Introduction
Several attempts have been made to analyse diminutives. This essay will provide a morphological approach. Morphology, the study of word-formation was influenced by three main sources in the past and each of these sources has contributed to the study of diminutives. Now, the three sources Bauer (1988: 5) and Schneider (2003: 29) mention are a) the philological grammar or traditional grammar , b) the structuralist schools of Linguistics or structuralism , and b) the transformational grammar or generative grammar . My analysis will be based on the approach Bauer (1988) made, and additionally on the approach Schneider (2003) made.
This essay focuses on synthetic diminutive formation in English. Questions like what are diminutives, what grammatical approaches have been made to diminutives, what are its formation processes and what is the meaning diminutives convey, are treated in the first section.
The second section deals with some grammatical aspects of English diminutives such as the status of diminutives, the inventory of diminutive suffixation, the subclasses of diminutive suffixes, the historical variation of diminutives and finally their productivity.
In the third section of this essay a close survey of four diminutive suffixes is provided. This survey tries to describe the rules and restrictions that govern diminutive formation. It is based on a pure morphological approach. The suffixes are analysed in detail, partial according to Bauer (1988) and partial according to Schneider (2003: 4.2 – 4.2.6). That means that the phonological shape of the suffix will be given and its different spellings if there are any. In addition, the history of the suffix, its formation rules for creating diminution, and finally its semantics are analysed, too.
Afterwards, the fourth section shortly enters into the peculiarity of multiple and competing diminutives in English, giving the suffixes {KIN}, {POO}, and {POP} as examples. And at the end, I will provide a conclusion of my analysis that also states why an exclusively synthetic approach to diminutives is not sufficient when one wants to get to know the whole truth about English diminutive formation.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. What are diminutives?
1.1 Formation processes
2. The status of diminutives in English
2.1 The inventory of diminutive suffixes and its subclasses
2.2 Problems in historical variation and productivity
3. Synthetic diminutive formation
3.1 {IE}
3.2 {ETTE}
3.3 {LET}
3.4 {LING}
3.5 Multiple and competing diminutives
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay provides a morphological analysis to challenge the common myth that the English language lacks diminutives, examining both synthetic and analytical formation processes.
- Morphological approach to English word-formation
- Classification of diminutive suffixes and formation rules
- Historical variation and productivity of suffixes
- Analysis of multiple and competing diminutive forms
Excerpt from the Book
1. What are diminutives?
To be able to talk about diminutives, we first have to define the term ‘diminutive’. Schneider says that by tradition, this mentioned term refers to words which denote smallness and which can also express a positive or negative attitude, depending on linguistic and situational aspects in a certain context (4). Furthermore, he states that prototypical diminutives are complex nouns derived from nouns by suffixation (e.g., house + -ie > housie); but that there is also the possibility to use the term ‘diminutive’ to refer to the suffix, which adds the diminutive meaning to the meaning of the base. In other words, a housie is still a house, though a small and nice one (4). Schneider goes on to explain that the meaning of a diminutive form is a solely additive one. He makes up the following traditionally accepted rule: “meaning of the base word + the component(s) [‘small’ (attitude)], expressed through the suffix” (4). Besides, the meaning is “standardly paraphrased by using ‘small X’ constructions”, with X being the base word (Schneider 10, 11). That means that ‘small X’ would represent a small member of the respective category X; e.g. houseen is a small item of the category ‘house’. Consequently, this implies that there is a prototypical norm of a respective category that also includes the notion of prototypical size. Nonetheless, some diminutives also refer to non-adult members of a specific category. This pertains to animals, humans and plants as Schneider said (11); and the examples he offers are manling, duckling and seedling. The second component which is added by diminutive suffixes is the “attitudinal meaning” (Schneider 11) also identified as affective, emotional and emotive. Thus, Schneider concludes that the meaning should be glossed as ‘nice/ sweet + small X’. But as we will see in further analysis this definition will not be adequate.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the morphological approach and the scope of analyzing English diminutive formation based on the work of Bauer and Schneider.
1. What are diminutives?: Defines the term diminutive and discusses the conceptual components of smallness and attitudinal meaning in word formation.
1.1 Formation processes: Examines different morphological types such as synthetic formation and the distinction between derivational and analytical processes.
2. The status of diminutives in English: Challenges the view that English diminutives are restricted to isolated baby forms by highlighting their productivity.
2.1 The inventory of diminutive suffixes and its subclasses: Discusses the selection criteria for analyzing the large range of English diminutive suffixes.
2.2 Problems in historical variation and productivity: Addresses the challenges linguists face regarding outdated data and the hidden productivity of nonce formations.
3. Synthetic diminutive formation: Provides a detailed survey of specific suffixes and their morphological rules.
3.1 {IE}: Analyzes the phonology, spelling variants, and formation rules of the {IE} suffix.
3.2 {ETTE}: Investigates the semantic patterns, productivity, and French origin of the {ETTE} suffix.
3.3 {LET}: Evaluates the {LET} suffix, focusing on its role in creating small object and young animal derivations.
3.4 {LING}: Examines the suffix {LING}, its association with off-spring and its increasingly old-fashioned usage.
3.5 Multiple and competing diminutives: Discusses complex formations involving multiple suffixes and the phenomenon of competition between different forms.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the analysis, confirming the existence of English diminutives while emphasizing the importance of considering analytical alongside synthetic formations.
Keywords
diminutives, morphology, word-formation, synthetic formation, diminutive suffixes, {IE}, {ETTE}, {LET}, {LING}, productivity, attitudinal meaning, linguistic variation, noun derivation, analytical formation, English linguistics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this essay?
The essay argues that the belief that English has no diminutives is a myth, demonstrating that they are not just "baby forms" but a productive part of the language.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The work covers morphological word-formation processes, suffix classification, historical productivity, and the interplay between synthetic and analytical linguistic approaches.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The objective is to analyze English diminutives using a morphological approach to provide a more accurate picture of their usage and semantic functions.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author applies a pure morphological approach, utilizing criteria from Bauer (1988) and Schneider (2003) to analyze suffix rules, restrictions, and historical development.
What topics are discussed in the main section?
The main section provides a detailed survey of four specific suffixes ({IE}, {ETTE}, {LET}, {LING}), their phonological shapes, history, formation rules, and the peculiarity of multiple/competing diminutives.
What are the key terms associated with this work?
Key terms include morphology, synthetic formation, suffixation, productivity, and semantic patterns of diminutive suffixes.
How does the author define a prototypical diminutive?
A prototypical diminutive is defined as a complex noun derived from a base noun via suffixation, often conveying both smallness and an attitudinal component.
Why is the distinction between synthetic and analytical formation important?
It is important because English is an analytical language; the author concludes that one cannot fully understand diminutive formation if the analytical type is ignored.
What is the role of the suffix {KIN}?
The suffix {KIN} is discussed as a marker used historically and in modern times for multiple diminutivisation, particularly in address terms.
- Quote paper
- Monika Rusek (Author), 2005, That English has no diminutives is a common myth - based on Klaus P. Schneider's book "Diminutives in English", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/77184
