Article In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

Exploring the form of Italian diminutives

Alternation patterns and constructional schemas

ORCID logo | Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
ORCID logo | Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilano
In this paper, we provide an extensive analysis of the formal features displayed by Italian diminutives (especially allomorphy) by using surface alternation patterns automatically extracted from a dataset of base-diminutive pairs. Applying the theoretical tools provided by Construction Morphology (CxM), we take alternation patterns as a proxy for paradigmatic relations and locate them into separate hierarchies, exploiting the mechanism of multiple inheritance in order to express generalizations on different, mutually independent factors at play (i.e., lexical category, gender and final segment of the base and derivative, suffixes and antesuffixal phonological material displayed by the derivative). In doing so, we contribute to the exploration of the formal side of Italian diminutives, which have been so far addressed mostly from a semantic perspective, and to the refinement of the representation of formal phenomena such as allomorphy according to the CxM framework.
Keywords: allomorphy, diminutives, Construction Morphology, alternation patterns, Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The theoretical framework: Construction Morphology
  • 3.The methodology: Alternation patterns as a proxy for paradigmatic relations
  • 4.The data
  • 5.The analysis
    • 5.1Surface alternation patterns
    • 5.2Constructional hierarchies
      • 5.2.1Lexical category
      • 5.2.2Gender
      • 5.2.3Final segment
      • 5.2.4Suffix
      • 5.2.5Antesuffixal phonological material
      • 5.2.6Multiple inheritance from different hierarchies
    • 5.3Interaction between hierarchies: A quantitative analysis
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (41)
References
Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R. (2009). Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In J. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 54–82). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2022). Advances in morphological theory: Construction morphology and relational morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8 1, 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: In search of universals. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 21 (3), 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure, 12 (2), 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beniamine, S. (2018). Classifications flexionnelles. Étude quantitative des structures de paradigmes. [Doctoral thesis]. Université Sorbonne Paris Cité-Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7).
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O., & Beniamine, S. (2016). Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure, 9 (2), 156–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O., & Boyé, G. (2014). De formes en thèmes. In F. Villoing, S. Leroy & S. David (Eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques. Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux (pp. 17–45). Presses Universitaires de Paris-Ouest.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., & Strnadová, J. (2019). Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology, 28 (2), 167–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 35–54). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2018). The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (Vol. 41). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (2015). Augmentative, pejorative, diminutive and endearing heads in the extended nominal projection. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 67–81). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Achille, P., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). La flessione del nome dall’italiano antico all’italiano contemporaneo. In N. Maraschio & T. Poggi Salani (Eds.), Italia Linguistica Anno Mille-Italia Linguistica Anno Duemila, (pp. 211–230). Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1989). Interfissi e non-interfissi antesuffissali nell’italiano, spagnolo e inglese. In F. Foresti, P. Benedini & E. Rizzi (Eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze (pp. 243–252). Bulzoni.Google Scholar
(1992). Italian diminutives as non-prototypical word formation. In L. Tonelli, L. & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Natural morphology: Perspectives for the nineties, (pp. 21–30). Unipress.Google Scholar
(1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Férnandez-Dominguéz, J., Bagasheva, A., & Clares, C. L. (Eds.). (2020). Paradigmatic relations in word formation. Brill.Google Scholar
Grandi, N. (1998). Sui suffissi diminutivi. Lingua e stile, 33 (4), 627–654.Google Scholar
(2002). Morfologie in contatto. Le costruzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
(2011). Renewal and innovation in the emergence of Indo-European evaluative morphology. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, 6 1, 5–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). I diminutivi come marche di attenuazione e indeterminatezza. In O. D. Balaş, A. Ciama, M. Enăchescu, A. Gebăilă & R. Voicu (Eds.), L’expression de l’imprécision dans les langues romanes (pp. 162–175). Ars docendi-Universitatea din București.Google Scholar
Grandi, N., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2019). Paradigms in word formation: What are we up to? Morphology, 29 (2), 153–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1993). Universals in the semantics of the diminutive. In J. S. Guenter, B. A. Kaiser & C. C. Zoll (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals (pp. 423–436). Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., & Audring, J. (2019). Construction Morphology. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Morphological Theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2004). Paradigma dei suffissi alterativi. In M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 265–267). Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2012). Combinatorial patterns among Italian evaluative affixes. SKASE Journal of theoretical linguistics, 9 (1), 2–15.Google Scholar
Van Marle, J. (1984). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L., & Dressler, W. U. (2020). Pragmatic explanations in morphology. In V. Pirrelli, I. Plag & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: A cross-disciplinary guide to the mental lexicon (pp. 405–443). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noccetti, S., De Marco, A., Tonelli, L., & Dressler, W. U. (2007). The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Italian morphology. In W. U. Dressler & I. Savickienė (Eds.), The acquisition of diminutives (pp. 125–153). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, V. M. (2005). Spanish evaluative morphology: Pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and semantic issues. University of Florida.Google Scholar
(2015). The semantics of evaluative morphology. In N. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology (pp. 21–31). Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F. (1990). Appunti sui diminutivi italiani in -etto e -ino . In M. Berretta, P. Molinelli & A. Valentini (Eds.), Parallela 4. Morfologia. Atti del V incontro italo-austriaco della Società di linguistica italiana (Bergamo, 2–4 ottobre 1989) (pp. 207–218). Narr.Google Scholar
Ruz, A. E., Lara-Clares, C., & Fernández-Alcaina, C. (Eds.). (2022). Paradigms in Word Formation. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1993). How peculiar is evaluative morphology?. Studies in language, 29 (1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T., & Finkel, R. A. (2013). Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Spuy, A. (2017). Construction Morphology and inflection. Lingua, 199 1, 60–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). English plurals in Construction Morphology. Language Science, 77 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar