Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 91

(1992: 158) ascribes to diminutives the primary "pragmatic function" of

being addressed to children and then enumerates effects of endearing,
softening, mitigating, expressing modesty, affection and solidarity, and
serving as an in-group marker. The theoretical discussion is limited to
classifying all these effects as positive politeness (in the sense of B r o w n -
Levinson 1987).
3.2.6. Several monographs on diminutives do exist for such languages as
Russian, 123 Spanish, 124 or Latvian (Rü^e-Dravipa 1959), but there is
none for German. The best treatment of German diminutives is in Kli-
maszewska's contrastive study (1983), cf. also Brandstetter (1963) on
meanings of German diminutives and Schneider (1991 a) on sexism. Our
morphopragmatic studies started with Dressler—Merlini Barbaresi
(1989b), Dressler-Kiefer (1990).
For Italian, there exists no real monographic treatment: Sigg's work
(1955) is a short dialect study. There is an abundant data repertory (Al-
berti et al. 1991) without any description or explanation, whereas Pelle-
grini's contrastive thesis (1977) on Italian and German diminutives con-
centrates on translation equivalence. Trenta Lucaroni (1983) provides ex-
amples and statistics but hardly any interpretation. The chapter on Ital-
ian in Hasselrot (1957) is mainly diachronic. The article by Rainer
(1990 a) deals only with semantics (mainly semantic restrictions). A pre-
liminary morphopragmatic study is Dressler-Merlini Barbaresi (1989b).
As regards English diminutives, Charleston (1960: 120—126) goes be-
yond synchronic and diachronic morphotactics and morphosemantics
when she acknowledges (p. 124) the strategic potential of diminutives
"when trying to persuade, coax, or wheedle a person into complying with
a request, or when urging a person to undertake some action", but she
does not specify or illustrate this remark and she bases these effects on
the emotional appeal of diminutives. Mühlhäusler (1983) makes a strong
plea for diminutives representing a basically non-referential category, and
he refers to typical speech situations of use, identical to our child- and
lover-centered speech situations (cf. 3.5.2-3.5.3).

3.3. Diminutives in Italian, German, and English

In this section we are going to describe those structural properties of

diminutives in Italian (3.3.2), German (3.3.3) and English (3.3.5) that
92 Diminutives

may be suited to explain at least some of the semantic and pragmatic

peculiarities of diminutives. General questions will be treated in 3.3.1,
3.3.4, and 3.6.

3.3.1. General comments

All the diminutives that we are going to discuss here (and the augmenta-
tives and elatives of 4.2—4.3) share the following properties:
First, they are derivational and not inflectional or compositional (or
juxtapositional like reduplication, discussed in 4.4). As we are going to
see, there is insufficient justification for setting evaluative suffixes apart
as a distinct third class (as postulated for Italian evaluative suffixes by
Scalise 1984: 131-133; 1988), alongside the two well-known classes of
inflection and derivation. Earlier on, some Russian linguists (e.g., V. V.
Vinogradov, cf. the summary in Polterauer 1981: 10—11) assigned them
an intermediary status between inflection and derivation. But in contrast
to diminutives in Bantu languages and in Lamut, 125 diminutives in Euro-
pean languages share no essential properties with inflection. On the other
hand they are not prototypical representatives of derivational morphol-
ogy either (cf. Dressier 1989).
Second, all diminutives are alterative (1.9.4.3, in the sense of the Ital-
ian alterativo, cf. Dardano 1978: 95) in that the respective word forma-
tion rules change neither subcategorization nor selectional restrictions,
and, as for the change of denotative meaning, this is restricted to a scale
of quantity (or also corresponding quality): e. g., augmentatives involve
an increase in quantity, diminutives a decrease. All this holds at least for
prototypical diminutives.
Third, if there is a basic connotative change, this seems to be tenden-
tially positive for diminutives, 126 and negative for augmentatives. The
reason for this is that evaluation is typically positive in the case of dimin-
utives, and typically negative in the case of augmentatives (see more in
3.4.6.6-3.4.6.9, 4.2.4.5). Alteratives share the evaluative pragmatic per-
spective which is at the basis of this third criterion with evaluative lexical
categories such as evaluative adjectives, which, however, escape classifica-
tion as either morphological or alterative elements. Of course, we must
exclude pejoratives, which have a stable negative connotation.
Fourth, some diminutives violate Aronoff's (1976) "Unitary Base Hy-
pothesis", that is, many rules of diminutive formation do not have a
unique categorial base, for example, if they can derive diminutives both
from nouns and adjectives. Thus they differ from derivational morpho-
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 93

logical rules according to Scalise (1988: 234—235), and even more so

from inflectional morphological rules. Z w i c k y - P u l l u m (1987: 336) take
such "promiscuity with regard to input category" even as a symptom of
"expressive morphology" (cf. 1.9.1 — 1.9.2). There do exist, however, other
non-prototypical representatives of derivational (and inflectional) mor-
phology which have the same property: in many languages a g e n t - n o u n
formation (preferentially) applies to verbs, (less) to nouns and (least) to
adjectives, comparative and superlative formation (preferentially) to ad-
jectives, adverbs and (less frequently) to nouns (cf. Dressier 1986).
Nieuwenhuis (1985: 64, 216) proposes, as an inductive generalization,
the following hierarchy of diminutivizable categories: nouns > adjectives
> verbs > numerals > interjections > pronouns > prepositions > de-
monstratives, 1 2 7 but he provides no explanation. For our explanation see
3.4.1.5.
Fifth, diminutives prefer an iconic expression via morphological rules
that involve palatal vowels or palatalisation, that is, fronting and/or rais-
ing of vowels and constants, 1 2 8 or high pitch in tone languages (cf. Auer
1988: 13 η. 19). There are divergent explanations of the sound-iconism of
[i]. For example, Ohala (1984) provides an ethological explanation: small
vocal tracts, which produce high-pitched sounds, are typically possessed
by smaller, weaker, less threatening beings, such as babies, pets, and small
animals; and, of course, female voices are higher-pitched than men's. Fi-
scher-Jorgensen (1967: 87), on the other hand, provides a perceptual ex-
planation. 1 2 9

3.3.2. Italian diminutives

3.3.2.1. Italian diminutives are part of a rich paradigm 1 3 0 (in the sense
of van Marie 1985) which also includes augmentatives in -one (see 4.2),
pejoratives in -accio, -ucolo, -astro, attenuatives of adjectives in -iloccio
(cf. D a r d a n o 1978: 9 5 - 1 0 7 ) , and elatives in -issimo (see 4.3); marginally
annexed to this paradigm is juxtapositional reduplication (see 4.4). This
is the derivational paradigm of evaluative alteratives. 131
From this paradigm, we must also exclude pejorative suffixes in -aglia
and -ame because they both form denominal collectives. We include the
elative in -issimo on the ground that it is derivational and evaluative and
that it does not change selectional restrictions or denotation (other than
dimensional). Italian reduplication of the type bello bello (4.4) is related
but can be included only in an extended paradigm, because it diverges
by being not derivational but juxtapositional. In respect to restrictions
94 Diminutives

on, and preferences for, bases of the rules concerned, the paradigm is not
homogeneous but rather evokes Wittgensteinian family resemblances.
The richest subclass of the paradigm is represented by diminutives, cf.
Hasselrot (1957: 235—239) for descriptions and evaluations by Italian
grammarians, from the Renaissance up to our century.
3.3.2.2. Italian shares the universal preference for diminutives having no-
minal bases. Not only do nouns occur as bases (of diminutives) much
more frequently than adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, but they also allow
much larger choice of diminutive formation and much greater freedom
of use.
The productive suffixes are -ino, -etto, -ello, -(u)olo, -uccioiuzzo, -otto,
and, less so, -onzolo.132 Competition between the synonymous diminutive
formation rules often allows variant outputs (at least as potential words,
for regional preferences cf. Rainer 1990 a: 207—208; Sigg 1953). More on
morphotactic and morphosemantic constraints and preferences can be
found in Rainer (1990 a) cf. here 3.4.1.2.
An allomorphic rule inserts the affricate /c/ before the diminutive suf-
fixes -ino, -ello, if the basis ends in -one/a (of whatever origin), e. g., leone
'lion' —»• leon-c-ino; porta 'door' —• augmentative port-one —* porton-c-
ino; verbal noun distrazione 'distraction' —• distrazion-c-ina; persona —•
person-c-ina; padrone/a 'master/mistress' —• padron-c-ino/a vs. patrono/a
'patron(ess)' —• patron-ino/a,133 This allomorphic rule does not contribute
to meaning, whereas insertion of the interfix -ic- (see chapter 5) may bring
a connotational and/or pragmatic contribution.
3.3.2.3. As already mentioned in 3.3.1, Italian diminutive formation rules,
in general, operate no change in either subcategorization or selectional
restrictions, and, as to denotation, they just decrease quantity. Thus, all
other denotative lexical meaning and morphosyntactic features such as
gender, [abstract, countable, common, animate, human] generally remain
intact. If the base is a derivative, then the same head properties of suffixes
are maintained as with simplex bases. For these reasons Scalise (1988:
233—235) claims that they are not heads. 134
They do, however, have two head properties. First, they may change
the inflectional class: All masculine bases (also of adjectives) go into the
most stable class among the classes of masculine nouns, that is, those in
sg. -o, pi. -i: e. g., il duca 'the duke' —» il duch-ino; il cinema 'the cinema'
—1• il cinem-ino; il verme 'the worm' —• il verm-etto; il film, pi. ifilm —• il
film-ino, ifilm-ini; lo gnu, pi. gli gnu —* lo gnu-ino, gli gnu-ini. All feminine
bases (also of adjectives) go into the most stable class of feminine nouns,
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 95

that is, those in sg. -a, pi. -e: e. g., la tribii, pi. le tribu —1• la tribu-ina, le
tribu-ine; la pelle 'the skin', pi. le pelli —*• la pell-ic-ina, le pell-ic-ine. Thus
diminutive formation is morphosemantically transparent to the category
of gender, but not necessarily morphotactically transparent to the mor-
phological expression of gender.
This is further proved by the derivations of la mano 'the hand', which
is feminine but - as an isolated exception - ends in the thematic vowel
-o of the only stable masculine class. Now, as expected, diminutive deriva-
tions end in -a (Dardano 1978: 100): la man-ina, la man-uccia, and even
lexicalized sg. la man-etta 'handle', pi. le man-ette 'hand-cuffs'.
Second, as we have already seen in the above examples, plural inflec-
tion follows the diminutive suffix and is governed by the class of the
diminutive suffix. Therefore, if gender changes in the plural basis, the
plural of the diminutive still follows the gender of the singular diminutive,
e. g., masc. sg. il ginocchio —• fem. pi. le ginocchia, dim. il ginocch-ino, i
ginocch-ini. This regularity is partially violated by the variant le ginocch-
ine, which is feminine like the base form. But, at any rate, a form *le
ginocch-ina with the (originally, collective) ending -a of the plural of the
base form is strictly excluded, that is, the first property (above) of dimin-
utive suffixes is still present.
Many diminutives change gender, nearly always from a feminine
(marked) base to a masculine (unmarked) derivative (cf. Luciani 1943:
22; Savoia 1984: 114). Counterexamples to this general direction of
change are carro 'cart' —*• carr-elta; sigaro 'cigar' —• lexicalized sigar-etta
'cigarette' (Pellegrini 1977: 28). Not all diminutives that change gender
necessarily change other head features as well. Many, but not all, are
lexicalized, that is, idiomatic in meaning. In other words, opacity with
regard to the semantics of the base is not always connected with opacity
with regard to properties of headhood. For example la finestra 'the win-
dow' has a transparent diminutive la finestr-ina, but an opaque diminu-
tive il finestr-ino 'the window of a car/train, on a screen', thus no longer
a prototypical window (sc. window of a building): this represents a
change of a lexical, denotative feature only. The same holds for la porta
'the door' —» transparent la port-ic-ina, opaque il port-ello. On the other
hand there are perfect synonyms with gender variation such as la facc-
ina = il facc-ino <— la faccia 'the face'; la panc-ina = il panc-ino la
pancia 'the belly'. This looks like neutralisation of gender because change
of gender in diminutives goes only in the direction of the unmarked mas-
culine gender. 135 Since this occurs even with prototypical feminine nouns
such as la donna 'the woman' —• il donn-ino, it is clearly a neutralisation
96 Diminutives

of grammatical gender expression, as confirmed by masculine gender

agreement in:

(42) Maria e un bei donn-ino

Mary is a (masc.) beautiful (masc.) woman-DIM (masc.)
'Mary is a lovely little woman.'

For -otto cf. la pancia 'stomach' —» il panci-otto, la casa 'the house' —• il

cas-otto (vs. la cas-etta), I'aquila 'the eagle' —• I'aquil-otto. In all these
cases neither reference to female sex {donn-ino) nor ambiguity of sex
(aquil-otto) nor inapplicability of sex (in the other cases) are changed.
Dardano (1978: 98 — 99) is correct when he claims that lexicalised di-
minutives (or augmentatives) are no longer alteratives but normal (that
is, in this respect prototypical) derivatives. In other words, lexicalization
of important semantic features results in morphosemantic opacity (more
in 3.4.2.4) which renders the base less transparent. Therefore other fea-
tures (e. g., head features) of the base would not be automatically inher-
ited by the derivation, for example gender. Clearly only morphosemanti-
cally transparent diminutives are open to morphopragmatic exploitation
(cf. 3.4.2.4).
On the other hand, we have seen that gender may change even in
absence of lexicalization. We would expect, however, that once two syn-
onymous gender variants arise (e. g., la facc-ina = il facc-ino) one of them
should tend to develop a lexicalized meaning (according to the diagram-
matic principle that difference of forms should reflect difference of mean-
ings) and this should be the diminutive whose gender deviates from the
basis, again in accordance with the respective diagrammatic principle.
These two expectations are open to empirical testing in diachronic re-
search.
We may add a third hypothesis: If there are two synonymous diminu-
tives which differ only in respect to the suffix (e. g., barch-ina = barch-
etta) then the only motivation for lexicalization occurring in one variant
rather than in the other one would be difference in degree of productivity:
the more productive a rule is, the more transparent the tokens that are
accounted for by this rule. Next, more morphosemantic transparency dis-
favors lexicalization. Since diatopic and diastratal differences in producti-
vity of diminutive formation rules do exist (cf. 3.3.2.2), we have again
derived opportunities for diachronic testing. But, with productivity, we
are led to our next topic.
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 97

The situation in Latin seems to have differed slightly from Italian.

The Roman grammarian Priscian (III. 612-613 = Keil, Gramm. Lat.
II. 104) observed correctly: "deminutiva ... servant genera primitivorum
plerumque" ['diminutives mostly maintain the genders of their bases'], but
he and other grammarians have noted many examples of gender change.
In contrast with Italian, however, gender change in diminutives is far
from being unidirectional.

3.3.2.4. The most productive diminutive formation rule is -ino suffix-

ation, 136 as shown by freedom of distribution, number of neologisms, 137
and frequency of use. Moreover only -ino formation admits recursiveness
(see below), -ino is also preferred by children.
Mayerthaler (1981: 99—102, 105) motivates the increase of -ino suffix-
ation in medieval Italian on the ground that only this suffix contains the
most sound-iconic vowel [i] (cf. Sieberer 1950: 116, for sound-iconism
above 3.3.1.5) and is thus more natural than its competitors.
Since children appear to prefer iconic means, even more than adults
do, their increased preference for -ino provides independent evidence for
the importance of the greater iconicity of -ino as compared with other
diminutive suffixes. And the above-mentioned diachronic expansion of
-ino formation should be, at least partially, due to this preference of chil-
dren.

3.3.2.5. In accordance with the universal preference for nominal bases,

Italian adjectives are less prone than nouns to accept diminutive forma-
tion, although the whole range of nominal diminutive suffixes can be
attached to them, except perhaps -onzolo. Diminutive suffixes are added
to both nouns and adjectives in many languages (e. g., Latin), but in
others only to nouns (cf. 3.3.3.4).

3.3.2.6. Still less frequent is the occurrence of diminutive formation with

adverbs (cf. Luciani 1943: 28-29), e.g., presto 'early, quickly' —• prest-
ino\ indietro 'behind' —• indietr-ino. Spanish allows greater frequency here
(cf. Alonso 1961: 164, 176), e. g., ahora 'now' —• ahor-ita. Examples from
some other languages are Lat. clam 'furtively' —1• clan-culum\ saepe 'often'
—• saep-icule, saepius-cule; paul-atim = paul-isper 'a bit' —• paux-illatim
— paux-illisper; Port, perto 'near', devagar 'slowly', cedo 'early' —• pert-
inho, devagar-inho, ced-inho; Bret, bremän 'now' —• brema-ig; Dutch, Afri-
kaans, Yiddish, Gaelic, Romanian (cf. Stefanescu 1992), Latvian (cf.
Rüke-Dravina 1959: 339 — 340), Russian, Tibetan, and Quechua examples
are cited by Nieuwenhuis (1985: 66).
98 Diminutives

All diminutives of adverbs end in (masc.) -ο (whereas simplex adverbs

only avoid feminine forms), e. g., bene 'well' —• ben-ino; male 'badly, un-
well' —ι• mal-ino = mal-uccio; tardi 'late' —* tard-ino, another markedness
effect (the dialect of Lucca also has giu 'down' —• giu-ino; sempre 'always'
—• sempr-ino, according to Sigg 1953: 16). For other suffixes cf. troppo
'too much' —• tropp-etto; tanto 'so much' —» tant-ino —1• tant-in-ello. The
dialect of Lucca (Sigg 1953: 16) even allows the complex base di molto
'much' —» dimolt-ar-ello.
Adverbs in -mente cannot be diminutivized, e. g., lunga-mente 'long'-
adv. —• *lungament-ino, nor can -mente be suffixed to diminutivized adjec-
tives, unless they have undergone lexicalization, as, for example carino
'nice' ( < caro 'dear') —<• carin-amente. Therefore the early nineteenth cen-
tury form lungh-etta-mente (Manzoni, Promessi Sposi, also cited by Lu-
ciani 1943: 29) sounds odd nowadays.

3.3.2.7. Diminutive suffixes of verbs (cf. Dardano 1978: 105—107), how-

ever, are only partially identical with the suffixes enumerated so far:
-ett-, -eil-, -ott-, -onzol-, but there is no correspondent to -ino, and there
are verbs in -alelilolucchi- with suffixes that do not occur in other classes.
For interfixed formations such as cant-are 'to sing' —• cant-er-ell-are cf.
5.2.1.1.
All diminutive verbs 138 go into the most stable verb class in -are, e.g.,
rid-ere 'to laugh' —• rid-acchi-are; mord-ere 'to bite' —• mord-icchi-are;
dorm-ire 'to sleep' —• dorm-icchi-are; toss-ire 'to cough' —• toss-icchi-are,
bere 'to drink' —• bev-a/i/ucchi-are.
Also diminutive verbs retain the other features of their bases, e.g.,
transitivity in mangi-are 'to eat' —* mangi-ucchi-are 'to nibble', intransitiv-
ity in gioc-are 'to play' —• gioch-icchi-are 'to play (some sport) intermit-
tently or not seriously', gioch-er-ell-are 'to trifle' (Scalise 1984: 132). For
the meanings see 3.4.1.3.
Verbs like sonn-ecchi-are 'to sleep lightly and intermittently' come from
nouns (in this case, sonno 'sleep'). Thus, the verbal suffix appears to have
head properties.
As for diminutive suffixes common for verbs, nouns and adjectives,
compare the Breton diminutive suffix -ig which is denominal, deadjecti-
val, deadverbal, and deverbal as in brans-ell-a 'to swing' —• brans-ig-ell-
a\ daelaou-i 'to weep' —1• daelaou-ig-a (Trepos 1957: 271). Also Polish
diminutive verbs are formed with the same suffixes as nouns (cf. Klimas-
zewska 1983: 63, 69). Nieuwenhuis (1985: 70) cites Portuguese, Lithua-
nian, Frisian, Afrikaans, and Tigre. For Russian cf. Bratus (1969: 52).
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 99

Zwanenburg (1990) defines French diminutive suffixes polysemously as

they may be attached to adjectives and verbs as well as nouns (e. g., Fr.
jou-et 'play-DIM'; jaun-et 'yellow-ish'; vol-et-er 'to flutter').
In Spanish, even gerunds and participles (as parts of analytic tense
forms) can be diminutivized, e.g., durmiend-ito 'sleeping-DIM'; Quien le
ha pagad-ito 'who has paid him?' (Faitelson-Weiser 1980: 196; Portuguese
examples in Spitzer 1918: 107). Note the humorous acabos-ito derived
from the reflexive preterit acabö-se 'it finished' (Spitzer 1961: I. 260).

3.3.2.8. Nieuwenhuis (1985: 66) cites numerals as bases. The Italian ex-
amples are restricted to certain values and are rather rarely used: un
milion-cino, miliard-uccio, un duemill-ino generally referred to sums of
money, but not exclusively, cf. also un vent-ino 'a 20 centesimi piece' (no
longer current).
Sigg (1953: 116-117) attests pronouns as bases in the dialect of Lucca:
qualcheduno 'some' —• pi. qualchedun-etti, possessive tuo 'your' —<• tu-ino.
A professor from Florence produced parecch-ini 'some-DIM-Pl'. Cf. Sp.
ell-it-os 'they-DIM'; conmigu-ito, contigu-ito 'with me/you-DIM' (Faitel-
son-Weiser 1980: 186-187); suy-ito 'his-DIM'; est-ico, es-ito 'this-DIM';
tal-ito 'such-DIM' (Nänez Fernandez 1973: 37—38); nad-ita 'nothing-
DIM'; mism-ito 'same' (M. F. Lang 1990: 95). For pronominal bases in
Tigre cf. Nieuwenhuis (1985: 401). In Slovene child-/pet-/lover-centered
speech, the possessive pronouns moj, tvoj 'my, thy' can be expanded to
the predicative adjectives moj-ck-an(-a), rarer tvoj-ck-an(-a) 'mine-/
thine-DIM-relational adj.(-fem)'. For Latvian child language cf. Rü^e-
Dravina (1959: 27).
Also exclamations can undergo diminutive formation, e.g., Caspita!
'Gosh!' —ι• Caspit(-er)-ina!\ Perbacco! lit. 'By Bacchus!' —<• Perbacc-ol-
ino/a! Totally irregular is the expansion of Perdinci! (euphemism for Per
Dio! 'By God!') into Perdindirind-ina! For Latvian interjections cf. Rü^e-
Dravina (1959: 27, 341-342).

3.3.2.9. Non-conforming to Italian derivational morphology is recursive-

ness of the type -ino-ino-ino as in gufo —• guf-ino-ino-ino, pi. guf-ini-ini-
ini; fetta 'slice' —> fett-ina-ina-ina, pi. fett-ine-ine-ine, where the first di-
minutive suffixation is root-based (as elsewhere in Italian suffix morphol-
ogy), whereas the second and third ones are word-based. This recalls
inflected forms as bases of diminutives (see below 3.3.3.7).
Also interfixed diminutives allow recursiveness, e.g., in piant-ic-ina-
ina-ina, from pianta 'plant'. Besides -ino, only the suffix -uccio may also
100 Diminutives

undergo word-based recursive application, e.g., guf-uccio-uccio-uccio,

and again only with intensification of denotative meaning. 139
Root-based diminutive formation may also be recursive (like prefixa-
tion). 140 Strict recursiveness, though, is rare and occurs only with the
suffix -ino as in pancia 'stomach' —• panc-in-ino, panci-ott-in-ino.141
Recursiveness of diminutive suffixation is cited by Nieuwenhuis (1985:
97) for Portuguese and Afrikaans. Slavic languages have both strict re-
cursiveness (cf. Klimaszewska 1983: 63—64 for Polish) and diminutive
suffix combinations or accumulations (cf. Bratus 1969: 8 - 1 0 , for Rus-
sian). An intricate example is Basque maiz 'frequently' —• maix (diminu-
tive palatalization) —• maix-ko —* maix-ko-t'o, with the diminutive suffix
-to undergoing diminutive palatalization (cf. Azkue 1969: 199, 2 0 9 -
210).142
Recursiveness in meaning (in the sense of repetition of meaning) with
change of suffix (suffix accumulation) is very frequent, e. g., -ett-ino (cf.
Dardano 1978: 101) as in barca 'boat' —• barch-etta —• barch-ett-ina; tanto
'so much' —• tant-in-etto = tant-in-ello; porco 'pig' —• porch-etto —* porch-
ett-uolo, etc. 143
This also occurs in many other languages, e. g., Modern Greek babäs
'daddy' —• bab-äk-as; bab-ak-ül-is, bab-ak-ul-äk-os, mamä 'mummy' —•
mam-ak-ul-itsa.
Alternative ordering of suffixes in double diminutives, as in -ett-ino
vs. -in-etto, may occur even with the same basis. Thus from tazza 'cup',
one may derive, with alternative ordering of diminutive suffixes, both
tazz-ett-ina and tazz-in-etta (although the latter form may sound a bit
obsolete or may be heard as a diminutivized form of a slightly lexicalized
base tazzina 'coffee cup'), cf. hypocoristics like Carl-ett-uccio = Carl-ucc-
etto. Also the position of diminutive and pejorative suffixes is inter-
changeable, as in besti-acc-ina 'animal-PEJ-DIM' (example (114) in
3.5.2.2) vs. besti-ol-in-accia 'animal-INTERF-DIM-PEJ', 1 4 4 and govern-
ucci-accio 'government-DIM-PEJ' (Corriere della Sera) and possible gov-
ern-acci-uccio.
Alternative morpheme ordering contradicts the common assumption
of fixed ordering or morphemes. 145 To our knowledge, exceptions have
been found so far only with peripheral inflectional suffixes in agglutinat-
ing languages (e. g., Turkish and Quechua), but not in word formation.
Thus, fixed morpheme order remains obligatory only for morphoseman-
tic heads governing subordinated heads (demoted to non-heads), because
a change of order changes the head and thus the morphosemantics of the
morphological construction.
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 101

Therefore, in compounds, alternative order is only envisageable with

dvandva compounds, that is, double-head compounds, where neither of
the two morphosemantic heads governs the other one semantically. For
such compounds, for alteratives in suffixations, for prefixations (assum-
ing that prefixes are never heads, cf. Stefanescu 1992), fixed morpheme
ordering becomes only a prototypical property. This conclusion is, how-
ever, not yet well-supported, insofar as there are no detailed studies on
alternative ordering of prefixes, alterative suffixes, or coordinate com-
pounds.
Recursiveness and alternative ordering in word formation clearly
cause problems to full-listing models, that is, to models which assume
that all (simplex, derived, compounded) words are listed in the lexicon
(e. g., Ford-Singh 1991). As to derived words, presumably, such a model
must be restricted to words formed via prototypical derivational rules
which allow neither recursiveness nor alternative ordering, and which are
not very productive and easily develop lexicalized meanings.
The position of diminutives, however, becomes relevant for our
purposes in still another way. In besti-acc-ina, first the pejorative suffix
is attached, which has a stable pejorative connotation, then the diminu-
tive suffix, which in the case we observed (see 3.5.2.2 example (114)) adds
a purely pragmatic meaning. In besti-ol-in-accia uttered by a biologist
looking through a microscope, first the denotative diminutive bestiolina
(referring to a very small animal) was formed, then the pejorative suffix
with its stable connotative meaning was added. If we may generalize from
such cases and if we assume that suffixation proceeds sequentially from
the innermost base to the periphery, then the order whereby meaning is
diagrammatically added proceeds from denotative via connotative (se-
mantic) to pragmatic meaning. In parallel, the probability of storage
decreases. Words with new denotational meanings are the most likely to
be stored, words with new connotational meanings only are less likely.
Least probability of storage results from suffixations whose meaning is
purely pragmatic, as, in this case, storage would have to include probable
speech acts and speech situations where such a derived word may occur.
With double diminutives, both denotation and connotation can be in-
tensified, e. g., modesty in la mia poesia 'my poem' —• poesi-ola —• poesi-
ol-ina (cf. below 3.4.2.5). Word-based recursiveness as in -ino-ino-ino,
however, may only intensify denotation - more precisely, it may intensify
quantitative diminution in a concrete dimension (cf. below 3.4.2.5).
3.3.2.10. Interestingly, Italian diminutive suffixes can take up word
status. Hasselrot (1957: 235) cites from colloquial Italian (accepted by
many of our interviewees):
102 Diminutives

(43) un poder-ino proprio ino

an estate-DIM really DIM
'a really small little estate' (denotative)

(44) questo vino e proprio uccio

this wine is really DIM
'This wine is really bad (that is, unimportant)'.

Here uccio has the same connotative and pragmatic possibilities as the
corresponding diminutives vin-uccio and vin-ello. Also note the rhyme in
the Italian version of Grimm's Der Teufel und seine Großmutter ('The
devil and his grandmother'):

(45) ucc-i ucc-i ucc-i / Sento odor di

DIM-PL DIM-PL DIM-PL I smell odor of
cristian-ucci
Christians-DIM
'Fee fi fo fum/I smell the blood of an Englishman.' 146

That such forms function as adjectives, can be seen from their predicative
position (without article) and by gender and number agreement as in
the following example, concording with the number and gender of the
antecedent noun.

(46) Ε proprio ino/ina. Sono proprio ini/ine

is really DIM (m./f.) (they) are really DIM.PL (m./f.)
'It is/They are really tiny.'

These forms may also be adequate answers to questions like:

(47) Come e la stanz-ina/fett-ina?

How is the room-DIM/slice-DIM
'How is your little room/slice?'

An example of attributive (modifying) position is:

(48) Mi dia una porzion-c-ina, proprio ina di piselli

Me give a portion-DIM really DIM of peas
'Can I have a small portion of peas, but a very small one.'
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 103

One precondition for Italian alterative suffixes to become autonomous

words is that they are stressed suffixes. The same condition holds for the
suffixes which are at the base of the nouns un ismo = G. ein Ismus =
Ε. an ism}41 German and most English diminutive suffixes are unstressed
and are thus not eligible for "autonomization".
It can be no coincidence that the same two diminutive suffixes (-ino,
-uccio) are the only ones which allow 1) word-based recursiveness; 2) only
denotative meaning intensification; 3) autonomization as adjectives. One
possible explanation would be to assume that the type guf-ino-ino rather
represents guf-ino#ino with echoic adjunction of autonomous ino to the
diminutive form, and that echoic adjunction can be repeated. This would
explain why the usual connotative meanings and/or pragmatic effects of
diminutives are excluded (cf. 3.4.2.5).

3.3.3. German diminutives

3.3.3.1. Due to the absence of augmentatives and (native) pejoratives,
German diminutives form a (very small) paradigm of their own. 148 The
standard admits only two suffixes, of which -chen is more used in the
north of the German-speaking area, -lein more in the south. This suffix
has two variants in Austrian colloquial German: -/ (often lexicalized) 149
and -erl (with a variant -tscherl). In addition there is the "childish" suf-
fix -i, with its variants -li and -tschi.150 These are the five suffixes we are
going to consider.
If one allows for the notion of extended paradigm (cf. Pounder 1987),
then one may combine diminutive affixation with prefixoid formation
with mini- or augmentative maxi-, super-, Riesen- (lit. 'giant-'), Bomben-
(lit. 'bomb-'), etc., into a greater extended paradigm. 151 One may also
add deadjectival adjective formation that denotes approximation, e.g.,
lang 'long' —1• läng-lich 'not quite long, long-ish'; blau 'blue' —• bläu-lich
'blue-ish' (cf. K ü h n h o l d - P u t z e r - W e l l m a n n 1978: 412; Sieberer 1950:
98).
Diminutives are more used in Southern Germany, Switzerland, and
Austria than in the north. 1 5 2 Also the Viennese speech seems to be partic-
ularly prone to diminutivization, cf. the qualification by Willi Schlamm
(1938 [1987]: 150): "Die Sprache der Wiener neigte zum Diminutivum"
['the speech of the Viennese tended towards the diminutive'] (that is, be-
fore Schlamm's emigration in 1938), which is still valid today. Thus, for
oral data, a concentration on data from Vienna is justified.
3.3.3.2. Nouns are the default bases of diminutives, either as full words
{Mama 'mummy' —• Mama-chen) or as roots (Lamp-e 'lamp' —• Lämp-
104 Diminutives

chert; Haken 'hook' —• Häk-chen; Regatta —• Regatt-erl, cf. Wellmann

1975: 34-35). In contrast to Italian (3.3.2) and other Romance lan-
guages, all "non-childish" German diminutives have the head property
of assigning gender, namely always the neuter gender, cf. also Dutch (and
other Germanic languages) and many neuter diminutives in Ancient and
Modern Greek (with dominance of neuter gender, Daltas 1985: 77-78),
Bulgarian, and Macedonian. Exceptions are extremely rare. 153
Only -i (and its variants -li, -tschi) may regularly maintain gender (Kli-
maszewska 1983: 42), that is, obligatorily in die Mutt-i = die Mam-i (from
Mutter, Mama) 'the mother-DIM'; der Vat-i = der Pap-i = der Ραρά-tschi
(from Vater, Papa) 'the father-DIM' and with all hypocoristics of proper
names (cf. also die Vest-erl 'the (fem.) goddess Vesta-DIM' in a feuilleton
by Anton Kuh), but very rarely and optionally (if at all) with other nouns
(for adjectives see below 3.3.3.4).

3.3.3.3. There are many morphotactic constraints on diminutive suffix-

ation. Klimaszewska (1983: 4 7 - 4 8 ) cites (albeit in an oversimplified way)
some constraints against already suffixed forms, compounds, and loans
as bases (cf. Wellmann 1975: 124-125, 130—131). On -chen and -lein in
different text types cf. Wellmann (1975: 132-134).
Umlaut occurs only before -chen and -lein suffixes and in this case
even in loan-words, e.g., Niveau 'level' —• Nivö-chen; jocular (only once
heard) [Of'körs]-c/^ from E. of course.
-erl formation triggers a morphonological rule of homorganic un-
voiced lenis insertion after stem-final nasals, as in Zahn-d-erl, Lam-p-erl,
warum-p-erl (variant warum-erl) from 'tooth, lamb, why'. This is an in-
verted rule (from earlier loss of word-final lenes after homorganic nasals
in O H G zant, lamp, warumbe). But insertion occurs also after nasal-final
stems, as in Wein-d-erl, Man-d-erl, Kan-d-erl, Hen-d-erl from 'wine, man,
can, hen'. This rule also applies to loan-words such as Aktion 'action'
(from French) —• Aktion-d-erl.
Vienn. -erl can be suffixed to French loan-words, e.g., in Johann
Nestroy's comedies: bouteille 'bottle' —» Bouteill-erl; corset 'corset' —•
Korsett-erl\ cravate 'tie' —• Krawatt-l (still used, e.g., in idiomatic jeman-
den am Krawatt-l packen 'to catch someone by his tie = to get hold of
sby.'); cf. in general Vienn. Ambaschur-l *— embouchure 'mouthpiece of a
brass instrument'; Czech buchta '(type of) cake' —• Bucht-erl; It. manco
'defect' —* Mank-erl. Victor Hugo's figure Quasimodo became ein Qua-
simod-erl 'an ugly man'. Cf. other literary forms in Wellmann (1975:
124-125).
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 105

Clippings can also be suffixed with -erI: Wehle (1980 sub vocibus) cites
Präservativ 'condom' —• Pres-erl; Preference (a card play) —• Pref-erl;
Psychopath —*• Psych-erl·, Rigorosum 'final doctoral exam' —• Rig-erl·, Vi-
deorekorder 'video-tape recorder' —» Vid-erl, etc. In all these cases the
base is first truncated to its first syllable, but in such a way that a closed
syllable is produced before suffixation (similar to Hungarian and Afri-
kaans -i hypocoristics and diminutives as described by Dressier 1984 a;
1987b and Combrink 1990: 378-379).
Hardly diminutive is the meaning of the comparable operation of trun-
cation and -i suffixation, used in many German-speaking areas, especially
North Germany, e.g., Student(in) '(female) student' —• derldie Stud-i;
Asozialer 'unsocial' —• As-i (cf. Auer 1988: 23; Ronneberger-Sibold in
press). It occurs also in Austria, for example in the denomination of the
recently found Tyrolian prehistoric mummy of the Similaun glacier,
called either Ötz-i or Schnals-i, since it was found between the valleys
Ötz-tal and Schnals-er-tal.
"Childish" -i is suffixed in the same way as the other suffixes, but only
to items that the child already knows or the adults believe him to know,
for example when a grandmother says to her grandson (Nöstlinger 1987:
84).

(49) Wenn ihr das Bauch-i knurrt

when to her the belly-DIM rumbles
'When her little belly rumbles (sc. from hunger)'

In the earliest stages of acquisition /-diminutives often are not recognized

by children as derived forms, that is, they are used as lexicalized forms.

3.3.3.4. Adjectives are only exceptionally the bases of diminutive forma-

tion rules (never of -lein), and normally the output is a nominalized
form, 154 e. g., in Du Dumm-chen! 'Thou stupid little thing!' = Vienn. Du
Blöd-l (less friendly). When a child is involved, also Du Dumm-HBlöd-i
are possible. The derivation Blond-chen 'blond-DIM' is now preempted
for some speakers by its use as a female personal name in Mozart's
Entführung aus dem Serail. By changing an adjective into a noun the
suffix takes on an additional head property.
The suffix can be preceded by an adjective inflectional ending, the
strong masculine singular -er, irrespective of whether a man, a woman,
or a child is referred to and whether in the singular or plural: Dumm-er-
chen\ Alt-er-chen 'old-DIM' (cf. Alt-chen); mein Best-er-chen 'my best-
106 Diminutives

DIM'; cf. Swiss Dumm-er-li (Leisi 1978: 18). In the Austrian equivalents
Dumm-er-l, Blöd-er-l, etc. one cannot decide whether -/ is suffixed to the
inflected base or -erl with haplology or whether -erl is suffixed to the
uninfected base. It is clear that -i is always suffixed to the uninfected
adjective. For inflected bases cf. also Port. masc. bon, fern, boa 'good' —•
dim. bon-z-inho, boa-z-inha (cf. Villalva 1992).
The suffix -i may maintain gender, e.g., masc./fem. derldie Dumm-i,
cf. der Lieb-i 'the dear-DIM' (used regularly by one informant in the
language of love), but the neuter is still more usual. The neuters das Lieb-
chen, das Viel-lieb-chen are lexicalized.
Marginally "childish" -i suffixations from adjectives may remain adjec-
tives, as in motherese:

(50) Gut-i gut-i. Bist doch g'scheit-i g'scheit-i

good-DIM good-DIM art PART clever-DIM clever-DIM
'Good-y good-y. You're a nice little clever child.'

whereas common G'scheit-erl (from gescheit 'clever') is always a noun. 155

In a Franconian dialect (cf. Ettinger 1974 a: 44), diminutives can be
formed from all predicative adjectives in child speech (that is, presuma-
bly, under the conditions of the diminutivum puerile, cf. 3.5.2), whereas,
under other conditions, the bases are restricted to "negative" polar adjec-
tives such as kurz, klein, schmal, dünn, arm 'short, small, slender, thin,
poor'.

3.3.3.5. German adverbs are generally identical with adjectives. In gene-

ral, they are likewise not diminutivized. But notice the interrogative ad-
verb warum 'why' that may be diminutivized in playful speech in Vienn.
warum(p)-erl denn 'so why-DIM?'. Sieberer (1950: 87) cites the dialectal
adverbs sacht-chen 'slowly', still-chen 'silently'. 156 Apropo-tscherl 'ä pro-
pos-DIM' is a jocular occasionalism (satirical magazine Guglhupf of the
Austrian radio).
Examples of diminutivized pronouns (as addressed to children, but
not accepted by our informants) are: Sieberer's (1950: 88) was-erl denn?
'so what-DIM?', cf. wieso-erl/wann-erl denn? 'so why/when-DIM?' (pro-
duced by one, and accepted by some, of our informants, cf. Suabian Was-
ele, Wandruszka 1991: 145) and, cited by Nieuwenhuis (1985: 68-69,
270), du-chen 'thou-DIM', with parallels in Afrikaans and Portuguese,
where other pronouns are more widely used, e. g., amb-inhos 'both-DIM-
Pl.', cf. Sp. algun-itos 'some people'; ahi-c-ito 'just over there'; Dutch dial.
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 107

dmdkds 'me-DIM' (Swiggers 1990); Lat. tantus 'so much' —• tant-ulus —•

tant-illus·, Latvian examples are in Rü^e-Dravi^a (1959: 27).
As regards (nominalized) numerals as bases, note Vienn. ein Drei-erl
'a number 3-DIM' and the coins Sechs-erl, Zehn-erl from '6, 10'; cf. Lat.
prim-ulus 'first-DIM'.
Greeting formulae may also be diminutivized, e. g., Northern G. Tach-
chen (from Guten Tag 'good day'); cf. rare Grüßgott-chen, Tschüs-chen
(Suabian Tschüss-le); pröst-chen 'cheers-DIM'; adiö-chen (= Suabian Ade-
le) 'adieu-DIM'; juvenile Vienn. Hallo-tscherl, Hallo-tschi, Hallo-chen
(= Suabian Hallö-ley, Ραρά-tschi, cf. Hung, szia —* sziöka ("unusual,
playful" among young people, according to Terestyeni 1992); Tschau-
tschi (only reported), Swiss German Tschau-li from It. ciao; Port, chao-z-
inho\ adeus 'adieu' —• adeuz-inho; obrigado 'thank you' —• obrigad-inho;
Sp. por dios-ito 'by God-DIM'; hasta lueg-ito 'see you soon-DIM'; Gk.
kalimer-üthia 'good day-DIM' (frequent among young people); Gk. dial.
kalisper-üthia 'good evening-DIM'; Slovene (Lep) pozdrav-cek '(lit.)
(nice) greeting-DIM!', cf. Rüke-Draviija (1959: 341-342).
3.3.3.6. As far as German verbs are concerned, the suffixes ~(e)lxsl and
(regional colloquial) -erl reappear in verbs with iterative, attenuative, and
pejorative meanings (or iterative-delimitative: Klimaszewska 1983: 43),
e. g., deverbal hust-en 'to cough' —+ hüst-el-η 'to cough slightly, clear one's
throat'; deut-en 'to explain, interpret' —• deut-el-n 'to subtilize, explain
away'; lieb-en 'to love' —• lieb-el-n. Such verbs may also be derived from
nouns and adjectives, e.g., in Eifersucht 'jealousy' —• eifersiicht-el-n
'to be petty jealous'; Zeit 'time' —• zeit-eln 'to take time', cf. the bases
rechts 'right(ist)' and Garten 'garden' in:

(51) Es recht-el-t in der CDU.

it right-DIM-s in the CDU
'In the CDU, there are some rightist currents.'
(,Süddeutsche Zeitung, 4. 11. 92)
(52) Im Sommer bin i auf mein Garten draußen. Da tua i
in the summer am I in my garden outside. There do I
gart-el-n draußen.
garden-DIM-INF outside
'In summer, I like staying out in the garden. I do some gardening
out there.' (oral Viennese narrative)

Thus the suffix may carry the head property of changing the word class.
Deadjectival verbs may have approximative meaning, e. g., gräu-el-n
'to be a bit grey' (from grau, cf. Pellegrini 1977: 8).
108 Diminutives

Productivity is ascertained by neologisms, e. g., in the attenuative-pejo-

rative derivation of koch-en 'to cook':

(53) Probleme, die nach der Wahlniederlage ihrer Partei

problems that after the election defeat of their party
" dahin-köch-el-n "
along-cook-DIM-INF
'Problems that after the election defeat of their party are gently
boiling along'
(.Standard 12. 10. 90).158

Diachronically, at the origin of many diminutive verbs, there seem to

be diminutive nominal bases, e. g., Vienn. Papier-l 'paper-DIM' —• papier-
l-n 'to treat somebody badly'; Sack-l (<Sakko) —» sack-l-n 'to wear sth.',
Band-l 'ribbon-DIM' —» an-band-el-n 'to start a love affair'; ver-band-el-t
'befriended'; Werk-l 'machine' —• werk-el-n.
As for foreign bases, the Viennese nineteenth century comedy writer
Johann Nestroy formed the diminutive occasionalism dejeunerala-
forschett-el-n (synonym of Standard gabelfrühstücken 'to take a second
breakfast') from F. dejeuner ä la fourchette.
Some examples of the Viennese -erl suffix (pointed out to us by Ursula
Doleschal) are deverbal tratsch-erln, stink-erln, mach-erln, schreib-erln,
komm-erl-n 'to chatter/stink/make/write/come-DIM' and the comment (in
the newspaper Standard) on a cabaret show (with deadjectival and de-
nominal diminutives):

(54) Ist es vom Blöd-el-n zum Problem-erl-n

is it from the silly-DIM-INF to the problem-DIM-INF
nur ein Schritt.
only one step
'It's just one step from being a little silly to raising some little
problems.'

The "childish" suffix -i may be attached to the basis, but cannot be

followed by an inflectional ending, thus the verb remains uninfected, as
in Klimaszewska's (1983: 44) example from Austrian motherese:

(55) Kind-i muß brav sitz-i, soll jetzt trink-i.

child-ie must well-behaved sit-ie shall now drink-ie
'My little baby must now behave, sit quiet and drink his nice
milk, come on, darling.'
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 109

Sieberer (1950: 87) cites trink-i 'drink-DIM' and schreib-i 'write-DIM'.

Such forms are only used towards very small children and may reflect an
early stage of morphology acquisition where verbs are not yet obligato-
rily inflected.

3.3.3.7. Another peculiarity of diminutives is represented by inflected

forms functioning as bases. 159 With the suffixes -chen and -lein, in rare
cases the inflectional plural suffix -er precedes the diminutive suffix, e. g.,
das Kind-chen/lein 'the child-DIM' —• pi. die Kind-er-chen/lein (Wellmann
1975: 27), cf. Ding-er-chen 'thing-s-DIM' and now obsolete Blätt-er-chen
'leave-s-DIM', whereas Ei-er-chen is a variant of both Sg. and PI. Ei-chen
'egg-DIM'. This dispreferred sequence of derivational and inflectional
suffix (cf. Dressier 1989 a) is now unproductive and recessive, but is better
attested in texts that range from the sixteenth through the eighteenth
century (cf. Ettinger 1974b: 60-61). Also note the hybrid form Kind-er-
chen-s with double pluralization, cf. Dutch Sg. kind PI. kind-er-en,
diminutive kindje —* PI. kind-er-tje-s (cited by Nieuwenhuis 1985: 283).
Yidd. kind has the Sg. dim. kind-l, the Plural kinder has the dim. kind-er-
lex, cf. xosid 'Chasid' —• dim. xosid-l, PI. xasidim —• xasidim-lex (more
in Bochner 1984: 415). More examples can be found in Stump (1991).
Similar morpheme sequences are to be found in other languages, when
non-prototypical representatives of derivation and inflection are in-
volved. Breton, for example, has many different plural suffixes (e.g.,
-ed, -oil). In its pluralization of diminutives, there is an alternative to
universally preferred final position of the inflectional suffix, viz., repeated
plural suffixation as in paotr 'lad' > pi. paotr-ed, dim. paotr-ig —» pi.
paotr-ig-ou or synonymous paotr-ed-ig-ou (see Trepos 1957: 274—275).
The only other category in Breton where derivational suffixes are pre-
ceded by plural suffixes are singulatives formed from plurals, e.g., pesk
'fish' —* pi. pesk-ed —• singulative pesk-ed-enn (—• pi. singulative or "plur-
ative" pesk-ed-enn-ou) 'single fish (pi.)' (see Trepos 1957: 244—278).
Portuguese diminutives (with interfix Izl) such as ο animal-z-inho 'the
animal-interfix-DIM' also have a "double plural" os animaiz-inho-s, ο
caö-z-inho 'the dogg-ie' —• os caez-inho-s. Hasselrot (1957: 310—311) also
cites the Westfalian dialectal double plural kind-er-ken-s 'child-Pl-DIM-
ΡΓ; cf. also Rom. dinte 'tooth', PI. dint-i, dim. dint-i-sor.
Another type of inflected base form of diminutives is represented by
Latin diminutives based on comparatives such as ampl-ius-culus, adv.
ampl-ius-cule 'ampl-er-DIM', nitid-ius-culus (Conrad 1931: 137—138;
Sieberer 1950: 87), saepe 'often' —• saep-icule —• saep-ius-cule. This Latin
110 Diminutives

phenomenon is rather frequent, as in Latvian dialects (cf. Rü^e-Dravina

1959: 330), that is, it is not restricted as the Italian dialectal (Lucca: Sigg
1953: 16) meglietto from the fossilized comparative meglio 'better'. For
German (and Portuguese) diminutives based on inflected adjectives, see
above 3.3.3.4.
In "childish" Viennese (see below 3.5.2), the verbal suffix -erl may
be added to the suppletive inflected third singular present forms of the
auxiliaries, thus is 'is', hat 'has' (root hab-) —• is-erl, hat-erl, e. g., in a
children's book (Nöstlinger 1987: 120) where an old man says to a small
child (called Robbi):

(56) Is-erl doch gut-i gut-i!

is-DIM PART good-DIM good-DIM
'But this is good-ie good-ie, come on!'

Furthermore, the first plural may precede the diminutive suffix: hamm-
erl, simm-erl 'we have/are-DIM' (accepted only by few informants).
In Bulgarian, "the pejorative suffix -c- breaks up the regular plural
suffix -ovi" (Stankiewicz 1989: 82), which consists of the inflectional end-
ing -i and its allomorphic amplification -ov-, e. g., gospodin 'Mr.' —» PL
gospodin-ovi —• pej. gospodinovci.

3.3.3.8. German diminutives present no recursive suffixation with the

same suffix. Combination of suffixes is rare and occurs only with -(e)I
and -chen, as in Büch-el-chen from Buch 'book' (cf. Fleischer 1976: 181;
Ettinger 1974 b: 61), with -i and -lein as in Pap-i-lein from Papa 'dad',
and with -i and -li as in Elefant-i-li 'elefant-DIM-DIM'.
German Auslautverhärtung (final fortification of obstruents) may oc-
cur before Viennese diminutive suffixes as in Hun[tJ-i = Hun[tJ-erl. But
words such as /hund/ 'dog' are realized as [hunt] only word-finally (in-
cluding word-final position within compounds as in Lan[t]-arbeit 'rural
work', if Land 'country' and Arbeit 'work' are still transparent parts of
the compound). But there is no Auslautverhärtung, if the addition of a
suffix changes the syllable structure in such a way that the stem-final
obstruent is reassigned to a syllable onset as in PL Hund-e, fem. Hünd-
in, adj. hünd-isch. Since Hund-it-erl is subject to the same ^syllabification,
Auslautverhärtung seems to apply, at least for part of the lexical stock, to
stem-final obstruents as if the diminutive suffix were a transparent second
part of a compound. 160
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 111

3.3.4. Intermediate conclusions

This atypical behavior of diminutive suffixes fits their character as non-
prototypical representatives of derivational morphology (hypothesis A,
cf. 1.9.4.1), but is not sufficient to justify establishing a proper subclass
of affixation alongside derivation and inflection, as Scalise (1984: 131 —
133; 1988) postulates (hypothesis B).
If hypothesis Β were correct, we would expect all (or at least most)
diminutivization rules to share a set of properties that sets them apart
from both derivation and inflection. Diminutive formation rules, how-
ever, actually are a very inhomogeneous set in this respect, and, rather,
fall in between derivation and inflection:
(a) They share many more properties with derivational morphological
rules (e.g., possibility of recursiveness, particularly when and insofar as
they are non-heads).
(b) If they (sometimes and partially!) lack head properties, they approach
inflectional morphological rules. Stump (1991) defines such diminutive
formation rules as category-preserving rules, but the problem is that base
categories are only partially and non-homogeneously preserved.
(c) If they apply to already inflected forms (including the Italian case
-ino-ino-ino), they are like inflectional morphological rules.
(d) If they attach to several word classes (e. g., nouns, adjectives, adverbs,
verbs) at the same time ("promiscuity with regard to input category"),
then this behavior resembles extragrammatical morphological operations
such as echo-word formation (cf. 1.9.2.4) or Afrikaans total reduplication
(cf. also 4.4.2), and it diverges even more from inflection than from deri-
vation. But — as we will see in 3.4 - the semantic and pragmatic mean-
ings of diminutive formation may be quite different for each word class.
This is a grammatical property and sets these rules apart from extragram-
matical morphology. Since the Unitary Base Hypothesis rules out the
possibility that affixes "can be attached, always with the same meaning,
to different categories" (Scalise 1988: 234), this hypothesis does not fully
apply to diminutive formation.
(e) They are more iconic than average derivational and inflectional mor-
phological rules, not only in respect to sound iconism (cf. 3.3.1) but also
in respect to constructional diagrammaticity (cf. 1.9.5.2). As Haas' (1972)
survey shows, diminutives are often expressed via reduplication and,
otherwise, mostly by affixation whereas modification (as in Basque pala-
talization or Arabic ablaut) is much rarer, and suppletion very rare.
On the other hand, diminutive formation rules tend to radicalize a
property of derivational rather than inflectional morphological rules, es-
112 Diminutives

pecially of non-prototypical derivational rules, such as agent and action

verb formation, that is, they show an inclination towards having regular
pragmatic effects, the main topic of the rest of this chapter (3.4—3.5).
But first we are going to look at a language that has nearly no diminu-
tives: English.

3.3.5. English diminutives

3.3.5.1. Modern English, especially Standard British English, does not
compare with Italian and German in either number or usage of synthetic
morphological diminutives. The paradigm is made up of a few diminutive
suffixes, -yl-ie, -let, -ette being the most common. The productivity of
diminutive formation rules is low. 161 Sifianou (1992: 157) observes that
"diminutivized words are separate entries in English dictionaries, whereas
they are not in Greek ones" (as generally in Italian and German ones).
Augmentatives and pejoratives are totally lacking.
In agreement with universal hierarchies, diminutive formation is pref-
erentially attached to nominal bases. Some adjective bases are also at-
tested (as in short-ie, fatt-y), but no other word classes are involved.
3.3.5.2. The most productive of these suffixes is unstressed -ylie, which is
used especially for hypocoristics - Johnn-y, Jimm-y, Kat-ie, Bill-y, Sus-
ie, etc.; kinship terms - mumm-y, dadd-y, grann-y\ and in child language
(or any situation metaphorically recreating a child's world) - mous-ie,
dogg-ie, bunn-y. Anticipating the pragmatic concepts of 3.5.2-3.5.3, we
may state that -yl-ie formation is much more restricted to child- and pet-
centered speech situations than the corresponding Italian and German
rules, that there are many more lexical restrictions, and that the privi-
leged users are women, 162 as in:

(57) Give (me) your hand-y!

The bases of this morphological rule are monosyllabic, with polysyl-

labic words undergoing truncation to conform to such a pattern, that is,
grandmother —• granrt-y, bottom —* bott-y; potatoes —1• tatt-ies. Thus the
prosodic structure of the diminutive conforms to the preference for
trochaic feet.
For Australian English, Wierzbicka (1991: 55) differentiates (both in
morphotactics and morphosemantics) a) normal "true" diminutives of
the type dogg-ie with the meaning formula "I think: this is smth small
like you are someone small. I feel smth good towards you. Because of
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 113

this, when I say smth about this to you I feel smth good towards it";
b) Australian abbreviations with the suffix -ie:

(58) mosquitoes, mushrooms, presents, barbecue, lipstick —• mozz-ies,

mush-ies, prezz-ies, barb-ie, lipp-ie

with the core-meaning formula "I think: this is smth small. I think: you
think the same. When I say smth about this to you I feel smth good".
And she adds (p. 56) the pragmatic nuance: "Thus, calling mosquitoes
mozzies, the speaker is good-humouredly dismissing the problem; he
thinks of mozzies as small (but not endearing), and expects that the ad-
dressee would share this attitude. ... reflects many characteristic features
of the Australian ethos: anti-sentimentality, jocular cynicism, a tendency
to knock things down to size, 'mateship', good-natured humour, love of
informality and dislike for 'long words'."
The second most important suffix is unstressed -let, which is especially
present in lexicalizations of the type star-let, book-let, leaf-let, pig-let. It
is still moderately productive and is used denotatively, that is, to indicate
small size and, secondarily, [non-important]. Nieuwenhuis (1985: 232) re-
ports various recent occurrences, such as pun-let, boom-let, egg-lets, wife-
let, and many others. Monosyllabic bases are only the default, and so no
truncations seem to occur, e.g., river-let, parrot-let, romance-let. The
series king-let, prince-let, etc., is pejorative (Charleston 1960: 122).
Another diminutive suffix comparable in use and productivity is
stressed -ette (cf. Bauer 1983: 119-120). Largely present in lexicalizations
of the type kitchen-ette, towel-ette (in aeroplanes), it is still to some extent
productive as a diminutive. Examples reported by Nieuwenhuis (1985:
233) are among others smil-ette, featur-ette, etc., with a preference for
polysyllabic bases.
An often neglected diminutive suffix is the "nursery -s" (Mühlhäusler
1983), as in wee-wee-s (cf. G. Pi-pi-chen), bedd-ie-bye-s (cf. G. ins Bett-
chen 'into bed-DIM'), which is also used in lover-centered speech situa-
tions (Mühlhäusler 1983: 78), even if rather as a hypocoristic.
Only -yf-ie may (infrequently) be attached to adjectival bases. 163 But
normally the morphological rule transforms the adjective into a noun,
e. g., brown-ie, quick-ie.164 Thus this diminutive suffix has the head prop-
erty of assigning word class. The usual morphological way of attenuating
adjectives is by means of the suffix -ish, as in whit-ish.
Another head property is represented by the fact that the suffix and
not the base determines the plural formation, e. g., mous-ie —• mous-ie-s,
*mic-ie, *mic-ie-s.
114 Diminutives

There is no recursiveness of diminutive formation in English, except

for suffix cumulation in the Scottish type housikie (cf. Bratus 1969: 3;
Nieuwenhuis 1985: 2) and, according to Quirk et al. (1985: 1584), in the
types fat-s-o, Mom-s-iely, cf. little foot-s-ie, its little shoe-s-ie-s (Haas
1972: 148-149, 151), Paul-i-kin-s, etc. (Mühlhäusler 1983: 79).

3.3.5.3. Preferentially, however, English expresses a diminutive by means

of an analytic construction involving a lexical element, that is, adjectives
like little and small. As noted by Nieuwenhuis (1985: 25), Kruisinga
(1942) was the first "to suggest the equivalence between the English ana-
lytic diminutive with little and the "usual" synthetic diminutive in Euro-
pean languages" (cf. also Bolinger 1972: 59 note; Leisi 1978: 19). The
equivalence especially holds with little, which (like Northern British wee)
has a much wider range of connotations.
Here (and in 3.5) we concentrate on the weak form little, which has
gained some autonomy from normal little. For example, in:

(59) I can't stand your little tricks =

Non sopporto i tuoi trucch-ett-i
not I stand the yours trick-DIM-PL

the weak form corresponds closely to the meanings of the Italian diminu-
tive suffix, whereas in:

(60) I can't stand little!small cars -

Non sopporto le macchine piccol-e
not I stand the cars small-PL

the strong form corresponds to the Italian adjective piccolo. Other in-
stances of weak forms corresponding to pragmatic uses of Italian diminu-
tives are, e. g., little man = It. om-etto 'man-DIM' with various pragmatic
meanings (for example, cf. below). In the following insult:

(61) You little bastard! — Piccolo bastardo! vs. Bastard-ino!

small bastard Bastard-DIM

the negative attitude of the English speaker is usually more violent than
in the case of the Italian diminutive (which may be endearing and recall
a pet-centered speech situation), with the effect that the pragmatically
adequate Italian translation is the paraphrase with piccolo.
 Diminutives in Italian, German, and English 115

Differences between the two English forms of little are:

1) The weak form is always unstressed and usually pronounced as a ca-
sual speech variant of the strong form, often written Iii, Iii', Ii'I, as in LH'
Darlin'.
2) As to distribution, the full form little:
a) can be freely exchanged with other adjectives in clusters of premodify-
ing adjectives in Noun Phrases;
b) it may follow the noun in cases such as a queer man, little in stature.
The weak form little, however, is excluded from this position and has a
very reduced variability in premodifier position: cf. her little pink face for
the predicted her pink little face, a little great car (rarer than the reverse
order as in the example below), Lil' Red Ridinghood, the movie title Little
Big Man. An example of the usual order is:

(62) You pathetical little man!

(sarcastically and menacingly), cf. It. om-etto 'man-DIM'. The weak form
little must follow its (potential) synonyms tiny, wee, as in:

(63) a tiny/wee little girl.

c) The weak adjective form is only attributive and must occur in a noun
phrase. In addition, there is the adverbial form a little (cf. Bolinger 1972:
50, 234, 59 note).
d) The weak form rarely admits substitution by small (cf. the tests in
Nieuwenhuis 1985: 4 4 - 4 5 , 47).
e) Recursiveness of the weak form has been sceptically evaluated by our
informants.
3) Its meaning is never purely denotative but always partly connotative,
as in the commercial advertisement (fully reported by Nieuwenhuis 1985:
241):

(64) You're gonna love our Great Little Car. Mazda GLC Sport. Great
little piston engine. Great little goodies. Great little price. Now,
Mazda has a dynamite little GLC called Sport ... GLC. Now, four
great little cars in all.

The connotative meaning may even be the only one which undergoes
translation, as in Thomas Middleton's comedy A mad world, my master
116 Diminutives

(translated into Italian by Maura Ricci Miglietta. Universitä di Genova:

II Melangolo 1990):

(65) My little forecaster —• Mio caro progettista

My dear forecaster

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. But, as we have seen with the insult example (you
little bastard), the English juxtaposition has not acquired the typical prag-
matic restrictions of Italian diminutives. Still, in most cases, the best Ital-
ian (etc.) translation of the weak form little is a diminutive, as noted
by Wandruszka (1991: 143) for the (It., Span., Port.) translations of the
following assessment (from Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the wind):

(66) You are a brave little woman

una donn-ina coraggiosa
una mujer-c-ita valiente
a woman-DIM brave
uma mulher-z-inha de coragem
a woman-DIM of courage

or in It. guerr-etta 'war-DIM' —• E. a nice little war (Wandruszka 1967:

172).

3.4. Semantics and pragmatics of diminutives

In our analysis, the meaning of diminutives in Italian, German, and Eng-

lish is divided into morphosemantic denotation (3.4.1), morphosemantic
connotation (3.4.2, 3.4.6.6-3.4.6.9) and, most important, morphoprag-
matics (3.4.3-3.4.6, 3.5, 3.6). Let us go through each of these aspects. 165
3.4.1. The denotative semantics of diminutives can be derived from the
basic concept of dimensional smallness, which relates to the prototypical
standards of dimensions and objects (cf. Bierwisch-Lang 1987 a, b). This
is consonant with Grimm's (1822: 3, 637) classical definition: "Deminu-