See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348901142

Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives:: Form, Meaning and Motivation

Article in Linguistik Online · March 2019

DOI: 10.13092/lo.94.5431

CITATIONS READS

5 109

2 authors:

Nana Aba Appiah Amfo Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah

University of Ghana University of Ghana
31 PUBLICATIONS 262 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 267 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah on 03 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives:
Form, Meaning and Motivation*

Nana Aba Appiah Amfo and Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah (Accra)

Abstract
This paper examines transparent and non-transparent diminutive forms in Akan and the range
of meanings associated with each group, as presented in Appah/Amfo (2011). It takes the dis-
cussion of Akan diminutives a step further by showing that some of the meanings communi-
cated by transparent diminutive forms are dependent on the context, including the semantic
properties of the base to which the diminutive morpheme is attached. In addition, it demon-
strates that even though the non-transparent diminutive forms communicate diminutive mean-
ings and contain what appears to be the Akan diminutive morpheme, synchronically they are
formally unanalyzable since the putative diminutive morpheme cannot be delineated from the
base. Also, it is argued that these forms have come from a lexicalization process that resulted
in the reanalysis of the base+diminutive morpheme as a single unanalyzable unit. It is observed
that the process of lexicalization could have been facilitated by a number of factors, including
the loss of the bases from the language, which meant that the putative base could only be found
in the context of their diminutive use. Finally, the lexicalization process is schematized using
formalism from Construction Morphology.

1 Introduction
Diminutives (and augmentatives), according to Dahl (2006: 594) are “words formed by deriva-
tional processes that add a semantic element having to do with size to the meaning of the word”.
Usually, there is a strong association of the diminutive with the general meaning “small” which
is widely attested cross-linguistically (cf. Heine, Claudi/Hünnemeyer 1991; Jurafsky 1996;
Bauer 1997; Schneider 2003; Appah/Amfo 2011; Booij 2012). However, as Dahl (2006: 594)
further observes, the semantic and pragmatic dimensions associated with diminutives “go far
beyond a simple notion of size”. Booij (2012: 14) makes a similar point, noting that “[i]n many

* This paper was first presented at the 2011 International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) conference held in Man-
chester, UK. The first author is grateful to the Office of Research Innovation and Development (ORID) at the
University of Ghana for a travel grant that made it possible for her to participate in the IPrA conference. The paper
was also presented at a departmental seminar at the Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana, Legon. We
are grateful to the audiences at the two fora as well as two anonymous reviewers of Linguistik Online for their
useful feedback that helped to improve the paper. We are solely responsible for any remaining shortcomings.

Linguistik online 94, 1/19 - https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.94.5431

CC by 3.0
4 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

languages diminutive forms of words are not used primarily for indicating the small size of the
object denoted, but for giving a positive or negative evaluation”.
The wide range of meanings that a diminutive marker may express, at any time, includes
‘young’, ‘descendant-of’, ‘related-to’, ‘small type of’, ‘insignificant’, ‘inexperienced’, ‘not yet
finished’, ‘unsuccessful/bluff’, ‘member-of’, ‘delineated part of a mass’, ‘affection’, ‘admira-
tion’, ‘disdain’, ‘contempt’ and ‘typical behaviour’ (cf., inter alia, Heine, Claudi/Hünnemeyer
1991; Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Jurafsky 1996; Bauer 1997; Schneider 2003; Ap-
pah/Amfo 2011). Whilst some of these meanings are concrete, others are abstract and evaluative
in nature. Thus, in the core theoretical morphology literature, diminutives (and augmentatives)
are said to belong to the category of evaluative morphology (cf. Scalise 1984; Stump 1993;
Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Bauer 1997; Katamba/Stonham 2006; Grandi/Körtvélyessy
2015).
Diminution in Akan (Niger-Congo, Kwa) is expressed by the use of what is generally described
as the diminutive suffixal morpheme, -bá/-wá (Christaller 1875; Dolphyne 1988; Appah/Amfo
2011), as illustrated in (1).
(1) a. à-pɔ́ǹkyé-bá b. dàǹ-wá c. à-sèkà#-bá d. à-dè-wá
SG-goat-DIM house-DIM PL-knife-DIM SG-thing-DIM
‘kid’ ‘cottage’ ‘penknives’ ‘trifle’
The forms -bá/-wá which mark diminution in Akan are mostly dialectal variants (cf. Ap-
pah/Amfo 2011). As the data on dialectal distribution of the diminutive suffixes -bá and -wá in
(2) show, Asante and Akuapem regularly use the suffix -wá to mark diminution, while Fante
uses -bá. However, there are instances such as in (2b) and (2c), where all dialects use the suffix
-bá. This happens when the diminutive indicates offspring (2b) and membership (2c). This is
understandable, given that it has been shown that the offspring and the closely related member-
ship meanings of the morpheme -bá is central to both the concrete and the evaluative meanings
of the diminutive (cf. Jurafsky 1996; Appah/Amfo 2011).
(2) Akuapem Asante Fante English gloss
a. dàǹwá dàǹwá dáńbá cottage
b. nàǹtwíbá nàǹtwíbá nàǹtwíbá calf
c. àsɔ́rébá àsɔ́rébá àsɔ́ŕbá church member
d. kétéwá kétéwá kàkŕábá little
Appah/Amfo (2011) observe that formally, Akan words that bear the so-called diminutive suf-
fix can be put into two main groups: Group A and Group B. Those in Group A, which we refer
to as the transparent diminutive forms, consist of isolable bases and the diminutive morpheme.
As shown in (1) above, the word dàǹwá ‘cottage’ is made up of the base dáń ‘house’ and the
diminutive morpheme -wá. Those in Group B, the non-transparent diminutive forms, are for-
mally unanalyzable in that the putative diminutive morpheme cannot be delineated from the
bases. For example, Akan sépéréwá ‘a small stringed instrument’, cannot be segmented into a
recognizable base and a diminutive morpheme, although there is a form that looks like the di-
minutive morpheme -wá and an accompanying diminutive meaning as well. Thus, when the
diminutive suffix is taken away, we do not get bases that are recognizable as full lexical items

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 5

with distinguishable meanings in the language. In simple terms, then, the principal distinction
between these two groups is one of formal transparency versus formal opacity. The transparent
diminutive forms are formally transparent while the non-transparent diminutive forms are for-
mally opaque. Additionally, the non-transparent diminutive forms tend to be semantically
opaque, although, we believe that the diminutive meanings recognized in them are not totally
arbitrary.
Building on Appah/Amfo (2011), this paper has a two-fold aim: one, to look at the range of
meanings associated with each group of diminutives; two, to attempt to account for the process
that led to the lexicalization of the non-transparent diminutive forms. Regarding the first aim,
we examine the range of meanings communicated by transparent diminutive forms and the de-
pendence of some of these meanings on the context, including the semantic properties of the
base to which the diminutive morpheme is attached. Turning to the second issue, which is the
main focus of this paper, we examine the motivation for the lexicalization of the non-transparent
diminutive forms as well as the process. We argue that the non-transparent diminutive forms
could have been transparent, much like their transparent counterparts. However, in the course
of time, the complex of base and suffix underwent reanalysis, becoming fused. At present, what
we believe to be the bases in the non-transparent diminutive forms are mostly non-existent in
the language as independent forms. We believe that the fact that the putative bases ceased to
exist as independent lexical items in the language could have facilitated the lexicalization pro-
cess.
In Section 2, we present the various uses of the term lexicalization and how we employ it in the
present paper. In section 3, we introduce Construction Morphology, the framework adopted for
the presentation of the data. In Section 4, we discuss the properties of the two classes of Akan
transparent diminutive forms (4.1) and the non-transparent diminutive forms (4.2). In section
5, we discuss the lexicalization of Akan non-transparent diminutive forms. We deal with the
loss of productivity and internal constituency as well as the fossilization of what, in our view,
used to be complex words. Section 6 summarizes the paper.

2 Lexicalization
The term lexicalization has several uses and has been categorized in varied ways in the litera-
ture. Brinton/Traugott (2005), for instance, observe that lexicalization has two principal uses in
the literature – synchronic and diachronic. Synchronically, it refers to the extent to which links
can be established between conceptual representation and syntax as well as how such links may
be formalized, that is “the coding of conceptual categories” (Brinton/Traugott 2005: 18). Dia-
chronically, lexicalization has several senses some of which are diametrically opposed. For
example, from a diachronic perspective, lexicalization may be seen as a process of fusion that
leads to less autonomy for the constituents and decrease in compositionality or as a process of
separation leading to increased autonomy for the constituents (cf. Brinton/Traugott 2005: 20).
The first diachronic sense of lexicalization is characterized as adoption into the lexicon (Brin-
ton/Traugott 2005). This is clear from the following definitions: ‘‘a process by which new lin-
guistic entities, be it simple or complex words or just new senses, become conventionalized on
the level of the lexicon’’ (Blank 2001: 1603); “[w]hen a possible word has become an

ISSN 1615-3014
6 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

established word, we say that it has lexicalized” (Booij 2012: 17). Similar definitions are found
in, inter alia, Bussmann (1996: s. v. “lexicalization”); Lehmann (2002: 14) and Aikhenvald
(2007: 60). This use of lexicalization requires the analyst to clarify his/her view of the lexicon,
given the many varying views on what the lexicon is and what it may be assumed to contain
(Bloomfield 1933; Chomsky 1965; Halle 1973; Lieber 1980; Hoeksema 1985; Di Sciullo/Wil-
liams 1987; Jurafsky 1992; Jackendoff 2009; Booij 2010a). A summary of the varying views
on the lexicon is in Appah (2013: 86-95). Our view of the lexicon is constructionist. Thus, we
follows Jurafsky’s (1992) conceptualization of the lexicon as a “constructicon”, which contains
constructions of varying degrees of complexity, ranging from the simplex pairing of form and
meaning to the most complex and from the concrete to the most abstract/schematic, all of which
share various kinds of relations (Michaelis/Lambrecht 1996). Thus, what gets adopted into the
lexicon may be simplex or complex.
The second diachronic sense of lexicalization is the one which characterizes it as “falling out-
side the regular rules of the grammar”. Here, lexicalization is deemed to have occurred when a
complex form can no longer be accounted for by regular grammatical rules. This is captured in
definitions such as: ‘‘[w]henever a linguistic form falls outside the productive rules of grammar
it becomes lexicalized’’ (Anttila 1972/1989: 151); and “[t]he stage when a lexeme has, or takes
on, a form which it could not have if it had arisen by the application of productive rules’’ (Bauer
1983: 48).
The third diachronic sense of lexicalization refers to shifts from implied to coded (or conven-
tional) meaning. Brinton/Traugott (2005) characterize this as shift from pragmatics to semantic
polysemy.
Figure 1 provides a graphic summary of their different uses of lexicalization.
Lexicalization

Diachronic Synchronic

adoption into falling outside shift from implied Lexicalization

the lexicon regular rules to coded meaning patterns

Figure 1: A hierarchy of the uses of lexicalization (cf. Brinton/Traugott 2005: 20-21)

While Brinton/Traugott (2005) categorize views on lexicalization into synchronic and dia-
chronic perspectives, Himmelmann (2004) observes five basic uses of lexicalization, as pre-
sented in Table 1. Of the five senses of lexicalization identified by Himmelmann (2004), the
two most common are univerbation also called idiomatization (sense I) and fossilization (sense
II), and they have a lot in common. The most prominent shared feature of these two uses of
lexicalization is the fact that an originally productive, transparent and compositional formation
loses its productivity, transparency and/or compositionality (cf. Himmelmann 2004: 28). Uni-
verbation and fossilization take complex forms as input and yield less complex forms as output
– phrases and compounds yield morphologically complex words, whilst affix-derived complex
words yield simplex words. Univerbation and fossilization may, therefore, be characterized as
prototypical instances of lexicalization.

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 7

I II III IV V
Univerbation, Fossiliza- Emergence of a Splits2 Lexicalization
Idiomatization1 tion/cease of derivational forma- patterns
productivity tive
creating a new lex- a formally produc- creating a (typically deriving a new patterns of se-
eme out of two or tive formative is bound) formative lexeme from a mantic features
more existing ones, reanalyzed as part which can be used single existing which are sys-
Definition

which may con- of a root productively for the one, which may tematically ‘en-
tinue to exist inde- formation of new continue to exist coded’ in the
pendently lexemes independently lexicon
Collocations roots + formatives collocations, com- individual lexi- semantic/cogni-
Pertains to

pounds, cal items, gram- tive features

inflectional forma- matical forma-
tives tives

Table 1: Five basic uses of Lexicalization (cf. Himmelmann 2004: 27)3

Himmelmann’s five uses of the term lexicalization may fit into the two-way distinction pro-
posed by Brinton/Traugott (2005); senses I-IV are diachronic in perspective whilst sense V is
synchronic in perspective.
The various uses of the term lexicalization require a clear indication of what sense of lexicali-
zation is intended whenever it is used. For the non-transparent diminutive forms that are dis-
cussed in this paper, we notice that the diachronic senses of lexicalization listed in Figure 1
above are relevant. The first diachronic sense (“adoption into the lexicon”) is relevant to the
discussion of non-transparent diminutive forms because they are single unanalyzable lexical
items with specified meanings. For example, àbááyéwá ‘young girl’ cannot be segmented into
recognizable formal units that carry separate meanings in the language.
This is not to suggest that we consider the lexicon to consist of only unanalyzable units. As
noted above, we consider the lexicon to be the repository of constructions, form-meaning pairs,
including simplex ones.
The second sense (“falling outside the regular rules of the grammar”) is also relevant to the
discussion of non-transparent diminutive forms because none of them can be constructed regu-
larly from bases and affixes in the language, given that the putative bases do not exist as free
forms in the language. For instance, synchronically forms such as àbàsìrìwá ‘middle-aged
woman’ or àkókórówá ‘weaver’s shuttle’ cannot be said to have arisen from the productive
phenomenon of adding the diminutive suffix -wá to the putative bases *àbàsìrì and *àkókóró
respectively.
The final diachronic sense of lexicalization, which focuses on meaning (“a shift from implied
to coded meaning”) suggests that the meaning of lexicalized forms must be memorized because

1 Note that Sauer (2002) defines idiomatization semantically, noting that the meaning of an idiomatized lexeme
cannot be wholly deciphered from its constituent parts.
2 See Himmelmann (2004: 29-30) for views on why it may not be a good idea to classify splits as instances of

lexicalization.
3 The other uses of lexicalization identified by Himmelmann are not directly relevant to our present concern. We

will therefore not comment on them here.

ISSN 1615-3014
8 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

they cannot be constructed compositionally from the meanings of their constituents, even if
they are formally transparent. This is exactly what we find regarding the meanings of the non-
transparent diminutive forms. Although the bases do not exist synchronically, in the mind of
the native speaker, the non-transparent diminutive forms have conventionalized diminutive
meanings which can be traced to the form -wá, an integral and non-alienable part of those
words. Since the bases are not identifiable free forms in the language with clearly identified
semantics, it becomes implausible to attempt to compute the meanings of these forms from the
synchronically non-existent internal structure of the full forms. We discuss this further in Sec-
tion 5.

3 Representational Framework: Construction Morphology

Construction Morphology (CxM) is a theory of linguistics morphology in which the notion of
construction as developed in Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995; Michaelis/Lambrecht
1996; Goldberg 2006), is adopted to develop “a framework in which the differences and com-
monalities of word-level constructions and phrase-level constructions can be accounted for”
(Booij 2010a: 1).
The basic unit of analysis in CxM is the construction, a pairing of form and meaning, ranging
from the simplex to the most complex. Complex words are word-level constructions that are
formed by abstract schemas which are extracted from actually existing words, because CxM is
abstractionist in perspective (cf. Blevins 2006). For example, observing the paradigmatic rela-
tion between the adjectives in (3a) and the nouns in (3b), the speaker of English can capture the
observed systematic form-meaning co-variation, with regard to the word-internal morphologi-
cal structure, as (4).
(3) a. bald b. baldness
big bigness
black blackness
British Britishness (Booij 2010b: 543)
(4) [[bright]A ness]N (Booij 2010b: 544)
The pattern in (4), which captures the general properties of the complex words in (3b), may in
turn be conceptualized as a template, like (5), which expresses generalization about the form
and meaning of existing de-adjectival nouns and serves as a pattern for forming new words of
comparable complexity (i.e. new nouns in -ness). The speaker forms a new noun by simply
replacing the variable X in the schema with an adjective, an operation referred to as unification
and described as “the basic operation, both at the word level and the phrase level, to create well-
formed linguistic expressions” (Booij 2010b: 544).
(5) [[X] ness] ‘the property/state of A’
A N

Constructions and the schemas they instantiate coexist in a hierarchically structured lexicon in
which construction of varying degrees of complexity exist. Thus, in CxM, the lexicon is not
just the repository of irregular forms and their idiosyncratic properties; rather, it is the repository
of what the speaker may be assumed to know about his/her language (Jackendoff 2009), includ-
ing regular forms, if they are frequent enough (cf. Goldberg 1995, 2006). In other words, the

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 9

lexicon generalizes over the lexical memories of the individual speakers of the language (cf.
Booij 2010b: 544).
The foregoing reveals what Booij (2010a: 1) calls “the main ingredients of the theory [of CxM]:
a theory of word structure, a theory of the notion ‘construction’, and a theory of the lexicon.”
We find that CxM provides formalism that makes it easy to present the properties of the differ-
ent kinds of diminutive forms in a concise and elegant manner. For example, the loss of formal
transparency in the process of the lexicalization of Akan diminutives can be formalized straight-
forwardly in this framework as will be illustrated in section 5.

4 The form and meaning of Akan diminutives

In this section, we discuss Akan diminutives, further illustrating the formal and semantic issues
mentioned in the introduction. The class of transparent diminutives is discussed in Section 4.1
whilst non-transparent diminutive forms are discussed in Section 4.2. The relevant formal and
semantic similarities and differences are summarized in Section 4.3.

4.1 Transparent diminutive forms

As indicated in Section 2, the diminutive suffix in the transparent diminutive form (TDF) can
be delineated from the base, which is an identifiable lexical item in the language. The resultant
word therefore denotes a diminutive form of the concept denoted by the base. The examples in
(1) and (2) above, as well as those in (6) belong to this group.
(6) a. à-dùà-bá b. Àsàǹté-wá c. bɔ́tɔ́-wá
SG-tree-DIM Male name-DIM sack-DIM
‘fruit’ ‘a female name’ ‘small sack’
A look at the class of TDFs reveals that the diminutive meanings covered by words in this group
are varied, ranging from concrete to evaluative ones (cf. Appah/Amfo 2011). They include
meanings such as SMALL, OFFSPRING, FEMALE, NON-SERIOUS and AFFECTION. Generally, the
OFFSPRING meaning, across all the dialects of Akan, is marked by the suffix -bá and it is an
extremely productive process in the language. Thus, in principle, the name of any animate en-
tity, which has the capacity to produce an offspring, can be suffixed with -bá to indicate an
offspring of the entity in question, as the examples in (7) show.
(7) a. à-nòmáá-bá b. ò-nípá-bá c. sísírí-bá
SG-bird-DIM SG-human-DIM leopard-DIM
‘offspring of a bird’ ‘child’ ‘cub’
d. ɔ̀-krámáń-bá e. ɔ̀-wɔ́-bá f. ò-dwáń-bá
SG-dog-DIM SG-snake-DIM SG-sheep-DIM
‘puppy’ ‘offspring of a snake’ ‘lamb’
The association of the OFFSPRING meaning with -bá is not surprising, as the diminutive mor-
pheme has been shown to have derived from the Akan word ɔ̀-bá ‘child’ (cf. Appah/Amfo
2011). However, the occurrence of -bá in a diminutive form is not always indicative of ‘an
offspring meaning’. In addition to the evaluative meaning suggested in the following paragraph,
-bá may also be indicative of feminine and/or youth as found in a word like àkyèrέbá ‘young

ISSN 1615-3014
10 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

lady’, or in names like Èssùmàǹ-bá (female Èssúmàǹ) and Ègyìr̀-bá (female Ègyíŕ). Indeed, the
offspring meaning is somewhat stretched in the word à-dùà-bá ‘fruit’, literally the product (off-
spring) of a tree.
Sometimes, depending on relevant contextual cues, the meaning retrieved by the addressee in
relation to such words is not an offspring interpretation but rather a ‘small’ interpretation. For
example a receiver of a gift of a sheep, if unhappy about the relative small size of the sheep,
could refer to that as òdwáńbá, which literally means ‘lamb’ but it is expected to be interpreted
as ‘a small sheep’ or generally an ‘insignificant present’. This reference, in addition to indicat-
ing the small size of the sheep, communicates the receiver’s disapproval of the gift.
In many instances, when the diminutive suffix is affixed to a count noun, the result is a concept
typifying a smaller version of the base entity. For instance, bɔ́tɔ́-wá is a small bag, dàǹ-wá is a
cottage (small house), sèkà#-bá is a penknife (in principle, a small knife). This link between
the “offspring” and the “small” interpretation of diminutives is quite transparent and generally
well-motivated (cf. Jurafsky 1996; Appah/Amfo 2011; Booij 2012).
Also, the addition of the diminutive suffix to non-concrete nouns results in the creation of nouns
with evaluative meanings including “insignificance”, “affection”, “admiration”, “disdain” and
“contempt”. The evaluative meanings associated with TDFs are exemplified in (8), where, alt-
hough the forms are formally transparent, and therefore TDFs, the meanings of the resultant
diminutives are not exactly transparent. Indeed, the intended meanings may be achieved mainly
as a result of pragmatic considerations, as noted above. The pragmatics associated with such
forms are defeasible. For instance, it is possible for the meaning of stubbornness in (8d) to be
coerced from a negative to a positive evaluation in an appropriate contest, for example, in a
context where a child performs a heroic rather than a selfish action. See Appah (2017: 62) for
further discussion of this issue.
(8) a. ɔ̀-dɔ́-bá b. à-dwùmà-wá
SG-love-DIM SG-work-DIM
‘one who is dearly loved/a favourite child’ ‘an insignificant piece of work’
c. à-dè-wá d. ànìɛ̀déḿ-bá
SG-thing-DIM haughtiness-DIM
‘a trifle’ ‘haughty child’
A productive phenomenon with regard to diminution and the use of the diminutive morpheme
in the language is the formation of female names out of male names by the suffixation of the
form -wá/-bá (sometimes, -máá,) to the respective male names. Examples of female names
formed by the suffixation of -wá/-bá to male names include those in (9). A fuller set of the
various female-name suffixes can be found in (Appah/Amfo 2011: 90-92).
(9) a. Kyéí-wá e. Fýǹǹ-bá
b. Tàkyí-wá f. 'bèá-bá
c. Bényí-wá g. Kwègyír-bá
d. Àbòàgyé-wá h. Èssùmàǹ-bá
It is known that in a number of languages, including Dutch (cf. Booij 2012), the same form that
marks the diminutive is also used in the formation of female versions of male names. For

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 11

example, the female version of the Dutch male name Geert is formed by attaching the diminu-
tive morpheme -je to the male version, as in Geert-je ‘girl’s name’ (cf. Booij 2012: 225). In-
deed, Booij (2012) proffers an explanation for why that is the case; linking it to the physical
differences between men and women, he argues that this probably reflects the idea that women
tend to be physically smaller and less muscular than men are.
We note, from the foregoing, that the different semantic categories of the base to which the
diminutive suffix is attached influences the kind of diminutive meaning conveyed by the result-
ant word. See Grandi/Scalise (2000) for similar views on the nature of diminutives.

4.2 Non-transparent diminutive forms

The non-transparent diminutive forms (NDFs) cannot be split into identifiable bases in the lan-
guage and the diminutive suffix, even though such words clearly have diminutive meanings as
seen in the examples in (10). For instance, although we can see what is clearly the diminutive
morpheme -wá in (10a), the rest of the word (àpèrèpéré) is not the name of a musical instrument
of which the referent of the diminutive form is a smaller version. The same can be said for all
the other examples in (10).
(10) a. àpèrèpéréwá ‘a kind of small musical instrument’
b. kàkrábá (Fa.)4 ‘small’
c. dwóódwóŕbá (Fa.) ‘smallish/shortish’
d. kétéwá (As./Ak.) ‘small’
e. àbàsìrìwá ‘middle-aged woman’
f. àbábáàwá ‘young lady’
g. àbááyéwá ‘young girl’
h. #pókúwá developing breast (of a teenage girl)’
j. àkókórówá ‘weaver’s shuttle’
k. sépéréwá ‘small stringed instrument’
l. àkòtòwá ‘small cask of gun powder’
m. àbótóábá ‘a baby’
It would have been useful for us to provide an estimated size of NDFs in Akan. However, given
our view that the non-productivity of this class suggests that it may be a closed class, such an
exercise is not easily attainable, due to the non-existence of an extensive corpus of the language.
What we can say for certain is that, out of a collection of 109 diminutive forms gathered from
a variety of sources, only the twelve examples given in (10) could be classified as NDFs.
It is worth noting that the diminutive meanings conveyed by this group of diminutives are re-
stricted to some of the core diminutive meanings such as ‘small’ and ‘feminine’. However,
these meanings are non-transparent, as they cannot be derived compositionally from the mean-
ings of what may appear as the bases. Diminutives with evaluative meanings do not fall within
this group. This may be due to the fact that evaluative meanings tend to be fluid; they are

4 Akan has a number of dialects, including three literary ones. The claims we make in this paper holds true for all
the dialects. Where a particular claim or example is specific to a dialect, we indicate it as follows: Fante (Fa.),
Asante (As.) and Akuapem (Ak.).

ISSN 1615-3014
12 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

sometimes constructed during interaction, taking into consideration features of the linguistic
and extra-linguistic context, as well as the semantic properties of the base to which the dimin-
utive morpheme is attached. However, the NDFs are not amenable to such formal manipulation
because their forms are fixed. Notice, in this regard, that the words for “small” across the three
major dialects (10c-d) contain the so-called diminutive suffix. However, synchronically, the
bases have no identifiable meanings.

4.3 Summary of features of TDFs and NDFs

The discussion of the properties of the diminutive forms in terms of degree of formal and se-
mantic transparency is captured in Figure 2, which shows that, at the formal level, there are two
classes of diminutives – TDFs and NDFs. At the level of meaning, we first distinguish between
those with transparent meaning and those with opaque meaning. Whilst NDFs are semantically
opaque, TDFs can either be transparent or somewhat opaque.
Diminutives

Transparent diminutive forms Non-transparent diminutive forms

concrete meanings evaluative meanings concrete meanings (opaque)

Figure 2: Degree of transparency of diminutive meanings

Again, whilst NDFs generally have concrete meanings, the meanings that are associated with
TDFs may be concrete or evaluative. The concrete meanings are fairly transparent with the
resultant word expressing a diminutive form of the referent of the base word. On the other hand,
the evaluative ones are not as transparent. To arrive at the intended evaluative meaning, the
addressee has to combine the literal diminutive meaning with available contextual information.
For example, àdwúmábá is literally ‘little work’. This coded meaning is combined with prag-
matic information to arrive at the associated interpretation of ‘insignificant work’.
We argue, in the rest of this paper, that the NDFs have become lexicalized. The fact that their
bases do not exist synchronically as independent words is either the motivation for or the effect
of this lexicalization. As Booij (2012: 17) observes, “[a]n important effect of lexicalization of
complex words is that one of its constituent words may get lost, whereas the complex word
survives”. An example is the Dutch verb vergeet 'to forget' which, according to Booij, no longer
has a simplex form geet, unlike English forget, which still has a corresponding word get existing
in the language. On the basis of this and some further formal properties, like the selection of
participle, Booij (2012) still considers vergeet a formally complex word. Our position is that,
even if in the past the Akan NDFs were formally complex and semantically transparent, their
internal structure is not synchronically transparent.

5 On the lexicalization of Akan NDFs

In Section 4.2, we noted that the loss of internal constituency and the non-existence of the bases
of NDFs as independent words is the result of lexicalization. This is an observation that has to
be explained together with what our conception of the lexicalization process is. We believe that

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 13

a plausible explanation for the observed loss of internal constituency is fusion and/or reanalysis.
Langacker (1977) describes reanalysis as change in the structure of an expression or class of
expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface mani-
festation. It may entail boundary loss or boundary reassignment without a change in the surface
form of the word because the change is covert. Brinton/Traugott (2005: 7) exemplify the kind
of change that may occur in the following:
a. change in constituency, or what goes with what (e.g., change in morphological
bracketing of [a] napron > [an] apron),
b. a change in category labels (e.g., main verb > auxiliary),
c. boundary loss (e.g., be going to > gonna)
Drawing from Brinton and Traugott, we propose that the formal aspect of the Akan NDFs in
(10) could have resulted from reanalysis which entailed boundary loss, where base + diminutive
suffix merged into one unit. Thus, the process of lexicalization that resulted in the NDFs can
be explained this way. First, generally, a diminutive form of an Akan word is derived by at-
taching a diminutive morpheme to a base. This conception of the regular formation of diminu-
tives in Akan is schematized in (11), capturing what we believe to have been the state of affairs
in the past when the formation of the diminutives in (10) was transparent.
(11) < [[X] -wá] ↔ [entity which is a diminutive form of [SEM] ] >
Ni Nj i j

In this schema, the constituent [X] stands for a nominal base (because only nouns can have
diminutive forms in Akan). The double arrow (↔) stands for the correspondence relation be-
tween form (on the left-hand side) and meaning (on the right-hand). The semantic contribution
of specific formal sub-constituents is signaled by co-indexation. This means that at this stage,
each diminutive form had a clear nominal base which substituted for the variable X in (11),
forming another noun that refers to a diminutive form of X.
Thus, we are assuming that at a much earlier stage, every diminutive form instantiated this
schema. So both the TDF dàǹwá in (1b) and the NDF #pókúwá in (10h) had a similar structure
at this stage and inherited their non-distinctive properties from the abstract schema for diminu-
tive formation in Akan, as shown in (12).
(12) < [[X] -wá] ↔ [entity which is a diminutive form of [SEM] ] >
Ni Nj i j

/ \
[[dàǹ] -wá] ↔ ‘cottage’ [[#pókú] -wá] ↔ ‘developing breast of a teenage girl’
Ni Nj Ni Nj

Second, at a certain point in the development of the language, some of the diminutive forms
became irregular so that the complex unit made up of the diminutive marker and what was then
a free morpheme (the base), underwent fusion/reanalysis, where the complex form was con-
strued as a simplex form. At this point the internal brackets (the boundary between the base and
the suffix) was lost. This is schematized as (13).
(13) < [[X] -wá] > [Xwá] ↔ [N] >
Ni Nj Nj DIMj

The schema specifies the absence of a boundary within the word. It also shows, however, that
what is assumed to be the diminutive suffix in Akan can still be seen, but as an inseparable part
of a new word, and the diminutive semantics can still be recovered from the meaning of the

ISSN 1615-3014
14 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

word. Importantly, the diminutive meaning is now a part of the core semantics of the new word
that is formed, which lexicalizes the meaning of the diminutive and whatever the meaning of
the base (previously) was.
Thus, the lexicalization of NDFs, as schema (13) shows, entailed re-bracketing. In the initial
stages, the suffix (-wa) is needed to form the diminutive. After the re-bracketing, this suffix is
integrated into the whole and the internal structure of the hitherto complex word is no longer
relevant; the base and suffix are fused into a new single unanalyzable unit. All the NDFs in-
stantiate the schema in (13), as shown in (14).
(14) < [[X] -wá] > [Xwá] ↔ [N] >
Ni Nj Nj DIMj

|
[[#pókú] -wá] > [#pókúwá] ↔ [developing breast of a girl]
Ni Nj Nj j

The motivation for the fusion or reanalysis is probably the loss of one of the constituents (the
base which was hitherto an independent word). For instance, the words àdàwá ‘a small fish
hook’ and àkókórówá ‘weaver’s shuttle’ in (10) cannot be synchronically analyzed as consist-
ing of a base àdà and àkókóró respectively – and the diminutive suffix -wá. Both àdá- and
àkókóró- are not free forms with identifiable meanings in the language.5
This conception of the process of lexicalization is consistent with Himmelmann’s (2004) sec-
ond use of the term lexicalization because the base is fused with the formative, which usually
can be seen in the word. In this regard, it is instructive to note that Lehmann (2002) argues that
only complex units can be lexicalized. In other words, lexicalization necessarily concerns an
internally complex unit which becomes simplex as a result of the process. If we define lexical-
ization as adoption into the lexicon, as is done in the diachronic use of the word (cf. Brin-
ton/Traugott 2005), then reanalysis could be seen as a step that precedes lexicalization.
Also worth noting, as discussed above, is the fact that the NDFs do not have transparent com-
positional meaning and the class is not productive. This is also consistent with Himmelmann’s
(2004: 27) observed second use of the term lexicalization which involves fossilization and
cease of productivity where a formerly productive formative is reanalyzed as part of a root.
We can say, in conclusion, that in lexicalization, the internal relation of a complex unit gets
lost, so that there is a coalescence of two units. In the case of the NDFs in Akan, it is a fusion
of a free morpheme and a suffix. This was probably aided by the fact that the free morpheme
ceased to exist as an independent word in the language. The reanalysis has left gaps in the
system of Akan diminutive formation where there are diminutive forms without clear bases but
usually recognizable diminutive meanings and our native speakers’ intuitions are that the dim-
inution in these lexicalized forms has some psychological reality. We will discuss this issue of
the psychological reality of the diminutive meaning in NDFs in the next section.6

5 This means that synchronically we do not consider the NDFs to be formally complex.
6 We can view the observed fact of the difference between TDFs and NDFs in terms of prototypicality. That is,
the prototypical diminutive in Akan has an identifiable base and a diminutive suffix. This will be instantiated by
the TDFs. Thus, the NDFs, as compared to the TDFs, are less prototypical and yet still convey diminution. There-
fore, they have to be listed individually in the lexicon.

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 15

5.1 Loss of productivity, fossilization and the loss of constituents

It is possible that the lack of productivity of the NDFs can be put down to the restrictedness of
the semantic classes of the bases involved. These bases include: body parts (#pókúwá, ‘the
developing breast (of a teenage girl)’), size (dwóódwóŕbá ‘smallish’), and musical instrument
(àpèrèpéréwá ‘a kind of small musical instrument’). They are categorized at a macro level,
where there is a binary distinction between some regular or standard size and a small (diminu-
tive form) which deviates from the standard.7
With this understanding, the loss of transparency and the subsequent lexicalization could be
deemed to have resulted from the fact that the semantic classes of the relevant bases are so
restricted that the same bases co-occurred with the diminutive morpheme all the time, leaving
in the mind of the speaker a psychological link between the base and the suffix. It is again
possible that the existence of separate lexemes for the non-diminutive forms helped the process.
That is, for example, the existence of nófóɔ́ ‘breast (in general)’, set apart #pókú, which is now
lexicalized with the diminutive morpheme, for referring to only “the developing breast of a
teenage girl”. Speakers, thus, did not have to use the now bound base #pókú- away from the
diminutive marker. This also helped to cement the psychological link between the base and the
diminutive morpheme. In other words, the present bound root had no use away from the context
of the diminutive and so, with time, the base and the diminutive morpheme gradually became
fused. This corroborates Aikhenvald’s (2007: 56) observation that the loss of productivity of a
word formation device may “result in ‘fossilization’ whereby they may eventually become in-
separable from the root”.
The question of productivity is an important issue in the literature on lexicalization. Indeed, the
lack of productivity on the one hand, and the increase in productivity on the other, is often
regarded as a criterion for distinguishing between lexicalization and grammaticalization respec-
tively. However, Himmelmann (2004: 37) argues that “different aspects of productivity are
focused on in each instance.” Referring to univerbation as a lexicalization process, Himmel-
mann (2004) argues that “[t]he decrease in productivity which occurs in lexicalization refers to
the fact that a given expression is no longer freshly assembled from its constituent parts on each
occasion of its use”. This is what we find to be the case with the NDFs in Akan.

6 Summary
In this paper, we have discussed diminutives in Akan, focusing mainly on the properties of a
sub-class which we referred to as the non-transparent diminutive forms. These are words in
Akan which convey diminutive meanings and at the same time contain a form which looks like
the Akan diminutive morpheme and yet do not have identifiable bases which name items of
which one can say that the referent of the whole word is a diminutive version.
We have argued that even though the bases do not exist in the language as independent forms,
we have reasons to believe that such forms could have had transparent structures, much like
their transparent counterparts. Again, the diminutive meaning is not accidental, given that the

7 The distinctions in these semantic classes are rather restricted. For instance, speakers are likely to make a dis-
tinction between developing and developed (mature) breast and not just all the conceivable varying sizes.

ISSN 1615-3014
16 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

non-transparent diminutive forms mostly have segments that look like the diminutive mor-
pheme in Akan, except that when that portion is removed we do not find identifiable bases. The
base and the suffix have thus undergone reanalysis, becoming fused into one lexical item.
We presented our conceptualization of the process of lexicalization that led to the existence of
the non-transparent diminutive forms. We argued that the hitherto transparent forms lost their
internal constituency and fossilized, probably because the bases ceased to exist as independent
words. We observed that the process of lexicalization could have been further facilitated by the
fact that the bases became unproductive, occurring with only the diminutive suffix and, in the
process, creating a strong psychological link between the particular base and the particular suf-
fix.

References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2007): “Typological distinctions in word-formation”. In: Shopen,
Timothy (ed.): Language typology and syntactic description Vol. III: Grammatical catego-
ries and the lexicon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1–65.
Anttila, Raimo (1972/1989): Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: Benjamins.
Appah, Clement Kwamina Insaidoo (2013): Construction Morphology: Issues in Akan Com-
plex Nominal Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University.
Appah, Clement Kwamina Insaidoo (2017): “Personal attribute nominal construction in Akan:
A Construction Morphology account”. Legon Journal of the Humanities 28/2: 49-72.
Appah, Clement Kwamina Insaidoo/Amfo, Nana Aba Appiah (2011): “The Morphopragmatics
of the Diminutive Morpheme (-ba/-wa) in Akan”. Lexis 6: Diminutives and Augmentatives
in the Languages of the World: 85–103.
Bauer, Laurie (1983): English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, Laurie (1997): “Evaluative morphology: in search of universals”. Studies in Language
21/3: 533–575.
Blank, Andreas (2001): “Pathways of lexicalization”. In: Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.): Lan-
guage Typology and Language Universals. Vol. II, 1596–1608. Berlin/New York: de Gruy-
ter. (= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20.2.).
Blevins, James Peter (2006): “Word-based morphology”. Journal of Linguistics 42/3: 531-573.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933): Language. New York: Holt/Rinehart/Winston.
Booij, Geert E. (2010a): Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert E. (2010b): “Construction morphology”. Language and Linguistics Compass 4/7:
543–555.
Booij, Geert E. (2012): The Grammar of words: an introduction to linguistic morphology. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J./Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2005): Lexicalization and language change. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bussmann, Hadumod (1996): “Lexicalization”. In: Trauth, Gregory/Kazzazi, Kerstin (eds.):
Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics London/New York: Routledge.
Chomsky, Noam (1965): Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

ISSN 1615-3014
 Nana Aba Appiah Amfo/Clement Kwamina Insaidoo Appah: Lexicalization of Akan Diminutives 17

Christaller, Johannes Gottlieb (1875): A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language called
Tshi (Chwee, Twi) based on the Akuapem dialect with reference to the other (Akan and
Fante) dialects. Basel: Basel Evangelical Missionary Society.
Dahl, Östen (2006): “Diminutives and Augmentatives”. In: Brown, Keith (ed.): Encyclopedia
of Language/Linguistics. Vol 3. Oxford, Elsevier: 594–595.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria/Williams, Edwin S. (1987): On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Dolphyne, Florence Abena (1988): The Akan (Twi-Fante) language: Its sound systems and to-
nal structure. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.
Dressler, Wolfgang U./Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1994): Morphopragmatics: diminutive and
intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006): Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grandi, Nicola/Scalise, Sergio (2000): “Semantic Restrictions on diminutive formation. Evi-
dence from Italian”. Naturally: 133–142.
Grandi, Nicola/Körtvélyessy, Lívia (eds) (2015): Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphol-
ogy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Halle, Morris (1973): “Prolegomena to a theory of word formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 4/1: 3–
16.
Heine, Bernd/Claudi, Ulrike/Hünnemeyer, Friederike (1991): Grammaticalization: A concep-
tual framework. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2004): “Lexicalization and Grammaticalization: Opposite or or-
thogonal?” In: Bisang, Walter/Himmelmann, Nikolaus P./Wiemer, Björn (eds.): What makes
grammaticalization? A look from its its fringes and components. Berlin/New York, Mouton
de Gruyter: 21–42.
Hoeksema, Jack (1985): Categorial Morphology. New York: Garland.
Jackendoff, Ray S. (2009): “The Parallel Architecture and Its place in Cognitive Science.” In:
Heine Bernd/Narrog, Heiko (eds.): Oxford Hanbook of Linguistics Analysis. Oxford, Oxford
University Press: 583–605.
Jurafsky, Dan (1992): An On-line Computational Model of Sentence Interpretation. Berkeley:
University of California, 1992. Report No. UCB/CSD 92/676 dissertation.
Jurafsky, Dan (1996): “Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive”. Language,
72/3: 533–578.
Katamba, Francis X./Stonham, John T. (2006): Morphology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1977): “Syntactic reanalysis”. In: Li, Charles N. (ed.): Mechanisms of
syntactic change (57-139). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lehmann, Christian (2002): “New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization”. In:
Wischer Ilse/Diewald, Gabriele. (eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization – Proceed-
ings from the International Symposium on Grammaticalization, 17–19 June 1999, Potsdam,
Germany. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins: 1–18).
Lieber, Rochelle (1980): The organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology dissertation.

ISSN 1615-3014
 18 Linguistik online 94, 1/19

Michaelis, Laura A./Lambrecht, Knud (1996): “Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Lan-

guage Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition.” Language 72/2: 215-247.
Sauer, Hans (2002): “Lexicalization and demotivation”. In: Booij Geert E./Lehmann,
Christain/Mugdan, Joachim (eds.): Morphology: An international handbook of inflection
and word-formation. Vol 2. Berlin, de Gruyter: 1625–1636.
Scalise, Sergio (1984): Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schneider, Klaus P. (2003): Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Stump, Gregory T. (1993): “How peculiar is evaluative morphology?” Journal of Linguistics,
29/1: 1–36.

ISSN 1615-3014

View publication stats