Convergences and divergences in

the use of the diminutive in Medellin,

Caracas and Madrid
Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García
Universidad Central de Venezuela | Universidad de Alcalá

This article analyzes the differences and coincidences in the uses of the
diminutive found in three varieties of Spanish. Based on the classification of
the pragmatic functions of the diminutive by Reynoso (2003), and the
analysis of 5355 cases of non-lexicalized diminutives, it may be observed that
the three varieties converge greatly in the production of the diminutive
forms of -ito. There is some divergence in the variety of lexical bases that
support the diminutive since the people of Madrid use (and listen to) more
diminutives than Americans, but they use (and listen to) them in a smaller
number of different words. The social factors contained in the sample have
shown a reduced effect on the functions of the suffix, and a partially differ-
entiating behavior among the three communities: in Caracas, age has a
strong influence on the functions while, in Madrid and Medellin, the level
of education is the factor that exerts more influence on these functions.

Keywords: sociolinguistics, diminutive, speech community, Spanish of

Madrid, Spanish of Caracas, Spanish of Medellin

1. Introduction

One of the characteristics of Spanish is to schematically express semantic con-

tent, associated to the diminutive, by using variants of suffixes that may acquire
different values. The main appreciative diminutive suffixes in Spanish are: -ito,
-ita; -ín, -ino, -ina; -ico, -ica; -ejo, -eja; -illo, -illa; -uelo, -uela; -ete, -eta, among
others. The diminutive is used to express a reduction in the size of the referred
entity – the so called referential value – and to express an array of affective values
towards the dimunitivized entity, towards the interlocutor, towards the speaker,
or towards both of them (Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias
de la Lengua Española 2009, 651–656). The notional or affective nature of the

https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00061.mal
Spanish in Context 17:2 (2020), pp. 317–340. issn 1571-0718 | e‑issn 1571-0726
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
318 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

diminutive suffix has been a central topic of debate due to its function in lan-
guage and, probably as a consequence of what Náñez Fernández (1973, 379) calls
the “functionally chameleonic character” of diminutives. In this regard, one of
the most interesting aspects of research is to define its semantic and pragmatic
values, and this is the point that has been debated the most since Amado Alonso’s
classic on diminutives (1930, 1954).
From a socio-pragmatic point of view, affective values respond to attenuation
or intensification strategies. The former, attenuation,

consists in minimizing the illocutionary force of the speech acts and which fre-
quently regulate the interpersonal and social relations between the participants
of the enunciation. […]. Some of the values that describe this linguistic operation
more concretely are related to softening the message, minimizing importance,
mitigating, repairing or hiding the real intention.
(Albelda y Briz 2010, 238) (The translation is ours)

Regarding the latter, intensification is used to emphasize or highlight that the

speaker does what s/he means:

the speaker, obeying a personal impulse, highlights parts of the utterance with the
interlocutor (this may be an action, a quality, an object, a subject, etc.) or his/her
own attitude towards communication.
(Vigara Tauste 1992, 131) (The translation is ours)

Both of these strategies may be observed in what Reynoso (2003, 2005) proposed
regarding the functions of the diminutive. She orders the values of the diminutive
on a scale according to the values that correspond to three functions of the suffix,
two which refer to the value of the diminutivized entity, and the other to the rela-
tion of the speaker regarding the reduced object. The functions referring to the
entity are called “quantifying value” and “qualifying value” by the author, and the
one referring to the relation of the subject, regarding the reduced entity, is the
“relational value” (a) The quantifying function represents the value of the speaker
regarding the dimension (size) of the referred entity, or the degree to which
the reduced object fits into the prototype represented by the lexical base (more
or less central); (b) the qualifying function manifests the value of the referred
entity (positive, negative); and (c) the relational function expresses the value the
speaker awards to the entity (irony, attenuation, respect). The qualifying and rela-
tional functions encompass the expression of an affective value that carries the
diminutive since it is with these functions that greater subjectivity is expressed,
i.e., the speaker shows positive or negative feelings, attitudes, beliefs or judgments
towards different people. According to these functions, there are more objective
uses (referential) and more subjective uses: the maximum degree of objectivity
is produced in those cases in which the diminutive implies a reduction in size
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 319

(quantifying function) and from then on, more subjectivity is established; this
degree is obtained with the functions of irony, attenuation and respect (Chart 1).

Chart 1. Pragmatic functions of the diminutive (Reynoso 2003)

Macro
Uses functions Valuing aspects of the reduced entity Types/functions
+ objective quantifying Valuing the dimension of the reduced – Quantifying
value entity (referential use)
– Decentralizing
– Centralizing
qualifying Valuing of the qualities of the reduced – Negative
value entity – Positive
+ subjective relational Valuing of the speaker’s relations with the – Irony
value entities of the discourse – Attenuation
– Respect

Regarding the dialectal differences in the use of the diminutive, several studies
have insisted on the fact that the Spanish from America presents a higher fre-
quency of use than peninsular Spanish, mainly in the adverbial forms. The exam-
ples provided by Aleza Izquierdo (2016) for American Spanish are sufficient:
Except for what happens in relations, diminutive forms have been documented
in nouns, adjectives, adverbs, nominal forms of verbs, interjections, etc., this is
why words such as the following (or similar) are very common in the whole of the
Hispano-American geography:
Nouns: pueblito, abuelita, sobrinita, chiquitos, hermanito, niñitos (…) hormiguita,
cantaíto, dejaíto, añito, cabinita, grupito, bandidito, fiestecita, pueblecito (…) …
Adjectives: pequeñito, chiquita, cortico, bajito, chiquitico, chiquitito…
Adverbs: ahorita, ahoritita, poquito, poquitico, despacito, lueguito…
(Aleza Izquierdo 2010, 196) (The translation is ours)

The Real Academia Española (2009) also highlights the frequency of diminutives
in nominal and adverbial bases in American varieties:

acacito, adiosito, ahicito, ahorita, allacito, alrededorcito, antesito, apenitas, aquic-

ito, chaucito, despuesito, detrasito, nomasito, suavecitamente, así como algunos
demostrativos, posesivos y numerales (estito, suyita, cuatrito). (RAE 2009, 165)

Regarding prior sociolinguistic research that has used the PRESEEA corpus, in
terms of the varieties of the Spanish from Spain, studies have been reported in
Madrid (Paredes García 2012, 2015) and Granada (Manjón-Cabeza Cruz 2012,
320 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

2016), although it has to be mentioned that only the first author analyzed
semantical-pragmatic functions. There are several studies regarding the American
geolects that should be taken into account: about Mexico City, Martín
Butragueño (2018) presented a complete study focused on the use of the variant
-ito, which is compared to other varieties of European and American Spanish,
and Broodcoorens (2013–2014) contrasted adverbs with the diminutive suffix -ito
between Mexico City and Santiago de Chile. Three studies have been carried out
taking into account the speech community of Caracas. The first on the adverb
ahorita (Malaver 2017); the second, on igualito with a comparative and discursive
function (Malaver 2018a), and the third on the general functions of the diminutive
(Malaver 2018b). There have also been extensive studies regarding the speech
community of Monterrey by Silva Almanza (2009, 2011), who used a pragmatic
approach, from the perspective of gender studies and discourse analysis. In the
case of the speech community of Medellin, no research has been reported on the
use of the diminutive, which is why this study in particular will be the first to
address this phenomenon.
In this paper, data from three speech communities is gathered and contrasted
in order to unfold the patterns of convergence and divergence in the uses of the
diminutive in varieties that present very different characteristics. The varieties
which are taken into consideration in this paper are interesting for sociolinguis-
tics and dialectology: on the one hand, the peninsular variety is contrasted with
two American varieties and, on the other hand, in the Hispano-American region,
each of the geolects corresponds to two macro-systems clearly differentiated in
terms of consonantism which, by simplification, may be described as a main-
tained system (Medellin) and a weakened system (Caracas), in the Andean and
Caribbean region respectfully, following Moreno Fernández (2010). Regarding
the diminutive, the dialectal situation of these three speech communities may
be observed in the research carried out in the field of linguistic geography. The
ADiM (García Mouton y Molina Martos, 2015) reveals that in Madrid, the pre-
dominant form is -ito, even when, in the traditional forms, the more traditional
suffix -illo is notably important. According to data collected by Alvar (2001),
Caracas is located in an area in which the suffix -ito is reported without excep-
tions, and the data collected by ALEC (Flórez 1981–1983) also reports that the use
of the suffix -ito is to be found.
The differences among these varieties are not limited to them belonging to an
inventory, since they also affect the socio-pragmatic functions of the diminutive.
Company Company (2002) notices the differences between the referential value
(size) and the relational value (pragmatic) which may be found in the penin-
sular Castilian Spanish and Mexican Spanish in order to consider that there is
not only an isogloss that separates both areas, but she also manages to establish
that “the different grammatical behaviors of the two dialects which were studied
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 321

reflect very distinct visions of the world” (2002, 55). The author, who based her
work on the corpus gathered by Reynoso (2003), found that Mexican Spanish
uses the diminutive with a relational value 72% of the times, compared to 42% of
the peninsular Spanish; in contrast, the Mexican variety uses it 28% of the times
with a referential value, compared to the Castilian variety which uses it 58% of
the times. For Company Company, Mexican speakers “seem to be more inter-
ested in talking about how they see reality and not speaking about, or describing,
reality itself, [whereas the Spaniards] preferably adopt a more objective or dis-
tant plane, and codify entities by observing their referential properties more than
anything else” (2002, 67). However, as reported by Paredes García (2015, 149), it
is possible that the differences observed in the studies are related more to the real
differences in the use, than in the characteristics of the materials and the corpus
being compared. In this regard, in this paper, the data that is analyzed is gath-
ered by using the same methodology in order to contrast the uses given in the
speech communities.
These are the hypotheses that were formulated for the purposes of this study:
– Hypothesis 1: The socio-pragmatic functions of the diminutive will essentially
be the same in the speech communities that are being studied;
– Hypothesis 2: The observed differences in the use of the diminutive will fun-
damentally be of a more “epidermic” nature, inasmuch as they will affect only
three aspects: (a) a preference for one form or another of the suffix, (b) the
frequency of use in the discourse, and (c) the application of suffixes to specific
lexical bases in each speech community.
– Hypothesis 3: In each speech community, social factors will have a similar
influence on the functions of diminutives.
This article is organized in the following manner: in the first place, and as a
means of establishing a context and theoretical framework, some articles related
to the interpretations given to the diminutive are described, pausing particularly
on the PRESEEA Project’s contributions. Then the methodological criteria are
explained, followed by an analysis of the diminutive present in the PRESEEA cor-
pus of Caracas, Medellin and Madrid. These analyses are applied only in the cases
of non-lexicalized diminutives in order to try to determine the presence of suf-
fixes in the discourse for each speech community, the generalization of the gram-
matical categories, and the semantical-pragmatic functions of the morphemes;
and finally, the possible influence of social factors in the variations is studied in
order to determine the convergence or divergence of the patterns of behavior. The
results of these comparisons will allow the researchers to extract the final conclu-
sions of the study.
322 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

2. Methodology

The results presented in this paper are based on corpus sociolinguistics obtained
within the framework of the “Project for the sociolinguistic study of Spanish from
Spain and America”, PRESEEA for its acronym in Spanish, obtained from the
speech communities of Caracas, Medellin and Madrid.1 It is hoped that one of the
most ambitious goals of PRESEEA may be accomplished: to foster coordinated
studies as a means of delving into, and moving forward with, a description of pho-
netic, grammatical and discursive phenomena in Spanish. The sample that will be
analyzed is made up of cases of the diminutive found in 216 interviews. In order
to ensure comparability, the same number of interviews has been used in each
community, and also respecting the proportion of stratification of the sample. In
this regard, 72 interviews were selected from each of the communities of Caracas,
Medellin and Madrid.
The cases of the diminutive were codified following the proposal by Paredes
García (2012, 2015), who foresees the possible influence of 27 variables in the use
of the diminutivized form (12 linguistic, 8 stylistic and 7 social). However, given
the specific objectives of this study, only those pertinent to the comparison will be
analyzed: the variations of the suffix, the grammatical categories, the lexical bases
and the semantical-pragmatic functions.
In order to adequately make a comparison, it is necessary to take into account
the number of words in each corpus, apart from the number of informants. This
will serve to help contrast the relative importance of the diminutive in each of
the speech communities. The interventions of the informants interviewed added
up to 913,119 words (Table 1), the corpora from Caracas and Madrid are approxi-
mately the same in numbers, while that of Medellin is significantly smaller.2

Table 1. Number of words used by interviewees in 72 recordings from each city

Caracas 562,485
Medellin 350,634
Madrid 572,394
Total 913,119

1. See Moreno Fernández (2006) for the methodological criteria used in the PRESEEA Project.
2. This difference in the number of words may be explained by how the interview developed;
some of the interviews in Medellin are more dialogical in nature, of the question-answer type
between the interviewer and the informant. In the speech communities of Caracas and Madrid,
more monological and extended interventions may be observed.
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 323

In order to identify the examples, the following conventions: the code begins
with the letters that correspond to the identification of the city (PRESEEA_CAR:
Caracas, PRESEEA_MED: Medellin, PRESEEA_MAD-SAL: Madrid, Salamanca
District and PRESEEA_MAD-VAL: Madrid, Vallecas District), then the sex is
identified (H for men, Hombre, and M for women, Mujer), the age of the infor-
mant (group 1: 20–34 years old; group 2: 34–55 years old; group 3: 55 years old
or more) and degree of instruction (1: primary; 2: secondary and 3: university);
finally, the three digit number identifies the interview.

3. Analysis of the data and results

3.1 The non-lexicalized diminutive

In Spanish, the diminutive suffix is sometimes affected by lexicalization processes.

When the diminutive is desemanticized and it loses its referential value, the base
and the morpheme merge to form a new unit; the appreciative suffix therefore
behaves similarly to the rest of the suffixes, and is converted into yet another of the
resources of lexicogenesis. These derived units (cerilla, bocadillo) constitute new
lexical items that are incorporated into the language – and sometimes into dictio-
naries – and the fact that one recurs to the addition of a new suffix, when there is
a need to refer to the reduction (cerillita, bocadillito), is a clear indicator that the
speaker has stopped perceiving the bases as diminutivized derivatives.
In this regard, in order to adequately study the real function of the diminutive
in a speech community, it is important to leave aside the analysis of those cases in
which the suffix has lost its evaluative capacity to acquire only a referential value.
This is precisely the corpus that will be taken into account for this study.

Table 2. Cases of non-lexicalized diminutives in Caracas, Medellin and Madrid

Caracas Medellin Madrid Total
N % N % N % N %
ito 1536  93.2 1599  91.4 1647  84.2 4781  89.3
illo    0   0.0    0   0.0  229  11.7  229   4.3
ete    0   0.0    0   0.0   30   1.5   30   0.6
ico  112   6.8  151   8.6    3   0.2  268   5.0
uelo    0   0.0    0   0.0    9   0.5    9   0.2
in(o)    0   0.0    0   0.0   37   1.9   37   0.7
uco    0   0.0    0   0.0    1   0.1    1   0.0
Total 1648 100.0 1750 100.0 1957 100.0 5355 100.0
324 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

Table 2 shows the first substantial difference between the three speech com-
munities that is related to greater uses of the suffixes in each area: in the American
capitals, only -ito and -ico are present, with a clear predominance of the first case
in Caracas, as well as in Medellin. The presence of -ico in both American cities
is evidence that -ito is not the only variant, according to data presented by Alvar
(2001) and ALEC (Flórez 1981–1983). On the contrary, in Madrid, different allo-
morphs of the suffix may be encountered, although there is some coincidence
with the Hispano-American cities in the preference for the variant -ito, which
appears on 1647 occasions (84.2%) and, in second place, -illo which is present on
229 occasions (11.7%); while the rest of the allomorphs are present as a mere testi-
mony of the phenomenon.
Regarding -ico, it has a noteworthy value in Caracas and Medellin, while it
is totally residual in Madrid, where it only appears in chiquico y pobrecico. The
most frequent words carrying -ico in the two American corpora were: ahoritica,
momentico, ratico y poquitico.3
Quantitatively, Madrid again is reported as the city with the most number of
diminutive suffixes, above Medellin and Caracas, which immediately questions
the generalized belief that there is a greater permeability of the use of diminutives
in the American dialects. However, this quantitative approximation has to be
defined based on the relative burden of the diminutive in each speech community,
for which the proportion of the total number of non-lexicalized diminutives (cf.
Table 2) may be seen in relation to the total number of words that conform each
corpus (cf. Table 1).

Graph 1. Proportion of diminutives in interviews

3. In Granada (Manjón-Cabeza Cruz 2012), the most productive suffix is -illo (N = 606, 46.8%),
followed by -ito (N = 533, 41.1%) and -ico (N = 157, 12.1%). In this speech community, suffixes pre-
sent social stratification: -ico is related to low education levels and its use is in regression, while
-ito is advancing in the speech community’s society, in those people with high levels of educa-
tion, configuring what seems to be a top-down change.
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 325

This data (Graph 1) allows one to establish a first impression on the frequency
of the diminutive morpheme in the discourse. What the image shows is that the
discourse of the Medellin speech community has a higher proportion of diminu-
tives than that of Madrid or Caracas. In this Colombian city, its value is 0.499
which, when translated, means that the speakers of Medellin’s speech commu-
nity use a diminutive approximately every two hundred words; the discourse of
Madrid’s speech community is less impregnated with diminutives – one every
three hundred words approximately –, which is more than the speech commu-
nity of Caracas, that proportionally uses less morphemes – one every three hun-
dred and fifty words –. This data thus questions the theories that believe there is
a greater relation of the use of the diminutive in American varieties, and which
present derivative morphemes more like idiosyncratic traits of each territory.

3.2 Diminutives and grammatical categories

Diminutives may be grouped into several grammatical categories (Table 3).

Table 3. The distribution of the grammatical categories according to the diminutive

suffix in Caracas, Medellin, and Madrid)
Caracas Medellin Madrid Total
N % N % N % N %
Nouns 1071  65.0 1060  61.0  879  44.9 3010  56.2
Adjectives  348  21.0  307  18.0  550  28.1 1205  22.5
Adverbs  126   8.0  119   7.0  249  12.7  494   9.2
Pronouns   66   4.0  175  10.0  100   5.1  341   6.4
Determinants   32   2.0   82   5.0  170   8.7  284   5.3
Proper names    2   0.12    7   0.4    9   0.5   18   0.3
Gerunds    3   0.18    0   0.0    0   0.0    3   0.1
Total 1648 100.0 1750 100.0 1957 100.0 5355 100.0

When analyzing the distribution by categories, it may be observed that, on

the whole, in the data of the three cities, almost ninety percent of the cases of
suffixation occur in nouns and adjectives, and to a much less extent adverbs and
326 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

pronouns.4 Nouns represent 56.2% of all of the cases, duplicating adjectives by

far, at 22.5%, while adverbs represent 9.2% of the cases and pronouns 5.3%.5
The data illustrates that in all of the varieties which were analyzed, entities are
diminutivized more than attributes and that, when they are charged with affec-
tive nuances, they are subjectivized and highlighted. In this regard, a scale with
a degree of prototypicality of the grammatical categories, related to appreciative
suffixation, may be established and it would be conformed somewhat like this:

noun > adjective > adverb > pronoun > determinant > verb

To this point, the values of the analyzed set do not conceal significant inter-
urban differences and the fact that every one of them establishes its own char-
acteristics (Graph 2).
As previously indicated, the grammatical category which appears more fre-
quently with a diminutive suffix is the noun, although with certain differences
depending on the territory: the proportion of nouns reaches 65.0% in Caracas
and 61.0% in Medellin, while, in the corpus from Madrid, it is present in only
44.9% of the cases. The second grammatical category is the adjective, even when
there are, percentually speaking, more cases in Madrid (28.1%) than in Medellin
and Caracas (18% and 21% respectively). In terms of adverbs, they are the third
category in the number of diminutivized cases in Caracas and Madrid, but not in
Medellin, where this position is occupied by pronouns.
It is worth pausing in the category of adverbs. The analysis identifies uses
of the diminutive suffix with adverbs of time (antes, ahora), place (abajo, arriba,
afuera, cerca, lejos) and doubt (apenas) in both of the American corpora; in
Madrid, the diminutive is applied to adverbs of time (temprano, pronto), place
(cerca, enfrente, lejos), mode (despacio) and quantity (poco). There are more

4. The similarities between the corpora coincide with the study by Manjón-Cabeza Cruz
(2012) on the speech community of Granada regarding the predominance of the noun and
adjective bases with diminutive suffixes. The same occurs in Mexico City, according to Martín
Butragueño (2018), where the noun bases represent 57.6% of the cases, followed by adjective
bases with 24.9%.
5. Regarding the verbal forms, only diminutives of the gerund appear in the corpus of the
speech community of Caracas (caminandito, comenzandito), which may be considered a per-
meability index of these elements to access more formal registers, different to what occurs in
the corpora from Madrid and Medellin. In Mexico City, Martín Butragueño (2018) found only
one case of the periphrasis, vamos a comenzarcito, which coincides with the speech community
of Caracas.
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 327

Graph 2. Distribution of diminutives by grammatical categories according to speech

community

different adverbs in Medellin (13) and Caracas (12) than in Madrid (7) but the
diminutivized adverbs, which occur at higher frequencies, are found in these last
two corpora: ahora in Caracas and poco in Madrid (Table 4).
In Madrid, the adverb used the most is (un) poquito, which appears as an
adverb on 191 occasions, i.e., 77.0% of the total of suffixed adverbs (and 9.8%
of the total of diminutives of the corpus from Madrid). Ahorita stands out the
most in the two American dialects, but it is in Caracas where its presence is over-
whelming.
Broodcoorens (2013–2014), in a comparative study on diminutivized adverbs
between Mexico City and Santiago de Chile, registered 44 cases of these adverbs
in the Chilean corpus compared to 805 cases in the Mexican corpus, and 80%
(647 cases) corresponded to ahorita. On the contrary, there is not even one case in
the speech community of Santiago de Chile. Malaver (2017) reports that ahorita
alternates with ahora in the speech community of Caracas, and that ahorita, being
the most frequent diminutivized word in the corpus from Caracas, has started to
be extended to all of the temporal meanings of ahora. In this study, it is also the
most frequent adverb in the Colombian corpus, although the number of cases is
drastically less than in Caracas.
328 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

Table 4. Adverbs with diminutive suffixes in Caracas, Medellin and Madrid

Medellin Caracas Madrid
1. ahorita  43 ahorita 653 poquito/-illo 167
2. cerquita  13 igualito  18 cerquita/-ina  14
3. arribita   8 clarito  11 despacito   4
4. lejitos   6 cerquita  12 prontito   3
5. abajito   4 rapidito   8 enfrentito   1
6. antecito   4 tempranito   6 lejitos   1
7. bastantico   3 ahí mismito   3 tempranito   1
8. afuerita   2 afuerita   2
9. ahoritica   2 apenitas   2
10. enseguidita   2 alantico   1
11. atrasito   1 debajito   1
12. bajito   1 abajito   1
13. cerquitica   1
14. poquitico   1
15. tardecito   1
Total 118 778 231

3.3 Lexical bases: A dispersion index of diminutives

Until now, the distribution of the allomorphs identified in each corpus, and how
they have been distributed into categories, may be observed. This allows one to
get a general idea of the presence of these morphemes in the discourse. However,
not much is known regarding how much the lexical units permit diminutivization
in each territory. In order to do so, it is important to observe what lexical bases
are affected by diminutivized suffixes (Table 5).
In terms of the percentages of the three most frequent categories, the numbers
related to nouns are similar in the three corpora, approximately seventy percent.
In this particular point, Madrid is at an intermediate position, between Caracas,
the city with the highest figures, and Medellin, where they are the lowest. The sit-
uation of the American cities is inverted when it comes to the case of adjectives:
the Colombian city occupies the first position, followed by the Spanish city and
finally the Venezuelan city. In relation to adverbs, the American varieties come
before the peninsular variety, while the corresponding bases of the rest of the cat-
egories obtain irrelevant figures, quantitatively and percentually speaking. How-
ever, this data on its own sheds very little light.
The contrast between the lexical bases and the number of diminutives of
each category offers a new perspective to analyze the convergence and diver-
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 329

Table 5. The distribution of grammatical categories according to the bases of suffixes in

Caracas, Medellin and Madrid
Caracas Medellin Madrid Total
Bases % Bases % Bases % Bases %
Nouns 315  73.8 319  66.6 293  71.5 927  70.4
Adjectives  95  22.2 135  28.2 102  24.9 332  25.2
Adverbs  10   2.3  16   3.3   6   1.5  32   2.4
Pronouns   2   0.5   2   0.4   2   0.5   6   0.5
Determinants   2   0.5   2   0.4   2   0.5   6   0.5
Proper names   2   0.5   5   1.0   5   1.2  12   0.9
Gerunds   2   0.5   0   0.0   0   0.0   2   0.2
Total 427 100.0 479 100.0 410 100.0 1316  100.0

gence processes between the varieties of dialects. The ratio between the lexi-
cal bases to which the suffix is applied, and the number of cases found, allows
researchers to obtain an index – which has been called “The lexical dispersion
index of diminutives” –, with which a synthesis can be made of the degree to
which suffixes are applied to different linguistic units, which in turn, points out
to whether suffixes are concentrated in very few units or distributed in the lex-
icon,6 i.e., it gives an idea of whether the presence of the diminutive in the dis-
course is related to the fact that these may be applied to any lexical unit or if, on
the contrary, the suffixes are concentrated in a concrete set of units, which may
appear more or less frequently.
As observed in Tables 3 and 6, the 1648 diminutives of the corpus from
Caracas correspond to 427 different lexical bases; the 1750 of the corpus from
Medellin are found in 479 bases, and the 1957 of the corpus from Madrid, in 410
bases.
In terms of the lexical dispersion index found in each community (Graph 3),
Medellin is the city with the highest index rate, which should be interpreted in the
sense that the speech community of that region, applies diminutives to a larger
variety of lexical units. Something similar occurs in Caracas, which is located
in the second position, very close to the Colombian city. However, the index
obtained by Madrid’s speech community reveals that it concentrates the use of
diminutives to a reduced number of units.

6. The lexical dispersion index is a value that ranges between 0 and 1. The more proximal it is
to the value of 0 indicates a greater concentration of suffixes in a reduced number of units, i.e.,
fewer words susceptible of receiving an appreciative suffix.
330 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

Graph 3. The lexical dispersion index of diminutives

Let us now have a look at what happens by grammatical categories (Table 6).
Regarding nouns, two aspects need to be highlighted: firstly, that the values are
relatively very similar in the three contrasted variables, and secondly, that Madrid
is the community that applies the diminutive to more different nouns. In the
case of adjectives and adverbs, the situation is inverted: Medellin is the city that
is more prone to adding suffixes to different adjectives and adverbs, while the
diminutivization of adjectives and adverbs in Madrid is subject to more restric-
tions. To sum up, entities (nouns) are susceptible to diminutive suffixation more
or less in equal proportions in the territories; where the real differences are pro-
duced is in the reduction of the attributes (adjectives, adverbs), in which the
American varieties seem to prefer a greater suffixation of lexical units.

Table 6. The lexical dispersion index of diminutives

Caracas Medellin Madrid
Nouns 0.294 0.301 0.333
Adjectives 0.273 0.440 0.185
Adverbs 0.079 0.134 0.024
Pronouns 0.030 0.011 0.020
Determinants 0.063 0.024 0.012
Proper names 1.000 0.714 0.556
Gerunds 0.667 0    0   
Total 0.259 0.274 0.210
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 331

In order to summarize, apart from how diminutivization is carried out (i.e.,

with which suffix), the differences that may be observed between territories are
due to the entities that are reduced, more than how many suffixes are diminu-
tivized (the number of diminutives that appear in the discourse). Medellin seems
to be the most differentiated community.

3.4 The semantical-pragmatic functions of the diminutive

As mentioned previously, diminutives help speakers achieve different effects

(Reynoso 2003). Some of these functions are exemplified in Chart 2.

Chart 2. Examples of pragmatic functions of the diminutive

Funtion Example
Quantifying pues yo me fui andando de aquí a Vallecas y luego desde desde / del puente de
Vallecas hay una callecita chiquitita para arriba (PRESEEA_MAD-
VAL_3M1_052)
Decentralizing meterse en tiendas no es muy / no es muy rentable para uno que / es una
persona que / bueno / está su sueldito / por lo menos cuando le llegó la
quincena (PRESEEA_CAR_H11_005)
Centralizing a mí es que de siempre me ha gustado mucho el campo y todo eso e ibas por la
mañana tempranito y estar todo el día (PRESEEA_MAD-VAL_3M2_040)
pero ya eso es cerquita del Metro (PRESEEA_CAR_H22_054)
Negative los viciositos que, ni siquiera son de por allá, son visitantes, ni siquiera tienen su
mamá ni su papá en la cuadra, sino que van a la esquina aa, molestar, no son de
por allá (PRESEEA_MED_H22_4)
Positive a pesar de su problema que tenía, se fue para donde su amiguita y después la
acompañaron hasta donde tenía que coger y subió, pero eso prácticamente fue
como un descuido de la familia, de nosotros (MEDE_H21_2)
Irony “yo / yo con yo con el piquito me conformaba” <risas = “E”/> yo siempre digo
eso cuando “joder yo con el piquito” (PRESEEA-MAD-VAL_2M1_046)
Attenuation también pienso que uno, tiene la responsabilidad, de decirle a la otra persona,
así sea charlando así seaa, ee, e, en medio, guebonaditas, decir hombre vea, a mí
me parece que por ahí no es ((PRESEEA_MED_H13_1)
Respect me hubiera gustado mucho ayudar los enfermitos ((PRESEEA_MED_M21_2)
la reconoció que era la monjita que estaba desaparecida
(PRESEEA_CAR_M12_044)

The semantical-pragmatic functions that diminutives serve in each of the

speech communities are reflected in Table 8, where the relative importance that
332 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

each function acquires in the speech community may be seen, and this is mea-
sured in terms of frequency.

Table 8. The lexical dispersion index of diminutives (chi2sig. = 0.000; Cramer’s

V = 0.446)
Caracas Medellin Madrid Total
N % N % N %
Quantifying  384  23.3  512  29.3  251  12.8 1147  21.4
Decentralizing  174  10.6  164   9.4  754  38.5 1092  20.4
Centralizing  469  28.5  532  30.4  420  21.5 1421  26.5
Negative   12   0.7   16   0.9    7   0.4   35   0.7
Positive  535  32.5  485  27.7  248  12.7 1268  23.7
Irony   28   1.7    0    0   19   1.0   47   0.9
Attenuation   37   2.2   33   1.9  202  10.3  272   5.1
Respect    9   0.5    8   0.5   56   2.9   73   1.4
Total 1648 100.0 1750 100.0 1957 100.0 5355 100.0

There are several aspects that need to be highlighted regarding the data pre-
sented in Table 9. In the first place, one needs to consider the differences between
the objective value, represented by the quantifying function – i.e., when the suffix
is used to indicate a reduction in size –, and the subjective values, which appear
to a greater or lesser extent in the rest of the functions. In this regard, there is a
coincidence in the three cities in the sense that the diminutive is used less in the
objective function, or in describing the reality, than in the subjective or evaluative
function (Graph 4).
Convergence practically ends with this aspect since, with the rest of the para-
meters, mostly divergences are observed. When faced with what hypothesis 1
estabished in this study, results show that there are substantial differences in the
function of diminutives. This contrast shows, in first place, that the diminutive
used in a quantifying function is employed much more frequently in the Hispano-
American cities than in the Spanish Capital. In Madrid, the diminutive is used in
a quantifying function or situation 12.8% of the time (249 cases), while it serves to
evaluate the reduced object or the situation in 87.3% of the occasions (1708 cases).
In Caracas, the diminutive is used in objective functions 23.1% of the times and in
Medellin 29.3% of the cases, compared to the evaluative use which occurs 76.9% of
the times and 60.7%, respectively. These results, which may be classified as quite
unexpected, refute the thesis established by Company Company (2002), which
stated that subjective values are more associated to America than to Spain.
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 333

Graph 4. Semantical-pragmatic functions of the diminutive (chi2 sig. = 0.000; Cramer’s

V = 0.169)

A detailed analysis of the pragmatic functions carried out by the diminutive

allows one to establish a more comprehensive idea of what occurs in each terri-
tory.

Graph 5. Pragmatic functions of the diminutive in Caracas, Medellin and Madrid (chi2
sig. = 0.000; Cramer’s V = 0.316)
334 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

A relative similarity may be observed in all of the pragmatic functions, and

especially in the most frequent ones, between Medellin and Caracas, in contrast
to what occurs in Madrid (Graph 5). Some of the notorious differences need to be
highlighted between the two shores: the diminutive is merely used in the decen-
tralizing function in America compared to its frequent use in Madrid; in the same
token, the attenuation function is relatively frequent in the Spanish capital, while
it barely reaches noteworthy values in Caracas and Medellin, probably because
this function is accomplished through other procedures in these speech commu-
nities. In both American cities, they prefer the centralized uses and the positive
value compared to what happens in Madrid.

3.5 The burden of the social factors

Finally, in order to obtain a vision of the social patterns that work in each of the
speech communities, what follows is an analysis of the influence of external fac-
tors, taking into account the semantical-pragmatic functions of the morphemes.
These have been grouped into only two categories: referential, in which the main
function of the diminutive is to indicate a reduction in size, and evaluative, used
to show different degrees of subjectivity of the speaker. The evaluative function,
which seems obvious, groups the rest of the functions (Table 9).
The sex of the participant does not establish significant differences in any of
the cities which were studied. This means that men and women of the three ter-
ritories use the diminutive similarly to quantify, or to give value to the entities.
However, there is a need to take into account the predominance of the evaluative
function of the speech community of Madrid, and at an interurban level, the per-
centual predominance of the men of Caracas and Medellin.
Regarding the age of the participants, no observable differences between gen-
erational groups in Medellin and Madrid were noted. It is a significant factor only
in Caracas, and, according to the data gathered (Graph 6), older individuals tend
to use suffixes more to express objective values than to evaluate the world.
Finally, the educational level of the participants is irrelevant in Caracas
regarding the functions that the diminutive plays, contrary to what happens in
Medellin and Madrid (Graph 7). In the Colombian city, a linear pattern marks
how the objective use of diminutives increases as the level of education rises in the
people of Medellin,. The explanation of this behavior probably resides in the fact
that, as educational levels rise, there are more strategies available to individuals to
evaluate their surroundings, and, in this regard, the diminutive is no longer that
important. Regarding Madrid, the curvilinear pattern indicates that the interme-
diate group more frequently uses the diminutive more than the other groups as a
tool to evaluate their surroundings.
Table 9. The correlation between the lexical dispersion index of diminutives (Shaded areas: p < .05)
Caracas Medellin Madrid
size value size value size value
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Male 155  22.11 546  77.89 205  27.33 545  72.67 102  12.85 692  87.15
female 229  24.18 718  75.82 307  30.70 693  69.30 149  12.81 1014  87.19
I Generation  84 20.0 335 80.0 143 29.2 347 70.8 84 11.4 652 88.6
II Generation 116 19.5 480 80.5 180 28.9 443 71.1 95 14.4 567 85.6
III Generation 184 29.1 449 70.9 189 29.7 448 70.3 72 12.9 487 87.1
Primary edu. 137 23.5 447 76.5 157 24.9 473 75.1 113 15.0 639 85.0
Seconday edu 125 23.5 406 76.5 190 30.3 438 69.7 70 10.2 614 89.8
University edu 122 22.9 411 77.1 165 33.5 327 66.5 68 13.1 453 86.9
Total 384 23.3 1264  76.7 512 29.3 1238  70.7 251 12.8 1706 87.2
Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid
335
336 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

Graph 6. Functions of the diminutive according to age in Caracas (chi2 sig. = 0.000;
Cramer’s V = 0.108)

Graph 7. Functions of the diminutive according to level of instruction in Medellin and

Madrid (Medellin: chi2 sig. = 0.006; Cramer’s V = 0.077; Madrid: chi2 0.025; Cramer’s
V = 0.061)
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 337

4. Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that the diminutive is an idiosyncratic trait which
makes it possible for researchers to characterize a speech community from the
observed parameters: the allomorphic variety, frequency in the discourse, the dis-
tribution of lexicon, and the pragmatic functions that the suffix plays.
In terms of hypothesis 2, which states that the observable differences in the
use of the diminutive are mainly due to their frequency in the discourse and the
lexical bases in each speech community. Some divergences have been noted in the
production of the suffix forms, although the one which is more predominant in all
of them is -ito. The variant -ico is quantitatively important in America, but not in
Madrid, which in turn, conserves historical allomorphs of the diminutive, some
with certain vigor (-illo) and others with less intensity (-ino, -ete, -uelo, -uco).
The quantitative differences observed between the three varieties affect both
the quantity of diminutives present in the discourse as well as the lexical bases
that support the morphemes, being the second more important than the first. In
the discourse of the speech community of Madrid, there appear more diminutives
than in that of Caracas, but the number of words that receive suffixes is more var-
ied in Medellin and in Caracas. In other words, the people of Madrid use (and
listen to) more diminutives than Americans, but they use (and listen to) them in
a smaller number of different words. This may be seen, above all, in the less pro-
totypically diminutivized categories, i.e., in adjectives and adverbs. In this aspect,
the people of Medellin are more advanced that those of Caracas and Madrid.
These considerations, apart from reconciling the postures of the prominence
of the Spanish from Spain or America regarding the use of diminutives, ade-
quately harmonizes the consideration of America as an area which is prone to
using the diminutive. What really occurs is that in the American varieties ana-
lyzed, the diminutivized lexicon is not to be expected that much as in that of
Madrid. The speakers of Medellin and Caracas apply the suffix to categories
less prototypically suffixable by diminutivization, which makes the diminutive in
these places a feature that is extremely marked and, in this regard, more cogni-
tively and communicationally prominent.
In terms of the semantical-pragmatic functions that diminutivizations play,
it can be observed that, in all of the cities, the morpheme is multifunctional, as
hypothesis 1 stated. Madrid is shown as the city in which the diminutive is used
the most with an evaluative function. This also constitutes a finding in this study,
which contradicts the hypothesis that the diminutive is used more in America to
evaluate the world than to describe it.
Finally, regarding what hypothesis 3 states, this study has determined that
there is a reduced effect of social factors on the pragmatic functions of suffixes:
338 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

in Caracas, age has a strong influence on the functions while, in Madrid and
Medellin, the level of education is the factor that exerts more influence on these
functions.

Funding

This paper is part of the activities of the research project “A complementary study of the socio-
linguistic patterns and the processes of sociolinguistic integration in the Spanish of Madrid”
(Ref. FFI2015-68171-C5-4-P), financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competiveness of
Spain.

References

Albelda, Marta and Antonio Briz. 2010. “Aspectos pragmáticos, cortesía y atenuantes verbales
en las dos orillas a través de muestras orales.” In La lengua española en América. Normas y
usos actuales, coord. by Milagros Aleza Izquierdo and José María Enguita Utrilla,
237–260, València: Universitàt de València.
Aleza Izquierdo, Milagros. 2010. “Morfología y sintaxis. Observaciones gramaticales de interés
en el español de América.” In La lengua española en América. Normas y usos actuales,
coord. by Milagros Aleza Izquierdo and José María Enguita Utrilla, 95–223, València:
Universitàt de València.
Aleza Izquierdo, Milagros. 2016. “El diminutivo en el español dominicano”. Círculo de
Lingüística aplicada a la comunicación 67: 3–56.
Alonso, Amado. 1930. Para la lingüística de nuestro diminutivo. Humanidades 21: 35–41.
Alonso, Amado. 1954. Noción, emoción, acción y fantasía en los diminutivos. Estudios
lingüísticos. Temas españoles. Madrid: Gredos. 195–229.
Alvar, Manuel. 2001. El español en Venezuela. Estudios, mapas, textos. Tomo III. Mapas, ed. by
Antonio Alvar and Florentino Paredes. Madrid. Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá / La
Goleta/ AECI.
Broodcoorens, Elien. 2013–2014. El adverbio con sufijo diminutivo -ito. Un estudio
comparativo entre el mexicano y el chileno. Master Thesis, Gent: Universiteit Gent.
Company Company, Concepción. 2002. “Gramaticalización y dialectología comparada. Una
isoglosa sintáctico-semántica del español.” DICENDA 20: 39–71.
Flórez, Luis. 1981–1983. Atlas Lingüístico-Etnográfico de Colombia, 6 vols. Bogotá: Instituto
Caro y Cuervo.
García Mouton, Pilar and Isabel Molina Martos. 2015. Atlas Dialectal de Madrid (ADiM),
Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) [adim.cchs.csic.es].
Malaver, Irania. 2017. “Ahorita: Lexicalización y cambio lingüístico en la comunidad de habla
caraqueña.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 65 (1): 27–57.
Malaver, Irania. 2018a. “Igual, iguales e igualitos. Diminutivos en el habla de Caracas.” Oralia
21. In press.
Malaver, Irania. 2018b. “Funciones del diminutivo en el español venezolano.” Cuadernos de
Lingüística (enero-julio). In press.
 Convergences and divergences in the use of the diminutive in Medellin, Caracas and Madrid 339

Manjón-Cabeza Cruz, Antonio. 2012. “Los diminutivos en el corpus PRESEEA de Granada.”

In Español hablado. Estudios sobre el corpus Preseea-Granada, coord. by
Edyta Waluch-de la Torre and Juan Antonio Moya Corral, 55–75. Varsovia: Instituto de
Estudios Ibéricos e Iberoamericanos de la Universidad de Varsovia.
Manjón-Cabeza Cruz, Antonio. 2016. Los sufijos –ico, –ito, –illo en el español de Granada,
España, Spanish in Context 13 (3): 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.3.05man
Martín Butragueño, Pedro. 2018. La aportación de los apreciativos en -ito a la estructuración
sociolingüística de la Ciudad de México. Paper presented in the International Workshop
on Spanish Sociolinguistics. University of New York, 4–7 April 2018.
Moreno Fernández, Francisco. 2006. “Información básica sobre el Proyecto para el Estudio
Sociolingüístico del Español de España y de América-PRESEEA (1996–2010).” Revista
Española de Lingüística XXXVI: 385–392.
Moreno Fernández, Francisco. 2010. Las variedades de la lengua española y su enseñanza.
Madrid: Arco Libros.
Náñez Fernández, Emilio. 1973. El diminutivo: historia y funciones en el español clásico y
moderno. Madrid: Gredos.
Paredes García, Florentino. 2012. “Variación en el uso del diminutivo en el habla de Madrid:
avance de un estudio sociolingüístico.” In La lengua, lugar de encuentro. Actas del XVI
Congreso Internacional de la ALFAL (Alcalá de Henares, 6–9 de junio de 2011), ed. by
Ana M. Cestero, Isabel Molina, and Florentino Paredes, 3709–3719. Alcalá de Henares
(Madrid): Servicio de Publicaciones de la UAH, pp. [http://alfal2011.mundoalfal.org
/index.html#/pdf/412alfal.pdf]
Paredes García, Florentino. 2015. “Funciones subjetivadoras del diminutivo en el habla de
Madrid.” In Patrones sociolingüísticos de Madrid, ed. by Ana M. Cestero, Isabel Molina y
Florentino Paredes, 117–154. Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York,
Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang Fondo Hispánico de Lingüística y Filología.
Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva
gramática de la lengua española. Morfología y sintaxis. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Reynoso Noverón, Jeanett. 2003. Los diminutivos en el español. Un estudio de dialectología
comparada. Doctoral dissertation, UNAM.
Reynoso Noverón, Jeanett. 2005. “Procesos de gramaticalización por subjetivización. El uso
del diminutivo en el español.” In Selected Proceedings of the /th Hispanic Linguistic
Symposium. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Proceeding Project, 79–86 [http://www.lingref
.com/cpp/hls/7/paper1088.pdf]
Silva Almanza, Mayra. 2009. “Las funciones referencial y afectiva del diminutivo en El Habla
de Monterrey-PRESEEA.” In Apuntes de investigaciones aplicadas a El Habla de
Monterrey, ed. by Susana Maribel Aguirre Ortega, Yazmín Mayela Carrizales Guerra,
Myrna Liz Flores Mercado, Mayra Silva Almanza y Nancy Yolanda Vázquez González,
145–165. Monterrey: Eter.
Silva Almanza, Mayra. 2011. La connotación en los diminutivos en El habla de Monterrey. Tesis
de Maestría en Ciencias con Especialidad en Lengua y Literatura. Universidad Autónoma
de Nuevo León.
Vigara Tauste, Ana María. 1992. Morfosintaxis del español coloquial. Madrid: Gredos.
340 Irania Malaver and Florentino Paredes García

Address for correspondence

Irania Malaver
Universidad Central de Venezuela
Instituto de Filología “Andrés Bello”
Ciudad Universitaria, Edf. Biblioteca Central
Los Chaguaramos, 1050 Caracas
Venezuela
[email protected]

Biographical notes

Irania Malaver Arguinzones is an anthropologist, Magister in Linguistics and Ph.D. in Applied

Linguistics (Universidad de Alcalá). Professor and director of the “Instituto de Filología ‘Andrés
Bello’” (2010–2018) (Universidad Central de Venezuela). Her teaching and research areas are
sociolinguistics, dialectology and Spanish of America. She is currently a member of the project
IN.MIGRA-CM 2017: “The Integration of Migrant Population in the Community of Madrid:
Analysis of Linguistic, Communicative, Cultural and Social Factor” and coordinator of the
“Project for the Sociolinguistic Study of Spanish in Spain and America” in Caracas (PRESEEA-
Caracas). Author of various publications about Venezuelan Spanish and teaching Spanish as a
second language.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7773-0234

Florentino Paredes García is Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the University of Alcala. His
research activity is in sociolinguistics, dialectology, history of language and Spanish teaching.
He currently coordinates the project “The Migrant Population in the Community of Madrid:
Linguistic, Communicative, Cultural and Social Factors in the Integration Process and Lin-
guistic Resources for Intervention (INMIGRA3-CM)”, financed by the Community of Madrid,
and co-directs the PRECAVES XXI project for the study of attitudes towards the cultured vari-
eties of Spanish. His recent publications include Patrones sociolingüísticos de Madrid (Peter
Lang 2015) and La lengua hablada en Madrid (Corpus PRESEEA- Distritos de Vallecas) (3 vols.
UAH, 2020).
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-1036
Copyright of Spanish in Context is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.