i.e. eleven) comprise three syllables. The last syllable is always -pegs preceded by Ν in all cases, while the first syllable is retained from the base words. There are three exceptions, each consisting of four syllables, viz. disgustipegs, forgettipegs, and profoundipegs. In these cases, the base is stressed on the second syllable, which is retained together with the first, unstressed syllable. Apparently, toothy-pegs serves as a model for these derivations. Interestingly, however, toothy-pegs is a plural form (cf. OED2, s.v. toothy-peg), while the above forms, with the exception of goddipegs (< gods), do not have plural reference. Hence -pegs is analysed as a suffix cluster, combining the diminutive markers {PEG} and {S}. As in suffixations with {POO} and {POP}, derivations with the diminutive suffix {IE} represent prototypical input; cf. Daddypegs, goddipegs, and soulipegs. Yet, in many other cases, N has a different status. This applies, in particular, to those adjectival bases containing the N>A suffix {Y}, viz .foxipegs, messipegs, and sexipegs. It applies also to dreary-

116 pegs, gaudipegs, ladypegs, and reallypegs in which Ν is also contained in the base words, but in different functions. In the light of the remaining derivations, however, the issue is not where Ν comes from, but that it is there. It is essential that Ν appears in the penultimate syllable, before{PEG+S}, just as it appears before {POO} and {POP+S}. As is obvious from the examples, input is not restricted to nouns. Adjectives, adverbs, and verbs can also be suffixed, cf., e.g., sweetipegs (not an address term here), reallypegs, and forgettipegs. Word class is retained in all cases. The rules of English orthography apply; cf., e.g., the double consonants in forgettipegs and goddipegs. In Shaffer's Black Comedy, the derivations with {PEG+S} are used by Carol, a childish and naive woman, characterised in the stage directions as follows: "A young debutante; very pretty, very spoiled; very silly. Her sound is that unmistakable terrifying deb quack" (Shaffer 1968: 136). One of the features of her "quack" is the frequent use of {PEG}. About these and similar forms, Charleston (1960: 125) remarks: "... such forms belong definitely in the language of the nursery, though they may be drawn upon for the sake of an 'effet par evocation'." Occasionally, when Carol's "quack" gets on their nerves, her conversation partners mock her by imitating her speech style, notably her derivations with {PEG+S}, as in the following example. (17) Carol (winningly): Come on, Mr Gorringe. It really is a case offorgive and forgettipegs. Harold: Is it reallypegs? (SHA 74f.) Considering formations with {PEG+S} in context, a specific communicative function emerges. All derivations in Shaffer's play occur in the same discourse position, irrespective of word class or syntactic function. This position is always move-final (coinciding in most cases with the turn-final position). (18) Sexipegs. (SHA 45) (19)... - very, very foxipegs! (SHA 83) (20) Ah, that's sweetipegs. (SHA 44) (21) It's absolutely profoundipegs! (SHA 87) (22) In here, Daddypegs! (SHA 52) (23) We haven't told anybody. Not a single soulipegs. (SHA 73) etc. Often, the suffix (or suffix combination) modifies an evaluative adjective, as in the first four examples. Thus, the expressed evaluation is mitigated by the diminutive marker. In more general terms, the move-final diminutives are employed to render Carol's conversational contributions as preliminary, unseemly, or improper, thus mitigating potential impositions or face threats. These diminutives mark her contributions as 'non-serious'.60 As they

60

Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994) assume that 'non-serious' is the invarible pragmatic meaning of all diminutives (cf. 2.3.4.).

117

are used in anticipation of possible criticism, they signal the insecurity of this young woman, and simultaneously also her immature, childish character. It is worth noting that the invariant position of derivations with {PEG+S} results from their communicative function. This explains the diversity of input categories. Thus, derivations with {PEG+S}constitute yet another example which illustrates the interaction of grammatical and pragmatic parameters in diminutive formation.

4.2.7. Multiple and competing diminutives 4.2.7.1. Multiple diminutivisation Multiple suffixation is considered one of the peculiarities of diminutivisation (cf., e.g., Scalise 1986, Stefanescu 1992: 342f.). It may mean two different things, either recursive application of the same diminutive suffix (type 1), or recursive application of the suffixation rule (type 2). In other words, either a diminutive form comprises the same diminutive suffix twice, or two (or more) different diminutive suffixes. Both types occur in Romance languages, such as Italian and Romanian. Type 1: Ital. caro 'dear' > car+ino 'dear'+DIM, > car+in+ino 'dear'+DIM|+DIM, Type 2: Roman, miel 'lamb' > miel+us 'lamb'+DIM, > miel+us+el 'lamb'+DIM, +DIM2 In English, however, only the second, consecutive type of multiple diminutivisation occurs, but not the first repetitive type. However, Wierzbicka (1985b), who maintains that English does not even possess simple diminutivisation to any noticeable degree (cf. 2.3.2.), ignores this fact. In translating her Polish examples into English, she renders, e.g., the "double diminutive form" Jureczku as 'George-Dim.-Dim.' (Wierzbicka 1985b: 167). While this paraphrase reveals the morphological structure of the Polish term, it insinuates at the same time - consistent with the author's general argumentation - that equivalent linguistic means are not available in the English language. Yet, this is not the case. In the English language, suffixation is particularly productive in deriving diminutives from names. For instance, Poynton (1989: 60) observes that the forms of personal names "... display the most elaborate set of morphological resources for forming diminutive forms anywhere in English ...." In this area, both simple and multiple diminutive formation occur, yielding suffix combinations which are more complex than the combinations in Wierzbicka's Polish examples. Especially in Australian English, the national variety which Wierzbicka refers to in particular, not only double diminutives, but also triple and quadruple diminutives such as Frartglekins and Mikeypoodles are commonly used (cf., e.g., cf. Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 289). Thus, Polish Jureczku could have been translated into English by analogous forms (or as Georgie-boy or Georgie-Porgie attested in my data), which would have been both functionally equivalent and formally congruent. Multiple diminutivisation is not a marginal phenomenon in the English language and neither is it restricted to derivations from names. For instance, Quirk et al. (1985 : 1584) remark with regard to {IE}, {S}, {O}, and {ER}: "These and other such informal affixes often occur in combination ... ." In my data, the following types of suffix combinations appear:

118 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Π) 12) 13) 14)

e.g. shampers, {ER} + {S}: {IE} + {KIN} + {S}: e.g. Lizzikins, {IE} + {0}: e.g. Stevio, {IE} + {PEG} + {S}: e.g. soulipegs, {IE} + {POO}: e.g. barie-poo, {IE} + {POO} + {S}: e.g. kissypoos, {IE} + {POO} + {LE} + {S}: e.g. Mikeypoodles, {IE} + {POP} + {S}: e.g. Rosiepops, {IE} + {S}: e.g. milkies, {LE} + {KIN} + {S}: e.g. Franglekins, {LE} + {S}: e.g. Cuddles, {S} + {A}: e.g. Shazza, e.g. Momsie, {S} + {IE}: {S} + {0}: e.g. Fatso.

These fourteen types can be summarised as follows: - Of these fourteen combinations, eight consist of two suffixes and five of three suffixes, while only one consists of four suffixes. In fact, this quadruple form (no.7) is only attested in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) form Mikeypoodles. In general, frequency of occurrence decreases with the complexity of the combination. - Of the fourteen individual suffixes analysed in the present chapter, ten occur in suffix combinations. These are, in alphabetical order, {A}, {ER}, {IE}, {KIN}, {LE}, {O}, {PEG}, {POO}, {POP}, and{S}. - The four suffixes which never occur in suffix combinations are the distinctly foreign suffixes {EEN} and {ETTE}, and {LET} and {LING}, the latter two themselves historical suffix combinations. - With the exception of {EEN}, the suffixes not involved in multiple diminutivisation cannot be used to derive diminutives from names. Most suffix combinations, on the other hand, appear in diminutives derived from names. - Some of the suffixes involved in multiple diminutivisation no longer appear to occur independently. This applies, in particular, to {KIN}, {PEG}, and {POP}, and also to {LE} and {POO}. As a rule, all of these suffixes are followed by {S}, and all but {LE} are preceded by {IE}. {PEG} and {POP} always occur between {IE} and {S}, and {KIN} is always followed by {S}. In all other cases, relatively rare exceptions can be found. - Characteristically, suffix combinations begin with {IE} and/or end in {S}. Of the ten suffixes involved, only four may appear in initial position. These are, with decreasing type frequency, {IE} (8 times), {S} (3), {LE} (2), and {ER} (1). Only five may appear in final position, viz. {S} (9), {0} (2), and {A},{IE}, and {POO} (1 each). In general, diminutive force correlates with the complexity of the combinations. It becomes stronger with length and, thus, increases the "amplification of interpersonal meaning" (cf. Poynton 1989: 63). In a nutshell, the findings about combinations of diminutive suffixes can be summarised as: The longer the stronger, and the stronger the rarer.

119 4.2.7.2. Competing diminutives Another peculiarity of synthetic diminutive formation is that different suffixes can be used to derive diminutives from the same base words. This concerns the suffixes {IE}, {0}, {ER}, {S}, {LET}, {LING}, and {EEN}, in particular. Regarding pairs such as kiddie/kiddo and weirdie/weirdo on the one hand, and footie/footer, preppie/prepper on the other hand, {IE} always represents the unmarked informal case. Such {IE} forms are more positively connotated than those with {0} and {ER}. When referring to persons, diminutives in {IE} are prototypically interpreted as referring to children, while forms in {0} and {ER} are interpreted as referring to youths and adults. Additionally, forms in {ER} are register or in-group markers. As far as derivations from names are concerned, there is some competition between {IE} and {S}. Again, derivations with {IE}, which match the trochaic ideal, constitute the unmarked case and are prototypically associated with child-oriented discourse, whereas the monosyllabic derivations with {S} predominantly occur in informal adult conversation. {IE} competes with {LET} and {LING} in derivations from animal terms, cf., e.g., piggie, piglet, and pigling. While the suffixes {LET} and {LING} add the semantic feature [+young], {IE} is ambiguous in this respect. Although [+young] is not irrelevant for the interpretation of {IE} forms, the (usually positive) attitude towards the referent seems more prominent. Often, however, it is this very attitude which is evoked by smallness, itself caused by youngness. Lexicalised terms for a number of species of young animals are formed with {LET}, e.g.froglet, while similar terms for other species are formed using {LING}, e.g. duckling. In nonce formations, however, {LET} is preferred (exclusively, it would appear, in the light of the present data); cf., e.g., doglet and skunklet. Where both forms exist from the same base, they are regional variants, e.g. piglet/pigling and gooselet/gosling. In such pairs, formations with {LING} appear old-fashioned. Parallel forms with {LING} and {LET} can also be derived from titles; cf., e.g., princeling/princelet. In comparison, formations with {LING} seem again to be more oldfashioned. In the semantic field of titles, {LING} also competes with {EEN}, a suffix which marks diminutive forms as distinctly Irish; cf., e.g., squirelinglsquireen. However, in this particular field, which is not as relevant to communication today as in the past, derivation with {LET} clearly dominates (cf., e.g., kinglet, dukelet, and lordlet, with no attested rival forms). Nevertheless, all three suffixes express derogation and contempt. In other fields, forms with {EEN} generally compete with forms with {IE}, the latter of which are not marked as regional variants and occur much more frequently; cf., e.g., girleenlgirlie and houseen/housey. The discussion has shown that competing suffixes do not compete in all areas. In fact, which alternatives are available to speakers crucially depends on the semantic class of the base words and the situation.

4.2.8 Summary The following fourteen suffixes were examined in the present chapter: {A}, {EEN}, {ER}, {ETTE}, {IE}, {KIN}, {LE}, {LET}, {LING}, {0}, {PEG}, {POO}, {POP}, and {S}. Alternative spellings exist only for {IE}, {POO}, and {S}, viz. //,

120 /, and / /. However, while variants of {IE} and {POO} essentially occur in free variation, and are restricted to very specific formations, e.g. Tez and Tezza, both derived from Teresa or Terence. In all other cases, the morphological representations of the suffixes coincide with their invariant spelling. As regards the phonological shape of the suffixes, five patterns can be observed. These are, with decreasing frequency: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

CVC:/kιn/,/let/,/lit]/,/peg/,/pop/ V:/3/,/i/,/3u/,/3(r)/ VC:/i:n/,/(9)1/,/et/ CV: /pu:/ C: /s, TJ

Prominent consonants are /p/ and /I/ with four and three occurrences respectively (three and two in initial position), and also the dental nasals /η, η/ and Ν with three and two occurrences, all in final position. Among the thirteen vowels, there are only two long vowels and one diphthong. Prominent vowels are fronted or centered, viz. Ill, Id, and /θ/, with three occurrences each, plus li :/. These observations seem to support claims about prototypical sounds associated with diminutive meaning (cf., e.g., Mayerthaler 1981: 98ff.). Five of the suffixes examined - {KIN}, {PEG}, {POP}, {LE} and {POO} - no longer occur independently, but only in suffix combinations. On the other hand, four further suffixes - {EEN}, {ETTE}, {LET}, and {LING} - never occur in combinations. The base words in the process of synthetic diminutive formation are nearly exclusively nouns. Adjectives are also used as bases, but the use of all other word classes is negligible. Prototypically, the base words are monosyllabic lexemes. If they are polysyllabic, they are, as a rule, truncated and only one syllable, usually the syllable carrying primary stress, is retained. However, truncation does not occur with {EEN}, {ETTE}, {LET}, and {LING}. In fact, all formations with {LET} found in the present data are actually derived from monosyllabic words only. Generally speaking, there are four major semantic classes of base words: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Names Personal nouns Animal nouns Object nouns

While first names constitute one of the dominant groups of base words, diminutives are rarely derived from last names. The common nouns in the other three categories are, prototypically, basic level terms, specifically nouns denoting persons, animals, and objects in the immediate surroundings of speaker and addressee, such as family members, domestic animals, and artefacts of everyday use. Not all suffixes can be attached to base words from all semantic classes. While {A}, {LE}, and {POP} are used exclusively to derive diminutives of names, such diminutives

121 cannot be formed by {ETTE}, {LET}, {LING}, and {PEG}.61 Furthermore, {LING} cannot be employed to derive diminutives of object nouns, while {ETTE}, in its narrow diminutive meaning, can only be employed to derive diminutives of object nouns, and more particularly, to derive diminutives of nouns referring to objects (in a broad sense) belonging to very specific categories, which are not used as input with the other suffixes. All diminutives are nouns, with very few exceptions, irrespective of the word class of the base words. Prototypically, diminutives are bisyllabic words with trochaic feet. Two major exceptions are the monosyllabic formations with {S}, e.g. Debs, Moms and ducks, and the formations with {ETTE}, which are typically trisyllabic, although bisyllabic and, less frequently, tetrasyllable forms also exist. All formations with {ETTE} are stressed on the suffix. The following table provides a synopsis of typical input and output for each of the fourteen suffixes analysed in this chapter. The suffixes are listed in alphabetical order in the middle column. INPUT a) First name: Barry b) Last name: Jesaulenko a) First name: Peter b) Person: girl c) Object: house d) Title: squire a) First name: Kingsley b) Last name: Lightfoot c) Frame 'academia': freshman d) Feature: pregnant a) Locality: balcony b) Object: disk c) Genre: essay d) Professionalism (masc.): farmer e) Material: suede a) First name: Ronald b) Last name: Fergueson c) Kinship term: aunt d) Person: kid e) Professionalism: nurse f) Feature: short g) Other: drug h) Animal: dog i) Frame 'child's routines': drink a) First name: Lizzie b) Person (young): baby c) Animal (young): lamb

61

SUFFIX {A} {EEN}

{ER}

{ETTE}

{IE}

{KIN}

OUTPUT a) Bazza b) Jezza a) Peteen b) girleen c) houseen d) squireen a) Kingers b) Lighters c) fresher d) preggers a) Compact locality: balconette b) diskette c) Short (or bad) specimen: essayette d) Professionalism (fem.): farmerette e) Imitation: suedette a) Ronnie b) Fergie c) auntie d) kiddy e) nursie f) Bearer of feature: shorty g) Metaphorical name: druggie h) doggie i) drinkie a) Lizziekins b) babykins c) lambkin

Fully lexicalised names, such as Annette or Bernardette, are not considered here.

122 INPUT a) First name: Bob b) Other: cuddle a) Object: bomb b) Animal: skunk c) Person: wife d) Title: prince a) Animal: fish b) Plant: seed c) Feature: soft d) Title: squire ~ a) First name: Steve b) Person: kid c) Feature: weird a) First name: Mikey b) Frame 'romance': kiss c) Frame 'child's routines': stinkie a) First name: Rosie a) Assessment: messy b) Div.: Daddy a) First name: Lydia b) Last name: Chipping c) Kinship term: Mom d) Feature: fat e) Div.: carrot f) Frame 'child's routines': dinner g) Object: ratatoullie

SUFFIX {LE} {LET}

{LING}

{0}

{POO}

{POP} {PEG} {S}

OUTPUT a) Bobble b) Metonymical name: Cuddles a) bomblet b) Young animal: skunklet c) wifelet d) princelet a) fishling b) seedling c) Bearer of feature: softling d) squireling a) Stevio b) kiddo c) Bearer of feature: weirdo a) Mikeypoo b) kissypoo c) stinkiepoos a) Rosiepops a) Mitigated assessment: messipegs b) Turn-final mitigation: Daddypegs a) Lyds b) Chips c) Moms d) Bearer of feature: fats e) Metonymical name: Carrots f) din-dins g) rats

The output forms in the right-hand column are all considered diminutives. Semantic differences are quite obvious, but impossible to determine in a purely grammatical approach. As Mühlhäusler (1983: 89) puts it: "The apparent vagueness of meaning of isolated words may well disappear once the wider context of use is taken into consideration." The wider context of synthetic and analytic diminutives is taken into consideration in chapter 5.

4.3. Analytic diminutive formation

The major alternative to prototypical synthetic diminutive formation is analytic diminutive formation. Analytic diminutives are adjective + noun constructions in which the noun is the base word and the adjective the diminutive marker. Adjectives used in this function belong to the word field SMALL. This type of formation has also been referred to as "syntactic modification" (cf., e.g., Haas 1972: 148f.).

123 4.3.1. Status Since many researchers maintain that synthetic diminutive formation does not exist, or hardly exists in English (cf. 4.1.1.), the analytic type is often considered the only type of English diminutive formation. For instance, Strang (1968: 138) writes: "It is often said that English lacks diminutives; in fact little (...) is a diminutive ... ," 62 The diminutive marker little is generally regarded as the functional equivalent to diminutive suffixes in other languages. 63 Turner (1973: 84), for example, compares analytic diminutives in English English to synthetic diminutives in Scottish English, Russian, and German. 64 When the words little or old stand next to a noun, they may be lightly stressed to become little - more than enclitics colouring the meaning of the noun with a tinge of the affection we feel for small or familiar things ('she's a dear little girl', 'the good old days', 'you're a funny old thing', 'a poor little bird', 'my old dutch'). This does something to supply a deficiency in our vocabulary, which lacks 'diminutives', the affective variants found in Scottish English (mousie, beastie, breastie) or Russian or German. The few examples standard English provides, names like Johnnie or Charlie, words like hottie (for 'hot-water bottle') and perhaps usherette, are less important to the language than unstressed little. It is worth noting that, in addition to little, Turner mentions old as an affect marker, while Charleston (1960: 11 Iff.) lists young and poor as further adjectives which do not primarily denote a feature of the referent, but communicate the speaker's attitude towards the referent (cf. 4.3.5.1.) Regarding the general structural make-up of the English language, it becomes clear that the analytic type of diminutive formation is more characteristic of English than the synthetic type. Leisi (1969: 88), for instance, maintains that affixation is dispreferred in Modern English word-formation. Instead, three other processes are preferred, viz. backformation, conversion, and combining words in juxtapositions or collocations. Arguably, analytic diminutive formation is a process of the latter type, as is gradation in inflectional morphology. Thus, analytic diminutive formation reflects the general structure of English as synthetic formation reflects the general structure of, e.g., Slavic languages. Therefore, interlingual studies of diminutives must not be reduced to the morphological level alone. In a similar vein, Charleston (1960: 126) observes that, in correspondence "with the general analytic tendency in modern English", adjectives such as little, tiny, and wee are preferred over suffixes in English diminutive formation. In this context, the question arises

62 63

64

Strang's approach is dealt with in more detail in 4.3.5.1. below. According to Nieuwenhuis (198S: 25), Kruisinga (1942) was the first linguist to point out that analytic formation with little is the English equivalent to prototypical synthetic diminutive formation (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 114). Equivalence between analytic diminutive formation in English and synthetic diminutive formation in other languages is also established in contrastive studies which use originals and translations of prose fiction; cf., e.g. Wtlrstle (1992), who compares novels by Max Frisch, Thomas Mann, and Hermann Hesse with their English and French translations. An early study in which this approach is adopted is Eckhardt (1903). This author analyses Old English translations of texts originally written in Latin. He finds that the synthetic diminutives in Latin are rendered in English by using analytic diminutives with lytel (or other adjectives) - that is, if they are translated at all.

124 which adjectives can be used as diminutive markers. This question is addressed in the following section.

4.3.2. The word field SMALL The adjectives which can be used in analytic diminutives belong to the word field SMALL. This word field comprises at least the following adjectives: small, little, tiny, teeny, teensy, teeny-weeny, teensy-weensy, wee, diminutive, minute, miniature, minimal, lilliput, and petite. As these adjectives share the same basic meaning, denoting below average size, they can be considered as synonyms. Some of these adjectives, however, are more specific in meaning and restricted to particular collocations or contexts. This subgroup includes petite, miniature, and minimal. In contrast to the male form petit, which occurs in English only in fixed expressions such as petit bourgeois and petit four, the female form petite can be used outside French expressions, but only with reference to women; cf., e.g., the respective entry in the COD6: "(Of woman) of small dainty build". As can be seen from this definition, the meaning of petite is even more specific, in that it refers exclusively to the figure of a female person, particularly a young female person, as is borne out by the definition in the DCE2, in which the adjective is also marked as 'appreciative': "apprec (of a woman or girl) having a small and neat figure". A typical example of the use of petite is the collocational expression "a petite blonde", quoted in the DCE2 entry, and used for describing one of the female characters in the stage directions of Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?·. "HONEY, 26, a petite blonde girl, rather plain" (ALB 9). The meaning of miniature is restricted to small-scale copies, referring in particular to children's toys as replications of the adult world; cf., e.g., the respective entry in the COD6: "Represented on small scale; ...; smaller than normal", and in the DCE2: "(esp. of something copied) very small", which is followed by the example "The child was playing with his miniature railway". The specific meaning of minimal, contrasting with maximal, consists in demarcating one end of a scale; cf. the definition in the COD6: "being or relating to minimum; least possible in size, duration, etc." The remaining members of the word field are less specific in their meaning and can be considered as denotational synonyms which differ in their connotations. For diminutive, tiny and wee, for instance, Leech (1981: 14f.) assumes "equivalence of conceptual meaning", but "varying stylistic overtones". These different overtones are glossed as follows (Leech 1981: 15): diminutive (very formal) tiny (colloquial) wee (colloquial, dialect)

125 The main difference between these three adjectives concerns the degree of formality, while wee is marked additionally as a regional variant.65 Assuming three levels of formality, viz. 'informal' (or 'colloquial'), 'neutral', and 'informal', the word field can be structured as follows: INFORMAL

NEUTRAL

FORMAL

tiny

small

minute

teeny

little

diminutive

teensy

lilliputian

wee weeny teeny-weeny teensy-weensy Table 1: Stylistic differences in the word field SMALL The class of informal adjectives essentially consists of tiny and wee, and variants and combinations of these.66 The group of formal members comprises minute, diminutive and lilliput. As minimal is also sometimes labelled as 'formal', e.g. in the DCE2, it could be argued that all adjectives containing the root -min- belong to this stylistic category, i.e. minimal, miniature, minute, and diminutive. A scalar representation may be more adequate. In this case, small and little form the centre, while teeny (and variants thereof) and lilliputian mark the extremes. Tiny and wee on the one hand, and minute and diminutive on the other hand represent in-between stages, with tiny and minute closer to the centre. The end points are further marked as 'childish' (COD6) or 'used esp. by or to children' (DCE2) in the case of teeny, weeny, etc., and as 'literary' or 'pompous' in the case of lilliputian. The central position of small and little is indicated by the fact that all other field members are defined via these two neutral terms. All of the other terms express a higher degree of smallness or littleness, paraphrased in dictionary definitions as, e.g., "very small", "remarkably small", "extremely small", "very little", etc. Accordingly, marked field members are not used with intensifiers. At least, combinations such as *very tiny or *extremely diminutive are not attested in the present corpus. As all adjectives in this word field, apart from small and little, are marked stylistically and express intensity, they are used much less frequently than the two unmarked terms. Correspondingly, analytic formations in which marked adjectives occur are more expres65

66

Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 114) characterise wee as "Northern British"; the COD6 and DCE2, by contrast, describe the suffix as "ScotE". Haas (1972: 148f.) assumes that teeny is a variant of tiny, further diminished in teeny-weeny. Teeny-weeny in turn is modified in teensy-weensy by inserting -s- as in Momsie (cf. 4.2.5.1. and 4.2.7.1.).

126 sive, but by comparison rare. As a rule, a neutral adjective is used to form analytic diminutives. Whether little or small is chosen, depends on the context, as these two adjectives cannot be used interchangeably in most contexts.

4.3.3. The competing adjectives small and little Small and little are the central adjectives in the English word field SMALL. Regarding style and intensity, they are both unmarked. This situation is unusual, as only one such adjective exists in many other languages. Comparing English to French or German, for example, yields a case of convergence; cf. small and little on the one hand versus petit or klein on the other. Given this situation, it can be assumed that a distinction can be made between small and little. The principally equal status of these two lexemes is reflected in dictionary definitions in which one is used to define the other. Consider, e.g., the respective entries in COD6: small "Not large, of deficient or comparatively little size or strength or power or number, (usu. without emotional implications of little)" little "Small (often with emotional implications not given by small;...)"

These definitions also bring out the crucial difference between these two adjectives, namely the 'emotional implications', present in the case of little, but absent in the case of small. Similarly, Wiirstle (1992: 95) observes, based on synonym dictionaries, that little expresses smallness coupled with affective connotations, while small expresses objective smallness and implies a comparison. These observations are consistent with the definitions presented in the COD6. The comparison mentioned in this context is reflected grammatically. As a rule, comparatives and superlatives are formed from small, but not from little. This issue is also addressed by Zandvoort (1969:230f.), who writes: When little is used to denote size or age (little children) it usually implies some personal feeling on the part of the speaker, which does not lend itself to expressions of contrast or superiority by means of a comparative or superlative (littlest is found very occasionally). Mere smallness is expressed by small - smaller - smallest.

While the literal meaning of small is purely quantitative, the meaning of little comprises an additional affective component.67 In other words, small refers to a property of the referent, whereas little also expresses the speaker's attitude towards the referent or the addressee. Where the quantitative component is completely absent, this attitude may be the prominent meaning of little in a given context. In her study of the linguistic devices available for expressing affect in English, Charleston (1960: 11 Iff.) supports this view. She maintains that there are adjectives which do not specify the meaning of the base word, but communicate an attitude. Among these adjectives, she counts little (along with old, young and poor, cf. 4.3.1.), but not small. 67

Note, however, that small may be used metaphorically to express an evaluation, which, as a rule, seems to be negative; cf., e.g., to make someone feel small, and expressions like small matters and small talk.

127 The attitudes communicated by little are not exclusively positive, as is sometimes suggested in the literature (cf., e.g., Wandruszka 1969: 94f.). Charleston (1960: 112), for example, mentions not only "feelings of affection, sympathy, pity", but also "scorn, annoyance, sarcasm". Thus, little possesses all characteristics usually attributed to diminutive suffixes. Therefore, adjective + noun constructions in which little is used, are regular diminutive forms of the English language.

4.3.4. The specific nature of little Apparently, the affective meaning component of little mentioned in the preceding section has its origin in first language acquisition and language development in early childhood. Little is one of the first adjectives acquired by young children, although not, as a rule, the very first one, 68 but with contrasting big, it represents the first pair of antonymous adjectives acquired in English as a native language (cf. Bartlett 1976, and Carey 1978). When acquiring German natively, klein and groß, as the equivalents of little and big, are also leamt first. Stern and Stern (1928: 255) establish that this pair accounts for 60 per cent of all adjectives used by children aged four to five. Interestingly, both little and its German counterpart klein are used significantly more by young children than their opposites big and groß. Rohde (1993: 71) reports that in the material collected in the Kiel project on language acquisition, German klein is used four times more than groß. In the American control group, little occurred 87 times, and big only 36 times. This bias, which reflects the asymmetry between diminution and augmentation, may originate from the egocentric perception and communication of young children (cf. 1.2.1.3.). Little and big, as the first adjective pair, represent the prototypes of dimensional adjectives. In the early stages of language acquisition, they designate all kinds of dimensionality, i.e. all types of size or extension. Knowing these two adjectives is a prerequisite for acquiring more specific or more complex dimensional concepts (cf. Bierwisch 1967 and 1987). Regarding second and foreign language acquisition, Rohde (1993: 80) claims that learners cannot adequately understand the meaning of, e.g., 'long' and 'short', if they have not learnt the fundamental concepts of 'little' and 'big'. At a later stage in language development, the acquisition of the purely quantifying adjectives small and large effects the differentiation in the field of dimensional adjectives not available in other languages. In adult language, little is not only one of the most frequently used adjectives, it is, in fact, one of the most frequently used words of the English language. Sinclair (1991: 143) presents a list of the 113 most frequent word forms of English, based on approximately eighteen million words from the COBUILD corpus. 69 Most positions on this list are held by function words such as articles, prepositions, and conjunctions (cf. Sinclair 1991: 100). 68

69

Rohde (1993: 71) observes that the adjectives which are acquired first in early childhood refer to perceptually salient entities, often addressed by parents and caretakers. In German, for instance, the first adjectives include, in particular, heiß and naß, i.e. the equivalents of hoi and wet. It is important to note that Sinclair's list comprises word forms and not 'lemmas' (Sinclair 1991: 41), which means that, e.g., was, is, be, were, and been are counted separately. They occupy positions 10,11, 19, 39, and 52. Two further positions in the same list are occupied by the apostrophe (18) and the hyphen (36).

128

Only a total of fifteen positions are occupied by content word forms. These include eight verbs, four nouns, and three adjectives. These adjectives are new, little, and good in positions 101, 110, and 113. According to this count, little is the second most frequent adjective of English. It must be borne in mind, however, that the word form little does not represent an adjective in all of its 5260 occurrences.70 The DCE2 provides three entries for little to distinguish between its three homonyms, each differing in word class: little as an adjective, as an adverb, and as a determiner, pronoun, or noun. Examples for the third category are Add a little salt, I have very little left, and We walked a little further along the road respectively. While the comparative and superlative less and least can be formed from little as an adverb and as a determiner, pronoun or noun, they are not formed from the adjective (cf. 4.3.3.).71 Only adjectival little is relevant for analytic diminutive formation. In the DCE2, this adjective is described as polysemous, with four meanings being distinguished: 1.

'small' (esp. in a way that is attractive or produces sympathy): e.g. What a nice little garden! 2. 'short': e.g. She sat with him for a little while. 3. 'young': e.g. my little (= younger) brother 4. 'trivial': e.g. one or two little problems to sort out These examples demonstrate that the postulated meanings result from the interaction between little and the semantic category to which the following noun belong. For instance, concrete nouns, such as garden, cannot be 'trivial', abstract nouns such as problems cannot be 'short', and phenomena with a temporal extension such as while cannot be 'young'. In all cases, the common denominator is that little expresses a deficit relative to the relevant norm of the respective noun category. In contrast to the DCE2 and other dictionaries, the COBI, on principle, provides only one entry for each word. Within an entry, meanings are listed according to frequency only, irrespective of other parameters as, e.g., word class. For the lemma little, thirteen meanings are distinguished in the COBI, of which the first seven are the meanings of adjectival little (the other word classes are quantifier, adverb, and (part of a phrasal) adjunct, each of which occurs twice among the remaining six meanings). By and large, the seven adjectival meanings correspond to the four meanings differentiated in the DCE2. However, in the more detailed subdivisions in the COBI, it becomes even more apparent that the different meanings depend on the semantic class of the nouns modified. For instance, the first meaning listed in the COBI is defined as 'small in physical size', implying that physical size is a relevant parameter for potential base nouns. In the definition of the second meaning, the correlation between physical size (height) and age is explicated. Possible base words refer 70

71

Given that little is acquired before small and used also more frequently than small, it could be argued that the archelexeme for the word field should be LITTLE. However, since small lacks the "emotional implications" conveyed by little and since the marked field members are usually defined via small and not little, the word field is called SMALL (cf. 4.3.2.). For substandard varieties of English, the COBUILD dictionary lists the forms littler/littlest for the first three meanings of adjectival little, viz. for 'small', 'young', and 'younger' (as in my little sister) (COBI).

129 to children. While this second meaning can be paraphrased as 'young', a paraphrase for the third meaning is 'younger'. In this case, little collocates only with either brother or sister, and cannot be used predicatively, a restriction which justifies the distinction between the second and third meaning, both related to children. In its fourth meaning, little refers to spatial distances and periods of time, in its fifth meaning to quantities and collectives, and in its sixth meaning to symptoms of emotions such as smile, grin, and cry. In all cases, the semantic classes of base words are quite specific and relatively narrow. Finally, in the seventh meaning distinguished in the COBI, adjectival little expresses an attitude. In this case, two aspects are differentiated: (7.1) "to indicate or emphasize your attitude towards someone or something, usually when they are quite small in size, but sometimes when you just want to make them seem unimportant." (7.2) "to indicate that something is not serious or significant, or is not done on a large scale, and when you want to make it seem unimportant."

The crucial feature distinguishing little as diminutive marker is addressed in these two definitions. Not only can little be used to convey an attitude (cf., e.g., Charleston 1960: 11 Iff.), it can also be used to represent people, things or other phenomena as small, unimportant, or insignificant, etc., irrespective of the actual size, importance, or significance, etc. of their referents.

4.3.5. Analytic diminutive forms 4.3.5.1. The position of little in noun phrases A distinction not found in dictionaries is made by Strang (1968: 137f.), who postulates two homonymous adjectives little: "We have distinguished little as an adjective of size from little as a diminutive ..." (Strang 1968: 138; original emphasis). This postulate is based on a positional classification of adjectives in attributive function (cf. Strang 1968: 136ff.), and more particularly of short and frequent adjectives such as nice, white, and old, but not of long and rare adjectives such as bombastic or dicotyledonous. While the latter adjectives are described as 'movable', the former are described as 'inherently placed', i.e. restricted to a particular position within the noun phrase. Strang distinguishes three positions in the noun phrase. Position I is immediately to the left of the construction head (i.e. noun), and position III farthest away from it. The determiners are placed left of position III. Adjectives referring to age (e.g., old or young) occur in position I, while general characterisations, including positive and negative evaluations, such as nice, pleasant, or horrid as well as expressions of size such as tall and little, appear in position III. By contrast, diminutive little occupies position II, the middle position, a position also occupied by colour terms. So, according to Strang (1968: 137), little in the phrase a dim little old man is a diminutive, whereas in a little white house it is an adjective of size.

130

DET

Α-POS. Ill

Α-POS. II

Α-POS. I

Evaluation

Diminutive

Age

Size

Colour

a

dim

little

a

little

white

old

Ν

man house

Table 2: Positional distribution of common adjective categories in the English noun phrase When applying this type of analysis to naturally occurring data, two problems may occur. First, positions may be vacant, and, second, positions may be occupied by more than one adjective. Thus, when three adjectives appear, these are not necessarily realisations of positions I, II and III. For instance, in a nasty, irritable, selfish man, all adjectives realise position III, while the other two positions remain empty. As a rule, however, adjectives in the same position are separated by intonation or punctuation. A more imminent problem occurs when little is used alone or in combination with an adjective in position I and cannot, therefore, be unambiguously allocated to either position II (diminutive) or III (size). For instance, in those little beady red eyes or those little dark villages (two examples from the present corpus), little seems to occupy position III, whereas in a little old lady came out very quietly (also taken from my corpus), it seems to occupy position II and, thus, count as a diminutive. However, although this analysis may be convincing, there is no clear proof of it. In the light of such difficulties, the question must be posed whether it is necessary to distinguish two homonymous adjectives little. In an alternative account, Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 114ff.) distinguish between a strong and a weak form of little. They also refer to syntactic position and observe (1994: 116): It seems that the combination of the weak form little plus immediately following head noun, has acquired an autonomous, mostly connotative meaning, and that it is on the way to moving from a phrasal status to one of juxtaposition. This weak form of little is a diminutive marker typical of English. Its most important features, many of which have been mentioned before, can be summarised as follows (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 115): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

The weak form is sometimes contracted in writing, e.g. as lil, til', or li'l. It is always unstressed. 72 It has never a purely quantifying meaning. It can, therefore, only rarely, if at all, be replaced by small J 3 It can only be used attributively.

" Cf. Turner (1973: 84), quoted in 4.3.1. 73 Cf. the substitution tests in Nieuwenhuis (1985:44ff.).

131 6) It cannot be used in postmodification. 7) It always appears to the right of its (marked) synonyms (e.g. tiny, wee, etc.). 8) Its typical, unmarked position is immediately to the left of the noun. In addition to 8), Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 115) claim that the strong form can be used freely in all positions in combinations of adjectival premodiflers. This claim and the observation under 8) contradict Strang's classification. Furthermore, it seems useful not to distinguish two homonymous adjectives. By contrast, it is suggested here that little is always an adjective of size which has affective connotations. It is further suggested that these connotations become stronger or dominant the closer to the nominal head the adjective occurs. At the same time, word stress is reduced. Little is most affective and least stressed in the position immediately to the left of the base noun (i.e. in Strang's position I). In this position, little often co-occurs with positively or, more frequently, negatively evaluative adjectives, which appear immediately to its left (cf. 4.3.5.3. for details).

4.3.5.2. Semantic classes of base words It was pointed out in 4.3.4. that the meaning of little interacts with the meaning of the nouns it modifies. The present section aims at classifying those nouns which are or can be modified in order to establish the constraints on possible input. The most fundamental distinction relevant to a classification of these nouns is the distinction between nouns which refer to persons and nouns which refer to objects. Abstract nouns seem to constitute a further relevant class. These classes, as well as the subclasses discussed below, are not based on preconceived categories or construed by logic, but are rather arrived at following empirical analyses. PERSONAL NOUNS The class of nouns referring to persons can be divided into four subclasses: a) names, b) titles, c) neutral terms, and d) evaluative terms. These are now discussed in turn. a) Names In the corpus on which the present study is based, the number of analytic diminutives formed from personal names is very small. Last names are not used at all. In the examples Little Joe and Little Mike, the diminutive marker has become a permanent constituent of the name, as is borne out by the capitalisation of little (cf. also Little Red Riding Hood). Further examples include poor little Rosie, in which the name is a synthetic diminutive, and our own little sonny-Jim, in which the name is a compound of the name proper as the righthand component, modified by a synthetic diminutive derived from the kinship term son. The corpus also includes little Dumpling, used as an address term, and derived from a nickname. In general, however, diminutives derived from names are formed synthetically (cf. esp. 4.2.1. and 5.1.4.). b) Titles Of all the titles available in English (cf. 5.1.), analytic diminutives are formed almost exclusively from the so-called M-titles (i.e. Mr, Ms, etc.). Specifically little Miss (not fol-

132 lowed by a name) occurs more than once in my data, notably with reference to married women, who are thereby doubly belittled. c) Neutral terms Neutral terms are nouns referring to persons which do not, as such, convey an attitude. Examples include boy, girl, children, lady, man, and wife. Attitudinal connotations are added by combining these words with little. In little children, little boy and little girl, little acquires the specific meaning 'young' (cf. 4.3.4.) and can therefore be replaced by the adjective young. This adjective, however, is neutral, less ambiguous and more specific, while little primarily communicates an attitude towards the referent. Whether the communicated attitude is positive or negative, depends on the given context. If the referents are adults, the default reading is negative. It is, however, positive, if the referents are children. Lady, man and wife normally denote adult persons. Analytic diminutives formed from these words are negatively evaluative. They reduce adults to the level of children. In other words, they attribute deficits to the referent which are natural in children due to their incomplete physical, cognitive and social development and evoke predominantly positive feelings. In the case of adults, however, there are no natural explanations of such (perceived or attributed) deficits - consequently, they are evaluated negatively. In short, adults are belittled when referred to using analytic diminutives, and the speaker or writer made to look superior (cf. Schneider/Schneider 1991). If, however, forms such as little man or little lady are used for little boys or girls, they express appreciation (cf. also Charleston 1960: 113). d) Evaluative terms Evaluative terms are nouns which are used in their literal or metaphorical meaning to refer to persons. In the present data, the majority of nouns belonging to this category express a negative evaluation. Examples include bastard, beast, brute, bugger, dip, nit, troublemaker, and villain. In analytic diminutives derived from such expressions, little mitigates the negative evaluation if the diminutive refers to a child, as in the following instance: (24) Father to his three year-old daughter: Come here you little brute. (EDM) If, however, such diminutives refer to adults, the negative assessment is intensified by (further) downgrading the referent and simultaneously upgrading the person who uses such a form (cf. 5.1.). Thus, diminutives of this type convey not only contempt or annoyance, but also that the speaker or writer looks down on the referent. They are usually employed in insults (cf. 5.4.2.). The discussion shows that a semantic analysis must be complemented by a pragmatic analysis for a full understanding of these forms. OBJECT NOUNS Object nouns refer prototypically to man-made objects, i.e. to three-dimensional visible entities such as book, door, and house. Analytic diminutives derived from such nouns express smallness relative to the relevant class norm as well as an attitude towards the referent represented as a small one of its kind.

133 More oñen than not, however, little is used in a qualifying rather than a literally quantifying meaning and can only be adequately interpreted in terms of pragmatic categories. In Open that little door (ALB), for example, the diminutive is not motivated by the actual size of the referent, but by a hearer-supportive social maxim according to which the object is represented as small in order to reduce the cost involved to the addressee of the request in which the diminutive occurs (cf. 5.2.). Furthermore, when an object noun refers to possessions (e.g. house, garden, or car) or achievements (e.g. book, film, or CD) of the speaker, diminutive forms derived from such nouns also portray their referents as small in a metaphorical, rather than a literal, sense, despite the actual size, length, or volume, etc. of the objects in question. The diminutives here serve as modesty markers, i.e. as diminutive markers motivated by the politeness maxim of modesty (cf. 5.5.). A typical example would be: I've just brought out a little book on Kajka. A specific subclass of object nouns consists of terms for particular luxuries, notably for tobacco, alcoholic beverages, snacks and sweets, such as cigarette, cigar, drinkies, drop (of Scotch), and also top-up, etc. Analytic diminutives formed from such nouns occur relatively frequently in the present corpus. They are used in a variety of speech acts, most particularly in offers and offer acceptance, in specific situations, such as social gatherings; cf., e.g., Have a little cigarette (cf. esp. 5.3.1.). Diminutives in this particular category constitute yet another type of diminutive which can only be fully understood in a pragmatic analysis taking situational and contextual factors into consideration (cf. also Mühlhäusler 1983: 89). ABSTRACT NOUNS Two categories of abstract nouns are relevant in the present context. The first category comprises nouns referring to the frame of problem-solving (in a broad sense of the word). Within this frame, two aspects can be distinguished, viz. the What and the How of solving problems. The first of these subcategories contains, e.g., problem, difficulty, and things, the second, words such as discussion, talk, chat, and word. Typical contexts for these words in their diminutive forms include, for instance, We must have a little chat or I must have a little word with you, and You seem to have a little problem or My little difficulty here is ... (cf. Charleston 1960: 113). In such contexts, diminutives from this category are often used ironically. The second category comprises abstract nouns used metaphorically to characterise persons. A common example is He's a little terror, which translates into less expressive He's a terrible boy (cf. Charleston 1960: 127f.). In this example, the diminutive marker also indicates that the referent is a child. The discussion of empirically established semantic classes of base words has been revealing on two levels. First, it has been shown that there are no apparent restrictions on the semantics of potential base words for analytic diminutive formation. Second, and more importantly, there appears to be a relatively narrow and specific number of semantic subclasses of nouns whose analytic diminutives occur relatively frequently in particular contexts and in communicatively significant ways. This phenomenon demonstrates once again the interaction between grammar and pragmatics via semantics. It further shows that the

134 analysis of diminutives on the grammatical level remains incomplete without a pragmatic component.

4.3.5.3. Co-occurrence of modifiers Analytic diminutives are often modified by further adjectives. In many cases, unstressed little co-occurs with other qualifying adjectives (cf. Wandruszka 1969: 94f.). Wandruszka's (1969: 95) example I'm such a silly little goose, used in self-reproach, resembles You are a silly little bunny (Köhler 1994), uttered by a mother trying to console her four year-old child, who has hurt herself. This utterance also has reproachful overtones. In both cases, the referent (speaker and hearer respectively) is equated with an animal. The animal term is used metaphorically as an evaluative expression (cf. 4.3.5.2.) and preceded by silly and the diminutive marker little. Silly, albeit not terribly strong in itself, enhances the negative evaluation expressed by the animal term, which is stronger in the adult's self-reproach (goose) and weaker in the mild other-reproach addressed to the child (bunny). Most of the other qualifying adjectives in the present corpus are also negatively evaluative terms, but express more emphatic criticism than silly, or even blunt abuse. Typical examples include selfish, lousy, bloody, and damn as well as cheeky and sodding, as used in the following utterances. (25) You cheeky little devil! (addressed to a child) (26) You sodding little turd! (addressed to a dog) The intensity of the evaluation expressed by these speech acts results primarily from the interplay of the qualifying adjective and the modified noun, while the diminutive marker has a mitigating effect when the referent is a child, but an aggravating effect in other cases (cf. also 5.4.2.). Appreciative qualifiers found in the present data include great, nice, sweet, and dear, as in Great little price, such a nice little car, a sweet little watch, and our dear little house at Wendover (cf. also Charleston 1960: 113, Nieuwenhuis 1985: 241, and Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 115f.). While it is worth noting that the positive evaluations predominantly refer to objects, there are, of course, examples in which they also refer to persons; cf., e.g., sweet/dear/gorgeous little boy. Analytic diminutives expressing pity, commiseration, and empathy are prefaced by poor, as in poor little Rosie, or The poor little thing has cut its foot. In both cases here, the modified noun is not a neutral term, the first being a synthetic diminutive derived from a first name, and the second an expressive noun used metaphorically (cf. also Charleston 1960: 114). While old and little can co-occur (cf., e.g., table 2 above), these two adjectives clearly function as opposites in contexts in which age plays a role. Compare, for instance, You snivelling little jerk! (addressed to a boy) versus You stupid old bat! (addressed to an old woman). As a rule, however, the actual age is irrelevant when old is used. In general, it can be claimed that when a negative evaluation is expressed, old may signal more respect than little, the latter of which often conveys haughtiness, condescension, or superiority, as mentioned above. In any case, little and old are both affect markers. In fact, when it immedi-

135 ately precedes the noun, old largely corresponds to the weak form of little (cf. 4.3.5.1.). In these cases, old is also unstressed, a fact reflected in the spelling ol'. Moreover, old also combines with other qualifying adjectives, as, e.g., in you 're a fanny old thing (cf. Turner 1973: 84, also Charleston 1960: 113f.). All qualifying adjectives, both positive and negative, can, in principle, modify analytic diminutives. In practice, however, little is predominantly preceded by frequently occurring, simple adjectives, described by Strang (1968: 136ff.) as 'inherently placed', i.e. restricted to a particular position in the English noun phrase (cf. 4.3.5.1.). Qualifying adjectives co-occurring with analytic diminutives serve to disambiguate the affective value of the diminutive meaning. They are always positioned to the left of little, which means that the diminutive marker and the base noun always form a continuous, uninterrupted unit. As a rule, only one such adjective accompanies a diminutive. In the present corpus, a second qualifying adjective occurs in only two cases. In both cases, the expressed evaluation is negative. (27) you skunky, conniving little villain (SHA) (28) you smug, self-righteous little scientist (ALB) It is remarkable that in both utterances a shorter adjective is followed by a longer and more complex adjective. In both examples, the two adjectives are separated by commas, which means that the adjectives occupy the same premodificational position. Yet, the empirical base for such observations is too slim to propose any rules. A clear majority of the analytic diminutives are, however, not further modified by any adjective. Of all analytic diminutives in the corpus, four out of five occur without an adjectival modifier. Unmodified analytic diminutives may, however, be intensified. In general, tiny is used for intensification. However, other members of the word field SMALL may also be employed, especially those members classified as 'informal' in 4.3.2. Illustrative examples are a tiny little man, and a wee little monster.

4.3.6. Summary: analytic diminutive formation in English Analytic diminutive formation in English is considered the functional equivalent to synthetic diminutive formation in other languages prototypically associated with diminutives, notably Southern Romance and Slavic languages and also Dutch and German. In translations, the suffixed forms frequently used in those languages are often rendered in English by using analytic diminutives, and vice versa. On closer inspection, however, the synthetic diminutives of English are equally important, but fulfil other communicative functions than analytic forms (cf. 4.4. and 5.). Analytic diminutives in English consist of two components, the base word, which is a noun, and the diminutive marker, which is an adjective from the word field SMALL. In most cases, little is chosen, or, more particularly, the weak variant of this adjective which occupies the syntactic position immediately to the left of the base noun. While in most contexts this form of little cannot be replaced by small because small lacks affective connotations, it can be replaced by other adjectives from the same word field as, for instance, tiny, wee, or teeny-weeny. However, these forms are marked stylistically and express a higher

136 degree of intensity. Therefore, they are more restricted in their use and occur much less frequently. For the most part, base words are nouns referring to either objects, especially artefacts, or persons. Personal nouns can be neutral (e.g. wife) or evaluative (e.g. bastard). A further, but rather limited, class of base words comprises abstract nouns as, e.g., problem. Proper names rarely appear as base words. Analytic diminutives are often modified by qualifying adjectives expressing either a positive or negative evaluation. The evaluation expressed by these adjectives determines the value of the affective component conveyed by the diminutive form. However, the intended affective meaning and the motivation for using a diminutive in the first place can, as a rule, only be fully understood relative to the linguistic and situational context, making a supplementary pragmatic analysis indispensable.

4.4. The relationship between synthetic and analytic diminutive formation in English

Devices for forming diminutives in English include reduplication (cf. 4.2.1.), prefixation (e.g. with mini- or micro-), and compounding (e.g. with baby and dwarf) - processes which are included in the analysis in chapter 5. In the present chapter, however, the focus has been on suffixation and on adjectival modification with little (and further adjectives from the same word field), processes referred to respectively as synthetic and analytic diminutive formation. These two processes represent the two major devices in diminutivisation. As regards the relationship between these two devices, two claims often found in the literature must be addressed (cf. 4.1.1. and 1.1.3.): 1) In English, true diminutives are analytic forms, whereas suffixed forms do not (really) exist. 2) Analytic diminutives are "more objective", i.e. less affective, than synthetic diminutives. It is generally acknowledged that the analytic diminutives of English are functionally equivalent to prototypical suffixal diminutives of other languages. At the same time, it is claimed that suffixal diminutives are not available in English, nor ever have been, and that the few, if any, diminutive suffixes which English possesses are not productive. In contrast to such claims more than eighty suffixes were revealed in this chapter to be, in one way or another, diminutive suffixes of the English language. This is a sizable inventory, much larger than in many other languages. Against this background, the question arises as to the reason for the widespread view that synthetic diminutive formation does not exist in English. The answer to this question appears to be that scholars investigating diminutives in English have, by and large, not bothered to work empirically. Those that have, have often chosen inappropriate data material. Firstly, old examples "die hard". Numerous forms have a long tradition in diminutive research and are quoted over and over again in the literature. In many studies published at

137 the end of the 20th century, diminutive forms are discussed which were collected in the 19th century. This applies, in particular, to studies in the fields of morphology and wordformation. Also, even if old examples are not recycled, sources are not always selected in an appropriate manner. For instance, Wtlrstle (1992), one of the few monographs published on diminutives in English and other languages in recent years, bases her analysis on prose fiction exclusively, and, in particular, on works by Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, and Max Frisch and their English and French translations. While this contrastive method is perfectly acceptable, caution is required in interpreting the results. Such caution is, however, not observed by Wtlrstle, who on the basis of her material, makes far-reaching claims, notably that the diminutive suffixes of English are not productive. At the same time, she maintains that these suffixes are used, but restricted to particular types of contexts and situations. However, it is precisely these contexts which are not analysed in her book. Such contexts are present-day informal speech used primarily in everyday social situations, as, e.g., intra-family interaction and conversation between friends, acquaintances, and neighbours. Spoken discourse of this kind accounts for large portions of day-by-day linguistic communication of any language community. English diminutive suffixes occur predominantly in these types of spoken discourse, while analytic diminutives do not seem to be restricted in this way. Therefore, the impression that the English language does not possess any (or not many) synthetic diminutives seems to be an artefact of methodology, notably of data selection. The assumption that analytic diminutives are "more objective", i.e. less affective, than synthetic diminutives may be based on observations related to the distribution of the two formation types addressed above. Since synthetic forms are used predominantly in more affective contexts, they may appear as "more subjective" than analytic forms. It must be remembered, however, that analytic diminutives are, as a rule, constructions with little, which are in turn "more subjective" than constructions with small, or, indeed, "more subjective" than analytic constructions in languages such as German with only one archelexeme in the word field SMALL, of which small rather than little is considered the equivalent. Finally, it must be pointed out that analytic and synthetic diminutive markers can be combined in one form. Of the many examples of this phenomenon in the present data, the following are quoted here for illustration: a little chappie, poor little Rosie, real lady-like little drinkies, talk to your little wifelet, and three diminutive Kinglets. This type of double marking serves the purpose of intensifying the respective attitude expressed (cf. also 4.2.7.1.). It seems, however, that analytic markers are not compatible with suffix combinations. Furthermore, in none of the examples listed here, could little be replaced by small. To conclude, the discussion in this chapter has shown that the analysis of diminutives cannot be reduced to grammatical aspects. Any adequate analysis has to consider the intricate interaction between formal, semantic and pragmatic factors. In the following chapter, this interaction is examined from a pragmatic perspective.

5. Diminutive use in English conversation

The present chapter presents a pragmatic study of diminutive use within the analytic framework outlined in chapter 3. The study focuses on spoken language and concentrates on (casual) conversation, i.e. the unmarked discourse type, which accounts for a major portion of everyday communication (cf., e.g., Ventola 1979, Edmondson/House 1981: 35, Gardner 1984, Schneider 1988: 35ff.). This focus covers a sufficiently large and coherent part of speech activity, while at the same time observing the general principle of homogeneity. The central unit of analysis is the speech act, which represents the minimal unit of oral communication (cf. Searle 1972: 137). The structure of this chapter is based on Searle's well-established taxonomy of illocutionary types, which comprises directive, commissive, expressive, assertive and declarative acts (Searle 1969 and 1976, Searle/Vanderveken 1985; cf. 4.2.). However, declarative acts are not considered, as they do not occur in everyday conversation (cf. Leech 1983: 106f.). The remaining four speech act classes are supplemented by vocative acts, an illocutionary type introduced by Wunderlich (1978) in his modification of Searle's taxonomy. Given the great variety of synthetic diminutives derived from first names in particular, which can at least potentially be used as address terms for realising vocative acts, it seems necessary to include this speech act class in the analysis.1 The analysis commences with an investigation of diminutive use in vocative acts (5.1.), then proceeds to directive, commissive and expressive acts (5.2., 5.3. and 5.4.), and finally to diminutives in assertive acts (5.5.). In this sense, the analysis is comprehensive. However, on the level of illocutions (such as request, offer and suggestion), the analysis can only be selective, for a number of reasons. First, the members of each speech act class have yet to be determined. Despite various attempts (cf., e.g., Edmondson/House 1981, Ballmer/Brennenstuhl 1981), there is no established inventory of illocutions. Second, empirical pragmatics has always singled out individual speech acts, most notably requests, apologies and complaints (cf., e.g., Trosborg 1995). Therefore, the number of in-depth studies providing a description of realisation strategies is limited. Such descriptions are a prerequisite for the study of diminutive use. Third, even if there were more descriptive studies, and even if there was an established inventory, it would not be conceivable to cover all speech acts within the limits of the present study. Ultimately, the selection of illocutions dealt with in the following sections is not guided in the first instance by theoretical, but rather by practical considerations. The selection is data-driven in the sense that those speech acts included in the analysis are only those in which diminutives occur to any significant extent in my corpus material. The analysis of diminutives in vocative acts focuses on the general function of all vocatives, namely to indicate the established or intended relationship between the interactants (5.1.). While it is possible to distinguish different subtypes of vocatives according to the specific functions they serve, these functions do not seem to affect the use of diminutives in vocative acts. The discussion of diminutive use in

1

Ballmer (1979) points out that any classification of speech acts depends on the respective aims of an investigation and may, therefore, differ from other equally justified taxonomies.

139 directive acts is restricted to requests, the prototypical representative of this illocutionary type, these having received more attention in the literature than any other speech act (5.2.). The study of diminutives in commissives considers three speech acts: offers, announcements, and suggestions (5.3.1., 5.3.2. and 5.3.3.). More particularly, it deals with situationally determined subtypes of these acts occurring in a particular type of social context and displaying features which are especially relevant to diminutive use. In the class of expressive acts, the focus is on two illocutions, both of which operate on the pragmatic praisedispraise scale and which can be regarded as complementary. These are compliments (which have received much attention in sociolinguistics) and insults (5.4.1. and 5.4.2.). Finally, in the class of assertive acts, distinctions between class members do not seem relevant to the study of diminutive use (5.5.2.). Instead, the analysis examines propositional features which appear central to the use and understanding of diminutives in this type of speech act (5.5.3.). These features are reference to persons (5.5.4.) and reference to objects (5.5.5.), particularly in relation to the speech act participants. A selective approach appears legitimate, as the primary aim of the study is to demonstrate a multifactorial analysis of diminutive use specifying the impact of formal, functional and situational parameters and the interaction between these. Thus, each study of diminutive use in a particular speech act serves as a model for further investigations of diminutive use in other speech acts. In this sense, the analysis is illustrative and exemplary. Each section begins with an interactional characterisation of the respective illocutionary type (cf. House/Kasper 1987). This characterisation involves identifying its communicative point and the pragmatic scale relevant to polite realisations (cf. Leech 1983: 123ff.). Both factors are crucially important in determining speech act-specific features of diminutive use. Both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues are also addressed. Pragmalinguistic parameters include realisation strategies and speech act modification. Semantic and thematic aspects are also examined. Sociopragmatic parameters include situational variables, such as social contexts and interactant constellations in terms of power and distance and also in terms of social roles (e.g. parent/child, husband/wife, or host/guest). Where possible, differences across English-speaking cultures are also considered. Although, essentially, the approach adopted is speech act-based, macropragmatic aspects are also addressed. The analysis involves responsive acts and follow-up moves, speech act renewals and re-initiations, and different discourse positions in complete speech encounters. The focus is on diminutive use in complex exchanges and in longer stretches of discourse, viz. in speech act sequences and negotiation patterns. The analysis shows that diminutives have specific discourse functions beyond the individual speech act or utterance. It must be pointed out that it was not possible to examine every parameter for each speech act, due to the limitations of the data material. In combination, however, the analyses presented in the following sections create a more complete picture, which brings out the differences and similarities of diminutive use across speech acts and across illocutionary types. Needless to say, further investigations are required to fill the remaining gaps. It is worth noting that the following analysis of the pragmatic functions, and especially of the attitudes and emotions expressed by diminutives, has a strong interpretative component. While this component is considered indispensable, more systematic research is needed. In particular, the interpretations should be supported by assessment ratings elicited from non-expert informants. In this context, it must be emphasised that the present investigation is an exploratory study.

140

The present chapter concludes with a summary of the findings on the pragmatic functions of diminutives (5.6.), highlighting in particular those aspects of diminutive use in everyday communication which seem to be speech act-independent. These include, first and foremost, the influence of the interactant constellation and of the social context.

5.1. Vocative acts

5.1.1. Interactional characterisation and specification According to Wunderlich (1978: 79), the vocative type constitutes one of the two primary illocutionary types. He claims that vocatives and directives were the first speech acts to develop in the history of mankind. The communicative purpose of directives is to steer an addressee's actions (cf. 5.2.1.), whereas that of vocatives is to steer the attention of the addressee. The class of vocative acts can be divided into three subtypes, viz. alerters, appealers, and addressers.2 Alerters serve to open the communicative channel when it is not yet or no longer open. In other words, alerters are employed to get the addressee's attention. They, thus, create the preconditions for communication. They may constitute head moves and can be turn-size units in discourse. By contrast, appealers are used to allocate the floor, i.e. to select the next speaker. Appealers appear predominantly in turn-final position, but may also occur in other positions, most notably in the turn-initial position. Finally, addressers express the speaker's assessment of the relationship between the interactants as established, assumed or intended by the speaker (cf., e.g., Braun 1988: 258). Addressers are not restricted to any particular position inside turns at talk. Distinctions between these three subtypes are of a purely analytic nature. Alerters and appealers also communicate the speaker's attitude towards the hearer. Arguably, however, this is not their primary function. In sum, all vocative acts reflect the relationship between speaker and hearer, but they can also serve more specific purposes in discourse organisation.

5.1.2. Realisation strategies Vocative acts are predominantly realised by terms of address such as Bertie, Mr Cunningham, Your excellency, etc. To attract somebody's attention, exclamations such as hey can also be used, particularly when the speaker does not know the addressee's name or title. Terms of address are not the same as addressers, a subtype of vocative acts (cf. 5.1.1.), but rather, nominal or pronominal expressions which may occur in vocatives as well as in other

2

These terms are used for Wunderlich's categories 'Anruf, 'Aufruf, and 'Anrede' (1978: 77f.). I am aware that the English terms are sometimes used in a different sense. For similar uses cf., e.g., Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b ('alerter') and Edmondson/House 1981 ('appealer').

141 speech acts. The use of pronouns in vocatives (e.g. Hey you!, You there!) is considered rude. Modern English has only one second person pronoun {you), while other languages distinguish between so-called V- and T-forms to indicate social distance or relative social status. Examples include French vous/tu, Russian vy/ty, and German Sie/du (cf. Brown/ Gilman 1960). This does not mean, however, that the distinctions expressed through such dichotomous systems cannot be expressed in English (cf. Braun 1988: 62 and 65). Speakers may, for instance, be on a first or last name basis. Consequently, nominal address terms are of central importance for establishing and maintaining social relations in English-speaking cultures. Nominal terms of address can be subdivided into four classes: personal names (PN), titles (T), kinship terms (KT) and descriptors (D) (cf., e.g., Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 289ff.). Each class can be further subdivided into communicatively relevant subclasses, (a) The personal names category comprises the subcategories first names (FN) which are given at birth, and last names (LN) which are inherited or acquired through marriage, (b) Titles, as a rule, are acquired and indicate a position in a hierarchy. Major subtypes are professional titles (e.g. Doctor, Professor, Senator), military titles (e.g. Captain, Lieutenant, Officer), and religious titles (e.g. Father, Mother Superior, Sister). So-called M-forms - Mister (Mr), Missis (Mrs), Miss and Ms - are also considered titles, (c) Kinship terms indicate relations between members of a family. A relevant distinction is that between first order KTs (e.g. father, grandmother) and second order KTs (e.g. nephew, cousin) (cf. McArthur 1992: 412). (d) Descriptors form a heterogeneous class, comprising all nominal address terms which do not belong to the other three classes. Subtypes include generic terms (e.g .fellow, mate, folks) and functional terms (e.g. waiter, nurse, taxi), as well as nicknames, pet names and terms of endearment (e.g. Ice Queen, Ducks, darling).

5.1.3. Social norms The use of nominal terms of address is governed by conventions which Laver (1981) refers to as the 'polite norm1. Selecting an appropriate expression depends on situational factors, such as sex and marital status of the addressee and on the relationship between speaker and addressee in terms of social distance, relative social status, and age difference (cf. Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 29Iff.). In his description of the polite norm for British English, Laver (1981:296ff.) identifies twelve parameters. These are: 1.+/-Adult 2. +/- Marked setting 3. +/- Kin 4. +/- Ascending generation 5. +/- Older 6. +/- Well acquainted 7. +/- Higher rank 8. +/-15 years older

142 9. +/- Dispensation 10.+/-Profession title 11.+/-Male 12. +/- Married These parameters form a non-linear hierarchy, partially captured here by the above groupings (cf. the diagram in Laver 1981: 297). Titles are used by adults (parameter 1) in marked contexts (parameter 2), e.g. My Lord in courtrooms. Outside of marked contexts, titles are used by persons who are neither relatives (parameter 3) nor well acquainted (parameter 6), if the addressee has a specific title (parameter 10). If this is not the case, men are addressed äs Mr (parameter 11), and women as Mrs or Miss, depending on their marital status (parameter 12). However, this last parameter, still listed in Laver (1981), has gradually become obsolete in recent years (cf. the replacement of Mrs and Miss by Ms). Titles are also used if the interactants are well acquainted, but the addressee is in a higher position (parameter 7) or more than fifteen years older (parameter 8).3 Professional titles can be used alone (=T, e.g. Prime Minister), or in combination with an M-form (=MT, e.g. Mr Chairman). Academic, religious and military titles are, as a rule, combined with last names (=TLN, e.g. Prof./Father/Sgt. Pepper). Combinations such as Sister Mary or Brother John (=TFN) constitute an exception.4 In other constellations, M-forms are used together with last names (=MLN). Speakers who do not know the addressee's last name use madam/ma 'am or sir. Using M-forms or last names alone is considered impolite in everyday communication. Isolated M-forms (e.g. Misteri) express anger or annoyance, and are associated with speakers from the lower classes. Isolated last names typically occur between males in marked contexts, such as in the military or in public schools. In such contexts, last names alone are used between equals or by persons in superior position. In all cases in which titles ought to be used, dispensation can be granted (parameter 9), i.e. first names may be used in place of titles or title combinations. Furthermore, first names are used in the following constellations: - if the addressee is a child; - if the addressee is a relative of the same generation; - if the addressee is an acquaintance of the same generation and if there are no significant status differences. Kinship terms are used by non-adult speakers to address parents and grandparents, and their respective brothers and sisters. If, however, the age difference between speakers and their aunts or uncles is marginal, then first names may be used. Also, first names are increasingly used to address older aunts and uncles as well as parents. As children are always

3

4

According to Brown/Ford (1964),fifteenyears or more is a communicatively relevant age difference. For the present analysis, a more detailed description is not necessary. For more details, cf. Gramley/Pätzold (1992:291ff.) and the literature quoted by these authors.

143 addressed by their first names, the terms son and daughter are not normally used by their parents. These terms may be used metaphorically in religious contexts, usually prefaced by the possessive my. Furthermore, son (without possessive) is sometimes used by older males to address younger males. This usage, which is associated with speakers from the lower classes, is considered patronising the greater the social distance between the interactants. The use of kids for adults is also considered patronising or impolite. The use of descriptors, which is not discussed, e.g., in Laver (1981), is not subject to (explicit) social norms or rules of etiquette. Descriptors occur in everyday communication in informal contexts. Generic descriptors, as, e . g f e l l o w , mate, guys, folks, express solidarity. Using such 'in-group identity markers' represents a 'positive politeness strategy' (Brown/ Levinson 1987: 107f.). If, however, the addressee is a stranger, this strategy may be unacceptable on account of the claims of familiarity involved. Positive descriptors such as love, dear, honey, darling are used predominantly in constellations which are characterised by minimal social distance, e.g. between lovers, between spouses, and by parents towards their children. They are also used by shop assistants prototypically older women from the lower classes - to address customers of both sexes, particularly in the United Kingdom and Australia (cf. Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 297). Eakins/Eakins (1978: 116) report that in the United States, male sales persons use positive descriptors to address female students, while they use neutral sir for male students. Negative descriptors are used to express momentary anger (particularly in close relationships) or as plain (e.g. sexist or racist) insults (particularly in distant relationships). Don't call me names! is a possible reaction (cf. S.4.2.). However, in male in-groups, negative descriptors may express friendship and nearness. This phenomenon has been termed 'semantic inversion' (cf. Gramley/Pätzold 1992:298). Needless to say, the polite norms governing addressing behaviour vary across cultures, regions, social classes, ethnic communities, age groups, gender, and also across individuals. In the present study, it is impossible to analyse the influence of each of these factors systematically. The discussion has to be limited largely to general aspects in the use of vocative realisations.

5.1.4. Diminutives as modifiers Against the background of sections 5.1.2. and 5.1.3., which deal with pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of vocatives, the following questions are addressed in the present section: 1) Which terms of address can be used as diminutives, and which cannot be used as diminutives? How can any restrictions be accounted for? 2) Which types of diminutive formation occur in vocatives? 3) How and why are diminutives employed in vocative acts? These questions will be answered for each of the four classes of address terms, viz. titles, names, kinship terms and descriptors.

144 5.1.4.1. Titles As a rule, titles are not used as diminutives. Diminutives do not seem compatible with the social contexts and constellations which demand the use of titles, particularly in the case of religious and military titles. Clipping occurs with professional titles (e.g. doc or prof), but the clipped forms are not normally used in vocatives, but rather when talking about the respective person. They may, however, jocularly be used as addressers in informal contexts. That such use only occurs jocularly supports the claim that, as a rule, diminutives derived from titles are not used in vocatives. Respect seems to exclude diminutives. Neither are M-forms used as diminutives, with one exception, namely the term Miss - a term generally considered sexist these days. Diminutives derived from this form are used in isolation, i.e. not in combination with last names. Both synthetic and analytic forms occur, i.e. Missey and little Miss. These are used by males to address younger females, irrespective of their marital status. Consider the following example from an interaction in which the speaker knows that the addressee is a married woman. (1) George [to Honey]: You know what's going on in there, little Miss? [...] (ALB 106) The existence of the diminutives little Miss and Missey, and their use by male speakers reflects the traditional power relationship between the sexes in society (cf. Schneider/Schneider 1991). No other title is used in its diminutive form. Miss, the title which expresses the least respect, is an exception.

5.1.4.2. Names 5.1.4.2.1. First names First names are used either as full or as modified forms. Modification involves truncation, suffixation and reduplication. Analytic diminutive formation is also possible, but comparatively rare (cf., e.g., Little John, Little Joe). Poynton (1989) classifies all types of modification as diminutives, which contrast with the full forms. Full forms such as Rosemary, Catherine, Susan, Joseph, Robert and Harold are stylistically neutral and can be used in all contexts in which adults are on first-name basis, i.e. between equals or when dispensation has been granted. They occur in constellations characterised by relative social distance. Children, especially young children, are not normally addressed using full forms, but rather using diminutives, while children, as a rule, use full forms to address their parents (unless they use kinship terms). Truncated forms signal social nearness and an informal communication situation. They are used between equals, but not for addressing children. In principle, all polysyllabic first names can be truncated. The resulting forms are always monosyllabic. (2) Rosemary > Rose, Susan > Sue, Catherine > Cath, Peter > Pete, Joseph > Joe, Samuel > Sam, etc.

145 As a rule, the initial syllable of the full form is retained. If, however, the initial syllable is unstressed, the (first) stressed syllable is instead retained. More than one shortened form may exist for long names consisting of more than two syllables. In the case of tetrasyllable Elizabeth, both syllables carrying (primary or secondary) stress can be used as short names, i.e. Liz and Beth (cf. 4.2.1. for details). In British English, the truncation of male first names involves rhyming processes. (3) Robert > Bob (versus Rob), William > Bill (versus Will), Richard > Dick (versus Rick), etc. Prototypical diminutives, i.e. suffixed forms, can, in principle, be derived from all first ñames. The bases for suffixation are monosyllabic forms, i.e. monosyllabic names or truncated forms. (4) John > Johnny, Peter > Petey/* Petery, Elizabeth > Lizzie/*Elizabethy. Most synthetic diminutives are formed by adding {IE} (cf. 4.2.1.). In Irish English, {EEN} is sometimes used, e.g., Noreen and Peleen (cf. 4.2.4.3.). {A} and {S} are used to derive homonymous diminutives from different bases (cf. 4.2.5., 4.2.7., and Poynton 1989: 62): (5) Bazza < Barry / Sebastian·, Tezza < Terence / Teresa·, Jules < Julia / Julian. Diminutives in {IE} are the standard forms for addressing young children, whereas forms in {A} and {S} occur among adolescents and among adults. Other suffixes such as {KIN}, {LE}, {POP}, {POO}, and {0} appear almost exclusively in multiple diminutives and in multifarious combinations and variations (cf. 4.2.6., 4.2.7., and Mühlhäusler 1983): (6) Suzykins, Paulikins, Franglekins, Bobbles, Albertipoo, Brendipoos, Janepoons, Mikeypoodles, Rosiepops, Jupops, Stevio, etc. In addition, the quasi-suffix -boy should be mentioned here. This suffix can be added to male names. Like most of the other suffixes used in multiple diminutives, -boy follows {IE}, as e.g. in Georgie-boy.s While simple diminutives, especially forms in {IE}, are relatively stable variants of first names used consistently over longer periods of time, multiple diminutives are relatively instable variants formed on the spur of the moment, or, at least, employed for particular purposes in particular situations. Generally speaking, multiple diminutives reflect a

5

Charleston (1960: 124) lists the ScotE quasi-suffixes -lad and -lass, as e.g. in Peter-lad and Katylass. No examples of these formations are found in the present corpus.

146 speaker's momentary attitude towards the hearer. They are often used strategically. These emphatically affective forms may, for instance, be used in vocatives to support a request (cf. 5.2.3.3.1. and 5.2.3.3.2.). In this specific function, they may either occur turn-initially or initiate a pre-exchange, as in the following (fabricated) example: (7) A: Paulikins? B: What's up? A: Could you perhaps... In this example, the diminutive is used as an alerter to (re-)open the communicative channel. Selecting a particularly endearing variant serves to coax the hearer into doing something (cf. Charleston 1960: 124). Apart from truncation and suffixation, reduplication represents the third major type of modification. Two subtypes can be distinguished: repetition and rhyming reduplication. The first type comprises repetition of monosyllabic full forms (e.g. John-John), of monosyllabic short forms (e.g. Joe-Joe), and of bisyllabic derivations in {IE} (e.g. FrankieFrankie). The second type repeats bisyllabic derivations in {IE} with different onsets, e.g. Georgie-Porgie, Annie-Pannie, Stevie-Weavie, Jenny-Penny (cf. 4.2.1.). Reduplications of the repetitive type may be relatively stable names for children as well as for adults in minimally distant relationships. By contrast, reduplications of the rhyming type are situational variants used to tease the addressee. When used between adults, such forms may express that the speaker feels (momentarily) superior and does not take the addressee seriously. This type of behaviour is illustrated by the following excerpt. At the beginning, Brindsley expresses his relief about a mended fuse. His guests, however, remind him that switching on the light will reveal a number of unpleasant facts for Brindsley. While Harold, a neighbour, and the Colonel, Brindsley's prospective father-in-law, address him with the full form of his name, Carol, his fiancée, who normally uses Brin, chooses a rhyming reduplication in this situation. This formation reflects a close relationship, but at the same time expresses a certain amount of schadenfreude. (8) Brin: Oh, thank God. Thank God! (SCHUPPANZIGH goes to the switch.) Harold (grimly): I wouldn V thank Him too soon, Brindsley, if I were you! Colonel: Nor would I, Brindsley, if I were you! Carol: Nor would I, Brinnie Winnie, if I were you! (SHA 106) In the next excerpt, speaker M pities her sulking husband. After his initial complaint, she tries to pacify him in a "friendly-patronizing" way (as described by the stage directions) by using the full form of his name. Since this attempt is not successful, she reacts to his renewed complaint by mockingly pitying him like a little child, this time using reduplication to realise her address. (9) G:... you 're always springing things on me. M (friendly-patronizing): Oh, George! G: Always.

147 M: Poor Georgie-Porgie, put-upon piel... (ALB 15) Excerpts (8) and (9) demonstrate that the specific communicative functions of particular diminutive forms in vocative acts emerge more clearly when contrasted with other vocatives. In (8), Brinnie Winnie contrasts with different forms of address for the same person used, on the one hand, by the same speaker in other situations (Brin), and, on the other hand, by other speakers in the same situation (Brindsley). In (9), the same speaker (M) uses different forms of address for the same person in subsequent turns, a reflection of a change in her reacting strategy. The examples discussed in the present section show that a number of different formation processes are available in English to derive diminutives from first names. Applying these processes yields a multitude of different forms which reflects the need for differentiated linguistic means to establish, maintain and shape interpersonal relations in a wide range of social situations (cf. 5.1.3.). This position is shared by Poynton (1989: 60), who writes that it is first names: ... whose forms display the most elaborate set of morphological resources for forming diminutive forms anywhere in English and whose uses encompass a wide range of options in the negotiation of social relations.

The need for a differentiated inventory of diminutive forms derived from first names can probably be explained by the fact that despite all apparent differences between Englishspeaking countries, most notably between the United Kingdom and the United States (cf., e.g., Whitcut 1980: 90, Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 292), a first-name basis is arrived at faster in English-speaking cultures than in other cultures (cf. 5.1.2.). Poynton (1989: 63) claims that the processes available to formally modify first names, i.e. clipping, suffixation and reduplication, are all functionally equivalent. In her view, these processes differ only in intensity (which she terms 'amplification'). While this account is not altogether wrong, it is rather superficial since it does not draw attention to the specific uses and communicative functions of the different resources. In other words, it does not take into account that functions oflen depend on sequential aspects of coherent discourse - aspects which cannot be observed in isolated utterances, let alone by looking at diminutive forms in isolation. Poynton's analysis is typical of system-oriented approaches based on episodical evidence from personal experience and quoted from memory. Generally speaking, the different uses of the different forms derived from first names can be summarised as follows: Full forms, truncated forms and forms suffixed with {IE} have the status of names, i.e. they are used as permanent address forms for the same person. As a rule, full forms and truncated forms are used for adults, the latter indicating reduced social distance. By contrast, forms in {IE} are the conventional address for children. This usage can be considered the polite norm. {IE}-diminutives are not normally used to address grown-up children. Only parents, who have failed to realise or are reluctant to accept that their children are now adults and should therefore be treated as equals, continue to use such forms. The transition from {IE}-form to

148 truncated or full form seems to occur earlier for males; it may never occur for females. As Poynton (1989: 64) remarks:«* A Judy can be so addressed all her life, under all circumstances where personal name address is appropriate, but a Jimmy will only be addressed thus when he is pre-adolescent or, when older, by his mother or girlfriend (and then probably only in private!) or by friends kidding or trying to get a rise out of him.

Using {IE}-diminutives to address adults violates the polite norm, at least when used for males.7 In particularly close relationships, however, such forms can be used to express affection, or to treat the addressee like a little child, e.g. in social games such as kidding, teasing, chaffing, bantering, etc.8 Addressing children by the full forms of their first names instead of by the usual diminutive form, constitutes a marked case. For instance, a mother who usually addresses her small son as Stevie can express annoyance, impatience or unyieldingness by using Stephen, or even his complete name, Stephen Arnold Smith (cf. Brown/Ford 1964: 241, Gumperz 1970: 133). Forms diverging from normal use may be chosen once in a given situation, or in succession in the course of an interactive sequence, progressing from diminutive to full form, and possibly finally to the complete name of the child, thus gradually increasing the pressure, e.g., in the case of continued disobedience. Brown/Levinson (1987: 110) describe this address pattern as a "withdrawal of positive politeness and its associated emotional support". This pattern is typical of the parent-child dyad and does not normally occur between adults (cf. Poynton 1989: 65). Full and truncated forms on the one hand, and {IE}-diminutives on the other hand, are the default for addressing adults and children respectively. By contrast, all other modifications - reduplications, forms in {A} and {S}, and especially multiple diminutives - can be used to diverge from this general norm or from the address usually used for a particular person. Divergent address forms communicate momentary feelings or attitudes towards the hearer, ranging from increased affection (especially when addressing children) to anger, derision, scorn, and contempt. Forms which express increased affection can be used as preparatory mitigating moves to preface intrinsically face-threatening acts. The use of a variety of first name forms and various descriptors to address another person indicates a close or intimate relationship. This phenomenon is termed 'multiple naming' (cf. Brown/Ford 1964: 238, Gramley/Pätzold 1992: 290).

5.1.4.2.2. Last names Diminutives are derived much less frequently from last names than from first names. Also, fewer processes are available to derive diminutives from last names. Predominantly, {IE} is 6

7

8

Judy may not be the best example. A number of English native speakers have pointed out that this form is not perceived or used as a diminutive. There are obvious counter-examples to this rule, which will not be discussed here, cf., e.g., Bertie Ahern, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) or Jimmy Carter, the former American president. It would be worthwhile to systematically analyse such folk concepts of social games in a discourse analytic framework. For a rhetorical account of banter, cf. Leech (1983:142ΙΓ.).

149 added, but {A} and {0} are also used in suffixation (cf., e.g., Poynton 1989: 67). Multiple suffixation and reduplication do not seem to be used at all. Diminutive formation from last names follows the same formal patterns which apply to first names (cf. 4.2.1.). Diminutives derived from last names are used in public discourse, especially in the media, and more particularly in the yellow press to refer to public figures such as sportsmen or politicians. Examples include Fergie for Sarah Ferguson, Platty and Gazza for David Piatt and Paul Gascoigne, two English soccer players. Such forms are used to claim nearness and to express public affection. In everyday face-to-face communication, diminutives derived from last names are rarely used. The relationship between interactants who are on last-name basis is, as a rule, distant and thus does not permit the use of diminutives in vocatives. However, the following example provides evidence that in certain constellations diminutives can be used as addressers. In Peter Shaffer's play "Black Comedy", Harold Gorringe uses Ferny, without exception, to address his neighbour Miss Furnival. Gorringe is approximately thirty years old and comes from the north of England (while the play is set in London), Miss Furnival is referred to in the stage directions as a "middle-class middle-aged spinster". Miss Furnival consistently addresses all interlocutors by title + last name, and she is addressed as Miss Furnival by all of her conversational partners with the exception of Harold Gorringe. (10) Miss Furnival: You'd think they'd put on a restaurant car, Mr. Gorringe. Harold: Not them, Ferny. [...] (SHA 60) By addressing his older neighbour as Ferny, Harold claims social nearness, which is granted only to some extent. While Miss Furnival does not reject this form of address, she continues using the more formal realisation of the vocative, and she does not grant dispensation to address her by her first name. Harold Gorringe, on the other hand, is not in a position to offer the first-name basis. At the same time, he seems to consider title + last name as inappropriately formal. Therefore, Ferny is a compromise, indicating that while the interactants know each other for a longer time, they do not have a close relationship. The realisations of the vocatives in the above excerpt are representative of the addressing behaviour in this particular neighbourly constellation. The difference in the selected realisations can be attributed to diverging concepts of politeness, and more particularly to different notions of the appropriate degree of formality. Since such concepts are shaped by a number of socio-cultural factors, the selection of terms of address also reveals the age, gender, and social status of the speaker (cf. Braun 1988: 2S8). Diminutives derived from last names are never used in combination with titles (including M-forms). Title + last name realisations occur in formal language and reflect distant relationships. In other words, they appear in 'distant style' (cf. Lakoff 1979), a conversational strategy which does not permit the use of diminutives in vocatives.

5.1.4.3. Kinship terms Not all kinship terms are used in vocative acts (cf. S. 1.2.). Rather, only those terms used to refer to relatives of the first order or to those in the direct line appear in this speech act type

150 (cf. McArthur 1992: 412). Generally speaking, frequency of use correlates with nearness of relation. Thus, kinship terms for parents are the terms used most frequently. On account of the intimate and particularly affective nature of the relationship, diminutives are preferred over the referential terms mother, father, grandmother, and grandfather in realisations of vocative acts. A wide range of modifications is available for these four terms. McArthur (1992:412) lists the following: (11)

Ma/Mam/Mammy/Mom/Momma/Mommy/Mum/Mummy; Da/Dad/Daddy/Pa/Pop/Poppa; Grandma/Gran/Grannie; Grandad/Granda/Grandpa/Gramps.

Such informal terms of address include clipped and suffixed forms. The most frequent suffix is {IE} (e.g. Mammy/Mommy/Mummy, Daddy, Grannie), but {S} also occurs (e.g. Moms, Gramps) as well as combinations of these two suffixes in which {IE}follows {S} (e.g. Momsie). Consider also the idiosyncratic formation Daddypegs, suffixed with {IE+PEG+S}(cf. 4.2.6.3.) which can be used in vocatives, as in the following example. (12) In here, Daddypegs! (SHA 52) Aunts and uncles can also be addressed using kinship terms. These kinship terms are used by children to address their parents' brothers and sisters, and also close friends of their parents. In this case, the speaker is normally at least fifteen years younger than the addressee (cf. Brown/Ford 1964). In vocatives, the terms aunt and uncle are used as well as the diminutives auntie and uncie. However, while there are many occurrences of auntie, uncie occurs only once in my corpus. Female relatives, and female persons in general, are addressed much more frequently by {IE}-forms than male persons (cf. 5.1.3. and 5.1.4.2.1.). Diminutives in vocatives addressed to uncles or aunts indicate a close and affectionate relationship. In vocative acts, uncle and aunt are usually combined with the first name of the addressee. Auntie, however, occurs with or without first name, as illustrated by the following examples. Both utterances are produced by the same speaker and addressed to the same person.9 ( 13) Don 7 ask me, Auntie Jean. (KUR 44) (14) Sorry, Auntie. (KUR 171) Aunt and uncle can also be combined with diminutives derived from first names, e.g. Aunt Lizzie and Uncle Stevie. However, my data suggests that combinations of two diminutives,

9

It would be interesting to investigate which factors influence the choice of KT-Dim+FN versus KT-Dim. Possibly, these forms occur in free variation. Alternatively, the decision for one or the other may depend on linguistic variables such as length of utterance, or extralinguistic features of the situation, such as formality.

151 e.g. 1 Auntie Lizzie, do not occur. Small children may use double diminutives of this type, since in early years children tend to make excessive use of {IE}-formations (cf., e.g., Svaib 1992). Such forms may also be used strategically in the same way that multiple diminutives are employed as preparatory mitigating moves (cf. 5.1.4.2.1.). As a rule, however, KTDim.+FN-Dim. combinations seem to be avoided in vocatives, which supports the claim that only one diminutive appears per speech act (cf. Dressler 1991). In general, kinship terms in vocatives are used from below, i.e. from young relatives to address (considerably) older relatives. Older relatives, on the other hand, address (considerably) younger relatives by their first names. Accordingly, KTs for children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces are not, as a rule, used in address. Son sometimes occurs as a generic address term (cf. 5.1.3.). This term is chosen in particular by older males to address younger males. Depending on the relationship between the interactants, this form of address may be used condescendingly, especially in distant relationships or between strangers. In the following example, however, in which the speaker is the hearer's uncle, son signals solidarity. (15) 'Hallo, Uncle Ted. ' 'Hallo, son, ' he said miserably. (KUR 42) In my corpus, there is only one occurrence of sonny used in a vocative. It appears in one of the many role plays or games included in Albee's drama "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". (16) George: Sonny! [...] (ALB 116) George uses this diminutive to mockingly greet a person who is not his son, but a guest. However, this guest is supposed to act the part of George's (imaginary) son in this particular game. In this context, formations such as sonny-Jim and sonny-boy also occur, albeit not in vocative acts. Thus, while it is possible to form and use sonny, parallel derivations from daughter, niece and nephew do not seem to exist, at least they do not occur in the present corpus. Niecey is a potential form, but daughter and nephew would have to be truncated yielding vdaughtie and 7nnephie. In American English in particular, brothers and sisters may be addressed by kinship terms. While the clipped forms Sis and Ero or Bud are commonly used in vocatives, the diminutives sissy and buddy are lexicalised forms, which have acquired special figurative meanings. Buddy is a generic address term used as a 'camaraderie form' or 'in-group marker' between males, whereas sissy is a derogatory address for little boys who allegedly do not live up to their traditional gender role. In sum, the factors determining the choice of kinship terms in vocatives are degree of kinship, age difference and sex of addressee. Such vocatives are used predominantly by children in addressing adult relatives. As a rule, the closer the kinship ties and the more 'intense the affection, the more likely is the occurrence of a diminutive in a vocative act. However, a diminutive may also be the established form of both reference and address for a particular person. Apart from that, some diminutives derived from kinship terms can be used outside the family as generic address terms, i.e. as descriptors.

152 5.1.4.4. Descriptors In the present study, professional descriptors such as waiter, operator and taxi will not be considered. Diminutives derived from this subtype do not occur in my data. Such descriptors are used by customers in transactional discourse (cf. Lakoff 1989), i.e. by persons who do not know the addressees and who are not interested in establishing a closer relationship. From a semantic point of view, all other descriptors can be divided into five subclasses: a) generic terms, b) endearments, c) animal names, d) obscene terms, e) ethnic terms. Generic terms are primarily used to address males. Examples include mate, pal, chum, fellow, and buddy. Fewer expressions are available to address females, e.g. lady or sister. Mixed groups are addressed by terms such as folks, people, guys and fellas. Generic terms, which seem to be used by males more often than by females, express solidarity (cf. Brown/Levinson 1987: 107f.). They signal a friendly attitude and claim camaraderie. They are also used to address strangers. Especially in the United Kingdom, this usage is generally associated with speakers from the lower classes. Members of the middle classes consider this type of behaviour as inappropriately familiar. The class of endearments is a semantically heterogeneous class which comprises pet names of various origin, e.g. love, sweetheart, dear and honey. In general, they are used to address lovers or family members. Especially in the United Kingdom, they are also used by shop assistants and sales persons, mostly by lower class women, to address their customers, both male and female. Again, members of the middle classes consider this behaviour as inappropriate (cf. Poynton 1989: 66). Animal names used metaphorically to address people comprise both positively and negatively connotated expressions. While bitch, dog, vixen, swine and minx, etc. bear negative connotations, tiger, bear, kitten, puppy and ladybird, etc. have positive connotations. The majority of such terms are sex-specific. For instance, dog and tiger can only be used to address male persons, whereas vixen and ladybird refer exclusively to females. As a rule, the sex of the respective animal matches the sex of the person addressed. The negative terms are used abusively as are obscene terms. The positive terms may be in-group nicknames. Some are private names between lovers, also classifiable as endearments. Obscene terms largely refer to tabooed body parts and are mostly slang words, e.g. cunt, prick and asshole. They are used metaphorically to abuse people. By contrast, in semantic inversion, an addressing strategy usually adopted by males rather than females, such terms express solidarity and a close relationship (cf. 5.1.3.). Ethnic terms include offensive and racist expressions such as wog, Frog, Kraut, Yid and nigger. Ό They are used to address members of other nationalities or ethnic communities.

Ό On the etymology of these terms, cf. McAithur (1992:381f.).

153 The addressees are usually not known to the speakers. Such terms are the opposite of ingroup markers and meant to insult the hearers. Most diminutives formed from descriptors end in {IE}, e.g. lovie, dearie, duckie and kiddies. This applies in particular to endearments, positively connotated animal names and generic terms. These classes also include lexicalised diminutives as, for instance, baby, buddy and puppy. Using (non-lexicalised) diminutive descriptors in place of their base forms (e.g. dearie in place of dear) in addressing children is the unmarked case. The default reading of unsituated utterances such as (17), including a diminutive derived from an endearment, is that the addressee must be a child, and the speaker probably a parent, close relative, or caretaker. (17) Do you want some chocolate, ducky? (DCE2, s.v. ducky) (18) Oh, lovey, it's ali gone funny. (EDM 90:11) Example (18) is an utterance by a father addressed to his young daughter. In other contexts, this father also uses love to address his daughter (e.g. Thank you, love). The diminutive form is preferred by this speaker in 'critical situations', i.e. when something has gone wrong or is about to go wrong. (19) Oh blast, lovey, this is all broken. (EDM 90:10) (20) Lovey, keep away. Don't move it, don't, lovey, please. 'Cause, you see, if if I move my hand it's all broken. Please, lovey, don't, please! (EDM 90:05) In the turn quoted in (20), the father attempts to avert an accident by dissuading his daughter from doing something. His request for action - in this case the speaker wants the hearer not to do something - is supported repeatedly by the vocative lovey (cf. 5.2.3.3.1.). Speakers who employ diminutives to address adults create an asymmetrical relationship in which they claim the superior position. The addressees are treated as children, as in the following example. (21) George: All right, kiddies... (ALB 78) The choice of the diminutive form kiddies emphasises the speaker's attitude, previously expressed by his choice of kids for the same addressees elsewhere in this conversation - i.e. the speaker does not take his addressees seriously. Eakins and Eakins (1978: 116), who report that male sales persons in the United States address male students by sir, while female students are addressed by positive descriptors (cf. 5.1.3.), quote among other such descriptors the diminutives lovey and kiddo. The form kiddo demonstrates that {IE} is not the only suffix used to form diminutives from descriptors. Other suffixes are also used, apart from {0} mostly {S}, e.g. ducks. Bugs, Toots, Goldilocks, darlings (cf. 4.2.5. and Mühlhäusler 1983 for further examples). Multiple diminutives also occur in vocatives, as in the following utterance, in which a young woman pities her fiancé. (22) Carol (cooing): [...] Poor babykins. (SHA 91)

154 By selecting babykins, the young woman so to speak adopts the role of the mother who pities her little child. At the same time, this particular form (and the way it is produced) indicates that the speaker does not take the hearer (or his problem) seriously. In most cases, however, diminutives are derived from descriptors by suffixation with {IE}. This suffix is found in conventional diminutives, but it can also be used to create adhoc metaphors. The following excerpt illustrates the genesis of a pejorative descriptor and its use in a vocative act. (23) Martha: [...] that's what George is. A bog.... A fen. ... A.G.D. swamp. Ha, ha, ha, HA! A SWAMP! Hey, swamp! Hey SWAMPY! (ALB 36) In addition to the negative evaluation expressed in swamp, the resulting diminutive communicates contempt. The speaker does not take the hearer seriously, she ridicules him. The same diminutive form is used again at a later stage in the same conversation by the same speaker and with the same intention, i.e. to make fun of the same hearer. (24) Martha: [...] Areya, swampy... areya, Hunh? (ALB 44) In the case of obscene terms and negatively connotated animal names, diminutives can, as a rule, not be derived by suffixation. While it is possible to form e.g. doggie, this form is not normally used to address human beings. The semantics of taboo words such as cunt or prick seems to block suffixation with {IE} (*cuntie, *prickie, etc.). However, analytic diminutives can be formed from all descriptors in these two subclasses, e.g. little bitch, little bastard, little jerk. If such diminutives are used in vocative acts, the addressees are belittled, but not treated as a child. In such situations, the speakers are angry and thus emotionally more involved and less detached than in situations in which {IE}-forms are used (as in examples (23) and (24) for instance; cf. also (25)). Vocatives which are realised by analytic diminutives derived from negative descriptors are similar to the expressive speech act insult (cf. 5.4.2.). However, insults prototypically express a complete proposition, e.g. You're a little bastard·, You 're a dirty little bitch, aren 't you?. The following example shows that in particular situations diminutives can be derived from negatively connotated animal names by suffixation with {IE}. The utterance is used to realise a vocative act of the type alerter. The speaker calls a person who has left the room. The utterance also functions as an indirect request to come back. (25) George: (Hog-calls towards the hall) SOOOWWWIIIEEEH SOOOWWWIIIEEEH (ALB 121) While this diminutive is insulting, it does not express anger, rage, or frustration, etc. Unlike analytic diminutives such as little sow, sowie expresses superiority, arrogance, and condescension. Negative animal names + {IE} are used by parents to address children who have done something they should not have done, e.g. spilled some liquid. In this case, the descriptor is mitigated by the diminutive suffix. In the given example, however, the addressee is not a child, and she has not done something wrong. By using an {IE}-diminutive, the speaker in (25) treats the addressee as a child. In this respect, it is worth noting that the addressee is a woman who is considerably younger than the speaker (cf. Schneider/

155 Schneider 1991). The speaker abuses his position, which is also based on his role as host. In using sowie, he conveys that he does not take the addressee seriously and that he thinks he can afford to call her names and thus humiliate her with impunity. The addressee's husband, however, protests about the host's impudence (Cut thatf). In addition to the suffixes discussed so far, {LET} is also found in my data, albeit in only one source. In his novel Haroun and the Sea of Stories (1990), Rushdie repeatedly uses the address Thieflet, as in the following examples. (26) How much have you seen, eh, Thieflet? (RUS 63) (27) Nothing comes from nothing, Thieflet;... (RUS 86) This diminutive is always used by Iff, the Water Genie (an adult), to address Haroun, who is still a boy. Iff calls Haroun a Thieflet, because he has stolen one of Iff s tools. The model for this diminutive form is piglet, the prototype of a formation pattern for deriving names of young animals, e.g. skunklet (cf. 4.2.3.). In two cases, reference to the addressee's young age is made explicit. (28) Who knows, young Thieflet, who you may turn out to be. (RUS 64) (29) Well, now its war, young Thieflet... (RUS 91) Admittedly, thieflet (and more particularly capitalised Thieflet) is an unusual formation not normally used in everyday communication. Advanced German learners of English and some English native speakers who were asked to comment on the utterance quoted in (26), were unable to analyse and interpret this form. This shows that Thieflet can only be understood adequately in its full context. Analysts must have access to information about the relationship between the interactants (constellation), and they must also know what motivates the choice of the negative descriptor. If this information is available, Thieflet is a perfectly regular formation with a perfectly regular reading. Diminutives derived from ethnic descriptors which are used in vocatives are formed by suffixation with {IE}. Some are derived from neutral terms (e.g. Canadian English Newfie < Newfoundlander), some from metaphorical terms which are offensive (e.g. British English Froggie < Frog 'French person'). Other examples include e.g. Paki (also PakkilPakky) < Pakistani (British English), Yankee < Yank (American English), and Limey < lime-juicer 'Britisher' (American, Australian, New Zealand and South African English). Sometimes the etymology and history of such terms is not quite clear. For instance, Honky 'white person' (African American English) may be an extension of hunky 'immigrant from South Eastern Europe' (American English), which in turn may possibly derive from Hungarian. Consider also Pommy/Pommie 'immigrant from England' (Australian and New Zealand English), which is derived from Pom, a clipped form of pomegranate, which allegedly is a corruption of the word immigrant (cf. McArthur 1992: 383f.). Kiwi ('New Zealander') can also be added to this list, although it is not a suffixed word. However, like all other diminutives listed above, kiwi consists of two syllables, ends in /i/, and functions as an ethnic descriptor which can be used in vocatives. Fulfilling these three criteria seems sufficient to count as an 'ethnic diminutive'. Further (morphological, semantic, or historical) differences seem to be irrelevant to the ordinary language user.

156 Diminutives derived from ethnic terms are all negative descriptors, even though their base forms may be neutral terms (e.g. Newfoundlander). Ethnic diminutives can be used aggressively or jocularly, but they always express a certain degree of condescension or disrespect. The following example illustrates the aggressive use of an ethnic diminutive. (30) Eat shit, Pakis. (KUR 53) The complete utterance is an abusive racist remark produced by a white Englishman cycling past two young Pakistanis. The speaker does not know the addressees. All the diminutives discussed so far have been formed from nouns, mostly by suffixation with {IE}. This same suffix can also be employed to derive diminutives from adjectival bases, e.g. sweetie, cutie, fatty and blackie (cf. 4.2.1.). The resulting forms are nouns which can be used as terms of address in vocative acts. They are functionally equivalent to denominai diminutives, cf., e.g., sweetie : dearie : lovie. Underlying deadjectival diminutives is the following semantic pattern: the adjective denotes a quality or characteristic trait, the diminutive denotes a person who has this quality or trait. When formations of this type are used to realise vocatives, the speaker focuses on a particular trait of the addressee or assigns this trait to the addressee. The speaker's attitude towards the addressee, reflected in the selection of such a descriptor, can be positive or negative, depending on the quality or trait which is focussed on. Accordingly, such diminutives can be appreciative or depreciative. Forms such as sweetie and cutie, which focus on positive traits (in the eye of the beholder), are endearments. Sweetie is used between lovers and spouses, and by parents to their children. In such constellations, this term of address indicates a close affective relationship and appreciation. In other constellations, this type of address is used to claim a close relationship. Sweetie and particularly cutie occur in flirting conversation. It may be considered inappropriate between strangers. The following excerpts illustrate the use of sweetie. In the first two examples, the interactants are a married couple. In example (33), the hostess is talking to a handsome young guest. (31) Martha: [...] (Softer) C'mon... give me a kiss. George (indicating NICK and HONEY): Later, sweetie. (ALB 41) (32) Martha (cheerfully): Screw, sweetie! (ALB 21) (33) Martha: I know what chromosomes are, sweetie, Ilove 'em. (ALB 45) My female informants considered sweetie in vocatives as an "unsubtle attempt to chat up", especially when used after greetings. In the next example, sexy is used in this function. (34) George: [...] (Moves... sits by Honey) Hi, sexy. (ALB 80) The addressee, under the influence of alcohol, does not realise that the address is meant ironically. She takes it literally and reacts in a flattered, but embarrassed way: "Honey (a

157 little giggle-scream): Oooooohhhhhr The intended receiver (cf. 5.5.4.) is George's wife, who is about to seduce Honey's husband. Needless to say, sexy is an adjective and not a deadjectival diminutive. However, it shares the formal (two syllables, final /i/), semantic and pragmatic properties of sweetie, and can therefore be classified as a diminutive. The following excerpt illustrates a specific discourse strategic function realised by diminutives, in this case by sweetie, which can only be analysed adequately by taking sequential aspects, notably its discourse position, into consideration. (35) 'By the way, Margaret, coming to Mrs Kay's tonight? ' She shook her head. 'Come on, sweetie. Let's go out together and enjoy ourselves, eh? ' (KUR 5) The speaker in this example first performs an indirect suggestion (cf. 5.3.3.). In this same move, he addresses his wife by the full form of her first name. As his wife does not accept, the speaker renews his suggestion in a more direct manner, supported by an initial come on, typical of renewals, i.e. insisting moves following non-according reactions. This time, he addresses his wife as sweetie to coax her to accept (cf. 5.2.3.3.1.). While sweetie and cutie refer to positive traits of the addressee (in the eye of the beholder), other deadjectival diminutives refer to more obvious and more permanent traits, which are considered "unnormal" by a majority in society. Examples include blackie, darkie, fatty, shorty, weirdie and lefty (American English 'left-handed person', British English 'member of the political left'). These forms are, however, ambivalent. When used to address strangers, they are racist or derogatory terms. Among friends, however, they may be used as in-group markers or, more specifically, as permanent friendly nicknames. This use is illustrated by the following example. The upper case spelling of the address term indicates that it functions as a name. (36) Hey, Fatso, what's happening? (KUR 182) The use of Fatso here shows that competing forms exist for some deadjectival diminutives (cf. 4.2.7.2.). Such forms are derived by suffixation with {IE}, {0} and {S} or combinations thereof; cf., e.g., fattylfatslfatso and weirdie/weirdo. In traditional terms, {IE}-forms are considered "light", "sweetening" and "minimising", referring to something or someone harmless, while {0}-forms are considered "dark", "coarsening" and "maximising", referring to something or someone threatening (cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974: 250f.). From this perspective, non-technically speaking, a weirdo is a strange, potentially dangerous, lunatic, whereas a weirdie is a harmless fool. However, the difference between competing forms, particularly competing diminutives in vocatives, has yet to be analysed systematically.

5.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in vocative acts The analysis of diminutives in vocative acts focused on answering the three questions posed at the beginning of section 5.1.4. These answers can be summarised as follows.

158

1) Which terms of address can be used as diminutives, and which cannot be used as diminutives? How can any restrictions be accounted for? Diminutives can be formed from most types of nominal address terms, but not from pronouns. Diminutive formation is most productive with first names, and least productive with last names and titles. In my corpus, the only title from which a diminutive can be derived is Miss, i.e. the Mform which expresses the least respect. Some professional titles are used informally in their clipped forms (e.g. doc), but neither analytic nor synthetic diminutives are derived from these titles. Titles referring to explicit hierarchies, e.g. a military hierarchy, do not seem to be modified. While title + last name combinations constitute the polite norm governing the use of last ñames, diminutives derived from last names do not occur in combination with titles. However, such diminutive forms are rarely used to realise vocative acts. They are employed more frequently as nicknames to refer to and also to address public figures in public discourse, particularly in the yellow press. Both titles and title + last name combinations are formal realisations of vocative acts. They reflect a distant relationship between the interactants which does not seem compatible with the use of diminutive modifications. By contrast, diminutives can be formed from basically all first names. This applies to monosyllabic names and monosyllabic truncated forms. In the case of truncation, the stressed syllable is retained. Competing diminutives exist for many names. Kinship terms from which diminutives can be derived are those terms which are used by children to address relatives of the first order or in the direct line, i.e. to address their parents, their parents' brothers and sisters, and their grandparents. Many competing diminutives exist for address terms for grandparents and especially for parents. Competing forms reflect closeness. The more intimate the relationship, the larger the number of variations. This also holds for diminutives derived from first names. Descriptors form a large and heterogeneous class, comprising both positive and negative address terms. Diminutives can be derived from either positive or negative address terms, resulting in appreciative or depreciative forms. Some diminutives are ambivalent, expressing either a positive or a negative attitude depending on the relationship between the interactants. Diminutives derived from descriptors include deadjectival formations such as sweetie or fatty. Competing forms exist for some of these. Apart from genuine diminutives, quasi-diminutives, such as kiwi or sexy, are also used in vocative acts. Quasi-diminutives are perceived and processed like genuine diminutives by ordinary language users, because they share essential formal features. 2) Which types of diminutive formation occur in vocatives? First and foremost, diminutives used in vocative acts are formed by suffixation. Other types of modification include clipping and, much less frequently, reduplication, especially rhyming reduplication. As a rule, reduplication is based on suffixed diminutives, e.g. BrinnieWinnie (< Brindsley). Analytic formations in vocatives are an exception. My data include the following forms: little Miss (competing with Missey), Little John, and diminutives derived from obscene and scatological terms, e.g. little prick. The most productive suffix is {IE}. This suffix can be used to derive diminutive forms from all categories of address terms with only few exceptions (e.g. obscene terms). It is involved in the formation of simple diminutives, multiple diminutives, and reduplications.

159 In principle, all other suffixes and suffix combinations occur in vocatives, albeit much less frequently. {ETTE} and {LING} are the only suffixes which are not attested, {LET} has only peripheral status." The greatest variety of formations is found with first names. 3) How and why are diminutives employed in vocative acts? In general, diminutives in vocative acts serve to define or negotiate the relationship between a speaker and hearer, i.e. speakers confirm an existing relationship, or they attempt to establish or redefine a particular relationship, specifically its affective value. The relevant politeness maxim is Leech's (1983) sympathy maxim (cf. Köhler 1994). Appreciative diminutives in vocatives serve to realise the submaxim 'Maximise sympathy between self and other* (cf. Leech 1983: 132ff.) - they are employed to indicate or claim a close relationship. The use of depreciative diminutives, on the other hand, is motivated by the negation of this maxim, 'Maximise antipathy between self and other*. This maxim can be considered a 'rudeness maxim' (cf. Kasper 1990: 208ff.). Furthermore, and more specifically, diminutives, especially those derived from names or endearments, can be used strategically to counter non-according behaviour. In this function, they can be employed in an anticipatory strategy, or, post eventu, in a persuasive strategy. In the former case, the vocative realised by a diminutive prefaces the head move, e.g. in a request as a preparatory mitigating move (cf. 5.2.3.3.1. and 5.2.3.3.2.). In the latter case, it supports a renewal of the original speech act following a non-according response by the addressee. In both cases, multiple diminutives may be used in this function, or simple diminutives in such cases where non-diminutive forms are otherwise used for address. Using {IE}-forms derived from first names constitutes the polite norm for addressing (young) children and thus can be regarded as the unmarked case. By contrast, the use of such forms to address adults is the marked case, a strategy diverging from the polite norm governing the selection of address terms. In general, such forms express a certain degree of condescension. The closer the relationship between the interactants, the smaller is the face threat involved in selecting an {IE}-form. However, this holds only for those cases in which the {IE}-form is not the established name for a given person. Diminutives formed from last names are used to claim nearness when the speaker and hearer are not on first-name basis. The same applies to clipped professional titles, while, on the other hand, Missey and little Miss express condescension - the speaker looking down on the addressee and treating her as a child. Diminutives derived from neutral or positive descriptors, such as generic terms or endearments, are employed to indicate or claim nearness, whereas diminutives derived from ethnic terms, as a rule, communicate condescension and disrespect. Analytic diminutives formed from obscene terms express condescension as well as rage or frustration. Finally, diminutives derived from kinship terms used by children, express nearness and affection. The discussion has shown that an adequate interpretation of diminutives in vocative acts depends on a number of variables, most importantly, on the relationship between the interactants.

11

In my corpus, the suffix {LING} occurs in vocative acts only in the lexicalised endearment dar-

ling.

160 5.2. Directive acts

5.2.1. Interactional characterisation and specification Directive speech acts have probably received more attention than any other speech act, particularly in empirical pragmatics (cf., e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1976, Hindelang 1978, Blum-Kulka et al. 1985, Blum-Kulka 1987, Aijmer 1996: ch. 4). 12 One reason for this may be that directives are considered central for human communication (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a). Wunderlich (1978) assumes that from a phylogentic perspective, directives and vocatives (cf. 5.1.) can be regarded as the primary illocutionary types. While vocatives steer merely the attention of the addressee, directives also steer the actions of the addressee (cf. Wunderlich 1978: 79). Following Searle (1976), the purpose or point of a directive speech act can be defined as an attempt by a speaker to get the hearer to do something (cf. also Searle/ Vanderveken 1985). Since the predicated action lies in the future relative to the moment of speaking,13 the 'direction of fit' of directive acts is 'world-to-words' (Searle 1976). In other words, reality ('the world') is to be changed in such a way that it matches the proposition ('the words') of the directive act. The hearer is expected to bring about this matching by performing the predicated action after the moment of speaking.14 The discussion of directives has largely concentrated on requests. Requests are directives which are in the speaker's interest, while giving advice, for instance, is in the hearer's interests (cf. Schneider 1980). With reference to Leech's (1983) 'cost-benefit scale', requests can be defined more precisely as speech acts which are at a cost to the addressee and to the benefit of the speaker. Accordingly, House and Kasper (1987: 1254) formulate the interactional characteristics of requests as follows: 'S wants H to do ρ / ρ is at a cost to H'. While it is possible that not only the speaker (S), but also the addressee (H), of a request may profit from the future action p, the cost of the action always concerns the addressee alone. Given these interactional characteristics, requests are face-threatening acts sui generis. Therefore, polite speakers seek to reduce the face threat inherent in requests relative to the given situation. According to Leech (1983), the politeness maxims relevant to directives (as well as commissives; cf. 5.3.) are the complementary maxims of tact and generosity. Both maxims operate on the cost-benefit scale and demand minimisation of hearer cost and speaker benefit. The degree of the face threat and the choice of politeness strategy required to adequately reduce this face threat can be determined by calculating three situational variables: power, social distance and the ranking of the imposition (cf. Brown/Levinson 1987). Regarding power, three constellations can be distinguished: (a) symmetrical com-

12 13

14

Cf. Trosborg (1995: ch. 8) for an overview. Cf. Edmondson/House (1981) who use the criterion 'Reference to future event' in their classification of illocutions. For this reason Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 11) refer to requests as "pre-event acts".

161 munication, i.e. speaker and hearer are equal partners (S=H); (b) asymmetrical communication in which the speaker is in a higher position (S>H); and (c) asymmetrical communication in which the speaker is in a lower position (SH context in which the power relationship is predetermined and not negotiable, i.e. a context in which the speaker's authority is not challenged and in which the hearer is obliged to comply. Prototypically, commands occur in institutional frameworks, e.g. in a military context (cf. Searle's tenth classification criterion; Searle 1976). By contrast, polite requests are uttered by speakers in an inferior position, or by speakers who act in an inferior manner thus observing Lakoff s (1973) politeness maxim 'Act inferior' (cf. Traugott/Pratt 1980: 247). Alternatively, requests, commands and polite requests can be correlated with different degrees of illocutionary force (cf. Searle's fourth classification criterion 'force or strength'; Searle 1976). Empirical speech act analysis (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b) does not distinguish between different illocutions but between different degrees of directness and different politeness values of realisation strategies for requests (cf. 5.2.2.). Social distance, the second variable identified by Brown/Levinson (1987), can be measured on a continuum. Previous studies have focused mainly on the end points of this continuum, i.e. on maximal and minimal distance. More recent research, however, shows that both cases are comparatively unproblematic. Relationships between total strangers as well as relationships between people who are close to each other are, as a rule, unambiguous and need not be defined. By contrast, relationships which are characterised by medium distance (e.g. between acquaintances) have to be negotiated and call for more complex facework (cf. Wolfson 1989 on the bulge theory, cf. also Kasper 1993). Finally, the ranking of the imposition depends on the perception of the respective situation, and is determined by cultural norms and individual preferences. More specifically, the ranking of the imposition connected to a directive speech act depends on the type of requested action, i.e. on the communicative goal. Different communicative goals yield a number of subclasses of requests, which are central to the present investigation (cf. 5.2.3.3.). Combining the types listed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) in their study of directness in requests and the types identified by Volek (1987: 164f.) in her study of diminutive use (cf. 2.3.1.), five sub-classes can be distinguished: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Asking for action; Asking for material goods; Asking for permission; Asking for patience; Asking for information.

15 The difference between 'request' and 'polite request' is reflected more clearly in the German terms 'Aufforderung' versus 'Bitte'.

162 Types i., ii. and v. are included in both taxonomies. Type iii. is found only in Blum-Kulka et al., type iv. only in Volek. In my data, diminutives occur in all five types, but diminutive use differs across these types in specific ways, as will be demonstrated in 5.2.3.3. Volek (1987) and Blum-Kulka et al. (1985) classify requests for information as directive acts - a position shared by most scholars (cf., e.g., Searle 1969, Edmondson 1981). By contrast, Wunderlich (1978) suggests to treat requests for information as an illocutionary type in its own right, which he calls 'erotetic' ("erotetischer Typ"). In the present study, however, 'erotetic' speech acts are classified as a subtype of requests (type v. above) and, thus, as directives. The characteristics of requests discussed in this section are crucial to the analysis of diminutive use in directive acts. However, before the analysis of diminutives, a number of parameters must be described in more detail: realisation strategies, directness levels and politeness values.

5.2.2. Realisation strategies, directness levels and politeness values In pragmatics, there is a long history of illustrating 'indirectness' with reference to requests. Different realisations for this illocution have been used to demonstrate the difference between direct and indirect speech acts, and also between conventionally indirect and nonconventionally indirect speech acts. The category 'non-conventionally indirect' is sometimes referred to as 'implicit' (cf., e.g., König 1977).16 Wunderlich (1973: 113f.), for example, lists 18 different German realisations for a request with the proposition 'close the window', which appear in order of decreasing frequency. Leech (1983: 108) uses a similar list, ranging from Answer the phone to Could you possibly answer the phone?, to explain the correlation between indirectness and politeness. In his view, indirectness increases with politeness, and vice versa. In other words, indirect requests are considered more polite than requests which are realised in a more direct way. Leech (1983: 108) writes: "Indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the degree of optionality, and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its force tends to be." (emphasis mine, KPS). Put another way, a high degree of indirectness provides the addressee with a high degree of 'freedom of action', which, according to Brown/Levinson (1987), satisfies the addressee's 'negative-face wants' (cf. also Lakoffs (1973) politeness maxim 'Give options!'). However, indirectness must not be equated with politeness, as mentioned above (in 3.4.1.). In some social situations, indirect realisations may be considered inadequate, if not impolite (cf. 5.2.3.2.). Empirical pragmatics has identified seven strategies for realising a request in English (House/Kasper 1987; cf. Ervin-Tripp 1976).17 These are, in order of decreasing directness: 16

17

In the 'Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project' (CCSARP), non-conventionally indirect realisations are called 'hints' (cf. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a: 18). Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a: 18) list nine different strategies. They distinguish between 'explicit performatives' and 'hedged performatives' (type 2), and also between 'strong hints' and 'mild hints' (type 7). These differentiations are not relevant for the present analysis, because explicit (unhedged) performatives rarely occur in everyday communication, and because it is difficult to draw the line between strong and mild hints.

163 Type 1. IMPERATIVE: e.g. Clean up the kitchen! Type 2. PERFORMATIVE: e.g. I request you to clean up the kitchen. Type 3. OBLIGATION STATEMENT: e.g. You ΊI have to clean up the kitchen. Type 4. WANT STATEMENT: e.g. I'd be happy if you could clean up the kitchen. Type 5. SUGGESTORY FORMULA: e.g. Why don 'tyou clean up the kitchen? Type 6. PREPARATORY QUERY: e.g. Could you tidy up the kitchen? Type 7. HINT: e.g. You 've left this kitchen in a right mess. Types 1 and 2 are direct realisations. Type 1, using the imperative mood, is considered the prototypical realisation for directives. It is sometimes referred to as a 'mood-derivable* (cf. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989a), i.e. the illocution can be derived directly from the grammatical mood of the utterance. Types 3 through 6 are conventionally indirect realisations. The most common strategy type among these is type 6, the preparatory query, literally a question about the preparatory condition of a request (cf. König 1977). Therefore, this type is sometimes termed 'reference to preparatory condition' (cf. House/Kasper 1987). Finally, type 7, the 'requestive hint', constitutes a non-conventionally indirect (or implicit) realisation (cf., e.g., Weizman 1989). The utterance illustrating this strategy type ( You 've left this kitchen in a right mess.) may be interpreted as a complaint in the first instance. A complaint represents the second move in a speech act pattern termed 'remedial sequence' (cf., e.g., Holly 1979: 54ff., also Goffman 1971, Owen 1983). In this sequence, complaints follow an offence, and should be followed by a move in which the offender remedies the offence. In the above example, messing up the kitchen constitutes the offence, which can be remedied by tidying up. Against this background, the utterance You 've left this kitchen in a right mess can be understood as a request to clean the kitchen. Each realisation strategy can be modified in a number of different ways, both externally (i.e. by adding supportive moves) and internally (e.g. by using lexical or syntactic downgraders) (cf., e.g., Faerch/Kasper 1989). For instance, choice of verb form (mood, tense) constitutes syntactic downgrading (consider, e.g., Can you...? versus Could you...? for type 6), while downtoners such as possibly or perhaps are examples of lexical downgraders (cf. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 28Iff., also Holmes 1984). Requests can also be upgraded, e.g., by using a negatively evaluative lexical item such as mess (in Clean up that mess!) instead of a neutral expression. Diminutives can be used in requests as internal modifiers. The positions they take and the functions they fulfil, as well as their interaction with realisation strategies and with other modifiers, are discussed in the following sections (cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994:228ff.). Diminutives also occur in external modification.

18

For further comments on all strategy types, cf. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b: 278ff.).

164 5.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers 5.2.3.1. General functions, forms, and positions Previous studies investigating diminutive use in a speech act-based framework show that diminutives occur frequently in requests (cf., e.g., Schneider 1993a and 1993b for German, Wierzbicka 1985b and 1991 for Polish, Volek 1987 for Russian, Sifianou 1992 for Greek, Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994 for Italian; cf. also 2.3.). In English, diminutives are also found in requests, as is illustrated by the following examples. (37) Open the little door. (ALB 115) (38) I want to have a little chat. (EDM) (39) Could I have a little brandy? (ALB 76) The general function of diminutives in requests consists in minimising the cost to hearer, i.e. in observing Leech's (1983) tact maxim. The requested action, or a 'participant' in the action (as, e.g., brandy in example 39) is represented as small or unimportant, and thus more acceptable for the addressee. Thus, using a diminutive observes Brown and Levinson's maxim 'Minimize the imposition' (1987: 176): "One way of defusing the FTA is to indicate that R^, the intrinsic seriousness of the imposition, is not in itself great". Diminutive use in requests is a negative politeness strategy which pays attention to the addressee's negative face wants and thus reduces the face threat. The diminutives in the above examples interact with the illocution of the speech act in which they occur. They modify the force of the request internally. Such internal modification can be realised using morphological or lexical devices (cf. Bazzanella et al. 1991). The above examples illustrate the use of analytic forms, but synthetic forms also occur in English requests, albeit often in different functions, as will be illustrated below. Diminutives which minimise the imposition of a request and the cost to the hearer qualify the predicated action. In other words, the action is diminished. A formal prerequisite for employing a diminutive in this function is a nominal constituent in the verb phrase, e.g. p='having a look', as in the following utterance. (40) Can I have a little look? (EDM) As a rule, diminutives as internal modifiers are derived from the noun which forms the direct object of the sentence. In other syntactic positions, diminutives appear to have different functions. Consider the following examples. (41) Make my hubby a drink. (ALB 116) (42) Put cream on my bottie. (EDM) (43) Speak to your little wifelet. (ALB 124) In (41), hubby is the indirect object, and in (42) and (43), the diminutives are part of a prepositional phrase. In the positions in which they occur, these forms do not, however, play down the requested actions, but rather express the speaker's attitude towards the respective referent and suggest a close relationship between speaker and addressee. For the request to

165 be minimised using diminutives, the diminutive form would have to be derived from the direct objects, as in (4Γ) and (421). (41') Make my hubby a little drink. (42') Put a little cream on my bottie. It is worth noting that hubby, bottie and wifelet are synthetic forms (and little wifelet is a double diminutive; cf. 4.4.), which refer to persons and a body part, but not to inanimate objects. Also, the requests in which hubby, bottie and wifelet are used are all realised in a maximally direct way by employing an imperative construction. Arguably, there is a division of labour between analytic and synthetic diminutives in English. In requests, analytic forms in direct object position modify the request by minimising cost to hearer. This is a negative politeness strategy. By contrast, synthetic forms in non-direct object position (indirect object or Ν in PP) do not directly interact with the illocution, but function as 'local diminutives' which communicate the speaker's feelings towards the respective referent. This is a positive politeness strategy which reflects the interactants' close relationship (as established or intended by the speaker), and which is compatible with the most direct realisation strategy for requests. This general discussion has shown that a number of variables interact in the use of diminutives in directive acts. The following sections focus on two variables in particular. Section 5.2.3.2. examines the interaction between diminutives and requestive strategies, while section 5.2.3.3. looks at the interaction between diminutives and communicative goals. Inevitably, other variables will also be addressed in the analysis, most notably the relationship between the interactants.

5.2.3.2. Interaction between diminutives and realisation strategies The present data suggest that diminutives in requests are not restricted to individual realisation strategies, but can, on principle, appear in all strategy types. Type 1. IMPERATIVE: e.g. ...make a little experiment. (ALB 98) Type 2. PERFORMATIVE: e.g. Ijust want to ask you if lean borrow a tiny bit ofpaper.19 Type 4. WANT STATEMENT: e.g. We want a little man. (SHA 51) Type 5. SUGGESTORY FORMULA: e.g. Let's have a little look. (SHA 61) Type 6. PREP. QUERY: e.g. Can you get another little bag for the balls? (EDM) Type 7. HINT: e.g. What's the little word that helps when you say I want? (EDM) Type 3 of the request strategies listed in 5.2.2. appears to be an exception. My corpus does not include any 'obligation statement' containing a diminutive form. The examples quoted for this strategy type in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b: 279) express a strong obligation for the hearer. Diminutives, as imposition minimisers, are not compatible with strong obligations.

19

This example is taken from Brown/Levinson (1987:177). It is not clear whether this utterance was collected or fabricated.

166 Yet, it is conceivable that little does occur in an obligation statement, as in the following fabricated utterance. (44) You 7/ have to move your little car. In this case, however, the diminutive does not diminish the force of the request or reduce hearer cost. On the contrary, the diminutive negatively evaluates the car and, thus, indirectly insults the addressee, who is the owner or driver of the car. The relationship between the diminished object and the addressee is crucial to the interpretation of the diminutive. In this sarcastic utterance, which expresses annoyance about the diminished object, little could be replaced by or co-occur with explicitly negative adjectives as in You 7/ have to move your damn/damn little car (cf. 5.4.2.). Using an imperative is always the most direct realisation of a request, but it is not necessarily the most impolite one - contrary to Leech's (1983: 108) generalisations about the link between indirectness and politeness (cf. 5.2.2.) The politeness value of an utterance depends on the given social situation, most notably on the relationship between the interactants. Imperatives commonly occur in constellations which are characterised by minimal social distance, e.g. between spouses or between parents and children. In such constellations, indirect realisations may be less appropriate and, thus, less polite. As Wierzbicka (1985b: 167) puts it: ... it would be more natural for a wife to use an imperative than an interrogative-cum-conditional request when speaking to her husband ... Similarly, when speaking to a child one would be unlikely to use an interrogative request (could you, would you be so good as to). Normally, one would use an imperative.

Against this background, consider the following example uttered by a mother and addressed to her young child. (45) Give your handy. (Stefanescu 1992: 340) In the given constellation, it is appropriate for the mother to use an imperative, also considering the requested action, which ultimately lies in the child's interest.20 In this request, a synthetic diminutive is used in direct object position. Little hand is also conceivable in this position, where it would function as a cost minimiser. However, handy is preferred here, for two reasons. First, it refers to a body part (an inalienable good) of the child (as does bottie in example 42). And second, positive face wants are more relevant here than negative face wants. In other words, handy is not used to represent the requested action as small, but communicates the mother's positive affective attitude towards the referent, i.e. the child's hand, and also, so to speak metonymically, to the owner of the hand, i.e. the child. This positive politeness strategy also defuses the seriousness of the imposition of the request, which itself is realised in a maximally direct fashion.21

20 21

For a discussion of similar imperative realisations, cf. Leech (1983: 107ff.). The same holds for examples (41) and (42).

167 5.2.3.3. Interaction between diminutives and communicative goals The analysis of the interaction between diminutives and communicative goals is based on the taxonomy of action types introduced in 5.2.1., which comprises the following five categories: i.) asking for action; ii.) asking for material goods; iii.) asking for permission; iv.) asking for patience; and v.) asking for information. Sections 5.2.3.3.1. through 5.2.3.3.5. examine the specific features of diminutive use in these five subtypes of requestive speech acts.

5.2.3.3.1. Asking for action This subtype represents the prototypical request. Most examples discussed in the literature on this speech act belong to this subtype; consider, e.g., Answer the phone (Leech 1983: 108), and Clean up the kitchen! (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 279). The speaker wants the hearer to perform an action at a cost to the hearer. The action is expressed by a transitive verb; the agent is the hearer, who may or may not (e.g. in imperatives) surface as grammatical subject. Requests of this type can be realised by any of the available realisation strategies. Selecting the appropriate degree of directness largely depends on three conditions: 1 ) whether S is in a superior position (S>H); 2) whether S is unable to perform action p; 3) whether H is obliged to do p. If the first condition holds, there is no need for the speaker to play down the action or to minimise the cost to hearer. In other words, the directive can be realised in a maximally direct way, i.e. by using an imperative, and without diminutive. Parents, for instance, are in a position to adopt this strategy vis-à-vis their children. If, however, parents do use a diminutive in this context, they do not modify the action, but rather the relationship towards their addressee. Example (45), Give your handy, is a case in point. A similar example from Polish is found in Wierzbicka (1985b: 167): (46) Monisienko, jedz zupkç! 'Monica-Dim.-Dim., eat your soup-dim.!' This utterance, presumably produced by a parent, contains two diminutive forms. The request proper includes a diminutive which functions as an internal modifier; it is prefaced by a double diminutive which functions as a supportive vocative (cf. 5.1.). Wierzbicka claims that such formulations cannot be found in English (cf. 2.3.2.). However, Give your handy illustrates that synthetic diminutives can occur in head moves, at least in parent-child interaction. While it is not clear whether Eat your soupie (or Eat your little soup) would be used in English,22 it is quite clear that diminutives as supportive vocatives are a perfectly natural

22

Rather, it should be Drink (up) your soupieflittle soup.

168 phenomenon. In fact, multiple diminutives are quite common in this function, as in the following (fabricated) example (cf. 4.2.7.1., cf. also Poynton 1989). (47) Lizziekins, eat your soup. This strategy is not particular to parent-child interaction, but is also employed among adults. Brown and Levinson (1987: 107f.) point out that diminutive forms are used as supportive vocatives to mitigate imperative realisations. They term this politeness strategy 'Use in-group identity markers', and they state (Brown/Levinson 1987: 108): Using such in-group kinds of address forms with imperatives ... indicates that S considers the relative Ρ (power, status difference) between himself and the addressee to be small, thus soñening the imperative by indicating that it isn't a power-backed command. Thus even when used to children, it turns a command into a request...

Apart from English examples, Brown and Levinson quote a request from Tzeltal, which translates as 'Shut my little door, my girl'. While these authors comment on the address form, it is worth noting in the present context that the object of the action ('door') is modified by the diminutive particle ala (whose usage is discussed in detail elsewhere; cf., e.g., Brown/Levinson 1987: 109). Thus, the head move of the Tzeltal request is realised in a very similar way to the following English request, which occurs between adults: (48) Open the little door. (ALB 115). According to Brown and Levinson, a diminutive vocative realises a positive politeness strategy. When employed to support a request, the hearer is more likely to perform the requested action. As Charleston (1960: 124), who writes about "pet names and affectionate nick-names", observes: When trying to persuade, coax, or wheedle a person into complying with a request, or when urging a person to undertake some action, such hypocoristic forms may be very effective, the hearer finding it difficult to refuse the appeal made to his emotional side.

Supportive diminutive vocatives are used in particular when neither of the three conditions mentioned above holds. In other words, they are used among equals, when speakers are able to perform the requested action themselves and when the hearer is not obliged to comply (cf. also 5.2.3.3.2.).

5.2.3.3.2. Asking for material goods In this subtype of request, the speaker wants the hearer to give something to the speaker, i.e. to provide the speaker with an alienable good. In other words, the speaker profits from the requested action in a material sense. Therefore, the generosity maxim seems to be at least as relevant as the complementary tact maxim, the latter of which is particularly relevant for requests for action (cf. 5.2.3.3.1.). In requests for material goods, both cost to other and benefit to self are minimised by polite speakers. To this end, diminutives can be used to reduce the size (metaphorically, rather than literally) of the requested object.

169 (49) Could I have a little brandy? (ALB 76) (50) I'd like a nipper of brandy, please. (ALB 50) (51)/ think I'd like a little brandy. (ALB 76) (52) I'll have a Burghie. (Ervin-Tripp 1976:29) (53) I just want to ask you if lean borrow a tiny bit ofpaper. (Brown/Levinson 1987: 177) As these examples illustrate, requests for material goods differ from requests for action regarding the ' request perspective' (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 278). While requests for action are characterised by 'hearer dominance* (hearer as agent, e.g. underlying imperative realisations), requests for material goods are characterised by 'speaker dominance', i.e. the pronoun / typically surfaces as grammatical subject. Complementary formulations are possible, but occur much less frequently in the present corpus. Consider, for instance, the following example, which is an alternative way of phrasing the request in (53). (54) Ijust want to ask you if you could lend me a tiny bit of paper. (Brown/Levinson 1987: 177) The change of perspective requires the use of the converse verb lend. Note that in this perspective can is replaced by could. As a rule, requests for material goods are realised by conventionally indirect strategies (especially types 4 and 6), while imperatives and explicit performatives are usually avoided. Furthermore, internal modification is used extensively to mitigate the request. The above examples include a whole range of different downgraders. Apart from cost- and benefit-reducing diminutives, the following devices are employed to turn requests in a narrow sense (German 'Aufforderungen') into polite requests (German 'Bitten'; cf. 5.2.1.):" -

Could I have... ? instead of Can I have... ? (tense/mood); I'd like... instead of I want... (conditional + lexical downtoner); ..., please, (politeness marker); I think I... (subjectivizer); I want to ask you... (hedging); Ijust want to ask you... (downtoner); Ijust want to askyou if I... (conditional clause); borrow/lend instead of have/give (lexical downtoners).

The diminutives are derived from the nouns naming the material goods. Interestingly, in many examples from the present corpus, these nouns are mass nouns (e.g. brandy or paper). Therefore, the diminutives can either be formed by adding little (as in a little brandy), or by using specific quantifiers denoting small amounts such as bit or nip, forms which can be considered inherent diminutives, and from which, in turn, analytic or synthetic diminutives can be derived (e.g. a tiny bit, nipper). Brown and Levinson (1987: 177) also list the following quantifiers, which they consider as 'imposition minimizers': a tiny little bit, a sip, a

23

Downtoner categories are adopted from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b: 28Iff.)·

170 taste, a drop, and a smidgen. These specific quantifiers demonstrate that the material goods requested in this type of directive are often food and drink. This coincides with my own observations. Most requests for food and drink found in my data occur in situations which can be summarised as social gatherings, more specifically in situations in which hosts are obliged to provide their guests with refreshments. For instance, the requests in (49), (50) and (52) appear in a party context. In such situations, requests for food or drink resemble offer acceptance (cf. 5.3.1.3.). Offer acceptance can be regarded as a reactive request for material goods. Accordingly, diminutive use in offer acceptance is similar to that in initiative requests. (55) A: Have a drink. Scotch or Bourbon? B: A little drop of Scotch would be very welcome. (COBI, s.v. little 5) (56) A: More cheese? B: Just a smidgin, please. (DCE2, s.v. smidgin/smidgen) Apart from snacks and drinks, tobacco products may be offered at parties and similar social events. However, while offers including a diminutive are found in the present data (e.g. Would you like a little cigarette?, Take a little cigar, cf. 5.3.1.2.), none of the requests for such goods include a diminutive. Volek (1987) and Wierzbicka (1985b) quote the following requests for cigarettes from Russian and Polish respectively. Both requests include a diminutive, but apparently they do not occur between a guest and a host. (57) Dajka sigaretku ... Give me a cigarette-Dim.' (Volek 1987: 165) (58)Jureczku, daj mipapierosa! 'George-Dim.-Dim., give me a cigarette!' (Wierzbicka 1985b: 167) In both cases, the relationship between the interactants is characterised by minimal social distance. Wierzbicka explicitly states that the speaker in (58) is the addressee's wife. Both speakers use an imperative, and they use its singular form (T-form; cf. 5.1.2.). Furthermore, the form of the verb in the Russian example (57) is modified by a suffix which indicates an informal context (-ka). In this example, the diminutive is derived from the noun 'cigarette' (internal modification), while in the Polish example a double diminutive is used as a supportive vocative (external modification). As discussed in 5.2.3.3.1., both options are available in English. Thus, both Gimme a little cigarette..., in analogy to (57), and Franklekins, give me a cigarette, in analogy to (58) are conceivable in the given constellation type. The constellation in which the following request is uttered is also characterised by minimal social distance. The addressee is the young daughter of the requester.

171 (59) Can you get another little bagfor the balls? (EDM) Arguably, the use of little in this example is motivated by the size of the required item ('small bag'). From the context, however, it is clear that the diminutive is motivated socially. A crucial difference between this example and almost all examples discussed so far in this section is that the requested good is not for consumption. Therefore, benefit minimisation is less relevant than cost minimisation. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the request is a follow-up request (another little bag·, cf. 5.2.4., also 5.3.1.4.). Diminutives in requests for material goods do not only occur between interactants who know each other well. Brown and Levinson's (1987: 177) examples I just want to ask you if I can borrow / if you could lend me a tiny bit ofpaper (53 and 54 above) are used in constellations which are characterised by social distance, as is borne out by the large number of downgraders which are employed for modifícational purposes. It is worth noting that despite the use of the verbs borrow and lend here, there is no point in returning this same tiny bit of paper once it is written on. In other words, borrow and lend must not be taken literally. Rather, these verbs are used conventionally (theoretically) as an offer to refund or to return the favour at some other time. This is different in the case of more valuable personal belongings, which must be returned after use; cf., e.g., Can I borrow your pen? In such cases, a diminutive is not acceptable. Can I borrow your little pen? would derogate the addressee's possession. Other devices have to be employed to minimise cost to other, e.g. Can I borrow your pen for a minute? (cf. also 5.2.3.3.4.). The verbs borrow and lend in Brown and Levinson's examples make it clear that these examples are not taken from transactional discourse, i.e. not from shop encounters and similar situations in which material goods have to be paid for. If material cost is paid with money, polite cost minimisation, and thus the use of diminutives as cost minimisers, may be considered redundant. Consider, however, the following example overheard in a German supermarket. (60) Hätten Sie vielleicht'η Tütchen für mich? 'Would you perhaps have a bag-Dim. for me?' (Schneider 1993a: 347) The requester (the customer) probably knows that she will have to pay for the bag, as most supermarkets in Germany charge for shopping bags. Nonetheless, she chooses an indirect realisation strategy, making use of a diminutive and other downgraders. Sifianou (1992) quotes Greek examples from shop encounters in which buyers use diminutives in their requests for goods. She classifies such diminutives as solidarity markers rather than as cost minimisers. Indeed, the same pattern of usage can be suggested to pertain to examples (49)(54) above. However, my corpus does not contain any English requests from shop encounters which include a diminutive. This may, of course, be an artefact of my data. Alternatively, we might speculate that the English and Greek cultures differ in this aspect of diminutive use - as Sifianou (1992), following Wierzbicka (1985b), claims (cf. 2.3.2.).

172 5.2.3.3.3. Asking for permission In this type of request, a future action by the speaker is predicated. The action can only be made possible by the hearer. Put another way, it is impossible for the speaker to perform the intended action without the hearer's permission. Accordingly, the 'standard format' (or 'Normalform' in Wunderlich's terminology; cf. Wunderlich 1978) for this type of directive is 'let me do ρ', as in example (62) (and also in (63), in which the us in Let's is used exclusively, i.e. with reference to the speaker and a third party, but not to the hearer). (61) I want to have a little chat. (EDM) (62) Let me have a little chat. (EDM) (63) Let's have a little look. (SHA 61) (64) Can I have a little look? (COBI, s.v. little 7.2) (65) Who could object to a friendly little kiss? (ALB 98) The first two requests are addressed to the speaker's young daughter, who is preventing the speaker from chatting to another adult. It is important to note that the speaker does not want to have a chat with the addressee. Instead, he wants the addressee to make it possible for him to have the chat with somebody else. Similarly, in examples (63) and (64), the speaker does not want to receive a look from the hearer, but the speaker wants the hearer to grant access to the object which the speaker wants to see. The request in (65) is slightly different. First, the speaker's aim is that speaker and hearer kiss (each other), so there is not much point in claiming that the speaker does not want to receive a kiss from the hearer, but that she wants to give him a kiss instead.24 Second, the request is realised by a formulaic phrase (reminiscent of the German saying Ein Küsschen in Ehren kann niemand verwehren, literally Ά kiss-Dim. in honour nobody can deny'). This phrasing is used here to counter objections (cf. also 5.3.2. and 5.3.3.3.). This is done by employing two devices: a) the use of the diminutive which plays down the kiss in its significance (and also in its intensity and duration), and b) the use offriendly, which qualifies the kiss as socially not dangerous - after all, speaker and hearer are married, but not to each other (the speaker is the hostess, the addressee her guest). In this category of requests, diminutives play down the action which the speaker intends to perform and for which the hearer's permission is needed. Thus, the social message is Ί am not asking much', or, maybe more specifically, Ί am not causing you much inconvenience'. In this sense, diminutives in requests for permission can also be considered cost minimisers. They are used strategically in persuasive strategies which may involve other downgraders as well.

5.2.3.3.4. Asking for patience Requests for patience constitute another subtype of directive acts. In this case, the speaker wants the hearer to wait. Requests of this type can be realised by saying Please wait (in

24

Alternatively, this utterance could be classified as a suggestion (cf. 5.3.3.).

173 formal contexts) or Hang on (in informal contexts). Waiting is at a cost to the hearer, i.e. the hearer has to invest time. Polite speakers pay attention to the hearer's negative face wants involved in waiting by representing the time to be invested as short. This can be done, for instance, by using the following formulations (cf. also Blundell et al. 1982: 206f.). (66) One moment, please.25 (67) Hang on a minute. (68) Just a second. The nouns moment, minute and second refer to very short time spans. Dictionaries define the unspecific term moment as "a very short period of time" (COB2; ALD6). Despite the fact that minute and second have exact definitions as time units, they are used in requests in the same sense as moment. They unspecifically (or metaphorically) denote a (very) short length of time; their literal meaning is not relevant here. In utterances, such as (67) and (68), they are not used in the sense "one of the sixty parts that an hour is divided into" and "one of the sixty parts that a minute is divided into" (COB2) respectively. If they were taken literally in requests for patience, they would be deceptive, since waiting time normally exceeds one second or one minute. Thus, in their metaphorical use, second and minute can be considered 'rhetorical understatements'.26 On the other hand, their original meaning is important in that minute and second denote the two shortest time units referred to in everyday communication. They contrast with hour, day, week, month, year, etc., none of which can be used as a synonym for moment (*Hang on an hour, *Just a week). From this point of view, minute and second can be regarded as inherent diminutives. In many languages, diminutives can be derived from nouns expressing short periods of time in requests for patience; consider German Momentchen 'moment-Dim.', Sekiindchen 'second-Dim.' (cf. Volek 1987 and Sifianou 1992 for similar examples form Russian and Greek respectively).The function of such diminutive forms is to further minimise the short time spans expressed through the base nouns.27 For this purpose, English seems to prefer clipping as a, so to speak iconic device, over additive diminutive formation, in line with the general typological make-up of the language (cf., e.g., Leisi 1969; also 4.1.1. and 4.3.1.). Thus, it is common to use realisations such as the following. (69) Hang on a mo. (70) Just a sec. In naturally occurring discourse, however, diminutives are also found in English requests, characteristically analytic forms. (71) It Jakes a little minute. I'm not quite ready... (EDM) 25 26 27

In ALD6 (s.v. moment), One moment, please is paraphrased as 'Please wait a short time'. For a more technical account, cf. Leech (1983: 145ff.) on litotes. Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 122ÍT.) discuss the "problematic" semantics of diminutives derived from nouns (literally) denoting exactly defined time units. However, their meaning is not at all problematic if it is accepted that such nouns are used metaphorically e.g. in requests for patience, as analysed above.

174 (72) I'll be back in a little while. (ALD6, s.v. while) It has to be mentioned, however, that while as such refers to a unspecific period of time, not a short period of time, as does moment.

5.2.3.3.5. Asking for information The last subtype of requests distinguished with regard to the intended hearer action are 'question acts'. In this case, the speaker wants the hearer to provide information. A common conventionally indirect realisation strategy for requests for information is strategy 6, preparatory query, e.g. Can you tell me where the station is? to ask a stranger for directions. Direct realisations, e.g. Tell me where the station is, would be used in different social situations. In addition, 07/-questions, e.g. Where is the staation?, may be used to ask for information. Such a realisation strategy is specific to this particular type of request.28 Volek (1987: 165), who also discusses the use of diminutives in this subcategory of requests, quotes only one example, which is, however, not a request for information proper. The Russian utterance, the meaning of which can be glossed as 'May I ask one questionDIM', is a meta-question rather than a question. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989b) term such metaquestions 'preparatore', 29 i.e. 'mitigating supportive moves', which preface the head move. They initiate pre-exchanges which serve to prepare the ground for the request proper (cf. Edmondson 1981: 116ff.). Preparators are defined as follows (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989b: 287): The speaker prepares his or her hearer for the ensuing request by announcing that he or she will make a request by asking about the potential availability of the hearer for carrying out the request, or by asking for the hearer's permission to make the request - without however giving away the nature or indeed the content of the request.

Thus, Volek's (1987: 165) Russian example is, in fact, a preparator. The subsequent head move is not quoted by the author. It can be assumed that it does not contain a diminutive. Preparators supporting a request for information are also common in English. However, the equivalent to Volek's example, May I ask you a little question?, is probably less common than preparators which mitigate the cost to hearer by indicating that the speaker does not intend to "steal" much of the hearer's time (cf. 5.2.3.3.4.). Consider the following examples: (73) May I ask you a brief question? (74) Ijust dropped by for a minute to ask... (Brown/Levinson 1987: 177). (75) Could I see you for a minute? (ALD6, s.v. minute)

28

29

Other realisation strategies for requests for information are discussed in Edmondson/House (1981: llOff.). The category 'preparator' must not be confused with 'preparatory query', which is the most common conventionally indirect realisation strategy for requests (cf. 5.2.2.). This realisation strategy has also be called 'reference to preparatory condition'.

175 In my corpus, diminutives occur in requests for information proper for instance in the following examples. (76) Where 's my little yum yum? Where's Martha? (ALB 58) (77) How do you malee your secret little murders... (ALB 106) (78) Well, did you two have a nice little talk? (ALB 35) All of these speech acts are realised by adopting a strategy specific to this type of request. (76) and (77) are 07/-questions, (78) is a 7£&WO-question. The diminutives in these examples are, however, not speech act modifiers, i.e. they do not interact with the illocution. By contrast, they are local diminutives which communicate the speakers' attitudes towards the respective referents. In the first case, the speaker wants to know where his wife is. The identity of this person is revealed to the addressee in the second question of the speaker's turn, in which the first question is reformulated more neutrally. Martha is initially referred to by the idiosyncratic and rather ambivalent pet name (cf. 5.1.) little yum yum which expresses the speaker's momentary attitude towards his wife. In the other two cases, the diminutives are part of evaluative expressions which consist of a qualifying adjective, the diminutive marker little and the qualified noun. In (77), the noun also expresses an evaluation (cf. 4.3.5.3.). Secret little murders rates the deeds assumed by the speaker to have been carried out by the hearer negatively. The speaker insinuates that the hearer has had a number of abortions her husband does not know about. The speaker does not expect his question to be answered. He is not interested in receiving information about the "How". The discourse function of his question consists in testing the presupposition which is merely a hypothesis which the speaker has arrived at on the basis of what the hearer's husband had told the speaker in private, i.e. behind the hearer's back. The diminutive upgrades the negative evaluation and expresses an attitude of superiority and condescension towards the person who, presumably, has been "found out". Diminutives are used in this same function in a number of phrases, such as So that's your little plan, is it! or I see through your little game! (cf. Charleston 1960: 113). Finally, nice little talk is also used condescendingly, as is borne out by the question which follows, You men solve the problems of the world, as usual? Thus, while diminutives are found in requests for information, they do not seem to interact with the illocution of the speech acts in which they occur. At least in my data, they serve to express an attitude towards events and ultimately towards the persons involved in these events. More specifically, in the examples quoted above, the diminutives express a negative evaluation which serves to belittle the addressees. Such questions are ironical or sarcastic. In this respect, diminutive use in requests for information resembles diminutive use in assertive acts (cf. 5.5.). Questions and answers, requesting information and providing information differ from other requests and other illocutionary types regarding the functions of diminutives. This finding seems to support Wunderlich's (1978) distinction between directives and erotetics. The least one can say is that diminutives in requests for information serve different purposes than diminutives in other types of requests.

176 5.2.4. Sequential aspects Requests aim at a future action by the addressee. The speaker wants the hearer to wait or to do something, to provide the speaker with material or immaterial (verbal or non-verbal) goods. The intended reaction is compliance. However, hearers may react non-accordingly or unspecifically, if they are unable, or do not wish, to accept the obligation. For instance, hearers may point out that they are not in a position to perform the predicated action, either because they lack the physical, social or financial means or because they are busy or simply not willing. Furthermore, a hearer may doubt the speaker's authority or the speaker's right to make the request. Non-according reactions may result in complex negotiation sequences which often include request renewals. In renewals, diminutives serve to represent the requested good or action as less significant and thus to minimise cost to the other involved in order to reduce the hearer's reluctance to comply (cf. 5.3.1. and 5.3.3.). The following excerpt is taken from a negotiation sequence. The speaker wants the hearer to kiss her. After various unsuccessful requests, she starts a new initiative. (79) M: You 're a scientist, aren 'tyou? C'mon... make an experiment... (ALB 98) As the hearer still hesitates to comply, the speaker reformulates her new request by using a diminutive. (80)... make a little experiment. (ALB 98) Eventually the addressee gives in and the speaker achieves her aim. Using a reformulation with a diminutive can be classified as a persuasive strategy. In the following excerpt, speaker A asks his young daughter, speaker B, to grant him permission to talk to another adult. Since permission is denied, speaker A renews his request. As his initial request has already included a diminutive, he does not have the option of using a reformulation with a diminutive as in (80). Instead, speaker A selects a more direct realisation strategy. The original request is renewed in a 'want statement', which expresses A's interests more clearly, but retains the minimising diminutive. (81) A: Come here, let me have a little chat now. B: No, I won't. A: No. I want to have a little chat. (EDM 9002.27) Finally, speaker A makes his request more emphatic by adding a supportive move which is realised by using the pejorative descriptor you little brute, mitigated by diminution (cf. 5.1.4.4. and 5.4.2.). If the addressee of a request is in principal willing to comply, but not available at the moment, he or she can promise to perform the desired action at a later time. In this case, requests for patience are a possible reaction to other types of requests. Reactive requests for patience can be realised by employing the formulaic utterances described in 5.2.3.3.4., or by giving reasons for the delay. Examples (82) to (84), which illustrate this type of negotia-

177 tion, appear disjunctively in the one particular transaction taken from a parent-childinteraction. The daughter wants to involve her father in a shopping game, but the father has to attend other business first. (82) A: Daddy, would you like to buy some glue? B: Just one second, darling. I'm nearly ready for buying. Here, Ijust have to cut that like that.... (EDM 9001.1) (83) A: Hej! Would you like to buy some glue? B: Yes. It takes a little minute. I'm not quite ready for buying glue yet. ... (EDM 9001.2) (84) A:... Here's already your shopping basket. B: Yes. I think Ijust have to do a few little jobs there. (EDM 9001.3) The repeated and varied paternal requests for patience are characteristic of the delaying tactics employed in caretaker speech. In these requests, diminutives co-occur with other mitigating devices, especially with lexical downgraders. They may be supported by grounders specifying the reasons why the parent cannot comply immediately.

5.2.5. Summary: diminutive use in directive acts Requests, as prototypical directives, are intrinsically face-threatening acts. The use of diminutives in requests serves to mitigate the face threat. Diminutives minimise cost to hearer by playing down the requested action. Thus, diminutives help to observe the tact maxim. Specific aspects of diminutive use in requests result from the respective communicative goal. If a speaker wants the hearer to perform an action, then diminutives function as cost minimisers. They represent the action as insignificant to make it easier for the hearer to comply. This usage is a negative politeness strategy. In this case, diminutives are used in the head move and formed from the noun which functions as direct object. As a rule, these diminutives are analytic forms, and conventionally indirect realisations are the preferred utterance formats. However, in constellations characterised by minimal social distance, diminutives function as closeness indicators. They do not minimise hearer cost, but confirm the close relationship between the interactants. In such constellations, requests can be realised by otherwise unmitigated imperatives, while the diminutives are used in vocative acts functioning as mitigating supportive moves. As a rule, diminutives in such moves are synthetic, sometimes multiply suffixed forms, often derived from first names. This usage is a positive politeness strategy which could be termed an 'emotional strategy', whereas representing the action as insignificant could be called a 'rational strategy'. If speakers request material goods, then diminutives portray the goods or the amount of the respective goods as small. For this purpose, little or the more expressive tiny are used. The diminutives are formed from the nouns naming the goods or specific quantifiers for these goods. Some of these quantifiers are inherent diminutives (bit, drop, smidgin, etc.).

178 For this subtype of requests, the generosity maxim seems more relevant than the tact maxim. Diminutive use in requests for material goods, where the generosity maxim is observed, resembles the use of diminutives in offer acceptance. Diminutives do not occur in requests for material goods which are not intended for consumption. Belongings of the hearer which are borrowed to be returned by the requester are not represented as insignificant or small in order to avoid insulting the owner. Instead, the duration of use by the speaker is represented as short. Requests for permission are typically realised by Let me Aave-constructions. Diminutives in this subtype can be considered as minimisers of benefit to self which play down the requested immaterial good. More specifically, however, they should be analysed as cost minimisers which reduce the inconvenience caused to the addressee. Requests for permission can be employed as supportive preparing moves prefacing other types of requests. In requests for patience, diminutives serve to play down the time to be invested by the hearer. To this end, inherent diminutives such as moment, minute or second are used, from which, in turn, analytic diminutives or clippings can be formed. Requests for information differ from the other subtypes of requests in that diminutives do not interact with the illocution. While they do occur, diminutives function locally in this particular subtype. They communicate the speaker's attitude towards the referent of the diminutive - an object, a person or an event. In my data, the attitudes expressed are negative evaluations. However, the value of the evaluation depends on the social situation. Requests for information may be prefaced by requests for permission functioning as preparatore. Diminutive use in requests may depend on the discourse position of the request in question. Diminutives typically occur in third (or later) moves in negotiation sequences. Such sequences are initiated by requests without diminutive (typically requests for action) to which the hearer reacts with non-compliance. In the third move, the requesters renew their request, this time using a diminutive. If speakers anticipate non-compliance, they may wish to reformulate their initial request by adding a diminutive. Such reformulations follow the original request in the same turn. The use of diminutives in request renewals or reformulations is a persuasive strategy. If addressees of requests for action are not able or willing to comply immediately, they can react by performing a request for patience, which may be mitigated by diminutives playing down the waiting time. Such requests for patience can be repeated, if the initial requesters grow impatient. In this case, the use of diminutives and other mitigators is not repeated, but varied, and usually accompanied by grounders specifying the reason why the addressee of the request for action cannot comply immediately. Diminutive use in this type of request for patience is part of a delaying strategy.

5.3. Commissive acts

Commissive acts are characterised by the same 'direction of fit' as directives, i.e. by a 'world-to-words' fit (Searle 1976). Both types of acts refer to future events (cf.

179 Edmondson/House 1981) and both concern obliging one interactant to bring about these future events.30 While directives refer to future actions to be performed by the hearer, commissives refer to future actions by the speaker. The communicative point of commissive acts can be glossed as 'The speaker commits herself/himself to doing something' (Schneider 1988: 62; cf. Searle/Vanderveken 1985). Further differentiations can be based on the pragmatic scale of cost and benefit (Leech 1983). In the case of directives, the future action is at a cost to the hearer (House/Kasper 1987: 1254). By contrast, it is at a cost to the speaker in the case of commissives. The relevant politeness maxims which refer to the cost-benefit scale and apply to commissives and directives alike are the maxims of tact and generosity (Leech 1983: 132). TACT MAXIM: (a) 'Minimise cost to other' / (b) 'Maximise benefit to other' GENEROSITY MAXIM: (a) 'Minimise benefit to self / (b) 'Maximise cost to self The (b)-versions (maximisation) are more relevant to commissives, and the (a)-versions (minimisation) more relevant to directive acts (cf. also Leech 1983: 109f.). In his speculations about the origins of language, Wunderlich (1978: 79f.) considers vocatives and directives the two most fundamental illocutionary types. Correspondingly, commissives must have developed later, probably in response to directives, in cases where the addressees of the directives were not able or willing to perform the required action at once. In such cases, the addressees react verbally by accepting the obligation to perform the action in question at a later point in time. From this perspective, directives are primarily initiative interactional moves, while commissives are primarily reactive. Accordingly, prototypical commissive acts are promises. Commissives have received much less attention in pragmatic research than directives. Promises may be considered an exception since Searle demonstrates his felicity conditions ('rules preliminary to the success of a speech act') with reference to this particular speech act (cf., e.g., Searle 1972). In the following discussion, I will not deal with promises, as I have not found any diminutives in promises in my corpus. This may be due to the fact that the use of diminutives may cast doubt on the sincerity of a promise. Other commissive acts, however, are often modified by diminutives. These include offers (also offer acceptance), suggestions, and announcements, all of which will be analysed below.31 Offers refer to a future action ρ of the speaker, from which the addressee profits (e.g. Can I get you some-

30

31

I have suggested elsewhere (Schneider 1980) that, based on their fundamental similarities, commissives and directives should be grouped together and called 'obligatives' (cf. also Ballmer/ Brennenstuhl 1981:57 and Mey 1993: 165). Edmondson and House (1981: 136ff.) treat offers and promises as a single speech act. In their opinion, both illocutions have the same communicative purpose and only differ in their interactional status. They claim that in everyday language the metapragmatic term 'offer' is used for initiative moves, whereas the term 'promise' is used for reactive moves. In both cases, Edmondson and House argue, the illocution is the same, for which they introduce the technical term 'willing'. However, on account of their specific features, also regarding typical continuation patterns, I wish to treat offers and promises as two different speech acts. The relatively frequent occurrence of diminutives in offers but not in promises seems to justify this distinction.

180 thing to drink?).32 By contrast, suggestions refer to a future action ρ by the speaker and addressee, which, the speaker assumes to be in the interest of both interactants (e.g. Let's go to the pictures tonight.).33 Finally, the announcements analysed below refer to a future action ρ by the speaker, from which the speaker herself/himself will benefit (e.g. I'll have another piece of cake.).34 With reference to the cost-benefit scale, the interactional characteristics of these three commissive acts can be specified as follows: OFFER: 'S wants to do ρ for Η: ρ is at a cost to S / ρ is to the benefit of H' SUGGESTION: 'S wants to do ρ with Η: ρ is at a cost to S and Η / ρ is to the benefit of S and H' ANNOUNCEMENT: 'S wants to do ρ: ρ is at a cost to S / ρ is to the benefit of S \ Wunderlich (1978: 272ff., esp. 289ff.) classifies offers and suggestions (as well as advice, warnings and other illocutions) as 'conditional speech acts'. For both offers and suggestions, the condition is that the hearer wants the predicated event to happen. In other words, whether or not the speaker performs the future action depends on the hearer's reaction. Theoretically speaking, the success of the speech act does not depend on whether or not the hearer reacts in a positive way. Acceptance and rejection are equally possible reactions (cf. also Apeltauer 1979 and Franke 1990). Ethnomethodological research has shown, however, that for the speaker there is a strong socially motivated preference for acceptance (cf., e.g., Levinson 1983: 307ff.). In other words, speakers at least hope that hearers accept the suggestion or the offer. Therefore, as a rule, a reason is given for rejections. According to Hancher (1979), offers and suggestions are hybrid speech acts, combining the illocutionary forces of commissives and directives. Speakers who make an offer commit themselves to a future course of action, e.g. to provide their hearers with drinks or to carry their suitcases (commissive component). At the same time, speakers want their hearers to accept the offer (directive component). Which of the two components is dominant, may differ from case to case. This is even clearer in the case of suggestions where the interests of both hearers and speakers are affected. Ideally, the interactants are equally interested in the predicated action, and cost and benefit are well balanced for both parties. Yet, a speaker may also make a suggestion because s/he is particularly interested in the joint action, but does not wish to perform it alone. In this case, cost to hearer and benefit to speaker may be greater. Alternatively, a speaker may suggest an action primarily to please the hearer, in which case benefit to hearer and cost to speaker may be greater. Such are the interactional characteristics of the commissive acts which will be analysed in this chapter. The following examples illustrate the use of diminutives in these acts. (85) OFFER: Now then, Sue - a little cigarette? (LEI 33) (86) SUGGESTION: Ang: shall we have a little dance? (LEI 57)

32 Cf. also Aijmer (1996: 135Í). Cf. also Aijmer (1996: 135), and Tsui's notion of'proposals'(Tsui 1994: 100). 34 I use the term 'announcement' for lack of a better term. The type of announcements considered here constitutes an initiative move. It is not uttered in response to an offer.

33

181 (87) ANNOUNCEMENT: I'll treat myself to a little something. (Informant, UK) In all three examples, analytic diminutives are used, where other languages would use synthetic forms, as in the following German examples. (88) OFFER: Noch 'η Täss 'cheti Kaffee, Frau Zumpe? (Schneider 1991b) (89) SUGGESTION: Wie wär's: Noch 'n Spielchen? (90) ANNOUNCEMENT: Ach, ich genehmig'mir noch 'n Likörchen. (Schneider 1993b) The discussion of diminutive use in these commissive acts addresses issues such as where do diminutives occur in the speech acts, where do speech acts containing diminutives occur in discourse, how does diminution interact with illocution, realisation strategy, and other factors. The respective sections focus on different aspects. The analysis of offers (5.3.1.) concentrates on continuation patterns and discourse positions in particular. The analysis of suggestions (5.3.3.) also investigates sequential aspects, while the discussion of announcements (5.3.2.) examines a class of nouns denoting "luxuries", which also play an important role in the other two illocutions and are particularly interesting from a sociopragmatic point of view.

5.3.1. Offers 5.3.1.1. Specification Offers are defined as speech acts referring to a future action by the speaker. This action is to the cost of the speaker and to the benefit of the hearer. Offers can be divided into two subclasses according to the nature of the action which the speaker offers to perform. These two subclasses can be called 'offers of assistance' and 'hospitable offers'. Alternatively, hospitable offers could be termed 'ritual', following Goffman (1971: 65ff.), who uses the term 'ritual offerings'. 35 Correspondingly, offers of assistance could be termed 'substantive'.36 In offers of assistance, speakers express their willingness to do something for the hearer which, in the speakers' view, may cause the hearer some difficulty or inconvenience. This type can be illustrated by the following examples (cf., e.g., Leech 1983: 110, Edmondson/House 1981: 136). (91) Let me carry those cases for you. (92) / could give her a message for you if you like. (93) Shall I get the scissors? 35

36

Hospitable offers, or ritual offerings, are sometimes referred to as 'polite offers' (cf., e.g., Holly 1979: 48). I consider this term infelicitous, since it implies that other offers (offers of assistance) are not polite. The term 'substantive' is used here in the sense in which Edmondson and House (1981:98) use it, i.e. in opposition to the term 'ritual'. In their classification, these two terms designate the two most fundamental types of illocutions.

182

Offers of assistance are not restricted to any specific context. They occur in all kinds of everyday situations among colleagues, neighbours, friends, or family members, and also between complete strangers. For instance, example (91) could be addressed by a young man to an old woman unknown to him at a railway station. There are general social (or ethical) norms that stronger persons help a weaker person. Therefore, small children and old or handicapped people are potential addressees for offers of assistance, even if social distance is maximal. Also, rules of social conduct which are based on traditional gender roles require that males assist female persons. By contrast, hospitable (or ritual) offers are restricted to specific situations. Typically, they occur at social gatherings such as dinners, receptions, parties, and the like. In such contexts, the roles of the interactants are predetermined. One or more individuals appear in the role of host or hostess, other persons are invited guests. With the invitation, hosts assume the responsibility of their guests' well-being. This is generally expected (cf. the PARTY frame in Schneider 1988: 85f., also 17f.) and involves, above all, providing food and drink. According to the relevant social norms, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, snacks, sweets, cigarettes, etc. are ritually offered. Such refreshments may be regarded as the topics of hospitable offers. 37 Offers of this kind are exemplified by the following utterances. (94) How about some wine? (95) Cigarette? (96) Have another sandwich. As pointed out above, the politeness maxims governing offers are the maxims of tact and generosity. While 'Minimise cost to other' is relevant to offers of assistance, hospitable offers require maximisation. They are expected to observe 'Maximise benefit to other' and 'Maximise cost to self. Diminutives seem to occur in hospitable offers only and not in offers of assistance. If the cost to hearer was diminished (as in, e.g., *Let me carry those little cases for you; cf. example (91)), the speaker's assistance would be rendered superfluous. An offer of this kind would threaten the addressee's face. This does not apply to hospitable offers. Since hosts are obliged to provide refreshments, guests are entitled to accept them. To some extent, guests are even under the obligation to accept ritual offerings in order to acknowledge the host's efforts. Rejecting such offerings is generally considered impolite. The case is slightly different for repeated offerings in the course of the same social event, as demonstrated below (cf. 5.3.1.3.). Accepting hospitable offers is also governed by politeness maxims, resulting in complex face work for all parties involved. Guests must avoid to "impair major material losses" to their hosts, i.e. they must observe the maxim 'Minimise cost to other' in a rather literal sense, and they must not appear to be greedy, i.e. they must observe the maxim 'Minimise benefit to self. Hosts, on the other hand, can - depending on how they interpret their role employ various strategies to "press" their guests to help themselves to refreshments, and to help themselves repeatedly, as will be demonstrated below. In such contexts, social values come into play which differ across languages and cultures, and also across English speak-

37

On the notion of'speech act topic' also compare 5.4.1.

183 ing cultures.38 Diminutives serve strategic communicative functions in the type of face work sketched here. Their interaction with pragmalinguistic and sequential aspects of offering is analysed in the following sections. Offers of assistance are not considered further.

5.3.1.2. Realisation strategies and diminutives The strategies available for realising hospitable offers can be classified into three types (cf. Schneider 1980). Type 1. PREFERENCE QUESTION: AUX you V N P ? (e.g. Would you like some scotch ?) Type 2. EXECUTION QUESTION: AUX J V you NP ? (e.g. Can I get you a drink ?) Type 3. IMPERATIVE: Have NP. (e.g. Have a drink.) These three options result from the characteristics of offers as conditional speech acts, which combine commissive and directive force. Preference questions serve to establish the addressee's needs. They refer to the antecedent of the conditional underlying an offer. We can assume the format 'If you like X, I'll give you some* as the 'pragmatic deep structure' (cf. Wunderlich 1978: 289). By contrast, execution questions stem from the commissive nature of offers. They explicitly mention the speaker as the agent of the predicated action ('benefactor'), and the hearer as the goal of the action ('beneficiary'). Agent and goal are semantic roles, surfacing as grammatical subject and dative object. Benefactor and beneficiary are pragmatic roles, based on the cost-benefit scale. Finally, the use of a grammatical imperative reflects the directive component of offers. Utterances such as Have a drink do not count as requests, since the predicated action is in the interest of the addressee. The third and especially the first realisation strategy occur much more frequently in the present data than the second type. There are a number of lexical items which can be used for all strategy types in place of the categorical variables in the above structures. However, the choice is rather limited. The verbal element in preference questions is predominantly realised by like, and also by want, fancy and feel like. AUX is primarily expressed by would and do. Combinations of realisations for AUX and V are subject to certain restrictions. Typical combinations are found under (97). (97) Would you like ... Do you want ... Do you fancy ... Do you feel like ...

38

The strategy termed "pressing" here is a typical feature of the pragmatics of Irish English (cf. Barron 2003). In Germany, "pressing" is found in rural communities in particular, and also in German-speaking communities formerly based in regions which are now part of Poland, Russia, and Lithuania (cf. also Leech 1983: 112).

184 Preference questions can also be realised elliptically. Examples from the present corpus include the following: (98) Now: anybody like a cigarette? (LEI 14) (99) D [you want a drink? (LEI 56) (100) You want another drink? (ALB 27) (101) Like one? (BLU 185) Minimal realisations of hospitable offers are reduced to the nominal element referring to the object which is offered, i.e. the so-called topic, plus question intonation. This variant, which appears frequently in my data, is illustrated by the following utterances. (102) Cigarette? (BIR 40) (103) Cigar? (LEI 38) (104) Tea? (OSB 49) (105) Drink? (LEI 54) (106) Chocolate? (BLU 185) (107) Cheese sandwich? (BLU 185) Generally speaking, the degree of formality decreases with the length of utterance and the degree of explicitness. In execution questions, the variable AUX can be realised in different ways. Common fillers for this slot are can and may, and also could. Verbs used in this strategy type include get and the speech act verb offer. (108) May I offer you a drink? In the imperative type, little variation can be observed due to the brevity of this grammatical construction. This is illustrated by the following examples: (109) Have a drink. (ALB 32) (110) Have a biscuit. (DWA 111) (111) Have some nuts. (LEI 33) (112) Take a cigarette. (Edmondson/House 1981: 137) Apart from the strategy types discussed so far, there is a further option, which is even more formulaic: How about X?/What about X?, e.g. How about some wine? (König 1977: 40). Following Sadock (1974: 118Í), this construction type can be called a 'speech-act idiom'. This type can be used to realise offers as well as suggestions (cf. Aijmer 1996: 135), and also requests and advice, since no explicit reference is made to agent or goal. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989a), who identify this construction as a realisation strategy for requests, use the

185 term 'suggestory formula'. If this formula is used to perform an offer, it can be considered a subtype of preference questions.39 Diminutives are found in realisations of type 1 (preference questions) and type 3 (imperatives). In all cases, the base form for diminution is the nominal element which names the offered good. For type 1, diminution is also possible in the minimal format. In this case, however, the article is obligatory (compare, for instance (116) and (102)). (113) Would you like a little cigarette? (LEI 21) (114) Would you like a little cheesy-pineapple one? (LEI 33) (115) Would you like a little Aspro? (LEI 46) (116) A little cigarette? (LEI 33) (117) A little cheesy-pineapple one? (LEI 33) (118) Take a little cigar. (LEI 38) (119) Have a little one. (Köhler 1994: 29)4» My corpus does not contain any examples of diminutive use in type 2 offers (execution questions). The reason for this is, I believe, that type 2 is speaker-oriented. In type 2 constructions, the speaker surfaces as grammatical subject.41 With this perspective, it would be impolite to diminish the offered good. Utterances such as Can I get you a little drink? could be considered as violations of the maxims 'Maximise cost to self and 'Maximise benefit to other'. By contrast, the hearer-oriented constructions of types 1 and 3 allow the speaker (benefactor) to adopt the perspective of the addressee. In these cases, the relevant politeness maxims apply, so to speak, from the beneficiary's perspective, e.g. 'Minimise cost to benefactor' and 'Minimise benefit to beneficiary'. These are the maxims which addressees of offers normally follow, particularly when offers do not contain a diminutive. These maxims motivate hesitant or reluctant responses and also ritual rejections (cf. 5.3.1.3.). Such reactions are anticipated by benefactors who use a diminutive in their offer. They do not express an intention to provide their guests with only a small quantity of goods on offer. On the contrary, the offered goods are played down in their social, rather than material, value. The message which is communicated through the use of a diminutive in an offer can be glossed as 'X is so little that you may accept it without scruples'. In other words, the use of diminutives in offers helps the beneficiary to save face. It is an anticipatory strategy employed by hosts to help their guests not to appear inconsiderate or greedy (cf. Schneider 1993b, discussing German examples).

39

40

41

The discussion in this section focuses on the major strategy types for realising offers as found in my coipus. Since the aim is not to list all possible realisations exhaustively, the reader is referred e.g. to Blundell et al. (1982:185f.) for further details. Köhler also quotes the following preference questions: Would you like another drop?, Would you not have another drop? In these examples, drop may be considered an inherent diminutive, contrasting with e.g. glass. Cf. the notion of speaker dominance as one type of perspective in requests (s. S.2.3.3.2.).

186 5.3.1.3. Offer responses Offers are initiative interactional moves, i.e. they initiate exchanges. As a rule, they do not respond to a preceding act, and they do not require a specific pre-text. They call for a response which, on account of the conditional nature of offers, can be positive (acceptance) or negative (rejections). The realisation of an offer response depends on the strategy employed to perform the preceding offer. Since both preference questions and execution questions are YES/NOquestions, responses answer in the affirmative or in the negative. Conventionally, yes- and no-answers are supplemented by expressions of gratitude for the offer as such. In the case of offer acceptance, thanking may be replaced by the politeness marker please (cf. also House 1989). REJECTION (120) Beverley: Tony, would you like a cigarette? Tony: No, thank you. (LEI 14) ACCEPTANCE (121) X: Would you like another helping of turkey? Y: Yes, thank you. (after Leech/Svartvik 1975: 154) (122) Laurence: Drink? Tony: Yes, please. (LEI 12) Thanking alone may also be used in response to an offer. As a rule, this type of reaction counts as offer acceptance, but it may also be intended as a rejection.42 Thanking alone is a common, and an unambiguously positive, reaction to offers of the imperative type. (123) Len: Have a biscuit. Mark: Thanks. (DWA 111) Another possible, though rather unusual and not very polite, way of accepting an offer is an affirmative response realised by a 'bald' yes. (124) George: Have a drink Nick: Yes. (ALB 32)

42

Due to cross-cultural differences, such responses may lead to misunderstandings. In a German context, thanking alone usually means 'no, thank you', whereas in Scandinavian cultures, as in Anglo-Saxon speech communities, the default reading is 'yes, please'.

187 The same responding strategies are employed, if the preceding offer contains a diminutive. (125) B: Now then, Sue, let'ssee ... Would you like a little cheesy-pineapple one? S: Thank you. B: Tone? A little cheesy-pineapple one? T: Ta. (LEI, turns 647-650) (126) B: Now then, Sue - a little cigarette? S: No, thank you, not just at the moment. (LEI, turns 653+654) In (125), S and Τ accept the offered snack by thanking alone. The reaction by the addressee S in (126) illustrates the fact that rejections are often mitigated by giving a reason., i.e. by using a 'grounder* as a supportive move to externally modify the rejecting head move. In the given example, S qualifies her negative response as a momentary, not a general, preference. She thus signals that she may accept a comparable offer at a later stage, in order not to hurt the beneficiary's feelings and to acknowledge the beneficiary's generosity and hospitality. Whether offers which are realised with a diminutive are more likely to be accepted than offers which do not contain a diminutive is an open question. Also, whether rejections of offers with a diminutive are more often supported by grounders is subject to speculation. However, the present data suggest that such connections may exist. When an offer is accepted, the discourse sequence initiated by the offer is completed. Offer and offer acceptance form a simple exchange (or adjacency pair). In other words, with the responding move a conversational outcome is reached (cf. Edmondson 1981). In the case of a rejection, however, the beneficiary may not be satisfied with the addressee's reaction. This may give rise to further moves before the sequence is closed. First, the speaker may attempt to establish whether the addressee's reaction was a polite ritual rejection.43 Then, the host may try to persuade the guest to accept the offer by renewing it.44 In some cultures, repeated renewals are expected before a beneficiary finally accepts the offer (cf. Leech 1983: 112). This may result in relatively long negotiation sequences.45 As a rule, offers are not repeated literally. They are usually rephrased, one way or another, and modified. Modifications aim at breaking the guests' resistance. Leech (1983: 111) claims that it is polite "to renew the offer more strongly". Irrespective of their length, offer exchanges are not closed before either the beneficiary accepts the offer, or the benefactor accepts the beneficiary's rejection. In the following dialogue excerpt, host (L) and hostess (B) "work on" their guest (T) until he finally "surrenders" and accepts the offer. While the host starts with a minimal

43

44 45

In Ireland, for instance, polite ritual rejections are generally expected as first reactions to offers (cf. Barron 2003). In Germany, however, rejections are usually intended and understood literally. This can be considered a form of insisting (cf. Apeltauer 1979, and Franke 1990). Leech (1983: 11 If.) uses the expression "tug-of-war" to describe such principally infinite sequences, and also "comedy of inaction".

188

offer format,46 using the maximal ellipsis of a preference question, the hostess renews the offer by employing a different realisation strategy, an imperative, which emphasises the directive force of the offer. She also uses supportive imperatives (enjoy yourself, take one, and two go-ons). At the same time, her head move, the offer proper, contains a diminutive, playing down the offered good.47 This multiple strategy, further supported by her husband who repeats parts of her utterance, is finally successful. (127) L: Cigar? T: No, thank you. I've just given up. L: Are you sure? B: Yeah, go on, Tone, take a little cigar, enjoy yourself, go on, take one. L: Yes, go on, take one. T: Thank you. [He takes one.] (LEI 38) While the diminutive is conventionally used to play down the offered good and, thus, make it easier for the beneficiary to accept it, imperatives may emphasise the sincerity of the offer. However, the imperative clusters used in the above example may be regarded as rather pushy, at least in some social classes and some parts of the English-speaking world. Generally speaking, the use of diminutives in offer renewals is part of a persuasive strategy similar to the anticipatory strategy described above where diminutives are employed in initiative offers. The difference consists in the interactional status of the respective utterance, which is either a genuinely initiative move, or a re-initiation (cf. Stubbs 1983; also Schneider 1988: 52).48 The persuasive function of diminutives can also be observed in reformulations of other speech acts, as in the following request (cf. 5.2.4.). (128) Martha: C'mon ... make an experiment... make a little experiment. (ALB 98) In this example, the diminutive plays down the action requested of the addressee. Here, too, the aim is to break the addressee's anticipated resistance. Martha, the initiative interactant, also uses a conventional supportive imperative (c'mon). In offer renewals, diminutives are part of a persuasive strategy, employed in third (or later) moves of offer sequences which follow negative reactions to the original offer. In such cases, the original offer typically does not contain a diminutive. Alternatively, if the original offer does contain a diminutive, renewals often contain intensified diminutives (e.g .just a wee ... or just a tiny little ...).49

46 47 48

49

Minimal realisations seem to be characteristic of male conversational style (cf. 5.4.1.2.). While little cigar is a diminutive, small cigar is the English equivalent for Zigarillo (cf. 4.3.3.). Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 374ff.) refer to similar cases as 'reformulations'. However, such cases are not analysed systematically from a macropragmatic perspective since these authors are not interested in discourse phenomena (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 7 and 85). This seems to be particularly true for languages such as Italian (Bazzannella, pers. comm.).

189 5.3.1.4. Discourse positions of offers The distinction between original (or initiative) offers and offer renewals relates to sequential properties of the act of offering, i.e. to the interactional status of an offer in the context of a complex offer exchange. Further sequential properties result from the discourse position of an offer in the context of the speech event. In the course of a social gathering, for instance, refreshments are, as a rule, offered more than once. Accordingly, a further distinction can be made between initial offers and subsequent offers. Initial offers are not preceded by any other offer. They open the first offer exchange in the course of an event. By contrast, subsequent offers open offer exchanges which occur later during that same event. Subsequent offers can be identified even without a context since the noun which names the offered good is usually modified by another (cf. Schneider 2000). (129) You want another drink? (ALB 27) (130) Would you like another helping of turkey? (131) Have another Ginette and lime. (SHA 75)50 Every subsequent offer increases the social danger that a guest may appear greedy. Guests can avoid subsequent offers, e.g., by not emptying their glasses. I still have some is an acceptable rejection. Hosts who do not wish to appear stingy make subsequent offers even though the glasses of their guests are not empty and anticipate such rejections by offering a top-up, as in the following example, which includes a diminutive. (132) B: Give us your glass, Ang. I'll give you a little top-up. (LEI 57) Subsequent offer exchanges may also include offer renewals. In the following excerpt, B, the (pushy) hostess, uses the diminutive a little top-up in an elaborate reformulation of the original offer. ( 133) B: ... Now, who's for another drink? Come on, Ang! [Angela joins Beverley at the bar.] B: How about you, Sue? S: No, thankyou. B: Yeah, come on, Sue, give you a little top-up, just to settle your nerves. That's it. (LEI 32) In the case of initial offer sequences, the very first offer may be realised by employing a non-specific preference question, e.g. May I offer you a drink? This type of general question may be followed by a request for specification, e.g. What would you like? Specification questions can also be used to realise the very first offer (e.g. What will you have?, What are you drinking?), in which case the benefactor presupposes the beneficiary's willingness to

50

The speaker uses Ginette as an idiosyncratic euphemism for gin (cf. 4.2.2. on {ETTE}).

190 have a drink. Specification questions, as ΗΉ-questions, cannot contain diminutives. However, polite guests often use diminutives in their response to such questions. (134) M: Make the kids a drink, George. What do you want kids? What do you want to drink, hunh? N: Honey? What would you like? H: I don't know, dear ... A little brandy maybe. (ALB 21) (135) If it's all the same to you, I'll have a drop of Ginette, please, and a little lime juice. (SHA 61) (136) A: Have a drink. Scotch or Bourbon? B: A little drop of Scotch would be welcome. (COBI s.v. little 5.) Apart from analytic diminutives with little, the inherent diminutive drop, expressing a small quantity of liquid, is also used as a minimiser, which in turn can be modified by little, as in (136). The same forms can be used in response to subsequent offers. (137) N: You look pale. Honey. Do you want a ...? H: Yes, dear ... a little more brandy, maybe. Just a drop. (ALB 34) Offer acceptance can be classified as a reactive directive. Hosts are, thus, requested to perform the predicated action, i.e. to transfer the offered goods. This interpretation is supported by the fact that utterances which are produced in response to an offer, can also be used to make initiative requests (cf. 5 . 2 . 3 . 3 . 2 . ) , as illustrated by the following example (and its German translation). (138) I'd like a nipper of brandy, please. (ALB 50) (139) Ich hätt' noch gerne ein Schliickchen Kognak, bitte. (ALB-G 48) In the original American text as well as in the German translation, the quantifications nip and Schluck are modified by diminutive suffixes, yielding «íp+{ER} and •SWJ/HCAH-{CHEN} 51 respectively (cf. 4 . 2 . 5 . 2 . on {ER}).

5.3.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in offers The analysis of diminutive use in offers and offer sequences can be summarised as follows. Diminutives are used in hospitable offers, but (apparently) not in offers of assistance. In hospitable offers, diminutives are used in two types of realisation strategies, viz. in impera-

51

The German diminutive suffixes {CHEN} and {LEIN} percolate an umlaut.

191 tives and, in particular, in preference questions. They also occur in minimal realisations, i.e. in maximally elliptical preference questions, which then require an article. Diminutives are formed from the noun naming the offered good. As a rule, they are analytic forms {little + N). With reference to drinks, quantifiers may be used which can be considered inherent diminutives (e.g. drop, nip). These can also be turned into overtly marked diminutives (little drop, nipper). Diminutives are found in offers as well as in positive offer responses (acceptance). They are used in offer acceptance when the offer does not contain a diminutive. If, however, the offer does contain a diminutive, offer acceptance usually includes a more intensive diminutive. Diminutives are used in offer acceptance to minimise benefit to self (beneficiary) and cost to other (benefactor). They fulfil basically the same function in offers, except that here they are used strategically by the benefactor to anticipate modesty or polite rejection on the part of the beneficiary. In other words, the benefactor adopts the beneficiary's perspective. Diminutives serve a very similar purpose in offer renewals, being used as part of a persuasive strategy to counter the beneficiary's non-acceptance. On account of the relevant politeness maxims and the facework resulting from observation of these maxims, diminutives are more likely to occur in subsequent offers and acceptances of subsequent offers than in initial offers and acceptances of initial offers.

5.3.2. Announcements The announcements analysed in this section resemble hospitable offers with regard to topic and typical situational contexts. This type of announcement can be defined as a speech act which predicates a future action which the speaker is going to perform. But while the speaker's future action referred to in an offer benefits the addressee, it is the speaker, who profits from the action referred to in an announcement, e.g. I'm having a drink now. Announcements of this type typically occur in social situations in which "luxuries" such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco, sweets, etc. are consumed. Such situations differ from typical contexts for hospitable offers in that they do not necessarily involve the roles of host and guest. Since the future action referred to in an announcement does not depend on the hearer's consent, and since neither cost nor benefit to the hearer are concerned, the function of announcements is purely strategic. Providing oneself with a source of gratification may be frowned upon by others and considered a violation of the maxim 'Minimise benefit to self. However, announcements of the given type may be used as a defensive move designed to anticipate any such criticism. They follow Baker's (1975) 'megamaxim of self-defence', which can be phrased as 'Call your own violations!' (Edmondson 1981: 127). In announcements, diminutives are used to play down the speaker's benefit and pleasure. As in offers, they are formed from the expression naming the luxury, e.g. I'll treat myself to a little something. (In this example, the luxury is expressed in a conventionally euphemistic way.) The diminutive diminishes the source of enjoyment and thus observes the relevant maxim of minimising benefit to self. Characteristically, neutrally descriptive verbs such as have, drink, and smoke are avoided and the evaluative verb treat is used instead, in the phrase treat oneself to s.th., thus calling the violation. In German announcements, the

192 equivalent phrase sich etwas gönnen is used, as in Ich gönn ' mir noch 'η Likörchen ('I'll treat myself to a little liqueur'). Alternatively, the German verb genehmigen ('permit, grant') is used in the same context, e.g. Ich genehmig' mir jetzt'η Likörchen ( T i l grant myself a little liqueur'). Literally, this verb indicates that providing oneself with something special requires permission or approval. 52 It points to the social risk which motivates the use of announcements as an anticipatory defensive strategy. The German phrase sich etwas genehmigen ('grant yourself s.th.') can also be used with a euphemistically vague object similar to something in I'll treat myself to a little something. The German expression sich einen genehmigen translates as to hoist one. Both einen and equivalent one can only be interpreted as referring to alcoholic drinks, but not to other beverages. To hoist one (or sich einen genehmigen) is not used to refer to water, milk or lemonade, unless in jest. Likewise, I'll treat myself to a little lemonade is only used jocularly. The same applies to the German phrases sich etw. gönnen and sich etw. genehmigen. Apparently, soft drinks do not require permission or approval, but hard drinks do. Therefore, soft drinks are not played down or diminished. By contrast, it seems more likely to say I'll treat myself to a little vodka than just I'll treat myself to a vodka. If the drink itself is not diminished, diminished quantifiers can be used instead. German sich (dann und wann) ein Gläschen genehmigen translates as take a drop (now and then), ein Schlückchen trinken as have a drop, ein Gläschen zuviel as a drop too much, and darauf müssen wir ein Gläschen trinken as that calls for a little drink. English uses analytic and inherent diminutives (little drink, drop),53 where German prefers synthetic forms (Gläschen, Schlückchen). Note that neither phrase in English or German explicitly refers to alcohol. Again, mentioning the socially dangerous topic is avoided (cf. to hoist one, etc.). Other dangerous pleasures which ought to be played down in announcements include sweets, cake, cigarettes, cigars, and coffee. Also, sleeping during the day is considered a luxury (at least for adults). Afternoon naps are also strategically announced, often by using a diminutive, e.g. I might take a little nap (COB2, s.v. nap).54 The alternative expression snooze occurs in my corpus as snoozette. (140) G (to H): You don't know what's been going on around here while you been having your snoozette, do you. (ALB 195) Although snoozette is not used in an announcement here, this - rather unusual - synthetic diminutive (meant ironically) seems motivated by the same social mechanisms that account for the form little nap. Arguably, the speaker in (140) adopts the hearer perspective (cf. 5.3.1.2.). A defensive announcement is even more important when the action is repeated, i.e. when persons intend to treat themselves to another pleasure of the same kind. As in offers, bene-

52

53

54

The German saying Ein Gläschen in Ehren, kann niemand verwehren (in piain terms, 'nobody can object to a little glass') directly refers to the issue of permission. It can, therefore, be used as an explicitly defensive announcement. Diminutive drop (as well as nip or sip) contrasts with neutral drink or draught and augmentative gulp (or swig). Consider also the euphemisms to have some shut-eye and to have (one 's) forty winks.

193 fìciaries do not wish to appear greedy. In this context, diminutives are more likely to occur, as in the case of accepting subsequent offers. Consider the following offer exchange. (141) A: Would you like some more? (cake) B: Yes, but only a tiny piece. (after Köhler 1994: 33) Similarly, speakers treating themselves to another piece of cake or another vodka may say I think I'll treat myself to another tiny piece, or I'll have another little vodka. The use of diminutives in announcements compares to the use of diminutives in other speech acts such as offers, offer acceptance and polite requests, particularly when drinks are the topic. Consider, for instance, the examples quoted in 5.3.1.4., which include, e.g., a little brandy, a nipper of brandy, and a little drop of Scotch. In all of these speech acts, diminutives serve to play down a dangerous pleasure. But while in offers, offer acceptance and polite requests, they function as benefit minimisers as well as cost minimisers, they are employed in strategic announcements to diminish the social risk involved in providing oneself with the source of gratification by calling one's own violation and thus anticipating possible disapproval.

5.3.3. Suggestions 5.3.3.1. Interactional characterisation Suggestions are defined as commissive acts predicating a joint future action by speaker and hearer. This action is in the speaker's interest, while the speaker assumes that it is also in the hearer's interest. Therefore, cost and benefit should ideally be the same for speaker and hearer. Suggestions can be characterised as directive commissives since they combine the illocutionary forces of these two speech act types ('Do ρ with me' and 'I'll do ρ with you'). Furthermore, suggestions are considered conditional acts, i.e. the future event is conditional on the hearer's consent ('If you want to, we'll do p'). Examples are Shall we go to the cinema? or Why don V we go to the pictures? In everyday language, the metapragmatic term 'suggestion' is also used for speech acts which refer to a future action of the addressee which is in the addressee's interest, e.g. Why don't you go to the pictures? However, such 'hearer-only suggestions' should be terminologically distinguished from 'joint-action suggestions'. Edmondson and House (1981: 125ff.) use the terms 'Suggests-for-you' and 'Suggests-for-us'. I prefer to call the former 'advice', while the latter are considered as suggestions proper (cf. Schneider 1980, also Wunderlich 1978: 280ff.).

5.3.3.2. Realisation strategies The strategies used to realise suggestions can be divided into three types, the first two of which resemble the strategies available for offers (cf. 5.3.1.2.). They result from the interactional properties of suggestions.

194 Type 1: PREFERENCE QUESTIONS (142) Would you like to take a walk? (after ALB 38) (143) Do you fancy going to the cinema? (144) How about going to the cinema? (145) What about popping down to the pub for a couple? (after AMI 18) Type 2: EXECUTION QUESTIONS (146) Well, shall we dance? (OSB 25) (147) We ΊI go to the cinema, shall we? (148) We'll have a party, eh? (BIR 32) (149) Why not treat ourselves to a malt? (Sadock 1974: 116)55 Type 3: ADHORTATIVES (150) Let's play a game. (BIR 61) (151) Let's have a cigarette, shall we? (OSB 23) (152) Let's go to the movies, why don't we? (Sadock 1974: 116) Realisations of the first type aim at eliciting the hearer's preference. They refer to the antecedent of the condition on which the future action depends ('if you like'). By contrast, execution questions explicitly mention the joint action by referring to speaker and hearer as agents (we). Finally, adhortatives are realised by using formulaic let '«-constructions, which also refer to joint agenthood (us). Apart from the realisation strategies listed above, performative formulae can also be used to produce a suggestion. (153) /suggest we take a taxi. (Edmondson/House 1981: 127) However, this type, as well as other more tentative and less routinised options (cf. Edmondson/House 1981: 126ff.), will not be considered here, since diminutives are not used in such realisations in the corpus at hand.

5.3.3.3. Diminutives as internal modifiers Diminutives in suggestions always refer to the predicated future action. The analysis of my data suggests that diminutives are used in preference questions and execution questions at least. (154) Fancy a little dance, Tone? (LEI 58) (155) How about a little game of... (ALB 85) (156) Ang: shall we have a little dance? (LEI 57) (157) Why not treat ourselves to a little malt?

55

Cf. 5.3.2. on the use and social implications of the phrase treat o.s. to s.th. in announcements.

195 Diminutives in adhortatives do not appear in my corpus, but seem equally possible. (158) Let's play a little game. (159) Let's have a little cigarette. The use of diminutives in suggestions is subject to three constraints: i)

The action must be expressed in a VP which includes a noun. Purely verbal realisations, e.g. Well, shall we dance?, cannot be modified by a diminutive. ii) Diminutives can only be formed from nouns which function as direct objects, but not from nouns in PPs referring to localities, e.g. "Do you fancy going to the little cinema? ni.) Diminutives can only be formed from nouns referring to singular entities, e.g. * What about popping down to the pub for a little couple? The function of diminutives in suggestions resembles their function in offers. The speaker tries to persuade the hearer to accept the suggestion. An important factor is the nature of the predicated action. If the action is considered necessary, there is no need to use a diminutive. (160) Shall we take a taxi. (161) * Shall we take a little taxi. If, however, the action is an enjoyable pastime, it may be useful to use a diminutive for tactical reasons, particularly when reluctance on part of the hearer is anticipated. As in offers and announcements, the pleasure involved is then played down and the maxim 'Minimise benefit to selves' observed. (162) Shall we have a dance? (163) Shall we have a little dance? Other socially risky pastimes include playing games, particularly card games (cf. also example 155 above). (164) Why don't we have a little game? (OSB 15) Little game may also be used figuratively, expressing disapproval and annoyance about not being taken seriously, as in I see through your little game. This usage is illustrated by the following example from my corpus (emphasis mine). (165) GEORGE: [...] (Toying with him) I asked you how you liked that for a declension: Good; better; best; bested. Hm? Well? NICK (with some distaste): I really don't know what to say. GEORGE (feigned incredulousness): You really don't know what to say? NICK (snapping it out): All right... what do you want me to say? Do you want me to say it's funny, so you can contradict me and say it's sad? Or do you want me to say it's sad so you can turn around and say no, it's funny. You can play that damn little game any way you want to, you know! (ALB 26)

196 Considering dancing a 'dangerous pastime' (Schneider 1993a) also rests on the sexual connotations connected with this activity. This is borne out by phrases such as to venture a dance. In the equivalent German expression ein Tänzchen wagen, Tanz ('dance') occurs as a diminutive. The same diminutive is used in the German saying ein Tänzchen in Ehren kann niemand verwehren (parallel to ein Gläschen in Ehren... quoted in 5.3.2.),56 which roughly translates as 'nobody can object to a little dance'. The component in Ehren ('honourably') can be interpreted as 'without second thoughts'. This interpretation is supported by the following example, in which the sexual connotations are explicitly addressed. With the turn quoted below, the hostess reacts to an unsuccessful attempt by a guest to encourage his wife (Ang) to dance with the host (Laurence). (166) Beverly: Don't worry, Ang - you'll be quite safe with Laurence. He won't rape you. (LEI 58) The hostess herself is interested in dancing with Ang's husband, who she considers attractive, as can be seen from the context of the above example (a similar scene is found in Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (ALB 78ff.)). In sum, the use of diminutives in suggestions proposing pastimes such as dancing, boozing or playing games helps to reduce the social risks at least potentially involved in the suggested activities and aims at persuading addressees, especially reluctant addressees, to join in.

5.3.3.4. Sequential aspects Suggestions, as well as offers, are conditional speech acts which aim at eliciting a reaction from the addressee. This reaction can be positive or negative, i.e. the addressee can accept or reject the suggestion. Theoretically, both options have equal status. For social and psychological reasons, however, acceptance is clearly preferred by suggestors (cf., e.g., Levinson 1983: 307ff.). In the case of suggestions, rejection affects the speaker's interests more directly than in the case of offers, since the suggested action is a joint activity which crucially depends on the addressee's participation. The more the speaker is interested in the future event, the more s/he will try to negotiate acceptance. One possible strategy is to use the killjoy argument. Another, more subtle, persuasive strategy employed especially when suggesting dangerous pastimes is to play down the activity to make it more acceptable for the addressee. To this end, diminutives are used. In the following fictional dialogue, the suggestor appropriately interprets the addressee's reaction as rejection and reformulates the original suggestion by using a diminutive. (167) 'Shall we have a kiss? ' she said, after a while, stroking my face lightly. Ipanicked. 'What?'

56

Since no agent is mentioned in ein Gläschen in Ehren kann niemand verwehren, this saying can also be used to realise a suggestion proposing the joint consumption of alcohol.

197 'Just a little kiss to start with, to see how we get along.... ' (KUR 201) The diminutive here is part of a complex persuasive strategy which also includes a lexical downgrader (just) and supportive expanders. In the following excerpt, which is again taken from a party context, Beverly (B), the hostess, suggests a dance. This activity is minimised from the start. Β uses the diminutive a little dance in her original suggestion, probably as an anticipatory strategy to counter possible objections. First, the suggestion is explicitly addressed to Angela/Ang (A), the guest least likely to reject the suggestion. A accepts and evaluates the activity positively. Next, Β addresses Angela's husband Tony/Tone (T), who also accepts. His reaction, however, is more reserved. Therefore, Β checks on his willingness (Yeah?). Laurence (L), the host, although not addressed, rejects his wife's suggestion by giving objective reasons. In her reply, Β calls L a notorious spoilsport - an explanation as to why the suggestion was not addressed to him. (168) B: Ang: shall we have a little dance? A: Yeah. Be nice. B: Tone: d'you fancy a little dance? T: Yeah, I don't mind. B: Yeah? L: There's no room to dance in here, Beverly. B: Laurence, if I'd wanted somebody to put a damper on the idea, I would have asked you first, okay? (LEI 57) After an unsuccessful attempt to make more room, the hostess renews her suggestion, which this time is addressed to Τ exclusively, the person Β wants to dance with. B's suggestion is seconded by T's wife A, who asks her husband to dance with B. A's direct request supports the directive force of B's suggestion, with which Β indirectly asks Τ to dance. T's cautious reaction, which initiates a pre-responding exchange (cf., e.g., Edmondson 1981: 105ff.), indicates that Τ does not wish to interfere with L's privilege to dance with B, his wife. Β invalidates T's objection, thus closing the pre-responding exchange, and again renews her suggestion, which she realises with more directive force, namely using a 'suggest-for-you'. Thereafter, Τ complies. (169) B: Fancy a little dance, Tone? A: Dance with Beverly. T: Perhaps Laurence'd like to dance? B: No, I don 7 think he would, actually. Come on, Tone: have a little dance, go on. (LEI 58) Both of B's renewed suggestions include diminutives. For the second renewal, she uses an utterance format which she also employs for offer renewals (cf. example 133 in 5.3.1.4.). This strategy involves an imperative cum diminutive and supportive come on/go on. As in the case of offer sequences, B's behaviour can be characterised as 'pressing'.

198 After Β has eventually reached her goal of dancing with T, she asks T's wife A for legitimisation. Her question You don't mind me mauling your husband, do you, Ang?, a question which does not give A any polite option to refuse, is motivated by the same social factors which underlie T's question Perhaps Laurence'd like to dance?, quoted in (169). Following B's move, Τ urges his wife A to dance with B's husband L. After a break, Β wants to dance with Τ again. To camouflage her intentions, she tactically prepares the ground by pretending to cater for all of her company's well-being. Β uses rather elaborate strategies to achieve her primary aim. (170) B: Darling, why don't you dance with Sue? L: I really don't think Sue wants to dance, thank you very much. Darling. B: Then why don 'tyou ask her, Laurence? [Pause. Then Laurence gets up and crosses to Sue.] L: Sue, would you like to dance? S: Er, no, thankyou. L: There you are - Sue doesn 7 want to dance! B: Of course she wants to dance! Go on, Sue, have a little dance with Laurence. Enjoy yourself, go on - have a little dance. L: Would you like to, Sue? S: All right. L: I'll take your glass for you. [Laurence and Susan embrace formally. Beverly rejoins Tony.] B: Come on, Tone. [Beverly and Tony go into a more intimate embrace than previously.] B: Ang - d 'you wanna dance with Tone? A: No: you 're all right. [Pause: the dancing continues.] (LEI 60f., emphasis mine, KPS) First, Β asks L to dance with Sue (S), the third guest. Apparently, L is not interested. Without asking S, he claims that she would not like to dance. His ironical thanking and the added term of endearment express his annoyance and serve to reject B's suggest-for-you as an unwelcome advice, interfering with his (and S's) negative face wants. But Β is not satisfied. She explicitly asks L to actually ask S whether she would like to dance. L complies, but S hesitantly declines his suggestion, thereby protecting his face. When L triumphantly tells his wife that his previous assumption about S's preferences was right, Β turns directly to S and asks her to dance with L. Once more she uses her favourite renewal strategy, this time consisting of repeated imperatives cum diminutive, again accompanied by go-ons, and also by formulaic enjoy yourself, a phrase intended to emphasise that this suggest-for-you is in the addressee's interests. L, in response, renews his suggestion, which now S accepts. So, eventually, Β gets her way, and she starts dancing with Τ again. As before, she asks A for legitimisation, which is again granted. The discussion of this dialogue once more shows that the analysis of diminutive use in a particular speech act should not be restricted to utterances in isolation, but must rather take longer stretches of discourse into consideration, including simple and complex exchanges, as well as sequences of exchanges, notably negotiation patterns comprising renewals of the

199 original act. Put another way, utterances including a diminutive must be analysed not only with reference to the relevant illocution and the strategy adopted to realise this, but also as regards the surrounding co-text. In short, the interactive status of an utterance is central to a functional explanation of diminutive use. Furthermore, the discussion of the above dialogue demonstrates the polyvalent nature of utterances which may potentially express different illocutions even simultaneously (cf., e.g., Holmes/Brown 1987: 53If.), and are thus strategically vague (cf. also Schulze 1985). Utterance formats conventionally employed to realise a particular speech act may be intended and/or interpreted as realising a different speech act in a given situation. This applies, for instance, to the closely related illocutions suggestion (suggest-for-us), advice (suggest-for-you) and request. The point is not that suggestions in conversation, e.g., are not realised directly, but rather in a conventionally indirect way, e.g. by using a preference question. Rather, the point is that conventionally indirect suggestions may be intended to direct the hearer's behaviour. This may not be sincere or cooperative or polite, but it is a common phenomenon. Hearers know this and do not take utterances at face value. As part of their on-line interpretation, they infer what is meant from what is said in an ongoing discourse by forming hypotheses about the speaker's local intentions and translocal interactive goals. It is these hypotheses which must be reconstructed by the analyst. Such interpretations are crucial to the understanding of diminutives in context.

5.3.3.5. Summary: diminutive use in suggestions As a rule, diminutives used in suggestions are formed analytically. They can occur in all utterance types conventionally employed to realise this illocution. However, diminutives can only be formed when the future action is expressed by a noun, which serves as the base for diminution. Generally speaking, diminutives minimise the cost and benefit involved in the suggested action. Benefit minimisation may be more relevant than cost minimisation, particularly when dangerous pastimes are suggested. In suggestions of this type, however, diminutives may be considered not only as pleasure minimisers, but also as risk minimisers, reducing the social risks involved, e.g. in dancing. In all cases, diminutives play down the action to make it more acceptable to the hearer. Diminutive use in initial suggestions is a strategy which anticipates unwillingness or reluctance to join in on the part of the hearer. Diminutive use in renewals of this speech act following rejection in third or later moves of suggestion sequences is a persuasive, or even manipulative, strategy aimed at changing the addressee's mind and achieving acceptance. Often diminutives are only one component of complex persuasive strategies also involving, e.g., lexical downtoners or supportive moves. At the same time, the realisation strategy employed in renewals may be more direct than in the initial speech act.

5.3.4. Summary: diminutive use in commissive acts In this chapter, the use of diminutives is analysed in three commissive speech acts, viz. in offers (5.3.1.), announcements (5.3.2.) and suggestions (5.3.3.). By definition, all commis-

200

sive acts refer to a future action by the speaker. While this applies to offers and announcements, suggestions are characterised by joint agenthood of speaker and hearer. The illocutions discussed in this chapter differ regarding the interests of the interactants. In offers, the predicated action benefits the hearer, whereas in announcements, it benefits the speaker, and in suggestions, it benefits hearer and speaker alike. The pragmatic scale relevant to commissives is the cost-benefit-scale, which also applies to directives. Accordingly, the relevant politeness maxims require minimisation of cost to other and benefit to self, alternatively maximisation of cost to self and benefit to other. While minimisation of cost to other is central to directive acts, minimisation of benefit to self is important for commissives. Generally speaking, diminutives in commissives serve as benefit minimisers. In offers, they minimise the offered good so that the addressee can accept it more easily. In a similar vein, diminutives in suggestions play down the suggested action to make it more acceptable. Speakers who use diminutives in initial offers or suggestions anticipate reluctance or unwillingness on part of the hearer. In this case, speakers adopt the hearer perspective. From the speaker perspective, benefit maximisation would be required. In renewals of offers and suggestions following rejections, diminutives are used to persuade the addressee to accept in the end. By contrast, in announcements diminutives function as part of a defensive strategy. Since announcements predicate future actions by speakers which benefit the speakers themselves, diminutives are used to downplay the action and so counter any anticipated disapproval. Diminutives in commissive acts are formed from the nouns which refer to the future action (e.g. dance, game) or to the object of the action (e.g. liqueur, cake). The majority of diminutives in commissives are analytic forms, predominantly combinations of little + N, but tiny + Ν is also found in my corpus. Other adjectives are also conceivable in this position (e.g. wee), as are multiple diminutives (tiny little + N). In offers and announcements, inherently diminutive expressions such as drop or nip are also used, but synthetic forms (e.g. nipper, snoozette) are exceptions. Finally, it must be emphasised that the analysis of diminutives in commissives presented in this chapter focuses particularly on specific subtypes of the three acts under inspection, viz. on announcements and suggestions referring to dangerous pastimes such as the consumption of alcohol or other luxuries, and on hospitable offers. These subtypes all occur in the same type of situations, which can be characterised as informal social events. Whether or not diminutives occur in commissives outside such contexts is an empirical question requiring further attention.

5.4. Expressive acts

According to Searle (1976), the criterion 'direction of fit', which is crucial for defining directives, commissives, and assertives, is irrelevant for expressive speech acts. The point of expressives consists in communicating feelings and attitudes (cf. Searle 1976, Searle/V anderveken 1985).

201 Typical expressives include wishes, condolences, compliments and expressions of thanks as well as greetings and farewells. Characteristically, expressive acts are realised using a relatively limited inventory of routine formulae, which allows little variation. Expressive acts are called for in the case of specific events, as, for instance, death, child birth, and anniversaries, or less ritually, when the addressee has achieved some success. In such situations, uttering a formula satisfies the social expectations, even though the sincerity condition may not be fulfilled. With decreasing social distance, less routinised utterances are likely to occur. However, empirical studies of particular expressive acts show that prefabricated realisations yield high frequencies (cf., e.g., Owen 1983 on apologies). On the other hand, cultures seem to differ in their preferences, even in the English-speaking world. For example, speakers of British English seem to favour less predictable formulations in complimenting than speakers of American or New Zealand English (cf. Kasper 1990: 199). The expressives mentioned so far communicate positive feelings and attitudes and are, thus, intrinsically polite speech acts. Since they support the addressee's positive face, they can be considered as positive politeness strategies. By contrast, insults represent a different type of expressive act which communicates negative feelings and attitudes. Unlike potentially face-threatening acts such as directives, which affect the addressee's negative face wants, insults attack the hearer's positive face. Insults are not only impolite, but plainly rude and overtly aggressive. In the following sections, the use of diminutives in expressives is analysed in compliments and insults, i.e. in two speech acts expressing opposite evaluations. Compliments, which have not received much attention in speech act theory, have been studied extensively in sociolinguistics.57 It is, therefore, possible to introduce further parameters to the pragmatic analysis of diminutives, most notably pragmalinguistic detail, quantitative findings, further sociopragmatic aspects and differences across varieties of English. Insults, on the other hand, have been largely neglected in speech act-based approaches, as impoliteness and rudeness have been studied not nearly as systematically as verbal politeness (cf. Kasper 1990: 208f.). However, insults can be analysed relative to 'maxims of rudeness', which can be postulated in analogy to existing politeness maxims (cf. 5.4.2.).

5.4.1. Compliments 5.4.1.1. Interactional characterisation Compliments are defined as expressions of praise, implying admiration or respect (cf., e.g., Manes/Wolfson 1981). Their function is to establish or maintain friendly relations (cf., e.g., Wolfson 1983: 86). Utterances which count as compliments refer to an entity or event associated with the addressee, which is positively evaluated by the speaker. Thus, compliments observe the maxim of approbation ('Maximise praise of other'), one of the two politeness maxims relating to expressive speech acts (cf. Leech 1983: 132). The complementary modesty maxim ('Minimise praise of self) is relevant to compliment responses (cf. 5.4.1.6.).

57

Cf., e.g., Holmes (199S: ch. 4), who examines compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English and also reviews the literature on the topic.

202 5.4.1.2. Realisation strategies Since compliments convey a positive evaluation, all utterances which count as compliments comprise at least one semantically positive element, for which I suggest the term 'evahiator'. In most cases, the evaluator is an adjective, e.g. Your hair is really great. However, the evaluator can also be a verb, an adverb or a noun, e.g. I simply love that skirt (V), You 've really fixed up this room nicely (ADV), You 're such a darling (N).58 Manes and Wolfson (1981) report that 80% of their U.S. American compliments (N=686) belong to the adjectival type, and 16% to the verbal type. The nominal and adverbial types account for the remaining 4%. In their corpus, 72 different adjectives were used as evaluators. These include general adjectives such as nice and fantastic as well as specific adjectives, such as delicious, which can only be used to refer to food. Some adjectives are strong evaluators (e.g. gorgeous, stupendous), others, however, are rather weak (e.g. nice, good). Generally speaking, weak evaluators are preferred over strong ones, and specific evaluators occur much less frequently than general ones. Only five different adjectives are used in two thirds of all adjectival compliments. These are, in order of decreasing frequency, nice, good, beautiful, pretty and great. Among the verbs used as evaluators, the five most frequent lexemes are like, love, enjoy, admire and be impressed by, but only the first two of these yield high frequencies. Well is the only adverbial evaluator which occurs more than twice in the American data (14 instances) (ManesAVolfson 1981: 118).» Since the relevant politeness maxim is 'Maximise praise of other', many compliments include an intensifier. Intensifies (INT) occur in over one third of the American data (Manes/Wolfson 1981: 118f.). In most cases, really is used for this purpose, e.g. I really love your garden, This is really good. Nine syntactic constructions have been identified for realising compliments in U.S. American English (Manes/Wolfson 1981: 120). These are, in order of decreasing frequency: Type 1. NP is/looks (INT) ADJ: e.g. Your hair looks nice. Type 2.1 (INT) likellove NP: e.g. I love your sweater. Type 3. PRO is (INT) (a) ADJ NP: e.g. This was a great meal. Type 4. You V (a) (INT) ADJ NP: e.g. You did a good job. Type 5. You (INT) V (NP) ADV: e.g. You really handled that situation well. Type 6. You have (a) (INT) ADJ NP: e.g. You have such beautiful hair. Type 7. What (a) ADJ NP!: e.g. What a lovely baby you have! Type 8. ADJ NP!: e.g. Nice game! Type 9. Isn't NP ADJ! : e.g. Isn 'tyour ring beautiful! 58

s9

All examples presented in 5.4.1. are taken from collections of naturally occurring compliments, and include compliments in American, New Zealand, South African and British English (Manes/ Wolfson 1981, Wolfson 1983, Holmes 1986, Holmes 1995: ch. 4, Holmes/Brown 1987, Herbert 1989, Roberts 1998). Cf. Holmes (1986) for very similar results for New Zealand English.

203 The first three types represent the most frequently used constructions. These three types account for approximately 85% of all compliments in a corpus of 686 instances (cf. Manes/Wolfson 1981: 120ff.). At 53.6%, type 1 alone accounts for more than half of the data, types 2 and 3 for a further 16% and 15% respectively. These findings are supported by New Zealand English data. In a corpus of 517 compliments, types 1,2 and 3 also came out first, although with lower frequencies (41.4, 15.9 and 13.0%) (cf. Holmes 1986: 489). In the American data, types 4 to 9 occur much less frequently, with frequencies ranging between only 1% and 3.3%. Further constructions were also found, but are negligible (together 2.8%). It is worth noting that type 8, which accounts for only 1.6% of the American compliments, is used much more frequently in New Zealand English. At 7.7%, it appears in fourth position. These construction types differ along a number of parameters. In type 2, the evaluator is a verb, and in type 5 it is an adverb. The remaining seven types are used to realise adjectival compliments. Furthermore, the construction types differ in perspective, as reflected in their realisations of the grammatical subject. In type 2, the speaker (compliment giver) surfaces as subject (I), while in types 4, 5 and 6 it is the hearer (compliment receiver), who appears in this position {you). In all other types, the subject refers to the compliment topic (the evaluated). In type 3, it is realised pronominally by a demonstrative. Finally, the construction types differ regarding their degree of expressivity. Types 7, 8 and 9, all realised with exclamatory intonation, are more emphatic than the other types. On the other hand, these other types may include intensifiers, seemingly incompatible with types 7, 8 and 9 at least according to Manes/Wolfson (1981). However, my data suggest that exclamatory intonation is not obligatory for type 8, ADJ NP (cf. also Holmes 1986: 489). This type, an elliptical construction probably derived from types 3 or 4, represents the minimal realisation for compliments. According to Holmes (1986:489), even the noun in this construction is optional, but an intensifier may occur. She describes type 8 as follows: (INT) ADJ (N), e.g. (Really) cool (earrings). Four categories of compliment topics, i.e. the objects and attributes which are positively evaluated, have been identified (the frequencies given below refer to New Zealand English data; cf. Holmes/Brown 1987). 1. APPEARANCE (45%): e.g. That's a sharp suit and tie you 're wearing. 2. PERFORMANCE (28%): e.g. That's a nice piece of work. 3. PERSONAL QUALITIES: (14%): e.g. You were so kind. 4. POSSESSIONS (11%): e.g. Wow, you 've got a great apartment. 5. Other (2%)

5.4.1.3. Diminutives as modifiers Diminutives in compliments are always formed from the noun referring to the evaluated entity. As a rule, they are formed analytically, by adding little. Most diminutives are used in adjectival compliments, where little appears between the evaluator and the evaluated. Diminutives can occur in all adjectival types, with the exception of types 1 and 9, the only constructions in which the NP referring to the evaluated precedes the adjectival evaluator (cf. Roberts 1998: 30-46 for more examples).

204 (171) This is a nice little room, (type 3) (172) You always were a great aunty, (type 4) (173) You 've got a beautiful little girl, (type 6) (174) What a nice little garden! (type 7) (175) Nice little car. (type 8) If a diminutive is not formed analytically but by way of suffixation, as in (172), the base is also the noun which is preceded by the adjectival evaluator. The evaluators which co-occur with diminutives are the most frequently used general adjectives, most notably the vaguest and semantically weakest adjective nice. Also, no intensifies are used in combination with diminutives. Most diminutives occur in compliments belonging to the topic category POSSESSIONS, e.g. compliments praising cars, gardens, rooms, as in some of the above examples, and other inanimate objects. While compliments such as example (171) may refer to a room as small, but nice, thus emphasising the cosiness of that room, such compliments can also be used ironically with reference to an evaluated item which is rather large.60 Characteristically, minimal type 8 constructions are selected for this purpose, with nice as the evaluator, but without any exclamatory intonation or intensifier, e.g. Nice little car (example 175). In such compliments, diminutives function as praise minimisers. Although superficially, praise minimisation seems to violate the approbation maxim, it may be more polite and socially more effective than praise maximisation. In some cultures, including some English-speaking cultures, minimised compliments are considered more sincere and more convincing than emphatic realisations, in which intensifiers are used for praise maximisation (cf. 5.4.1.4.). Compliments praising persons constitute another frequent category; cf., e.g., You 've got a beautiful little girl (example 173 above). Compliments in this category refer to persons closely related to the addressee, particularly family members such as children and spouses/partners. (176) Your hubby's such a darling. (177) He's such a good little boy. While in example (176) the relationship between referent and addressee is made explicit, example (177) is a third party compliment, for which this relationship must be inferred from the context. However, it is the parent (i.e. the addressee), not the child who receives the compliment (cf. Roberts 1998: 23). In other cases, a third party compliment may be paid to the third party rather than to the addressee, provided this person is within earshot, as in the following cases. (178) He's the lovliest daddy in the world! (179) She's clever, isn 7 she, my auntie.

60 Cf. Leech's 'Irony Principle' (Leech 1983: 82 and 142ff.).

205 Examples (176), (177) and (178) belong to the topic category PERSONAL QUALITIES, whereas example (179) belongs to PERFORMANCE (the context is dressmaking; cf. Roberts 1998: 238). Other compliments relating to family members refer to APPEARANCE. (180) She's got such lovely little legs. (181) She's got a lovely little smile. Irrespective of the topic category, compliments referring to family members display the following features regarding diminutive formation. Adult persons are referred to by synthetic forms such as hubby, daddy, auntie, derived from kinship terms by suffixation with {IE} (cf. also example (172) above, You always were a great aunty.). Children, by contrast, âre always referred to using analytic forms, as in example (177), He's such a good little boy. Consider also What a sweet little child and What a good little helper. Little is also used with reference to children's belongings such as garments (in which case the relevant topic category is APPEARANCE rather than POSSESSIONS). Consider the following examples, which are all third party compliments paid to the parents: (182) Ilove her little anorak. (183) Don't you just love the little dress and the hat. (184) Oh look at her little puffer jacket. Isn 't it lovely. It is worth noting that the evaluators in (182) and (183) are verbs. Example (184) is a two part compliment, in which the evaluated is mentioned in the first sentence, while the adjectival evaluator appears in the second sentence. In compliments relating to children, diminutives do not function as praise minimisers. In such cases, diminutives communicate affection which is evoked by the smallness and sweetness of young children. In compliments relating to adults, synthetic diminutives derived from kinship terms can be considered distance minimisers, i.e. forms which indicate a speaker's close relationship with either the addressee (as in (172)) or the referent (as in (179)), or both (as in (176)).

5.4.1.4. Sociopragmatic aspects Sociolinguistic research has studied the influence of a number of situational variables on complimenting behaviour, particularly the influence of relative social status (power), social distance, age and gender. Most compliments occur between interactants of equal age and status, e.g. between friends or colleagues meeting for the first time on a particular day (cf. Holmes/Brown 1987: 532). However, compliments can also occur in asymmetrical constellations. In such constellations, most compliments are paid by the higher-status person (cf. Wolfson 1983: 91). Compliments by lower-status persons only occur when the interactants know each other well and the compliment giver is a mature person (Holmes/Brown 1987: 532f.). In the case of such upwards compliments as well as in compliments among equals, the preferred topics are APPEARANCE and POSSESSIONS. Downwards compliments, by contrast, predominantly refer to PERFORMANCE (cf. Wolfson 1983).

206 Furthermore, the gender of the interactants plays a crucial role in complimenting behaviour. All studies show that females give and receive compliments much more frequently than males (cf., e.g., Herbert 1990, Holmes 1995: ch. 4). In a New Zealand study, compliment givers were female in three quarters of all cases. Half of the compliments were used between women, while compliments between men appeared only rarely. Consider the following table for details (cf. Holmes/Brown 1987: 533): GIVER-RECEIVER Female - female 50.0% Female-male 23.0% Male-female 18.5% Male-male 8.5% These figures contradict popular beliefs according to which women are paid more compliments by men (chivalresque gentlemen) than vice versa. It is true, however, that men pay more compliments to women than to men. These figures also contradict stereotypes about gender-specific compliment topics. Females receive twice as many compliments from males on performance as on appearance, and not the other way around (cf. Holmes/Brown 1987: 534). This can be explained against the background that compliments on performance occur particularly in work-related contexts, where they are given by higher-status persons (usually men) to persons of lower status (usually women) (cf. Wolfson 1983: 93). Gender-based differences can also be observed in realisation strategies. Personal and emphatic constructions are preferred by women, especially types 2 and 7, i.e. I love/like NP and wAa/-exclamations (e.g. What lovely earrings!). By contrast, impersonal and nonemphatic realisations are preferred by men, type 8 constructions (e.g. Good shot, Great shoes) in particular (cf. Holmes 1995: 128). Given these preferences, females can be expected to use diminutives as distance minimisers in compliments referring to adults (e.g. hubby) and as affect indicators in compliments referring to children (e.g. good little boy), whereas males can be expected to use diminutives as praise minimisers in ironical or understating compliments such as Nice little car. Indeed, all compliments discussed in section 5.4.1.3. were uttered by women, with the exception of examples (171), (174) and (175), in which the evaluator is nice. 80% of the remaining compliments occurred between women.

5.4.1.5. Variation across varieties of English Complimenting is the only speech act which has been studied systematically across varieties of English, most particularly in American English (AmE; cf., e.g., Manes/Wolfson 1981, Wolfson 1983), New Zealand English (NZE; cf., e.g., Holmes 1986 and 1995: ch. 4) and South African English (SAE; cf., e.g., Herbert 1989 and 1990). Other varieties, which have been studied less extensively, include Hawaii Creole English (HCE; e.g. Lee 1990) and English English (EngE; cf. Roberts 1998). Apart from expectable similarities, complimenting behaviour in these varieties differs in a number of quantitative and qualitative aspects.

207 Herbert and Straight (1989) maintain that speakers of AmE use compliments much more frequently than speakers of SAE. This finding is explained with reference to diverging cultural norms. Holmes (1988) and Lee (1990) find that the construction / love your Ν (type 2) occurs much less frequently in NZE and HCE than in AmE. Furthermore, speakers of NZE and HCE clearly prefer less emphatic like over love. Lee attributes this preference to Asian influence on HCE. Thus, more neutral expressions are used, "where mainstream American culture opts for emphatic enthusiasm" (Kasper 1990: 199). Despite these differences, the overall strategy for realising compliments is essentially the same across varieties of English. In general, speakers of AmE, NZE, SAE and HCE intensify the illocutionary force of a compliment to maximise praise to other, as required by the maxim of approbation, thus observing the addressee's positive face wants. By contrast, speakers of EngE seem to prefer minimised over maximised compliments. Utterances such as You are not a bad driver, or That wasn't the worst meal you 've cooked seem to appear in the same situations in which "American speakers would maximize the afforded praise" (Kasper 1990: 199). This view is supported by Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (1989), who finds that EngE compliments are sometimes formulated in indirect ways and not always recognised as compliments. For an explanation of minimised and less ritualised compliments, Kasper refers to Leech's 'Interest Principle' (Leech 1983: 146f.). She states: "... speakers may prefer to formulate their conversational contributions in unexpected terms to make them sound more inventive and original, thereby, we may add, projecting a selfimage of creativity and non-conformist individualism" (Kasper 1990: 199). However, in her opinion, thé Interest Principle does not explain "why downgrading the force of hearersupportive acts should be favoured by whole speech communities, rather than being idiosyncrasies of individual members" (Kasper 1990: 199). In my view, minimised compliments occur in EngE because maximised or exaggerated compliments are considered insincere. In other words, praise minimisation increases the complimenter's sincerity. This view is supported by Leech (1983: 149), who writes: "... the understatement, which untypically acts in mitigation of a favourable quality, appears to be a guarantee of the honesty of the speaker's opinion ...". Further research is needed to substantiate this claim. The fact remains, however, that the compliments including diminutives discussed in 5.4.1.3. are all taken from EngE data.61

5.4.1.6. Sequential aspects As initiating interactional moves, compliments call for a verbal reaction of the compliment receiver. Pomerantz (1978) states that the recipient of a compliment is faced with a social dilemma because two conflicting politeness maxims apply. One is 'Agree with your conversational partner' (i.e., essentially, Leech's 'agreement maxim'), the other is 'Avoid selfpraise' (i.e. Leech's 'modesty maxim'). Consequently, recipients have two basic options: either they agree with the complimenter and thus do not observe the modesty maxim, or they disagree to minimise self-praise and thus violate the agreement maxim.

61

The vast majority of the examples discussed in 5.4.1.3. are taken from Roberts's (1998) corpus.

208 Studies of compliment responses identify approximately ten different responding strategies (cf., e.g., Holmes 1986, Herbert 1989, and Chen 1993). These strategies can be summarised under two superstrategies, which are referred to as 'acceptance' and 'nonacceptance'. Acceptance strategies include 'praise upgrade', 'comment history' and 'transfer', while non-acceptance strategies include 'scale down', 'rejection' and 'question response'. 62 In the present context, I refrain from defining and illustrating all of these strategies. The important point is that diminutives in compliment responses are likely to occur in non-acceptance, i.e. in strategies which observe the modesty maxim, but not in acceptance. More particularly, diminutives may occur in realisations which mitigate the compliment by minimising the evaluated item, i.e. in the strategy termed 'scale down'. A typical example is Oh, that's only one of my little ideas:63 The polite norms for compliment responses differ across cultures. In some cultures, the agreement maxim dominates, while in other cultures the modesty maxim is valued more highly. Chen (1993) shows that speakers of AmE predominantly use acceptance strategies. By comparison, speakers of Irish English use acceptance strategies to a much lesser degree (57% versus 76%; cf. Schneider 1999). Against this background, diminutives in compliment responses are more likely to occur in European varieties of English than in nonEuropean varieties, in the same way that diminutives occur in EngE compliments, but not in AmE, NZE and SAE compliments, at least not to the same extent (cf. 5.4.1.5.). Diminutives in compliment responses can also be considered praise minimisers.

5.4.1.7. Summary: diminutive use in complimenting behaviour Diminutives in complimenting behaviour seem to be more typical of European varieties of English than of non-European varieties. They are used in compliments and compliment responses. In both cases, they serve as praise minimisers. In compliment responses, they minimise praise of self, thus observing the modesty maxim. In compliments, they minimise praise of other, and thus seem to violate the approbation maxim. In fact, however, they serve to make the compliment more effective since minimised praise is considered more honest than maximised praise, at least in some English-speaking cultures, most notably in England. Alternatively, diminutives in compliments may function as distance minimisers or as affect indicators. In such cases, the positive evaluation refers to a person closely related to the compliment receiver (cf. also 5.5.). By contrast, praise minimising diminutives refer to objects which the compliment receiver owns. Praise minimisers occur in impersonal constructions with weak evaluators, which are preferred by male complimenters, while distance minimisers and affect indicators occur in personal and more emphatic constructions, which are favoured by female speakers. Affect indicators are formed synthetically, whereas distance minimisers as well as praise minimisers are formed analytically. In adjectival compliments, little appears between the

62 63

Terminology differs considerably across studies, but most categories are essentially the same. Cf. Charleston (1960: 113) and Staverman's 'Diminutivum modestum' (Staverman 1953); cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi (1991).

209 evaluator and the evaluated. In all cases, diminutive markers modify the noun referring to the entity which is positively evaluated.

5.4.2. Insults 5.4.2.1. Interactional characterisation Insults can be defined as expressions of depreciation implying anger or disrespect. They are not only immediately face-threatening, but aggressively attack the addressee's positive face. Therefore, they cannot be adequately described in terms of impoliteness, if impoliteftess means absence of politeness (cf. Lakoff 1989). A more relevant notion of impoliteness would be positive rudeness (cf. Kasper 1990). If compliments are defined as polite expressions of praise, then insults should be defined as rude expressions of dispraise. As such, insults openly violate the politeness maxim 'Maximise praise of other* (cf. Leech 1983: 132). The maxim they follow can rather be phrased as 'Maximise dispraise of other', rather than 'Minimise praise of other'. 'Maximise praise of other' can be considered a maxim of rudeness, which may be called the 'derogation maxim'. While the positive evaluation expressed in compliments refers to appearance, performance and possessions of the addressee, the negative evaluation expressed in insults refers to the addressee's person, or personality. Insults are triggered by actions, behaviour or traits of the addressee which annoy or anger the insulter. Insults are emotional reactions which categorise the addressees as "bad persons", by calling them names. In this respect, an insult differs from the assertive act of criticising (cf. 5.5.), which also evaluates the addressee's behaviour, but in a less personal, less subjective and less emotional manner.64 Furthermore, criticism is not ritualised and formulaic, but insults, as expressive acts, are.

5.4.2.2. Realisation strategies Since their communicative purpose is to hurt the addressee, insults are realised in a maximally direct manner, without any redressive action. There are three types of realisation strategies, for which the same deep structure can be assumed. Type 1 can be considered the full version, while types 2 and 3 represent different stages of elliptical reduction. Type 2 occurs more frequently in my data than the other two types. In all types, the evaluator is a noun. It is the only obligatory element.65 Type 1. You are a N!: e.g. You're an asshole! Type 2. You N!: e.g. You asshole! 64

65

Cf. Holmes (1984: 346fF.), who considers utterances as 'criticism' which I classify as 'insults', e.g., You are a fool. According to Holmes, 'criticism' is the speech act category which opposes 'compliments'. She refers to the former category as 'negatively affective speech acts' and to the latter as 'positively affective speech acts'. By contrast, the minimal realisation for compliments is an adjectival evaluator (cf. 5.4.1.2.).

210 Type 3. Ν!: e.g. Asshole! The illocutionary force of ail insult may be upgraded by including one or more emphatically negative adjectives, such as bloody, lousy or sodding, before the nominal evaluator. Such modifiers appear in types 2 and 3 in particular, e.g. You stinking asshole! or Stupid bastard! The choice of realisation strategy depends on the status of the insult within a speaker's turn. Type 1 is preferred for turn-size insults, whereas types 2 and 3 typically appear in turn-final position. In this position, they resemble depreciative descriptors used as terms of address (cf. 5.1.4.4.). The function of turn-final insults, however, is neither attention getting nor turn allocation. Furthermore, the formal properties of insults resemble some of those of evaluative assertives used to refer negatively to third parties, as, e.g.,... the selfish beast, That stupid brute! or The dirty little devil! (cf. 5.5.4.).

5.4.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers Diminutives employed in insults are of an analytic form. The marker little occurs immediately before the nominal evaluator. Diminutives can be used with all types of realisation strategies, although there are no instances of diminutives with type 1 strategies in the present corpus. Type 1: You 're a little asshole, (fabricated) Type 2: You little simpleton. (OMA 9) Type 3: Little monster! (EDM) Diminutives in insults do not minimise the evaluation expressed by the noun. Rather, they function as indicators of superiority. By using diminutives, speakers assume a superior status and look down on their addressees. In other words, the addressees are belittled in a rather literal sense. Thus, diminutives maximise dispraise of other (cf., however, 5.4.2.4. below). If the nominal evaluator is supported by an adjectival evaluator, little always occurs between adjective and noun. This construction is formally identical to the construction of adjectival compliments which comprise an analytic diminutive. Semantically and pragmatically, however, the constructions differ. In compliments, the noun is a neutral lexeme, which refers to the evaluated, whereas in insults the noun, as the primaiy evaluator, is itself an 'emotive sign' (cf. Volek 1990: ch. 2.7.3.). (185) You dirty little swine! (OMA 47) (186) You lying little toad! (OMA 53) In cases where upgrading adjectives and diminutives are used, the nominal evaluator is sometimes missing. Its slot is filled by level intonation (intonation of incompleteness), which is sufficient for the hearer to adequately fill the gap in the decoding process. Such gaps are indicative of the speaker's emotional involvement and agitation, which may momentarily block access to an appropriately negative noun.

211

(187) Oh, I see what you 're up to, you lousy little... (ALB 102) (188) Why, you smug, self-righteous little... (ALB 59) This open utterance format seems only possible in cases in which a diminutive is used, or, more precisely, in cases in which little appears. Without little, such incomplete insults do not seem acceptable. (189) ??OA, I see what you're up to, you lousy... (190) 7Why, you smug, self-righteous ... Alternatively, incomplete insults can be reduced to initial you, which is uttered repeatedly, ànd also produced with level intonation. In this case, the speaker is groping (or pretends to be groping) for either kind of evaluator, nominal or adjectival. This type of incomplete construction is equally interpretable as an insult. It may even be considered conventional.

5.4.2.4. Sociopragmatic aspects The interpretation of a diminutive in an insult depends on situational factors, most notably the relationship between speaker and hearer. If, for instance, the speaker is an adult and the hearer a child, then little may not increase, but rather decrease the force of the insult. Since small children are actually little, diminutives do not indicate the addressees' inferiority. In such constellations, the diminutive marker seems to mitigate the negative evaluation expressed through the noun. Characteristically, no upgrading adjectival evaluators appear in this context. Consider the following example, in which the addressee is a small girl and the speaker her father. (191) Come here, you little brute! (EDM) While momentary anger or annoyance are also expressed in such cases, the diminutive form communicates an otherwise close and endearing relationship, which may be a particularly important message for small children. A similar interpretation may hold for the following example of a mitigated insult occurring between close friends (cited in Holmes 1984: 346; original emphasis). (192) You are a bit of a fool you know Arguably, a bit of may be regarded as a diminutive marker. Its use, however, is much more restricted than the use of little. For instance, a bit of cannot be combined with evaluating adjectives. Furthermore, it is only used in type 1 constructions, but not in the two elliptical types; cf. *You bit of a fool (type 2), *Bit of a fool! (type 3). Outside the caretaker-child-dyad, which is characterised by minimal social distance, diminutives do not mitigate, but rather intensify the negative evaluation expressed in the insult. A significant difference in age between the interactants is, however, an important parameter in such contexts as well. The following insults were addressed to juvenile persons (schoolgirls) by considerably older adults (their teachers).

212 (193) you little bitch (OMA 56) (194) You impudent little madam, you. (OMA 53) In the reverse case, these schoolgirls would not have used insults of the given type vis-à-vis their teachers, irrespective of all status restrictions. Such restrictions can, however, be ignored, as in the following example, where an angered youth insults her teacher. (195) You fucking old cunt. (OMA 103) In this example, old occurs in the position of little, i.e. between secondary (ADJ) and primary (N) evaluator. This substitution demonstrates that relative age influences the choice of the upgrading device. 66 Among adults, when age is not relevant, diminutives are used in insults to belittle and derogate the addressee. At the same time, speakers demonstrate their superiority. As dispraise maximisers, diminutives increase the force of an insult. This force can be further intensified by the quality and quantity of co-occurring adjectival evaluators. (196) Bloody little troublemaker, aren't you? (SHA 96) (197) Youskunky, conniving little villain! {SUA 102) (198) Yehfuckin ' big-headed little prick, yeh (DOY 103) The tag question in example (196) shows that the third construction, type is actually derived from the first type. The tag is added for intensification. Example (198), using a type 2 construction, illustrates another conventional format (in addition to the incomplete variants discussed in 5.4.2.3.), in which the pronoun referring to the addressee is repeated at the end of the insulting utterance. 67 The repeated pronoun also functions as an intensifier.

5.4.2.5. Sequential aspects Insults can be defined as affectively unconstrained expressions of verbal rudeness (cf. Kasper 1990: 209f.). As such, they evoke equally aggressive reactions, as in example (199). After vehement reactions from his interlocutor, speaker G, who had initially produced an incomplete insult, eventually finds a nominal evaluator which he considers suitable. (199) G (laughing through his anger): Why, you smug, self-righteous little ... Ν (a genuine threat): CAN... IT... MISTER! (Silence.) Just... watch it! G:... scientist. (ALB 59) 66

67

Since little with reference to persons has two readings, viz. 'small' and 'young', it also has two antonyms, viz. big (as in augmentatives) and old. Old is also an attitude marker which can express negative and positive evaluations (cf. 4.3.S.3.). Irrespective of the actual age of a person, old can be used in compliments as a praise upgrader, e.g. Yer a fair old cook (BON 36). The speaker of this utterance is a member of the lower classes in north Dublin, hence yeh.

213 Scientist per se is not an abusive term. In the present context, however, it is clearly negatively connotated as can be seen from the discourse preceding the excerpt quoted above. G is a historian who deplores natural sciences. His interlocutor is a biologist. N's violent reaction to G's insult, which initially is incomplete, ending in little, indicates that the diminutive does not mitigate, but rather increase the force of the insult. Furthermore, this example shows that threatening is one possible responding strategy. An alternative strategy is to return the insult, a strategy also employed in response to compliments and other expressive acts (e.g. greeting - greeting). In the case of insults, this strategy results in a counter-insult, which in tum may be followed by a counter-insult, and so on.68 In exchanges of the following type, diminutives seem dysfunctional. (200) G: Monstre! M: Cochon! G: Bête! M: Canaille! G: Putain! M (with a gesture of contemptuous dismissal): Yaaahhh! ... (ALB 65) Given the face-threatening and aggressive nature of insults, acceptance or agreement cannot be expected as responding strategies. Tactical agreement, however, can be used to ironically counter an insulting act, as in the next excerpt, in which the agreement is supported by expanding moves and followed by a counter-insult. (201) H: Bloody little troublemaker, aren 'tyou? C: Yes, and I'm a biter too: ask Brindsley. I spent the morning sharpening up my 'long, spiky, yellow teeth '. You really are a monster, Harold.... (SHA 96) The counter-insult, which is realised using a type 1 construction, includes the intensifier really, which cannot occur in the other two realisation strategies for insults. As in compliments, diminutives do not co-occur with really. In any case, diminutives seem to be more effective as dispraise maximisers in initial insults.

5.4.2.6. Summary: diminutive use in insults Diminutives can be used in the three basic strategies available to realise insults. They are formed analytically, with little always immediately preceding the noun which refers to the addressee and expresses the primary evaluation. If an adjective is used as a secondary evaluator, then little appears between adjective and noun. If an adjectival evaluator pre-

68

According to Watzlawick et al. (1967: 169), the sequence quoted in (200) demonstrates the symmetry in the relationship between G and M, who are a married couple.

214 cedes little, an insult may be performed felicitously, even though the primary evaluator may not be realised. Diminutives seem to occur in initial insults only, and not in counter-insults. Diminutives in insults serve as dispraise tnaximisers. They are used to belittle the addressee and to demonstrate the speaker's superiority. As a rule, diminutives are used in insults addressed to persons of the same age or younger, rather than to (considerably) older persons. In conversations with small children, caretakers use diminutives to mitigate the negativity of the primary evaluator and to signal an otherwise positive relationship. Adjectival evaluators are absent in such contexts.

5.4.3. Summary: diminutive use in expressive acts Diminutives are used in expressive acts which communicate an evaluation referring to the addressee. The expressed evaluation can be positive, as in the case of compliments, or negative, as in the case of insults. In other words, diminutives occur in those expressives termed 'affective speech acts' by Holmes (1984). Analytic diminutives are used in both insults and compliments, with little as diminutive marker. In general, compliments follow the politeness maxim 'Maximise praise of other'. Thus, it seems impolite to use diminutives in compliments. In some cultures, however, including the English-speaking cultures in Europe, a supermaxim of affect constraint is valued more highly. Observing this supermaxim, diminutives are used as rhetorical 'praise minimisers' which make compliments more honest and, therefore, more effective. In insults, diminutives intensify the expressed negative evaluation by downgrading the addressee and, at the same time, upgrading the speaker. In other words, diminutives function as 'dispraise maximisers' and, thus, observe the relevant rudeness maxim. Diminutives occurring in insults addressed by caretakers to small children may be considered an exception. Under the specific conditions of such relationships, diminutives function as 'dispraise minimisers'. As a rule, diminutives do not seem to appear in other expressive acts in English, such as greetings, congratulations or condolences. In other languages, however, diminutives are possible in these and similar acts; cf., e.g., German hallöchen < hallo (greeting), tschüs(s)chen < tschüs{s) (parting), and prösterchen < prost (toasting), also the regional parting formulae adele < ade (Swabian) or tschauderl < tschau/ciao (Austrian). These diminutives do not seem to relate to the pragmatic scale of praise and dispraise, but function as 'distance minimisers'.

215 5.5. Assertive acts

5.5.1. Interactional characterisation Searle's (1976) criterion 'direction of fit' can be used to distinguish between two fundamental speech act classes, viz. directives and commissives on the one hand ('world-towords') and assertives on the other hand ('words-to-world').69 Unlike directives and commissives, assertives do not refer to a future action by either hearer or speaker (or both). Rather, the purpose of assertives is to transmit information about a state of affairs. According to Leech (1983), assertives are governed by more politeness maxims than any òf the other fundamental speech act classes. While the maxims of tact and generosity, which operate on the cost-benefit scale, apply to directive and commissive acts, the maxims of approbation and modesty, which operate on the praise-dispraise scale, apply to expressive and assertive acts. In addition to this latter scale, assertives are governed by the maxims of agreement and sympathy which refer to the unipolar scales. Therefore, in realising an assertive act, speakers must consider various social values. Polite speakers are expected to minimise praise of self and dispraise of other as well as disagreement and antipathy between self and other, and to maximise praise of other and dispraise of seif as well as agreement and sympathy between self and other. Of course, not all of these maxims are relevant to all assertives in all situations.

5.5.2. Specification Following Edmondson and House (1981: 57ff. and 98), assertives can be divided into two general categories called 'phatic informatives' and 'business informatives', which correlate with basic distinctions such as interactional versus transactional discourse (cf. R. Lakoff 1989).70 Phatic informatives are subdivided into 'remarks' and 'discloses', and business informatives into 'tells' and 'opines'. Phatic informatives refer to the immediate situation. While remarks relate to the situational context, discloses relate to the speech act participants (their identities, biographies, etc.). By contrast, business informatives are independent of the immediate situation. The purpose of tells is to transmit factual knowledge and objective information, whereas the purpose of opines, as the name suggests, consists in expressing opinions and attitudes.71 Against the background of the findings in preceding sections of the present chapter (5.1.-5.4.), it is clear that diminutives are most likely to occur in socially motivated acts, i.e. in phatic informatives, and least likely to occur in tells. 69

Cf. also the basic distinction between 'attitudinal' versus 'informative illocutions' in Edmondson/ House (1981:98). 70 Cf. also Schneider (1988: 1). 71 The distinctions introduced in this section have correlates in written communication. The dichotomy phatic versus business informatives is essentially the same as the dichotomy soft news versus hard news in journalism. Furthermore, tells and opines correlate with journalistic genres which communicate facts and opinion respectively, e.g. news reports on the one hand, and commentaries or reviews on the other hand (cf. I. Schneider 1993: ch. 3).

216 5.5.3. Realisation strategies Regarding realisation strategies, assertive acts represent an unmarked case. While speech act idioms and conversational routines are available for directives, commissives and expressives (cf., e.g., Sadock 1974, Aijmer 1996), realisations of assertives display less specific features. Therefore, the utterance act is less important for the analysis of diminutive use in assertives, while the propositional act appears much more relevant. A distinction can be made between reference to persons and reference to objects ('things'), which is crucial for diminutives in both subject noun phrases and object noun phrases. This distinction correlates with the two types of phatic informatives, i.e. with discloses and remarks.

5.5.4. Reference to persons The analysis of diminutives referring to persons depends on two important parameters, namely participant role and relationship. First, the role a person referred to by a diminutive plays in the given speech act must be established. Four types of participant roles are distinguished: speaker, addressee, bystander and non-participant. Here, a distinction is made between two hearer roles, addressee and bystander. Addressees are the persons who are directly addressed by the speaker, whereas bystanders are persons who hear an utterance, although they are not directly addressed (cf. Lyons 1977: 34). Leech (1983: 13) refers to a bystander as "receiver", and to an addressee as "intended receiver" (original emphasis). However, the situation can be more complex. In some cases, the intended receiver may not be the person directly addressed, but, in fact, a bystander. For instance, a speaker may talk to a child, but the message may in fact be intended for the parents, who are present in the situation. Needless to say, the distinctions between addressee and bystander, and between intended and unintended receiver only apply to multi-party talk, not to dyadic discourse. Finally, non-participants are persons who are not actively or passively involved in the speech act, i.e. they are either absent or out of earshot. The second parameter concerns the relationship between the person referred to by a diminutive and the (other) speech act participants. Four types of relatedness are distinguished: relationship to speaker, relationship to addressee, relationship to bystander, and no relationship (i.e. the referent is unrelated to either person participating in the speech act). It is worth noting that persons who are related to speech act participants may themselves be participants. For instance, a person related to the speaker may be a bystander, or a bystander may be related to the addressee. Typically, related persons are spouses, partners, friends, children or parents. Combining the two parameters results in the following types of constellations. In an assertive act, a diminutive may refer to - the speaker, who may be related to addressee or bystander, or unrelated to either of these; - the addressee, who may be related to speaker or bystander, or unrelated to either of these; - the bystander, who may be related to speaker or addressee (or, indeed, another bystander), or unrelated to either of these; - a non-participant, who may be related to speaker or addressee or bystander, or unrelated to either of these.

217 Referents can also be related to more than one participant, e.g. a child of speaker and addressee. In the following sections, the interaction between diminutive use and constellation is discussed and illustrated with examples from the present corpus. Not all of the constellations distinguished above are represented in the data. Possibly, some types are more important than others in communication.

5.5.4.1. Speaker reference In this section, examples of self-reference are analysed, in which speakers refer to themselves by using a diminutive. In the first example, the diminutive occurs as grammatical subject.·'2 (202) Martha: ... which sends the lunk-heads back to the soda fountain again where they fuel up some more, while Martha-poo sits there with her dress up over her head... (ALB 112) This type of third-person self-reference as well as the form of the diminutive, Martha-poo, are characteristic of young children (cf. S.6.). The speaker, who, full of self-pity, describes her relationship to men in this disclosing act, adopts the role of a little girl. Role plays of this kind are typical of the conversational styles of Martha and her husband George, and the interactions between them (cf. Watzlawick et al. 1967: ch. 5). In such contexts, third-person self-reference by diminutive is not restricted to the grammatical subject position nor to the speech act under inspection, as the following excerpts from the same speech event illustrate. (203) George: No climb stairs with Geòrgie? Martha (a sleepy child): No more games... please. (ALB 122) (204) Martha: Well, then, you just trot over to the barie-poo... George (taking the tone from her):... and make your little mommy a gweat big dwink. (ALB 35) Arguably, the diminutives used in these examples - Martha-poo, barie-poo, Geòrgie, and little mommy - do not (or, at least, not only) interact with the respective illocutions. These diminutives, occurring in child language or caretaker speech, serve to define the adopted role of the speaker as a young child or as a parent. In this function, the diminutives are supported by other linguistic devices on the syntactic, the lexical and the phonological level, e.g. no climb stairs and gweat big dwink. In other words, these diminutives do not refer to the situation, but rather create it (cf. Mühlhäusler 1983).

72

Cf. 4.2.6.1. on formations with {POO}.

218

5.5.4.2. Reference to addressee Two types of addressee reference are discussed in this section. In the first example, the addressee is married to the speaker, while in the second example, the addressees are unrelated to the speaker. Although these addressees are the speaker's guests, he has not really met them before; they have been invited by his wife. Both examples are taken from the same context. In the first example here, i.e. in the opine in (205), George uses a diminutive in a series of third person references to the addressee, his wife Martha. This form, the little Miss, is used to define the role which Martha adopts and which is criticised by George in this speech act. (205) G:... once a month and we get misunderstood Martha, the good-hearted girl underneath the barnacles, the little Miss that the touch of kindness'd bring to bloom again. [...] (ALB 95) The second example is a phatic remark with which the speaker greets his (or more appropriately, his wife's) guests when he opens the door to them. That the speaker does not know those people, but that he has been informed about their arrival by his wife, is indicated by the way in which this remark is phrased. (206) G (very matter-of-factly): You must be our little guests. (ALB 19) This remark is not an adequate greeting, as it includes a diminutive which expresses condescension and thus renders the utterance impolite. The diminutive functions as a sympathy minimiser. It communicates George's annoyance about the lateness of his guests' call - a call which had been arranged by Martha and about which he had only been informed immediately before their arrival. Although the remark is addressed to the guests, the intended receiver of George's little invective is Martha who is responsible for their late visit. It is Martha, who reacts to George's remark. She tries to mitigate his attack on their guests' positive face by laughing and telling them to ignore her husband, who she refers to as old sour-puss. In both cases, the diminutives convey a negative attitude on the part of the speaker towards the addressees. And in both cases, the choice of the diminutive may, at least partially, be motivated by the relatively younger age of the addressees. The guests are considerably younger than their hosts, while Martha, who is in fact older than George by six years, acts like a little girl.

5.5.4.3. Reference to bystander The following phatic remark is similar to the utterance in (206). It is used to comment on the entrance of the speaker's wife who has returned from the bathroom where she has attended to a guest who had been sick. (207) G: Well, here's nursie. (ALB 65)

219 In the constellation exemplified here, the referent of the diminutive form is a bystander who is related to the speaker, in the present case the speaker's wife, Martha. The diminutive, which, like a proper noun, occurs without an article, is used to ridicule the role which Martha has adopted. This example illustrates a pattern which is characteristic of multi-party talk. The general format of this pattern can be summarised as 'Talk to X to attack Y \ In other words, the bystander and not the addressee is the intended receiver of the message. The negative evaluation communicated in the message is expressed by the diminutive, which is used to tease, ridicule, or hurt the bystander. In this context, diminutives function as praise minimisers. This pattern is typical of the relationship and interactive behaviour of George and Martha in Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia WoolJ?, from which many of the examples discussed in this section are taken. In the following utterance, for instance, Martha uses the diminutive as a nickname for her husband, who is not addressed directly, but who is within earshot. (208) M: Paunchy over there isn't too happy when the conversation moves to muscle. [...] (ALB 38) The use of diminutives such as paunchy or nur sie are part of a global strategy repeatedly employed by the couple George and Martha to humiliate each other in front of their guests. The fact that their guests are almost complete strangers provides ample opportunity for disclosing personal information about the other. While discloses in dyadic communication give biographical information about the speaker, which, as a rule, is volunteered in purely social encounters, such as in "a casual piece of talk between strangers" (Edmondson/House 1981: 173, cf. also ff.), discloses in multi-party talk can be divided into self-discloses and other-discloses. Other-discloses can be used to relate nice or nasty details about a third party better known to the speaker than to the addressee. George and Martha use the uncooperative type to hurt each other by providing the addressee with intimate or embarrassing details about the other in their presence. To this end, narratives about the respective spouse's past are included in the conversation. In such sequences, Martha repeatedly uses Geòrgie or Georgie-boy in third-person reference to her husband, forms which she never uses in direct address. Consider the following assertive. (209) M: Well, Georgie-boy had lots of big ambitions... (ALB 81) In all of these examples, diminutives are primarily used to express the speaker's (momentary) attitude towards the referent of the diminutive, in the above cases a bystander related (i.e. married) to the speaker. When George and Martha discuss their guests, Nick and Honey, in their presence, they are referring to bystanders not related (in a narrow sense) to either speaker or hearer. The fact that they discuss their guests in their presence is impolite and shows disrespect. The way they talk about Nick and Honey renders their talk even more disrespectful. For example, sexy is used to refer to Nick (cf. 5.1.4.4.), and little wife and the little lady to refer to Honey. These diminutives express contempt, revealing that Martha and George feel superior, as in the following two excerpts.

220 (210) M (to G): Well? Aren 7 you going to apologize? G (squinting): For what, Martha? M: For making the little lady throw up, what else? (ALB 74) (211) M (to G): Well, who do you think did... Sexy over there? You think he made his own little wife sick? (ALB 74)

5.5.4.4. Reference to non-participant The diminutives in the following examples refer to persons not participating in the conversation. Such persons may either not be involved in the encounter at any point, or not be within earshot at the moment of speaking, as in the following excerpt. (212) G: I'd like to set you straight about something... while the little ladies are out of the room ... [...] (ALB 64) The diminutive the little ladies refers to George's, the speaker's, and Nick's, his addressee's, wives. In using this derogatory form of reference, George presupposes male solidarity and shared sexist attitudes. Most of the diminutives referring to non-participants are used to talk about spouses, especially the speaker's or the addressee's wives. When George talks about Martha, his own wife, in her absence, he calls her li'l ol' Martha. This form is sympathetic. Old, and more particularly ol', is used as an affect marker like little/li Ί, expressing a positive attitude towards the referent (cf. 4.3.5.3.). In this function, oíd/oí' often occur in right-hand position in combination with another modifier, cf. good ol' X. In the present context, ol' may refer to the fact that Martha is not a young woman or to George and Martha's long-lasting relationship. In this example, George does not treat or depict Martha as a little girl (cf. 205). (213) G: It's just a private joke between li 7 ol ' Martha and me. [...] (ALB 25) However, when George talks to Nick about Nick's wife, Honey, he uses less sympathetic or downright derogatory diminutives, as in the following cases. (214) G: Well, we can 7 play without everyone here. Now that's a fact. We gotta have your little wife. (ALB 121) (215) G: [...] But, we 're not all here. (Snaps his fingers a couple of times at N.) You; you... uh ... you; your little wifelet isn 't here. (ALB 121) (216) G (swinging around, facing him): Then get your but out of that chair and bring the little dip back in here. [...] (ALB 121) Apart from spouses, children are also referred to by using diminutives. George and Martha, who do not have any children, have created an imaginary son, but they have an agreement

221 not to talk about this son to third parties. Martha breaks the agreement and mentions their son to Nick and Honey. She speaks about him full of maternal pride, as in the following example. The diminutive used in this utterance is a common positively affective form of reference to young children. (217) M:... When ourson was just a little boy, he used to... (ALB 75) George on the other hand, who is furious about Martha's breach of agreement, takes revenge by talking sarcastically and contemptuously about the imaginary child. George refers to their son by using sonny-boy, little sonny-Jim, Martha's and my little joy and her babypoo. More than once, however, George calls him the little bugger, a form of reference vehemently rejected by Martha. (218) M: Not the little bugger... stop calling him that! (ALB 48) In the party talk depicted in Leigh's play "Abigail's Party", a comparable situation, Beverley, the hostess, talks to her guests about her husband, who has just left the room. In her 'other-disclose in absentiae', she also uses the derogatory diminutive little bugger, which is qualified by a negative evaluator (cf. 5.4.2.). (219) Β: To be quite honest, he's a boring little bugger at times, actually. (LEI 43) Finally, diminutives can be used to refer to totally unrelated persons, i.e. to persons who are not only not engaged in the conversation, but not even known personally to speaker or addressee. This is the case in the following example. (220) M: [...] Chicago was a thirties musical, starring little Miss Alice Faye. (ALB 12) In this case, Martha does not employ the diminutive to express contempt or similar negative sentiments towards the referent. The diminutive is probably used to describe Alice Faye as a petite young woman.

5.5.5. Reference to objects Diminutives which do not refer to persons (this type of reference might be more accurately termed 'reference to non-persons') are discussed here. Four categories appear to be particularly relevant to the analysis of such diminutives in assertive acts: body parts, possessions, places, and 'dangerous pastimes'. These four categories are dealt with in turn in the following four sections.

5.5.5.1. Reference to body parts Relatedness, which has been shown to be relevant to the interpretation of diminutives referring to persons, is also an important factor in the use and understanding of diminutives

222 referring to objects. This applies in particular to reference to body parts. Since a metonymical relationship holds between body parts and their owners, talking about body parts also refers to the persons to whom they belong. In this respect, reference to body parts can be considered the interface between reference to persons and reference to objects. Again it is important to distinguish between reference to body parts of the speaker, the addressee or of a third party. When Martha (in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?") talks about her imaginary son as a little boy, she refers to his little hands. (221) M: [...], cane which he wore through ...finally... .... (ALB 128)

with his little hands... in his... sleep

Diminutives of this type are commonly used to refer to body parts of small children. Such diminutives communicate both size and attitude. The body parts referred to are objectively small (by adult standards), and speakers have a positively affective attitude towards them. However, when talking about adults, diminutives referring to body parts can be used to communicate a negative attitude. Diminutives describe the respective parts as 'too small', as in the following example. (222) G:... Your father has tiny red eyes... like a white mouse. In fact, he is a white mouse. (ALB 51) George, who polemically describes his father-in-law, who is not involved in the conversation, in this negative way, wants to hurt his wife's, the addressee's, feelings. George follows the rudeness maxim 'Maximise dispraise of other'. He maximises dispraise of a nonparticipant, who is related to the addressee, and thus insults the addressee. In the following utterance, the speaker refers to her own and her husband's heads (in a figurative sense). The diminutive form is used to express self-pity. It could be paraphrased as 'our poor little heads'. (223) M (affects a brogue): A www, 'tis the refuge we take when the unreality of the world weighs too heavy on our tiny heads. [...] (ALB 111) Arguably, tiny expresses only size, but not attitude. It is used in reference to objects, but not in reference to persons (cf., e.g., *your tiny wife, *the tiny lady, and *the tiny bugger). However, tiny can be used to modify concrete and abstract nouns (cf., e.g she has as well a tiny problem with spirituous liquors ... (ALB 131)). In the following utterance, the speaker uses a diminutive to refer to a part of his own body which is not a "regular" body part such as head, hands or eyes. Earlier in the same conversation, the speaker's wife had claimed that her husband has a paunch (cf. example 208). This the husband denies. (224) G: [...] I don't have a paunch, either.... What I've got... I've got this little distension just below the belt ...but it's hard. [...] (ALB 28)

223 The form this little distension is chosen to play down the size and significance of the body part referred to. It is used euphemistically to save the speaker's face. For this usage, a maxim of self-defence could be postulated in analogy to Leech's (1983) modesty maxim. This maxim of self-defence could be phrased as 'Minimise dispraise of self.

5.5.5.2. Reference to possessions The modesty maxim 'Minimise praise of self is relevant when speakers talk about their own possessions, particularly when talking about valuable and prestigious goods. In discloses, diminutives are employed to play down such goods in order to avoid self-praise, as in the following example. (225) I've got a little chalet in the mountains. In this fonction, which Stavermann (1953) terms 'diminutivum modestum', diminutives are also used in discloses about the speaker's own achievements, which in the following example may be regarded as intellectual property. (226) I've just brought out a little book on Dostoyevski. (COB 1, s.v. little 7.2.) The diminutive does not modify the size or length of the book. It minimises its significance, or rather the speaker's achievement. Achievements and possessions are topics commonly referred to in compliments (cf. 5.4.1.). However, while it is polite to maximise praise of the other with regard to these topics, self-praise is to be minimised. Self-praise minimisation is also illustrated in the following two examples. In both examples, the diminutive marker is preceded by an evaluative adjective which expresses the speaker's positive or affective attitude towards the referent. (227) We had a nice little house with three bedrooms. (COBI, s.v. little 7.1.) (228) Miss Furnival: [.··] My father used to say, even before the bombs came and burnt our dear little house at Wendover [...] (SHA 65) The following utterances illustrate a specific subtype of assertives, which could be termed announcements. While the announcements discussed in 5.3.2. refer to something pleasant for the speaker, the announcements under inspection here announce something pleasant for the addressee, e.g. a present. Also, the former type refers to a future action (I'll treat myself to...), whereas the latter type refers to a past action or a present state, as in the following examples. (The addressee of example (229) is a cat, the cat's owner is a bystander.) (229)... I've got a fishy for you. (BRO 49) (230) Here's a little somethingfor your birthday. (ALD6, s.v. little 1) (231) We got a little surprisefor you, baby. (ALB 133) In such announcements, diminutives are not used to minimise benefit to other, but rather to minimise cost to self. Speakers who do not wish to boast of their presents play down the

224 value of the presents. Alternatively, diminutive use in this type of announcement could be interpreted as self-praise minimisation. Speakers play down the fact or effort of getting a present. This function could be glossed as 'While I did get something for you, it's nothing much'.

5.5.5.3. Reference to locations The examples discussed in this section all occur in the same conversation, a conversation included in Crystal and Davy's collection (1975: 46ff.). The speaker describes the residential area she has just moved to to a fellow student. The transcript is quoted here as plain text, since prosody and intonation are not relevant to the present analysis. (232)... I've been doing little surveys of the area... (CRY 48, line 39f.) (233)... just where we're living there's a sort of sprinkling of of little delicatessen and extravagant and extraordinarily expensive shops... (CRY 48, line 35ff.) (234)... I'm glad that you 've got these other sort offunny little places andfunny little shops ... (CRY 49, line 71ff.) (235)... what is nice though is the is that we're in a nice cosmopolitan little area ... (CRY 49, line 66f.) The aim of the sequence from which these excerpts are taken is to positively evaluate the new area. The function of the utterance in (232) is to give the account authority. The diminutive included in this utterance serves to play down the activity, i.e. the surveying. The remaining utterances portray specific features of the area depicted by the speaker as positive. They are contrasted in the context of the above examples with negative aspects such as dirt. However, all diminutives refer exclusively to positive aspects. They are used to mitigate positive evaluations. In (233), the positive evaluation is inherent in delicatessen. In (234), it is the matrix sentence I'm glad that which disambiguates the (potentially) ambiguous phrase funny little places andfunny little shops, while in (235), little is preceded by two positive evaluators, implicitly positive cosmopolitan and explicitly positive nice (which are also supported by the matrix sentence what is nice though ... is that). In each case, the diminutive marker occupies the position immediately to the left of the modified noun and to the right of all other modifiers where other modifiers occur (cf. 5.4.1. and 5.4.2.). In all cases, the use of diminutives can be considered a strategy of understatement. The diminutives are motivated by modesty. Again, relatedness and belonging play a crucial role (cf. 5.5.4., 5.5.5.1. and 5.5.5.2.). Anything positive which is related or belonging to the speaker and which might evoke the addressee's envy is to be played down by polite speakers in cooperative talk. In the conversation under inspection, the speaker does not want to boast of the new area she lives in.

5.5.5.4. Reference to 'dangerous pastimes' The analysis of commissive acts in 5.3. showed that diminutives are commonly used to refer to activities such as dancing, playing games, and the consumption of alcoholic bever-

225 ages and tobacco products. Diminutives are also used in reports about such pastimes, as in the following example. (236) G: [...] ... While you were out of the room, for a while ... well, Missey and I were sittin ' here havin ' a little talk, you know [...] (ALB 134) While it is necessary for polite speakers to minimise 'dangerous pastimes' envisaged for the (near or immediate) future, as in offers or suggestions (cf. 5.3.1. and 5.3.3.), it seems also necessary to minimise such pastimes indulged in in the past, and reported on in assertives. Sometimes, such reports resemble confessions, as, to a certain extent, the utterance quoted in (236). Since in both cases (future reference and past reference), the social implications of 'having a talk/dance/drink/smoke/game/nap/etc.' are the same, diminutives can be used to minimise benefit to self. In the following example, reference is made to a nap taken by the addressee after being sick. The speaker adopts the addressee's, i.e. the beneficiary's, perspective and minimises the nap by using the rather idiosyncratic diminutive form snoozette (cf. 4.2.2.). (237) G: You don't know what's been going on around here while you been having your snoozette, do you. (ALB 195) While the next two examples report on dancing, arguably the diminutives used in these reports do not minimise a 'dangerous pastime'. (238) M: [...] and they bounce back over to old Martha, who does a little dance for them, [...] (ALB 112) (239)... and elves and things did a little dance, you know. (LLC 285, line 472) In (238), the speaker plays down her own dancing, and in (239), the diminutive refers to a fairy dance which is part of a theatre performance in which the speaker was involved. Apparently, there is a difference not only in semantic, but also in pragmatic, terms between 'doing a dance' (i.e. performing a dance) and 'having a dance' (i.e. dancing with somebody) with regard to the social implications and, thus, the relevant politeness maxims. In the former case, achievement is to be played down, as in (238) and (239), whereas in the latter case, benefit to self is to be minimised, as in (237) (cf. 5.3.3.3.).

5.5.6. Sequential aspects In this section, two specific uses of diminutives in assertives are described: 1) diminutives used to emphasise small amounts in tum-internal reformulations; 2) diminutives used in responses to assertives and in other feed-back moves. The diminutive marker little is used in turn-internal reformulations to emphasise the smallness of an amount previously mentioned in neutral, i.e. in undiminished, terms. The emphatic expressions are phrased as one single little Ν in the affirmative and not a single little Ν in the negative case.

226 (240) Martha: Nobody's asking you to remember every single goddamn Warner Brothers epic ...just one! One single little epic! [...] (ALB 11) (241) Carol [consoling Brin] (cooing): [...] I don't care a fig for those naughty old goddipegs. (looking up) Do you hear? Not a single little fig! (SHA 91) The utterance in (240) responds to the addressee's reaction to the speaker's original speech act. Originally, the speaker asked the addressee to name the title of a particular Warner Brothers movie which she was not able to remember at that moment, to which the addressee replied he could not possibly remember every movie made by that company. In her response to this, Martha, the first speaker, uses a diminutive in a reformulation which renders her addressee's reaction as an exaggeration. In (241), the speaker employs an emphatic reformulation after she realises that her addressee has not heard or does not believe what she has said. In order to increase her credibility, she also uses the expressive multiple diminutive goddipegs (cf. 4.2.6.3.), prefaced by the evaluators naughty and old (cf. 5.5.4.4. and 4.3.5.3.). Theorists claim that, unlike, e.g., requests for information, offers or suggestions, which demand a specific response, an answer and an acceptance or refusal respectively, assertives do not require a reaction, at least not a specific one (cf. Stubbs 1983). In everyday communication, however, speakers who perform an assertive act do expect a reaction, i.e. some kind of acknowledgement or receipt, however vague. This type of - allegedly optional response has been termed 'feed-back move' (cf. Stubbs 1983). Realisations of feed-back moves depend on the content of the assertive act they respond to, i.e. on the nature of the information transmitted in the initiative move. In some cases, an evaluation is appropriate, as in the following excerpt. (242) M [with H]: Here we are, a little shaky, but on our feet. G: Goodie. (ALB 74) In this situation, the first speaker's remark is acknowledged and its content evaluated positively by the token good, used here in its diminutive form. The second speaker's response is realised elliptically, the underlying structure of which can be phrased as That's good. The use of a diminutive can be interpreted as an attempt to minimise not the value, but the weight, of the evaluation. Thus, the response is not so much a value judgement but a lighthearted comment. Evaluative comments or light-hearted acknowledgements of this type may also be used in response to other types of acts. For instance, goodie can be used in receipt of material goods (cf. 5.2.3.3.2.), together with expressions of gratitude, as in the following example. (243) H (G hands her a brandy): Oh, goodie! Thank you. [...] (ALB 76) Utterances such as this can be used to realise move 4 in an offer exchange or move 3 in a requestive exchange, e.g. move 1 : Would you like some brandy? - move 2: Yes, please. move 3: Here you are. (offer exchange), or move 1: Can I have a little brandy? - move 2:

227 Sure. Here you are. (requestive exchange). In such contexts, goodie expresses joy or satisfaction, as in example (242). The same token, goodie, can be used more globally in general assessments of the situation. While the same underlying structure (That's good.) can be assumed, the evaluation is not used to respond to an assertive or any other verbal act, but rather to express satisfaction with the current state of affairs. The following two examples illustrate this turn-size use of an evaluator, showing that good can be replaced in this function by all right, and that both evaluators can occur in their diminutive forms in casual conversation. It is worth noting that different spellings of suffix {IE} may occur in the same text, cf. goodie in (242) versus goody in (244) (cf. also 4.2.1.). (244) M: Goody. (ALB 46) (245) G: All rightie. (ALB 54) Such utterances can be classified as assertive acts. However, in their elliptical use as general assessments of the situation, they function as discourse organisers marking the transition from one discourse unit to the next (cf. Schiffrin 1987). More specifically, they indicate the end of one unit and are used to fill pauses in which speakers plan their next moves. Consider the following example. (246) G: All rightie. Well, now; let's see. [...] (ALB 126) In all cases, i.e. in general assessments as well as in response to assertives (and other acts), diminutive evaluators indicate an informal, cooperative and sympathetic atmosphere.

5.5.7. Summary: diminutive use in assertive acts The communicative purpose of assertives is to transmit information. Speakers who perform an assertive act describe some state of affairs, i.e. persons, objects, events or situations. Descriptions can be neutral or evaluative. Diminutives in assertive acts express an evaluation, i.e. the speaker's positive or negative attitude towards the referent of the diminutive. In the present data, diminutives occur only in assertives which can be classified as 'phatic informatives' (cf. Edmondson/House 1981), i.e. in speech acts which do not transmit hard news, facts, or specialised knowledge, etc., but rather soft news, private stories or personal details.73 The context of use is casual social encounters. A typical feature of phatic informatives is their interrelationship with the situation in which they occur. Assertives of this type refer to aspects of the communicative situation and the participants involved therein (cf. Schneider 1988: ch. 4). Two subtypes can be distinguished, reference to persons and reference to objects (in a broad sense). Persons referred to are, in the first instance, the communicants, for whom three participant roles can be differentiated, namely speaker, addressee, and bystander. Additionally, persons not involved

73

Cf. I. Schneider (1993) and Lager (199S) on the distinction between hard news and soft news in journalistic writing.

228 in the interaction, particularly, persons related to one or more of the participants, may be referred to. Also, in the case of non-personal reference, entities are referred to which are, in one way or another, related to the interactants. When diminutives refer to persons, referents are addressees, bystanders, or persons closely related to these or to the speaker, e.g. family members. 74 Unlike the case in other types of speech acts, diminutives may also occur as grammatical subjects. They are used as names, nicknames or as co-referential terms. Names are derived from given names, e.g. Geòrgie, Georgie-boy, or Martha-poo, while nicknames may be coined spontaneously, motivated by (observable or imputed) characteristics of the respective referent, e.g. paunchy, blondin, or mousie (cf. 5.1.). Suffixation, particularly with {IE}, is the predominant type of formation for names and nicknames. By contrast, the analytic type dominates among diminutives formed from co-referential terms. Most examples from this category refer to females, e.g. your little wife, the little ladies, and the little Miss. Also, diminutives formed from nouns expressing a negative evaluation often refer to females, e.g. the little dip or that little nit. In the present corpus, assertives including diminutives with personal reference are mostly impolite or rude speech acts. The diminutives are employed to derogate or belittle the respective referent. They, thus, violate the relevant politeness maxims. Using a diminutive does not observe the maxim 'Maximise praise of other', but follows its opposite 'Minimise praise of other'. 75 Likewise, 'Minimise sympathy between self and other' is adhered to, where 'Maximise sympathy between self and other' should be observed by polite speakers. In short, as a rule, diminutives with reference to persons function either as other-praise minimisers or as sympathy minimisers. Assertive acts of this type can be classified as discloses, i.e. the subtype of 'phatic informatives' in which personal details are revealed. Prototypically, discloses are used to volunteer information about the speaker's own biography, especially in dyadic communication. In my data, however, which consist to a considerable extent of non-dyadic communication, discloses are used uncooperatively to impart details of another person's life to others in the presence of this person. Intimate or embarrassing details are revealed in order to hurt or humiliate this person, or persons related to him or her, e.g. husband or wife. In such contexts, diminutives are used to express negative evaluations. Diminutives with personal reference refer almost exclusively to persons other than the speaker. By contrast, diminutives with non-personal reference refer, with only few exceptions, to entities related to the speaker, in particular to personal property, both in a material and in an intellectual sense, but also to body parts, locations, and the consumption of certain luxuries. Assertives of this type are also discloses, in which speakers talk about their own possessions, body parts, places they live, or 'dangerous pastimes' they indulge in. In such contexts, diminutives are employed to mitigate expressed or underlying positive evaluations. They function as self-praise minimisers, or in some cases (e.g. 'dangerous pastimes') as self-benefit minimisers. Thus speakers observe the relevant politeness max74

75

Non-pronominal third-person self-reference also occurs in the present data, but only in role plays in which adult speakers act like little children. This type of self-reference is characteristic of young children. By contrast, the rudeness maxim 'Maximise dispraise of other' is postulated for plain insults (cf.

5.4.2.).

229 ims. However, diminutives referring to entities not belonging or related to the speaker resemble diminutives which refer to persons other than the speaker. If diminutives express a negative evaluation of such an entity, then the respective owner of this entity is also negatively evaluated, and the same applies to positive evaluations. In all cases, diminutives are formed analytically, with only few (rather idiosyncratic) exceptions. Finally, in reformulations of assertive acts, diminutives can be used to emphasise the smallness of an amount previously mentioned in undiminished terms, while in responses to assertives or, more generally, to situations, diminutives may indicate an informal context and a casual friendly atmosphere.

5.6. Summary: diminutive use in English conversation

The analysis presented in the preceding sections 5.1.-S.5. is a pragmatic study of diminutive use in everyday spoken communication. The study concentrates on (casual) conversation, i.e. on the unmarked discourse type, which accounts for a major portion of verbal interactive behaviour. The focus of the study is the micropragmatic level, the central unit of analysis is the speech act. In 198S, Wierzbicka wrote (about synthetic diminutive formation): "I would suggest that there exist many subtle ways in which expressive derivation interacts with speech acts." And she adds (Wierzbicka 1985b: 166): "This topic deserves a separate study." The present chapter can be considered an exploratory study of this type, which investigates the interplay between diminutives and illocutions. The results support Wierzbicka's claim that there are "many subtle ways" in which diminutives and speech acts interact. It has been demonstrated that diminutive use in everyday communication depends on a number of different variables, including micro- but also macro-pragmatic parameters, as well as pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic parameters. Therefore, any account of diminutive use which constructs a 'single factor myth' cannot be considered adequate. Human communication and social relations are complex phenomena, and the use of diminutives, which is a part of it, cannot be explained by only one factor. It has been the aim of the present study to analyse the complexities of diminutive use systematically. The structure of the present chapter is based on a taxonomy of five illocutionary types. These comprise the four Searlean types directives, commissives, expressives, and assertives, but not declaratives, which do not occur in casual conversation. The fifth type examined in the analysis are vocatives, which Wunderlich (1978) considers one of the most fundamental illocutionary types. For each type, one or more illocutions are chosen for detailed exemplary analysis, e.g. offers, announcements, and suggestions as commissive acts. The structure of the chapter reflects two hypotheses. First, illocutionary type is a parameter relevant to the use, and thus to the analysis, of diminutives. Second, diminutives occur in speech acts of all illocutionary types. Both hypotheses have been verified. On principle, diminutives occur in all speech acts, albeit not in all subtypes of individual illocutions, and diminutive use is particular to illocutionary type.

230 In general, a distinction can be made between local and global diminutives. Local diminutives express the speaker's attitude towards the referent of the diminutive form, whereas global diminutives modify the speech act they occur in.76 The findings about global diminutives support Dressler's (1991) claim that each speech act includes not more than one diminutive. This does not mean, however, that only one diminutive form may be used in one speech act, but rather that only one diminutive is used as an internal modifier. In this case, additional forms would be local diminutives. Factors crucial to the use and interpretation of diminutives are the specific communicative point of an illocutionary type and the relevant pragmatic scale. Overall, the following correlations have been established: -

vocative acts: sympathy scale, directive acts: cost-benefit scale, commissive acts: cost-benefit scale, expressive acts: praise-dispraise scale, assertive acts: praise-dispraise scale.

Basically, these correlations correspond to Leech's (1983: 132) model. Leech also correlates directives and commissives with the cost-benefit scale, and expressives with the praise-dispraise scale. For assertives, however, he claims that in addition to the praisedispraise scale the sympathy scale and the agreement scale are also applicable. While the sympathy scale is relevant to some cases in the present analysis, the agreement scale appears to be irrelevant to the use of diminutives. Finally, Leech does not consider vocative acts. The pragmatic scales identified by Leech are central to his theory of politeness. The present analysis confirms the explanatory power of these scales for both polite and impolite or rude behaviour. 77 "Maxims of rudeness" can be derived from Leech's maxims of politeness by using various types of negation on the many alternative phrasings offered for each maxim. For instance, Leech's modesty maxim 'Minimise praise of self can be turned into a maxim of immodesty or boasting: 'Maximise praise of self. Furthermore, the alternative phrasing of the modesty maxim as 'Maximise dispraise of self can be transformed into a maxim of self-defence, formulated as 'Minimise dispraise of self.

76

77

Global diminutives, defined as internal speech act modifiers, must not be confused with Spitzer's 'sentential diminutives' ("Satzdiminutiva", cf. Spitzer 1921: 201f.). Spitzer, who prefers the expression 'impressionist diminutives' ("impressionistische Diminutiva"), refers to the fact that the occurrence of a diminutive in a sentence conveys a certain stylistic or emotional tinge, irrespective of the contents of the sentence (or its communicative function). In other words, Spitzer discusses diminutives as style or register markers. This is a translocal function of diminutives, which can be observed in monological written discourse, but also in spoken discourse. Considering that diminutives do not seem to be used in formal speech, they can be regarded as indicators of casual conversation, or, more particularly, of friendly social talk. However, this function is usually fulfilled by local diminutives, and not by global diminutives which interact with the illocution. Furthermore, only synthetic forms seem to serve this function. Arguably, impoliteness is the absence of politeness, whereas rudeness is "manifest impoliteness", e.g. overt aggression (cf. also Kasper 1990).

231

Diminutives can be used to observe politeness maxims, or to follow rudeness maxims. Whether they are used to increase politeness or to increase rudeness depends on a number of factors, notably on the nature of co-occurring linguistic devices, in particular evaluative expressions (adjectives or nouns), and on the relationship between the conversationalists. As a rule, the use of diminutives is a minimisation strategy operating on the respective pragmatic scale. On the basis of the analysis, the following general picture emerges in the specification of the pragmatic function of diminutives for each of the five illocutionary types: -

in directive acts: cost minimiser, in commissive acts: benefit minimiser, in expressive acts: praise minimiser, in assertive acts: praise minimiser, in vocative acts: sympathy maximiser.

Diminutives in vocative acts could be regarded as antipathy minimisers to include them in the general pattern observed above. However, their function is more adequately described as sympathy maximisation, because it is their affective and not their dimensional meaning component which is relevant here. What is minimised is the distance between the interactants, therefore sympathy between speaker and addressee is increased (at least from the speaker's perspective). Diminutives in vocatives indicate or claim a close relationship. They are, as a rule, formed synthetically. In determining the function of diminutives in vocatives, two further factors have to be considered. First, the semantic class of the base word, and second, the interactant constellation. If the base word is a negative evaluator (e.g. bitch), then its diminutive form cannot be used to maximise sympathy between speaker and addressee. On the contrary, in this case diminutives maximise the antipathy expressed in the base word in that they belittle and derogate the person addressed. This effect can also be observed in some assertives and in expressive insults. Regarding the second factor, interactant constellations, social distance appears to be the central parameter for the use and understanding of diminutives in vocative acts. In constellations which are characterised by minimal social distance, such as parent-child dyads or between lovers or spouses, diminutives maximise sympathy. However, when used in other constellations, particularly between strangers, sympathy maximisation may be intended by the speaker, but not considered appropriate by the addressee. Whether or not the use of a diminutive in a vocative act is considered polite depends on the polite norm governing address in a particular speech community and also on the forms of address otherwise used in a particular constellation. Both factors, the semantics of the base word and the interactant constellation, interact. For instance, if a negative evaluator is used to address a child (e.g. You little brute), the negative evaluation, which may result from temporary annoyance, is mitigated if the evaluator is used in a diminutive form. In this case, the diminutive, which indicates the permanently positive attitude towards the child, functions as an antipathy minimiser. As sympathy maximisers, diminutive vocatives can be employed strategically as preparatory supportive moves prefacing directives, especially in close relationships.

232 In directive speech acts, diminutives serve to minimise cost to hearer. What constitutes cost to hearer depends on the respective subtype of request. In requests for action, the effort involved in performing the requested action is played down, while in requests for material goods, the goods are represented as small. If, however, a good must be returned, then the duration for which the good is borrowed, must be minimised. In this case, representing the good as small would be an insult to its owner. In requests for patience, it is the time the hearer is asked to invest which is minimised, whereas in requests for permission, benefit to self is played down. Benefit minimisation is also relevant in requests for material goods (which are not returned). This points to the complementary nature of the maxims of tact and generosity, 'Minimise cost to other' and 'Minimise benefit to self, which are observed when diminutives are used in directive acts. In all cases, the utterance must include a noun in the syntactic position of a direct object, from which the diminutive is formed. As a rule, analytic formation is used. Diminutives and illocution do not seem to interact in 'requests for information'. Diminutives are only found in this subtype of requests when used as preparatory supportive move. This finding suggests that requests for information constitute an illocutionary type in its own right, termed 'erotetic' ("erotetisch" ) in Wunderlich's (1978) taxonomy. The cost-benefit scale is also relevant to commissive acts. In this case, however, benefit minimisation seems socially more important than cost minimisation. While in directive acts, diminutives are used to minimise cost to hearer, they are employed in commissives to minimise benefit to speaker. In the commissive acts analysed in the present study (offers, announcements, and suggestions), complex facework can be observed. Since offers and suggestions can be classified as conditional speech acts, both acceptance and rejection are equally acceptable reactions, at least theoretically. In social reality, however, speakers who make a (sincere) offer or suggestion clearly prefer acceptance. Therefore, they may use a diminutive to play down what is offered or suggested, a strategy which makes it easier for the hearer to accept without appearing greedy or inconsiderate. In this case, speakers adopt the hearer's perspective and minimise benefit to hearer and also cost to speaker. If speakers do not adopt the hearer's perspective and do not use a diminutive in their offer, hearers use a diminutive in accepting the offer (e.g .just a little drop, just a tiny piece, etc.). This use can be considered a face-saving strategy. In offers and suggestions as well as in requests, diminutives typically occur in third moves, i.e. in renewals of the initial speech act, following non-acceptance or noncompliance respectively. In such cases, the use of diminutives can be considered a persuasive strategy. In the case of requests, renewals are often realised more directly (e.g. by using an imperative construction) and accompanied by supportive moves. Supportive moves are also used with renewals of offers and suggestions. Commissive announcements are socially motivated speech acts which do not affect the hearer directly. Speakers announce actions from which they themselves profit, e.g. the consumption of alcoholic beverages, to anticipate criticism. This is done more effectively by minimising benefit to self. To this end, diminutives can be used. In this case, diminutive use can, again, be considered a defensive or face-saving strategy. This strategy is employed in particular when such actions are repeated, e.g. when speakers intend to have another drink. In general, diminutives in commissive acts function as benefit minimisers used in particular when the future action can be classified as a 'dangerous pastime'. 'Dangerous pas-

233 times' are socially risky activities such as the (repeated) consumption of alcohol and tobacco, kissing and dancing. Kissing and dancing are especially risky if the relationship between the interactants is not close or intimate. In expressive speech acts, diminutives are used in particular in those acts which express an evaluation. The present study focuses on two complementary acts, positively evaluative compliments and negatively evaluative insults. Diminutive use in compliments depends on social norms and cultural values. In this speech act, diminutives occur more frequently in European cultures, e.g. in the United Kingdom, in German-speaking and in Scandinavian countries, than in English-speaking countries outside Europe, e.g. the United States or New Zealand. In Europe, minimised compliments are considered more sincere than maximised compliments commonly used elsewhere. In European cultures, diminutives function as praise minimisers, which maximise, so to speak, the success of a compliment. Compliments including a diminutive can also be used ironically. Diminutives are used predominantly in minimal compliment realisations, i.e. in elliptical constructions consisting of an adjectival evaluator and a noun referring to the evaluated item. Characteristically, non-emphatic adjectives are used, and intensifiers do not occur. In such constructions, diminutives are formed analytically. As a rule, this realisation format is preferred by male speakers. In insults, speakers evaluate the addressee negatively. The evaluation is expressed by a noun, which may occur in combination with one or more adjectival evaluators. The negative evaluation is increased by the use of diminutives. Diminutives, which are formed analytically, are employed to belittle and derogate the addressee. Typically, the diminutive marker little appears between adjectival evaluators and the nominal evaluator. The function of diminutives in insults is dispraise maximisation. In assertive acts, diminutives referring to persons can be used in a similar function. As a rule, the persons referred to are speech act participants (addressee or bystander) or persons closely related to participants (e.g. their spouses or children). Speakers use diminutives, in particular, to refer to persons when disclosing embarrassing details about these persons in multi-party talk. In this context, diminutives function as praise minimisers. They can also be used in this function with reference to body parts or possessions in order to humiliate the owners of these items. However, in self-discloses, in which speakers reveal details about their own lives, diminutives are used to play down or minimise flattering details such as achievements or valuable belongings. In this case, diminutives function as self-praise minimisers. Thus, speakers observe the politeness maxim of modesty. These results show that while the interaction between diminutives and speech acts depends on a variety of interrelated variables and manifests itself in many subtle ways, it can be studied systematically in an integrative approach in which the analysis of speech act realisation and modification bridges the gap between pragmatics and grammar. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that interpersonal relations and notions of face and politeness are crucial to the understanding of diminutive use in conversation. Finally, two general issues are addressed. These are diminutive occurrence in terms of domain of use, and the relationship between synthetic and analytic diminutive formation in eveiyday communication in English. One of the stereotypes concerning diminutives is that they occur in parent-child interaction. Some accounts consider them an element of child language, other accounts an element of motherese (or, more recently, parentese, caretaker speech or care-giver speech) (cf., e.g., Pinsker 1974: 249). In any case, the domain is 'family', i.e. intra-family discourse. Con-

234 cerning the adult speakers involved in this type of discourse, it is important to note that diminutive use is not sex-specific but role-specific, i.e. it is not an element of motherese (in a literal sense), but of care-giver speech, although in societal reality today it is still predominantly women and not men who are allocated this role (cf. Harden 1992). Furthermore, in the prototypical domain, diminutive use is a feature of adult speech rather than of children's speech. The use of diminutives, similar to other features of care-giver speech, such as simplification strategies (cf., e.g., Ferguson 1977), is based on adult preconceptions of child language or language input adequate for children. At the age of approximately four years, children start imitating care-giver speech when talking to or about younger children. For instance, when his baby brother was coughing, my oldest son, aged five at the time, remarked, Nä, Papa, wenn Babies Husten haben, nennt man das 'Hüstlein '?! ('Daddy, when babies have a cough, this is called 'coughey', right?!'). Also, at a relatively young age children start protesting when they are referred to by diminutives. For example, at the age of three and a half, one of my sons furiously exclaimed, Das heißt nicht 'Näschen '! Ich habe eine Nase! ('This is not called 'nosey'! I have a nose!'). Even though diminutives are used by adults to communicate positive emotions and affection, these forms reflect the asymmetry of the adult-child constellation. Children perceive diminutives as derogatory, particularly when such forms are used to refer to them or parts of their bodies. They employ diminutives themselves to belittle younger children. In general, older children "talk 'down' to younger children" (Crystal 1987: 235). These observations provide the key to an understanding of the basic pattern of diminutive use in everyday communication between adults. As adults (or older children) use diminutives to refer to children (or younger children), adults use diminutives to refer to other adults in a derogatory fashion. This holds, in particular, when older persons talk to younger persons, and when men talk to women. It should, however, be noted that while this pattern applies to those speech acts in which diminutives are used as praise minimisers, dispraise maximisers and antipathy maximisers, it does not apply to cost or benefit minimisation, nor to sympathy maximisation. The relationship between synthetic and analytic diminutive formation in everyday communication in English can be summarised as follows. Synthetic diminutives (including multiple diminutives and reduplications) are the preferred type in the prototypical domain 'family'. This applies, first and foremost, to the constellations parent - child, older child younger child, and also adult (or child) - pet. 78 This further applies to talk between spouses or lovers. Finally, synthetic diminutives are used in situations in which adults behave or act like children and, to a certain extent, in situations in which adult speakers treat other adults like children. In all other cases, analytic diminutives are the preferred type. Put another way, there seems to be a functional division of labour. Synthetic diminutives are employed for sympathy maximisation, while analytic diminutives are used for antipathy or dispraise maximisation and praise, cost or benefit minimisation. These regularities are not rules in the strict sense, but principles of and preferences in language use. The scope and range of 78

Cf., e.g., Let's go walkies! - Interestingly, in one of my informal experiments, the utterance I've got afishyfor you. (discussed in 5.5.5.2.), which is addressed to a cat, was perceived by the informants as an utterance addressed to a young child. It has been pointed out elsewhere that children and pets play a similar role in everyday communication (cf., e.g., Wardhaugh 1985, Schneider 1988).

235

the regularities has yet to be tested in further studies using different data and different discourse types.

6. Summary and perspectives

The most important results of the study presented in this book can be summarised as follows (cf. also ch. 0): - Diminutives are not primarily a morphological category, but rather forms expressing the concept of diminution. As such, they may be constructed morphologically, or by other linguistic means. - Diminutives may appear peculiar, but their peculiarities disappear once they are analysed systematically. Sweeping generalisations, however, do not help to understand the complex nature of diminutives, nor can they be explained by single factor myths. - To understand the nature of diminutives, both diminutive formation and diminutive use must be studied, as also the interplay between them. To this end, an integrative approach must be adopted which combines grammatical and pragmatic perspectives. The missing link between these two perspectives appears to be speech act realisation and modification in interaction. - Diminutives must be studied in context and relative to social situations, as they depend crucially on the semantic classes of their base words, the immediate utterance context in which they occur, and the inteipersonal relationship between speaker and hearer. - Diminutives must be studied empirically, as their use cannot be invented. More specifically, the following findings have been gained: - English does have diminutives. - English has not only analytic but also synthetic diminutive markers. - English diminutive suffixes are among the most productive suffixes of the English language. - While English diminutive suffixes share a number of features, each suffix has developed its own specific profile. This concerns semantic and pragmatic features, in particular. - There is a division of labour between analytic and synthetic diminutive formation in English conversation. Generally speaking, the analytic type is preferred in speech act minimisation, whereas the synthetic type is preferred in the expression of attitudes. Synthetic diminutives are employed in particular in vocative acts. - The communicative functions of English diminutives depend primarily on the illocution, the interactive status, the realisation strategy, and the politeness value of the utterances in which they are used, as well as on the relationship between the interlocutors. Tasks for future research are manifold and include the following: - As the present study is exploratory and qualitative, future studies should include quantitative and statistical analyses, and be based on data from large electronic corpora.

237

- Each diminutive marker identified and discussed in the present study deserves an indepth analysis. This concerns the diminutive suffixes of English as well as analytic markers such as little, tiny, and wee. - Further studies of diminutives in spoken discourse are needed. Firstly, these should include replications of the analyses presented in this book with different types of data material. Secondly, different speech acts should be considered in the micropragmatic analysis of diminutive use. Thirdly, other types of spoken discourse should be examined, since only diminutive use in everyday conversation was analysed in the present study. - As the study of diminutive use presented in this book focuses on spoken discourse exclusively, studies of diminutive use in written discourse are required. The communicative functions of diminutives in written discourse should be determined relative to the particular text genre, genres which may range from fairy tales to newspaper reports, to name but two examples. - Diminutives should be investigated contrastively. They should be compared across speech acts and illocutionary types, across genres of spoken and written discourse, across oral and written communication, and finally across varieties of English and across languages and cultures. It is suggested that the integrative approach for the study of diminutives developed in this book can be adopted in the analysis of diminutives of all languages. Thus, investigations of diminutive formation across languages and diminutive use across cultures can be conducted within this particular framework. Finally, if diminutives in general, and English diminutives in particular, are a puzzle, as suggested in the introduction, then it is hoped that this little study has contributed to solving it.

References

Abu-Haidar, J.A. (1989): The Diminutives in the Diwan of Ibn Quzraan: A Product of their Hispanic Milieu? - In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London 52, 239254. Aijmer, Karin (1996): Conversational Routines in English. - London, New York: Longman. Aijmer, Karin/Altenberg, Bengt (eds.) (1991): English Corpus Linguistics. - London, New York: Longman. Aitchison, Jean (1994): Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Àlexopoulos, Evita C. (1994): The Use of Diminutives and Augmentatives in Modern Greek. - In: I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, M. Sifianou (eds.): Themes in Greek Linguistics, 283-288. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ambadiang, Theophile (1996): La Formacion de Diminutivos en Español: Fonologia o Morfologia? In : Linguistica Española Actual 18,175-211. Ambrazas, Saulius (1991): Lietuviu Kalbos Nomina Agentis Istoriniai Rysiai su Deminutyvais. - In: Uetuviu Kalbotyros Klausimai 29,4-14. - (1993): On the Development of Diminutives in the Baltic Languages. - In: Linguistica Baltica 2, 47-67. - (1994): Lietuviu Kalbos Deminutivu Darybos Raida. - In: Lietuviu Kalbotyros Klausimai 34, 130-157. Anderson, Stephen R. (1982): Where's Morphology? - In: Linguistic Inquiry 13,571-612. Andrews, Edna (1995): Adult Speaker and Child Addressee: Usage and Perception of Russian Deminutives. - In: Russian Language Journal 49:162-164,53-64. - (1999): Gender Roles and Perception. Russian Diminutives in Discourse. - In: Mills (ed.) (1999), 85-111. Apeltauer, Emst (1979): Insistieren. - In: W. Vanderweghe, M. van de Velde (eds.): Bedeutung, Sprechahe und Texte. Akten des 13. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Gent 1978. Vol. 2, 147-157. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Archangeli, Diana/Langendoen, D. Terence (1997): Optimality Theory. An Overview. - Oxford: Blackwell. Ariza, Manuel (1998): El Sufijo -ico. In: C. Garcia Turza, F. Gonzales Bachiller, J. Mangado Martinez (eds.): Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Vol. I, 351-359. - Logroño (Spain): Universidad de la Rioja. Bakema, Peter (1995): Van Aangevertje tot Zoethoudertje: Over Diminuering van Derivaties. - In: Leuvense Bijdragen 84,425-446. - (1997): Het Ouvoltooid Verleden Verkleinwoord. - In: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 113,201-221. Baker, Charlotte (1975): "This is just a First Approximation, but...". - In: Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 37-47. Ballmer, Thomas T. (1979): Probleme der Klassifikation von Sprechakten. - In: G. Grewendorf (ed.): Sprechakttheorie und Semantik, 247-274. - Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Ballmer, Thomas T./Brennenstuhl, Waltraud (1981): Speech Act Classification. - Berlin: Springer. Baron, Dennis (1986): Grammar and Gender. - New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Barron, Anne (2003): Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. - Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bartakova, Jarmila (1995): Modifikovane Slovesa a Morfemou -k- ν Slovencine a Cestine. - In: Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Bmenske University, A: Rada Jazykovedna 44,105-111.

240 Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe (1976): Sizing Things Up. The Acquisition of the Meaning of Dimensional Adjectives. - In: Journal of Child Language 3,205-219. Bauer, Laurie (1983): English Word-Formation. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1988): Introducing Linguistic Morphology. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. - (1996): No Phonetic Iconicity in Evaluative Morphology. - In: Studia Linguistica 50,189-206. - (1997): Evaluative Morphology: In Search of Universals. - In: Studies in Language 21,533-575. Bauer, Laurie/Bauer, Ingrid (1996): Word-Formation in the Playground. - In: American Speech 71, 111-112. Bazzanella, Carla/Caffi, Claudia/Sbisa, Marina (1991): Scalar Dimensions of Illocutionary Force. In: I. ¿agar (ed.): Speech Acts: Fiction or Reality? Proceedings of the International Conference, Ljubljana 1990, 63-76. - Ljubljana: IPrA Distribution Centre for Yugoslavia at the Institute for Social Sciences. Beard, Robert/Szymanek, Bogdan (1988): Bibliography of Morphology 1960-1985. - Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bierwisch, Manfred (1967): Some Semantic Universals of German Adjectivals. - In: Foundations of Language 3,1-36. - (1987): Dimensionsadjektive als strukturierender Ausschnitt des Sprachverhaltens. - In: M. Bierwisch, E. Lang (eds.): Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, 1-28. - Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1987): Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different? - In: Journal of Pragmatics 11,131-146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana/Danet, Brenda/Gerson, Rimona (1985): The Language of Requesting in Israeli Society. - In: J.P. Forgas (ed.): Language and Social Situations, 113-141. - New York: Springer. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana/House, Juliane/Kasper, Gabriele (1989a): Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. An Introductory Overview. - In: Blum-Kulka et al. (eds.) (1989b), 1-34. - (eds.) (1989b): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Requests and Apologies. - Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Blundell, Jon/Higgens, Jonathan/Middlemiss, Nigel (1982): Function in English. - Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brandstötter, German (1997): Umlaut und Optimality Theory: Was constraints bewirken sollen (und was sie bewirken können). - In: Grazer Linguistische Studien 47,1-19. Bratus, Boris V. (1969): The Formation and Expressive Use of Diminutives. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braun, Friederike (1988): Terms of Address. Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. - Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, Penelope/Levinson, Stephen C. (1978): Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. - In: E.N. Goody (ed.): Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1987): Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger/Ford, Marguerite (1964): Address in American English. - In: D. Hymes (ed.): Language in Culture and Society, 234-244. - New York: Harper & Row. Brown, Roger/Gilman, Albeit (1960): The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. - In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.): Style in Language, 253-277. - Cambridge, Massachusetts: ΜΓΓ Press & New York, London: Wiley. Burton, Deirdre (1980): Dialogue and Discourse. A Socio-Linguistic Approach to Modem Drama Dialogue and Naturally-Occurring Conversation. - London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. - (1982): Conversation Pieces. - In: R. Carter, D. Burton (eds.) (1982): Literary Text and Language Study, 86-115. - London: Arnold.

241 Bussmann, Hadumod (1996): Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated and edited by G.P. Trauth and K. Kazzazi. - London, New York: Routledge. Bybee, Joan (1985): Morphology. A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. - Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cannon, Garland (1987): Historical Change and English Word-Formation. - New York: Lang. Carey, Susan (1978): The Child as a Word Learner. - In: M. Halle, J. Bresnan, G.A. Miller (eds.): Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, 264-293. - Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1992): Current Morphology. - London, New York: Routledge. Ceccherini, Marco/Bonifacio, Serena/Zocconi, Elisabetta (1997): Acquisition of Diminutives in Italian (Sara). - In: Dressier (ed.) (1997), 157-163. Chambers (1876) = Chambers' Encyclopaedia. A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge for the People. Rev. ed. Vol. 3. - London, Edinburgh: Chambers. Charleston, Britta M. (1960): Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Expression in Modem English. - Bern: Francke. Chen, Rong (1993): Responding to Compliments. A Contrastive Study of Politeness Strategies Between American English and Chinese Speakers. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 20,49-75. Christensen, Jill L. (1999): A Gender Linguistic Analysis of Mrozek's Tango. - In: Mills (ed.) (1999), 39-56. Clark, Eve V. (1993): The Lexicon in Acquisition. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coelho, Gail (1999): Diminutive Reduplication in Thompson River Salish. In: S. Bird, A. Camie, J.D. Haugen, P. Norquest (eds.): Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 82-93. - Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla. Coleridge, Herbert (1857): On Diminutives in 'LET*. - In: Transactions of the Philological Society, 93-115. Conrad, Rudi (ed.) (1988): Lexikon sprachwissenschaftlicher Termini. 2nd ed. - Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Corbett, Greville G. (1991): Gender. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulmas, Florian (ed.) (1981): Conversational Routine. - The Hague: Mouton. Coulthard, Malcolm (1977): An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. - London: Longman. - (1985): An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. New ed. - London: Longman. Croft, William (1990): Typology and Universals. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crowhurst, Megan J. (1992): Diminutives and Augmentatives in Mexican Spanish. A Prosodie Analysis. - In: Phonology 9,221-253. Crystal, David (1987): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1991): A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 3rd ed. - Oxford, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Crystal, David/Davy, Derek (1975): Advanced Conversational English. - London: Longman. Curcó, Carmen (1998): No me harías un favorcito? Reflexiones en Torno a la Expresión de la Cortesía Verbal en el Español de Mexico y el Español Peninsular. - In: H. Haverkate, G. Mulder, C. Fraile Maldonado (eds.): La Pragmatica Linguistica del Español. Recientes Desarrollos, 129— 171. - Amsterdam: Rodopi. Daelemans, Walter/Berck, Peter/Gillis, Steven (1997): Data Mining as a Method for Linguistic Analysis: Dutch Diminutives. - In: Folia Linguistica 31,57-75. Dalalakis, Jenny (1997): Developmental Language Impairment (DLI) and Diminutive Formation in Greek. - In: E. Hughes, M. Hughes, A. Greenhill (eds.): Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, I, 115-123. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla. Daltas, P. (1985): Some Patterns of Variability in the Use of Diminutive and Augmentative Suffixes in Spoken Modern Greek Koine (MGK). - In: dossologia 4,63-88.

242 Davies, Taffy (1977): Australian Nicknames. - Melbourne: Rigby. Delhay, Corinne (1995): Le Diminutif: La Diminution sans Comparaison? - In: Faits de Langues S, 63-72. - (1996): Il Etait un "Petit X". Pour une Approche Nouvelle de la Catégorisation Dite Diminutive. - Paris: Larousse. - (1999): 'Diminutifs' et Niveaux de Catégorisation. - In: Faits de Langues 14,79-81. Denzin, N.K. (1988): Triangulation. - In: J.P. Keeves (ed.) (1988): Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement. An International Handbook, 318-322. - Oxford: Pergamon. Dirven, René (1987): Diminutives in Afrikaans and Dutch. - In: Lörscher/Schulze (eds.) (1987), 100-109. Doke, Clement M. (1930): Textbook of Zulu Grammar. 6th ed. - Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Dossena, Marina (1998): Diminutives in Scottish Standard English. A Case for 'Comparative Linguistics'? - In: Scottish Language 17,22-39. Dressier, Wolfgang (1991): Grammar and Pragmatics. Paper presented at the Anniversary Meeting of the Societas Linguisticae Europea, University of Kiel. - (1994): Evidence from the First Stages of Morphology Acquisition for Linguistic Theory. Extragrammatic Morphology and Diminutives. - In: Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27,91-108. - (ed.) (1997): Studies in Pre- and Protomorphology. - Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dressier, Wolfgang/Kiefer, Ferenc (1990): Austro-Hungarian Morphopragmatics. - In: W. Dressler, H.C. Luschtltzky, O.E. Pfeiffer, J.R. Rennison (eds.): Contemporary Morphology, 69-77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dressler, Wolfgang/Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1987): Elements of Morphopragmatics. - Duisburg: L.A.U.D. - (1989): Grammaticalizzazione Morfopragmatica. Teoria e Tipologia, con Particolare Riguardo ai Diminutivi nell' Italiano, Tedesco e Inglese. - In: Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica e Letterature Comparate (Instituto Universitario, Bergamo) 5,233-255. - (1991): Elements of Morphopragmatics. - In: J. Verschueren (ed.): Levels of Linguistic Adaptation, 33-51. - Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. - (1994): Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. - Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. - (2001): Morphopragmatics of Diminutives and Augmentatives. On the Priority of Pragmatics over Semantics. - In: I. Kenesei, R.M. Harnish (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, 43-58. - Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dressier, Wolfgang/Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) (2002): Pre- and Protomorphology. Early Phases of Morphological Development in Nouns and Verbs. - München: Lincom Europa. Dubois, Jean (1969): Grammaire Structurale du Francais: La Phrase et les Transformation. - Paris : Larousse. Eakins, Barbara W./Eakins, R. Gene (1978): Sex Differences in Human Communication. - Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Eckhardt, Eduard (1903): Die angelsächsischen Deminutivbildungen. - In: Englische Studien 32, 325-366. Edmondson, Willis (1981): Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. - London: Longman. Edmondson, Willis/House, Juliane (1981): Let's Talk and Talk About It. A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar. - Milnchen, etc.: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Erben, Johannes (1983): Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre. 2nd ed. - Berlin: Schmidt. Erickson, Vincent O. (1989): The Diminutive in Mennonite Low German. - In: D.H. Jory (ed.): Papers from the 13th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, University

243 of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Nov. 3-5, 1989, 161-171. - No place: Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association. Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976): Is Sybil there? The Structure of Some American English Directives. - In: Language in Society S, 25-66. Ettinger, Stefan (1974a): Diminutiv- und Augmentativbildung: Regeln und Restriktionen. Morphologische und semantische Probleme der Distribution und der Restriktion bei der Substantivmodifikation im Italienischen, Portugiesischen, Spanischen und Rumänischen. - Tübingen: NarT. - (1974b): Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung: Die Diminutiv- und Augmentativmodifiaktion im Lateinischen, Deutschen und Romanischen. Ein kritischer Forschungsbericht 1900-1970. - Tübingen: Narr. - (1980): Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung: Die Diminutiv- und Augmentativmodifiaktion im Lateinischen, Deutschen und Romanischen. Ein kritischer Forschungsbericht 1900-1975. 2nd ed. - Tübingen: Narr. Faerch, Claus/Kasper, Gabriele (1989): Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization. - In: Blum-Kulka et al. (eds.) (1989b), 221-247. Fayez, Essam Abdel Aziz (1991): Siibawaili's Linguistic Analysis of the Diminutive in Classical Arabic and its Subsequent Developments. Dissertation Abstracts International 51,11: 3723A. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ferguson, Charles A. (1977): Baby Talk as a Simplified Register. - In: C.E. Snow, C.A. Ferguson (eds.): Talking to Children, 219-235. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Féry, Caroline (1997a): The Trochaic Ideal. - In: Sprachtheorie und Germanistische Linguistik 5 , 7 16.

-

(1997b): Unis und Studis: Die besten Wörter des Deutschen. - In: Linguistische Berichte 172, 461-489. Fischer, Maja (1962): Die Diminutive im Deutschen und im Französischen. Ein Vergleich von Gottfried Kellers Erzählungen "Die Leute von Seldwyla" mit ihren französischen Übersetzungen. - Zürich: Juris. Fishman, Joshua (1964): Language Maintenance and Language Shift as a Field of Inquiry. - In: Linguistics 9,32-70. Fleischer, Wolfgang (1975): Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th ed. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fleischer, Wolfgang/Barz, Irmgard (1995): Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 2nd rev. ed. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Franke, Wilhelm (1990): Elementare Dialogstrukturen. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Frankl, P.J.L./Omar, Yahya Ali (1994): Diminutives and Insignificance, Augmentatives and 'Monstrosity': Examples of Class Re-Assignment in Swahili. - In: South African Journal of African Languages 14,113-116. Fraser, Bruce (1980): Conversational Mitigation. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 4,341-350. Freixeiro Mato, Xose Ramon (1996): Os Diminutivos na Poesia en Galego de Rosalia de Castro. - In: M. Casado Velarde, A. Freire Llamas, J.E. Lopez Pereira, J.I. Perez Pascual, A. Zamora Vincente, M. Regueiro Tenreiro (eds.): Scripta Philologica in Memoriam Manuel Taboada Cid, I & II, 837862. - La Coruna: Universidad da Coruna. Fruyt, Michele (1989): Etude Semantique des 'Diminutifs' Latins: Les Suffixes -ulus, -cuius, -ellus, -ilius ... De-Substantivaux et De-Adjectivaux. - In: Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15:1-4,127-138. Gaide, Françoise (1992): Les Substantifs 'Diminutifs' Latins en ...lus, ...la ou ...lum. - In: Revue de Philologie de Littérature et d'Histoire Anciennes 66,15-27. Galinsky, Hans (1952): Die Sprache des Amerikaners. Vol. 2: Wortschatz und Wortbildung. Heidelberg: Kerle.

244 Gardner, Roderick (1984): Discourse Analysis. Implications for Language Teaching, with Particular Reference to Casual Conversation. - In: Language Teaching 17,102-117. Gauger, Hans-Martin (1968): Determinatimi und Determinans im abgeleiteten Wort? - In: H. Breide, L. Lipka (eds.): Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie: Festschriftfür Hans Marchand, 93-108. The Hague: Mouton. Gillis, Steven (1997): The Acquisition of Diminutives in Dutch. - In: Dressier (ed.) (1997), 165-179. - (ed.) (1998): Studies in the Acquisition of Number and Diminutive Marking. - Antwerpen: Univ. Antwerpen, Univ. Instelling, Dep. Germaanse, Afd. Linguistiek. Goffman, Erving (1971): Relations in Public. - Harmonsworth: Penguin. Gracia, Lluisa/Turon, Lidia (2000): On Appreciative Suffixes. - In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47:1-4,231-247. Gramley, Stephan/Pätzold, Kurt-Michael (1992): A Survey of Modem English. London, New York: Routledge. Grandi, Nicola (1998): Sui Suffissi Diminutivi. - In: Lingua e Stile 33,627-653. - (2001): Su Alcune Presunte Anomalie della Morfologia Valutativa. Il Rapporto con il Genere ed il Numero. - In: Archivio Glottologico Italiano 86,25-56. Grickat, Irena (1995): O Nekim Osobenostima Deminucije. - In: Juznoslovenski Filolog 51,1-30. Grimm, Ursula (1991): Lexikalisierung im heutigen English am Beispiel der -er Ableitungen. Tübingen: Narr. Günther, Kurt (1990): Wörterbuch phraseologischer Termini. - Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. Gumperz, John J. (1970): Verbal Strategies in Multilingual Communication. - In: Monograph Señes on Language and Linguistics, 21st Annual Roundtable. - Washington: Georgetown University Press. Guo, Lihua (1994): Diminution im Deutschen und Chinesischen. - Wien: Universität Wien. Haan, Judith (1996): Umlaut en Diminutiefvorming in een Oostgelders Dialect. - In: Taal en Tongval 48,18-37. Haas, Mary R. (1972): The Expression of the Diminutive. - In: M.E. Smith (ed.): Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L Trager, 148-152. - The Hague: Mouton. Hancher, Michael (1979): The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts. - In: Language in Society 8, 1-14. Hansen, Barbara/Hansen, Klaus/Neubert, Albert/Schentke, Manfred (1982): Englische Lexikologie. Einführung in Wortbildung und lexikalische Semantik. - Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Hansen, Sabine/Hartmann, Peter (1991): Zur Abgrenzung von Komposition und Derivation. - Trier: WVT. Harden, Theo (1992): Diminutives and Female Language Usage. - In: Teanga 12,29-38. - (1997a): Das portugiesische Diminutiv und die deutschen Modalpartikeln. Einige Überlegungen zu ihren deiktischen Funktionen. - In: Runa 26,749-757. - (1997b): Gebrauch und Funktion von Diminutiv- und Augmentativformen im Portugiesischen und Deutschen. - In: LUdtke/Schmidt-Radefeldt (eds.) (1997), 135-150. Harder, Kelsie B. (1964): The Suffix "-ee". - In: American Speech 39,294-296. Harns, Herbert Raymond (1981): A Grammatical Sketch of Comox. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Kansas. Harris, James (1994): The OCP, Prosodie Morphology and Sonoran Spanish Diminutives. A Reply to Crowhurst. - In: Phonology 11,179-190. Hasselrot, Bengt (1957): Etudes sur la Formation Diminutive dans les Langues Romanes. - Uppsala/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. - (1972): Etudes sur la Vitalité de la Formation Diminutive Française au XXe Siècle. - Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Haverkate, Henk (1992): Deictic Categories as Mitigating Devices. - In: Pragmatics 2,505-522.

245 Heibig, Gerhard (1974): Geschichte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft. - Reinbek: Rowohlt Hellinger, Marlis (1990): Kontrastive Feministische Linguistik. Mechanismen sprachlicher Diskriminierung im Englischen und Deutschen. - Ismaning: Hueber. Henne, Helmut/Rehbock, Helmut (1979): Einßhrung in die Gesprächsanalyse. - Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Henry ΙΠ, W.A. (1989): A Trio of Triumphs in London. - In: Time 27 (1989). Herbert, Robert K. (1989): The Ethnography of English Compliments and Compliment Responses. A Contrastive Sketch. - In: Oleksy (ed.) (1989), 3-35. - (1990): Sex-Based Differences in Compliment Behavior. - In: Language in Society 19,201-224. Herbert, Robert K./Straight, H. Stephen (1989): Compliment Rejection vs. Compliment Avoidance. Listener-Based vs. Speaker-Based Pragmatic Strategies. - In: Language and Communication 9, 35-47. Herms, Irmtraud (1975): Gesprächsbuch Deutsch - Swahili. - Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. - (1989): Zur Bildung von Diminutiv- und Augmentativformen im Swahili. - In: Zeitschrift ßr Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42,738-747. Hindelang, Götz (1978): Auffordern. Die Untertypen des Aufforderns und ihre sprachlichen Realisationsformen. - Göppingen: Kttmmerle. Höge, O. (1910): Die Deminutivbildungen im Mittelenglischen. - In: Anglistische Forschungen 31, 166-265. Hofmann, Johann Β,/Rubenbauer, Hans (1963): Wörterbuch der grammatischen und metrischen Terminologie. 2nd rev. ed. - Heidelberg: Winter. Holly, Werner (1979): Imagearbeit in Gesprächen. Zur linguistischen Beschreibung des Beziehungsaspekts. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holmes, Janet (1984): Modifying Illocutionary Force. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 8,345-365. - (1986): Compliments and Compliment Responses in New Zealand English. - In: Anthropological Linguistics 28,485-508. - (1988): Paying Compliments. A Sex-Preferential Positive Politeness Strategy. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 12,445-465. - (1995): Women, Men and Politeness. - Harlow, Essex: Longman. Holmes, Janet/Brown, Dorothy F. (1987): Teachers and Students Learning about Compliments. - In: TESOL Quarterly 21, 523-546. House, Juliane (1989): Politeness in English and German. The Function of "please" and "bitte". - In: Blum-Kulka et al. (eds.) (1989b), 96-119. House, Juliane/Kasper, Gabriele (1987): Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requesting in a Foreign Language. - In: Lörscher/Schulze (eds.) (1987), 1250-1288. Huber, Pauline (1993): Natürlicher Erstsprachenerwerb. Schwerpunkt: Die Diminution und Augmentation im Italienischen. Unpublished thesis. - Klagenfurt: Universität Klagenfurt. Hummel, Martin (1995): Diminutive als Apreziativa. Zur Theorie der Diminutive im Spanischen. In: H. Flasche et al. (eds.): Romanistisches Jahrbuch. Vol. 45/1994, 243-261. - Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. - (1997): Para la Linguistica de Vuestro Diminutivo: Los Diminutivos como Aprecitivos. - In: Anuario de Estudios Filologicos 20,191-210. Inchaurralde, Carlos (1997): Space, Reference, and Emotional Involvement. - In: S. Niemeyer, R. Dirven (eds.) (1997): The Language of Emotions. Conceptualization, Expression, and Theoretical Foundation, 135-154. - Amsterdam: Benjamins. Iverson, Gregory K./Salmons, Joe (1992): The Place of Structure Preservation in German Diminutive Formation. - In: Phonology 9,137-143. Jacobs, Neil G. (1995): Diminutive Formation in Yiddish. A Syllable-Based Account. In: I. Rauch, G.F. Carr (eds.): Insights in Germanie Linguistics I: Methodology in Transition, 169-184. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

246 Jespersen, Otto (1933): Symbolic Value of the Vowel i. - In: Linguistica, 283-303. - (1942): A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol. 6: Morphology. - London, Copenhagen: Allen & Unwin/Munksgaard. - (1948): Growth and Structure of the English Language. - New York: Doubleday. Jurafsky, Daniel (1996): Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. - In: Language 72,533-578. Kager, René (1999): Optimality Theory. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalasniemi, Miija (1992): Ocenocnyj Suffiks -#K- ν Russkom Jazyke. - Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Kamp, Johan A.W. (1975): Two Theories about Adjectives. - In: E.L. Keenan (ed.): Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 123-155. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele (1990): Linguistic Politeness. Current Research Issues. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 14,193-210. - (1993): Interkulturelle Pragmatik und Fremdsprachenlernen. In: J.-P. Timm, H.J. Vollmer (eds.): Kontroversen in der Fremdsprachenforschung, 41-77. - Bochum: Brockmeyer. - (2000): Data Collection in Pragmatics Research. - In: H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) (2000): Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, 316-341. - London, New York: Continuum. Kassel, A. (1899): Die Deminution in der hanauischen Mundart. - In: Jahrbuch für Geschichte, Sprache und Litteratur Elsaß-Lothringens 15,205-222. Key, T.H. (1856): On Diminutives. I. - In: Transactions of the Philological Society, 219-250. Koch, H.A. (1877): Deminutiva bei Plautus. - In: Rheinisches Museum 32,97-100. Koecke, Bernadette Maria Luise (1994): Diminutive im polnisch-deutschen Übersetzungsvergleich. Eine Studie zu Divergenzen und Konvergenzem im Gebrauch einer variierenden Bildung. München: Sager. Köhler, D. (1994): Zur pragmatischen Funktion der synthetischen Diminutive im Deutschen und Englischen. Eine vergleichende Studie. Unpublished MA thesis. - Dublin: University College Dublin. Koll-Stobbe, Amei (1994): Verstehen von Bedeutungen. Situative Wortbildungen und Mentales Lexikon. - In: W. Börner, K. Vogel (eds.): Kognitive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenerwerb: Das mentale Lexikon, 51-68. - Tübingen: Narr. Kolomiets, V.T. (1988): Slovoobrazovatel'nye Formy Prilagatel'nych s Urnen'Sitel'no-Laskatel'nym Znaöeniem ν Slavjanskich Jazykach. Sovremennoe Sostojannie i Doistoriíeskoe Razvitie. - In: Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR Serija Uteratury i Jazyka 47, 550-558. König, Ekkehard (1977): Form und Funktion. Eine funktionale Betrachtung ausgewählter Bereiche des Englischen. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Koziol, Herbert (1967): Grundzüge der Geschichte der englischen Sprache. - Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Krajcarz, Mariusz (1981): Zur Wiedergabe der niederländischen Diminutive im Polnischen. - In: Review of Applied Linguistics 53, 63-80. Krenceyová, Hana (1991): Zum Problem der funktionalen Übersetzung expressiver Lexik am Beispiel slowakischer und deutscher Diminutivbildungen. - In: Klein/Pouradier Duteil/Wagner (eds.) (1991), Vol. 1,215-223. Kufner, Herbert L. (1962): The Grammatical Structure of English and German. A Contrastive Sketch. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laalo, Klaus (1998): Diminutives in Finnish Child-Directed and Child Speech. - In: Gillis (ed.) (1998), 137-148. Labov, William (1973): The Boundaries of Words and their Meanings. - In: C.-J. Bailey, R.W. Shuy (eds.): New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, 340-373. - Washington: Georgetown University Press.

247 -

(1984): Intensity. - In: D. Schiffrin (ed.): Georgetown University Linguistics Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1984,43-70. - Washington: Georgetown University Press. Lakoff, Robin (1973): The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding your p's and q's. - In: Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. - Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305. - (1979): Stylistic Strategies within a Grammar of Style. - In: J. Orasanu, M. Slater, L.L. Adler (eds.): Language, Sex and Gender, 53-78. - New York: Academy of Science. - (1989): The Limits of Politeness. Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. - In: Multilingua 8,101— 129. Langenfelde Gösta (1941/1942): The Hypocoristic English Suffix -s. - In: Studia Neophilologica 14, 197-213. Lappe, Sabine (2002): Monosyllabicity in Prosodie Morphology. The Case of Truncated Personal Names in English. - In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 135-186. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer. Laver, John (1981): Linguistic Routines and Politeness in Greeting and Parting. - In: Coulmas (ed.) (1981), 289-304. Lee, C. (1990): 'Cute yaw haiya.' - 'Nah!'. Hawaii Creole English Compliments and their Responses: Implications for Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. - In: University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language 9,115-160. Le Sourd, Philip S. (1995): Diminutive Verb Forms in Passamaquoddy. - In: International Journal of American Linguistics 61,103-134. Lee, Jin-Seong (1992): Phonology and Sound Symbolism of Korean Ideophones. Unpublished PhD thesis. - Bloomington: Indiana University. Leech, Geoffrey (1981): Semantics. The Study of Meaning. 2nd ed. - London: Penguin. - (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. - London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey/Svartvik, Jan (1975): A Communicative Grammar of English. - London: Longman. Leisi, Ernst (1969): Das heutige Englisch. Wesenszttge und Probleme. 5th ed. - Heidelberg: Winter. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983): Pragmatics. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (1989): Praising and Complimenting. - In: Oleksy (ed.) (1989), 73-100. Lewis, G.C. (1832): On English Diminutives. - In: The Philological Museum 1,679-686. Lieber, Rochelle (1981): On the Organization of the Lexicon. - Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. - (1992): Deconstructing Morphology. Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. - Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Linke, Angelika/Nussbaumer, Markus/Portmann, Paul R. (1991): Studienbuch Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lipka, Leonhard (1990): An Outline of English Lexicology. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lörscher, Wolfgang/Schulze, Rainer (eds.) (1987): Perspectives on Language in Performance. Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism, and Language Teaching and Learning. To Honour Werner Hüllen on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. - Tübingen: Narr. Loskoutoff, Yvan (1998): 'Lycidas en Pierrot, et Philis en Toinon'. Le Diminutif dans les Amours de Rousard. - In: Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France 98,195-213. LUdtke, Helmut/ Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen (eds.) (1997): Linguistica Contrastiva. - Tübingen: Narr. LUger, Heinz-Helmut (1995): Pressesprache. 2nd ed. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lukas, Ulrike (1992): Die Funktion der Diminutive in zeitgenössischen Romanen andalusischer und kastilischer Autoren. - Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. Lyons, John (1977): Semantics. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malheiros-Poulet, Maria Eugenia (1989): Le Suffixe -inho et la Notion d'Aspect en Portugais. - In: Langues Modernes 83, 124-134.

248 Manes, Joan/Wolfson, Ncssa (1981): The Compliment Formula. - In: Coulmas (ed.) (1981), 115— 132. Marchand, Hans (1966): On Attributive and Predicative Derived Adjectives and Some Problems Related to the Distinction. - In: Anglia 84,131-149. - (1969): The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. 2nd ed. - München: Beck. Marco, Anna de (1998): Sociopragmatica dei Diminutiva in Italiano. - Rende: Centro Editoriale e Librario Università degli Studi della Calabria. Martin, Graham (1993): The Incidence of the Diminutive Suffix -li in Contemporary Swiss Written Usage. - In: J.L. Flood, P. Salmon, O. Sayce, C. Wells (eds.): "Das unsichtbare Band der Sprache". Studies in German Language and Linguistic History in Memory of Leslie Seiffert, 587595. - Stuttgart: Heinz. Marynissen, Ann (1998): Van -(t)ke naar -(t)je: De Oorsprong en Verspreiding van het Nederlandse Diminutiefsuffix -(t)je. - In: Tijdschrifi voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 114,252-269. Masliyah, Sadok (1997): The Diminutive in Spoken Iraqi Arabic. - In: Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 33, 68-88. Matisoff, James A. (1992): The Mother of all Morphemes: Augmentatives and Diminutives in Areal and Universal Perspective. - In: M. Ratliff, E. Schiller (eds.): Papers from the 1st Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 293-349. - Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University. Mayerthaler, Willi (1977): Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. - (1981): Morphologische Natürlichkeit. - Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Mayrhofer, Silvia (1993): Diminutiv- und Augmentativformen in der zeitgenössischen italienischen Standardsprache und ihre Äquivalenzen im Deutschen. - Innsbruck: Institut für Romanistik der Universität Innsbruck. McArthur, Tom (1992): The Oxford Companion to the English Language. - Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Mendoza, Martha (1998): The Grammaticalization of the Spanish Diminutive. Metaphorical Projections of Size. Dissertation Abstracts International A (Human & Social Sciences) 59:8 (1999): 2953. - Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mey, Jacob (1993): Pragmatics. An Introduction. - Oxford: Blackwell. Mills, Margaret H. (ed.) (1999): Slavic Gender Linguistics. - Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mioni, Alberto M. (1987): Domain. - In: U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K.J. Mattheier (eds.): Soziolinguistik. Vol. 1,170-178. - Berlin: de Gruyter. Miranda Miranda, Ines (2000): An Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Nicaraguan Spanish Diminutivization. Results of a Field Survey. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities & Social Sciences 60, 8, Feb, 2895-A-2896-A. - Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mirisch, Max (1882): Geschichte des Suffixes -olus in den romanischen Sprachen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Vulgär- und Mittellateins. Unpublished PhD thesis. - Bonn: University of Bonn. Mladenova, Olga M. (2001): Neuter Designations of Humans and Norms of Social Interaction in the Balkans. - In: Anthropological Linguistics 43,18-53. Monge, Felix (1988): Diminutivos: Cuantificacion, Subjetividad, Especializacion. - In: J. LUdtke (ed.) (1988): Energeia und Ergon: Sprachliche Variation - Sprachgeschichte - Sprachtypologie. Vol. ΙΠ, 129-140. - Tübingen: Narr. Montemibio Prieto, Juan Miguel (1990): La Disminución Léxica, un Concepto Exclusivamente Nominal? - In: Verba 17,77-92. Mötsch, W. (1984): Veränderungen im Bereich der Wortbildung. - In: A. Jäntti (ed.): Festschrift Lauri Seppänen zum 60. Geburtstag, 29-37. - Tampere: University of Tampere.

249 MUhlhäusler, Peter (1983): Stinkiepoos, Cuddles and Related Matters. - In: Australian Journal of Linguistics 3,75-91. Müller, Klaus (1982): Frame-Struktur und Alltagskommunikation. Zur Wechselbeziehung zwischen kognitiven Prozessen und pragmatischem Verstehen. - In: Grazer Linguistische Studien 16,105130. Mulaudzi, Phalandwa Abraham (2000): The 'Two Way' Formation. The Diminutive Nouns in the Tshiguvhu Dialect of Venda. - In: South African Journal of African Languages 20,159-164. Nekula, Marek (1998): Diminutive bei Franz Kafka. - In: T. Harden, E. Hentschel (eds.): Particulae Particularum, 245-249. - Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Nieuwenhuis, Paul (1985): Diminutives. Unpublished PhD thesis. - Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. öller, Wilfried (1994): -l und -eri: zwei Wiener Diminutive im semantischen und pragmatischen Vergleich. - Wien: Universität Wien. Oleksy, Wieslaw (ed.) (1989): Contrastive Pragmatics. - Amsterdam: Benjamins. Olmsted, Hugh (1994): Diminutive Morphology of Russian Children. A Simplified Subset of Nominal Declension in Language Acquisition. - In: C.E. Gribble (ed.): Alexander Lipson: In Memoriam, 165-209. - Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Olsen, Susan (1986): Wortbildung im Deutschen. Eine Einßhrung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Krüner. Owen, Marion (1983): Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. - Berlin: Mouton. Palet Plaja, Maria Teresa (1990): El Diminutivo en el Habla Urbana de Sevilla (Nivel Popular). - In: M.T. Palet Plaja (ed.): Sociolinguistica Andaluza, V; Habla de Sevilla y Hablas Americanas, 2536. - Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Pan'kiv, O.B. (1992): Kontekstual'ni Funktsii Deminutyviv: Na Materiali Angliis'koi ta Ukrains'koi Mov. - In: Movoznavstvo 2,56-60. Paul, Hermann (1920): Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. V, Part IV: Wortbildungslehre. - Halle: Niemeyer. Pei, Mario A./Gaynor, Frank (1960): Dictionary of Linguistics. - London: Owen. Perrot, Daisy V. (1975): Swahili. 14th ed. - London: The English Universities Press. Pinsker, Hans Ernst (1974): Historische englische Grammatik. Elemente der Laut-, Formen- und Wortbildungslehre. 4th ed. - München: Hueber. Pintaiic, Neda (1996): Odnos Umanjenica i Umilnica u Hrvatskome i Poljskom Jeziku. - In: Strani Jezici 25:1-2,36-46. Plag, Ingo (1999): Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. - (fc): Word-Formation in English. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, Ingo/Dalton-Puffer, Christiane/Baayen, Harald (1999): Morphological Productivity across Speech and Writing. - In: English Language and Linguistics 3,209-228. Plank, Frans (1981): Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. - Tübingen: Narr. Pomerantz, Anita (1978): Compliment Responses. - In: J. Schenkein (ed.): Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction, 79-112. - New York: Academic Press. Poynton, Cate (1989): Terms of Address in Australian English. - In: P. Collins, D. Blair (eds.): Australian English. The Language of a New Society, 55-69. - St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press. Prieto, Pilar (1992): Morphonology of the Spanish Diminutive Formation. A Case for Prosodie Sensitivity. - In: Hispanic Linguistics 5,169-205. Puga, Juana (1999): Elusion y Insinuación. La Atenuación en el Castellano de Chile. - In: RLA, Revista de Linguistica Teorica y Aplicada 37,123-138. Quirk, Randolph/Greenbaum, Sidney/Leech, Geoffrey/Svartvik, Jan (1972): A Grammar of Contemporary English. - London: Longman. - (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. - London, New York: Longman.

250 Raffelsiefen, Renate (1999): Phonological Constraints on English Word-Formation. - In: G. Booij, J. van Marie (eds.) (1999): Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 225-287. - Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer. Ravid, Dorit (1998): Diminutive -i in Early Child Hebrew. An Initial Analysis. - In: Gillis (ed.) (1998), 149-173. Richards, Jack C. (1971): Word Familiarity as an Index of Vocabulary Selection with Indices for 4495 Words. Unpublished PhD thesis. - Laval, Canada: Université de Laval. Rio-Torto, Graça Maria (1997): Sistèmica e Pragmática dos Sufixos Avaliativos. - In: Revista Portuguesa de Filologia 20 (1996-1997), 203-228. Roberts, Julie (1998): Gender Differences in Language Use. A Study of Complimenting from Bath, South West England. Unpublished thesis. - University of Surrey. Rohde, Andreas (1993): Die Funktion direkter Antonymie im Erwerb von Adjektiven. - In: W. Börner, K. Vogel (eds.): Wortschatz und Fremdsprachenerwerb, 67-85. - Bochum: AKS-Verlag. Rosch, Eleanor (1975): Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. - In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104,192-233. Rosch, Eleanor/Mervis, C.B./Gray, W.D./Johnson, D.M./Boyes-Braem, P. (1976): Basic Objects in Natural Categories. - In: Cognitive Psychology 8,382-439. Rotzoll, Eva (1908): Das Aussterben alt- und mittelenglischer Deminutivbildungen im Neuenglischen. Unpublished PhD thesis. - Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg. - (1910): Die Deminutivbildungen im Neuenglischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Dialekte. - Heidelberg: Winter. Rusinova, Zdenka (1996): Deminutivni Modifikace ζ Hlediska Pragmalingvistickeho: Intenzifikace. - In: Sbomik Praci Filosofìcke Fakulty Bmenske University: Rada Jazykovedna - A 45:44,91-95. Russell, Kevin (1997): Optimality Theory and Morphology. - In: Archangeli/Langendoen (eds.) (1997), 102-133. Sachs, Emmy (1963): On steinalt, stock-still, and Similar Formations. - In: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 62,581-596. Sadock, Jerrold M. (1974): Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York, etc.: Academic Press. Savickiene, Ineta (1998): The Acquisition of Diminutives in Lithuanian. - In: Gillis (ed.) (1998), 115-135. Scalise, Sergio (1986): Generative Morphology. 2nd ed. - Dordrecht: Foris. Scheidweiler, Gaston (1984/1985): Zur Konnotation der Diminutivsuffixe -chen und -lein: prosaisch oder poetisch? - In: Muttersprache 95, 69-79. Schiffrin, Deborah (1987): Discourse Markers. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, Christian (1997): Zur kontrastiven Analyse der Diminutivbildung für die Sprachenpaare Spanisch - Deutsch und Spanisch - Französisch. - In: LUdtke/Schmidt-Radefeld (eds.) (1997), 415-431. Schneider, Iris (1993): Poleznyj Dialog. Journalistische Textsorten im Spiegel ihrer Schlagzeilen. Textlinguistische Untersuchungen zur Variation in Schlagzeilen aktueller russischer Zeitungstexte (1989-1991). - München: Sagner. Schneider, Iris/Schneider, Klaus P. (1991): 'Ach Kindchen, davon verstehen Sie nichts!' - Über den sexistischen Gebrauch deutscher Diminutivformen. - In: E. Feldbusch, R. Pogarell, C. Weiß (eds.): Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990. Vol. 2: Innovation und Anwendung, 169-174. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schneider, Klaus P. (1980): Ratschlag, Vorschlag, Angebot: Klassifizierung und Spezifizierung. Mimeo. - Marburg: University of Marburg. - (1988): Small Talk. Analysing Phatic Discourse. - Marburg: Hitzroth.

251 -

(1991a): Affektive Lexik. Kognitive, semantische und morphologische Aspekte. - In: E. Klein, F. Pouradier Duteil, K.H. Wagner (eds.): Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Akten des 24. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Universität Bremen 1989. Vol. 1, 233-241. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. - (1991b): Kontrastive Pragmatik: Diskursfunktionen von deutschen und englischen Diminutiven. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik. University of Mainz. - (1992): Bewerten durch Diminutive. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. - University of Bremen. - (1993a): Diminutives as (Im)Politeness Markers. - In: H. Löffler (ed.): Dialoganalyse IV. Referate der 4. Arbeitstagung, Basel 1992,345-350. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. - (1993b): Pragmagrammar and the Case of German Diminutives. - In: T. Harden, C. Marsh (eds.): Wieviel Grammatik braucht der Mensch?, 158-173. - München: Iudicium. - (1999): Compliment Responses across Cultures. - In: M. Wysocka (ed.): On Language Theory and Practice. In Honour ofJanusz Arabski on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Vol. I: Language Theory and Language Use, 162-172. - Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ál^skiego. - (2000): Diminutives in Discourse. Sequential Aspects of Diminutive Use in Spoken Interaction. In: M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, F. Rock (eds.): Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Selected Papers from the 7th IADA Conference Birmingham 1999, 293-300. - Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schulze, Rainer (1985): Höflichkeit im Englischen. Zur linguistischen Beschreibung und Analyse von Alltagsgesprächen. - Tübingen: Narr. Schwarze, Christoph (1967): Bemerkungen zur Transformationsgrammatik der italienischen Nominalsuffixe. - In: Folia Linguistica 1,49-58. Schwarze, Christoph/Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.) (1985): Handbuch der Lexikologie. - Königstein, Taunus: Athenäum. Searle, John R. (1969): Speech Acts. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1972): What is a Speech Act? (1965). - In: P.P. Giglioli (ed.): Language and Social Context, 136-154. - Harmondsworth: Penguin. - (1976): A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. - In: Language in Society 5,1-23. Searle, John RTVanderveken, Daniel (1985): Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Semerenko, H.V. (1992): Formuvannia Ukrains'koi Deminutyvnoi Sufiksatii. - In: Movoznavstvo 4, 51-59. Shepardson, Kenneth Ν. (1982): An Integrated Analysis of Swahili Augmentative-Diminutives. - In: Studies in African Linguistics 13,53-76. Short, Mick (1996): Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. - London, New York: Longman. Shrofel, Salina Margaret (1981): Island Lake Ojibwa Morphophonemics. Unpublished PhD thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto. Siegel, Muffy E.A. (1980): Capturing the Adjective. - New York: Garland. Sifianou, Maria (1987): Politeness Markers in Greek and in English. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Reading. - (1992): The Use of Diminutives in Expressing Politeness. Modem Greek versus English. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 17,155-173. Silhavy, Eduard (1993): Morphopragmatik. Tschechische Diminutiva in kindzentrierten Sprechsituationen. - Wien: Universität Wien. Sinclair, John (ed.) (1987): Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. - London, Glasgow, Stuttgart: Collins/Klett. - (1991): Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. - Oxford: Oxford University Press.

252 Sinclair, John et al. (1991): Collins COBUILD English Guides 2: Word Formation. - London: Collins. Slangalova, Vera (1991): Zdrobneliny a Opakovani ν Detske Poezii. - In: Nase Ree 74:2,63-68. Sotschek, Ralf (1992): Die Königin des Pfluges ist eine Farmerette. - In: Die Tageszeitung, October 19,1992. Spiridonova, N.F. (1999): Russkie Diminutivy. Problemy Obrazovanija i Znaíenija. - In: Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija Literatury i Jazyka 58,13-22. Spitzer, Leo (1921): Das Suffix -one im Romanischen. - In: L. Spitzer, E. Gamillscheg (eds.): Beiträge zur romanischen Wortbildungslehre, 183-205. - Genf: Olschki. Stavermann, W.H. (1953): Diminutivis Neerlandica. - In: De Gids 116,407-419. Stefanescu, Ioana (1992): On Diminutive Suffixes. - In: Folia Linguistica 26, 339-356. Stefanovski, Ljupöo (1997): The Apologetic Diminutive Strategy in Macedonian. - In: Balkanistica 10,372-380. Stein, Gabriele (1973): English Word-Formation over Two Centuries. - Tubingen: Narr. Stepanova, M arija D./Fleischer, Wolfgang (1985): Grundzüge der deutschen Wortbildung. - Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Stephany, Ursula (1997): Diminutives in Early Child Greek, a Preliminary Investigation. - In: Dressier (ed.) (1997), 147-156. Stern, Clara/Stem, William (1928): Die Kindersprache. Eine psychologische und sprachtheoretische Untersuchung. - Leipzig: Barth. Strang, Barbara (1968): Modern English Structure. 2nd rev. ed. - London: Arnold. - (1970): A History of English. - London: Methuen. Stríteská, Bohunka (1994): Some Notes on Czech Diminutives in Two Types of Written Text. - In: Scando-Slavica 40, 162-172. Stubbs, Michael (1983): Discourse Analysis. The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Stump, Gregory T. (1992): The Adjacency Condition and the Formation of Diminutives in Mwera and Kikuyu. - In: L.A. Buszard-Welcher, L. Wee, W. Weigel (eds.): Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 14-17, 1992: General Session and Parasession on the Place of Morphology in a Grammar, 441-452. - Berkeley: BLS. - (1993): How Peculiar is Evaluative Morphology? - In: Journal of Linguistics 29,1-36. Svaib, Trisha (1993): Are Doggies Really Little? Evidence from Children's Use of Diminuitives [sic]. In: E.V. Clark (ed.) (1993): The Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 149-161. - Menlo Park, etc.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Svartvik, Jan/Quirk, Randolph (eds.) (1980): A Corpus of English Conversation. - Lund: Gleerup. Szymanek, Bogdan (1988): Categories and Categorization in Morphology. - Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. Terkourafi, Marina (1999): Frames for Politeness. A Case Study. - In: Pragmatics 9,97-117. Thielke, Karl (1938/1939): Neuenglische Kose- und Spitznamen auf -s. - In: Englische Studien 73, 315-316. Thomas, Jenny (1995): Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. - Harlow, Essex: Longman. Tiefenbach, Heinrich (1987): -chen und -lein: Überlegungen zu Problemen des sprachgeographischen Befundes und seiner sprachhistorischen Deutung. - In: Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 54,2-27. Tomaszkiewicz, Teresa (1993): Sur le Diminutif en Polonais et en Français. - In: Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 17,207-214. Torres Montes, Francisco (1990): Los Sufijos Diminutivos del Habla Rural Malagueña en el XVIII. In: Analecta Malacitana 13,69-76.

253 Traugott, Elisabeth Closs/Pratt, Mary Louise (1980): Linguistics for Students of Literature. - New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich. Tmka, Bohumil (19S6): Κ Staroanglicke Deminutivni Pripone -incel. (with summary in English). In: CMF 38,1-5. Trosborg, Anna (1995): lnterlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints, Apologies. - Berlin: de Gruyter. Troutman, Denise (1996): Culturally Toned Diminutives within the Speech Community of African American Women. - In: Journal of Commonwealth & Postcolonial Studies 4,55-64. Tsui, Amy B.M. (1994): English Conversation. - Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, George W. (1973): Stylistics. - Harmondsworth: Penguin. Turner, Ken (1996): The Principal Principles of Pragmatic Inference: Politeness. - In: Language Teaching 29,1-13. Ulkan, Maria (1992): Zur Klassifikation von Sprechakten. Eine grundlagentheoretische Fallstudie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ulrich, Winfried (1975): Linguistische Grundbegriffe. 2nd rev. ed. - Kiel: Hirt. Urdang, Laurence (1982): Suffixes and Other Word-Final Elements of English. - Detroit, Michigan: Gale. Vaba, Lembit (1992): Sonake Deminutiivsest Optatiivist. - In: Keel Ja Kirjandus 35,161. van Bree, Cor (1997): Changes in Diminutive Formation in the Eastern Dutch Dialect of Twente. In: J. Gvozdanovic (ed.): Language Change and Functional Explanations, 143-178. - Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. van Dijk, Teun A./Ting-Toomey, Stella/Smitherman, Geneva/Troutman, Denise (1997): Discourse, Ethnicity, Culture and Racism. - In: T.A. van Dijk (ed.): Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction, 144-180. - London: Sage. van Os, Charles. (1989): Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. - Tubingen: Narr. Vaseva, Ivanka (1994): Znachenie i Stilistichna Upotreba na Umalitelnite Sushtestvitelni ν Suvremenniia Bulgarski Ezik. - In: Sapostavitelno Ezikoznanie/Sopostavitel'noe Jazykoznanie/ Contrastive Linguistics 19,30-40. Ventola, Eija (1979): The Structure of Casual Conversation in English. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 3, 267-298. Voeykova, Maria D. (1998): Acquisition of Diminutives by a Russian Child. Preliminary Observations in Connection with the Early Adjectives. - In: Gillis (ed.) (1998), 97-113. Volek, Bronislava (1987): Emotive Signs in Language and Semantic Functioning of Derived Nouns in Russian. - Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. - (1990): Emotive Semantics and Semiotics. - In: Grazer Linguistische Studien 33/34,327-347. Wandniszka, Mario (1969): Sprachen. Vergleichbar und unvergleichbar. - MUnchen: Piper. Wardhaugh, Ronald (1985): How Conversation Works. - Oxford, New York: Blackwell & Deutsch. Watzlawick, Paul/Beavin, Janet H./Jackson, Don D. (1967): Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton. Weizman, Elda (1989): Requestive Hints. - In: Blum-Kulka et al. (eds.) (1989b), 71-95. Wellmann, Hans (1975): Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. 2. Hauptteil: Das Substantiv. - Dusseldorf: Schwann. Whaley, Lindsay J./Li, Feng Xiang (1998): The Suffix -kan in Oroqen. - In: Studies in Language 22, 447-471. Whitcut, Janet (1980): The Language of Address. - In: L. Michaels, C. Ricks (eds.): The State of the Language, 89-97. - Berkeley: University of California. Whitney, William Dwight (ed.) (1899): The Century Dictionary. An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language. Vol. 2. - London, New York: The Times, The Century Company. Wierzbicka, Anna (1980): Lingua Mentalis. The Semantics of Natural Language. - Sydney: Academic Press.

254 - (1984): Diminutives and Depreciatives. Semantic Representation for Derivational Categories. In: Quaderni di Semantica 5,123-130. - ( 1985a): Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. - Ann Arbor: Karoma. - (1985b): Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts. Polish vs. English. - In: Journal of Pragmatics 9,145-178. - (1991): Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. - Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. - (1996): Semantics. Primes and Universals. - Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Edwin (1981): On the Notions 'lexically related' and 'head of a word'. - In: Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274. Williams, Mariana Stoyanova (1996): Diminutivity in Bulgarian. A Formal and Semantic Study. Dissertation Abstracts International, A (Humanities & Social Sciences) 57,11:4722. - Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wojcik, Pawel (1994): Some Characteristic Features of Lithuanian Baby Talk. - In: Linguistics Baltica 3,71-86. Wolfram, Walt/Schilling-Estes, Natalie (1998): American English. Dialects and Variation. - Maiden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Wolfson, Nessa (1983): An Empirically Based Analysis of Complimenting in American English. In: N. Wolfson, E. Judd (eds.): Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, 82-95.- Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury. - (1989): Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL - New York: Newbury. Wunderlich, Dieter (1973): Sprechakte. In: Funk-Kolleg Sprache. Eine Einfìihrung in die moderne Linguistik. Vol. 2,113-133. - Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer. - (1978): Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. 2nd ed. - Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. WUrstle, Regine (1992): Überangebot und Defizit in der Wortbildung. Eine kontrastive Studie zur Diminutivbildung im Deutschen, Französischen und Englischen. - Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Lang. Yip, Moira (1992): Prosodie Morphology in Four Chinese Dialects. - In: Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,1-35. Yokoyama, Olga T. (1999): Gender Linguistic Analysis of Russian Children's Literature. - In: Mills (ed.) (1999), 57-84. Zandvoort, Reinard W. (1969): A Handbook of English Grammar. 11th ed. - Groningen: WoltersNoordhoff.