Babel 58 : 4 (2012), 395407.

Fdration des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

doi 10.1075/babel.58.4.02gha issn 05219744 e-issn 15699668
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation
Mehdi F. al-Ghazalli
Al-Mustansiriyia University
1. Diminutives in English: An introduction
Traditionally, the term diminutive has been used to refer to words that denote
smallness and possibly also express the speakers attitude. On his part, Crystal
(1997: 116) defnes what is meant by diminutive as a term used in morphology to
refer to an afx with the general meaning of little. Trask (1993: 82) maintains that
it is a derivational afx which may be added to a word to express a notion of small
size, ofen additionally . . . a notion of warmth or afection. It is a common myth
that English has no diminutives, but one can fnd out that diminutives do exist in
it due to the fact that it is rare to fnd a book on English morphology that does
not touch upon diminutives. English diminutives are categorized as synthetic and
analytic: the latter are lexis signalling the sense of smallness. English has lexical
units that carry the sense referred to. Te units concerned do not receive morpho-
logical afxes to convey the sense in question and they are not many in number i.e.
they can be counted and they belong to diferent word classes (e.g. (a) few, (a) lit-
tle, merely, minor, solely, tinny, meager).
Te synthetic diminutives, on the other hand, are marked by sufxes such as
-ie, -ette, -let -kin, -een, -s, and -poo (Schneider 2004: 4).Te Synthetic morpho-
logical derivation of diminutives is made by afxes attached to nouns for express-
ing a variety of senses that are not found in such nouns prior to afxation. Te
process of diminutive formation is classifed by some as modifcation rather than
derivation since word class is retained in the process i.e. this morphological afxa-
tion does not change word classes. Tus, the meaning of the base is modifed, but
remains basically unchanged. All that can undergo real changes is the written and
phonological shape of the base. Katamba (1993: 21) supports this view saying that
the addition of the diminutive morpheme -ette, for instance, to a noun to derive a
new noun has the meaning smaller in size (e.g. kitchenette is a small kitchen and
a cigarette is a small cigar). Moreover, he (p. 210) maintains that it is controver-
sial to view -ling, -y, -let and -ette as derivational sufxes, because diminutive for-
mation is not part of any general, syntactically driven paradigm. One good argu-
ment for this view is that no syntactic rule of English needs to make reference to
396 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
the property diminutive. However, the reverse holds true of some other languages
(e.g. African languages) where diminutives and augmentatives
1
are marked by af-
fxes that are at the heart of the infectional system.
In conclusion, it is thought that diminutive formation is some sort of mor-
phological modifcation rather than derivation due to the fact that prefxation or
sufxation involved in forming diminutives keeps word classes unchanged. More-
over, the meaning of the base remains roughly the same when made into a diminu-
tive (see Section 1.1).
1.1. Formation of diminutives
Prefxation and sufxation are at work in forming diminutives where the latter is
more recurrent than the former to co-occur with nouns to form diminutive nouns.
Prefxation, on the other hand, is attached to verbs and nouns on equal footing to
make them into diminutives. For instance, sufxes such as -let (small or unimpor-
tant) is attached to nouns: leafleafet, bookbooklet; -ette (compact) kitchenkitch-
enette, dinnerdinnerette;-ling (minor) duckduckling, pinceling while mini- (little)
is a prefx attached to nouns such as busminibus, marketminimarket; under- (too
little) combines with verbs and -ed participles freely e.g. under-play, under-esti-
mate, under-privileged (Quirk et al. 1985: 1542, 1549, 1584).
Stageberg (1981: 102f) sticks to the view which is totally distinct from the
above-mentioned one in that he restricts the process of diminution to nouns
where six sufxes are attached to nouns. Tese sufxes convey the sense of small-
ness or endearment or both. Te frst sufx involving (-ie, -i, -y), although spelt
diferently, is highly productive and frequently attached to personal names to sug-
gest endearment, intimacy or smallness (e.g. Johnny, Janey, Jackie). Similarly, it is
attached to common nouns, as in doggie, sweetie birdie. As for the second sufx,
-ette, is also productive to indicate smallness such as a dinette which is a small din-
ing area, a roomette is a small room. Semantically, it is possible to distinguish a
number of meanings, or possibly a number of distinct sufxes, for the form -ette.
Tese include a pure diminutive as in rangette, a marker of imitation, as leatherette,
and a feminine marker as in farmerette( Bauer 1983: 119). Te other four diminu-
tive sufxes [(kin, -ikin, -kins), -ling, -et, -let)] are not highly productive. In add-
ition, many diminutives have come into English as a part of borrowing (See also
Spencer 2001: 142).
In forming diminutives, three processes are involved: morphological, seman-
tic and phonological. Te morphological process is at work in that the shape of the
1. Augmentative is a term used in morphology to refer to an afx with the general meaning
large (Crystal 1997: 34). Augmentatives are not frequently used in English whereas they are
commonly used in Arabic as there are forms of intensiveness (Al-Azzaawi 2006: 161f).
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 397
word will be changed by adding either a prefx or a sufx (e.g. matchminimatch,
leafleafet). Te semantic and phonological processes result in producing a new
sense and a diferent pronunciation of the base, respectively (Katamba 1993: 210)
See also (Al-Azzaawi 2006: 16f).
1.2. Te semantics of diminution
Diminutive is a semantic category which is true of human language, expressing a
variety of senses that includes afection, sympathy, intimacy, contempt, partitive
etc. Tis linguistic phenomenon is true of German, Czech, Dutch, Spanish, Ital-
ian, French, etc. In German, for instance, nouns are made into diminutives by
the sufxes -chen and -lein which can be freely attached to nouns with a suitable
meaning: Schwester sisterSchwesterchen, Frau womanFrulein. In English and
French, this can be done on a very limited scale (lamblambkin, rioriotelet, etc);
normally German diminutives will have to be rendered by an adjectival phrase:
Schwesterchen little sister (Ullmann 1967: 108).
Diminution, as used by English natives, has a variety of meanings to express
such as smallness, endearment, magnifcation etc. Tis is mainly done by means of
afxes which can, by extension, be used for marking the of-spring of animals, af-
fection, informality, resemblance or imitation (see Section 1.1). Diminutives may
be used for showing less respect to other participants in a discourse. Allen (1986:
19) states:
In some languages, though not English, acquaintances who normally address each
other formally may use an informal use of address to mark the withdrawal of respect;
the English counterpart is communicated prosodically ... and perhaps by the use of
such informality markers such as diminutives and swearing.
Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1677) classify the sufxes according to the mean-
ings they indicate. For instance, the sufx -ette marks smallness, imitation or fe-
male sex (e.g. novelette, fannelette, usherette); -ie/ y is the most productive of the
diminutive markers in present-day English. It is found in numerous hypocoris-
tics (pet names): Billy, Jimmy, etc. Secondly, it is commonly used in language spo-
ken to or by children: granny, piggy, doggie. As for the sufxes -let, it indicates
small size: fatlet, booklet; it is also used with a few animal names to denote of-
spring (piglet, eaglet). Te sufx ling is used to indicate small or young animals:
spiderling, codling, duckling. Applied to adult persons, it refects the sense of con-
tempt: princeling, hireling, squirreling. As mentioned in Section 1.1, prefxes can
also be used as attached to nouns, verbs and participles. For example, micro- and
mini- are productive in diminutive formation to indicate small size (minibudget,
miniskirt, minicab, microwave, micrometer microscope). Micro- indicates a signif-
cantly greater degree of smallness than mini- (ibid. 1678).
398 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
1.3. Controversy over diminutives
As mentioned in Section 1, there is some debate over the status of diminutives
whether to categorize the process of diminutive-formation as a part of infectional
or derivational morphology. Haspelmath (2002: 80) holds the view that diminu-
tives are like classical infected forms in that they do not (necessarily) denote a
new concept-Spanish gatito ofen refers to the same kind of cat as gato, but oc-
curs under special pragmatic circumstances. Introducing a diferent view, Bybee
(1985: 98f) discusses the point that the content of morphological categories deter-
mines whether they will appear in infectional or derivational domains. He con-
tinues saying that linguists (e.g. Sapir 1921) have studied this question and have
not reached a frm conclusion. From a diferent perspective, examples from other
languages prove that infectional categories are closely related to some derivational
categories. Anderson (1982), as quoted in Bybee (ibid), argues that the infection-
al / derivational distinction cannot be made on the basis of meaning as he points
to the examples of an ordinarily derivational category, diminutive, which in Fula
is infectional. He (1985: 177) adds that it is quite common for a language to have
diminutive formation even in cases of such fairly productive afxes as German
-chen/-lein or Spanish-ito, there is little reason for calling this an infectional rather
than derivational category. In a few cases, however, the formation of diminutives
is so thoroughly integrated into the languages infectional system that its status is
not in doubt.
2. Diminutives in Arabic: Abrief survey2
Te diminution formation process in Arabic is basically confned to nouns where
they undergo the change according to certain morphological paradigms. Tis re-
sults from infxes internally inserted within the building of nouns to express a var-
iety of senses that are in the main related to the linguistic meaning of the noun
before its change into a diminutive (, shajara a tree, shujaira a small
tree)
2
(Al-Naylah 1988: 270). Arab scholars (e.g. Ibin al-Hjib
3
1975: 27; Ibin al-
Sarj 1973: 36 al-Marjn 1981: 486) hold the position that turning a noun into a
2. Transliteration key (AlKhudary 2004: 13): a : b: t: th: j: : kh: d: z: r: z: s:
sh: : dh: : : 6: gh: f: q: k: l: m: n: h: w: y: :
3. It is a tradition in Arabic linguistics that the death dates of ancient Arab traditional grammar-
ians are mentioned next to their names because such death dates enable readers (1) to know the
school of grammar the scholar belongs to and (2) to familiarize them with the general trends of
the school on the scholars day. Accordingly, the death dates of scholars quoted throughout the
present paper will be mentioned within the list of references.
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 399
diminutive is intended to convey the sense of smallness, contempt, minimizing or
littleness (see Section 2.2).
2.1. Morphological paradigms of diminutives
Sybawayh (Vol. III 2009: 415,), as other Arab grammarians do, introduces a three-
fold classifcation of the morphological paradigms in terms of which declinable
nouns can be changed into diminutives. Tey run as follows:

fuailin, fuailin and fuaiiilin. Te frst pattern is applicable to triliteral nouns and
it is the smallest pattern of diminution (e.g.

rajul a man

rujaylun a little
man) .Te second pattern can be applied to quadriliteral nouns (e.g. dirham,
duryhim a small dirham) while the third paradigm is true of quinqueliter-
al nouns ( mif a key, mfyty a small key) (see Ibin Jinni 1982: 330).
2.2. Semantic functions of diminutives
Traditional and modern Arab grammarians agree that diminution refers to a
change (caused by infxation) in word building that takes place basically within
the structure of the base forms of nouns to serve a variety of semantic functions.
Tis change occurs according to particular morphological paradigms whose sense
in the main is to express the sense of contempt and minimizing of quantity or
number (Al-Naylah 1988: 270).
(1)
katabtu wrayqatin nafatin
I wrote a few useful papers.
Moreover, diminution serves a variety of other senses. Ibin foor(1971: 435) states
that diminution is used for expressing closeness of time and dearness or intimacy
of ones position to another. Following are examples to show the two senses re-
ferred to.
(2)
waala Ahmed qubayla alr
Ahmed reached closer to evening.
(3)

maraban bika yaukhayy
Welcome my dear brother.
Kufa linguists hold the view that diminution can express the sense of magnifca-
tion as they have their own arguments to support their stand whereas Basra lin-
guists do not adhere to the same position. Tey argue that the examples given
400 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
by Kufa grammarians still serve the sense of contempt and they are only two ex-
amples:
(4)

diwayhiyatun tafarru minnha al?nmilu.
A little calamity which turns ones fngertips yellow. Tis little calamity
plays a great part in putting an end to peoples lives although it is under-
estimated.
(5)

fuwaiqa Jubaylin shmikhu alr?si lem takun litablaghahu ata takkila
watamala.
It is over a small mountain whose top is too high for anyone to see to the
extent that it turns people tired and exhausted.
Examples (3) and (4) above clearly show that the intended meaning behind using
a little calamity, a small mountain is to refer to the idea that they are great in efect
and in size, respectively since the former stands for death which people cannot
contempt, and the former signifes the great height of the mountains top which is
not easily accessible for people to look at (See also Alakbary, 1995: 158).
Aladyy(1972: 231) maintains that Arabs sometimes prefer to use diminu-
tives for the sake of brevity and conciseness. So, saying

rujail, a small man is

briefer than using two words ( rajulin aghyrun) to serve the same pur-
pose.
Al-Naylah(1988: 271f) mentions three more functions for diminution to ex-
press: nearness of place , showing pity and endearment.
(6)
jalastu diwayn alnahr.
I sat down near the river.
(7)
qabaltu rajulan misaykyn.
I met a very pauper man.
In (7) the speaker uses a diminutive noun to show pity for the man he met.
(8)

bunayaty ltanmy muta?khirah.

My darling daughter, do not sleep late.
Finally, diminution can carry the sense of contempt where a speaker produces an
utterance involving a diminutive that shows how he wants to undermine what is
expected to be great in degree or in rank.
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 401
(9)
yaqwlwn inna shiwayrin aara almahrajn.
Tey are saying that a very minor poet attended the festival.
2.3. Non-diminutivizeable nouns
As mentioned in Section 2.1, diminution, according to given morphological para-
digms, is applicable to declinable nouns. Tis implies that non-declinable nouns
are not liable to diminution. In this regard, Aliywy (1998: 351f) maintains that
the following cannot be turned into diminutives:
1. Attributes of Allah cannot be changed into diminutives because they are meant
to convey the sense of magnifcation and glorifcation (e.g. , all-know-
ing, all-powerful etc).Tis is due to the fact that the senses of such attributes go
in contradiction with the basic sense of diminution which is contempt.
2. Since diminution is intended to describe someone or something with contempt,
particles and verbs (apart from verbs of surprise) cannot express the sense con-
cerned.
3. Mixed compounds cannot be turned into diminutives (e.g. , )
because the frst parts of which are verbs. Prothetic compounds (Abdul-
lah, Maadyakrub, synthetic compounds (e.g. balabek ,hadramawt
) and compound numbers (e.g. ), on the other hand, are prone
to diminution where only the frst part is changed into a diminutive form (e.g.
, , , ,).
4. Nouns of interrogation and nouns of condition are also not subject to diminu-
tion because they are diptotes.
5. Nouns whose morphological paradigms are similar to those of diminutives (e.g.
Kumait, Shuaib, ,Zuhair ) cannot be changed into diminutives
owing to the fact that such paradigms cannot be made diminutives twice (See
also Al-Naylah, 1988: 273).
Tere is some controversy between Basra and Kufa grammarians over whether
days of week can be diminutivized or not. Sybawaih (2009: 478f) states that days
of the week cannot be changed into diminutives because they are proper names.
Kufa grammarians, by contrast, confrm that it is permissible to turn weekdays
into diminutives when one says( alJuma: Friday ,alsabbit: Saturday
and is in the nominative case. However, if it is in the accusative case, it is
not possible to change weekdays into diminutives (Aliywy 1998: 353).
402 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
3. Contrastive analysis
On the basis of the theoretical survey of the treatments of diminutives in both lan-
guages, the following conclusions have been drawn:
1. Diminution is mainly true of nouns (and verbs of surprise) in Arabic, whereas
it holds true of nouns, verbs, participles in English.
2. Diminutives roughly serve the same semantic functions in both languages.
However, Arabic diminutives express the senses of nearness of time, of place
and of magnifcation while English ones do not.
3. In English, prefxation and sufxation are at work in making nouns, verbs and
participles into diminutives whereas in Arabic only infxation is responsible for
changing nouns into diminutives.
4. In forming diminutives, three processes are involved: morphological, semantic
and phonological. Tey hold true of both languages.
5. Afxes used in the formation of diminutives in English carry particular mean-
ings. In Arabic, on the other hand, the morphological paradigms of diminu-
tives have a variety of senses to convey.
6. In both languages, diminutive formation keeps word classes unchanged.
Te value of the above fndings may clarify the reasons behind the difculties in-
volved in translating diminutives from Arabic into English.
4. Translation of diminutives
Tis section is devoted to the translation of diminutives from Arabic into English.
Ten Arabic-speaking translation specialists were given the same text to render it
to English to fnd out the linguistic features of such translations. Te text in ques-
tion is a narrative one (an anecdote) telling a story of one of the ancient Persian
kings who went astray in a desert. Troughout the whole analysis, a distinction is
made between noun phrases proper and quantifed noun phrases where the lat-
ter is called quantifer-noun phrases. Tis is due to the reason that the researcher
wants to quantify the translations of diminutives into those noun phrases preced-
ed by adjectives and those preceded by quantifers. As a procedure for analysis, if
the translations of a given diminutive are the same (as produced by specialists),
they will not be repeated in discussion .Te diminutives in the original will be un-
derlined and italicized since they are the concern of the present paper.
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 403
(10)

.
yuka inna aad milook alfurs taha fy alar? ira ifatin ramlyah
buaida almaghrib wabada injil?h lamaa shujairatin fy qalib alar?
It is narrated that one of the king of Persian kingdom went astray in a
desert due to a sandy storm closer to the evening. Afer the storm had
been over, he saw a few trees in the heart of the desert.
Te frst diminutive (buaida

near) which is used in Arabic to show nearness

of time was translated as shortly, afer a very short period of time, not too far and
afer that, while the second diminutive ( shujayrt a few trees), whose
morphological paradigm signifes the sense of fewness, was rendered as several
shrubs, bushes, some shrubs and some small trees. Te accurate translation of the
frst diminutive is shortly because it expresses the sense of nearness of time where-
as the second diminutive is better rendered into some small trees since it refects
the meaning of paucity. Translators adequate rendering of the latter diminutive
can be possibly attributed to the similarity between both languages as far as di-
minutives expressing the sense of smallness are concerned.
(11) .
fasra bimufardihi walama wasala ilayhuna r? baytan min alshar
waqad tawasadthu shiwaytatin lirajulin ?rabyin musn.
Ten, he walked alone as he reached them, he saw a wool-made tent sur-
rounded by a few ewes possessed by an old-aged man.
Te renditions of the diminutive : shiwaytatin,( the diminutive form of a
ewe) as produced by translators are as follows: little sheep, some ewes, ewes, few
sheep, a few sheep, small ewes and little goats. Te morphological paradigm of the
diminutive plural form in question signifes the sense of minimizing number and
quantity. Tus, translators have used adjectives or quantifers to refer to the sense
concerned.
(12) .
rakadha alrajilu lizawjihi wahwa yaqul iwayibaty ?dhinnu inna h
shiwayr.
Te man ran to his wife as he says Oh, my darling, I guess that our guest
is a low-rank poet.
Te frst diminutive iwayibaty in the extract above is intended to show
intimacy between two parties or more. Te renditions produced are: my partner,
darling, my dear, dear fellow, my dear wife, dear, my darling and my beloved. Out of
these translations, one can realize that translators have tried to convey the sense
404 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
of intimacy or afection between the Bedouin and his wife as found in the original.
As for the diminutive ( shiwayr), it expresses the sense of contempt. Transla-
tors gave the following renditions to this diminutive: a poet, some poet, poetaster
and a versifer. It seems that all translators have failed to produce the meaning in-
tended. Tis translation difculty could be due to the lack of awareness on the part
of translators of the sense this diminutive indicates. Tis has been discovered afer
they have been asked why they were unsuccessful in rendering it accurately. Ac-
cordingly, it is better to translate it into a low-rank poet.
(12)
wafata alurata fawajad afnatan min durayhimtin min zahabin
maa wrayqatin.
Both opened the sack and found a few of dirhams made of gold with
a tiny paper.
Te diminutive carries the sense of fewness. It was translated into: little dir-
hams, money and pennies. All the translations produced are inadequate because
they have not given the same sense that the diminutive carries. Terefore, it is
thought that the appropriate translation is: a few of dirhams. As far as the diminu-
tive wrayqatin is concerned, its morphological paradigm is basically intend-
ed to convey the sense of smallness. It was translated into: a paper, a little piece of
paper, a written paper, a small paper, a piece of paper, a tiny paper, a little sheet of
paper and a small sheet of paper. Four translations of the aforementioned are ac-
curate to convey the sense found in the original: a little piece of paper, a tiny paper,
a little sheet of paper and a small sheet of paper. Once the same diminutive has be-
come defnite, it was rendered to: the sheet of paper, the little sheet of paper, the pa-
per, the piece of paper and the small piece of paper. It is true to say that two transla-
tions were sound to express the same meaning of the diminutive found in the ST.
Tey are: the little sheet of paper and the small piece of paper.
6. Conclusions
On the basis of the linguistic analysis of the translations of the diminutives done
above, some conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, diminutives are primarily trans-
lated in terms of noun phrases sometimes preceded by adjectives such as little and
short. Tis has verifed the hypothesis of the present study. Te percentages of how
diminutives have been translated run as follows: 75,7% of the translations of the
diminutives were noun phrases sometimes preceded by adjectives; 15,7% were in
form of phrases preceded by quantifer. 5,7% of diminutives were rendered into
adverbs and 2,8% were in form of adjectives. Secondly, the sense of smallness or
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 405
littleness expressed by diminutives in the original has been roughly retained in
the TT. Tis is attributed to the similarity between both languages in that dimin-
utives in either language are used for denoting smallness. Tirdly, translating di-
minutives expressing the sense of contempt has proved difcult to produce though
both languages have diminutives showing the sense concerned. Finally, once the
diminutive becomes defnite due to second mentioning, translators generally tend
to render it as a non-diminutive noun.
Summary
Diminutives serve a variety of semantic functions such as preference, satire, af-
fection, endearment etc. Te present paper has been concerned with investigat-
ing whether translating diminutives from Arabic into English is a difcult task to
undertake by Arabic-speaking professional translators or not. It is hypothesized
that the use of noun phrases preceded by adjectives could be more recurrent than
those preceded by quantifers in rendering diminutives from Arabic into Eng-
lish. Two theoretical surveys have been done on diminutives in both languages
to shed light on the similarities and diferences between both languages as far as
the area under investigation is concerned. Tis can help in attributing the transla-
tion difculties involved to their possible reasons. Ten, an Arabic literary text in-
volving diminutives was chosen and handed to ten translation specialists (whose
mother tongue is Arabic) to render to English. Te translations produced have
been assessed in the light of the theoretical framework of the study. According-
ly, it has been found out that accurate renderings produced are attributed to the
similarity between both languages in the linguistic area under study. Inaccurate
translations, on the other hand, are possibly due to the diferences between both
languages. A high percentage (75,7%)of the translations of the diminutives were
noun phrases preceded by adjectives. As a result, the hypothesis of the study has
been verifed.
References
Alakbary, A. (d.616h) 1995. Allubb fy ill Al-Bin? Wa Al-Irb [Te Cores of Structures and
Parsing]. Vol. II. Reviewed by Dr Abdullah Nabhn. Damascus: Dar Al-Fikr. 623 pp.
Al-Azzaawi, I. M. 2006. Diminution and Augmentation in English and Arabic: AContrastive
Study. An Unpublished A.M Tesis, Baghdad University. 215 pp.
Al-adiithy, Kh. 2003. Abniyat Al-arif fy Kitb Sybbawayh [Morphological Structures in Syb-
bawayhs Al- Kitb]. Beirut: Lubnan Nashirwn Library. 381 pp.
AlKhudary, R. 2004. ADictionary of Islamic Terms. Damascus: Dar Al-Yamamah. 719 pp.
406 MehdiF. al-Ghazalli
Allen, Keith. 1986. Linguistic Meaning. Vol. I. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 348 pp.
al-Marjn, K. B. 1981. Kitb Alttkmila li?by Ali Al-Frisi: A Revision and Survey [Te Com-
plete Grammar Book by Abu Ali Al-Frisi]. An M.ATesis, Cairo University. 692 pp.
Al-Naylah, A. A. 1988. Al-arif Al-Wadhi [Explicit Morphology]. Mosul: Mosul University
Press. 461 pp.
Aliywy, J. A. A. (d.911h.) 1998. Ham Alhawm fy Shar Jam Aljawmi [Te Diamonds of
Arabic Grammar] Revised by Ahmed Shamsaldyn. Vol. III. Beirut: Dar Alkutub Allmiyh.
494 pp.
Anderson. Stephen R. 1985. Infectional Morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic De-
scription: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Vol. III., ed. by Timothy Shopen, 158
174. Cambridge: CUP.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. Cambridge: CUP. 311 pp.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 229 pp.
Cachia, P. 1973 Te Monitor: A Dictionary of Arabic Grammatical Terms. London: Longman.
196 pp.
Crystal, David. 1997. ADictionary of Phonetics and Linguistics, 4th ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
429 pp.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold. 290 pp.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geofrey. 2002. Te Cambridge Grammar of the English Lan-
guage. Cambridge: CUP. 1860 pp.
Ibin al-Hjib, J. U. (d.646h) 1975. AlShshafa fy lm Alttaryf [Te Best Treatment in the Science
of Morphology] Reviewed by Dr Darwysh AlJiwaydy. Beirut: AlMaktaba Alriyya. 204 pp.
Ibin al-Sarj, (d.316h) 1973. Al?wl fy Alnnw [Fundamentals of Grammar] Revised by Dr Ab-
dul Hussein Alfatly. Vol. I. Al-Najaf: Al-Numn Printing House. 445 pp.
Ibin Jinni, A, U. (d.392h) 1982. Allamu fy Alarabia [Te Brilliant Aspects of Arabic Grammar].
Baghdad: Alny Printing House. 372 pp.
Ibin foor (d.669h) 1971. Al-Muqarrab [Te Closer Grammar]. Alny Printing House. 624 pp.
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language 72
(3): 533577.
Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. London: Macmillan Press. 354 pp.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geofrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. AComprehensive
Grammar of English. London: Longman. 1779 pp.
Schneider, Klaus P. 2004. Diminutives in English. Max Niemeyer Verlag. 254 pp.
Sibbawayh, A. U. (d.180h) 1982. Al- Kitb [Te Book]. Vol. III. Cairo: Al-Khanachy Publishing
House. 662 pp.
Spencer, A. 2001.Morphological Processes. In Te Handbook of Morphology, ed. by Andrew
Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 123144. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing House. 12344.
Stageberg, Norman. 1981. An Introductory English Grammar, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. 369 pp.
Trask, R. L. 1993. ADictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. Routledge: London. 335 pp.
Ullmann, Stephen. 1967. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. 278 pp.
Diminutives in Arabic-to-English translation 407
Abstract
Diminutives serve a variety of semantic functions such as preference, satire, afection, endear-
ment etc. Te present study endeavours to highlight similarities and diferences between both
languages and the afect they have on how diminutives are translated from Arabic to English.
It is hypothesized that the use of noun phrases preceded by adjectives could be more recurrent
than those preceded by quantifers in rendering diminutives from Arabic into English.
Two theoretical surveys of diminutives in both languages were introduced and professional
translators were handed a literary text to render into English. On the basis of the linguistic and
statistical analysis of the translations involving diminutives, it has been found out that diminu-
tives have been mainly translated into noun phrases preceded by adjectives more than those
noun phrases preceded by quantifers.
Keywords: afxes, collocations, diminutives, endearment, quantifers
Rsum
Les diminutifs ont toute une srie de fonctions smantiques telles que la prfrence, la satire,
lafection, la tendresse, etc. Cette tude seforce de mettre en exergue les ressemblances et les
difrences entre les deux langues et leur impact sur la manire dont les diminutifs sont traduits
de larabe en anglais. On part de l hypothse que dans la traduction des diminutifs de larabe en
anglais, lutilisation de phrases nominatives prcdes par des adjectifs pourrait tre plus cou-
rante que celles prcdes par des quantifcateurs.
Deux tudes thoriques sur les diminutifs dans les deux langues ont t prsentes, et des tra-
ducteurs professionnels ont reu un texte littraire traduire en anglais. Lanalyse linguistique
et statistique des traductions contenant des diminutifs a rvl que les diminutifs taient prin-
cipalement traduits par des phrases nominatives prcdes par des adjectifs, plutt que par des
phrases nominatives prcdes par des quantifcateurs.
Mots cls : afxes, collocations, diminutifs, afectivit, quantifcateurs
About the author
Mehdi F. al-Ghazalli is a PhD holder in linguistics and translation. He worked in Libya, Jordan
and Iraq. He has been chairman of Translation Department/Al-Mustansiriyia University since
2009. He has published some papers in local and international refereed journals. His research
interests are: contrastive linguistics, translation theory and universal grammar. Dr. al-Ghazal-
li has been chairman of some examining committees and an external examiner of more than
ten M.Atheses in translation in Baghdad University and Al-Mustansiriyia University. He has
assessed a lot of papers for promotion and for publication. Recently, he has been invited by al-
Asyyab Foundation for Translation to deliver a paper in linguistics and translation in a confer-
ence that was held in Basrah University in collaboration with the Foundation concerned in No-
vember 2011.
Address: Al-Mustansiriyia University, Translation Department, Faculty of Arts, P. O. Box 46088,
Baghdad, Iraq.
Email: mehdi_falih2000@yahoo.com/drfalih20111@hotmail.com
Copyright of Babel 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.