5 Diminutive formation in Spanish: Evidence for word morphology
-
Ángel Alonso-Cortés
Abstract
Diminutive formation in Spanish may be described following a constructivist model of Word Morphology (Blevins 2006) that focuses on the word as a structural unit; the word is a lexical category made up of a stem plus either a declensional suffix such as a vowel (the standard case; Harris 1991) or nothing at all (‘---’) thus forming a hierarchical structure of level X0. It is endowed with internal structure and is built independently of other words. The Spanish diminutive of a N0 combines the prototypical diminutive suffix -ito or one of its alternants ∼cito, ∼ecito, or ∼cecito with a N0. The selected alternant basically depends on phonological properties of the noun such as the number of syllables. Here we propose a constraint which we will call (C): “Avoid attaching the diminutive suffix -ito/-ita to monosyllabic words” because monosyllabic common nouns such as flor ‘flower’ select the allomorph -ecito/-ecita or -cecito/-cecita. Significant exceptions to this constraint are monosyllabic personal names like Flor ‘flower’ > Florita, Sol ‘sun’ > Solita, Mar ‘sea’ > Marita, Blas > Blasito which select -ito/-ita.
Abstract
Diminutive formation in Spanish may be described following a constructivist model of Word Morphology (Blevins 2006) that focuses on the word as a structural unit; the word is a lexical category made up of a stem plus either a declensional suffix such as a vowel (the standard case; Harris 1991) or nothing at all (‘---’) thus forming a hierarchical structure of level X0. It is endowed with internal structure and is built independently of other words. The Spanish diminutive of a N0 combines the prototypical diminutive suffix -ito or one of its alternants ∼cito, ∼ecito, or ∼cecito with a N0. The selected alternant basically depends on phonological properties of the noun such as the number of syllables. Here we propose a constraint which we will call (C): “Avoid attaching the diminutive suffix -ito/-ita to monosyllabic words” because monosyllabic common nouns such as flor ‘flower’ select the allomorph -ecito/-ecita or -cecito/-cecita. Significant exceptions to this constraint are monosyllabic personal names like Flor ‘flower’ > Florita, Sol ‘sun’ > Solita, Mar ‘sea’ > Marita, Blas > Blasito which select -ito/-ita.
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
- 1 Introduction: Diminutives across languages, theoretical frameworks and linguistic domains 1
-
Part I: Theoretical approaches to diminutive formation
- 2 On a low and a high position for diminutive non-manual markers in Italian Sign Language 37
- 3 Diminutive or singulative? The suffixes -in and -k in Russian 65
- 4 Slavic diminutive morphology: An interplay of scope, templates and paradigms 89
- 5 Diminutive formation in Spanish: Evidence for word morphology 115
- 6 The syllable as the basis for word formation: Evidence from diminutives, hypocoristics and clippings in English, Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish and French 131
-
Part II: Corpus-based and other empirical studies
- 7 The Swedish suffix -is and its place within evaluative morphology 153
- 8 Diminutives and number: Theoretical predictions and empirical evidence from German in Austria 179
- 9 Diminutive verbs in the Austrian language area: Morphological and semantic challenges 205
- 10 Challenges in analyzing Polish diminutives 231
- 11 Diminutives among other -k(a) words in colloquial Russian: Frequency and suffix variation 253
-
Part III: Sociolinguistic, pragmatic and acquisitional studies
- 12 Borrowed or inspired? Komi diminutive under Russian influence 277
- 13 Acquisition of diminutives in Russian and Estonian from a typological perspective 305
- 14 Morphological richness and priority of pragmatics over semantics in Italian, Arabic, German and English diminutives 335
- 15 Diminutive variation in Austrian Standard German: A corpuslinguistic study 363
- 16 Gender discrepancies and evaluative gender shift: A cross-linguistic study within Distributed Morphology 387
- Index 415
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
- 1 Introduction: Diminutives across languages, theoretical frameworks and linguistic domains 1
-
Part I: Theoretical approaches to diminutive formation
- 2 On a low and a high position for diminutive non-manual markers in Italian Sign Language 37
- 3 Diminutive or singulative? The suffixes -in and -k in Russian 65
- 4 Slavic diminutive morphology: An interplay of scope, templates and paradigms 89
- 5 Diminutive formation in Spanish: Evidence for word morphology 115
- 6 The syllable as the basis for word formation: Evidence from diminutives, hypocoristics and clippings in English, Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish and French 131
-
Part II: Corpus-based and other empirical studies
- 7 The Swedish suffix -is and its place within evaluative morphology 153
- 8 Diminutives and number: Theoretical predictions and empirical evidence from German in Austria 179
- 9 Diminutive verbs in the Austrian language area: Morphological and semantic challenges 205
- 10 Challenges in analyzing Polish diminutives 231
- 11 Diminutives among other -k(a) words in colloquial Russian: Frequency and suffix variation 253
-
Part III: Sociolinguistic, pragmatic and acquisitional studies
- 12 Borrowed or inspired? Komi diminutive under Russian influence 277
- 13 Acquisition of diminutives in Russian and Estonian from a typological perspective 305
- 14 Morphological richness and priority of pragmatics over semantics in Italian, Arabic, German and English diminutives 335
- 15 Diminutive variation in Austrian Standard German: A corpuslinguistic study 363
- 16 Gender discrepancies and evaluative gender shift: A cross-linguistic study within Distributed Morphology 387
- Index 415
