Diminutives in the Internet Language Bachelor’S Diploma Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Rebeka Hrubšová Diminutives in the Internet Language Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc. 2017 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author’s signature Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Morphology ........................................................................................ 1 2. Diminutives in the English Language ............................................................................ 4 2.1.Morphology .................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1. Suffixation ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1.2. Prefixation ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.3. Reduplication ......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.4. Compounding ........................................................................................................ 9 2.1.5. Truncation ............................................................................................................. 9 2.1.6. Inflectional Affixation ........................................................................................... 9 2.1.7. Periphrastic Constructions ................................................................................... 10 2.2.Semantics .................................................................................................................... 11 3. The Internet Language ................................................................................................. 12 3.1.The Virtual Environments .......................................................................................... 13 3.1.1. Tumblr ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.2. Twitter ................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.3. Reddit .................................................................................................................. 16 3.1.4. Facebook ............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.The Internet Culture .................................................................................................... 18 4. Diminutives in the Internet Language .......................................................................... 20 4.1.DoggoLingo ................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.1. Doggo, Suffixation with -o .................................................................................. 22 4.1.2. Pupper, Suffixation with -er ............................................................................... 24 4.1.3. Pupperino, Gradable Diminution ........................................................................ 28 4.1.4. Bork, Onomatopoetic Introflection ...................................................................... 29 4.2.Quantification > Qualification .................................................................................... 31 4.2.1. Smol ..................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2. Tol ........................................................................................................................ 34 4.2.3. Lorge/Lorg ........................................................................................................... 35 4.3.Spoopy and Creppy ..................................................................................................... 36 5. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 40 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 41 7. Works Cited .................................................................................................................. 43 1. Introduction and Methodology The purpose of this thesis is to make a contribution to the debate about the nature of diminutives in English, first discussing the traditional ways of approaching the diminutive formation, then directing the focus towards the instances of novel usage of diminutives on the Internet. The body of the thesis is divided into three main sections and each one of them is further divided into several subsections. The first section deals with morphology and semantics of diminutives in the English language and lists word processes that lead to the formation of diminutives to provide some information on what is recognised as possible in the English language and a few other languages mentioned. The second section introduces the Internet language, the culture and trends that influence the shape of it, and provides overview of the social media networks where the novel usage commonly appears to place the novel expressions in context and to explain their demographics. The third part deals directly with the expressions collected from said social media networks and attempts to analyse their origin, meaning, and the word formation processes are made, illustrated with authentic pictures of their usage. The motivation behind the choice of this topic stems from the daily encounters with the peculiarities of the Internet language and from the observation that despite the fact that they are used by vast numbers of the Internet users worldwide, they are investigated only very marginally. Several questions regarding the novel usage were posed: Can these words be defined as diminutives? If yes, is it a reaction of the modern, flexible language to the restrictions of traditional grammar? Or is it a myth that the Standard English does not possess means of creating diminutives? In what ways are the new expressions similar or different from the traditional views on the morphology of diminutives? 1 As for methodology, first, a compilation of words for further analysis was made. The selected words meet these conditions: a) they break the rules of standard spelling and grammar; b) if they do not break those rules and they can be found in standard dictionaries, they are used in ways that are not covered in said dictionaries; c) the ways they are used are comparable to the ways of usage of traditional diminutives. Second, further data about those words were collected: a) data regarding their origin were sought through simple Google searches, by consulting online databases KnowYourMeme, The Urban Dictionary and Meme Database that are concerned with documenting such phenomena, and by further research of the links and references provided in the online databases; b) data regarding their meaning and usage were obtained by analysing authentic examples found on the Internet, by consulting a corpus English Web 2013 when possible, and by comparing previously gained outcomes to definitions found in The Urban Dictionary; c) data regarding the rise of their popularity were collected by using the tool Google Trends. Apart from that, attempts to compile a specialised corpus in the Sketch Engine were made; however, after reconsideration they were given up. The reasons for that are the specific features of the language on the Internet – if they were to be preserved, the texts would not meet the criteria of the Sketch Engine, such as minimal length and punctuation. But if the texts were adjusted in order to meet the criteria, the resulting texts would not be authentic examples of the language found on the Internet. The usage of online databases whose content is crowd-sourced in a similar manner to Wikipedia (i.e. The Urban Dictionary, KnowYourMeme and Meme Database) is justified. As the amounts of content on the Internet are vast and growing every day, the sources of the Internet phenomena can be lost easily. These crowd-sourced databases are the results of 2 shared efforts of multiple people, which means there is a bigger likelihood of finding and documenting the actual sources. As for the definitions on The Urban Dictionary, written by ordinary users of the Internet, they are also valuable for the purposes of this thesis, as they reflect their intuitive perceptions and authentic experiences. 3 2. Diminutives in the English Language The character of diminutives in the English language is a subject of an ongoing debate. Since the Standard English has a very limited number of diminutives in comparison with other languages, such as German, Italian, or the Slavic languages, some are prone to contributing to the opinion that the English language does not possess diminutives at all. Grandi, in his paper Renewal and Innovation in the Emergence of Indo-European Evaluative Morphology, divides languages into four groups based on their ability to produce diminutives and augmentatives, and places English into the type C languages: languages that have absence of both diminutives and augmentatives. In a footnote, Grandi explains that “English displays some diminutive suffixes (for example –let: piglet, booklet), but all of them seem to be completely