John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Studies in Language 42:1

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.

The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed
copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is
accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author's/s' institute. It is not
permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley,
ResearchGate, Academia.edu.
Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/content/customers/rights
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
 Introduction
Morphology and emotions: A preliminary typology

Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

The University of Western Australia, Centre for the Dynamics of Language,
ANU & The University of Sydney / Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage
(CNRS & Université de Lyon)

This volume presents nine chapters dealing with emotionally loaded morphol-
ogy over four continents. The collection is the result of a workshop on “mor-
phology and emotions” (MorphÉm) held by the first author at Dynamique du
Langage (CNRS) in Lyon on 29–30 April 2015. In this introduction, we first
discuss our definitions of the terms “emotions”, “morphology”, and the intersec-
tion between the two (Section 1). In Section 2, we contextualize the study of the
morphological encoding of emotions within semantic typology and semantic
ecology, and spell out some of the cross-linguistic generalizations that can be
made about the morphological encoding of emotions on the basis of the contri-
butions in this volume. In Section 3, we summarize the findings of the volume
on the more specific topic of evaluative morphology, the most widespread type
of emotionally loaded morphology. Finally, Section 4 offers a chapter-by-chapter
outline of the volume.

1. Definitions

“Emotion” is an English word that various speakers use as they see fit, so that there is
no universal definition of emotions (Izard 2010; Widen & Russell 2010; Wierzbicka
2010). In most of the articles in this volume, the word “emotion” refers to psycho-
logical states – that is, internal or private states – that are cognitive and therefore
distinct from sensations (such as pain or hunger), as well as subjective and therefore
distinct from purely intellectual states (such as doubt or belief). Typical examples
of emotions are anger, fear and other responses regularly listed among primary
emotions (Ekman 1992), but also more complex emotions such as contempt or
romantic love for instance. As internal states, emotions are not directly observable,
but are accompanied by observable symptoms such as physiological responses (e.g.
blushing when ashamed), facial expressions (e.g. smiling when rejoicing), behaviors

Studies in Language 42:1 (2018), 1–16. doi 10.1075/sl.00001.int

issn 0378-4177 / e-issn 1569-9978 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
2 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

(e.g. yelling when angry) or speech (verbally expressing or describing one’s emo-
tions). In this volume, this definition operates as a pivot but remains flexible. For
instance, some of the articles (e.g. Németh & Sőrés) deal with evaluation, i.e. our
positive or negative attitude or judgment towards people or things.
We use the term “morphology” in a standard way, to refer to the smallest units
capable of conveying meaning in language, irrespective of the debates on the na-
ture of these units (see for instance Blevins 2016). Our investigation into the link
between morphology and emotions is firmly onomasiologically oriented. That is,
what we define as “emotionally loaded” morphology depends exclusively on the
states and events in the world that are referred to or indexed by the morphological
devices under consideration – not on properties of the signs. As such, our approach
differs from a partly semasiologically oriented approach that seeks to unveil a set of
formal properties constitutive of “expressive” morphology, contrasted with “plain”
morphology (see for instance Zwicky & Pullum (1987) for an attempt to define
“expressive morphology”, Scalise (1986) for a comparable endeavor targeting evalu-
ative morphology, or Potts (2007) for characterisations of “expressivity” in language
in general). The purpose of the present volume is to account for the ways in which
emotional states (as defined above) can be described or expressed by morphologi-
cal means (as opposed to lexical, syntactic or prosodic means for instance), across
a diversity of languages in the world. Empirical descriptions of such phenomena
remain very limited to date: in fact, we cannot even cite a single work focusing on
this question. However, such empirical descriptions clearly complement, and in fact
support, attempts to formally characterize “expressive” morphology.

2. Semantic typology

Documenting and analyzing the ways in which emotional states can be described
or expressed by morphological means across a diversity of languages in the world
is an enterprise in semantic typology, as defined by Evans (2010: 504):
Semantic typology is that part of linguistic typology concerned with the expression
of meaning in language and languages. It is thus the systematic cross-linguistic
study of how languages express meaning by way of signs. Like all branches of lin-
guistic typology, it is concerned with exploring the deep regularities which underlie
the incredible diversity in how particular languages work.

Evans (2010: 507) then points out that an important aspect of this enterprise con-
sists in describing how meanings are distributed across the subsystems of language.
What is typically expressed by lexical means vs. grammatical means? What do pro-
sodic signs typically express, and what do they never express? Such questions are
precisely what we are asking here, focusing on the relation between the subsystem of

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 3
Introduction

morphology and the semantic domain of emotions. Which emotions are frequently
encoded morphologically? Which are never encoded by this subsystem? Can we
identify regional patterns in this respect?, etc. The contributions in this volume also
consider how this morphological encoding proceeds: Which types of morphemes
are involved? What is their distribution? When are they used?
One of the advantages of exploring semantic typology within the domain of
emotions is that this domain typically recruits significantly from all linguistic sub-
systems, including prosody (Bolinger 1986: 245–252; Irvine 1990; Omondi 1997;
Sicoli 2010; Ponsonnet 2014: 127–142; Ponsonnet accepted). Therefore, emotions
are an ideal domain to study what Evans (2010: 508) has called “semantic ecology”,
or the way “semantic choices made in one subsystem affect those in others” – that
is, the distribution of labor between subsystems. Do languages with high-frequency
diminutives encoding affection have fewer affectionate interjections? Or fewer
words to describe affection? The respective semantic labor covered by various
subsystems can also be weighed against other parameters such as the typological
profile of a language. Do polysynthetic languages have more emotionally loaded
morphology? Can the typological profile of a language influence the actual emo-
tional values conveyed by certain subsystems – for instance, some descriptions of
South American and Australian languages suggest that polysynthetic languages
may have a tendency to express compassion in particular by means of morphology.
Although the answers to these questions lie outside the scope of this volume, some
of the contributions do articulate hypotheses in this respect, and all of them offer
some ground to tackle these issues in future research.

2.1 What emotions can be morphologically encoded?

The present volume answers some of the questions articulated above. Importantly,
it gives a good idea of the range of emotional categories that can be encoded in
morphology. Even though the empirical sample covered by the nine contributions
in the volume does not of course exhaust all possibilities, the scope of attested emo-
tion categories is already broad. For instance, we find that compassion, endearment
and affection (Ponsonnet (a), Rose for Mojeño (Arawak, Bolivia), Guillaume for
Tacana (Takanan, Bolivia), Vanhove & Hamid Ahmed for Beja (Cushitic, Sudan),
and Taine-Cheikh for Ḥassāniyya Arabic (Mauritania)) are frequently encoded
by means of morphology. Among negative emotions, contempt (Ponsonnet (a)’s
typology, Taine-Cheikh for Ḥassāniyya Arabic (Mauritania), Németh & Sőrés for
Hungarian) and fear (Vuillermet for Ese Ejja (Takanan, Bolivia and Peru)) are
also relatively common; anger is also attested, albeit more rarely (Zariquiey for
Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru)). Surprise is not covered in this volume, but we know it
exists based on existing descriptions of mirativity (DeLancey 1997).

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
4 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

If we combine the data presented in this volume with existing publications on

mirativity, and use Ekman’s (1992) list of basic emotions as a guide, it appears that
morphological processes are attested for most basic emotions or at least for closely
related emotions. As illustrated in Table 1, this includes anger, disgust (realized as
contempt), fear, happiness (realized as generic positive emotions such as affection,
endearment, emotional comfort), and surprise. Our sample does not include cases
of morphological encoding of sadness. While it is plausible and even likely that
some languages, not covered here, do express sadness by means of morphology, it
is also likely that this is less frequent than the morphological expression of affection
and endearment for instance. These two generic positive emotions are the most
represented among morphologically encoded emotions – followed by contempt.
Unsurprisingly, these are the emotions expressed by evaluative morphology, which
is the most widespread type of emotional morphology.

2.2 Four profiles of emotionally loaded morphological devices

Another dimension of variation is in the type of morphological devices that can

express each type of emotion. For instance, compassion is more frequently encoded
by evaluative morphology, which often takes the form of distributionally flexible
affixes. Contempt (or criticism), on the other hand, is a common extension of
nominalizers (Zariquiey for Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru)) and verbalizers (Németh
& Sőrés for Hungarian), while fear is regularly encoded by affixes that pertain to or
neighbor the TAM system (Vuillermet for Ese Ejja (Takanan, Bolivia and Peru)).
Based on formal and semantic criteria, it is possible to identify four broad
profiles within the emotionally loaded morphological devices presented in this
volume, three of them being “subtypes” of evaluative morphology. These profiles
are spelt out in turn in the following paragraphs. Their properties are not homoge-
nous: each of these groups is defined by criteria that are not necessarily of the same
nature as the criteria that define the other groups. Nevertheless, these profiles are
enlightening because they correspond to morphological phenomena that have been
observed in several languages. As such, this very coarse-grained typology has heu-
ristic benefits for future explorations of the morphological encoding of emotions.
A first profile corresponds to “prototypical” evaluative morphology, which
has already been extensively described cross-linguistically (inter alia Scalise 1986;
Stump 1993; Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Jurafsky 1996; Bauer 1997; Fortin
2011; Grandi & Körtvélyessy 2015a). However, the emotional dimension is of-
ten left aside. Formally speaking, prototypical evaluative morphology can include
any type of device – often affixes, but also systematic sound change (Vanhove &
Hamid Ahmed for Beja (Cushitic, Sudan), among others). Following Grandi &
Körtvélyessy (2015b), evaluative morphology is characterized here in terms of

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 5
Introduction

Table 1.  Emotion categories with attested morphological encoding

Proxy Type of resource Language(s) Authors Remark
anger suprasegmental: Kakataibo Zariquiey
nazalization
annoyance, suffixes, Kakataibo Zariquiey
irritation including
negation suffixes
disgust contempt, diminutive and e.g. e.g. Taine-Cheikh, And other
repulsion augmentatives Ḥassāniyya see Ponsonnet (a) languages not
affixes Arabic discussed in
the volume
contempt augmentative e.g. Beja e.g. Vanhove & And other
sound change Hamid Ahmed, languages not
see Ponsonnet (a) discussed in
the volume
contempt verbalizer suffix Hungarian Németh & Sőrés
contempt, augmentative Kakataibo Zariquiey
criticism nominalizer
suffix
fear augmentative e.g. e.g. Taine-Cheikh, Marginal, but
affixes, including Ḥassāniyya see Ponsonnet (a) see also other
noun class Arabic languages not
prefixes discussed in
the volume
verbal Ese Ejja Vuillermet A cross-
apprehensional linguistically
suffixes recurrent
phenomenon
nominal Ese Ejja Vuillermet
apprehensional
suffix
happiness affection, diminutive and e.g. Barunga Ponsonnet (a & b), And many
endearment, augmentative Kriol, Beja, Vanhove & other languages
comfort processes Ḥassāniyya Hamid Ahmed, not discussed
(affixes, Arabic, Taine-Cheikh, in the volume
sound change, Kakataibo Zariquey, Rose,
gender shift, Mojeño, Guillaume
reduplication) Tacana
sadness no clear illustration of sadness or proxy
surprise mirative devices, not discussed in this volume
but see DeLancey (1997), Lazard (1999), Celle & Lansari (2017)

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
6 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

semantic extension (see Jurafsky 1996, Ponsonnet (a)’s typology). As previously

observed by Scalise (1986) or Bauer (1997) for instance, the morphological de-
vices that fulfill the semantic criteria for evaluative morphology also tend to share
comparable distributional profiles. Among other things, prototypical evaluative
devices do not modify the word class of their base, and they occur on many dif-
ferent parts of speech – especially when they express emotions. As a result of this
second property, typical evaluative morphological devices afford a high degree of
flexibility in scope when expressing emotions: they can have scope over an entity
(when occurring on a noun) but also over an event (when occurring on a verb).
Given their ubiquity, prototypical evaluative morphological devices can also have
scope over the entire enunciation context, thus conveying emotional connotations
(Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Ponsonnet 2014: 97). Evaluative morphology
is discussed in several articles in this volume, including a preliminary typology
of its emotional values (Ponsonnet (a)), and the results for this particular type of
emotionally loaded morphology are discussed in more detail in Section 3.
A second profile of emotionally loaded morphological devices groups together
derivational, often category-changing affixes that result in words alluding to (ex-
cessive) habits, and imply criticism because excess is negatively perceived. This is
described in this volume by Zariquiey for Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru, nominalizer
-katsái) and Németh & Sőrés for Hungarian (verbalizer -kVdik). The phenomena in
question echo Grandi’s (2002) account of augmentative suffixes in Mediterranean
languages, where derivational, sometimes category-changing suffixes convey pejo-
ration. Semantically, all these derivational evaluative devices rely upon a conceptual
association between someone’s regular habit, excess and negative evaluation. As
such, the devices in question also relate to aspectual evaluation, which has some-
times been considered a part of evaluative morphology – duration (excessive habit)
can be treated as augmentation and brevity as diminution (Stump 1993; Fortin
2011). Grandi (2002) follows the “traditional” usage and calls these derivational
devices “augmentatives”, thus implicitly assimilating them to “standard” evalua-
tive morphology. However, the semantic and pragmatic mechanisms via which the
category-changing morphological devices described by Zariquiey and Németh &
Sőrés acquire their emotional value are very different from what has been described
above as prototypical evaluative morphology (which is the first profile of emotion-
ally loaded morphology, discussed above). The behavior and distribution of the
derivational morphemes do not match the typical behavior of evaluative devices.
These devices derive words that belong to just one class, and that are by no means
as flexible as prototypical evaluative devices. Their scope is equally less flexible, to
the extent that their emotional or evaluative value usually applies uniquely to their
referent, as opposed to the entire context.
Also branching out of “prototypical” evaluative morphology is verbal evaluative
morphology, or morphology that occurs primarily on verbs (while prototypical
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 7
Introduction

evaluative morphology occurs primarily on nouns (see Bauer (1997: 540) from

Nieuwenhuis (1985: 221–223)), and primarily has aspectual values. As pointed out
above, aspect can be treated as evaluative (“more [or less] of the same event”, (Sapir
1921: 79; Kouwenberg & LaCharité 2001), and indeed some authors have argued
that certain types of verbal morphology should be treated as evaluative morphol-
ogy (Stump 1993; Fortin 2011). Yet here again, this type of evaluative morphology
may be better regarded as a distinct profile, apparently yielding vaguer expressive
connotations (as opposed to the relatively clear emotional values of diminutives,
for instance). This combination of aspectual and expressive values within primarily
verbal morphology is illustrated in this volume by reduplication (Ponsonnet (b) on
Barunga Kriol, creole, Australia).
On the basis of the data presented in this volume, the group that has been
called apprehensive/apprehensional (Lichtenberk 1995), described in this volume
by Vuillermet on the basis of data from Ese Ejja (Takanan, Bolivia and Peru), con-
stitutes a fourth distinct profile. This group of emotional morphological devices
does not display homogenous distribution: as demonstrated by Vuillermet, in Ese
Ejja the system includes verbal affixes that belong to the TAM paradigm, along with
a nominal suffix. However, apprehensional morphology displays some unity from
the point of view of semantics: all the devices express fear, thus operating within
the ‘apprehensional’ domain. In addition, they (at least sometimes) encapsulate
distinctions that exhaust the semantic space of fear-related events. Therefore, ap-
prehensional morphological devices form a system. Mirative markers may offer
other instances of comparable systems. The potential resemblances between ap-
prehensional systems and mirative systems is an open question for future research.
In addition to these four profiles, Zariquiey’s article on Kakataibo (Panoan,
Peru) accounts for a couple of emotionally loaded morphological devices which do
not form a type given that they do not share any obvious set of characteristics with
any of those described or known for other languages. These are for instance the
expression of irritation by means of specialized negation suffixes; or the expression
of anger by a nasalization process that applies throughout the sentence. Among the
languages discussed in this volume, Kakataibo is the only one that displays these
apparently isolated cases. However, this may result from finer-grained documen-
tation: further data on other languages of the world is likely to reveal similar mor-
phological mechanisms, and in general, further profiles of emotional morphology.

3. Evaluative morphology

Evaluative morphology represents a major avenue for the morphological encod-

ing of emotions. Out of the nine contributions in this volume, six focus exclu-
sively on “prototypical” evaluative morphology, and all but one discuss evaluative
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
8 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

morphology in one way or another. The articles implicitly or explicitly endorse the
definition of evaluative morphology adopted by Grandi & Körtvélyessy (2015b: 13).
These authors define evaluative morphology as a cross-section of semantic and
formal properties, via two essential properties. The first property, which is a
“functional-semantic” property, states “that a linguistic construction can be de-
fined as evaluative if it has the function of assigning a value which is different from
that of the standard or default”. The second property relates to form and states that
“an evaluative construction must include at least the expression of the standard
value”, i.e. the construction must be an addition to a base form. To summarize,
evaluative morphology includes all the morphological devices (formal criteria)
that can express evaluation (semantic criteria). Evaluative morphological devices
are traditionally grouped under three main types: diminutives, augmentatives, and
reduplication. An additional distinction that has been adopted at least by some
authors in the volume is between devices that can express an evaluation of quantity
(diminutives, augmentatives) and evaluative devices that only express qualitative
evaluation, which we call “purely expressive” devices (pejorative and meliorative
devices, for instance compassionate suffixes discussed by Rose for Mojeño (Arawak,
Bolivia) and Guillaume for Tacana (Takanan, Bolivia)). Diminutive and augmen-
tative devices can express qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation, but purely
expressive devices cannot express quantitative evaluation.

3.1 What we already knew

Evaluative morphology has been extensively studied in the last decades; however
very little work has extensively dealt with the emotional values of evaluative devices.
Firstly, a lot of the research in this domain has focused on formal properties (Scalise
1986; Stump 1993; Bauer 1997; and many of the articles in Grandi & Körtvélyessy
2015a). Secondly, even authors who have discussed the semantics of these devices
(Jurafsky 1996; Fortin 2011) rarely considered emotional values in much detail.
The functions of evaluative morphological devices are usually three-fold. These
devices have denotational meanings, where they specify a property of the referent
(e.g. large size for augmentative), and related extensions (e.g. specification, approxi-
mation, partitive meaning for diminutive). They also have emotional connotations,
where a speaker’s choice to use a diminutive or not is influenced by the emotional
coloring of the situation. And finally, they are used interactionally to attenuate the
effect of a speech-act and manage “politeness” pragmatic effects. The contributions
in this volume focus on the emotional connotations of evaluative morphological
devices, with some incursion into politeness effects.
Pragmatic effects have been studied in great detail for Italian and German by
Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi (1994), and there exist detailed (if shorter) descriptions

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 9
Introduction

of the pragmatics of diminutives in a couple of other languages as well (Travis (2004)

for Colombian Spanish, Sifianou (1992) for Modern Greek). Emotional connota-
tions of diminutives have been discussed in some detail by Wierzibicka (1984) for
Polish and English (focusing on personal names) as well as by Taine-Cheikh (1988)
for Ḥassāniyya Arabic (Mauritania) and Ponsonnet (2014: 81–127) for Dalabon
(Gunwinyguan, Australia, see also Ponsonnet & Evans (2015)), plus some more or
less detailed mentions in general descriptions. A large number of accounts indi-
cate that affectionate connotations are extremely widespread, and Jurafsky’s (1996)
typology also lists sympathy, intimacy and contempt. Emotional connotations of
augmentatives are very poorly described, apart from Grandi’s (2002) discussion
of the negative connotations of augmentatives in the Mediterranean area. Finally,
with reduplication, endearment was reported in Moravcsik’s (1978) typology, and
Morgenstern & Michaud (2007) discussed pragmatic functions in some detail. In
addition, recent discussions of reduplication published in Studies in Language as
the present volume was being prepared show that reduplication has an expressive
dimension in several languages (Dingemanse 2015; Kallergi 2015; Kouwenberg
& LaCharité 2015). Matching Ponsonnet (b)’s findings, Kallergi (2015) indicates
that this expressive dimension is probably best described as an evaluative colora-
tion – the speaker expresses their appreciation of a situation, rather than a specific
emotion, as is the case with diminutives for instance.
Contributions in this volume bring new insights on the emotional values of
each of the types of evaluative morphology identified above: diminutives, augmen-
tatives, reduplication, and purely evaluative affixes.

3.2 New insights into the emotional values of evaluative morphology

An important contribution of this volume consists of detailed descriptions of the

emotional values of evaluative morphological devices, for a significant number of
languages, compared to what was previously available on this specific semantic
dimension of evaluative morphology. In addition, the articles cover geographical
areas and/or types of phenomena on which we previously had very little knowledge.
Two articles discuss evaluative morphology in languages spoken in Africa,
namely Ḥassāniyya Arabic (Mauritania, Taine-Cheikh) and Beja (Cushitic, Sudan,
Vanhove & Hamid Ahmed). While diminutive morphology in African languages
had been extensively discussed where it combines with noun class morphology
(see Di Garbo (2013) for an overview), here both authors describe morphological
devices independent of the noun class markers. Three other articles (Guillaume for
Tacana (Takanan, Bolivia), Rose for Mojeño (Arawak, Bolivia) and Zariquiey for
Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru)) contribute analyses on the emotional values of evalu-
ative affixes in languages of South America – an aspect of evaluative morphology

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
10 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

that, to our knowledge, has hardly been considered at all so far. These contributions
suggest that at least some languages of South America are particularly rich in evalu-
ative and emotional morphology, which is not entirely surprising given that South
American languages are morphologically rich in general. Rose’s and Guillaume’s
article on Mojeño (Arawak, Bolivia) and Tacana (Takanan, Bolivia) respectively of-
fer detailed descriptions of purely evaluative suffixes, which is particularly valuable
given that we know so little about the typology of such morphemes.
These rich descriptions allow for another significant contribution concerning
the semantic typology of diminutives and augmentatives. Ponsonnet (a)’s prelim-
inary typology of the emotional values of diminutives and augmentatives relies
on the articles of the volume, on existing publications, as well as on analyses that
were presented at the workshop in which this volume originated but did not make
their way to publication (François (2015) on Mwotlap (Oceanic, Vanuatu); Mahieu
(2015) on Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut)). Ponsonnet shows that in addition to affec-
tion and endearment, across languages and continents diminutives express positive
emotions such as compassion, romantic love, admiration and respect or comfort
associated with daily routines, as well as negative emotions such as disapproval and
contempt. Diminutives can also bleach to the point that they only express a more
generic emotional coloring. While the emotional connotations of augmentatives
are more limited, they also display a blend of positive and negative emotions in-
cluding contempt and repulsion, threat and fear, admiration and respect, endear-
ment and compassion. Ponsonnet (a) shows that diminutives and augmentatives
do not contrast sharply with respect to emotional valence (positive or negative), but
while diminutives are anchored in intimacy, the emotions conveyed by augmen-
tatives more often relate to broader social contexts. Based on the small size of the
samples (especially for augmentatives), Ponsonnet’s typology remains preliminary.
However, given that it offers a framework for further descriptions of emotional val-
ues in diminutives and augmentatives, it is hoped that it can soon be reconsidered,
when more data becomes available.
Another contribution to the typology of evaluative morphology has to do with
the “profiles” of evaluative morphology that may be identified if we consider eval-
uative morphology from the point of view of emotional values and connotations.
As pointed out above in § 2.2, it may be enlightening to distinguish prototypical
evaluative morphology (non-category-changing, primarily nominal morphology
with great scope-flexibility in the encoding of emotions) from derivational evalu-
ative morphology (derivational and/or category-changing devices with pejorative
connotation relating to habit and excess, and lesser scope flexibility) and from ver-
bal evaluative morphology (non-category-changing, primarily verbal morphology,
with mostly connotative expressive functions).
In addition to these typological contributions, Rose establishes important find-
ings with respect to the historical development of diminutives. As pointed out
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 11
Introduction

by Mutz (2015: 144), studies considering the history of evaluative morphology in

non-Indo-European languages are rare, and historical accounts of purely expressive
devices are non-existent (2015: 145). Rose remedies both lacks with her diachronic
study of diminutives and compassionate suffixes in several varieties of Mojeño
(Arawak, Bolivia). Indeed, she shows how diminutives that initially have purely
quantitative meanings (“small”) evolve emotional connotations, then lose them
and become purely expressive morphemes. The article demonstrates that Mojeño
evaluative morphology is thus cyclically renewed, as diminutives that have evolved
into purely expressive affixes are replaced by a new evaluative device with purely
quantitative functions. Whether this process applies to other languages in the world
where purely expressive morphological devices are found is an open question for
future research.
Now that some of the major findings of the volume have be outlined and put
into context, we conclude this introduction with brief overviews of each of the
contributions.

4. Individual chapters

Following this introduction, Ponsonnet (a) presents a preliminary typology of the

emotional values of diminutives and augmentatives that has already been summa-
rized above in § 3.2. This typology also serves as a frame for some of the chapters
that follow.
Vanhove & Hamid Ahmed’s study of evaluative morphology in Beja (Cushitic,
Sudan), discusses four different devices, occurring on various parts of speech. For
each item, they provide details of distribution and associated denotational and emo-
tional values. Gender shift to feminine on nouns occurs on body-parts, geograph-
ical terms and place names, as well as nouns for artifacts. This diminutive process
has denotational values for all these categories, with additional positive emotional
values (affection, familiarity) on place names and geographical terms, and negative
values with artifacts. Beja also has a sound diminutive (r > l), which can occur
on nouns, adjectives and verbs, with a range of positive and negative connota-
tions depending on the nature of the base. The authors note positive and negative
connotations in courteous poetry that recall those discussed by Taine-Cheikh for
Ḥassāniyya Arabic in Mauritania (see below). Finally, Vanhove & Hamid Ahmed
describe an augmentative suffix -loːj on adjectives, and -l on manner converbs, with
(rare) negative emotional values.
Taine-Cheikh’s article discusses the use and meaning of the diminutive
characterized mainly by the infixation of -(a)y- in the Ḥassāniyya Arabic dialect
(Mauritania). Based on the systematic analysis of the occurrences of diminutives
in two corpora of traditional tales and courteous poems, Taine-Cheikh shows that
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
12 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

pejorative uses of the diminutive are as prominent as meliorative ones. In the tales,
diminutives cover a broad array of negative emotions such as disdain, pity, mockery,
contempt, or even hatred and fear. While affectionate diminutives are rarer in the
tales, they are more frequent in courteous poetry, where they express affection,
admiration and romantic love. However, even in this context, some diminutives are
ambiguous and can also convey criticism. The article also discusses the diminutive
formation and its diverse derivations attested in other Arabic dialects. Evaluative
morphology is shown to be particularly prevalent in Ḥassāniyya Arabic, possibly
because the pragmatic function endorsed by the diminutive in this language implies
that it affords a large range of emotional values.
Moving from Africa to South America, Guillaume’s contribution analyses the
formal, distributional and semantic properties of evaluative morphemes in Tacana
and in other languages of the Takanan family (Bolivia), including purely expressive
devices. Apart from a diminutive enclitic (=chidi, [tɕiḍi]) with affectionate values
that occurs on several word classes including nouns, verbs and adverbs, Guillaume
reports three purely expressive items. The enclitic =ichenu [itɕenʊ], which occurs
on nouns, pronouns, verbs and adjectives, is specialized for compassion. The enclitic
=base [baṣe], which occurs mostly on nouns, is a depreciative. Finally, a rare verbal
suffix -madha [maða] appears to express depreciation or even hostility. Guillaume
also shows that these evaluative morphological devices, including purely expressive
devices, are not specific to Tacana, but occur throughout the Takanan family.
As discussed in § 3.2 above, Rose’s article not only presents and analyses new
data on evaluative morphology in varieties of Mojeño (Arawak, Bolivia), but also
demonstrates their historical evolution, showing that diminutives in this language
tend to lose their denotational values to become purely expressive devices. Rose
discusses the suffix -chicha, which has strictly denotational values in Old Mojeño,
combines denotational and emotional values in Mojeño Ignacio, and has emo-
tional values only (compassion) in Mojeño Trinitario – where another suffix, -gira,
is used as a diminutive, suggesting cycles of replacement of evaluative devices.
In addition, Mojeño Ignaciano has another purely expressive suffix -sami, which
mostly expresses affection and compassion. Rose also discusses the etymology of
these suffixes and unveils the source ‘child’ (for -chicha) and ‘seed’ (for -gira), the
latter being a counterexample to Jurafsky’s (1996) theory concerning the universal
source of diminutives.
Unlike most chapters in the volume, Zariquiey’s does not focus on one particu-
lar morphological phenomenon, but offers an impressive (and probably exhaustive)
account of four completely different morphological processes that allow the ex-
pression of emotions in Kakataio, a Panoan language spoken in Peru. This includes
illocutionary suffixes, namely the complaining negators -mín and -mán and the
accusatory suffix -iéé; the augmentative nominalizers -katsá and tapun; systematic
complete nazalization of utterances to express anger; and the diminutive -ra ~
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 13
Introduction

-ratsu, which has affectionate and compassionate values. This exemplary account
of evaluative morphology in Kakataibo not only reveals unexpected phenomena –
such as the negators expressing complaint and the expression of anger via nasali-
zation – but it also suggests, given the number of phenomena accounted for, that
in at least some languages of the world, closer scrutiny would reveal a significant
number of emotionally loaded morphological devices.
The next article offers a detailed account of a derivational evaluative device:
Németh & Sőrés discuss the evaluative values of a Hungarian verbalizer suffix,
-kVdik, which produces deadjectival and denominal verbs. They show that although
this suffix is not usually described as evaluative, it does regularly encode pejora-
tive evaluation. That is, the suffix is often used on nouns or adjectives denoting
a profession in order to express that someone carries out an activity unprofes-
sionally, with a notion of usurpation and low achievement. The Hungarian suffix
-kVdik is particularly interesting because it is primarily a verbal suffix and because
it is a category-changing device, while prototypical evaluative morphology is pri-
marily nominal and leaves the category of the base unchanged. As pointed out
in § 2.2 above, this Hungarian suffix offers some resemblances with some of the
Mediterranean augmentatives described by Grandi (2002), as well as with pejora-
tive nominalizers described in this volume by Zariquiey for Kakataibo (Panoan,
Peru), thus suggesting that derivational/category-changing suffixes with evaluative
semantics should be treated as a distinct category.
Ponsonnet (b) also deals with the expressive values of evaluative morphol-
ogy but considers a different process, namely reduplication in Barunga Kriol, an
Australian creole – thus an instance of what has been described above as “verbal”
evaluative morphology (§ 2.2). While there exist relatively extensive studies of re-
duplication in creole languages (Kouwenberg 2003), few authors have looked at the
expressive values of reduplication in much detail. Ponsonnet identifies a number
of expressive usages linked to children in particular, namely hypocoristic usages,
descriptions of children’s games and imitations, and a softening role in imperatives
and reprimands. These expressive values are rarer and less regular than the gram-
maticalized aspectual values of Barunga Kriol reduplication, but the article shows
that the distribution of aspectual reduplication can often be explained in view of the
expressive values of reduplication. In addition, Ponsonnet observes that the expres-
sive connotations of Barunga Kriol reduplication overlap with those conveyed by
affixal evaluative morphology in some of the Australian languages that have been
replaced by this creole.
Concluding the volume, Vuillermet offers a detailed study of apprehensional
morphology in Ese Ejja (Takanan, Bolivia and Peru). While surprise has some-
times been considered as the only basic emotion to receive grammatical treatment
in language, Vuillermet’s study challenges previous observations in examining
grammatical morphemes dedicated to the encoding of fear. Ese Ejja exhibits three
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
14 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

distinct fear-morphemes that constitute a coherent morpho-semantic ‘apprehen-

sional domain’, defined as encoding an emotion triggered by an undesirable entity
or by an undesirable, probable event. The three morphemes differ in their locus
of marking (main verb, subordinate verb and noun phrase), and, consequently,
in their syntactic scope. The existence of three distinct morphemes in a single
language partly confirms Lichtenberk’s (1995) typology and sets up a preliminary
typological framework for the study of the morpho-semantic apprehensional do-
main cross-linguistically.
This last chapter draws significantly upon Frank Lichtenberk’s work on ap-
prehensives, and we feel very bitter that he will never be able to comment upon it.
Frank disappeared on the first day of the workshop that gave birth to this volume.
This work will remain associated with him in our minds and hearts.

Acknowledgements

The MorphÉm workshop was funded by the ASLAN project (ANR-10-LABX-0081) of Uni-
versité de Lyon within the program “Investissements d’Avenir” (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) of the
French government operated by the National Research Agency (ANR). This workshop was itself
a continuation of collaborative research undertaken in the context of Dynamique du Langage’s
seminar “Atelier de Morphosyntaxe” (2013/2014). We would like to thank Françoise Rose and
Antoine Guillaume for hosting this topic within this seminar cycle, and Antoine Guillaume in
particular for encouraging Maïa Ponsonnet to convene a workshop on these questions.

References

Bauer, Laurie. 1997. Evaluative morphology: In search of universals. Studies in Language 21(3).
533–575.  doi: 10.1075/sl.21.3.04bau
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and paradigm in morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its part: Melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford
Uni­versity Press.
Celle, Agnès & Laure Lansari. 2017. Expressing and describing surprise. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Lin­
guistic Typology 1. 33–52.  doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
Di Garbo, Francesca. 2013. Evaluative morphology and noun classification: a cross-linguistic
study of Africa. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 1. 114–137.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2015. Ideophones and reduplication. Depiction, description, and the inter-
pretation of repeated talk in discourse. Studies in Language 39(4). 946–970.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and
intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
doi: 10.1515/9783110877052

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 15
Introduction

Ekman, Paul. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion 6(3/4). 169–200.
doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Semantic typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguis-
tic typology, vol. 2, 504–533. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Fortin, Antonio. 2011. The morphology and semantics of expressive affixes. Oxford: University of
Oxford PhD Thesis.
François, Alexandre. 2015. Quand la morphologie n’encode pas les émotions : de quelques
langues du Vanuatu. Lyon, 29–30 avril 2015: Workshop MorphÉm.
Grandi, Nicola. 2002. Development and spread of augmentative suffixes in the Mediterranean
area. In Paolo Ramat & Thomas Stolz (eds.), Mediterranean languages, 171–190. Bochum:
Dr Brockmeyer University Press.
Grandi, Nicola & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2015a. Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Grandi, Nicola & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2015b. Introduction: Why evaluative morphology. In Nicola
Grandi & Livia Kortvelyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 3–20.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Irvine, Judith T. 1990. Registering affect: Heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion. In
Catherine Lutz & Lila Abu-Lughod (eds.), Language and the politics of emotions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Izard, Carroll E. 2010. More meanings and more questions for the term “emotion.” Emotion
Review 2(4). 383–385.  doi: 10.1177/1754073910374670
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72(3).
533–578.  doi: 10.2307/416278
Kallergi, Haritini. 2015. Total reduplication as a category of expressives. (Counter)evidence from
Modern Greek. Studies in Language 34(4). 873–904.
Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2003. Twice as meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creaoles and other con-
tact languages. London: Battlebridge Publications.
Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité. 2001. The iconic interpretations of reduplication: Issues
in the study of reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. European Journal of English
Studies 5(1). 59–80.  doi: 10.1076/ejes.5.1.59.4783
Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité. 2015. Arbitrariness and iconicity in total reduplication.
Evidence from Caribbean Creoles. Studies in Language 39(4). 971–991.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 2(3).
91–109.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman
(eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi: 10.1075/tsl.32.12lic
Mahieu, Marc-Antoine. 2015. Les émotions et la morphologie dérivationnelle de l’inuktitut. Lyon,
29–30 avril 2015: Workshop MorphÉm.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Joseph Harold Greenberg (ed.),
Universals of human language, 297–334. Standford: Stanford University Press.
Morgenstern, Aliyah & Alexis Michaud. 2007. La réduplication : universaux iconiques et valeurs
en systèmes. Faits de langues. La réduplication 29. 117–127.
Mutz, Katrin. 2015. Evaluative morphology in a diachronic perspective. In Nicola Grandi & Lívia
Körtvélyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 140–154. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Nieuwenhuis, Paul. 1985. Diminutives. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD Thesis.

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
16 Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet

Omondi, Lucia N. 1997. Dholuo emotional language: An overview. In Susanne Niemeier & René
Dirven (eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression and theoretical foun-
dation, 109–887. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  doi: 10.1075/z.85.08omo
Ponsonnet, Maïa. 2014. The language of emotions: The case of Dalabon (Australia). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ponsonnet, Maïa. Accepted. Expressivity and performance. Expressing compassion and grief with
a prosodic contour in Gunwinyguan languages (northern Australia). Journal of Pragmatics.
Ponsonnet, Maïa & Nicholas Evans. 2015. Diminutives in Dalabon. In Nicola Grandi & Lívia
Körtvélyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2). 165–198.
doi: 10.1515/TL.2007.011
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World.
Scalise, Sergio. 1986. Generative morphology. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Foris.  doi: 10.1515/9783110877328
Sicoli, Mark A. 2010. Shifting voices with participant roles: Voice qualities and speech registers
in Mesoamerica. Language in Society 39. 521–553.  doi: 10.1017/S0047404510000436
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus
English. Journal of Pragmatics 17. 155–173.  doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90038-D
Stump, Gregory. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology. Journal of linguistics 29. 1–36.
doi: 10.1017/S0022226700000037
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 1988. Les diminutifs dans le dialecte arabe de Mauritanie. Al Wasît
2. 89–118.
Travis, Catherine E. 2004. The ethnopragmatics of the diminutive in conversational Colombian
Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2). 249–274.  doi: 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.249
Widen, Sherri C. & James A. Russell. 2010. Descriptive and prescriptive definitions of emotion.
Emotion Review 2(4). 377–378.  doi: 10.1177/1754073910374667
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1984. Diminutives and depreciatives: Semantic representation for derivational
categories. Quaderni di Semantica 5. 123–130.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. On emotions and on definitions: A response to Izard. Emotion Review
2(4). 379–380.  doi: 10.1177/1754073910374664
Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Jon
Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth an-
nual meeting, General session and parasession on grammar and cognition, 330–340. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Authors’ addresses
Maïa Ponsonnet Marine Vuillermet
The University of Western Australia Institut des Sciences de l’Homme
Social Sciences Building, Room 2.47 Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage
35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009 14 avenue Berthelot
Australia 69363 LYON Cedex 07
[email protected] France
[email protected]

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved