diminutiveformation

original file in PDF format 1

Hypocoristic formation in Peninsular Spanish and Australian English

Ariel Jackson

1. Introduction

Diminutive and hypocoristic formation in Spanish and Australian English are two remarkably

similar morphophonological processes, where the base is reduced to a trochaic foot, either truncated to

a monosyllable with a suffix added or truncated directly to its disyllabic form. This paper will examine

data from both languages and, within an Optimality Theoretic Framework, will explain the allomorph

selection. First, the Spanish data will be examined and Spanish hypocoristic formation will be explained

through a constraint ranking. Australian English and more general English hypocoristic formation will

then be examined, going through each hypocoristic suffix, and explaining the factors that determine its

selection. Optimality Theory (OT) claims that, rather than ordering phonological rules, a grammar

operates by ranking violable, universal constraints. The surface form of a word is chosen by evaluating

several candidates against a set of constraints. These constraints take three main forms. Faithfulness

constraints compare the input with the output and require the input to be identical to the output

regarding a specified property, while markedness constraints evaluate the outputs and attempt to

eliminate marked, uncommon or otherwise illformed features. Also, alignment constraints require the

left or right edge of prosodic or morphological forms to meet. The optimal form is the candidate which

violates the fewest and the lowestranked constraints (Kager 1999; Bradley 2013)

2. Spanish

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5uy7iXBJTPscUQ1RnZvMHRSTDg/edit?usp=sharing


Spanish hypocoristics and truncated nouns reduce to a trochaic foot, in some cases changing

the consonant. The word changes to trochee though it may not be shortened, as in [xo.ˈse] to [ˈxo.se].

Peninsular Spanish diminutives add the suffix citV or it, or others in different dialects, depending on

the length and final vowel.

2.1 Noun Truncation and Hypocoristics

Spanish hypocoristics consist of a binary, trochaic foot. If the base contains a diphthong, it is

deleted, and it is common to delete the coda, though codas are permissible. However, if a segment is

in the onset in the input, it must be in the onset in the output. A segment must maintain the same

position in the syllable from the output to the input, as can be seen below: 1)

base base--orthography hypocoristic hypocoristic-- orthography

bi.si.kle.ta bicicleta ˈbi.si bici

bo.ˈli.ɣra.fo bolígrafo ˈbo.li boli

mar.ɣa.ri.ta Margarita ˈmar.ɣa Marga

ro.ˈβeɾ.to Roberto ˈro.βe/ˈro.βeɾ Robe/Róber

xe.ˈsus Jesús ˈxe.su Jesu

xo.ˈse José ˈxo.se Jose

da .ˈnjel Daniel ˈda.ni Dani

xa.ˈβjeɾ Javier ˈxa.βi Javi

(Nuñez Cedeño et al., 2013) Nuñez Cedeño and Piñeros agree that hypocoristic formation is an example of outputoutput



faithfulness, in which the candidates are compared to another candidate, rather than with aninput.

Piñeros does not claim this explicitly, but in his tableaux the input is in square brackets rather than

slashes, which indicates an output. Nuñez Cedeño claims that the basis for output output faithfulness is

shown by syllabic structure. A segment in the onset in the input must not be in the coda of the output,

such as Mar.ga.ri.ta>Mar.ga, *Mar.gar. As the the syllabic structure is not present in the underlying

form, the base of the hypocoristic must be the output, and therefore must be an example of

outputoutput faithfulness (Nuñez Cedeño et. al 2013) However, Piñeros does note that the use of

outputoutput faithfulness is not an ideal solution because in pure OT, an input is meant to produce an

output without an intermediate step, but admits that it is still the best method of accounting for the data

he has found.

According to Nuñez Cedeño’s analysis, The reason why the sonorants in the coda are deleted

and the diphthongs are reduced, processes which usually do not occur in standard Spanish, is that the

relevant constraints to the nontruncated forms are inputoutput (IO) and not outputoutput (OO). The

ranking of MAXIO» *CODA permits the deletion of codas, but in the truncated form, the active

constraint is MAXOO and not MAXIO, therefore the truncated form emerges as optimal though

MAXIO is more highly ranked. Though MAXIO is more highly ranked, MAXIO and DEPIO are not

relevant and are satisfied by default. Therefore, the constraint ˈσσ, which states that the form must be a

binary, trochaic foot, can eliminate the completely faithful candidate and the truncated form can emerge

as optimal. This is shown in the following tableaux:

2)

/kristina/ [kris.ˈti.na]

DEP-IO MAX-IO ˈσσ DEP-OO MAX-OO

a. kris.ˈti.na

*!

b.Fˈkris.ti **



As can be seen, MAXIO and DEPIO are satisfied by default because the active constraints are

MAXOO and DEPOO. though it violates MAXOO, candidate b emerges as optimal because MAX

OO is lowerranked than ˈσσ, which eliminates the fully faithful candidate. If inputoutput faithfulness were

used, MAXIO would be violated and the incorrect candidate would be selected (Nuñez Cedeño et. al

2013).

Regarding diphthongs, Nuñez Cedeño, Piñeros and Colina agree that a *NUCCOMP or *COMPLEX constraint must be used, which states that either the nucleus (*NUCCOMP) or the entire

syllable (*COMPLEX) must not be complex. This constraint is dominated in nontruncated forms but

again, in the hypocoristic, when MAXOO and DEPOO are added, MAXIO and DEPIO do not apply,

therefore *NUCCOMP or *COMPLEX become the most highlyranked constraints, since it is now more

important to not have complex syllables than to not delete segments, therefore forms such as [dani] for

[danjel] and [gaʧa] for [eŋɣɾasja] (Nuñez Cedeño, 2013; Piñeros, 2000a; Colina, 1996). Piñeros

emphasizes that the most sonorant vowel and the least sonorant consonant are maintained, as in [fata]

for [fawsta] and [ʧano] for [felisjano]. This suggests that the constraint *COMPLEX is more highly ranked

(Piñeros, 2000a: 14). The following tableaux shows the selection of [keʧa] for [lukresja]. The following

constraints are used in this tableaux:

*COMPLEX : the nodes of the syllable must not be complex. HEAD(PWD)MAX:

segments must not be deleted from the stressed foot. PWR: The output must

be a prosodic word

MAX(SFTF): segments must not be deleted between the base form and the truncated form (Piñeros

2000a: 15).

3)



[lu(kre.sja)] *COMPLEX HEAD(PWD)MAX PWR MAX(SF-TF)

a.[lu(kre.sja)] *!*

*

b. [kre.sja] *!*

**

c. [kre.sa] !*

***

d. [ke.sja] *!

***

e. F[ke.ʧa] ****

(Piñeros 2000a). It can be seen that candidate (c) is the only one which forms a minimal prosodic word and eliminates

complex syllables. According to Piñeros, the selection of which segment of a complex syllable is

preserved is based on the Universal Syllable Margin and Peak Hierarchies, which are based on the

universal sonority scale ( Prince&Smolensky cited in Piñeros 2000a: 16). This hierarchy claims that

sonorant segments are not preferred at the margin of the syllable, and nonsonorant segments are not

preferred at the peak. As sonorant segments need to be analyzed as part of the margin of the syllable in

many cases, the constraint against sonorant segments in the margin, *M/α, must be dominated by

HEAD(PWD)MAX. As hypocoristics always avoid complex syllables, *COMPLEX must dominate both,

therefore the constraint ranking is:

*COMPLEX >> HEAD(PWD)MAX>> *M/Α AND *COMPLEX >>HEAD(PWD)MAX>>*P/Α (Piñeros

2000a).

The type of hypocoristic described above is what Piñeros calls “Type B,” which tend to

preserve the wordfinal foot, but there is also a “Type A,” which tend to preserve the wordinitial foot,

often with fewer changes to the base (Piñeros 2000b). According to Piñeros, these two types represent

two levels of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Type A is only unmarked at the prosodic level, in that it

forms a binary foot, an unmarked structure. Type B is less marked still, in its



organization of the nucleus and onset to avoid complex syllables. Type A uses the constraints

ANCHORL and ICONTIGUITY to increase faithfulness to the wordinitial segment of the base. Type B, as

mentioned above, changes some segments to fit with the Universal Syllable Margin and Peak Hierarchy,

and places less sonorant segments at the margin of the syllable, which is less marked. This shows why

forms such as Poncho [panʧo] for Alfonso [alfonso]. [p] is less sonorant than [f], and it is less marked

to have a less sonorant segment at the margin of a syllable (Piñeros 2000b).

Piñeros also notes that, as [l] assimilates to the place of articulation of the following consonant, [l] does

not have a correspondent from the base form to the truncated form, therefore [l] is deleted in many

cases when it is in the coda in the base form, except when it appears before [d]. This produces forms

such as [(ʧé.mo)] for [an.(sél.mo)] ‘Anselmo’ and [ʧiβa] for [(síl.βja)] ‘Silvia.’ The deletion of [l] and

preference for nonsonorant segments at the margin of the syllable explain why some names do not

take a truncated form and instead employ the standard Spanish diminutive such as

Miguel>Miguelito. (2000a: 2527)

2.2 Diminutive Forms

The other form of shortening nouns is the diminutive form, which is defined for the scope of this

paper as the truncation of common nouns rather than proper names. Diminutive formation adds the

suffix it or citV (or others depending on the dialect, the ones above are the most common)

wordfinally, such as café > cafecito ‘coffee’ or chica>chiquita. ‘girl.’ Colina proposes that if

there is a terminal element

a, o or e, it is selected and if there is not a terminal element, citV is selected. There must not be

terminal elements in a position other than wordfinal, and the minimal form for the base must be a binary



foot. If the minimal base is not a binary foot, there will be an epenthetic [e] added, as in pan>panecito

(2003). General noun truncation and diminutive formation may not appear to be relevant to hypocoristic

formation immediately, but they are semantically related as they express the concept of ‘small’ or ‘dear’

(among other functions) and utilize many of the same processes.

Colina claims that this process is mainly morphological, and her biggest critique of previous

studies, such as Miranda’s 1999 study, is that they give too much emphasis to phonology. The

process, according to Colina, depends on the morphological class of the base. This explains why there

are forms such as llorona/lloroncita, but not Llorona/Lloronita. Lloroncita has llorón ‘cryer’ as a

base, and therefore does not end in a terminal element, and therefore, following Colina’s analysis,

selects the suffix citV. However, Lloronita, from La Llorona, the figure from Mexican mythology,

has Llorona as a base, and therefore does end in a terminal element, and therefore selects the suffix

it. (2003). There are, nevertheless, phonological factors. The suffix must attach to a prosodic word,

and this is an example of the Emergence of the Unmarked, as the binary foot is the unmarked form

(Colina 2003; Miranda 1999). Miranda proposes two allomorphs, /it/ and /sit/, and also utilizes

outputoutput faithfulness. Miranda’s analysis selects the diminutive allomorph based on the size of the

base, the structure of the last syllable and the final vowel. To explain Nicaraguan Spanish’s preference

for reycito over reyecito, she claims that the stem must have two mora rather than two syllables, and

utilizes a constraint, IDENT OO(STµ), which is meant to preserve the moraic structure in the

diminutive form. Unlike Colina, Miranda only analyzes /o/ and /a/ as terminal elements, and claims that

words ending in unstressed e ““must retain the final /e/ in the diminutive, but trisyllabic or longer bases

do not.” (Miranda 1999: 136).

Colina uses the following constraints for her analysis:



MORPHEMESPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS

*TE: there must not be a terminal element in a position other than wordfinal

CITV TO PRWD: the left edge of the suffix citV must attach to the right edge of the prosodic word DIM

TO PRWD: the left edge of the diminutive suffix must attach to the right edge of the prosodic word

PROSODIC CONSTRAINTS

PARSE SYLLABLE: all syllables must be parsed FOOTBINARY: the feet must be binary

ALIGN L (FOOT, PRWD): The foot must be in initial position in the prosodic word

ALIGN R (FOOT, PRWD): the foot must be in final position in the prosodic word

The following tableaux demonstrates this process: 4)

casa +DIM *TE -CITV TO PRWD DIM TO PRWD

a. Fcas-it-a *

b. cas-cita

*! *

c casa-cita *!



In this tableaux, candidate (b) is eliminated because [cas] is not a prosodic word. Candidate (c) is

eliminated because a terminal element may not appear anywhere but wordfinally, and therefore

candidate (a) is selected as optimal (Colina 2003).

2.3 Dialectal variation

In some dialects, there is a double diminutive, in which there are two diminutive suffixes, such

momentiquito or virgencitita. This second suffix always selects the it allomorph, without regard for

the first suffix, because, following Colina’s analysis, if the base the suffix attaches to ends in a terminal

element, it will be selected, and the base the second suffix attaches to always ends in a terminal

element, so it will always be selected (Colina 2003: 51).

Another dialectal form is Paraguayan Spanish, in which monosyllabic words, which usually take

an epenthetic [e] in most varieties of Spanish, as in rey>reyecito but in this dialect the [e] is not

added, and forms such as reycito. This is because, Colina claims, the constraint DEP, forbidding the

addition of segments, is higher ranked in this dialect, therefore it is more important to satisfy DEP than to

have a base of two syllables (Colina 2003).

In addition, Bradley and Smith’s analysis of JudeoSpanish explains the three allomorphs, iko, eziko and ito. Bradley and Smith claim claim that the diminutive suffixes represent a partially

ordered set of allomorphs, in which ik and zik have a wider distribution than it but are unordered with

respect to each other. In JudeoSpanish, iko is selected in words ending in unstressed, o, a, a

nondorsal consonant, or trisyllabic words ending ine, as in alto>altiko



‘tall,’ kolcha>kolchika ‘blanket,’ presente>presentiko ‘gift,’ or hamor>hamoriko ‘donkey,

similar to standard Spanish ito/a.

Ito is selected in words ending in a dorsal glide or consonant, as in agwa>agwita ‘water,’ and

ezito is selected in monosyllabic words ending in a consonant or disyllabic words ending in

unstressed e, as in flor>florezika ‘flower,’ similar to standard Spanish citV. Given this, Bradley

and Smith build on Bonet’s work and propose two main constraints to explain the allomorph

selection, RESPECT and PRIORITY. RESPECT requires idiosyncratic lexical specifications to be

respected, which relates to the type of morpheme with which suffixes can combine, and PRIORITY

requires the lexical ordering of allomorphs to be supported.

Bradley and Smith claim this is superior to Colina’s analysis because it eliminates the need for

morphemespecific constraints, which are not preferred in Optimality Theory, as constraints are meant

to be universal (2011).

The following tableaux display how these two constraints operate:

5) allomorph selection for pelo ‘hair’

/pel+o>(e,Ø)>a/ RESPECT PRIORITY

Fa. pe.lo

b. pe.le

*!

c. pel

*!

d. pe.la

*!*

6) allomorph selection for hule ‘oilcloth’



/ule+o>(e,Ø)>a/ RESPECT PRIORITY

a. u.lo *!

Fb. ule *

c. ul *! *

d. u.la *! **

In Table 5, it can be seen that candidates (b), (c) and (d) are eliminated because they select the

lowerordered allomorphs in the set, and (d) incurs two violations because /o/ is two spaces below the

preferred allomorph. Ranking RESPECT above PRIORITY ensures that the default allomorph will be

selected unless the stem is marked for requiring a nondefault class marker (a,

o, or e). In Table 6, a lexical specification that states the stem must attach to /e/ is present, therefore

RESPECT becomes active and selects the optimal form, [ule] (Bradley&Smith 2011). Bradley and Smith

extend this analysis to diminutive formation by, as partially mentioned above, analyze the diminutive

morpheme as an ordered set of allomorphs, (zik, ik) > it, with subcategorization requirements if an

affix must attach to a particular stem. Since diminutive suffixes never end in e or Ø, those suffixes must

also be excluded as follows:

[+feminine]: /STEM + (zik, ik) > it + a > o/ [feminine]:

/STEM + (zik, ik) > it + o > a/

The set given above ranks the diminutive suffixes and class markers, excluding e, Ø and other suffixes

not analyzed in Bradley&Smith’s study (such as the u of tribu ‘tribe’ and other such “exotic” suffixes).

If a stem has to take a somewhat unusual stem, such as masculine word



ending in /o/, the suffix is lexically specified in the stem and RESPECT will be activated and select the

same allomorph in the diminutive as the base form, as shown:

7)

/mano+sit,it+a>o/ RESPECT PRIORITY

a. ma.ni.ta *!

b. Fma.ni.to *

Here, the suffix /o/ was lexically specified for the stem /man/, so even though the lowerranked

allomorph is selected, violating PRIORITY, RESPECT obeys the lexical subcategorization and [manito] is

selected (Bradley&Smith 2011).

Regarding the selection of /ik/ and /it/, /it/ must be ordered above /it/ because if they were left

unranked with respect to each other, the universal hierarchy of markedness constraints against place

features would incorrectly select /it/ as optimal, because the coronal stop of /it/ is the most unmarked

form of the hierarchy: *PL/DORSAL>> *PL/LABIAL»*PL/CORONAL.

8)

/ik,it/ *PL/DORSAL *PL/LABIAL *PL/CORONAL

a. ik *!

Mb. it *



As the ranking stands, markedness alone would select /it/ because of the coronal consonant, which is

the least marked of the hierarchy, but it is not the attested surface form. The M symbol indicates that the

candidate is incorrectly selected as optimal. Therefore, ordering /ik/ above /it/ and ranking PRIORITY

above *PL/DORSAL will ensure the correct allomorph selection (Bradley&Smith 2011).

9)

/ik>it/ PRIORITY *PL/DORSAL *PL/LABIAL *PL/CORONAL

Fa. ik *

b. it *!

*

Here, PRIORITY selects the optimal form because /ik/ is now ordered higher in the set and candidate (b)

violates PRIORITY though candidate (a) is marked according to the universal place hierarchy. The ik

allomorph attaches to monosyllabic stems lexically marked for the class marker e or Ø, with an

epenthetic e if the stem is lexically marked for Ø, creating the eziko suffix, thus utilizing a MINWD

constraint, requiring the base to be disyllabic, as well as a constraint forbidding the addition of vowels,

DEPV .

10)

/bote+(zik,ik)>it+o>a/ MINWD DEP-V

F a. bo.te.zi.ko *

/bote+(zik,ik)>it+o>a/ MINWD DEP-V

b. bo.ti.ko *!



(Bradley&Smith 2011). 3. English In a similar process, Australian English hypocoristics also reduces to a binary, trochaic foot (Sealy;

Simpson 2008) and if the base is monosyllabic, there will be vowel epenthesis. There are, as there are

in Spanish, other conditions and exceptions, as will be described below.

Australians abbreviate perhaps more than other English speakers, leaving their sunnies (sunglasses) in

the exy (expensive) restaurant before going to the rego (registration office), and receiving Chrissie

pressies for Christmas. Of particular interest is the process of hypocoristic formation, where many

Davos, Gazzas, Stevos and Bazzas reign (Simpson 2008).

Diminutives express the concept of “small” or “little” and are also used to indicate affection,

intimacy or warmth. Generally, if the word being shortened is monosyllabic, the suffix will be added to

the full word, if longer, it will be shortened to one syllable plus the suffix. This is not specific to

Australian English, as American English and many forms of English employ these forms quite frequently,

as in “nightie” for “nightgown” and “hanky” for “handkerchief,” or English (German derivations with i

employ this form), therefore there is some similarity crosslinguistically (Schneider, 2003: 43). Words

such as “droplet” indicate “a smallerthan average drop,” but abbreviations of first names and words

such as “Daddy” do not mean “a small father,” but rather a close relationship with one’s father,

therefore the semantic content can vary. Jurafsky claims that the diminutive can have many functions,

including intensification (Mexican Spanish ahorita ‘right now’), attenuation (Dominican Spanish ahorita

‘soon, in a while’), imitation (Mandarin zho ‘pearl’ and fo zhur ‘monk’s beads’), female gender

(Hebrew mapa ‘tablecloth’, mapit ‘napkin’the feminine gender marker signals ‘small’) approximation



(Greek ksinos ‘sour,’ ksinutsikos ‘sourish’) individuation (Yiddish der zand ‘sand’, dos zemdl ‘grain

of sand’) and to signal children (Ojibwa kwe ‘woman’, kwezens ‘girl’) as well as the more

conventionally accepted meaning of ‘small’ or ‘small type’ Cantonese tone changes are also used to

signal a variety of functions through the use of the diminutive tone:

“a. as an individuating or partitive marker(tong2' 'sugar' >tong35 'piece of candy')

b. for a small object which resembles some larger object (toi2' 'stage' > toi35'table')

c. as a marker of approximation (hong2' 'red' > hong2' hong35 'reddish')

d. to mark socially marginalized women(nui25'woman' > sek22nui35 'frigid woman')

e. for pragmatic hedges (ma:n21 ma:n35 ha:y2' ['slow' 'slowDIM' 'walk'] 'take care, walk

safely')

f. to mark female gender” (1996).

Also, he claims that a diminutive suffix existed from the earliest moment of the language,

including in ProtoIndoEuropean (*ko) (1996).

English is the official and highly dominant language of Australia. Since the settlement by the

British, the English spoken has been influenced by British English, Irish English and Gaelic, which such

commonly used words as “bloke” and “sheila” (casual terms for a man and woman) come from, and

aboriginal languages such as Warlpiri, Guugu, Yimidhirr, Wirradhurri and Pitjantjatjara, which were

often borrowed from for names of plants of animals such as kookaburra, kangaroo, wombat and

Barramundi (Guy, 1991: 214; Seal, 1999: 15, 33). Yet Australian English is not simply a transplant of

British English, but a variety in its own right. As Guy claims, “it is not a graft but an alloy, like bronze or

steel, with characteristics that do not come from any single one of elements that make it up” (1991:

218).



This section will focus on suffixation of Australian first name abbreviation. Australian English

hypocoristics truncate the first syllable and the suffixes ie, o or azza are added, depending on the

coda of the first syllable (Simpson 2008; Sealy). Other languages employ a similar pattern, such as

Spanish ito or cito (Colina 2003: 47), or other English infixation processes (Fountain, 2009). What

differentiates Australian English is that Spanish diminutive suffixes attach to the edge of the word, while

Australian English deletes all but the first syllable before attaching the suffix. Similar to Spanish

diminutive formation, however, the azza suffix must attach to a binary foot (the base must be disyllabic)

and if the base is monosyllabic or ends in certain segments, as will be discussed below, there will be an

epenthesized vowel, which will form the other attested suffixes, i and o. Kennedy agrees that an

English hypocoristic is formed by reducing a disyllabic or longer name to a single syllable with the

addition of a variety of hypocoristic suffixes such as [ɚ,], [i], [o] or [s]. Kennedy’s work claims that

hypocoristics of this form are seen as less creative than longer nicknames given to athletes such as “The

Chicoutimi Cucumber,” which he calls “Homeric nicknames” because of their similarities to elaborate

phrases in the work of Homer such as “the child of morning, rosyfingered dawn,” but, Kennedy

claims, they are used for different purposes. The Homeric nicknames are used by others to refer to the

athletes to talk about their qualities and abilities, while the hypocoristics are used by the athletes for

direct address to each other to signal solidarity or membership in the group (2006).

3.1 i suffixed hypocoristics The i suffix is one of the most common in Proper names and general abbreviations, and has been

attested since the 19th century (Simpson 2008: 403). This is an area where general

abbreviation differs from hypocoristic formation, as hypocoristics generally appear when the coda of the

remaining syllable is a voiceless obstruent, as in “Patrick [pætrɪk] > “Pattie” [pæti], but in general

abbreviation, it can appear with a variety of sound classes, such as sonorants as “sunglasses”



[sʌnglæsәz] > “sunnies” [sʌniz].

The following displays the data following this pattern: Hypocoristics:

Full name: orthography

hypocoristic: orthography

full name: transcription

hypocoristic: transcription

Jack Jackie ʤæk ʤæk-i

Matt Mattie mæt mæɾ-i

Pat Pattie pæt pæɾ-i

Bruce Brucie brus brus-i

Pete Petey pit piɾ-i

General abbreviations:

Full word: orthography

abbreviation: orthography

full word: transcription

abbreviation: transcription

sunglasses sunnies sʌnglæsәz sʌn-iz

expensive exy ɛkspɛnsɪv ɛks-i

present pressie pɹɛzɪnt pɹɛz-i

Christmas Chrissie krɪsmәs krɪs-i

Airline hostess hostie ɛlɑin hostes host-i

Full word: orthography


full word: transcription


politician pollie pɑlәtɪʃәn pɑl-i

wharf laborer wharfie wɒf lebәɹɹ wɒf-i



taxi cab driver cabbie tæksikab drɑivә kab-i

school child or teacher

schoolie skul ʧɑild tiʧɹ

skul-i

(Seal 1999: 73; Sealy)

It can be seen that in hypocoristics, the first or nonsyllable has a voiceless obstruent in the coda in

many cases, whereas in general abbreviations the coda can be a voiceless obstruent, a voiced obstruent

or a sonorant, perhaps because personal names are relatively rigid in their structure, while the common

nouns and adjectives are used so frequently that the need to shorten them will be more apparent in a

variety of situations.These forms also surface in American English, so they are not unique to Australia. It

is plausible that there should be some crossover, as they started from similar roots and other varieties of

English are heard. It is also of note that the first syllable is always retained, regardless of where the

stress falls. The first syllable usually receives the primary stress, but in cases such as [ɛksˈpɛnsɪv], the

first syllable is maintained despite the fact that the penultimate syllable receives the primary stress. This

data is confirmed by Kennedy, whose study reports a vocalic suffix ([i] or [o]) in 59% of names ending

with a voiceless obstruent and especially an alveolar stop in his sample (2006).



To derive the correct surface form within the Optimality Theory framework, the following constraints

are used:

*ZI: no voiced consonants before high vowels *KO: no voiceless obstruents before mid vowels

*CODA: there must not be a coda

IDENT VOICE: candidates must match input for the feature [voice] DEP: no

segments in output that are not in the input.

*RE: No liquids preceding a vowel Tableaux 1

shows the derivation of [ʤæk]

/ʤæk/ *ZI *KO *RE *CODA IDENT VOICE

DEP

ʤæko

*!

*

ʤæk

*!

ʤæki *

ʤæzә

*! *

The fully faithful candidate was eliminated by its violation of *CODA. With the edition of the epenthetic

[i], a new syllable is created and the coda is removed. [ʤæko] is eliminated for the violation of *KO,

which leaves the surface form [ʤæki]. DEP is a lowranked constraints as the optimal candidate

violates it in this process.



In the more general process of English i suffixed hypocoristics, the base syllable does not have to be a

voiceless obstruent but can be a variety of segments, as detailed below.

3.1.1. Syllable Structure

The majority of the initial syllables in i suffixed hypocoristics are CV as in Trudy from Gertrude. Other

attested structures are CVC (Delphy from Delphine), V (Abby from Abigail), and VC (Angie from

Angela). The majority of the initial syllables end in vowel, and a substantial number only consist of a

vocalic nucleus, which is interesting because it is not a possible form in monosyllabic truncated names, for

example Ike is a possible truncation but *I is not (though A is attested as a truncation of both Avery and

Avril) (Lappe 2007). Many of the rimes of the initial syllable consist of a single vowel (Izzy), but also

attested are VC, VV(tense vowel or dipthong), and VVC. Forty percent of the names in Lappe’s study

are heavy, which means that, at least in Lappe’s data, there does not appear to be a phonological

restriction requiring light syllables (2007). Lappe argues that the disyllabic hypocoristic can be derived

directly from the base and that it does not have to take the intermediate step of being reduced to a

monosyllabic root and having the suffix added (2007).

3.1.2. Preferred Consonant Clusters

In the majority of i hypocoristics, the initial cluster is retained, as in Franny from Frances rather than

Fannythough both are attestedand Stiffy from Stephanie (Stiffy is attested as a hypocoristic for

Stephanie Bing, a character in PG Wodehouse’s The Code of the Woosters (1938) ) and a cluster in

the final syllable is not likely to be retained, therefore Andy is more likely Andry though again both are

attested. 85% (64 names) of Lappe’s sample retained the cluster in the initial syllable onset, and 71%

(37 names) did not retain the cluster in the final syllable onset (2007).

The names that did retain a cluster in the onset of the final syllable were either [s]stop clusters

such as Hasty, Dusty or Christy, or a mixed cluster containing a liquid and an obstruent such as Affery,



Adrie, Alfry and Andri. As the only results in a search Lappe conducted for hypocoristics retaining the

cluster in the onset of final syllable were Andri and Gabry, and these came from Spanish or Italian

sources, it appears that these are loanwords, and that mixed clusters in the onset of the final syllable is

not a productive feature in English hypocoristic formation. However, based on Lappe’s data, [s]stop

clusters appear to be permitted in this position in English hypocoristics, which is reasonable since [s] is

unpredictable and appears in places consonants of its kind generally do not (Lappe 2007).

3.1.3. Other cluster restrictions

The first consonant of the cluster is likely to survive into the hypocoristic, while the second does not in

the majority of cases, as in Callie from Calpurnia. Hypocoristics such as Maggie from Margaret,

where the second consonant of the cluster are less common, and often occur when the first consonant of

the cluster is [r]. Also, clusters with rising sonority are avoided, as in Esmie from Esmerelda (three

names maintained clusters with rising sonority, so it may be assumed that they are exceptional). In cases

of falling sonority, liquidconsonant clusters are likely to be retained. Rinitial clusters are almost

categorically retained, while lC clusters are variable but permitted with the same place of articulation

(Lappe 2007). Nasalinitial clusters are also likely to be retained. Nasalfricative, nasalstop and

nasalaffricate clusters are variable but permitted with the same place of articulation, but never

nasalconsonant if the places of articulation differ. With regard to obstruent clusters, stopstop and

fricativestop are likely to be simplified and stopfricative likely to be retained (Lappe 2007).

In Lappe’s sample, stop[r], stop[l], stopnasal, fricative[r], fricative[l], fricativenasal, nasal[r], and

nasal[l] clusters where the second consonant is more sonorous than the first do not occur, and

therefore are most likely not permitted (2007).

3.1.4. Vowel Changes

some vowel changes occur in the formation of yhypocoristics. Lappe reports that the majority of her

sample (78%) show no change, and the most common change reported was changing from a schwa to a full



vowel, as in Patty from Patricia (8.5%), followed by laxing (Minnie from Almena, 7.4%) and qualitative

change (Ellie from Alexandra, 4.1%). tensing, as in Dody from Dorothy was the least common change

noted (2.4%) (Lappe 2007).

3.2. o Suffixed Hypocoristics

A slightly less productive, but still widespread suffix is o, which generally occurs when the coda of the

first or nondeleted syllable is a voiced obstruent or nasal. The pattern also differs when it surfaces in

common nouns from its appearance in proper names, as seen below:





David Davo devɪd dev-o

Jonathan Jonno ʤɑnәθn ʤɑn-o

Daniel Danno dænjәl dæn-o

Robert Robbo rɑbɹt rɑb-o

Steve Stevo stiv stiv-o

word: orthography


word: transcription


Musician muso mjuziʃn mjuz-o

Registration office rego ɹɛʤɪstreʃn ɑfɪs rɛʤ-o

Documentary doco dɑkjumɛntәɹi dɑk-o

Flannel flanno flænl flæn-o



Journalist journo ʤɹnәlɪst ʤɹn-o

(Seal, 1999: 7678; Sealy).

It can be seen that in this data as well, the pattern differs in proper name truncation and general common

noun abbreviation. In hypocoristic formation, the suffix is selected when the coda of the nondeleted

syllable is a voiced obstruent or a nasal, whereas in general common noun and adjective abbreviation, it

appears with voiceless or voiced obstruents, as well as sonorants, most likely for similar reasons as

stated above. This data is also supported by Kennedy, who reports a vocalic suffix after a voiced

obstruent in 66% of his sample. Kennedy also mentions that Australian hypocoristics tend to voice the

final consonant before the hypocoristic suffix as in Afternoon>arvo (2006).

Tableaux 2 shows the formation of the hypocoristic [stivo]

/stiv/ *ZI *KO *RE *CODA IDENT VOICE

DEP

Fstivo *

stivi *!

*

stɛzә

*

stiv

*!

The fully faithful candidate [stiv] is elimated by *CODA, again, as the epenthetic [o] removes the

coda, and the candidate [stivi] is eliminated by *zi, therefore arriving at the surface form [stivo].

3.3. azza Suffixed Hypocoristics



The most radically different from American English, and the form that, based on the current

data, only attaches to proper names is azza. azza is the most regular pattern in the current data, with

very few exceptions. The azza suffix is selected when the coda of the syllable that is retained or the

onset of the deleted syllable is a liquid, such “Barry” [bɛɹi] or

“Garry” [gɛɹi]. The pattern is observed regardless of the number of syllables, as “Jeremy”

[ʤɛɹәәmi] is still reduced to “Jezza” [ʤɛzәә]. This form is also attested in British

English, which, as Australia was colonized by Great Britain, is logical. The current study’s participants

supplied the greatest number of data points for this variety:





Garry Gazzah gɛɹi gæzә

Barry Bazza bɛɹi bæzә

Sharon Shazza ʃɛɹn ʃæzә

Sharlene Shazza ʃɑlin ʃæzә

Mary Mazza mɛɹi mæzә

Margaret Mazza mɑgɹɪt mæzә

Harry Hazza hɛɹi hæzә

Larry Lazza lɛɹi læzә

Warrick Wazza wɑɹɪk wæzә







Darren Dazza dɛɹɪn dæzә

Aaron Azza ɛɹɪn æzә

Karen Kazza kɛɹɪn kæzә

Kylie Kazza kɑili kæzә

Terry Tezza tɛɹi tɛzә

Kerry Kezza kɛɹi kɛzә

Cheryl Chezza ʃeɹl (syllabic l) ʃɛzә

Jeremy Jezza ʤɛɹәmi ʤɛzә

Jasmine Jazzy ʤæzmɪn ʤæzi

(Sealy). It can be easily observed that this is the most regular, and one of the most productive, suffixes. The only

exception in the present data is [ʤæzmɪn], and as sibilants are often unpredictable and appear where

they are not expected to, this can be discounted as an exception without damaging the constraint

ranking. azza also carries semantic content as well, as it only used when the addresser is on terms of

some intimacy with the addressee, whereas names such as “Jackie” can be used as the person’s name

regardless of the level of acquaintance. Sealy also notes that names bearing the azza suffix can also

indicate a certain socioeconomic status, as people from

rural areas of Australia will often introduce themselves as the azza form of their name, and will not be

offended if strangers address them with it, whereas people from more urban areas or of a higher

socioeconomic status will regard it as an affront (2013).



The derivation of “Shazza” [ʃæzәә] is shown in tableaux 3:

ʃɛɹi *ZI *KI *RE *CODA IDENT VOICE

DEP

ʃɛɹi *!

*

ʃæzә *

ʃæzi *!

*

ʃɛɹә

*!

*

Here, the fully faithful candidate is eliminated by *ZI and *RE, [ʃæzi] violates *ZI, and ʃɛɹәә violates *RE, leaving the surface form ʃæzәә.

4. Conclusion Australian English hypocoristic formation is a complex morphophonological process that conveys lexical,

semantic and pragmatic information. While at first glance it may look like simple morphology,

phonological processes are at work as well. The current participants came from Sydney, and it would be

of interest to investigate the results of speakers from different cities or regions. It is most likely that

regional variation exists, but further research would be required to gather this data. Hypocoristic

formation is one facet of the rich morphophonology of Australian English. This paper has shown that

Both Spanish and English hypocoristics reduce to a trochaic foot, which depends on

morphophonological features of the base to determine which allomorph will be selected as a suffix, if any.

Australian English and Peninsular Spanish diminutive formation are two surprisingly similar

morphophonological processes, that represent one piece of each language’s complex phonological

system. Continuing work in Optimality Theory in each of these languages is sure to yield new

discoveries.



References Bradley, Travis. 2013. Optimality Theory in Spanish Phonology. Rutgers Optimality Archive

http://roa.rutgers.edu/files 11131110/1113BRADLEY00.PDF

Colina, Sonia. 2003. Diminutives in Spanish: A Morphophonological Account. The Southwest Journal

of Linguistics. 22.2. 4588

Colina, Sonia. 1996. Spanish Truncation Processes: The Emergence of the Unmarked.

Linguistics. 34. 11991218. Dam, Mark van. 2003. On the phonological structure of /i/suffixed English hypocoristics.

Indiana University Linguistics Working Papers Online. https://www.indiana.edu

~iulcwp/abstracts.cgi?which=03

Fountain, Amy. 2009. Flanderic infixation and the prosodic constituency of English words.

University of Arizona. http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hammond/ling696b

f09/diddly.pdf

Guy, Gregory. 1991. Australia. In Jenny Cheshire, (ed.) English Around the World:

Sociolingustic Perspectives. 213224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jurasfsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive.

Language. 72.3. 533578

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lappe, Sabine. 2007. The structure of yhypocoristics. English Prosodic Morphology.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Miranda Miranda, Ines. 1999. An Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Nicaraguan Spanish


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Froa.rutgers.edu%2Ffiles&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFAawfnlhwwsI72y80ebR4olHuMrw

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiana.edu%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGX4j_UkXSzY24yoNvBi7qJ0yS0rw



http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.sbs.arizona.edu%2F%257Ehammond%2Fling696b&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHh4EotY2fNIYOfxf3M9yaAtcW0Uw


Diminutivization: Results of a Field Survey. Seattle, WA: University of Washington

dissertation.

Nuñez Cedeño, Rafael, Sonia Colina & Travis Bradley, eds. 2013. La teoría de optimidad en la

fonología del español. In Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española.

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Piñeros, CarlosEduardo. 2000a. FootSensitive Word Minimization in Spanish. Rutgers Optimality

Archive. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/3080399/3080399PINEROS00.PDF.

Piñeros, CarlosEduardo. 2000b. Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish. Linguistics.

38.1 6398. Schneider, Klaus. 2003. Linguistiche Arbeiten: Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer

Verlag GmbH.

Seal, Graham. 1999. The Lingo: Listening to Australian English. Sydney: University of New

South Wales Press.

Sealy, Katrina. Personal Communication. Feb 10 2013. Simpson, Jane. 2008. Hypocoristics in Australian English. In Kate Burridge&Bernd Kortmann, eds.

Varieties of English: The Pacific and Australasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rowe, Kerrin. 2006. Aussie Slang. Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford Publishing.


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Froa.rutgers.edu%2Ffiles%2F308-0399%2F308-0399-PINEROS-0-0.PDF&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFxY2J2FgcYkB4Hsu2-h0-RR48hHw



diminutiveformation

Documents