MEANING AND USE OF THE SPANISH DIMINUTIVE ITO: TOWARDS A
SEMANTICS OF SOCIAL MEANING Carlos Molina-Vital 1. Grammar,
meaning, and social meaning Modern linguists have filled up pages
and pages proposing different theories to explain a system called
grammar, which is regarded to be at the very base of every form of
speech. It seems evident that every linguist that wants to do
theoretical linguistics needs to come up with a notion of grammar
that is regarded more stable and previous to any form of actual
speech. Something similar can be said about meaning: if a
linguistic item has a meaning, then it has to be adequate to the
whole theory of grammar. Therefore, if your theory is a formal one,
then your notion of meaning needs to be formal, based on structural
constrictions; likewise, a functional theory requires a functional
notion of meaning, based on communication. What about meaning that
is at the same time social? Social meaning seems to be a concept
that doesnt fit in well in many current theories of grammar and
meaning because grammar and meaning are seen as a form of
knowledge, whereas social issues are just activities that vary form
culture to culture and, even worse, vary from individual to
individual. Therefore, if something means anything at a social
level, it has to be a cultural convention or something along those
lines (rituals, ideological systems, etc.). This is a big gap and
it seems to be better for linguists lo leave things the way they
are and dont mess with any meaning that is too social. Thats
sociologists business! What about communication? If language is
functional, as some theoreticians believe and claim, it is
necessary an issue of interaction betweens individuals inside of a
community. This would be a good starting point to start thinking
about what kind of relation there is between grammar, meaning and
social meaning. Unfortunately, functional linguistics seems to be
completely busy dealing with communicative constrictions in
language structure that are derived from informational issues.
Therefore, topicality is relevant to grammar because it imposes
restrictions on the way speakers exchange information. The
1
content of the information, who the speakers are, and what kind
of social structures mediate between their interaction seem to be
very far from things like topicality. Functional linguistics has
been practicing a (very) low-intensity approach to social
interaction. Society seems to be the frame that holds the picture:
you can safely ignore it and study the images. With this paper I
want to increase the intensity of the social aspects of language
use. In that respect, the ideas presented here are in the tradition
of what Dell Hymes called communicative competence, a form of
applied knowledge that allows the speaker to use certain styles or
registers, shift between variants, display appropriate politeness
routines, etc. (Hudson 1986: 4ss). The phenomenon I will focus on
is the meaning and use of the most common diminutive suffix in
Spanish, -ito (feminine ita). I decided to use this linguistic item
because it is highly polysemous, and some meanings are
traditionally considered as exclusively pragmatic, since they only
make sense if both interlocutors are able to relate to cultural and
practical constraints. A linguistic item of this kind is the
perfect phenomenon to go in depth into the problem of how meaning
can be truly social and, at the same time, affect the way language
is constructed in interaction. This implies that language is more
something practiced than something passively known.
1.1.
Language as knowledge for an action: the basis of social
meaning
Language knowledge is more like an action than a state, which
has been known for a long time. When we communicate we are not only
structuring our utterance based on certain communicative
strategies, but we are also trying to do something through our
speech: inform, promise, argue, etc. The whole theory of speech
acts is based on this premise. But how is this a form of knowledge
relevant to a theory of language? In order to realize that
knowledge, as Hudson (1986: 6-7) says, is knowledge for an action,
we need to abandon the illusion of a linguistic knowledge
pre-formed outside of any given use. This idea is a product of the
apparently evident fact that language is a form
2
that represents reality. In fact, the cognitive turn produced by
Chomskys ideas can be reduced to that single fact language is a
form of mental representation. Surely, language represents reality
in peoples minds to produce communication, but it does so by
creating a mental reality that covers all the forms of actions
humans are involved in. And the main field of action for humans is
social interaction. This concept needs to be the cornerstone of the
long delayed integration of the insights of sociolinguistics into a
theory of grammar. When language happens, it takes place at the
heart of social interaction. Therefore, if linguists at the
so-called core of the discipline decide to stop looking at language
as a grammatical sketch of a reality composed of mainly external
phenomena agents doing things to patients, things that can be
singular, plural or dual, etc. maybe they would see a whole new set
of facts that have always been there, because they are as central
to language as the purely propositional ones. Doing things to
others through language implies a dynamic representation of
reality. Language users are not sitting in a lab using microscopes
to analyze immobile elements, they are not even sitting in front of
a landscape as artists trying to capture the images. It is more
like being a soccer player that is not only actively participating
of the game, but, sometimes, since this is not the main function of
a player, decides to act as a sports commentator. You can not say
that the core knowledge is the reporting part, when being part of
the game is what really defines a player. The aspect of language
that best relates to this broad notion of knowledge clearly is
meaning. I consider meaning to be the concept (or network of
concepts) associated with a linguistic item. In more simple terms,
the meaning of a linguistic expression is everything we know that
relates to what that expression represents encyclopedic meaning.
This idea rejects the supposition that meaning is reduced to an
objective symbol, which would be much convenient for the
articulation of a logical form, such as those proposed in predicate
calculus. On the contrary, meaning equals human cognition (Cf.
Jackendoff 1983, Langacker 1987, Talmy 2000). Since social facts
are undoubtedly an important part
3
of human experience, they must be a part of the rich conceptual
structures that forms the semantics of any natural language.
Therefore, distinction between types of meaning can only relate to
uses of meaning, not the nature of meaning. Linguistic meaning cant
be different in nature from social meaning. Even if it is clear, as
Hudson points (2007: 212) that a propositional meaning, related to
the words referent is very different form the meaning related to
the utterance situation, the presence of a speaker, an addressee,
etc. (i.e. the social meaning), the fact that both are part of the
encyclopedic network that forms meaning makes them fully
compatible. This is clear, for instance, in the conceptual
inheritance process that is logical for any given concept. Thus,
for any linguistic meaning the following hierarchy is displayed
(based on Hudson 1986: 9):
concept person thing state action communicative action gesture
word process event relation social relations ...
accident
transaction
noun verb ad-word auxiliary non-auxiliary
give run take
Figure 1. Conceptual inheritance process 4
Every step down the hierarchy accumulates the conceptual
implications of the element at each superior node. This entails
that a word or a suffix, conspicuous members of the grammar field,
need to be understood as parts of the communicative actions
category, which includes notions such as speaker, addressee, and
anything associated with their position in a community or where
interaction takes place. The structure of the network is always
complex and communicative action is not only an action, is also a
form of social behavior, so another line connects it to the
category social relations. Sometimes, that knowledge can be
stressed and be perceived, often vaguely, as part of the meaning of
a linguistic item. Other times, a similar element at the
grammatical level can be considered more neutral (although, there
is always the possibility that even the most neutral word can be
perceived as hinting at some form of communicative action based on
social knowledge, as ironic speech). About this Hudson states: we
know that the actor/speaker or the addressee of the word tummy is
normally a child; so we may assume that this fact is stored as part
of our knowledge of this word; whereas for the word head no such
restrictions are known. (1986: 10). Certainly, to suggest that
social aspects are indeed a relevant part of language is nothing
new. What it is currently considered the standard theory in
sociolinguistics has been claiming this since its very inception by
motivating language change in different social patterns
quantitatively reflected in language use (for a comprehensive
account of this theory, Cf. Labov 1994 and 2001). Although it is
important to understand linguistic change in terms of how social
factors predispose individuals to use certain forms, I think that
it is also important to take into account how individuals seem to
motivate their choices. In other words, social facts are not
necessarily macro-categories that vertically motivate our behavior
as speakers; instead, they flag certain targets or check points
that we need to reach not only to be understood, but also to
express what is expected from us in certain situations. Thus, we
are actively shaping our speech so that we, as speakers, can
produce not only an accurate representation of the world, but a
successful strategy to deal with several social, cultural and
contextual requirements.
5
1.2.
From variable rules, via social networks, to communities of
practice: the increasing importance of the building of the self in
a social background. 1.2.1. Variable rules
Building bridges between the theory of language variation and a
theory of grammar (understood as knowledge of language) was never
an easy task. During the early days of sociolinguistic research,
Labov and others such as Wolfram and Fasold noticed that the
analysis of variables required bringing together numerous social
factors that were mutually dependent, making it difficult to
determine only based on those external factors what the output of a
speaker will be. However, it was increasingly clear to them and
others that the linguistics constraints regularly present in the
utterance of a variant were more reliable in predicting its
realization. Thus, Labov proposed that linguistic internal factors
plus the influence of external factors could be formalized in the
form of variable rules that predict the surface form of a
linguistic utterance. These rules were inspired by the then popular
generative phonology framework of features developed by Halle and
Chomsky, but of course, receive a sociolinguistic twist: each
variable (a more abstract category, similar to a phoneme) has a
rule that produce (generates) the variants (more specific and
socially grounded categories, similar to allophones). So, the
difference between the variable rules and the generative standard
rules was the former were sensitive to different degrees of social
contexts while the latter were isolated from any form of social
use. As Wolfram (1991: 26) puts it: variable rule simply expanded
and redefined the notion of optionality to include constrains on
its variability, starting with independent linguistic constraints
and then adding sociological constraints as well to the formulation
of variable rules. The adoption of a linguistic basis at the
starting point for this rule departed from the original definition
of a linguistic variable in subtle but significant ways. The
variable rule definition or reinterpretation of the linguistic
variable was primarily a
6
linguistic one, with sociolinguistic amendments simply helping
to define its variability. In theory, this idea should have been a
good way to deal with the relation between social facts and
linguistic structure. However, as Wardaugh (2006: 187-188) points,
it was virtually impossible to come up with a satisfying variable
rule since it should be able to cover the variants of a whole
speech community under a single variable. And it was very unlikely
that a basic form would show up to be considered the variable. A
very simple example of this is that speakers of Dominican Spanish
who have never been formally educated in Spanish are not able to
provide data that supports the historically known fact that a [] is
derived from a /d/ in intervocalic position going through a [].
They think that words such as pedo (fart) are indeed /peo/ (Ann
Olivo, p.c.). This would mean that formally educated Dominicans
living in the USA can have a variable (d) that includes [] as a
variant, while this is not true for the non-educated ones, who
would have a different rule regarding (d). This would mean that
people dont communicate through the same set of rules but through
intersecting sets (Wardaugh 2006: 187); and a consequence of this
would be very extreme: some forms of variation that appear to be
evident in the observation of a speech community do not necessarily
come from the application of a rule (Hudson 1996: 254). Moreover,
the predictive power of a variable rule is hampered by the fact
that they arise from statistical trends in populations whose very
integration depends on very abstract higher order notions (social
class, gender, age, etc.). In this case, then, the rule has no full
predictive power and becomes only a the expression of a number of
probabilities (Wardaugh: 2006: 187). It is not surprising that
variationist sociolinguists fell for the Chomskyan idea of rules.
After all, it seems that any worthy scientific endeavor should
postulate a set of rules that can clearly predict how things will
develop given some (more or less) objective data. However, the
interest in variable rules was soon abandoned in Labovian
sociolinguistics, in favor of a, in my opinion, a heavily revamped
theory of historical linguistics. And historical linguistics is,
unfortunately, still at odds with modern theories of language
focused on synchronic facts originated in the minds of the speakers
(at the very least
7
since Saussures distinction between Langue and Parole). The
bridge was too shaky to be safely transited by researchers
interested in unifying performance and competence, so many decided
to stop using it altogether. The problem here is, I think, that
variable rules were not needed to begin with because, as a change
in direction in linguistic theory has shown (Cf. Givn 1979,
Langacker 1990, Bybee et al. 1994, among many) it is perfectly
possible that rules are not necessary as absolute determiners of
the language use: theres the possibility that other forms of
fuzzier mental representations, more akin to variability, are in
charge of the use and the knowledge of language. It is true that
the blatant asymmetry between usage and formal rules, as well as
the typological variation of languages, have inspired formalist
linguists to believe on a set of rules governing use, but strictly
separate from any use. But that same fact can suggest that formal
rules are incompatible with facts because they are not capable of
representing them in their whole dimension. Quantitative
sociolinguists saw much of the whole dimension of language in use,
but by appealing to variable rules to describe it they failed to
reduce that plethora of variable factors into a formalization that,
by definition, is incapable to handle multiple variation.
1.2.2. Networks and communities of practice If, as I think,
Labov is right in saying that linguistics problems are ultimately
problems in the analysis of social behavior (cited on Wolfram 1991:
28-29), then we need to start thinking of both language and social
behavior in a different way. The apparent dead end reached through
variable rules is motivated by a heavily structural view of
linguistic facts as essentially different from any other kind of
fact. This is evident in Wolframs concerns about the unnatural
matching of social and linguistic constraints in variable rules:
This incorporation of social and linguistic variables within a
single rule strikes me as an unwarranted mixing of linguistic
oranges with
8
sociological apples, since they do not seem to answer to the
same explanatory god. (1991: 31)
Of course, Wolfram feels uneasy about this combination, because
it seems obvious that one thing are linguistic facts and other
social facts, if one has a clear formal structure, while the other
seems to be a combination of mutually interfering factors whose
products are never fully predictable. Firm steps towards a
different view of language in relation to society were achieved
through the application of a more dynamic view of individuals in
society: they are part of several social networks in which they
develop action skills that are encouraged or deterred by their
peers. But to make everything even more interesting, wide variation
seems to be naturally embedded in the notion of networks, as
individuals participate in different ones at the same time, and in
many occasions interests uniting members in one network are very
different, or even conflictive, from those in another one. Under
the light of social networks, the nature of communities changes.
They are not anymore the individuals that fall unavoidable into
different macro-categories such as social class, age, etc., but
they emerge as a result of the individuals lives. Communities arise
from the intensity of the interaction between certain individuals.
This, in turn, is responsible for one of the main properties of
networks, according to Meyerhoff (2006: 185): they have a big
impact on how innovations are spread through society. By
innovation, one should understand here any kind of knowledge that
is regarded as convenient to be displayed in a group. Then,
knowledge is a value that is not only used, but shaped by the
community. This is, in my opinion, a huge step towards seeing the
common grounds between social acts what people do as part of their
life in a community and language a form of knowledge, but certainly
not one in the sense advocated in Chomsky 1986. It is no surprise,
then, that social meaning has become a major issue for
sociolinguists doing research based on networks. Knowledge seen as
a crucial part of social interaction
9
within a network is behind Penelope Eckerts theory of social
variation. This new approach to variation contrasts with the first
wave of sociolinguistics the one that assumes socioeconomic
hierarchy as the main factor of social distribution, and takes
variables as a reflection of social categories and positive or
negative values associated with them (2005: 3), and extends the
results of the sociolinguistic study of networks, or the second
wave the one that sees variables as locally created categories that
express the degree of affiliation of an individual to his/her
network (2005: 15). Now, the third wave has moved its interest from
the regional-geographical scope of the first networks studies to
more specific groups called communities of practice, in order to
account for variation as a form of creating social meaning through
an individuals style. the meaning of variation lies in its role in
the construction of styles, and studying the role of variation in
stylistic practice involves not simply placing variables in styles,
but in understanding this placement as an integral part of the
construction of social meaning. (2005: 24)
The specific sense of the term social meaning in Eckerts theory
needs to be further discussed. Meaning here stands for a very
complex concept: it is the way we think of our place in a community
and the way we think about our interactions with people. To
represent it, we use a set of variables to configure a style.
Social meaning can be seen, therefore, as a very complex symbolic
relation between an individual and his/her group. I think that the
notion of individuals as symbols in function of some groups can
only be achieved through continuous and relevant interactions
inside of one group and in contrast with others we want to
differentiate from. A community of practice is the perfect
environment for the development of such intense interactions
members are united by some common goal, which requires specific
practices from them. Eckerts theory about social meaning is,
consequently, an explanation of the linguistic construction of
identity. Forming a network as tight as a community of practice
puts the individual in a situation that demands, under
encouragement or pressure of his/her peers, (un)conscious efforts
to
10
build an identity that, through style, embodies a what he/she
thinks best represents him/her. As Eckert (1999: 41) says it: I
view identity as ones meaning in the world. A persons place in
relation to other people, a persons perspective on the rest of the
world, a persons understanding of his or her value to others.
In sum, social meaning is the product of subjective attitudes
towards ones own and others groups. The link between language
variation and an individual identity is social meaning. And it is
social because identity only can be reclaimed and kept by being
part of (or being opposed to) a network (Eckert 1999: 41-42). It is
not easy to fully grasp this idea because it deliberately equates a
system of beliefs (and its construction) with meaning. And beliefs
are concepts organized in a way that shape a personal view of
reality, a view that is marked by opinions, adhesions,
confrontation, etc. In more traditional terms, what Eckert proposes
is that social meaning is a full semiotic complex, only possible to
grasp in relation to identity, and linguistic factors are just a
part of any semiotic system. However, she claims that both the
construction of social meaning and the construction of language are
one and the same, because social meaning expressed in language
variation cant come from social structures which are not
immediately and directly produced by human interaction. Theres no
ready made social meaning. Thus, associations between linguistic
variables and social meaning need to be negotiated, proposed,
accepted or rejected. They are not given to speakers as a fixed
list they learn before interacting. (1999: 43). This, as presented
by Eckert, sounds quite challenging: social meaning is virtually a
sociological theory that every individual produces through group
interaction. And the expression of that theory through different
linguistic items (phonemes, suffixes, words, etc.) helps to make
evident to the rest what our sociology for living is. Is language
suited to accomplish such a complex function?
11
Eckert believes that language fulfills this sociological meaning
through variation produced in use. But as far as I have been able
to read about communities of practice and social meaning, I havent
found any precise description of how language goes through this
process of constructing social meaning using its structural
features. Social meaning assigned to variables are said to be
constructed by speakers, but an activity like this seems very
detached from what are considered to be the most common
communicative uses of language propositional meaning. In one word,
Eckert has proposed a very bold idea that combines a dynamic view
of language use with an extremely rich and complex view of social
knowledge (the formation of identity), but she hasnt proposed how
these actually work together in more detail. To me, talking about
social meaning in sociological-symbolic concepts without saying
exactly how they fit into a theory of language leaves the door open
to think about this issue as just a matter of performance, i.e. a
product of only use and nothing inherent to the way language is. In
other words, I can easily think of the relation of social meaning
and linguistic variation in the following terms: individuals use
their language to communicate with each other through a basic
propositional form (produced by their abstract competence); after
doing that, they take that linguistic product to a different level
to codify a complex set of values that represent their identities
on top of the linguistic form. This complies with Wolframs idea
that it makes no sense to mix linguistic constraints with
sociological ones (and in Eckerts theory sociological issues are
more relevant than ever). Social meaning is too complex and
asystematic to be an structural part of language; in fact it is the
perfect example of a subject completely external to the nature of
language. The fact that she hasnt proposed any tangible bridges
between linguistic structure and social meaning makes it plausible
to believe that theres still no way in sight to accommodate this
kind of issues inside of the core of language. Thus, even though is
clear that sociolinguistic theories of variation have incorporated
the notion of knowledge as indistinguishable of practice, the
question remains: if construction of social meaning and
construction of language are the same, then what do they have in
common that can satisfactorily motivate and explain this theory? Or
in Wolframs terms, how can they answer to the same explanatory
god?
12
1.3.
A word on pragmatics: the hinge between cognition and action
It is time now to close the circle of the relation between
meaning and sociolinguistics. I find Eckerts notion of social
meaning to be the final result of the prime cognitive feature of
humans: we are sense-making beings. We tend to assign meaning to
even the most insignificant things around us, so it is perfectly
natural that we as well assign a meaning to our own selves. But in
order to reach to this point, it is necessary to see that practice
by itself cannot account for all of meaning. In fact, meaning needs
to be rooted in cognition in order to be able to represent the most
basic facts of existence and then, using pretty much the same
principles, something as sophisticated as identity. I believe that
the closest Eckert comes to deal with some kind of semantic theory
of social meaning that gives linguistic basis to her claims are the
following paragraphs: Stylistic practice involves a process of
bricolage , by which people combine a range of existing resources
to construct new meanings or new twists on old meanings. It
involves adapting linguistic variables available out in the larger
world to the construction of social meaning on a local level. But
the use of these variables requires that they have some general
conventional meaning, which can be vivified in the particular
style. Rather than talking about convention, I prefer to talk about
conventionalization. Inasmuch as language is a practice, it
involves the continual making and remaking of convention. And style
(like language) is not a thing but a practice. It is the activity
in which people create social meaning. Neither language nor the
social world is static, and stylistic practice is part of the
practice in which change or stability is brought about. (2005: 24.
Emphasis added)
13
In this quote all the components of a cognitive approach to
semantics are prominently displayed. The idea that meaning is a
creative construction instead of a derivationalcompositional
process is highlighted by the mention of the French term bricolage.
The most important consequence of this view of meaning is that it
can be constantly tweaked and used for new situations that are not
necessarily prototypical ones. But at the same time, Eckert
recognizes that theres something conventional that needs to be
taken into consideration, something given that the speakers use,
although they can deviate as much as necessary in order to achieve
their (communicative) goals. Finally, the idea that convention is
indistinguishable from conventionalization is key to understand the
origins of linguistic change even though much of what we use in our
speech is based on convention, the necessity to represent more
complex meanings in increasingly different settings pushes us
towards the creation of new form of convention that can eventually
overlap with old ones and even replace them altogether. These ideas
seem very natural to me and, as said before, compatible with a
theory of cognitive semantics that equates meaning with
conceptualization process on an experiential basis. However, the
idea of style as responsible for social meaning is tantamount, in
my opinion, to say that a fairly complex function is responsible
for many different uses that are many times extremely basic and
straightforward, with little or no style involved. For instance,
when a man asks his wife: Do you know where my umbrella is? it is
highly unlikely that theres too much of a style or any subtle
social representation associated with that expression (though it is
not impossible, since meaning can always be tweaked). Thus, style
is not responsible for social meaning, it is the other way around:
style emerges as a consequence of continuous and repetitive uses of
meaning for social purposes. Social categories such as slacker,
smart alec, gentleman, lady, childish person, gay, straight, etc.
are recognized in language only through the use of a repertory of
features that are displayed as a result of other more basic
functions. Style, as a higher order meaning, is indeed a product of
interaction. A speaker presents his interlocutor an idea with a
conventional basis associated with it. She comes up with a
representation of what he proposed. But after several exchanges
she
14
creates a new meaning through the information uttered from the
speakers mouth: the individual presents himself as another layer of
information contained in the linguistic forms used, and she ends up
the conversation thinking that he is a dork. Therefore, after some
interaction, it becomes clear that we understand utterances not
only based on what has been said, but on who said it. Style is the
expression of the self in speech, but it comes as a further, though
mandatory, elaboration of what is informed through more or less
conventional forms. The idea of achieving higher order meanings
during social use of language is part of the discipline of
pragmatics, and it is intrinsically functional: everything that is
related to language use is undoubtedly tied to a communicative
function. Contrary to structural aspects where mainstream
linguistics dispute the importance of function, I havent heard of a
radical formal pragmatics that proposes formal universal separated
from any actual use. So, pragmatics, to put it in a nutshell, is
the name for the more contextual, and less purely conceptual pole
of meaning construction. Of course, it has to be conceptual, since
its a form of knowledge. And it makes no sense, in a non-modular
account of language, to propose a separate inferential processor or
any other specific area of the mind/brain to deal with that kind of
knowledge (such as is proposed by Sperber & Wilson 1995).
Instead, I think Langacker (2008: 40-41) is right when he states
that the distinction between semantics and pragmatics is a matter
of degree.
Figure 2 (From Langacker 2008: 40)
Some phenomena can be considered more related to semantics than
to pragmatics, but it is never possible to say that there is a
clear line that divides both fields since they deal
15
with conceptualization and use: context is more relevant towards
the pragmatic end and conceptualization processes can be less
immediate (more inferences are necessary); but at the semantic end
of the scale context is crucial too (meaning is encyclopedic and
accumulates concepts contextually relevant to different areas of
knowledge the speaker has been exposed or participated actively
in), and conceptualization process is generally more
straightforward (takes less inferential steps to determine what
something means, as in, for instance, affirmative declarative
sentences with regular word order).
Under this view of pragmatics, consequently, Eckerts theory of
social meaning has a place: the extreme of the pragmatic pole.
Identity as social meaning through linguistic variation is a form
of use of language (pragmatics) that targets social conventions as
practices. In other words, all the sociological and ideological
implications of Eckerts definition of social meaning are, indeed, a
form of meaning, but one that only arises through repeated usage
events that build through periods of trial and error our image in a
group where we communicate repeatedly (a community of practice).
While we are doing things with words, to borrow Austins books, we
are implying that we do those things to create an impression on
those who listen to us. That is, certainly, an stylistic issue. But
what should be addressed first and foremost as the semantics of a
theory of social meaning is how regular uses, everyday
interactions, require very specific pragmatic strategies to
construct meaning that is focused on those immediate goals, but at
the same times, and through time, they end up serving a long term
purpose: create an identity. Therefore, Eckerts social meaning is
meaning use for social purposes just as any other pragmatic fact
(and, I believe, just as any other general linguistic fact), but
instead of being directly tied to a more immediate purpose for
instance, getting a door open is the purpose of a form such as Can
you open the door?, it is tied to a higher order purpose: to inform
to and/or negotiate with the addressee who one is, ones identity.
In sum, social meaning is, as proposed at the beginning of this
paper, a form of conceptualization that deals with social facts
interactions in different settings and participants in those
situations. Relevant information on how to engage in
communicative
16
action during those interactions is necessarily a part of
language knowledge. Form and meaning are mutually influenced,
shaped and, very importantly re-shaped through function. And it is
natural that several attempts, some repetitive, some different,
must be made in order to achieve communicative goals. This produces
variation. Also, it is likely that situations where certain
linguistic form was successfully used have slightly changed, which
will require some changes in the form used. Thats another important
source of variation. Finally, a complex social function, such as
convey our identity and negotiate it, will require the combination
of many particular uses of basic linguistic forms in a way that,
through repetition and conventionalization, are categorized as the
style someone uses to do things with words. This paper is a
preliminary attempt to analyze the social meaning of the Spanish
diminutive suffix ito, as a way to demonstrate that on the basis of
complex uses of meaning, such as Eckerts social meaning, there are
conceptual factors that unify social and linguistics facts. Of
course, Im not implying here that I will be the one that brings
together theoretical linguistics (a cognitive/functional variety)
and sociolinguistics by equating each and every aspect of social
and linguistic knowledge. I find it absurd to say that theres
something intrinsically social in the nature of a suffix as opposed
to a prefix, or that theres a social reason to explain why English
uses several relative pronouns that are almost identical to
interrogative ones. However, I think that many linguistic forms are
perfectly suited to perform social functions better than other
forms, and since social functions are more complex than
representational ones (just as Open the door is simpler that I dont
know if you dont mind opening the door for me, kind Sir) it makes
perfect sense to me to start looking at social meaning as the
social application of more basic cognitive principles. After all,
complex ideas are clusters of many other more basic ones that are
relevant in a certain context. Social meaning is a product of
regular conceptual meaning used in social situations that go from
very specific to highly symbolic. Thus, a cognitive approach to
pragmatics will allow a fruitful connection between theoretical
linguistics and social facts.
17
2. Spanish diminutive: grounding its meaning and use The Spanish
diminutive is one of those linguistic items that are irresistible
for grammatical analysis for any generalization proposed about its
use, there are many counterexamples arguing for a different
explanation. This is reflected in the common idea that the
diminutive conveys a local color or a idiosyncratic way of
expression that is untranslatable to other languages and that can
only be acquired through constant use and exposition to different
cases: Arriving in Trujillo, (an American Spanish student)
immediately becomes aware that diminutives are used more frequently
than he ever imagined. They are certainly characteristic of the
Spanish spoken in this city and indeed in Peru in general and add a
special colour, quality and delightfulness to conversational
patterns. (Bishop 1974: 37) Any student of Spanish faced with the
challenge of the diminutive has the option to ignore them
altogether and go along with the propositional meaning. That, I
believe based on my experience as a Spanish teacher, is very common
and in very strict terms would be considered even more than OK in
communicative terms. But theres still something missing in the
language that student will be using. Heres where the social meaning
of a linguistic item arises. To call this component a particular
colour used by the speakers during their conversation is just to
acknowledge how hard it is to determine what it does in language.
It seems to go beyond the merely formal structure necessary to
achieve the more basic (i.e. propositional) communicative purposes.
For example, if the student goes on without any social use of the
diminutive his or her politeness strategies will be severely
compromised. Although it can be claimed that every shade of meaning
is social, I want to propose that more evident social uses, like
those covered by studies on politeness, are rooted in more basic
conceptual forms, some of which are even considered to be universal
(but this doesnt strictly mean that there is a fixed basic meaning
for the diminutive suffix in
18
Spanish). This is evidence that, in fact, semantics and
pragmatics should be view as a continuum. And the continuum can be
extended to social meaning as identity construction. For instance,
when looking for information about use of the diminutive in
Hispanic countries, I found on-line discussion board where some
people had a strong opinion against the common use of this suffix.1
For those persons, someone that uses diminutives in excess is
regarded as timid, childish or plainly dimwit. Let us start by
taking a quick view of the different meanings associated with the
Spanish diminutive and, after that, a unifying account will be
proposed.
2.1.
Range of meaning of the Spanish diminutive ito 2.1.1. Diminutive
to express size
As its name clearly points, the diminutive modifies the stem it
affixes to in order to convey the idea of a reduction in the size
of the base concept. Thus, in Spanish the little Hot wheels style
car kids play with is called carrito, in clear contrast with a real
car which is regularly called carro (unless, of course, any other
meaning of the diminutive is applied to that stem). This is what
can be considered the most common use of the diminutive. For
instance, Travis (2004: 254) ethnographic study of the use of
diminutive in colloquial Colombian Spanish shows that the small
size meaning is expressed 26% of the times, the highest number for
a single use. However, this also implies that most of the uses (35%
of the sample she uses) are related to several pragmatic uses. The
centrality of this meaning is not only related to its higher
frequency, but to the fact that perceptual awareness of the size of
objects is particularly useful for a number of human activities.
Being able to distinguish between big and small allow us to, for
one1
Some are
http://soldadodeplomo.blogspot.com/2005/12/al-rico-diminutivo.html,
and
http://www.webconferencia.net/patio-de-recreo/exceso-de-diminutivos-afea-cosajuzgada-342961.html
(this last one is a whole thread were Hispanic speakers expressed
their feelings and frustration for the indiscriminate use of
diminutive in colloquial Spanish).
19
thing, evaluate how safe it is to stand next to animal, or how
easy to manipulate an object will be. As it will be proposed later,
the idea of a reduction in size, a magnitude concept, is directly
or indirectly at the very base of every single use of the
diminutive. 2.1.2. Diminutive to express affection This
non-concrete use of the diminutive is directly responsible for
innumerable pages debating its use and motivations. Affectionate
use of words depends, of course, on the attitude a speaker has
towards the object represented by a word. Inchaurralde (1997:
13839) explains the relationship between diminutives and affection
in this way: We feel close to the entity affected by [the
diminutive] and for that reason we make it enter our personal space
by reducing its dimensions. We do not feel threatened by the
object, and, therefore, it is included as par of our private
territory by making room in it.
Affection according to him (1997: 135) is a matter of proximity
or detachment. Individuals conceive their affective life in terms
of filling their lives with positive events or relationships (as it
is understood in common phrase like my heart is full or what an
empty soul!). So the idea of total space reduction between two
entities includes incorporate the positive event or entity inside
our personal space. This can be easily achieved if the entity is
reduced in its size, so the diminutive is motivated. It is very
likely that the situation that has modeled the use of the
diminutive for affection is the relation between adults and babies
and little children. Wierzbicka (1984: 126) says that Polish
diminutive suffixes are always used when talking to children
regardless of the real size of the being referred. This is also
true for Spanish (Cf. Melzi and King 2003), and very likely for
most, if not all, cultures. The use of diminutives by mothers when
talking to their kids, I think, depends on many factors that are
mutually reinforcing.
20
First, the little size of babies as wells as their very
particular position in the group produce a feedback loop. By using
little words, adults are acknowledging that babies are the weakest,
most dependent, and most precious members of any group. All of
these characteristics are conceptually related, one way or another,
to small size. It is also arguably that the general loving feelings
that babies produce in the group that rises them are biologically
inspired in order to secure their subsistence. In sum, little words
are used for a human in his/her smallest, most dependent, and
weakest state, but who also produces the most affectionate feelings
possible. Second, the use of diminutives when speaking to babies
can be consider as a way to tame reality. As Wierzbicka proposes:
In using diminutives in this way the adult not only expresses his
or her affectionate attitude to the child but also tries to convey
the idea that the world is a friendly place full of likeable
creatures and delightful events. Characteristically, bad and
threatening manifestations of nature, such as bloto 'mud', burza
'thunderstorm', or zmija 'viper' are not referred to by means of
diminutives. But neutral objects and phenomena, such as rain, snow,
worms or spiders are often tamed by means of diminutives (deszczyk
'rain-Dim.', sniezek 'snow-Dim.', robaczki 'worms' Dim.', pajaczki
'spiders-Dim.', etc.). (1984: 126)
The same restrictions invoked by Wierzbicka apply in Spanish:
dangerous or negative entities dont use the diminutive suffix, but
those that are neutral or positive are very likely to be expressed
in that way when addressing a baby or a small child. To sum up, the
relations between the affectionate diminutive and the use of
language to address a little child are a mark of style. Adults
assume a role (care-givers) to address the baby and, in doing so,
they recur to a marker that can be tweaked into expressing good
feelings and a positive representation of the world. In the same
fashion as some
21
utterances are organized with the intention to adjust to a
specific speaker with certain social characteristics (power,
superior social status, non-familiarity, etc.), adults talk to kids
in a very specific style that globally wants to represent
endearment, protectiveness and simplicity of information. Given the
constant presence of babies in peoples life and the extended use of
the diminutive as part of the linguistic expression related to
them, it is absolutely natural that diminutives ended up marking
affection (closeness) at every level of in-group relationships. A
very illustrative case of the extension of the use of the
diminutive beyond animate beings is the common way to refer to food
in Hispanic countries. Curc (1998: 154) makes reference to the very
common fact that in Latin America names for food are usually marked
with diminutives during colloquial speech.2 Few things are as
relevant in human life as eating. I think it wouldn't be exaggerate
to say that there must be no culture that doesn't use food as a way
to create bonds between those that eat together (banquets are a
staple of almost every celebration). The social relevance of eating
is reflected in the way Latin Americans talk about food. Wierzbicka
proposes that the person serving the food is in charge of the
satisfaction of those eating. By using the diminutive to talk about
the food, that person expresses both discreet and indirect praise
of the food and a solicitous attitude towards the addressee. She
also notes that this kind of attitude might originate from the
language used by mother when feeding their babies, which is
arguably the most important concrete bond between a mother and her
child. Once again the use of the diminutive stresses the close
relation between a group through the food they eat by focusing on
the effects of making something smaller in the same way as children
are related to small things: in a joyous way. The main idea here is
that a whole situation such as feeding someone is linked to a
nurturing schema that is created in the context of family life.
Food is good, feeding is caring and things involved in caring
situations (by its use during infancy) are considered little. If
something is good then it is very likely that it will be expressed
as diminutive2
A good example of this can be seen gastronomy shows in Hispanic
countries, where chefs always constantly refer to ingredients using
the diminutive. The following clip (Peruvian variety) is a good
example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQO8x0eGTTQ.
22
to emphasize how our feelings are affected. It is no surprise,
then, that the Spanish word bonito, pretty is etymologically the
patrimonial diminutive of the word bueno, good.
2.1.3. Diminutive to express derogatory opinions Negative or
derogatory meaning can also be conveyed with the use of
diminutives, though (in my opinion) not as frequently as
affectionate uses are. Appealing to a constructionist view of
meaning (as it was explained at the beginning of 1.3), the
combination of two extremely different meanings needs to make sense
in the mind of the speaker and, of course, need to be understood by
the addressee. Situations like these, ironical by nature, are,
thats my impression, not very usual in speech compared to other
forms such as commands, propositions, etc. That would explain why
the negative use of diminutives seems peripheral. Words whose
meaning is regularly associated with a position in a scale or
power, for instance, capitn (Captain), obispo, (bishop), etc. or
even those that serve as basic classificatory terms in society,
like hombre (man), mujer (woman), empleado (employee),etc. dont
have a totally neutral meaning. Most of the times, once someone
gets into a position, that implies that he/she has earned that
place. Even if its the lowest position in a scale, it is likely
that at one point the person currently holding that place wasnt
even in the scale, so being there is some kind of progress. Thus,
using those words with a diminutive marker tend to produce a
negative effect (and an important part of these interpretation
depends on the context, of course). Therefore, combinations such as
capitancito,(little captain), obispito (little bishop), hombrecito
(little man), mujercita (little woman), empleadito (little
employee), etc. are interesting because they can be easily
understood as pejorative terms. The meanings of those words are
stored with such detail in the mind of the speaker that the use of
a diminutive easily indicates a kind of contradiction in the
meaning of the noun stem (a social meaning, nonetheless): the
position indicated by the noun is degraded. The following pair
of
23
sentences reflects totally different attitudes towards the
entity represented by the noun stem abogada (female lawyer): Una
seora abogada de la Universidad X: (Lit. A lady lawyer from X
University) Una abogadita de la universidad Y: (Lit. A little
female lawyer from Y University) Negative and derogatory. Positive
and respectful
2.1.4. Diminutive to express attenuation Diminutives in Spanish
are also commonly used as a way of attenuating the meaning of
nouns, adjectives and adverbs. In some sense, this use can include
the derogatory one, but I preferred to explain that one
independently. For example, a form like tonto (silly), clearly a
derogatory term, is mitigated by the use of the diminutive tontito
(a little silly). Attenuation can be considered the clearest form
of positive politeness strategy produced by the use of the
diminutive. Whenever someone wants to avoid being rude while
talking about someone elses problems or defects, the use of the
diminutive, through the idea of reduction of magnitude and the
strong positive connotations it conveys helps to attenuate the
negative implications of the stem used. For instance, a question
such as Ests enfermita? (Are you ill-DIM?), is used to deal with a
delicate topic (someones health) in a sympathetic way that clearly
conveys positive politeness towards the addressee. What is
interesting here is that even though the adjective is used in a way
that seems clearly related to the more basic concrete meaning of
the diminutive (reduced magnitude) it is impossible not to
associate enfermito with an affectionate use. The fact that the
positive feeling present in the speaker is not an ironic reference
to enfermo (ill) as in it makes me happy that youre ill, can only
be explained because any context involving affective motivations
(as in being worried for someone) triggers the highly
conventionalized affectionate meaning of the diminutive.
24
This is a strong piece of evidence that the diminutive in
Spanish conceptualizes a very complex state of relations between
persons: affective life. 2.1.5. Diminutives to express precision
Diminutives are used with adjectives or adverbs that denote scalar
properties to precise the location of an object in relation to a
fixed point on the scale. For instance, the adjectives nuevo (new)
and viejo (old) express opposite poles in a scale. However, unlike
a mathematical scale, where the poles establish absolute positions,
those adjectives create a gradient that is used in a more flexible
way (one that reflects the interests of the users). Due to this
variability (what is new for me could be old for you) the use of
the diminutive suggests a more precise location in the scale. In
the case of nuevo, that location is one closer to a subjective
positive point. If something is nuevecito (brand new), it doesnt
necessarily mean that its temporal origin is close to the current
time (an absolute point of reference). For instance, a 1925 car can
be nuevecito if it has barely been used or not used at all. Here
ito expresses how close that car is to its original state. The
closer to that state, the more new it is, and closeness is akin to
littleness, since it implies that theres a little space between two
points in a scale. This motivates the use of the diminutive to
convey precision. In this particular case, still, it can be said
that the appreciation towards an object influences its location on
a positive part of the scale, so the affective context can be
involved too. However, it is hardly arguable, as Inchaurralde
(1997: 138) believes, that affectionate contexts are related to the
use of the diminutives with locative adverbs such as all /
allacito, aqu / aquicito, or locative particles like arriba /
arribita, abajo / abajito, al costado / al costadito, encima /
encimita. In one word, the diminutive is doing something similar to
what the particle right does in English in combinations like right
there, right here, right next to, right above, etc. It means that
the location is closer to a non absolute reference point than it
would be if the diminutive were not used. The same can be told of
temporal adverbs such as ahora /ahorita (now / right now), luego /
lueguito (after / right after), despus / despuesito (after / right
after), temprano / tempranito (early /
25
very early). Thus, a diminutive brings the focus to a point
closer to what is regarded as the origin of the scale instantiated
by those linguistic items. Of course, variation happens, and this
uses are not the same in every Hispanic community. For instance,
Jurafsky (1996: 534) presents the contrast between the Mexican and
the Dominican use of ahorita (now-DIM). For the former group, the
use implies less passing of time between to points, while for the
latter the attenuation (more manageable) meaning is implied (soon,
in a little while, not right now). Also, Jurafsky presents the case
of blanquito (very white or clean), which in his terms is an
intensification use of the diminutive (the opposite of
attenuation). However he says that that value of the diminutives is
not possible for other colors (*azulito doesnt mean very blue, but
a little blue or nice blue color). He is right in pointing that the
meaning of blanco (white) here is related to cleanliness. But in
Spanish this is not an intensification use, but a precision one.
The focus is closer to the origin/ positive extreme of the scale of
cleanliness: no spots or dirt whatsoever exist.
2.1.6. Diminutives used for manner adverbs and gerunds This
cases are what could be considered the least productive and most
atypical uses of the diminutive in Spanish. Diminutive forms of
gerunds are considered a dialectal mark of rural Spanish in
countries. Manner adverbs are productively derived from adjectives
in Spanish adding the suffix -mente. So it is likely that the
possibility of forms such as tranquilitamente (a little bit
calmly), rapiditamente (a little bit rapidly), enfermitamente (a
little bit sickly), etc. can be extended to functionally adverbial
forms such as the gerund. For instance, Juan sali corriendo (Juan
left running) can be expressed as Juan sali corriendito (corriendo
DIM). These uses are, I think, the best examples for what has been
called the intensifying use of the diminutive. The idea of
intensity relates to something big happening in a short lapse. This
is clear for adverbs of manner that relate to some dynamic aspect.
So, the common
26
adverb rpido (rapidly) expresses a more intense form of action
as rapidito (quickly). This would explain the meaning of
corriendito. A gerund meaning little running only makes sense if
the size of the non-finite verb is expressed in terms of its
relative duration. If the action happened in a short time (as for
instance, as a reaction to a sudden need, such as to catch a bus),
then it is considered more intense, and the little reaction time is
conveyed by the diminutive. Of course, theres always the option
that the diminutive is just added for to attenuate the manner,
which seems to be the effect of the diminutive in enfermitamente (a
little bit sickly).
2.2.
Prototypical meaning and radial category.
The complexity of the use of the diminutive has produced two
diametrically opposed answers to the question what is the meaning
of the diminutive? On one side, its meaning is regarded as
extremely abstract, almost empty. Curc (1998: 132-133) proposes
that the diminutive has a very basic representational meaning that
is only elaborated in context during the inference process
According to this view, the diminutive is a piece that only hints
the way a noun should be interpreted during the linguistic
exchange. On the other side, it is possible to say that all the
meanings of the diminutive are organized as a network of meanings
that mutually reinforce them through use, so some forms are more
conventionalized than others, though all are equally possible to be
used during speech. I think the second option is better, since it
frees us from the always contentious issue of determining the basic
meaning of a linguistic item. The meaning of a diminutive is
expressed through a Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM) (Lakoff 1987:
66ff), a set of simple (and often nave) ideas or cognitive script
that organize our experience around a more complex concept, so we
are able to understand it. Another way to see those models is under
the notion of frames or cognitive domains (Langacker 1987). So an
ICM for the
27
notion size will provide a consistent basis to understand the
meaning presented in the previous section. ICMs are radially
organized, so their might extend towards other concepts via
conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). Santibaez (1999:
174-178) presents a god list of notions forming the ICM of size: ,
however, I think there are some important points that he doesnt
mention that relate extensively to the social meaning of the
diminutive (my own ideas are presented in italics). ICM of size: a)
things range from small to big. Our own bodies serve as the
reference point to determine when something is big or small. b) A
small entity is more manageable than a big one. c) Small entities
are potentially less dangerous that big ones. Corollaries (also
called metonymic mappings) d) Small entities that are manageable
are keep in closer contact with the controller. This creates a bond
between object and user. (Relates to CONTROL ICM) e) Small things
are delicate and less resistant than big entities. This produce
empathetic feelings. (Relates to LOVE ICM) f) Small things are less
noticeable than big things, so minimizing something is the same as
reducing its importance.(Relates to Conceptual metaphor BIG IS
IMPORTANT) g) Small things are less noticeable, so if they are
indeed important ones, they need closer observation. Also, I
believe that some consequences of this ICM relate to the ICM of
analysis and the ICM of intensity. h) A part is always smaller than
the whole. Analyzing something implies dividing it in parts. Parts
that are relevant are small in contrast with the whole.
28
i) The effects of any event in a smaller container are always
more perceptible. Bigger scenarios dilute events. So anything done
in the same regular way, but in a smaller container will be more
intense. Metonymic mappings are readily available in the use of the
Spanish diminutive. By expressing a concrete cause (the size),
speakers are constantly invoking one of its main consequences:
endearment. This is such a regular strategy that as it was seen in
the use of attenuation, its very hard to separate the size meaning
from the affectionate one if the context involves any kind of
affective relation between the speakers. The complexity of the
meaning of the diminutive is also explained by the fact that we
tend to interact differently with objects that are conceived as
small depending on how they relate to other relevant ICMs such as
control, cost-benefit, love, intensity, etc. The following radial
representation of the network for the proposed universal meanings
of the diminutive (Spanish covers most, if not all of these
notions) gives a fairly good idea of the complexity of the
notion.
29
Figure 3 (From Jurafsky 1996: 542)
3. Politeness, image schemas and conceptual metaphors Politeness
is a way to use language in order to mitigate speech acts (orders,
reprimands, requests, etc.) that can produce conflict between the
interlocutors. It has been considered that the use of politeness is
a universal of language (Cf. Brown and Levinson 1987). However, the
idea that politeness strategies are motivated by the notion of
individual face (the image one projects to the public) has been
disputed for several reasons (Cf. Meyerhoff 2006: 98-100). Since
politeness is clearly a way of knowledge, I believe that it needs
to be motivated conceptually. This means that politeness, as a form
of social meaning, needs to find its basis in the network of
concepts. Prez Hernandez (1999) provides an interesting approach
that bases politeness on image schemas and conceptual metaphors
Although politeness is common in every culture, the way some people
express positive and negative politeness. The first one is the way
to avoid offense by showing deference. Its a form of emphasizing
good feelings between the interlocutors. The second one is used to
avoid offense by highlighting friendliness. Its a way to make it
clear that by doing something conflictive we try to bother the
interlocutor as little as possible. Since the notions of positive
and negative politeness depend on what we consider to be
threatening to the balance between people, it is natural that they
are culturally motivated.
30
Yet, every culture seems to understand that in social
interaction conflict and harmony are unavoidable states. Image
schemas are, like conceptual metaphors, component of ICMs. They are
abstract and basic conceptual structures that emerge from our
bodily experience with the environment, and allow us to understand
more complex concepts reduced to a combination of simple structures
(Cf. Lakoff 1987 and Johnson 1987). Examples of this schemas
include, containment, part-whole, force, path, scale, etc. As
Johnson (1987: 29) says, schemas are something in between
propositional structures and concrete images. Prez Hernndez (1999)
proposes that the container image schema is a basic universal
representation through which humans represent society. Then,
society can be considered as a box (the container) inside of which
individuals interact. Four consequences arise directly from this
representation (1999: 221): (1) The container provides some kind of
protection from external forms. (2) The container restricts
movement of the elements within it. (3) Although what is outside
doesnt damage what is inside, any problem inside of the container
can affect quickly other elements inside. The same is true for
positive effects: they spread quicker. (4) The container will show
ecological properties. Elements occupy the container in a state of
balance, but one an element changes its position, the rest of the
system will experience alteration. These concepts are, certainly,
very simple and even truisms. However, what needs to be understood
here is that the way we think about complex social relation depends
on these ideas. If social meaning is to be present in linguistics
units, then it has to be based on this kind of concepts. Three
dimensional space provides at least two axis along which elements
can be organized: the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. The
former provides the basis to understand power relationships one
goes up or down in the social hierarchy, we have superiors whose
orders come down to us as impositions, etc. The latter guides our
understanding of social distance or proximity. People are close or
distant
31
in their relationships, and the closer someone is to us, the
more familiar we consider that person to be. So while power
relationships are understood through the metaphor HAVING POWER IS
UP / HAVING NO POWER IS DOWN, social distance is understood by
INTIMACY IS PROXIMITY / STRANGENESS IS DISTANCE (223). On one hand,
negative politeness is grounded on consequence (3): the set of
actions toward the avoidance of conflict is the universal component
of negative politeness. What is considered to be conflictive, that
is left to each particular culture and the metaphors through which
they understand social life. Some strategies will avoid conflict in
the vertical-power-relation axis, it is important not to disturb
the balance of the system, but at the same time, we are always
trying to get into a better position through our actions. We should
be careful, then, when dealing with persons in position above ours.
Likewise, horizontal-intimacy relations also need a set of
strategies to avoid conflict with those who are extremely close to
us. The short distance between individuals can create more
accentuated problems. On the other hand, positive politeness is
grounded on consequences (1) and (3). Everyone needs to feel
reassured that their position in the container is safe. The best
way to get that feeling is by making evident that someone is liked
and welcomed by a different array of reasons. Since the container
equals protection (1), and since the good actions spread quicker
inside the container (3) we want to be actively acknowledge as
positive elements of the container, and we want to avoid being
judged as negative ones. That motivates the existence of praising
and criticizing as major strategies for positive politeness. This
is particularly relevant to understand why the diminutive is so
widely used in Spanish. Hispanic communities tend to give great
importance to inclusion in the group, so the affective meaning of
the diminutive becomes a powerful marker of positive politeness.
Prez Hernndez (1999: 213-218) also proposes that conceptual
metaphor has a big role in the way people understand and motivate
the existence of positive and negative politeness. Some metaphors
used to explain the nature of politeness include politeness is
32
a lubricant (from the more general metaphor: SOCIETY IS A
MACHINE), politeness is a mask (from the metaphor: SOCIETY IS A
DRAMA), politeness is the velvet glove that conceals an iron fist
(form the metaphor: LIFE (SOCIETY) IS A JUNGLE). Brown and
Levinsons core metaphor is politeness is the preservation of face.
It is interesting that this last notion, which is considered the
classic approach to politeness, is not as directly tied to a
concept of society as a whole as the other metaphors. I think, like
Prez Hernndez, that the conceptual metaphor THE SELF IS THE FACE is
on the basis of Brown and Levinsons notion of politeness. If your
face looks good, your self is doing well. But its necessary to see
how this relates to society. Interaction with other people is seen
as a source of weariness, and at the same time, individuals always
try to look their best to create a good impression. The first part
of this combination is what motivates negative politeness we dont
want to be impeded in our actions, and we want to go our ways
without anyone imposing anything on us; the second part shapes
positive politeness we want to be admired and liked by others.
Thus, if we want to understand the metaphor behind this perspective
on politeness, then we need to realize that preserving our face
(public image) only makes sense if we consider the interactions to
be essentially burdensome and if we consider our (good) image to be
extremely important in our dealing with others. Does this metaphor
works in the Hispanic world? I think Browns and Levinson theory
still works well in my experience (mostly related to urban
communities). In spite of that, positive politeness strategies
favored by more traditional Hispanics (Im thinking of my fathers
family) seem to rely on the metaphor SOCIETY IS A FAMILY more than
in the idea that we need to protect an individuals image from
social interaction. One of the linguistic consequences of this
metaphor is that the expression of strong in-group bonds will be
the preferred positive strategy. I think that the idea that equal
members of the society are siblings, children are our children, and
the elderly are our parents explains the preponderance of positive
politeness expressed by diminutives, and kinship terms commonly
used when performing face threatening acts. It makes sense to think
that the use of in-group markers is stronger is societies were
individuals are considered more like
33
a family. At least, this is true for the Andean traditions in
Peru, were a community acts as a the collective working unit. The
name of that community, during the time of the Incas, used to be
equivalent to the last name of a modern individual. 3
In relation to this last point, Brown and Levinson (1987:
107-109) present the case of Tamil, a language that uses forms such
as tampi (little brother) to emphasize positive politeness. In Peru
the equivalent form hermanito is used in exactly the same way to
make someone feel comfortable and is part of the repertory of
positive politeness. Of course, the meaning is not literal, but is
contributes to reinforce the idea of a close ingroup relationship.
Why is this possible? The idea of proximity, as explained by Prez
Hernndez as a consequence of the container schema, is crucial: the
relation between two elements in the container is determined by two
axis: the vertical one (power) and the horizontal one
(familiarity). The reduction of space between two elements is
likely to be clearer if one of them is smaller, so it can be hold,
and its center can be closer to other entity, which is hard achieve
if both entities are big. This is a prime example of social
meaning: the diminutive seen as a style contributes to bring the
interlocutors close together, just in the same way mother and child
are related by the mothers continuous use of diminutives. 4.
Diminutives in action: an account of data from Hispanic sellers
with focus on politeness strategies. The following data was
gathered on two different opportunities. The first one, was at
Fiesta Supermarket, located at 6200 Bellaire Blv., Houston, TX. Due
to problems with authorization I only got to interview two sellers
on the stores rented to independent sellers inside of the
supermarket. The second one, was at Caninos Farmers Market, located
at 2520 Airline Dr., Houston, TX. There I got data from seven
sellers. I consider the first attempt at Fiesta more like a
preparation for the one at Caninos, because it was
3
Im aware that this needs to be demonstrated empirically.
However, I think that this supposition is still valid in order to
understand why the diminutive has developed such a strong and
complex social meaning.
34
clear that the elicitation of diminutives through interviews
about products and sales didnt work very well. Once at Caninos I
decided to change my strategy and play the role of a curious
client. The fact that I was actually doing shopping helped a lot.
So, after asking the sellers for authorization for recording, the
data became more natural after a little while. Still, the amount of
diminutives present in this data is by no means representative
enough to try any quantitative generalization. However, I believe
that the main ideas I have endorsed on this paper about social
meaning can be seen in the way the diminutives are used by some
sellers. In the rest of the paper, thus, I will present the
relevant data and will explain the uses of the diminutive suffix. I
will keep the abbreviations to the minimum: # means a pause of one
second, means that the sentence is incomplete due to hesitation or
an interruption, DIM means diminutive suffix. Other comments are
inserted in square brackets. Finally, the English translation is
provided between parentheses.
4.1.
Sellers form Fiesta supermarket a. Seller of cell phones and
cell phones accessories. His age ranges from 28 and 35 years.
Context: Comparing two different models of blue tooth headsets.
Time: 0:53 - 0:57 S(eller). El Samsung es el mejor. El otro tambin
es bueno. A veces se oye bien, pero a veces vas a escuchar UN
SONIDITO, un ruido como ambiental. (The Samsung is the best one.
The other one is good too. Sometimes you can hear it well, but
sometimes youre going to hear a little noise, like ambient
noise.)
35
Diminutive use: Here the seller is using the diminutive as a way
to minimize a problem with the headset (the presence of noise).
This form of attenuation can be considered a form of negative
politeness, since the seller is informing about a condition that
can be annoying to his interlocutor. Context: Asking how to
activate the blue tooth system of the client cell phone. Time: 1:23
- 1:32 S. Le metes un cdigo que es 000, le pides ah, lo empieza a
buscar, se conectan entre los dos, y entonces... (You enter a code
that is 000, you ask for it there, then it starts looking for
signal, they connect, and then) C(lient). Y el cdigo me lo dan...
(So they give the code) S. Ya viene en LA CAJITA. (It already comes
in the little box) Diminutive use: The size of the box is very
little, so this use can be considered related to size (the central
case). b. Seller of electronics and household appliances. His age
ranges from 35 and 45 years. Context: Speaking about a Nintendo Wii
entertainment system Time: 3:34 - 3:39 C. Y me imagino pues que el
Wii es lo que ms quieren los chicos. (I suppose that the Wii is
what the kids want the most.) S. AHORITA s. Este y el PSP # el
porttil. (Right now, yes. This and the PSP # the portable one.)
Diminutive use: Ahorita is a use of the precision diminutive. Even
though theres no social meaning directly associated to this use, it
would be interesting to look at the variation between the basic
temporal adverb ahora and its diminutive form.
36
Context: Speaking about used laptops Time: 4:34 C. Guau, est
viejita. (Wow, its a little old) S. S, ya tiene bastante. AHORITA
la ms nueva que tengo es una Sony... Diminutive use: Same as above.
4.2. Sellers from Caninos Farmers Market a. Seller 1. Mexican man
aged 20 Context: Talking about why a product has a particular name
Time: 0:12 - 0:19 C. Qu tiene de especial? Por qu le dicen pia
miel? (Whats special about it? Why is it called honey pineapple?)
S. No s! Ser por su MIELCITA. Je! (I dont know! It might be because
of its little honey. Ha!) Diminutive use: Here the use of the
diminutive is an affectionate one. As it was explained before, the
use of diminutives to talk about food is related to a complex
social meaning that relates nurturing acts such as feeding with the
food itself. This is associated, also to the way mothers talk to
their children. In sum, then, mile is something good and pleasant
that produces good feelings expressed by the diminutive. b. Seller
2. Mexican man between 35 and 40 years. Context: Negotiating the
purchase of avocados
37
Time: 0:57 - 1:11 S. O sea son cinco por dos dlares (So they are
5 for 2 dollars.) C. Cinco por dos dlares. (5 for 2 dollars) S.
Quiere cinco? (Do you want 5?) C. Uuu Va a ser un montn de
aguacate. Vamos a preparar... (Uuu Its going to be a lot of
avocado. We are going to prepare) S. No, pero estn CHIQUITOS se los
digo. Se come dos AHORITA con la cena y dos maana en la madrugada.
(No, but they are very little, Im telling you so. You eat 2 right
now with dinner, and 2 early morning tomorrow) Diminutive use: The
objective of the first diminutive (chiquitos) is to emphasize the
little size of the avocados, so the number of units (5) doesnt seem
too many for the buyer. The second use, ahorita has already been
explained. It is important to note, however, that the interview was
done past 4 pm. so time for dinner was approaching. This was
convenient for the seller, since his objective is to present amount
as not that big. c. Seller 3. Woman between 55 and 60 years. Born
in Honduras and married to a Mexican. Context: Talking about a
variety of small bananas Time: 3:58 - 4:09 S. Y esto lo conoce?
(And do you know this?) C. No, a ver, qu? Este es el Ah! (No, let
me see, what? This is) S. Las BANANITAS (The little bananas) C. Yo
soy peruano y a esto le decimos, este... (Im Peruvian and we call
this, humm) S. Dtiles! (Dates!) C. No, no, no. Pltano manzano le
decimos a este. (No, no, no. Manzano banana is how we call this
one.)
38
Diminutive use: This is clearly a use for size, since the
bananas offered are approximately as big as an adults index finger,
which is notoriously different form regular size bananas. Context:
Talking about one of her daughters friends Time: 4:13 - 4:19 S. Mi
nia tiene una amiga peruana. (My girl has a Peruvian friend) C. S?
(Is it so?) S. Ella llega a la casa all. Es muy buena amiga ella.
CHAMAQUITA. (She comes home, ther. She is a good friend. A little
girl.) Diminutive use: The sellers daughter was present and she was
between 21 and 25. So it can be inferred that her friend was of
approximately the same age. The use of the form chamaquita, a
colloquial Mexican term for kid plus the diminutive is very likely
an affectionate use of the word, since the girl is not likely to be
a little girl. Context: Explaining how to make menudo, a tipical
mexican soup. Time: 1:23 - 1: 31 S. Y luego le echas la tripa y lo
dems. Despus de que echas eso va a despedir un olorcillo como muy
## FETO [smiling] (And then you put in the tripe and everything
else. After putting that in its going to produce a little smell
like very ## a little bit ugly.) C. Ja ja. (Ha ha) Diminutive use:
Here she is using clearly a polite strategy to attenuate a fact
that could be considered offensive: the smell of tripe, when
boiling can be very disgusting. Context: Speaking about boiling a
chile that goes in the menudo.
39
Time: 1: 51 - 1:54 S. [...] y lo pones a hervir, y despus lo
licuas y le echas la AGUITA que sali de este [pointing to a special
kind of chile used to prepare menudo] # y es todo el menudo. (and
you set it to boil, and then you blend it and you throw in the
water that came out of this one # And thats all about the menudo.)
Diminutive use: Here the seller might be pointing to the little
amount of water that comes from the inside of the chile. But also
it is possible that the idea of preparing food has activated the
frame of a social caring activity Context: Talking about types of
chile. Time: 2:59 - 3:02 S. Este [pointing to a bag of chiles] vale
un dlar el # la BOLSITA. (This one costs 1 dollar the small bag)
Diminutive use: That kind of chile was sold in only one bag size,
so the use of the diminutive can be due to affectionate reference
of a food. It is also possible that the size of that bag is smaller
than other chiles also sold by the bag. Time: 4: 46 S. Y tenemos
con cola y sin cola [referring to chile arbol] (And we have it with
tail and tailess) C. Y cul es la diferencia? (And what is the
difference?) S. Es el mismo. Noms que este es un POQUITO ms caro y
este es un POQUITO ms barato. Pero es el mismo chile. (Its the
same. It is only that this one is a little more expensive and this
one is a little cheaper. But is the same chile). C. Ah. La nica
diferencia es que ya le quitaron esta # (Oh. The only difference is
that they took off this #)
40
S. El CABITO (the little tail) C. Ah, el cabito, ok. (Oh, the
little tail, ok) Diminutive use: The use of poquito (a little-DIM)
could be motivated by the need to express approximation in the
price. The difference between the two prices could be closer to a
negligible amount, so prices are located proximate to a positive
point in the scale (a price that is fair). This could be a form to
suggest that, given the mall differences in price it is always
better to buy the one that is more expensive. d. Seller 4.
Salvadorian woman between 30 and 40 years. Context: Talking about
how to determine when a green cantaloupe is ripe Time: 4:08 - 4:28
C. Y cul, cul usted sabe por el color cundo est maduro? Este de aqu
no # pero cul (And which, which one do you know when it is ripe by
its color? This one here is not # but which one?) S. Pero AHORITA
no tenemos porque no es temporada. No hay. (But right now we dont
have any, because its not season.) C. Ah, est fuera de temporada.
(Oh, its out of season) S. S, cuando est la temporada de meln.
AHORITA el meln est con... entonces no hay AHORITA. Pero cuando es
temporada tenemos mucho y # Est muy muy bien. Me entiende? (Yes,
when it is cantaloupe season. Right now the cantaloupe is with so
there are no cantaloupes right now. But when its on season we have
a lot and # Its really really good, you know?) C. S, s, s. (Yes,
yes, yes) S. Pero AHORITA como es esto lo que tenemos, entonces...
(But right now since this is what we have, then) Diminutive use:
Ahorita is use with its conventional meaning of precision.
41
Context: Picking out melons Time: 7:30 - 7: 38 C. Me puede
escoger usted uno? (Can you pick one for me?) S. Lo quiere de a un
dlar o lo quiere de a dos dlares? Tengo el CHIQUITO de a un dlar y
este que est ms grande a dos. (Do you want the one that costs a
dollar or the one that costs 2? I have the little-DIM one for one
dollar and the one that is bigger for 2). C. No deme uno de a dos
dlares. A m me gusta bastante el meln. (No, just give the one that
costs 2 dollars. I like cantaloupe very much.) Diminutive use: The
diminutive here seems to be aimed to produce a better contrast
between something considered small against a bigger entity.
Stressing literally that the smaller melon is more than small, as a
purely direct interpretation of the size meaning would suggest,
wouldnt make sense here since the fruit was visibly not that much
smaller than the big one. Therefore, the use could be, if not aimed
to convince me to buy the big one, purely affectionate when talking
about food. Context: Picking out pears Time: 8: 15 - 8: 23 C. Estos
son el mismo tipo de pera? Qu... (Are these the same kind of pears?
What?) S. No. Tengo dos tipos de pera. (No, I have to kind of pear)
C. A ver. Cules son? (Let me see. What are they?) S. Tengo la verde
# (I have the green one#) C. Ya. (Sure) S. Y tengo est, la
CAFECITA. (And I have this one, the brownie one){ Diminutive use:
The pear is clearly not brown color, but it resembles it. This use
of the diminutive seems to be an approximation one. Here I had an
interesting piece of
42
data that I didn't think possible in Spanish. The suffixes -izo
and -uzco are the ones more specifically related with that kind of
use. However, I think that for phonological reasons neither one or
the other can combine with caf (brown), so the diminutive takes
over this use. It is similar to the use of precision, but the idea
here is the possibility of something entering a color category,
while in uses such as la caja est arribita (the box is right up
there) the box is already arriba but we need to add some precision
to the location. Time: 8:48 - 9: 01 S. S que son peras, pero hay
diferentes tipos de peras. [I get closer to the boxes of pears] (I
know that they are pears, but there are different kind of pears) S.
Esa es la VERDECITA. Diminutive use: There's no way of knowing
exactly why the seller used the diminutive here if we look at the
previous use of diminutive + color term (cafecita). This kind of
pear is clearly closer to a focal color than the other one.
However, it is still not what someone would call a central hue of
green. This might have elicited that approximation use. Another
reason could be to refer to food by using an affectionate
diminutive to make something more desirable or likable. In fact,
that is one of the basis of any business transaction: if something
is likable, you will be more likely to buy it and to buy it more
often. And if you like the way I treated you, you will buy from me
more often. This is a long term consequence of the use of
diminutive as social meaning: it can create a kind of solidarity
between buyer and seller (an ingroup strategy). e. Seller 5.
Mexican Woman between 50 and 60 years. Context: Talking about
pumpkin flowers Time: 1: 42 - 1:48
43
C. Y a cmo est [la flor de calabaza], ms o menos (An how much
for pumpkin flowers, approximately?) S. Cmo? (Excuse me?) C. A a
cunto est la flor...? (How much are flowers? S. No s, porque...
Pero s que est CARITO. Pero no s. De eso vienen en una caja. (I
dont know, because But I know that it is a little expensive. But I
dont know. Those things come in a box.) Diminutive use: She uses a
diminutive to convey information that can be considered negative to
the objectives of a potential buyer. A high price can deter him
from buying, so the price if reduced by using an attenuating
diminutive. In fact, I bought pumpkin flowers before and they are
very expensive compared to any other produce. f. Seller 6. Woman
between 55 and 65 years. Context: Buying Mexican zucchini Time:
0:04 - 0:06 S. Las quiere GRANDECITAS o CHIQUITAS? (Do you prefer
big-DIM ones or small-Dim ones?) C. Ahhh Chiquitas noms, seora.
(Oh, just small-DIM ones, maam.) Diminutive use: There are two
options for the use of the diminutive here. The first one implies
that the seller is very conscious that the Mexican zucchini is
usually smaller that the regular zucchini, so even a big one is
relatively smaller. As a matter of fact, the name I know those
vegetables by is calabacn, the combination of calabaza (pumpkin)
and the not so usual diminutive suffix in, which indicates that is,
by definition, a little pumpkin. I dont think this kind of analysis
goes on usually through the mind of a person using the diminutive
in this kind of context. I believe, then, that it is an
affectionate use related to food (the understood referents for the
bare adjectives).
44
Context: Asking how to slice Mexican zucchini. Time: 0:26 - 0:29
S. que no queden muy GORDITAS ni muy FLAQUITAS (They shouldnt end
up being neither too thick-DIM nor too thin-DIM.) Diminutive use:
This use seems to be purely dimensional. These zucchinis are very
small, so the slices are going to be, from the start small ones.
Thus the use of gorditas and flaquitas to explain the right size of
the slices seems to be justified. Slices wont be flacas or gordas
for such as a small thing like that. However, it could be also
affectionate use while talking about food (the main topic here).
Context: Offering more produce Time: 0:38 S. Aqu, le pongo otra
CHIQUITA para una libra? (Here. Should I put another littleDIM one
to reach a pound?) Diminutive use: This use can be understood as an
attenuating one the minimization of the size of another zucchini
contributes to the conceptualization of its presence as non
significant. Even though putting another one implies to pay more,
since it is a little one, the buyer can accept it. This is a form
of negative politeness. It can also be affectionate use for food
terms. Context: Asking for green onions Time: 03:05 - 3: 09 C. A
ver... Cebolla deee aaaa cmo le llama esa de all? (Let me see Onion
wiiith oooh Whats the name of that one over there?) S. La de... de
RABITO (The one with with little tail)
45
Diminutive use: I have listened from other sellers cebolla de
rabo (green onion) without the diminutive. In fact, the tail of a
green onion is extremely long compared to the rest of its head.
Therefore the name rabito, contrasted, for instance, to the use of
cabito that seller 3 made to refer to the tail of a chile, has a
clearer affectionate connotation related to food. Context: Talking
about toasted pumpkin seeds Time: 5:57 - 6:05 S. A cinco la libra.
(one pound for 5 dollars) C. Guau! (Wow!) S. Esta es la CHIQUITA.
Pero esta, esta es la # [she moves around looking for something] ##
(This is the little-DIM one. But this one, this one is the ###) C.
Ah, osea hay ms grande. (Oh, so theres one bigger.) Diminutive use:
Again this use here seems to be related either to the contrast of
size (big vs. small) or to the affectionate use of food terms. g.
Seller 7. Mexican woman between 65 and 75 years. Context: Offering
more produce Time: 00.50- 00:52 S. CALABACITA no? A un dlar. (Dont
you want little Mexican zucchini? One dollar for it.) Diminutive
use: Unfortunately, I only could record very little from this lady
and the background noise made most of the recording useless.
However, it was the only seller that greeted me using a diminutive
form (jovencito, young man). The use of the diminutive is very
likely to be affectionate, as many others seen before.
46
As a manner of conclusion for this section, it seems to me that
women use more diminutives with clear pragmatic content, compared
to male sellers. Also, I have the impression that older women tend
to express more in-group positive politeness through the use of
diminutives. Of course, this observations are very preliminary and
need to be verified through more careful met