This paper is a contrastive analysis of the structural properties of English and Romanian truncated names

(1)

ANDREI A. AVRAM

Abstract. This paper is a contrastive analysis of the structural properties of English and Romanian truncated names. Name truncation is considered to be a word- formation process and is analyzed from the perspective of Prosodic Morphology. The contrastive analysis of the structure of English and Romanian name truncations focuses on the phonological requirements which these have to satisfy. It is shown that linguistically significant generalizations about the structure of truncated names in both languages can only be formulated in terms of units of the prosodic hierarchy. The paper also looks into the issue of prosodic minimality in the two languages. The size of truncated names is therefore examined in light of the correlation between the minimal prosodic word and the stress foot of English and Romanian respectively. The form of English name truncations is consistent with its stress foot. In the case of Romanian, which has a different stress foot, the size of truncated names shows that only derived words are subject to a prosodic minimality constraint.

Keywords: truncated name, syllable, foot, prosodic minimality, derived word.

1. INTRODUCTION

The status of name truncations, word clippings and blends is controversial in the morphological literature. Many authors, such as Zwicky and Pullum (1987), Dressler (2000), Haspelmath (2002), Booij (2005), Ronneberger-Sibold (2010), do not include truncated names, word clippings and blends among word-formation processes proper.

Zwicky and Pullum (1987), for example, state that name truncations and word clippings express familiarity and should be treated as instances of “expressive morphology”.

According to Dressler (2000), truncated names, clippings and blends are highly idiosyncratic and are therefore “extragrammatical”, i.e. they do not fall within the province of grammatical morphology. Haspelmath (2002: 25) states that clippings and blends “are operations that can be used to create new words [but] they do not fall under morphology, because the resulting new words do not show systematic meaning – sound resemblances of the sort that speakers would recognize”. Haspelmath (2002: 25) therefore concludes that

“not all processes of word-creation fall under word-formation”. Booij (2005: 20–21) lists truncated names, word clippings and blends among the types of word creation or word manufacturing, which he regards as non-morphological sources of words. Most recently, Ronneberger-Sibold (2010: 201) writes that “operations such as shortening or blending” are

“techniques for the creation of new lexemes not covered by the rules (or models) of regular word formation”, but rather by “the use of a creative technique […] termed word creation”.

Ronneberger-Sibold (2010: 203) explicitly considers word creation “a subtype of extragrammatical morphology”, and admits that it yields “words characterized by a specific RRL, LIX, 1, p. 3–21, Bucureşti, 2014

(2)

Andrei A. Avram 2 4

sound shape and/or a specific degree of transparency”. On the other hand, for authors such as Joseph (1997), Plag (2003), Arnoff and Fudeman (2005), Downing (2006) or Lappe (2007), morphology explicitly includes the study of truncated names, word clippings and blends. The view according to which name truncation is a word-formation process is supported essentially by two arguments. First, truncated names “are highly systematic”, as argued by Plag (2003: 117) with respect to English. Secondly, it could be argued that name truncation resembles derivation. In derivation – commonly defined as a process whereby new words are formed – new meaning is added to a base. Truncated names certainly do not have a new referential meaning; however, they do express familiarity and a (usually) positive attitude towards the referent. Thus, name truncation also adds new meaning to a base (Plag 2003: 117). On the strength of these two arguments, in this paper name truncation is considered a word-formation process.

Terminology is another issue which requires some discussion. In addition to “name truncation” or “truncated name”, alternative terms in the literature in English include:

“nickname” (Kenstowicz 1994: 9, McCarthy and Prince 1995: 344, van Dam 2003, Downing 2006: 62); “familiar form” (Macleod and Freedman 1995), “hypocoristic”

(Kenstowicz 1994: 9, Katamba 1995: 247–250, Booij 2005: 21 and 181, Crystal 2008: 232, Coates 2008: 325–327); “short form” (Hanks et al. 2006); and “pet-names/pet-forms”

(Coates 2008: 325–327). However, nicknames and familiar forms are not necessarily the result of truncation. Hanks et al. (2006) list separately what they call “short forms” and “pet forms”; however, the latter include truncated names to which a diminutive suffix is added.

As for hypocoristics, their various definitions differ considerably. Booij (2005: 21 and 181), for instance, defines them simply as “names of endearment” and “endearment forms of proper names” respectively. In Crystal (2008: 232), although the definition “a term used in

LINGUISTICS for a pet name (e.g. Harry for Harold)” does not mention truncation, the only example given illustrates it. The widest definition is implicitly adopted by Beardsley and Simpson (2009), for whom “hypocoristics” appear to be a cover term both for name truncations (including place names) and for word clippings. Variation in the definition of hypocoristics is also striking in the Romanian literature. The most restrictive definition is given by Graur (1965: 57), according to whom “the reduced forms [of names] are known in linguistics as hypocoristics”. Ionescu (1989: 144) defines hypocoristics as “a secondary form resulting from the modification of the original form of a proper name”. Hypocoristics are very similarly defined by Tomescu (2001: 254) as “a secondary […] form with an affectionate character, resulting from the formal modification of a proper name”. For both these authors, however, hypocoristics also include forms derived via suffixation to the source name. The widest definition is found in Bidu-Vrănceanu (1997: 238): “value of tender affection of: some forms of addressing […]; some proper names which undergo phonetic modifications […], in casual, intimate or popular usage […]; some diminutive suffixes”. To avoid possible terminological confusions, throughout this paper the terms

“name truncation” or “truncated name” will be used exclusively.

In this paper, name truncation in English and Romanian is analyzed within the framework of Prosodic Morphology. Following e.g. Katamba (1995), McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1998), Booij (2005), Downing (2006), Prosodic Morphology is broadly understood as the theory of the interaction between morphology and the units of the prosodic hierarchy.

The corpus of English¹ truncated names consists essentially of Macleod and Freedman (1995) and Hanks et al. (2006), supplemented with forms from Lappe (2007).

1 Only British and American English forms are discussed.

(3)

The Romanian data are mainly from Ionescu (2008) and Cosniceanu (2010), with additional forms from Graur (1965) and Zafiu (2001) as well as from my own collection (see Avram 2011).

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 looks at English truncated names.

Section 3 focuses on the formation of Romanian name truncations. The findings and their implications are discussed in section 4.

2. ENGLISH

2.1. Monosyllabic truncated names

In English most truncated names are monosyllabic. Consider the examples below:

(1) Name Truncated name

a. Abraham Abe b. Josephine Jo c. Michael Mike d. Tyler Ty

This type of name truncation has several characteristics. First, the truncatum consists of a heavy syllable, which respects the phonotactic constraints on English syllables.

Secondly, truncated names exhibit a tendency to begin and end in a consonant, even when their base starts or ends with a vowel. Thus, the truncated name in (2a) starts with a consonant, even though the source name starts with a vowel; strikingly, the truncated in (2b) starts with a consonant which does not even exist in the source name; finally, the form in (2c) ends in a consonant, although the source name ends in a vowel:

a. Elisabeth Liz b. Edward Ned / Ted c. Barbara Barb

Thirdly, truncated names have a strong tendency to conform to a template. The templates (adapted from Plag 2003: 118–119) are listed below (where C = consonant, V = vowel, and optional elements are indicated between brackets):

(3) a. C(C)V(V)C(C) b. C(C)VV c. V(V)C(C)

There is variation as to the part of the base which is preserved². In the most frequently attested case, the segmental material filling the template is taken from the syllable which carries the primary stress in the source name:

2 Sometimes called “anchoring points” in the literature on truncation (see e.g. Lappe 2008).

(4)

Andrei A. Avram 4 6

(4) Name Truncated name a. Abraˌham Abe

b. Ale'xandra Xan c. Antoi'nette Net

The first syllable of the source name may also provide the segmental material (5a, b), with the possible addition of a segment from the onset of the second syllable (5c, d):

(5) Name Truncated name a. Albert Al

b. Raymond Ray c. Nicholas Nick d. Stephanie Steph

In addition, the first syllable of the source name has to satisfy one of the following requirements: either it has an onset or it carries primary or secondary stress. Failure to satisfy either of these conditions accounts for the ungrammaticality of forms such as those listed below:

a. A'melia *Am b. E'lisabeth *El c. Oc'tavia *Oc

The forms below illustrate the least frequent case, in which the segmental material is taken from the syllable carrying secondary stress:

(7) Name Truncated name a. Abiˌgail Gail

b. Adelˌbert Bert

Occasionally, truncated names may consist of segments which are not adjacent in the source name:

a. Jeremy Jem

b. Florence Floss

Mention should also be made of changes on the segmental level³. Thus, onset consonants are replaced in several idiosyncratic forms⁴:

3 See Lappe (2007, chapter 10) for a detailed analysis of these segmental changes.

4 Ned / Ted from Edward, in example (2b), shows that in idiosyncratic forms a missing onset can be supplied.

(5)

(9) Name Truncated name a. Margaret Peg

b. Richard Dick

c. Robert Bob

d. William Bill

Stressed vowels occasionally change, e.g. /i:/ turns into [ε], /e_ɪ/ into [_ɪ], /_ɑ:/ into [ε], and /a_ɪ/ into [_ɪ]:

a. Amelia Mel

b. James Jim

c. Margaret Meg d. Michael Mick

As can be seen, replacements of initial consonants and of stressed vowels occur in both female and male truncated names. According to Coates (2008: 327), however,

“[t]owards the end of the twentieth century, the tide turned decisively away from pet-forms for male names that show alternation of either the initial consonant or the stressed vowel”⁵. Coda consonants may also be subject to change. For instance, /θ/ is replaced by [t]:

a. Arthur Art

b. Bartholomew Bart c. Nathaniel Nat

The behaviour of /r/ varies. In the rhotic dialects of English, it survives if it occurs as the first member of a coda cluster:

(12) Name Truncated name Barbara Barb

However, /r/ cannot be the single coda consonant. As put by Coates (2008: 327),

“[s]uch a word-final /r/ is phonologically inadmissible in the non-rhotic dialects of British English”. Two “repair strategies” are attested. One of them consists of replacing /r/ with [l]:

a. Derek Del

b. Harry Hal

c. Sarah Sal

5 Coates (2008: 327) writes that “[i]nformal polls among people around twenty years old now show that the hypocoristics Bill, Bob, Ned/Ted, Dick and the like are in full retreat before Will, Rob, Ed and Rick/Rich”.

(6)

Andrei A. Avram 6 8

According to Coates (2008: 327) this “tactic has been available for centuries for names applicable to both sexes”⁶, but “the set of names treated in this way has gained recent recruits”⁷. The other strategy, which “has grown up as a competitor” (Coates 2008:

327), is to substitute /r/ by [z]:

a. Barry Baz b. Carol Caz c. Gary Gaz d. Sharon Shaz

In some cases, name truncations in /l/ compete with those in /z/⁸:

a. Derek Del / Dez b. Lawrence Lol / Loz

Substitution of /r/ by [z] is a recent strategy. This is demonstrated by the fact that none of the forms under (14) and of the variants under (15) ending in /z/ is recorded in Macleod and Freedman (1995), while Hanks et al. (2006) list just Baz⁹ and Gaz.

To sum up, English monosyllabic truncated names are generally formed on the basis of a stressed syllable of the source name. An unstressed first syllable may be preserved, if it has an onset. In all monosyllabic truncated names the syllable is heavy.

2.2. Disyllabic truncated names

Besides monosyllabic truncated names, there are also disyllabic ones. As noted by Downing (2006: 62), “some larger names have two syllable nicknames (in addition, in some cases, to monosyllabic nicknames)”. The segmental material is mostly provided the syllable carrying primary stress and from the following one, as illustrated by the examples below:

a. Ale'xander Sander b. Ara'bella Bella c. Va'nessa Nessa

Downing (2006: 62) claims that disyllabic name truncations “are identical to the main stress Foot of the Base”. However, the examples under (17) demonstrate that the segmental material can also be taken from a syllable carrying secondary stress and from the following one:

6 Coates (2008: 327) writes that “Hal for Harry [is] as old as Shakespeare”.

7 These include Del for Derek and Tel for Terence.

8 See Coates (2008: 327).

9 With the specification “mainly Australian”.

(7)

(17) Name Truncated name a. Ale'xander Alec

b. Ale'xander Alex

The form of these truncated names is that of a disyllabic trochaic foot.

2.3. Truncated names suffixed with -ie

English truncated names may be augmented by the addition of the diminutive suffix - ie¹⁰ (Kenstowicz 1994: 9–10, van Dam 2003, Plag 2003: 120–121, Lappe 2007). Consider the following examples:

a. Abraham Aby b. Caroline Carrie c. Jennifer Jenny d. Madeline Maddie e. Patricia Patty f. Rebecca Becky

The truncated names which are formed according to this pattern are all disyllabic, with the first syllable carrying stress.

The examples under (18) suggest the following rule accounting for these name truncations: extract a vowel from a prominent position of the source name (i.e. the stressed vowel or the initial vowel) and a consonant on each side, and then add the diminutive suffix -ie/-y. However, in a number of other forms more than one consonant is extracted¹¹:

a. Andrew Andy

b. Bernard Bernie c. Margaret Margie

On the other hand, a name truncation such as the one below is ungrammatical:

(20) Name Truncated name Patricia *Patrie

Moreover, as noted by Kenstowicz (1994: 9), the same situation holds for truncated names formed from foreign source names. Thus, the name truncations in (21) are well- formed:

a. Helmut Helmie b. Zygmunt Zyggie

10 Also spelled -y and, less frequently, -ey.

11 In the case of the forms in (19b) and (19c), this is true only of rhotic dialects.

(8)

Andrei A. Avram 8 10

However, the following truncated name is ill-formed:

(22) Name Truncated name Zygmunt *Zygmie

Plag (2003: 120) notes that in these truncated names “the second syllable never shows a complex onset, even if the base has a complex onset in its second syllable (e.g.

Andrew → Andy, not *Andry)”, but does not account for this characteristic. As shown by Kenstowicz (1994: 10), the bare truncatum must be a possible English syllable¹². Indeed, whereas e.g. [ænd], in (19a), and [hεlm], in (21a), are possible English syllables, [pætr], in (20), and [z_ɪgm], in (22), are not. Kenstowicz (1994: 9) formulates the following generalization: “a prominent vowel (initial or stressed) is located and as many surrounding consonants are packed into the nickname as can be accommodated by the language’s syllable template” and “the result is suffixed by the diminutive -ie”¹³. This claim is disconfirmed, however, by several forms, including one of Kenstowicz’s own examples (in 23b):

a. Frances Frannie b. Victoria Vickie

c. Walter Wally

As can be seen, although e.g. [fræns], [v_ɪkt] and [w_ɒlt] are possible English syllables, the second consonant in the coda cluster is not preserved. Such clusters are “randomly simplified” (Lappe 2007: 245). This is confirmed by the existence of other name truncations (from Lappe 2007) in which the second consonant is preserved:

a. Frances Francy b. Octavia Octy

c. Walter Walty

Finally, changes may occur in the segmental make-up of the truncated names discussed above. For instance, /e_ɪ/ turns into [_ɪ], /a_ɪ/ into [_ɪ], /_ɑ:/ into [æ]:

a. James Jimmy b. Michael Mickey c. Margaret Maggie

As for consonants, /θ/ is frequently replaced by [t]:

12 See also van Dam (2003: 3).

13 An essentially similar generalization is found in van Dam (2003: 5–6).

(9)

(26) Name Truncated name a. Katherine Katie¹⁴

b. Nathaniel Natty

To sum up, the form of name truncations with the diminutive suffix -ie is always that of a trochaic disyllabic foot. The bare truncatum is monosyllabic and it consists of a heavy syllable which is most frequently, but not always, the maximal syllable extractable from the source name and which conforms to the structural constraints on possible syllables.

3. ROMANIAN

3.1. Truncated first names

According to Graur (1965: 63) and Tomescu (2001: 254), name truncation is not so frequent in Romanian.

There is considerable variation as to the part of the source name which is preserved.

A very frequently attested case¹⁵ is that in which the segmental material is provided by both syllables of disyllabic source names or by the first two syllables of longer source names, with the possible addition of a segment from the onset of the following syllable, as in the third variant in (27a):

a. Alexandru Al / Alec / Alex

b. Emil Emi

c. Grigore Grig d. Iulia Iuli e. Liviu Livi f. Mădălina Mădă g. Nicolae Nic h. Ştefan Ştef i. Teodora Teo j. Viorel Vio

The segmental material can also be taken from the second syllable, if it carries stress, and the following, final one¹⁶:

a. Con'stanţa Tanţa b. Geor'geta Geta

14 In the alternative form Kathie / Kathy /θ/ is preserved.

15 Referred to as “apocope” in the literature on Romanian pet names (Ionescu 1989: 145, Bidu- Vrănceanu 1997: 238, Tomescu 2001: 254).

16 Romanian linguists (e.g. Ionescu 1989: 145, Bidu-Vrănceanu 1997: 238, Tomescu 2001:

254) use the term “apheresis”.

(10)

c. I'rina Rina d. Va'sile Sile

Word-medial syllables – a stressed syllable and the preceding (29a) or following one (29b)–(29d) – can also provide the segmental material¹⁷:

a. ˌAugu'stin Gusti b. Cor'nelia Neli c. E'milia Mili d. Ocˌtavi'an Tavi

Truncated names may also consist of segments which are not adjacent in the source name:

a. Daniela Dana

b. Maria Mia

c. Nicolae Nae

Simplification of onset clusters is attested in some name truncations. In the following examples, the second syllable of the truncated name has a simple onset even though the original syllable in the source name contains a complex one:

a. Alexandru Sandu b. Dumitru Mitu¹⁸

The form of all the first name truncations analyzed in this section is either that of a heavy syllable or that of a disyllabic trochaic foot.

3.2. Reduplicated truncated first names

Romanian truncated first names can also be formed via truncation and subsequent reduplication. There are two patterns, which have not been previously distinguished in the literature¹⁹. One such pattern is illustrated by the following forms:

a. Cornelia Coco

17 Graur (1965: 64) describes this as “the simultaneous deletion of the beginning and of the end”.

18 The alternative form Mitru does not exhibit simplification of the [tr-] cluster.

19 The two patterns are lumped together under various names such as “doubling of a syllable”

by Graur (1965: 64), “syllabic redoubling” by Ionescu (1989: 145) and Tomescu (2001: 254) or

“reduplication” by Vascenco (1995: 40) and Bidu-Vrănceanu (1997: 238).

(11)

b. Dimitrie Didi

c. Lucia Lulu

d. Victoria Vivi

Examples (32a) and (32d) demonstrate that the initial CV sequence of the source name is reduplicated. This CV sequence does not necessarily coincide with the first syllable of the source name, contra Vascenco (1995: 40), who refers to this pattern as “reduplication of the initial syllable”. In the other pattern a sequence made up of a consonant from the source name and the vowel [i] undergoes reduplication:

a. Elena Lili

b. George Gigi

c. Maria Mimi

d. Octavian Vivi

Regardless of the pattern of reduplication, the form of reduplicated first name truncations is that of a disyllabic trochaic foot.

3.3. Truncated first names with diminutive suffixes

According to Tomescu (2001: 254), Romanian pet names are most frequently formed by means of a diminutive suffix, e.g. -aş, -el, -ică / -ica, -iţă / -iţa, -uţ / -uţa²⁰, which is attached either to the source name or a truncated form of the source name:

(34) Name Pet name

a. Andrei Andreiaş b. Constantin Costel / Costică c. Elena Lenuţa

d. George Georgică

e. Ion Ionel /Ionică / Ioniţă / Ionuţ f. Irina Irinel

g. Ştefan Ştefănel / Ştefăniţa / Fănel / Fănică / Făniţă / Fănuş h. Vasile Vasilică

These diminutive suffixes²¹ start with a vowel and consist either of a heavy syllable or of a disyllabic trochaic foot. Some of these pet names undergo further truncation. In such cases, only a consonant in onset position is preserved from the source name:

(35) Pet name Truncated name

a. Costică Tică b. Georgică Gică

20 The second forms of the diminutive suffixes are those for feminine pet names.

21 A list of the most important suffixes used for deriving Romanian diminutive forms of names can be found in Graur (1965: 65–66).

(12)

c. Lenuţa Nuţa d. Ioniţă Niţă e. Irinel Nel f. Vasilică Lică

The form of the truncated name which obtains is either that of a heavy syllable or that of a disyllabic trochaic foot.

Less frequently, some diminutive suffixes can function by themselves as truncated first names (and may correspond to more than one pet name), and no segment from the base survives (Graur 1965: 66; Vasiliu 2001: 589). According to Graur (1965: 66), this applies only to feminine forms of diminutive suffixes, such as -ica, -eta and -uţa (see 36b). In fact, as mentioned by Vasiliu (2001: 589), this is true of some masculine forms as well, e.g. in the case of -ică (36a):

(36) Pet name Truncated name

a. Ionică Ică

b. Lenuţa Uţa

Note that only masculine forms of diminutive suffixes which have the form of a disyllabic trochaic foot – like their feminine counterparts – can function as truncated first names.

Romanian pet names can also be formed by truncation and the subsequent addition of the vowel [-i]:

a. Adrian Adi

b. Ciprian Cipi c. Dumitru Miti

d. Eduard Edi

e. Gabriela Gabi f. Petru Peti g. Tiberiu Tibi h. Valentin Vali

In such forms the second syllable disallows a complex onset even if the source name contains a complex onset, e.g. [dr-] in (37a), [pr-] in (37b), [tr-] in (37c) and (37f), [br-] in (37e). This suggests that the bare truncatum (i.e. the shortened form to which [-i] is added) must be a possible Romanian syllable. While e.g. [ad], [and], [_ʧip] and [gab] are possible Romanian syllables, [adr], [andr], [_ʧipr] and [gabr] and [petr] are not. This analysis appears to be more plausible than the account offered by Graur (1965: 64–65), according to whom

“children’s pronunciation difficulties […] explain the deletion of some sounds: Adi for Adri-”.

The status of [-i] is worth a few remarks. Thus, [-i] is analyzed by Graur (1965: 64) as “a new suffix, -i […], with which diminutives are formed”. Vascenco (1995: 36–37) also states that “after truncation most of [the diminutive hypocoristics] have been augmented by the attachment of the suffix -i”. Similarly, Vasiliu (2001: 589) writes that “some truncated

(13)

names are developed by the attachment of the suffix -i”. On the other hand, [-i] is considered “an ending” and respectively as “the vocalic ending -i” by Zafiu (2001: 246 and 247). Independent evidence shows that [-i] is a suffix. Thus, [-i] occurs in word clippings such as libi from liberare ‘discharge from the army’ or pluti from plutonier ‘warrant officer’ (Zafiu 2001: 246), as well as in truncations of family names²².

To conclude, the form of the truncated first names with diminutive suffixes is generally that of a disyllabic trochaic foot.

3.4. Truncated first names with a final vowel

Pet names can also be formed via truncation of a source name or of a pet name and the addition of the vowel [-u]:

(38) Name / Truncated name

Pet name

a. Aurel Relu

b. Georgel Gelu c. Ionel Nelu

d. Teodor Doru

The truncated name may occasionally exhibit changes on the segmental level, e.g. /h/

→ [_ʃ]:

Mihai Mişu²³

In all these cases, the form of the truncated first name is that of a disyllabic trochaic foot. The bare truncatum is monosyllabic and it consists of a heavy syllable which conforms to the structural constraints on possible syllables.

3.5. Truncated family names

Family names can also undergo truncation, but less frequently than first names.

According to Zafiu (2001: 246), truncation of family names is a relatively recent phenomenon, particularly typical of Romanian journalese. Zafiu (2001: 246) states that “the [family] name has to be somewhat longer, and likely to end in a vowel or to produce a phonetic figure of repetition, of symmetry” in its truncated version, and identifies three patterns in the truncation of family names. Thus, “the prototype of current truncation is represented by the disyllabic shape, with a vocalic ending and containing the same vowel in both syllables” (Zafiu 2001: 246). In support of this claim, Zafiu (2001: 247) lists the examples below:

22 See section 3.5.

23 An alternative, less frequent, base derived from Mihai is Mih-, with no segmental change.

(14)

a. Hrebenciuc Hrebe b. Lăcătuş Lăcă c. Patapievici Pata d. Stolojan Stolo e. Văcăroiu Văcă f. Vătăşescu Vătă

Zafiu (2001: 247) further maintains that in a second pattern “the remaining part of the name does not contain a repeated vowel, but respects the conditions of the disyllabic character and of the vocalic ending (in -u or -o)”, as in the two examples provided:

a. Măgureanu Măgu b. Miloşevici Milo

The third pattern is illustrated by “some less frequent cases” in which “the shortened form is modified by adding the vocalic ending -i, as in hypocoristics of first names” (Zafiu 2001: 247), as in the only such example provided:

Truţulescu Truţi

Several points in Zafiu’s (2001) analysis need to be discussed. Firstly, it is not clear what “a phonetic figure of repetition, of symmetry” means. Assuming this refers to the repetition of the vowel in disyllabic name truncations, this only applies to the examples under (40). However, the repetition of the vowel is merely due to the fact that the source name itself contains the same vowel in its first two syllables.

Secondly, the examples under (40) and (41), which allegedly illustrate two different patterns, exemplify in fact the same type, in which the segmental material is taken from the first two syllables. As in the source name, the vowel in the second syllable may be identical with or different from that in the first syllable. What Zafiu (2001: 247) calls “the vocalic ending (in -u or -o)” is therefore the vowel in the second syllable of the source name. The following additional examples, from my own corpus, show that the first two syllables of the source name provide the segmental material of the truncated name:

a. Arotăriţei Aro b. Băsescu Băse c. Pătrăşcoiu Pătră d. Smărăndescu Smără e. Speriatu Speri f. Teodorovici Teo

Thirdly, the family name does not have to be “somewhat longer”. Thus, even shorter, disyllabic family names may undergo truncation:

(15)

Avram Avra

Fourthly, the -i in (42) is not a “vocalic ending”, but a suffix, as shown in section 3.3.

The occurrence of the pattern of truncation in which the bare truncatum is suffixed with -i is confirmed by other forms in my corpus:

a. Piţurcă Piţi b. Şumudică Şumi

Finally, there is another pattern of truncation, probably the least frequent one, in which the truncatum consists of a single, heavy syllable. This pattern is illustrated by one of the examples which Zafiu (2001: 246) lists without, however, analyzing it:

(46) Name Truncated name Ştefănescu Ştef

Summing up, the truncated forms of family names exemplify a subset of the patterns previously identified in the truncation of first names. Thus, the truncatum may consists of a heavy syllable, a type of truncation discussed in section 3.1. Much more frequently, the form of the truncated name is that of a disyllabic trochaic foot. The disyllabic trochaic foot is built with segmental material from the first two syllables of the source name, a pattern also illustrated in section 3.1. Alternatively, the disyllabic trochaic foot obtains via truncation to a heavy syllable which is suffixed with -i, a pattern analyzed in section 3.3.

Interestingly, the truncation of family names and that of first names exhibits several differences. Thus, in truncated family names the segmental material is invariably taken from the first two syllables of the source name. Also, truncations of family names always consist of segments which are adjacent in the source name. Moreover, some patterns, such as reduplication or the use of the final vowel [-u], discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.4 respectively, do not appear to be attested in truncated family names.

4. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has shown that name truncations in both English and Romanian exhibit systematic structural properties. As stated by Plag (2003:117), this “indicates that the knowledge about the structural properties of these categories should be treated as part of the morphological competence of the speakers”.

Morphologically, English and Romanian truncated names consist either of a bare truncatum or of a truncatum augmented with a diminutive suffix. Unlike in English, Romanian pet names formed with some diminutive suffixes can undergo truncation such that no segment from the base is preserved. In such cases, the diminutive suffix by itself functions as a truncated name.

Name truncation in both languages is a prosodic operation defined over syllables.

The fact that Romanian name truncations too must meet certain prosodic requirements has gone unnoticed in much of the literature (e.g. Graur 1965, Ionescu 1976 and 1989,

(16)

Tomescu 1998 and 2001). Notable exceptions are Vascenco (1995) and Zafiu (2001). Both authors, however, restrict their observations to a particular class of name truncations. Thus, Vascenco (1995: 36) only looks at truncated names of the so-called “common gender”²⁴, noting that most “formations are disyllabic, have stress on the first syllable (being, therefore, of the trochaic type” and that those “with a consonantal ending are, generally, monosyllabic”. On the other hand, Zafiu (2001: 246–247) attempts at providing an analysis of truncated family names exclusively.

English and Romanian name truncations instantiate the well-known role of morphological templates: these are mapping targets, i.e. they are satisfied by mapping segmental material from the base (Katamba 1995: 248). Morphological templates are defined in terms of units of the prosodic hierarchy. The size of English and Romanian truncated names is that of a heavy syllable or of a disyllabic foot²⁵. This is in accordance with the principle of foot binarity (Hayes 1995; McCarthy and Prince 1995 and 1998;

Downing 2006; Kager 2007): feet are binary under moraic and syllabic analysis. Both syllables and feet are primitives of Universal Grammar and are therefore abstract linguistic categories²⁶. However, name truncations in the two languages also demonstrate the so- called “psychological reality” of syllables and feet. As put by Kenstowicz (1994: 9), truncated names are an “example of phonological knowledge”.

In both English and Romanian truncated names includes segmental material from a prominent syllable, either the first or one which carries stress. This is consistent with the findings reported by Lappe (2008), according to whom cross-linguistically “anchoring is surprisingly uniform”, with initial and (main-) stressed syllables as anchoring points²⁷.

Both languages resort to simplification of truncation-medial consonant clusters as a repair strategy whereby the truncatum is adjusted in accordance with the phonotactic constraints on possible syllables. Downing (2006: 142) notes that truncation-medial simplification of consonant clusters “always results in a simplex coda and onset”. However, Downing (2006: 142) also states that “the only allowable coda – onset sequences are the least marked: sonorant – obstruent or s – obstruent”. This claim is disconfirmed by the occurrence of forms such as English Octy (from Octavia) and respectively Romanian Octi (from Octav or Octavia), in which a marked cluster like [kt] survives and therefore yields an obstruent – obstruent coda – onset sequence.

The type of foot is also relevant for the truncation-medial simplification of consonant clusters. In both English and Romanian, this occurs in forms parsed into a trochaic stress foot. The occurrence of truncation-medial simplification of consonant clusters is not surprising since, as noted by Downing (2006: 142), “it is extremely common, cross- linguistically, for consonants and consonant sequences to be reduced in markedness or complexity in Foot-medial position, as this is a weak position”.

In both languages, an additional factor determines the phonological shape of the monosyllabic bare truncatum. Besides being a possible syllable, the truncatum tends to be the maximal syllable extractable from the source name.²⁸

24 Truncations of either feminine or masculine forms of names.

25 For a discussion of the role of the foot in truncation see Alber (2009).

26 Cf. Kenstowicz (1994: 9–10).

27 See also Alber (2009).

28 Cf. Itô and Mester (1997) on German name truncations.

(17)

In both languages truncated names occasionally consists of segments which are not adjacent in the source name.

Changes on the segmental level of truncated names occur in both languages. They are much more frequent and cover a larger range of segments in English than in Romanian.

Consider next the issue of prosodic minimality. Prosodic Morphology has long been interested in the study of name truncations. As put by Katamba (1995: 247), “[t]here are several […] morphological processes, probably the best studied of which are hypocoristics which […] involve truncated, minimal stems”. Booij (2005: 181) writes that “the morphological use of the prosodic category ‘minimal prosodic word’ is also found in the formation of hypocoristics […] through truncation”. In her cross-linguistic survey of truncated names, Lappe (2008) also notes that “most truncations correspond to the minimal prosodic word form predicted in Prosodic Morphology”. Name truncations figure prominently among the pieces of evidence adduced in support of the claim that English has a minimal word constraint (e.g. McCarthy and Prince 1998: 287–288). As summarized by Aronoff and Fudeman (2005: 76), in English “nicknames must consist minimally of a heavy syllable or two light syllables”. This is consistent with the fact that in English, which has quantity-sensitive stress, the stress foot type is a moraic trochee. The two moras can be distributed either in one heavy syllable, i.e. the minimal stress foot, or over two light syllables, i.e. the maximal stress foot. As noted by Downing (2006: 62), this means that English “[name] truncations match the minimality and maximality conditions on the stress Feet of the language”. Again, this is consistent with Lappe’s (2008) findings that cross- linguistically “many truncations correspond to the maximal minimal prosodic word template predicted by […] Prosodic Morphology”.

The case of Romanian truncated names is more interesting. Romanian is listed by Hayes (1995: 88–89) among the languages that do not have minimal word constraints.

Indeed, there is no prosodic minimality restriction imposed on lexical/content words in Romanian. Consider, for instance, the following words consisting of a single, light syllable:

gri ‘gray’, şa ‘saddle’, zi ‘day’. As noted by Downing (2006: 103), “derived words in some languages are subject to different minimality constraints from underived words”. Romanian thus belongs to this type of languages. Further, according to Chitoran (2002: 87), primary stress in Romanian is “insensitive to weight” and “secondary stress is assigned by left to right trochees” which “must be disyllabic”. In other words, in Romanian the stress foot is a quantity-insensitive syllabic trochee. In languages with this type of stress foot the minimal word would be expected to be disyllabic (see e.g. Downing 2006: 49). However, Romanian truncated names have been shown to consist minimally either of a heavy syllable or of two light syllables, a property typical of truncations in languages with quantity-sensitive stress feet, either iambs or moraic trochees.

REFERENCES

Alber, B., 2009, The foot in truncation, http://www.cunyphonologyforum.net/FOOTPAPER.

Aronoff, M and Fudeman, K., 2005, What is Morphology?, Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing.

Avram, Andrei A., 2011, “Trunchierea numelor de persoană în limba română, in: R. Zafiu, C. Uşurelu, H. Bogdan Oprea (eds), Limba română: ipostaze ale variaţiei lingvistice. Actele celui de-al 10-lea Colocviu al Catedrei de limba română (Bucureşti, 3-4 decembrie 2010), I, Gramatică şi fonologie. Lexic, semantică, terminologii. Istoria limbii române, dialectologie şi filologie, Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 11–18.

(18)

Bidu-Vrănceanu, A., 1997, “Hipocoristic”, in: A. Bidu-Vrănceanu, C. Călăraşu, L. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, M. Mancaş, G. Pană Dindelegan, Dicţionar general de ştiinţe. Ştiinţe ale limbii, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică, 238.

Booij, G. E., 2005, The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Chitoran, I., 2002, The Phonology of Romanian: A Constraint-based Approach, Berlin · New York, Mouton de Gruyter.

Coates, R., 2008, “Names”, in: R. Hogg and D. Denison (eds.), A History of the English Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 312–351.

Cosniceanu, M., 2010, Dicţionar de prenume, Chişinău, Ştiinţa.

Crystal, D., 2008, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, sixth edition, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

van Dam, M., 2003, On the phonological structure of /i/-suffixed English nicknames, http://www.

indiana.edu/~iulcwp/pdfs/03-vandam01.pdf.

Downing, L. J., 2006, Canonical Form in Prosodic Morphology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Dressler, W. U., 2000, “Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology”, in: U. Doleschal and A. M.

Thornton (eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Munich, Lincom, 1–10.

Graur, A., 1965, Nume de persoane, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică.

Hanks, P., Hardcastle, K. and Hodges, F. 2006. A Dictionary of First Names, second edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, M., 2002, Understanding Morphology, London, Arnold.

Hayes, B., 1995, Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Ionescu, C., 1976, Mică enciclopedie onomastică, Bucureşti, Editura Enciclopedică.

Ionescu, C., 1989, “Hipocoristice”, in: M. Sala (coord.), Enciclopedia limbilor romanice, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 144–145.

Ionescu, C., 2008, Dicţionar de onomastică, second edition, Bucureşti, Elion.

Itô, J. and Mester, M., 1997, “Sympathy theory and German truncations”, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 117–139.

Joseph, B., 1997, “On the linguistics of marginality: The centrality of the periphery”, Chicago Linguistic Society, 33, 197–213.

Kager, P., 2007, “Feet and metrical stress”, in: P. de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 195–227.

Katamba, F., 1995, “Skeleta and the prosodic circumscription of morphological domains”, in:

J. Durand, F. Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of Phonology. Atoms, Structures, Derivations, London and New York, Longman, 222–263.

Kenstowicz, M., 1994, Phonology in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA, Blackwell.

Lappe, S., 2003, “Monosyllabicity in prosodic morphology: The case of truncated personal names in English”, in: G. E. Booij, J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002, Dordrecht, Foris, 35–86.

Lappe, S., 2007, English Prosodic Morphology, Dordrecht, Springer.

Lappe, S., 2008, Truncation and exponence – How small can you get?, http://www.uni-leipzig.de/

~exponet/Slides/January08/Lappe.pdf.

Macleod, I. and Freedman, T., 1995, The Wordsworth Dictionary of First Names, Ware, Wordsworth Editions Ltd.

McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. S., 1995, “Prosodic morphology”, in: J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, 318–366.

McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. S., 1998, “Prosodic morphology”, in: A. Spencer and A. Zwicky (eds.), A Handbook of Morphology, Oxford, Blackwell, 283–305.

Plag, I., 2003, Word-formation in English, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

(19)

Ronneberger-Sibold, E., 2010, “Word creation. Definition – function – typology”, in: F. Rainer, W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, H. C. Luschützky (eds.), Variation and Change in Morphology:

Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 201–216.

Tomescu, D., 1998, Gramatica numelor proprii în limba română, București, All Educational.

Tomescu, D., 2001, “Hipocoristice”, in: M. Sala (coord.), Enciclopedia limbii române, București, Univers Enciclopedic, 254.

Vascenco, V., 1995, “Asupra genului comun în româna modernă”, in: Studii de antroponimie, București, Editura Academiei Române, 35–47.

Vasiliu, L., 2001, “Trunchiere (scurtare)”, in: M. Sala (coord.), Enciclopedia limbii române, București, Univers Enciclopedic, 589–590.

Zafiu, R., 2001, Diversitate stilistică în româna actuală, București, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.

Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. K., 1987, “Plain morphology and expressive morphology”, Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 339–342.