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