Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:23:26.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Adj+ie/y Nominalizations in Contemporary English

From Diminution to Pejoration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Elizaveta Tarasova  and
José A. Sánchez Fajardo
Edited by
Natalia Knoblock
Natalia Knoblock
Affiliation:
Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

This study focuses on the nominalizing and evaluative function of the -ie/y suffix with the purpose of investigating how the changes in the semantics (diminutive → pejorative) of the output units are connected to the conceptual processes that employ evaluative morphological forms. This study reports on the qualitative analysis of 63 examples of Adj+ie/y nominalizations (e.g. softie, brownie) collected from a range of descriptive dictionaries of English. The analysis of the data employs a usage-based approach to Morphopragmatics and the Conceptual Integration Theory in order to explore cognitive operations that underlie the formation of pejoratives. The findings show that with the activation of the meanings [+human] and [+adult], the concept diminution is reconfigured as ‘small/insignificant in value’, whose utmost degree is understood as pejoration. A multilevel analysis of such nominalizations indicates that these suffixed forms are affected by the aspect of bidirectionality: whilst an Adj+ie/y nominalization, such as blackie, is formally represented through the morphological concept of diminution, size → insignificant also activates through a conceptual integration process.

Keywords

Adj+ie/y nominalizationsdiminutivepejorativeevaluative morphologycognitive model
Type
Chapter
Information
The Grammar of Hate
Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse
 , pp. 59 - 81
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Augustyn, R. and Gniecka, A. (2011). ‘Irony behind diminutives: A cognitive linguistic analysis of popular technical terms.’ Lubelskie Materaly Neofilologiczne 35: 31–49.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Huddleston, R. (2002) ‘Lexical word-formation.’ In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1621–1721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2015). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Besedina, N. (2012). ‘Evaluation through morphology: A cognitive perspective.’ Proceedings of CLA Meeting 1: 177–192.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2015). ‘On iconicity in word-formation: The case of embellished clippings in English “Down Under” and their counterparts in other languages.’ In Belaj, B. (ed.), Dimenzije Značenja, 63–84. Zagreb: Zagrebačka slavistička škola.Google Scholar
Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Casas Gómez, M. (2018). ‘Lexicon, discourse and cognition: Terminological delimitations in the conceptualizations of linguistic taboo.’ In Pizarro Pedraza, A. (ed.), Linguistic Taboo Revisited, 13–32. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
DCS =Thorne, T. (2014) (1990). Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2008). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
GDS = Green, J. (2010). Green’s Dictionary of Slang. London: John Murray Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). ‘Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive.’ Language 72: 533–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. and McDaniel, C. K. (1978). ‘The linguistic significance of the meaning of basic color terms.’ Language 54: 610–646.Google Scholar
Lederer, J. (2013). ‘“Anchor baby”: A conceptual explanation for pejoration.’ Journal of Pragmatics 57: 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2003). ‘Polysemy in derivational affixes.’ In Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V. and Clarke, D. (eds.), Polysemy, 217–232. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-grammatical Morphology in English. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. and Dressler, W. U. (2020). ‘Pragmatics explanations in morphology.’ In Pirrelli, V., Plag, I. and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Word Knowledge and Word Usage, 405–452. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskal, B. and Smith, P. W. (2019). ‘The status of heads in morphology’. In Lieber, R. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MWD11 = Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc. Available at www.merriam-webster.com [accessed 10 December 2019].Google Scholar
NOW = Davies, M. (2019). News on the Web Corpus. Available at www.english-corpora.org/now/ [accessed June 2020].Google Scholar
OED3 = Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at https://oed.com [accessed 14 December 2019].Google Scholar
Parzuchowski, M., Bocian, K. and Gygax, P. (2016). ‘Sizing up objects: The effect of diminutive forms on positive mood, value, and size judgments.’ Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilotti, M., Almand, J., Mahamane, S. and Martinez, M. (2012). ‘Taboo words in expressive language: Do sex and primary language matter.’ American International Journal of Contemporary Research 2: 17–26.Google Scholar
Sánchez Fajardo, J. A. and Tarasova, E. (2020). ‘Of brownie girls and Aussie families: A new look at morphosemantic paradigmaticity in Adj+ie/y nominalisations.’ In Fernández-Domínguez, J., Bagasheva, A. and Lara-Clares, C. (eds.), Paradigmatic Relations in Derivational Morphology, 186–212. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Taft, W. (2003). ‘Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning.’ In Assink, E. M. H. and Sandra, D. (eds.), Reading Complex Words: Neuropsychology and Cognition 22. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
TAHD5 = The American Heritage Dictionary Online, 5th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company. Available at https://ahdictionary.com [accessed 27 November 2019].028Google Scholar
Tarasova, E. and Sánchez Fajardo, J. A. (2020). ‘Iconicity and word-formation: An examination of Adj+ie/y nominalisations through a bidirectional conceptualization model.’ Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 332–344.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technau, B. (2016). ‘The meaning and use of slurs: An account based on empirical data.’ In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Pejoration, 187–218. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Technau, B. (2018). ‘Going beyond hate speech: The pragmatics of ethnic slur terms.’ Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14: 25–43.Google Scholar
Tenchini, M. P. and Frigerio, A. (2020). ‘The impoliteness of slurs and other pejoratives in reported speech.’ Corpus Pragmatics 4: 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). ‘Pragmatics and language change.’ In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 549–565. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). ‘On the notions “Lexically related” and “Head of the Word”.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–274.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×