LINGUIST List 27.911

Fri Feb 19 2016

Review: Morphology; Pragmatics; Semantics; Sociolinguistics; Typology: Grandi, Kortvelyessy (2015)

Editor for this issue: Sara Couture <saralinguistlist.org>


Date: 22-Oct-2015
From: Stefan Hartmann <hartmastuni-mainz.de>
Subject: Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology
E-mail this message to a friend

Discuss this message

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3291.html

EDITOR: Nicola Grandi
EDITOR: Livia Kortvelyessy
TITLE: Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology
PUBLISHER: Edinburgh University Press
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Stefan Hartmann, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, edited by Nicola Grandi and
Livia Körtvélyessy, gives an overview of Evaluative Morphology (EM hereafter),
i.e. morphological patterns that serve evaluative functions in quantitative
and/or qualitative terms, including “diminution or augmentation, endearment or
contempt” (Stump 1993: 1). The editors take a decidedly typological approach:
all contributors to the first, more theoretically-oriented part of the volume
collect examples from many different languages. Part II of the volume
comprises descriptive chapters taking stock of evaluative morphology in 52
individual languages from 26 language families.

Chapter 1 of the first part, the editors’ Introduction entitled “Why
evaluative morphology?”, starts out with a critical appraisal of the criteria
for EM proposed by Scalise (1984: 133f.), who sees EM as a “third morphology”
in-between inflection and derivation. Like inflectional patterns, EM patterns,
according to Scalise, leave both the syntactic category and the
subcategorization frame of the base unchanged. At the same time, like
derivational patterns, they change the semantics of the base word, and they
allow for the consecutive application of more than one rule of the same type
(e.g. multiple diminution in the case of Italian “fuocherellino”
‘fire-DIM-DIM/nice little fire’). However, Grandi and Körtvélyessy point out
that “the idea of this third morphology is language-bound, and - consequently
- that it cannot be viewed as a universal feature of human languages.” (p. 4)
In the remainder of the chapter, the editors review the controversial
discussion on the place of EM within morphology as well as the research on EM
conducted in the wake of Scalise’s monograph. They mention numerous classes of
morphological constructions that have been identified in the literature as
instances of EM, including diminution and augmentation in quality and/or
quantity, age variation, approximation, intensification, endearment,
hypocorism, expression of social position, contempt, and prototypicality (p.
9f.). Defining the scope of EM, Grandi and Körtvélyessy put forward two
criteria to identify evaluative morphological patterns: first, on the
functional level, the pattern must assign a value that is different from the
standard or default; second, on the formal level, the evaluative construction
must include a) a linguistic form expressing, as a lexically autonomous unit,
the standard value, and b) an “evaluative mark” (p. 13), i.e. a linguistic
element specifically devoted to expressing the semantic shift. In addition,
the introductory chapter offers an overview of the individual chapters in part
I of the book as well as a list of languages mentioned in the volume.

Chapter 2, by Victor M. Prieto, deals with “The Semantics of Evaluative
Morphology”. Within the framework of cognitive semantics, Prieto argues that
the semantics of evaluatives is grounded in the physical property of size and
size perception, which he illustrates with the example of diminutives and
augmentatives, starting from the radial category model of diminutives proposed
by Jurafsky (1996). Rather than having full-fledged “meaning” on their own,
evaluatives, in his view, prompt meaning construction processes: they
“activate frames, promote mappings, and encourage the blending of information
from different domains.” (p. 30)

In Chapter 3, Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi discusses the relationship between
“Evaluative Morphology and Pragmatics”. Drawing on the theoretical model of
morphopragmatics developed by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994), she
conceives of meaning as “having both semantic and pragmatic invariant
features.” (p. 35) As such, the semantics of evaluatives encompasses
morphopragmatic meanings such as “fictive evaluation” - in the sense that “the
norms of the real world are suspended” (p. 39) - and non-seriousness in the
sense of “lowered formality” (p. 36).

Chapter 4, by Pavol Štekauer, gives an overview of “Word-Formation Processes
in Evaluative Morphology”. Striving to “provide a concise typological overview
that indicates the main tendencies as well as intriguing peculiarities of
evaluative formation” (p. 47), he demonstrates that cross-linguistically, EM
employs a wide range of word-formation processes. Among these processes,
affixation is clearly the dominant one for EM, while compounding does not play
a significant role in evaluative formation. In addition, he shows that EM is a
characteristic feature of Standard Average European languages and of Slavic
languages in particular.

In Chapter 5, entitled “Evaluative Morphology and Language Universals”, Livia
Körtvélyessy first identifies three language universals in the Universals
Archive (http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/intro/) referring to EM patterns.
Then she briefly reviews three relevant contributions on EM and language
universals: Jurafsky’s (e.g. 1996) work on diminutives, Beard’s (1995)
framework of Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology in which he argues that
expressive derivations “reflect at least five functions universally: the
Diminutive, Augmentative, Pejorative, Affectionate, and Honorific” (Beard
1995: 67), and Körtvélyessy’s (2012) extensive study of EM in 200 languages.
In line with Štekauer’s observation mentioned above, she arrives at the
conclusion that EM is not a language universal but rather an areal phenomenon.

In Chapter 6, Nicola Grandi discusses “The Place of Evaluation within
Morphology”. Again drawing on Scalise’s criteria for EM, he shows that EM
patterns differ considerably across languages; all in all, however, he arrives
at the conclusion that EM shares more features with derivation than with
inflection and that “the supposed analogies between inflection and evaluative
affixation are often deceptive” (p. 89).

Chapter 7, also written by Grandi, deals with “Evaluative Morphology and
Number/Gender”. He shows that cross-linguistically, diminutives tend to have
neuter gender in tripartite sex-based gender systems while they tend to
maintain the gender of the base in two-part sex-based gender systems. For
augmentatives, he shows a systematic interaction with masculine gender in the
Indo-European languages. In terms of number, he demonstrates that in some
African languages, the evaluative meaning and the number value can merge in a
single affix and that in various languages diminutives form unexpected
plurals. In addition, he points out that there is a cross-linguistic
correlation between diminutives and singulatives on the one hand and
augmentatives and collectives on the other.

Chapter 8, by Lucia M. Tovena, deals with “Evaluative Morphology and
Aspect/Actionality”. Focusing on EM in the domain of verbs in Romance
languages, she shows that the application of evaluative affixes to telic bases
results in the loss of telicity, which goes in tandem with event-internal
pluractionality. This modification of aspect and actionality is linked up with
the general function of EM to quantitatively alter a gradable property of the
referent of the expression it modifies.

Chapter 9, by Livio Gaeta, discusses “Evaluative Morphology and
Sociolinguistic Variation”. Gaeta reviews a multitude of studies showing the
interaction between EM and different sociolinguistic variables such as gender,
age, and register. For instance, he mentions that for some languages, it has
been shown that female speakers employ more EM than do male speakers and that
diminutives are used particularly frequently in child-directed speech.
Regarding the sociopragmatic dimension, he argues that EM plays a particular
role in languages with full-fledged honorific systems.

In Chapter 10, Wolfgang U. Dressler and Katharina Korecky-Kröll address the
topic of “Evaluative Morphology and Language Acquisition”. Particularly
focusing on diminutives, they argue that in early child language, where
diminutive patterns tend to emerge simultaneously with inflectional and
compound patterns, the meanings of diminutives are invariably pragmatic in
nature, expressing “endearment, intimacy, warm feelings of affection, love and
kindness” (p. 139). Consequently, they see the pragmatic meanings of
diminutives as more basic than the semantic ones.

In Chapter 11, Katrin Mutz discusses “Evaluative Morphology in a Diachronic
Perspective”. Focusing on diminutives and augmentatives, she discusses the
role of grammaticalization and refunctionalization in the emergence of these
patterns in different languages. For example, she shows that diminutives have
emerged through grammaticalization in many African and Asian languages, e.g.
Vietnamese “bàn con” ‘small table’ < “con” ‘child’. In many Indo-European
languages, by contrast, diminutive affixes have been recruited from other
derivational domains, e.g. the diminutive suffix “-aster” < derivational
suffix “-aster”, e.g. “patr-aster” ‘stepfather’. In addition, she discusses
pathways of semantic and functional change in diminutive affixes and
etymological aspects of augmentative affixes.

Chapter 12, by Giulia Petitta, Alessio Di Renzo and Isabella Chiari, discusses
“Evaluative Morphology in Sign Languages”. They first introduce basic notions
of morphology in signed languages such as the distinction between simultaneous
and sequential morphology. In sequential morphology, signs are concatenated,
while in simultaneous morphology, a particular aspect of the sign itself is
altered. Focusing on augmentation and diminution in Italian Sign Language,
they distinguish manual sequential, manual simultaneous, non-manual, and
reduplicative strategies to encode evaluation. For example, diminution and
augmentation can be expressed by adding a specific handshape indicating size
(often accompanied by non-manual signs) or by reducing or enlarging the
handshape of the sign, the distance between the hands, or the movement.
Non-manual strategies attested across different signed languages include
“puffing cheeks out for augmentatives and sucking cheeks in for diminutives”
(p. 164).

Chapter 13 on “Evaluative Morphology in Pidgins and Creoles”, by Barbara
Turchetta, then concludes the first part of the volume. She first addresses
the question if EM is attested at all in pidgins and creoles. Given their
tendency towards isolating patterns, she argues that in terms of EM, pidgins
and creoles mainly rely on reduplication. However, she also points out that
pidgins and creoles can change rapidly and “develop quite impressively in
grammar” (p. 177). This can lead, for example, to the grammaticalization of
derivation patterns such as the agentive-augmentative/iterative Jamaican
Creole suffix “-sha”, which probably goes back to “she”, e.g. “laafiisha” ‘a
person who laughs a lot’.

The second part of the volume starts with an introduction by Livia
Körtvélyessy outlining the rationale behind the choice of the 52 languages
covered in the descriptive chapters. The individual languages described in
Part II are: Basque (Xavier Artiagoitia), Catalan (Elisenda Bernal), Georgian
(Manana Topadze Gäumann), Hungarian (Ferenc Kiefer & Boglárka Németh), Israeli
Hebrew (Noam Faust), Ket (Edward J. Vajda), Latvian (Andra Kalnača),
Luxembourgish (Peter Gilles), Modern Greek (Dimitra Melissaropoulou), Nivkh
(Ekaterina Gruzdeva), Persian (Negar Davari Ardakani & Mahdiye Arvin), Slovak
(Renáta Gregová), Swedish (Arne Olafsson), Tatar (Fatma Şahan Güney), Telugu
(Pingali Sailaja), Udihe (Maria Tolskaya); Apma (Cindy Schneider), Chinese
(Giorgio Francesco Arcodia), Lisu (David Bradley), Muna (René van den Berg),
Tagalog (Carl Rubino), Tibetan (Camille Simon & Nathan W. Hill), Yami (D.
Victoria Rau & Hui-Huan Ann Chang), Dalabon (Maïa Ponsonnet & Nicholas Evans),
Iatmul (Gerd Jendraschek), Jingulu (Rob Pensalfini), Kaurna (Rob Amery),
Rembarrnga (Adam Saulwick), Warlpiri (Margit Bowler), Yukuta, Kayardild, and
Lardil (Erich Round), Berber (Nicola Grandi), Classical and Moroccan Arabic
(Nora Arbaoui), Ewe (Yvonne Agbetsoamedo & Paul Kofi Agbedor), Kɔnni (Michael
Cahill), Sɛlɛɛ (Yvonne Agbetsoamedo & Francesca Di Garbo), Shona (Rose-Marie
Déchaine, Raphaël Girard, Calisto Mudzingwa & Martina Wiltschko), Somali
(Nicola Lampitelli), Zulu (Andrew van der Spuy & Lwazi Mjiyako), Cabécar
(Guillermo Gonzáles Campos), Choctaw (Marcia Haag), Dena’ina (Olga Lovick),
Huautla Mazatec (Jean Léo Léonard), Huave (Maurizio Gnerre), Inuktitut
(Richard Compton), Plains Cree (Arok Wolvengrey), Slavey (Dene) and other
Athabaskan languages (Olga Lovick & Keren Rice), Jaqaru (Olga Birioukova &
M.J. Hardman), Kwaza (Hein van der Voort), Lule (Raoul Zamponi & Willem J. de
Reuse), Toba (Paola Cúneo), Wichí (Verónica Nercesian), Yurakaré (Rik van
Gijn).

EVALUATION

Three decades have passed since Scalise (1984) introduced the term “Evaluative
Morphology” to the morphological discussion. His proposal has sparked the
interest of morphologists across different frameworks. Grandi and
Körtvélyessy’s Handbook represents the first attempt to bring together a broad
variety of theoretical and descriptive contributions on EM in a comprehensive
and authoritative volume. The fact that despite (or perhaps because of) the
widespread interest in the topic no agreed-upon criteria for EM have been
identified so far makes the editors’ achievement all the more impressive. They
have succeeded in compiling a highly informative, well-structured and
well-written volume that will be the standard reference work for anyone
interested in EM for the years to come.

One critical remark that could be put forward is that the theoretical part as
well as some chapters in the descriptive part focus a little bit too much on
diminutives and augmentatives. On the one hand, this is understandable given
that these categories are seen as prototypical instantiations of EM. On the
other hand, a closer look at more peripheral examples, such as ameliorative
and pejorative morphological patterns that do not derive from augmentatives
and diminutives, might prove even more insightful for delineating the scope of
EM. Most importantly, the diachronic dynamics of evaluative semantics
potentially become much clearer in cases that do not involve diminution or
augmentation. While the semantic pathway from quantitative to qualitative
augmentation or diminution is quite straightforward, things are more complex
when contextually conditioned pragmatic meanings become part of a pattern’s
semantics. For instance, Dammel (2011) shows that the German agentive suffix
“-ler” gradually assumed a pejorative meaning which then, however, was largely
lost again. Importantly, the observation that a linguistic construction can
gradually assume evaluative meaning has been made for specific idiomatic
patterns on the syntactic level as well. For example, Bybee (2010: 28f.)
discusses the case of “What’s X doing Y”, e.g. “What’s that fly doing in my
soup?”, which has come to systematically express disapproval. As such, one
question that might deserve more attention in future work is how EM relates to
evaluative patterns in other domains.

Speaking of future work, the Handbook also makes it perfectly clear that much
of EM is still uncharted territory, both in terms of description and in terms
of theory. As such, the Handbook does not only provide a highly welcome
overview of what has been done so far but will hopefully also draw more
attention to the domain of EM and instigate further studies on the evaluative
potential of morphological patterns.

REFERENCES

Beard, Robert (1995): Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. A General Theory of
Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dammel, Antje (2011): Wie kommt es zu rumstudierenden Hinterbänklern und
anderen Sonderlingen? Pfade zu pejorativen Wortbildungsbedeutungen im
Deutschen. In: Jörg Riecke (ed.): Historische Semantik. Berlin, New York: De
Gruyter.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (1994): Morphopragmatics.
Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin,
New York: De Gruyter.
Jurafsky, Daniel (1996): Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the
Diminutive. In: Language 72 (3), 533–578.

Körtvélyessi, Livia (2012): Evaluative morphology from a cross-linguistic
perspective. Habilitation Thesis, Eötvös Lorand University Budapest.

Scalise, Sergio (1984): Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Stump, Gregory (1993): How peculiar is evaluative morphology? In: Journal of
Linguistics 29, 1–36.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Stefan Hartmann is currently a research assistant at the University of Mainz,
Germany. His research interests include historical and corpus linguistics,
Cognitive Linguistics, morphology and morphological change, sociolinguistics,
psycholinguistics, and language evolution research.

Page Updated: 19-Feb-2016