Rafael Martín Calvo

The dissertation aims mainly to develop a descriptive and quantitative framework to analyze the morphosemantic features of EVALs in view to obtain measurable parameters that can be applied cross-linguistically in EM studies, both descriptive and contrastive. Accordingly, the following tasks have been established to achieve various individual objectives: 1. To review critically EM literature and survey up-to-date theoretical perspectives to assess the state of affairs in the study field. 2. To identify and discuss terminological and conceptual discrepancies in the relevant literature, and to adopt a set of terms that may be applicable cross-linguistically. 3. To define and characterize EVALs as a distinctive lexical type within the larger group of evaluative constructions. 4. To establish a set of analytical variables associated with productivity and diversity in EVAL-formation, and to provide quantitative measurements of how each variable is represented in a language’s EM system. 5. To carry out a detailed review and critical analysis of existing literature on Spanish and Latvian EM, as well as a systematic description and contrastive analysis of their respective EM resources.

Affixation as a means of EVAL-formation In natural language, evaluative content can be encoded at four main different levels: lexical, syntactical, phonological, and morphological. Regarding the latter, evaluative meanings may be conveyed by means of evaluative constructions, obtained through a wide-ranging spectrum of morphological adaptation processes. Based on a 200+ world language sample, Štekauer has described these strategies at length and established a thorough typology of said processes and evidenced that affixation is the most frequent and productive of them (Štekauer 2015, 47). The present article surveys and catalogues the different types of affixes involved in the construction of evaluative forms (EVALs) in Spanish and Latvian in order to contrast their respective morphological resources in the field of evaluative morphology (EM). EVAL-formation in Spanish and Latvian is here examined from the viewpoint of the various affixal procedures involved, following the categories established by Beck in The typology of morphological processes: form and function (2017). His division of affixation comprises: a) canonical affixation, b) infixation, c) transfixation, d) co-fixation (circumfixation, co-prefixation, and co-suffixation), and e) interfixation (Beck 2017, 326) 1. In Spanish and Latvian, EVAL-formation by affixal means involves a limited and language-specific set of evaluative affixes (AFFe), i.e. affixal morphemes carrying out an evaluative function 2. AFFe transmit subjective evaluation in their reference to the root lexeme (in term of intensity, worth, size, relevance) or in the pragmatic functions they trigger. Although in EM research a division of affixal morphemes into evaluative and non-evaluative ones is commonplace, an important number of said affixal

The expression of subjective evaluation by means of the morphological adaptation of lexical units is an attested feature in a majority of natural languages (cf. Körtvélyessy 2015a). The analysis of all aspects involved in these morphological processes and the resulting lexical units (so-called diminutives, augmentatives, pejoratives, etc.) is the study object of evaluative morphology (EM). The purpose of the present study is to reassess the characterization of evaluative constructions (ECs) as presented in works such as Scalise 1984, Grandi 2005, Štekauer 2015, and Grandi and Körtvélyessy 2015 among others. This study proposes a revised set of conditions for the description of evaluative forms (EVALs), considering related phenomena like the lexicalization of evaluative constrictions, affixal polyvalence, and affixal polysemy. Moreover, a much-needed distinction is established within ECs between morphological derivatives with evaluative content, and EVALs as a distinct lexical group. The aim in developing a precise description of EVALs is to allow for more accurate and focused research in EM, both in the elaboration of language-specific typologies and in the development of interlinguistic contrastive studies. The first part of the study is devoted to the examination of subjectivity and evaluation as a linguistic phenomenon, while the second part focuses on the characterization of affixed EVALs, given that synthetic affixation is the most productive of EVAL-forming procedures cross-linguistically (Štekauer 2012). In order to illustrate the proposed conditions for EVALs, examples are presented from a variety of languages.

A deep-seated source of ambiguity in evaluative morphology (EM) research owes to a lack of definition in regards to its object of study. The examination of both traditional and contemporary EM studies indicates that at least two distinctive lexical groups are discussed and analysed under the traditional category labels 'diminutives', 'augmentatives', 'pejoratives', etc. While units discussed under said labels are often morphosemantically related, they present also a number of observable distinguishing features. Aiming for terminological accuracy in the field of EM, this study proposes two terms to refer to the lexical units represented by each one of these groups: 'evaluative forms (EVALs)' and 'evaluative derivatives (EDs)'. The object of the following discussion is offering the necessary evidence to establish a well-founded distinction between EVALs and EDs from a semantic, syntactic and morphological viewpoint. The study is structured as follows. Firstly, it discusses some terminological issues in the field of EM and examines the problematic implications of disregarding the difference between EVALs and EDs by examining specific instances in which authors analyse both types of units indistinctly. Secondly , it contrasts the respective semantic and morphosyntactic features of EVALs and EDs in order to emphasize relevant discrepancies. Thirdly, it cross-examines the evaluative aspect of EDs and EVALs according to the criteria for 'evaluative derivation' proposed by Dammel and Quindt (2016). It will be argued that although EDs may feature evaluative connotations, they do not necessarily fulfil an explicit evaluative function.

This corpus-based study presents a description of the various morphosyntactic procedures found in the translation of evaluative forms from Spanish to Latvian. Said procedures have been identified and characterized in previous research by contrasting a total of 3,706 ST evaluative forms to their textual equivalents in Latvian (Martín Calvo 2019b). The present study's analysis focuses on ST evaluative forms containing nine suffixes most commonly employed in the expression of pejorative senses:-ac- ,-ach- ,-aj- ,-astr- ,-ej- ,-oide,-orr(i)- ,-uch- ,-uz-. Given that Latvian does not have dedicated affixal means to express pejoration, we examine the morphosyntactic procedures adopted by translators in order to provide TL textual counterparts for excerpted ST units and evaluate the TT reproduction of their semantic and pragmatic features. The study corpus covers a wide temporal range (1588 to 2013) and contains ST and TT textual units which have been excerpted from 26 works of fiction representing 7 national varieties of Spanish, as well as the work of 21 authors and 11 translators.

El presente artículo presenta una descripción de los diversos procedimientos morfosintácticos de traducción empleados en letón para ofrecer equivalentes textuales a formas evaluativas del español. Dichos procedimientos han sido identificados y descritos anteriormente en base al análisis de un corpus de estudio que comprende 3,706 formas evaluativas extraídas de TO en español así como sus equivalentes textuales en los TM en letón (Martín Calvo 2019b). El estudio examina dichos procedimientos en relación a formas evaluativas en español construidas mediante nueve sufijos comúnmente asociados a la expresión de valores peyorativos o despectivos:-ac- ,-ach- ,-aj- ,-astr- ,-ej- ,-oide,-orr(i)- ,-uch- ,-uz-. Teniendo en cuenta que el letón no posee recursos de afijación evaluativa específicos para expresar dichos sentidos, se examinan aquí los procedimientos morfosintácticos adoptados por los traductores al letón para la reproducción en el TM de los aspectos semánticos y prágmáticos transmitidos por las formas evaluativas peyorativas en el TO. El estudio toma como base un corpus que abarca un amplio segmento temporal (de 1588 a 2013), y cuyas unidades de estudio han sido extraídas de 26 obras de ficción, representando 7 variedades nacionales del español, así como el trabajo de 21 autores y 11 traductores. Palabras clave: Afijación apreciativa, letón, morfología evaluativa, sufijos peyorativos, procedimientos morfosintácticos de traducción. 2