Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Pavla Zelinková

“And Quiet Flows the Don” in English:

Distribution of Diminutive Forms
Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek

2009

1
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature

2
 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor for his patience, his precious advice and also his support
and encouragement in the course of writing of this thesis

3
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5
2. Aim of the thesis ........................................................................................................ 6
3. Material for analysis .................................................................................................. 8
3.1 “And Quiet Flows the Don” .................................................................................... 9
Brief history of the Don Cossacks and notes on the English translation ...................... 9
4. Diminutives .............................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Comparison between Slavonic languages and English .................................... 19
4.2 English diminutive forms and suffixes ............................................................. 21
4.3 Russian diminutive suffixes ............................................................................. 27
4.4 Czech diminutive suffixes ................................................................................ 31
5. Excerpts from the texts ............................................................................................ 35
5.2 Diminutive forms expressing attitudes of speakers .............................................. 45
5.3 Christian names and their forms ........................................................................... 50
5.4 Diminutive forms without the attributes of diminutivity ...................................... 55
5.5 Songs and folklore................................................................................................. 59
6. Quantitative view ..................................................................................................... 63
6.1 Distribution of diminutive suffixes in the English translation ......................... 66
6.2 Distribution of adjectival modifiers in the English translation ........................ 66
6.3 Distribution of base form equivalents in the English translation ..................... 67
6.4 Distribution of Christian name forms ............................................................... 67
6.5 Another word – different from the original .......................................................... 68
7. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 69
Works cited ..................................................................................................................... 72
Excerpted literature ......................................................................................................... 75

4
 ….One must translate that what cultural organism, in which it is being translated, needs. To
translate is not the right word, to transplant is more suitable…. To translate means to take the
whole tissue with the roots from one cultural organism and carefully plant it in the other
organism. A good translator ought to rape the author…. help that poor soul actually.
(Levý, 1996, 189)

1. Introduction
Russian classical literature is a world phenomenon and therefore it is

only natural that many novels and other pieces of writing have been translated

into other languages. English and Czech is not an exception. Majority of

Russian world-famous writers’ and playwrights’ masterpieces can be found and

read in English translations. One can find not only novels by Dostoyevski,

Tolstoy and other writers of the most famous period of Russian literature; the

period called the Golden Age of Russian literature which dates back to the 19th

century. Many books written in the 20th century have been translated as well,

even though one can find not a little reference to communist ideology, socialistic

world views and more or less apparent propaganda of Socialist Realism. Those

books are still translated for art can never be directed to mere propaganda

(Buck, 1942, 246). One of those writers is definitely Mikhail Sholokhov who has

been of concern to not only literary scholars but to translators as well;

Sholokhov is a representative of Russian Socialist Realism and a representative

of Russian literature orientation in the first half of the last century.

It is natural to find many Russian novels and other pieces of writing in

Czech translations; this is also due to the similar social and historical context of

both countries in the previous regime and emphasis on the superiority of Soviet

cultural perceptiveness. Nevertheless, English readership is fascinated by

Russian writers as well and majority of their works are available to the English

speaking and English reading audience.

5
 2. Aim of the thesis
I would like to focus on the comparison of the differences between

Russian original work and translation into a similar language system in terms of

word-formation – especially formation of diminutive forms –, i .e. another

Slavonic language, and translation into a different language system, i.e. West

Germanic language. It is, of course, impossible to touch upon all aspects and

nuances in this thesis, therefore I have decided to highlight the shift in the

means of expressions to achieve at least similar, if not the same effect as the

original work. What I have in mind is the vast amount of diminutives typical of

Slavonic languages, and Russian language especially. Diminutives are very

frequent in Sholokhov’s books as well, not only as the inherent and inseparable

part of the folklore, but also in direct speech of the Cossack people.

There has been a large amount of materials gathered and scholarly

studies written on the diminutiveness in Slavonic languages and only a few in

Germanic languages, especially English where nominal diminutiveness seems

to be rather marginal in comparison with Slavonic languages and the theoretical

background is scarce. My aim is to use the materials dealing with diminutives

on a general, theoretical basis and apply this to see the different approaches in

language systems in question.

In my thesis I would like to focus on diminutives, their production and

function in the language systems mentioned above, with particular focus on

distribution of diminutives in English and Russian version of one of the

M. Sholokhov’s masterpieces. Also, because I am well aware of the fact that in

English diminutive forms are rather rare compared to Slavonic languages,

I would like to show how sensitive the translator had to be when he was dealing

6
with the notions and aspects conveyed by diminutives while translating the

novel and what different tools and vehicles of expression might be employed to

convey the notions of diminutiveness.

In this thesis I will study how the English and Czech translators were

dealing with the phenomenon of diminutive forms; whether it was possible to

provide a similar diminutive, or compensate for it using other tools etc. In the

final part of the thesis I will attempt to show the distribution of diminutives and

diminutive features. The limitations of this work are obvious; as I have chosen to

compare one book by one author and the translation of this book there is not

enough heterogeneous data available to draw a general conclusion about the

tendencies in translating diminutive forms. Nevertheless, some of the general

tendencies might be indicated in a detailed scrutiny of this limited sample.

Before I start focusing on diminutives as such and their formal aspects,

let’s have a brief look at the novel itself and its English translation

7
 3. Material for analysis
The main sources for comparison are Russian original and its English

translation by Stephen Garry and Robert Daglish. Nevertheless, I would like to

touch upon one of the Czech translations by Vlastimil Borek as well. I do not

want to use the Czech translation of the book as an equivalent material for

making comparison with the English translation; Czech language should be

back-grounded in my thesis. Nevertheless, looking at the English translation

through the prism of other two languages that are quite similar in this particular

respect might offer an interesting insight into the area of diminutiveness as

such. My aim is to put the English translation into the centre and compare it with

the original language of the book; the Czech translation should be more or less

a supportive tool to show the differences and different strategies in translation

practice of this particular book.

Doing this, we shall keep in mind that we are dealing here with one

author and one translator, or more precisely one translation and its revision, into

English and Czech, which means there is not space and arguments enough for

broader generalizations of any kind regarding the use of diminutives as such in

other literary writings or utterances. However, even this limited area may

indicate some interesting features prevailing in the respective languages and

the way they are employed in that particular book and its translation. .

8
3.1 “And Quiet Flows the Don”

Brief history of the Don Cossacks and notes on the English

translation

The book is sometimes being compared to the works of Leo Tolstoy

because of its image of Russian life and revolution through romantic, military,

and political prism in its breadth. It belongs to the genre of novels which are

¨likened to wide rivers with all their motion and turbulences but also their

calmness and unstableness. It is a rather controversial work, not only from the

point of view of a modern reader and his perception of ideology displayed in

some parts and characters of the novel, but also the fact that the author was

accused of plagiarism. In 1974 an anymous person (it is believed that this

person was A. Solzhenitsyn) casted doubt upon the authorship of the novel.

The same doubt had been expressed before, in the end of 1920s. The

authorship was ascribed to Fyodor Kryukov, a Cossack writer and soldier in the

White Army, who was hiding in the village where Sholokhov had been born.

Later a team of scholars from Norway and Sweden headed by Geir Kjetsaa

conducted a research based on the authorial characteristics such as the length

of sentences and lexical spectrum; the research was conducted with the

assistance of a computer software programme and even though the authorial

characteristics of both writers were close in some respects the authorship of

Kryukov was not ascertained. Sholokhov is universally recognized as the author

of the novel nevertheless some doubt still remains as the research did not prove

beyond the doubt he was the undisputable author (Pospíšil, 2001, 568).

Mikhail Sholokhov’s “And Quiet Flows the Don” is one of the hard nuts to

crack for translators because of the setting of the novel and a specific

9
atmosphere connected with the setting. All the events are described form the

point of view of the Don Cossacks; a very special and in a manner of speaking

privileged group in tsarist Russia. Let us mention some of the crucial stages and

events from their history, as, in my opinion this can contribute to better

understanding of the atmosphere of the novel and the importance of Cossack

speech and their folklore in the book.

For many centuries in the past, many years before the events described

in the novel, the Cossacks “had been one of the most rebellious of peoples

living in Russia, whose leaders, such as Bolotnikov, Razin, Bulavin and

Pugachev, organized revolts against Tsarism and feudal oppression”

(Kohoutova, 6). The history of the Cossack people dates back to the Middle

Ages and the names mentioned above are still well-known for every Russian

even nowadays. The name itself – the Cossack – is derived from Turkish and it

means “free person” (someone who is not attached to the land) or “a daring

fellow” (Kohoutova, 1951, 6). By the 14th century the Cossacks were mentioned

as a group which did military service along the borders. Many of them were

serfs fleeing from their owners, fugitives trying to escape prosecution or

adventurous people, who wanted to start a new life. Two hundred years later an

inflow of people, predominantly Russian serfs to the area was enormous. They

fought Tatars and Turks, which helped significantly to thwart their plans to take

control over those areas. Later they were granted freedom from serfdom and

obtained land for lifetime use in return for performing border duty. The

independence from Moscow and its government, personal freedom and also the

absence of the feudal bonds brought a unique type of organization of Cossack

social structures, i.e. the election of a leader, an ataman. Less dependence and

10
a singular lifestyle also contributed to specific culture, up to the present time

preserved in songs and legends. These Cossacks and their freedom-loving life

was M. Sholokhov’s own lifestyle. He was the native, born and brought up in

one of the Cossack villages, or stanitsas, he himself was “the participator in the

actions he so movingly pictures in writing with a pen dipped in his own blood”

(Buck, 248). Therefore he understood the Cossack folklore and its poetics, and

it is also the reason why Cossack songs are of great importance to the

atmosphere and poetics of the whole novel.

The insight to the cultural background of the writer and his autobiography

and also the history of the Don Cossack might be an approach called into

question for not all literary scholars agree with the importance of the life of an

author on his or her writings, but it might be necessary to understand the

importance of folklore and specific language of the community, nevertheless

this issue is naturally of more importance to the Russian readership than it is to

the English readers. The different level of importance was perhaps also one of

the reasons why Stephen Garry, who was the first to translate the book into

English, decided to omit certain passages in the novel such as songs and

culturally specific customs and description of customs as has been mentioned

above. For the whole Cossack society even without those passages necessarily

must have been and still is extraordinary and in a sense exotic for English

audience lacking any detailed knowledge of particularities of the group in

question; on the other hand for Russian readership Don Cossacks are very real,

specific and particular. Garry for example rephrases the text, starting with words

such as….”and they started to sing one of the traditional songs” without

11
translating the text of the song or without giving any other details about its

content.

One of the most impressive works by Mikhail Sholokhov, “And Quiet

Flows The Don”, was translated by Stephen Garry into English in 1934 and

revised in 1940 as “The Don Flows Home to the Sea”, published in New York in

1941, shortly after its first publication in the Soviet Union. But it is claimed that

the first translation was considered to be rather artless and incomplete, perhaps

due to the translator being hasty or inexperienced (Kohoutova, 1951, 222),

nevertheless it has never been completely rejected and has been appreciated

as a prompt attempt to react to the publication of the original version in Russia.

This may be a possible reason for not undertaking a new attempt to translate

the novel, but in the 1960s a revision of this first and insufficient version

appeared, done by Robert Daglish under the title of “And Quiet Flows the Don”,

published in 1984 in Moscow. We can not really speak of a new translation of

the book, it is rather a retranslation, or a revision of the text which had been

translated by Garry and the new text is based on the previous one. The

continuity of the story is preserved, nevertheless, several parts, such as

descriptions not essential for the story, or lyrics of songs were omitted and the

passages were cut. Daglish translation has other disturbing elements. There is

no copyright acknowledgment of Daglish or his Moscow publisher, Raduga,

which has a copyright line in its own edition. There is also no acknowledgment

that Daglish's translation was his second revision of a much earlier and shorter

version by ''Stephen Garry'' (pen name of Harry C. Stephens). Garry's two

volumes, incidentally, published as ''And Quiet Flows the Don'' and ''The Don

Flows Home to the Sea,'' are still advertised by their American publisher as

12
''complete and unabridged,'' despite lacking about 25 percent of the original text

(Scammel). Daglish's second effort, which adopts Garry's florid version of the

title, ''Quiet Flows the Don,'' is much better than his pre-1984 version. The

syntax is freer and more idiomatic, the diction more modern, the descriptions

more vivid. Its main drawback is its dialogue, which remains stilted and

implausible (Scammel).

Though nowadays the book itself may be stigmatized a little from the

point of view of making heroes of bolshevik characters, it seems to be still

popular among the English readership and Daglish adaptation is still being

published. The first English translation appeared in 1933 and comprises

volumes I and II of the Russian version. Volumes III and IV appeared in the

USA eight years later, in 1941, as “The Don Flows Home to the Sea”. Several

years later in the post war period, all four volumes were published under the title

“The Quiet Don” which is the closest translation of the original title (Kohoutova,

1951, 221-222). Philo M. Buck, Jr. in his “Directions in Contemporary Literature”

quotes extensive passages from Garry’s translation and other literary scholars

refer to it as well when referring to the period of Socialist Realism in Russian, or

more precisely in Soviet, literature.

13
 4. Diminutives
Firstly, I would like to quote several definitions of diminutives as given by

different authors:

According to V. V. Vinogradov, one of the most prominent Russian

grammarians, diminutives in standard Russian are suffixal derivations which

convey notions of smallness, and/ or expressivity which might trigger either

positive or negative connotations (Vinogradov, 1976, 266). Zemskaya

demonstrates that in spoken Russian diminutives are particularly abundant, and

generally in both standard and colloquial Russian they very often represent a

combination of different functions at a time, i.e. combination of smallness, and

either a positive or negative evaluation (Земская, 1981, 112).

Let’s quote Dokulil for Czech. He claims that diminutive suffixes carry the

notion of smallness, possibly also assessment. While quantitative aspect is

rather neutral (notion of something smaller that the usual size), qualitative

aspect is shaded by emotiveness where, for the sake of intensity we can repeat

the process of diminutive formation (les – lesík – lesíček); and quite often we

will find examples of both qualitative and quantitative features at a time.

Emotiveness can be either positive or negative in meaning, but it has been

claimed that positive connotations are more frequent in Czech (Dokulil, 1962,

47; Karlík, 1995, 125).

I can quote a lot more examples concerning Slavonic languages, but as

we can see in both Russian and Czech the definitions are consistent with one

another, mentioning more or less the same aspects and features of diminutivity.

In English where diminutive suffixes are far less frequent the definitions

may vary slightly, emphasizing usually the aspects of diminutives which are the

14
most important to the author. Thus Hartmann and Stork provide their definition

where they highlight the aspect of smallness and endearment: diminutive is a

form of a word, usually made by the addition of a SUFFIX with the meaning

‘little’ or ‘small’, e.g. cigarette < cigar, rivulet < river, kitchenette < kitchen. This

reference to size is often transferred to a term of endearment, e.g. English

pussikins or German Schätzen ‘sweetheart’ (Hartmann, Stork, 1972, 67). The

occasional pejorative connotation is not mentioned, while in another reference

by Frank Gaynor we read that diminutive is a word derived from another word

by the addition of a diminutive suffix conveying the notion of smallness or

daintiness, occasionally also a pejorative meaning (Gaynor, 1954, 57).

In different languages there are great differences between formation and

use of diminutives. In Slavonic languages, i.e. in Czech, Russian etc. there

exists considerable amount of diminutives in comparison to English which might

be a proof of a different typological categorization of the languages. Synthetic

Russian and Czech have more ways to form such expressions than analytic

English.

Diminutives belong to the group of expressives. J. Zima recognizes three

different types of expressivity in substantive diminutives:

• Inherent expressivity means, that expressivity is an inseparable

part of the meaning of a word; in other words we do not need

context to understand its expressivity;

• Adherent expressivity means, that words themselves do not

contain in their meanings signs of expressivity, but they can obtain

those signs;

15
 • Contextual expressivity is a matter of stylistics and occurs due to

interferences of different stylistic layers.

According to Zima diminutives belong to the group of words with inherent

expressivity (Zima, 1961, 25).

In his classification Šmilauer distinguishes between diminutives in the

broad sense of the word (which are expressive) and diminutives in the narrow

sense of the word (indicating smallness only) (Šmilauer, 1972, 80-82).

Inherent expressivity is rather rare, so that a broader context is needed to

assess the meaning of diminutives and amount of their expressivity. Therefore

I will quote larger parts of the texts in my thesis, to eliminate ambiguous

interpretation of those meanings.

Diminutives can contain different morphological, semantic and stylistic

features, and shall always be analyzed with regard to the relationship between

the base word and diminutives derived from the base word. We have to

carefully analyze semantic relationship between a base word and its diminutive:

Quantitative relationship expresses smaller or lesser amount of a quality,

size or dimension;

Qualitative relationship focus on the emotional evaluation, what matters

is the speaker’s personal attitude to the reality. This attitude can be inclined

either to positive or negative;

Quantitative-qualitative relationship is the combination of previous types,

when a diminutive may express either smaller or lesser amount of quality or

dimension, a speaker’s attitude to it, and a certain degree of intimacy.

Quantitative-qualitative aspect present at a time is rather frequent in Slavonic

languages (Земская, 1981, 112-114).

16
 Let me demonstrate one example of this quantitative-qualitative

relationship ambiguity: diminutive nominal forms with similar associations or

connotations are classified differently in Russian dictionaries; вечерок

‘diminutive evening’ (вечер –вечерок: quantitative relationship only) – денек

‘diminutive day’ (день – денек: quantitave-qualitative relationship) (Ожегов,

1987).

Because of this rather vague dividing line in the semantic relationship it is

very difficult to classify some of the expressions into the individual categories.

A broader context of the story will be taken into consideration when such an

ambiguity arises.

A word does not only evoke the image of its signified, it is very often

attended by emotional context of some kind. Emotional contexts may vary in

intensity, origin, or kind. Sometimes the meaning of a word is more important

than its emotional context, occasionally the meaning is back grounded and the

emotional context is so strong that in fact the original meaning of the word might

even be changed. In this respect our memories, disposition and humour is

important, as well as national cultures and traditions. In comparison to the

disposition and mood which would be difficult to measure, the latter is significant

for a rather large group of people and can be a part of common knowledge for

people with common background. The national, social and period emotional

contexts of many words are incomprehensible for a reader who does not share

this common knowledge. This is also one of the reasons why many books lose

their original charm in translations. Emotional context is characteristic of words

in general, but it is especially distinct in words with diminutive suffixes (Bečka,

1948, 39-44).

17
 The numbers of diminutive suffixes are fixed in languages and in

Slavonic languages there is a close relation of form to gender. Though there is

only a limited number of suffixes in each language the process of forming

diminutives with these suffixes has not been finished yet and there is always at

least a possibility of new diminutives being formed (Petr, 1986, 300).

18
 4.1 Comparison between Slavonic languages and English

In Czech and Russian languages there is a tendency to form diminutives

using derivational suffixes (dům – domek – domeček, дом – домик). In English

adjectival modification is preferred using such expressions as little, small, tiny,

or expressive wee (little tree, small tree). Little is capable of expressing both

positive emotional attitude and irony or sarcasm and disdain (So that’s your little

plan). Several words in English formed by the means of using suffixes can be

found, but such a word formation is not considered to be productive anymore in

modern English. In English references diminutives are often briefly defined as “a

word derived from another word by the addition of a diminutive suffix” (Gaynor,

1954, 57) and as “a form of a word, usually made by the addition of a suffix with

the meaning ‘little’ or ‘small’” (Hartmann, Stork, 1972, 67). Another definition,

says that diminutives are words, names, or suffixes that “indicate smallness,

youth, familiarity, affection, or contempt. Booklet, lambkin, and nymphet are

diminutives. The suffixes -et, -let, and -kin are then diminutive suffixes.” (The

American Heritage)

Negative or pejorative meaning of diminutives can be found both in

Slavonic languages and English as well. Pejorative use can be connected with

the subjective feeling of smallness as something inferior (English girlie, darkey;

Czech chlapeček, Russian дядька etc).

In English there are fewer cases of so called melioratives (melioratives

do not express smallness but rather positive attitude of the speaker; such as

Czech tatínek, sluníčko etc., or Russian батюшка, солнышко etc.).

Melioratives are very difficult to translate; some of them are untranslatable at all.

19
 Taking everything into consideration I dare say that there are less

suffixes in English to express diminutive features than in Slavonic languages.

Also many English suffixes are not productive anymore. I will dedicate separate

chapter on diminutive formation and use in English and both Slavonic

languages to highlight this difference. In the latter part of the thesis we shall

compare the different strategies based on the actual examples and excerpts

from the book in question and its translations.

Another typical feature of Slavonic languages is their ability to use

diminutive forms with all nouns, i.e. not only proper nouns can be diminuted.

Both in Russian and Czech there is a rather wide range of suffixes we add to

adjectives to convey the increased degree or intensity of the quality. The list of

the most common suffixes is to be found in the respective part of the thesis

dealing with the individual languages.

20
 4.2 English diminutive forms and suffixes

R. Quirk and S. Greenbaum classify suffixes according to parts of speech

they affiliate with and parts of speech they help to form.

We can recognize suffixes which help us to coin new substantives

accordingly:

• Occupational suffixes (-ster, -eer, -er)

• Diminutive or feminine suffixes (-let ‘small’, ‘unimportant’; -ette, -

ess, -y/-ie, -ling ‘minor’, offspring’)

• Status or domain suffixes (-hood, -ship, -dom, -(e)ry)

(Quirk, Greenbaum, 1985, 1548 – 1549).

For the purpose of this thesis I shall focus on diminutive suffixes in

greater detail. In comparison with Russian and Czech languages it is less

typical of or less frequent in English to use suffixal means to form diminutive

expressions. I hope I will prove clearly this statement later in my thesis when

dealing with the original text of the novel and its translations.

Here is the list of the most frequent English diminutive endings:

- ee/ -ies: this ending falls into the domain of the language of

children (bootie – booties)

- ette: we can use this suffix to express either a small object

(kitchenette, statuette, novelette) or a substitute (an imitation:

leather → leatherette), and also several feminine occupations

and interests (usherette, drum majorette, suffragette).

Historically -ette is derived from a French diminutive ending and

we can find it in many French borrowings, such as banquet,

lorgnette etc. Because this particular suffix is capable

21
 of expressing feminine occupations and thus refer explicitly to

gender, it might be considered sexist. (The American Heritage).

Substantival suffix -ette is etymologically identical with -et which

was used in English as a formative with a diminutive sense from

the 16th century. “After 1800 a great many words in -ette have

been coined on English soil, e.g. with a diminutive sense”

(balconette, blousette, kitchenette, waggonette) (Jespersen,

1974, 443-444).

- ie/ -y: one of the most productive suffix in English. We can use

it to coin words which show tenderness and affectionateness

(daddy, mommy, puppy, piggy, hubby etc.). This suffix is very

often used to form so-called hypocoristics (lesser forms of given

names that are used in informal and intimate situations as

nicknames, pet names, or terms of endearment) and it is added

either to a full form or shortened forms; most often the suffix is

added to the names of children, although it is not uncommon to

add the suffix to the name of an adult when he or she is being

referred to by friends or family (Anne – Annie, Arthur – Artie,

John – Johnny, Jim – Jimmy, James – Jamie). Terms of

endearment with -ie/ -y are not only derived from given names

but may also be derived from either concrete or abstract names

with positive associations (cutie, sweetie, bunny). Jespersen

ascribes its origin to the fact that "the vowel [i], especially in its

narrow or thin variety, is particularly appropriate to express what

is small, weak, insignificant, or, on the other hand, refined or

22
 dainty" (Jespersen, 1922, 402). The same vowel is found in the

two following diminutive suffixes (-kin, -ling). Therefore,

according to Jespersen, the same vowel is found in other

expressions, such as adjectives (little, tiny, wee), nouns (child –

formerly with [i] sound, kid, bit). What is interesting is the fact,

that all of these words are in fact indication of smallness,

shortness or endearment (Jespersen, 1922, 402).

- kin: is a suffix considered to be no longer productive in English

and one can still find this ending in expressions such as catkin,

mannikin, napkin (French nappe ‘tablecloth’), lambkin etc.

Historically it can be cognate to German suffix -chen and

Flemish and Dutch -kijn, -ken. It was first recorded in English as

a part of personal pet names about 1300 (Janekin, Watekin)

and we can add the suffix virtually to any noun to form a

diminutive (Jespersen, 1974, 462-463). “Formation of common

nouns appeared in XIV, but they are not frequent till XVI

(boykin, ladykin), some are plain adoptions from Dutch

(mannikin), others are of obscure origin (bumpkin, jerkin)”, suffix

-kins is a variation of -kin (Onions, 1966).

- ling: this suffix is used to form nouns from adjectives and

adverbs (darling, underling); in comparison with the previously

mentioned suffixes -ling is in some contexts rather expressive

with the tinge of disdain and disesteem (underling); however,

the pejorative meaning is not necessarily always present and

the connotations of this particular suffix might be thoroughly

23
 positive (darling). The diminutive aspect probably originated

from Old English, where the expressions with this particular

suffix were used to describe the young of animals and young

plants (sapling, seedling, youngling, gosling, duckling). This

suffix is rarely used with words for things (bookling, eyeling,

hireling) (Jespersen, 1974, 424).

- let: is quantitative only without any tinge of epressivity (droplet,

booklet etc). It is also used to refer to animal young ones

(piglet). Jespersen states that the earliest words with -let are

French adoptions (hamlet, crosslet, gauntlet) and the suffix

originates from -ette added to French words where it often had a

diminutive sense which became the usual meaning in English.

Another “factor of importance for the development may have

been the existence of lyte, the obsolete form of little with the i

characteristic of diminutives and other words denoting

something small” (Jespersen, 1974, 421-422). By the end of the

18th century the suffix was frequently used to form anatomical,

zoological, and botanical terminology (leaflet, rootlet, bonelet).

- ock: this suffix is not much productive in modern English;

it originates from the Old English suffix -uc. “It was originally

a diminutive ending, as still in bittock (dial.) ‘little bit’ and hillock,

but in other words this sense has been lost, e.g. in bullock,

buttock, and mullock.” (Jespersen, 1974, 463).

24
- ule: we can use -ule to coin nonexpressive terms; it is purely

quantitave (globule, cellule etc.); it originates from Latin ending

-ulus, -ula, -ulum.

There exist still some more English diminutive suffixes which are

rather rare, such as -erel (cockerel, doggerel, gangrel), or -een (suffix

forming Irish diminutive nouns such as boneen, colleen). Those are not

very frequent though and tend to appear more in dialects.

Diminutives are very often perceived and understood as a part of a

nursery language, i.e. the language of mothers and nurses when those

are talking to a child. As a result many words have lost their force as

diminutives and have become part of ordinary speech. This tendency

which is described in other languages too, is seen in the English bird

(originally = ‘young bird’) and rabbit (‘originally = ‘young rabbit’), which

have displaced fowl and coney, though in these examples there are no

formal means of a diminutive ending; there is only a diminutive meaning

(Jespersen, 1922, 180). Some diminutive nouns are not derived from

base words with the additional diminutive suffix but there is a new

different form with a diminutive meaning (rabbit – bunny).

There is a wide range of diminutive suffixes in English, but many of

them were taken from other languages in the course of historical

development of English. Majority of those suffixes is not productive

anymore and no new diminutives with those formants seem to be coined

in modern English.

25
Nominal forms with suffixes are not the only vehicles of expressing

diminutivenes. In Roget’s Thesaurus (1947) entries for adjectives expressing

‘smallness’ and ‘littleness’ is size and degree can be found: little, small, tiny,

minute, diminutive, microscopic, inconsiderable, exiguous, puny, wee, petty,

manikin, miniature, pigmy, elfin, under sized, dwarf, Lilliputian, squat, atomic,

molecular, petite, pocket-size etc. (Roget, 1947, 66) We have to be aware

though that these individual adjectives have also their own particular meanings.

26
4.3 Russian diminutive suffixes

Standard Russian as well as Czech uses diminutive suffixes to

express subjective and attitudinal opinions, evaluations, and attitudes of

speakers towards the things that are being referred to. Because in

Russian one can distinguish three different grammatical genders,

derivative words usually (i.e. words with diminutive suffixes attached)

belong to the same grammatical gender as the base word. Each

deviation from this rule is seen, in accordance with V.V. Vinogradov

(Виноградов, 1975, 266), as exception to the rule and is common only in

dialects, thus they are not a part of a standard language. Pointing out the

fact does not mean that diminutive forms that are colloquial and dialectal

will not appear in this paper. In dorect speeches of the Don Cossacks

such forms are rather frequent and I will treat them accordingly their

quantitaive-qualitative relationship rather than the level of formality.

In the second edition of his grammar book Vinogradov speaks about

the way diminutive formants are attached to the substantive base:

In the beginning there is a word without any suffix and no diminutive

features;

Then a diminutive suffix is attached to this base word (first grade);

It is possible to attach another diminutive suffix to the first grade

derivation (second grade); diminutive substantives of the second grade

usually do not express the size, but are rather used to convey strong

emotional attitudes and sentiments, both positive (endearment) and

negative (scorn) ones. (Виноградов, 1972, 99)

27
 List of most common Russian diminutive suffixes and forms:

-ик: дом ‘house’– домик ‘little house’, мяч ‘ball’– мячик ‘little ball’

-чик: карман ‘pocket’– карманчик, барабан ‘drum’– барабанчик

-ец: брат ‘brother’– братец

-ц(е)/ -ец(о)/ -иц(е): окно ‘window’– оконце, корыто ‘manger, gutter’

– корытце, письмо ‘letter’– письмецо, платье ’dress’ – платице

-иц(а): вода ‘water’– водица, вещь ‘thing’– вещица

-ок: друг ‘friend’– дружок, брат ‘brother’– браток

-к(о): пиво ‘beer’– пивко, яйцо ‘egg’– яичко

-к(а): рука ‘hand’– ручка, нога ‘leg’– ножка, голова ‘head’– головка

-еньк(а): нога ‘leg’– ноженька, рука ‘hand’– рученка,

Катя ‘Kate’– Катенька

-ищ(е) –ищ(а): дом ‘house’– домище, борода – бородища

-ищ(е) –ищ(а): дом ‘house’– домище, борода – бородища

-ин(а): дом ‘house’– домина, котлета котлетина

-ишк(а) –ишк(о): дом ‘house’– домишка, письмо ‘letter’– письмишко,

дело ‘matter’– делишко

-ошк(а): рыба ‘fish’– рыбошка, комната ‘room’– комнатошка

-ышк(о): перо ‘feather’– перышко, крыло ‘wing’– крылишко

-онк(а): рука ‘hand’– ручонка, борода ‘chin, beard’– бородонка

-еницj(a): книга ‘book’– книжениця.

(Земская, 1973, 247).

28
 According to what Zemskaya claims in one of her studies,

diminutive formants are very frequent in spoken Russian and the use

of a diminutive formant can convey more than one varied attributes and

meanings. Zemskaya especially emphasizes the interconnection of many

varied functions and gives an example where the speaker asks for

an object: The speaker exploits different denotations; the diminutive form

of the substantive expresses smallness of the size of the desired object,

as well as highlights the insignificance of the request as such, and last

but not least, it shows the relationship of partners involved in

conversation. Thus, in spoken Russian it is a connection of expressive

statement as well as expression of the size and evaluation (Земская,

1982, 112). Because spoken colloquial language is one of the stylistic

layers where diminutives can play an important role, in this thesis I will

focus on diminutive forms used in dialogues very often.

In Russian it is possible to form diminutive nominals of both the

first and second grades: сахар ‘sugar’– сахарок (first grade)

– сахарочек (second grade). In Russian in comparison to both English

and Czech many nominal diminutives derived from abstract base words

can be found: сила ‘strength’– силушка, доля ‘fate, destiny’– долюшка,

мочь ‘will’– моченька.

In Slavonic languages not only nouns but also adjectives and adverbs

can have diminutive forms with suffix -ень-; thus in Russian there are

adjectives such as молодой ‘young’ and its diminutive form

молоденький, острый ‘sharp’– остренький, зеленый

29
‘green‘– зелененький, косоглазый ‘slant-eyed’– косоглазенький,

быстро ‘fast’– быстренько etc. (Земская, 1981, 114).

30
4.4 Czech diminutive suffixes

Diminutives in Czech are defined as desubstantival derivations,

where the formant is the indicator of smallness and/ or functional aspect

of evaluating and assessment which tends to be rather positive

in majority of the uses (Karlík, 1995, 125). In comparison to English

in Czech we classify diminutives according to their voice or gender. Thus

we recognize masculine, feminine and neuter suffixes accordingly.

Exceptions from this rule are very rare (Czech neuter květ ‘flower,

blossom’ – kvítko). The final choice of suffix is dependant also on the

degree of either smallness or affection.

One important difference between Slavonic languages and English

is the possibility to strengthen the effect of diminutives by adding

secondary suffixes. Some derivatives also do not have the meaning of

smallness and their function is to specify (Czech ručička – hour/ minute

hand etc., párek – sausage).

Here is the brief outline of Czech diminutive suffixes:

• Masculine suffix –ek (hřib ‘mushroom‘ – hříbek, tác ‘tray’

– tácek, hák ‘hook, crook’ – háček, palec ‘thumb’ – paleček,

samec ‘male (animal)’ – sameček, rohlík ‘roll’ – rohlíček,

papír ‘paper’ – papírek, vous ‘whisker, hair’‘– vousek, prach

‘dust, powder’ – prášek, chlév ‘cowshed’ – chlívek etc.;

alternation of k:č, c:č,ch:ž, and h:ž is frequent);

31
 • Masculine suffix –ík (park ‘park’ – parčík, pes ‘dog’ – psík,

koš ‘basket’ – košík, kůl ‘post’ – kolík, chlap ‘guy’ – chlapík,

vůz ‘wagon, vehicle’ – vozík etc.);

• Feminine suffix –ka (bába ‘old woman, beldame’ – babka,

klec ‘cage’ – klícka, ulice ‘street’ - ulička, ruka ‘hand’

– ručka, bouda ‘kennel’ – budka , bóje ‘buoy’ – bójka, včela

‘bee’ – včelka, dědina ‘village’ – dědinka, lípa ‘linden’

– lipka, dcera ‘daughter’ – dcerka etc.);

• Neuter suffix –ko (plec ‘shoulder’ – plecko, mléko ‘milk’

– mlíčko, víko ‘lid’ – víčko, hovado ‘brute, beast’ – hovádko,

světlo ‘light’ – světélko/ světýlko etc.);

• Neuter suffix –átko (hříbě ‘foal’ – hříbátko, kachně

‘duckling, young duck’ – kachňátko, koště ‘broom’

– košťátko, poupě ‘bud’ – poupátko etc.);

In the course of time some of the suffixes started losing their

diminutive force and acquired In the period of Old Czech the originally

diminutive masculine suffix –ec gradually waned from the repertory

of apelative diminutive suffixes and the attributes of diminutivness were

weakened. Forms succumb to deetymologization and secondary

suffixation; one third of its derivations has lost its diminutive meaning and

is used to specify. In modern Czech it is not possible to find new

diminutive forms with the suffix –ec, it is no longer productive

(Lamprecht, 1986, 290-291).

32
 There exists another group of Czech diminutive suffixes, called

expanded or enlarged suffixes which enables us to create second grade

diminutive forms (rozšířený sufix) (Karlik, 1995, 127).

Masculine suffixes -eček (hřib ‘mushroom‘– hříbek – hříbeček, sud

‘barrel’– soudek – soudeček, dům ‘house’– domek – domeček etc):

second grade diminutives can be created under the condition there exist

first grade diminutives (suffix –ek: dům - domek – domeček), diminutives

such as tvoreček ‘little creature’, byteček ‘little flat’ are exceptions to this

rule; -íček (kýbl ‘bucket’– kýblík – kýblíček) is also used to create primary

diminutive forms (kmotr ’godfather’– kmotříček).

Feminine suffixes -ička (the suffix is used to form both the

expanded and primary diminutive forms: ryba ‘fish’– rybka – rybička:

holka ‘girl’– holčička), -ečka (the suffix is used to form only second grade

diminutives: čára ‘line’– čárka – čárečka).

Neuter suffixes -íčko, -ečko/ -éčko: (obilí ‘corn’– obilíčko, stavení

‘building’– staveníčko, hnízdo ‘nest’– hnízdečko).

Other suffixes such as -ánek (nos ‘nose’– nosánek), -ínek (táta

‘father’– tatínek), -oušek (děda ‘grandfather’– dědoušek), -uška (dcera

‘daughter’– dceruška) etc.; and also combined suffixes (maminka

‘mother’– maminečka) are highly emotional and convey strong feeling of

endearment.

While diminutive derivations from abstract nouns are rare in comparison

with Russian, a large number of combinations of first and second grade

suffixes can be found in colloquial language. These forms are capable

33
of expressing both smallness and sentiment of the speaker:

mužíčečeček, nožíčíčíček, koťátečko, koťátenečko (Gebauer, 1929, 706).

Such combinations are typical of Czech and virtually non-existent in the

other two languages.

Not only nominal but also adjectival suffixes are used in Czech

to intensify the degree of a quality as well as to intensify the emotional

context:

-ičký (mladý ‘young’– mladičký, celý ‘whole’– celičký, krátký

‘short’- kratičký)

-oučký (mladý ‘young’– mlaďoučký, bledý ‘pale’– bleďoučký)

-inký (mladý ‘young’– mladinký, malý ‘little’– malinký)

-ounký (mladý ‘young’– mlaďounký, slabý ‘weak’– slabounký)

In extended suffixes (-ičičký: maličičký; -oulinký: slaboulinký;

-ilinký: malilinký; -ouninký: slabouninký; -inkatý: malinkatý, kratinkatý etc)

there is a strong sentiment present.

(Karlík, 1995, 177)

34
 5. Excerpts from the texts
Dealing with the whole unsorted sample of diminutive forms excerpted

from the book and its translation would be complicated and it would not show

any clear and relevant data. I would like to divide the excerpts into several

groups. The groups represent individual categories of diminutive forms based

on their semantic relationship. Even though the language of the main focus

is English we will use a similar system of distribution which is typical of Slavic

languages, as the whole system of diminutive forms is well-elaborated in those

languages.

In Slavonic languages diminutive forms convey different connotations,

mentioned above in the theoretical part of this thesis, i.e. the notion

of smallness in size or value, insignificance, endearment or condescension of

the speaker in relation to the object he or she is referring to, etc. The categories

used for the purposes of this thesis reflect the system of diminutive forms

in Slavic languages. For each of the categories there will be several samples

taken from the book and both translations. If there happen to be any modifiers

they will be shown as well. Thus there can be a simple noun form and a more

complex structure consisting of a noun and its modifying adjective etc. in one

category. Generally speaking, the excerpts are divided into their respective

categories based on their functions in different situations and we will compare

and focus on the different forms in different languages.

We have to be well aware of the limits this approach has. Although we

will be comparing different languages we have to bear in minds that we are

dealing with limited, subjective usage of words which were chosen by the author

himself and later on by the translators. Other choices might have been made

35
and the selected excerpts do not represent the only option of the certain

language.

The aim of the thesis is not only to show different specific examples and

solutions made by the translators, but also show some statistical data gathered

from the three respective texts. Again, even though highly subjective due to the

subjectivity and individualism in the use of language by different people, we can

trace some slight tendencies of expressing some of the notions in question and

the ways different functions carried usually on diminutives in Slavic languages

are expressed in the existing English translation.

Apart from the categories of common names I also introduce a category

consisting of proper names and their respective diminutive forms. This category

is to be treated separately from the rest of the sample as the Czech readership

may gain not only from the language affinity but also cultural based common

knowledge and experience of a Czech reader with the works of Russian

literature and Russian life and institutions as such.

For each category there will be tables with examples and statistical data

for the frequency in the text. In the tables examples of the original Russian texts

as well as the translations will be represented.

36
 5.1 Diminutive forms expressing smaller than ordinary or

average size

The working hypothesis for this category says that, while Slavonic

languages appear to use diminutive noun forms very often, due to the lack

of many various diminutive suffixes in English we will find another lexical tool -

quite a large amount of adjectives modifying the nouns. Table 1.1 below shows

examples taken from the first part of the novel:

Table 1.1 Notion of smallness

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Комочек (komochek) little ball klubíčko

кутал в овчинную шубу was wrapping a squealing balil do ovčího kožichu

попискивающий комочек little ball – the vrnící klubíčko – předčasně
– преждевременно prematurely-born infant – narozené děcko – 13
родившегося ребенка – 10 in a sheepskin – 17
Бороденка (borodenka) little beard bradka

редкая, курчавым Thin, curly, pointed little špička řídké kudrnaté

клинышком, бороденка – beard – 27 bradky – 19
15
Крошка (kroshka) little crumb drobeček

Малое дело – крошка или „One little crumb sticking „To není jen tak, na houni
былка прилипнет к to the cloth can chafe a se přilepí drobeček nebo
потнику – 21 horse’s back …..“ – 38 zrnko písku…“ – 27
Слезинка (slezinka) little tear slzička

Но в уголке черного ее but a little tear started from ale v koutku černého oka se
глаза внезапно нависла the corner of her dark eye – náhle objevila slzička – 47
слезинка – 40 73, 74
Комочек (komochek) little ball klubíčko

глядел на мертвый he stared at the inert little na mrtvé klubíčko, ležící

комочек, лежавший у него ball lying in his hand. – 78 mu na dlani – 49
на ладони. – 43

37
Table 1.1 cont.
Городок (gorodok) little town městečko

вырос городок, a neat, white-roofed little vyrostlo úhledné městečko

белокрыший и town had grown up, with s bílými střechami,
аккуратный, с прямыми straight streets and a small s rovnými uličkami a
улочками и небольшой square in the centre – 87 uprostřed s nevelkým
площадкой – 46 náměstíčkem – 56
Бороденка (borodenka) little beard bradička

Шел мимо безрукий One-armed Alexei Shamil Šel kolem jednoruký

Алешка Шамил, поглядел, walked past the gate, Aljoška Šamil, podíval se,
поморгал и раздвинул looked in, blinked and zamrkal a roztáhl huňatou
кустастую бороденку parted his bushy little beard bradičku v úsměvu – 67
улыбкой – 58 with a smile – 108
Ямкa (yamka) small dimple dolíček

дрожала от смущения A small, rosy dimple in the Na svěží tváři chvěl se

сдержанной улыбки supple cheek – 117/ 118 z rozčilení a zadržovaného
неглубокая розовеющая úsměvu nehluboký
ямка. – 63 narůžovělý dolíček – 72
Oблачок (oblachok) small cloud beránek

Где-то под курчавым Beyond the curly flock of Kdesi nad kučeravým
табуном белых облачков – small white clouds – 123 hejnem bílých beránků –
66 75
Уголок (ugolok) small spark uhlík

тлел уголок, оставшийся lurked a small spark, left ale po ohni, který zažehl
от зажженного Гришкой from the flame Grigory had Griška doutnal jí v očích
пожара. – 64 kindled. – 119 skoro neviditelný uhlík –
73
Травка (travka) small herbs travička

неприметная белая a small white herbs – 296 nenápadná bílá travička –

травка – 158 174
Тучкa (tuchka) little clouds obláčky

Обдерганные ветром The little clouds crept Větrem oškubané obláčky

тучки ползли вяло – 42 along drowsily – 76 se malátně ploužily – 48
Лапкa (lapka) little leg nožka

мелкая дрожь горячих the little legs were still ještě teplé nožky se jemně
еще лапок. – 43 warm and quivering. – 78 chvěly. - 49
Косички (kosichki) little tongue jazýček

глядел на струйчатые He stared at the flickering díval se na jazýčky hořících

косички огней – 88 little tongues of svíček – 98
candleflame – 165

38
Table 1.1 cont.
Поросенок (porosyonok) young pig prasátko

не успевшего убраться с sent a young pig in the road zachytil saněmi prasátko –
дороги поросенка – 155 flying. – 291 171

As shown in Table 1.1 (Notion of smallness), very often the adjective little

or, in a smaller percentage of occurrences, small or tiny is used in English

to express a smallness in size. The last example shows that another modifying

adjective can be found – the indication of size in connection with age. Even

though in English it is possible to use one of not many diminutive suffixes

to refer to a young pig (piglet), the choice of the translator was pretty much the

same as with the reference to size only.

Of course in both Slavic languages many examples of modifying

adjectives to express smallness in size may be found. Very often an adjective

appears without a suffixal formant or along with it to express the notion

of something tiny or fragile:

Table 1.2 Notion of smallness with adjectival modifiers in other languages

Russian original English translation Czech translation

маленькая женщина little woman maličká ženička

(malen’kaya zhenschina)
a little woman wrapped Maličkou, do šálu
маленькую, закутанную в from head to foot in a zahalenou ženičku – 9
шаль женщину – 7 shawl - 12
низкорослый конишка small horse malý koník
(nizkoroslyi konishka)
They harnessed Do páru k Petrovu koni
В пару к Петрову коню Bodovskov’s small but připřáhli malého, ale dobře
припрягли низкорослого, sturdy horse with Pyotr’s. – tahajícího koníka Fedota
но тягущого конишку 100 Bodovskova. – 63
Федота Бодовскова. – 54

39
Table 1.2 cont
мелочь рыбешка tiny fish drobná rybka
(meloch’ rybioshka)
Over the surface of the Nad vodní hladinu se
Серебряным дождем water, tiny fish sprinkled in vymršťovaly jako stříbrný
сыпала над поверхностью a silver rain. – 121 déšť drobné rybky. – 74
воды мелочь рыбешка. –
66
Крохотный кусочек tiny scrap malinký kousíček
(krokhotnyi kusochek)
With her eyes Aksinya Axiňja celovala pohledem
Аксинья целовала глазами kissed this tiny scrap of the tento malinký, kdysi její
этот крохотный, когда-то beloved body which once kousíček milovaného těla –
ей принадлежавший had been hers – 122 75
кусочек любимого тела –
66
пятнышко... махонькое stain… a little one skvrnka… docela maličká
(pyatnyshko... makhon’koe)
„We were a bit careless. „Nevšimli jsme si… ta
Эх, юбка-то сзади... Your dress at the back… tvoje sukně vzadu… máš
пятнышко... махонькое there’s a stain on it. It’s tam skvrnku… docela
оно... – 108 only a little one…“ – 201 maličkou.“ – 120
Козленок (kozlyonok) newly-born kid maličké kůzlátko

Возле подземки, the heavy breathing of a Vedle pícky funěla a hřála

посапывая, грелись goat and its newly-born se koza s maličkým
недавно окотовшаяся коза kid. – 266 kůzlátkem. – 157
с козленком. – 142
крохотное окошко tiny window malinkaté okénko
(krokhotnoe okoshko)
knocked at the tiny zaklepal na malinkaté
постучался в крохотное window. – 269 okénko hliněné chalupy. –
окошко саманной хаты. – 159
144

In Table 1.2 (Notion of smallness with adjectival modifiers) we can see

variations of what might happen in respective languages. Whereas English

works with the same modifier, i.e. the adjective, as the previous examples,

in Russian there are no diminutive forms as such, smallness is expressed by

the same lexical tools we can find in English translation here, while in Czech

there are both modifiers used; a diminutive form of an adjective and

a diminutive noun form at the same time (the first example).

40
 Table 1.3 Notion of smallness – diminutive suffix in English

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Тетрадка (tetradka) booklet sešitek

Предложил Штокман Stokman suggested the navrhl Štokman, aby se čtlo

почитать затрепанную, reading of a dog-eared, z otřepaného nevázaného
беспереплетную тетрадку. unbound booklet – 253 sešitku. – 149
– 136
Стерлядь (sterlyad’) sterlet jeseter

Батянка прислал, штоб
скорей шли к косе. Мы
там мешок стерлядей
наловили! – 28
Бугoр (bugor)
Father sent me for you to
come at once to the point.
We’ve caught a sackful of
sterlet.“ – 52
hillock
Otec mě poslal, že máte
přijít hned na kosu.
Nachytali jsme pytel
jeseterů!“ – 34
kopec

Где-то на бугре мерцала
крапинка разложенного
пахарями костра... – 124
Кургашек (kurgashyok)
On a hillock flickered the Kdesi na kopci blikala rudá
ruddy glow of a tečka ohníčku – 137
ploughman’s camp-fire. –
231
small hillock kopeček

волк выскочил на leaped on to a small hillock skočil na kopeček – 187

кургашек – 172 – 323
Петух (p’etukh) cockerel kohout

Пантелей Прокофьевич Pantelei jumped down a Pantělej Prokofjevič

прыгнул с сиденья from the seat like a young seskočil z kozlíku jako
молодым петухом – 75 cockerel. – 137 mladý kohout – 84

While the first English example in Table 1.3 corresponds with the other

two languages in respect of use of a diminutive suffix, the second example

in English seems to be in disagreement with both Slavonic languages, i.e. the

Russian original text where the English translation supplies a diminutive suffix

where there is none in the original. On the other hand it is a correct translation,

because стерлядь is Acipenser ruthenus (in Czech jeseter malý) which in

English is sterlet (source: Wikipedia). Indication of smallness is thus here rather

formal as the suffix is a part of the word, i.e. it is not a derivation.

41
 Table 1.4 Notion of smallness – base word in English
Russian original
Кулачок (kulachok)
Дед Гришака плачет и
стучит сухим кулачком –
94
Кулачок (kulachok)
В смуглый кулачок,
поросший редким,
гланцевито-черным
поросом – 98
Кулачок (kulachok)
сучил беленькие кулачки
– 112
Кулачок (kulachok)
С тех пор ссохлось у
коровы вымя в детский
кулачок – 9
Слезинкa (slezinka)
Ильинична кружевным
рукавом кофты вытирала
выжатую ветром
слезинку – 61
Зверьeк (zver’yok)
в расширенных глазах
загнанным зверьком
томились тоска и испуг –
147
Кружок (kruzhok)
В оттаявший кружок
стекла – 152
English translation
fist
Grandfather Grishaka
began to weep and to bang
his withered fist – 174
fist
in his swarthy fist with its
sparse covering of glossy
black hairs. – 180
fist
his hairy white fists
clenched. – 208
fist
Since then its udder had
withered to the size of a
child’s fist – 15
tear
Ilyinnichna wiped away the
tear that the wind had
brought to her eye – 112
animal
the anxiety and fear lurking
in her dilated eyes gave
them the look of a
frightened animal. – 274
circle
Through the melted circle
of glass – 284
42
Czech translation
pěstička
Děd Grišaka slzí a suchou
pěstičkou buší – 106
malá pěst
V malé osmahlé pěsti,
porostlé řídkými, leskle
černými chloupky – 109
pěstička
zatínal bělounké pěstičky,
porostlé lesklými, hrubými
chlupy. – 124
pěstička
Od toho dne krávě
sesychalo vemeno, až bylo
jako dětská pěstička - 10
slzička
Iljinična si krajkovým
rukávem blůzy utírala
slzičku, kterou jí vehnal do
očí vítr – 69
zvířátko
v rozšířených očích se jí
zračil smutek a strach jako
u štvaného zvířátka. – 162
kolečko
V kolečku roztálém na
okenní tabulce – 167
Table 1.4 cont.
Котенок (kotyonok) kitten koťátko

на звук прыгнул с печи At the sound a kitten Na tento zvuk seskočilo

котенок, избочив голову,
сонутой лапкой толкнул
клубок и покатил его к
сундуку. – 143
jumped down from the
stove and, with its head on
one side and paw curved,
began to pat the ball of
wool – 267
s pece koťátko, naklonilo
hlavu na stranu, přikrčenou
tlapkou strčilo do klubíčka
– 158

As we can seen in Table 1.4 (Notion of smallness – unmarked in English)

the English translator does not use adjectival modifiers automatically

to compensate for a diminutive form in Russian. The first three examples give

us a description of a fist of an adult person. For this reason perhaps the

translator did not feel the need to specifically stress the smallness. The fourth

example is a metaphor where the smallness is indicated by the fact that we

refer to the size of a child’s fist.

Table 1.5 Diminutive suffixes (frozen diminutives) – base word in English

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Книжкa (knizhka) book knížka

будешь у окна сидеть, you shall sit at the window budeš jen u okna sedět,
книжки читать. – 110 and read your books.“ – knížky číst.“ – 122
203
Книжкa (knizhka) book knížka

вычитал з книжки – 165 he has read it in a book. – četl to prý někde v knížce –
309 180
на-час (na-chas) moment chvilka

Выдь на-час. – 151 „Come out for a moment.“ „Pojď na chvilku ven.“ –
– 282 166

In Table 1.5 there is an example of a noun with diminutive suffix in both

Russian and Czech (the respective base forms are книга in Russian and kniha

in Czech) but the English translation there is no indication of diminutivness.

43
It appears that in both Slavonic languages the diminutive formant in this case

has been weakened and the form is not necessarily regarded as a form

indicating either smallness or another diminutive attribute. Both Russian and

Czech forms have been weakened so that speakers’ choice is based rather on

stylistics and personal subjective preferences than the diminutive aspect; there

are other diminutive forms (second grade forms) to indicate smallness in size,

thinness of volume etc (see Table 1.6).

Table1.6 Diminutive suffixes (diminutive proper) – base word in English

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Книжонкa (knizhonka) book knížečka

подсунул Штокман Casually brought out a nepozorovaně podstrčil

книжонку Некрасова – book of Nekrasov’s poetry. knížečku od Někrasova. –
136 – 253 149

44
5.2 Diminutive forms expressing attitudes of speakers

A great number of examples in this category have been excerpted from

direct speeches of the different characters in the novel as direct speech seem

to carry on both positive and negative attitudes and relationships and convey

them to readers easily.

Proper names are used in direct speech very often to address people but

I have decided to move proper names into another category, apart from other

things due to the fact that Russian proper names sound familiar to Czech

readers, but do not ring any bells to the English readership.

We have to be aware that in Slavonic languages diminutive forms carry

not only the notion of endearment but also that one of contempt or scorn

depending on specific situations and usage of such forms.

Table 2.1 Notion of endearment

Russian original English translation Czech translation

родная бабунюшка granny dear babička milá

(rodnaya babunyushka)
„Oh how I long for him, „Usoužím se pro něho,
- ... Тоскую по нем, granny dear! – 103 babičko milá!“……snad mi
родная бабунюшка. На učaroval…Pomoz,
своих глазиньках сохну. babičko! – 64
...Может, присушил
меня?.. Пособи,
бабунюшка! – 56
Милаха (milakha) m’dear miláček

- Расскажи, милаха, - „Come on, m’dear, tell me „Tak, miláčku, vyprávěj,“

коротко попросил он. – about it,“ he curtly požádal krátce. – 67
58 demanded. – 107

45
Table 2.1 cont.
Парнишка (parnishka) young man chlapec

и к Гришке: remarking to his brother: a řekl Griškovi:

- Было бы нам с тобой, „We’d have a bad time, „To bychom to byli slízli,
парнишка. Ишь, сто young man. - 135 chlapče! – 82
разве арапник? – 73
Ягодка (yagodka) little berry jahůdka

- Нашла жениха, дуреха, „She’s found herself a
- урезонивал отец, - bridegroom, the idiot,“ her
только и доброго, что father replied. „The only
черный, как цыган. Да good thing about him is that
рази я тебе, моя ягодка, he’s as black as a gypsy. My
такого женишка сыщу? – little berry, I could find you
73 a much better husband.“ –
136
красивенький паренек good-looking lad
(krasiven’kyi parenek)
„A hard working and good-
- Работящий паренек и looking,“ his wife would
собой с лица whisper to him at night –
красивенький – 74 137
Погодка (pogodka) good weather
„To sis vybrala ženicha,
huso,“ domlouval jí otec.
„Jediné, co na něm je, že je
černý jako cikán. Cožpak
bych ti, má jahůdko,
nenašel lepšího ženicha?“ –
83
hezký chlapec
„Je to pracovitý chlapec a
hezký...“ našeptávala mu
v noci žena – 83
pěkné počasíčko

- Погодку дает бог. „God is giving us good „To máme pěkné

- Слава богу, держится. – weather.“ počasíčko.“
75 „Praise be, and it’s lasting.“ „Zaplaťpánbůh, drží se.“ –
– 139 84
Парень (paren’) my lad chlapeček

Погоди, парень, пойдешь You wait, my lad! When Jen počkej, chlapečku, až
на службу, там you’re called up for service, půjdeš na vojnu a tam se
нарубишься!... Там you’ll have the chance to do nasekáš! ...Tam takové
вашего брата скоро it. That’ll soon také it out of kloučky brzo zkrotí!...“ –
объездют... 84 you!“ – 156 93
колосочек мой my love můj klásečku
(kolosochek moy)
„Grisha, my love.“ – 93 „Griško, ty můj
Гриша, колосочек мой... klásečku…“ – 59
– 50
дружечка моя my dearest miláčku můj
(druzhechka moya)
„Grisha…my „Gríšo, miláčku
- Гриша, дружечка dearest….beloved…let’s go můj…drahý…pojď,
моя...родимый... давай away. – 95 utečem. – 60
уйдем. – 52

46
Table 2.1 cont.
Чадунюшка child
(chadun’ushka)
„What of it, child? It’s
- Дык что ж, моя summer, but my blood is
чадунюшка, хучь оно и cold as the earth deep
лето – 80 below.“ – 148
Чадушка (chadushka) child
- Шерестяные чулки, а не „These socks are woollen,
греют мои ноженьки. Ты but they’re not warm
мне, чадушка, свяжи enough. You’d better
крючковие. – 79 crochet a pair for me, child.“
– 148
Папашка (papashka) father
Папашку твоего сюда бы It would do your father good
заправить, живот-то to do some of this. Take
стрясло бы! – 99 some of the fat off his
belly,“ – 183
Батенька (baten’ka) Father
- Не нужны мне, „I don’t want any other,
батенька, другие... – Father.“ The girl blushed –
Наталья краснела – 74 136
Папa (papa) Papa
Хорошо, – с „Good!“ he said slowly.
расстановкой сказал он, „I’ll tell Papa you’re not
– я передам папе, что ты satisfied with your work.“ –
недоволен службой. – 99 184
Дедушка (dedushka) Grandad
Дедушка! – окликнул „Grandad!“ Mitka said –
Митька – 105 194
Внучушка (vnuchushka) little grand-daughter
- Ты чего же, внучушка, „Well, my little grand-
рада небось? – 81 daughter, so you’re very
happy, huh?“ – 150
Тетка (tyotka) Auntie
Свахой ехала Ilyinichna’s shrewd widow
двоюподная сестра cousin, Auntie Vasilisa, was
Ильиничны, жох-баба, to go with them as a match-
вдовая тетка Василиса. – maker. – 111
60
47
děvenka
„Co na tom, že je léto,
děvenko, když krev je
studená jako země
v hlubině.“ – 89
děvečka
„Už ani vlněné punčochy
mi nohy nezahřejí. Musíš
mi, děvečko, udělat nějaké
silnější.“ – 89
tatíček
Takhle sem postavit tvého
tatíčka, to by mu spadl
pupek.“ – 111
tatínek
„Žádného jiného nechci,
tatínku...“ červenala se
Natalja – 83
tatínek
„Dobrá,“ řekl pomalu,
„vyřídím tatínkovi, že nejsi
ve službě spokojen.“ – 111
dědeček
„Dědečku!“ zvolal Miťka –
117
vnučka
„Tak co, vnučko, jsi ráda?“
– 90
tetka
Jako starosvatka s nimi jela
Iljinična sestřenice, baba
mazaná, ovdovělá tetka
Vasilisa. – 69
 Table 2.1 shows clearly that in English virtually no diminutive suffixes are

used to denotate endearment in the novel (apart from the last example –

Auntie). Either there is a base word or an adjective modifier to convey

the notion of diminutiveness. In some cases the translator chose to express

the sentiment by using informal expressions, such as lad appearing frequently

throughout the novel for Russian парень (diminutive паренек, парнишка)

which belongs also to spoken informal language. ‘Little’ is used not only

to express smallness but also to denote endearment (внучушка – little grand-

daughter). Lesser name forms and diminutive forms used when addressing

people are very often replaced by adjectives (my dear) and their superlatives

(my dearest).

Table 2.2 Attitude – diminutive suffix in English

Russian original English translation Czech translation

маленький утенок A little duckling malé kachňátko

(malen’kyi utyonok)
A little wild duckling – 78 malé divoké kachňátko –
маленький дикий утенок 49
– 43
утенок (utyonok) duckling kachňátko

Морщаясь, Григорий Frowning, Grigory threw pustil kachňátko a zlostně

уронил утенка, злобно away the duckling and se rozmáchl kosou – 49
махнул косой. – 43 angrily wielded his scythe.
– 79

The Oxford Dixtionary defines duckling as a ‘young duck’ with

no expressivity, the suffix denotates the age of the bird but the diminutive suffix

-ling as used by the translator seems to be rather expressive; not only is the

need to show that readers are told about a small duck but it is also a young one.

Moreover the whole part of the chapter where Grigory kills the duckling

48
by accident is highly emotional, with the moods of the characters changing

because of the dead innocent bird. In my opinion, one of the tools to convey

the sentiment of the scene is this particular diminutive suffix. To support

this argument, in comparison with the other parts of the story the distribution

of diminutiveness is quite high here in English which is not very common in the

other parts of the novel (in four sentences only a diminutive suffix -ling appears

twice and a modifying adjective ‘little’ twice as well).

49
5.3 Christian names and their forms

I have decided to put Christian names appearing in the novel into

a special separate category for the following reasons; (1) in all three languages

I deal with in this thesis the official forms of Christian names as well as the

informal forms used in families, by friends, etc. can be found. The Czech

translation sticks closely to the original in this respect not only because of the

similar range of suffixal formants but also the ability of a Czech reader

to understand the different forms of the same name. On the other hand,

an English reader is very unlikely to be familiar with Russian Christian names

and their different forms; (2) as the range of suffixal formants with diminutive

meanings are rather rare in English, there might exist lesser variability in using

different forms to name people, even though this is highly speculative and the

argument is not to be generalized.

The main characters, especially that of Grigory Melekhov, are being

referred to both by the official non-diminutive form and informal diminutive forms

but comparing the three texts will show that informal diminutive forms are far

less frequent in the English text; lesser name forms also do not vary in freuency

only but also the variation in forms is distributed differently and is much lower in

English.

Table 3.1 Distribution of Christian name forms (Main character)

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Гришка (Grishka) Grigory Griška

Гришка, рыбалить Grigory, coming fishing? – Griško, půjdeš na ryby? –

поедешь? – 11 20 15

50
Table 3.1 cont.
Гришка (Grishka) Grigory Griška

отец и потный Гришка Pantelei and the perspiring otec a zpocený Griška
тянули из боковушки – 25 Grigory were hauling a vytahovali z komory – 31
folded drag-net out of the
side-room. – 46
Гришка (Grishka) Grigory Griška

Мы с Гришкой, а с „Me and Grigory, and for „Já s Griškou a na druhou

другим бреднем Аксинью the other net…. – 47 síť zavoláme Axiňju – 32
покличем – 26
Гришкa (Grishka) Grigory Griška

Выспрашивал бесстыдно He demanded shameless Nestoudně se vyptával na

подробности о связи с details of her relatinship podrobnosti jejího poměru
Гришкой. – 64 with Grigory – 119/ 120 s Griškou. – 73

Close investigation will show that diminutive name forms appear in the

English translation as well but there is only one variant of this form used

repeatedly. While in both texts written in Slavonic languages there is a great

variety of these diminutive forms used depending on the situation and broader

context.

Table 3.2 Variants of Christian name forms (Main character)

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Гришка (Grishka) Grisha Griška

Держи, Гришка! – 13 Hold him, Grisha! – 24 Drž, Griško! – 17

Гришка (Grishka) Grisha Griška

Гля, Гришка, ну и юбка... „Look, Grisha, what a „Koukej, Griško, to je

– 17 dress!“ – 31 sukně…“ – 21
Гришка (Grishka) Grisha Griška

Это ты, Гришка? – 20 „Is that you, Grisha?“ – 36 „Tos ty, Griško?“ – 24

51
Table 3.2 cont.
Гришунька (Grishun’ka) Grisha Gríšenka

Ты бы себе сенца сухого „Why don’t you take some „Měl bys vzít s sebou
взял, Гришунька, - hay, Grisha dear,“ his trochu studeného sena,
советовала мать – 26 mother advised. – 48 Gríšenko,“ radila matka –
32
Гриша (Grisha) Grisha Griška

Гриша, где ты?... – „Grisha, where are you?“ „Griško, kde jsi?“ ozývá se
плачущий Аксиньин he heard Aksinya’s tearful Axiňjin plačtivý hlas. – 34
голос. – 28 voice. – 51

There are more examples of what can be seen in Table 3.2 (Variants

of Christian name forms – Main character) above, but to illustrate the greater

variety in Slavonic languages those few examples serve their purpose.

However, we must be aware that the Czech translator had the right to assume

that his readers might be familiar with the changes in the forms of Russian

Christian names and those changes would still be comprehensible, while the

English readership might not be able to tell the characters apart. When studying

the Christian names in the novel a very interesting tendency in the English

translation will become apparent; the English translator decided to work with

one informal diminutive form of the Christian name of the main character and

ignored the other diminutive forms. Still there is not exact correspondence

of diminutive and non-diminutive forms in Russian and English and the

frequency of diminutive forms in this category is less frequent in English (see

Table).

Minor characters usually have one form of their names used only

throughout the whole novel, unlike the original text and the Czech translation

which sticks closely to the forms of the original for the above mentioned

reasons.

52
 Table 3.3 Christian name forms (Minor characters)
Russian original
Дуняшка (Dunyashka)
Дуняшка – отцова
слабость – длиннорукий,
большеглазий подросток–
11
Дуняшка (Dunyashka)
Дуняшка, сухари зашила?
– 21
Дунька (Dun’ka)
Дунька! Го-г-ни ее,
прок...Царица небесная,
прости меня, грешницу.
Дунька, кошку выкинь на
баз. – 25/26
Аксюткa (Aksyutka)
Мы Аксютку Астахову
покличем – 37
Ксюша (Ksyusha)
Краска выжала из глаз ее
слезы.
- Ксюша! – 65
Аксинья (Aksin’ya)
Аксинья шла, гладя через
его голову на зеленый,
дышащий волнами Дон –
65
Алешка (Alyoshka)
Шел мимо безрукий
Алешка Шамил – 58
Наташка (Natashka)
- Пропадешь ты за ним,
Наташка! – 79
English translation
Dunya
Dunya – her father’s
favourite – a lanky large-
eyed lass – 19
Dunya
„Dunya, have you put the
rusks in the sack yet?“ – 38
Dunya
„Dunya, chase this d-,
Mother of Heaven, forgive
me my sins…Dunya, put
the cat out into the yard! –
47
Aksinya
„We’ll ask Aksinya
Astakhova. – 68
Aksinya
A burning flush wrung
tears from her eyes.
„Aksinya!“ – 121
Aksinya
Aksinya gazed straight over Axiňja šla, dívajíc se přes
his head at the green waves jeho hlavu na zelený,
of the Don – 121 vlnami se dmoucí Don – 74
Alexei
One-armed Alexei Shamil
walked past the gate – 108
Natalya
„You’ll be lost Natalya, if
you marry him. – 146
53
Czech translation
Duněčka
Duněčka, otcův mazlíček,
nohaté, okaté děvče – 14
Duněčka
„Duněčko, zabalilas
suchary?“ – 25
Duňka
„Duňko, vyžeň ji, zatr…
Královno nebeská, odpusť
mně hříšné. Duňko, vyhoď
tu kočku na dvůr. – 32
Axjutka
„Řekneme Axjutce
Astachovové. – 44
Ksjuša
Ruměnec jí vehnal slzy do
očí.
„Ksjušo!“ – 74
Axiňja
Aljoška
Šel kolem jednoruký
Aljoška Šamil – 67
Nataška
„Špatně s ním pochodíš,
Nataško! Radši se nevdávej
– 88
Table 3.3 cont.
Степкa (Styopka) Stepan Štěpka

У Степки ж и голосина, „And what a voice Stepan „Však má Štěpka taky hlas
чисто колокол! – 114 has got, clear as a bell.“ – jako zvon!“ – 126
211
Аникушкa (Anikushka) Anikushka Anikuška

- К вечеру. Сложился „By evening. I’ve agreed to „K večeru. Budu sekat

косить с Аникушкой. – 67 reap with Anikushka. – 124 s Anikuškou. – 76

The last example seems to disagree with the previous argument and the

other examples as in all three texts there is a diminutive form used, at least from

the angle of perspective of a speaker whose mother tongue is one of the two

Slavonic languages. But while both in Russian and partly in Czech we expect

the reader to recognize the suffixal formant, in English it is probably seen as

a foreign name only because the diminutive suffix is that one typical of Slavonic

languages. Furthermore, the character of Anikej (or Anikushka) is mentioned

only once or twice in the whole novel we might assume the diminutive form here

is unmarked in terms of different specific functions of diminutive forms.

The forms of proper names vary greatly in direct as well as non-direct

speeches in both Slavonic languages depending on the relationship between

the characters, or some typical features of those characters, such as age,

vulnerability, fondness, fragility etc.; compared to English which seems to be

rather neutral in this area.

54
5.4 Diminutive forms without the attributes of diminutivity

Both in Russian and Czech many examples of diminutive forms without

diminutive meanings can be found. Diminutive suffixes are sometimes used to

create not only new forms, but new meanings as well. This is true for English

as well; let’s take for instace the suffix -ette. Originally this suffix was used in

French to form diminutive nouns. Words with these suffixes are dead or frozen

diminutives (they lexicalized and do not function as diminutives proper

anymore) as English speaking people do not automatically recognize them

as words belonging to the category of diminutives.

Diminutive form loses its diminutive force in cases where there is no

longer the word the base form was derived from or the word is obsolete (matka

‘mother’– máti). Probable factor for such a development may have been

disappearing declinations where the words were substituted with their originally

diminutive forms belonging to other declination types (Machek, 1997). Another

factor for losing diminutive force is probably a shift in the meaning or change

in the meaning of the derivation. If the diminutive derivation or its base word

gradually acquired new meaning as a result the diminutive force of the

derivation has been weakened considerably: hlava – hlávka ‘head of cabbage’,

prach – prášek ‘pill’, pár ‘couple’ – párek ‘sausage’, tělo ‘body’ - tílko ‘vest’.

With the change or shift in meaning we lose the pair of words we need for

comparison. Without comparing we are unable to tell that one form is indicating

smallness or greater sentiment in comparison to the other. With the loss of the

ground for comparison we lose the sense of diminutiveness.

“Unlike diminutives proper, frozen diminutives are semantically

independent of the base noun form from which they have been derived and

55
represent a separate entry in a dictionary. The link between the base noun form

and the diminutive form is broken in frozen diminutives – they are diminutives

from the diachronic point of view; synchronically, however, they have to be

interpreted as non-diminutives. The gradual erosion of diminutive meaning has

taken place.” (Chamonikolasová, Rambousek, 2007, 57-56).

The hypothesis for this category says that for diminutive forms without

the respective attributes or functions of diminutivity there will be other words

in English. I am not going to treat these occurences of diminutive forms

as diminutives proper and they will not be a part of statistical interpretation in

the latter part of the thesis.

Table 4.1 Frozen diminutives

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Pучка (ruchka) door-handle klika

дверную ручку – 148 držel za kliku – 163

Pучка (ruchka) door-handle klika

Ручка и то золоченая – 17 “Even the door-handle’s „I kliku mají pozlacenou.“

got gold on it!” –30 – 20
Цветок (cvetok) flower kvítek

Волосы у тебя „Your hair smells like „Vlasy ti voní jako durman.
дурнопьяном пахнут. henbane. Do you know that Víš, ten s tím bílým
Знаешь, этаким цветком white flower?“ – 54 kvítkem.“ – 35
белым... – 29
Водкa (vodka) vodka vodka

по три рюмки водки – 86 were brought three glasses po třech kalíšcích vodky. –
of vodka each – 160 96

However, in the statistical survey some diminutives without the attributes

of diminutivity will be taken into consideration; in colloquial Russian diminutives

without any of the above mentioned notions of diminutivity are quite frequent

56
(Zelinková, 2008, 266) but in comparison with Table 4.1 there is no shift

or change in meaning when compared with their base words. Moreover,

the expressivity of diminutives used colloquial Russian has not been weakened.

These occurences will be taken into consideration and be a part of the statistical

survey, while diminutives which appear to take a new meaning together with the

suffix will be omitted.

Table 4.2 Diminutive suffixes in English - shift in meaning

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Брычка (brychka) wagonette bryčka

Она первая угнездилась в
брычке, вертя круглой,
как ролыш, головой – 60
Портсигар (portsigar)
серебряный, с лодочкой
на крышке, портсигар –
115
Цигаркa (cygarka)
She was the first to perch První se uvelebila v bryčce,
herself on the wagonette, kroutila hlavou – 69
twisting and turning her
head – 111
cigarette-case pouzdro na cigarety
stříbrné pouzdro na
a silver cigarette-case – 214 cigarety s lodičkou na
víčku – 128
cigarette cigareta

Григорий выкурил He smoked three cigarettes Grigorij vykouřil tři

подряд три цигарки – 146 – 272 cigarety – 160
Родимый (rodimyi) darling miláček

Гришенька, родимый!.. – „Grisha, darling…“ – 269 „Gríšenko, miláčku…!“ –

144 159
Дружечкa (druzhechka) darling ta tvá

Женись, и посля узнаешь, „then you’ll know whether „ožeň se, a pak poznáš,
скучают ай нет по you miss your darling or jestli se ti zasteskne po té
дружечке – 22 not.“ – 40 tvé, nebo ne.“ – 28
Пеленкa (pelyonka) napkin plenka

сменяя мокрую пеленку – to change the child’s wet vyměňoval mokrou plenku
193 napkin – 365 – 210

57
 In all of the examples in Table 4.2 we can find a diminutive suffix (-ette, -

ling) but, in comparison with the words such as duck – duckling (see Table 2.2),

there is either a shift in meaning or it is a compound where we do not have

a base word to derive the diminutive form from.

Even though all the words are derivations from base words and a suffix,

there is a rather significant change in meaning in those derivations compared to

the base words. While wagon is a a vehicle with four wheels that is usually

pulled by horses and is used for carrying heavy loads, wagonette does not

mean a small type of a wagon; it is actually rather s specific type of a wagon – a

horse-drawn carriage designed to carry passengers who sit on the benches

facing each other. Cigar and cigarette are also associated in meaning in the

sense that both can be defined as tubular rolls of tobacco designed for smoking.

Cigarette does not mean a little or small cigar; it is a similar but not the same

object which is circumstantially of a smaller size. The last example in this table

is the expression with the diminutive suffix -ling – darling Even though based

on the evidence of Oxford English Dictionary it is a combination of dear and the

suffix -ling, which emphasises the affective connotations, it is not generally

considered to be a diminutive form proper. Also there is no base form as the

base dear is an adjective but adding the suffix -ling we get a noun form instead.

The last example in Table 4.2 (napkin) has a base word of Middle French origin

(nappe – tablecloth) and a diminutive suffix -kin is added; because of the Middle

French base word we do not really expect native speakers nowadays to be

aware of the origin.

58
5.5 Songs and folklore

The first volume of the first book is prefaced by one of many folkloric

texts, a very old Cossack song about the mighty river, which is very important

to the people as it is a part of their everyday lives and influences their lives

in the minutest detail. Even though some parts of the story introducing the texts

of such songs were omitted by English translators, the opening lines seem to be

too significant for the whole story and the message cointaned there, that we can

find the same text in all three versions which are being dealt with in this thesis.

Let us see together what words are used to express the same feelings and

emotions. Regarding folklore we will also notice that style is a very important

matter to convey the different notions which are embedded in diminutive forms.

Table 5.1 Old Cossack song - Preface

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Не сохами-то славнвя Not by the plough is our Zemi naši slavnou nezoraly
землюшка наша glorious land furrowed… pluhy…
распахана... Our earth is furrowed by Kopyta ji koňská tvrdě
Распахана наша horses’ hoofs, rozorala,
землюшка лошадиными And sown is our earth with Kozácké ji bujné poosely
копытами, the heads of Cossacks. hlavy,
А засеяна славная Fair is our quiet Don with Vyzdoben je Tichý Don
землюшка казацкими young widows, mladými vdovami,
головами,
Our father, the quiet Don, Rozkvet náš tatíček Don,
Украшен-то наш тихий blossoms with orphans, rozkvet sirotami,
Дон сиротами, And the waves of the quiet Slzy otců, matek Don náš
Наполнена волна в тихом Don are filled naplnily.
Дону отцовскими, With fathers’ and mothers’
материнскими слезами! tears!

59
Table 5.1 cont.
Ой ты, наш батюшка Oh thou, our father, the Hoj, ty tichý Done, tatíčku
тихий Дон! quiet Don! náš!
Ой, что же ты, тихий Дон, Oh why dost thou, our Kalně, co tak, tichý Done,
мyтнехонек течешь? quiet Don, so sludgy flow? tečeš?
Ах, как мне, тиху Дону, How should I, the quiet Ach jak bych já, tichý Don,
не мутну течи! Don, but sludgy flow? neměl kalně téci!
Со дня меня, тиха Дона, From my depths the cold Z mého dna, z tichého
студены ключи бьют, springs beat, Donu, chladný pramen
Посередь меня, тиха Amid me, the quiet Don, tryská
Дона, бела рыбица мутит. the white fish leap. A střed můj, tichého Donu,
bílá ryba kalí.
(Старинные казачьи песни) (Old Cossack Songs)
(Starobylé kozácké písně)

Comparing all three texts above it is clear that the approach is different

concerning the given languages. In both the Russian and Czech texts there are

diminutives employed to show the affinity and closeness of people and

the nature represented by the river. In accordance with the tradition the

frequency of diminutives is high and in Russian original text of the song the

diminutive noun and adjective forms are rather abundant. The Czech

translation employs one diminutive form twice: when the river is addressed

directly. In English the translator had to solve the problem of keeping the

atmosphere of the song while not having the same language tools to reach the

same effect using the same method as the original. Because in Russian

diminutive forms are often used to show the attitude of the speaker not only

when he wants to show his fondness but also when he wants to show respect.

In the tsarist period people often referred to the emperor using the diminutive

form of the word “father” not only to show their affection but also to show they

were holding him in high regard. Inversion in the English sentence structure

seems to be there for the same reason; as the respect is the most important

60
message of this passage. In this respect also obsolete forms (i.e. thou instead

of you, dost instead of does) are used as this is the way to show that not only is

the song old but it is also important and the facts mentioned are highly valued in

the society of the Cossack people.

While the Czech translator might take advantage of he tradition existing

in the area since the nineteenth century when Čelakovský was translating

Russian epic heroic poems and approach the text accordingly; not many

diminutives are used but the translator compensates for those using inversion

and collocations in accordance with the tradition.

The structure and the rhythm of the English translation seem to resemble

the Lord’s Prayer. The opening words of the second strophe seem to resonate

with the opening words of the prayer. The use of archaic forms and inversion

only intensifies the feeling of glory and celebration.

Table 5.2 Cossack song - compensation

Russian original English translation Czech translation

Эх ты, зоренька-зарница, Oh, a fine glowing sunrise Éj, ráno raníčko

Рано на небо взошла... –
31
Молодая, вот она,
бабенка,
Поздно по воду пошла... –
31
А мальчишка, он
догадался,
Стал коня седлать... – 31
Оседлал коня гнедого –
Стал бабенку догонять...
– 31
Came up early in the sky. – Vzplála hvězdička…. – 37
56
Young was she, the little Éj, pro vodu si vyšla
woman mladá ženička… – 37
That went tripping to the
stream. – 56
And the lad, he guessed her Mladý kozák koně
purpose, bystře osedlá… – 37
Saddled up his chestnut
mare. – 56
Saddled up his chestnut Za ženičkou mladou
mare do klusu se dá… – 38
To catch the little woman.
– 57

61
Table 5.2 cont.
Ты позволь, позволь, Let me, let me, little Napoj mi, má milá,
бабенка, woman, mého koníčka … – 38
Коня в речке напоить... – Bring my chestnut to the
31 stream. – 57

Four diminutive nouns appear in this excerpt, which seems to be quite

a lot, but we have to bear in mind that diminutives are rather frequent in

Slavonic folklore. The Czech translation introduces four diminutives as well but

in different parts of the text; the structure and the rhyming pattern is similar to

traditional Czech folk songs.

In the English translation the compensation is slightly more difficult to

preserve the original sentiment of the song; adjectives are used to compensate

for some of the diminutive meanings (fine, little), the Russian word мальчишка

more likely carries the notion of expressivity rather than smallness here –

diminutives are rather common in colloquial Russian (Земская, 1982, 113-114)

– is replaced by the colloquial expression in English to preserve the typical

feature of a language typical of folk songs. The last line of the song where there

is the word речка in the Russian text, there were to options in my opinion; either

we can assume that the diminutive form is there because diminutives are

frequent in colloquial Russian and hence there is no need to mark it in the

translation at all, or we can try to preserve some of the diminutive aspect which

the translator did and chose to use the word stream indicating smallness.

62
 6. Quantitative view
A similar attempt to statistically register the distribution of diminutives

was made by Jana Tomíčková (Tomíčková, 2004, 84). She was focusing on

children’s literature and the ratio of diminutive suffixes in Czech and English.

In her work she reached quite a large ratio in some of the categories (especially

adjective ‘little’); because (1) there is a substantially higher number of diminutive

suffixes in Czech and their distribution is higher than in English: but the

difference is even bigger when comparing Russian and English (Zelinková,

2008, 267); (2) books for children tend to use motherese, a term coined

by David Crystal, i.e. language typical of an adult talking to a child; “There is

also an expressive, or affective element in motherese, shown by the special

words or sounds; diminutives and replicative words (e.g. doggie, choo-choo) are

common” (Crystal, 1989, 235).

We have to bear in mind that diminutives are very often dependent on

context and style. Therefore in children’s literature, nursery rhymes, fairy tales,

folklore and intimate situations the degree and distribution of diminutive forms

is expected to be higher than in formal situations, novels and other genres

of literature meant for adult readers.

Another comparative study on the distribution of diminutive forms in

Czech and English was presented by Chamonikolasová and Rambousek

(Chamonikolasová, Rambousek, 2007, 57-56).

For the purposes of this thesis I have excerpted a sample of 1 264

expressions from the first two parts of the Russian original of the novel.

For these I have used equivalents of the passages in English and Czech. In the

63
sample there were 1 264 pairs where at least one expression was a carrier

of a diminutive feature. Quite a large amount of the sample is Christian names

of both major and minor characters; 598 words in the sample are different forms

of Christian names of the characters. A large proportion also represents

diminutive forms of adjectives and adverbs. Adjective and adverbial diminutives

were separated from nominal forms. In the end 367 nominal diminutives

remained in the sample and were used for comparison.

In the statistical survey I divided the sample into separate groups, based

on the function and the form. Diminutives with the change in meaning with the

addition of a diminutive suffix will be omitted. Christian names of the characters

will be dealt separately with.

Because the thesis is focused mainly on the Russian original and the

English translation I will not be referring to the Czech expressions in this survey.

I had to make a decision about the sample as there was a frequent

occurrence of several diminutive forms in the text. In the end I decided to take

each occurrence into account rather than counting it only once as a type of

a diminutive. In this way more precise idea of the exact distribution of diminutive

forms is achieved.

64
Expressions will be divided into the following groups:

1. Diminutive suffix in the English translation

2. Adjectival modifier in the English translation

a) Adjective ‘little’

b) Adjective ‘small’

c) Adjective ‘tiny’

d) Adjectives ‘old’, ‘young’, and ‘dear’ etc.

3. Base word in the English translation (without any modifiers)

4. Another word (different from the original)

65
 6.1 Distribution of diminutive suffixes in the English translation

In spite of the fact that there are at least a few diminutive suffixes in English,

the translator sometimes approached the text using means of expression other

than diminutive suffixes (see Table 1.1 – young pig instead of piglet). The ratio

in this category is rather low due to the subjective individual approach to the text

by the translator: 6.8% if words such as cigarette and other expressions

with suffix -ette are considered to be diminutive from the point of view of form;

or 2.7% if diminutives proper only are taken into account. I have borrowed the

term frozen diminutives from Chamonikolasová and Rambousek

(Chamonikolasová, Rambousek, 2007, 57-56) but my understanding and

interpretation may differ from these authors in the sense that I think of English

words with -ette as formal diminutives as they have the suffix attached but there

is a shift in meaning of these derivations similar to Russian and Czech. These

formal diminutives are labeled and treated in this paper as frozen diminutives.

6.2 Distribution of adjectival modifiers in the English translation

First, let’s have a look at the ratio of all adjectival modifiers. Surprisingly

enough, while comparing Russian and English we will notice that the final

percentage is rather small: in fact it is only 21.4% for the sample assuming that

100% is represented by the Russian original.

For each individual adjective the ratio is following: ‘little’ – 47.4%, ‘small’ –

10.3%, ‘tiny’ – 6.4%, ‘young’/’old’ – 20.5%, and ‘dear’ – 15.4%.

While little, small, and tiny all modify the size of objects or people, dear

denotes sentiment and endearment on the part of a speaker. It appears

66
frequently in the text as a part of direct speech and addressing people. The

Russian counterpart is a nominal diminutive form with or without a modifier.

6.3 Distribution of base form equivalents in the English

translation

Words in this category are English base words corresponding to Russian

proper diminutives and also frozen diminutive forms. The frequency of English

base forms is rather high – 46.9% of the sample.

6.4 Distribution of Christian name forms

As mentioned above, Christian names are treated separately due to the fact

that the English translator was dealing with names not native in the English

speaking environment:

Table 6.1 Christian names – distribution of diminutive forms of the main character

Russian Diminutive Non-diminutive

English

Diminutive 24 (24%) 0

Non-diminutive 8 (8%) 68 (68%)

For comparison of diminutive and non-diminutive forms of Christian names

of characters in the novel I have chosen the character of Grigory. As one of

the main characters appearing throughout the whole story his name and

different forms of it are very frequent; the high frequency makes it possible

to gather enough data for comparison. The forms shown in Table 6.1 above

67
were excerpted from chapters of the second part of the first book. After due

consideration I decided to divide the forms of the name appearing in the

respective chapters into two categories: the category of diminutive forms and

the category of non-diminutive forms; although there are more variants

of diminutive forms in Russian (Гриша, Гришка, Гришенька, Гришунька) the

English translator chose one of the existing diminutive forms only as the name

is perhaps too exotic for an English reader to understand that it is the same

person. Interestingly enough, despite the modification by means of simplification

of the pet name forms, the translation does not always correspond with

the original. In 8% of the cases shown in the Table the translation employs

the official name (Grigory) where there is a diminutive form in the original text.

6.5 Another word – different from the original

In this category there are expressions without any formal features

of diminutivness, e.g. suffix, in English but the expressions may contain

a feature of smallness already embedded as a part of their meaning (English

stream for Russian речка ‘small river’); the distribution of words in this category

is 4.1%.

Quite a large proportion of Russian diminutive forms remain untranslated in

the English text; among them there are not only nominal diminutive forms but

also Russian diminutive adjectives and adverbs as there are no equivalent

diminutives in English. Diminutive adjectives and adverbs were shown in the

examples above but were not subject to quantitative analysis.

68
7. Conclusion

The aim of the thesis was to compare the Slavonic languages and English

from the synchronic and diachronic points of view of morphological forming of

diminutive forms, use of such forms and their distribution throughout the text;

and also to indicate use of other language means in translation in case there

are no corresponding diminutive forms. For comparison Sholokhov’s novel “And

Quiet Flows the Don” was used; I have excerpted expressions from the Russian

original and its English and Czech translations.

First part of the paper contains some notes on the novel itself and

its translation together with a theoretical background introducing definitions

of diminutives and diminutive features; this part also provides list of the most

common diminutive suffixes in all three languages and ways of forming the

expressions.

Second part of the thesis shows individual expressions that were divided

into several categories based on the meaning of diminutive forms.

The respective categories are: notion of smallness, endearment, Christian

names, frozen diminutives, and diminutives used in songs and folklore.

Christian names were treated separately even though the forms might indicate

the notion of endearment; I have decided to put them in a separate group as the

Russian diminutive forms were treated as one by the English translator because

it might be easier for an English reader to identify the individual characters

with rather exotic names. A frozen diminutive is a term coined and used

by Chamonikolasová and Rambousek to classify diminutive forms with

significantly weakened diminutive force (Chamonikolasová, Rambousek, 2007,

51-61).

69
 Quantitative analysis testifies the hypothesis that in Slavonic languages

there will be more diminutive forms throughout the text while the distribution

of such forms in English will be much less frequent. The figures obtained from

the analysis show some tendencies in translation:

• The most common type is translating diminutive form with the

equivalent base expression (46.9%).

• The second most common type is the tendency to denote

the diminutive meaning by adding a modifier (21.4%). Most common

modifiers are adjectives ‘little’ and ‘small’ to convey the notion

of smallness and ‘dear’ to indicate endearment. ‘Little’ is primarily

a carrier of the notion of smallness but may appear with the

connotations of endearment as well (see Table 2.1).

• Approximately 4% is represented by non-equivalent English

expression but different diminutive notions and features might

be preserved as a part of the meaning of these expressions (речка

‘little river’– stream); usually they denote smallness in size.

• Diminutive equivalent in English represents 6.8% of the excerpted

sample if both proper and frozen diminutives are taken into account.

Supposing not the formal aspect (i.e. diminutive suffix) but semantic

aspect is taken into consideration (i.e. proper forms only)

the distribution is lower and represents 2.7% of the sample.

The types are not distributed randomly, there is a certain pattern, however

vague, based on both language means and the translator’s subjective

understanding of different meanings conveyed through diminutives and his

70
intuition. The ground for making decisions on the part of the translator seems

to be making a resolution about the different diminutive meanings (quantitative

and qualitative relationship, or both) and choosing the most important feature

for each particular situation.

I still bear in mind that the speculation mentioned above can not be by all

means generalized as this paper focuses on one book and its translation only.

The sample is not large and heterogeneous enough in this respect to jump

to conclusions and generalizations about the respective languages.

Nevertheless, even this limited study can underline some of the general

tendencies in those languages and translations.

71
Works cited
Bečka, J.V. Úvod do české stylistiky. Praha: R. Mikuta: 1948

Buck, Philo M. Jr. Directions in Contemporary Literature. New York: Oxford

University Press: 1942

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press: 1989

Dokulil, Miloš. Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČSAV:

1962

Gaynor, Frank, and Pei, Mario. A Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: 1954

Gebauer, Jan. Historická mluvnice jazyka českého. Praha: ČSAV: 1929

Hartmann, R.K.K., and Stork, F.C. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.

London: Applied Science Publishers: 1972

Chamonikolasová, Jana, and Rambousek, Jiří. “Diminutive expressions

in translation: a comparative study of English and Czech“. Belgian Journal of

Linguistics 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishinh Company: 2007.

pp 51-61.

Jespersen, Otto. LANGUAGE. Its Nature, Development and Origin. London:

George Allen & Unwin LTD.: 1922

Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI

Morphology. Oxford: Alden Press: 1974

Karlík, Petr, and Rusínová, Zdenka. Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Lidové

noviny, 1995

Kohoutová, Joy. The works of M.A. Sholokhov. Diss. Praha: FF UK: 1951

Lamprecht, Arnošt, Šlosar, Dušan, Bauer, Jaroslav. Historická mluvnice češtiny.

Praha: SPN: 1986

72
Levý, Jiří. České teorie překladu. Praha: Ivo Železný: 1996

Machek, Václav. Etymologický slovník jazyka českého. Praha: NLN: 1997

Onions, C.T. (ed.) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical

Principles. 3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1965

Ожегов, С. И. Словарь русского языка. Москва: Русский язык: 1975

Petr, Jan. Mluvnice češtiny (1). Fonetika, fonologie, morfologie a morfemika,

tvoření slov. Praha: Academia: 1986

Pospíšil, Ivo et al. Slovník ruských, ukrajinských a běloruských spisovatelů.

Praha: Libri: 2001

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, Svartvik, Jan.

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman Inc.:

1985

Roget, P. M. Roget’s Thesaururs of Words and Phrases. New York: Longman:

1947

Scammel, Michael. The Don Flows again. 25 Jan 1998. The New York Times

on the web. 15 March 2009. .

(http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/01/25/bookend/bookend.html?_r=2)

Šmilauer, Vladimír. Nauka o českém jazyku. Praha: SPN: 1972

Tomíčková, Jana. Anglické ekvivalenty českých zdrobnělin v anglických

překladech české beletrie. Diss 2004. České Budějovice: PF JU: 2004

Виноградов, В.В. Исследования по русской грамматике. Москва: Высшая

школа: 1972

Виноградов, В.В. Русский язык (Грамматическое учение о слове). Москва:

Наука: 1975

73
Zelinková, Pavla. “Ruská a česká deminutivní substantiva.” Slavica Iuvenum IX.

Ed. Jan Vorel, and Ireneusz Hyrnik. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2008.

pp 263-270

Земская, Е.А. Русская разговорная речь. Лингвистический анализ и

проблемы обучения. Москва: Русский язык: 1979

Земская, Е.А. Русская разговорная речь. Общие вопросы.

Словообразование. Синтаксис. Москва: Наука: 1981

Земская, Е.А. Современный русский язык. Словообразование. Москва:

Просвещение: 1973

The American Heritage. Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative

Guide to Contemporary English. 1996. 10 Feb 2009

(http://www.bartleby.com/64/10.html)

Zima, Jaroslav. Expresivita slova v současné češtině. Praha: ČSAV: 1961

74
Excerpted literature
Шолохов, Мизаил. Тихий Дон. Том I. Москва: Молодая гвардия: 1965

Šolochov, Michail. Tichý Don. Peložil Vlastimil Borek. Moskva: Odeo: 1979

Sholokhov, Mikhail. And Quiet Flows the Don. Trans. By Stephen Garry.

Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House: 1930

75