Greek Diminutives: A Morphopragmatic Approach

Greek Diminutives: A Morphopragmatic Approach Grazia Crocco Galèas “Aristotle” University of Thessaloniki School of Italian Studies

5th International Meeting of Greek Linguistics (Paris – Sorbonne, Septembre, 13-15, 2001)

0. Introduction: Natural Morphology The approach of Natural Morphology can be characterized in the following way: a) As far as explanation and theory of science in concerned, Natural Morphology (henceforth NM) is not conventionalist, but functionalist. b) NM does not assume an autonomous module of grammar, but attempts to find cognitive and other extra-linguistic bases of morphological principles and preferences. c) In addition to traditional internal evidence (from given or elicited standard corpora), NM accepts external (or substantive) evidence (e.g. from language acquisition and disturbances, diachrony, language contact, etc.). d) Instead of discrete and/or binary distinctions, NM often assumes continua and/or prototypical differences. This holds even for the predicate “natural” (roughly equivalent with “unmarked”), which means “relatively more natural than” (or less marked than) or “relatively very natural”. e) Morphological naturalness may interact with phonological or syntactic or textual naturalness either in a cooperative or in a conflicting way. Naturalness conflicts are an important source of relative unnaturalness in each of these components.

1

1. The definition of morphopragmatics The proponents of NM have put forward a model of morphological preferences based both on a semiotic meta-theory and on extra-linguistic foundations of linguistic preferences in neurology, biology, and psychology. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994) have added a further foundation: universal pragmatics, and it is here that morphopragmatics comes in. Morphopragmatics is a sub-discipline which has to be placed alongside the well-established subdisciplines of morphotactics and morphosemantics. It deals with affixes and other morphological devices, the meanings of which appear to be primarily located in pragmatics. These devices exhibit no stable semantic value and their meaning often seems elusive. More specifically, morphopragmatics can be defined as the field of the general pragmatic meanings of morphological rules, that is, of the regular pragmatic effects produced when moving from the input to the output of a morphological rule. A morphological rule is relevant for morphopragmatics if it contains a pragmatic variable which cannot be suppressed in the description of its meaning. Thus, at least in practice, pragmatic meaning, the object of a morphopragmatic investigation, is global meaning (meaning as use) minus semantic meaning.

2. Diminutives: cross-linguistic properties Diminutives represent an important issue for morphopragmatics. Among all morphopragmatic devices within derivational morphology, diminutives represent the category which has the widest distribution across languages and has stimulated the greatest number of morphosemantic, morphotactic, and pragmatic studies. According to NM prototypical diminutives share the following properties: First, diminutive formation in European languages belongs to word-formation but is not a prototypical representative of derivational morphology. There is insufficient justification for setting evaluative suffixes apart as a distinct third class (as has been postulated for Italian evaluative

2

suffixes by Scalise 1984: 131-133, 1988), alongside the two well-known classes of inflectional and derivational rules. Second, all diminutives are alterative in that the respective word-formation rules change neither subcategorisation 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. Third, if there is a basic connotative change, this seems to be tendentially positive for diminutives and negative for augmentatives. The reason for this is that evaluation is typically positive in the case of diminutives and typically negative in the case of augmentatives. Fourth, some diminutives violate Aronoff’s (1976) “Unitary Base Hypothesis”, that is many rules of diminutive formation do not have a unique categorial base. For example, they can derive diminutives both from nouns and adjectives. Thus they differ from derivational morphological rules according to Scalise (1988: 234-235) and even more from inflectional morphological rules. Zwicky and Pullum (1987: 336) take such “promiscuity with regard to input category” even as a symptom of “expressive morphology”. There do exist, however, other non-prototypical representatives of derivational (and inflectional) morphology which have the same property: in many languages agentnoun formation (preferentially) applies to verbs, (less) to nouns and (least) to adjectives; comparative and superlative formation (preferentially) to adjectives, adverbs and (less frequently) to nouns (Dressler 1986). Fifth, diminutives prefer an iconic expression via morphological rules that involve palatal vowels or palatalisation, that is, the use of fronting and/or raising of vowels or high pitch in tone languages.

3. Morphosemantic denotation and morphosemantic connotation of diminutives There is a difference between morphosemantic and morphopragmatic meanings of diminutives. In what follows I will briefly make reference to the morphosemantic denotation (‘smallness’) and

3

connotation (‘endearment, affectiveness” or whatever). Then I will outline the regular uses of diminutives as strategic means to pragmatic effects. Advocates of morphopragmatics do not share the opinion that the morphopragmatics of diminutives can be synchronically derived from their morphosemantics via the application of general pragmatic strategies. This is the hypothesis they want to falsify, that is, the reduction of morphopragmatics to being the mere general result of general pragmatics applied to morphosemantic meaning. On the one hand, it is undeniable that the denotative semantics of diminutives is derived from the basic concept of dimensional smallness, which relates to prototypical standards of dimensions and objects. On the other hand, there are difficulties with the identification of stable morphosemantic connotations of diminutives and with their categorisation into invariant connotations. One option that many authors have taken, is identifying an emotive invariant connotation, namely a semantic feature which is clearly pragmatically based, since it refers to a real or pretended emotive attitude of the speaker. But a real difficulty here is that emotivity is much more rarely present than analysts such as Volek (1987) would assume. An alternative option, concerning the connotative semantics of diminutives, is recognizing a semantic feature such as [agreeable, gracious, pleasant], again clearly also a pragmatically based feature. The view expressed by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi is that emotivity, in fact, cannot be excluded, but remains a supplementary, optional connotational feature. Furthermore, couldn’t this semantic feature of graciousness be derived from the pragmatic attitude generally associated with such speech situations involving the use of diminutives? And are not both of these hypothetical connotations – emotivity and graciousness – pragmatically-based? I will not insist on denotative and connotative morphosemantics of diminutives. But in order to falsify the hypothesis of a pragmatics of diminutives deriving from their morphosemantics, let’s take into consideration the denotational invariant feature of [small]. According to this reductionist hypothesis we would expect that all pragmatic uses of diminutivised nouns could be substituted by 4

noun phrases consisting of, for example, Mod. Gr. μικρό, or It. piccolo plus the respective noun, and vice versa. This is however clearly not the case. For example: φάε ψωμάκι, παιδί μου! cannot be substituted by: φάε το μικρό ψωμί, παιδί μου! The non-comparability of the morphopragmatics of diminutives with the pragmatics of Mod. Gr. μικρό, or It. piccolo and other adjectives denoting smallness is indeed evident when nominal diminutives are modified by and adjective denoting ‘small’, obviously to take care of the denotation inadequately expressed by the diminutive suffix: θέλεις αυτό το μικρό αχλαδάκι? Moreover many words take diminutive suffixes only if pragmatic effects are to be achieved, and they never appear with purely morphosemantic denotation or connotations, e.g. It. tesorino = Germ. Schätz-chen = Mod. Gr. αγαπούλα (predominantly used in child/pet/lover-centred speech situation). Finally, even if denotation and putative connotation of languages having diminutives (such as Italian, German, Modern Greek) can be regarded as identical (or nearly so), it is uncontroversially evident that there are differences in systematic pragmatic uses. This is empirically confirmed by the results derived from testing native speakers of Italian and Viennese German. When confronted with novel diminutives in corresponding speech situations, they showed systematic cross-linguistic differences. 4. The pragmatics of diminutives With respect to the pragmatic meaning of diminutives, another non-prototypical property of this morphological formation, Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994) claim that the constitutive morphopragmatic feature of diminutives is [non-serious].

5

A [non-serious]-feature added is a strategy for lowering one’s responsibility towards the speech act being performed, or, more specifically, for lowering one’s commitment to its illocutionary force. In other words, the speaker or author evaluates the speech act as non-serious, which allows the use of the evaluative diminutive suffix. If we relate the invariant morphopragmatic feature [non-serious] to the morphosemantic feature [non-important], than we can relate it via metaphor to the morphosemantic denotation [small] in its alloseme “with relatively little importance”. Thus, Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi assume that, within morphology, the meaning of diminutive formation rules contains an entry which indicates that a diminutive may be used metaphorically for connoting the non-seriousness of the speech act. Moreover pragmatic constraints applying to this metaphorical use must be specified. This general metaphoric relation between the semantic feature [small] and the pragmatic speech act feature [non-serious] presumably holds for most languages that have productive rules of diminutive formation. But the pragmatic constraints applying are in many respects languagespecific. The main point of the theory of morphopragmatics in introducing a speech act feature [nonserious] is to introduce a level – between the semantic level and various type of pragmatic usage of diminutive formation – where this generalization about the non-seriousness of the speech act can be stated. In other words, the theory is able to assume two abstract levels, one for the morphosemantics and one for the morphopragmatics of diminutives; from the semantic one, the allosemes [small, unimportant, attenuated,…] are derived; from the pragmatic level, the ‘allopragms’, the enumeration of which I will outline in what follows. Moreover, it is necessary to stress one crucial point in the theory of the morphopragmatic meaning of diminutives. In terms of the speech chain and its syntagmatic extension, the feature [non-serious] pertains to the whole speech act in the speech situation. Thus, pragmatic scope of the diminutive suffix is neither the word nor the sentence, but the speech act. 6

4.1. The allopragms or regulative properties 1. Ludic character. One realization of the feature [non-serious] is the ludic character that most uses of the rule of diminutive formation generally allow. Some times the ludic character is the dominant pragmatic meaning, and this occurs in case of playfulness.

2. Meiosis. Other realizations of the feature [non-serious] occur when meiosis is pursued as a strategy for attenuating or mitigating inherently or potentially disagreeable speech acts like requests and orders, recriminations and threats, or when recourse is made to such regulative factors as euphemism, understatement and modesty about oneself, and irony towards somebody else in cooperative interactions, as distinguished from sarcasm in antagonistic interactions. The feature [non-serious] of diminutive formation may trigger the necessary conditions for the establishment of these factors.

3. Diminutivum puerile. Another type of pragmatic application of diminutive formation is in the diminutivum puerile, that is, when a child is the speaker or the addressee or a participant (but not an overhearer) of the speech situation or is the referent of the speech among adults.

4. Child/lover/pet-centred speech situations. Such “child-centred” speech situations can be metaphorically recreated in the language of love or, in general, in (e.g. ironic) reconstructions of a child’s world, or they can be metaphorically transferred to speech acts directed to, or dealing with, pets. Each can be explained as either using the feature [small] or the feature [non-serious].

5. Emotivity. Diminutives mostly have an emotional colouring when used in the language of love and in speech acts involving children and animals. Emotional colouring gets foregrounded when diminutives are used for expressing pleasantness, fondness and tenderness or compassion, and this not only in the speaker’s but also in the author’s perspective. Emotions commonly expressed by means of diminutives are, for example, joy, happiness, attachment (very important for the diminutivum puerile), surprise, admiration, interest, sympathy, etc. 7

6. Familiarity and intimacy. Among constraints on [non-serious] speech situations suitable for diminutives the most important one is familiarity and intimacy as characterising the relation between the speaker and the various components of the speech situation.

7. Sympathy and empathy. Other important regulative factors are sympathy and empathy, the latter defined as “the speaker’s identification … with a person/thing that participates in the event or state that he describes in a sentence”.

The above factors, conditions, and pragmatic effects are conceptualised within the framework of morphopragmatics as regulative properties, that is, factors which regulate the application of the constitutive feature [non-serious] to speech acts and speech situations. The presentation of these elements does not imply that the model of morphopragmatics can predict the actual use of diminutives in the strong sense, that is, that the speaker is forced to use a diminutive when all the relevant factors and conditions are assembled. The speaker is in fact an interpreter who has considerable freedom in interpreting pragmatic conditions and factors, in evaluating the speech situation, and in negotiating interpretations and meanings with the other interactants.

5. Predictions for future work What the model of morphopragmatics predicts is, above all 1) constellations of pragmatic variables where a diminutive cannot be used in a non-denotative sense; 2) pragmatic constellations where diminutives may be used; 3) pragmatic factors which make the use of diminutives more probable – or less probable; 4) pragmatic effects for which diminutives may be strategically used. Therefore the model should contain all the important variables, some of them of a rather universal nature, some of them language-specific. Their number and their interactions should be as restricted as possible and be able to account for all non-denotative uses of diminutives. 8

6. On Modern Greek diminutives A study of Modern Greek diminutives within the theory of morphopragmatics should 1) verify or falsify the general hypotheses proposed by the theory; 2) add new data to the Italian and German data collected by Dressler an Merlini Barbaresi; 3) specify the effects of the regulative factors in conformity with the criteria of language-specific adequateness. A morphopragmatic investigation of Modern Greek diminutives should answer the following problems: 1) Can the invariant morphopragmatic feature [non-serious] be applied in the interpretation of all possible Modern Greek speech events showing diminutives (or augmentatives)? 2) Do the regulative factors or allopragms above enumerated suffice for an exhaustive analysis of the pragmatic causes and/or restrictions that may trigger the use of diminutives in a speech situation? 3) Which are the language-specific pragmatic factors that, according to the proponents of morphopragmatics, coexist with the universal factors? Moreover: Do the language-specific pragmatic factors derive from the universal ones? As an example of possible investigation, I would suggest a typical domain of diminutives, which seems rather language-specific, namely, it pertains to Modern Greek pragmatic competence. The speech situation of offering food or drink to a guest often requires a large use of diminutives in Modern Greek. This has no comparable example in other European languages with a rich system of diminutive suffixes. How is one to explain the state of affairs according to the theoretical approach of morphopragmatics? The speech event of a speech situation of hospitality is realized via an illocutionary act of offering. Generally the speech situation in which a host and a guest participate implies an offering of food or drink. If we assume that the general pragmatic feature characterising the speech act is [non-serious], we should admit that in using diminutives the speaker adopts a strategy of diminishing his/her own commitment to the illocutionary force of the speech event and minimizing his/her interlocutors obligations. The non-seriousness-frame of the event is a strategy aiming at preventing the possibility of a refusal, which, from a socio-cultural dimension, would be 9

considered as an implicit offence. It is indeed important and significant that a guest accepts his/her host’s offering, since the acceptance or non-acceptance reveals whether the attitude of the participant to the social interaction is cooperative or conflictual respectively. In this sense it would be interesting to explore the socio-cultural and socio-linguistic factors and implications of hospitality in the Greek world. But for our purpose it suffices to stress the importance and crucial significance of a situation of “offering to a guest”. This particular situation is regularised by the allopragm or constitutive factor of meiosis. The speaker-offerer prefers to interpret the situation as non-serious right because this strategy of meiosis or attenuation may successfully avoid or mitigate a refusal, that is a negative answer from the side of the interlocutor, which would mean “a loss of face” for the speaker-offerer. As we can see, this example illustrates that a very common speech situation for Modern Greek native speakers – one very often triggering the use of diminutivised nouns – can be interpreted as a typical case of pragmatic strategy via morphopragmatic devices. Summarising, the general pragmatic feature [non-serious] is chosen by the speaker for the successful result of the communicative interaction of offering in a frame of hospitality. The intervening regulative factor or allopragm is attenuation, understatement or, in other words, meiosis. Finally, what is language-specific is both the choice of landing-sites for diminutivisation, which in fact does not coincide with other languages, and the speech situation that causes the use of diminutives. Collection of oral and written data will further exemplify this case in point and indicate other speech situations which are partially universal and partially language-specific for the usage and interpretation of diminutives.

10