1. original file in PDF format 1
Hypocoristic formation in Peninsular Spanish and Australian English
Ariel Jackson
1. Introduction
Diminutive and hypocoristic formation in Spanish and Australian English are two remarkably
similar morphophonological processes, where the base is reduced to a trochaic foot, either truncated to
a monosyllable with a suffix added or truncated directly to its disyllabic form. This paper will examine
data from both languages and, within an Optimality Theoretic Framework, will explain the allomorph
selection. First, the Spanish data will be examined and Spanish hypocoristic formation will be explained
through a constraint ranking. Australian English and more general English hypocoristic formation will
then be examined, going through each hypocoristic suffix, and explaining the factors that determine its
selection. Optimality Theory (OT) claims that, rather than ordering phonological rules, a grammar
operates by ranking violable, universal constraints. The surface form of a word is chosen by evaluating
several candidates against a set of constraints. These constraints take three main forms. Faithfulness
constraints compare the input with the output and require the input to be identical to the output
regarding a specified property, while markedness constraints evaluate the outputs and attempt to
eliminate marked, uncommon or otherwise ill­formed features. Also, alignment constraints require the
left or right edge of prosodic or morphological forms to meet. The optimal form is the candidate which
violates the fewest and the lowest­ranked constraints (Kager 1999; Bradley 2013)
2. Spanish

2. original file in PDF format 2
Spanish hypocoristics and truncated nouns reduce to a trochaic foot, in some cases changing
the consonant. The word changes to trochee though it may not be shortened, as in [xo.ˈse] to [ˈxo.se].
Peninsular Spanish diminutives add the suffix ­citV or ­it, or others in different dialects, depending on
the length and final vowel.
2.1 Noun Truncation and Hypocoristics
Spanish hypocoristics consist of a binary, trochaic foot. If the base contains a diphthong, it is
deleted, and it is common to delete the coda, though codas are permissible. However, if a segment is
in the onset in the input, it must be in the onset in the output. A segment must maintain the same
position in the syllable from the output to the input, as can be seen below: 1)
base base--orthography hypocoristic hypocoristic--
orthography
bi.si.kle.ta bicicleta ˈbi.si bici
bo.ˈli.ɣ̞ra.fo bolígrafo ˈbo.li boli
mar.ɣ̞a.ri.ta Margarita ˈmar.ɣ̞a Marga
ro.ˈβ̞eɾ.to̪ Roberto ˈro.β̞e/ˈro.β̞eɾ Robe/Róber
xe.ˈsus Jesús ˈxe.su Jesu
xo.ˈse José ˈxo.se Jose
da̪.ˈnjel Daniel ˈda̪.ni Dani
xa.ˈβ̞jeɾ Javier ˈxa.β̞i Javi
(Nuñez Cedeño et al., 2013)
Nuñez Cedeño and Piñeros agree that hypocoristic formation is an example of output­output

3. original file in PDF format 3
faithfulness, in which the candidates are compared to another candidate, rather than with aninput.
Piñeros does not claim this explicitly, but in his tableaux the input is in square brackets rather than
slashes, which indicates an output. Nuñez Cedeño claims that the basis for output­ output faithfulness is
shown by syllabic structure. A segment in the onset in the input must not be in the coda of the output,
such as Mar.ga.ri.ta­­>Mar.ga, *Mar.gar. As the the syllabic structure is not present in the underlying
form, the base of the hypocoristic must be the output, and therefore must be an example of
output­output faithfulness (Nuñez Cedeño et. al 2013) However, Piñeros does note that the use of
output­output faithfulness is not an ideal solution because in pure OT, an input is meant to produce an
output without an intermediate step, but admits that it is still the best method of accounting for the data
he has found.
According to Nuñez Cedeño’s analysis, The reason why the sonorants in the coda are deleted
and the diphthongs are reduced, processes which usually do not occur in standard Spanish, is that the
relevant constraints to the non­truncated forms are input­output (IO) and not output­output (OO). The
ranking of MAX­IO» *CODA permits the deletion of codas, but in the truncated form, the active
constraint is MAX­OO and not MAX­IO, therefore the truncated form emerges as optimal though
MAX­IO is more highly ranked. Though MAX­IO is more highly ranked, MAX­IO and DEP­IO are not
relevant and are satisfied by default. Therefore, the constraint ˈσσ, which states that the form must be a
binary, trochaic foot, can eliminate the completely faithful candidate and the truncated form can emerge
as optimal. This is shown in the following tableaux:
2)
/kristina/
[kris.ˈti.na]
DEP-IO MAX-IO ˈσσ DEP-OO MAX-OO
a. kris.ˈti.na *!
b.Fˈkris.ti **

4. original file in PDF format 4
As can be seen, MAX­IO and DEP­IO are satisfied by default because the active constraints are
MAX­OO and DEP­OO. though it violates MAX­OO, candidate b emerges as optimal because MAX­
OO is lower­ranked than ˈσσ, which eliminates the fully faithful candidate. If input­output faithfulness were
used, MAX­IO would be violated and the incorrect candidate would be selected (Nuñez Cedeño et. al
2013).
Regarding diphthongs, Nuñez Cedeño, Piñeros and Colina agree that a *NUCCOMP or
*COMPLEX constraint must be used, which states that either the nucleus (*NUCCOMP) or the entire
syllable (*COMPLEX) must not be complex. This constraint is dominated in non­truncated forms but
again, in the hypocoristic, when MAX­OO and DEP­OO are added, MAX­IO and DEP­IO do not apply,
therefore *NUCCOMP or *COMPLEX become the most highly­ranked constraints, since it is now more
important to not have complex syllables than to not delete segments, therefore forms such as [dani] for
[danjel] and [gaʧa] for [eŋɣ̞ɾasja] (Nuñez Cedeño, 2013; Piñeros, 2000a; Colina, 1996). Piñeros
emphasizes that the most sonorant vowel and the least sonorant consonant are maintained, as in [fata]
for [fawsta] and [ʧano] for [felisjano]. This suggests that the constraint *COMPLEX is more highly ranked
(Piñeros, 2000a: 14). The following tableaux shows the selection of [keʧa] for [lukresja]. The following
constraints are used in this tableaux:
*COMPLEX : the nodes of the syllable must not be complex. HEAD(PWD)MAX:
segments must not be deleted from the stressed foot. PWR: The output must
be a prosodic word
MAX(SF­TF): segments must not be deleted between the base form and the truncated form (Piñeros
2000a: 15).
3)

5. original file in PDF format 5
[lu(kre.sja)] *COMPLEX HEAD(PWD)MAX PWR MAX(SF-TF)
a.[lu(kre.sja)] *!* *
b. [kre.sja] *!* **
c. [kre.sa] !* ***
d. [ke.sja] *! ***
e. F[ke.ʧa] ****
(Piñeros 2000a).
It can be seen that candidate (c) is the only one which forms a minimal prosodic word and eliminates
complex syllables. According to Piñeros, the selection of which segment of a complex syllable is
preserved is based on the Universal Syllable Margin and Peak Hierarchies, which are based on the
universal sonority scale ( Prince&Smolensky cited in Piñeros 2000a: 16). This hierarchy claims that
sonorant segments are not preferred at the margin of the syllable, and non­sonorant segments are not
preferred at the peak. As sonorant segments need to be analyzed as part of the margin of the syllable in
many cases, the constraint against sonorant segments in the margin, *M/α, must be dominated by
HEAD(PWD)MAX. As hypocoristics always avoid complex syllables, *COMPLEX must dominate both,
therefore the constraint ranking is:
*COMPLEX >> HEAD(PWD)MAX>> *M/Α AND *COMPLEX >>HEAD(PWD)MAX>>*P/Α (Piñeros
2000a).
The type of hypocoristic described above is what Piñeros calls “Type B,” which tend to
preserve the word­final foot, but there is also a “Type A,” which tend to preserve the word­initial foot,
often with fewer changes to the base (Piñeros 2000b). According to Piñeros, these two types represent
two levels of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Type A is only unmarked at the prosodic level, in that it
forms a binary foot, an unmarked structure. Type B is less marked still, in its

6. original file in PDF format 6
organization of the nucleus and onset to avoid complex syllables. Type A uses the constraints
ANCHOR­L and I­CONTIGUITY to increase faithfulness to the word­initial segment of the base. Type B, as
mentioned above, changes some segments to fit with the Universal Syllable Margin and Peak Hierarchy,
and places less sonorant segments at the margin of the syllable, which is less marked. This shows why
forms such as Poncho [panʧo] for Alfonso [alfonso]. [p] is less sonorant than [f], and it is less marked
to have a less sonorant segment at the margin of a syllable (Piñeros 2000b).
Piñeros also notes that, as [l] assimilates to the place of articulation of the following consonant, [l] does
not have a correspondent from the base form to the truncated form, therefore [l] is deleted in many
cases when it is in the coda in the base form, except when it appears before [d]. This produces forms
such as [(ʧé.mo)] for [an.(sél.mo)] ‘Anselmo’ and [ʧiβ̞a] for [(síl.βja)] ‘Silvia.’ The deletion of [l] and
preference for non­sonorant segments at the margin of the syllable explain why some names do not
take a truncated form and instead employ the standard Spanish diminutive such as
Miguel­­>Miguelito. (2000a: 25­27)
2.2 Diminutive Forms
The other form of shortening nouns is the diminutive form, which is defined for the scope of this
paper as the truncation of common nouns rather than proper names. Diminutive formation adds the
suffix ­it­ or ­ citV (or others depending on the dialect, the ones above are the most common)
word­finally, such as café ­­> cafecito ‘coffee’ or chica­­>chiquita. ‘girl.’ Colina proposes that if
there is a terminal element
­a, ­o or ­e, ­it­ is selected and if there is not a terminal element, ­citV is selected. There must not be
terminal elements in a position other than word­final, and the minimal form for the base must be a binary

7. original file in PDF format 7
foot. If the minimal base is not a binary foot, there will be an epenthetic [e] added, as in pan­­>panecito
(2003). General noun truncation and diminutive formation may not appear to be relevant to hypocoristic
formation immediately, but they are semantically related as they express the concept of ‘small’ or ‘dear’
(among other functions) and utilize many of the same processes.
Colina claims that this process is mainly morphological, and her biggest critique of previous
studies, such as Miranda’s 1999 study, is that they give too much emphasis to phonology. The
process, according to Colina, depends on the morphological class of the base. This explains why there
are forms such as llorona/lloroncita, but not Llorona/Lloronita. Lloroncita has llorón ‘cryer’ as a
base, and therefore does not end in a terminal element, and therefore, following Colina’s analysis,
selects the suffix ­citV. However, Lloronita, from La Llorona, the figure from Mexican mythology,
has Llorona as a base, and therefore does end in a terminal element, and therefore selects the suffix
­it­. (2003). There are, nevertheless, phonological factors. The suffix must attach to a prosodic word,
and this is an example of the Emergence of the Unmarked, as the binary foot is the unmarked form
(Colina 2003; Miranda 1999). Miranda proposes two allomorphs, /it/ and /sit/, and also utilizes
output­output faithfulness. Miranda’s analysis selects the diminutive allomorph based on the size of the
base, the structure of the last syllable and the final vowel. To explain Nicaraguan Spanish’s preference
for reycito over reyecito, she claims that the stem must have two mora rather than two syllables, and
utilizes a constraint, IDENT­ OO(STµ), which is meant to preserve the moraic structure in the
diminutive form. Unlike Colina, Miranda only analyzes /o/ and /a/ as terminal elements, and claims that
words ending in unstressed ­e ““must retain the final /e/ in the diminutive, but trisyllabic or longer bases
do not.” (Miranda 1999: 136).
Colina uses the following constraints for her analysis:

8. original file in PDF format 8
MORPHEME­SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS
*TE­: there must not be a terminal element in a position other than word­final
­CITV TO PRWD: the left edge of the suffix ­citV must attach to the right edge of the prosodic word DIM
TO PRWD: the left edge of the diminutive suffix must attach to the right edge of the prosodic word
PROSODIC CONSTRAINTS
PARSE SYLLABLE: all syllables must be parsed
FOOTBINARY: the feet must be binary
ALIGN L (FOOT, PRWD): The foot must be in initial position in the prosodic word
ALIGN R (FOOT, PRWD): the foot must be in final position in the prosodic word
The following tableaux demonstrates this process: 4)
casa +DIM *TE -CITV TO PRWD DIM TO PRWD
a. Fcas-it-a *
b. cas-cita *! *
c casa-cita *!

9. original file in PDF format 9
In this tableaux, candidate (b) is eliminated because [cas] is not a prosodic word. Candidate (c) is
eliminated because a terminal element may not appear anywhere but word­finally, and therefore
candidate (a) is selected as optimal (Colina 2003).
2.3 Dialectal variation
In some dialects, there is a double diminutive, in which there are two diminutive suffixes, such
momentiquito or virgencitita. This second suffix always selects the ­it allomorph, without regard for
the first suffix, because, following Colina’s analysis, if the base the suffix attaches to ends in a terminal
element, ­it will be selected, and the base the second suffix attaches to always ends in a terminal
element, so ­it will always be selected (Colina 2003: 51).
Another dialectal form is Paraguayan Spanish, in which monosyllabic words, which usually take
an epenthetic [e] in most varieties of Spanish, as in rey­­>reyecito but in this dialect the [e] is not
added, and forms such as reycito. This is because, Colina claims, the constraint DEP, forbidding the
addition of segments, is higher ranked in this dialect, therefore it is more important to satisfy DEP than to
have a base of two syllables (Colina 2003).
In addition, Bradley and Smith’s analysis of Judeo­Spanish explains the three allomorphs,
­iko, ­eziko and ­ito. Bradley and Smith claim claim that the diminutive suffixes represent a partially
ordered set of allomorphs, in which ­ik and ­zik have a wider distribution than ­it but are unordered with
respect to each other. In Judeo­Spanish, ­iko is selected in words ending in unstressed, ­o, ­a, a
non­dorsal consonant, or trisyllabic words ending in­e, as in alto­­>altiko

10. original file in PDF format 10
‘tall,’ kolcha­­>kolchika ‘blanket,’ presente­­>presentiko ‘gift,’ or hamor­­>hamoriko ‘donkey,
similar to standard Spanish ­ito/a.
­Ito is selected in words ending in a dorsal glide or consonant, as in agwa­­>agwita ‘water,’ and
­ezito is selected in monosyllabic words ending in a consonant or disyllabic words ending in
unstressed ­e, as in flor­­>florezika ‘flower,’ similar to standard Spanish ­citV. Given this, Bradley
and Smith build on Bonet’s work and propose two main constraints to explain the allomorph
selection, RESPECT and PRIORITY. RESPECT requires idiosyncratic lexical specifications to be
respected, which relates to the type of morpheme with which suffixes can combine, and PRIORITY
requires the lexical ordering of allomorphs to be supported.
Bradley and Smith claim this is superior to Colina’s analysis because it eliminates the need for
morpheme­specific constraints, which are not preferred in Optimality Theory, as constraints are meant
to be universal (2011).
The following tableaux display how these two constraints operate:
5) allomorph selection for pelo ‘hair’
/pel+{o>(e,Ø)>a}/ RESPECT PRIORITY
Fa. pe.lo
b. pe.le *!
c. pel *!
d. pe.la *!*
6) allomorph selection for hule ‘oilcloth’

11. original file in PDF format 11
/ule+{o>(e,Ø)>a}/ RESPECT PRIORITY
a. u.lo *!
Fb. ule *
c. ul *! *
d. u.la *! **
In Table 5, it can be seen that candidates (b), (c) and (d) are eliminated because they select the
lower­ordered allomorphs in the set, and (d) incurs two violations because /o/ is two spaces below the
preferred allomorph. Ranking RESPECT above PRIORITY ensures that the default allomorph will be
selected unless the stem is marked for requiring a non­default class marker (­a,
­o, or ­e). In Table 6, a lexical specification that states the stem must attach to /e/ is present, therefore
RESPECT becomes active and selects the optimal form, [ule] (Bradley&Smith 2011). Bradley and Smith
extend this analysis to diminutive formation by, as partially mentioned above, analyze the diminutive
morpheme as an ordered set of allomorphs, {(zik, ik) > it}, with subcategorization requirements if an
affix must attach to a particular stem. Since diminutive suffixes never end in ­e or Ø, those suffixes must
also be excluded as follows:
[+feminine]: /STEM + {(zik, ik) > it} + {a > o}/ [­feminine]:
/STEM + {(zik, ik) > it} + {o > a}/
The set given above ranks the diminutive suffixes and class markers, excluding e, Ø and other suffixes
not analyzed in Bradley&Smith’s study (such as the ­u of tribu ‘tribe’ and other such “exotic” suffixes).
If a stem has to take a somewhat unusual stem, such as masculine word

12. original file in PDF format 12
ending in /o/, the suffix is lexically specified in the stem and RESPECT will be activated and select the
same allomorph in the diminutive as the base form, as shown:
7)
/mano+{sit,it}+{a>o}/ RESPECT PRIORITY
a. ma.ni.ta *!
b. Fma.ni.to *
Here, the suffix /o/ was lexically specified for the stem /man/, so even though the lower­ranked
allomorph is selected, violating PRIORITY, RESPECT obeys the lexical subcategorization and [manito] is
selected (Bradley&Smith 2011).
Regarding the selection of /ik/ and /it/, /it/ must be ordered above /it/ because if they were left
unranked with respect to each other, the universal hierarchy of markedness constraints against place
features would incorrectly select /it/ as optimal, because the coronal stop of /it/ is the most unmarked
form of the hierarchy: *PL/DORSAL>> *PL/LABIAL»*PL/CORONAL.
8)
/{ik,it}/ *PL/DORSAL *PL/LABIAL *PL/CORONAL
a. ik *!
Mb. it *

13. original file in PDF format 13
As the ranking stands, markedness alone would select /it/ because of the coronal consonant, which is
the least marked of the hierarchy, but it is not the attested surface form. The M symbol indicates that the
candidate is incorrectly selected as optimal. Therefore, ordering /ik/ above /it/ and ranking PRIORITY
above *PL/DORSAL will ensure the correct allomorph selection (Bradley&Smith 2011).
9)
/{ik>it}/ PRIORITY *PL/DORSAL *PL/LABIAL *PL/CORONAL
Fa. ik *
b. it *! *
Here, PRIORITY selects the optimal form because /ik/ is now ordered higher in the set and candidate (b)
violates PRIORITY though candidate (a) is marked according to the universal place hierarchy. The ­ik
allomorph attaches to monosyllabic stems lexically marked for the class marker ­e or Ø, with an
epenthetic ­e if the stem is lexically marked for Ø, creating the ­eziko suffix, thus utilizing a MINWD
constraint, requiring the base to be disyllabic, as well as a constraint forbidding the addition of vowels,
DEP­V .
10)
/bote+{(zik,ik)>it}+{o>a}/ MINWD DEP-V
F a. bo.te.zi.ko *
/bote+{(zik,ik)>it}+{o>a}/ MINWD DEP-V
b. bo.ti.ko *!

14. original file in PDF format 14
(Bradley&Smith 2011).
3. English
In a similar process, Australian English hypocoristics also reduces to a binary, trochaic foot (Sealy;
Simpson 2008) and if the base is monosyllabic, there will be vowel epenthesis. There are, as there are
in Spanish, other conditions and exceptions, as will be described below.
Australians abbreviate perhaps more than other English speakers, leaving their sunnies (sunglasses) in
the exy (expensive) restaurant before going to the rego (registration office), and receiving Chrissie
pressies for Christmas. Of particular interest is the process of hypocoristic formation, where many
Davos, Gazzas, Stevos and Bazzas reign (Simpson 2008).
Diminutives express the concept of “small” or “little” and are also used to indicate affection,
intimacy or warmth. Generally, if the word being shortened is monosyllabic, the suffix will be added to
the full word, if longer, it will be shortened to one syllable plus the suffix. This is not specific to
Australian English, as American English and many forms of English employ these forms quite frequently,
as in “nightie” for “nightgown” and “hanky” for “handkerchief,” or English (German derivations with ­i
employ this form), therefore there is some similarity cross­linguistically (Schneider, 2003: 43). Words
such as “droplet” indicate “a smaller­than­ average drop,” but abbreviations of first names and words
such as “Daddy” do not mean “a small father,” but rather a close relationship with one’s father,
therefore the semantic content can vary. Jurafsky claims that the diminutive can have many functions,
including intensification (Mexican Spanish ahorita ‘right now’), attenuation (Dominican Spanish ahorita
‘soon, in a while’), imitation (Mandarin zho ‘pearl’ and fo zhur ‘monk’s beads’), female gender
(Hebrew mapa ‘tablecloth’, mapit ‘napkin’­­the feminine gender marker signals ‘small’) approximation

15. original file in PDF format 15
(Greek ksinos ‘sour,’ ksinutsikos ‘sourish’) individuation (Yiddish der zand ‘sand’, dos zemdl ‘grain
of sand’) and to signal children (Ojibwa kwe ‘woman’, kwezens ‘girl’) as well as the more
conventionally accepted meaning of ‘small’ or ‘small type’ Cantonese tone changes are also used to
signal a variety of functions through the use of the diminutive tone:
“a. as an individuating or partitive marker(tong2
' 'sugar' ­>tong35
'piece of candy')
b. for a small object which resembles some larger object (toi2
' 'stage' ­> toi35
'table')
c. as a marker of approximation (hong2
' 'red' ­> hong2
' hong35
'reddish')
d. to mark socially marginalized women(nui25
'woman' ­> sek22
nui35
'frigid woman')
e. for pragmatic hedges (ma:n21 ma:n35 ha:y2' ['slow' 'slow­DIM' 'walk'] 'take care, walk
safely')
f. to mark female gender” (1996).
Also, he claims that a diminutive suffix existed from the earliest moment of the language,
including in Proto­Indo­European (*ko) (1996).
English is the official and highly dominant language of Australia. Since the settlement by the
British, the English spoken has been influenced by British English, Irish English and Gaelic, which such
commonly used words as “bloke” and “sheila” (casual terms for a man and woman) come from, and
aboriginal languages such as Warlpiri, Guugu, Yimidhirr, Wirradhurri and Pitjantjatjara, which were
often borrowed from for names of plants of animals such as kookaburra, kangaroo, wombat and
Barramundi (Guy, 1991: 214; Seal, 1999: 15, 33). Yet Australian English is not simply a transplant of
British English, but a variety in its own right. As Guy claims, “it is not a graft but an alloy, like bronze or
steel, with characteristics that do not come from any single one of elements that make it up” (1991:
218).

16. original file in PDF format 16
This section will focus on suffixation of Australian first name abbreviation. Australian English
hypocoristics truncate the first syllable and the suffixes ­ie, ­o or ­azza are added, depending on the
coda of the first syllable (Simpson 2008; Sealy). Other languages employ a similar pattern, such as
Spanish ­ito or cito (Colina 2003: 47), or other English infixation processes (Fountain, 2009). What
differentiates Australian English is that Spanish diminutive suffixes attach to the edge of the word, while
Australian English deletes all but the first syllable before attaching the suffix. Similar to Spanish
diminutive formation, however, the ­azza suffix must attach to a binary foot (the base must be disyllabic)
and if the base is monosyllabic or ends in certain segments, as will be discussed below, there will be an
epenthesized vowel, which will form the other attested suffixes, ­i and ­o. Kennedy agrees that an
English hypocoristic is formed by reducing a disyllabic or longer name to a single syllable with the
addition of a variety of hypocoristic suffixes such as [ɚ,], [i], [o] or [s]. Kennedy’s work claims that
hypocoristics of this form are seen as less creative than longer nicknames given to athletes such as “The
Chicoutimi Cucumber,” which he calls “Homeric nicknames” because of their similarities to elaborate
phrases in the work of Homer such as “the child of morning, rosy­fingered dawn,” but, Kennedy
claims, they are used for different purposes. The Homeric nicknames are used by others to refer to the
athletes to talk about their qualities and abilities, while the hypocoristics are used by the athletes for
direct address to each other to signal solidarity or membership in the group (2006).
3.1 ­i suffixed hypocoristics
The ­i suffix is one of the most common in Proper names and general abbreviations, and has been
attested since the 19th century (Simpson 2008: 403). This is an area where general
abbreviation differs from hypocoristic formation, as hypocoristics generally appear when the coda of the
remaining syllable is a voiceless obstruent, as in “Patrick [pætrɪk] > “Pattie” [pæti], but in general
abbreviation, it can appear with a variety of sound classes, such as sonorants as “sunglasses”

17. original file in PDF format 17
[sʌnglæsәz] > “sunnies” [sʌniz].
The following displays the data following this pattern:
Hypocoristics:
Full name:
orthography
hypocoristic:
orthography
full name:
transcription
hypocoristic:
transcription
Jack Jackie ʤæk ʤæk-i
Matt Mattie mæt mæɾ-i
Pat Pattie pæt pæɾ-i
Bruce Brucie brus brus-i
Pete Petey pit piɾ-i
General abbreviations:
Full word:
orthography
abbreviation:
orthography
full word:
transcription
abbreviation:
transcription
sunglasses sunnies sʌnglæsәz sʌn-iz
expensive exy ɛkspɛnsɪv ɛks-i
present pressie pɹɛzɪnt pɹɛz-i
Christmas Chrissie krɪsmәs krɪs-i
Airline hostess hostie ɛlɑin hostes host-i
Full word:
orthography
abbreviation:
orthography
full word:
transcription
abbreviation:
transcription
politician pollie pɑlәtɪʃәn pɑl-i
wharf laborer wharfie wɒf lebәɹɹ̩ wɒf-i

18. original file in PDF format 18
taxi cab driver cabbie tæksikab drɑivә kab-i
school child or
teacher
schoolie skul ʧɑild
tiʧɹ̩
skul-i
(Seal 1999: 73; Sealy)
It can be seen that in hypocoristics, the first or non­syllable has a voiceless obstruent in the coda in
many cases, whereas in general abbreviations the coda can be a voiceless obstruent, a voiced obstruent
or a sonorant, perhaps because personal names are relatively rigid in their structure, while the common
nouns and adjectives are used so frequently that the need to shorten them will be more apparent in a
variety of situations.These forms also surface in American English, so they are not unique to Australia. It
is plausible that there should be some crossover, as they started from similar roots and other varieties of
English are heard. It is also of note that the first syllable is always retained, regardless of where the
stress falls. The first syllable usually receives the primary stress, but in cases such as [ɛksˈpɛnsɪv], the
first syllable is maintained despite the fact that the penultimate syllable receives the primary stress. This
data is confirmed by Kennedy, whose study reports a vocalic suffix ([i] or [o]) in 59% of names ending
with a voiceless obstruent and especially an alveolar stop in his sample (2006).

19. original file in PDF format 19
To derive the correct surface form within the Optimality Theory framework, the following constraints
are used:
*ZI: no voiced consonants before high vowels
*KO: no voiceless obstruents before mid vowels
*CODA: there must not be a coda
IDENT VOICE: candidates must match input for the feature [voice] DEP: no
segments in output that are not in the input.
*RE: No liquids preceding a vowel Tableaux 1
shows the derivation of [ʤæk]
/ʤæk/ *ZI *KO *RE *CODA IDENT
VOICE
DEP
ʤæko *! *
ʤæk *!
ʤæki *
ʤæzә *! *
The fully faithful candidate was eliminated by its violation of *CODA. With the edition of the epenthetic
[i], a new syllable is created and the coda is removed. [ʤæko] is eliminated for the violation of *KO,
which leaves the surface form [ʤæki]. DEP is a low­ranked constraints as the optimal candidate
violates it in this process.

20. original file in PDF format 20
In the more general process of English ­i suffixed hypocoristics, the base syllable does not have to be a
voiceless obstruent but can be a variety of segments, as detailed below.
3.1.1. Syllable Structure
The majority of the initial syllables in ­i suffixed hypocoristics are CV as in Trudy from Gertrude. Other
attested structures are CVC (Delphy from Delphine), V (Abby from Abigail), and VC (Angie from
Angela). The majority of the initial syllables end in vowel, and a substantial number only consist of a
vocalic nucleus, which is interesting because it is not a possible form in monosyllabic truncated names, for
example Ike is a possible truncation but *I is not (though A is attested as a truncation of both Avery and
Avril) (Lappe 2007). Many of the rimes of the initial syllable consist of a single vowel (Izzy), but also
attested are VC, VV(tense vowel or dipthong), and VVC. Forty percent of the names in Lappe’s study
are heavy, which means that, at least in Lappe’s data, there does not appear to be a phonological
restriction requiring light syllables (2007). Lappe argues that the disyllabic hypocoristic can be derived
directly from the base and that it does not have to take the intermediate step of being reduced to a
monosyllabic root and having the suffix added (2007).
3.1.2. Preferred Consonant Clusters
In the majority of ­i hypocoristics, the initial cluster is retained, as in Franny from Frances rather than
Fanny­­though both are attested­­and Stiffy from Stephanie (Stiffy is attested as a hypocoristic for
Stephanie Bing, a character in PG Wodehouse’s The Code of the Woosters (1938) ) and a cluster in
the final syllable is not likely to be retained, therefore Andy is more likely Andry though again both are
attested. 85% (64 names) of Lappe’s sample retained the cluster in the initial syllable onset, and 71%
(37 names) did not retain the cluster in the final syllable onset (2007).
The names that did retain a cluster in the onset of the final syllable were either [s]­stop clusters
such as Hasty, Dusty or Christy, or a mixed cluster containing a liquid and an obstruent such as Affery,

21. original file in PDF format 21
Adrie, Alfry and Andri. As the only results in a search Lappe conducted for hypocoristics retaining the
cluster in the onset of final syllable were Andri and Gabry, and these came from Spanish or Italian
sources, it appears that these are loanwords, and that mixed clusters in the onset of the final syllable is
not a productive feature in English hypocoristic formation. However, based on Lappe’s data, [s]­stop
clusters appear to be permitted in this position in English hypocoristics, which is reasonable since [s] is
unpredictable and appears in places consonants of its kind generally do not (Lappe 2007).
3.1.3. Other cluster restrictions
The first consonant of the cluster is likely to survive into the hypocoristic, while the second does not in
the majority of cases, as in Callie from Calpurnia. Hypocoristics such as Maggie from Margaret,
where the second consonant of the cluster are less common, and often occur when the first consonant of
the cluster is [r]. Also, clusters with rising sonority are avoided, as in Esmie from Esmerelda (three
names maintained clusters with rising sonority, so it may be assumed that they are exceptional). In cases
of falling sonority, liquid­consonant clusters are likely to be retained. R­initial clusters are almost
categorically retained, while lC clusters are variable but permitted with the same place of articulation
(Lappe 2007). Nasal­initial clusters are also likely to be retained. Nasal­fricative, nasal­stop and
nasal­affricate clusters are variable but permitted with the same place of articulation, but never
nasal­consonant if the places of articulation differ. With regard to obstruent clusters, stop­stop and
fricative­stop are likely to be simplified and stop­fricative likely to be retained (Lappe 2007).
In Lappe’s sample, stop­[r], stop­[l], stop­nasal, fricative­[r], fricative­[l], fricative­nasal, nasal­[r], and
nasal­[l] clusters where the second consonant is more sonorous than the first do not occur, and
therefore are most likely not permitted (2007).
3.1.4. Vowel Changes
some vowel changes occur in the formation of y­hypocoristics. Lappe reports that the majority of her
sample (78%) show no change, and the most common change reported was changing from a schwa to a full

22. original file in PDF format 22
vowel, as in Patty from Patricia (8.5%), followed by laxing (Minnie from Almena, 7.4%) and qualitative
change (Ellie from Alexandra, 4.1%). tensing, as in Dody from Dorothy was the least common change
noted (2.4%) (Lappe 2007).
3.2. ­o Suffixed Hypocoristics
A slightly less productive, but still widespread suffix is ­o, which generally occurs when the coda of the
first or non­deleted syllable is a voiced obstruent or nasal. The pattern also differs when it surfaces in
common nouns from its appearance in proper names, as seen below:
Full name:
orthography
hypocoristic:
orthography
full name:
transcription
hypocoristic:
transcription
David Davo devɪd dev-o
Jonathan Jonno ʤɑnәθn̩ ʤɑn-o
Daniel Danno dænjәl dæn-o
Robert Robbo rɑbɹ̩t rɑb-o
Steve Stevo stiv stiv-o
word:
orthography
abbreviation:
orthography
word:
transcription
abbreviation:
transcription
Musician muso mjuziʃn̩ mjuz-o
Registration office rego ɹɛʤɪstreʃn̩ɑfɪs rɛʤ-o
Documentary doco dɑkjumɛntәɹi dɑk-o
Flannel flanno flænl̩ flæn-o

23. original file in PDF format 23
Journalist journo ʤɹ̩nәlɪst ʤɹ̩n-o
(Seal, 1999: 76­78; Sealy).
It can be seen that in this data as well, the pattern differs in proper name truncation and general common
noun abbreviation. In hypocoristic formation, the suffix is selected when the coda of the non­deleted
syllable is a voiced obstruent or a nasal, whereas in general common noun and adjective abbreviation, it
appears with voiceless or voiced obstruents, as well as sonorants, most likely for similar reasons as
stated above. This data is also supported by Kennedy, who reports a vocalic suffix after a voiced
obstruent in 66% of his sample. Kennedy also mentions that Australian hypocoristics tend to voice the
final consonant before the hypocoristic suffix as in Afternoon­­>arvo (2006).
Tableaux 2 shows the formation of the hypocoristic [stivo]
/stiv/ *ZI *KO *RE *CODA IDENT
VOICE
DEP
Fstivo *
stivi *! *
stɛzә *
stiv *!
The fully faithful candidate [stiv] is elimated by *CODA, again, as the epenthetic [o] removes the
coda, and the candidate [stivi] is eliminated by *zi, therefore arriving at the surface form [stivo].
3.3. ­azza Suffixed Hypocoristics

24. original file in PDF format 24
The most radically different from American English, and the form that, based on the current
data, only attaches to proper names is ­azza. ­azza is the most regular pattern in the current data, with
very few exceptions. The ­azza suffix is selected when the coda of the syllable that is retained or the
onset of the deleted syllable is a liquid, such “Barry” [bɛɹi] or
“Garry” [gɛɹi]. The pattern is observed regardless of the number of syllables, as “Jeremy”
[ʤ̩ɛɹәәmi] is still reduced to “Jezza” [ʤɛzәә]. This form is also attested in British
English, which, as Australia was colonized by Great Britain, is logical. The current study’s participants
supplied the greatest number of data points for this variety:
Full name:
orthography
hypocoristic:
orthography
full name:
transcription
hypocoristic:
transcription
Garry Gazzah gɛɹi gæzә
Barry Bazza bɛɹi bæzә
Sharon Shazza ʃɛɹn̩ ʃæzә
Sharlene Shazza ʃɑlin ʃæzә
Mary Mazza mɛɹi mæzә
Margaret Mazza mɑgɹɪt mæzә
Harry Hazza hɛɹi hæzә
Larry Lazza lɛɹi læzә
Warrick Wazza wɑɹɪk wæzә
Full name:
orthography
hypocoristic:
orthography
full name:
transcription
hypocoristic:
transcription

25. original file in PDF format 25
Darren Dazza dɛɹɪn dæzә
Aaron Azza ɛɹɪn æzә
Karen Kazza kɛɹɪn kæzә
Kylie Kazza kɑili kæzә
Terry Tezza tɛɹi tɛzә
Kerry Kezza kɛɹi kɛzә
Cheryl Chezza ʃeɹl̩(syllabic l) ʃɛzә
Jeremy Jezza ʤ̩ɛɹәmi ʤ̩ɛzә
Jasmine Jazzy ʤæzmɪn ʤæzi
(Sealy).
It can be easily observed that this is the most regular, and one of the most productive, suffixes. The only
exception in the present data is [ʤæzmɪn], and as sibilants are often unpredictable and appear where
they are not expected to, this can be discounted as an exception without damaging the constraint
ranking. ­azza also carries semantic content as well, as it only used when the addresser is on terms of
some intimacy with the addressee, whereas names such as “Jackie” can be used as the person’s name
regardless of the level of acquaintance. Sealy also notes that names bearing the ­azza suffix can also
indicate a certain socioeconomic status, as people from
rural areas of Australia will often introduce themselves as the ­azza form of their name, and will not be
offended if strangers address them with it, whereas people from more urban areas or of a higher
socioeconomic status will regard it as an affront (2013).

26. original file in PDF format 26
The derivation of “Shazza” [ʃæzәә] is shown in tableaux 3:
ʃɛɹi *ZI *KI *RE *CODA IDENT
VOICE
DEP
ʃɛɹi *! *
ʃæzә *
ʃæzi *! *
ʃɛɹә *! *
Here, the fully faithful candidate is eliminated by *ZI and *RE, [ʃæzi] violates *ZI, and ʃɛɹәә
violates *RE, leaving the surface form ʃæzәә.
4. Conclusion
Australian English hypocoristic formation is a complex morphophonological process that conveys lexical,
semantic and pragmatic information. While at first glance it may look like simple morphology,
phonological processes are at work as well. The current participants came from Sydney, and it would be
of interest to investigate the results of speakers from different cities or regions. It is most likely that
regional variation exists, but further research would be required to gather this data. Hypocoristic
formation is one facet of the rich morphophonology of Australian English. This paper has shown that
Both Spanish and English hypocoristics reduce to a trochaic foot, which depends on
morphophonological features of the base to determine which allomorph will be selected as a suffix, if any.
Australian English and Peninsular Spanish diminutive formation are two surprisingly similar
morphophonological processes, that represent one piece of each language’s complex phonological
system. Continuing work in Optimality Theory in each of these languages is sure to yield new
discoveries.

27. original file in PDF format 27

28. original file in PDF format 28
References
Bradley, Travis. 2013. Optimality Theory in Spanish Phonology. Rutgers Optimality Archive
http://roa.rutgers.edu/files 1113­1110/1113­BRADLEY­0­0.PDF
Colina, Sonia. 2003. Diminutives in Spanish: A Morphophonological Account. The Southwest Journal
of Linguistics. 22.2. 45­88
Colina, Sonia. 1996. Spanish Truncation Processes: The Emergence of the Unmarked.
Linguistics. 34. 1199­1218.
Dam, Mark van. 2003. On the phonological structure of /i/­suffixed English hypocoristics.
Indiana University Linguistics Working Papers Online. https://www.indiana.edu
~iulcwp/abstracts.cgi?which=03
Fountain, Amy. 2009. Flanderic infixation and the prosodic constituency of English words.
University of Arizona. http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hammond/ling696b
f09/diddly.pdf
Guy, Gregory. 1991. Australia. In Jenny Cheshire, (ed.) English Around the World:
Sociolingustic Perspectives. 213­224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jurasfsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive.
Language. 72.3. 533­578
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lappe, Sabine. 2007. The structure of y­hypocoristics. English Prosodic Morphology.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Miranda Miranda, Ines. 1999. An Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Nicaraguan Spanish

29. original file in PDF format 29
Diminutivization: Results of a Field Survey. Seattle, WA: University of Washington
dissertation.
Nuñez Cedeño, Rafael, Sonia Colina & Travis Bradley, eds. 2013. La teoría de optimidad en la
fonología del español. In Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Piñeros, Carlos­Eduardo. 2000a. Foot­Sensitive Word Minimization in Spanish. Rutgers Optimality
Archive. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/308­0399/308­0399­PINEROS­0­0.PDF.
Piñeros, Carlos­Eduardo. 2000b. Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish. Linguistics.
38.1 63­98.
Schneider, Klaus. 2003. Linguistiche Arbeiten: Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag GmbH.
Seal, Graham. 1999. The Lingo: Listening to Australian English. Sydney: University of New
South Wales Press.
Sealy, Katrina. Personal Communication. Feb 10 2013.
Simpson, Jane. 2008. Hypocoristics in Australian English. In Kate Burridge&Bernd Kortmann, eds.
Varieties of English: The Pacific and Australasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rowe, Kerrin. 2006. Aussie Slang. Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford Publishing.