Cover not available

In:Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives
Edited by Maria Napoli and Miriam Ravetto
[Studies in Language Companion Series 189] 2017
► pp. 127–146

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 6
Diminutives in Ancient Greek

Intensification and subjectivity

 | Scuola Normale Superiore
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.07mel
Abstract
This work analyzes diminutives in three Ancient Greek comedies by Aristophanes. Although this work may not be strictly defined as morphopragmatic in the very specific sense of the term provided by Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 56–7), many considerations emerged within this theoretical framework. Ancient Greek diminutives were usually considered as related to gender: Fögen (2004: 228) refers to diminutives only as markers of emotion, with a “general tendency of women to be more affective or emotional than men”. However, data emerging from the analysis of Aristophanes’ three female comedies do not justify this claim. Another interpretation may be advanced: diminutives could be seen as markers of subjectivity, since they fulfill the function of indexing a speaker’s perspective, viewpoint and attitude (Athanasiadou 2007: 554), and also of affecting the addressee’s positive and negative faces (Brown & Levinson 1987).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Diminutives, intensification, and subjectivity
  • 3.The data: Aristophanes and the “female” comedies
  • 4.Analysis: Diminutives in Ancient Greek comedy
    • 4.1Taboo words
    • 4.2Forms of address
    • 4.3Kinship terms
    • 4.4Objects
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (30)
References
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29: 554–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, Colin & Olson, Douglas. 2004. Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae, edited with introduction and commentary. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colvin, Stephen. 1999. Dialect in Aristophanes. London: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfang U. & Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Female speech. In A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), 311–326. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 1995. Women, men and conversational narrative performances: Aspects of hender in Greek storytelling. Anthropological Linguistics 37(4): 460–486.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilleland, Michael E. 1980. Female speech in Greek and Latin. The American Journal of Philology 101(2): 180–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandi, Nicola. 1998. Sui suffissi diminutivi. Lingua e Stile 4: 627–653.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Diminutives/augmentatives (syntax and morphology). In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, Georgios K. Giannakis (ed.), 488–498. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henderson, Jeffrey. 1975. The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Aristophanes. Lysistrata, edited with introduction and commentary. Oxoford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jannaris, Antonius N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universals in the semantics of the diminutive. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 423–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 2004. Language and Woman’s Place, text and commentaries. Revised and expanded edition edited by Mary Bucholtz. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDowell, Douglas M. 1995. Aristophanes and Athens. An Introduction to the Plays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meluzzi, Chiara. 2012. “You” and “Me” in Ancient Greek: The case of three “female” comedies. In Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective 3 (GLIEP 3) [Supplement of IJDL], Wojciech Sowa & Stefan Schaffner (eds), 81–100. Munich: Peniope.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Placencia, Maria Elena. 2005. Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid. Hispania 88(3): 583–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Aristophanes and the Events of 411. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 112–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. The languages of Athenian women. In Lo spettacolo delle voci. Vol. II, Francesco De Martino & Alan H. Sommerstein (eds), 61–85. Bari: Levante.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand. Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, Wendy A. 1993. Gringo…Gringita. Anthropological Quarterly 66(4): 187–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willi, Andreas. 2003. The Languages of Aristophanes. Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Nigel G. 2007. Aristophanis Fabulae, Recognovit Brevique Adnotatione Critica Instruxit, Tomus II [Oxford Classical Texts]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Redondo Moyano, María Elena
2021. (Des)cortesía verbal y caracterización en el tercer Mimiambo de Herodas. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 31 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue