Het verkleinwoord verklaard. Een morfosemantische studie over diminutieven in het Nederlands

[p. 232]

Summary in English

A monograph on diminutives in Dutch does not exist and this dissertation is intented to fill this gab. I depart from the idea that diminutives exhibit both formal and semantic variation. Formal variation appears both on the phonological level, e.g. suffixallomorphy and stemallomorphy, as on the morphological level, since diminutives are derived from different wordclasses, which differ in productivity and potentiality. Semantic variation concerns the polysemy of diminutives and I try to describe and to account for this polysemy.

In the framework of a cognitive linguistic approach to categorization, the semantic structure of the Dutch diminutive is described as a experientially grounded prototypical category characterized by a radial set structure and multiple overlapping.

The core of this structure contains the literal readings of the diminutive, when it functions as a marker of referential smallness (as opposed to, for instance, evaluative readings of the suffix). Within this literal, referential core, a distinction is necessary between ‘diminutive’ and ‘explicative’ meanings. Diminutives that name a small exemplar of the category named by the base may be called diminutive in the strictest sense, while diminutives that have the same (small) referent as their base, are called explicative. For instance, gebouwtje ‘small building’ and tafeltje ‘small table’ are diminutive in the strict sense, while madeliefje ‘daisy’ and peukje ‘cigarette butt, stub’ are explicative (because madelief and madeliefje are synonyms, just as peuk and peukje). Both meanings can occur with regard to various (often co-occurring) dimensions, viz. the dimension of space and size (as in gebouwtje and peukje), the dimension of time (reisje ‘small journey, trip’, next to explicative ogenblikje ‘a moment’), the dimension of intensity (kusje ‘a kiss which is not passionate’, next to explicative briesje ‘a slant of wind’), and the dimension of age (olifantje ‘young elephant’, next to explicative veulentje ‘a foal’, welpje ‘a whelp’).

From these core meanings two groups of meanings are derived by processes of metaphorical and metonymical extension. The first group contains evaluative readings. Prominent among these readings are depreciation (romannetje ‘insignificant novel’), appreciation and affection (broertje ‘dear brother’), approximation (kilootje ‘roughly a kilo’) and relativization (cadeautje

[p. 233]

‘a modest present’). Again, the various readings may co-occur: in kijk daar, een musje ‘look there, a (dear little) sparrow’, the use of the diminutive may be simply explicative, but it may at the same time express affection.

The second group of extensions is formed by partitive shades of meaning: chocolaatje ‘a piece of chocolate’ is a count noun derived from the mass noun chocolade ‘chocolate’. The semantic basis of this kind of use is metonymical: isolating a small quantity from the global mass takes the form of isolating an entity made from that particular substance. This ‘entity-forming’ reading of the diminutive is generalized to cases in which the base is not a mass noun naming a substance: blondje ‘little blond one, i.e. blond woman’ is derived from the adjective blond, and weetje ‘something one knows, i.e. interesting piece of knowledge’ is derived from the verb weten ‘to know’.

Finally, a grammaticalised metasemantic function may be identified as the most peripheral member of the category. An example is telefoontje, which does not mean ‘small telephone’ or ‘dear telephone’ or ‘cursed telephone’, but ‘conversation over the telephone’. In this case, the suffix merely seems to signal that the base must be interpreted figuratively, but it does not seem to impose a particular type of figurative reading on the formation.

Next I underline the relation between form and meaning by trying to prove that the semantic structure of the diminutive suffix has an effect on the creation of new diminutives.

First, I investigate the diminution of several derivations. Diminutives in Dutch can be derived from complex nouns, such as augmentatives, nomina actionis and nomina agentis. Although diminutivization is possible, it is not always probable. The probability depends on semantic factors. Augmentatives and nomina actionis have a categorial meaning which can not be unified with the categorial meaning of diminutives. Only when these complex nouns exhibit derived meanings word formation is probable. Nomina agentis have special, lexical properties. Some are never diminutivized, others only appear in a diminutive form. Sometimes both formations exist. Diminutivized forms always have meanings that are prototypically associated with the diminutive suffix. The impact of the semantic structure on word formation is further illustrated by several projection phenomena. In these cases two suffixes are unified and lead directly to new forms. Diminutives are a prototypically structured category, both from a semantical and a formal perspective.

[p. 234]

Second, I analyse diminutives which occur as the first member of compounds. Diminutives can occur both in nominal and verbal compounds, but they do not have the same properties. It is shown that these categories differ in productivity, semantics and in the occurrence of an /s/ after the diminutive suffix. In general, these formations are compounds and not derivations, since they are not derived from an existing compound and I try to explain this regularity semantically. Sometimes diminutives are used as the first member of compounds because they have a specialized meaning: in this case the language user has no choice. In other formations the diminutive has a regular meaning, but the language user has no alternative either, given the concept he wants to express.

Finally, the perpspective shifts to general linguistics. I try to make clear that there exist relations between modern and historic diminution. On the basis of a coherent corpus of literary texts, diminutives in Middle Dutch are analysed in several respects. First, it is shown that suffixation with -kijn is the central process to create diminutives. Second, most diminutives are derived from nouns, although other bases are not completely excluded. Third, diminutives constitute a polysemous category, in which evaluative shades are most salient. Fourth, diminutives appear especially in informal, non-serious texts: in farces and fabliaus they are often used ironically. These four domains of prototypicality are also relevant for diminutives in modern Dutch, which are created by suffixation with -tje. I end with a typological overview of the formation, the meaning, the use and the origin of diminutives in other languages.