Second-gradediminutivesinCzechandSlovak:

Acontrastivestudywithdatafromcorpora

StelaManova,Dušan Ptáček, Renáta GregováUniversityofVienna/ComeniusUniversityofBratislava/P.J.Šafárik UniversityinKosice

SLSAnnualMeeting,Ljubljana,23.09.2017

Acknowledgements

Dušan Ptáček receivedoneoftheSlavicLinguisticsSocietygraduatestudenttravelscholarships.Unfortunately,duetoanunforeseencircumstance,hecannotattendthemeeting. TheSLSefforttoencouragegraduatestudents’researchisherebygratefullyacknowledged.

Whatthisstudyisabout

• Diminutivization,specificallytheformationanduseofsecond-gradediminutives:

Cz /Pldom ‘house’àà DIM1 dom-ek ‘smallhouse’à

à DIM2dom-eč-ek ‘verysmallhouse’

DIM1– firstgradediminutive‘smallX’DIM2 – secondgradediminutive‘verysmallX’

• Intheliterature,diminutiveswithtwodiminutivesuffixes(DIM1-DIM2)canbefoundundersecond-grade,secondary ordoublediminutives.

Hypocoristicnouns(I)

• Suffixesusedforderivationofdiminutivesarealsofoundinhypocoristicnouns.Weusedthetermfornounsthatdonotnecessarilyexpresssmallness,suchasthefollowingCzechpropernames:

Jan→ Jan-ek→ Jan-eč-ekAnna→ An-ka→ An-ič-ka

• Inexamples suchas these,the primary function of the diminutivesuffixes is the expression of affection.

Hypocoristicnouns(II)

• Propernames

Cz./Sl.Anna→ An-ka→ An-ič-ka(cf.hlava→ hláv-ka→ hlav-ič-ka)

• With respect to formand semantics,derivations from nouns denotingfamily members are similar to derivations from propernames :

Cz./Sl.babaà bab-kaà bab-ič-ka(compare with Anna andhlava above)

etc.

Structureofthetalk1. Data2. Method3. Second-gradediminutivesinCzech4. Second-gradediminutivesinSlovak5. ComparisonoftheCzechandSlovakpatternsforderivationof

second-gradediminutives6. Second-gradediminutivesinPolish,RussianandBulgarian7. Comparisonofthepatternsfoundinthefivelanguages8. Conclusionsandrelevanceforforeign-languagelearning

1.Data

Thesecondgradediminutivesanalyzedinthisstudywereextractedfromthefollowingcorpora:

• CzechNationalCorpus,versionSYN2015(100Mwords)https://wiki.korpus.cz/doku.php/en:cnk:uvod

• SlovakNationalCorpus,versionPrim-7.0-public-all(972Mwords)http://korpus.sk/structure1_en.html

Bothcorporawerereleasedin2015andarelemmatizedandmorphologicallytagged.

2.Method(I)1) Welistedalldiminutivizing suffixes(DIM1)andtriedtocombinethem

witheachothertoestablishthesuffixcombinations(DIM1-DIM2)thatareexpectedtoderivesecondgradediminutives.

2) WelookforDIM2suffixesingrammars(CzechandSlovakgrammarsdonotanalyzethestructureofthesecond-gradediminutivesintermsofDIM1-DIM2suffixcombinations(Danešetal.1967,Dokulil1986,Dvončetal.1966,Horecký1971,Furdík 2004,a.o.)

3) WesearchedtheCzechandSlovakNationalCorporaforwordsterminatinginDIM1-DIM2suffixcombinationsaswellasforwordsterminatinginDIM2suffixesthatarenotaresultofsuffixcombinationsuchase.g.-uška,-enka,etc.

4) Thelistsofallextractedformsweremanuallycheckedtoensurethatthenounsfoundaresecond-gradediminutives.

2.Method(II)

A.Wedistributedthedataintotwobiggroups:

1. Nounsthatexpresssmallness,i.e.commonnouns2. Nounsthatdonotnecessarilyexpresssmallness

2.1.propernames2.2.familymembers

B.Thisgroupingwasdonefortworeasons:

1. Theresearchonsecond-gradediminutivesintheliteratureisbasedoncommonnouns(assumingthatpropernamesandfamilymembershavenon-diminutivesemanticsandduetohighfrequencyofuseexhibitirregularities)

2. Toseethenounsofwhichgrouparethemostnumerousinacorpusofwrittentexts

ThestructureoftheSlavicword

10

3.DIM2inCzechDIM2-ek

-ek +-ek: rám ‘frame‘→ rám-ek→ rám-eč-ek-ík +-ek: kůň ‘horse‘→ kon-ík→ kon-íč-ek

DIM2-ka (epentheticvoweli/e)-ka +-ka:hlava ‘head‘→ hláv-ka→hlav-ič-ka

kniha‘book‘→ kníž-ka→kníž-eč-kačást ‘part‘→ část-ka→ část-eč-ka

DIM2-ko (epentheticvowelí/i/e)-ko +-ko:slovo ‘word‘→ slov-ko→ slov-íč-ko

oko ‘eye‘→ oč-ko→ oč-ič-komísto ‘place‘→míst-ko→míst-eč-ko

Peculiarpattern(Czech)

• Inthecorpusdata,thereisonly onenounthatseemstohaveformssimilartoDIM2butderivedinadifferentway:

dcéra‘daughter‘→ dcér-ka→ dcer-unka

• Aswe will see later,nouns denoting family members exhibitpeculiarities inSlovak,too.• Note,however,thatdiminutivesuffixes(bothDIM1andDIM2)whenattachedtonounsforfamilymembersdonotexpresssmallnessbutaffection.

4.DIM2inSlovakDIM2-ek

-ik +-ek:mráz ‘frost’→mráz-ik→mráz-ič-ek-ík +-ek:kôň ‘horse’→ kon-ík→ kon-íč-ek-ok+-ek:list ‘leaf’→ líst-ok→ líst-oč-ek

DIM2-ka (epentheticvowelsi/ô/o)-ka +-ka:hlava ‘head‘→ hláv-ka→hlav-ič-ka

kniha ‘book’→ kniž-ka→ kniž-ôč-kačasť ‘part’→čiast-ka→čiast-oč-ka

DIM2 -ko (epentheticvowelsi/ie/e/ô/o)-ko +-ko:slovo‘word‘→ slov-ko→ slov-íč-ko

zrno ‘corn‘→ zrn-ko→ zrn-ieč-kokladivo ‘hammer‘→kladiv-ko→kladiv-ôč-ko

Peculiarpatterns(Slovak)

• FamilymembersseemtohaveformscorrespondingtoDIM2nounsbutderivedinadifferentway:

teta ‘aunt’→ tet-ka→ tet-uškadcéra ‘daughter‘→ dcér-ka→ dcér-enkadedo ‘grandfather’→ ded-ko→ ded-uškomama ‘mother’→mam-ka→mamul-ienka

However:

tato ‘father‘→ tat-ko→ tat-íč-ko (i.e.likeslovo→ slov-ko→ slov-íč-ko)mama ‘mother‘→mam-ka →mam-ič-ka(i.e.like hlava→ hláv-ka→hlav-ič-ka)

5.DIM2inCzechandSlovak:AcomparisonSimilarities• BothCzechandSlovakusethesamethreesuffixesforderivationofDIM2nouns:

-ek,-ka, -ko• Thesuffixes-ek,-ka and-ko thatserveforderivationofDIM2nounsareallproductive(i.e.theycanattachtoforeignbases)

Differences• Slovakuses-ek forderivationofDIM1muchlessfrequentlythanCzechdoes:

Cz.rám‘frame‘→ rám-ek→ rám-eč-ekSl.rám‘frame‘→ rám-ik→ rám-č-ek

• The attachment ofphonologically the same DIM2suffix does not imply the sameepenthetic vowel inthe two languages:Cz.DIM2 -ka (epentheticvoweli/e)vs.Sl.DIM2-ka (epentheticvowelsi/ô/o)Cz.DIM2 -ko (epentheticvowelí/i/e )vs.Sl.DIM2-ko (epentheticvowelsi/ie/e/ô/o)

5.DIM2nounsintheCzechandSlovaknationalcorporain%(I)

•WefoundthreetypesofDIM2nouns:

Czech(100%=72) Slovak(100%=70)

1. Commonnouns 86.11% 58.572. Propernames 8.3% 28.573. Familymembers 5.56% 12.86%

5.DIM2nounsintheCzechandSlovaknationalcorporain%(II)

Czech(100%=72) Slovak(100%=70)

1. Commonnouns 86.11% 58.572. Propernames 8.3% 28.573. Familymembers 5.56% 12.86%

• Basedonthesedistributions,weconcludethatdiminutivization isindeedaboutsmallness,i.e.theprimaryfunctionofthemorphologicalmarkersofdiminutivization istheexpressionofdiminutivization andnotofaffection

(cf.Dressler&Merlini-Barabesi (1994);Jurafsky 1996;Grandi &Körtvélyessy (2015),a.o.)

5.DIM2nounsintheCzechandSlovaknationalcorporain%(III)

Czech(100%=72) Slovak(100%=70)1. Commonnouns 86.11% 58.572. Propernames 8.3% 28.573. Familymembers 5.56% 12.86%

• Theprimaryfunctionofthemorphologicalmarkers ofdiminutivization inCzechandSlovakistheexpressionofsmallness incommonnouns

• ThePolish,RussianandBulgarianDIM1-DIM2suffixcombinations(datafromtheliterature)inthenextslidesprioritizecommonnouns

• Thus,thecross-linguisticcomparisonsreportedinthisstudyarewithafocusonthediminutivization ofcommonnouns

19

6.DIM2inPolishDIM2-ek

-ek+-ek: dom ‘house’à dom-ekà dom-ecz-ek-ik /yk +-ek: stół ‘table’à stol-ikà stol-icz-ek

kosz ‘basket’à kosz-ykà kosz-yczekDIM2-ka

-ka +-ka: rama ‘frame’à ram-kaà ram-ecz-ka

DIM2-ko-ko +-ko: sito ‘sieve’à sitkoà sit-ecz-ko

Unproductivepatterns-uszek:kwiat ‘flower’à kwiat-ekà kwiat-uszek-aszek:kij ‘stick’à kij-ekà kij-aszek-uszka:paka ‘package’à pacz-kaà pacz-uszkaHowever,thereisno*-uszko!

20

6.DIM2inRussianDIM2-ek

-ok+-ek: golos ‘voice’à golos-okà golos-oč-ek-ek +-ek: den ‘day’à den-ekà den-eč-ek-ik +-ek: nož ‘knife’à nož-ikà nož-ič-ek

DIM2-ka-ka +-ka: igla ‘needle’à igol-kaà igol-oč-ka-ica +-ka: voda ‘water’à vod-icaà vod-ič-ka

čast’‘part’à čast-icaà čast-ič-ka-eška +-ka: ryba ‘fish’à ryb-eškaà ryb-ešeč-ka

DIM2-ko-ko +-ko: sito ‘sieve‘à sit-koà sit-ečko

BUT okno ‘window’à DIM1okoš-koà DIM2okoš-eč-ko

21

6.DIM2inBulgarianDIM2-ence

-le+-ence:nos ‘nose’à nos-leà nos-l-ence-če +-ence:krăg ‘circle’à krăg-čeàkrăg-č-ence-ce +-ence:selo ‘village’à sel-ceà sel-c-ence-ence +-ence:dete ‘child’à det-enceà det-enc-ence

DIM2-ica-ka +-ica:kniga ‘book’à kniž-kaà kniž-čica

DIM2-ka-ica +-ka:răka ‘hand’à răč-icaà răč-ička

• SimilartoCzechandSlovak, thereareDIM1suffixesthatlooklikeaDIM1-DIM2combinationbutderivefirst-gradediminutives:-ička (čanta ‘bag’à DIM1čant-ička)and-čica (sol ‘salt’à DIM1sol-čica).

7.Comparison(I)• Thedefaultrules fordiminutivization of(derivationofDIM1from)commonnounsinthefiveSlaviclanguagesarephonologically-based:

1. nounsin-CselectDIM1suffixesin-C or-e(inBg.)2. nounsin-a selectDIM1suffixesin -a3. nounsin-o/-eselectDIM1suffixesineither-oor-e

• Exceptions totheserulesarebasedongender,i.e.femininenounsin-Cand-eselectDIM1suffixesin -a, e.g.:

R.čast’‘part’à DIM1čast-icaCz.chvíle ‘moment’à DIM1 chvíl-ka

7.Comparison(II)

• ThederivationofDIM2isevenmoreregular:

1. DIM1nounsin -CreceiveDIM2suffixesin-C2. DIM1nounsin-areceiveDIM2suffixesin -a3. DIM1nounsin-ereceiveDIM2suffixesin-e

• Basedoneasinessofprocessing(Hay2003),researchinpsycholinguisticsprovidesanexplanationoftheobserveddifferenceintheattachmentofDIM1andDIM2suffixes:themorefartherawaythesuffixfromtheroot,themoreproductiveandregularthatsuffix.

7.Comparison(III)

Thefive languages,Czech,Slovak,Polish,Russian and Bulgarian,havespecialized three suffixes each for derivation of DIM2nouns:

Cz.:-ek,-ka,-koSl.:-ek,-ka,-koPl:-ek,-ka,-koR.:-ek,-ka,-koBg.:-ka,-ica,-ence

7.Comparison(IV)

• All DIM2suffixesinthefivelanguagesbut-ek inSlovakarethedefaultsuffixesforderivationofDIM1nouns

• AllDIM2suffixesbuttheSlovak-ek areproductiveDIM1suffixes

Cz.:-ek,-ka,-koSl.:-ek,-ka,-koPl:-ek,-ka,-koR.:-ek,-ka,-koBg.:-ka,-ica,-ence

7.Comparison(V)

• WithrespecttothesetofDIM2suffixesusedineachlanguage,theEastSlaviclanguageRussianpatternswiththeWestSlaviclanguages:

Cz.:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)Sl.:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)Pl:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)R.:-ek,-ka,-ko (EastSlavic)Bg.:-ka,-ica,-ence (SouthSlavic)

7.Comparison(VI)

• ThesetofDIM2suffixesusedintheSouthSlavicBulgariansignificantlydiffersfromthesetsofDIM2suffixesoftheotherlanguagesunderscrutinyinthisstudy

Cz.:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)Sl.:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)Pl:-ek,-ka,-ko (WestSlavic)R.:-ek,-ka,-ko (EastSlavic)Bg.:-ka,-ica,-ence (SouthSlavic)

Conclusions:ConstraintsontheDIM2suffixattached

• Phonological: the suffix musthave aparticular phonologicalmake-up

•Morphological:the combinations of suffixes (DIM1-DIM2)arefixed and to some extent resemble templatic affix ordering,i.e.only particular suffixes can be placed inthe DIM2subslot of theSlavic noun and these suffixes never co-ocurr inthat subslot

• Psycholonguistic:only productive diminutivesuffixes are used inDIM2nouns

28

Thankyou!

Selectedreferences• DRESSLER,WolfgangU.,MERLINI-BARABESI,Lavinia(1994):Morphopragmatics:diminutivesandintensifiersinItalian,German,andotherlanguages.- Berlin-New

York:MoutondeGruyter.

• GRANDI,N.,&L.KÖRTVÉLYESSY(Eds.),(2015).TheEdinburghhandbookofevaluativemorphology.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

• GREGOVÁ,Renáta.2015.Slovak.InGrandi,NicolaandLiviaKortvelyessy (eds.),EdinburghHandbookofEvaluativeMorphology,296- 305.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

• HAY,Jennifer(2003)Causesandconsequencesofwordstructure.NewYork:Routledge.

• JURAFSKY,D.(1993).Universalsinthesemanticsofthediminutive.ProceedingsoftheNineteenthAnnualMeetingoftheBerkeleyLinguisticsSociety,19(1),423–436.

• JURAFSKI,Daniel(1996).UniversalTendenciesintheSemanticsoftheDiminutive.- Language 72(3):533-578.

• MANOVA,Stela.2015.AffixorderandthestructureoftheSlavicword.In Manova,Stela(ed.),Affixorderingacrosslanguagesandframeworks,205-230.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

• MANOVA,Stela(2010):SuffixCombinationsinBulgarian:Parsability andHierarchy-BasedOrdering.- Morphology 20(1):267-296.

• Manova,Stelaand MarkAronoff.2010.ModelingAffixOrder.Morphology 20:109-131.

• MANOVA,StelaandWINTERNITZ,Kimberley(2011):Suffixorderindoubleandmultiplediminutives:withdatafromPolishandBulgarian.- StudiesinPolishLinguistics 6:115-138.

• MERLINIBARBARESI,L.(2015).Evaluativemorphologyandpragmatics.InN.Grandi,&L.Körtvélyessy (Eds.),TheEdinburghhandbookofevaluativemorphology(pp.32–42).Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Addressesthepragmaticsofevaluativemorphology.

• SCALISE,Sergio(1984):GenerativeMorphology.- Dordrecht:Foris.

• SZYMANEK,Bogdan,DERKACH,Tetyana (2005):ConstraintsonthederivationofdoublediminutivesinPolishandUkrainian.- StudiesinPolishLinguistics 2,93-112.

• WIERZBIZKA,Anna(1984):Diminutivesanddepreciatives:Semanticrepresentationforderivationalcategories.- Quaderni diSemantica 5,123-130.

Selectedreferences(Czech&Slovak)Dvonč,L.– G.Horák – F.Miko – J.Mistrík – J.Oravec – J.Ružička – M.Urbančok (1966),Morfológia slovenského jazyka,Bratislava:Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.Furdík,J.(2004),Slovenská slovotvorba,ed.M.Ološtiak,Prešov:Náuka.Hayeková,M.(1956),‘Deminutívavslovníku,ichštylistickéoznačenieavyužitie’,inSlovenskáreč1-2,XXI:76–79.Horecký,J.(1959),Slovotvornásústavaslovenčiny,Bratislava:VydavateľstvoSAV.Horecký,J.(1971),Slovenskálexikológia.I.Tvorenieslov,Bratislava:Slovensképedagogickénakladateľstvo.Ondrus,P.– J.Horecký– J.Furdík (1980),Súčasnýslovenskýspisovnýjazyk.Lexikológia, Bratislava:Slovensképedagogické

nakladateľstvo.Štolc,J.(1958),‘Kmorfológiideminutívvslovenčine’,inJazykovednéštúdieIII:19– 81.Trnková,J.(1991),‘Osubstantívnejdeminutívnejderiváciivslovenčine’,inSlovenskáreč,56,č.2,pp.87–95.Zelinková,K.(1993),‘Sústavaslovenskýchdeminutív’,inZborníkk11.medzinárodnémuzjazduslavistov,Nitra:Vysokáškola

pedagogická,pp.28–44.Daneš,František– Dokulik,Miloš– Kuchař– Jaroslav:Tvořeníslovvčeštině2.Odvozovánípodstatnýchjmen. Praha:

Academia,1967.779s.Dokulil,Milošakol.Mluvnicečeštiny(1).Fonetika,fonologie,morfologieamorfemika,tvořeníslov. Praha:Academia,1986.

566s.Trávníček,František.Mluvnicespisovnéčeštiny.Část1.Hláskosloví,tvořeníslov,tvarosloví. Praha:Slovanskénakladatelství,

1951.611s.Štícha,František(1978).Našeřeč,ročník61 (3): 113-127.