Cover not available
Part of
Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 97–122

Chapter 5
Autosegmental evaluative morphology in Japanese

Augmentative and diminutive mimetics

| Tohoku Gakuin University
Augmentatives and diminutives have never been recognized as such in grammars of Japanese though they constitute well-recognized classes in many languages, under the rubric of evaluative morphology. This study puts forward a view that the Japanese augmentatives and diminutives are found predominantly in the mimetic vocabulary, and especially as autosegmental subphonemic morphemes, thus escaping recognitions as such, in otherwise segmental agglutinative morphology of Japanese.
Keywords: mimetics, evaluative morphology, autosegmental morphology, subphonemic morpheme, augmentative, diminutive, intensification
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Augmentatives and diminutives: Evaluative morphology
  • 3.Mimetics in Japanese
    • 3.1Lexicological status
    • 3.2Morphophonology of mimetics
    • 3.3Positional phonesthemes of segmental phonemes
  • 4.Palatalization as diminutive
  • 5.Voicing as augmentative
  • 6.Evaluative morphology in Japanese mimetics
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.06toy
References (55)
References
Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Akita, K. 2009. A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical Approaches to Iconic and Lexical Properties of Mimetics. PhD dissertation, Kobe University.Google Scholar
Allen, M. R. 1978. Morphological Investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1982. The plural as lexical derivation. Glossa 16: 133–148.Google Scholar
1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. New York NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1996. No phonetic iconicity in evaluative morphology. Studia Linguistica 50: 189–206.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Evaluative morphology: In search of universals. Studies in Language 21: 533–575.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. & Ueda, I. 2002. Mora augmentation processes in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 18: 1–23.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Merlini-Barbaresi, L. M. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. 2002. Morphologie in contatto. Le construzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
2015. The place of evaluation within morphology. In Grandi & Körtvélyessy (eds.), 74–90Google Scholar
Grandi, N. & Körtvélyessy, L. (eds.), 2015. Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Haas, M. 1972. The expression of the diminutive. In Linguistics in Honor of. G. L. Trager, E. M. Smith (ed.), 148–152. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 57–116.Google Scholar
Hamano, S. S. 1986. The Sound-Symbolic System of Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. R. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 49–73.Google Scholar
1995. Japanese phonology. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.) 817–838. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 1993. Universals in the semantics of the diminutive. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals, 423–436.Google Scholar
Kadooka, K.-I. 2007. Nihongo Onomatope-goi-ni okeru Keitaiteki/On’inteki Taikeisei-ni tuite (On morphological and phonological systematicity in Japanese onomatopoeic vocabularies). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. From cyclic to lexical phonology. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, Vol. I, H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds.), 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. 2015. Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. & Stekauer, P. (eds.), 2011. Diminutives and Augmentatives in the Languages of the World: Lexis 6. E-Journal in English Lexicology . < [URL]>Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. D. 2014. Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyman, B. S. 1894. The Change from Surd to Sonant in Japanese Compounds. Philadelphia PA: Oriental Club of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E. 1952. Morphophonemics of standard colloquial Japanese. Language 28: 7–115.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. 2015. Evaluative morphology and pragmatics. In Grandi & Körtvélyessy (eds.), 32–42.Google Scholar
Mester, A. R. & Itô, J. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65: 258–293.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The Native Languages of North America. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure, J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), 297–334. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nasu, A. 2002. Nihongo Onomatope no Go-Keisei to Inritu-Koozoo (Word formation and prosodic structures of Japanese onomatopoeia). PhD dissertation, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, P. 1985. Diminutives. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Oosterhoff, J. 2015. Modern Dutch Grammar: A Practical Guide. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pentland, D. H. 1975. Diminutive consonant symbolism in Algonquian. In Papers of the Sixth Algonquian Conference, 1974, W. Cowan (ed.), 237–252. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poser, W. J. 1984a. The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1984b. Hypocoristic formation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 218–229.Google Scholar
1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66: 78–105.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, V. M. 2005. Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Rubino, C. 2005. Reduplication: Form, function, and distribution. In Studies on Reduplication, Bernhard Hurch & Veronika Mattes (eds.), 11–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, H. 1977. Aishoogo Keisei no Onseiteki Tokuchoo (Phonetic properties of hypocoristics formation). Onsei Gakkai Kaihoo 156: 22–24.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. C. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2006. Pragmatic indexing. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. VI, K. Brown (ed.) 14–17. Oxford: Elsevier.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29: 1–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2015. Word-formation processes in evaluative morphology. In Grandi & Körtvélyessy (eds.), 43–60.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. 1962. On-in Kootai to Igi Bunka no Kankei ni Tsuite – Iwayuru Sei-Daku-On no Tairitsu wo Chuushinn to Site – (Associative and dissociative function of some morphophonemic contrasts in present-day Japanese). Gengo Kenkyuu 42: 23–30.Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. 2015. Evaluative morphology and aspect/actionality. In Grandi & Körtvélyessy (eds.), 108–120.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. 1996. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ultan, R. 1978. Size-sound symbolism. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2: Phonology, J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), 525–568. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Vance, T. J. & Irwin, M. (eds.), 2016. Sequential Voicing in Japanese: Papers from the NINJAL Rendaku Project [Studies in Language Companion Series 176]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, N. 2002. Inu wa “Biyo” to Naite Ita: Nihongo wa Giongo/Gitaigo ga Omosiroi (Dogs used to bark “Biyo”: In Japanese, it is mimetics that are interesting). Tokyo: Kobunsha.Google Scholar