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 process relation

state event
social relations ...

action accident

communicative transaction
action

gesture word

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 derivational-
compositional 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 one

1
Some are http://soldadodeplomo.blogspot.com/2005/12/al-rico-diminutivo.html, and
http://www.webconferencia.net/patio-de-recreo/exceso-de-diminutivos-afea-cosa-
juzgada-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: 138-
39) 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 diminutive

2
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: Positive and respectful

(Lit. A lady lawyer from X University)
Una abogadita de la universidad Y: Negative and derogatory.
(Lit. A little female lawyer from Y University)

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 in-
group 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 in-
group 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 little-
DIM 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 methods. To begin with, I need to have a significant
number of men and women and control their ages. Also, commercial interactions are not
usually as long as those that I held with those sellers that provided more diminutives. In
order to have a better picture of the spontaneous use of diminutive during this kind of
use, I would need to design a long term study where more sellers participate during
several visits and recordings. Also, the interaction should be strictly controlled: each and
every time the researcher should ask for the same products in the same order and engage,
as possible, in the same kind of small talk.

47
 REFERENCES

Bishop, Ann. A semantic analysis of diminutives in Spanish with their comparatives in

English. Lenguaje y ciencias. 14.1 (1974): 35-46.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness. 1987.

Bybee, Joan L., Revere Dale Perkins, and William Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Chomsky, Noam. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York,
Praeger, 1986.

Eckert, Penelope. Variation, Convention, and Social Meaning. 2005

<http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/EckertLSA2005.pdf>

---. Language Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in

Belten High. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.

Givon, Talmy. On understanding grammar. Academic Press, New York, 1979.

Hudson, Richard. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford University
Press, New York, 2007.

---. Sociolinguistics. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

---. Sociolinguistics and the Theory of Grammar. 1986

<http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/texts/soc&tog.doc>

Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantics and Cognition. Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1983.

48
Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reason. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Jurafsky, Daniel. Universal tendencies in the semantic of the diminutive. Language

72.3 (1996): 533-578.

Labov, William. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford, UK;
Blackwell, 1994.

---. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Social Factors. Oxford, UK; Blackwell,
2001.

---. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press 1972.

Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 1987.

Langacker, Ronald. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical

Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, 1999.

---. The Rule Controversy: A Cognitive Grammar Perspective. CRL Newsletter 4.3.
(1990): 4-15.

Mendoza, Martha. Polite Diminutives in Spanish. In Robin Lakoff and Sachiko Ide
(eds.), Broading the Horizons of Linguistics Politeness. Philadelphia, John
Benjamins (2005): 163-173.

Melzi, Gigliana and Kendall A. King. Spanish Diminutives in Motherchild

Conversations. Journal of Child Language 30.02 (2003): 281-304.

49
Meyerhoff, Miriam. Introducing Socilinguistics. London, Routledge, 2006.

Prez Hernndez, Lorena. Grounding politeness. Journal of English Studies. 1 (1999):

209237.

Santibaez Senz, Francisco. Conceptual Interaction and Spanish Diminutives. CIF 25

(1999): 173-190

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford,
Blackwell, 1995.

Talmy, Leonard. Toward a Cognitive Semantics - Volume 1. Massachusetts, MIT Press,

2003.

Travis, Catherine E. The ethnopragmatics of the diminutive in conversational

Colombian Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics. 1.2 (2004): 249-274.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 2006.

Wolfram, Walt. The Linguistic Variable: Fact and Fantasy. American Speech 66.1
(1991): 22-32.

50