<%BANNER%>

Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101130_AAAAAI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T06:33:21Z PACKAGE UFE0010940_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 44758 DFID F20101130_AAAGWB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH prieto_v_Page_261.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
eb728e66370479cccdc6b4769defc5b4
SHA-1
b44adbfedde329b2c2d41a2f5b071f20824d2a9d
1100 F20101130_AAAHAR prieto_v_Page_157.txt
17e175a2348203262bac91ae24b1e5fa
610584ef4f8577a2f8ab665813598831c1e6f854
2018 F20101130_AAAIKV prieto_v_Page_034.txt
7421551151898e0bb14515ac287f17f8
ed600f540177576c8a4fb988b8d9522e71019d4a
1301 F20101130_AAAGWC prieto_v_Page_281.txt
0186478d1b72dd49d6e8dc2c7d343a1b
c8984045307a5d8f1d375097ac5ac8839d698ce1
111017 F20101130_AAAHAS prieto_v_Page_015.jp2
16454abf3d71c45f73b5c1d5a0128c0d
2ca6a1b1a4db5b2b2a7d0e852f4a66cad4e26acf
1846 F20101130_AAAIKW prieto_v_Page_038.txt
1a9cec94bcc356882b3c0a66590c3513
e4e0f1ffeed9c9f87243458b033ca42765d616de
51718 F20101130_AAAGWD prieto_v_Page_050.pro
d902e564fac16e9f9761e92d010e1fb1
5a920f49e1937586f611eec5205bfe4d70be36eb
72080 F20101130_AAAHAT prieto_v_Page_073.jpg
163896766fd26e78c831d6490b3dfd26
e865710a07412c0997ada53c60cad9e0ba5cee34
1990 F20101130_AAAIKX prieto_v_Page_041.txt
e872827e06c0370d2e2d06df531551e2
37a5168df2a147557396bb8fc6bfdeb375f02962
2011 F20101130_AAAGWE prieto_v_Page_122.txt
b52056840562cc205d598ec259f67a5e
c5cd09f5d86c9c609a6a577ba87c8801f2f390da
23505 F20101130_AAAHAU prieto_v_Page_024.QC.jpg
5a8d32f9a7f0b813294cc8ae6e16fdba
e0c17e2c5556fe366078e159bc75c2c71fcaac0e
693 F20101130_AAAIKY prieto_v_Page_042.txt
86ed37e64a8bd448dceeb2eac754a217
ea39aeac1d6009776312d387f638290071edf41c
1053954 F20101130_AAAGWF prieto_v_Page_219.tif
433f9f4e076e11b475b67c67569cebe7
ecd08c5e99b1a2725d364b534d84d64864ce1a65
81654 F20101130_AAAHAV prieto_v_Page_268.jpg
15b99b09832934c130469151e0ea9809
10db7d7154624def091c5271f728c0dc7e8091dd
1840 F20101130_AAAIKZ prieto_v_Page_043.txt
6220d9cd60aebcca5147131a96669a29
8ee417b1c399cae1881526093cf561ab398f0e5b
22294 F20101130_AAAGWG prieto_v_Page_099.QC.jpg
af5ec9a5691b098e52bfa75cf5028e22
e7836d661aa514718cc54eea6c17b50772223800
19414 F20101130_AAAHAW prieto_v_Page_192.QC.jpg
8b60d661a9fc1c85cff0ec98d8daac32
7a21de9d9f3c8ada8b896de8c1d98e1b2294e652
46186 F20101130_AAAGWH prieto_v_Page_142.pro
8cc952513a27b37039f7447d30c7b111
b1abbf6bdc8531a2bf161050d942e65c378ad9e4
6271 F20101130_AAAHAX prieto_v_Page_171thm.jpg
420c98c8b17e35c2f80d4b95c593b5d1
743dcf1436a9a4016e98f0c25ce77d6c91de811f
106899 F20101130_AAAHTA prieto_v_Page_025.jp2
1fda8146ab597d1b28f00f5a274ccddf
91311acb5a25e4c4e99382c7208fb49be43f8005
111779 F20101130_AAAGWI prieto_v_Page_088.jp2
1f2793f21ad26451fb4f919143f0dc88
8b9c4737ac0e2760bba57bde551b597394daa6dd
44180 F20101130_AAAHAY prieto_v_Page_071.pro
90137426b06d7abb592f041c83842e4d
27e7c707a9fc12aa78927f1dc5a669ca9be7c761
108860 F20101130_AAAHTB prieto_v_Page_026.jp2
9b33987683c4c25ab2dd761e5a3c435b
3ea923fdbf80e5db7cc4f23a9351b05b658da464
24211 F20101130_AAAGWJ prieto_v_Page_124.QC.jpg
047895176e13a2bd434055cacc701760
caa7e2c8ecf17617e609b9720b60cd4049948861
1961 F20101130_AAAHAZ prieto_v_Page_238.txt
98d732be6b43cddf1354df5d8745064c
9082ce65a3f4d52f7fcc106d2ab57a7932fa2e1c
103558 F20101130_AAAHTC prieto_v_Page_028.jp2
d621519647dffd8a58295a51be2a7b99
927b7dba020eec5adac9a5f646f640237b3e42b8
68398 F20101130_AAAGWK prieto_v_Page_168.jpg
7615dde1b37d1b31e1b855f2fcbfabc3
4869a4c1dd4895910b291f7e8628ff96267505bc
107422 F20101130_AAAHTD prieto_v_Page_032.jp2
4fd8581632ab77b6ed57b493812a998a
c5dd89a0f6a849f78c114fc5945abf472e66c693
23770 F20101130_AAAGWL prieto_v_Page_204.QC.jpg
e44907fa564e9a6861643f8b4904b976
668622a2ecd3c2777725a8eaf2a7744e0dc470f4
104044 F20101130_AAAHTE prieto_v_Page_040.jp2
0bdb483502db7be1f327cdd0f7d44742
0476eb6e8e6ac4826dca98c0eba347a84c03affc
72212 F20101130_AAAGJA prieto_v_Page_131.jpg
2767a98d1f9547dcb55dcf2e167b1e8d
8356c494eafe621f505c8a6b8a7acde8961c026c
109633 F20101130_AAAGWM prieto_v_Page_186.jp2
521679fd6f0de75bab359aaf630e5a48
5dc9ea99340ef2b35d99bd9f3cacbf5ffe37259d
40203 F20101130_AAAHTF prieto_v_Page_042.jp2
bb996a3bdb7123d9ca6fa858af1150da
ae0679d3a375854eab21162b2961c9038df6fa3e
6343 F20101130_AAAGJB prieto_v_Page_096thm.jpg
f2af6af129b9efaf44fd7a68ae332b50
074434131af61515ff2604077bf439104794db4a
68016 F20101130_AAAGWN prieto_v_Page_194.jpg
c8b945c208cddf8126a7abe0b2f18f32
a342d721d15c4123c0cebd5b11229b595a94bcdd
112580 F20101130_AAAHTG prieto_v_Page_044.jp2
47d039e8d6eddd8d110ce3f77b958dcd
5b62880903db7903ddf556be0cb44aff84747daa
44449 F20101130_AAAGJC prieto_v_Page_236.pro
faf67833c0244fc32da822de8bfba6de
3032e628f69d5565031fef62a7215561f5101586
6338 F20101130_AAAGWO prieto_v_Page_160thm.jpg
8b43eae388dfc086967a4cd68e8bf8ee
20eca243e5fc17f56349fe4fbaf36886d791cfa7
105588 F20101130_AAAHTH prieto_v_Page_045.jp2
0e3bcfd859f038aff79cfc2034f84a1d
c3e1754a7f57ab54070e18c28f314727f45d2f31
2701 F20101130_AAAIQA prieto_v_Page_009thm.jpg
29c6dc931584c3205a8d09937ec53cc6
f3b7f00daa08b987993cfb2295fda8ea701f1e0b
5345 F20101130_AAAGJD prieto_v_Page_006thm.jpg
8d5c537027e3e640cd156e221cbf1c69
b0cd7e2c17403b8ed54b41afbe177b826777634c
899904 F20101130_AAAGWP prieto_v_Page_029.jp2
57299b38b2cb9aac4913e7325128d61c
3b8e575ad8d704e2b511359096188229012e33b6
111521 F20101130_AAAHTI prieto_v_Page_047.jp2
050da07c42184fdce4509a49e0446a3f
d1fb89fc741655743fdd0f524dbfe2053ff92641
17595 F20101130_AAAIQB prieto_v_Page_010.QC.jpg
3ce85af020a2a1eb12f9b6cb86e4a735
6b39efadf562c2869b6727d4717279890469c4af
71829 F20101130_AAAGWQ prieto_v_Page_221.jpg
7f74c788ac881d83da016bc344a207c9
6ae48327691f756d7cdf3af069e4570cffc94dd4
79495 F20101130_AAAHTJ prieto_v_Page_049.jp2
d62fe69cff40545dff89440af6a23b96
2a20a0c6e96f531f1195f652841aab283a0cf86f
4952 F20101130_AAAIQC prieto_v_Page_011thm.jpg
2c58ae655d46fc2ca8c5a764aa809f3e
57afa3d27de084110582229467758fefb094baa7
64513 F20101130_AAAGJE prieto_v_Page_265.jpg
8e47f69de173eb820316c0654e9c8b7c
4d4af6260498bde17f5d7c455f29611363e7096b
111231 F20101130_AAAHTK prieto_v_Page_050.jp2
5df8c187216b7c2b94f3c81fb5db1a6a
7457953432e2e6f13875546895d76552a138b765
20860 F20101130_AAAIQD prieto_v_Page_012.QC.jpg
44ae4df4d73a613a4a2b86a045d5c354
fb6695c09914961a4e05cdb27d6f88ebdd6cea3b
47370 F20101130_AAAGJF prieto_v_Page_175.pro
11b53f4dd6517bb28c6d015a02b70f1c
eb3269c8748a8b6cd555271eafc3daf26c9f219e
F20101130_AAAGWR prieto_v_Page_206.txt
8b4d1080195501642160870d767c8aa4
667f3753cbc563c269b014f5121edcfcec2fac95
110286 F20101130_AAAHTL prieto_v_Page_054.jp2
cf58e3c03412de5e9b72b424dbf52f83
558277b84c93a8008c8238c5e6cd245390e67338
21177 F20101130_AAAIQE prieto_v_Page_013.QC.jpg
7c404a7c6156ce8964566f637a7f89b4
0b90d023ed2bdb22b813c64cc8c1eaad17ad497f
5962 F20101130_AAAGJG prieto_v_Page_127thm.jpg
767c44f271382f05a2c374cf5ea1face
b62932b13e7e9e89b775cf99aead7eb21434ea7b
105067 F20101130_AAAHGA prieto_v_Page_189.jp2
40da576caf62ef0dea78a10bf4039a28
947035b2f209983628b38be153776c348fa10292
F20101130_AAAGWS prieto_v_Page_205.tif
a1d3900e2053e076951ae615b04f93d3
13d0cbcc026f397d2c876d8db6d10abd91b7acc4
113992 F20101130_AAAHTM prieto_v_Page_055.jp2
48d7da667abf4059f4596032a7db9e38
3c974b0a2cfa77a9c6eb3a012f62522f33e011ac
5893 F20101130_AAAIQF prieto_v_Page_014thm.jpg
ed6086afa845c8900658c38546e13926
28596c7fb21b3177295975b317b50d50711e00cb
6107 F20101130_AAAGJH prieto_v_Page_013thm.jpg
cac0c4187d249d6251f6d82b69f0dc9b
3b946ae80caa57b22b5ec265e194af5d73d427a5
38042 F20101130_AAAHGB prieto_v_Page_218.pro
0da21ea92bb3a4a3600fe4ee43948f6e
5956466147459f7de6870a0a4886c45528accf7a
2024 F20101130_AAAGWT prieto_v_Page_204.txt
9bae863d6b09dfcd0c6fe340581e0e50
14c34826bcf8767338f341b0cca631c61d7a3cd7
23298 F20101130_AAAIQG prieto_v_Page_015.QC.jpg
16bffa67ccf0e1f55128b54979b9949d
eefc1e4ef81607825a995f6558c9eb0966160a53
69229 F20101130_AAAGJI prieto_v_Page_196.jpg
f7f314060dad7e7cabbd9b08c43ad587
262d6cdbd85acdd91ecb2c6da014381ae416683c
73218 F20101130_AAAHGC prieto_v_Page_050.jpg
72e2d23f1354ed5827f9f2496c508713
309e2dae504ced91f2d7ae2be028290940b3a5b0
1992 F20101130_AAAGWU prieto_v_Page_020.txt
d551679ea507d502edd6783cdd85760f
be046b21f7b30a2e105feee70ddd412c31bbc30d
111259 F20101130_AAAHTN prieto_v_Page_056.jp2
56f9f3ff32a1b48681406f72c53f384b
8618b8de9298d8a4cf547100841f204506d9feea
21675 F20101130_AAAIQH prieto_v_Page_016.QC.jpg
c989afcdb2c6a2654f41a0f63258b8af
fac4599a14832959dd01e1143350f83bfd295692
104932 F20101130_AAAGJJ prieto_v_Page_035.jp2
efe96b5b83100a056a57b3737fe841d7
33f851265d0d8183fea391aaa46d15846b1a78d3
54245 F20101130_AAAHGD prieto_v_Page_129.pro
a2b0a7d75fcc0e610e2dfb3e80c064ce
9cf374a43d28533efe1c7fea0674e36bc9125c92
49789 F20101130_AAAGWV prieto_v_Page_051.pro
48c57dff9a5bcbedfb84560b693d3075
3259ce867ea343d3707e9d32065b819077062640
108995 F20101130_AAAHTO prieto_v_Page_058.jp2
29914c15b15456abf631ca193d625b2a
c9dddb91ff8aff04f5227f18a92d0ead741ac4e1
6131 F20101130_AAAIQI prieto_v_Page_016thm.jpg
dd3f5a061d243c6e75b8d88a8579e52a
0cd2e27afe4e2c9f131439fb94c79bf2c7c14d1c
48919 F20101130_AAAGJK prieto_v_Page_120.pro
e18d49e182f0fa3e4e0dc8ea15904cd2
aef65f10904c9e7aeb8440c78f02c43bb1df7668
F20101130_AAAHGE prieto_v_Page_133.tif
c9d2ce3f0f466e2921dd8ba91f1af1a8
62baf8d95ca5c8012489a2bbfc2dcd3f05e92f2d
F20101130_AAAGWW prieto_v_Page_278.tif
cc44822af8cbe4d5afe1f40d994622fb
67fcb97f9c9447daeafb9d1fb10ae44eed2e5033
111400 F20101130_AAAHTP prieto_v_Page_064.jp2
49da69649d5daa3e999854a4f9dc8db6
5861b92102a55ef6ca3ca86b0de911a0c3b9938e
6450 F20101130_AAAGJL prieto_v_Page_079thm.jpg
358e6bbf7c773e67c9649e3549b022b5
29f511e817ac5e31a2c5f0cf6585f7db2400f08a
58303 F20101130_AAAHGF prieto_v_Page_252.pro
4bae5d21fe13b389277588ef9f0715c1
0112794e72f89d76422fd2155e996171c71bb927
64386 F20101130_AAAGWX prieto_v_Page_225.jpg
db475ad9f4671c07ee42dd5bc77de44c
eae8692ace01427755dbdb11dffb4023995f473b
110550 F20101130_AAAHTQ prieto_v_Page_065.jp2
b0450d1b1288f119e812f0caffa65563
4c2c7c0ddd1858e283617858b47a5008ac754026
22365 F20101130_AAAIQJ prieto_v_Page_017.QC.jpg
833e9b400964fc0edec1c52b6693a027
8b1d29ca9fb058b7b25537456d16d6a3d4497c1d
110302 F20101130_AAAGJM prieto_v_Page_185.jp2
2400156d0ad66eb5ae1463b12a66b28c
b90153a3f4f84886030d1a98445973389a0d12e1
F20101130_AAAHGG prieto_v_Page_149.tif
9624b23d2dc5413c1e594aed032b133d
250d7718fc601d4f189b498a5723bad1fc93483f
45216 F20101130_AAAGWY prieto_v_Page_143.pro
63f59c0bb017a283430e768451b2b2e7
d1da91c2bec076a55dbd92ff042b0ccf51b8f4dc
105907 F20101130_AAAHTR prieto_v_Page_066.jp2
0e4750b3c03c4535d42673e638ad5cc2
2afc009136eedc7d9ef500e1a6205778dff5e990
6420 F20101130_AAAIQK prieto_v_Page_017thm.jpg
da33bed384896f838136149325f58862
4f8e3d7abc3a3a2f91c45476bb67b1ffebb362e2
F20101130_AAAGJN prieto_v_Page_123.tif
eb916e4dcbffb473ecd926cbefaa9514
87c12a0267a8a349969abd072a8c446d38721af8
F20101130_AAAHGH prieto_v_Page_234.tif
275e1d37b474218287c89cde71cd89e8
2ca1b026711ada59f636013db453d588c2619599
51215 F20101130_AAAGWZ prieto_v_Page_073.pro
b6bcb3487b1b8213c07f36e379b4dd0f
6c646ca30e0dad7ff4478d3c7c13094b7b39a025
F20101130_AAAIDA prieto_v_Page_213.tif
b12d9d9477a7de3ad649b7cae6ca176f
e1368fb9f56b32393c099e586bda7016fd367ed4
109040 F20101130_AAAHTS prieto_v_Page_067.jp2
84b560ad79bcc5b66d7da74099bf24f6
76ed80993f2ac18ff6677174ae90f8f5abeeb48e
6526 F20101130_AAAIQL prieto_v_Page_019thm.jpg
86de0f915cdc1868d3becf6be5961dd2
c3513870e27208a19aaab39d19d04ba2abe2f577
2313 F20101130_AAAGJO prieto_v_Page_252.txt
5c5a0442893db62806a80095d269e6e3
7adefcef449085435be8745d0e7bd2012944a558
6145 F20101130_AAAHGI prieto_v_Page_252thm.jpg
639f03c6526e99f1cd3f9925bb77962d
3e7961b626fd8bcf0883c8b6b0113373702625bd
F20101130_AAAIDB prieto_v_Page_214.tif
00881978dee035ab85b05f346fdc3729
f64449a9350d602989523067ac8dc11f1a58ef1b
106115 F20101130_AAAHTT prieto_v_Page_069.jp2
c4cbf2f327c9ed58846fc2841970ef86
59f92a8ff050850bc3f3fbe4911928ad2ff14760
23134 F20101130_AAAIQM prieto_v_Page_020.QC.jpg
11bbff2bdb087b6bd9a1be52a97d2684
7c42c8eb5d3ff23e78ae4ce6d7fe7af161b5a3b3
18729 F20101130_AAAGJP prieto_v_Page_249.QC.jpg
9fc3dd7c3cac498c9a352523e66df6ea
7cda85adeeda4f6ba10b8b90d580e552664868fb
74141 F20101130_AAAHGJ prieto_v_Page_235.jpg
af9c6ff3aad3647234556fe3c5c3f9e9
390b942bc10e80851758e1c79b81988fb399be17
F20101130_AAAIDC prieto_v_Page_215.tif
9424582a7fb318b1db4bd32681205590
eb05c05223f120cfce841c8ac83d8d753664c9b0
106368 F20101130_AAAHTU prieto_v_Page_070.jp2
9ba25564847b58bd84915a5712d01596
efd999f8c9267bf547ed8583dd2f93d1996c105f
23657 F20101130_AAAIQN prieto_v_Page_022.QC.jpg
38edabb0309655930a0d57b363ef5050
57f8be5a36bd14387b3dbcb287c12acee5806fa1
73822 F20101130_AAAGJQ prieto_v_Page_064.jpg
e05893744c90765c873f3fa1af22d9d8
7b050f20b8f374aa8be0f9878e2f49285dc9bdd6
1810 F20101130_AAAHGK prieto_v_Page_171.txt
f199e9befb0f48b2cbca9581b2f6eff7
d3cb844004e6bad2343f752fce3adf456581f4df
F20101130_AAAIDD prieto_v_Page_217.tif
0fc3d0a4e65a5e5467f08ee6a008bdb3
9441991b88750eea14b449772ba79422ec0f3396
95173 F20101130_AAAHTV prieto_v_Page_071.jp2
cb13140a68961327fc864a0fbfec91a9
3dd00bf381762bde2e10c91792110ebb8c27b93d
6694 F20101130_AAAIQO prieto_v_Page_022thm.jpg
875dfcf7a0174ebbe524d1d3ea5cfe74
4a7c38a20c19dbe4d2cad3be7062346fa7c92a0a
F20101130_AAAGJR prieto_v_Page_044.tif
df0c26720afc78d71524afb69a43018e
669e79d079257d05f3e3c91339a3151988f9798b
14236 F20101130_AAAHGL prieto_v_Page_210.QC.jpg
a2de692c5f36ce29f6203c2c0b436fc5
720a26505b886d3a816813a2d4e84e4fd4e5abbb
F20101130_AAAIDE prieto_v_Page_218.tif
d5b33c3dea4ff5aa644fcad3c2bcbcdb
3ff1457aad7d94ea21e091d82cefda50bc2dbec9
104761 F20101130_AAAHTW prieto_v_Page_072.jp2
cb943c438ec39a3ff0c0ef5738e3fcb4
ab62ffb3540197816f4aa6713ca3031834bc4bfa
6618 F20101130_AAAIQP prieto_v_Page_023thm.jpg
65f499c5d21a69634eb46a4f88f13ff1
24fe07f0780b79521e6752c4dd15259049a64451
6256 F20101130_AAAGJS prieto_v_Page_066thm.jpg
9017212d3c6505acd61c99e0b62ef41d
ca428fabf3ddabcea10690fe519527ed913db35f
6498 F20101130_AAAHGM prieto_v_Page_182thm.jpg
71e20d4922028b3121d0aa1538d06944
50ec5b95b4d4c4799ec7e8e91a718681936f4c4d
F20101130_AAAIDF prieto_v_Page_220.tif
0d3133c3136757548b80ff7b65a891f9
d2e358bb613dbb1cb95c4a27a42ecabd9214e7ad
110159 F20101130_AAAHTX prieto_v_Page_073.jp2
d7900afca03503384a24f9881d80fc23
6978ced39f5c6ae20d540a842fb062e262884bc1
22180 F20101130_AAAIQQ prieto_v_Page_025.QC.jpg
d3d0d46f0ca1cd7ed693082b78b57490
9de4f1b2a5e066eed07ed115ccddb4e95ac02f68
54127 F20101130_AAAGJT prieto_v_Page_259.pro
84f4963d95c80956f39440e1c90eff46
2b89ea521f2ed256e2932aa4a5164e534a5b563a
62815 F20101130_AAAHGN prieto_v_Page_163.jpg
3eac152d4aa9ae7940bdfcf63e56f3fe
46918ef0af71011010fa009f10417de35d034360
F20101130_AAAIDG prieto_v_Page_224.tif
91a95099fc5b8d32cbb48be6a96ccddc
e954a98ab3a57ca897e1a82d398e32cdfaa2f1cb
109402 F20101130_AAAHTY prieto_v_Page_074.jp2
ff37cff4f9c5570b9a5e40bad2a16909
ce089ab5fd088fa193da6543bb8822025aca1515
F20101130_AAAIQR prieto_v_Page_026thm.jpg
22cb9a204666770eb1527caf2e24537d
c6de3b099df10cd2adae2e0dd2aa333f3d191c9b
52679 F20101130_AAAGJU prieto_v_Page_130.pro
6b53c7c018d73ade99e6cfce4402b538
b0568757c5abc575a6bef22af3769057523b4cbb
21355 F20101130_AAAJAA prieto_v_Page_239.QC.jpg
317c067d004dacda5c5e016ee6616476
2a38894215b9b79e2ab1085b9bc546f0daf7f667
58108 F20101130_AAAHGO prieto_v_Page_273.pro
891ea6ffd7f11e27e0fe2c3a36bf3f5a
48945ca0561abebf2a7235a82cc94342d6f0459a
F20101130_AAAIDH prieto_v_Page_225.tif
a3ed42b81d52b1726c7c96f6f09196b7
838b3d656858c71a92831b3739804d5d6432ba28
112390 F20101130_AAAHTZ prieto_v_Page_075.jp2
88721b7b0377e7f63478b62c7ceeec99
6451b6fed593da2bca3e1d9afb407337901b2b1d
6375 F20101130_AAAIQS prieto_v_Page_027thm.jpg
1b3d5d8997364e67c6cef132655ab6d0
880724be2949564356d10d70630d29dc445cc22c
106988 F20101130_AAAGJV prieto_v_Page_006.pro
91fe19878a48c13e8b2b1d039891264e
cdd15898fbd650a672d3eb4f9a902f7094b9df90
5901 F20101130_AAAJAB prieto_v_Page_239thm.jpg
090b83882a67cb33130fd615cda174f0
cd32fa912e6dc87fdafbf3020730a67e43fae13d
74437 F20101130_AAAHGP prieto_v_Page_075.jpg
3ed50908871030ae7bf34ca272371811
5d96bc2f57622dfa602e4e3850e9a1890662713c
F20101130_AAAIDI prieto_v_Page_226.tif
d9cdf76777558ee8131350fd47a90449
cc4b96cccb9fe5ef7422704bb3eb7692f5f310fb
22897 F20101130_AAAIQT prieto_v_Page_028.QC.jpg
be9905e85b3da056ec214323700c4ffe
77c7a53afc2c9da9e8f36cb819f06d7e09fc18ba
6771 F20101130_AAAGJW prieto_v_Page_198thm.jpg
3bbbb4e0b564135e099ecd553ede5d7f
5ea305f3a2d0749ded5e1103e9c97fc395e6ee85
18981 F20101130_AAAJAC prieto_v_Page_240.QC.jpg
e68683ea4143bc417429c224583179a0
d4170dffddac2c0a87e90a5511c28517220deb1c
1871 F20101130_AAAHGQ prieto_v_Page_158.txt
b72022cd3c0f3526c936c15cc52a5d91
b37cf6188b8c18a87d61ff32eb65d7f012a0ce84
F20101130_AAAIDJ prieto_v_Page_227.tif
55567fb9e6b2484b51a358db406844a6
cefb8ef0fc434bf26d6de316c4a1ea6e0be1d626
6398 F20101130_AAAIQU prieto_v_Page_028thm.jpg
65bce74e3217c44dd5bc4c20e24875dc
bb091f756f69382473d039a7940f891ed82515fc
F20101130_AAAGJX prieto_v_Page_206.tif
edec064e16ef4d8bcecd6f0b579429d3
42f3d4f749216aba5c587ea876df553c35d3fa9f
19903 F20101130_AAAJAD prieto_v_Page_241.QC.jpg
882c41d82c13ad36fb0a5bee0666936e
45864b09d8a2daa52e97b33653346773f98c1533
25271604 F20101130_AAAHGR prieto_v_Page_029.tif
9fc1de1d9340132b28778482277eed54
52d30122cacfca27a2e89e24d4c80fafa27f2918
F20101130_AAAIDK prieto_v_Page_229.tif
eedc6524c68ceeaf089fedfa8be718df
5bffb9dda286c5bcbaa0530e406a6f822969df23
6030 F20101130_AAAIQV prieto_v_Page_029thm.jpg
9bd855ae18336a4e8f12d77345a14bfb
70ecfb083d841dc0ab9b8a47cd545329661fd2c8
F20101130_AAAGJY prieto_v_Page_188.tif
6052174026601241f29831fbc1e93d44
a08769652237b9368c94d6c586350b41e66ebdfa
5542 F20101130_AAAJAE prieto_v_Page_241thm.jpg
b2225b0651ae47cf657da21d5792a973
22ddb4316293fea7bb1f3985ef64b7377ebe9f93
1951 F20101130_AAAHGS prieto_v_Page_180.txt
d662101dc64c855578d1ea9c53594599
18509e782cf6c84ec534e7679d4a97a0f29ab066
F20101130_AAAIDL prieto_v_Page_231.tif
d5c6a899a0047ea81300fead504dca6f
7f6b4f0ab857420824dcdf8b665493cad191a326
24605 F20101130_AAAIQW prieto_v_Page_030.QC.jpg
88c11aa906cb7433c2d5fc78e094858f
d4df58d1ef7ff5584db55c510dddeb9e2e34a2ae
100385 F20101130_AAAGJZ prieto_v_Page_048.jp2
719adadbb82dc5d5a34b55c6b571c5be
fb07c415ebcd53cc71657aa080a9cfda1facbbe4
5721 F20101130_AAAJAF prieto_v_Page_242thm.jpg
a8182ea4b33ace4a923c7cb86def56cf
c9bc37126940b6a0f74c9e44af509843a50246b1
44896 F20101130_AAAHGT prieto_v_Page_113.pro
5eac580e177542cf02cc92c018936cbf
3e4d5ed8678bfd5b76d6f508d266359b10f23e7b
F20101130_AAAIDM prieto_v_Page_232.tif
bc528460a538a55a907a39824b675b67
7c6afa2bba78221d92b545ac6a49eae52623339b
6776 F20101130_AAAIQX prieto_v_Page_030thm.jpg
c9bff406ba96554bc964f503979e5cc8
068ef21317308675777a5461c2b532fe5976cc82
18770 F20101130_AAAJAG prieto_v_Page_243.QC.jpg
9fd71d47c5912429224e907aad30edf0
19f815027dba8ad8549f9c0372f1b2b018878f0a
F20101130_AAAHGU prieto_v_Page_233.tif
a0d005b20b556472a7b61fbf64f25e60
bd33ef5a74ee7c9d806d1eee3a687f3683d693f6
F20101130_AAAIDN prieto_v_Page_235.tif
9437525200592119bd75b3b6649e29ad
90b4c71a2f487f4603894218f21dec44d7e41750
22207 F20101130_AAAIQY prieto_v_Page_031.QC.jpg
a061229fed61e6fe7f469216fbc0a40d
795cc28674c95c10a0e492644f10d037e39f1e36
5149 F20101130_AAAJAH prieto_v_Page_243thm.jpg
f8cff1a6bc367f674e85dda1e3c10c7d
fc5e189a0c9a0142aac8ea508cab205acfe91e6f
F20101130_AAAIDO prieto_v_Page_237.tif
bb8bdee4ac91946bb1109e5b31fa4fd6
663d0c10ce88dcf7035b44e627b04af299e8a69d
6325 F20101130_AAAIQZ prieto_v_Page_031thm.jpg
4f788d92ef43917312e1180a5559a74c
67c2ae6f2e992ec1dc5476eeafa332153a5f0be3
1995 F20101130_AAAHGV prieto_v_Page_222.txt
79e134b04c4d93a1a0c91cee58155494
e61d41c45c45eaf1fae8b00443ef43842428a707
21722 F20101130_AAAJAI prieto_v_Page_244.QC.jpg
6184993aa064afead2d808be5e5a6007
f5969ecfdd72bed3707fa62a081e614f31568422
F20101130_AAAIDP prieto_v_Page_239.tif
0d74e4dc02284efef05d707106b35c65
a04ed2d2760a2757506d705c7329a4f49d716e23
48244 F20101130_AAAHGW prieto_v_Page_027.pro
0001699740707a180a6cae2313f52c21
fe8c80765e3c88e690ef3b773e68f1bad8cf6785
19148 F20101130_AAAJAJ prieto_v_Page_245.QC.jpg
d912f36c3220ef4ba1081ecc3c6cbb06
4092acf3f03a4a6c44499d96a81e872288fe2c18
F20101130_AAAHZA prieto_v_Page_022.tif
8caa8f51aa14cd3e147cb33099205b5e
0a8d03d588fa85655a782b0a54696ec9d8be591e
F20101130_AAAIDQ prieto_v_Page_240.tif
77831be88803ff1bbe973589b99b7063
8f7f90c9f798fde8820f8f32b72c33bd99985848
51841 F20101130_AAAHGX prieto_v_Page_044.pro
274477b5469e01870d21b30948210155
8ad083a154b9f6b5e529131e64e296767422840f
5500 F20101130_AAAJAK prieto_v_Page_245thm.jpg
ba00a85286ec68fa652c654ebbaa35bb
c41c29ebe3233b107e05ce49346b855dbecc25f9
F20101130_AAAHZB prieto_v_Page_024.tif
5398269076e2a0bd0db6aeeb878eccbd
14f07cbd470b5d228837ea6dc7702d6093ba6055
F20101130_AAAIDR prieto_v_Page_242.tif
294730a4f3bbfbddf795077f52e89807
20129fc4f198892a054fa63181b80c5724a175b1
21559 F20101130_AAAHGY prieto_v_Page_048.QC.jpg
d36a10320c9b6c7d93bbded0d2c141b7
de82ad5ea1d43f8e9a83e80224240488b835ae35
19736 F20101130_AAAJAL prieto_v_Page_246.QC.jpg
9b655340b62fddc487c674f63bb88fde
cbfbbb3cff6097e12653d5e184df17f70500c306
F20101130_AAAHZC prieto_v_Page_026.tif
fbe534dac48e810a6c1d323ddafbf0d4
64debafd7df2b85f23536083127a4186a9744d8c
F20101130_AAAIDS prieto_v_Page_251.tif
ae08a31d7d3cf35c6e71510ee6525c93
857b4a1558ee602195c364e609a7d2a67da9c2ef
51707 F20101130_AAAHGZ prieto_v_Page_131.pro
a6835e08ebffea8f323ad1aaf5d8c278
3881fc20eeba5f9a252db2afcd8e63c58aa41662
17840 F20101130_AAAJAM prieto_v_Page_250.QC.jpg
9f412611fe7a5aad74eae328c26fcd65
9ea12aad5fcba44a38c8b5346b8a28d4f7624931
F20101130_AAAHZD prieto_v_Page_027.tif
c15195b2f59b5304d289855a5653a336
67e18eed58b066300302ef15ea36784aa2ec7e0d
F20101130_AAAIDT prieto_v_Page_252.tif
bc5e381646e0d67124abc74feb1c7abe
472f10f7305a88b3eb384ea9a103c54abb84cbd8
20521 F20101130_AAAJAN prieto_v_Page_251.QC.jpg
80d3030f3d406fa1c59feb0fe0071a6b
4a3d282aea86cc4521ca54d0d6c8cf29da81971e
F20101130_AAAHZE prieto_v_Page_032.tif
4bc922076fa1d96bbcec1d02c577712b
03e100e27107a036adeb7fac4206995c8f7b6032
F20101130_AAAIDU prieto_v_Page_253.tif
0ac8f8e5f275f397b780614ea6739ff4
8ab02531115336d530c38f694847ba0f35667466
1305 F20101130_AAAGPA prieto_v_Page_002.pro
82da002da455d240df2c97e9b4d977d0
c7b49b8f22129217cc7116030a93c72343ea4155
21921 F20101130_AAAJAO prieto_v_Page_253.QC.jpg
13276d2f56100dfab4001a1ad39d39d4
db35255212810fc1daad9aa8766fb16f03604602
F20101130_AAAHZF prieto_v_Page_033.tif
df641aa7e299b6ba989518c30ba1f235
27f98b59036ac90d0c04bd5592d2865a97fa6e0a
F20101130_AAAIDV prieto_v_Page_254.tif
0adba71c808dcde43cca7633c3aa2eea
7e0adbd5f9fe582f396e37c570b7fa943069dead
99420 F20101130_AAAGPB prieto_v_Page_261.jp2
e8a062458524cbfa88fd5ebbb21820be
c2df4343a47ba29fe02d0a016239d8a74acfeb1e
6206 F20101130_AAAJAP prieto_v_Page_253thm.jpg
18cb3b13c194eeca98d076acd0b63351
5cd2ea0dd20a4005492f244cba838a14a6e9ae31
F20101130_AAAHZG prieto_v_Page_034.tif
fc1c004aec32698ece13cc9a2bb08b61
1803a74a2b76d03277e069a2be8858c6f41069db
F20101130_AAAIDW prieto_v_Page_255.tif
42212909f9cb4d78b1b6c4983bfc017b
e779816f330f4a46d693a2d2d23333f6562ad521
105499 F20101130_AAAGPC prieto_v_Page_031.jp2
5836a2f76224d3dc904188903cbf65ed
cdd26abdc1be6e608314f87f46b5c760d9fc8043
5839 F20101130_AAAJAQ prieto_v_Page_254thm.jpg
0e4252f5676a82e5387483aff6a454be
d6ad04d726882da07dac2278295ed2270ba26424
18246 F20101130_AAAIWA prieto_v_Page_147.QC.jpg
9660d6c201a69a8779a1d73c6d5f55a0
b6ab61e467c6300dcafc18b32e2abbb56acd74ff
F20101130_AAAHZH prieto_v_Page_035.tif
c0ba55bad7addc662bce0ca0fe3de395
4f07193fc624c2c1a1f33daee8cb82539fc15694
F20101130_AAAIDX prieto_v_Page_256.tif
3b0911252559f90809c18ed390dedc4c
d6f7e6029dbf224993ef116a29305a3d26577791
5727 F20101130_AAAGPD prieto_v_Page_229thm.jpg
a61d5dba17570383a9c70127a2b44e81
4d3a50d1c38aa4a6fa79300eccdbb280b134f575
5605 F20101130_AAAJAR prieto_v_Page_255thm.jpg
3a8760067afb936754940c78596c4961
59691f9a5e8df70160375b79d5fa93e390f76140
5412 F20101130_AAAIWB prieto_v_Page_147thm.jpg
8984db293720157a122b197eddd46074
65318fc29334b87fa2cf3c2e3ea4e17f6aca4f70
F20101130_AAAHZI prieto_v_Page_036.tif
8dfbe1309b60050c253c85f6c7e224e0
f379601573ebcc2797392abd675af55d9151abf3
F20101130_AAAIDY prieto_v_Page_257.tif
3d8b8e9d2239d142ac362c549e254775
484b5a45dc316498b6fad24d31899d653c4eb9eb
6792 F20101130_AAAGPE prieto_v_Page_076thm.jpg
187e9b39fd471d392a1a7cd98d4c4741
6e519c211a94c92ad7efe81e9058046766a1d5f7
19752 F20101130_AAAJAS prieto_v_Page_257.QC.jpg
2e8763865dbc029534dfa30a4be20972
da962a6b0b06afbfc57ec76b0dd8c2d33e69dd0a
23252 F20101130_AAAIWC prieto_v_Page_148.QC.jpg
f6cec6ba046bfde9e072d95e5294c34f
1759bd7a900f7c820670afbaaf1a1210123165b2
F20101130_AAAHZJ prieto_v_Page_039.tif
a731cdd1bb4e5a4096570471339c645e
384cd46b15af1125abd4cd5eb919b0d6a52501bc
F20101130_AAAIDZ prieto_v_Page_259.tif
fd115f0d8f683c64a838e5dd88da7233
14c5864f7ea0f92715010d2f06ab9691af4f5d95
20431 F20101130_AAAGPF prieto_v_Page_242.QC.jpg
38b7e533a17b4dbb4908dbc5ccea9611
6f9e7c23c9f08826d42e4a088c9b82815b3bf77b
5604 F20101130_AAAJAT prieto_v_Page_257thm.jpg
885f03bec854bd7085bbb38996c57aed
c3ea7434bf916e215a4360de6f3ca577a69ebeaf
6599 F20101130_AAAIWD prieto_v_Page_148thm.jpg
100e8c2abcb2d074efc9336410193295
c5469ae075e7b451f00f0b16777cdbc0c6ea7133
F20101130_AAAHZK prieto_v_Page_040.tif
c4abeb5120555706ed54163362a0a895
4430d22e3320267f58e287949bbf7396cc8f1237
49057 F20101130_AAAGPG prieto_v_Page_121.pro
acf6add9ff83224c8a9721de60b9870c
162237eb237bbe0902e10ffd75914fec71c48275
19963 F20101130_AAAJAU prieto_v_Page_260.QC.jpg
485375899bf37348954cf32a24da6634
1d993906ab4ca7561b4523958dff46fc3177148a
23577 F20101130_AAAIWE prieto_v_Page_149.QC.jpg
2dc1c08bbcd5b64f139650c15163ecc0
b3c266c052769a691330d72618cfe3bed41a5b0d
F20101130_AAAHZL prieto_v_Page_043.tif
5b918041c005ca44d4e4d3028e048b79
15d8624e0d0fc4ca6929a2d3680abdb973b8f577
15630 F20101130_AAAGPH prieto_v_Page_214.QC.jpg
d274d714bdab4f8b521c940ffb6a597c
ebdf94107951c56841803399dc39ed8d8469473c
23536 F20101130_AAAHMA prieto_v_Page_058.QC.jpg
8594125998d0af62c5381d446dbdae70
8807d41703a7b66df94611f85bffdf3023a479ae
18781 F20101130_AAAJAV prieto_v_Page_261.QC.jpg
893c526f3acfc26a39467a6837617116
025992656ab6bec2217a77823e5b668c9fefb99b
23912 F20101130_AAAIWF prieto_v_Page_150.QC.jpg
fa6e5a4d12d3d943e0e506370f063568
bed7adfe20842cee857997d722d4043ffc72dd6b
F20101130_AAAHZM prieto_v_Page_047.tif
dc511927e6116c79aa2f8c055b810eb4
140e6d61562cd50ccd89f021dcf6c08770e3d59e
123636 F20101130_AAAGPI prieto_v_Page_019.jp2
2f1891b4da7f53aada28f751c3df8214
a0c72bee50734b88377f192aeaaec824863e8475
23784 F20101130_AAAHMB prieto_v_Page_166.QC.jpg
f47495c6638a2323187a626721f0a465
f32cf47164ed8887f333a64a73627ade68e3945d
5525 F20101130_AAAJAW prieto_v_Page_261thm.jpg
e3a8fedb430b8f0ff80228feadcb8c3f
9f5080222870e70d7e74971d93de7f89a3cf2ba8
21349 F20101130_AAAIWG prieto_v_Page_151.QC.jpg
6dc586033b00ac79edcf0346c6bef66e
ced34df7c95c2c1f212e6c2eded1e7224ec7548f
F20101130_AAAHZN prieto_v_Page_049.tif
eaad50dd9f0f4fc72b27a9a2a9b13182
91f564d6d124137936f6da63ef082d2706bb7748
6248 F20101130_AAAGPJ prieto_v_Page_097thm.jpg
5c87a3557196d9bac7251660ffe6daef
5a79491c7425e17239409d8b11800e009f7d7a65
49431 F20101130_AAAHMC prieto_v_Page_230.pro
54771c6f08f6d2880ca0ad79333ab51e
fb41ce7c9fa740c1e5a5a1e663efb667bfb59b26
21158 F20101130_AAAJAX prieto_v_Page_262.QC.jpg
106fba15af03fdf2b7710887d5b8653d
6fe9857ca36b37c61aec09fb8642bf1c86b02a60
6167 F20101130_AAAIWH prieto_v_Page_151thm.jpg
e558015e565e9347c685ccdd59cc18f5
f83ed0baed9e6852b7656b35a2d3fdf0d8da62c3
F20101130_AAAHZO prieto_v_Page_051.tif
5d0d005f0b5126def4ee32df6c1a5579
e8c6fcf870f821b52ee5b05c7da494a44a72adaf
F20101130_AAAHMD prieto_v_Page_157.tif
d4bf5dcc6926e535d31cd24b20514ec0
d331b67a08b7e098faec77937d414b60b533076a
24526 F20101130_AAAIWI prieto_v_Page_153.QC.jpg
4ca0d0ae506e046c30b1ab450b1ac18b
de3b88d2a1bf28a79e659661e8e235e3ca95f135
F20101130_AAAHZP prieto_v_Page_052.tif
addf496a25b74a8ddc5bb2adb8a8d8f4
eff850b5199df70fbf6581e290889552bd38a013
F20101130_AAAGPK prieto_v_Page_113.tif
b2c719e3b2b51be1e91f8dc8062d7fb0
47ac18f23a3d7c9ac6511c79412bd3d796c5b7d4
23224 F20101130_AAAHME prieto_v_Page_037.QC.jpg
9bb67af487c09d7bdc31a7427250f717
8ce446fad780c92a2be7bc63749297d132741f44
5739 F20101130_AAAJAY prieto_v_Page_263thm.jpg
53fb1502607ef6736ac6b25ed66f2e58
b159d30cc496515b7c4a7e54f53fa8b6eeca8802
6569 F20101130_AAAIWJ prieto_v_Page_153thm.jpg
59dfa6a41d8794efc737c52f76fcbb90
054758c007139a7a0063890b3aa2f16c9b458f72
F20101130_AAAHZQ prieto_v_Page_053.tif
368b91e49bc67864c522c089c843286d
03eef05d51fffe47791518bc3b45878c8d955fb3
50787 F20101130_AAAGPL prieto_v_Page_199.pro
ea57ee8fe9f0bb56d67b6dbd8206d0b8
efb7682e28024ef30337af115c4451c6d019bd45
6449 F20101130_AAAHMF prieto_v_Page_070thm.jpg
087acd8bdf9176a85ca4b59b9a9043df
466a0781b57ad84acaaa4d4390ba345d493bd0ff
23845 F20101130_AAAJAZ prieto_v_Page_264.QC.jpg
cffcb5bece81531fbb2c101509f529d2
79a7879e627cd2ffe1c3ce2998b41e59f1b858db
6445 F20101130_AAAIWK prieto_v_Page_154thm.jpg
09f6562aea3c9ed174e3da131ed68ba0
6eb17eef6156e4b83aae999ed08045159355ba99
F20101130_AAAHZR prieto_v_Page_062.tif
1bb3fbd1ec1f0a40edc76e015345090e
000866f2bbf3ebf23978e73ca2a4e7689ace1ff4
50601 F20101130_AAAGPM prieto_v_Page_020.pro
9bc90ea3d68ea39856cb2e13fd16b1bd
670d1dabf6543ad7930929b617b671e174a4cc70
23270 F20101130_AAAIWL prieto_v_Page_155.QC.jpg
f1b13c323ea94b4bc369cc388c77dd81
873f2837a7ee81759db15c87a4fc9b1aeab2ed08
31955 F20101130_AAAIJA prieto_v_Page_216.pro
901007e1ba1905e1f42acdb7824d9243
5709078ade8ceba7b226a70a568246bbb67f9316
F20101130_AAAHZS prieto_v_Page_063.tif
e7286eb8a5c320d90c569f326e342a77
dd408c0ac5a6fdc71d141e4acac3fcb83e1ccfd0
23600 F20101130_AAAGPN prieto_v_Page_062.QC.jpg
c30e5bbfd4c2bbda75aa827cc73ab881
f109f7053e71aa4c8f25b2f930b39c77f888e453
24672 F20101130_AAAHMG prieto_v_Page_209.QC.jpg
df441f3b6a5c2b91aa1119a189e4c1f0
b502c41239e9fd162ca1b8997fa0b5b93b4a5c1a
6367 F20101130_AAAIWM prieto_v_Page_155thm.jpg
81f91a5e6ec85cfa128f04c8276d6e27
47931444daae4cfc318b713b091d44667ed8f8a0
51563 F20101130_AAAIJB prieto_v_Page_219.pro
ec2a613e52936d0b0c093d16dd8af61b
82a49f15e19df62351a427c8aab00bec02addb95
1969 F20101130_AAAGPO prieto_v_Page_251.txt
61b5e94501e4ea6b0d78fa406d9d907e
2c75cf1b6422ceeeeddb49ed63568893d04754be
112407 F20101130_AAAHMH prieto_v_Page_172.jp2
496746c13b975e193c81c1bbf0f1c6a3
d2c6cb7ced83ca6f2444fde255544f0d8ae28f8d
22404 F20101130_AAAIWN prieto_v_Page_156.QC.jpg
00a01b2d20c1cbec5e8957a26bfce99e
e014101ce4b3adb7397901ffdf0bb985240e04c9
F20101130_AAAHZT prieto_v_Page_064.tif
06168fdba719f14ad1c6d0461ad32908
d145188e919faf4b71ff8128065461de272e096f
1979 F20101130_AAAGPP prieto_v_Page_008thm.jpg
0ce5a73e0147568310ef0734cbecc214
8192a9de6d98c3b4a2490ae1a373de66a41223fa
2387 F20101130_AAAHMI prieto_v_Page_007.txt
e262d9700826907155f6b2db17974601
4bdaa9b546ee75a269c893d66c0c56471276ad80
6086 F20101130_AAAIWO prieto_v_Page_156thm.jpg
a545bf9caf06c36308d0884907457cc8
cdf37e71c6175728b281115abfa0b038c124fd62
43406 F20101130_AAAIJC prieto_v_Page_220.pro
b135d8c8790ccd2610bb6fc687a26b9d
2d58ecc1372ab067f7055a3cd5c4e0a0af41d991
F20101130_AAAHZU prieto_v_Page_065.tif
da73c55062d6009e885cb8abddbc48a0
c1cdeaa18d9f872cddc025bfaa52d2b46bb2d266
2012 F20101130_AAAGPQ prieto_v_Page_260.txt
75ef73cd3062ed56d9eec162cd0c77d1
2a90c31e1d7e632c735b1e3c062707d72b71c755
69940 F20101130_AAAHMJ prieto_v_Page_121.jpg
5b13dcfc14af60e88c7fdcf8e48d7fa5
a3d01a90c5810dcbc0db6115342680272d7ae2b8
49487 F20101130_AAAIJD prieto_v_Page_221.pro
72338b5854c61cf941d917e6511d3c19
54fce621eaa8e14eee0ac644558368a787e9a81e
F20101130_AAAHZV prieto_v_Page_067.tif
04f2814b9301b3e4c35e1fa49a97d7c4
6db4ad0aad2eb330d1f0f5775be4f30ab7695a91
6688 F20101130_AAAGPR prieto_v_Page_075thm.jpg
c7920f3461198e10b851c824794563ab
017067fc461d688aaf5b1878da38975d37aa01bb
6478 F20101130_AAAHMK prieto_v_Page_104thm.jpg
b4c6fba176a2b1c2fcb913040b48206e
bc3e35b8cfecb1e1f61643c45adc822c447e611c
14317 F20101130_AAAIWP prieto_v_Page_157.QC.jpg
9b2b7b8fa85e7129140f49863bfbd7bc
eda2ed3ce4bc6388c6131120892c0e711e7cf156
49536 F20101130_AAAIJE prieto_v_Page_224.pro
8adbd75002a755f838e3a2d033e55bb9
f9f747d53abc98cbe06dab8ec875725c52bf33eb
F20101130_AAAHZW prieto_v_Page_068.tif
2271a2ab128534ab1c423b8c33afff0b
46fd8303cc4f87444b1c45e9e7c3201755940ad7
72777 F20101130_AAAGPS prieto_v_Page_022.jpg
c6ff9ebf3a4254c25335614f4cd6a27c
b69e8f6d774ae393b4ea1e75a9ec0ba5e565f17e
23927 F20101130_AAAHML prieto_v_Page_154.QC.jpg
dc0f5752e7c4a8ee76101cdc61483716
d334570d51f40ad6d0de5b7cf5a5e383b9681fd4
4153 F20101130_AAAIWQ prieto_v_Page_157thm.jpg
e3c490b4525be2483d057d14f64e3219
265b294c5443ec62b7a8e3eda10c04a08daf44b1
46327 F20101130_AAAIJF prieto_v_Page_225.pro
40b7a13ccc75b7ad164151157ed70806
3fcef65f057bd250c042858c2d886209faba4cdf
F20101130_AAAHZX prieto_v_Page_069.tif
ad990440a1f0c7a65bacac41a46409c2
a3a2a44ea408ebb30a2f98dfd8412fe75723097b
46335 F20101130_AAAGPT prieto_v_Page_040.pro
2fb579d8a68ce45d8211a9f36c56cced
122e8450e3aeaccc29beb2db014e560f0c84c308
50167 F20101130_AAAHMM prieto_v_Page_202.pro
d19d31a511525a77ce418c7c127503bd
bd2a04b1cdee148beb6c16f9fb92230e21c0c5a8
6148 F20101130_AAAIWR prieto_v_Page_158thm.jpg
d8a65e0fdba7c2cd5b0c2c57a7ccc28d
61f7a230c8054172b8aaf0b80f32505f0cfe01c4
45771 F20101130_AAAIJG prieto_v_Page_228.pro
dc2fe009864c6c6b9888c690560bc1b7
e59abfa67821390b10973b9160414bbfdf06c17d
F20101130_AAAHZY prieto_v_Page_070.tif
5b69e98ce9463878410738f8027713c3
6e77dd1fa3f3a71fdfaba04ae7f76f294d1e9b17
104159 F20101130_AAAGPU prieto_v_Page_121.jp2
15c5c818aa0c1bf63d246708a2c983ff
4dc6888fc7c1d2296c16fd8a192a7cba79c3cce9
110400 F20101130_AAAHMN prieto_v_Page_262.jp2
24e8e41dcbc03645d5da40f41f581647
b28ebed15db72fc7a8bbab64427c45d85e88f343
22678 F20101130_AAAIWS prieto_v_Page_161.QC.jpg
dba2d02b0782c88fc4a31a9c5a5ce063
f61a48d2dda8ffa69ac6bedc0d4726e256f70835
48296 F20101130_AAAIJH prieto_v_Page_229.pro
3a77ac82a3e30038127cc0b6a0fc1eb8
80a44dd7cb10c877a6027342c35720c37d5679cd
F20101130_AAAHZZ prieto_v_Page_072.tif
0e691adbea39d53a2d01d9d4aa1d5178
960be79844976e6f8c5c2b54295c366f5a7459fd
51366 F20101130_AAAGPV prieto_v_Page_059.pro
02438313387464a0850d92d5410b9832
7ca4f8474879707ee99b582166b4ea9457a8508b
109504 F20101130_AAAHMO prieto_v_Page_086.jp2
c6c42bc635beb8cb0d9431e13767aad0
c111f492127dcb8b82ebcc6935c3993cc7309048
F20101130_AAAIWT prieto_v_Page_161thm.jpg
3dd9ddff30dc5d4fd06772524adb7246
ac6f3e60ae4e8e52a38527d49294f759dc1a9669
51451 F20101130_AAAIJI prieto_v_Page_234.pro
2b2d9108401205131eeace8a5dbe40ab
b9fdef320caaedeba35da31de46a7a2fdf4711f6
111230 F20101130_AAAGPW prieto_v_Page_138.jp2
dbef65d06bfd9e2c974490a80c3684ce
2d49620986d66419fe7ac20e06ee31bab8b9fd47
1779 F20101130_AAAHMP prieto_v_Page_106.txt
08e52d289b18522a0239cf2cd81487ef
bb4e809586053bfe4ce7426f139cdf3e93a7df75
20375 F20101130_AAAIWU prieto_v_Page_163.QC.jpg
f3b106f2d8c3b523ea29f893a42beb7e
4bbfea983a5ed433c02b161e8af5df5564a47f9c
53248 F20101130_AAAIJJ prieto_v_Page_235.pro
23b67f765f6bd45d048352facf928d42
9667913638ad88776d972335addbf077738a84af
6553 F20101130_AAAGPX prieto_v_Page_033thm.jpg
5fd83e59777823e1c4b9acf084332888
001a7740b5beeb667602cfc0fd95d67336c71565
63317 F20101130_AAAHMQ prieto_v_Page_071.jpg
16d646a61abea5fc7d05b9c0b0c668b2
c6a77352aa2631c5403404e02c3a1c36db92dacf
22871 F20101130_AAAIWV prieto_v_Page_164.QC.jpg
a29a73d3349fa92e21fe4333b5d6c0b6
8ac9cf101ae992ec65b8eab72877b4c297705c04
55118 F20101130_AAAIJK prieto_v_Page_237.pro
cac4231ea227b6191ae6d4332d99234d
dbe0278181798db26b9604d59eed2e33587172ed
502 F20101130_AAAGPY prieto_v_Page_008.txt
749a37aea777f9efdbdc1a4153b9ec49
c37d82950587d28b1bc8f40b72dc8cd70ca9aee6
22681 F20101130_AAAHMR prieto_v_Page_169.QC.jpg
c60deb11d178fdfb07b12a289409b6f9
1114cf0b3eb56322a61f38bb0c530710c4eda96d
23705 F20101130_AAAIWW prieto_v_Page_165.QC.jpg
de0085d667d325ad51484517e58906a9
ee29118a77b9e0535832be63f0407c3dd968d22a
48954 F20101130_AAAIJL prieto_v_Page_241.pro
cab630a090f5741803563408e9603ca0
aecd5447fb5f12a2c69ab0b065d4a33bdcd5a9f6
2036 F20101130_AAAGPZ prieto_v_Page_131.txt
29236d3c2c6aa31ee93680d0eef44640
0df43fead0ddcc660d5d16ab3920f8594a1dba1c
1874 F20101130_AAAHMS prieto_v_Page_162.txt
736afa6f78fe416810fc3db1943d1e78
8baa94401134603772ab6d2025b577ffd8d02980
6518 F20101130_AAAIWX prieto_v_Page_166thm.jpg
86d970c195cbef2203e47a6e70b8ba67
4d0383ea19bfadef2a751e44387f5bef2c0dba04
48786 F20101130_AAAIJM prieto_v_Page_242.pro
dd79d2bb33330a82228c05cbcb8d1dd7
2938fbf0ab47701c8bcc66bafd9578fb3ba72a5f
1900 F20101130_AAAHMT prieto_v_Page_027.txt
4ef7b21b9330f76d6a18169f7e5f6beb
6b974422f01a9f7b5ac1c588daac3fe2e12216fb
6413 F20101130_AAAIWY prieto_v_Page_167thm.jpg
549532910f5fddd3afdf4e2c45e0d961
87148930fb528b45304dbf996335cf1ba8496591
43687 F20101130_AAAIJN prieto_v_Page_243.pro
02d20c381dc6fffeb949fa6033a44b4c
950ff9eda287e38ea017c42764222211c050f367
F20101130_AAAHMU prieto_v_Page_082.tif
9b646522d968ba93164affb9d2a5936b
5048e900998adb6270f7563e9a835a6d396c566d
21933 F20101130_AAAIWZ prieto_v_Page_168.QC.jpg
524da41f5858fcb6c2c2f1513a44c143
3705ef1931f81535bc12e067a0b64e63acef7a50
52119 F20101130_AAAIJO prieto_v_Page_244.pro
cc8afe094c7842629386b8b27a3f69ec
fa8e01230f03afdd5bbad2d70aac2efbbcaa26ab
119846 F20101130_AAAHMV prieto_v_Page_237.jp2
5e609173589230bc0f735f9d34aaf47c
6cedf23e432a442421c578faba1f6c67caa49c27
45444 F20101130_AAAIJP prieto_v_Page_245.pro
06114c7822d87e3c3fdf505da76de9b1
20379101f9760233b0d05ff2fae7bb35bf39f296
2134 F20101130_AAAHMW prieto_v_Page_179.txt
9ed7f761c6649f2a0977bd2c88fc808d
6d9ccd60c6c38f6a935d03ce027a3ede70e9b8ca
45228 F20101130_AAAIJQ prieto_v_Page_246.pro
23b8c1345a8617eaf216af2938b5aa61
d68ba6069cd6cc87921482cae58377daa215b4fa
60997 F20101130_AAAHMX prieto_v_Page_247.jpg
06ce820372dd1ed1fd326fdca0890e7b
fff013e2f6740ccdb9b455fc31d18ff05fd42266
42335 F20101130_AAAIJR prieto_v_Page_250.pro
19782ab015257e95616df302eb0263a4
e0e819dd405b7cf9a9392fc25f8bd961eb10a8da
F20101130_AAAHMY prieto_v_Page_160.tif
60e58fc31dcbadac33d5e9f3169933b3
32e4840fa6cfb9bc1f809775ca25dd7c7a100be5
51965 F20101130_AAAIJS prieto_v_Page_253.pro
747adf3eabb0eaff1a6e382c85482938
e9dfce41555380edac13beda6e239f294da9fc01
43867 F20101130_AAAHMZ prieto_v_Page_013.pro
98c4e8f185dde6b0ee86cda16e00067e
041aaebe666c8958af634871e8e2cce2f93cd28b
47128 F20101130_AAAIJT prieto_v_Page_254.pro
498b2a363a3ac6b6a305a2418005ccc7
6d5610e47ed0dff5ec1b7bd47a460c0e8b4ff898
46959 F20101130_AAAIJU prieto_v_Page_255.pro
8c2d8e71aebaaf8a3522d9434279b5c2
57647353d8627c5087bc6aae0b7246d1ef6985c6
105889 F20101130_AAAGVA prieto_v_Page_080.jp2
f4c705aacfba519c4f8b62896f4f1032
74f81ddf34fe39e96eca12da365f988f6baf1b67
45380 F20101130_AAAIJV prieto_v_Page_257.pro
8208860cc9794cfa909a451eb0355643
6026594504c63910c2a414fbb388445af516ea91
5863 F20101130_AAAGVB prieto_v_Page_260thm.jpg
9fd07bf8944e516ace960e932d9500d4
446239cd1c07d3ac7e0c31cc388cffa45dfbd13b
47203 F20101130_AAAIJW prieto_v_Page_258.pro
a918c732960e23c9e043e0915aa9816a
3fabc18dab4a4de7369aaae81d61a194309bb9f1
1740 F20101130_AAAGVC prieto_v_Page_163.txt
362a986cb14ef88bc7d22cf8b13d69a9
bbc31e30fec16fb9dfef0b2bcd80869000d95229
110056 F20101130_AAAGVD prieto_v_Page_230.jp2
a084b10df71c380d609a093db9db6c79
fcbbdff5a636550b4003fe4e83cd1d4fa405e2ea
44368 F20101130_AAAIJX prieto_v_Page_265.pro
327aa2733525fe2c141f762fa995842d
c3d168629b6dd117b5d269aa11f6a6fc98aaeef2
24624 F20101130_AAAGVE prieto_v_Page_023.QC.jpg
e52352b9cae125151538e498668ecf1c
2665fc1b26a3f61c56ca0737c7f3551c0bcc3841
51370 F20101130_AAAIJY prieto_v_Page_267.pro
93f58d02942c0596d1346977fbd5742a
7cb96522219ac43a4dbf2bffed51789ac8e1e8a9
1960 F20101130_AAAGVF prieto_v_Page_152.txt
58a3574094bd005ee72c18d085b1018e
e0db925d2a689db398e7968ad9c6a9a1554cb740
56423 F20101130_AAAIJZ prieto_v_Page_268.pro
96d670f128abad305db168705a1698ab
8c33fe1bfeeda5b154a84e17f33437eb6c8bffd3
F20101130_AAAGVG prieto_v_Page_095.tif
d9b9342c2320c29cf680140ea70b98ab
d00b761ad3b041f07aad66d658e5f7ba1c791b13
106260 F20101130_AAAGVH prieto_v_Page_166.jp2
2ef70119378f2fc17526a6b5e647bdfe
4ab6def83a4bce2a3afec2acbe80f48a8a41f21b
63629 F20101130_AAAHSA prieto_v_Page_249.jpg
21dac766a36fa4aabbe0d8439e47a6ad
2d8152e4cfe6b78a6d65a16433c2fbf5894a89f5
31552 F20101130_AAAGVI prieto_v_Page_281.pro
d3ada4e93f8d40425dc97d32c60b7580
ec0c97c9313252a450126fb2340c606c81f56ec7
72303 F20101130_AAAHSB prieto_v_Page_251.jpg
706519263fe5ee410a4e1837665be215
6d836f44138afc317565375a1bc5530a97a8fbc3
58625 F20101130_AAAGVJ prieto_v_Page_215.jpg
f46183449999acb9bcd16f740f8b9e58
16dea078db0dbcb4a3a9f723058c001624a6ed29
74850 F20101130_AAAHSC prieto_v_Page_253.jpg
2306d8a761b901b6c7d47d80d1c31ed3
a6a211d8592aba804ed8a4bc48f6805d1fa3401f
10819 F20101130_AAAGVK prieto_v_Page_008.pro
25643264ca96479cc89f5029a00dfcbb
dfeeffa26a14a5cdfaec650bfb95f4fc40072643
67276 F20101130_AAAHSD prieto_v_Page_255.jpg
c80ab8dded4bc34e81cfd1940184bb2b
c187b70163e823e1dc266b42ec3e6d6fa1c7e7c9
6527 F20101130_AAAGVL prieto_v_Page_149thm.jpg
afdf0f121a10c85347d6eff2f501ca6d
67f19d87a34fbbeaab278c0312edbb9dfd0dda40
63856 F20101130_AAAHSE prieto_v_Page_256.jpg
6a7f4f7f741ea6ac7a79b33b81b779b1
064d9b87ddced2ba13f7e2b8561478e93b7c6eb3
6687 F20101130_AAAGIA prieto_v_Page_133thm.jpg
266a79534d0c190004ea4b16ba973b55
910f51ad1a4cba42ddbbcfefcb4a9b0db8ac6d66
104005 F20101130_AAAGVM prieto_v_Page_271.jpg
8076d2fd8564a2e4c74bc5d41a34ac10
535c65aaacfc90a874cbe0ca5be35fa0efb010bc
70517 F20101130_AAAHSF prieto_v_Page_258.jpg
8f3d2025d510de859475bf89512bba0b
d6502d0abb17809e23bf1d4b5d3c4b51f6fbc18c
50151 F20101130_AAAGIB prieto_v_Page_231.pro
c4919b38b59eae836068d9f63182c849
54e60ecfca6dcdcfac3080e32e44174c0136847e
F20101130_AAAGVN prieto_v_Page_056.tif
dba98fa76b4da65f1474769d9c1e6063
f8e7bca8310063a59fc049c7d8dd27acf54d3c4c
69244 F20101130_AAAHSG prieto_v_Page_260.jpg
58c074e9dde52a5075f8f792d1f055a7
cc93788b24c77376ba06f1a023d12a26ac88f94b
23488 F20101130_AAAGIC prieto_v_Page_059.QC.jpg
8c30b8db853eb7037eaf6511cdd9aa79
8d069de9d2bc4bf4a652d97bf3db191434afec84
50196 F20101130_AAAGVO prieto_v_Page_238.pro
975997a05524a47e40bd604a86b22035
79ccd42df089bc83b967e19a7afda8305b13e5ec
73401 F20101130_AAAHSH prieto_v_Page_262.jpg
4b7867f6a71f36d2cf7f13c5de09e34a
4f4131fe6b7fa71bdcbb6896b75f2f932d327750
1958 F20101130_AAAIPA prieto_v_Page_248.txt
51a40ca94d3e9a70c6488b21dae5dcba
1c625d8c137af86b8e932d93b64068b5224ee6c9
114700 F20101130_AAAGVP prieto_v_Page_061.jp2
e9654ea532cdc897cc8c4622b65c25a8
323999594520ce9c591e47a61739a032b2481813
83956 F20101130_AAAHSI prieto_v_Page_264.jpg
e3dff5bc86a5819440aeace13135653a
b7f40926f383b45b37a86c74f9d3cd85c66ef377
1716 F20101130_AAAIPB prieto_v_Page_250.txt
683b0faf0a410b0088d67c4d6991b1d4
934e67b636361c5cba6399d619d629a92a386129
65073 F20101130_AAAGID prieto_v_Page_127.jpg
5eebbc852b98d2ee7303377d427e9868
cefe596ca8baec272b9274670075a60edbd00e51
81467 F20101130_AAAHSJ prieto_v_Page_270.jpg
a5845a4118364557c270d0993644b4f2
61776fee490613ff6148e52fdd98a3f0c69815d4
2153 F20101130_AAAIPC prieto_v_Page_253.txt
bdec98534ccb2cb168edeccc3e364fef
32de4fa0845653987edbe4122246b33a68f229b9
107409 F20101130_AAAGIE prieto_v_Page_152.jp2
40b11edb42fa6706228444b9cd6cc9cc
5b950a4fca0748023f2282cc40745254a1ba36ab
18860 F20101130_AAAGVQ prieto_v_Page_256.QC.jpg
60b566973059486fdce341192a5c6963
c264cf81009773096cc1f8fa15cf3cebf67b1612
76885 F20101130_AAAHSK prieto_v_Page_273.jpg
986b5ac1e130876ba95500aa054188bc
2d51364aae4091586bbdd83ba0658110c5714329
1911 F20101130_AAAIPD prieto_v_Page_255.txt
fc9009c170e1ab87196f5563e3efeb88
cf81bfcbd94975132ba9fc5b4b6a8ab66d1c2bd5
F20101130_AAAGIF prieto_v_Page_075.tif
eb6906069d0f924c51eba09445a1143d
c21456eaf2605b70f7c4ea6e809152d27cf86ebe
23242 F20101130_AAAGVR prieto_v_Page_001.jpg
2c08144e923d388fe6f3989688a8eb4d
3da70fc6dfdbc6a581648d1c85ee2f3ba04517f8
76138 F20101130_AAAHSL prieto_v_Page_274.jpg
c130e6cf73f9303e83a84ccb55a7e4c6
713d5d9f4a7e40f3723f70b8c4ad19a927919983
1910 F20101130_AAAIPE prieto_v_Page_258.txt
844f9d38c7fd5009c19c754c8293fb25
2bffc8a3e5cd71fd531f93546c22e8d8b1cba0d3
72998 F20101130_AAAGIG prieto_v_Page_108.jpg
f3ce84d1ee124e63549b330a73eca0e1
5d412e98cb023059e3ceb5076f88d192f6c38b9b
19691 F20101130_AAAHFA prieto_v_Page_265.QC.jpg
2f083f65b066be7f3afa4149f3d9a5b3
a5c0f33c23e7e5935da7a9a4d107bc660ee7f26f
68252 F20101130_AAAGVS prieto_v_Page_072.jpg
d425903aa8d8e15ff00c73ea5db1afed
2e36c61201a65b35163e7610318170ebcb9ddac2
2180 F20101130_AAAIPF prieto_v_Page_259.txt
b764feb776092b68d76e4a750ca148b2
cd25a37eef319aa4cc462a43278ea2e516811ba2
113862 F20101130_AAAGIH prieto_v_Page_076.jp2
d1e464e418413db71b80825fddf336fb
77633fb1ad86d477bd9969eb6a2141d3c1a80ae0
93916 F20101130_AAAHFB prieto_v_Page_078.jp2
841a6974d79f9d48899a82e9eea5752a
a12c80c2160f240ba09832085993f647ab17407a
F20101130_AAAGVT prieto_v_Page_191.tif
0e190fdf60d3e4ab4be8e85304df95ef
ddcc45859d81e03df47cab335a842a490e2bf6df
80100 F20101130_AAAHSM prieto_v_Page_278.jpg
b983c197a39ccb8d8ff27c73cb5f96bb
1fcf1dd1dfcd1a37d5c7a90989f6c47d76846f0b
1847 F20101130_AAAIPG prieto_v_Page_261.txt
951e85c2882c494983d4cfbce66aa2fe
303916d92492c7d9fbbc08394ea004e0cbc8cd8e
69983 F20101130_AAAGII prieto_v_Page_045.jpg
ca4d9b4f9cc2ab2e6dc453a3b4820195
5879f2f51abfcf525c1fef1947ae598a6df60380
6417 F20101130_AAAHFC prieto_v_Page_045thm.jpg
7ca74922ab73c719b72f42466f430358
0b55e56ac19c443b9973ff7e5a7f763dece75ea4
23174 F20101130_AAAGVU prieto_v_Page_079.QC.jpg
31f490290102a4f36882881f4fbc6f19
f2460002b4546d686bec6d29bb23b507e980f4c3
98869 F20101130_AAAHSN prieto_v_Page_279.jpg
6d704042d7219a71010eae980c7af2c7
98749a359786768c2d0819206db741d662b1d342
2029 F20101130_AAAIPH prieto_v_Page_263.txt
6e796aa26a45fec3ac089f5c417698f8
0f8eebdfb294ad626586f719452cd2ce305e38bc
37190 F20101130_AAAGIJ prieto_v_Page_214.pro
9c442195b553a3b20d9becb6996d7165
02d3b4b5f13ebf11ac38f55cfef449dad94abb5c
F20101130_AAAHFD prieto_v_Page_042.tif
6d990aef973ebc9909962d6476f6d86d
cf0964f6451366004450fc6c066113583f974300
21552 F20101130_AAAGVV prieto_v_Page_226.QC.jpg
2db9fd34b65322455988cad608f713c9
7e5433ec803a7927257ed59493380a693add788c
24750 F20101130_AAAHSO prieto_v_Page_001.jp2
0e777d2a61ad554094da5b6850b698fd
e497573c76a3c32e96c2e47e1ab5891d528494ed
5210 F20101130_AAAGIK prieto_v_Page_247thm.jpg
64a030b2e1ba08008a5ee6efe1c9f871
eddc7f41e8825e6775760cb9ff04651a47e5e902
52306 F20101130_AAAHFE prieto_v_Page_217.pro
d318c2b1d249eeb4b9e68d224ddafe6b
cfd924e084487c02016e26b5e8ceb985c9da5d8e
2438 F20101130_AAAGVW prieto_v_Page_276.txt
891512c7ff464b3a0327b357c2c363ab
354a7ec14933b417b96d0be5f0ec947d421e27ff
5957 F20101130_AAAHSP prieto_v_Page_002.jp2
c2899b8078745a2c860735bcab292915
4efc7c812e6abcc9760e5fa1105fc55e22283bd6
1381 F20101130_AAAIPI prieto_v_Page_266.txt
50bf9343323cc67cfd9f76f9ed1bd60e
dfab5b2c0517b1a5f2a87a83a562880a26f43c4f
6705 F20101130_AAAGIL prieto_v_Page_178thm.jpg
94a2f26a248687857360e0a80f482912
e38a910a3323dfa33e321dd63a380438d6a39e64
53510 F20101130_AAAHFF prieto_v_Page_030.pro
0e6648ca341c25db0e58b2d52d65d5fe
58e1160e92a6417d3b5ffd0fb49c4d3c2394556e
F20101130_AAAGVX prieto_v_Page_178.tif
bf32f6a2be405630f1c197dcca9b3f5f
c9ee1fe492f22181bc111b4303a98363fe5cacbd
84290 F20101130_AAAHSQ prieto_v_Page_004.jp2
1c65998260260bd6dcf7d8ed96268410
a64138fe942c27c0a644b3b208976b63c01827f8
2088 F20101130_AAAIPJ prieto_v_Page_267.txt
c5d9279a4429c4a98ad5003192e229d2
9969f36c755a3165ad65f6777fd1937f6155a3ea
F20101130_AAAGIM prieto_v_Page_268.tif
d95164f64a4395db099e007e253af87c
aff931165500aba03f8bc1c8fbf3911b7a1d6c27
6240 F20101130_AAAHFG prieto_v_Page_181thm.jpg
7fba48093b5117eb596b024d705f513c
21d8786747ef372a0dab0dafc2ddc7da52bafc95
3312 F20101130_AAAGVY prieto_v_Page_077thm.jpg
aeea84bb4e896be7ff9395e80feaad14
b392dc1014182c5006816c6b81fc8c9aa28fd55a
1051937 F20101130_AAAHSR prieto_v_Page_005.jp2
a73c8d7907e879d20e19be23acda7212
c103b0e1b93885f6c25ffc68e9f3ba257cb6226c
2312 F20101130_AAAIPK prieto_v_Page_268.txt
c6c66b5cb99b2464a916e6eb1e9acdf3
f7cfb9c74b3cf15883b8ad1c5938c4b12ea6286c
108638 F20101130_AAAGIN prieto_v_Page_154.jp2
ac8902319f563fb4225b464c5de4fb68
cc5a4d1d937faaff2f253b28f4e5eb9516229c2b
6589 F20101130_AAAHFH prieto_v_Page_186thm.jpg
4768119b2f5cd9a06f953383e1b8d014
bab4622cc2cbd97051b4f6a362342614bbbc1168
2008 F20101130_AAAGVZ prieto_v_Page_047.txt
dbde79848c7a409012424262247ffbd4
d60ca38ffe98fa8331480221c3c959ade3f5ee88
F20101130_AAAICA prieto_v_Page_169.tif
248bef73c275b2db425918991427278a
266ac8c4fb758bb3aedf2c2677c29fa80fce23bc
255354 F20101130_AAAHSS prieto_v_Page_008.jp2
b99c58f86ff35580c49eafa0b53167b2
3579cf44d686fec39dc89c7ec7bb95ceb6eb2c73
2348 F20101130_AAAIPL prieto_v_Page_269.txt
7667c43133487f452e5e6daa9792943a
f2849a3a8d241cb366cd7276ed334a1f817147e0
F20101130_AAAGIO prieto_v_Page_090.tif
82fa96b08a23564e631f698b4b33242b
469eb0cfa70c4a2a7556ced8288257ccc854a1f3
2148 F20101130_AAAHFI prieto_v_Page_129.txt
ea67d92dc9394ffd7766fee2ee10273f
865ac475579f6a98b0fb39bcb92dfd90843abd5e
F20101130_AAAICB prieto_v_Page_170.tif
681f874712a71bc34f33943aabf62b4c
5a23032e584674066bbd0a9fa3db3504fd0c22fc
85377 F20101130_AAAHST prieto_v_Page_011.jp2
b4ab84b76d4594c94bbb783387fd3b98
6c8dca301a278598c987c76772e5264de879a862
2497 F20101130_AAAIPM prieto_v_Page_272.txt
58fd3fbdbd67e510570e9fa91ded5ac1
da26ba53b77836a9755fa1638ed5e07747e34172
51538 F20101130_AAAGIP prieto_v_Page_204.pro
fbee4534065d0bcb5f637630bf0be84e
0e8db6c74dcf2bedaa0513b614e34d22c52a7442
5569 F20101130_AAAHFJ prieto_v_Page_258thm.jpg
d21cfdd807bd13c106adafdfaddacb12
a2da6af4b22469056c0021107e77ad9de61ed45c
F20101130_AAAICC prieto_v_Page_171.tif
f476086d0e935264fbf022487545882d
ee6393f96d19913527d88cb23018a2f9d3784e36
97666 F20101130_AAAHSU prieto_v_Page_012.jp2
bd622d41d9d6e63d336f4bc3fd8c51a9
98571570f416b1f5d931a3845e3652788a1afa4a
2344 F20101130_AAAIPN prieto_v_Page_273.txt
ab3d6dda9f17efbd6b21d3485823978f
1fca769b2b40d06e3c6fb6d2050d84db7bb5ad2c
5544 F20101130_AAAGIQ prieto_v_Page_240thm.jpg
7a2adc6a7a452352d376004d386c41c8
db0761d82457f1bc98a750d34331396563b04a7f
51050 F20101130_AAAHFK prieto_v_Page_206.pro
73c982b5c33f0486996ca76d95950773
2b4132ecb565927bb8b34db82b7a73566c81df5b
F20101130_AAAICD prieto_v_Page_174.tif
50c407f8560a59a5bbce2a984224fc77
017301656ce620727de1862a1c3848452621f4c6
96731 F20101130_AAAHSV prieto_v_Page_014.jp2
8d74194deea8cdfe7e59e12d6d8483c6
a1b4f0847141689e9edfd38c78a2d7c5a48e16a7
2379 F20101130_AAAIPO prieto_v_Page_277.txt
472d439a51e8d1cc659e6ca0f0194847
3646796911b65b9515a84e10502e5dd7ce926f27
1894 F20101130_AAAGIR prieto_v_Page_016.txt
4cfcb38c472cfd89296d116bed648b4c
f4514ca96bdfea94d9360304e50c770fe2978b2a
105196 F20101130_AAAHFL prieto_v_Page_116.jp2
386522f771a48b8b5f92d52fb3cdf88a
4f49f4097f45e896f5ef80e8bc11b7ea36f0fe1f
F20101130_AAAICE prieto_v_Page_176.tif
fcd5d72b916fc01c5a78ebe2c67602f1
cbab60e70a6a8b6aaf90929ed3552573f792edef
106232 F20101130_AAAHSW prieto_v_Page_016.jp2
dd154e95f69d6ea508237478c2616dfc
20809420922c1c6542d19ec58a568238a2300cdf
2275 F20101130_AAAIPP prieto_v_Page_278.txt
775fb4594a51a22ee1cce2e979b9e51f
745afebab3d3cd29a10c3013b049d7757667c064
103274 F20101130_AAAGIS prieto_v_Page_139.jp2
910ffd4c7d76e450daf7ed9d525332dc
088f3be7180f179238500ab83143c080aaeb7f00
94933 F20101130_AAAHFM prieto_v_Page_097.jp2
1f8b5e3388451c69c28df4dc478c9432
8ff2c4ffedee3f81f0f00fb2aae0f8b3daceab19
F20101130_AAAICF prieto_v_Page_177.tif
c04c3636163c1b1d04821e8971927f9e
ed1d63960164b447074b90954c9cc0f1f6b2971d
106929 F20101130_AAAHSX prieto_v_Page_017.jp2
0ee5780b7330dcd6dc1d097b83069b74
266781fd4021442e4e3e3c5f2d520be894f98a39
2402 F20101130_AAAIPQ prieto_v_Page_279.txt
eb8e34097870492384a33d420e2698c8
5ef9055763a3628b37153c0903f83c25b51bef2e
105738 F20101130_AAAGIT prieto_v_Page_146.jp2
913959ecea7ead8f56c4e8fbe2980225
d58f0700870471d87d1dcec5c5190df8a114825d
90070 F20101130_AAAHFN prieto_v_Page_215.jp2
57ae8b64675c1c32b9a839de513fa53e
9feddd8cdb5c917f70f324edb45eeb2df71927b3
F20101130_AAAICG prieto_v_Page_179.tif
4cd32700ebbf87f0ff8db5c77fc46b2c
d91fc663587066843b3b12419c95197d4d854335
121223 F20101130_AAAHSY prieto_v_Page_023.jp2
ac9329cb73274a68121bebfd86c45ed2
e764d33d208340246349dd002f3964c5b4267922
7225 F20101130_AAAIPR prieto_v_Page_001.QC.jpg
9c32ec85abbdda194003eba6a529fb67
be137b8819148a46ecc38d6c33818f50abf39af0
F20101130_AAAGIU prieto_v_Page_221.tif
5b5a31d5b9e95eebfbc5c6490bf6f345
bdb772dfc6b4f19bef04ed5495814ede96cb5cea
5878 F20101130_AAAHFO prieto_v_Page_251thm.jpg
78163a70c3621b4d288ef456d93e06c5
3f87c0b4dd9d3e985083da1d48a9b3e398620273
F20101130_AAAICH prieto_v_Page_180.tif
7e71e59f91a019e334535f4f3f69db86
aea532bdce45028f471d22b6c04954397bac097d
107783 F20101130_AAAHSZ prieto_v_Page_024.jp2
938de1dccec819dfb78f944fe4c2f107
ea2991afd112933021f58cd5dd692a06d723f03e
3367 F20101130_AAAIPS prieto_v_Page_002.QC.jpg
9548c8899c5b63e52189f028242d56f1
36091728850718929c0f76d5ec7d74175af4e931
6052 F20101130_AAAGIV prieto_v_Page_219thm.jpg
54b4371a0fe3b13094257663f92203c5
65f1df4e1b99006fb653d37de80968dc1c5b9289
16441 F20101130_AAAHFP prieto_v_Page_218.QC.jpg
5d8fd47d03569ab8594e73bfabc7e514
d6c137e2f318ff200648179912ee55fd32c8461a
F20101130_AAAICI prieto_v_Page_181.tif
5cac1b2de0db32452c12e924d0ba9fad
c1d0bf6048584a978c099b53fbce97f6d893f94b
1394 F20101130_AAAIPT prieto_v_Page_002thm.jpg
86a2ae4f4aa69250d19ec7b31e1b2555
778196f17c2ebafbad438f0ab4fc8828ff1bc944
2052 F20101130_AAAGIW prieto_v_Page_064.txt
fb85b269f6f70d904bab0d494cbb28c5
583a373c61f6e51a1f80c89c9f731bf0d6ba1705
6065 F20101130_AAAHFQ prieto_v_Page_113thm.jpg
de2fda77b4ea2bc690d1965959782beb
c39d15266c7bd8d695de71f7b733bf52ed47246d
F20101130_AAAICJ prieto_v_Page_182.tif
87e85a430d9debb96fbab044627456af
2c656292617c6e3eb25bf9c1015c0b9ae727fe82
6444 F20101130_AAAIPU prieto_v_Page_003.QC.jpg
6e312f657d22caa1755f2097dc32394b
fae826263f8377e9cb7c71b3a7ea8565b63bafbd
6521 F20101130_AAAGIX prieto_v_Page_024thm.jpg
734842d76203e9364c1f03d193cecd0c
1a4192f3fe018240ac69e96e197daae7be05d4d2
108978 F20101130_AAAHFR prieto_v_Page_197.jp2
acfa0befd56c1be289750a3bb8693f51
5b3009aed23d9ee322574da2691afb1234ab92b5
F20101130_AAAICK prieto_v_Page_183.tif
8c731a93794441073a83ee555b241cee
351392a89b4e4c53a81bef9a7b468afa897d7cce
2117 F20101130_AAAIPV prieto_v_Page_003thm.jpg
6e46e4271c7a39a24773cf9d4b03552f
16bd9a55a03292ea032a0899b7b6cb0266ecf50c
F20101130_AAAGIY prieto_v_Page_030.tif
85f9e11423111f4f6a0e6b8b3f17c644
40072bbaa4c1a4469f05a73c19dba9d61aedd542
99215 F20101130_AAAHFS prieto_v_Page_038.jp2
5b2b49bb3691a56e863f8a108cdf7e9b
50079bba56014b51df586e0bfa9f721c8626bac1
F20101130_AAAICL prieto_v_Page_186.tif
e46c3b1cc5ca7f8619c41f701ea38cb5
315addf1f30965cc516654538e18732ba325e66b
18948 F20101130_AAAIPW prieto_v_Page_004.QC.jpg
9113514855a0d58569a72983f9dd8e9f
9ef07497c5a37c3c9bdc4e4f18b4ff3aee4fe26d
99627 F20101130_AAAGIZ prieto_v_Page_132.jp2
e04b541f9784a443fa025d981c5e01e3
485de32eb8539b8b17d25c34a3cb8868e6d462a4
F20101130_AAAHFT prieto_v_Page_084.tif
264e9de966e8e58176e0aa9cf836288f
77f7d66aa566c10a79b48011be180dc8b4a3206c
F20101130_AAAICM prieto_v_Page_189.tif
b736735eca80b033c3bcdc2ee2a338d7
dc7867d22e65a9566c0107d39d7db2a528373004
4726 F20101130_AAAIPX prieto_v_Page_005thm.jpg
11212c7b56a5786fa49adc80fe1847b4
4ef277d5909889d5f8e4dbf18e1fbf4c01641033
47351 F20101130_AAAHFU prieto_v_Page_248.pro
206d23f0cda2c678ac1eadb8301e2888
49efbbe7f4a2f6faad3fa65a49af2443741629f8
F20101130_AAAICN prieto_v_Page_192.tif
3699948d686faae7aae8ddd40187fafd
ad824037bb75fd20d7f3714b7e1546e87f79d178
22164 F20101130_AAAIPY prieto_v_Page_006.QC.jpg
7b51a77f36d27b5c5c8abf68cb04bdfc
53f097944c48a7379dcea52492317f9d25a09296
50216 F20101130_AAAHFV prieto_v_Page_102.pro
aee8be61266c47ffeb17747134b64226
ae1a2f60b036a158ccd64ce4fbf12864fa1def7e
F20101130_AAAICO prieto_v_Page_193.tif
fb88cb5561ff71ea96d5df1f2210434a
3c5134f911d4c1eca8b9eca9c0485a1e7d0ffbc3
14394 F20101130_AAAIPZ prieto_v_Page_007.QC.jpg
53916e96a8f2d3a607bc62109b1389f9
0329140d8ac62e8b316cd87e6be644a538f84f8b
F20101130_AAAHFW prieto_v_Page_096.tif
0f3e761a1c4cbb145f8791fab30e1999
60c586f5db782611f87e8cfe095d99b98d4a95b8
F20101130_AAAICP prieto_v_Page_194.tif
a75633d5db8e8e7b10ecc0cb9a2e4a21
5a88c5ddc36d06e0a39e930f31954b82baef6975
112991 F20101130_AAAHFX prieto_v_Page_203.jp2
e880f9db53b3c7b5929955fb6588d8b9
2c9a5c9f1749c17d3f6f806f9f24ecb2d12b7bde
116582 F20101130_AAAHYA prieto_v_Page_259.jp2
31a110f8a0f5e5a0f1ca9f11131f5d79
1ea381c8d4d5a4cd444496956ef65ca1bf124b04
F20101130_AAAICQ prieto_v_Page_195.tif
2431dd1c23c41afd10db1d93730b01b7
8e4970a73b77dd3940cd879dff6a94791e11ef66
127413 F20101130_AAAHFY prieto_v_Page_275.jp2
925da96cee45c8fc2a31b5955bf4a806
ce9a8dad8a4c9efe2879a2fdaf909d46c17233c7
105431 F20101130_AAAHYB prieto_v_Page_260.jp2
0c93e894cd071ea01509332898af62db
03161f04031fda3f74ba58b8cd30b8893ddce1f0
F20101130_AAAICR prieto_v_Page_196.tif
bbaebacdf3a1f9af6cfdc49cb8a63b10
dd33e62ef9e81e640a24ac4f772f9b9db1e48b4b
23695 F20101130_AAAHFZ prieto_v_Page_202.QC.jpg
ae9d12077a8c4db0aa4d00ce5f6975ac
6b617f5e1928ab7fa919fae2bdea4c90bf18596f
109158 F20101130_AAAHYC prieto_v_Page_263.jp2
f2350c5be8c8e2f785f5f46a339fdca8
6c60881048d703059ca784f70023cb1f368c3311
F20101130_AAAICS prieto_v_Page_197.tif
ece7047355183eb4ca2ae3fab746bfb6
0561ba2449780b1cc820c3cf5af6788c534ea115
128300 F20101130_AAAHYD prieto_v_Page_264.jp2
99dbf06b57865e636678ff24b6ca6b09
e0d9b37b9dc5c742c5cba0161ab917222561417a
F20101130_AAAICT prieto_v_Page_203.tif
01a2602612a3694ff46381b3526528e8
a152bc3a9ea2cbf62441e8b8bf0d82e2aaaec7c3
99892 F20101130_AAAHYE prieto_v_Page_265.jp2
b111b4ad5ce04df0ba33780bcbd7dc98
f34693e69ed3ef9148206f94b9706cfbe4faf8e5
F20101130_AAAICU prieto_v_Page_204.tif
490da48158655237d12253b2e8559d82
294c5bd7abd188c3984ecb3f345c9906efba1d19
71714 F20101130_AAAGOA prieto_v_Page_227.jpg
6b92b01a5af8b4f29c7bf2f5e075d1a1
3c6fb971b637181017c78d6b92e461d27cab8ffa
112669 F20101130_AAAHYF prieto_v_Page_267.jp2
2ae1d8a9dd8fa823bc568a7d58e1218e
d8f33dddb12c139653458006c3eeeb41aea0d190
F20101130_AAAICV prieto_v_Page_207.tif
48743e4cc0fa7c5e95839f567ee2e0c8
b8b96cd4d99eaa000797d7ffea6403c48cd0e6d6
6581 F20101130_AAAGOB prieto_v_Page_046thm.jpg
59913a1967842f23b8b525e48eb3bdff
efd49404648962c79472dd85df650913850e8059
126513 F20101130_AAAHYG prieto_v_Page_268.jp2
adf1017a37af3a655c35a53c3b77d478
5299e6d31ef21a0768fc4afa9fe6a29b30d57fdf
F20101130_AAAICW prieto_v_Page_208.tif
c11124e9c13edde29b4434bcb7d63f47
28be3fff3c5e0ff669953cce2d6cfe6870bdcd33
22117 F20101130_AAAGOC prieto_v_Page_040.QC.jpg
53356828321f4030f04d2723ee961322
f681bbc1f3ea53c3d0305d004a0758e36488254d
6961 F20101130_AAAIVA prieto_v_Page_125thm.jpg
fccfa5ba9ff5af0fa17ba3f459ba9006
746b6f73c540b6081f9a9a25e041e367c8e8646e
125345 F20101130_AAAHYH prieto_v_Page_269.jp2
5a0a475ba3919190c1f837eb05b3b8a9
53b60f2595bb0f4c99092532273e67774dea7cab
F20101130_AAAICX prieto_v_Page_209.tif
187b454c8818342aaee6f932ca7aebf8
ad74730ecc5be46d09fcba49b0ea9d2092b6ef06
114303 F20101130_AAAGOD prieto_v_Page_030.jp2
36f251589eb37faad358b7d068aa055c
4426c7d6fc42d2dd624b3b904502d0a960f747d5
22662 F20101130_AAAIVB prieto_v_Page_126.QC.jpg
4729a24c2e538f62001bda9d3b0f7da9
2bd722621276ee600d26f6f3de18717a46290156
135112 F20101130_AAAHYI prieto_v_Page_272.jp2
d7428fb2d554cd356cd0a23571bf5ea1
458b021d0c0dac10176fccf8f3160ef054b87989
F20101130_AAAICY prieto_v_Page_210.tif
fd080507d122dd124aa3d167fedc26f9
5b325e8a0c586fee6d2375a8192171d16971c86b
1998 F20101130_AAAGOE prieto_v_Page_232.txt
04c64fd2e3482e9276a2f809c4a6b663
54a2effde280d193c79b85faacac53e1d173df80
6339 F20101130_AAAIVC prieto_v_Page_126thm.jpg
917362d4c9fe71e122d68e74ed9c4426
de7441054907417891bc6da4cfcecaac8f40fb37
129949 F20101130_AAAHYJ prieto_v_Page_273.jp2
cf402b031ce7a71b040d926643b3ddf4
4f1d0b3a8da6e4da7746f50131831a43c7ed11c1
F20101130_AAAICZ prieto_v_Page_211.tif
6fde1d70e3cd9c6dffc49f82d5a75360
1baf59ea0fbc64bac91f5528e06377f1c9db2dd5
F20101130_AAAGOF prieto_v_Page_134thm.jpg
da8a97ef6d1457e84846c6191c181369
d6d52d965d8dafe20565c006f1b95586904c602e
23036 F20101130_AAAIVD prieto_v_Page_128.QC.jpg
d100b9b64c0de4905451b1d973b74607
da2cfc6aa4c5c8498b08c7731dcb8e2b42136705
123865 F20101130_AAAHYK prieto_v_Page_274.jp2
de6781d456fdacc8ff52f8d5a6694b5f
158e052074ae9ffec0f80736521d2d477b8ba73f
F20101130_AAAGOG prieto_v_Page_137.tif
0d15cfb345e7630e7693769df11099ce
4bb897adce956b4010e5455ff8bb51795efcecdf
24652 F20101130_AAAIVE prieto_v_Page_129.QC.jpg
0d423a404fcb1f1c94454f9eec451d3b
03b8ffabad0386bc73008e6df6d4e393cd5651f2
129840 F20101130_AAAHYL prieto_v_Page_277.jp2
7e30ac14fa69e085406618d16ed81f96
1a38210c290009d12ebf0cb2d2f71b8a2c9775ef
F20101130_AAAGOH prieto_v_Page_061.tif
4e6800b8bd90d3a607ffacb1f800d45d
4272bedc389281a705c665ae57b07f7d70377c92
6547 F20101130_AAAHLA prieto_v_Page_083thm.jpg
edc7366242c8fbf4615bcfdf691e4e8c
6651c465c5714a223b276ca4e193fc2505a3bffd
6722 F20101130_AAAIVF prieto_v_Page_129thm.jpg
3a836176c9f42e91892682a34494ece4
6ac9a17c09040193cc7f63bd4bcd3bdfbf2f7bd4
1051973 F20101130_AAAHYM prieto_v_Page_279.jp2
0b0367127347a99487f365698c5394b9
4e99bbada1997c48e68116f1a216d0b71448c877
6475 F20101130_AAAGOI prieto_v_Page_037thm.jpg
d9be6144ff574a15b21adab8418c66a4
698b9f3abd7b486b01efa47a7901523d0c4a2f56
2062 F20101130_AAAHLB prieto_v_Page_159.txt
5002f629d0bd5f42bc635310ec6e852a
3b86f35408b56e40fe730c5c0f39acf0326eb470
6646 F20101130_AAAIVG prieto_v_Page_131thm.jpg
d5b2a7e86a666ed741afd12d71a8f8b4
a8db5c352c668e71d27872383ff9d383931f8770
113940 F20101130_AAAHYN prieto_v_Page_280.jp2
4790a0113ccbe0cb353b1f4db9682381
f49109c6b932ac3b6ca29e3631745dd79e6a48ca
49046 F20101130_AAAHLC prieto_v_Page_085.pro
388f676174dd88c5dcf123e73519e08b
4477c6fcb9d194cf53bc7e77a3fc57096b07e488
6035 F20101130_AAAIVH prieto_v_Page_132thm.jpg
7b44518498fbcf417cbfba8e812dc42f
33d3b6c86663df4f3fa6012ead9dae10ab9eaa1f
72797 F20101130_AAAHYO prieto_v_Page_281.jp2
4a9adca1e05eabedfd30c30f6be861f9
1ca6195ae2dd967c421207ed02ab2f4f78378a5f
47417 F20101130_AAAGOJ prieto_v_Page_162.pro
3952ca0ab7dfe1918b6e1dbc36f1154c
911dde6a4a05b5bb06c54103b9f1525edfb253df
1802 F20101130_AAAHLD prieto_v_Page_048.txt
41cbbd7a49a85ac8f6812d71f9a2e992
811c9fc10e66817d349c6d2a326b2c179d8a4765
23730 F20101130_AAAIVI prieto_v_Page_133.QC.jpg
596ca85112a49e38c1f802c4bee8a696
f52849c06a97daebbf067f0e804ae35dc0967d20
F20101130_AAAHYP prieto_v_Page_001.tif
ddc947e8b3c7f1591948c962fc68cc01
2e79661034f1279858a842c46d7eb41fd035379f
6507 F20101130_AAAGOK prieto_v_Page_165thm.jpg
53a49553fb89cedd10d64303c15de07a
10fd98c237670705195b29ee2ddc7059597431f7
23255 F20101130_AAAHLE prieto_v_Page_160.QC.jpg
10c100c01761ffb434fbb65f21bf12f8
cd26a12b3257d7f202e082e1680d1c6ec08c4b50
23316 F20101130_AAAIVJ prieto_v_Page_134.QC.jpg
bdbc39ada1497f777fccdbb18579f415
0c960925a49b75a03fa3cbca8a5de7ba1c3e47b2
F20101130_AAAHYQ prieto_v_Page_003.tif
e460e170cf8c9d615298ee2b14e7b357
bdff455610de4ae548b743476a173b7b7e475f61
2016 F20101130_AAAGOL prieto_v_Page_128.txt
2da6c056f0b8b44244226fe875409987
f10ca7410ea4e255b9a6830e3161f1d75cd4f7b0
6883 F20101130_AAAIVK prieto_v_Page_135thm.jpg
d39ea5c21e4a14d9cb31e0bde960a2fb
6af042bdaf49d1fa15f440779f2b860e446a9567
F20101130_AAAHYR prieto_v_Page_004.tif
0a4f9a8569de7e7fdb0d4273d2835c12
c1c5f08c8599eb4e2a236e3f71944f3ff866c22e
45682 F20101130_AAAGOM prieto_v_Page_151.pro
cef471d98c2e5db3638ddf24f7c9a036
4e217363e3d90cbb952478edbfed9d0976fd30f0
1891 F20101130_AAAHLF prieto_v_Page_196.txt
3cecb2278cce47f0e7cdb9b795d838f7
00331d4c77150c07ea59a8e77406e4803ebdf86f
22500 F20101130_AAAIVL prieto_v_Page_136.QC.jpg
da5983a26d2deb2d1b7d57d1e78eb6f6
5ee76910a5ae734c81ee42242ca31cc1e4c95d0d
45659 F20101130_AAAIIA prieto_v_Page_171.pro
eabfa074372dfe870a4cfac049d49b36
fc0a567855c1d9bb63458e9ca67a69ad28489130
2068 F20101130_AAAGON prieto_v_Page_262.txt
be0ca2327d0468fe175d95df1d6427f0
3190e59ef42213ac9ee5a29b802c09ff2aa8a6f2
2040 F20101130_AAAHLG prieto_v_Page_090.txt
c893c77a912c406e9f9ab41efede781a
2563f6741874877c46091a030503f4bf4c8f505a
6491 F20101130_AAAIVM prieto_v_Page_136thm.jpg
be7886873cad62987d9aacb4620e90d0
948b12734e4033b59784ecbcedc815ad4eaea04d
F20101130_AAAHYS prieto_v_Page_006.tif
a3621d33c4547c80a873d7ad36919ea4
a6b2dbaa6617304bd989aa37d33e3f791753bdac
66029 F20101130_AAAGOO prieto_v_Page_220.jpg
53d11a719f0cfd639eb5cf0a1ea9df20
82dd910211a93ef796849a69c1c81c830774554f
24160 F20101130_AAAHLH prieto_v_Page_184.QC.jpg
6c963cab53b14cf0588af07134cfd10c
a3755fc44e106e7afa217d187f07844e8cdb0d24
6422 F20101130_AAAIVN prieto_v_Page_137thm.jpg
4510db14b75451eb73b0bc4ddf7de219
1bef7259a2cfc3b6724873b579aab1aaf72ec59e
52025 F20101130_AAAIIB prieto_v_Page_172.pro
fbba0e37dba824aecb23ca277353ae03
7cd5e5d6bd700f016b1ac2ef4c1856e15348766a
F20101130_AAAHYT prieto_v_Page_007.tif
2707741c469a5b2b2ebfd4f2e3213b2e
8a6573727da3d3cb61308f79a7ee22cdd78b3dd3
5850 F20101130_AAAGOP prieto_v_Page_267thm.jpg
5579a94fada236ebe30d7329d4e6fa60
e874e9b8c44a119bcb207bd47571a0fb8e5eb211
6587 F20101130_AAAHLI prieto_v_Page_159thm.jpg
e9df2faa9c0fc6ef5119a787af813888
ac01678181318986f3e22e7b5426d92ed6998265
45658 F20101130_AAAIIC prieto_v_Page_173.pro
820e0ec293d122fad528c2cb69738532
7ea8d3532778cc9aaacf622a66fa8a0790575cbd
F20101130_AAAHYU prieto_v_Page_008.tif
2f7a0358c1c59785f14b3ecfff90d810
3fd012b7a71561ba410d8fb7b599bfc545185cae
F20101130_AAAGOQ prieto_v_Page_081.tif
bdda3ac030224b40c33914433523aa85
c8b0edc4fcc63f44cccd6adc03acc2a120fbbdf9
109353 F20101130_AAAHLJ prieto_v_Page_041.jp2
f46a60b246ab6ec8f687f410aed3c53d
8f3134127dc8d4f8f395ab0aa951cf14ffce16da
24261 F20101130_AAAIVO prieto_v_Page_138.QC.jpg
a4527e3926d01e7d74f3762961a4bc39
d68f800c66c589e5da76f3b5ad863f1db8c29b59
50490 F20101130_AAAIID prieto_v_Page_176.pro
f7f7a5ef15ad7968786066cfbb98f196
bc5b60daa8fe68c1af639a6f1cd8252a2d2fc528
F20101130_AAAHYV prieto_v_Page_010.tif
c695292e4811a507fb609b0c7ae2cd91
e911bc63e33f23a7049cc8473e8cac59dfb922cf
1949 F20101130_AAAGOR prieto_v_Page_028.txt
7e9bcff7a479abac17988d1c5bac44fb
269fb5da41b998234e445abfb1ce4857f631fddb
2021 F20101130_AAAHLK prieto_v_Page_197.txt
8cc1bc54f9fb200f66e769d7dc7d934b
1976d6ad9f6f6f27a20dfad71058bfd80edbbd72
21279 F20101130_AAAIVP prieto_v_Page_139.QC.jpg
6733718738e780822f718145ec0da32b
fc6dcc91d62406205db042d94e64bb7512e7fb79
52713 F20101130_AAAIIE prieto_v_Page_177.pro
5ea2156915fcfb05d5b982005dbffce6
147126587c2caae8ca8219a9fe5acb965d2ef353
F20101130_AAAHYW prieto_v_Page_011.tif
29dd4e3dc40c311d6905beda0ba1cb8b
901eedba8118c409f82f367f3e05d261e9b03ddd
104910 F20101130_AAAGOS prieto_v_Page_123.jp2
ae5adb5fd0872d8f9b9b4f8fe67b83a5
99e5e7f911bcdaa33009cb4d80de1a502d20d35b
1906 F20101130_AAAHLL prieto_v_Page_257.txt
67f27809116390208a19a683da63da8e
9c25890ae78328044887185014eb0a06fb8ec391
22949 F20101130_AAAIVQ prieto_v_Page_140.QC.jpg
ad0a97faa59bb4f6ffefbbcc25c08f79
3f99e0da5b4aed685d14f8562b9d84e1484502ce
49666 F20101130_AAAIIF prieto_v_Page_180.pro
393a8cbe7ae1ec1e235e499e0ef276e3
ddcc78ab18a29aa1337a4921d89ed97be50fa05d
F20101130_AAAHYX prieto_v_Page_012.tif
2a886fc46cca174dc925dd35f63297a6
c19a1c181cd279be1fa626f3683d0f3202f48de7
69780 F20101130_AAAGOT prieto_v_Page_175.jpg
324223eeb356b6f2559069681048a1af
0bb51247bc501286c9ce69eedbd8ad4acc62c531
F20101130_AAAHLM prieto_v_Page_148.tif
91b0d2f9d68d936f27838f09fd4348f1
b9632118e47e84af32cfd7dafb398236ffaabe8c
6579 F20101130_AAAIVR prieto_v_Page_140thm.jpg
58ac3319df1f58ab5ec90736b8141c49
89b6acd4e195a429d8c9e9901c6741be2b9edf2d
47179 F20101130_AAAIIG prieto_v_Page_181.pro
8226c67bf6699a39929c30642d2472e9
d80c38c9dc9fbda0fea57d625e782fa3a04262be
F20101130_AAAHYY prieto_v_Page_017.tif
db28e3d6fc0bc42c780f7a44cd05208b
4569623a2228f2011da473864285d02fb9e94e55
23960 F20101130_AAAGOU prieto_v_Page_100.QC.jpg
8f6d2ded4e1b15aab1480da5e0a3d670
752c51ad4142e797212e0c0cf7299417e9f6ebc4
100256 F20101130_AAAHLN prieto_v_Page_257.jp2
22838b528dca7af729b3f8bfc06082b6
3f87154835d18447502110dec0c7ab571f6cef2a
6604 F20101130_AAAIVS prieto_v_Page_141thm.jpg
5ef09f3109aaff8157828f991d393345
30a3230dc436987b71bb7dd129c7e03673c789f9
51942 F20101130_AAAIIH prieto_v_Page_184.pro
f7f42e5119eedfc3b4b6909331086ea7
bbf7756f0d3f8e6059bcc612e279e3a66333f22f
F20101130_AAAHYZ prieto_v_Page_021.tif
2044c550247b8d3744c783c073a57bd9
db93cb1662628a7c9245578d11056afa18a54a29
24368 F20101130_AAAGOV prieto_v_Page_019.QC.jpg
64a5b78c109222abf9f2fa83ab06febe
91fc8359ce8f68e81640bda6475f2f62b731c983
5632 F20101130_AAAHLO prieto_v_Page_222thm.jpg
da444ebe805395f42911b21c74b69130
dfcd39edbae17ab58461f9bf8c54f2781ad16dd6
20972 F20101130_AAAIVT prieto_v_Page_142.QC.jpg
a4ffbfee2dccd5d849a0cde58fcdaaa2
1c7eb9f1d7e57c0291c2a58c48fac279f96bdaf2
51293 F20101130_AAAIII prieto_v_Page_185.pro
0c19cbeb7ea0837590b96a4dabaceb9e
ccb1ce4b3bbac33b27e9c51faec2d73bbbd5452f
68109 F20101130_AAAGOW prieto_v_Page_146.jpg
d23f520d6343017b6306b4eee1b13787
9ffdf6f5acc79e36f8b788749f9c9d69317106ec
F20101130_AAAHLP prieto_v_Page_198.tif
2505aa1a01b2e62a7615158178811b4c
672c9168083cb23c77a695e9ab510f891cd979bb
6073 F20101130_AAAIVU prieto_v_Page_142thm.jpg
20f375e46c775b4d6f89cb256928a607
fc57e26a0bd349c2f0f7556687f4e8fcfc731174
51136 F20101130_AAAIIJ prieto_v_Page_187.pro
0f41dae957501252da693b83dba31d02
d310c665231da0b8a64654c37ba1dde71c858cec
23185 F20101130_AAAGOX prieto_v_Page_066.QC.jpg
406c64d748168a4e01af5c3ef8c6944d
01319108efebb5805d0b6c988dc5373673ce6f02
6638 F20101130_AAAHLQ prieto_v_Page_115thm.jpg
a43d3eb31f669316ffa6420ba70991f3
fb718b264a23da08e0308532d29532ad258cdc11
20946 F20101130_AAAIVV prieto_v_Page_143.QC.jpg
920171297b419dec50de9062db2437b2
3d8e30d4ca9083f444967b9e75cfc32e71fcf431
51448 F20101130_AAAIIK prieto_v_Page_188.pro
e70b1d7960bc5d4092b959149a53b2e7
303bd5e55b8497e9bf71dab51f7028be61dfd53e
F20101130_AAAGOY prieto_v_Page_107.txt
89490a03b3c1fa3411d22cba0d6db8c2
cad5f4c6afba99b1a25031504a1dc3568b9a9eda
6373 F20101130_AAAHLR prieto_v_Page_278thm.jpg
83009a74d4933648d615d7501cc12efa
55597b34089156a456b6f4ef63746b4a9fa3b507
6023 F20101130_AAAIVW prieto_v_Page_143thm.jpg
49284c4b1605fd0bbab1cfb020e5b888
db2dc41f43ee68ac8089060f1037bef8cc16d1fe
36787 F20101130_AAAIIL prieto_v_Page_191.pro
fff83842c71b237261d73e56d4f330e3
4a3c414cab2cff0218f7289e1c3635fe3d4062f8
F20101130_AAAGOZ prieto_v_Page_223.tif
2068492f7b7dfb8f79985ac3e2516cb6
86d44ffae18c6aab90eaf5005afcdd51a86be3b2
49856 F20101130_AAAHLS prieto_v_Page_093.pro
d2eba77c5f1eb7cf2e58b05786e91528
7d2707c0303082dda9fac3d2970514d3dd0527a8
5970 F20101130_AAAIVX prieto_v_Page_144thm.jpg
3d5348ffd0d72fce223a807aa7f63268
90b6ceebe2cbdb314b67644cf1f05e5fd470ba03
47268 F20101130_AAAIIM prieto_v_Page_193.pro
5af63e1c3748207499340eace73e178e
94371bafec7d5e1835960e55c5dda5b5689e418f
6700 F20101130_AAAHLT prieto_v_Page_269thm.jpg
847e4ab773bd57a17ce8a11707bb2383
fef512c40fdb199da1680c239b67ce2f2cb84a43
23446 F20101130_AAAIVY prieto_v_Page_145.QC.jpg
d405a36839b0f0e2842291259639b3a4
580be961e8955eff97183af1190be9d94fd25c13
47929 F20101130_AAAIIN prieto_v_Page_194.pro
5051c0fb0179131b13e668e9e2a29d17
0b0ec67c8cde0f719e806e8b617db6bb11dc7518
F20101130_AAAHLU prieto_v_Page_165.tif
ca8cfd07797f408b4390ed2c2ac441c9
554fed7b1f61220c9f1ec3ca92343168d624f102
6215 F20101130_AAAIVZ prieto_v_Page_146thm.jpg
bda8b5dd67f731e896c1e5230211fa8f
3350be58ced579c57043875535de6bc26d21a3dd
47525 F20101130_AAAIIO prieto_v_Page_195.pro
98f0c34a287da8e7a9d725d06ceabb20
2196d1e83a361f9ebf19ed5e74d5a73f7610a4e7
101293 F20101130_AAAHLV prieto_v_Page_063.jp2
e543947b6a85afc6760c689db940fef1
e265a6dfb235c09ea72d12c2a9d1f0376408ecce
47622 F20101130_AAAIIP prieto_v_Page_196.pro
ecae2f0e3ee2eb9e393a6178c369634d
b8447f8de2d8e7b0fe00c6f6345e7a317b08d757
21554 F20101130_AAAHLW prieto_v_Page_259.QC.jpg
e94717c629663d2604445ba11b4f8a71
edee93fd72f2f483666a02e71726081599773c83
50602 F20101130_AAAIIQ prieto_v_Page_197.pro
cde43a6fe3eaa7d87b5c7f575982bd54
8bf1aa2f5e8df30f9888bdbc222d3aadfdaa2378
48338 F20101130_AAAHLX prieto_v_Page_190.pro
0a4c96794bef91ef53d1ec58e4fca625
ecbd639946161668d576b0476596faefbe01b1ab
50899 F20101130_AAAIIR prieto_v_Page_198.pro
7839987838ca2d18525ea72fa9b719f2
ad18d1f881b10332aa0b17923aba73f4efeeb4cf
F20101130_AAAHLY prieto_v_Page_200.tif
ca9c2acb57575b25401ae97a6d3f0b95
91d18ec8e64a2c10eb03480c57604d129a1cc656
52242 F20101130_AAAIIS prieto_v_Page_200.pro
61980318f3225e4a0ab42d9095764574
941d4808f997953eeb202cef77081c4b0008a95b
48086 F20101130_AAAHLZ prieto_v_Page_164.pro
ba4a1a36358620e0f0100d236a7b9773
2c3627399559c15a4e1d739b300cd9c4738da6c1
51642 F20101130_AAAIIT prieto_v_Page_201.pro
38e9052e68a6e4e73300e748c48d247a
8d0e6f167fef5d2d11dad5b654f902b9b6a263a8
52595 F20101130_AAAIIU prieto_v_Page_203.pro
308550e0f0069357ef6ae8597b32666b
118a48c98b5790dde9b7132662ccf44e07d7a56a
72050 F20101130_AAAGUA prieto_v_Page_086.jpg
eb43a4edb03a176d403954d81933f741
5a7e9c2efe5a1490b8e5bdf0c78ac1f4336f5b7f
49294 F20101130_AAAIIV prieto_v_Page_207.pro
3076fef4e7679cde470b3695f71d014f
6740895ea95e603febb9ffe509edbbf35a730dc4
72920 F20101130_AAAGUB prieto_v_Page_054.jpg
9d538c621b128d7028806b37cdf24bf7
1e7300124a21dfe6fca13dcfc66979d64dd1f01d
50969 F20101130_AAAIIW prieto_v_Page_208.pro
b3a06acdcac89ae26f6ab1d7ed1670a3
f5d4522c80897418e42d061e7d6abaff0eb0c4c3
75133 F20101130_AAAGUC prieto_v_Page_179.jpg
0c316098d2c7be88c857a4069960530f
101efbc3004532c03d6fce374b7c09e9cca45e6c
52338 F20101130_AAAIIX prieto_v_Page_209.pro
f2746ed42af4d5c88ac64d4266f09d47
f9332afd7c1baf43792490fb815c012a6c2362e6
F20101130_AAAGUD prieto_v_Page_057.tif
43cb0478151ae59cbce2b8db3255c162
a57a8f328a61d10ab21601909411b6201f9c332c
30227 F20101130_AAAIIY prieto_v_Page_210.pro
e9bdc5f1a4286d57f32dd0d78399673d
89aad285defb637b66a0392d42208b4508f0a6c8
22784 F20101130_AAAGUE prieto_v_Page_196.QC.jpg
5e7c3a177729979268b9eb8d49d3b59d
8c3567c5bf1f69458a4026804f5955b2c0724bfb
26444 F20101130_AAAIIZ prieto_v_Page_212.pro
4455d9c59eb76449483b335ac8cb13e0
123e644bb04b25d1325630a4ee26e64f274b1e0e
F20101130_AAAGUF prieto_v_Page_113.txt
074e3f19f6d39b407fd52206f5aec315
eb02f67543f9e9ab219d2777e7587a894178fa4e
48908 F20101130_AAAGUG prieto_v_Page_024.pro
90913ea4d02f4154005a908aa7497c54
b092a39e4260965337429b69c629ac19b842f281
F20101130_AAAGUH prieto_v_Page_187.txt
4063d40e609baf91515b0153c5bbd178
07922616d706685f2c9e1d1825a0a5b2537aa708
72154 F20101130_AAAHRA prieto_v_Page_202.jpg
fcc952e4cd231f26379d64dfb5a6f242
6b495f66d9ce9126288145901fa0cf42565118d3
1538 F20101130_AAAGUI prieto_v_Page_147.txt
54ea43ea959a027cde953f34a54a758b
775a0b939b3887dc008350ef87a92cb2e06b5f6b
73526 F20101130_AAAHRB prieto_v_Page_204.jpg
a60689bf631d1957189a06391c32c031
858fef9c63b6c98bd47e6791bc0655a4983a1a37
107709 F20101130_AAAGUJ prieto_v_Page_062.jp2
f5c9823c4a947b0e14b824102c3bed19
9d922accc386ccac78a618bebd81dc37d116b05d
73433 F20101130_AAAHRC prieto_v_Page_206.jpg
9d34faea4112e5ea11e2c3b0dde8f27c
6497c0e66140aa84b8f574c25f9ef81fd114e9c3
F20101130_AAAGUK prieto_v_Page_236.tif
e78e1c517e705077c7b8af3e75fe2f73
5d5893ba28336d1c9677cf4511d152d2dba9b060
71926 F20101130_AAAHRD prieto_v_Page_207.jpg
2bbf098f7d3204c58bb5efc418e03588
e948a6c1852ac33e6d08b7bd4647c579e7fe0a01
23101 F20101130_AAAGUL prieto_v_Page_098.QC.jpg
3d30ec20a0b6fe1ae69f19f0310cb36b
68b16e7cf3447e831e46f2773cbeec226bd5f2a4
72570 F20101130_AAAHRE prieto_v_Page_208.jpg
8d9b23e720ce1ccca31ae91e8e75f20e
6114115e1a4bf471ccf70c3bec398e9fc97e1de9
109496 F20101130_AAAGHA prieto_v_Page_131.jp2
f0456c4aa987a920c1155ea2f70a0e26
668e1a512b86d41934c395dcbe6c3d11a4768e52
48960 F20101130_AAAGUM prieto_v_Page_223.pro
de546e013822252af71f39d2a4ed2d47
1b49a29c4a84ed1ab609aca7d2c3d8406e4ca208
74737 F20101130_AAAHRF prieto_v_Page_209.jpg
00ce24799feaefb21c5857b0dfa6c4c7
1faf8404b4ed6c9bc1f49cd6730876174100c97e
66062 F20101130_AAAGHB prieto_v_Page_257.jpg
2fc6a41cdc43e5f7d315a8700ca625ba
3a44cbb66a8ce67fbeb14233b19cda4961310f6b
F20101130_AAAGUN prieto_v_Page_273.tif
5f30798c3d36f081cf72e6ae5f674877
2b717bec2f67b7101419dc7ffdca0ad2c7b15c34
45108 F20101130_AAAHRG prieto_v_Page_210.jpg
9232adc288ba1cfff4537ecd2b4595f0
d57954cd5a4ef9ddac4d138a47f2de51a1ddad50
25229 F20101130_AAAGUO prieto_v_Page_125.QC.jpg
97c12059cfc21bea56a3dd6d5a14bdbe
27ad09cf8ca722b658ee144f0c9f76ddfd6ddc15
55897 F20101130_AAAHRH prieto_v_Page_211.jpg
5ff534df0d9ae6e7f4477fc75b3347a5
5748f4da85a5ef5725fc239d5e7a1720f2994f59
1895 F20101130_AAAIOA prieto_v_Page_194.txt
80a761e004fec6da1647d8d05a39e46a
090bb14715b88bda821c95198c2a18dbe0a8647e
22238 F20101130_AAAGHC prieto_v_Page_057.QC.jpg
1f7ddf5050247a8cfd343dc19af54a29
2fc0d2db8b4d75461c78250bd3d3b7185b389753
46451 F20101130_AAAHRI prieto_v_Page_212.jpg
ba492883239027411fb4766e557a196c
81be07b47ea88fe5c295507cd18d192b6cfdb534
F20101130_AAAIOB prieto_v_Page_195.txt
d10c3758d92c7f5a21d18e0612b66e18
9b97963ba9398fb144d590311853a3e0a70d1946
73346 F20101130_AAAGHD prieto_v_Page_244.jpg
54534628966ab856468c9dab3b21db5c
ce8f2feddad8d57c039a5ba024db374e2427e5c0
82850 F20101130_AAAGUP prieto_v_Page_266.jp2
cc0e760f88ea7fd512970e2cafc24e25
d12c114e5f13e3eff6ce982070658112bfe30b12
74419 F20101130_AAAHRJ prieto_v_Page_217.jpg
6c2847e794b8f3f14c9468baa745d318
dfd1b827ba0a88577417d8a56142f94ef2b45a41
2010 F20101130_AAAIOC prieto_v_Page_198.txt
77fb6f96de11107c75999a9e60a38a1f
dce54331da3744865267228098ca7936d065b2ff
5888 F20101130_AAAGHE prieto_v_Page_217thm.jpg
5e1df9e9c42c02177506649e949e168d
c6d50bb8f3c17ab6006104a45610def119f8a63f
1064 F20101130_AAAGUQ prieto_v_Page_077.txt
ecd3e88e5d8aa11d75932959428f0fc2
2b9872cc420dcc203f2efb84ecaf6917c6fa911e
73165 F20101130_AAAHRK prieto_v_Page_219.jpg
3a079c488c3dee345a0256ae8a3c0999
2a64230f22f04265fbc3f77c579b8e0f39642acf
1999 F20101130_AAAIOD prieto_v_Page_199.txt
97c55ac3f24cb9adc6d18cb1e092785e
0cd25da0437c64b956f2ec2254af3012a5e1ba85
F20101130_AAAGHF prieto_v_Page_181.txt
f9163914a37a2777a8bf08c8f64cb40b
69b0264e0bdb4c350eadcb63dfe75a531acb7904
50264 F20101130_AAAGUR prieto_v_Page_154.pro
d49f1bd0e4cacbdce222cacb7c9cf3a7
8a7220a67318bcec3f49daa69c307a49dc03acf9
1975 F20101130_AAAIOE prieto_v_Page_202.txt
7a18eefd20a5a03704a93ff23caafbfd
e5861860653a552e6fbf511263d2b65815a06b68
70788 F20101130_AAAGHG prieto_v_Page_082.jpg
c817d92a2924dea5eaee8e61e9c299cb
a044517cc29cb29e06dc80ad649db26920f76afd
70813 F20101130_AAAHEA prieto_v_Page_080.jpg
68a441249b33099b06ee7177c489dc4f
a3bb2759c4c13694009798759fb81c82cdf68172
49953 F20101130_AAAGUS prieto_v_Page_262.pro
86e653eabfa33b227a7c3e575ff07844
2aa5417591579758e84b05262b36bcecd5b65911
F20101130_AAAHRL prieto_v_Page_223.jpg
50730da1dca66b178b94246623053149
fd1318b90b0ff250ab9ee86469954a6d2dfdb50c
2096 F20101130_AAAIOF prieto_v_Page_203.txt
6908a9f413e6f41b253de3f45928b54f
36528b69186089367011548c653e0a17ac7c3320
2050 F20101130_AAAGHH prieto_v_Page_234.txt
c05c44353d4bd052d407856bd5f1674c
61dce64f28b01416832092a950c370c98f41c869
F20101130_AAAHEB prieto_v_Page_018.tif
81c2f7b8f1425c51d9bfc2217ea6f756
f484a1240f7a9e62ebaef3032fe2dfa9ccd248f8
1822 F20101130_AAAGUT prieto_v_Page_174.txt
d232730eb9da224b773ce95a31900d51
76d83b88167251924b393694b170d5d41f3c5e17
70120 F20101130_AAAHRM prieto_v_Page_224.jpg
5592c7493a58565039658de17ac9c105
321e8647db30f58e02c809b0183b4e53deb6df90
F20101130_AAAIOG prieto_v_Page_205.txt
f2aa197550bfd0c27e9fa896c472e9ae
4e0cbff145cf6c90609d34ab3c242edc62d69cca
51578 F20101130_AAAGHI prieto_v_Page_239.pro
9a815fa1ac5c30976626cc92374bd3f5
e2402e88c7b24a577474013b21703ef1722fac38
52840 F20101130_AAAHEC prieto_v_Page_214.jpg
f1abfa96a118d0cd402272a7291d8bee
e2baf7a4f203805818a591c3e34cba123973b0c4
F20101130_AAAGUU prieto_v_Page_230.tif
a649684bf87129d96cb5ccb2c1a40764
e5f3005ad30bf82eca8e88212f20d6f009dbc16a
77699 F20101130_AAAHRN prieto_v_Page_226.jpg
10b94923dd56d8cd9c63f6eb2f7a791f
d46a345bb8ae57867bfc36c9a0c3efbf97b01cb0
6318 F20101130_AAAGHJ prieto_v_Page_164thm.jpg
d9ca59853c2e09b147e47e02a9d5b1f9
6ceb36147bb205703f19d326a86f4dfc8e917cbf
23836 F20101130_AAAHED prieto_v_Page_044.QC.jpg
02cf89c334bd23d4393475e1aee5a3e7
3715ca786030ff956a69a90b71dcd7383ba8b930
6780 F20101130_AAAGUV prieto_v_Page_184thm.jpg
5a78300ad99d5d507b84ca0a7469810f
08a7503bdaf039ce63fef1a3f244628bbb01abc2
69657 F20101130_AAAHRO prieto_v_Page_228.jpg
eee0e06064515ac306ce26e6fd7d92f6
a39703d93224bc86018b3515f5cd6866b14c0326
2009 F20101130_AAAIOH prieto_v_Page_208.txt
260079cce3c29662ec6c5e9dc07e152d
0b4839d4d618c56ac263932700a135c706f78898
66859 F20101130_AAAGHK prieto_v_Page_171.jpg
08fd12ad7ff0b8bd186696c14dbdb090
8f2f2677313e2c57a190e954c4986929c5927255
23716 F20101130_AAAHEE prieto_v_Page_278.QC.jpg
3572890e0616f6457c870864803957a5
8ee6b07bfc389bfbefd10536910db6c48dfd4761
20939 F20101130_AAAGUW prieto_v_Page_227.QC.jpg
f82cfd0ad14d9f4759d2de2ea927a0ad
ea1558c56f2985969a8e02cb58236f8993398a6e
70060 F20101130_AAAHRP prieto_v_Page_229.jpg
fe42372ddb7391ec887835439d8e5b79
2a10713c3727e181e0b4b0a970bdb327bf719ab6
1329 F20101130_AAAIOI prieto_v_Page_211.txt
cc47fb46eb1570f89e4398e3539dfb14
715519299b55cc9095765335bd4b660b4020af2d
6281 F20101130_AAAGHL prieto_v_Page_121thm.jpg
5cca937f91f533c764b6f0bdb4461b5c
b31413dfcecffc94e43ad0da769bc0a65e73a962
F20101130_AAAHEF prieto_v_Page_050.tif
b65b0cdbc5ec0d22895d00b5434f12f1
034d72d884af93c9a55eeb7d219a0d230a42adbd
50274 F20101130_AAAGUX prieto_v_Page_122.pro
37207dc0114295c9389d82d23114fb00
59430ec0fdfa8f15d5e40d37d89845add2c4839e
69981 F20101130_AAAHRQ prieto_v_Page_231.jpg
edb659771b6bb23f973605778f845582
82f5f8d0150d89e9680fc4c077501a3e934c93e9
1194 F20101130_AAAIOJ prieto_v_Page_212.txt
9db614df45292af8bb169b69b3883c0d
7047842e0d97a92a1021aa3561bfc09063b3a299
6109 F20101130_AAAGHM prieto_v_Page_173thm.jpg
08c58b24d4341b6bc279bbe56f627c0b
5c8261b0f886370a5c727014351711f91248ebd0
F20101130_AAAHEG prieto_v_Page_270.tif
5d768622e3aea502839675136f05390a
1eb3c446c2db8dab2c7215d4a5002767746d2552
5735 F20101130_AAAGUY prieto_v_Page_192thm.jpg
1b2aa6c35d674e059bb0bc34114b8855
4ecea78baa55c9ebacaad4c60a64e6a40ea022be
72257 F20101130_AAAHRR prieto_v_Page_234.jpg
ed2ad7818b113669518bb0c7bd336053
5acbe229f0f4f355290bdbd60fe841f6d3ce456d
1631 F20101130_AAAIOK prieto_v_Page_215.txt
b1a6c08d46d39b1b33d63b2b1d5591ec
b240a11135acd9093ca8aba7c13fb84bd2a71f8f
F20101130_AAAGHN prieto_v_Page_258.tif
3a933fa98946a18fa9c1a74ff2e603d1
e85b9f65d3451756da9b040cf71af984cf549a08
5981 F20101130_AAAHEH prieto_v_Page_226thm.jpg
4631757f3ca0fbd6b9b7cf50f92cd9cf
9db9a3fbf117261b39d9fcf6a94fba9a3565a953
5595 F20101130_AAAGUZ prieto_v_Page_246thm.jpg
da50248619117ba6e16e1526fcf0a5fd
7df40e5bb017167ef5945f31ebce1e1c77983240
F20101130_AAAIBA prieto_v_Page_122.tif
0866f33be223c1ab030bdc082164d067
2896806a631cc9c98cc3fb4e0601f0737f81f7ce
76066 F20101130_AAAHRS prieto_v_Page_239.jpg
38d76eddeb403f276b167903954ad0d4
89f63b5aefeec9074c3980955df978e01fe39c1a
1378 F20101130_AAAIOL prieto_v_Page_216.txt
536602279696a84ec8468649630e8e34
24bbc3dae22ada26bd817b3b76a2e3f21d1ebc34
49056 F20101130_AAAGHO prieto_v_Page_146.pro
23fdce436a2a543ad210425cfe040126
32b66885f5b5ebddc9bae5d7d4fe45bc3c247eba
109969 F20101130_AAAHEI prieto_v_Page_202.jp2
3ef980aac96c83c504c92829f3d503ff
208b9c44e62e0a467422354b0bfa2c54b924abca
F20101130_AAAIBB prieto_v_Page_125.tif
73888ba6bf8526cbb0a1d0de414a54e3
2aa3d58d1292f0659e704aac47db762c47f77729
64973 F20101130_AAAHRT prieto_v_Page_240.jpg
c409c08c792a43de797e88619cca8fe5
03d516f6c6171a49ffe52191515b44821fb6b747
1640 F20101130_AAAIOM prieto_v_Page_218.txt
e256ae4f48973add54dce1f72a7edb58
b327a584290d75b78196a36090b7ee76a0c56dfd
F20101130_AAAGHP prieto_v_Page_020.tif
896db27dbc75ec0e994da38a07b2f30f
3c65501f2f12d218918c1bc2add6d923f15a098f
57141 F20101130_AAAHEJ prieto_v_Page_275.pro
7036592f42c25f0f77efaeabd84865ad
fc9e67b42fa42431bd525bb4a4d10319bc1c0a1e
F20101130_AAAIBC prieto_v_Page_127.tif
e5d4502d7f45d316f59245c2bd241a6d
16b8abd3744393fce1cba20ae4c74deb2204598e
69374 F20101130_AAAHRU prieto_v_Page_241.jpg
afe231bae9dcca17506a99a5eb10e659
a1ec90369442b2fb54b8d62e7797722408bd47c0
2081 F20101130_AAAION prieto_v_Page_219.txt
d5c92c30b4df4f308149c6d6ac91e39a
2b766eee01bd5d23674e68e6e0d941101e68d052
22806 F20101130_AAAGHQ prieto_v_Page_101.QC.jpg
4f5ed8cc855f6f0ff56bddb04a896ae8
66910cf82aa4773fcbfcfa9d9b40ae3cecd8134d
20410 F20101130_AAAHEK prieto_v_Page_127.QC.jpg
d2cca76cabc150cc24dc371b247bc3d6
15dd49e7b42790e8b2397138cd1cbf1b1d31994f
F20101130_AAAIBD prieto_v_Page_129.tif
3fad4cf5205003b385ba0726b08205b0
8b2311414465affeeaebc6a98ac8959c0a353f36
69501 F20101130_AAAHRV prieto_v_Page_242.jpg
0ea45661da4eb3961631dfaf586465a4
f56b7a30834fdd48044137378ccc633375082f9f
1935 F20101130_AAAIOO prieto_v_Page_224.txt
53c5bcd4c71091133167a6ad7b66bf34
0d48b46b12e562fed3065c80ff7f688bd7c1e41b
72540 F20101130_AAAGHR prieto_v_Page_182.jpg
b5ee9d2cabc7daf4f59d06285605ea3e
8c4b86b4892fd0a6abfe240c5b29e7c4e88c7e3a
108820 F20101130_AAAHEL prieto_v_Page_068.jp2
01d3e79129d34db39dfbfacb9d183952
70032cb4553f23a8ad1e9c1e99fec64795c50f50
F20101130_AAAIBE prieto_v_Page_130.tif
c7c31f53c5ca95edcf35a2df63078b53
b1ef52bf0a2e5efcb481219f1f9282d079f12fc7
64018 F20101130_AAAHRW prieto_v_Page_243.jpg
f5603e47fb4d2ef0ec48167f5b3944bf
e6b22e3362df17aba43e5d3bd39313db0c949708
1925 F20101130_AAAIOP prieto_v_Page_225.txt
a16f1c7c1f319bbbb516d5cd73bbbd44
3ca23cb186866d5132047ef3b6b6dbc5086e5e1c
20566 F20101130_AAAGHS prieto_v_Page_254.QC.jpg
5e4e8d74d94c5e138a2b0414aa866980
1d635075dd608ca139857d29ffd17ee53dff3ab2
6635 F20101130_AAAHEM prieto_v_Page_130thm.jpg
473222919eb7ae23ed271f21414bd4ef
8c2ae42aa794729f3d7be712ed72eaa45e6b965d
F20101130_AAAIBF prieto_v_Page_132.tif
833f83cef98049440eae86067c4cd83e
15a53739a4ff4bd6c786f7d2a6167941bb78d132
67440 F20101130_AAAHRX prieto_v_Page_245.jpg
9b142b7897fa9c2801d360f01e75bc80
2582703c3b12f0932bd7aee9effb02640c7e5c20
1984 F20101130_AAAIOQ prieto_v_Page_230.txt
a066f550889848cf7997e28fc71b569a
00d38c913dab5e2748be2b205c6b4bbca3c2c4ec
F20101130_AAAGHT prieto_v_Page_193thm.jpg
2957f51354e7c7026f15c0408ce7f6cd
de8425878fc7ad50cee95cd19ae884f63067daf5
109972 F20101130_AAAHEN prieto_v_Page_020.jp2
eb23b3a9a7d96c0b5f41b9400b76a302
f6dc09647cbbc791175b719ef9c8a735f9460b24
F20101130_AAAIBG prieto_v_Page_136.tif
b8d842ec18991ff53568936c2abe319d
9be865354eab37e0c96b8397de9bc5daf98277cb
68938 F20101130_AAAHRY prieto_v_Page_246.jpg
cf7683e73a850c8dcb5ff37a9bb3eb76
3240a1b7f50f834de96a95f23de6ca2f1dbbc204
2149 F20101130_AAAIOR prieto_v_Page_231.txt
4afc98367d8ae71ffda6b64128692eeb
aef25291f031fe8f92bbcbe24fb0af56be6dfa94
F20101130_AAAGHU prieto_v_Page_046.tif
09a0db29bbc5d3f7c8754e1d2f62d3a4
c015f7765f20ff5de9b679cc93d710bdf72b0ea7
2054 F20101130_AAAHEO prieto_v_Page_065.txt
51d3d7613d048a37fbf743a4c06c50b2
4ec2c8008d44acbea39851e13baa1ff61cec2908
F20101130_AAAIBH prieto_v_Page_139.tif
f112937207057dbccf6ecff6d12aa36c
58a04ea80cacabe7ca886be2286c9ffdd8de8ade
68487 F20101130_AAAHRZ prieto_v_Page_248.jpg
f74485c2bebb8fa0c2787839167e4cba
2a3820c90ba9074db95aca922f234b09f889aa10
2110 F20101130_AAAIOS prieto_v_Page_235.txt
b6f9f74a885c860977acc39dbd3a1fb1
7357612eb0e53ebb24beb60812540d722aa679b4
72744 F20101130_AAAGHV prieto_v_Page_267.jpg
78cc0d984b3868d57c5a8900d10861ad
7b9a17c1ba03c35d6e3e1e08ceee8c523ad5945c
71163 F20101130_AAAHEP prieto_v_Page_024.jpg
cab10bae6cccd691fa2534605fa788f9
6233017c8e612521c521f050302b24f640ed9d94
F20101130_AAAIBI prieto_v_Page_140.tif
9f083426b4d315d1f3e0b2946ccba5a0
d86e4cf63e4dedfceef81603a5518be4cc39658d
1747 F20101130_AAAIOT prieto_v_Page_236.txt
1533f0f34c8071ef0432df831fe9cb91
133ecc82db750d16f6b061e555af40ad14eb4026
49884 F20101130_AAAGHW prieto_v_Page_137.pro
7f638915d443fe98b1502ee2660d45b2
adc42c6e287ad8c15a4a5d77eac444fd2d1bfa4f
66573 F20101130_AAAHEQ prieto_v_Page_048.jpg
87e0c2de806f66f819d809c0c2413dbb
f9a5813c96e424d57760e8b1bb801dee4f6e9ffa
F20101130_AAAIBJ prieto_v_Page_141.tif
b5ea5c0b8ea92c099ca2c53a2c8f8530
80c78f0fbc56351659859788873ace8e9cc0a2e6
F20101130_AAAIOU prieto_v_Page_237.txt
6b2a7d31f3240e4d0f51afd0d7037c0e
6a514500f84fba275686c687283e5e59baf86cd6
101582 F20101130_AAAGHX prieto_v_Page_052.jp2
811357b583299aa260a2da8ae133c5ce
53a42c9a3fc9b0ce0a915c794e896da51fe893a1
2091 F20101130_AAAHER prieto_v_Page_209.txt
dba65b507b394320830a0b0bccc782f1
158021b3704e333cd506bdd3177c91217a951fc4
F20101130_AAAIBK prieto_v_Page_142.tif
be664bdd92e36dd079b6e7ea948a276c
cd6e16ecdc2b9619e037e150880c42fca6a6d169
2015 F20101130_AAAIOV prieto_v_Page_239.txt
d60b7b91b28794a55d677f06d97339eb
45215602cfeb2ab1e7a82d09004ae4c952813711
6008 F20101130_AAAGHY prieto_v_Page_012thm.jpg
57be74fa3df352e0d21fe81fde96e535
dfc70f273dd3b04ace2115c2ca0131f2c6e3f6b8
22176 F20101130_AAAHES prieto_v_Page_237.QC.jpg
9e4f86a836d65397deea11fb42eb2036
53b68d9c4835b1502b32f7442fa5016bb0a41c4c
F20101130_AAAIBL prieto_v_Page_143.tif
a4049fb144adb3bb21726586d34eb05c
57a5170be8c9a55f2083e2fd864067fb8885dc70
2002 F20101130_AAAIOW prieto_v_Page_242.txt
d97c35b61414a8a16f341b698c5af521
f4db64bad3d62cd7b71908856eed54f7f994971c
F20101130_AAAGHZ prieto_v_Page_014.tif
81217d4e53ef83cd0902775af7a27109
dac4da29d4bd453a9920934c4373d80195327bbe
52677 F20101130_AAAHET prieto_v_Page_088.pro
b0b96155157a26b057c9dcbfcac3da88
182ae1c0a208923f11c443e6c8dcb3acbd461db9
F20101130_AAAIBM prieto_v_Page_144.tif
ba071ca807164cd242fa8623049adade
a39250df40eb6cdb7a02cdf3183ecca40ccdac75
2093 F20101130_AAAIOX prieto_v_Page_244.txt
56bae8ca416d77e6752a538ad81a79a6
d88da42c34ffecb531e103cf09b91643e11281b6
6059 F20101130_AAAHEU prieto_v_Page_048thm.jpg
a489373e77451d43e51da48b29ad8c01
5d427fba51d3ea24c5b7914f99873d5755e9f3c2
F20101130_AAAIBN prieto_v_Page_146.tif
ca9c0f08c72ea9383d1c7d73c8fefea3
5e186b9d28cc360a288677f5af6e619e0dbca804
1844 F20101130_AAAIOY prieto_v_Page_245.txt
b1941cf535071fa20c04e1bf3d9fb60c
026535ffbc0b86dd5c63898b943a6e6bfd874b41
6424 F20101130_AAAHEV prieto_v_Page_038thm.jpg
4964e29451bc6d205a365c870e93187e
b336d12146974807ba92ec5ed0db9675eecb4cde
F20101130_AAAIBO prieto_v_Page_147.tif
4d0448ab9c25949a33a2ba4c02e69339
822a9e49156403e1a5fcbd22c46c26906a495d3e
1856 F20101130_AAAIOZ prieto_v_Page_246.txt
f3e9bbfa80cb87339286d75c1f96f60c
7e831cf2a3415ffdafcb9c8638a43641bffa1058
106994 F20101130_AAAHEW prieto_v_Page_141.jp2
d98a507d540afe72f29c03e6530c4b8a
bbac27c41ae0931d7c70de97d686a6dfe6b0788c
F20101130_AAAIBP prieto_v_Page_150.tif
fe2afad470567f213cdefdef9c93742a
1d048508dcff8126506102cb7cb7d65227c4edd5
107332 F20101130_AAAHEX prieto_v_Page_051.jp2
e6ee63d605072b53861f0a85759d9d05
b4a1bbf7087baec2ee0b94d62e4ea10f6281c91c
87279 F20101130_AAAHXA prieto_v_Page_213.jp2
68205622a9cfce3869c9b15cb37781c5
18aae56468977a9ad2b46a3d69fc2989c79ef69b
F20101130_AAAIBQ prieto_v_Page_152.tif
fa4f0b1a1701ad33709528f15fb29d09
50724884bd68a43b167b84d6818789faca934165
1051939 F20101130_AAAHEY prieto_v_Page_271.jp2
3c28e43bf67a86653331a5fca0ed1f41
a832b7a72acc2d2581e6164a64bab291b5c35427
111552 F20101130_AAAHXB prieto_v_Page_217.jp2
c29c50bf6602ead36977382f8b88fcdf
8d980d48a625e1978f563947b4504dfc089ee413
F20101130_AAAIBR prieto_v_Page_154.tif
73c5e0a05bbd46f75401b197ac29208d
635216919bca8b7ce44e58797545a7debb2bda98
71122 F20101130_AAAHEZ prieto_v_Page_070.jpg
fa76687506faa91b61c0a5d787692312
5ee4ae9e5a8585393b1d78609245ae67e99d3fdd
86334 F20101130_AAAHXC prieto_v_Page_218.jp2
7120ceca69ffda4819517e42e1a7a758
108fce57c94cd28103578e0b2bd874377e4fbb8f
F20101130_AAAIBS prieto_v_Page_155.tif
3dfbf357519c27aea4bc29969d78f3f5
a1b18fa18ab0177fd2636b29e1b07d79a6bdb948
109389 F20101130_AAAHXD prieto_v_Page_221.jp2
0c4bf8f18bda1e6f65dcc7f6618800a3
11e7eaca2fa7fe3e31ca98207c8d7dc3c36ca5a1
F20101130_AAAIBT prieto_v_Page_158.tif
81438f453246e7256914684db6f3d997
0af1fb358fb652a856a537df1b65000006699eef
106411 F20101130_AAAHXE prieto_v_Page_223.jp2
a3993a20b87f848e0813b7786b60146a
3e1e96330ebdbe39b19878dda495303dac9e1e80
F20101130_AAAIBU prieto_v_Page_159.tif
3baf58f49bed4253d4873157d20ce232
2d0c69bf73d37d7de5634c673e38ff11fd01c4ef
F20101130_AAAGNA prieto_v_Page_045.tif
a4422ccb3694d0e3c903e55105d36907
6dd720fb6ee78110243ed918ec5554c4f606ce95
114145 F20101130_AAAHXF prieto_v_Page_226.jp2
102a34eefa0afcc450b46848af43f06d
7e99df922a7a2375f9c5cfa226f90b0ec3ea498c
F20101130_AAAIBV prieto_v_Page_161.tif
a653154af167b8c9e4816346c1fa1e45
f86cb7f2e1c23a7ecd585603a237ffa847a85025
2045 F20101130_AAAGNB prieto_v_Page_149.txt
73ef04ddbeddc08070ea84fbe159f5f3
423d3c29437e121565c74834fcc8cd8e3e530dc4
101607 F20101130_AAAHXG prieto_v_Page_228.jp2
2e597b184907137c6c7a147ced5c6c69
c9969042811c7e7fa21d87759e7a5fd0cd5c2037
F20101130_AAAIBW prieto_v_Page_163.tif
e8804ad6571c802dcb25484deb48c53c
7726672fde4805f789377b0c16e58511c0465e9d
5427 F20101130_AAAGNC prieto_v_Page_004thm.jpg
9530ca6c7a720e873fbf09f8c323c0dc
7be8b7335c574c0641b254c32352985be15a0808
22765 F20101130_AAAIUA prieto_v_Page_102.QC.jpg
dc1b2d435f1fa65c83a0a60e5e1d881f
792e08ce2233a43f6e3a66b82b8a2a0cea47f78b
104599 F20101130_AAAHXH prieto_v_Page_231.jp2
d3b0a48bd9269ac44e8cb52bd7bf4907
1755e0fe2641ea2564e1cee14aea057d0af931fe
F20101130_AAAIBX prieto_v_Page_166.tif
5eaef5c387112c108bad4d4380c264ce
1c0f1012e748ffc62c0a5c3cdc2054a2421f18ab
21412 F20101130_AAAGND prieto_v_Page_213.QC.jpg
c627d6c4f9827f06a13beeb84448d870
74b9c1b39374cbdd81bc8b664d6de40883bd157d
6280 F20101130_AAAIUB prieto_v_Page_102thm.jpg
e68f656dfc1ffeb29415f1a36db23640
d02754f8ccc3ddfa13e934f27f6ddcadee4fda5c
124720 F20101130_AAAHXI prieto_v_Page_233.jp2
fa9ddef629de68a458bca550caf95092
f090403379e56d5d2989417cb0ba28e3f1ea4f70
F20101130_AAAIBY prieto_v_Page_167.tif
c579e7b0703de395c94d67f661d0f27e
32941a8bd44d055074958b4e799c476ca7054bf1
69323 F20101130_AAAGNE prieto_v_Page_162.jpg
0139a7435e1cfbe97f7a546470b7a686
3a0ba4bd3f1c3fe6248b9a14cc08fecf9a0b227f
23664 F20101130_AAAIUC prieto_v_Page_104.QC.jpg
8a58f1a9e471576d31aa6e04c9b9094f
ac0a9558855de68dcf384b34395f741b20b049d8
110895 F20101130_AAAHXJ prieto_v_Page_234.jp2
b7b97ca852747607927162fa9be7de61
253cf27117371760910ae3ba0382507e5f5cebba
F20101130_AAAIBZ prieto_v_Page_168.tif
15b1642189d910efa4fdbd8630718e59
fde55850772aac70390a049c4fd4c78e3f39cb67
F20101130_AAAGNF prieto_v_Page_013.tif
e9d8171f0b6caa80ebdb9565a6d30020
9e56c07092be9249fb288be04ee9279351f6c377
20679 F20101130_AAAIUD prieto_v_Page_106.QC.jpg
2084971642d01363339f19b52f471ad8
9e1ff72bfdcd9493f4f94bc426b901803b1cbb89
110689 F20101130_AAAHXK prieto_v_Page_238.jp2
252f5c0685d28c3c098870667e55c3ed
add9ef2fe1b54c97c1cfccf9bb7c405c7540bdf5
F20101130_AAAGNG prieto_v_Page_246.tif
b824df5cfe85035baf05f9276955ea11
95aac0e0829239ca2e687d37eb566155e9932424
5954 F20101130_AAAIUE prieto_v_Page_106thm.jpg
2b0433b7c65ef528b5562671963636b1
9f93f12060520a9a3633f2352e0129f77f45d95e
115945 F20101130_AAAHXL prieto_v_Page_239.jp2
aafdb77db29dd08c81f7619aa158e314
e1f95c13ea08f6d07dabfd49a15dd398758a2e4a
6523 F20101130_AAAGNH prieto_v_Page_206thm.jpg
86f4f10bf1732c22d90b39c78d226782
02283172aa52b2b666cf4fb02cfe5d4e0b19fe14
24251 F20101130_AAAHKA prieto_v_Page_076.QC.jpg
537a3e5daba803d5c8d6e20d1571568b
84c5e3dc79590c46431022035bce7a77c406ee73
24046 F20101130_AAAIUF prieto_v_Page_107.QC.jpg
018a0e093aca0552a9b22f24dabf1322
8a3b322b6744144d0116af5e2673c1a8ced4032c
102515 F20101130_AAAHXM prieto_v_Page_240.jp2
12eee447fc1d5438ce972daa44a98e6e
2a109deb67881e3059c549c7684329934fb638fe
905864 F20101130_AAAHKB prieto_v_Page_144.jp2
00a6cea263f683361b141d0fa475cbb8
155cfaf168651e7367d900d3e97a8e6af50e5bf7
6677 F20101130_AAAIUG prieto_v_Page_107thm.jpg
605afd125823c8bb00eb4a5f22266805
6efd3ed5030a89260ad2a7171f70b7222d57ffa8
105608 F20101130_AAAHXN prieto_v_Page_241.jp2
684752f1a21d45213345e9d4eaa458ff
646e51c30fa0b20f54dd7f73c13565143adf5050
25260 F20101130_AAAGNI prieto_v_Page_061.QC.jpg
591cebeedd3776429304081dfc5272bf
2e5f097805fb443982aac0c090a37b92f7d11166
2025 F20101130_AAAHKC prieto_v_Page_201.txt
1d21f5b936ad6da4dcff414529df393e
ebb1de0748ae03009a004263c9f97a75966c19c1
23731 F20101130_AAAIUH prieto_v_Page_108.QC.jpg
925d26b33e3cd4400ab1f981776d829d
e0976040b3764f943cb3da4e43ccf48f4356e412
95016 F20101130_AAAHXO prieto_v_Page_243.jp2
3bb234f3a8a6ae8ff22a03a6c8f26873
51fdfb9bddff921ad2e7e82eda4b4a4193b28721
6603 F20101130_AAAGNJ prieto_v_Page_103thm.jpg
727f52b7ae1e055742d9396158c020c0
34514cc93c6a008bf20441278d92fed5ebf9337f
46183 F20101130_AAAHKD prieto_v_Page_240.pro
c21f042db3df17f3efb17ddad4ccba31
8b0b78a5bcecd6c9da72f934b810978abb88ec69
F20101130_AAAIUI prieto_v_Page_108thm.jpg
403f7b6c165b750ff2797fb7e6f72b80
7fd14eca01e78160119c93f74f14d161431e805d
100905 F20101130_AAAHXP prieto_v_Page_245.jp2
c9258e7991ca4da50d05a816b76093a1
a73259e359a9398b1b53dca86341f1793b757e77
5823 F20101130_AAAGNK prieto_v_Page_248thm.jpg
5b0c74abedce264055abf60df390a216
d45f2d6e19ba82f80bf850bb57c44a28cca4c4e2
6224 F20101130_AAAIUJ prieto_v_Page_109thm.jpg
f8542a32654b9a7a4d77acc438370127
4a9b8a3839ebe31aa63e7e16c8cf91e752a5a2df
103427 F20101130_AAAHXQ prieto_v_Page_246.jp2
f1e7e099a0956aa91376f864ce597b24
98da9d72dd0ca9c3d3edea6955ba9825cef0948b
4334 F20101130_AAAGNL prieto_v_Page_266thm.jpg
68455866ffada0a9687dae111d1ef862
b23c795938cef804876326c9b666f01f8fc56c3f
17235 F20101130_AAAHKE prieto_v_Page_008.jpg
f6fe8b1bf3d270dca90c9fec2a744b94
8719077fe3e9c01e8f307635c118a50c7c7eed34
23137 F20101130_AAAIUK prieto_v_Page_110.QC.jpg
625fcedb02ced3a76bd814bd54bb3b21
5faa90567e469d2f0642b2a7d4d34151555b85ab
47432 F20101130_AAAGNM prieto_v_Page_222.pro
c4daef2cc4f64ba18866db108682aa57
5402136261c75c91396fa105afca11ee136445e8
59845 F20101130_AAAHKF prieto_v_Page_264.pro
1478e412b30ab14ff3ee7c2aca6225d7
25280f7cf18a8c4ec44c3e7d5dd9a3aa1bb08c4b
6436 F20101130_AAAIUL prieto_v_Page_110thm.jpg
acd3210d7d902443f055572a7c5f73f6
f1c24318c53c5f39498d47cbd019bd2e73ea39ac
93081 F20101130_AAAHXR prieto_v_Page_247.jp2
a686ff403bd3e37d5560fe23d708a147
246f3b053bae0b512eb7d9ee11f36860af693f80
F20101130_AAAGNN prieto_v_Page_245.tif
487d6101373c5eb0ad3bb3f0328a1f36
de1669aafec4b199315ae6f2cc5c2a53ac08d780
1507 F20101130_AAAHKG prieto_v_Page_117.txt
517e1038243c45d25cd104cc243adab5
4262b9d00271d3e728dd6497f78907a20420838f
6464 F20101130_AAAIUM prieto_v_Page_111thm.jpg
9a2df52d0b3ecfdec9f557949547d5e8
755f6dcc335b9fb4ecace51fe0d3f63a442c8ce0
49044 F20101130_AAAIHA prieto_v_Page_116.pro
88c7a16303ebbf03dbc6d7530653eb0f
278a718bf72262e9abeb38daa4884555ba55c5cf
105531 F20101130_AAAHXS prieto_v_Page_248.jp2
0f186759ee9972602395a926d91075f5
0927544d5e68bcada8aced2383babec56967c6fc
49510 F20101130_AAAGNO prieto_v_Page_251.pro
635977526072c2aeab73ca36015433b1
835c3b37861637ed1c5853c5fc5e1e3c89301c6d
F20101130_AAAHKH prieto_v_Page_229.txt
c1b3804ace94626eff447c7302adaa7d
fb4ee8a10e148adf2db5dff790979aec26e83c2d
29681 F20101130_AAAIHB prieto_v_Page_117.pro
72db321c316d8c4432daa632d0c00fa4
b0237b229b974a4ca1c180b5ff28f4917199f76d
96759 F20101130_AAAHXT prieto_v_Page_249.jp2
897342f82c6b67476158b55494280c66
4d924924c1c9e633ccd437adf8f6e62bec06b276
21077 F20101130_AAAGNP prieto_v_Page_029.QC.jpg
9b037412d6d65d72e45741d6b477c14c
1e19d7e017ed0bfd7f20ec3f6a9374079abb7493
20481 F20101130_AAAHKI prieto_v_Page_223.QC.jpg
cba652fa3ac12fd48dca43cdb93babe3
2474737aeebe0e57b4fd67d5813386acf8b144f3
20991 F20101130_AAAIUN prieto_v_Page_113.QC.jpg
f614b9010e3ce44a044d7504887f00ee
317cfbf2aeda1e68d5678474f19da39964926537
52346 F20101130_AAAIHC prieto_v_Page_118.pro
85365fa30d40852f81102fe21f95e9bc
d716989c906c345887d2d63a55f49e21281b19c2
95790 F20101130_AAAHXU prieto_v_Page_250.jp2
87d81220eea5263f99661f3c5f26e350
085c757121ae1202fe9b7447350006fd60cb5c40
F20101130_AAAGNQ prieto_v_Page_265.tif
72ab97e815fae17dbd16b9f42334f155
83bca877c83e78f1f7feb1017b195c4836d65542
1941 F20101130_AAAHKJ prieto_v_Page_190.txt
4711316c932e7c6570ab1184f66b720c
e1749cc1d214b2f3e7661ab763871a291013ee28
22304 F20101130_AAAIUO prieto_v_Page_114.QC.jpg
3fc3ab402989076c1f4169b46be40b70
c9c492cfc1f6bbe3ade1ba6f5d6e0df7fc82621f
52324 F20101130_AAAIHD prieto_v_Page_119.pro
981d7008b93207175eac36caba3fbbe9
f9846b67bed4174120c3a853c5a3819493c6c0d2
119810 F20101130_AAAHXV prieto_v_Page_252.jp2
0b76be8fc7fb15990099b4d117a7a9e0
fdd1891b7b7851b499a22f031a05c107f8866590
110724 F20101130_AAAGNR prieto_v_Page_150.jp2
647648de1184a1e0c9958791b76b73b6
84408e9a967add69ec2a0830f584466e8eb15301
F20101130_AAAHKK prieto_v_Page_066.tif
8c13cb0b79b3a61163d7eeeee6f43830
eda45c38f6abd0c983f46773004f77258d360229
24216 F20101130_AAAIUP prieto_v_Page_115.QC.jpg
d5903bb6e6dfae99b8f260ba989c2431
80054984541b5c9dfc39e5734744c6d42cb28456
49204 F20101130_AAAIHE prieto_v_Page_123.pro
cf1a7eef22201a84cbb76d6fbb2240f1
54633adf5e99d6d9c4011a4e2eca19ef0f8031ea
114911 F20101130_AAAHXW prieto_v_Page_253.jp2
ab1975574c50e6610012d913dfacc293
ffb724761858a32d492e398299f098283706e822
6239 F20101130_AAAGNS prieto_v_Page_035thm.jpg
59f4db01fb306500da2a6371eb477e13
717a712318e52b8b50a22a7f93003519ce7baa9e
115564 F20101130_AAAHKL prieto_v_Page_129.jp2
c1ea3110b154f10f712541eb0a19b167
92a0c960eb45b510c47b5367f71bfe732ede8678
22325 F20101130_AAAIUQ prieto_v_Page_116.QC.jpg
67cc885d3d8533adb773084e08d25975
5a65c0415bb161ddd995aa8327335e24e739154a
51709 F20101130_AAAIHF prieto_v_Page_124.pro
525c07fb9518a541c46ca4bbce633615
29fb8045f89d753e2cf62c3bad2d684f83e10303
106831 F20101130_AAAHXX prieto_v_Page_254.jp2
0bed086b429298a84d50b0a733637c30
dde946ca0f668ef4c699ef8c5cfe87c50c6d4997
F20101130_AAAGNT prieto_v_Page_185.tif
49895f4403e6804a384e84bb1c6b54eb
ec9126ba4324d8e54ff5ef7a88cc1ff5e4cfd7dc
112614 F20101130_AAAHKM prieto_v_Page_219.jp2
13910d9166b5d4e348ab19fdee6e4496
d38bcc486df58ed6b43cd8669d02e523ee050503
6418 F20101130_AAAIUR prieto_v_Page_116thm.jpg
ace650daa9acbc9053dc95011ab703d1
2b9326ab4d7b432f95ddad79f2206d428e7c2cf4
50034 F20101130_AAAIHG prieto_v_Page_128.pro
9cb73e499356c14dc172d594099c2151
fc054fa12f57fdc10a970a18fb1fe766f9af1ec4
102175 F20101130_AAAHXY prieto_v_Page_255.jp2
518101d92ac1d649d9796d36cde3b49a
b88593d270aedc714f46b667bdbb967163d596c4
1968 F20101130_AAAGNU prieto_v_Page_166.txt
b555af9c52be6b2864130ebf9cc26107
7502955d10ab961443943e56b4d768427324981a
100556 F20101130_AAAHKN prieto_v_Page_225.jp2
5123a38414c01333bbd6eebc769aeca6
6fc429680fa27be268148a32230aa764c00c1bc7
17922 F20101130_AAAIUS prieto_v_Page_117.QC.jpg
5d79dcf29b3ef3c64d710762dd4c9173
595c8a4cb5a29fa7b935034ee819b8e3b454a956
45449 F20101130_AAAIHH prieto_v_Page_132.pro
8885e5d9de43e7e4939dd86a983e0c94
f51e5992f5cda1b288cf765c921a411d5fb2c430
104829 F20101130_AAAHXZ prieto_v_Page_258.jp2
9a0d0393f252e47a1f7d67eaf7562167
49c916c3ed00a9a060d7264aca35ffe34dec4859
72023 F20101130_AAAGNV prieto_v_Page_199.jpg
38a26a2cfb2ceb3a5f8fcc54f520a603
19f0a5188d531f17b23a7f2846ba29490e7a7a1f
22278 F20101130_AAAHKO prieto_v_Page_063.QC.jpg
a79be8b7385362e3265432db91ff0a89
a605df9b6771ba947e8cb48cc2c880e497701fc9
24300 F20101130_AAAIUT prieto_v_Page_118.QC.jpg
612264120199afe0cf66cff46675c954
6b3b973280f6bfe6b65d4543a3da22123fa4a6b5
53266 F20101130_AAAIHI prieto_v_Page_135.pro
8b056748c71c741e50b768578aabec89
8cc585cc95efce16711495e9372fcf876dccca66
1775 F20101130_AAAGNW prieto_v_Page_220.txt
a575a9380e4de3d8f84fb365a6254920
e0135f46bdf42c2b743c70cdf7bcb016e3eb25fa
F20101130_AAAHKP prieto_v_Page_188.txt
3e76a2f38010406087943200ae82707c
c49eba34956270b28eabae24d3e9f257f94dbe3f
23193 F20101130_AAAIUU prieto_v_Page_119.QC.jpg
60090966155ebf92e0636df6dbc56a22
ee9487af9d71b1bba10ef8068e93431c41874623
52054 F20101130_AAAIHJ prieto_v_Page_138.pro
2a4e48e0432e4696944629a2eccede61
7f60e7017dd04892a97df92914b46c3cddfac9c1
6732 F20101130_AAAGNX prieto_v_Page_118thm.jpg
87bb210c206abfa08fb11a02e18c702a
d6d95cdc47cf6af6bbffd8f36039e99cf3cfb1ad
F20101130_AAAHKQ prieto_v_Page_058.tif
3dfd715e2f8daf774ac017beb71abbbb
3e14151488168c112ffc99b38dcd4dfdc1c91aaf
6451 F20101130_AAAIUV prieto_v_Page_119thm.jpg
9c8a6a5fb19542c0b0235e061a5d8209
f6f92cb53826185d27556b15e1f8a197d8752af9
50093 F20101130_AAAIHK prieto_v_Page_140.pro
c82c700f1d5cce44c71750d1b209b12d
5c8a7589c4167b0b7142d5255d5c0354de2f68d2
49417 F20101130_AAAGNY prieto_v_Page_182.pro
c6af3badf19836cab4a757a7b10b748a
57a27a10087acbcc70f391ae8b4ed5705bd39c67
6326 F20101130_AAAHKR prieto_v_Page_123thm.jpg
08f5051ddd2ea464e1d9b586c4cee1dc
b47503066ad6e58e9f27af5b07e4589f3e05a086
6435 F20101130_AAAIUW prieto_v_Page_120thm.jpg
d8c1f46af9e8736f60c2333becd742c1
3aa9eb4f3bf68dfec543b070b10fa6220cb2202f
50890 F20101130_AAAIHL prieto_v_Page_141.pro
9bf4333186a6c5f94231324c025b55c7
45a03deb2ff689aeeb1ccc63f95a1bb6cdc17d67
45256 F20101130_AAAGNZ prieto_v_Page_109.pro
d80284366e6174e49271035dfc4e7788
d376a427de854a5ab79ba68912aa8371dd2acc88
24074 F20101130_AAAHKS prieto_v_Page_178.QC.jpg
335f3ff8340c522a645e129f3bb4caf0
e28a073a9f04e896191adacf6d0e3aad0644eadc
22724 F20101130_AAAIUX prieto_v_Page_121.QC.jpg
c8e6a2fc0a60b3fa204c251711761fe9
b942560d61707026626d35854361b749ef7b69ca
40415 F20101130_AAAIHM prieto_v_Page_144.pro
9c52a22aea6bcd776f825f7224b0cc59
ca472d4cd5d2ceadc9b324b8896654470c88b146
2296 F20101130_AAAHKT prieto_v_Page_023.txt
d4af5dee728fde9b7092d1c8195a37ab
3b6715f543487d9303ad3f6e35288d7e347e9f67
6656 F20101130_AAAIUY prieto_v_Page_122thm.jpg
a29bc959f0093de0f8f786d2d158e053
2777bbed519f78fd42d27694815e3e1869bad3b2
50079 F20101130_AAAIHN prieto_v_Page_145.pro
71af3ab245d9f808aec23a82f5fbd1d4
04d92f8ed7311fcddff63e65cfdceb9cc1552d34
6431 F20101130_AAAHKU prieto_v_Page_189thm.jpg
ef2a79999a9e1e19c43b96275c1cded9
b7f605110bd47e97f024b56e1ded0662f04b6481
22297 F20101130_AAAIUZ prieto_v_Page_123.QC.jpg
90149cbf3b488d4f7eb30463c6a309f6
45e0456f9c70f8c771df284816800a1604860725
50671 F20101130_AAAIHO prieto_v_Page_149.pro
f544cde9ac381678fa68494d13c7007b
a51dc7df65c53319d17de2a29fc7864669ededa6
346 F20101130_AAAHKV prieto_v_Page_112.txt
4ae0ec0bbd26996ccc6ea7960299db61
673a2b6cc81ca439cd8eb13b35756c8e5316afae
51977 F20101130_AAAIHP prieto_v_Page_150.pro
493efbc9b01aafa00c12754b2c794f49
14962660f6b84db6c6c2cc5f4b0b84ecc88ac03b
62964 F20101130_AAAHKW prieto_v_Page_078.jpg
5b54af3d54902ca773964353edd2be56
630fa27467013baac4556871dc0baaf4d6652e9a
49780 F20101130_AAAIHQ prieto_v_Page_152.pro
87fdb70fc722552dacd455aa29e3e1bd
235de2da4c3d20ee83a20cccb7ac61348eed2708
97227 F20101130_AAAHKX prieto_v_Page_220.jp2
b612ab4156335e76b832511196544e61
d5aebbd408a07cb2d51589e6c21a150ddb20b3da
48897 F20101130_AAAIHR prieto_v_Page_155.pro
9fac4fe49def1728f842eb7fb0b38aa8
0e55420dae69216001dfdeedf48c324a571ce8ee
110947 F20101130_AAAHKY prieto_v_Page_103.jp2
706acd952447fbabc40ac64b8e972014
95cba0eba472ec5e96920a726ed734e5f1f194b0
46735 F20101130_AAAIHS prieto_v_Page_156.pro
ffa2125c9ee2c4c5cc87a1105a693803
b6040b4a167e16ed5b90fc47c2319d6a7f8c3863
49183 F20101130_AAAHKZ prieto_v_Page_183.pro
9e8da00e708e419770aa0a05565ba2da
d68149a97e2efaabe0991549ac5be777af97ca8e
45562 F20101130_AAAIHT prieto_v_Page_158.pro
9cb4bc86fe1a057a3f5ece65ddd11305
f8f8e9e8a56d12a064871c3afe90f4b1d153264c
52443 F20101130_AAAIHU prieto_v_Page_159.pro
c1850a30a8982d51a55c74cda8cb21f6
6ef3a7f6f8a1ef4563a5ea2e43d70b06f33cd80e
109907 F20101130_AAAGTA prieto_v_Page_092.jp2
15d77cbec5423c833b2d69e3b72b4d74
1da881a0d51d5738c6391c23dcc6859ce408b741
49491 F20101130_AAAIHV prieto_v_Page_160.pro
803ed6beafcf4aaafb696531cb8e10d7
f8777ede39f8066e776280d18c0fc4ca4dc32b32
72447 F20101130_AAAGTB prieto_v_Page_185.jpg
2b29e6997c398ec59aa3d874567f6be1
64b93520b935ad58c4ad8a70f2328881398f3de6
43548 F20101130_AAAIHW prieto_v_Page_163.pro
c775737074994f6e770aa846eba98547
b7d90b237185feecb0eda8a2d664db3a3041f048
92709 F20101130_AAAGTC prieto_v_Page_192.jp2
53992aa1bda4b9a98eee28c2e8beeeed
556ac67b30f55c3ec8358f3762506ab6ca26895f
51077 F20101130_AAAIHX prieto_v_Page_165.pro
cea784fc3edbb0a45e57ae1aa1360fe7
d91a99a59ea02a34a13c63e433ff03f0558bac39
F20101130_AAAGTD prieto_v_Page_243.tif
a41ebf2538ab637466625cf17cd44d68
bf8373cc2220cc1f77e342e20fae58fc876a4149
49059 F20101130_AAAIHY prieto_v_Page_169.pro
412b0d9d6e3c03fc8a52a7e42f816610
3139e292e2cc139282626984f961c30913b02cf7
F20101130_AAAGTE prieto_v_Page_055.tif
84203ba81f33d6299a5a87cc0365a7d1
263c9cc4b90e3f62f708504fee8370ba6dfaa5eb
46489 F20101130_AAAIHZ prieto_v_Page_170.pro
cf0c8a5356ba52cc8a744a7f13eeee49
43be9516d5a265ac4be9d26b5c2f02028783ff05
6229 F20101130_AAAGTF prieto_v_Page_174thm.jpg
4894f455a5db0a737e0c3def06017caf
a4f1e426a74c46d01d41239b057fe7731e2f7beb
22848 F20101130_AAAGTG prieto_v_Page_141.QC.jpg
03e1ced148085e3d5b57360d6c0f890b
806f89dbcd750f7f974d4d10e316c9395fa05942
41628 F20101130_AAAGTH prieto_v_Page_078.pro
d0a32fae377d6c9a8aec1243b943a539
6f45afc55c2992567f6b16495c48d67f20377e29
73288 F20101130_AAAHQA prieto_v_Page_150.jpg
3237aa9d4a2c9fc60f3c15c444e5f27c
c9f2c7ac1cf96dbb494295456f8d69dfbf742d02
22683 F20101130_AAAGTI prieto_v_Page_095.QC.jpg
2901eba1315e8caad9ad55329b41076a
41c26482df098f77c89976cc7f41bbf413fa9627
65986 F20101130_AAAHQB prieto_v_Page_151.jpg
1cb283e527a14aa47f868a151d08753d
145baa47087d149d59e3ed5c853f132ef044abe6
21001 F20101130_AAAGTJ prieto_v_Page_217.QC.jpg
31d39a4e8c195f51a1bfbe35da18d851
1bcfd28811c8358bafc95486cc5118dbcc0b6ecb
71229 F20101130_AAAHQC prieto_v_Page_152.jpg
0a00a62aad7f8de77a0f0fcc4b4404c2
a81d02d94f2ee32a79e48e57aee3154a755e20bc
81166 F20101130_AAAGTK prieto_v_Page_233.jpg
3b110633757667b61ba86cb44d333596
c0cc7a45912e6f1842ec363e49131c1683cb3e12
71938 F20101130_AAAHQD prieto_v_Page_154.jpg
dccdd6a629c683c6a7ce84541dafa880
1b7df262941ff9a3e17aeae16c34b50a31d38656
80114 F20101130_AAAGTL prieto_v_Page_269.jpg
9af75ce773171baf6e1a3af210a1c756
02727e0f3ef905c2a0f8675a35f48d0a777dc1a2
70295 F20101130_AAAHQE prieto_v_Page_155.jpg
052d6cff61be92e9dec2773069997e76
f079cb9fc14c36cf824035baa45f0571705a143b
1986 F20101130_AAAGGA prieto_v_Page_033.txt
00108df5e21f3eb996265ad92b14ac63
56666756fb008a412a735e4f6a7a912b8f82fe67
50922 F20101130_AAAGTM prieto_v_Page_280.pro
430e60c80a006c3645c52d8e348aa674
c5063d2b82263facc83c4657750423076fb4115f
67526 F20101130_AAAHQF prieto_v_Page_156.jpg
2fd93142a98d51c6b23ab24456d57911
3976467226a3dcffc6a92986a8414c022093e64a
2035 F20101130_AAAGTN prieto_v_Page_086.txt
2098030c1829162e9f3c8c88846fd07a
ff6969dd5a3e6d6b29b40c60784a2bbf0c993f86
66483 F20101130_AAAHQG prieto_v_Page_158.jpg
56ae1f4d80086921b5a97d8d1f204a7e
e1ec41a6b7e5ab80767f8b677ab67102c29d1e34
1833 F20101130_AAAGGB prieto_v_Page_240.txt
80f06b8a79c867f2a878a3b1cfc83d61
cac852a707a521f87e2a7574cdca1684e77d0bdf
74537 F20101130_AAAHQH prieto_v_Page_159.jpg
84a2ec148743443eb8edec5e8c0d6f92
e5027f9f7626cbb182ffc7a9206d668f910922e7
1973 F20101130_AAAINA prieto_v_Page_137.txt
fae63de5bb43fe272421495783c979fe
5fefa86aec33cacb81845a7eaf040ed5f9a41e74
20471 F20101130_AAAGGC prieto_v_Page_263.QC.jpg
4742ed250268d8d9534b5712fa5b111a
4528affd82205034af186420730ac22eda10edb9
F20101130_AAAGTO prieto_v_Page_190.tif
5553ffd49f85022d32bacd34b84763e2
af6057f3ac4a46cee81c5462a3005ea186a0c448
72157 F20101130_AAAHQI prieto_v_Page_165.jpg
ea974016d297df128da6e8c610036fb4
9b49e05a778f7f3b35855225be9a60d7a135977a
2000 F20101130_AAAINB prieto_v_Page_141.txt
63f3af20cf9c8e957bd63c6b545bd1c3
c913450b9f014e6936cbe43c0f551efbef22fe17
F20101130_AAAGGD prieto_v_Page_016.tif
375b609b075b9377df22b5790b5200f2
6a3473b814801897f828a05af0053a2ea8906e31
110420 F20101130_AAAGTP prieto_v_Page_059.jp2
4c498673e48fe1ac12fa723850b8bffb
0deede70ce71e17e50f35b1c96b695677630af73
69908 F20101130_AAAHQJ prieto_v_Page_167.jpg
0046f2566937cac1ad7144cb52b8bc91
6b1ce481862e2342f730f52b51f8cbeec3800206
1875 F20101130_AAAINC prieto_v_Page_142.txt
8d55dc9f9e03b007836119369c7439ba
aef2b823b241f538e9a60b0117e5025ec299c844
2342 F20101130_AAAGGE prieto_v_Page_275.txt
3a2ab63361ae2b6ed6ab54bee83fc4bc
a9ef0dea68aa92a9c3993d3acc22ed4b00d585c4
6366 F20101130_AAAGTQ prieto_v_Page_145thm.jpg
50ea44f941a42f5cec2bd963bd92a2c8
601610935bb8b080fba0f347fda9ac5203b99f20
1793 F20101130_AAAIND prieto_v_Page_143.txt
c56937c422f1b1e690ca1d84791badac
e9864b246b17b754a6a2b33b99c3f20ad0aa8674
22254 F20101130_AAAGGF prieto_v_Page_146.QC.jpg
3b8fdebbe0266e45e9eec509ed913828
e9c9a90b8d5f6782ff8935e879b528c0a2fa5d66
6612 F20101130_AAAGTR prieto_v_Page_270thm.jpg
07087b61594df2d65110d5e7f605dcc7
eb807fa55d6b0efe09b8b5bbdac257325d84a328
70706 F20101130_AAAHQK prieto_v_Page_169.jpg
b934ad6da0c0ff49bdf520b19732006b
ac71876a3fae82cdea204a3b9b0c93c2196a4310
1855 F20101130_AAAINE prieto_v_Page_144.txt
f938979373aa3609a8f93bfd7827ba35
afd397c1e750da7abb10c8eec0101480cd5c839b
1931 F20101130_AAAGGG prieto_v_Page_241.txt
309e494ac3595586154e38e30cf6614a
6643ec95b122b5ffcf8e64fa9b7af20f00971323
75291 F20101130_AAAHDA prieto_v_Page_055.jpg
067fe43cc028d1ebe0e60b3298a0749f
0b8faac086c1c8ae14ba8d724ab8c840b9fd01ff
70584 F20101130_AAAGTS prieto_v_Page_033.jpg
9e0ebe0cee3694fd33f83c32772adbf3
6568ad32b704b98227003cfd1029c0982122d2fc
66481 F20101130_AAAHQL prieto_v_Page_173.jpg
b547ec8a209962d759c23fce37d849f4
6b2e9b6760d6ca276903cdc7314bc5295c306370
1971 F20101130_AAAINF prieto_v_Page_145.txt
b8718aa72026fe105324284c373ac57e
455a7bd04580bd367d5bd536921a5b7264814df2
21204 F20101130_AAAGGH prieto_v_Page_038.QC.jpg
1ed1605890412cc32e40d805c263a443
545fd4a66ad42d8ab30ea8e87bd0e9e380d2a870
23283 F20101130_AAAHDB prieto_v_Page_096.QC.jpg
79e5e1200ed785b53002a9343093fbfb
0b9805e7ee7707f1f04e4798617934b48c84bc46
56848 F20101130_AAAGTT prieto_v_Page_218.jpg
46e49f7a3dba8a9511ad8d73619e43b8
aa6a5dd077a14a2923f4794c227dada5c9125d39
68606 F20101130_AAAHQM prieto_v_Page_174.jpg
6d43a30c2ce1b40887a789ee7c2c6eb8
e5eb5e2ec8352ab4e08560df8bc9e358bbe5b453
1702 F20101130_AAAGGI prieto_v_Page_243.txt
829c703cf5121ec98dd3827105867888
bd3319f0dc6e4edd9d9344a64ede1f337b202e40
112162 F20101130_AAAHDC prieto_v_Page_209.jp2
e0aff4758083028aad2ffab6618ce13a
95c09c2cc8af28a9851aa5d951f21956a40e0f4b
49016 F20101130_AAAGTU prieto_v_Page_189.pro
403b7af4ff1eec4049fdb542757286ad
f46a24005403426e278faa7e8198b8e6be1d4e09
71824 F20101130_AAAHQN prieto_v_Page_176.jpg
86a72bbcded8fd5cc6d9921eff877779
df5e21f4f8dc07ce95d077e3a309c5ed44c8fd94
2084 F20101130_AAAING prieto_v_Page_153.txt
3ef51974d8d24ab99978b568b6e21358
ee2fc1007483c053783071e04fbb68223a377cc8
17545 F20101130_AAAGGJ prieto_v_Page_005.QC.jpg
90c0e9d120a8e3c68568872f4683cb07
c01a19e4c1f0d5221a8136c2e01c0b4d741649f8
22666 F20101130_AAAHDD prieto_v_Page_080.QC.jpg
271f406fdac11cc87f8c416ffc1b2d69
a9ddbaa258a3f8a39e10d1a8e8ff0612d06fdb8f
70439 F20101130_AAAGTV prieto_v_Page_126.jpg
a7dc8fe6fa60b2bf1ce79f5c6022fa3e
2f1f4a6425d0abe66ef5e8c20384a82885fb389e
74460 F20101130_AAAHQO prieto_v_Page_177.jpg
b945edc2f964e50e9c3fc9b720fad609
c6d6269ae46054e48f16ba293a5a278558c14551
1954 F20101130_AAAINH prieto_v_Page_155.txt
5e96a899f33e1b23f11b0b7ac008ef52
1aae0a6647abf8dcdb65cebd6528abcb3e28cae2
5858 F20101130_AAAGGK prieto_v_Page_112.QC.jpg
6bd9154037cb1c308aba793798ff6fff
73764f1a72837894934a8589fbdc83e6c28353f1
F20101130_AAAHDE prieto_v_Page_095.txt
b0c661769f61a10d8cb7c8bc3244af45
1b5d0e0baeb2f5825443f6700b9fe87fcff70639
71705 F20101130_AAAGTW prieto_v_Page_062.jpg
3a1e6bc100d836df463e2331142549b3
6f6f72f82e5c1992bead23ea40e51ca13c7dcc97
74336 F20101130_AAAHQP prieto_v_Page_178.jpg
623b99b3d9ccab2a35fd9fd5f51db474
62bce377a47a628685b3351daa19827223edfc6c
1885 F20101130_AAAINI prieto_v_Page_156.txt
8736eae62d7ace79d0e2612b17f167cf
fb628e1d018767caa2cae3d253981112edf515e3
F20101130_AAAGGL prieto_v_Page_040.txt
e0885889452c5440bba388aad895dc00
83402ef54f0bbb4d2ead8327b271348b399e14de
11152 F20101130_AAAHDF prieto_v_Page_077.QC.jpg
52de04a24838e321007364f25d273464
8f25977c22a7241bb4a5381816f86ed28d66251c
116215 F20101130_AAAGTX prieto_v_Page_235.jp2
44c0089cf91f4f485ff6c42a4230d5e1
948066f97091f0da8aaa4f47f5ec636a08a7122b
69322 F20101130_AAAHQQ prieto_v_Page_181.jpg
56f9ecd7166171574d7615cb5dfe6709
b1f6d7791b4ff48d6a244799c6568e79d4704d50
1917 F20101130_AAAINJ prieto_v_Page_161.txt
2cfeb719b2e82b77e500d00fd81399c3
fdb48c642e6cacb74aa054bbc5e576377c1146df
51233 F20101130_AAAGGM prieto_v_Page_068.pro
9d0de81079b5b0081c78d930adaabf4b
a56953518104cc6270bb8c268bc1e7e4171cdb29
49667 F20101130_AAAHDG prieto_v_Page_041.pro
84b01c5c74e9012549008cbbfa4f3f6d
0d8c8eb4edf324e271a218f8f2897055554499c9
24309 F20101130_AAAGTY prieto_v_Page_203.QC.jpg
a0c4cc3f29d4d43d5f4be4a8a61eaa8a
c8d7e270e3cc0bcf8052ebb9f8319a271a92ffce
74276 F20101130_AAAHQR prieto_v_Page_184.jpg
4a7523723a67c41bd7e8bdd1cf72548d
d738beccc4310e0bea974d5ff5c7b66be379faf8
1916 F20101130_AAAINK prieto_v_Page_164.txt
633aed3ed051073e8964edecbdaa758a
d4b634d6035330bcc641ba118bcf97f3640bd1b9
109862 F20101130_AAAGGN prieto_v_Page_122.jp2
390fe13bc88bd2d9055beec0ae5f2750
e927e074a5744562a28b4b09b5d41f79a8a80b29
56322 F20101130_AAAHDH prieto_v_Page_011.jpg
8e46c6026fa29d82c5573845454a729c
be0234828692d4701680a480a999dc378f045133
F20101130_AAAGTZ prieto_v_Page_212.tif
d6c5e31d4da7cacfa53fa652151c8955
c3f2bef05dc1a71a406139f629bfff75d9f90cce
F20101130_AAAIAA prieto_v_Page_074.tif
94301469a57f2f239f7fad6197071b4b
94175154b98bc406cdaefa8ae1a7e3490cd370a6
72939 F20101130_AAAHQS prieto_v_Page_186.jpg
b99ad91430db05ec3292193af054fdd8
a3896792b96b7de94389dc023a56eab0ee819b00
2003 F20101130_AAAINL prieto_v_Page_165.txt
686d207f8cc48c915aaddc842409209b
af90ed9fd4d1c06c0dffa7478cdd695988f12517
100931 F20101130_AAAGGO prieto_v_Page_236.jp2
76daad67e6758fb4423506297957055d
ba7851753666d4462e1f8fe5b5c114beaaf0f6f1
23259 F20101130_AAAHDI prieto_v_Page_026.QC.jpg
795188594952fd5706009de9f64b9c3a
dc321710dd8bdc7cc07390387ff241954d102a2d
F20101130_AAAIAB prieto_v_Page_076.tif
fdf85c3991eeb275ee96cf591f5e0b96
fe631238f799c08fcc79e91bc1f58146299cfdbd
72546 F20101130_AAAHQT prieto_v_Page_187.jpg
1ab9fa0725e16e5337d34d50274867fc
83452c7e92fc2b08b5486278b28968187b3b21d6
1887 F20101130_AAAINM prieto_v_Page_167.txt
f3b74a0e4ea76fd0f9e88ac6443d13b2
99871725d48c8a1056183d0b88434c1302c4b9ef
109252 F20101130_AAAGGP prieto_v_Page_082.jp2
e7afb30eaa416ae4a7478985f5dbd244
5e96ae43838c4842d9067d2ab172987428a1c138
F20101130_AAAHDJ prieto_v_Page_083.tif
85636e8ab698c1530ef331840b122500
3e5cfe51ce9daa563c5f3cc82f9b633b35f5104d
F20101130_AAAIAC prieto_v_Page_078.tif
38882f3e2613be1dbe99384b3bd39448
d8e6956ca377df16be985fd1e55d1cebe8f8cf5b
72882 F20101130_AAAHQU prieto_v_Page_188.jpg
5d81c3f3f720ea076300b98ac8258757
cda2664147bd5ffe09c71d5d4ab867cc3cb5e4e4
F20101130_AAAINN prieto_v_Page_170.txt
6cc0ee9e7d14586e81a97119ead22888
6ebf5c9955fbbb76078ee45120613174d40e9376
110775 F20101130_AAAGGQ prieto_v_Page_037.jp2
36d46dab87d3b91a296a8391bf8e61ac
dcd3a95b1d144cd9db59e4b71a0530ca3c855088
F20101130_AAAHDK prieto_v_Page_037.txt
dc4be58cc9fc7fe5266eaae82b566a25
c197912b902e4bd9d3303bb9418cc2d19ae9c6c0
F20101130_AAAIAD prieto_v_Page_079.tif
22356027c6113473ba8e554f7fc8a4e0
88a211989e5120d16c16186b56ef5434e6d27fae
70373 F20101130_AAAHQV prieto_v_Page_189.jpg
ee0c10fbfe90d9d2faeea59a8e06136c
25d594ce225153c9a31b46076f77d15bb94a7890
1872 F20101130_AAAINO prieto_v_Page_175.txt
b629a9804b57354fe31fbf987932a6d9
f4334259b35ad6102bd0618950b09bea3c28f26b
2419 F20101130_AAAGGR prieto_v_Page_019.txt
55bba9ef334ab1ee597608a41e308135
3dc47291962d57800f2e3485bbeb39be96d20018
109035 F20101130_AAAHDL prieto_v_Page_083.jp2
18fda454086566a74d925166de5fe9e3
207bdad295c8342b5d23f845a2a5c13987950a9d
F20101130_AAAIAE prieto_v_Page_080.tif
3c175ea840fbe950a4d22b0228a90e73
68525612b01264ad3af807b436916d69d4048855
69421 F20101130_AAAHQW prieto_v_Page_190.jpg
bbb31a573ca68a26c7ee90c2e026e573
90e02c29890d6e664de567a0ed719150fc06fc39
2082 F20101130_AAAINP prieto_v_Page_176.txt
f3bb26397530d446399b4d5d9d1ceb2b
85cf32531fd2f193527536ffa17ec1c8f123b26d
6660 F20101130_AAAGGS prieto_v_Page_172thm.jpg
57501897368f03a134135fa1e5904249
2b66ef06872405a30bb8ce618c86bef00a4ccd41
21211 F20101130_AAAHDM prieto_v_Page_231.QC.jpg
274c203ad358e7012314768c8a9aac29
d05c11f071e21b2e2b21d3609e26934d3d82e53c
F20101130_AAAIAF prieto_v_Page_085.tif
793a2dbb45a077bae7cd3ef8427b0a78
e7acc6ba16e0144efa8ed88d75bb2c6b84533ac8
71559 F20101130_AAAHQX prieto_v_Page_197.jpg
fb958722d3dcbedd851d95f0f9812509
dce278e0854698ea2c222e5355433067b0965144
2073 F20101130_AAAINQ prieto_v_Page_177.txt
6f15d3e374c74b0ef75c6fb810df93c5
45e5c8af0f271f919ecab5e7ae8aab5a383bedd2
27534 F20101130_AAAGGT prieto_v_Page_157.pro
d0de56a02b091e0564ed3d47c6bc6f6a
9fdcd2dd72429b581dcb25bc66af80a3cd5a2e7c
83307 F20101130_AAAHDN prieto_v_Page_272.jpg
ff03f3f96bb0c90c247634eeb2e6e177
55b3135d766b7b1a7d7181757e74e6e99603ded1
F20101130_AAAIAG prieto_v_Page_086.tif
e8ba209520f7a7de63256a7e34b136eb
1e5b918577c298d1ef0aa3eec9aeb5e8b15d9896
73481 F20101130_AAAHQY prieto_v_Page_198.jpg
a694f793e3a8d404ae8104bd8264b5c3
fae7ba4cdfd766c1aa025b5872f43dcad800f3a9
2061 F20101130_AAAINR prieto_v_Page_178.txt
0a4c14a14bd07446ff95c07bc78e2f6f
7268a901cd105292ac100cb0f66dd43f820af068
99506 F20101130_AAAGGU prieto_v_Page_256.jp2
045c568c840a5d8ea55f1a38a36d65c8
7cefe6b61a1dbb4b728f57752e1ba743abea06f6
64387 F20101130_AAAHDO prieto_v_Page_038.jpg
946cc97088a2869c2311b2ecaf32e2f5
49e6ee99ae6d3375a48accdd54c5fc82fc033a1c
F20101130_AAAIAH prieto_v_Page_087.tif
d62d023b334f03c2236d2fd3320ef541
3c24e61f2db9c60f8789ffa985db3eadf21e76b6
72925 F20101130_AAAHQZ prieto_v_Page_201.jpg
cffe801a6586cf74dd5f7734be964683
7bdef3e08e15254640931d8ff626cb8e53ea657f
1943 F20101130_AAAINS prieto_v_Page_182.txt
7a0976fabdd988d6d765018e40dd9ba4
af4ac9ab0f35345fa26db1339db37acbff8daa3d
73102 F20101130_AAAGGV prieto_v_Page_074.jpg
719a786224457702323248d1dec2a433
9296fbe57cd5b4653b6d1309366b52042f579e74
81627 F20101130_AAAHDP prieto_v_Page_010.jp2
ffe10e8ce9820405486172f229d57a0f
619afc4be571cce2547dac3b33de2a0c7cfd7514
F20101130_AAAIAI prieto_v_Page_088.tif
6be31d66704a3df9cf0f48ee1c3766db
4e2f165825d845c688dcbbebaee02bd30f774908
1945 F20101130_AAAINT prieto_v_Page_183.txt
9fa97efa8a367b9da388834cc7072337
8c819ce1254283fccede42c7e0f2566924206d71
F20101130_AAAGGW prieto_v_Page_037.tif
d6084dd680f27a25b882b8e334454b19
5566ba66f9ee64f1f2cc2351e064bf682f9076bb
104706 F20101130_AAAGZA prieto_v_Page_057.jp2
799563b47b4a13e02dbf1532226d3c6b
0f413b70ad3dc16a02fd5e9078040d274d2d21c7
F20101130_AAAHDQ prieto_v_Page_002.tif
4440806702cf3b0e345c96be119973a4
cc3f191ad9f1fd6e96cec03887a8c75e920eae47
F20101130_AAAIAJ prieto_v_Page_089.tif
0cd330aac01f8ab28cc10bd288b7c311
3d5b95ca827429ba66ed9ab601273cd2854d500d
2067 F20101130_AAAINU prieto_v_Page_184.txt
b445cd7b8b0b0a04fa36a45b11956861
c771bf18a907c7a5b44178245e395fd960ef596a
55622 F20101130_AAAGGX prieto_v_Page_010.jpg
a8f315659c30daa2ef7f7011698052d6
f491603926dd53e4a99f4caf236720da7c925cfc
F20101130_AAAGZB prieto_v_Page_120.tif
d9311d2417af4f41244882405fe47891
a04e3b48ff1d772a49a686d479ed687fde2970ad
F20101130_AAAHDR prieto_v_Page_103.tif
10877f508c60a32083b59bc9b04e803f
b1c38c84f7bc41ed77e6593c9c3f08a6ad7837f1
F20101130_AAAIAK prieto_v_Page_091.tif
bb60613610f766e9df0a39350a4e807a
dd792c2f733c0aa17c49f5b2fe698ca8b8440759
F20101130_AAAINV prieto_v_Page_185.txt
4728b996bcd0ef7e381bc02e8032aa76
745262c4351de759798c2a6b2725430390ddf4d3
22691 F20101130_AAAGGY prieto_v_Page_190.QC.jpg
222cbc89bb40eefe8c086060dddab4a9
bea792610f432d490920abca251a986dc3b6aefb
69123 F20101130_AAAGZC prieto_v_Page_017.jpg
258c7283b9f6d35138b08ba36d3c77af
f0064d035920629b31d495fcda96eeaf55650c65
22564 F20101130_AAAHDS prieto_v_Page_120.QC.jpg
195c436cf9f29966230b6bb91f03c222
e16ea4a963d72bdfc5e89d93a30a312930abb5c7
F20101130_AAAIAL prieto_v_Page_093.tif
3d802248c78567c2caf9b6f8d4f8f1f0
089387873d4488c073dd2e019fe322091a00634c
1989 F20101130_AAAINW prieto_v_Page_186.txt
404b213ed4b1a6f0dca7541ff3913f12
6704ee3cee44d52daa871812b888392753fc53b2
F20101130_AAAGGZ prieto_v_Page_128.tif
f80fa9031c13fa527766539a4d923ad6
0c36cd92c62dd78c39948d770912381d5a70e623
108676 F20101130_AAAGZD prieto_v_Page_227.jp2
da592b583c1a5ca9ffdc85de49603586
8fd2529a16c002ec5bd05e303458f61be2601a81
F20101130_AAAHDT prieto_v_Page_121.tif
991db171819dda629ffc2f0629ab83d6
39f10d42c06db0ed7051dc4c5924e487bd520e59
F20101130_AAAIAM prieto_v_Page_094.tif
97c9c98c9faf5e02509c33d6aa5709a2
925fb89dfb353bf0698d253dfa5e0f0040c7a85e
F20101130_AAAINX prieto_v_Page_189.txt
060f9d6271a47d761abc494cfd71d2d3
3ddafaff65ee4e039ef717ec3a02f0bf5276139a
F20101130_AAAGZE prieto_v_Page_184.tif
a0d9f80d03d1a53e784d73b0590b2a60
df28f14011ae2df510fc45e066a3b2b8f4af2ad5
2046 F20101130_AAAHDU prieto_v_Page_096.txt
b53d19a4c4bf3a9928b86b651dad1bdb
a64d90c8bcac2af360beb2fa07ec63b1c259a7be
F20101130_AAAIAN prieto_v_Page_100.tif
a09c27e579ea89d75f6d1f1380d7e952
4d8405d8fbf3078807a3bdf81bcd44451ea1d9d6
1467 F20101130_AAAINY prieto_v_Page_191.txt
dcb48a6d931d8f60af12e68ad7f17c9b
58c4f4a9ed098f625a7ede401992d17bacf4625f
17266 F20101130_AAAGZF prieto_v_Page_042.pro
4e03082827b654f3deb35da89ade84ff
d5404b9bb9f610b58edbb7fb9555677ea4573ff1
1591 F20101130_AAAHDV prieto_v_Page_097.txt
a34af9fb1caa09c4446de832a1a7a7b1
15b3b02adaf99199ce83bfac50c72efbde0f2c10
F20101130_AAAIAO prieto_v_Page_106.tif
d4b9b84e8adad0a0649d2847675115f4
4a8d36e72e3e81e4b3c5ca6fc38f657e0e2f32de
1777 F20101130_AAAINZ prieto_v_Page_192.txt
f18b2c8588e63e75c247fd79edfa58b4
5ab112484f9e6e344ba240d74e414e07968e5d2d
F20101130_AAAGZG prieto_v_Page_015.tif
d7afc9f13db54c76df8b6bb0188e849c
7319059236dc227cf010f90f1295f37c6ab2be68
4103 F20101130_AAAHDW prieto_v_Page_007thm.jpg
7b62126100073083b86f1841ee333955
e659335c95049fbd67b5b3dbd920272be8854e72
F20101130_AAAIAP prieto_v_Page_107.tif
e79a06de6a5b3f4490de41eff939d5d9
510bbbef3f70b7b6ac5ef67cd46d53b4ad51f796
66379 F20101130_AAAGZH prieto_v_Page_132.jpg
896dc11607e578a3aa2560dcbea4df56
aa7598d3a07b2283f5bbecc441b994572ae5bfab
21436 F20101130_AAAHDX prieto_v_Page_144.QC.jpg
30051e4caec96e5d196b3389bc1e8cf9
116dddf627e6fedb1aad68601d2851aa4c0787b2
106324 F20101130_AAAHWA prieto_v_Page_169.jp2
36f918e621d6856d104254115a135be5
0c37124b77bd1a59dc10eec1a5b827abe7c2d814
F20101130_AAAIAQ prieto_v_Page_108.tif
cc10f2d9da8ae9f74571576273b43fc7
b0558205a449a6a471cd1e3619b739ddc1505e5d
65100 F20101130_AAAGZI prieto_v_Page_113.jpg
a86368f8cfad53d3ed9336df5551e9a5
5fa79c06712c735f42dd4f0e2bf00b2cf4f15371
F20101130_AAAHDY prieto_v_Page_138.tif
5afd330d1459abcafd56aee5bba427a9
0ba1fd143a892c13da3c0e88c809c55a3b3cf037
102974 F20101130_AAAHWB prieto_v_Page_170.jp2
b113d6364b68ce2c1009c1318feeb186
6e4adf12885075d76b19a68b29b1b62fd8f671ed
F20101130_AAAIAR prieto_v_Page_109.tif
b58511d9a9508ee2732a17f6356e635f
946784210bdb1e5a86853ee46ffc7650705bd246
46146 F20101130_AAAGZJ prieto_v_Page_174.pro
df24dcc153dc04e9251705b5c083a0e2
2a1c2a176234659a76c8922db7628e0f37814753
1862 F20101130_AAAHDZ prieto_v_Page_114.txt
190f26c68b6043d8aac5a2107d53cbb9
57a1594f15f2dedcdd1f594646a2eedf3f27502b
100168 F20101130_AAAHWC prieto_v_Page_173.jp2
c3a5e8df2ed6dcf9e76b41e73ed3b4cb
5471821cef17cb35f69554c265c9f8a1d7c48d04
F20101130_AAAIAS prieto_v_Page_110.tif
cf77e626676251189f5eba83fefa43fb
83c01264b2451df0a75a335eff24c6a97a1b5250
F20101130_AAAGZK prieto_v_Page_077.tif
83445e0e6f159568f5382f745709277e
e6e9f36030e69f5c656ea9d3747a6e44da6d5769
102113 F20101130_AAAHWD prieto_v_Page_174.jp2
7b446f1ec8be0d99ecb520bcbdbac4c1
9f4eecb8c9bf8288c923863ea79bd0bfdcdcda94
F20101130_AAAIAT prieto_v_Page_112.tif
d11636d6a392cecde3fd17dd71dd8f81
c3e4a237d2c7ad97a716e8a60dd8826631b348f2
2028 F20101130_AAAGZL prieto_v_Page_050.txt
160d4690437fc0d6825fd47a43fcbaac
ea9db0263e14fa9b676d58682e71f940d3f1eb34
105353 F20101130_AAAHWE prieto_v_Page_175.jp2
09220f779a1a651c36e97af483fba22f
2d4c8061c4e48cd35623b399bc9fa5def1a433ed
F20101130_AAAIAU prieto_v_Page_114.tif
c36b636851a30febbab557c66d59346e
76c152b204cebe7f0b7729ff0d653d31c52e7881
65715 F20101130_AAAGMA prieto_v_Page_236.jpg
8e47a80435cb5c6424e5b23addaa770d
9b6803eea26a0deb856547534cf4c055cf72ec99
F20101130_AAAGZM prieto_v_Page_168.txt
74a2b8a8d8b4c7092fc00738024a178b
38dfbe00368f2946224b276bdeab78ca41f43ce7
107174 F20101130_AAAHWF prieto_v_Page_176.jp2
eca41d6ff36efa7610cbc1a6a3688b26
388068038e8e1211df1a2e567953acce8236ba70
F20101130_AAAIAV prieto_v_Page_115.tif
31a8847560c868141cefabafef01fdae
884f10502d84fb6dc3e6ea42030254cc85ab6651
34671 F20101130_AAAGMB prieto_v_Page_266.pro
7b94be6a92d94f04ea144c80f9be79e4
533cd4308193f6fa3d49ace682acd5eb2ba201a0
47259 F20101130_AAAGZN prieto_v_Page_139.pro
c9e54092342f7df3fdfccc4ee52a72f8
7d5fedac8805e2d871f95a3fbaf883be2adcca31
113051 F20101130_AAAHWG prieto_v_Page_177.jp2
3520a097de97cfed548421e104414165
8b7dc9ee3cc4e1c0a999249f1cf659da524da183
F20101130_AAAIAW prieto_v_Page_116.tif
89fc55f0f1d980715dd9371af93c127d
a4cab0ae0bf7c9786a169075f494602bdb191704
1983 F20101130_AAAGMC prieto_v_Page_022.txt
47f28df3537adf9b3791cb5767427316
8a59c1b33683aba66302a56a56646855f632e9be
5859 F20101130_AAAITA prieto_v_Page_078thm.jpg
44bf7fabfb8fa99cbc68b050bf5bacba
7a4bb4f9c639a607a422f46c8d96054c3286770f
73362 F20101130_AAAGZO prieto_v_Page_130.jpg
401d3c83c3ff2463a322f0cef4626ab2
633a719b8f59efec8f9abc9696d71aa8dde2c692
113806 F20101130_AAAHWH prieto_v_Page_178.jp2
802be5a3f8685d3abb94439877cccb6e
160a1f1307e45d90d1aaf6b186b3ccdaae8e6b9b
F20101130_AAAIAX prieto_v_Page_117.tif
6b25552d4547a19c069c746b9cb927fb
1471adb74dff9aa9f525951d56a42121e7d72b41
39649 F20101130_AAAGMD prieto_v_Page_097.pro
db00e07264dd8b49b73b06c9deb69a0a
f5166ab39277d1f64c588038a96de8473d78f875
6393 F20101130_AAAITB prieto_v_Page_080thm.jpg
d8b741e4564088d532f395b7201d4330
5de6c6f10e0e08c14e174fe43f56b5d7899c1303
F20101130_AAAGZP prieto_v_Page_028.tif
b1c8b2726dd6dc500a7bf45248b766e0
5d60189d90d91253be62a8e128966e3cef8149d1
114773 F20101130_AAAHWI prieto_v_Page_179.jp2
4dacb071c009149035f1a3254675de06
fea3ed837200446620d4b889476d03dd1dd1b5b3
F20101130_AAAIAY prieto_v_Page_118.tif
0d82e7a7b1c1a51b7c0f2c38b943348a
019cb70e2ba6e75b5c7fae306aa3559ce0203230
5817 F20101130_AAAGME prieto_v_Page_262thm.jpg
6e882a327e0e4e413e9a780009d57f53
d76313e778343172903c6e28f626fd9810ebaf09
22801 F20101130_AAAITC prieto_v_Page_082.QC.jpg
4a04bdeb13546d976e6a1f1a414580cf
73dda76bbd5208b7f833473861604473c30c9bc3
88229 F20101130_AAAGZQ prieto_v_Page_276.jpg
6c6bbd97c5825abc4b9e931b3d6cc90d
4dddfdc06c6aed0f1051ab33b2813058bd92f834
106983 F20101130_AAAHWJ prieto_v_Page_180.jp2
763aac0522dea4a54dafd23c005f14fb
35331740bf04df052f21bcf4f6aca4c2a77ac7b7
110090 F20101130_AAAGMF prieto_v_Page_208.jp2
a09c816bbb9c134f67f74eaedd41d16e
9c792fc82531d0be32fd371206123d67221c0e5f
23379 F20101130_AAAITD prieto_v_Page_083.QC.jpg
7e95484c08a75a09240a9349ab0589f8
aca638802dfef935182a3bea71002499c356cf35
5771 F20101130_AAAGZR prieto_v_Page_220thm.jpg
1460f0308aec785412b6f468dca896b9
aca60b78cf5f171ed269a5d9025cf9e461218b90
101709 F20101130_AAAHWK prieto_v_Page_181.jp2
bbadd60c9c1f59c8ec1de276ca026e7a
c442b0a3962249d1c4be31450835378d77619169
F20101130_AAAIAZ prieto_v_Page_119.tif
576a42c8aa93a04f8bb98c4cc20cf80f
94a1e354e6324ba93b5b72712cb72d146965ab37
22505 F20101130_AAAGMG prieto_v_Page_167.QC.jpg
1cfa0b0c724d8b4c221a1eb795b7a75b
705c27f7b8d8d2f07f1a2c3dccb7d6ed4ec136b0
22671 F20101130_AAAITE prieto_v_Page_084.QC.jpg
06d79b9aad68ceeb73d75dfeeba30e5a
6a64fa3b00562b39cdd0d03f9d92d54b727de489
111206 F20101130_AAAGZS prieto_v_Page_198.jp2
b3009b479a2f34edb2cd150c990cf105
1f23c777c61c1c10fe9c8ee028f1140f724d4965
108599 F20101130_AAAHWL prieto_v_Page_182.jp2
6a5c3933a238aea6dbb2904b98e66f0f
32aec8fc0524640424235df32532d75f2b70f0f9
F20101130_AAAHJA prieto_v_Page_101.tif
396fe899d9082b01438cffd65e4d3234
69502781f6a7f4e0b91158733d2ca2925c631b9e
6340 F20101130_AAAITF prieto_v_Page_084thm.jpg
2882f312139edc26b851edb3062118e1
729a8afc17202012a3e804a8153ab507710a882b
F20101130_AAAGZT prieto_v_Page_172.tif
08cc691273170986c3defba7eabee092
1482cde2dcbb9fcbc84ec3223b11b0ca7e0358dc
105089 F20101130_AAAHWM prieto_v_Page_183.jp2
c8123b8b19f3d12a06f83ebc87d62aeb
b965706320b2111faac787b1d5325e1b8d8d0244
20515 F20101130_AAAGMH prieto_v_Page_014.QC.jpg
c98e33e7e266f94e22a2e527b25da31d
4390474cb98a2655eeb49d7f901486840dfc3e20
48543 F20101130_AAAHJB prieto_v_Page_232.pro
db09baa9a026f0009e4fa0a4f08e6a82
66023ec2f17b104a63af58b78b162bab460929cf
6251 F20101130_AAAITG prieto_v_Page_085thm.jpg
fc822f53366a70f7b34d4e71912f14cd
ff428a74c75a4f5561c07ee255a0661420bcbf29
110436 F20101130_AAAHWN prieto_v_Page_184.jp2
a3f8d413d885ad7465494206a7ab1a4d
b98a5f1aa16878b7c57739a11f0a5869c5e1c0d3
F20101130_AAAGMI prieto_v_Page_244.tif
8e3f722146be1ea67b30b5db995075b3
d199899dd334d4e6b65b3bfdd07560d2b7ed1a33
58935 F20101130_AAAHJC prieto_v_Page_277.pro
a5afa8cc1b6d8c2caa5633ff60c95553
507e576b66936e2b6fad597070660ba8ca4d22a3
23571 F20101130_AAAITH prieto_v_Page_086.QC.jpg
88964c5752b2e72dd12213af062e9d2f
7b15959458ab9d9848351c96d0fe7e166f9dad7f
42367 F20101130_AAAGZU prieto_v_Page_192.pro
c06dffb644d0ae9a959ca47f7cfaebe2
a669b02302bb3370dbdce485fdd3631a0a69efbe
110326 F20101130_AAAHWO prieto_v_Page_187.jp2
31b1a2ea8d1564213f445cc5c8c6bdbd
b5757aca2a1acf54170b169f31e0cf32277eb21e
24317 F20101130_AAAGMJ prieto_v_Page_081.QC.jpg
ce943016445ab18ea09093dab8457ea9
26c39afc9d7d8dc55cc46113771662c4c3ffa80f
6538 F20101130_AAAITI prieto_v_Page_086thm.jpg
3084104662c2a7f9efe4332fbbe6d778
7e425052c63755f97494d0b2ffa2017c38a1e675
71068 F20101130_AAAGZV prieto_v_Page_128.jpg
2c7ea83152fd71b09dff8bec662aea3d
e518dfc80746950e4bf741d93e4e259e78a9b48d
110238 F20101130_AAAHWP prieto_v_Page_188.jp2
9457a08833f125b3f4b97d949c37a148
68407e7b993398f676f82b75461eba3c60879790
50321 F20101130_AAAGMK prieto_v_Page_032.pro
a1a0726f57f729208eec47396df61f77
ee251d6f231fa108d79a155fe39abf828ceebb87
104506 F20101130_AAAHJD prieto_v_Page_194.jp2
1f77c245d2d6e7cb02e8a484dac55a07
717c4e278a6c67e8f2bb97e7b57d9948bb5ccac2
23702 F20101130_AAAITJ prieto_v_Page_087.QC.jpg
08c3f5946315ee94d0cd75d83cd5bd83
d8ef0e89f8a8b50b5b5e831f176f75b4bfafbc95
1748 F20101130_AAAGZW prieto_v_Page_249.txt
fa63665bb0a47889099a785b904bd3d6
7948fb6a7aa757862be811f9009baf9b525e4715
72715 F20101130_AAAGML prieto_v_Page_122.jpg
b9a4bf61dc8e13201b75b004f6ae1d4b
014a50bbb6d58c6f70d7591b30b636c7506780fe
73637 F20101130_AAAHJE prieto_v_Page_238.jpg
1de81ed89de63937ca26b3cd0454f57e
b6961c0876c79f727f4cc3de9abc2fe6ffce5c5d
6573 F20101130_AAAITK prieto_v_Page_087thm.jpg
51c1ecf4c22d9f9c4c11b59150c8c3cb
c520ea1ff81998be42e393b6ab502b5e1f981ab1
51179 F20101130_AAAGZX prieto_v_Page_096.pro
9ec59ef60fc6e4567fc18ca8de3626f3
7c9bfc6676057a04f29fcaadfb04678c336c2de4
84437 F20101130_AAAHWQ prieto_v_Page_191.jp2
0f9721e545d70111da79e13a7da9646b
2bb7a2085408da7ebeffb546d865b9ce49c292a0
4899 F20101130_AAAGMM prieto_v_Page_218thm.jpg
19cde63896ac8138b57bce4ea5603196
50724c28396bf3d103ed88b219f34819533aaa3a
23788 F20101130_AAAHJF prieto_v_Page_051.QC.jpg
03c569a30db058e28362993a70c3f98e
d0e5eac259684d04ff053ddda1d7d95dffac4439
24083 F20101130_AAAITL prieto_v_Page_088.QC.jpg
e2dbffa0e87e77ec1ca171df08d26e25
bb1484102cafc17fe88f5d057b2c9795697f58e2
2477 F20101130_AAAGZY prieto_v_Page_001thm.jpg
260c361fe27b4910a28c22b3c80ca5e9
333fe12be78c55b1d12063a201144b7f6f763647
104256 F20101130_AAAHWR prieto_v_Page_193.jp2
96fda47f2e352af7fe8f44813901f2cb
94a848fc16c11cae2d768fb10f7f87808a1b4f8a
6156 F20101130_AAAGMN prieto_v_Page_244thm.jpg
fae576823865d9368b3b19d24505f7b4
7802e520161900882be9f1937213e20985063993
50081 F20101130_AAAHJG prieto_v_Page_098.pro
45a200a9eac4bee9d7cb0c086676c679
46724380a7c5c713cb99d8a0e664ef8066e622db
20369 F20101130_AAAGZZ prieto_v_Page_221.QC.jpg
e0e5cd435db414199fd229a366a18ba4
c78a288e0e154772fedc49310e049fd0c3d5b6c3
50882 F20101130_AAAIGA prieto_v_Page_067.pro
be48c773945d35a66cde7a5b926a6b7e
af7118f50a2e8dd45c8699b9d3cb51bf3fd9b690
112719 F20101130_AAAHWS prieto_v_Page_200.jp2
e19f386f6d0e24464047b376eceb6afb
e282616c3c3530a1a0b959ba4f253cd070497716
6658 F20101130_AAAGMO prieto_v_Page_150thm.jpg
2368dcc4c2078cb1510ce63c4dcc464c
084aa655b9e64f7dcb1a2ebd5f210fbe4387cbd6
1051924 F20101130_AAAHJH prieto_v_Page_006.jp2
e3b2f57c7778d6926ec1feafc342ba4a
4707fe9b703432b51b47cf5ddbb785d640c33e35
23265 F20101130_AAAITM prieto_v_Page_089.QC.jpg
e7b3427264c873b7196799967065d06b
8e62ca1edbfd874d327a098c0f21b692f9722f51
50252 F20101130_AAAIGB prieto_v_Page_069.pro
e6351e86b676d843346734e1ea169a1d
8a32c1e85f3ef020a2b7b7dfef984d6806ff9fe9
112745 F20101130_AAAHWT prieto_v_Page_204.jp2
c715d6c4f73709554c8e83585ba99cbd
56a6bb9d9bb7dab8f2f469490487f407eb0d5e79
22453 F20101130_AAAGMP prieto_v_Page_252.QC.jpg
d67d4ad4bbd2d8fd17de52d29e67bf74
edefc7a24f5b2deef918db76e72c3982afc89f8e
6062 F20101130_AAAHJI prieto_v_Page_139thm.jpg
690f930cd266bff9e2b855f7d776b345
fae06dc4f25863a3cc234e80d58d7b3cf683fa9b
6536 F20101130_AAAITN prieto_v_Page_089thm.jpg
38eb5346a239ec3a563b97b34bf67caf
182f7466ce55d0a9e4e8f9dd931c5f88d8daadd5
48850 F20101130_AAAIGC prieto_v_Page_072.pro
3fa928d7aa4c9b99947b25193f6260c1
f5d1c4a1fd63900ba356dc54e30a407cbdfa6a59
113261 F20101130_AAAHWU prieto_v_Page_205.jp2
33e3aab99965e6a0ebf9921bf155fac0
d6e16226f099821334f3e6440767ac99deb2de9a
6629 F20101130_AAAGMQ prieto_v_Page_138thm.jpg
a5833f59c8b98b7a07498be6c7f7b99d
245e9bb074950dd7f6f4dc74134174b420d6262d
F20101130_AAAHJJ prieto_v_Page_222.tif
586c2690720a43078fe1a9cb52ca4822
72781eb2d076f8314f6dcfcbe5cba79b39e837e5
23998 F20101130_AAAITO prieto_v_Page_090.QC.jpg
2cd3255d935c365789d6af76fc78f7c8
470deb21bab2b37c2955e092e4c6c422a4468396
50755 F20101130_AAAIGD prieto_v_Page_074.pro
67d416b912502d229701391c23f73615
b6f3ecf3d34b5afae1d154c33523554e814fdb4a
110333 F20101130_AAAHWV prieto_v_Page_206.jp2
0f140d107a3a2b8d8f419ff1a348bc5f
ca99f1dd26187fca8ca3ebecb9e95499f0634232
F20101130_AAAGMR prieto_v_Page_124.txt
1ab0e00a97aebeb9ca5bf0442d8d6e59
35a07676cd9ccc105e3ecce14fd1b9999d751b75
71080 F20101130_AAAHJK prieto_v_Page_141.jpg
3106811ce27da51c34bdc45c8845a3a3
7b815eb3ebecacd9f30af255949282736cc82800
6488 F20101130_AAAITP prieto_v_Page_090thm.jpg
e2718a9ed8076019d3736f4831cefabd
5cadc9fa8eef920ec24738483555be490aa6a4d3
52301 F20101130_AAAIGE prieto_v_Page_075.pro
7e29452d1f7c5a717d82b19a51672cdf
749394abc1cd67985f0828c10a897b2d37b7889d
107948 F20101130_AAAHWW prieto_v_Page_207.jp2
46e1e0e88be5569bac872804dcdcb908
d6c8d84b1517f45adf01f4af0390dffe129c3cf3
902636 F20101130_AAAGMS prieto_v.pdf
de4e789d2f063ee5f683959df5ee32fd
df13956d3807e1c6b1d85d57adf5ed2d80a59953
33713 F20101130_AAAHJL prieto_v_Page_147.pro
aae4c7ed0351739375f22d261de9b509
a351bd44bb25a89e2760b6e2375018e52a224d27
23775 F20101130_AAAITQ prieto_v_Page_092.QC.jpg
863ae21d5620feb383f317dbc8415ea7
5401d72f14fceef6455c752ff208ac3c61f24e27
52769 F20101130_AAAIGF prieto_v_Page_076.pro
c84bab2526b007ac37c9487e1ec98adc
e4808c1425be1d454ac4683569fa07427db6edaa
67119 F20101130_AAAHWX prieto_v_Page_210.jp2
52a0fd450740c5cd8ec026a29f6e5130
b9cc0a203bacaa5319b5ad7dd3528b338f678055
F20101130_AAAGMT prieto_v_Page_164.tif
52d591141a0d40e6250ac45628f4136e
0db3c7e52c6bcc806f6fbec840f3e953cd99861f
104171 F20101130_AAAHJM prieto_v_Page_232.jp2
344c2c5d51b6732946f9bba44ffb3f5b
a453d689198394d50af468bea59db62390ed5407
6457 F20101130_AAAITR prieto_v_Page_092thm.jpg
3a8ae5c13aa1654566e9a6d6ffaaee7b
87fb7dd56149ef0d35cb502448858ac5b009d308
54271 F20101130_AAAIGG prieto_v_Page_079.pro
1675819f5e8cb2db4c11a05f39dd0d42
4e0ce0bd02730ad2da08f0e265d1df1676a7eca0
70406 F20101130_AAAHWY prieto_v_Page_211.jp2
1b33ae635f71d98bbcd7674aacff8b7c
57da63685ad575db204c71095a3a258b8e790ffd
F20101130_AAAGMU prieto_v_Page_199.tif
060b4cb14c39be580def021896ba24ca
8229757aca3fef0931a4e904a8d6730a513fa63c
50450 F20101130_AAAHJN prieto_v_Page_089.pro
4affe883454532d79e84945b03f8912a
2138046888360e35624b48ba869700d1982e8ced
22865 F20101130_AAAITS prieto_v_Page_093.QC.jpg
f7569aa17a5d2fdc122f62b46ae12efe
7a70534b3a1b16516a57e49eb101204a9061b440
48817 F20101130_AAAIGH prieto_v_Page_080.pro
a9d76430fa4dda1a840f841b0918b23e
c621f6ffbeaa6a323e7727ea20c11e109783c08f
64065 F20101130_AAAHWZ prieto_v_Page_212.jp2
4d520135ec84723a06816e5b976cfa5d
c700a46de4aa70a15ba4502822e36e9bee754552
73669 F20101130_AAAGMV prieto_v_Page_205.jpg
06cfe274e6acd7572409392282b70ed7
4b60c56295846ae7fcad46a6efce1ea8fb6a6acd
23384 F20101130_AAAHJO prieto_v_Page_033.QC.jpg
f4c45342b4f80bf355dcf4e4e0a13b84
77e2c8819b50d86243188ab3ee51182a21921dd7
24420 F20101130_AAAITT prieto_v_Page_094.QC.jpg
41d01314f1778aa1e0d2f26995d9f718
bd09eddf59a0ff6cf15062c1e5b5537f61176e82
51827 F20101130_AAAIGI prieto_v_Page_081.pro
d0611e916b84a87c767ac6d97baa4728
3c0d0821925c6baa2821cca7d25def110c28d69a
F20101130_AAAGMW prieto_v_Page_038.tif
bcb6a6b3db3a52f0e4a1de6f8e4111ef
6f3284c137f46f5c5b36560e937618e290c3b6ea
102542 F20101130_AAAHJP prieto_v_Page_018.jp2
16e2e3d2fc7da5132d6c7f74051df856
78e91ead013666087d5f312fd1410968fe5f626b
F20101130_AAAITU prieto_v_Page_094thm.jpg
1e1082cb1fce7378340443aa955c8f22
dcd51dd537e586e44760f4764ab95f044eed2266
49646 F20101130_AAAIGJ prieto_v_Page_082.pro
2372a12572fcfb2e48ba12f87af1d489
815d42766005af47647de02eddfff1f91155f0e2
68875 F20101130_AAAGMX prieto_v_Page_263.jpg
bc403b2ea295e4b82bf54c5876ed8334
ce5ea44c14b9587205030b2985e9540f80bb0408
106901 F20101130_AAAHJQ prieto_v_Page_105.jp2
f69de0b3ee24e8b732e30ca547b50de9
6bb4a7bfe6870c798ca1886b74aaf890326885fe
6378 F20101130_AAAITV prieto_v_Page_095thm.jpg
d4f7f13feff44613f3af39d77f07c538
acb2da7205d245b91c13f1fb46e80586877222a9
F20101130_AAAIGK prieto_v_Page_083.pro
cb66d177eb09588fd69594f4d237eaa6
cfe136251ab139caf7bb808ea337dd587e5863be
49639 F20101130_AAAGMY prieto_v_Page_134.pro
dd141001fab92de3a939bc4ad6a877dd
c3dc848e873f1544b5be0058c4c3dd9867708810
2085 F20101130_AAAHJR prieto_v_Page_226.txt
3c3ead641121276b57c7b278481dbc62
96ff137247baeaff0332767706fd007c68ba888c
21530 F20101130_AAAITW prieto_v_Page_097.QC.jpg
49f1ad1650861f57f8a55d47d8a15bb7
f28642db91476c9c6ad022e1589bf282792bc357
F20101130_AAAIGL prieto_v_Page_090.pro
b1343962471ea70728757529844b07a4
dcc6f18ccc55846c22297dfc45e1634ee1e6a8f7
F20101130_AAAGMZ prieto_v_Page_162.tif
cf4554fa6428212bf2fdf7cc1b40e8aa
d3c5e48ca01f16197775028dde35a6c3e62df34e
48238 F20101130_AAAHJS prieto_v_Page_021.pro
c4132840c6ed8435ebd09df399c72522
1057fcd14879da81e9929db31f1e7cc7452d315b
6142 F20101130_AAAITX prieto_v_Page_099thm.jpg
a8bc9c377008fb034a5113dc4fe60285
d85b9c5d6ef6507a2ab56845386b8f7fb1d8ac19
51204 F20101130_AAAIGM prieto_v_Page_091.pro
f209521aa437c77b1d5bd010d898dcbc
eb9caab235977c3ab4cd4681ea7a70455d6aa0ee
F20101130_AAAHJT prieto_v_Page_228.tif
2382e3af26ef838eba0f9417d6a60b17
bea821cdf3073b10954b0956439a0d5829191c14
6853 F20101130_AAAITY prieto_v_Page_100thm.jpg
0761dd04adb1c139a93a5dac92367195
12bf96078166e2b16ce202edcb9f321dfb6b98c7
51420 F20101130_AAAIGN prieto_v_Page_092.pro
64e6ba2ed3941139524f842b224458ab
64fd4bfce7518a50d5a165b73e9001d745184fa7
41165 F20101130_AAAHJU prieto_v_Page_215.pro
e9aeaf125f1b261e737f53ceaa46d8aa
557dc703712aab4346f67d80b2e1baed309ac5ef
6317 F20101130_AAAITZ prieto_v_Page_101thm.jpg
91efce049b1f7ec40f43aa2b0cdb0b98
2e47785a7df2677eacb7aad20a96212aa3cca542
53202 F20101130_AAAIGO prieto_v_Page_094.pro
498f81c4d1ceab42fbbcc32dd59d6026
616df0603ee926e10bf26ee917cbcb3900306f04
71283 F20101130_AAAHJV prieto_v_Page_041.jpg
475dff20f065991ecef47c3c9af4c0af
01801ff47248afe95449d1b0dee6949a67000692
47806 F20101130_AAAIGP prieto_v_Page_095.pro
f994536ad95d0ee5d6099b2f0c0c9974
0f0c39d0a737e1fd416cccfde6b4e50157711139
68461 F20101130_AAAHJW prieto_v_Page_052.jpg
fd208fc2ac9db5818a3e933552965e7a
26257151336530b5230dd0b6ccfb20805eb10303
52206 F20101130_AAAIGQ prieto_v_Page_100.pro
b7d44bc2763a46c8c7e190b2dc78ffc9
6e3e90dc7ae09beeda0c15625a747b8619f90327
60886 F20101130_AAAHJX prieto_v_Page_250.jpg
a6ed95adf40a204784e87acfe8195baf
3cfc7245061591a985bf80381f1e28a5a7bfbca5
48515 F20101130_AAAIGR prieto_v_Page_101.pro
a803cfe0428ff292e0f617408f452b18
c601d5ab42282013ad84a2d5992529d51dccbb93
17632 F20101130_AAAHJY prieto_v_Page_011.QC.jpg
e693f306b2ee000cae1c1785e73051b6
f9fc32f229b96a62999cc9dbadb493d131271040
52262 F20101130_AAAIGS prieto_v_Page_103.pro
c0cb92008476c41168963a455902154b
c020c56087fa5a61bf8d8ec6d8c59bfa212d23c5
23010 F20101130_AAAHJZ prieto_v_Page_046.QC.jpg
583ecb76dba21efbc555f0463ed9bfba
6559f73ad7ecdc2389284356b41f6fb275ba8f50
52458 F20101130_AAAIGT prieto_v_Page_104.pro
8b9116fc89c7d86ae97a2ed6a8c979c0
befb0f017f0da108188f72891c13f5705983c1ea
F20101130_AAAIGU prieto_v_Page_105.pro
fdbf5b4f31ec9eed3a7966aea85d147d
b3ed02d20c3e2264000aad963a8c0e1b42b710ae
F20101130_AAAGSA prieto_v_Page_280.tif
b2497aebd7ba801a879b166bea850af0
5e548178bc4be9eb0dd24f16e24ff0186a7c6074
43319 F20101130_AAAIGV prieto_v_Page_106.pro
1bd06492d4e3f8f617f574078e7a479d
fcea1c1cbd1edfd2aa09784456b9d9f2bba13a72
21660 F20101130_AAAGSB prieto_v_Page_171.QC.jpg
64fee93c1a9e801bec50dd4b7d3dbc08
e49f7ecc825bc92a877283751b3ed68010704048
50696 F20101130_AAAIGW prieto_v_Page_110.pro
1963caefd3fedf9f456a264d43dc77d5
a4a7f39789089147fd37ec1f62ae512204e08137
1585 F20101130_AAAGSC prieto_v_Page_011.txt
e912eff528576276b5e634efc348cf36
1b3fec479c5c4a50f32b83b7833397883cd819e0
17861 F20101130_AAAIZA prieto_v_Page_211.QC.jpg
95c48e3d28dda9f8a172a5f99ac05f59
ecb0cde6fe518aae1f51b874010811cdc26df653
49114 F20101130_AAAIGX prieto_v_Page_111.pro
437eaba44175a14655e4c0e90bef1e35
ea49aac3567c98b0ca672232c7bdaa959735ca63
5984 F20101130_AAAGSD prieto_v_Page_259thm.jpg
e23e37f06e7092863f063d7b1fe06f74
a7e7b21a5afada5b49cb4860471fb631876e994f
4699 F20101130_AAAIZB prieto_v_Page_211thm.jpg
7e4dae75523b6018299ec7b57e238d3c
2ccd6e7c7ec44ac9eb7ef42893a657a752610246
7488 F20101130_AAAIGY prieto_v_Page_112.pro
7c8acb6b6292ac0a5b54d33893be84a6
7471ad39ab821bdf7e8f2f050e576e33fc1e9fa7
F20101130_AAAGSE prieto_v_Page_059.tif
ca943dcb03e2adddf430e2e3e6a5336c
f3eaa4ddd356f050d7f33effe1798c069d3c5ca0
4118 F20101130_AAAIZC prieto_v_Page_212thm.jpg
c7982c9bbc9be51bee56083d8bb7f7ad
f8bacde9846522fc305db88c0f01bd2049e14efd
47122 F20101130_AAAIGZ prieto_v_Page_114.pro
5608e4f06a0741a9fd64b57140a00e71
1d259beaa2ea380f410331a16561fd4312c525a5
35455 F20101130_AAAGSF prieto_v_Page_049.pro
b6ca3a4744bcf2fc8b5ccf217680cb82
81cf0ddc0f4804453faf6c33efc9f1e5c63212a7
5620 F20101130_AAAIZD prieto_v_Page_213thm.jpg
13f6786a0d79d6b6057162f2bfbf048c
05d442b93e9480fb5d5cb11414d4e0c3d8aad82c
49990 F20101130_AAAGSG prieto_v_Page_166.pro
41643a5a633cb8084bfbbd51b54d3e9e
d648e13ea9269705ab5be60e0b642573b33e4e6f
4629 F20101130_AAAIZE prieto_v_Page_214thm.jpg
92793015451d07cfcfdec976c4ecb3f2
596453551bd073f6625e200c324ea62b785f2b3a
F20101130_AAAGSH prieto_v_Page_065.QC.jpg
040f474dde29329ae36e7c3bf2dc6cac
606cf1e1a1d947aabace71c1af8fd1080fe4a6f9
69715 F20101130_AAAHPA prieto_v_Page_101.jpg
8bc7ae1b15d598551a17710dfebd8da0
59567cbf4206948bc22173259e4f53539abb3c72
5302 F20101130_AAAIZF prieto_v_Page_215thm.jpg
3c2947456f3b17fbd1ebe09fbcb45b9b
9020469bd317bc78fc1d5f26fa0ff3824d7353a9
21656 F20101130_AAAGSI prieto_v_Page_238.QC.jpg
c053173f52c3a6a9b91e6f7d1b7f5b14
2c9cdefba62bfbf5b76c322f1a238b24f8eb6ff1
73082 F20101130_AAAHPB prieto_v_Page_103.jpg
0b59ce699fd2f18d12cc119eef1cdfa0
57d051f937874208437209d71a0aef46c5eb1dc5
14900 F20101130_AAAIZG prieto_v_Page_216.QC.jpg
ee51fe1d16f4ddfea6101b220673de19
21d2e5f4c1e69758ba5b27c5b76ee6c83dfdf9ba
70982 F20101130_AAAGSJ prieto_v_Page_183.jpg
0c393faa551614369639cec73d274b5a
326f88b5fbfb719e86b8f95054d52567f4a3c2b3
73873 F20101130_AAAHPC prieto_v_Page_104.jpg
bafedc99f78dccba713f617360dc4857
d9b42ade77a47a1560c7cfd89f7be1bc912ca037
4648 F20101130_AAAIZH prieto_v_Page_216thm.jpg
df255f314b075c1a75f4cfe5b6403f95
e38007b74c92669d95707a47ff131d3738123166
F20101130_AAAGSK prieto_v_Page_112thm.jpg
9a91a79a16fedba13c212cd869e83d1a
4c8c31c6548275bf21a0f89dc9c0b91f0baae53a
70817 F20101130_AAAHPD prieto_v_Page_105.jpg
027a72aaa64ae4e4c7e33c7b17ba334e
521fe3d6dd547c83ba73930dbb78dafd2c5c93ae
19520 F20101130_AAAIZI prieto_v_Page_220.QC.jpg
68ba6eae8cf2f129cf414faea1dcf050
f063b9877d29f0d62dca99c625fb823c6dc27131
107432 F20101130_AAAGSL prieto_v_Page_089.jp2
7712e96863a0e6d8ccf1379ac56326d8
98045664ed89c37fa58bbc2f344e0d56f983bd09
64563 F20101130_AAAHPE prieto_v_Page_106.jpg
784bcca333b4f51996b2efa7a7835f1e
6aafd7b5ac148ab6d9e6d9667d03c9db2e8cff66
5598 F20101130_AAAIZJ prieto_v_Page_221thm.jpg
734ac58947d0525fe246b243519d3cd4
814f1f2179cb982956efedbcfaf3cc82c6cc8390
1987 F20101130_AAAGSM prieto_v_Page_051.txt
8276e94ba9e8222dc5bfea4bda6adba2
1ea96021f6082349d928630a349edd198d39a671
74195 F20101130_AAAHPF prieto_v_Page_107.jpg
2fffebd0b7641cb2227fe3e77a6cb253
e1e957997006af286900583c6380fd5412e3f248
80547 F20101130_AAAGFA prieto_v_Page_275.jpg
90ee7d6fcb86ac1fc6bfd9835dbfd277
72214efe4fa0b05158e43ecf3e4fb2b2658737cf
5989 F20101130_AAAIZK prieto_v_Page_223thm.jpg
8738281e1a706e597e24fa67e07647a9
76ebd49a8dcf25bfa304b8a9ce06d330633813c1
71211 F20101130_AAAHPG prieto_v_Page_110.jpg
2123e4dcb172946e3c4110b0c9423c65
ff164aae0a99e38a2f1e6c904d6fe2dc4293a0f3
51357 F20101130_AAAGFB prieto_v_Page_266.jpg
f56a36e9fd10708dc69307a398bc2bb5
4d3ace22c769d501b29f8f27ba33dfe629143762
5959 F20101130_AAAIZL prieto_v_Page_224thm.jpg
f24beb37551837114094dde5db35b6f0
105b5fb4987a420c101fb04aabc20f89543e4c6f
1936 F20101130_AAAGSN prieto_v_Page_031.txt
18442398f99a8df563d4b165403e04e7
a82fec6bb79530f85f04ea89075b3817422965c2
70557 F20101130_AAAHPH prieto_v_Page_111.jpg
6ce0c6f5ecc4ee7219d480c3f347fd61
3aa851ebf55325815caf2cb8dbaa0695923694aa
F20101130_AAAIMA prieto_v_Page_089.txt
23b4c11e0b63b4bbbdf4e71883afce30
a48d8a7ed1323c8deb977a6df06695b3e3b4595b
2730 F20101130_AAAGFC prieto_v_Page_213.txt
ab9f93dd4d1a6977807403ca92c9df8c
6c779ac3162faadf5322bd0a2cf90e1da517732a
19446 F20101130_AAAIZM prieto_v_Page_225.QC.jpg
d6909bd0a9fce4cda321b943aea0bbaf
f3f3db8758beb798cb5e023447228258edb85272
29684 F20101130_AAAGSO prieto_v_Page_042.jpg
7bb289746054ca2316bb631b0c3f3d4d
f7b882b8b99bd3f25579e3776044ec31ce9288b6
17621 F20101130_AAAHPI prieto_v_Page_112.jpg
8fd553080e64b74260d181b394ad383a
eb6f577d76ffb0b36165e762919274f2c6c90a4b
F20101130_AAAIMB prieto_v_Page_091.txt
210a1443d61cd44c766c81124072aa36
72e30f60d335444905e0634ff468abfb51ec0083
53201 F20101130_AAAGFD prieto_v_Page_115.pro
d190e22f7e58f0bc01abb0b3ee8120fc
5e2f8a22ebeab5d48f59a7696c0ad2e31d64137a
5549 F20101130_AAAIZN prieto_v_Page_225thm.jpg
7589bb7b4b9842d993f1893d370b387a
1cad147089ae7b781c63ed581986fe72839c0c63
F20101130_AAAGSP prieto_v_Page_126.tif
c26e5b62af003c3230681433e01eb32b
da6a9795b76635cbb06edae632bab967f5875ddd
2092 F20101130_AAAIMC prieto_v_Page_094.txt
22551b79a344bd89aa3f48e346268cb5
7497a92549a670494945c71fe5aff938e5b25353
F20101130_AAAGFE prieto_v_Page_202.tif
6a21b5ffa1f2d52b370c4d777f8ad8c9
251f18e4c06ce56fd9d3808a72c5fe26e1ffabd3
5699 F20101130_AAAIZO prieto_v_Page_227thm.jpg
d52e1d5affefad460ce6eafc886c2731
d1b50d1f807949deee7d2ac0b5af7cd23a2089e8
5804 F20101130_AAAGSQ prieto_v_Page_163thm.jpg
5009e254e38221a73f7aa1eebe9b2895
102f8835b4db13fb909faebe41dc166847587cbc
69627 F20101130_AAAHPJ prieto_v_Page_114.jpg
c453066b63fcad720a200a7e9751cc88
014f4d016fab944a8976dc77b031e887e8e26930
1981 F20101130_AAAIMD prieto_v_Page_098.txt
f0d1aadd7f84e218977debded331c27d
fdf5d5221f10dce6966a30766afc272cee0a1ed2
F20101130_AAAGFF prieto_v_Page_264.txt
949dc72fb3056a0c328d27bbeee2d59e
613455feffc8adef8eaa6c3bbbbf63120f636bc9
19699 F20101130_AAAIZP prieto_v_Page_228.QC.jpg
53dd8b862d5b8ca01c7c6d71d3410863
7123bd39d47a8c871d953244614efca7cdbdddac
108699 F20101130_AAAGSR prieto_v_Page_033.jp2
797c77310e97bb023a1e024fffdfed8f
77fd88cf8199cd485bd910a1c14096823415fca6
68844 F20101130_AAAHPK prieto_v_Page_116.jpg
c2163826c6e830912a58cefa6802ae71
c5bd4f138546d0dd6b4df58a1f649f2f540c7982
1877 F20101130_AAAIME prieto_v_Page_099.txt
4a65f85090262523ecfa7d1c12abd42e
28bc3d536c1cc1037bfc6d3ba7147d87d29c059b
74946 F20101130_AAAGFG prieto_v_Page_081.jpg
6fbbaf76003679d7a447ba8073da31c4
649a11a89bf0ac9e60a30a6868be1d9c6c04f3b5
5564 F20101130_AAAIZQ prieto_v_Page_228thm.jpg
a0c2fd30c3d7169605a9a9f733772e84
ad2a6e10386458938834a0e53a54eb28ff289609
F20101130_AAAHCA prieto_v_Page_254.txt
d8c48f8a64ff5037f1ed5b2260239554
0c7798ce8832d3f9c06b166a28e5e082304d27b3
F20101130_AAAGSS prieto_v_Page_082thm.jpg
21aeb9a75415238abf3ecd431d68975c
c92283daa3e9f62e6ee5348bd6385c0fa8a51e97
73360 F20101130_AAAHPL prieto_v_Page_118.jpg
167080b974d3c20f50930e99ff2dbb42
fcd4ede907a14a5c0e3afdfd7d1e480f4c1eb737
1993 F20101130_AAAGFH prieto_v_Page_015.txt
d4a43e46e53ff6b8027a9baf0bbba31a
9fb2d67c5acb77dd921a1f8bc17035200e62c6e2
6026 F20101130_AAAIZR prieto_v_Page_230thm.jpg
97f8cc7c383bd700c3f9093051dafaa8
c66dfa7779569372f85dbd69f9a6755f3d33d1b5
42852 F20101130_AAAHCB prieto_v_Page_249.pro
807be5783027a3a798c5880e1a48f80e
7d71d917ee3edbc2ee74ca978fde7de2224f6cef
69887 F20101130_AAAGST prieto_v_Page_164.jpg
2636fd6058262d3af366faa5f760cb4b
879bd77f242062bef47483ab7cd4bdb05e626444
72287 F20101130_AAAHPM prieto_v_Page_119.jpg
56bad7e278978ead72a02f89933905cc
3691781794f8ed599f0ed3bf0b6e9717a1ee6199
2070 F20101130_AAAIMF prieto_v_Page_100.txt
677cd7e971e62a1264987ced3d593ec5
7fb0351c9a2f4f5a93bfed5b2579530dee83e4d6
96309 F20101130_AAAGFI prieto_v_Page_106.jp2
c5bb24806bfef14a191347769cc8ac49
4d520ce61e801379f21a7690737999f88ae8e98c
72074 F20101130_AAAHCC prieto_v_Page_020.jpg
ba869257dc33f71f93ac77783ed7df02
f4f67e2d3c011ecbc822ffe54663503821981c19
1817 F20101130_AAAGSU prieto_v_Page_151.txt
89066575380c794765060e564576b843
ceaef561ae279f1f8a59543187be540430b2e44e
73415 F20101130_AAAHPN prieto_v_Page_124.jpg
8662a329f5c54509d6fcb90593e80414
2732efbad0d4ffd0416807ab8f4d211651e450bc
1920 F20101130_AAAIMG prieto_v_Page_101.txt
508f7dca061494dd8481d3b84d36d003
502c8bc914b44ea7d3a397c3ceb94158f1b639af
5640 F20101130_AAAGFJ prieto_v_Page_232thm.jpg
6cce2ffe50139e42ab523b5ba5c9b8c9
f383f2c74bec748fe912924424a7f7fecabb861c
5945 F20101130_AAAIZS prieto_v_Page_231thm.jpg
78fb2b209d0bb1aacfd5ebfae5b71ea1
672e7dee5518a48da08dd0ae8455b557300f9550
49193 F20101130_AAAHCD prieto_v_Page_031.pro
043f2829e295c259bd2ab2be26e22255
b136e1f21b8ea11410d8833b33392f7a1db78c4e
111863 F20101130_AAAGSV prieto_v_Page_022.jp2
2da47a0887948b7d3519287ba06777f4
337d4f749c342293010236eb9d29f33de5a861e9
76561 F20101130_AAAHPO prieto_v_Page_129.jpg
9efcb614d879987143f12b58eb405e7e
27d3c87756261b1731536e82f935276c37497dcf
F20101130_AAAIMH prieto_v_Page_102.txt
8776d6ac4fa82288c2e14f217237f4d8
14e951660ad662189567ef0637fb91b4d1c4804e
23776 F20101130_AAAGFK prieto_v_Page_103.QC.jpg
04cbbf422b5084c5ab0b1298b8231f40
d982ecb162df9fda43fc38dbefa27ec8bbfb86b9
6176 F20101130_AAAIZT prieto_v_Page_233thm.jpg
4c21cafb02276aad9b7221777e66439b
2048ff83a2cdcb9ce7b91d31a265aaeac8182b68
109669 F20101130_AAAHCE prieto_v_Page_251.jp2
2d75a2581097f0aca757d3c818b84017
d7a9c873819e29344e091436b93dfb41ba5240e9
19936 F20101130_AAAGSW prieto_v_Page_258.QC.jpg
37b4c7f9be937710f915d33782c3544a
e4070106cce0a7539ab69c0edcb2ee35e604e1a9
72577 F20101130_AAAHPP prieto_v_Page_133.jpg
903bf548c0b5e941eef60e36b995bf2f
c9dba473647a611499fd4648c08d5b3c4a092cdc
2055 F20101130_AAAIMI prieto_v_Page_103.txt
809e489496ae18e3ca849bb98527a9e7
bec18c10b560283223d1492a364fd92d6b05e27f
24770 F20101130_AAAGFL prieto_v_Page_003.jp2
c39066df60b387572b1744da0ce75558
2a30658843bd9cc78d574bdc670891fa58381e76
21170 F20101130_AAAIZU prieto_v_Page_234.QC.jpg
364d4b081b31b41a316ea6d3c3c86922
c4972d786a4990affdbc342a11270133b2ce7f5e
23588 F20101130_AAAHCF prieto_v_Page_180.QC.jpg
3be58d577f44193943bef7c96089d039
c74fb70ee92d3f83d9e98ec7c6ad42c54283949b
81821 F20101130_AAAGSX prieto_v_Page_019.jpg
444664276734c50abeb5c0c38927c3d8
dd9f6137e3d0437e7059a6bb00415dd0fc34b554
70360 F20101130_AAAHPQ prieto_v_Page_134.jpg
a2e6682b8fed5573efc0f61e44df97db
ab9b1764db2fc756c67df5fc498b88577197d6bb
2056 F20101130_AAAIMJ prieto_v_Page_104.txt
4586c19b29710cdfeb2abe7f7c3aa2c1
6b343d1a5cca82992ae3ac1671cf08cf1c512b23
F20101130_AAAGFM prieto_v_Page_217.txt
24925a994caa644d693fe52930fda6ee
894d1e0fd025dfae7658c52e8e5401b1734fbf97
21240 F20101130_AAAIZV prieto_v_Page_235.QC.jpg
396128ace1b9def9c1618c2f8df86224
d45229c7da56dd83ede8117260703f28f8248c3f
40983 F20101130_AAAHCG prieto_v_Page_247.pro
78813241cbe148e92e59d9c686b89a55
de78c5a87ea5ed9266dda2d18fcb2bdd2c01a8ad
72945 F20101130_AAAGSY prieto_v_Page_092.jpg
b11885e65befe463b9e8596adbd01419
eff464c36166fc686772708dcf38b61fbce954bf
73252 F20101130_AAAHPR prieto_v_Page_135.jpg
379b694aad9835526a13a71d8fe90bb1
6fb9e90aa2323f9b758b8189366ebbffb7ef87b1
2019 F20101130_AAAIMK prieto_v_Page_105.txt
2bc11516844be09f65dad8c24c4edf4d
9d4461a520e0ce9b12a57bab6ac19020935c1b4e
20462 F20101130_AAAGFN prieto_v_Page_071.QC.jpg
dd5a136c8eef896997a65e56a2eeee86
22ac04b44ca134b36edd6bfe88b3c01c0ae58a65
6286 F20101130_AAAIZW prieto_v_Page_235thm.jpg
1a495c28fb96c3fc90aee6f363901512
0c102992944f900f10d0fff2de948256938f13ac
6434 F20101130_AAAHCH prieto_v_Page_021thm.jpg
48ea7eb56cd927b1aab600d53e9281fc
7fc47ddf0f53e2639f3e59daa561c7f124885c30
F20101130_AAAGSZ prieto_v_Page_134.tif
7154b931f310a47a68dee2f81ebc40cd
f365282b3e22d20b276394ff4482803551f68887
70739 F20101130_AAAHPS prieto_v_Page_137.jpg
454e1b4070263ba32d9bba71964838ce
660ede59af4b31d3321a77bcdde750142a4bb644
1824 F20101130_AAAIML prieto_v_Page_109.txt
64ce726cf0324a90bfe19785683c8e6b
617667ff50266930862954c63027b8d6bdc3a028
72040 F20101130_AAAGFO prieto_v_Page_053.jpg
4fde768031eabb32aa4d7ef01f22470b
433423c682239b7623ad5c6695ac2a507a09cb8b
19225 F20101130_AAAIZX prieto_v_Page_236.QC.jpg
29bd36ea66b650051a5531f32f7a307f
8281744a7801a8df667b1f7913ecba522df026eb
109811 F20101130_AAAHCI prieto_v_Page_224.jp2
62da6e4b8572e823ab9c8d02ba9a0d64
9a7825ee8742a3eee5cdbc286343b496f3ab1ba4
72483 F20101130_AAAHPT prieto_v_Page_138.jpg
2ada4732a65cea19d53425b88381651b
bad5020617b5826845310f54603772668def5e46
1994 F20101130_AAAIMM prieto_v_Page_110.txt
261154b2c9417bf54c7b4f0e321f924c
2df81053a9d6a6b572c2cc620c93b38deff4cdec
68150 F20101130_AAAGFP prieto_v_Page_232.jpg
c696a05cdee8281700f1cf9fa2f10e91
9d890ec32e49cfd55366bb5aa72f48f08d61ac90
5637 F20101130_AAAIZY prieto_v_Page_236thm.jpg
26a831d21b7bb155e904ebb185484909
b147683f63daed4f368c8359993282f4f5ae8bdf
6607 F20101130_AAAHCJ prieto_v_Page_205thm.jpg
f113e6288423c2c8cb9f82fede4f30cf
b290f724ac32e76c41a4c7d3ad3e5d74b5aae394
67064 F20101130_AAAHPU prieto_v_Page_139.jpg
aada33b110a5536e4e88daddcc140092
0e95278fd06950da315b534f155ab9bf3386b0af
1977 F20101130_AAAIMN prieto_v_Page_111.txt
9636273c6ab5114d6af0dbf945e5a893
d0b4df6c805175232d9c3d96ebfabdbc56d63f35
101113 F20101130_AAAGFQ prieto_v_Page_142.jp2
377f5758cb61cffa0c71bdc35dae01f2
c429e9fa203cd29e47b6fca46da04ed22cd89bd4
6216 F20101130_AAAIZZ prieto_v_Page_237thm.jpg
3c92b3cfd073334789ee9d14be522ab4
693b5c1a823d66215feac16cc546c4f056d0ba11
52533 F20101130_AAAHCK prieto_v_Page_178.pro
982873ae5f5c01d2326ca634f87ef74a
853ba2ed664e42889f6014078691c98065ba0e03
65756 F20101130_AAAHPV prieto_v_Page_142.jpg
aaf1325ecd55985a233b8fca7a319e9c
d244b1b46bba200d86f56bddd4def667fa6fc373
2123 F20101130_AAAIMO prieto_v_Page_115.txt
247e7a2ce02f194d006192a128e618e5
2a85d95ca41299487bc05ce8c10205d1452f9429
111464 F20101130_AAAGFR prieto_v_Page_108.jp2
5267b714de25278983a1208b4958ad69
6dd87b391cdeb0c9014d12653e6abba19f094067
F20101130_AAAHCL prieto_v_Page_160.txt
bd2dae5fe467713da243e5092e6a677e
aa277b7f9fec81397cc8316221ab04dc80c5973c
65631 F20101130_AAAHPW prieto_v_Page_143.jpg
cc23f59870e7d411f5e85f0dc41b5c78
aeb0db95e7222f4a6c16c6bcf46cf3223bdc996a
1938 F20101130_AAAIMP prieto_v_Page_116.txt
ae56f28ece89c9dc29a2b18f93106182
e5c4f3e142b887abc75ddb818d5589b060fdc99a
19182 F20101130_AAAGFS prieto_v_Page_255.QC.jpg
25cdce594b93a7754deca39d995c60a9
3727bd35d7a217e21e8965309931609db09dba65
51598 F20101130_AAAHCM prieto_v_Page_205.pro
aea6cee38577ff937592b8e213e74e66
234400281e45ea2daa72319e0939bfa198c32997
71069 F20101130_AAAHPX prieto_v_Page_145.jpg
87cd5292adeb877deb6e47a6a7eb4754
56355a3524fa2b1c1d621316952933335085a332
2112 F20101130_AAAIMQ prieto_v_Page_118.txt
cbfd7f60aacb40899d79cd7fb31e354d
53676ae667828cdbedd8d56b127f98972aa2000f
73626 F20101130_AAAGFT prieto_v_Page_203.jpg
12a5ca6825be579e5c5d86888bea867f
fbd3db67567b44265dcafdec85688ea2825b98f4
47788 F20101130_AAAHCN prieto_v_Page_167.pro
9ae425b4a31e0a337a4b51e200b73193
0e2afce9e5d300accc48d566c9b4cd4e9fc4b05c
56834 F20101130_AAAHPY prieto_v_Page_147.jpg
0a5e66df81abe1455113897b992695d6
a20db125c1ff649edbe16b8c39d6275b8cb1cf7a
F20101130_AAAIMR prieto_v_Page_119.txt
2fd1688f5cbb05c8d4f1ca6069071854
06770ef0240d1d6beeea369d7a33ba0773a8a0b0
1959 F20101130_AAAGFU prieto_v_Page_053.txt
48ecd121cdba5b65800b8eaf22428708
2e08c67158fee2c8d8c65ba707c0467b993006d8
109395 F20101130_AAAHCO prieto_v_Page_046.jp2
f6e641e2de00131bf304fd7e151e0206
ddc6e57adcbff53e83b2d6c2e26612db54aa2d15
71628 F20101130_AAAHPZ prieto_v_Page_148.jpg
79ffecfab1b538637669a14c13168536
d127495f1d0223a6072e31f825e7c0ab64be05bf
F20101130_AAAIMS prieto_v_Page_123.txt
e12cf9ee5b3166b2cec320128e682fcc
b7dc7837ca77fe6c43af20c3254848ea041700d8
55044 F20101130_AAAGFV prieto_v_Page_125.pro
372a56deec22a46b4d560eb118d6eb8b
6182a826bd1161290c212405f33b4f964bf7fc53
F20101130_AAAHCP prieto_v_Page_127.txt
463574a3a89b4e48bec611dd749bad0b
af8ff78789102b2b8c06d37751fc6d30ee79ab80
2165 F20101130_AAAIMT prieto_v_Page_125.txt
1869f198846d5cc3886d6dadd341de14
585894e0687120efaec64ed222f1af28dd0289ec
1738 F20101130_AAAGFW prieto_v_Page_078.txt
ca3dee2eaa83a825f971c0c60fc5ec9f
cf9593cf5fe8dff20d936f2076d16d2a50e5c19f
76262 F20101130_AAAGYA prieto_v_Page_237.jpg
528be1b40a5a62856613756899d36048
7f8e96a6e3e000320e4ff567cadf7e4052932bbd
1903 F20101130_AAAHCQ prieto_v_Page_025.txt
ab122414c6b2bd91e92f2497fcef01c6
2a8e503234b815ac7b2aebe88b0811f66672e1e4
F20101130_AAAIMU prieto_v_Page_126.txt
3e0f96ffbbb805c3f0ba9d98a44fa513
0a2543a0056b5db60d0b994ce50669367763b039
F20101130_AAAGFX prieto_v_Page_145.tif
e1772eeb40a848c82492704713fac6f8
fdcdbc1392ef53c455cd5b981063752f496daa4b
13889 F20101130_AAAGYB prieto_v_Page_212.QC.jpg
52016672946327289ee028961a5a3939
5796d7c3b0f0c617557c1a1dd7ca024c17244e72
2705 F20101130_AAAHCR prieto_v_Page_271.txt
ee4f65418be5c3b3d812f5298af1d570
79dccf51e8d26d7a7369adf43cdb146248007bfb
2072 F20101130_AAAIMV prieto_v_Page_130.txt
6226d4040a8a4b9ffedb3f0e56f4afce
f38b946535f902e6d979e14a9c7e9144c18a1ab7
F20101130_AAAGFY prieto_v_Page_124thm.jpg
2bdf8407e891fcb1f049048f9b94f228
2a3981d302b8955aeb74a4a2c90d8ac1324ede3a
F20101130_AAAGYC prieto_v_Page_216.tif
7b8b007fbac155123359e3542f77f109
407eb13b24975b614fc143e06450df8bb1da4ec5
72468 F20101130_AAAHCS prieto_v_Page_149.jpg
23ca5c541e6ea762b91ddf7fb5c4494c
08abd53b2fdbd8746e51ea8f8f23c19637fd6c97
1825 F20101130_AAAIMW prieto_v_Page_132.txt
80dc8ce3a800fcd2c91e89fe0c738b01
d3226c37c0b1fb61afc39ece599cfe36849579ea
47754 F20101130_AAAGFZ prieto_v_Page_260.pro
e4c8294157fca367b0b8fcc1ae96486f
8c9c2d9d634dba11cdd0c19cda4992bc21c4dff5
4867 F20101130_AAAGYD prieto_v_Page_010thm.jpg
a098ce3237741e56217a08a2fb84cad4
746a2bb545132fdad7d6a436b19e6b7148fb3bdd
51201 F20101130_AAAHCT prieto_v_Page_047.pro
8392c3ad86d5d64e40794c53324497a5
a873386d63501ac0b6606a51e4bb8a4f8034c44b
2033 F20101130_AAAIMX prieto_v_Page_133.txt
26bc4a9755fad2587e3916dc0d0fe815
294627e474db08b4e22d73688053f4f134fd105d
23162 F20101130_AAAGYE prieto_v_Page_233.QC.jpg
c05d98624d41b1e0b02bd7b343544c2b
cff2b8da146ba2e49c3e6f35853fd0b6f3f77c43
F20101130_AAAHCU prieto_v_Page_150.txt
74c49cc778165c754d5d78690c4ea66e
a7c7ae37282293d0dd80bd3b667509f877354e27
F20101130_AAAIMY prieto_v_Page_134.txt
10ebc1eea17e5f92f8973cd0b2d89716
27fde48f1776659735158b2eed64e48cee11a6fa
11059 F20101130_AAAGYF prieto_v_Page_003.pro
8b618a18aee9c585669596ae0cde5bab
314fbd0943fe0a698169ed6f429ff623ea4d94e9
69308 F20101130_AAAHCV prieto_v_Page_161.jpg
82405eeb0789b4ccc174fed71943ab0a
1931267c07d3df1bd49efe2598e04a2a6ffe3c48
1937 F20101130_AAAIMZ prieto_v_Page_136.txt
7733b96069cc9a85c43b832242bfd8dd
7b09132392ad5691222e86534fd5c5b3828544ed
F20101130_AAAGYG prieto_v_Page_088thm.jpg
8f7284f0f86f6be9aed8f728546e640c
0ca097490c1a17a83c8f26c4447875054036ba65
F20101130_AAAHCW prieto_v_Page_227.txt
9f3aa551eb11eb046cff9aa6668dfb9b
36e6315c58a13dc7e5e673eed28b97e4d51fef30
6426 F20101130_AAAGYH prieto_v_Page_057thm.jpg
24d208c20ff62b17fe343a6811300ef6
d055da0fbb47edf0502e629f8e17c4ae7a012824
F20101130_AAAHCX prieto_v_Page_201.tif
470e28ce4e409918039b80306da679f4
0033238e6b2c16c51ca3387c39dbf43974c3547a
116686 F20101130_AAAHVA prieto_v_Page_125.jp2
eb5816855706ea2500861c3498cf8bab
e9ac9ab01a126e43ff67ebfd7c384fe81e5b8ec3
1819 F20101130_AAAGYI prieto_v_Page_173.txt
0311d3c87ca6c3261d92226410442200
76af28d72f6f2e7f9b479636c55a136b4d1aea7a
20441 F20101130_AAAHCY prieto_v_Page_248.QC.jpg
00734fcd4e03fb1d91bf1b5af4329cb5
b5a3263a5ad6fa4920ee7930509706f39e65d4da
108011 F20101130_AAAHVB prieto_v_Page_126.jp2
db16a0cc2ee2a1693e9829a02c47ec5d
fc00e0ad6246baa7e0756054c531ac21c905311b
F20101130_AAAGYJ prieto_v_Page_019.tif
ed4bd45ea0c43638da735c8e4b305090
afbacd47c64ecbe6533556e7de586c79a631a912
102045 F20101130_AAAHCZ prieto_v_Page_156.jp2
e03899344939f0b6e8460f5cbedfcd4b
aa2f34da323c9476291c4f9d2739f4bb55142cc2
99136 F20101130_AAAHVC prieto_v_Page_127.jp2
6a8f5104c39b0ad5d380092fec7a9f66
3ff2c47dcb131e5f57a7ab6a1cb4096841ab5184
70799 F20101130_AAAGYK prieto_v_Page_123.jpg
6ed13bff13ddbc1c87d76eac8df564a3
bd6d3628e7fd5d6aa17dc3c061b154af2a562958
108519 F20101130_AAAHVD prieto_v_Page_133.jp2
4d0189e2592affb925e33a4f1e12ef5c
05140e364eb40c93bff2c5aa0c24b545ea31ccc6
68839 F20101130_AAAGYL prieto_v_Page_254.jpg
32cc89857dbbaaf396f289bed370b170
1884a8e8eaeb4fba6e615678c49a9c8859e6a86b
105768 F20101130_AAAHVE prieto_v_Page_134.jp2
5f7acdc961a32c64b6484fe2c6478796
f15f1192709a9e0d08fcd1a5aac36f7a69b415d1
2077 F20101130_AAAGLA prieto_v_Page_280.txt
5371dea646f31b6dc85192f8ddbbc92d
e4f4299966e899384c4530d66fd067b4253288f0
35982 F20101130_AAAGYM prieto_v_Page_010.pro
711db508ee90b442a6487215a9227082
a9cde3652d8dec150b4ec630d9cdc062e6c44040
110168 F20101130_AAAHVF prieto_v_Page_135.jp2
bfc9d34463f6e539e1389709f03b7d98
55355fc44af13425ee65eabfd271ee3efc1d2fe4
1843 F20101130_AAAGLB prieto_v_Page_052.txt
14c57a7202afc8e7768182772a7d6891
c9fe45e9c2a2fbe347139ff29fa3a2597877528c
97156 F20101130_AAAGYN prieto_v_Page_043.jp2
3c3280dcedbd92517229ae8672b572b5
3a98fe3d7409384a5fc5d0324f7e3ceae016fb9d
106781 F20101130_AAAHVG prieto_v_Page_136.jp2
7293fedaf58939a804ccf4c8ee812441
c01781d72115158815ec8a4cb26bc9c9a28ec421
49371 F20101130_AAAGLC prieto_v_Page_263.pro
dddc37590c40e7335662fcb65877e72d
d629d3c86cd286cc72e39771b7292e19a621a89d
24220 F20101130_AAAISA prieto_v_Page_054.QC.jpg
4f7801a3f7230a04f055528fd09e7823
6baad5c54bb720310d0a2b42f8f0658dc829c85f
22025 F20101130_AAAGYO prieto_v_Page_027.QC.jpg
fb694cf8b568210eb777764847f2a4d2
5d1068b226ae7faf09363b3eacb76fd686014bfc
106925 F20101130_AAAHVH prieto_v_Page_137.jp2
4c3594821c8790edbb2de4111f0300aa
1bd1500a93098747d1cf37481f50d48be0ab7c5f
F20101130_AAAGLD prieto_v_Page_111.tif
b71a6bc4e4a1ee1e82847c1b7582a1ca
09a0514549d72dc39e8216f05407df45f54eaf80
24650 F20101130_AAAISB prieto_v_Page_055.QC.jpg
c2718ed715082b7c0c3912e936a4b1ad
d951c3fc5cd89df39363dd31871dcd655b683bbe
F20101130_AAAGYP prieto_v_Page_131.tif
3d1bd2abe8315c980a883e6ea6a30be4
5719bf930bb03c5f7d023ea2c11159af735c8132
108598 F20101130_AAAHVI prieto_v_Page_140.jp2
fbc0647e48b6e3cba8360d2eb56f84be
b0116d6b0ad255e409492ce6819474f506a9b136
6856 F20101130_AAAGLE prieto_v_Page_061thm.jpg
cc7af63680da10bdcffd6d6b3dcd21db
3c7b21ef918e19febce64ab2b1ce5460c7115737
6815 F20101130_AAAISC prieto_v_Page_055thm.jpg
113e8c24147e79b036dd85f5f0cb6b8f
e3793754d64c6af61379a796bc72100b4feedd33
68955 F20101130_AAAGYQ prieto_v_Page_025.jpg
bcb4768054bb3a6d0d853b5302d9bb63
1f0bb19c272885c722959419ba492af13adb000e
98365 F20101130_AAAHVJ prieto_v_Page_143.jp2
aed8e9069c2990ca0e7538c090283938
c9e4bef4ceb3be7083d69179d0ea8310ee6eeab6
2065 F20101130_AAAGLF prieto_v_Page_081.txt
5906c926a70cbe60d0cdd9fc2171c97d
c909f289886d55d3e6cd6504442f2f20cb964b74
23997 F20101130_AAAISD prieto_v_Page_056.QC.jpg
11707a9c5ea9b66aca63b3f624fbab87
c44639acba51e3523fd01d9e22584b28151db3a7
1241 F20101130_AAAGYR prieto_v_Page_210.txt
ecbbb33de7dd2867869b685a9f928825
7cbdb8c8aa7eedbd1793c48ae44d6b364705351c
107512 F20101130_AAAHVK prieto_v_Page_145.jp2
c4bd2658e9c257b93c28fc42da4bbb9e
9e793e1922749381c0d8b8829048f76a822d78a1
6594 F20101130_AAAISE prieto_v_Page_056thm.jpg
28c4b154b2bd40d9b99337a2418369e1
2a37b134e062231d25027eb8b1c44c279833951a
1933 F20101130_AAAGYS prieto_v_Page_169.txt
c4936ea31be0b112a7a0f03802bff749
1304cf5fe8c835f46886ec6ff0188db120e9ac00
733526 F20101130_AAAHVL prieto_v_Page_147.jp2
6d43a5f37c5204bda6398f38de2e2431
32bea3816d83030d45e1863468b9e5583256f839
F20101130_AAAGLG prieto_v_Page_250.tif
8f58e8e22b19d35a64c9cbef2f5c837b
c019eace1c5a45728d134e6a496915f2f6d92882
70203 F20101130_AAAHIA prieto_v_Page_021.jpg
2434a7e4c6d38b9e9fe0fe2c691cb6b2
5c6416137a3643b8e03b67dbb7320af842a50a78
6425 F20101130_AAAISF prieto_v_Page_058thm.jpg
57c0ad9fc8eb6f203c5e957ece9ac9bb
3289de8ec0666560192d1c7ebd8609a0303deab9
108385 F20101130_AAAHVM prieto_v_Page_148.jp2
2457c78bbd3a13ad9045d2319a0cc7c5
09b0d806e55e0daa326d11e409ed6c02065df213
105252 F20101130_AAAGLH prieto_v_Page_027.jp2
3fa6391a17bcb206a27a912c9e2a5552
57cd2c9381bf9d89149521502bd6ee2fda7a3ac0
F20101130_AAAHIB prieto_v_Page_071.tif
5d891a306d2eb6880345bb7b9e86abd6
921e40b9c05d89c8594e7ab5bca9b6146e83929c
6503 F20101130_AAAISG prieto_v_Page_059thm.jpg
14cec96dd13eb7cbf82df0a80ce4cd8b
3b65488b570a79b318bee468322007cc6648d961
23263 F20101130_AAAGYT prieto_v_Page_021.QC.jpg
c3f0759b8503909a0ecb1d6f355d0392
8d0b46dfc242b6acff658abffe12ea5b8e46f003
110565 F20101130_AAAHVN prieto_v_Page_149.jp2
a670a902c3e70223ecfa359b270b6cfc
65243504e570591120de582ccd2a32c0bcecb05e
6293 F20101130_AAAGLI prieto_v_Page_093thm.jpg
869bc46fa7cb52f70637827243c2247e
366ad1fd9a9f5bf28c416d350d2917032602ee6d
23052 F20101130_AAAISH prieto_v_Page_060.QC.jpg
b561cfcc263c3383bd87bfecc2462354
6104330074c5212e692bc58b96e0b22bba376929
582041 F20101130_AAAGYU prieto_v_Page_009.jp2
e793c3180b54b942d0e5af67f1c32915
a3d71c29d9a93367e0b2fa91a491c5029ce9c459
99751 F20101130_AAAHVO prieto_v_Page_151.jp2
15dcbc34d8174862858bf1aaa7e6f660
5428f6f909d71f4be6a39a3bce20585ba6baafba
2306 F20101130_AAAGLJ prieto_v_Page_233.txt
e551aa8bf60713837bbbcb7d9d49381e
10e921362096cf880c92d9de3605bf9abd4eeb6e
50886 F20101130_AAAHIC prieto_v_Page_086.pro
99e9d72868e616d45e549f739876cce2
50018bcc403d3c234ad8d496a44f676b6d9179fb
6525 F20101130_AAAISI prieto_v_Page_060thm.jpg
7b1532d5f519ea484dfedc03bb30abbd
ad54c04510e1de62a2326aa033439efc6aad128a
108824 F20101130_AAAGYV prieto_v_Page_199.jp2
0a15a7524e6dfdfda65b6265f154ed46
9ed942bb5cbde528b19bdcf5215c5396ede32487
F20101130_AAAGLK prieto_v_Page_228.txt
08fda3d2fecf41748f931ffc9c0df27d
0c3b715576c1a2c624bf05a76fca422d72ac5852
20012 F20101130_AAAHID prieto_v_Page_222.QC.jpg
00d1d9cc13e273b6f0289951cf23220e
a311d56ece967bf06385763922c6f2ab80614ebe
F20101130_AAAISJ prieto_v_Page_062thm.jpg
4c4e3babf552ef0ddba09d3c19066dbe
26bde79cb53b267f1e8ef22b53d367e2c7617f0d
6350 F20101130_AAAGYW prieto_v_Page_025thm.jpg
9022d7e5a074bb9fb53b5d2e1f8efe14
448a82721966166a68c3f96aab31a64f7480e99c
112821 F20101130_AAAHVP prieto_v_Page_153.jp2
420e406a1fe8acc9708e7a978c04c5eb
287afd708aa1b1b9ea5d07b1142105e44708764d
50127 F20101130_AAAGLL prieto_v_Page_126.pro
dff37d5b105bb6df532961d8ae619d8c
d5b63280c930495500ee27c5a46fc69a9039f433
70972 F20101130_AAAHIE prieto_v_Page_102.jpg
f77bd20b431f20bb9913b356e9410cd2
15ef503aa85528daa2b581bdb184b576797db057
6330 F20101130_AAAISK prieto_v_Page_063thm.jpg
f7d04afcfce869eb4342fee012b87373
b421f04dc78d7f2fb1dc2d0cb8451ddd22205647
F20101130_AAAGYX prieto_v_Page_154.txt
13439579410a8f43eee266051ba5cc08
c7e6d177efda42d1d63f8335a7eaa44fe91dee3f
105463 F20101130_AAAHVQ prieto_v_Page_155.jp2
e16068eb44b458d00e31c3262dbfd5dc
0a0428500a78f19efa0ab38d10ff4f4f3442f8a1
74837 F20101130_AAAGLM prieto_v_Page_115.jpg
1557a78af7415d3f73f83076bef74cc1
cb0567e7e2da90dfafe1e96fdb6fddcbcd687278
2255 F20101130_AAAHIF prieto_v_Page_274.txt
acfc2ac4ba33a8302f329c7eb2890a7f
157d27f2ec3e08b28faa81bb091d48c4537f9ad9
F20101130_AAAGYY prieto_v_Page_146.txt
e1808921eb15f865b542acea43f5c53e
8f1ea79fbdd2eb777dd73fa779e276e3a5e7e6f8
62269 F20101130_AAAHVR prieto_v_Page_157.jp2
b9403a47d1427c5c875bf21b2b89236e
634304299cf6e02773bcf99d10480b5306ba41b0
F20101130_AAAGLN prieto_v_Page_248.tif
46d8ca427f5401aef521bce4f6882e9d
5db7ba02ef5a3c6077c3a4c9df34f09ea0cb925e
23929 F20101130_AAAHIG prieto_v_Page_205.QC.jpg
27c881d7c70215c4ab302338aae2b7b0
9d65cef0a8e231a12c6fbc0d70ace866e3b774ab
F20101130_AAAISL prieto_v_Page_064.QC.jpg
399d25ea05a918f935f3530828eb330f
cd769785a8f6bee3aeb603baf09fca9dff6ac200
F20101130_AAAGYZ prieto_v_Page_098.tif
3e4f0983eb3f67cc277c7e3aa60b62e4
9397e83251f22b1a858614d80be2aadeca13bc33
48122 F20101130_AAAIFA prieto_v_Page_025.pro
1b3e729f7d636c6335a79b4e78f72be9
19f7daf86c369439f4ce2593c381867b2233d8ba
100760 F20101130_AAAHVS prieto_v_Page_158.jp2
1d9ac237fe2878a7c778e4fc99e31341
265a36c98e93fb2b0e0ff66319c4aa58664a222f
F20101130_AAAGLO prieto_v_Page_140.txt
9f401aeae7bb31c9bcec33cfd736f8a6
81a89e90ef35334db999f4404bf7912c35c789b6
103372 F20101130_AAAHIH prieto_v_Page_195.jp2
1c6ff521cf31f72f767a2d4986d7e972
59f89cc890af4cc643b5182bf6c37b1c6f072cca
F20101130_AAAISM prieto_v_Page_064thm.jpg
7ea19fb82cc6573d6cc3a0adeca30aca
52c17a9cfa53ac1eaf2e4c69cbbbd61cd674de73
50088 F20101130_AAAIFB prieto_v_Page_026.pro
f9d244bfa3ecd6f1df64895674920762
ec579dc67fc96408a1bf3919b6178955593cccbc
113463 F20101130_AAAHVT prieto_v_Page_159.jp2
7e5369858adfc77aa445744f4afc8502
c26c389daa05313cf39a519d975d57682a3ee62c
F20101130_AAAGLP prieto_v_Page_187.tif
e5b376167825daa6badd944702f512d3
9a6840e22d0093e46ddc0c5d0f24e9d053d71969
1839 F20101130_AAAHII prieto_v_Page_018.txt
f8048972fcd38ebc182afaca62328de0
126ce25a565702eeb2fed7023312128bae4d5831
6680 F20101130_AAAISN prieto_v_Page_065thm.jpg
1ba706f7cebb4116bd9eb1a67ee56dfe
4fee1fd6ae22f6b60d8ae10ea2bd5fae2ed658b8
47320 F20101130_AAAIFC prieto_v_Page_028.pro
734b139691c78d6f1416727537726541
c367b3533101e03d84b1d990eb199e45dcc131c8
106283 F20101130_AAAHVU prieto_v_Page_160.jp2
20989c8cbe1bc0138a30494fa4c797a4
20a5dea278ef035ea6ad40cdc95647b643c940e9
6942 F20101130_AAAGLQ prieto_v_Page_276thm.jpg
46b2a7209815b7fb691c57b8f80e354c
5d285fb6e8b9f2729e5d0e0ee22cb4f788fc5866
F20101130_AAAHIJ prieto_v_Page_105.tif
e7de223610dde347b3bcef263ba44fa6
b697c4a7f527eae24d1d859b74b4c4ffde37bf29
23091 F20101130_AAAISO prieto_v_Page_067.QC.jpg
a88c39f8a03b0ae0c3dc3643424a44cb
59f759fd114818f46c68e7686786b9e788d74ac8
37742 F20101130_AAAIFD prieto_v_Page_029.pro
e85a9cb7f28bd91e3494fb4d7bdc5cd5
df2383789a8193f1c6b3152cf6bb3a74fe136056
104315 F20101130_AAAHVV prieto_v_Page_161.jp2
694052bc8a06efad70cbab6ccc6588b4
568719d9d77fa1003ded31843c573f593b7ff8e0
76335 F20101130_AAAGLR prieto_v_Page_259.jpg
a85f235cc76feb012a78237187317626
2e074cb334a7c522cf5e8585d4cefd70e9f80c58
50033 F20101130_AAAHIK prieto_v_Page_148.pro
0f277cff36a97bb4cd8bf2fc7c042e29
e2674a6358649e6ac46ffa54c8e11db1cc7e3b34
23802 F20101130_AAAISP prieto_v_Page_068.QC.jpg
dc130fc58959819d2e0b2fc31814aaf3
712dcf318f542884d39d06797db0c2fde3b37c89
49585 F20101130_AAAIFE prieto_v_Page_033.pro
2fa5d042ceca125875cd531179496012
e5890f98541b676ee28a7ed9681622c1cf4c8650
102628 F20101130_AAAHVW prieto_v_Page_162.jp2
7aa4fc4ecfc0ce4ab119c404c31aaf28
ed2ef9cacec2661a4a110a13201f0c552b706e29
50586 F20101130_AAAGLS prieto_v_Page_186.pro
e89697c3dd736c84f699318482845125
199fef40353ea75783005f38e82418aa7348c112
5257 F20101130_AAAHIL prieto_v_Page_117thm.jpg
ec43d53fb6064c817f6aea96cf6d4ca5
2855a6b010d7dffc900787d14a9e3854c82c7742
23121 F20101130_AAAISQ prieto_v_Page_069.QC.jpg
bbf128242ef1200323aa5e9fdcc61309
da130b23899e8b8da87725042c88d0fca977dbeb
51373 F20101130_AAAIFF prieto_v_Page_034.pro
bde092d3d9232ee695ff2a11c984aafa
335db56418e1ff661823e9fc02066ea7f579c809
94918 F20101130_AAAHVX prieto_v_Page_163.jp2
64e6fc33e83097585d20de9e6202fd6e
3219c963dbe740414adc6a757938d21ab2741fe8
110384 F20101130_AAAGLT prieto_v_Page_100.jp2
cb18c54f02a5c27ba1ecb09c9d09f790
c573a1ae069087880751029609d371d07b2c3dc1
6631 F20101130_AAAHIM prieto_v_Page_068thm.jpg
899d1cca74977979cee63f16a8579d6d
af6eabc230abd36de2cf7d510932a04bd604f78b
F20101130_AAAISR prieto_v_Page_069thm.jpg
d2be6c904a0d521dcab0a39c7ec05bab
9b75bde379ee3864341760f6f80fad858b6bf6b4
51166 F20101130_AAAIFG prieto_v_Page_036.pro
825bb3007c54e445513b9ca1d6270331
279bb88a101640d7f4463dad382155ffa02a4fed
110677 F20101130_AAAHVY prieto_v_Page_165.jp2
60870b6e5cdabbdfed8f597ba4328624
cb5fbcd8ba3cb2531768747ba5bdb4ca800abb03
23131 F20101130_AAAGLU prieto_v_Page_085.QC.jpg
507379e05085b4d8057923653ea49d44
48091ec335c38a5d46845db5dee7dadbfe05ff97
70494 F20101130_AAAHIN prieto_v_Page_160.jpg
831c3b6449982a772a435e651ec5b315
39269bb9b80bce16beb440e3242dcd153c16ee9d
F20101130_AAAISS prieto_v_Page_071thm.jpg
3419a88dcfb13359c775a2aba32037fc
a74318c3d8d4ee5143e361afd40429df15eaf838
50745 F20101130_AAAIFH prieto_v_Page_037.pro
bc2ee04a3f4489ccd429b5423f6bb0fd
687fb16faae2fa879da6d5ae25c16c31f30df96f
104366 F20101130_AAAHVZ prieto_v_Page_167.jp2
60a4307bf9b2976374ab5bf95f54baf7
27b2e47cb507a6069caf2b5a5b9779d504e946f3
8420 F20101130_AAAGLV prieto_v_Page_001.pro
e060be9d02f664e53d8c95e0741335ef
ced9e4127f96efaee46bd35473d7ea38fe24ffa7
70149 F20101130_AAAHIO prieto_v_Page_230.jpg
b78709c6db8555de7365ebbabf9d7c40
e23a0bd6963ed5b9db711eed5f2df47d63dfcb7a
22198 F20101130_AAAIST prieto_v_Page_072.QC.jpg
b1e8f0a7ed009857e03f827d62f3c370
8e6511a3cb2df52319dc739937b1ca71d7a14e4e
45806 F20101130_AAAIFI prieto_v_Page_038.pro
fea27e26bfbb8511cb0fcda09357b7be
9303c6d63c351ac6bd9d2465319ffb1589f622bd
1964 F20101130_AAAGLW prieto_v_Page_093.txt
74e7583000c2e18f7981765e86216032
b2902a040372d7fa49a83cdc342e07cc32649023
69197 F20101130_AAAHIP prieto_v_Page_060.jpg
5bc994758cd180a548a9c1ed4d80aad2
a03aac3a0d22d60ae9a31930cf3d6251edbe4a23
6358 F20101130_AAAISU prieto_v_Page_072thm.jpg
58e64bb851e868ad4c9b5cf8f32187ba
9ccbec0e45a5678b9d94f46390283f675c3f6037
50959 F20101130_AAAIFJ prieto_v_Page_039.pro
0912c2e2399a5702db280cb9cd841379
f47b5f6b502b36ca303b7cd44ccd29ca84823f02
111709 F20101130_AAAGLX prieto_v_Page_244.jp2
afcbc29ab3b4b1bee54820ba1d8446d3
1204cabec9ed1c237d34cb2dbdf2f3d27b60b6aa
47619 F20101130_AAAHIQ prieto_v_Page_099.pro
704e4a9fd4c5c1be11fcda4c2e012711
32f29063220c3cf5b8caf25ef502237e8412c048
23743 F20101130_AAAISV prieto_v_Page_073.QC.jpg
6528431f476b965109fc74941c60eaf9
b20479a09045269967f5ea1a66c6412a535fc659
49914 F20101130_AAAIFK prieto_v_Page_046.pro
6d1e1b286a841992f4c62b0fc7b37e85
f06d328d1884457ef2670505e29dac99f7038fea
6514 F20101130_AAAGLY prieto_v_Page_051thm.jpg
1c34c3338c8faabf0a3e05e9977a18cf
1845b14ff6a38327865463c603b270d810a42fd9
16669 F20101130_AAAHIR prieto_v_Page_281.QC.jpg
29558811c6bee23804c4c77513d55860
514f284c1a8fee9a9a5fe36a6f96afef636f1c31
6620 F20101130_AAAISW prieto_v_Page_073thm.jpg
7acc09c82a2861da5f7b2e261b38dc51
ed4c4e6687ac563e60c6baee5fdac6acbd8896b1
45357 F20101130_AAAIFL prieto_v_Page_048.pro
e5a90e81eaf124f82cf7ef44e60677d6
9b0d7ad4e9afb5c0f04b0588ceeeac625b2667f9
50537 F20101130_AAAGLZ prieto_v_Page_281.jpg
25e34a56bfccd252fac7d7c09474c182
a44d9d7c71f33b01fee455ab4cf8aec90c6c32b8
1868 F20101130_AAAHIS prieto_v_Page_193.txt
a792202a63fd5df97edf4f28139a1bc8
0a55afa5712e232ec1b08a8e54f8c253610e5f7d
6595 F20101130_AAAISX prieto_v_Page_074thm.jpg
8337e8a9eacd9513c1acbb1001c19a7f
ac76e2f62931806e41f5b7714b58bdc26a92014c
46610 F20101130_AAAIFM prieto_v_Page_052.pro
5dfbb8f12e374107274d9c3aecbd3475
8dc0f322f1d3367a98a49947c3f93085b7ea0611
22611 F20101130_AAAHIT prieto_v_Page_137.QC.jpg
44dff52141abcbb9e25de5b3443eb77c
bde2cbf0165feb3445d137a3edf60f01f24ad04e
24097 F20101130_AAAISY prieto_v_Page_075.QC.jpg
a95e2716d76a68d8ca548c6b0101634b
0adc9c7406d31495090fea8967548444afc007f9
49645 F20101130_AAAIFN prieto_v_Page_053.pro
5261530fb699f46ad8dfe20511736ae5
fad59e6f3e48037647128e6fb038e670290c736d
F20101130_AAAHIU prieto_v_Page_018thm.jpg
9d24847fc7f16feb0af36932d683888e
ddb34423ee304f9667210ecff8180078a4f250be
20709 F20101130_AAAISZ prieto_v_Page_078.QC.jpg
71d3e7ac8c4a2dc7661279396783b65e
3df72c0d36a6bb711da5ad024348ab54ab705a86
50064 F20101130_AAAIFO prieto_v_Page_054.pro
956c17800312e69f54b77391705e754a
057c479904fb796a833f49bb6b423356f5c578f2
5361 F20101130_AAAHIV prieto_v_Page_256thm.jpg
74cc910e09136ce8fafe9ee4b22c39a9
f98c55476e3877cceede15cf9ed24b009806b1ee
53321 F20101130_AAAIFP prieto_v_Page_055.pro
22740deda3986ba7cbf710f2786e0a4f
f98f4b9f8235b0803898c16afe61f6ecd1686a53
6539 F20101130_AAAHIW prieto_v_Page_264thm.jpg
78ad2c1acd94c409531f76f9dee0d975
83cadd863d141dc0b52fee890cb997c16006ecd2
52217 F20101130_AAAIFQ prieto_v_Page_056.pro
a036a92ea319af631636187d7cfa5772
74eae8073110913bcf579d54459a0bebbd6d591f
F20101130_AAAHIX prieto_v_Page_173.tif
43c09f6504b7183818de23fca4c0a4bb
446580d558db74adcab781ac419fd85272d65d2d
48229 F20101130_AAAIFR prieto_v_Page_057.pro
0c2ea1461e96c5a23d6804d11e7fd11a
6cb231089dbaffbf296cb307c534195bbb168c9d
110630 F20101130_AAAHIY prieto_v_Page_036.jp2
17cf399e4b03be03f9e1efea8e55000e
5dbf61e24f6483a95dc99af88a0b0d489bd64a59
50669 F20101130_AAAIFS prieto_v_Page_058.pro
508a6650485e5b2fcc62412765113717
b6e0aa37122b9acff112297d62ab5cebb00de1fe
105000 F20101130_AAAHIZ prieto_v_Page_021.jp2
88b5a8969bf32c3e551f886cff4adead
8b06d6928979505afe22b40c11f723ed56061229
48965 F20101130_AAAIFT prieto_v_Page_060.pro
c365c9bdfb46dd140a4a753892037dd1
3d7db5ecd27254d9e705a97347bf13b290d0c12d
54487 F20101130_AAAIFU prieto_v_Page_061.pro
db2cde8f82410529c51e48cecfbd9031
ba00bff598341b1ca8e5fed481c233dd590d8919
6370 F20101130_AAAGRA prieto_v_Page_098thm.jpg
1960a2c9cf8239f4835006abc1d6b858
49a4901dc8ec1f4f520c7ba13eb72941c2c2539f
50672 F20101130_AAAIFV prieto_v_Page_062.pro
069e1e1658f4ef468e87d8d4d435f730
a801ac65d991b79282e8c7f30735ed0542a0fbde
106126 F20101130_AAAGRB prieto_v_Page_229.jp2
9cfdbae65c2fcc95dc1f5c7130abe7d0
3f86109675c19eab73f6615f9e4202b47ef5eedb
46756 F20101130_AAAIFW prieto_v_Page_063.pro
17843a4dc59f5205c5edd00b0bd7f846
3eb9fe69956e451a3783a06237f819244309f51c
51444 F20101130_AAAGRC prieto_v_Page_108.pro
80e76cc37fb05207dcf8250ef3dea7dc
ce3123647fd7382bffc00390802681a793770f84
F20101130_AAAIYA prieto_v_Page_190thm.jpg
dcd5a8c1b3931c4dc5219eec6007e9cd
21fba2fbd12551ce3bcc101a5d6dc0d8fd617ad8
52174 F20101130_AAAIFX prieto_v_Page_064.pro
305364b5b8522ac6b7af38c04ce393e8
a2c2248b0b0d76bc722b9e207b74ec2d0a29cde6
4743 F20101130_AAAGRD prieto_v_Page_281thm.jpg
e7325c4d794b91ec1775796bc1f56a02
2725216f0abc3664583263bdb14ccd95ff7782b5
18382 F20101130_AAAIYB prieto_v_Page_191.QC.jpg
22439dd530b483a9e23bd6168fc4470f
03e01c6f28099ba01f99935d9b67475a75bc342d
52333 F20101130_AAAIFY prieto_v_Page_065.pro
02dd4381007658bc6dd7e0b506bad73a
115e428ba8cf7ca1b79d6527031cf77cc9470e68
71121 F20101130_AAAGRE prieto_v_Page_083.jpg
87807c3bca5c76f644c190a50c72d791
00c9c6e42464337f636a7b75ca52147941752bc3
21950 F20101130_AAAIYC prieto_v_Page_193.QC.jpg
b1522251577ad2a77832e74d6e2e1c0c
4a97f04b5ad2e324fb7ef2c6b10695a3938745a2
51345 F20101130_AAAIFZ prieto_v_Page_066.pro
d0a8b404ed80e69f4399267222e01de5
0b0893b0efa09150515114f689a71c659d45c360
53975 F20101130_AAAGRF prieto_v_Page_117.jpg
511b1b41f9fcef08389c86e6405539e1
6a4c3b73b6e720bce2131bd8ff36ec5f4e515129
22019 F20101130_AAAIYD prieto_v_Page_194.QC.jpg
a31ce793bea065d71170ecc3894e6fe0
c7412b7b02774cc420e8033da07c5a680730a29c
47946 F20101130_AAAGRG prieto_v_Page_227.pro
2e41fa6c9b798ffba76837fbf5018a8d
6e4c6f67648114859a554119115065bf1529ff7b
6270 F20101130_AAAIYE prieto_v_Page_194thm.jpg
0ad43aeb42cdf261cd7a3789d771885a
e2eef9c9770eb32de262757513ccb10cf19685b5
F20101130_AAAGRH prieto_v_Page_153.tif
1fcc9bb81daae56ae1e1773be59e28b6
c2cf938915ca4d2e47e0117b50131d8344c1fa6c
72908 F20101130_AAAHOA prieto_v_Page_044.jpg
8251315c0c43bfc0efc578e456df46b8
24fe6beb83cfced2d7443c57014631f7bd754569
22263 F20101130_AAAIYF prieto_v_Page_195.QC.jpg
fb0369ea9792433ee9d7b85fd0263bcc
a5993f13de8f3febfd37412251ca92aff1fb1b92
F20101130_AAAGRI prieto_v_Page_009.tif
b1c569562698817ed506ebf7ce7da971
e9ebad454300d83f7c79a8c03edcfe9f40b0cda3
70450 F20101130_AAAHOB prieto_v_Page_046.jpg
2e62c49afbc2c54e015a010c499eb9e3
733ef1bcb5112e06326ed4971181bc2879545c42
F20101130_AAAIYG prieto_v_Page_195thm.jpg
8100ec8adcb679b1c43ef0f24932247d
d3da1d377435168cea4282e925718e0742a5ab35
124191 F20101130_AAAGRJ prieto_v_Page_270.jp2
853033bf6b5cdd5a9cd26fa6c6d35f71
3a267e14dde1be6af7ec347432dfc3228ae616ef
73928 F20101130_AAAHOC prieto_v_Page_047.jpg
bf4088a23265cced1632b3b98f7f2d60
0a4aa22b8a165abbbc91997f66a1ef15ade64e3d
6250 F20101130_AAAIYH prieto_v_Page_196thm.jpg
985ae5a6ffddedbf812e9ecf533cc703
ab458c652a3adc647ef1c56b213b8df0f2b48b79
F20101130_AAAGRK prieto_v_Page_108.txt
2df37fcc76be36e8872d6896bcee151f
46f15ace9188e060529a7252d9cf87c21156c513
55874 F20101130_AAAHOD prieto_v_Page_049.jpg
06668d8859368bd9d56639df110ed8d2
031733770db754830d710011c542dd61e5d1f4a6
23412 F20101130_AAAIYI prieto_v_Page_197.QC.jpg
391a285d25faf95c390d837a8f2ff7d7
8d3d1933d205be4e743ad292e1e7dcba473a5998
6266 F20101130_AAAGRL prieto_v_Page_152thm.jpg
53e35ee09043453e4d748e960796f613
16eebb28e7c6ab71b0ab009fd2141d3c4ff7e1b8
71793 F20101130_AAAHOE prieto_v_Page_051.jpg
4ec5c1a55ef3b2d36f142fa30d951928
082b74f54a80749d173ba8248382926ce72bd23e
6470 F20101130_AAAIYJ prieto_v_Page_197thm.jpg
075f5191a944e8d844c653d7a46b8b53
0612ccc10b7f75a8c3129284dfe67c5930b513b9
73541 F20101130_AAAHOF prieto_v_Page_056.jpg
5d552f3b5ab3b176ff4c1421d5c68a2a
f9c264013ebfd1963bcf2e4964f0138b0550e6a4
24226 F20101130_AAAIYK prieto_v_Page_198.QC.jpg
7d3512dea6dbb144307e8761af91f6be
422042f03d84954499b4528a5dae28ca8cbb75b0
F20101130_AAAGRM prieto_v_Page_247.tif
868da5a7f52497d821a1cd64a3612da0
f431f1b61c91870d151e37101bab7b184dcae000
69277 F20101130_AAAHOG prieto_v_Page_057.jpg
5880b6998af41c6e8537eaa9132eaa30
7c523b634cfbb68f00af9dafeaf97070afa1f66e
23401 F20101130_AAAIYL prieto_v_Page_199.QC.jpg
b4177f91b6cdebbc2b88a49c24238cbf
8e04493147d423c3627cbb7e3a9d6fb6c2052ecb
F20101130_AAAGEC prieto_v_Page_241.tif
03c416caa7095ddc4fa7e3363a435e00
5be828fcd8534eb0062085fb41582cc16d8a9127
48059 F20101130_AAAGRN prieto_v_Page_216.jpg
8f20c568e2858bfdb6f72c912628154a
d926d2a28ed42a5aff88f8775fe97ad3e65eabb2
72301 F20101130_AAAHOH prieto_v_Page_059.jpg
5c10d0120b10e6a67540b811a4c995a7
08983073acb794a6ba4163b2f03d79ea817c9be0
2039 F20101130_AAAILA prieto_v_Page_044.txt
08ab40f088f3cec7e6161c23fe0cf7d5
f822408ca4d8c4d4699ff38829ae1ab66f6a50f4
6502 F20101130_AAAIYM prieto_v_Page_199thm.jpg
53432993df50e6062aebc202d38da235
f05e7dfe47e5526cf92490ed43f7e9493c62152b
108177 F20101130_AAAGED prieto_v_Page_053.jp2
152ada913a2dc1a69eb16eb8bd8ef1c0
2572535045ab58ada5ad52142b573b5385715e43
4396 F20101130_AAAGRO prieto_v_Page_006.txt
b71af8496d692527b1b2d2264d2fa7e6
56d5cc6a0c9d01689a18e705a0740b307f0c5920
1921 F20101130_AAAILB prieto_v_Page_045.txt
69f8b5f1e1f5b98f46a85e717b63b0dd
8a754a5f4426cfb7930b0c34940a66d6546581de
24496 F20101130_AAAIYN prieto_v_Page_200.QC.jpg
7cb21f8dd4787042508ae0dc15d02188
7dd2447c2ab5b58536504d3b6dbbb8b721b3387b
F20101130_AAAGEE prieto_v_Page_092.tif
9353b98118cac475025d138f8952f62f
9b2aedc2f08cdb2b5f6fad35ab2cdb3e9f39c037
6380 F20101130_AAAGRP prieto_v_Page_128thm.jpg
c75d03b88cb439a40d892b1450ad80ef
81db7dcfd58b0936d473c73a35b55135d816b4e2
75924 F20101130_AAAHOI prieto_v_Page_061.jpg
fbbd79d21c4e84b1c24a09d8be09f35a
098a913ea558efa20905f078677792e70dd1b245
1974 F20101130_AAAILC prieto_v_Page_046.txt
1434e3634111203e579026b5da96b49e
c9cdb5855b4ee4463cfdfbf84a01248b02f02c95
6586 F20101130_AAAIYO prieto_v_Page_200thm.jpg
5b238a046f72e5c5320924e5ec071f13
7a008383bea7388047e1e5128e54a50f42b7242c
73269 F20101130_AAAGEF prieto_v_Page_213.jpg
e35d2cf82d0611ed2dd873bed1bae5b8
210a587fbb4a23f8abc33b8b2ed02b54bf399322
23543 F20101130_AAAGRQ prieto_v_Page_122.QC.jpg
3a823382492affad7791f0d25d95f200
323a266f1efbbb555b82cf2e4350eef23f0216d6
67030 F20101130_AAAHOJ prieto_v_Page_063.jpg
539bbee295b96faffa86c5bf4a1eda31
fb61838975d6a4a3e3378ba049deaf9e3e04043c
1616 F20101130_AAAILD prieto_v_Page_049.txt
43fe8865e440f896bef6de613725ba5f
feb06230100611e858a654b4ce38096a08168251
23557 F20101130_AAAIYP prieto_v_Page_201.QC.jpg
b77e83063249e887fd9d85a1daaf03ea
d9d4bc4f290549116c1e0cfb3b0c3ad6b6d1cd08
57356 F20101130_AAAGEG prieto_v_Page_007.jpg
88c036b81307db399abdb6454e7588de
2478dcf5dcf5463eecee960264890a7346a16e1d
20365 F20101130_AAAGRR prieto_v_Page_232.QC.jpg
25c9747df106b883c9a766d52b81a072
5d6fdfb73bf03912bfa3967135fff714f8846de6
71450 F20101130_AAAHOK prieto_v_Page_067.jpg
f3285d0650acd3ed04bc368005c859d9
ab3ba1e7c4fbbc9be38c188d14d8acc7a7430921
6726 F20101130_AAAIYQ prieto_v_Page_201thm.jpg
f872889bd36c4efef0d6b9788674590f
1cf871985db5bab5dfe7c090a887b01500612f75
F20101130_AAAHBA prieto_v_Page_175.tif
5f7b71a49afec2ecc6d6075f09d710b6
f3680837889910123a62ccf20f93504c573dd5af
69371 F20101130_AAAGRS prieto_v_Page_195.jpg
bf6dda77a62c6328e6f324f1691478ee
7f1d622d344038d6cdb2f5032d17bc92d1865af3
70308 F20101130_AAAHOL prieto_v_Page_069.jpg
47956bbeba6923ae361d814209d6579a
e0682c6d8cc2434698e27c5205a8e1cbf390bf0f
F20101130_AAAILE prieto_v_Page_054.txt
1c5797882e0bf168c9077293980b0bb0
aa3c159a3006a9804b8ba7e5238bf136adb45758
72258 F20101130_AAAGEH prieto_v_Page_068.jpg
ec69d760e91a059e3e121b3d1d1bf21c
269db44462244db576917176c770707269901efa
50002 F20101130_AAAHBB prieto_v_Page_070.pro
bce35ba46b927f3542b9d43f98811f10
41bbebc8e295f00d91396c181fb65a15fa8bffc9
F20101130_AAAGRT prieto_v_Page_048.tif
a7fcc6ff4a67e642f9a782543ae90bce
dd0a9681c9db1cf9c884de16594e73ac5c9d93a7
74729 F20101130_AAAHOM prieto_v_Page_076.jpg
eaed2d7a383a9729039fde895ba9b2d6
1ef391342a314080622789252cbef9d17e5ccb34
2097 F20101130_AAAILF prieto_v_Page_055.txt
894637544d0af475fdef6ca41ee1297b
716697b886a56ac78bceeb793aa13537867ac20c
1854 F20101130_AAAGEI prieto_v_Page_063.txt
48048736dfc7a94b889f547f25a5a4e0
09ab78e8a53e8c78dffccf78de59f8225b6851c5
6381 F20101130_AAAIYR prieto_v_Page_202thm.jpg
a7843d6853e537e3191484ef69235371
92937e11ae4013b9c95524ea38ee4239093908ff
43453 F20101130_AAAHBC prieto_v_Page_157.jpg
043317e714c2bd7539bb199e1c207b0a
97856cf27f972588b98702a6e692099019d324ed
1541 F20101130_AAAGRU prieto_v_Page_214.txt
109afcfcd7e802ff0abd37868cccc192
07d6781a4dfa9c0eb2da113035c89103acb7247a
40939 F20101130_AAAHON prieto_v_Page_077.jpg
0719c4b276ed9467740bea69bd4ddaaa
e1cba5fbc061bcbd17b5b83c2f2e36340afbeab5
2053 F20101130_AAAILG prieto_v_Page_056.txt
9536d170e853fdadb05c6e2394b297b6
679102b1b0a925c240f834065cf62d7c835e08a2
1929 F20101130_AAAGEJ prieto_v_Page_120.txt
b057771ea9f014852fc702c141b46c72
c6e5dbe0b48a75b0032fc5b5a50009492f683647
6610 F20101130_AAAIYS prieto_v_Page_203thm.jpg
ac03ba4c127153a85676ff2c691a999d
71c82da1090c631f78cbef101a4a45265df59881
110000 F20101130_AAAHBD prieto_v_Page_118.jp2
a2459aff6bd61e62e2c6c2d9c7c98b8e
5cd7b0a37711a39eca3a82feda469c24d34a0517
F20101130_AAAGRV prieto_v_Page_121.txt
dc558b780657359ad636fe54aba21499
31a5ff0e48035b180a0566f4e1dd9c2f36b8c500
76478 F20101130_AAAHOO prieto_v_Page_079.jpg
45f8e0398e5571ffd6ae0086ea89b2a5
d49035bc4f3e7905669750ed7b83af73cd0ffcbc
F20101130_AAAILH prieto_v_Page_057.txt
d6a876ff079bc63c90e77cec5cfea68c
75d8f9136d72f637fffe752153350c9d5b15b2ff
1944 F20101130_AAAGEK prieto_v_Page_083.txt
fa943ba20c418258416d1d5f5d827852
41f76aab5571dcb109a5220e14c2f54d2192404f
F20101130_AAAIYT prieto_v_Page_204thm.jpg
638fb429d656039922f023c1a7f3d4a9
1e033c46dc2a39136b12ca1712ddbfe7e3deebd2
21385 F20101130_AAAHBE prieto_v_Page_267.QC.jpg
cb60657dfe3976e2e6aa309e9f700ad7
e3fbedf95ea634b52f017b0bcdc95937cb031d3d
78346 F20101130_AAAGRW prieto_v_Page_280.jpg
4826346130c80b95235b9385a95bbb2c
b42d4b3f0923e9fb499e68f8df0990ca98c34562
68780 F20101130_AAAHOP prieto_v_Page_084.jpg
d23ee1137bf58220c8ae4a6c51d72440
6f1d0d5847d84a431fd93481165d834d8378d54b
F20101130_AAAILI prieto_v_Page_058.txt
4784c7e563b7cc1d22f68b9311907d0f
bcab2189e356de69f4cfd6b2612dfafe2ba675b6
70265 F20101130_AAAGEL prieto_v_Page_216.jp2
49b047d3f6b4d8daef4adbd19161c93a
577afb27f0151675dd4287e0f2f7c02540e57804
23979 F20101130_AAAIYU prieto_v_Page_206.QC.jpg
609be034ec07081edc07fd52f9fa934c
492e88a7aba066a78098d7d86f90b71231b5953f
103931 F20101130_AAAHBF prieto_v_Page_196.jp2
62d784f3c7e17ca0a0a95c6463c93e93
b9b72343dec5d9e302708bc29686821233bbef01
F20101130_AAAGRX prieto_v_Page_238.tif
af87e3d4482f9ffea15cea36940250c3
1ba6d20154e9d699d885222e69e1478d898a631a
69679 F20101130_AAAHOQ prieto_v_Page_085.jpg
10ceb4ae7f239ded293d8f90367984f4
4944cb22d9dc9e80847139cd4c82d5ddda7b6ab1
2020 F20101130_AAAILJ prieto_v_Page_059.txt
e6f78ea321f19b7cc069fc48e24cfc65
d2f97845b6fc2a9542b44a377bd6378dc324d6e3
5741 F20101130_AAAGEM prieto_v_Page_234thm.jpg
cf7d3b451aefa7a73f3545ae26141362
91c8b6b24de7f2fbc6770fb4459898fd9a6262e1
23726 F20101130_AAAIYV prieto_v_Page_207.QC.jpg
fa96ac5881a73607cdc02a847577906a
15188ff293fef4468c5ba4867afaacdab6c68d74
48887 F20101130_AAAHBG prieto_v_Page_035.pro
32891d2dc43047228437d0c4acf95a34
1b92431289fb4ef0ac07e7ff324f2039262d2d43
71677 F20101130_AAAGRY prieto_v_Page_166.jpg
60e958558b02857f75ae96452ae3efee
dac7ef8ab7d0c7596159f4117f0f7e0be2727c7b
71500 F20101130_AAAHOR prieto_v_Page_089.jpg
d527148db4019ae3d298551dafdb0bd2
d9611f65a4c7c5621aa80d6d7d1a80bf2ffda4d9
F20101130_AAAILK prieto_v_Page_060.txt
d55b73fc1f58b5405b1013c2fd7e3583
6a5d33e9ac6d589b0a5316c5cc47a60167d7d664
48994 F20101130_AAAGEN prieto_v_Page_136.pro
a60b4ac21da05be6ac803063ff7bd15b
59f994b061f92de0d95ecbf000d3c3461dcdd273
6697 F20101130_AAAIYW prieto_v_Page_207thm.jpg
b94551b9cff5d42ceb0ae7d586db3d60
a2152253a449a5f7d9df20eaa6d4e21b1ef722a0
23274 F20101130_AAAHBH prieto_v_Page_105.QC.jpg
5310268cfb4d97778929bda028c8f386
6a1ff000b872e976a552cfc39644a8f6a38c4336
5216 F20101130_AAAGRZ prieto_v_Page_191thm.jpg
7291a68d2605e0c1a8639d13bfd40c55
b44e239c557d12a5d9629e2c738a1b7aa6a74133
73329 F20101130_AAAHOS prieto_v_Page_090.jpg
0f850d8f9b961f372627a8c81096d1b3
5d498024311da7c38d4ea77d5092e7e1be9b58c3
2136 F20101130_AAAILL prieto_v_Page_061.txt
942806fafbbe51a3be99e5296c37248e
3db8198e2e97b4073578cf2539d81aada6138b86
57989 F20101130_AAAGEO prieto_v_Page_233.pro
7ca3c7aca42255e552f0508e21e8bd9a
7f1aa4d77c30996ff8beccde7336d048308bedac
23692 F20101130_AAAIYX prieto_v_Page_208.QC.jpg
7fdfe1c25ec67f29f647b3f2edc5af61
442a846fa96f2e0a0a18a333e067fe49fe68de32
72160 F20101130_AAAHBI prieto_v_Page_058.jpg
2e0f6a9787076db54f9e1d499567de01
15d1fa58c996e6537bf8a70e35618e9c5b7d7bdd
70401 F20101130_AAAHOT prieto_v_Page_093.jpg
cfbc29c01b10f1e8908fc8effa93a5e9
138b08a3dfc4dd729965998ffb5af0ae63a10346
2005 F20101130_AAAILM prieto_v_Page_062.txt
43e17ddcdcefeb9e86b9a047bb6bf4d6
b072bb66f339d60fb4c5678bc2783c8bd9ebf53a
63980 F20101130_AAAGEP prieto_v_Page_097.jpg
064a8e4f5aab5f7b02c31a4c9e60485a
0d47e4b7b624ac90b01503e2f360239976ef3f04
6558 F20101130_AAAIYY prieto_v_Page_208thm.jpg
3dc1789dca5234f0a22504e2fa7593e6
8da04e5e0189232df3072c38ec7bcb6d994f8863
52707 F20101130_AAAHBJ prieto_v_Page_226.pro
1c199fa96b9f4b179d364c303716f0a2
92ef3c9590de81ee18c5e4c0c436adecae927b55
75157 F20101130_AAAHOU prieto_v_Page_094.jpg
45659793142384e5eec41e9daa5c3db5
4db0cb1508a485e2df1640682309b6c14a58bc44
2048 F20101130_AAAILN prieto_v_Page_066.txt
a50fdc0cae26954e4e5d54460e4658e3
2a624b4f9d5b10e3685b2a0d02494d368c5bf741
F20101130_AAAGEQ prieto_v_Page_092.txt
9116c3b72f521239adf5a7ba8d6e95f7
73a409cd52cbe913d78cb0ba592da729488b59ed
4218 F20101130_AAAIYZ prieto_v_Page_210thm.jpg
6e78dd70ba1396f4446c81c4871e4c49
040d102248c8f410974bb17e12a84f70a570db11
73465 F20101130_AAAHBK prieto_v_Page_153.jpg
bfe9525caa3d8d70c1b048d4719d1c31
81b518db09e1c0934dc90f425ab6cde76fb8522d
68176 F20101130_AAAHOV prieto_v_Page_095.jpg
1acaf00a045b8618ffa7dfb9f011e217
4c180de6ca7e1c04df9fa7cb02f8d18ccf2b6b5c
2022 F20101130_AAAILO prieto_v_Page_068.txt
ea7c7c54f430f56b49ec3d8e25db0672
b3d5d3f0b2af832e858434395c0fc81320288e5b
98147 F20101130_AAAGER prieto_v_Page_013.jp2
074df32752cf0b224497e6faa9e3cd2d
26eba7cd488627fa3514c5245a08739fc7d5f379
99214 F20101130_AAAHBL prieto_v_Page_171.jp2
2f05790519d8aea84f26a85e7c3e3fa1
2bb821f18dd49b54f5d1f76c406a7bccbfb09667
71954 F20101130_AAAHOW prieto_v_Page_096.jpg
49a09ddcf0a4c16324526812e4456dc8
678aa77a223bf35d60f4f3baf16ba48b555d1293
1980 F20101130_AAAILP prieto_v_Page_069.txt
e6dd41ea996955d38c565deaed42e74c
0f13d702d422374188491d14f7a58a920bc327d3
F20101130_AAAGES prieto_v_Page_274.tif
1f0f3de578ea12551cc159f32813a166
c5730e84ba795958acc2f66f90ee87bfe813e911
F20101130_AAAHBM prieto_v_Page_138.txt
c0541270ab781c1a6bdc3e3b5e42af37
8e5913585e7d9c4286976ba9b4f2221a7aae4a41
71765 F20101130_AAAHOX prieto_v_Page_098.jpg
7c104838bb2f443b15132f2688187f50
d7bb8760e0af3a131d373f8ebf8f7d17f4549ad1
1760 F20101130_AAAILQ prieto_v_Page_071.txt
d15cf1603757b8aa72909a89e9580d0d
dfdacd570c4887006c3d2336f3113700fd1c65b1
F20101130_AAAGET prieto_v_Page_151.tif
88a29e59f0742a356791491d9b63f925
549978bb12f220862e26e593880cf5904bb6641a
67501 F20101130_AAAHBN prieto_v_Page_170.jpg
a1ac1835d8b58167e52a581663f64c31
49bf2551dd4bdb4d39d88f59397521d5961dee96
68399 F20101130_AAAHOY prieto_v_Page_099.jpg
d514ac974dd259299cd9a0e06b7edfc5
99873da5a6ddf45b5c4aeb0b941b12a0f824b00a
1996 F20101130_AAAILR prieto_v_Page_074.txt
741b10792309214fb30c7053bf83968d
814bb45ded0ed129508e0f7eaf16fe4072198c87
107763 F20101130_AAAGEU prieto_v_Page_222.jp2
91d3024c8c0b75633b5c8a9aee66ef1c
75656fdc88948edf5bc3dd4451c5a9466ecf2af5
111598 F20101130_AAAHBO prieto_v_Page_081.jp2
342550121ae738cefb097863a8724628
fbb47a64ae05e9a7bc238472a4883f9766afe59a
72660 F20101130_AAAHOZ prieto_v_Page_100.jpg
25761a3f97235ef3e1c955dd0559dc34
06f9ab9bdf2d8093b5d763e07f95fcac94405062
2101 F20101130_AAAILS prieto_v_Page_076.txt
09811c3a60851af86a6b9f37bfcb9121
fa3b693e36a6966d44afa0a2e5f0e30bc9b5f312
69782 F20101130_AAAGEV prieto_v_Page_222.jpg
bcbd1a28b1cf38726d9ff794982744b2
65fb0225b3451b4bde1007314f678f35ed93c049
F20101130_AAAHBP prieto_v_Page_031.tif
169f0ef02c9008125f8db1d5ea15e46c
b14b9dfe9e5ae68fb06a258ecd6eae184a019984
2171 F20101130_AAAILT prieto_v_Page_079.txt
ed906e69f501b38e9a1a319a0877e074
42d550620a46a90c7b97c51069fdee1673a9395a
69815 F20101130_AAAGEW prieto_v_Page_031.jpg
a9f19f0a27ab6933ead32c4036fd28db
20345663353cb8408d9388492556aca7935da25a
110852 F20101130_AAAGXA prieto_v_Page_039.jp2
b4217c649643d36b463525cbb70705ad
bccee4b5cb031d9b0f49f950f5ea424cbc8cd494
F20101130_AAAHBQ prieto_v_Page_135.txt
404299de7ae303aa257b41efd7af6bd6
38990efb10ebdef8c5e2c8419a15bc851fc77303
1934 F20101130_AAAILU prieto_v_Page_080.txt
768a58a93df37a7c2385ef4e4276ac43
5fe029b5a4d35b8a691516594c1bb4be70f38ba9
18205 F20101130_AAAGEX prieto_v_Page_215.QC.jpg
71ee5bd67f977e6d700b57ca1f7d7ce0
591498f67a4209f735622d538c6e09c04fb9deb3
F20101130_AAAGXB prieto_v_Page_279.tif
a55b2be46c8ac03ee243308227b0235b
0bcc2a2530eebd5e2e75e636993701afcc96a844
68583 F20101130_AAAHBR prieto_v_Page_193.jpg
926397a6dd3f1761775e82c691b27d37
d4e1ff66ee6cac8a9193df39f1c141f7f0d801d3
1955 F20101130_AAAILV prieto_v_Page_082.txt
69e6689bf72ed4408db19604a81351d8
51982316919077f644ece19e223a74ea0fda4755
F20101130_AAAGEY prieto_v_Page_200.txt
4f1ba1dae0a426cd3058b7ded066abf5
881737219d774c557ff1d82d93b6646dad94951e
21245 F20101130_AAAGXC prieto_v_Page_109.QC.jpg
03dcfc27be13597cc0f40daaae99c406
6e222bf682e64d553f39d3f128ef10e351ec9326
F20101130_AAAHBS prieto_v_Page_135.tif
99865398f0e096656aadb2683c1e9cbf
9a4a0382d61f65452cf3214368815ad0a66cfc46
1912 F20101130_AAAILW prieto_v_Page_084.txt
77db089d0e4ca4a5a215fb59b38661af
7e5b49c00f82f0c6b9ba7708e4b3879609a7652b
F20101130_AAAGEZ prieto_v_Page_249.tif
d4574e447b74d42fbf633d81797de9ee
9c0f8cded01149404214b30da9466af508de4a27
F20101130_AAAGXD prieto_v_Page_148.txt
c09b59601b30f84e8f28f8739f181dd0
71bb01c0ae99a4922366f83ae1baaeb09413675f
19917 F20101130_AAAHBT prieto_v_Page_229.QC.jpg
594375ce37cd4a1261ce18f034e76bc6
e2408c4eb9c4c684da35df73684a8f908db8aed6
1948 F20101130_AAAILX prieto_v_Page_085.txt
45ac37f1712dba01e44be8c46098eb8e
35c1fba4c6b0c7b01ab6f8e511bb918a7d1020dd
52317 F20101130_AAAGXE prieto_v_Page_087.pro
4b2128499c1278a5fe5946ea11e45655
f7d12f0fffc09896d025ce5306fb936e795d0382
30828 F20101130_AAAHBU prieto_v_Page_211.pro
6e8e88396f9abf2da10653051c1f6c19
62a8fad7f06605c5dea175027ab38ec81add1337
2057 F20101130_AAAILY prieto_v_Page_087.txt
d1355db0b935c54ce55c22624b10c0c0
709177fbb7f251884faf008d3b0678e6e140439d
59654 F20101130_AAAGXF prieto_v_Page_279.pro
aa851b843fc1cf534d7ac66dd6711cd1
ba32c36c1e5ccc37b771f3c6ca2807fd5dacfbc7
111843 F20101130_AAAHBV prieto_v_Page_034.jp2
fbc8310679e37fa0f28f68e56f72829a
3a88733416e5d7b43abdfa2e64d8b267d94a133e
F20101130_AAAILZ prieto_v_Page_088.txt
06ffe776cdf43a3bc00804eee603b4cc
79d6d499990104b4e083087986c6cbd4040d10d0
65313 F20101130_AAAGXG prieto_v_Page_029.jpg
ad9ac9120d07851637a1aa5eb22b1c6a
6604fb654ac05d32798174ee39b8275b3b0dce75
23029 F20101130_AAAHBW prieto_v_Page_091.QC.jpg
2caf8c5fc38c7bec5da0f136c72893c6
694dc49ff9ebda3800b231765edefd3178844e90
71737 F20101130_AAAGXH prieto_v_Page_091.jpg
d13d472cca6ac8559e5a9b06776fd909
c97cde41922a5f6d56943006371122f2ef60c094
6601 F20101130_AAAHBX prieto_v_Page_209thm.jpg
1662a73f7b62c995c991c96c645b5a60
1bed4f8ad98ee02644d80f741e3d5ac50852c980
58646 F20101130_AAAHUA prieto_v_Page_077.jp2
bdfc2624e3e1b47bc94174ec2367fdc2
635bf988272cba036700542d409b23e3e9490b55
44486 F20101130_AAAGXI prieto_v_Page_043.pro
5d5ee2e7012582d6249faec757747cfa
734495bdd42ff6cbc2928b5ec2c83711e8a56b9a
6453 F20101130_AAAHBY prieto_v_Page_105thm.jpg
cfd200b9e817a47c0b285e35c0d34e23
f81f638391cd0203dc98d8dfda08e8cee820015c
116731 F20101130_AAAHUB prieto_v_Page_079.jp2
9972d3fc18391f4fbf3d5f1c8507153f
f170599ee9ab538a1ebc7e95bba53bd2c5b58ce7
82219 F20101130_AAAGXJ prieto_v_Page_252.jpg
2adb6de7c50d91f82e7d76071d73b146
f04b41cd16df5cb8d2520d38461e82c75dc869e7
1800 F20101130_AAAHBZ prieto_v_Page_014.txt
fd415fd33337f09e03b4299b87ac470f
0f16c53cbb71944aaedf9b252b7ef7e540d1f65d
106472 F20101130_AAAHUC prieto_v_Page_084.jp2
c4c4c1bf32b3df3ed3cec8d85ed000e4
36687caf7f98e5c4800796a5c932a2072b69b13e
2007 F20101130_AAAGXK prieto_v_Page_036.txt
ccf4a8ca27636370ce3fc7872a4ef6d3
c9127895efb2ff26e899f75a96f90a7fc78395f2
105300 F20101130_AAAHUD prieto_v_Page_085.jp2
dacb88b809ace6c0cc6fc158d71d76ec
7d72e35b1d67fd8a1972becf14cdd85864ae51ac
6213 F20101130_AAAGXL prieto_v_Page_114thm.jpg
0985cc64c4d838da5b1756ab3d031594
23971511e8c65bb74942a474674c6e6723b8be20
111067 F20101130_AAAHUE prieto_v_Page_087.jp2
c0cc323aa6d0d765761ca9ddebe64e09
077fe4482daa92474389439bd5b368562e4cee5d
72057 F20101130_AAAGKA prieto_v_Page_037.jpg
6c14fd7e6b993fc1123ae6e924a463ed
bce96300112f2c683ef3eddca0f2114652147680
47317 F20101130_AAAGXM prieto_v_Page_213.pro
f5ac6803c7edf67ee8565063e4aac125
ddd0925ad33ae9013d1909dfafbd12d31daa8dd5
111040 F20101130_AAAHUF prieto_v_Page_090.jp2
25d05ede5009a03fa5a734d951db10cb
70b429c318064a108f64fd5276fad8de268a3ed3
F20101130_AAAGKB prieto_v_Page_041.tif
287c18726ac8aa642a5f3c34c5e6e2ba
1bdceb7d3c7a7a10f54ef2350e38e07114e48fd4
F20101130_AAAGXN prieto_v_Page_075.txt
71dda1029a324d08d0df001a274b72aa
dbf64bcc1a0a7436fae7eba9d06beb3dcc5fa3c8
107456 F20101130_AAAHUG prieto_v_Page_091.jp2
4da95069fc6d34f1f81cd93eb5c08499
d01532de56474f6b9d5ea991c31452809bb585bf
53653 F20101130_AAAGKC prieto_v_Page_179.pro
825b1cd5b13cc01407abe0a6224ad692
a1bea31372bc34eabead1058b241f4c492e8a6d2
F20101130_AAAGXO prieto_v_Page_099.tif
a2ecb87850fed47934f39230af85878b
8eb9a887f7db6b4738fc3fdebe3c8f8f94b88b7a
106270 F20101130_AAAHUH prieto_v_Page_093.jp2
f832218b4a135c2ad7d403fdfc467c2a
5aa1e96f8e53d748b7d540ab1c6ca042b966d735
23411 F20101130_AAAIRA prieto_v_Page_032.QC.jpg
12d69cfc8b8caf0290e7634410717923
5dbd717ee6926678e203430e062a73634f6e3afb
6415 F20101130_AAAGKD prieto_v_Page_162thm.jpg
82067267b01744fa67ad11ced714167a
db88454ea47e9455b7e990e8e4420ec122cd0d4a
22713 F20101130_AAAGXP prieto_v_Page_162.QC.jpg
d2548f02deed9929643e70768c239a98
13e1fb1d38e1ff38fe8d0cd0cfda9a14a3f98f28
114137 F20101130_AAAHUI prieto_v_Page_094.jp2
665ddca3a356a483de3859777bae07b1
eb36043843ab743f0c2eeade0ce6bb21b04c3e8a
23669 F20101130_AAAIRB prieto_v_Page_034.QC.jpg
46fa3b25779c1613a5569930425fe63d
842fd338650ac26eb55f7f0b80b1852bf90fcf97
2043 F20101130_AAAGKE prieto_v_Page_172.txt
b346acd0ea0e8261686ea17afdb7823f
e311aa036ce1b39c4b00c679f80d578e7f3a5a97
1808 F20101130_AAAGXQ prieto_v_Page_256.txt
1ec4d7579996fd26c2f0bcf0ce5516aa
ae561d348c6f23431d0ab8bf25440970140bbde5
103474 F20101130_AAAHUJ prieto_v_Page_095.jp2
fdb13458460ecb981a14b7158bf9176c
ad47c10e2e1b59efc7936d5f6f1ab0a3b7099a2b
6649 F20101130_AAAIRC prieto_v_Page_034thm.jpg
4361b110aa4d1487e8d41f13659a4f3c
1c11465ac385a0b250ade4b6cac6f7ea969ae07f
60698 F20101130_AAAGXR prieto_v_Page_192.jpg
593ab93b26309aa4bdd92b7b2140e3fd
13c63c4304e7a68b13e8402b13bc5abd0d808b62
108854 F20101130_AAAHUK prieto_v_Page_096.jp2
5452ce2563900102f6643e37798cd065
07f6a1be87df859b5ff47bc3f48c3a3f36ee4037
22728 F20101130_AAAIRD prieto_v_Page_035.QC.jpg
91d2f94587ef2a59918a4bef5b14c853
a2ac34fbcb6056dbd15586379bd21bc3096e0c9b
43574 F20101130_AAAGKF prieto_v_Page_256.pro
b5c81a432b888509235d2bc7a982154c
d636a39fcaffce41af524a81d6aab10eceae9382
74919 F20101130_AAAHHA prieto_v_Page_172.jpg
9a751de256b41b81d71660a3d0a5c57d
13b48bb399572f65109bee8c193ff63ad1a786d4
106185 F20101130_AAAHUL prieto_v_Page_098.jp2
909eeb0ca6183896c57931c9e9a2e6e4
bd826fe6b0f9912b0f6d2c52831c9810309b8cff
23780 F20101130_AAAIRE prieto_v_Page_036.QC.jpg
dfc852388fffcacdb3034de90576bd64
c6e3840e782a96a7e1cac7fa6c95a7f078451e23
108932 F20101130_AAAGKG prieto_v_Page_130.jp2
0c31e17e6f7ce3b63e25ec0b89b93921
fe255034a37e268a41f7ea0f101cd3e830dcb573
82303 F20101130_AAAGXS prieto_v_Page_277.jpg
41e6bac1dd9ffc1540ef03641ef68a66
6a0db4da191b4812ef279dc5e4b00775e4576512
100313 F20101130_AAAHUM prieto_v_Page_099.jp2
3ee306a7a0ded94fa9c53542feed9c74
55137a1c670d29345264176a31878ef90c66e311
6429 F20101130_AAAIRF prieto_v_Page_036thm.jpg
c799b99949f550d48da4d0ae3a42c413
6a288282c5afcbebf75976076177756e8e9021f0
23860 F20101130_AAAGKH prieto_v_Page_130.QC.jpg
13617f815e674a2d0a081a33f0841a31
24265c698b4e42b04d4e6695dbedfee4e872f95c
23249 F20101130_AAAHHB prieto_v_Page_111.QC.jpg
c07ec1f7c1c5d36ba36748f4db9da7b0
9aac98c57a7fcd4b09e585ad6391a96315a0a52e
48456 F20101130_AAAGXT prieto_v_Page_161.pro
654d2f42d06cb82ff88c53129138018a
710e09ff0143ea03ea5ba4ed9b367577b7124e22
104180 F20101130_AAAHUN prieto_v_Page_101.jp2
00ca235101884dbd1b512930d14d7d57
bd7f18c4902f5cf6d0bd872c8df0bcdccada406d
F20101130_AAAIRG prieto_v_Page_039thm.jpg
85e3d0f08151db29fcc18a7e428a9beb
6480d457dba2eb12c913f2c291edf9dd87536cff
F20101130_AAAGKI prieto_v_Page_067.txt
a2ed2dbc0ddcafe7d68cfa0ee0a1a409
693e9022c9a562ec075986986906a2057625060d
1913 F20101130_AAAHHC prieto_v_Page_221.txt
c88f8379bf8e7117ccfd4c6fe9a56e26
2551000b4d17555010634628391eae959c754a15
F20101130_AAAGXU prieto_v_Page_277.tif
bfb732e9bbd18b31738de63b6dc710a0
3113de4583cdaa44676acaa290158ece58fd829d
F20101130_AAAIRH prieto_v_Page_040thm.jpg
256f9ad07dd4bbca0b26820709d9bfaa
e2875e2cd7d32c83f9378a763788ff500a9cf48a
51501 F20101130_AAAGKJ prieto_v_Page_133.pro
5a2c787681f06bc2d83bb2047105122f
f29f874ccc38890a7994cb89295c64aa62dbd0da
F20101130_AAAHHD prieto_v_Page_265.txt
1dacc281c6d71ace33052018f436d343
1a1f36fcde3b4a78a8237bc8ac3743befedb7db7
8371 F20101130_AAAGXV prieto_v_Page_009.QC.jpg
c2175cafd6bc5ac5648b1d779ac563d1
ba76455a1121271033326bd2d091a9995e116557
108288 F20101130_AAAHUO prieto_v_Page_102.jp2
8e135680534937a0b57e87ab207d9665
336cb6d3f3b0e651fb47f44cfba2d8b48db403eb
23135 F20101130_AAAIRI prieto_v_Page_041.QC.jpg
f624121b1be751ba83facbdfd947b39b
79a97fbd400bc9f485f5bf1c2312e5bde78116a9
69190 F20101130_AAAGKK prieto_v_Page_136.jpg
950778fb9eff1f7f3d1bf0be5ae495e7
4104615e637391866a5d8a093de7105927db5908
26247 F20101130_AAAHHE prieto_v_Page_077.pro
49205672083ca4d7adc6e2a28dd84fa5
f5670a035a4e23f47872a2b59a8fa3121c7b0813
5400 F20101130_AAAGXW prieto_v_Page_008.QC.jpg
87286ead67220389b88376b9cf8bedbe
1278126306ac7e244d7f27a8ee2ab796dbe47986
111262 F20101130_AAAHUP prieto_v_Page_104.jp2
5f7dd5bc82977ef98d30888fcf1fb499
12e9b526cc93cd7761e1fe250692eeb8eea70fd1
6334 F20101130_AAAIRJ prieto_v_Page_041thm.jpg
cfdfd400f616fa2e333e7cc2da67e2e6
bf64d7314ee81f42c59819eed214675c98781732
55812 F20101130_AAAGKL prieto_v_Page_191.jpg
990065d94cc3ecd4ec407de8ddbfed08
e7e179e043496c8b4ca0007d2a725486d662f191
F20101130_AAAHHF prieto_v_Page_021.txt
ff14a297959cafbb37e1b60fabe48d5a
b732581a53af7e4453165607b53ec601cc3b632f
1867 F20101130_AAAGXX prieto_v_Page_139.txt
9b830f99e436b69c580808097146a52c
b70e5d74002de45dd211dea4598d2e3a66ee0b7b
112634 F20101130_AAAHUQ prieto_v_Page_107.jp2
1a689d69269660755c681d7459a863fb
2aa906d98cef9a157105e944b7e1f597b122c2ac
73023 F20101130_AAAGKM prieto_v_Page_036.jpg
88862dfd86a8d6738a4a16c3fd56bffb
2fc618c2868b5bec88ad1fa4d37eec37121dfcb9
9769 F20101130_AAAIRK prieto_v_Page_042.QC.jpg
d6055d268a9433e7c0799d0c850d3368
5358110214f62f43efb4b3fead5199c7e60397c2
21640 F20101130_AAAHHG prieto_v_Page_018.QC.jpg
a17d0845cafb8a9d4ec08f236fa4646f
584f2d7208dc6033702844ae8db63550a90ecf27
6504 F20101130_AAAGXY prieto_v_Page_091thm.jpg
f621ef8dabc146d9bd1a379098a30b8a
44c7e831ef377d19986561079f1abff4d029b1d7
107974 F20101130_AAAHUR prieto_v_Page_111.jp2
e1d4d958ac125b3c4cd17b3d840e665d
713e87a3e130a2c469c2ac10488b51a15b77cbea
F20101130_AAAGKN prieto_v_Page_270.txt
d0370ff7e425b2c6aaeb68a457ba8fda
0f63d2388c8ce78368f70fba6e1781dd9aa37537
3039 F20101130_AAAIRL prieto_v_Page_042thm.jpg
340214789326ce38cd9cd0e35bda2beb
8b2b18dbc0bfd82051a1bd3858e28c63609858de
27992 F20101130_AAAHHH prieto_v_Page_009.jpg
9547706eec79f8562771e6761db7fdcc
b27bfa23578f3229eaa140459ce72169da2e4473
F20101130_AAAGXZ prieto_v_Page_025.tif
87fa95562238d4e2039a1a0825798db8
57904a04dd5ef43547da179c84a15c1645d1271c
F20101130_AAAIEA prieto_v_Page_260.tif
6b4aaa5b7dbcb51996c75c07e73f7a06
07d06d4f01d05eca30f11cb10f70e1a797286070
19761 F20101130_AAAHUS prieto_v_Page_112.jp2
623b3fe0696ab8499a7ca3dc45fb7036
e0f72fbfb54f2207b95277b7ce97037716c51466
21127 F20101130_AAAGKO prieto_v_Page_230.QC.jpg
e909c6f78dcd4b4e60c5c92ae338e604
85017cd289817d73b9e3a7805dc1cdbc82bfdac9
21022 F20101130_AAAIRM prieto_v_Page_043.QC.jpg
9bdccd25e951f55b866afc34b9046ce5
87070dee723e25a67c8883ea5fd300e2382c1d78
F20101130_AAAHHI prieto_v_Page_039.txt
86b750ca7f1dc6a834ff55840cfd8bf4
5236506737a4b78e3a50f64effebe292a9715333
F20101130_AAAIEB prieto_v_Page_261.tif
10feed6d8092d6ca5387c4f18ebd3048
3632e349434dc0ea89a6b9eac9f68333d6fe07d0
98587 F20101130_AAAHUT prieto_v_Page_113.jp2
f6355e90d18e346a338462b6b9fff075
7649e32764f8b362e57f9fd02ce4b9617631824f
F20101130_AAAGKP prieto_v_Page_005.tif
5f4e10364b39535f440ab641e4ec8153
3a7645ea67b6691c4f96e887f3dd558dea4ff96b
5772 F20101130_AAAIRN prieto_v_Page_043thm.jpg
417bf90519552c48990d5ccbf0064a87
bdf786fd9982d18d8f3e2a3804c4351bfe97ecc1
F20101130_AAAIEC prieto_v_Page_262.tif
8296e6dd39dc99d5ad422fd8e1b829b6
b4ec44b6ea84d8a5c2e26fee3703b19fb4113ad7
102939 F20101130_AAAHUU prieto_v_Page_114.jp2
faa2492227a90e29e3c441a35532a9bf
dd0ea72c0dc84cd2d22bc14fa43d41fcb152c429
101017 F20101130_AAAGKQ prieto_v_Page_168.jp2
b71cb997623286f2650b3a1ecee6981c
59d6f7341cf4a12a3ea3b9fad5aa59385ea000f8
21252 F20101130_AAAHHJ prieto_v_Page_132.QC.jpg
4862f860694fe1adf2df0fe4458163bd
898b63eb544198dd674894472075f44d0d248c87
6522 F20101130_AAAIRO prieto_v_Page_044thm.jpg
da1a6a4333d279ea5ad2c5381aa22f75
7f718a8ae61441723e22665b3a098a62387247f5
F20101130_AAAIED prieto_v_Page_263.tif
42ce240fc5976a7c27579f2ba9a261b8
813bbf6f626893507ee85c1254e81591803b78f3
112034 F20101130_AAAHUV prieto_v_Page_115.jp2
b10384d3163b157b0eadc3a97601414e
0f3bb4cb291e29594f47cb5ee6a0581b213538a3
F20101130_AAAGKR prieto_v_Page_035.txt
4e505290a492960666507ca180f2f55d
d3335d853b2525561f646a43d880d8a7e9e6644c
104918 F20101130_AAAHHK prieto_v_Page_190.jp2
0157826bd056526cff8636e5da02b97b
4a539ac82b9fe050d079af444b3b89290456183e
22956 F20101130_AAAIRP prieto_v_Page_045.QC.jpg
5486f1e2e7277b9e6528c2e4b8b1723e
4af65c94ac6bebe216d8075ec96a05cb750c0511
F20101130_AAAIEE prieto_v_Page_264.tif
c8c58395fb764131f87cfc05cda6b4ff
0d8d8430fcb48d747fe6595a38a3fb9cf1d1443b
76703 F20101130_AAAHUW prieto_v_Page_117.jp2
44ce76e00186423a8fddb023d3e908a4
ce164385faa91d5934941c0df751bcdfa086cfdd
97746 F20101130_AAAGKS prieto_v_Page_109.jp2
b1ef7896a4a9ff2aed52bf50d6e118c1
7ca465a321a70d2227e85b3affbce8d1bcc0b68b
21359 F20101130_AAAHHL prieto_v_Page_158.QC.jpg
062b65240cef2ad9baf5c06fb2a941a0
62f368c718716bd3b3fb525518a6ee586c25c897
24228 F20101130_AAAIRQ prieto_v_Page_047.QC.jpg
559ebda664afde45a0b38f41efa460d4
56cee65a6cd2e22494b4c3866ab405093e806868
F20101130_AAAIEF prieto_v_Page_266.tif
e7179c9d5c149ebe1b08b8169d9baa55
9be5828df4fa140e7bf7649cb37850a8895255f6
112056 F20101130_AAAHUX prieto_v_Page_119.jp2
0b04b2e9ab05e9e849d9c381bca7bba2
a9da63aa530d31c71ab0456e99e1fe3e48b4ee1b
105355 F20101130_AAAGKT prieto_v_Page_242.jp2
c5d07908cdade983eb09729eca2b0fd5
ae686a8bde195d5c72c5d6f46d517bd3a0c173d5
79645 F20101130_AAAHHM prieto_v_Page_214.jp2
5dbd9e9be82e54777eb4259111515b7c
e448d8df152032302ac724070e31e59c51598375
6598 F20101130_AAAIRR prieto_v_Page_047thm.jpg
85e60057c662c53c8172472f47a49c52
4d97be05d02517503252b349369871dde061a65c
F20101130_AAAIEG prieto_v_Page_267.tif
0820b9515e8bdef5bd31176066ed3de3
5b5d73a0c064078ccebf386b18b5e32f789f99f9
104519 F20101130_AAAHUY prieto_v_Page_120.jp2
9f8478d77123bb3af2e2690f425a3cd8
7d65f4c74b28d1bc2d01fb9efca62107042ebecd
442 F20101130_AAAGKU prieto_v_Page_001.txt
86ea7956a80a0840484f1fadd2443a0d
c8447696aeaae1f0e374051bc300284fd64dee7e
125140 F20101130_AAAHHN prieto_v_Page_278.jp2
92a1084a98e005aedad56522b68e34e7
addf910a263ee93ed2f541185c6ecf17aa0f0493
5531 F20101130_AAAJBA prieto_v_Page_265thm.jpg
25531e6dd88aa964f233cdc4a2e5f644
ced91f9648a90a3abd6f1fc1d0084cdb37462968
18424 F20101130_AAAIRS prieto_v_Page_049.QC.jpg
96eceb755db7f47056e03e8d252e5d30
58d213f6c04258029ba51fb2ad6555e23a1cd65a
F20101130_AAAIEH prieto_v_Page_269.tif
e69f1d0976021fc157c80a5627797c99
01218c6bd9243bbb9fe7cb149eb88b4ce9bcabd4
110169 F20101130_AAAHUZ prieto_v_Page_124.jp2
27063c9496cc34bef54bf40fb7955e0a
a7f4a4465fe8101045363974da91da08713c5035
2014 F20101130_AAAGKV prieto_v_Page_073.txt
3e5e1e97d2b745740ac7a08d0226c545
d68d3821924ae219a32fc4eac2d4e8c9de406ffe
F20101130_AAAHHO prieto_v_Page_102.tif
9846b080d3b3847bc4205d6083d5c71a
aa6e15fe2ab74702f4890feee32cf6aa56a3de63
15019 F20101130_AAAJBB prieto_v_Page_266.QC.jpg
e58ec7de4114e5423dbe5e31ab26df2a
65995ac9926c5dbbf688a6d0cd5120a0411c2b72
5396 F20101130_AAAIRT prieto_v_Page_049thm.jpg
270766b4adb9ce368477df285f614a6d
fb1f4daa894a90d803c0f035245afc63e934ab02
F20101130_AAAIEI prieto_v_Page_271.tif
841c401a7392b233381ea4249306c7aa
fca1de314d06c87d5d556542745c7a1322e7ff8d
F20101130_AAAGKW prieto_v_Page_054.tif
b6f0b6284d46e742af6345ee94af93ac
c9e826e7f4b416e1be43d84ac205d09e3d4f7151
6674 F20101130_AAAHHP prieto_v_Page_054thm.jpg
60372fb60be81e04649c754bc4716909
699bc641229491cd13d9e4974876e5c55ca55bb3
24590 F20101130_AAAJBC prieto_v_Page_268.QC.jpg
5414154c799025bd7e1218daaa673ffb
16a12881b5c1269c4d21b7617a31faff4c531eb1
24090 F20101130_AAAIRU prieto_v_Page_050.QC.jpg
deb82b5f4654a8186268145c19b3abd0
dd4eac833fe6b6a7dd12706928d3d0b8152cacf6
F20101130_AAAIEJ prieto_v_Page_272.tif
a882306c665e3018a06bb80441144ca7
d3b2d1bc96905ddd781e483f44395b87169d0a72
24361 F20101130_AAAGKX prieto_v_Page_135.QC.jpg
c6d4155f5e59b7e2500a9a663696a269
2bd39f900a082ed922db5e70b549a25bdf4306c5
1967 F20101130_AAAHHQ prieto_v_Page_070.txt
68cf755f9ee065f261e716d3d0cfda48
aa5f65005606ca5803685945794780e51be72467
6698 F20101130_AAAJBD prieto_v_Page_268thm.jpg
1057d6099227e773e94cdf5a297e9bb7
9f91f6586543f8062e0e1c23f7286860dc4fa25f
F20101130_AAAIRV prieto_v_Page_050thm.jpg
ca9dd0e055c79e4f5c22edbe48a7a654
24ee6d9b084e7e262347f4be467711256f65c126
F20101130_AAAIEK prieto_v_Page_275.tif
de4ff1ac2f577a66848a9749c3d0ab9d
226c87fbb15138341379ca5257738d53d6c4731f
F20101130_AAAGKY prieto_v_Page_060.tif
046f3345b4de995d9c6c44be58b85d32
c6ad8a0fdfcc0b21d75e2e2976ba392bac99f94a
F20101130_AAAHHR prieto_v_Page_131.QC.jpg
b8a97e5e5eeca7dfa5bd981d48502a52
995c2c5411d374b081e8933900cbd2a7f6e334b4
F20101130_AAAJBE prieto_v_Page_269.QC.jpg
cce504f40da4800046e23dd07cfbdf12
62e16508e79e2eedb0f09184a584753d5138a0e6
21663 F20101130_AAAIRW prieto_v_Page_052.QC.jpg
9e1a0181816ce2ac5cde4ebb1db4787b
215bedba04196770964da83678f2f2cce19ed4fc
F20101130_AAAIEL prieto_v_Page_276.tif
9c383bd9513fccfe62d1461eadd998f2
06bfd466fe6902233021c45bea10c6410e404de1
73866 F20101130_AAAGKZ prieto_v_Page_088.jpg
b087bd8102d91699545096cabe914fdd
ac529095ee791c8981c3ee5a7618a7c4f7b9a43b
70636 F20101130_AAAHHS prieto_v_Page_180.jpg
59aba80ad42841f7ea25c740bc0b2a23
92c180b313fb2f737da98b5340a5be094314ed92
24030 F20101130_AAAJBF prieto_v_Page_270.QC.jpg
16d1e39cd1301609406ec6d41fa34661
cd3323d9566a923421aa4e1508eaf16f9dbb2f17
6297 F20101130_AAAIRX prieto_v_Page_052thm.jpg
58f792775b9282fb91b9a26d28adf8f4
6dab1e961c088a8d73e91e40ace5c9c9a967064d
F20101130_AAAIEM prieto_v_Page_281.tif
2d9f3d31407eb9eec91465ea5dfd6ff9
b6fb54316b842fc0c2f9bc87329183d10151ca80
52121 F20101130_AAAHHT prieto_v_Page_153.pro
d72cca67c59956ad3594e7377f6b9510
b19e3bfafd9589fc15b18c2e75061251152d0409
28997 F20101130_AAAJBG prieto_v_Page_271.QC.jpg
f7f8a0247937c803eb3a057a2b5ba060
d066e677098b860ae32d571c34fb81b0cd11e150
23195 F20101130_AAAIRY prieto_v_Page_053.QC.jpg
4f5e556949532c7b65fd92c656ef6538
52f460711bbbc712a1d99cb92d69b0fa5b86995e
38949 F20101130_AAAIEN prieto_v_Page_004.pro
1d0cb1860736f56274a6f2a4a3446c60
fea246a080363f0d762330be81b89b7ad1bc6e90
48503 F20101130_AAAHHU prieto_v_Page_084.pro
f7ffdec18118752aa08286df157fd281
7187bf5a6178a5ac51b7c3102d28e35c4d817a70
7374 F20101130_AAAJBH prieto_v_Page_271thm.jpg
2b082cdda57ae4044652e9572c64c314
bcb55ad0b39ba18f50ff494b83121e8281fb9fe3
6572 F20101130_AAAIRZ prieto_v_Page_053thm.jpg
d85a785c799bb488feef30d9d81c9877
08cb5ab7626bbe306c0604fce1c097fe8d554c79
79312 F20101130_AAAIEO prieto_v_Page_005.pro
5210cfbf76785e36d00e1d7c0cc4b5c4
ae2426a55f9670acdfe3227c978a14f090721856
F20101130_AAAHHV prieto_v_Page_156.tif
44439bf6a6059b3e6e52ea158d5c2005
ee903be1990789b2355619514dde831a5850172e
25206 F20101130_AAAJBI prieto_v_Page_272.QC.jpg
d3ffd511841aba1f7b03100477932b47
1184e1920376915d809c87745df6c4321d70a25f
58630 F20101130_AAAIEP prieto_v_Page_007.pro
ed59b26c1a1cab232af9a49811349e9c
292e533d6a9c4ba045bdebddd34e53fc5040d998
70935 F20101130_AAAHHW prieto_v_Page_066.jpg
7b2bb77992e777292caa8d55060c2ee9
e8c884992fa3049afff139264e930de8ca33a1e3
F20101130_AAAJBJ prieto_v_Page_272thm.jpg
09bfbe429e6bf9684ae6fb5a1d70ce1a
259b5fd56e0c8ba7c4f666b06b2bd23770ed1728
F20101130_AAAIEQ prieto_v_Page_009.pro
079d6c27fee8a100f2aff258b7222364
6bdfd7d8d2ed0087c0180b2c17bf3bfd538e498a
107625 F20101130_AAAHHX prieto_v_Page_110.jp2
d511a99bd037c5577543c3a449ee7e3c
15cf894abf06026fca68d4fb729a44d4bf02a122
23711 F20101130_AAAJBK prieto_v_Page_273.QC.jpg
d2764aeda5c3b35750028a8f28da0770
492e5d4e38bc1133995afecd14c603a24898a1ad
43822 F20101130_AAAIER prieto_v_Page_012.pro
c7dc9b6ab6a223b5622cb42b43cf4b7d
179862c3a60288c37e16edae30c7a896b1c7dd70
6433 F20101130_AAAHHY prieto_v_Page_032thm.jpg
5affd554c8f177823a31045dab5e5f00
950da02c222d39ed8bc117139f6f510b5d17544f
6554 F20101130_AAAJBL prieto_v_Page_273thm.jpg
f878c9be7f76130b38fb42eafd029030
cda1121c73377d8c0a3f9ab7b4ffa6364c322f5f
43270 F20101130_AAAIES prieto_v_Page_014.pro
1cb651196f093438a40c5d17b17f2cf3
9d92103eef2ae676d83703b96d78ce19c7da22be
F20101130_AAAHHZ prieto_v_Page_207.txt
767f6be69af2386d49594f2ea3f6cfdd
7714820631916f805ebf41d854e22620cf905379
23152 F20101130_AAAJBM prieto_v_Page_274.QC.jpg
c8883e86e0c24fae3adb7791c1e55139
51b77c54ec21df86af82b31708f042aefb2bc4dc
50693 F20101130_AAAIET prieto_v_Page_015.pro
c8f26472aa72ca1b1d0dba0dd2017059
e29033bb7e72fe0bf9b74dd1374817c7bc728b26
F20101130_AAAJBN prieto_v_Page_274thm.jpg
d5f3d6040a94a19ca55437b17dfd4927
ce55e7abdf18a2d83fc6aaafbbe87f2cbdc56495
47805 F20101130_AAAIEU prieto_v_Page_016.pro
c4256efee51dde2da2b84912ad77a9c9
e236d7607aae4de2a43b8bb1d646a68e699b317e
F20101130_AAAGQA prieto_v_Page_104.tif
b8c92d9acf2fa167ab389a7651ffa44e
ca7d77e992d514caecd89a6361ca95ee881db680
24276 F20101130_AAAJBO prieto_v_Page_275.QC.jpg
d539c418b31f0d7dfb8f78f30604ceed
bd6e4c097b4d5314e327595fcfa9a2101d7a6870
48669 F20101130_AAAIEV prieto_v_Page_017.pro
f7240f1a731cadc971c0ef39414afa6a
fc7852aaa2dbc03a773c875a1bc44ddba82b83d9
F20101130_AAAGQB prieto_v_Page_124.tif
9834805d116f8d25f556a9d17b7da49f
512c8ac9f41b9a514f3b5b5652308e081751dba7
F20101130_AAAJBP prieto_v_Page_275thm.jpg
e8eea947e1a76c1d39b5d35f47c06ea4
4fa49800b855091ba9d909f5d00321715fd344b6
46530 F20101130_AAAIEW prieto_v_Page_018.pro
d842946a089aff39433771c721078e49
64bd177d1dca1b37f393e91c9e12cfdb98b08ce2
18063 F20101130_AAAGQC prieto_v_Page_247.QC.jpg
fb21c004abf6b870a4964796299f7a27
33820c8d4481efaad4fa08fcf9c6601fc38c9a7a
25285 F20101130_AAAJBQ prieto_v_Page_276.QC.jpg
64cead0306ab24dc2cd6a8e28d3d5c76
469e5dfa5b767f3d2e7595dfc65702c4b2860dce
5942 F20101130_AAAIXA prieto_v_Page_168thm.jpg
16f821f4db1e9ee6ad926f1a8294d641
61cef192359ad5df968b4323b924a2aa2b80801f
59723 F20101130_AAAIEX prieto_v_Page_019.pro
a7e0c25a8dd25bda8acd28135dcad2d6
ef6440095cd807fbf6138dd2b90f157131d5b388
132394 F20101130_AAAGQD prieto_v_Page_276.jp2
352429664b9e1f9dacdf58955a3026cc
d46a43ab839c1667c278f0c8502d3d21d450fdb9
24213 F20101130_AAAJBR prieto_v_Page_277.QC.jpg
52fe6b81373d1e72b07407bc9885973c
79f2289a53c9a7545dcdc53098307dad9dc89626
6237 F20101130_AAAIXB prieto_v_Page_169thm.jpg
0cb7e6108f3df06b3a841d36104c94e4
d19bf8c06a8b03943572f18fd86c057e7a666bed
50512 F20101130_AAAIEY prieto_v_Page_022.pro
7fd2779c5464703922baadaa8ed3c411
2445015fd5114fc98b2285db3e185ed802005f07
23205 F20101130_AAAGQE prieto_v_Page_152.QC.jpg
065ff2a9fafd8cc26e462df08e720456
bca66154520f7f45da2f291d4b166331449e6f6b
6556 F20101130_AAAJBS prieto_v_Page_277thm.jpg
7138484c7c3524c2a7d0c9f39ec057b2
1f868ce46b287fe5c2f3b6dfc1d24291d90ebc26
21784 F20101130_AAAIXC prieto_v_Page_170.QC.jpg
d88d386bddc0d693cfc78d40cfd78e7d
de52e51ff9ffd16f37a463fcd1d3fc87dbde02e7
56768 F20101130_AAAIEZ prieto_v_Page_023.pro
9183ff74eb6a909602040036ee2c51db
a5cc700cf5f8b13190564242bbd079cf0a532427
1715 F20101130_AAAGQF prieto_v_Page_247.txt
3eb15a48f80d3df04547defda797a26a
7a004b1f0938ae092493e900f6d2cc7dd3e5215a
27285 F20101130_AAAJBT prieto_v_Page_279.QC.jpg
9c6fbbd7148c6988a4514d6b9423af04
33af02cba7369619eaf093ceab3b472b43b64a28
24851 F20101130_AAAIXD prieto_v_Page_172.QC.jpg
ee90ee0f6dc1fc2dc06faf33a08e90c5
9e9582a2fbb188c8a13438ad0a19fc6835822003
105132 F20101130_AAAGQG prieto_v_Page_164.jp2
e5f18b1fb55f54aa53c816dd25d24151
db7b5314dcd0322adceb4cbcb599312fe488bb60
7079 F20101130_AAAJBU prieto_v_Page_279thm.jpg
c18cb9a963f98e021226564b86309339
f88b3aa54a5747256578bbaa5855eab3d4f81093
21475 F20101130_AAAIXE prieto_v_Page_173.QC.jpg
35f23655a9af4cbe1f704baf8f20bb9b
2a1df06a06ef809f81a02f0e8c787f57c7a86d1a
6075 F20101130_AAAGQH prieto_v_Page_170thm.jpg
d250270d2061bade62309172de74fafa
fe737bfa7757ff1a98cd3a9b6f770cc5f5b0c7e7
6319 F20101130_AAAHNA prieto_v_Page_020thm.jpg
7f7fadb8fb6ac885228be372518d5dd5
77ffff5d3f1cfc8ff68310ffcb7a27e14088ee51
22891 F20101130_AAAJBV prieto_v_Page_280.QC.jpg
97518623830d7f442ec8a87dfcb8737a
44950fe38a69abc7804c776516dc18f88d2f380a
22221 F20101130_AAAIXF prieto_v_Page_174.QC.jpg
a415526f1c2e2dd7ee7d0ee569fc0a79
c7b77319863d137653e1e364d1845258161e1bac
F20101130_AAAGQI prieto_v_Page_097.tif
ddd63844dbe4711478cd823408e3c38f
ee7b1797710e03bf0e5e27d99e5a34e49f7c85d1
6637 F20101130_AAAHNB prieto_v_Page_015thm.jpg
d53818e9b14d88a9bfd554407a9438eb
6c9cb3423bd052bee6b2e8fcbf9cb499551318b0
6204 F20101130_AAAJBW prieto_v_Page_280thm.jpg
ee7b3c46831c6aeb0eda0091818c88a7
51f94862e61b8d9905d2295be55ca0abe1dbabae
22475 F20101130_AAAIXG prieto_v_Page_175.QC.jpg
91322637b47d70b4385d4d37b29e8cc9
6c42fb4aa2d04155041019e58218c07889eefdf9
66978 F20101130_AAAGQJ prieto_v_Page_144.jpg
3e883e5ebad24427e06a6ec680ab57ec
b9658949af8331950fcf21462ef6bfddbf8b4e55
416715 F20101130_AAAHNC UFE0010940_00001.xml FULL
e255388a02302a4ba94b3393f027c977
c3cd6370a426f5138b87ef91ef9dd56f1fba093e
321324 F20101130_AAAJBX UFE0010940_00001.mets
0db07658c2c78687be4d1b54c301fa7e
4d80cf93da5bdcfb83c7d20d1156eb1dfc28ca3e
6225 F20101130_AAAIXH prieto_v_Page_175thm.jpg
1ee08a2e7d2a2e9d55b34de0957c4ebe
e637447f3e7cc5c10f45fcd8d3319ccd15eea2a4
23673 F20101130_AAAGQK prieto_v_Page_039.QC.jpg
1199aca8a8f049d0d0522f70e14f1b1f
a739044c1c139f0365d8d8a2e40680f6c725ba5c
22932 F20101130_AAAIXI prieto_v_Page_176.QC.jpg
ff3b9303e5713e9cc27ef4ee03019402
03830f760c6ac457c81a3e01daf505f781e56e7b
6440 F20101130_AAAIXJ prieto_v_Page_176thm.jpg
266ba18a6af36d88cee1c98191ee0178
18c654ca5ecfb733403f053df8767a76e110b8a7
51456 F20101130_AAAGQL prieto_v_Page_107.pro
4acf3d53beb0b9ee483ba894de788e37
aef687d7d6f0e7d8ab4da45e20b373c16a87c266
10474 F20101130_AAAHNF prieto_v_Page_002.jpg
fbe75a49e79f73ceddff56edfa098ae5
dfe3f72ae6781b6f0aaac039cb15846427acdc8a
24132 F20101130_AAAIXK prieto_v_Page_177.QC.jpg
dcc69363f7f1d8df3101b7e2750e626d
5fc943b6ae1dbc738bd862c994755e0099a695f6
F20101130_AAAGQM prieto_v_Page_249thm.jpg
a3fe678328d3660ee6a48d4cc98df3e8
8f7c6d46b22c9d111668497bad7dba6e83715cef
22360 F20101130_AAAHNG prieto_v_Page_003.jpg
cf74ead172f1a62516ad565bba236cd8
3a964ce87e04bcae96b695cc6867c2717b5eaaeb
F20101130_AAAIXL prieto_v_Page_177thm.jpg
c833b5c7fec0a52be104bbf56987bc00
9bf9b73a2a4cbf91d09a2b2e84f6111f065c2f5a
56950 F20101130_AAAIKA prieto_v_Page_269.pro
271fc9557be5d301338a2e6d09d0ea40
6f0e29e53a8c20384f59afb02976c31b96080b2c
6388 F20101130_AAAGQN prieto_v_Page_067thm.jpg
2b6c32aa61a1ea47e6a053f754e8e92f
481362894b9ecb625ac8d271f12688df39cd13ba
24599 F20101130_AAAIXM prieto_v_Page_179.QC.jpg
8cdb889cad272d9e3feb85a6f4257737
efca48ab705d04907e09cf15c89dedb84270eb9f
57107 F20101130_AAAIKB prieto_v_Page_270.pro
8c87570c6aa0b61da5825f80b0e3ac66
35878f4a26a1d73ba431b7a21c8cee207565fad4
71653 F20101130_AAAGQO prieto_v_Page_026.jpg
65d6d21bb99db79b5080b9107b1f1c07
bd3a89ea6a30cbd6c2f7db269057b2be420a435e
58026 F20101130_AAAHNH prieto_v_Page_004.jpg
ff3b81bed16eef35524e93c63c76d3b2
b8c8fa22d109fe7e7c88bb7fbdc508df2463c322
6738 F20101130_AAAIXN prieto_v_Page_179thm.jpg
437f77ef3819e57464c3de8d0fd10463
f7e52dfe995780023766b41e8bf71963f4b3224f
67407 F20101130_AAAIKC prieto_v_Page_271.pro
d44cc86c216f428c379178ab977ded94
49ceb83a17a3227989984d5155c1372c14201848
20923 F20101130_AAAGQP prieto_v_Page_224.QC.jpg
68c56b09d9256337d0344070b8e66c27
a4f08bff28a7269053a7b5b0a4fd042a7c813602
70952 F20101130_AAAHNI prieto_v_Page_005.jpg
dade0c326021f413f0bc525c9cf5b9a9
b4fd0aa9380165284447260550b81b4f81fdb2bf
6402 F20101130_AAAIXO prieto_v_Page_180thm.jpg
91311df7af1faed314900e64ccdfadab
e68915ef8d2c6b880dbea158eb4b2128b47ed1f7
1922 F20101130_AAAGQQ prieto_v_Page_072.txt
69b1ac45adda360c0181634a1968a7b4
8994d19395fe17e736a6abcd65b25e462f3c10a4
85439 F20101130_AAAHNJ prieto_v_Page_006.jpg
94ecb3c4119d1523a6574067daa360bb
1dc09e0948ba5e5e5d840fb48f8c4d4be64f96ed
22528 F20101130_AAAIXP prieto_v_Page_181.QC.jpg
6e191d55fbde29968faa980598923f3a
844d328b0b32dab328a6d4c4222d76fb486c885b
62020 F20101130_AAAIKD prieto_v_Page_272.pro
2700d7d4aabd9e2755f27bd6378b974d
3ca77a9d75ebbd869dce820582ff27786fb8d0d8
F20101130_AAAGQR prieto_v_Page_159.QC.jpg
d8dbb1d2807e80e091dd7f72d9e2fdbb
9badf12233b52d421c34036ee3b980b1f1047469
63950 F20101130_AAAHNK prieto_v_Page_012.jpg
13e9eb9bbd159ccca41b8d808b979795
78fc09e16162fd25ad6e7c6d8150516ae9243ff3
54860 F20101130_AAAIKE prieto_v_Page_274.pro
5b576cf73093597070c8583f3f596a9a
21e77960730735fffde71a7b2f383537c0d83138
6666 F20101130_AAAHAA prieto_v_Page_081thm.jpg
b5d71b0412aee6736d56ea98e1aa1740
66a6630608bb8238c5997f5ba250d61a10396ca6
F20101130_AAAGQS prieto_v_Page_023.tif
c5302f10004ff383a2be85f61802f13a
371e57351dc47b2e1c3c9187b7a6de36680c5d79
64871 F20101130_AAAHNL prieto_v_Page_013.jpg
04467a6a2416aed7bf5e85c1cc5d5e3e
6e78b652b5df0f2ff3da1a108e8af594671446b3
23792 F20101130_AAAIXQ prieto_v_Page_182.QC.jpg
7fa34d4c1ab9d909d253df61f8209136
f5cd1d71cc4cbfd93a70628b2bd33341c2abe115
60075 F20101130_AAAIKF prieto_v_Page_276.pro
3b971e2042a703421b9c1b62eda8fe64
51894580612550e3d265bba8c31e83f82b0b87f5
F20101130_AAAHAB prieto_v_Page_223.txt
b89b32fd2a75ca027946b8452f898e7d
b8ce5bef9c867feb9c039175d2144cb9fd449533
38779 F20101130_AAAGQT prieto_v_Page_011.pro
48d2c6506d83f499e1cc34ca6128fbb9
a8abd92d31faf92aa395a0ce7022b8837d141cb5
62935 F20101130_AAAHNM prieto_v_Page_014.jpg
72913f305e4cece884586f4a9ca161ee
012d5a5e664fd110c2f6b11819b08921f30a92a7
F20101130_AAAIXR prieto_v_Page_183thm.jpg
eb79aff52ad9608f5ccb11ae8e6a1828
de37c128b12ee6a5301ed5d774686d9d869fe029
56372 F20101130_AAAIKG prieto_v_Page_278.pro
1feb5c385d731a5e97b762fd2a478988
5fcef33f0a3bd5370565ac65d1d8b352032ac900
F20101130_AAAHAC prieto_v_Page_238thm.jpg
54d871cda71133d79116d26cdf32fdab
4512d253badf46daffe6e758db306ed34d0e3eb6
105743 F20101130_AAAGQU prieto_v_Page_060.jp2
e8b07460b5ae533357b8dec38e52c675
71bb12fa8094cee57015a870b9ab503a0a68447c
71795 F20101130_AAAHNN prieto_v_Page_015.jpg
82006c0fed5f7324aff284b4efa8df99
ef45cbdeb3cde4ff81a659a98fadf30b6144ca91
23646 F20101130_AAAIXS prieto_v_Page_185.QC.jpg
f1348bcfad471bbf600d0ce55b96169c
8634127b7688994f97dd548df4c15c43caeb8fdd
119 F20101130_AAAIKH prieto_v_Page_002.txt
ca1157706b1e10e7f4fd252639b2d8fb
dc4f7339a62a517a9e4ad919231848bad2cbe238
65005 F20101130_AAAHAD prieto_v_Page_261.jpg
62e704e32a86315ecbee5185b121c7c3
5c7d4383bc0f3c0ceeddd5631da62885cdf6ad5f
21900 F20101130_AAAGQV prieto_v_Page_219.QC.jpg
be7602d6ef7df8c824aa50d399560a75
9401ce40e438197d0a35b8aee11049cda421dc8d
68781 F20101130_AAAHNO prieto_v_Page_016.jpg
6d1cfaf58bb39b160e8f5827c37d8aeb
5ef3b9c35abc8dc872d85919bdd4d830ed978da4
6448 F20101130_AAAIXT prieto_v_Page_185thm.jpg
03e3ad35804caf083693b32499ff2607
b9b3bc949003ce2ccb35f71067e7f2b1362f44f8
493 F20101130_AAAIKI prieto_v_Page_003.txt
eb4146b08c011bbfef6ddfc008841dc1
d0a73af682b2080082a309d9881d3cc0d03f3061
72664 F20101130_AAAHAE prieto_v_Page_087.jpg
e3d9e67d60daf8da8626639a034e8449
29e282d60583ed0e7e82eb29bf6a53f9f232570a
64684 F20101130_AAAGQW prieto_v_Page_109.jpg
a06be50806b221887db3913f42c87d13
413e6eed19855c4bd27dae227231c862d42e093a
67726 F20101130_AAAHNP prieto_v_Page_018.jpg
8462ad23678afdf49b00199ecd0a1caf
f36fba9231b782bc18dca8366a943263b4c30c87
23441 F20101130_AAAIXU prieto_v_Page_186.QC.jpg
a2aa289d96517c859e09ad4f2b3faed7
9b05d3083fa40308e11c648affe4e82af90544cc
1588 F20101130_AAAIKJ prieto_v_Page_004.txt
aa5e63da9a170e350438b7e5e6c77731
891344e03f3a074f87d2aca10ffea31cc15a6287
47278 F20101130_AAAHAF prieto_v_Page_168.pro
1aca3b99cc55657ac24f525c1478a597
ecced0dddc0ce3c69690d2fdfbd0109806c7a7a8
76859 F20101130_AAAGQX prieto_v_Page_125.jpg
1c1116d6b97ddaa7f9f91c9e9b3fd8d1
813593d129c09f0473c6ce6b49d0ddd80a93571b
78988 F20101130_AAAHNQ prieto_v_Page_023.jpg
0cfb1208bde4c4b7f9d3e1bb5c3b5d08
1c8bb0bd4929fc7427726ce0874a7ea09f4a64ac
23561 F20101130_AAAIXV prieto_v_Page_187.QC.jpg
00bbdabdc0d7c6df925f199585aa0dce
45a97fceec8574ebc20f8d3a51a0849c9b47bdb4
3289 F20101130_AAAIKK prieto_v_Page_005.txt
26049d85b40629cc7060ec64a31bea8e
a8728f70bc4a18280a97094a7eda90217e7a3c0d
45012 F20101130_AAAHAG prieto_v_Page_127.pro
1f722f1026d68b378058ec41db055ef7
00c0eff3983367bb129c4adfc76d6370b1b0ddb0
1051969 F20101130_AAAGQY prieto_v_Page_007.jp2
1b1bd3d018877eb244c9dbdc76079000
f7018de4db66124d812d10a6058e1c2bfc5c3f2c
68685 F20101130_AAAHNR prieto_v_Page_027.jpg
2fb791d2cf97542d06e3932e9e29ebc6
79dde66000561cada786aa989040b93ddac27d4a
F20101130_AAAIXW prieto_v_Page_187thm.jpg
f85da2888e44703ee695121b066b4d69
ff760e7b5502ea795a2f20088e51e0bf3332e66a
48144 F20101130_AAAHAH prieto_v_Page_045.pro
02a83538014a001e9f99a855719b095e
a07b64945696b29eea70180f533df6f9dc440ab7
72376 F20101130_AAAGQZ prieto_v_Page_065.jpg
76a2dbaee5fbdd335af74d983735dfdc
f2897c9077c9c1a87d6415fde8edbbed31d1f489
70299 F20101130_AAAHNS prieto_v_Page_028.jpg
0dcb8e4f4f20fed557e31defe01a607e
c917d751931a6bf1ca5e042460fce8080d6104fa
983 F20101130_AAAIKL prieto_v_Page_009.txt
0b796d3cad87d46325b11f87ca9fdfab
6ffcf22c88cfdb5e627bc7606e65979c94921854
23534 F20101130_AAAIXX prieto_v_Page_188.QC.jpg
9064551031747bc965c34101411a4cba
205dcb55ea85664977e6f15c58961184d382107b
110571 F20101130_AAAHAI prieto_v_Page_201.jp2
19a60ebe0037d6389ef24f4be82dfc04
9b26153a93fa3ce0f65f972e3babf0cf3e33a84a
75442 F20101130_AAAHNT prieto_v_Page_030.jpg
5012c1f5f5cc4e81ecadcbf6f9111faa
0ae92c05af80fcf7f204904d8eaabca0a632331e
1609 F20101130_AAAIKM prieto_v_Page_010.txt
5961e61ea001d1ef72534e0bb0f0877f
3235d8cceafd3711bc5712bb70d174e3336794ed
6485 F20101130_AAAIXY prieto_v_Page_188thm.jpg
fb3dcc28c14689ea655071bbfd3e1e9f
bde7899b99099c77d9469035ffbd371903173cd0
F20101130_AAAHAJ prieto_v_Page_073.tif
c5613e075dcad25c782891672f74c35d
329d95ef128d7e97764de24b9611ba6dff806767
72326 F20101130_AAAHNU prieto_v_Page_032.jpg
cbc14284f952c634852cca442404aeb8
eb4e8d101d88a455a847f32a410bf4715fab48cf
1809 F20101130_AAAIKN prieto_v_Page_012.txt
5499db45e86a19d99a5d3069a8a41b44
665aa51fbde3f568a7910dd5d83d2cb5d817c538
22612 F20101130_AAAIXZ prieto_v_Page_189.QC.jpg
057255507574bd7f6ee723f9a84f7515
ccb3e93946a9f87c3aae6dbf846ccdd03dbd86ed
22889 F20101130_AAAHAK prieto_v_Page_183.QC.jpg
dac6f46a718f3c0334e4a7ff469d2ffc
ded21333423eeedb0e4a3db7d2fe6bcd346f2f05
72605 F20101130_AAAHNV prieto_v_Page_034.jpg
a0f4b24dcb1c59d6dd42bf314a2f62ad
08b4537f960bdf3883590e9f480f61e3d3fcde41
1744 F20101130_AAAIKO prieto_v_Page_013.txt
e56def1ad5177925a2215a46a48913f0
326d59898e3f5ef5c33f0cd809d4a37c946e83a8
5281 F20101130_AAAHAL prieto_v_Page_250thm.jpg
6c6ba66436b823643c39ca0f5e7f91c2
96f37fbe1f20acf637ec9c60c1d44194b469ee3a
69347 F20101130_AAAHNW prieto_v_Page_035.jpg
e886846ae916586aef5d12f6da1bfadb
77c27a63eecf17d18754d60529ce3abb90d6010d
F20101130_AAAIKP prieto_v_Page_017.txt
9316ca8246762ec6cb3f0fda6df90663
4f6f7cfb4052e753fd2939bc5322e7d4bbb8a74c
69985 F20101130_AAAHAM prieto_v_Page_140.jpg
8bf15e8c05b8e188bf88b9be51831407
469cbfcb59d8c6f2a0be172bad636df8133f52d3
72756 F20101130_AAAHNX prieto_v_Page_039.jpg
51338ca2741bb1949a346ec7face0bfb
48731e6eb53c8e0782e3b50a855010ebee8f2bb5
F20101130_AAAIKQ prieto_v_Page_024.txt
8c19fe0c6379bae28658fa431a830526
22c3d24c22df0176e542b9dc4c94fd104258c0e5
69964 F20101130_AAAHAN prieto_v_Page_120.jpg
d0755edff94e6ad22772187dd0150af2
a635a02bba09f68c1d895c6c438879c42a50ecc9
67736 F20101130_AAAHNY prieto_v_Page_040.jpg
2b621261e0dab9502903a3e04deaebdf
b878b3f481a324365851c6408c64e0d12ddde87a
F20101130_AAAIKR prieto_v_Page_026.txt
e8c69d01d5261b42fec336ae614528bc
643d2c57e2197e7628132bf4fa70c7e033a64ab6
74425 F20101130_AAAHAO prieto_v_Page_200.jpg
314f5ceec4e7ffdd824b095ad4d83098
38b4887edeefb060e59f6f34004589d0daefca37
65528 F20101130_AAAHNZ prieto_v_Page_043.jpg
91b842e13b7327f7630f11e6b99ffe17
4da3a98f9840b74c5384ae14dfda390765908986
1660 F20101130_AAAIKS prieto_v_Page_029.txt
4f876597bb3a0decbe20e06b1c79012a
5e1c1d4c82fb96ae7a69d8199c6af496f1307715
22938 F20101130_AAAHAP prieto_v_Page_070.QC.jpg
e2d156ce699f139335ee12ff2734d800
59bdddcd1b46afe210e2b755d0c067110f865bbc
F20101130_AAAIKT prieto_v_Page_030.txt
ea8cda7f25178323d591fd083dd71b8f
16db57a8ec4735d2c287bd077916372ac0157800
106532 F20101130_AAAGWA prieto_v_Page_128.jp2
958fd356ca7068e651994105c32480a9
dcbd948a1bb8829b059ba2135d0ef66f67a655a9
23994 F20101130_AAAHAQ prieto_v_Page_074.QC.jpg
b2b18f850e387084414f1e500152db1a
b585ef2bfd3bcf900c466d4e78fc34618f4026ff
1988 F20101130_AAAIKU prieto_v_Page_032.txt
994c865a3e523ca180549fbe1fccca22
1cff246c41dc0bfaa1f0199627340ef5fa31dc72



PAGE 1

SPANISH EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: PRAGMATIC, SOCIOLINGUISTIC, AND SEMANTIC ISSUES By VICTOR MOISES PRIETO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Victor Moises Prieto

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to God; my wife, Monica; my son, Victor Emanuel; my mother, Silvia; my father, Juvenal; my siblin gs: Raxil, Isaac, Dani el, Ruth, David, Javier, Judith, Martin, Nali, Antoine, and Pipo; the linguistics and Spanis h departments at the University of Florida; Baptists in all the wo rld; Hispanics in the USA; my home country, Venezuela; and my second home c ountries: Colombia and the USA.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank God for His help and company during all these years of fights and victories, sadness and happiness, and defeats and triumphs I feel forever grateful to my wife, Monica; my son, Victor Emanuel; my parents; and my siblings. I would like to express my special gratitude to my supervisory committee chair and advisor (Dr. Diana Boxer) for all her suppor t, understanding, teachings, and help during these years of graduate school. At the same time, I thank my other supervisory committee members; Dr. D. Gary Miller, Dr. David A. Pharies, and Dr. Shifra Armon. Each one of them immensely contributed to my training, le arning, and research during this time of reading, preparation, investigation, and writing. Other professors who are not members of my committee also contributed to this final product at some point: Dr. Caroline Wiltshire, Dr. Joachim Camps, Dr. Theresa Antes, Dr. Er ic Potsdam, Dr. M.J. Hardman, Dr. Ratree Wayland, and Dr. Edith Khan. I al so express my gratitude to Steve Flocks, my editor; and to my classmates. In general, I feel apprec iation for the Program of Linguistics at the University of Florida for its office staff, Joan and Jolee; and for its entire faculty. Finally, I would like to express words of gratitude to the Baptist Hisp anic Church of Gainesville, FL. since they constituted one of my main sources of data and information. I will never forget these people, this department this university, and this church.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Research Questions.......................................................................................................3 Literature Review.........................................................................................................3 Pragmatics.............................................................................................................4 Pragmatic Theoretical Tenets................................................................................6 Sociolinguistic Perspectives..................................................................................8 Evaluative Morphology.......................................................................................10 Morphology in general.................................................................................10 Evaluativeness in morphology.....................................................................11 Methodology...............................................................................................................22 Ethnography........................................................................................................22 Data and Participants...........................................................................................23 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................26 Morphopragmatics...............................................................................................28 Conclusion..................................................................................................................30 2 EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: FUNDAMENTALS...........................................32 Evaluativeness in General...........................................................................................32 The Morphology of Evaluatives.................................................................................34 Evaluativeness Cross-Linguistically...........................................................................40 Non(morphologically) Evaluative Languages: Evaluative Syntax.....................40 Morphologically Evaluative Languages: Two Types..........................................43 Linguistic Postulates and Evaluative Morphology..............................................47 Origins of Spanish EVALs.........................................................................................49 PIE and Latin antecedents...................................................................................50 Other non-DIM Latin suffixes......................................................................52

PAGE 6

vi DIM’s formal grammar................................................................................52 DIM’s original senses...................................................................................54 Changes in meaning and productivity..........................................................55 Augmentatives.....................................................................................................58 -azo...............................................................................................................58 -al..................................................................................................................60 -n.................................................................................................................61 -ote:...............................................................................................................62 Superlative...........................................................................................................63 Conclusion..................................................................................................................65 Notes.......................................................................................................................... .66 3 SEMANTIC ISSUES..................................................................................................67 Semantic vs. Pragmatic Polysemy..............................................................................67 Cognitive Semantic Model: Radial Categories...........................................................70 Diminutives.................................................................................................................75 Core Sense of DIMs............................................................................................75 Chaining Links....................................................................................................86 Augmentatives............................................................................................................94 Core Sense...........................................................................................................94 Chaining Links....................................................................................................95 Superlatives.................................................................................................................98 Conclusion................................................................................................................100 4 PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS...................................................................................102 Diminutives...............................................................................................................104 Semantic/Neutral Uses of the Diminutive.........................................................106 Pragmatic Uses of DIMs...................................................................................110 The affection function................................................................................110 The derogation function.............................................................................122 The attenuation function or polite DIM.....................................................126 Augmentatives..........................................................................................................133 Semantics-Driven Uses.....................................................................................135 Pragmatics-Driven Uses....................................................................................136 The intensification function of AUGs........................................................136 The attenuation function of AUGs.............................................................139 Superlatives...............................................................................................................142 Conclusion................................................................................................................145 5 SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS...........................................................................147 Group Marking.........................................................................................................149 The [Child] DIM................................................................................................149 The Gendered DIM............................................................................................153 The Regional EVALs........................................................................................161

PAGE 7

vii A Marginal Group-Marking Effect: Social Class..............................................167 Societal Context/Speech Situation Marking.............................................................168 The Informal EVALs.........................................................................................169 DIMs and AUGs as informal context markers...........................................169 The formal vs. the informal SUPERL........................................................171 Familiar/intimate vs. non-familiar encounters...........................................172 Societal Power Structure and EVALs.......................................................................173 Conclusion................................................................................................................179 6 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................181 General Findings.......................................................................................................186 Implications..............................................................................................................192 Implications for Theoretical Linguistics...........................................................192 Implications for Applied Linguistics.................................................................193 Limitations and Further Research.............................................................................196 Conclusions...............................................................................................................198 Notes.........................................................................................................................1 99 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 1...............................................................................................200 B QUESTIONNAIRE 2...............................................................................................201 C OTHER EVAL SPANISH SUFFIXES....................................................................202 D DATA.......................................................................................................................20 3 REFERENCES................................................................................................................256 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................270

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs......................................................................................17 2. Frequency of use for DIMs.........................................................................................133 3: Frequency of uses for AUGs......................................................................................136

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs.......................................................................................18 2. Tree diagram of EVALs.................................................................................................38 3. New proposal for DIM’ s radial categories.....................................................................86 4. Radial categories for AUGs...........................................................................................95 5. Semantic-pragmatic functions of Spanish DIMs.........................................................106 6. Frequency of uses for DIMs........................................................................................133 7. Frequency of uses for AUGs........................................................................................136

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SPANISH EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: PRAGMATIC, SOCIOLINGUISTIC, AND SEMANTIC ISSUES By Victor Moises Prieto August 2005 Chair: Diana Boxer Department: Linguistics Spanish evaluative morphology (diminutive and augmentative suffixes, prototypically; superlatives and pejoratives marginally) has been the focus of many studies in linguistics. Howeve r, important practical and theoretical asp ects have not been formally considered accurately or in entirety. The pragmatic s and the sociolinguistics of such Spanish suffixation is one such area in which more research is needed. My study brings all of these mor phological processes together under one major category: evaluativeness. First I analyzed important pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of such Spanish morphological phenomena. Second, I considered relevant semantic and morphological issues. Theoretically, my study shows the need to redefine or clarify pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and morphologica l concepts. Methodologi cally, my study was ethnographic in its data collection and analys is. The data corpus consists of around 600 Spanish evaluatives (EVALs) found in spontan eous verbal interactions. My study also

PAGE 11

xi shows the many different uses, meanings, a nd functions of these suffixes and connects them to their basic functions, according to radial category models and pragmatic and sociolinguistic categories. Th e multiplicity of functions of the morphemes analyzed here (at times seemingly contradicting traditional Spanish grammar) is be tter understood using an integrative analytical approach. By cons idering the potential mo rphological status of such morphemes, their core semantic se nses, their pragmatic functions, and their sociolinguistic effects, I show the usefulne ss of this integrative approach to language study. The following are the major conclusions observed: Conclusion 1 : Pragmatically, diminutives are esse ntially attenuation, affection and derogation markers; whereas augmentatives a nd superlatives are in tensifiers, and at times, augmentatives may serve as attenuators. Conclusion 2 : Sociolinguistically, evaluati ves may mark contexts (e.g., informality) and groups or segments of th e society (e.g., children, women, and low classes), which may reveal much about the power structure in m odern societies of the Spanish speaking world. Conclusion 3 : Semantically, all the diverse m eanings of these suffixes emerge cognitively or conceptually from single co re senses in each case via metaphorical connections, inferences, or reanalysis. Conclusion 4 : Morphologically, these suffixes are all part of one single category: heads of evaluative phrases.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This is an analysis of the pragmatic and sociolinguistic effects of Spanish evaluative suffixes (diminutives, augmenta tives, and superlatives) in linguistic interactions of everyday life. The study also indicates some important morphological and semantic issues related to these pragmatic uses of these suffixes. Spanish suffixation processes are many and have multiple functions. Explanations for these have been the focus of many form al linguistic analyses in the areas of morphology, semantics, phonology and syntax. Mo rphological analyses have shown how complex words are formed and for which purposes. Semantic analyses have shown the specific meaning and use of these affixes. Phonological studies have accounted for the specific phonetic form of the affixes, th eir phonotactic constraints, and also the allomorphy found in many of them (Miranda 1999), among other aspects. In syntax, specific lexical categories are affected by these processes, and also by the equivalency between suffixed (synthetic) and non-suffixed (ana lytical) forms such as the prepositional phrase and the adjective in Ve ra-Lujan’s (1986) examples: Pedro es de Valencia and es ValenciANO ( from Valencia vs. ValenciAN ). My study also addresses other crucial issues in morphology and semantics. Traditional accounts of Spanish diminutives augmentatives, and superlatives leave much unexplained. Phenomena such as navaj+ero (knife+agentive -er) with the meaning of "someone who often uses a knife with criminal purposes" (Vera-Lujan, 1986: 32) cannot be fully explained without further pr agmatic analyses. For instance, we cannot

PAGE 13

2 explain (based only on morphosyntactic a nd/or phonological and semantic accounts) where the idea of criminality comes from, if we do not refer to contextual and social factors. We also could not explain the fact that some processes occur more frequently in some social groups than in others (e.g., di minutives are used mo re often with womenrelated words than with men-related lexical items). Such phenomena require a two-fold analysis in our systematic account of language use. First, we must account for these formal aspects of language (including th ese suffixation processes) from a morphosyntactic, semantic, or phonological pers pective. Second, such phenomena need systematic sociolinguistic a nd/or pragmatic explanations. This second analysis is the main purpose of my study. In this way, my st udy applies formal discoveries in linguistic research to our daily life contexts and situations. My study focuses on a specific lingu istic phenomenon called “evaluative morphology” or more specifically “evaluative Spanish suffixation,” observed in its sociolinguistic and pragmatic dimensions. Th e Spanish evaluatives suffixes (or EVALs) my study considers are diminutives (DIMs), augmentatives (AUGs), and superlatives (SUPERLs). Suffixation is the most common resource for word formation in Spanish and the other Romance languages (Muoz, 1994). Given this fact, the data consist of a large and rich corpus of EVALs. Moreover, while many pragmatic and sociolin guistic studies deal with phonological and syntactic issues, very few deal with Spanish morphological phenomena. My study should contribute to filling this linguistic research gap.

PAGE 14

3 Research Questions Given the lack of analyses of this type of Spanish morphology, the primary aim of my study was to qualitatively describe the use of Spanish evaluative suffixes (EVALs)— namely DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs—from a prag matic and sociolinguistic perspective. Schneider’s (2003) exhaustive study on diminutiv es (especially English) indicates that one reason for the problematic and puzzling st ate of DIMs (from a conceptual, scientific, and academic perspective) is that these suffixe s “have not, as a rule, been studied from a pragmatic perspective” (p. 1). The objective is therefore, to answer the following three research questions: Question 1: How do Spanish EVALs affect speech act performance? Question 2: What effects do Spanish EVAL s have in linguistic interactions in society? Question 3: How can we account for the various meanings and uses of such affixes? Question 1 deals with pragmatics. Ques tion 2 deals with sociolinguistics. Pragmatics and sociolinguistics are the two main areas my study focused on. Question 3 deals with semantics. Although not necessari ly a semantic analysis, the semantic denotations of the affixes I studied need to be clearly discussed, to account for the different pragmatic effects of these EVALs. Literature Review Three areas were related to my study: prag matics, sociolinguistics, and evaluative morphology. Theories of morphology and semantics are mentioned as they relate to this discussion. Some morphological issues are addressed in the section on evaluative morphology. Semantics is compared to pragmatics in the first section of this literature

PAGE 15

4 review. The order of presentation simply follo ws the relevance of such issues for the goals and scope of the present research. Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of language use in context; or more accurately, “the cognitive, social, and cultural study of language and communi cation” (Verschueren et al., 1995: ix). However, it is necessary to further clarify the use of this term in the present study. Since this is a relatively new field of linguistics, the conceptual framework is still relatively vague. There are two major conceptu al approaches to de fining the field of linguistic pragmatics: the holis tic approach and the segmen tal approach. The segmental approach concerns the different langua ge components studied in linguistics (phonetics/phonology, morphology, syntax, and se mantics). It is called segmental because it deals with one speci fic area of language competence. This approach considers pragmatics one more language component. In ot her words, pragmatics is part of a native speaker’s competence (Hymes, 1972). This is sue gave rise to criticism of Chomsky (1965) who (in the view of a number of linguists) overl ooked pragmatics as a language component, or part of the linguistic compet ence of native speakers. In the conceptual segmental approach, pragmatics deals w ith what semantics (and other grammar components) do not fully account for. It i nvolves the study of speech acts, conversation norms, politeness, discourse structure, and (micro)sociolinguistic aspects. Many linguists today agree with this view. Pragmatics is then considered part of grammar (Moskowitz, 1998). Moskowitz attempts to define language by first considering what language consists of (for example, rules of language structure or grammar). Moskowitz indicates that grammar incl udes “rules of phonology … of syntax …of semantics … and rules of pragmatics which describe how to participate in a

PAGE 16

5 conversation, how to sequence sentences, and how to anticipate the information needed by an interlocutor.” (p. 530) Other proponents of such an approach are Jaworsky and Coupland (1999), who take a discourse anal ytic view. They made an important distinction between pragmatics and semantics: pragmatics deals more with the meaning of utterances in specific contexts of us e. All of these authors see pragmatics as a component of language. The holistic approach examines language us e across all instances of language. In this approach, every linguistic analysis acc ounts for language use. In other words, any linguistic analysis that entir ely and openly ignores language in use is superfluous and disposable. Proponents of the holistic approach see pragmatics more as a perspective on language than a component of language. Some proponents of the holistic approach are Kasper and Rose (2001), and Verschueren et al. (1995). The main tenet is that every language utterance is performed in a context, with a clear goal, and an ultimate (maybe subconscious) intention. Kief er (1998), in line with Verschueren, indicates that “pragmatics can de defined as the func tional perspective on language” (p. 272). Both approaches are important: my study ta kes an eclectic approach. It examines language use in specific contexts and acro ss all instances (Ninio and Snow, 1996). A segmental approach lets us answer questions such as: How do people process a communicative act in a concrete speech situation? What do people attempt to accomplish by communicating? A holistic approach may help us examine th e implications of these questions for all components of language. This perspective vi ew is epistemologi cally sound, since it reminds us of the integrated nature of language. The segmental approach is

PAGE 17

6 methodologically practical, since we can se gment our object of study (language) for academic and research purposes. For the purpose of my study, then, a pragma tic function has to do with the ultimate cognitive (and sometimes subconscious) inte ntion of the speaker when uttering a linguistic unit (phoneme, morphe me, lexical item, and so on); and more specifically the intention of the speaker when uttering a bound morpheme. Finally, whether seen as a component of language or a perspective on la nguage, pragmatics must be part of any linguistic analysis with integrative purposes because “a language user makes a systematic analysis of the social context. This analys is is based on strategi es involving schematic knowledge structures (frames) about social, interactional a nd communicative behavior of speakers” (van Dijk, 1981: 298). It is important to note here that in th e area of pragmatics, my study does not deal with some formal pragmatic aspects such as presuppositions and implicatures. As a pragmatic study, my study deals with ultimat e intentions and effects in linguistic interactions. More specifically, it deals w ith the (sometimes subtle) reasons for and effects of using a diminutivized, augmentativiz ed, or superlativized word instead of its non-EVAL version. Pragmatic Theoretical Tenets My notion of a speech act as a primary pragmatic unit comes from Austin (1962) and Searle’s (1969) Speech Act Theory. Acco rding to Sbis (1995), one of the two main ideas in Speech Act Theory is that any ki nd of utterance can be considered an act. Examples of these speech acts are asking for information, requesting, asserting, and complaining. Speech acts are normally performed via an actual linguistic utterance such as a declarative sentence or an interrogative phrase, which is consid ered the locution of

PAGE 18

7 the speech act. However, the intention or fina l goal of the speaker may be different from that of the apparent syntactic form of the locution. For example, a question may be asked without really asking for information but fo r another reason; greeting, for example (“How are you?”). This intention of the speaker is called the illocutionary force in Speech Act Theory. The effect on the addressee (the actu al final result of the speech act) is the perlocutionary force. Speech Act Theory demands a distinction between the semantic weight and the pragmatic force of these suffixes. This is another fundamental principle of Speech Act Theory. As Sbis (1995) said, “a distincti on has to be drawn between the meaning expressed by an utterance [semantics] and the way in which the utterance is used [pragmatics]” (p. 496). Jaworsky and Coupla nd (1999) showed the difference between understanding a sentence based on the mean ings of its words and the referential meanings, and understanding the same sentence in relation to its intended meaning in a particular context. Important differences exist between the basic semantics of Spanish EVALS and their pragmatic functions. The basic seman tic denotation of DIMs (Chapter 3) is littleness (hence the grammatical name “diminutive” ). The basic denotation of AUGs is bigness The basic denotation of SUPERLs is very (more common in modern Spanish) and most (which can be considered a type of semantic shift). These would be, in technical semantic terms, the intensions of these affixes. Now, many of the uses of such suffixes go beyond these basic semantic effects. Again, in technical semantic terms, other extensions of these Spanish suffixes could be associated with their semantic connotations, and these

PAGE 19

8 ultimately may be linked to pragmatic norms (for a better understanding of the terms intension, extension, denotation, and connot ation, see O’Grady et al., 1997). Although potentially connected (shown below) it is still necessary to keep the semantic denotation and the pragmatic eff ects of EVALs separate as two distinct linguistic components. Even from a formal se mantic perspective, it is recognized that the fact that [some expressions] would be considered … very strange … in [a] situation … shows that over and above tr uth-functional [semantic] properties there are other factors which decide our inte rpretation of linguistic utterances. One suggestion for an analysis of these fact ors is to say that there is a set of communicative norms which aim at making the exchange of information between the participants in a speech situation as effective as possible. Basing oneself on these norms one could say: one should not say p v q if one can say p or p & q, both of which by virtue of their truth-conditions give more definite information than p v q. One should utilize linguistic expressions as effectively as possible, making both what one says and what one does not sa y relevant to how what is said is understood. This is normally one of th e implicit assumptions of linguistic communication (Allwood et al., 2001: 37). The norms (in bold letters above) the writers refer to in the previous quotation are pragmatic in nature. That these are pragmatic norms is clear because Allwood et al. directly referred to the Gricean Maxims (Grice, 1975). My study adheres to Austin and Searle’s notion of speech act as a major unit of pragmatic analysis. Since context an d communicative intentions beyond purely grammatical rules (grammatical from a trad itional view) are essential parts of our everyday linguistic interaction, we cannot i gnore pragmatics when studying EVALs. Sociolinguistic Perspectives Sociolinguistics is the st udy of language in society. One main objective of sociolinguistics is to study the interplay of language, so ciety, and culture in human communication (Wolfson, 1989). Sociolinguistics, then, may observe linguistic variations with various societal functions. A socioli nguistic analysis is needed to accurately

PAGE 20

9 determine social motivations of Spanish suffi xation processes. According to Lippi-Green (1997), people “situate themselves in re lationship to others, the way they group themselves, the powers they claim for themselves and the powers they stipulate to others … People use language to indicate social allegiances … to crea te and maintain role … in such a manner that the linguistic varieties used by a community form a system that corresponds to the structure of the society” (p. 31). My study aims at observing sociolinguistic issues regard ing evaluative suffix use. Despite the apparent importance of such an endeavor, there is a paucity of formal published work on the interface between Span ish morphology and sociolinguistics. The scarcity of studies addressi ng the sociolinguistic implicati ons of Spanish suffixation is obvious when we examine important and ex tensive bibliographi es on the topic both recent and early (Bosque & Mayoral, 1979 and Pharies, 1994). The gap in dates of these two bibliographies shows that this paucity in research has not improved significantly over the years. At the Spanish morphology leve l, thus, we have few studies in the sociolinguistic arena, unlike the numerous studies in the area of phonological variation and sociolinguistic impact (Perissinotto, 1975; Caravedo, 1990; Alba, 1990; CaleroFernandez, 1993; Medina-Rivera, 1997). This is true in Spanish and also in English, observable in studies on the interface between phonology and sociolinguistics, such as Labov’s (1966, 1972) pioneering work and others. An extensive literature s earch yielded few formal linguistic accounts showing the sociolinguistic implications of these suffixe s. One isolated account requires mentioning here. Muoz (1994) assumes that some of these forms were cultas (learned, educated, with culture/education) whereas others were not. Muoz implies th at some words with

PAGE 21

10 certain EVAL suffixes characterized people w ith a low level of education. This would give us a linguistic criterion to mark these people socially as belonging or wanting to belong to the class culta (i.e., the high social class, th e one with education, and normally the one with power). Muoz is one of th e few studies connecting Spanish EVALs and societal impact. Other than this isolated mention, there is a significant lack of formal references to the connection between some Spanish suffi xation processes and its sociolinguistic implications and effects on the interlocutors. Consequently, my study aims to account for those still-unexplained processe s and to fill this gap in the literature on sociolinguistic research in the Spanish language. It is im portant to note that my study does not touch upon major macro-sociolinguistic aspects such as language planning, language policies, and the like. The focus here is primarily microsociolinguistic. Evaluative Morphology Before further defining the type of morphology my study focuses on, let us consider some general issues in the realm of morphology. Morphology in general Theoretical approaches in the field of morphology do not deal clearly or directly with the type of morphology discussed in my study. My study focuses on the pragmatics and sociolinguistics of the morphological phenom ena. As a conceptual tool, I treat these linguistic units (Spanish EVAL s) as separate morphemes, which is in line with both traditional linguistic theories and more recen t theories such as Halle and Marantz’s (1993) Distributed Morphology (or DM). This morphological approach considers both stems and affixes as lexical entries or voca bulary items. Thus, my present study considers DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs as separate mo rphemes, with relatively independent

PAGE 22

11 semantic and phonological information. As a st arting point, my study addresses semantic affixes (Miller 2003, personal communication) a nd not other types of affixes (such as phi-feature affixes observed by Chomsky, 1993). Henceforth, my study avoids the fuzzy and unclear derivation-inflection dichotomy as a theoretical foundation because of the arguments outlined below. Evaluativeness in morphology Evaluative morphology (more prototypi cally, diminutive and augmentative morphology) has given rise to much research and interest. Many studies address this type of morphology (Corbin, et al., 1999), probably because of its unusual characteristics in relation to other types of morphology. Eval uative morphology has also been called affective morphology (Beard and Szymane k, 1988; Volek, 1987). Mackenzie (2001) called the DIMs, AUGs, PEJs (his list did not include SUPERLs) “affective” suffixes. Bruyne (1989) called this type of morphol ogy appreciative. Howard (1998) called it expressive. Hualde et al. (2001) classified the Spanish diminutive and augmentative suffixes as emotive or appreciative morphemes. Chapter 2, which covers important funda mentals of EVAL mo rphology, elaborates further on the definition of th is type of morphology. A brief introduction is given here as an overview. In simple terms, evaluative mo rphology refers to the synthetic marking of features such as size and positive/negativ e emotional affect, which is the reason “affective” is another term used to describe this type of morphological processes (Bauer, 1997.) Of course, Bauer recognizes that this w ould define mostly the core or prototypical evaluative morphemes, but not the marginal one s, which also exist. Considering Sapir’s (1921) typology regard ing morphological processes, evaluative morphology would be classified within the affixation proc esses (Sapir, 1911, cite d by Anderson, 1992:326).

PAGE 23

12 In line with this simple definition, many aut hors such as Bauer suggest that the core areas of evaluative morphology are diminutiv ization and augmentativization. However, other areas (such as pejoration and endearme nt) are also described in this type of morphology. Furthermore, languages exist (such as Spanish and Italian) in which these two types of processes (DIM/AUG vs. pejoratio n/ endearment) are hardly kept apart. Although Bauer includes concepts such as intensification, polit eness, and modesty in the realm of evaluative morphology, we can conclude that the prototypical elements of this type of morphology are the diminutive (DIM) and the augmentative (AUG). The specific types of affixes I studie d have the following characteristics: They often attach to bases such as nouns (N), adjectives (A), adverb-verbs (AdvV), pronouns (Pro), and interj ections; in order of importa nce/hierarchy as suggested by Ettinger (1974), according to Bauer’s (1997) citations. They are quantitative (augmentatives, dimi nutives, superlatives) according to Alvar and Pottier (1987) since they express some type of degree or gradable quality; without necessarily having any affective purposes. They may have emotive, appreciative, a nd expressive connotations, according to Lang (1990). In fact, Volek (1987) describe s emotive attitudes expressed by DIMs. They have similar functions and beha vior as degree words (e.g., much, very) accounted for as functional heads as in Abney (1987), Corver (1997) and Cinque (1999). Cinque (1999), pa rticularly, includes Moodevaluative markers in his list of functional heads (pp. 71, 76). This is pr ecisely the motivation for EVALS to be considered functional heads. Pragmatically, this type of morphology can be labeled as “ex pressive” and not always “plain” morphology. Expressive mor phology has to do with playful expressions, and poetic, and/or ostentatious effects. Plain morphology, on the other hand, tends to be purely semantic, and therefore does not expr ess these characteristic s (Bauer, 1997). More accurately and importantly, howev er, is that the main diff erence is that expressive

PAGE 24

13 morphology is conscious explicit knowledge, vs the implicit knowledge of grammatical markers (Miller 2005, personal communication). Scalise’s (1988) study on Italian, as cite d by Stump (1992), presents distinctive features of this type of morphology. Am ong these features are the following: Base semantic change (which should be taken cautiously, based on the arguments discussed below). Possibility of consecutive appl ication of more than one ru le of the same type. Syntax-preserving features. Stump describes evaluative morphology in the br oader label of category-preserving rules. However, Spanish EVALs do not really involve rules (discussed later). These suffixes are probably more accurately analyzed here as syntactic heads. Finally, EVAL morphology has been ofte n considered to be morphology with iconic tendencies. Since DIMs refer to littleness and AUGs refer to bigness many authors think that the linguist ic forms may express these grad able features iconically. In line with tenets of Natural Morphology (Wurzel, 1994), some authors cited by Bauer (1996) (such as Sapir, 1956 a nd Fischer-Jorgensen, 1978) stress this idea of the universal tendency of EVAL morphology for iconicity. They argue that a preference exists for the [i] vowel in DIMs and for [o] in AUGs, based simply on the commonality of some phones in the EVALs that they observed. The front vowel, for example, may be interpreted as expressing smallness, whereas the back vowel expre sses bigness. However, the iconic value of such phones is still unclear. Bauer (1996) shows that this is not the case in his 50-language sample. He explicitly co ncluded that “there does not appear to be any universal principle of sound symbolis m operating in markers of the [DIM] and [AUG]” (p. 201). The slight tendency among some languages may be caused by

PAGE 25

14 coincidence; frequency of some sounds over ot hers in a language; and most probably, this tendency may be caused by an over-emphasis on some major language families, such as Indo-European. Thus, he concluded that the tendency for iconicity might very well be culture specific, not universal. Bubenik (1999) argued the same when he stated that “we have to assume that various languages would rank differently on the scale of iconicity” (p. 7). Spanish EVALs Spanish morphology requires us to discuss Penny’s (1993) view of Spanish evaluative morphology. His diachro nic account of Spanish grammar calls this type of morphology “derivation”. He molds hi s definition to include Spanish EVALs in the category of derivational processes. Spanish derivation, in Penny’s view, involves adding suffixes to preexisting roots with tw o different purposes: forming new lexemes (e.g., Limn + ada = Lemon+ade) and marking the speaker’s attitude toward a certain entity or reality (e.g., pejoratives). He called the first process “lexi cal derivation”, and the second “affective derivation”. However, th ese suffixes should not be described as derivational. Halle and Marantz’s (1993) Distribute d Morphology may account for fundamental morpho-syntactic characteris tics of Spanish EVALs. The Distributed Morphology approach conceptually categorizes Spanish EVALs as distinct morphemes. Because of the relative conceptual adherence to this morphological theory, my study does not make the traditional distinction between deriva tional and inflectional affixes, even though traditional Spanish accounts of these suffixes categorize them as derivational. The derivation vs. inflec tion distinction is completely artificial and ad hoc: no consistent examples in real languages sustain such a distinction. Mill er (1993) argues that

PAGE 26

15 this dichotomy is not even a continuum, as Kiparsky (1982) and Bybee (1985) seem to suggest. The language-particula r realization of grammatical vs. semantic affixes is categorical: one or the other. Miller (1993) clearly states that “many affixes cannot be classified as either derivati onal or inflectional” (p. 13). Spanish EVALs give empirical evidence for this statement. Spanish DIMs, for example, do not change lexical category. If they attach to a noun, the resulting word is also a noun. There may not be a semantic change at all. A “car” may be exactly the same as a “car+DIM ”, just with smaller proportions. What should we say about this DIM? Is it stil l a derivational suffix, even though it does not affect lexical category or semantics? The so lution adopted in my study and many others is to simply dispose of this dichotomy in the tr eatment of such affixes; or, at least, to not consider this dichotomy as fundamental for general morphological conclusions. Ambadiang (1997) observed similar issues in the morphology of DIM formation: some important features of the morphology of DI M formation are not properties of common derivational processes (e.g., the relationship among the different allomorphs). Wellknown scholars in the field of morphol ogy (Anderson, 1982; and Spencer, 1991) have also recognized this problem. Spencer litera lly indicated that this type of morphology “falls midway between inflection an d derivation” (p. 197); one of many ad hoc stipulations by which authors for ce the use of such dichotomy. Penny’s (1993) approach, like many other st udies that use the derivation-inflection dichotomy, faces categorization problems. He recognizes that in derivational affective processes, there is no formation of new lexeme s with different meanings from the base or new semantic-syntactic categories, for which he uses the “cat+DIM” example. He argues

PAGE 27

16 (accurately) that “cat” and “cat +DIM” could have essentially the same referent. Most explanations of derivation (vs. inflecti on) characterize deri vation as producing new words, lexemes, or a large meaning ch ange with regard to the base (Kury owicz, 1964; Bybee, 1985; Bauer, 1988; Bubenik, 1999). This presents a conceptual problem with Penny’s account. Some of his examples are al so problematic. Such is the case with “car+DIM”, which can actually mean the same thing, contrary to what he stated. He does recognize that there are cases that are difficu lt to account for, and this is precisely the reason for not adhering to such a dichotomy as a major conceptual tool in my study. Another conceptual problem is that Penny does not explain why affective processes should be labeled derivational (considering that they may not pr oduce or derive new words). Penny classifies Spanish evaluative mor phology within the aff ective derivational processes, where he includes diminutiv ization, pejoration, and augmentivization. Superlatives are not classified in this type of processes in Penny’s account, but within adjectival comparative processes. In cl assifying such morphological processes as affective, we face another problem. One of the most common and important pragmatic functions of DIMs and AUGs is speech act a ttenuation. In some cas es, an assertion is marked with a DIM to mitigate the degree of commitment of the speaker, which is hard to connect to an affective purpose. Important pragmatic functions exist that are clearly affective, such as marking proper nouns w ith the [dear] feature via diminutivization. However, affection is just one of the several components or features of this evaluativeness. The term evaluative covers all these different functions of such suffixes, unlike the term affective

PAGE 28

17 Since they are a type of semantic suffixes, they are distinct from other affixes with more grammatical functions; such as those “phi-feature” affixes discussed in Chomsky (1993) and others in relation to Agreement (Ag r). In syntactic theor y, Agr is a collection of -features (e.g., gender, number, person) comm on to the systems of subject and object Agr. One of Lowie’s (1998) conclusions most relevant to my study (after reviewing important morphological theory and psycho linguistic models) is that “lexical representations should contain or refer to properties defining syntactic, semantic/ pragmatic information. The syntactic properties can be seen as … argument structures of the lexical representation.” (Lowie, 1998: 63). Since Chapter 3 focuses on EVALs’ semantics, and Chapter 4 deals with pragmatic issues, I briefly cons idered the important morpho-syntactic aspects above as a preliminar y base (for this pragmatic rather than morpho-syntactic study). To finish this summary of morphological properties of Spanish EVALs, let us briefly consider some freque ncy and productivity issues. Re garding frequency of Spanish EVALs, approximately 75% (447 of the 573 word s) of all the EVAL words in the data analyzed are DIMs; around 20% of all th e EVALs (around 100 words) have AUGs; and only 5% (30 words) have SUPERLs. Thus, th e data include four times as many words with DIMs as words with AUGs, and AUGs are used around four times more than SUPERLs (see table 1 and figure 1). Even t hough the table and figure below reflect only the data analyzed, DIMs seem to be the most common EVAL elsewhere. Table 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs DIMs AUGs SUPERLs Total # of tokens 443 100 30 573 Percentage 77% 18% 5% 100%

PAGE 29

18 Figure 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs Regarding productivity, we normally find in the data that SUPERLs attach to adjectives only; AUGs attach to nouns and adjectives; and DIMs attach to nouns, including abstract nouns that traditio nally do not subcategorize for EVALs (“attitude+DIM” or “lack+DIM”); adjectives adverbs (“now+DIM”, “near+DIM”), verbs (“eating+DIM”), numerals (“one+DIM”), ex clamatory expressions (“cheers+DIM!”, “certainly+DIM!”), other quantifiers (“many+ DIM”), one prepositional use (“in-frontof+DIM”). Even though it is no t in the data, other uncommon uses of DIMs, such as one with a pronominal ( suyita or “yours+DIM”) have been attested in modern Spanish. Some may argue that a type of AUG attaches to verbs ( llorn = cry+AUG) and makes up a noun or adjective. Some others ma y argue that the SUPERLs also attach to adverbs (much+SUPERL). This is debatable in grammatical terms, but regardless, DIMs are still much more productive than AUGs in the data and elsewhere, and AUGs are at the same time more productive than SUPERLs. EVALs illustrated: diminutives Let us now exemplify or illustrate this concept of evaluation with one of the most prot otypical and studied EVALs; namely, the diminutive. DIMs have received much attention in linguistic research, especially from a semantic perspective (Hasselrot, 1957; Alexopoulos, 1994; Jurafsky, 1996; Scalise & DIMs A UGs SUPERLs

PAGE 30

19 Grandi, 2001). In the Spanish language this has not been different (Alonso, 1937; Gonzlez-Oll, 1962; Nez, 1973; Zuluaga, 1991; Howard, 1998). For Alonso (1937), one of the first Spanish grammarians to formally account for DIM meaning and uses, DIMs are more related to affection than to littleness. This shows the evaluative nature of DIMs, since these suffixes are part of those affixes with which “nuestro pensamiento no se detiene en las palabras … sino que las atra viesa como la luz al aire y va a dar de un modo peculiar en las cosas mismas o derechamente en el nimo del prjimo…indudable valor sistemtico-estilstico” (Alonso, 1937: 43) (our thoughts do not stop in the words … but they go through them as light through air a nd end up, in a peculiar way, in the things themselves or directly in the mood of the others…without a doubt, a systematic-stylistic value). He perceives DIMs as having a fictive and/or ludic character, since they express a somehow either imaginary or playful mood, whic h is in line with Dressler and MerliniBarbaresi’s (1994) [-serious] feat ure. For Alonso the basic sense, or “sentido nuclear” as he called it, of the DIMs is that of mood expression, which is consistent with Cinque (1999). In general then, DIMs are semantic/pra gmatic markers of a subjective evaluation/ appreciation of (often) littleness/affection towards the entities to which they refer. Nez (1973) explains (based on his studies of traditional Spanish grammars) that the diminutive indicates a conceptual quantitat ive distinction regard ing the magnitude of the entity referred to by the base. In this quantitative tendency, it often refers to the general concept of smallness. However, N ez criticizes these trad itional grammars for their overemphasis on only this one functi on of DIMs. He recognizes other important connotations in the DIMs not recognized by traditional grammarians such as Nebrija (1492) and the anonymous grammar known as L ovaina (1955), among others. My present

PAGE 31

20 study makes constant reference to these ot her meanings or functions. Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi (1994) presen t a more complete account regarding diminutives. They describe diminutive formation as “evaluative (cf. the traditional term valutativi for Italian diminutives, augmentatives, and pejoratives), th at is, diminutives express an evaluation or judgment ‘as to value’ (not ‘as to fact’), according to the evaluator's intentions, perspective and standards of evaluation” (p. 153). This is precisely one of the major arguments for the evaluative la bel for the type of morphol ogy analyzed in my study. In the case of diminutives, the evaluation of the entity would be that of a (subjectively) small, appreciated (or its opposite), and/or endeared one. According to Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi, the basic pragmatic c onnotation would be that of the [-serious] feature, which is questionable according to the data and anal ysis presented here, as we will see in the following chapters. The following are uses of the DIM alre ady documented. Jura fsky (1996) assigns the [child] feature as the basic notion of thes e suffixes. My data and analysis seem to favor the [littleness] featur e as the basic semantics of DIMs instead. Jurafsky also presents other semantic senses that emer ge from that basic notion mentioned above: small/little, female, imitation, intensity/ ex actness, approximation, and individuation or partitive. We will discuss more about Jurafsky’ s arguments later. In relation to pragmatic functions, the following have been cited: a ffection, contempt, playfulness, and child/ animal context marking. Dressler and Merlin i-Barbaresi (1994), on the other hand, agree with Jurafsky regarding the semantic base of the DIMs (i.e., [child]). In relation to what he calls the “pragmatic base”, he sugge sts the [-serious] feature at its core.

PAGE 32

21 Before referring to other au thors, let us consider some arguments against Jurafsky and Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi’s proposal of [child] as the core sense of DIMs. It seems more plausible to consid er [+little], not [child], as the core semantics of DIM and [dear], not [-serious], as it s nuclear or core pragmatics. On the one hand, the label diminutive approaches more logically the idea of littleness than the idea of childness. More importantly, however, the [little] feat ure, with its primarily adjectival (and consequently modifying) function seems to be more easily morphologically embedded (as a bound morpheme in a word) than the feat ure of [child]. The latter is more a referential item (more a nominal function, prim arily), whereas the former is more of a modifier. Thus, due to this important di fference between the morpho-syntactic and semantic behaviors of these two features, th e [little] feature seems to represent the nucleus of this bound morpheme. We will s ee, however, that morpho-syntactically speaking, DIMs (and the other EVALs) present an important core: Mood/modality function, in line with Cinque (1999). On the other hand, the pragmatic core of [-serious] proposed by Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi misses many important prag matic functions of such affixes, for example, that of affection. Not only are there many uses of DIMs that are not [-serious] in essence, but furthermore, many uses present challenging difficulties if we try to present some type of semantic or pragmatic associ ation with DIMs. Thus, neither directly (in essence) nor indirectly (by semantic/pragm atic association) may many DIM uses be bound by this [-serious] feature. Chapter 3 deals with this in more detail. In the Greek language there have been im portant studies on DIMs, and particularly on their pragmatics. Triantafyllidis (1941), for example, calls the DIMs also “caressives”

PAGE 33

22 and assigns to this suffix the pragmatic f unction of request mitigation. Holton et al. (1997) explains that one of the major functions of this type of affix is that of depreciation, which is in line with the pejorative uses found. Other authors have related these suffixes to speech acts (Sifianou, 1992). For Sifianou, they may serve as markers of informal positive politeness and friendliness. Alexopoulos (1994) agrees with Sifianou in this politeness marking function. Crocco-Galeas (2002) suggests the following pragmatic functions: attenuation, understatement, meiosi s of the speaker’s commitment to the illocutionary force of the speech act, and the mitigation of the interlocutors’ obligations. Giakoumaki (2000) also discussed what my st udy refers to as the “euphemistic” DIM. In the realm of sociolinguistics, auth ors such as Giakoumaki (2000) and Daltas (1987) refer to the gender-marking functions of DIMs. They observed that, in general, females use more DIMs than males (they suggest that this is caused by more involvement of women with children). Giakoumaki par ticularly observed that women use more euphemistic DIMs than men in Greek. Methodology Ethnography My study takes primarily an Ethnography of Speaking approach (Hymes, 1962). Hymes’ SPEAKING model provid es a structure for my study to perceive components of the interactions analyzed: setting, participan ts, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentality, norms, and genre. As can be observed, the mode l is very appropriate for my study since it implies sociolinguistic and pragmatic perspec tives. In many of the descriptions herein, there is reference to one or more of these speech components to expand such descriptions. My study is primarily a microsociolinguistic approach (focus on face-toface interactions and reference to speech co mmunities), supplemented when appropriate

PAGE 34

23 by macro-sociolinguistic issues (for example, Chapter 5 ad dresses gender-related issues, which have been studied from a macro pe rspective). Since my study combines both function elements (the pragmatic functions of EVALs) and form elements (the forms of these suffixes), it resembles Schneider’s (2003) formal-functional paradigm in his analysis of English DIMs. Data and Participants The data corpus (Appendix D) that is the ba sis for the analysis in my study consists of 580 (7 were not analyzed because after furt her analyses, they did not really constitute examples of EVALs) tokens found in about 300 situations where evaluative suffixes were used in spontaneous interactions in Spanis h. The motivation for categorization of data into situations or events is that ethnography (more details below), pays special attention to speech events. Examples from this corpus we re selected and discussed in detail for the data analysis chapters. All the examples are gi ven first in Spanish (as originally uttered) in quotation marks with a literal translati on into English in italics underneath. If the literal translation seems unclear, another translation is given in parentheses, next to the literal one, for clarification purposes. The use of the suffixes in the examples is marked by DIM, AUG or SUPERL (in capitals) for easier reading. Using the ethnographic approach (Hymes, 1962) for data collection, a large portion of the data were taped conversations among native speakers of Spanish. These conversations took place without any prescribed task in en counters such as church fellowship meetings, services, phone conversat ions, television programs, and other less structured interactions. A long subset of the data examples comes from one particular speech community, a Spanish-speaking religious group in Gainesville, FL. where the researcher is a member. By being a member of such a speech community under study, the

PAGE 35

24 researcher could approach this not only as an outsider linguist a nd researcher but also with an emic perspective, as defined by Pi ke (1958). In Pike’s discussion of such a methodological approach, it is clear that the emic perspective helps the researcher to concentrate on the intrinsic socio-cultural di stinctions that are relevant and essential according to the members of the community, group or society under study. It helps the researcher to discover which phenomena, propert ies, or features constitute the worldview of a given society. From this investigative perspective, it is critical that the re searcher observe the community as is. Therefore, in such a lingu istic study, naturalistic data are the most suitable. Boxer (2002) believes that “mos t good analyses of spoken discourse employ data that captures spontaneous speech among interlocutors, since elicitation instruments necessarily interfere with the naturalne ss of spontaneous discourse” (p. 10). Radio and TV talk, one of the data sources for my study, is one of the many techniques for data collection that Boxer (2002) surveys. Admittedly, she recommends being cautious of this type of data, since it may not be representative of naturally occurring conversations. However, most of the TV programs th at contributed to the data here were live spontaneous entertainment pr ograms or talk shows in interaction with a live audience. In this way, these are still samp les of naturalistic data (admittedly, with perhaps a slight difference in speech event) There are also several movies and soap operas, which may be less natu ralistic; but they still provid e adequate samples of the use of the suffixes under study. The data collection in my study resemble s that of Milroy’s (1980). Milroy audio taped spontaneous linguistic interactions by interviewing people. There were

PAGE 36

25 interruptions (e.g., tele phone calls) during such intervie ws, but the audio taping was not interrupted at any time. People then were r ecorded in both types of interaction: being interviewed and also interacting with peopl e off-record (on-interview data and offinterview data). These off-record pieces of in teractions were crucia l for her analysis. In this way she captured spontaneous talk and avoided what Labov (1972) called the Observer’s Paradox. Milroy’s argument was th at these off-record pieces captured true spontaneity in language use because of th e interviewees being unaware of being recorded. That was precisely the reasoning behind the taping that took place for the collection of the data for my study. People were first unaware of being recorded for the type of linguistic analysis I carried out; t hus, their language use was truly spontaneous. Unlike Milroy’s method, the data in my study do not come from interview contexts but purely spontaneous interactions. The main speech community analyzed is a Spanish-speaking church of about 70 people where many nationalities converge in di fferent types of social activities. Even though a religious environment, the amount of social encounter s is significant. Also, it represents an encounter poi nt for people of different nationalities. Most of the participants were either Cuba ns or Puerto Ricans, with ot hers from Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, and other Latin-American countries. As indicated above, some data also came from TV program s (soap operas, movies, talk shows, entertainment programs, and so on) in a well-known Spanish-speaking TV station based in Miami, Florida, USA: Univision. Some data also came from Internet sites or chat groups, phone conversations, and everyday ta lk where the research er was one of the interactants. Direct participati on of the researcher in such interactions was very useful,

PAGE 37

26 especially when trying to unde rstand the nature, purpose, a nd context of these linguistic interactions. Data Analysis After collecting the data, I transcribed th e suffixed words, paying special attention to the contexts of those words to determin e the meaning and intention of the suffixation. Then, it was necessary to categorize the suffi xed words into major sociolinguistic and pragmatic categories. To perform such taxonom y, this categorization process considered the different SPEAKING speech component s described above and also common sociolinguistic and pragmatic labels in th e corresponding literature described below. Subsequent to transcription and classificat ion, triangulation of the data took place. This is a common approach in studies of th is type to tap into the participants’ own perspectives on interactions under anal ysis (Gumperz, 1982). Two triangulation techniques were used: quasi-ethnographic in terviews (as defined in Boxer, 2002) and questionnaires (see appendixes). The questionnaires were given to Spanish L1 speakers. Twenty-five L1 speakers’ questionnaires were analyzed, and the discussion is presented in the data analysis chapte rs (primarily Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). In the ethnographic interviews that took place afte r the recording, the interviewe es answered questions that helped to either confirm or reject hypothese s in relation to partic ular instances. These answers enriched and supplemented the analysis at the time. These interviews (around 20 in total) w ith native speakers of Spanish also took place. These informants’ (in both the intervie ws and questionnaires) ages spanned some forty years (from late teens to early sixties) Both female and male speakers participated in the data triangulation pro cess. Also, speakers from diff erent countries (mostly Latin American countries) par ticipated. Some of the interviewees contributed to the data corpus

PAGE 38

27 and others did not. These interviewees that did not contribute to the data corpus commented on the grammaticality, potential mean ing, and effects of the expressions they were given. During these quasi-ethnographic interviews, the interviewees answered “triangulating” questions with simple non-technical terms which were useful to determine the participants’ opinion of the semantics, pragmatics, grammaticality, and sociolinguistics of the suffixes used. These que stions served to delve more deeply into the interviewees’ perception of such linguistic forms, since much of this is not at the conscious level of the speakers. The following are examples of the types of questions in the interviews: Can you tell me the difference between carro (car) and carrITO (car+DIM)? Why didn’t you say carro instead of carrITO at this moment? What can you tell me about the person or activity you hear in this recording? Can you paraphrase what you just heard? What is this person trying to do or achiev e here? What’s her/his ultimate intention? Can you imitate a person with the follow ing characteristics (e .g., a rich lady at a party)? What do you think is going to happen after this point in the recording (the tape paused)? Is this acceptable or good Spanish for you? What degree/size do the following features /items have?(car vs. car+Dim; blue vs. blue+Dim) Why do you think this word can have an –ito/-ote/-simo but this other word cannot? Many of the questions used in the qu estionnaire and the interviews had a psycholinguistic motivation based on R eeder’s (1996) speech act comprehension strategy. This technique was used to test ch ildren’s pragmatic awareness (of speech acts)

PAGE 39

28 in Reeder’s study. The children undertook 12 task items in a randomized fashion. Before receiving a stimulus sentence, they were gi ven an explanation of the context of the sentence they were about to hear (“Would you like to look at the books?”). This sentence took place in a classroom format, and a teacher had uttered this senten ce to indicate to the students to start the reading section of the class. In th e testing section, after this clarification, the children we re asked which alternative (of two) or meaning they thought the teacher had in mind when she said “W ould you like to look at the books?” The two response alternatives were: 1) “I want you to look at the books”, and 2) “Do you want to look at the books?” According to the genera l procedure of the experiment, #1 was the expected answer and #2 was just a distra ctor. It would show whether the children participating in the test were in fact awar e of the actual speech act (command) given by the utterance. In my study, these questions we re intended to determin e what this (already internalized) pragmatic awareness of L1 speakers informed us about the different functions of Spanish evaluative suffixes. The results of this data an alysis process are presented in Chapter 4 (Pragmatic Functions) and Chapter 5 (Sociolinguistic E ffects). The first one focuses on pragmatic categories such as speech acts attenuation or intensification, politeness marking, and related issues. The second addresses socioli nguistic categories such as in-group identity, social distance, and social context marking. Morphopragmatics In relation to the type of linguistic phe nomena analyzed in my study and its goals, this is a morphopragmatic study, since it shows the interface between morphology and pragmatics. Morphopragmatics has been defined simply as morphologized pragmatics (Dressler & Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994: 55), or in other words, pragmatic functions

PAGE 40

29 performed via morphological processes. This is a relatively new s ub-field of linguistic research. The first studies that were forma lly categorized as morphopragmatic appeared in the mid eighties (for detailed explanations definitions and histor y of this field, see Dressler & Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994). Recall that my study analyzes Spanis h morphological processes from a sociolinguistic and pragmatic pe rspective. It also looks at pragmatic effects caused by Spanish bound morphemes. My study has this dual nature: pragmatic and morphological. The reason for this is that “grammar and pragmatics are complementary domains within linguistics” (p. 4) as defined by Leech ( 1983). Because of this double-fold nature (pragmatic and morphological), my study fa lls under the categor y of morphopragmatic research. Extensive review of literatu re in Spanish in the topic yielded only one study that openly described itself as morphopragmatic (Cantero, 2001). Cantero presents adequate theoretical accounts of this fi eld in the Spanish language. Yet, we still need many more formal Spanish descriptive studies in this ne w and important field of linguistic research. My study also aims at contributing to f illing this gap in the general field of morphopragmatics, and more specifically in the field of Spanish morphopragmatics. We definitely need morpho-pragmatic analyses because they show how bound morphemes may not only obey basic semantic (semantic affixes) or grammatical (phi-feature markers) requirements of the language (e .g., Spanish) but also may have pragmatic functions. Mey (1989), who is not a morphologist but a well-known pragmatician, pleads for the investigation of this connection between morphology and pragmatics. Interestingly,

PAGE 41

30 and in line with my study, Mey (as cite d by Kiefer, 1998) shows some morphological processes that express power and solidarit y, which is the case of Spanish EVALs as shown throughtout my study. In conclusion, methodologically, this is a morphopragmatic descriptive account of Spanis h naturalistic data using an ethnographic approach. In essence, my study is morphopragmatic, qua litative/descriptive, naturalistic, and ethnographic. Conclusion My study, in sum, represents an ethnographic attempt to qualitatively describe morphological phenomena with pragmatic and so ciolinguistic implications. The specific type of morphological phenomena analyzed is Spanish Evaluative Morphology, which involves prototypically processes such as diminutivization and a ugmentativization, and marginally processes such as (absolute) s uperlativization and pejo ration. Pejoration will be analyzed only as a subcategory of DIMs and AUGs, not independently. My study leaves suffixes that have already b een accounted for as pejoratives (e.g., ejo, ajo, ucho, uelo ) out of formal considerati on. There seems to be not much more to say about these suffixes, pragmatically speaking. In fact, the te rm “pejorative” is essentially a pragmatic one. Thus, any account of such suffixes is in essence, a pragmatic account. My study is limited to the other EVALs: diminutives (DIMs), augmentatives (AUGs), and superlatives (SUPERLs), whic h appear to have had up to this point insufficient or incomplete pragmatic and sociolinguistic formalization.These processes represent relatively productive and frequent suffixa tion in modern informal Spanish. The literature reviewed has shown two im portant impetuses that motivated this topic. On the one hand, there is not much formal research on the pragmatic and sociolinguistic implications of such suffixe s. On the other hand, most studies that do

PAGE 42

31 analyze these aspects of such phenomena fa il to account for important issues in this respect. My study, then, is an attemp t to fill this gap in the research. It is a primary goal that, by the end of my study, the reader will have a fuller understanding of three important related i ssues (three research questions): 1) The ways in which Spanish evaluative suffixes (EVALs) affect speech act performance; 2) the effects Spanish evaluative suffixes can have in linguis tic interactions in society; and 3) the (semantic-pragmatic) connection of the various and many meanings and uses of such affixes. These aspects constitute the main goals in this work.

PAGE 43

32 CHAPTER 2 EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: FUNDAMENTALS Evaluativeness in General The linguistic items analyzed here (e .g., DIMs, AUGs) as any other type of evaluation expressed in linguistic form, are evaluative in the sense that they convey (consciously or subconsciously) a type of value of the referents or audience, according to the speaker’s judgment. Hunston and Thomps on (2000) give an overview of evaluation, its discourse functions and how to recognize it, and they obs erve a lack of consensus among linguists in regards to its delimitations, categorization and definition. The authors distinguish two major types of evaluation-driven marking in language: affective (goodbad) opinion, primarily in reference to entitie s; and epistemic or probability opinion (e.g., “it is fairly certain ...”), in connection nor mally to propositions. They view these two types of speaker/writer’s opi nion as subcategories of evaluation Hunston and Thompson further elaborate on subcategories and add tw o more types of evaluation: expectedness (i.e., how much resemblance to the norm) and importance (i.e., subjective value in relation to degree of relevance). They suggest that parameters such as expectedness and importance can be related to the basic good-bad parameter. Hunst on and Thompson argue that identifying evaluation "is a question of id entifying signals of compar ison, subjectivity and social value ... evaluation consists of anything which is compared to or contrasts with the norm" (p. 13). This definition encomp asses linguistic structures; a ttitudinal, interpersonal and discourse-organizational functions; pragmatic inferences as well as conventional, coded

PAGE 44

33 meanings. Since these authors recognize that (linguistic) evaluation can be achieved via lexical, syntactic or morphological marking, then it follows that we may find evaluative lexicon, evaluative syntax and evalua tive morphology in human languages. Evaluativeness in Morphology: Evaluative Morphology: Based on the discussion above and arguments in the prev ious introductory chapter, evaluative morphology refers basically to the marking of subjective appreciation of the referents via bound affixes. The specific types of subjectiv e evaluation analyzed here are those of diminution, augmentation, and intensificat ion. These correspond respectively to diminutive, augmentative, and superlative a ffixes. Chapter I already elaborated on the definition of evaluative morphology, but this sec tion presents some important additions to that discussion to place evaluative morphology in a broader context. The category of diminution, as a general c oncept, is a universal category since it may be expressed in all languages (Schneid er, 2003). The difference from language to language is the particular lingui stic devices used (e.g., suffixe s, separate lexical items, tones). We then can logically expect its opposite, augmentation, to be found also in many languages, if not all. Superl ativization is a concept that some authors do not even consider within the same category of diminu tivization or augmentivi zation. However, as shown in subsequent chapters, in many respects superlatives (in Span ish at least) behave similarly to diminutives and augmentatives. Furthermore, as mentioned above, SUPERLs present a subjective evaluation of the refe rent. In conclusion, all these evaluative processes (i.e., diminution, augmentation, s uperlativization) e xpress the speaker’s attitude/appreciation towards a ce rtain abstract or concrete en tity, state or event. They refer to entities when attached to nouns, states when attached to adjectives, and events

PAGE 45

34 when attached to verbs. They may even ev aluate modifications of actions/states when attached to adverbs. The Morphology of Evaluatives Let us start with some simple notions. Tr aditionally, EVALs have been considered derivational affixes (Fernand ez, 1986). In Modern Spanish, DIMs attach to many bases such as Nouns (N), Adjectiv e (A), Adverb-Verb (Adv-V), Pronoun (Pro), and Interjection (in order of importance/hierarchy as suggested by Ettinger (1974), according to Bauer’s, 1997 citations). One restriction we observe in modern Spanish DIMs regarding productivity is the impossibility of attachment to abstract Ns, which is noticed in the unacceptability of felicidadita (happiness + DIM), dependencita (dependence+ DIM), inteligencita (intelligence+DIM), entendimientito (understanding+DIM), pacita (peace+DIM). We also have a certain allomo rphy in some dialects of Spanish regarding the distribution of – ito and – ico In some Caribbean va rieties of Spanish, ico is an allomorph of – ito (or –cito ) when following root-final [t]. The phonological motivation for –ico may be captured in an Optimality Theory approach (Kager, 1999) by making reference to a well studied c onstraint called the Obligatory Contour Principle or OCP. This principle is commonly understood as a constrain prohi biting the adjacency of two identical elements on a tier (Myers, 1994). For the dialects that use this allomorph, then, the OCP constraint is high-ranke d; whereas this is a low-ra nk constraint for the “nonico ” dialects. Speakers of dialects with a high-ra nked OCP would have the following forms: [kart-a] (letter+FEMININE) [kart-ika] (letter+DIM) but no t *[kart-ita], for example. It is a type of dissimilation process; dissimila tion of two successive [t ]s at the phonological consonantal tier (t V t t V c).

PAGE 46

35 AUGs have very similar contexts as DIMs, but they are still less productive. For example, there are no attested exampl es of AUGs attaching to gerunds (* comiendote = eating+AUG), contrary to attested cases of comiendito (eating+DIM). Even more, some AUGs such as azo and n are further restricted, probably due to the etymons that gave rise to these suffixes, unlike the “pure” AUG ote For example, the adjective grande (“big”) normally accepts the – ote AUG. Not any other AUG is normally found with this adjective ( grande + ote ; grande+azo and ? grand+n ). Superlatives attach to adjectives, not to adverbs (in the case of attachment to Ns, usually these Ns are, at least potentially, adjectives also). It has been suggested that it attaches to adverbs. However, let us consid er the following arguments against attachment of – simo to adverbs: – mente (-ly) adverbs do not accept SUPERL (* lentamentsima; lentsimamente), Nor do monomorphemic adverbs: (ex. *biensimo vs buensimo). In a few words, this SUPERL attaches to whatever may be used as an adjective. It does not attach to pure adverbs ( bien and mente adverbs). Let us now look at this morphology more accurately and in detail. Morphological Theoretical Tenets: Even though my study has no real foundation in morphological theory (it is more pragma tic in nature), there are still important morphological conceptual aspects to clarif y. There have been tw o major theoretical approaches to morphology and its relation to th e lexicon: The word-based lexicon (words are stored in the lexicon as whole units, not as separate affixe s and bases) and the morpheme-based lexicon (only roots are stored and then rules are applied). My study adheres to Lowie’s (1998) and Miller’s ( 1993) assumption that there is actually a connection between the two. “M ost linguists as well as psyc hologists will now agree that

PAGE 47

36 instead of a choice between lis ting and active-rule word form ation both strategies are likely to interact in a co mplete model of producing and processing morphologically complex words” (Lowie 1998: 7). These a pproaches complement each other. Some morphologically complex words may be stored and accessed in the lexicon as a whole (especially those less frequent, less producti ve and more opaque), and others may be analyzed (those more frequent, productiv e, and transparent). For example, Lowie mentions DIMs as a very transp arent affixation process (modern –illo an exemption), which would therefore be formed through rules. One clear account that connects morphol ogical theory, evaluative morphology and cognitive fields is provide d by Pounder (2000). Pounder set up a list of word-formation functions, which she divided into primary a nd secondary. Even though this distinction is not clearly explained, it seems to be related to the degree of productiv ity and frequency of such functions. Thus, diminutivization, whic h she labeled as DIM(‘X’) and defined as “‘X’ is made smaller, diminished” (p. 118), is a primary function. In the data analyzed in my study, DIM is definitely a much more pr oductive and frequent suffix than the other two evaluatives analyzed here (AUG and SUPERL). These other two evaluatives, accordingly, were labeled as secondary in Pounder’s list. Even though Pounder does not overtly cite a “SUPERL” category, she has an “INTENS(X)” function, which resembles our SUPERL. This INTENS(‘X’) function is defi ned as “’X’ is associated with a high degree of expressive-emotional intensity or as present in an extraordinary degree” (p. 121). AUG(‘X’) is simply defined as “’X’ is increased’” (p. 1 21) and opposite to DIM. In all these instances, “X” refers to the base for the affix or function in consideration. PEJ(X), one of the functions of the DIMs and AUGs analyzed in my study, is also part of

PAGE 48

37 the secondary functions and is defined as “‘X’ is evaluated negativel y” (p. 120). In fact, Pounder states that most secondary functions belong to evaluative morphology, the main focus of my study. However, this is more a psycholinguistic approach, which leaves important morphological aspects unanswered. Furthermore, it seems to be simply a taxonomic model in that it provides classi ficatory labels more than theoretical explanations. EVALs as morpho-syntactic markers: As in all Phrase Structure morphological accounts since Baker (1988), my study relies on the notion that word formation and phrase formation involve the same operations. Bo rer (1998) explains th at “the thrust of the argumentation in these works is to s how that WF [word formation] phenomena adhere to syntactic constraint s and interact with syntactic rules, and hence are best characterized as syntactic” ( p. 157). Miller (1993) clearly i ndicates that “the order of affixes obeys the same principles that govern sentence formation; this can hardly be coincidential” (p. 16). My study proposes a single head-complement relation for EVALs. In Distributed Morphology, DIMs, AUGs, a nd SUPERLs may be said to function as operators which occupy the head of a w hole functional phrase, which shares features with what Abney (1987), Corver (1997) a nd Rijkhoek (1998) called “Degree Phrase”. According to Abney and Corver, degree el ements (e.g., “so”, “more”, SUPERL) are heads that select APs (and other phrases) as th eir complements. In this syntactic model, it is said that they project a Degree Phrase (Deg P) and select an AP. In their analysis, based on the Xo X’ X’’ structuring (common in syntac tic models), the constituency is the following:

PAGE 49

38 DegP Spec Deg’ Deg AP Because of the similar syntactic behavior of Spanish EVALs to functional phrases (when compared to degree operators such as “very” and “more”), based on our definition of evaluativeness above, and considering Mill er’s (personal communication) suggestions and Cinque’s (1999) treatment of evaluative s, we propose the following general morphosyntactic structure for Spanish EVALs: EvalP Spec Eval’ Eval X(P) Figure 2. Tree diagram of EVALs Since DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs all have an evaluative function, it is reasonable to unify them as incorporations of an evalua tive head. The head of the tree above is the suffix itself (DIM, AUG, or SUPERL), and the co mplement of this head could be phrases such as NPs, APs, AdvP, or VPs (in short, any phrase that can be evaluated via these suffixes). We would then have th e following specific configurations: 1 2 3 4 EVAL-P EVAL-P EVAL-P EVAL-P EVAL’ EVAL’ EVAL’ EVAL’ EVAL N(P) EVAL A(P) EVAL Adv(P) EVAL V(P) ti N Eval cari -ito -ote grand -isimo much -ito trotando In this hypothesized representation, ther e is left adjunction, in line with the syntactic model above. In Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry hypothesis adopted by Rijkhoek

PAGE 50

39 (1998), movement to the right and right-adj unction are illegitimate. Thus, the X(P) constituents move to adjoin to Evalo or Eval, deriving words such as carrito (car+DIM) in configuration 1, grandote (big+AUG) in 2, muchsimo (much+SUPERL) in 3, and trotandito (jogging+DIM) in 4. One potential problem with the previous proposal involves its account of the reduplicative or iterative prope rty of Spanish EVALs. On the one hand, iterative cases (e.g., poquitititito = little+DIM+D IM+DIM) can be treated as successive adjuncts, assuming it is necessary in the logical form (LF) component of the grammatical system, where derivations get interpretation. On the ot her hand, if they are not processed at LF, then they may be simply phonological copies (PF copies) or part of language play. My study argues that these iterativ e cases do convey some type of interpretative force; namely that of intensification. Even though my study suggests that it be further looked into, especially by studies of a more morphosyntactic nature than this one, it hypothesizes that these reduplication-like (or more accurately, iteration) cases constitute a type of successive adjunction to EVAL-heads. Regardless of how they are treated, it is important to note that this type of right-edge iteration seems to be a unique property of these functional phrases (FP). FPs do not normally ha ve this property. In fact, it seems to violate the haplological cons traint or OCP as formalized before (Raffelsiefen, 1996). Usually, this type of iteration is permitted only on the left-edge, and strictly forbidden on the right edge. In fact, Miller (in personal in terviews) mentions the following examples to show how this constraint works: boyish vs *fishish. Even though these are not examples of morphological reduplication, these show that repeating similar syllabic groups on the right edge is not permitted; which seems to be the only reason for the illformedness of

PAGE 51

40 “fishish”. To account for the type of iteration found in eval uative items, we would need to propose that iteration may be an inherent property of EV AL-Ps (also seen in English phrases such as “very very very good”). Th is is one thing that makes these Spanish suffixes special; they seem to violate a strong constraint. Evaluativeness Cross-Linguistically Non(morphologically) Evaluative Languages: Evaluative Syntax “Evaluative syntax” is symmetrical to “evaluative morphology”. The latter involves the marking of EVAL features at the morphological level. Thus, we can extend the definition to the area of syntax. We can think of “EVAL syntax”, then, as the marking of EVAL features at the syntactic level; or in other words, not synthetically but analytically. Essentially, the difference between analytical and synthetic is that the latter involves affixal instantiations of the former One fundamental similarity is that both markers occupy head positions on EVAL-P trees. We discuss specific examples below. In relation to languages without EVAL mor phology, it should be first noted that “it is difficult to be sure from grammars that a given language does NOT have a particular phenomenon”, as Bauer (1997) clearly states in relation to univ ersal tendencies in evaluative morphology precisely. However, ba sed on traditional typologies and some discoveries in the review of the relevant l iterature, this chapter presents some potential examples. We could logically assume that langua ges traditionally classified as analytical will have no EVAL morphology. Such category involves English, marginally, and more clearly Chinese. The latter has been reporte d as marking all categories at the syntactic level, with isolated (and often monosy llabic) words (Crystal, 1997). Even purely grammatical functions such as tense would be marked lexi cally (with different lexical

PAGE 52

41 items). Thus, it is easy to predict that the same is true for marking [+EVAL] features when applicable. English, on the other hand, has synthetic (work+ED) and analytical (WILL work) features; which makes it mixed. However, there is a consensus among linguists that English tends to be more analytical than synt hetic. Actually, in hi storical perspective, English has been changing from synthetic to analytic structures. In relation to EVAL marking, we also see the two tendencies: Synthetic (John-Y, dogg-IE) and analytical (LITTLE/DEAR John, LITTLE/DEAR dog) (Schneider, 2003). However, there are more cases of analytical EVAL marking than synt hetic EVALs. For example, there is no real morphological equivalent of Spanish – simo (one marginal EVAL suffix), which means something like “very”. English more often uses the separate lexical item “very” for this intensive function, even though in modern English a few synthe tic instantiations of this function can be observed in cases like “the be stest” vs. “the very best”. Also, English DIMs such as “-let” (piglet), “-ling” (duc kling), and “y-ie” (Johnny, doggie) are not very productive (Schneider, 2003). The bases for these few English diminutives are very restricted (often infantile terms), unlike the analytical equivalents (lit tle/small), which combine with many lexical categories. That is why we have “lousy lit tle…” in English instead of pejorative DIM affixes such as the Spanish and Fula ones. Th is may be also observed in the fact that analytical expressions such as “itsy bitsy, teeny weeny” (a nalytic diminutivization, even if we consider final –y as a remote DIM) are common DIMs for certain English-speaking groups (Schneider, 2003). Some other languages without EVAL morphology are

PAGE 53

42 Samoan, and Quiche Mayan, of which Crysta l (1997) says: “many of the features of Anglo-American motherese …-such as diminu tiveswere found to be absent.” (p.237) Thus, it is obvious that some languages have evaluative morphology while others express related semantic nuances lexically; henc eforth analytically. On the analytic side, we have languages such as Chinese, E nglish, Samoan, and Quiche Mayan. On the synthetic/morphological side we have ma ny Indo-European languages (e.g., German, Latin, Dutch, Greek, Scottish), including more distinctively Romance languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian), and other non-IE language s such as Fula, Swahili, and Japanese.1 The marking of evaluativeness at one le vel or the other may have to do with historical processes or with (typological) representational pr eferences. These two types of motivations are in line with Jurafsky ( 1996), who believes that by “considering the dependence of synchronic meaning on both hist orical and human cognitive context it is possible to tease apart the seemingly pa radoxical and unmotivated components of a particular semantic category: [for exampl e] the diminutive.” (p. 562). Anderson (1992) states that it is not uncommon across language s for the “internal structure of words [to] derive from earlier syntactic constructions” (p. 348). He cites Givn’s (1971) famous aphorism “today’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax” (p. 348). Anderson (1990) also supports this idea, since he thinks that “w ords have the form they do … especially … because of the history of the language with respect to both grammar and to sound.” (p. 278). However, it is important to keep in mi nd that this may not be the end of the whole story. Recall that it is also possible for morphological anomalie s to be altered in language change to conform to the syntax of th e language. Even though there may still be

PAGE 54

43 unexplained phenomena across languag es from a historical persp ective, it definitely is an explanation for the difference between eval uative morphology and evaluative syntax. Diachronically, it is possib le that those languages that do not have evaluative morphology but syntactic or analytic EVALs, have simply not gone through linguistic changes of the analytical-to-synthetic type. Those that do have EVALs at the morphological level did go through (or are goi ng through) the changes already. However, even within the morphological EVAL languages, it is totally possible that those affixes emerged not from lexical items but from previous bound morphemes. This is very probably the case with Spanish EVALs. In this sense, reanalysis may have taken place and previous non-EVAL affixes were re-inter preted or understood as EVALs. Below, we discuss a language with evaluative mo rphology (or EVAL morphology language), Fula. Anderson (1992) explains how noun class suffixes in Modern Fula can be traced back to earlier pronominal elements. In the section below on Fula, we see that EVALs are also class suffixes; thus, this coul d be a reason to hypothesize that EVAL class suffixes also may have had a non-affixal or non-grammatical status. This can be a good example of a historical motivation for EVAL morphology. In conclusion, the reason for marking so me categories at different levels across languages may have an explanation in the history of the language, in basic human cognition and cultural or pragmatic forces (las t two elaborated later since they may be connected). Morphologically Evaluative Languages: Two Types Let us start this section with a refere nce to Fula EVAL morphology, which should help us observe the relationship of evaluati ve morphology to the Agr evaluatives such as the Fula pejorative DIM. According to McIn tosh (1984), Fula (West Atlantic branch of

PAGE 55

44 the Niger-Congo language family) has a rich nominal declension system with 25 N classes, 19 singular and 6 plur al. That is why Anderson (197 6) calls it a “class language” and explains that the complete declension often contains 7 form s: citation form (class 1) and its Pl. (cl. 2), DIM (3) and its Pl. (6), DI M Pej. (5), AUG. (7), and its Pl. (8). Stem initial consonants (Cs) vary (o ften within 3 possibilities or grades such as stops, [-stop], and prenasal stops) or agree/inflect with noun classes, which is known in Fula grammar as “C gradation” or “alternation”. Each noun class has a corresponding form or grade for the initial C of the stem. For example, when “man” ( dim-/rim-/ndim -) attaches to PL. -be the initial C grade is continua nt ([r]), producing the form rimbe (men); when attached to DIM – el the grade is stop ([d] ), producing the form dimel (little man); and when attached to the DIM Pl. – on the grade is prenasal stop ([nd]), deriving ndimon (little men). All this morpho-phonological explanation in the previous paragraph should make it clear that nominal stems are c onstituents of the same XP as nominal-class markers (i.e., noun roots must be accompanied by a nominal-c lass suffix). In our morphological model, we could say that these nomi nal-class suffixes are functional heads whose complement is an NP (whose head is the noun root). The cla ss suffix limits the reference of the stem. We need to keep in mind here that Fula EVAL suffixes such as DIMs and AUGs are just part of these class-suffixes with clear and hea vy class-marking featur es and functions. The Fula language has 6 evaluative suffixes: ngel (DIM. Sing.), koy (DIM. Pl.), kal (DIM. Qu.), nga (AUG. Sg.), ko (AUG. Pl.), and the pejorative DIM ngum (McIntosh, 1984). Mukoshy (1991) makes a distinction in th e 25 N classes referred above: Basic classes and subsidiary/sec ondary classes. Among the la tter, Mukoshy included the evaluative suffixes we are dealing with in th is paper. In another paper, Mukoshy (1991)

PAGE 56

45 clarified this dis tinction. The primary class refers to Ns that are fixed within a particular class and will not change to another (for example, “horse” will always belong to the nonhuman class). On the other hand, secondary classes (like DIMs) may take any N. All these suffixes mark features or functi ons very essential to Fula speakers; as important as gender reference in Spanish, or number reference in English. In Spanish, we always find reference to the gender (often Ma sculine-Feminine) of entities in discussion. In English, we cannot speak without referring to the number (Sing-Pl) of the entity we talk about (more on this below in reference to Hardman’s, 1978 linguistic postulates). In the same fashion, Fula people cannot speak with out reference to aspects such as class, quantity, and animateness. According to M ukoshy (1991), in Fula, “a thing is either ordinary/normal, large, small, or tiny.” (p. 25). That is why he states that, unlike other cultures, Fula people do not see things in terms of masculinity or femininity (like Spanish-speaking people), but rather in term s of distinctions such as countable/ uncountable, animate/inanimate, and human-nonhuman. On the other hand, these nominal suffixe s, including the evaluative ones, mark class membership. This is precisely the reason for classifying the Fula evaluative suffixes as grammar-compliant (vs. pure semantic affi xes such as Spanish EVALs), since they are basically class/number and concord/agreemen t morphemes, unlike the same type of morphemes in other languages. They are basi cally grammatical markers (i.e., they code redundant information or information already present in the deriva tion). Anderson (1992) pointed out that this type of affixes include some sort of [+ Agr] features within the phrase (feature absent in Spanish EVALs). These features can be imposed on class-markers (such as Fula’s evaluative suffixes in our case) due to the position they have in the larger

PAGE 57

46 phrase and in relation to other phrase constituents. Anderson argue s that in this Fula class paradigm, DIM/AUGs act, morpho-syntactically, exactly as the PL(ural) suffixes. Thus, both PL and DIM, for example, should get the same label. The other type of morphol ogical marking of evaluativ eness corresponds to most cases of morphological EVALs: semantic suffixes. These, again, are optional in nature and not required by grammar-compliant rules. Spanish EVALs fall within this category as do the rest of the Romance languages EVALs and those of many other languages. This, at first sight, may seem to correspond to the inflectional-de rivational distinction. However, as argued before, this dichotomy is not principled and finds many counterexamples. We simply refer to these two t ypes of morphological marking as grammar vs. semantic suffixes (i.e., as a terminological tool). However, in our morpho-syntactic model, this distinction does not seem relevant, since both markings may be accounted for by sim ilar principles. We just need to keep in mind that the difference between the two re lies on LF processing. The “grammatical” type (e.g., Fula) involves redundant features ad joined at spellout or assignment of phonetic form-PF (not at LF) whereas the “s emantic” type (e.g., Spanish) involves nonredundant features required for LF interpretation. This distin ction is only important when further analyzing the specific gramma rs of languages with EVALs. In conclusion, languages mark the categor y of evaluativeness (or use EVALs) in one of two ways, synthetically (affixal inst antiation) or analy tically (non affixal instantiation), which may be in direct connec tion with the marking of language-specific postulates. This takes us to the assumption th at evaluativeness may be in fact a linguistic postulate.

PAGE 58

47 Linguistic Postulates a nd Evaluative Morphology Hardman (1978) defines linguist ic postulates as “those r ecurrent categorizations in the language… most directly and most tightly tied to the perceptions of the speakers” (p. 122). These are so imposed that the interactan ts view them as natural parts of their universe or reality. The importance of this in li nguistic research is simply that the more powerful a postulate is, the more involved it is in a language’s gramma tical system. Very succinctly, Hardman explains th at these postulates are languag e specific, and that they may be realized at different levels; morphol ogically or syntactically, for example, which was shown in the previous s ection. Hardman mentions some examples of these postulates in two different language families. On the one hand, we have postulates such as sex and number in Indo-European languages. On the other hand, we have da ta source (something similar to what O’Grady et al (1997) called “assertion” in Hidatsa) and humanity as linguistic postulates in Jaqi languages. We can assume, then, that these postu lates originate as human conceptual categories which may develop special signi ficance in a particular culture and consequently get coded in the language of that culture. We can also assume that this may be the case for EVAL marking and for the eval uativeness postulate. If we extrapolate, then, it would not be strange at all that so many languages exhibit this EVAL feature, even though it seemingly ought to be culture specific. The important point is that cognitive/conceptual categories (e.g., littlene ss) may have culturally very different realizations. It would be sim ilar to other linguistic postulates, such as number. Hardman mentioned number in Indo-European (IE) languag es, in which this category is a postulate. Other non-IE languages may also mark number (e.g., Hebrew, Fula). Miller (1993) points

PAGE 59

48 out that all languages have numerals, supporting the idea that number is conceptual (i.e., enumerating entities is a cognitive process). Postulates can pervade languages/culture s and even language families, as the arguments above suggest. If this is true with number and sex, there are no reasons to believe that it may not happen with other pos tulates such as the type of evaluation discussed in my study. Because of the observa tions mentioned so far and my findings in the literature, no doubt DIMs (or EVALs) ar e “among the grammatical primitives which seem to occur universally or near-universally.” (Jurafsky 1996: 534). On the other hand, we may need to reso rt to historical and anthropological linguistics to give another possible answer to the question of th e pervasiveness of evaluativeness. As Hardman suggests, postulate s such as sex and number are inherent in IE languages. What this implies is that these features are almost unavoidable when speaking an IE language. However, for non-IE sp eakers, those features are not of general importance; they are features with which they do not need to be concerned. One possible hypothesis for the existence of different linguistic features in a language is that these may come from language ancestors or Proto-languages. In the case of IE languages, historical linguists propose a Proto Indo-European or PI E stage (Jeffers and Lehiste, 1979). Thus, we might hypothesize that one reason sex a nd number marking occurs in so many IE languages is that these were also PIE’s linguistic postulates (Miller, in personal communication, clarifies that sex only became a postulate after the Anatolian branch split off); they just spread to many of its daughter s. Even though it might need more historical reconstructions (which Jurafsky claims to ha ve done for DIMs, as explained in the next chapter), this is a very plau sible explanation for understand ing the existence of similar

PAGE 60

49 postulates across languages. We have here another possible reason why the evaluation postulate is found in many languages. Due to the importance of historical developments in language, the next section presents a re latively brief overview of EVALs’ history. Origins of Spanish EVALs It is important to look at EVALs from a diachronic persp ective, even if the main focus of analysis is pragmatic-sociolingui stic. A well-known sociologist of language, Joshua Fishman (1972b), argued that socioli nguistics might well benefit from historical perspectives. Fishman believes that “time [or historical] perspective deepens our understanding of and appreciation for any pa rticular sociolinguistic topic.” (p. 146). Jurafsky (1996): “In recent years, however, many scholars have begun to treat the synchronic state of the semantics of a language as profoundly bound up with its diachronic nature” (p. 533). Let us consider each one of Spanish EVALs, in order of frequency. Even though the following is not a historical linguistic treaty, it should help the reader to know somewhat more about the suffixes under scrutiny here. Diminutives The 24 Spanish suffixes below have been associated more or less with DIM functions in the litera ture review (mainly based on lis ts by Gonzalez Olle, 1962; Gooch, 1967; Fernandez Ramirez, 1986; Penny, 1993; an d Pharies, 2002) across dialects and across time. In Appendix C, the reader can obs erved a table with these suffixes and some information about their origins and meanings. Le t us list them all here as a starting point, even though some of them will be hardly di scussed since they have either lost DIM functions or are hardly productive: -acho, -ajo, -ancho, -allo, -asc o, -culo, -eco, -ejo, -elo, -ico, -illo, -in, -ingo, -ino, -io, -it o, -oco, -orro, -ulo, -ucho, -uco, -u elo, -ujo, and –uncho

PAGE 61

50 When looking into the history of Spanish, we need to look first into the (mainly Vulgar) Latin language, its main ancestor (the IE language that appear ed in Italy probably around centuries VI or VII, given that Wall ace (1989) lists Latin inscriptions form 620600 BC). Admittedly, there are influences on Spanish from other languages such as Basque, Greek, Arabic, Proto-Germanic, and ot hers, as Entwistle (1948) clearly shows. We can also look for more remote origins if we look at the ancestors of Latin, namely the Proto-Indo European (IE) language, whose daught ers include Italic/La tin (Crystal, 1997). PIE and Latin antecedents There were Indo-European suffixes with funcin minorativa (Gonzalez-Olle 1962: 177). Of these, according to Gonzalez-Olle, lo evolved the most in Latin (> olo> ulo -). But – ko is also a reported IE suffix (eve n though some argue that it had DIM functions, it was mostly an emphatic affix), wh ich probably gave rise to the Latin DIM – culus when combined with –lo-. Thus, we may summarize sa ying that there were two main DIMs in Latin, ulus DIM for nouns of 1st and 2nd declension, and culus DIM for the rest of the declensions, refl ections of the IE equivalents lo and – ko -, respectively. The other Latin DIM – ellus (or its allomorphs – illus/-ollus/-ullus according to root final vowels) is believed to come from a morphonological variation of – ulus In relation to the use of this suffix, Gonzalez-Olle explains (whi ch has been known already) that in rootfinal liquids and nasals, assim ilation takes place (of –rootCs to the suffix [l]), after the loss of its initial V, producing the variant – ellus according to root final vowels (p. 178). This would give us cases like *librelo > *librlo > *liberlo >libellus (Steriade, 1988). However, whatever the specific origins of th e LAT DIMs were, we may assert, as Pharies (2002) did, that there were really only two LAT DIMs: -(c)ulus and –(c)ellus (p. 366) (four if –culus is separated from –ulus and –cellus from –ellus ), at least in the form they

PAGE 62

51 were really used in LAT. Let us see the de velopment of these and other related suffixes that gave rise to Spanish DIMs. References to specific phonologica l changes from Latin to Spanish are based on historical accounts by Resnick (1981) and Penny (1993). llus (Acc. – ellum > ellos ; the first is a short vowel, and ll is a geminate or long [l]). It has produced Spanish forms with an in itial [e], its diphthong [i], or the reduced diphthong [i], whence the Spanish DIM – illo and its variants. In relation to the new final vowel, there was a process of vocalic change s often implying a certain degree of vowel (V) lowering or opening (u o), according to descripti on of common Latin-to-Spanish phonological changes. Until the XIV centur y, the most frequent form was – iello and for approximately the next two centuries, – illo was the most common variant. -(i)(c) l s (sometimes it had a short or l ong –i): Common Latin (LAT) stress pattern rules causes the first –u of the suffix to be in unstressed position. When short vowels (e.g., – ) were in this position, they were normally lost from LAT to Spanish (SPN). It (plus rules menti oned above) would produce – iclo Another common phonological rule (i.e., –cl-j-) gives us a new form – ijo with no clear relation to vowel length. Vocalic changes such as -i e gave rise to – ejo, and in rare cases, when the –iwas long, it might have produced – ijo However, this last re lationship described is not totally clear. Pharies (2002) proposes mo re a semantic tie, rather than a phonological one. The allomorph – ulus gave rise also to – ulo which seems more a learned suffix, unlike those discussed above. lus (Late LAT) For this suffix, sim ilar processes of vowel opening (u o) and vowel dipthongization (stressed short o ue) take place. This gives us modern Spanish DIMs such as –uelo or –uela. The former comes from the accusative masculine singular

PAGE 63

52 form (olum ), which also implies a final-m deletion process, and the latter comes from its feminine counterpart (ola ). Other non-DIM Latin suffixes -inus : It would clearly produce our modern – in(a/o ) suffixes, according to the rules mentioned above. However, we should keep in mind that this is not a LAT DIM suffix. ttus : (hypocoristic anthroponomy, which will be discussed under “Meaning Changes”). This LAT suffix produces th e widespread and productive modern – ito even though it should have produced – eto which has also been observed as another DIM. This may be related to the DIM series in – et (eteetaeto ). Admittedly, this was not really a LAT DIM since “ Le latin ne possdait pas de suffixe diminutive en –tt-” (Hasselrot 1957: 9) (Latin did not have DIMs in – tt -). There is more on its original use and meaning below. -*iccus : (o.u.o.)(Vulgar LAT but not LAT, Phar ies, p. 306) This gave rise to – ico These are the most common historical accoun ts of the etymologi cal origins of the Spanish DIMs discussed in this paper. Let us now discuss some m odern and historical morpho-semantic restrictions on these suffixes. DIM’s formal grammar Regarding Latin, there were clear grammar restrictions for the suffixes discussed thus far. Some LAT suffixes are – ulus and – culus which gave rise to several Spanish suffixes such as – culo /ejo They attached to nouns and ad jectives to form their DIMs. The suffixes – ulus and culus were in an allomorphic re lation, probably morphologically motivated. The morphological motivation was in relation to noun classes. – ulus was used with nouns of the 1st and 2nd declension. Some examples mentioned by Pharies are: porta–ae >portula (1st declension) and servus –i > servulus (2nd declension). On the

PAGE 64

53 other hand, -culus was used for the rest of the declensions. For example, flos –oris > flosculus (3rd declension), manus –us > manuscula (4th declension), and dies –diei > diecula (5th declension). In Latin, according to Varro, a well-known Latin grammarian, suffixes such as – ulum (DIM in modern grammar) were used to mark one of the differences among nouns (Kent, 1938). Varro, according to Kent’s (1938) translation, asserted that Latin nouns “are vari ed in form to show differen ces in those things of which they are the names or to denote those things ou tside, of which they are not the names” (p. 381). Diminutives are used to mark differences with reference to the whole thing, not a part of it. Plurality and smallness were th e two main categories mentioned by Varro in reference to this aspect of nouns. The examples of smallness are: homunculus which meant “manikin” (from homo which meant “human being” plus the diminutive); and capitulum, which meant “little head” (from caput which meant “head” plus the diminutive). Varro also comments on the possi bility for recursiveness of DIMs in cases where double and even triple DIMs can be found (Ex. Cista “box” cistula “little box” cistella “a smaller box” cistellula “very little box”). Such cases were used on a sliding scale of greater diminuti on (i.e., 3 l’s is smaller than 2 l’s and 2 smaller than 1). The other Latin DIM – ellus (etymon of Spanish DIM – illo) used to be an allomorph (phonologically motivated) of -ulus for roots ending in a liquid or nasal consonant. This happened especially when the first –u was lost (caused by the common unstressed vowels deletion mentioned above) an d then the final consonant of the root (especially nasals and liquids) assimilated to the –lof – ulus Pharies mentions the example of liberulus liberlus libellus (diminutivization of “book”). However, ellus started replacing – ulus regardless of phonetic environment (probably around the first two

PAGE 65

54 centuries AD). The non allomorphic and productive – ellus used to have different connotations depending on the lexi cal category of the base; with adjective bases it had an attenuative function, and with nom inal bases it was a diminutivizer and/or differentiator. Pharies cites Gonzalez –Olle and Casa do Velarde (1992) in relation to the distribution of the three main Old Spanish DIMs: uelo (pedazuelo “little piece”) -ejo (portalejo “small portal”), and i(e)llo (cosilla “little thing”). The first was used mostly with root-final nonliquid sonorants; ejo was used for root-final liquids, and – iello elsewhere. However, for the XV century, i(e)llo started being used in phonetic contexts of its allomorphs (which gave rise to the significan t productivity of illo during those times.) Pharies cites Gonzalez-O lle’s about two variants of – iello in Old Spanish: -iello and – ciello The variant with –c(derived itself from – culus and this from the IE suffixes ko+lo ) is used for two-syllable bases ending in –e, iambic bases ending in –n/-r, and monosyllables ending in consonants, which is similar to the distribution of – ito/-cito and –illo/-cillo in Modern Spanish (with few altera tions and much dialectal variation; Mackenzie, 2001). DIM’s original senses Varro (1938), Hanssen (1952), Ettinger (1974) and Fruyt (1989) al l show that Latin made extensive use of DIMs, and these suffi xes were normally associated with the idea of littleness. The pure meaning of DIMs wa s, according to Malkiel (1989) “genuine miniaturizing… [it] underl ies the relationship of casa ‘house’ to casita ‘small house’, or seora ‘(married) lady’ to seorita ‘(unmarried) young lady’” (p. 95). Menendez-Pidal (1977), in reference to the Hispanic Romance times (probably around the 9th century), explained that the people then used to use DIMs (such as art c lus ) in a concrete sense of littleness of the base (p. 10). In the very first grammar written for any Romance

PAGE 66

55 language, around Renaissance and Middle Spanis h times, Nebrija (1492) considered the DIM as one of the nine forms or differ ences for derived nou ns, together with patronymics, possessives, augmentatives, comparatives, denominatives, verbals, participials, and adverbials. He defined deri ved DIMs as diminution of the original base: ombre (man) ombrezillo (man+DIM) = pequeo ombre (little man); thus the basic sense for early grammarians (Varro and Nebrija) is “little/small” (p. 93-94). Pattison (1975) separated diminutive and augmentative suffixes from the rest of early Spanish suffixes as “affective” or “appreciative”. The rest he called “categorials” (p. 5), which have basically a function of structural and logic order. Changes in meaning and productivity In general, there is a tendency of the type DIM > PEJ, not only in Spanish, but it seems to be a universal tendency, at all times and in all languages, as suggested by Pharies (in personal communication). Pharies further clarifies that not only DIM>PEJ but also AUG>PEJ is possible. Anything that is supposed to be big but is actually small causes the DIM>PEJ process. On the other hand, anything that is supposed to be small but is actually big causes the AUG>PEJ process. This section emphasizes the former process (DIM>PEJ). In the case of Spanish, much of the basic Latin sense of littleness in the diminutive is lost in many of the Spanish suffixes; and in many of those cases, it is the pejorative idea that prevails. Pharies (2002) thinks that this is the normal trajectory or course of La tin DIMs that end up becoming Spanish pejorative suffixes (p. 423), even though this is one of the attested functions in Latin, as shown in the following example mentioned by Miller (2003) in personal interviews: Graeculus = “lousy little Greek!” This is the most essential change in the semantics and pragmatics of the diminutives. This can be observed in the following DIMs that now have

PAGE 67

56 both diminutive and pejorative functions in Spanish: ancho, -ejo, -ete, -ucho and – uncho All these had a smallness sense in their Latin origins (e.g., culus ), but now this littleness sense seems to be competing with pejorative connotations. Other suffixes exist whose diminutive sense has been completely lost: elo and – ulo (from Latin – ellus and – ulus respectively). There are yet other less frequent ph enomena in relation to the semantic development of these Spanish DIMs: One is reanalysis, and the other is semantic association. Some reanalysis is observed in – usculum which becomes a suffix via a wrong morphological analys is, which reanalyzes corpus-culum as corp-usculum (Pharies 2002: 507). Semantic extension or association is a plausible explanati on for the origin of the very productive DIM – ito according to Pharies (2002) Gonzalez-Olle (1962), and others. Originally, it is believed that – ittus was used with anthroponyms (especially as nicknames for people). It is logical, seman tically speaking, to see the connection between these types of names and the diminutives sin ce both share hypocoristic connotations. It is not uncommon to see these types of names gi ven to children, and this could have been the explanation of its association with th e sense of smallness, which probably was extended later to inanimate entities. Also, Alonso (1937) considers more important for the DIM the idea of hypocoristic and expressi veness than smallness. This, again, could have been an even stronger reason to extend – ittus to its DIM behavior. In relation to productivity, it is noticeable that many suffixes treated in this paper are not productive. They are either productive only di alectally (like – oco in Chile), or with very limited productivity (such as – ujo or – ucho ), or with no productivity at all (uco, -ulo, -ueco among others). There seem to be around four that are productive in

PAGE 68

57 modern Spanish, namely ejo, -ico, -illo and – ito Of these, ejo is not really a diminutive; it serves more pejorative and at tenuating functions, as Pharies’ example with azulejo (bluish) shows. Thus, my study focuses on the productivity of the other three. -ico. -ico was productive between the XV and the XVII centuries. Today it is mostly in allomorphic variation with – ito in Caribbean Spanish (which has already been discussed under “Formal Grammar”). Very few – ico diminutives are found in Spanish literature of the 2nd half of the XVII century. In one example Pharies cites, there were only five – ico DIMs found in Don Ramon de la Cruz’s comedies. In the same literary works, 206 times –illo was found, and 1008 times for –ito Thus, obviously in this time, ito was the most productive DIM, followed by – illo and finally – ico – illo. This suffix becomes generalized betw een the XIV and XV centuries. Before, it was – iello which was the Spanish DIM par excellence The suffix -illo is related to – llus which is not frequent in Latin until the Po st-Classical period (centuries I, II AD). At that moment, llus started replacing – ulus which was the most productive Latin DIM until that time. Around the XV century, -illo competed hand-in-hand with – ito. However, after this period, ito wins the productivity race. Alva r and Pottier (1987) present – ito even attaching to verbs ( dormitar= “sleep+DIM” ) ito The suffix -ito becomes more common during the XV century, and its frequency and productivity continues to grow until today, when it represents the Spanish DIM par excellence Until the XV century, – illo was apparently the most productive Spanish DIM. However, Gonzalez Olle suggest s a very interesting explanation regarding this apparently long period of time between –ittus and the appearance of – ito during the 12th and 13th centuries and then the long time before the great productivity of such affix

PAGE 69

58 in the 15th century. Gonzalez Olle suggests that it may be the case that – ito was used during these apparent times of absence but in uneducated or very informal environments, which made it inappropriate for formal writings of the time. This is the reason this suffix is not found in the documents that re searchers normally have access to. The productivity of ito in the 15th century may be caused by two factors. One is the linguistic pressure to use new expressive resources in the li terature of the time, which was in need of such a revival. The other f actor, more at a societal dimension, was that popular issues gained some prestige during this time caused by the social mobility (to higher social status and positions) of members of the low social classes. Thus, the language of such low social classes (among whose featur es were the uses of – ito ), similarly to other cultural ma nifestations, started acquiring more importance and respect, to the point of including it in the literary wo rks of the time. As can be seen, this is obviously a sociolinguistic phenomenon, reflected here by the use of DIMs. This loss of productivity of – illo is clear in the lexicaliz ation of words ending in – illo as Pharies suggests. In Spanish, we now assume that words such as comilla (comma+ DIM = quotation marks) bolsillo (bag+DIM = pocket) and others are monomorphemic, because – ito attaches to them with a clea r diminutive function. Admittedly, illo still keeps some productivity but at the dialec tal level, as other DIMs. Augmentatives -azo This is often an adjectivizer and nominali zer that attaches to nouns. Pharies (2002) recognizes two semantic senses in modern Sp anish: a) Augmentative (it makes the base N bigger than what is normal or convenient, or it intensifies the adje ctive base); and b) Names the objects that can be used for hitti ng or the hit that can be given with such

PAGE 70

59 objects. The suffix -azo comes from Latin ceus where it had the original function of deriving adjectives of belonging from nouns. On the one hand, Pharies explains that the augmentative sense appears first in the s poken Latin of the Western region, and the “hitting” sense in the Spanish of the XV centu ry, which represents a secondary evolution of the augmentative sense. On the other hand, he recognizes that it is very difficult to connect or to show the evolution from the orig inal sense in Latin to the modern senses (of augmentative nature, mostly). He agrees w ith Malkiel (1959) in the sense that this evolution may represent a post-classical-La tin innovation. Malkiel, as cited by Pharies (2002), believes that this e volution may be caused by a seri es of nouns which had this suffix and referred to bulks or piles of some thing or big things. A nother possibility for this connection or semantic binding, using Ju rafsky’s (1996) terms, is that markers of belonging or pertaini ng (such as Latin – ceus, English -ist, or Spanish – al or – ista ) normally imply not only a sense of belonging to the base but also having the qualities expressed by the base in a characteristic wa y. We need to remember here that this is probably the same type of evolution observed in Spanish – al The sense of belonging is such that the entity is characterized pr imarily by such a quality (A Latin American ist for example, is a professional that focuses only or primarily in Latin American issues); in this way, we can say that th is quality is augmented. My study does not elaborate further on the modern sense of – azo of nomen actionis (the naming of an action –in this case of “h itting”) since it is not AUG. Some argue that these two senses are so different that it may be necessary to see this as another homophony in the language, which synchronicall y may be the case, but diachronically is

PAGE 71

60 debatable. This second sense is not essent ially or transparentl y an augmentative; therefore, a discussion on th e evolution of such sense is irrelevant in my study. -al According to Pharies (2002), th is suffix comes from Latin – lis Both in Latin and in most uses in Modern Spanish, this suffix is an adjectivizer attached to nouns. In Spanish, this has thre e main connotations: Expression of belonging or a similar relationship. Place naming, especially where items like plants are abundant. Collectivity. In the second sense, it normally has the form of a nominalized adjective. Pharies cites examples in both senses. Sense ‘a’ can be found in words such as: anual (annual) (belonging to ao or “year”), invernal (winter+the suffix al ) meaning “relative to winter”. For the second sense, Pharies cites naranjal (orange+the suffix al ) meaning a place with many orange trees, and maizal (corn+the suffix al ) meaning a piece of land where they grow corn. Even though Pharies does not mention the augmentative function of – al in some dialects of Modern American Spanish, this suffix is used with such functions, meaning “much” or “a big amount of”. This is in line with the second sense of the affix but also with the third sense. We can clearly see how these senses me ntioned above gave origin to the idea of “much” or “big”. Both give the idea of a significant number of something. Now we can see examples such as pantanal (mud+ al ) and dineral (money+ al ). The latter example was cited by Pharies as a collectiveness marker. In this sense, there may be a clear contrast with the DIM; dinerito (a little money) vs. dineral (a lot of money). From

PAGE 72

61 here, we can see how in some dialects of of modern Spanish, this suffix may be used as an AUG. -n Pharies (2002) observes two distinct origins and functi ons of this suffix: The augmentative and the nomina actionis (naming of an action). The AUG n comes from Latin – nis which in Latin attaches to nouns a nd verbs to designate people that are particularly characterized by some action, f eature or habit, undesired generally. In Spanish, we still see this type of use in words such as llorn chilln (cry+ n = person that cries too much) and frentn (forehead+ n= person with a big forehead). Thus, this type of function is still an AUG function. The nomina actionis – n comes from its Latin counterpart –( i) nis. Even though different, these two origins and functions end up influencing each other, as explained by Pharies. Finall y, Pharies and Gonzalez Olle (1962) recognize the diminutive function of this AUG, shown in the present analysis. Pharies (2002) also recognizes the pejorative function of th is AUG. Pharies suggests that certain actions are considered ne gative if they are intensified. For example, it is bad to sleep too much, whereas it is no t necessarily bad to read or study too much. If the suffix is added to verbs like to sleep, then that creates a pejorative connot ation, which is not the case with verbs such as to breathe or to st udy. This is in line with the findings in my study. Regarding the second sense of –n ( nomina actionis ), Pharies explains that different authors believe that th is second sense in many cases (e.g., rascazn “scratch+ n ”, hartazn “swallow/eat + n ”) is also interpreted as an augmentative, and that in some cases it is almost im possible to separate these two uses ( bajn “pull down+ n ”, visitn “to visit+ n ”). In light of this discus sion, many such uses of – n in

PAGE 73

62 the data under scrutiny here have been labele d as augmentatives, even though we have to recognize the different origins and uses. -ote: According to Gooch (1967), ote became very productive in the 19th and 20th centuries. Pharies (2002) argues for the hypothesi s of the Catalan origin of such suffix instead of the French origin, as other authors have suggested. It seems that all the authors agree that there is no Latin etymon for Spanisn – ote The ultimate origin may be – ttus a non-Latin hypocoristic and proba bly analogically related to –ittu (etymon of Spanish – ito ), originally. Many authors agree in the direct genetic rela tionship of this – ttus, Vulgar Latin suffix of foreign origin, and the Catalan –ot Pharies rejects the French hypothesis because the bases of the few – ote words that were borrowed from French into Spanish were not transparent to the Spanish speakers of the time, unlike the Catalan loans. The Catalan bases for the suffix – ot were indeed understood by Spanish speakers (e.g., animalot ), and the suffix in Catalan has the sa me evaluative function as the Spanish – ote today. Apart from this, there is a paralle l borrowing from Catalan to Spanish of the DIM – ete All these arguments, according to Pharies, are enough to sustain the Catalan hypothesis. The final vowel (e) in –ote is paragogic to satisf y phonotactic constraints in Spanish. It is not uncommon in Spanish since there are common schwa insertion processes (e.g., speak espeak) that satisfy Spanis h phonotactics in foreign words; probably a simple case of phonological adaptation. Because of this origin and the modern uses of – ote Pharies labels this suffix as an augmentative-pejorative, which was essentiall y the use in the Catalan etymon; except in North East Catalan, where it was a diminutive-pejorative suffix. There seems to be primarily a pejorative and an augmentative use, and secondly a diminutive function.

PAGE 74

63 Pharies indicates that this uncertainty between DIM and AUG, always with the pejorative, is also observed in Spanish, even though 95% of the cases it is the AUG the one that is realized (p. 456). Some have argued that pejorative connotations may be inherent in augmentative functions. Pharies ci tes Latorre (1956) who thinks that the AUG has the particular property of communicating a mocking, joke, and cartoon-like tone. Latorre thinks that what is great is never expressed via AUGs, but only what is extraordinarily out of shap e or proportions (modern – azo an exception). This should be taken with caution. What is undesired, funny or j oke in one culture may be the opposite in another. Admittedl y, as Pharies (in personal communication) suggests, anything that is smaller or bi gger than the norm can inspire negative or pejorative connotations because it is too small or too big. Thus, if bigness is fine or positively viewed, then the AUG would not create pejorative c onnotations (and if smallness is positive, then DIMs would not produce pejoration). For some, what is extraordinarily big may be what is desired and smallness may be undesired or funny; in which case, DIMs would very like ly become pejoratives. AUG – azo in modern Spanish, for example, may mean “great” (car+ azo ). Superlative Regarding this suffix, Nebrija asserted that the Castilian (Spani sh) language of his time did not really have superlatives (a s explained by Alvar and Pottier, 1987: 378). Then, we may ask, technically, does modern Sp anish have SUPERLs? If superlative is considered the grammatical function of “mos t” as observed in comparative adjectives such as positive (good), comparative (better), a nd superlative (best), then as in Nebrija’s times, – simo is not really a superlative (at least no t one with the meaning of “the most”) in Modern Spanish. Unlike Latin, whose SU PERL meant “most” and “very”, Modern

PAGE 75

64 Spanish SUPERL means mostly “very”. Ther e are still a few cases with relative superlative functions but mo stly for honorific reasons and mostly in learned words ( Excelentsimo Seor Presidente or “Excellent+SUPERL Mr. President”, for example). However, this suffix does exist in modern Spanish, which is apparently a difference between contemporary Spanish and Nebrija’s Sp anish, in which this suffix was not part of Spanish morphology. SUPERL does exis t in contemporary Spanish but with a somewhat different connotation from its ances tor or etymon in Latin. If SUPERL simply means “very”, as my study and many others su ggest, then this func tion is performed in Spanish both analytically/periphrastically a nd synthetically. Synthetically is performed via prefixes such as re-, requete and others, as Alvar and Po ttier (1987) suggest and via the SUPERL suffix – simo which these authors do not account for. Jrnvig (1962) indicated that this synthetic elative, in its origin, represented a learned suffix of late introduction to Spanish (from Latin). This Latinism in Spanish was caused by the Latin Renaissance, very infl uential during the John II of Castile reign (1406-1454). Because of this, many Latinisms invaded the Spanish language; and this SUPERL was one of them. Jrnvig cites the XV century as the first time in which this suffix appeared in Spanish. However, the spread of this suffix did not occur significantly until the second half of the XVI century, when it was also commonly observed in informal settings; thus, not more a learned suffi x necessarily. He criticized the theory that the origin of this suffix in Spanish was due to the Italian language. He concluded that the appearance in Spanish emerges from its Latin etymon, as mentioned before, but its fast spread later on was definitely influenced by It alian but also by the influence of Catholic preachers in Spain, who used this suffix extens ively. Recall that one of the most powerful

PAGE 76

65 tools of conquest and colonization of th e Roman Empire was the Catholic Church. Catholic preaching and teaching was a constant in Roman Empire times, thus, listening to Catholic preachers was a very common activity in the cities where this Empire ruled. Therefore, Catholic preachers’ language may ha ve easily influenced the language of their audience. These preachers were not only Romans (the ruling class) but also those who spoke in the name of God, so they may have enjoyed an important reputation for a long time. It is not strange, then, that this el ite class of “good, ruling, holy and powerful’ preachers had linguistically influenced the masses. Conclusion Evaluativeness, as a primitive linguistic category, involves both semantic features (such as "littleness"/"bigne ss", "approximation", "insignifica nce", “intensification” and the like) and pragmatic features (such as "attenuation", "admiration", "endearment", “modesty”, and others related.) This is a ve ry common feature crosslinguistically, which is manifested in child-related language and language acquisition observations. Thus, categories such as littleness, childness, and endearment may have been elevated to a postulate. Languages often mark this linguistic category via diminutives, augmentatives, pejoratives, and other related morphemes. Evaluatives may have different morphosyntactic behaviors from langua ge to language, even though th ey tend to preserve similar semantic and pragmatic connotations crosslingui stically. Marking this feature analytically (as in English, for example), or synthetically (as in Spanish or Fula) depends on either the history of the language or the degree of signi ficance of such a feat ure in a particular culture and cognitive aspects. Evaluative mo rphology, the main focus of this paper, is precisely the marking of this feature at the synthetic level in some languages. However, evaluativeness may imply cross-linguistic semantic and pragmatic connotations at

PAGE 77

66 different grammar levels. This category crosses boundaries of grammar levels and cultures. Notes 1 References on languages cited: for Japanese Suzuki, R. (1999). Language socialization through morphology: The affective suffix –CHAU, in Journal of Pragmatics 31, pp. 1423-41; for Greek, Alexopoulos, E. (1994). Use of Diminutives and Augmentatives in Modern Greek. In Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV. pp. 283-88. Irene Philippaki-Warburton (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins; for Swahili, Frankl, P.J., and Omar, Y. (1994). Diminutiv es and Insignificance, Augmentatives and "Monstrosity": Examples of Class Reassignment in Swahili, in South African of African Languages 14:3, pp. 113-116; for Dutch: Robinson, O. (1980). Dutch Diminutives Over Easy. In Dutch Studies 4, pp. 139-157; and for German: Schneider, K. (1993). Pragmagrammar and the Case of German Diminutives. In Wieviel Grammatik braucht der Mensch? pp. 158-73. Theo Harden (Ed.) Munich: Iudicium.

PAGE 78

67 CHAPTER 3 SEMANTIC ISSUES A complete analysis of Spanish EVALs’ functions and uses must start with fundamental semantic considerations. This ch apter answers two inte rrelated questions: 1) What are the propositional meanings of Sp anish EVALs?, and 2) How can we account for the diversity of meanings and uses? This discussion takes us to the core semantics of Spanish EVALs and to an explanation of their polysemy, which is an important characteristic of this type of Spanish morphology (unlike other Spanish morphological processes). This chapter first addresses some general and fundamental semantic issues regarding the model adopted here and then focuses on each of the three Spanish EVALs, in the following order, according to th eir degree of polysemy: DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs. Semantic vs. Pragmatic Polysemy We can look at the case of polysemy obser ved in Spanish EVALs, especially DIMs and AUGs, from the perspective of cognitive sema ntics, since it has to do with the way speakers of Spanish organize this type of concept or category: evaluativeness. Here polysemy is defined, according to Taylor (2003) and from a cognitive semantic perspective, as the associa tion of two or more relate d meanings with a single phonological form. The term polysemy normally refers to semantic senses, but it can obviously extend to pragmatic forces. In the ca se of Spanish EVALs, we observe a type of polysemy more at the pragmatic level, wh ich can be labeled as “polypragmy”. When we say that Spanish DIMs are “polypragmous”, then, we mean that DIMs have many

PAGE 79

68 (connected but different) pragma tic functions, which may be distinct from pure semantic polysemy. Ambadiang (1997) suggests that the very complex morphology of DIM formation (e.g., various allomorphs, various options for the same base) may be due precisely to the fact that diminutivized words may receive multiple interpretations. Reynoso (2002) referred to this polysemy as “uno de los aspectos ms caraterizadores del uso del diminutivo” (one of the most distinctive feat ures of the use of DIMs) (2002: 937). For example, she referred to at least seve n different connotations of this suffix (all of which were observed in the data analy zed as shown in the pragmatic analysis presented in the next chapter): affection ([ dear]), pejoration, littlen ess, intensification (“very”), euphemism, emphasis (a type of intensification in the present analysis), and subjective expressive dimi nution of base identity. This type of polysemy of EVALs (esp ecially DIMs and AUGs) is complementary in Nerlich and Clarke’s (2003) terms, since all the various senses analyzed here are connected. This constitutes a fundamental princi ple for this chapter. This principle goes back to Wittgenstein’s (1974) “family re semblances” used in prototype theory. Wittgenstein indicated that What a concept-word indicates is certai nly a kinship between objects, but that kinship need not be the sharing of a co mmon property or a constituent. It may connect the objects like the links of a chai n, so that one is linked to another by intermediary links Two neighboring members may ha ve common features and be similar to each other, while distant ones belong to the same family without any longer having anything in common. The relations between the members of a concept may be set up by the sharing of features which s how up in the family of the concept, crossing and overlapping in very complicated ways. (1974: 35) This may explain why Jaeggli (1980) refers to diminutivization (and EVALs in general) as one of the most productive mor phological processes of Spanish.

PAGE 80

69 Two distinct types of functions or connot ations of Spanish EVALs clearly exist: semantic and pragmatic ones. These should be kept separate even though they are related. Reynoso (2002), in one of the most recent se mantic-pragmatic accounts of DIMs in the Spanish language, makes a difference between semantics (referential) and pragmatics (non-referential) also, but sh e includes both under the general cover term of semantics. Pure semantic aspects in he r analysis are under the seman tic-referential category; the pragmatic aspects are under the semantic-pragmatic category. This is precisely where Reynoso’s study a nd my study converge but diverge at the same time. Like Reynoso’s, my study shows both types of effects. However, theoretically, the non-referential aspects are not semantic here precisely because of their non-referential nature. This difference may be more a conceptual that a practical one, however. My study discusses the neutral sense ([ little]) mostly in this chapter, where the semantic connections of DIMs are shown to gr ow out of this basic littleness notion. In the pragmatic chapter, this neutral or non-refere ntial use is briefly di scussed, with examples from the data. The majority of the next ch apter focuses, however, on non-referential or pragmatic functions, which synchronically and functionally have little or nothing to do with the core sense of little ness. That is one of the main reasons these two areas are conceptually and organizationally kept separate in my study. One more important difference of my study to Reynoso's analysis is that my study places the DIM within a broader study of Sp anish evaluatives. In this way, we can observe some important aspect s that are true not only to DIMs but also to Spanish EVALs in general. DIMs are just part of a broader phenomenon: Spanish evaluativeness.

PAGE 81

70 Admittedly, it is at times very difficult to separate semantic from pragmatic functions. However, there are many instances wh ere it is very clear that a non-referential (pragmatic) use is at play. We will see later that context is a crucial aspect in this respect. For example, DIMs are normally associated w ith the meaning of littleness but also with endearment (Jaeggli, 1980; Hualde et al., 2001 ). The latter is a more pragmatic function whereas the former a more semantic one. Based on different contexts, there are many other pragmatic functions of such affi xes: irony, euphemism, intensification, and augmentativization, among others. Now, the main question is: What is the connection, if any, between the pure basic semantic denotatio n and these other pragmatic functions of the DIM; and the other EVALs? The ne xt section discusses these issues. Cognitive Semantic Model: Radial Categories One possible explanation for the multiplicity of pragmatic functions is extension or association (some may also argue that we see se mantic shift as well, at least in the case of the endearment notion). This present analysis shows, based on the theoretical framework used here (Jurafsky, 1996), that all the pragmatic functions observed grow out of or emerge from the basic “littleness” notion. This chapter is, in essence, a cognitive semantic one with the purpose of answering the first research question of my study: How can we link the diverse meanings and uses of Spanish EVALs? Even though we need to refer to many pragmatic features, they all ar e connected to a basic semantic-referential meaning. Jurafsky’s model builds on Lakoff’s (1987) radi al categories, the first to formally and overtly apply Rosch’s ( 1983) psychological model of pr ototypes to linguistics, and cognitive linguistics in partic ular. We also discussed above how this model emerges from the field of philosophy in the works of Wittgenstein (1974). As mentioned, one of

PAGE 82

71 Wittgenstein’s major findings is that some cat egories do not express a single concept or meaning. Categories may be instead characte rized by family resemblances (or related features). These resemblances are widely shared among the different nodes or members of this semantic mapping or network (or “c ategory members”) in an overlapping fashion, such that no one feature is common to all. This framework suggests that these members have an internal structure. There are members that are typical, ther e are others that are exemplar y, and yet there may be others that are anomalous. In many cases, Spanish EVALs for example, we see what Rosch (1983) and Lakoff (1987) call a “radial structure”, since there are core meanings. In Rosch’s prototypical model, a prototype (an el ement in a category used to represent the category as a whole) is used as a cogn itive construction to perform some kind of reasoning. It basically functions as a cognitive reference po int. The central subcategory (e.g., littleness for DIMs, as suggested below) of this network provided the basis for extending the category in new ways and for de fining variations. Lako ff suggests that at the cognitive root or core of the formation of categories, we find image schemata and their metaphorical tokens. That is the reason one of the most useful cognitive tools in this type of semantic mapping are general extens ion mechanisms such as the metaphor or metonymic chaining. In summary, the cognitive semantic a pproach applied in my study builds upon Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance categories based on a complicated network of similarities or associations that may overlap and criss-cros s. This criss-crossing allows in category members with hardly any elem ent in common, but it is crucial that each overlap with certain other members of the category. Such is the case of seemingly

PAGE 83

72 opposing connotations as endearment vs. pejo ration and “littleness” vs. “very” (in the case of DIMs), attenuation vs. intensification (in the case of AUGs), and formality vs. informality (in the case of SUPERLs). Wittgen stein (1974) proposed then a certain level of tolerance for fuzzy boundaries or blurred edges Rosch (1983) and Lakoff (1987), on the other hand, observed a certain automatic and unconscious tendency in humans to perceive categorically and to base those categories on pr ototypical examples. Radial categories are composed of chained elements that radiate out from the central (prototypical) examples, and this chaining is frequently a matter of metonymic links as well as shared features. Cruse (1986) observes similar principles, more from a lexical semantic perspective. In Cruse’s model, related meanings of a word blend fluidly into one another, and different aspects of a word’s meaning may be emphasized or de-emphasized depending on the context in which it occurs. This fram ework has even been applied to computer models for Natural Language Processing (NLP) in cases of polysemy. Dolan et al. (2000) for example, show how their computer mode l’s (MindNEt) “processing of the discrete senses in machine-readable dictionaries yields a representation of lexical semantics with the continuous properties of Cruse’s model” (2000: 182). This all emerged from many instances of polysemy and the practical task of word sense disambiguation in natural language processing. Thus, the principles my study adheres to have been useful in philosophy, cognitive sciences, computer scie nces, and linguistics. The following is an example of its linguistic a pplication, our main concern. Jurafsky’s Model: DIM’s Radial Category: Let us now consider more specifically the issues con cerning evaluative morphology an d the Radial Category Model

PAGE 84

73 described above. The only EVAL that has recei ved more formal consideration in this approach is the DIM. Jurafsky’s (1996) Radi al Category Model argues that despite the crucial dependence of synchronic meaning on both historical and cognitive context, researchers have traditionally used different tools for captu ring synchronic and diachronic generalizations in modeling a complex semantic category like the diminutive. In the case of the diminutive, this is partly caused by th e extraordinary, often c ontradictory range of senses synchronically (small size, affection, approximation, intensification, female gender), and the difficulty of proposing a cohe rent historical rec onstruction for these senses. Jurafsky (1996) synchronically tries to e xplain the varied and contradictory senses of the diminutive. Diachronically, the radial category act s as a kind of a rchaeology of meaning capturing the generalizatio ns of the classic mechanis ms of semantic change (metaphor, abstraction and inference). He claims to have compared DIMs and their origins in more than 60 languages, particul arly in Indo-European where the theory suggests a new reconstruction of the proto-semantics of the PIE suffix *ko -. Jurafsky shares with Lakoff the fundamental intuition that the body is a central site in grounding interpretations of the world, including thos e that involve power and dominance issues. Thus, much of his reasoni ng in the linking chains for DIMs lies on this body-world connection. In summary, Jurafsky’s (1996) Radial Category Model accounts for both the synchronically and diachronically diverse semantics of the diminutive. This is a type of structured polysemy, which clearly binds the various DIM senses. From a synchronic approach (the main focus of my study), th e model accounts for the various and apparently

PAGE 85

74 contradictory senses of the diminutive, for example in cases when a DIM has AUG functions (see the “Intensifying DIM” below) Historically, Jurafsky also presents a binding of these diverse senses with a common original source. He concludes that “the origins of the diminutive cross-linguistically lie in words semantically or pragmatically linked to children” (1996: 533). The followi ng is a summary of the diagram Jurafsky proposed. In his diagram, numb ers indicate the sequential orde r or semantic associations. For example, he assigns 1 to the [child] sens e, and 2 to [affection]. This simply means that first is the sense of childness (the core), and then it expands to have the notion of affection (2) and then the idea of smallness (3 ). From the sense of smallness, several other connotations emerge, agai n in order of sequence: cont empt, female, resemblance, and approximation. These other nodes also may originate other ideas or connotations. For example, the resemblance node gives rise to the idea of imitation, and the approximation node gives rise to the function of hedging. Other functions of DI Ms also appear in Jurafsky’s diagram, but the ones summarized here are the ones found in the data. The various uses or functions in the da ta are explained based on this model. Following Jurafsky, all the functions of DI Ms may be bound to some more general and common sources. The innovations of my study, in the applicati on of this model, are the following: Application to a synchronic naturalis tic data study in monolingual Spanish contexts. Accounting for other uses of the DIM not accounted for by Jurafsky; namely, the euphemistic, ironic, and commiserating functions. Extension to other Spanish EVALs ( not only to DIMs, as Jurafsky did). Emphasis on the pragmatic aspect of su ch semantic binding or association.

PAGE 86

75 One important consideration that distinguishes my study from Jurafsky (1996) has to do with the universality of such a model. Even though th e categories analyzed here (e.g., DIMs) may be universal, it is very ha rd to use this type of model (Radial Categories) to explain the connections of diverse uses of DIMs made in all cultures (where DIMs constitute a linguistic categor y) and languages. Inst ead of universalizing such proposal, my study uses this model to describe potential links between the core sense of littleness and the ot her uses or meanings of DI Ms (and other EVALs) within a particular context: Spanish-sp eaking groups observed in the da ta. Thus, in my study, it is not necessarily a theoretical explanatory model but a potential descriptive tool of some specific linguistic behavior in a particular speech community. Diminutives Core Sense of DIMs The goal in this section is to explore a nd propose a plausible definition of the basic semantics of DIMs. In other words, following the Radial Category Model, it is an attempt to answer the following question: Which sense is the one that connects, somehow, all the other senses of this suffix (at least in the data analyzed here)? Voeykova (1998) indicates that there are basically two formal hypotheses about the ba sic semantics of DIMs that may have served as a base for the many ot her variations in meaning at present: “smallness” (Dressler and Merlini-Barbar esi, 1994; Ravid, 1998) or “childness” (Wierzbicka, 1984; Jurafsky, 1996). Because of the arguments below, my study rejects the “childness” hypothesis and favors the more traditional perspective; “smallness”, but with some modification. My study proposes that the notion or concept of “littleness”, and not necessarily “smallness”, is what constitu tes the core sense of DIMs in general, and Spanish DIMs in particular (assuming “littlen ess” is a broader term than “smallness”;

PAGE 87

76 “small” seems to refer only to size, but “l ittle” also refers to amount, for example). Below, let us see first the inconsistencies in which Jurafsky fails when trying to assign the “childness” sense to the nucleus of this semantic category of DIM. Jurafsky suggests that an acceptable semantic analysis of DIMs cannot rely on just a single abstract concept based on “small”. Th e reason for this, he argues, is that we would need many metaphorical, inferential, or abstractive extensions in order for “small” to be able to model senses such as individuating, imitation or exactness functions. According to Jurafsky, the notion of “small” does not connect whatsoever with words such as Spanish boquete (“hole”) derived from boca (“mouth”), since a boquete indeed can be larger than a boca He furthermore cites Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi (1994) to indicate that the diminutive cannot simply be listed in the lexicon/grammar with the “smallness” abstract meaning only, and that other senses are deri ved by contextuallybased inferences when the diminutive is use d. Dressler, Merlini-Ba rbaresi and Jurafsky point out that if it were the cas e (“small” as the core), then we would expect these same inferences for words for “small” in each language (i.e., Italian piccolo should behave like the diminutive -ino ); this does not occur. They conc luded that there must be some additional, complex, lexicalized meanings specific to this type of suffix. However, there are some inconsistencie s in the previous arguments. First, metaphorical and inferential extensions are an essential part of the cognitive model Jurafsky is applying. How can they then be le ft out? Why not link the sense “little” to other senses via metaphors or inferences? Furt hermore, any link of the “child” sense with other connotations will also need metaphoric and inferential abstractions. If we do not apply this type of semantic extension, we w ill not be able to assign any concept to a core

PAGE 88

77 sense of any category, and the model of Radi al Category turns useless. Second, the only concrete example he showed to argue agai nst “littleness” as the basic sense is the boquete example. However, this word can indeed be interpreted with the approximation or imitation function Jurafsky mentioned before. A boquete is “sort of a mouth”, but not really a mouth. A boquete is missing many features to make it a real mouth, and that is why it is just “a little bit like a mouth”. It, in fact, can be easily connected with the “littleness” concept. Finally, it would be even more difficult and much more abstract to connect this DIM with the concept of “childness” Third, if we were to adhere to Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi’s (1994) argument above, then again we could not assign to DIMs any core sense, since the equivalent lexical items for this type of morphological marker can always behave differently. For example, the word for “child” (Jurafsky’s suggestion) does not behave the same as the morpheme –ito in Spanish. The following is the only section in Jura fsky’s paper where some argumentation is given for the choice of childness: “My tenta tive conclusion is that the origin of the morphological diminutive is the sense Child. We show that in almost every case in which a historical origin can be determined for a diminutive morpheme, the source was either semantically related to Child (e.g., a word meaning “child” or “son”), or pragmatically related to Child (e.g., a hypocoristic suffi x on names)” (p. 562). However, without looking at the specific examples, these words or morphemes that probably meant “child”, “son” or hypocoristics (proba bly in ancestors and protolanguages), could also be interpreted as “little”. For example: Victorcito can mean “little Victor”, “Victor’s son”, “child Victor” or “Victor Jr.”. What tools we re used to determine that the meaning was “child” and not “little” is not clear in Jurafsky’s study. He also mentioned hypocoristics

PAGE 89

78 and toponyms as sources of DIMs in ma ny languages, especially Indo-European languages. However, that does not show the or iginal sense of “child”. On the contrary, how can we explain that names for places (e.g., cities, towns, regions) gave origin to the notion of “childness”? It is more plausible to associate place name s with the notion of “littleness” because one of the inherent properties in places is size; which may be related to “littleness” more than to “childness”. At times, there is much ambiguity regard ing his proposal for a core sense. For example: “our examination of the IE data s uggests a completely different reconstruction, in which ‘child’ and not ‘relatedto’ is the proto-semantics of *ko -, and the various approximation and related-to senses are extensions of this core small/child? sense” (bold and question mark added; Jurafsky, 1996: 565). One possible reason for this ambiguity is precisely the apparent contradiction that his own data s howed. For example, he shows the different PIE’s daughter languages he analyz ed to reconstruct the semantics of *-ko (p. 566). In the section that he categorizes as the “SMALL/CHILD” senses, of the eleven examples he gave, nine have clearly the “small” or “little” sense and only two have apparently the “child/son” sense. Even more in the only case where this type of DIM does not have a modified base or noun, it si mply meant “small” (not “child”). It is important to note here, however, that in Span ish (and other Romance languages), it is not the PIE suffix –ko but – lo the one that constitutes the etymon for many Spanish DIMs today (Pharies, 2002). This ambivalence of Ju rafsky’s examples probably constitutes the main reason for him to recognize, at times, not one but two central senses for DIMs: “… the central senses Child and Small. Every dimi nutive in our database has either the Child or Small sense” (p. 561).

PAGE 90

79 One more inconsistency shown in Jurafsky (1996) was in relation to the analytical or periphrastic DIMs (adjectiv es such as “little” or “small”). Jurafsky observed that petit in French is grammaticalizing as a dimi nutive, and the former diminutive suffix -ette is disappearing. In Spanish and Italian (with very productive morphological DIMs), these analytical adjectives ( pequeo and piccolo respectively) are not common. The French adjective for “little/small” is more common th an the DIM suffix, whereas in Spanish it is the opposite. Jurafsky concluded, literally, that “for at least these periphrastic diminutives, then, the original sense of the diminutive seems to be Small, and not Child. Further study is needed to examine the orig ins and development of these periphrastics.” (p. 569). It is quite inconsis tent and inelegant to concl ude that for DIM affixes the original sense is “child”, but for DIM adjectives, the original sense is “little/small”. Another study by Voeykova (1998) on Russian DIMs has also criticized Jurafsky. Voeykova observed that the “smallness” sens e is very important for the child when acquiring DIMs in Russian. Even though both Voeykova (1998) and my study recognize the value of the arguments favoring the “child” meaning, it is necessary to point out that “this meaning is less relevant for the acqui sition of language by a ch ild in comparison to “smallness”, since it demands a very high degr ee of abstraction in all cases … about inanimate objects” (Voeykova, 1998: 112). Just by considering the inconsistencies above, we can see the need for another proposal. As mentioned above, “littleness” seem s to fit plausibly in many more examples than “childness”. Jurafsky himself argued that “the diminutive function (for the purposes of this paper defined as any morphological device which means at least “small”) is among the grammatical primitives which seems to occur universally or near-universally”

PAGE 91

80 (1996:534). “Littleness” fits more within the category of “grammatical primitives” than “childness”; all objects may be defined within a “littleness” range, and not necessarily within a “childness” range. If one of these two features is th e core of the DIM, then, it should be the most primitive category: “littlene ss”. Even Lakoff, in an important point of departure for Jurafsky, describes basic-leve l status solely in terms of objects and recognizes that the relatively subjective notion of “littleness” is at the center of this conceptual category of “diminutiveness” in part because it has many of the characteristics and the attrac tiveness of basic-level term s (fundamental in body-world connections). It is easy to use, it is the most contextually neut ral term, and it is the first to enter most readers’ lexicons. The “childness” sense, for example, finds hardly any relation to the DIM functions in Cantonese mentioned in Jurafsky (1996). On the contrary, “littleness” seems to be a sense that better accounts for such diverse us es. The partitive functi on can be interpreted as “a little of that”; resemblance with larger object can be interpreted as “sort of a little X”; as a marker of approximation, this Cantonese DIM (marked by tone) may be interpreted as “redd ish or a little red”; the pragmatic hedge function may be interpreted as “a little favor” instead of “a favor”; the DIM marker of marginalized women can be interpreted as “just a little of a woman, not much (of a woman)”. Probably because of this, Cantonese DIMs also mark the [female] feature. Linking all these to a primitive category of “littleness” seems more plau sible than linking thos e to the “childness” function. He mentions DIMs in languages such as Nahuatl, Ojibwa, Yiddish, Ewe, Londo, Hungarian, Boro, Kayah, Khase and Tbol i. Interestingly, in all these languages the core sense is “little”, as he himself showed in the translations.

PAGE 92

81 This proposal (of “littleness” as the core sense) s hows more evidence for the common tendency in semantic extension and cha nge. The reason for this is that the radial category for the diminutive extends the central physical domain of size to the other nonphysical domains (a common trend in this type of semantic association) of gender, social power and others. In this wa y, it also provides further wide spread evidence about the unidirectionality of semantic change from the physical to the social and conceptual domains discussed above. In an Amharic example given by Jurafsky, the case of “this ma n-teacher” vs. “this woman-teacher”, where the only morphemic difference is the inclusion of the feminine marker with DIM functions in the second expr ession, is very revealing. There is a more direct connection between the idea of “this little teacher” and “this woman-teacher” than between “this child -teacher” and “this woman-teacher”. Probably because of the inferior status given to women in many societie s, the metaphoric connection of “woman professional” = “little professiona l” is at play. It is important to note here that the same difference is observed in minimal pairs such as “book” and “booklet” in Amharic, where the DIM form makes “book” into a “booklet” (a little book; not necessarily a child book). Many explanations about different DIMs in different languages and different uses of DIMs start from the littlenes sense in Jurafsky’s explanations. The “word chotto whose central (and historically prior) meaning is something like ‘a little’, functions like a diminutive in Japanese” (p. 557). His lambda-abs traction examples also emerge from this core sense. “For the diminutive, this proce ss takes the original concept small(x), which has the meaning smaller than the prototypical exemplar x on the scale of size, and lambda-abstracting it to lambda(y)(smaller th an the prototypical exemplar x on the scale

PAGE 93

82 y)” (1996: 555). The pragmatic hedges and pol iteness-marking functions he discussed are also based on this littleness concept. He me ntions, for example, that “in a number of languages, including Tamil and Malagasy, this use of diminutives for politeness is even more grammaticalized, and the word for ‘a little’ functions gene rally like English ‘please’” (1996: 558). All his partitive and exactness examples find an explanation that connects to the basic idea of “littleness”. In his examples of animal offspring, we can see that all of those DIMs can also be translated as “little”. For example, “a bear cub” can be a “little bear”. However, not all of them can be translated as “child” or “son”. For example, in “chicken” and “chick” (the latter had a DIM in the language cited), can we translate “chi cken+DIM” as “the child of chicken”, or better and simply as “little ch icken” or “chick”? Th e latter seems more plausible. Furthermore, since metaphoric speech constitutes an essential element in the model discussed here, we need to at least superficia lly consider which of the two senses ([little] or [child]) fits more in what we know about metaphoric thinking. As it happens, the notion of size (in which “littleness” bel ongs) constitutes the base for many metaphors. The reason for this is that it has basic physi ognomic and perceptual properties. In fact, Seitz (2001) distinguishes four key aspects of early or pr imary metaphors: perceptual (e.g., color, shape, size ), enactive (movement, action), physiognomic (i.e., visual affective), and cross-modal or synesthetic expe riences. It is well esta blished that humans exploit perceptual features such as shap e, color, size and others when performing metaphoric thinking (Seitz, 1997). Even though size is not really a physiognomic feature (like facial features), it shares w ith physiognomy the visual property.

PAGE 94

83 Children can exploit the physiognomic (i.e ., visual-affective) basis of metaphor (Seitz & Beilin, 1987). Indeed, physiognomic pe rception has been well studied and there is an extensive literature (see Seitz & Beilin, 1987, for a review and em pirical analysis of the physiognomic basis of metaphor). This perception may be bodily-based (motion, gesture, or bodily action; see Seitz, 2 000 for a more elaborate discussion on this cognition-perception link). In his consideratio ns in the psychology of visual perception, Arnheim (1988) indicates that people perceive a building, for example, because of spatial properties (lines, volume, size) that are distin ctive in the visual dyna mics of such solid structure, which is the perceived form Thus, size (littleness) serves better as a base for metaphoric chaining (in our model of radial categories) than age-related properties (childness) since it shows more basic per ceptual primitives. Other studies directly connect size with symbolism and physi ognomic stimuli (Ultan, 1970; Lindauer, 1988). Finally, and probably more importantly in support of the “littleness” core proposal, Lakoff (1987) listed five criter ia for determining the central sense (what he also called “proto-scene”, derived from spatial scenes) of any category: 1) earlie st attested meaning, 2) predominance in the semantic network, 3) us e in composite forms, 4) relations to other spatial particles (contrast sets), and 5) pred ictability of other senses in the network. “Littleness” seems to be the earliest atte sted meaning for DIMs, even in Jurafsky’s examples. This notion of “littleness” domina tes most links among senses (more than the “childness” notion), even though it is not nece ssarily the most common sense in modern Spanish uses of DIMs. Criteria number 3 doe s not support one proposal or the other. Criterion number 4 above is critical in Sp anish morphological evaluativeness. As shown before, DIMs are part of a broader system: Spanish ev aluative morphology. There is

PAGE 95

84 plausible symmetry and contra st in the system caused by the opposites “littleness” (DIMs) and “bigness” (AUGs). If we accept Jurafsky’s “chil dness” core proposal, then this symmetry and contrast is lost in the system, which is unfort unate from a linguistic perspective and criterion 4 is not met. Th e section on AUGs below elaborates more on this symmetric contrast in the system. The “li ttleness” proposal also satisfies the criterion of predictability (5 above), at least partially; admittedly as much as the “childness” proposal. Criteria 1, 2, and 4 above seem mo re critical to sup port the “littleness” proposal. Studies on DIM’s meaning such as the one carried out by Savickien (1998) in relation to Lithuanian L1 ac quisition seem to oppose “smallne ss” as a semantic core for DIMs. Savickien concluded that “the non-semantic m eaning of the earliest diminutives disconfirms the assumption of smallness as cen tral meaning of the earliest diminutives” (p. 133). My study agrees and disagrees at th e same time with this conclusion. This agreement or disagreement depends on what sh e meant by “central meaning”. If it refers to the semantic core sense, then my study disa grees. The fact that the most important and common use of DIMs is [dear] does not oppos e the idea that this sense may have emerged from the [little] core sense. We simply need to recall that important metaphorical and inferential semantic extensi ons are at play here. On the other hand, she does not present any argument regarding wh at the core sense could be. If “central meaning” means “most common use”, then my study agrees, and the next chapter comes back to this issue. Admittedly, many uses of DIMs in the data analyzed here may be confused between [little] and [child] connotat ions, like the following two examples:

PAGE 96

85 1) Male church singer: (int roducing his next song): “Tenemos un pequeo pajarITO en mi casa” We have a smal l bird+DIM in my house 2) A mother to her 6-year-old son: “Quieres piITA?” Do you want pineapple+DIM? In both cases, the DIM may be ambiguous. A further look to the context (at times, the only help we have to accurately interpre t EVALs) seems to indicate that example 1 has the [little] function, whereas 2 has the [c hild] connotation. In 1 there is no reference to the age of the bird whatsoever, thus it look s more as a reference to size. In 2, the same mother asked the same question to her husba nd without using the DIM suffix. Thus, this [little] vs. [child] debate is justified but rega rding original denotations of such suffixes, my study takes a clear stand. Because of all these arguments, the “l ittleness” proposal supported in my study renders the radial category gra ph shown in figure 3. This graph shows “littleness” as the core sense of DIMs primarily and “childness” secondarily; which are within a circle to signal this semantic core. All the other DIM f unctions/senses grow out of this core sense via linking chains and constitute pragmatics-driven uses; all those out of the circle. The pragmatic uses on top represent the affec tion category; the middle line shows the pragmatic category of attenuation, and the bot tom line contains derogation-driven uses. Whenever two (or more) arrows point at a si ngle function, it implies that that function may have two (or more) paths for semantic-pragmatic extension. Some functions do not directly connect to the core sense, which se mantically distances those functions from the core sense and causes less semantic transparency. Yet, even those relatively obscure functions indirectly connect to the core, as th is semantic network shows. Thus, this graph connects this section (DIM: core sense) to the next section of this chapter (DIM: chains).

PAGE 97

86 [intense] [dear] [flirt] [commiserate] 2[child] 1[little] [attenuate] [euphemism] [irony] [female] [pejorative] Figure 3. New proposal for DI M’s radial categories Let us keep in mind always that Figure 3 presents a descript ion of the potential associations of the meanings and functions of DIMs in a particular speech community (the participants in the data collection process). We should not lose sight of the cultural relativity of the links in th is graphic representation. Chaining Links The following are the (non-discrete but continuous) categories, senses or connotations observed in the data in relation to DIMs: endearment (or [dear], according to the type of notation used in semantic decomposition analyses), littleness ([little]), childness ([child]), irony ([-dear], [-little]) intensification (“ very”), attenuation, euphemism, flirtation, female ness ([+female]), commiseration, and pejoration. These eleven uses of DIMs in the data are analyzed from a pragmatic perspective in the next chapter (Chapter 4). That chapter elaborat es on each of these and the major pragmatic categories under which they may be classifie d. The present semantic analysis shows how all these notions are related. Let us consider first the related notions of “child”, “little” and “dear”. The following may be one logical and natural connection between the [little] and [dear] functions. As Taylor (1995) put it: “Human beings have a natural suspicion of large creatures; small animals and small children on the other hand can be cuddled and

PAGE 98

87 caressed without embarrassment or fear” (p. 145). This connection between the [little] and [dear] notions “is thus grounded in the co-occurrence of elements within an experiential frame” (p. 145). It is naturally embedded in hum an beings’ perceptions and previous experience. Without necessarily rejecting the previo us proposal, my study suggests that there can also be another possi bility. The previous hypothesis is of a more inferential nature (i.e., if then). The second possibility is of a more metaphorical nature. The notion of “littleness” or “smallne ss” may have been tran sferred from the size plane to the distance plane: The more distan ce between two people, the less intimacy and affection between the two. Thus, since the distance (between mother and child, for example) is so little or small, then it may reflect a high degree of affection or endearment; thus, there could be a metaphoric association between the [little] a nd [dear] meanings. One example from the data that may s how this connection between [dear] and [little] is the one below, where some people are celebrating the high school graduation of a teenager: 3) Young man: (reading a funny poem that he improvised for a teen highschool graduate) “Ron.CITO, gracias por ser un buen primITO” Ron.+DIM thanks for being a good cousin+DIM Ron. was, at that moment, 17 years old, but he has been at church since he was born. Thus, most of the people at th e party are friends or relative s that know him as a child and care for him very much. This is a celebration for Ron. to show thei r appreciation for him precisely. Even though he is not a child any more, he continues to be loved by these people, and they continue to call him “Ron.+DIM”. Regarding the [child] and [little] connec tion, DIMs are normally associated with children because they are “little”. Thus children and DIMs is a normal observed

PAGE 99

88 connection cross-linguistically (Jurafs ky, 1996; Melzi and King, 2003). We typically observe in children two main features: litt leness and endearment. Children are LITTLE and they are DEAR to us. Even animals (at least most of them, especially those with some cortical endowment or limbic functi ons; e.g. mammals who bear live young) tend to love, protect and care for their offspr ing. According to the famous psychoanalyst Erikson (1950), generativity (which is embodied in the need to care for, raise, and mentor the offspring) is a crucial stage of developm ent of many living beings This readiness to parent, Erikson asserts, may be viewed as naturally built into our species. Thus, it is not absurd to think that this may be (at least) a reason for the common connection of DIMs with endearment. Children ar e little and children are dear; thus, this “littleness” may be “dear”. This is based on a basic logic syllogism of the type “if … then” (Aristotle’s Prior Analytics in Smith, 1989). There are two premises and one conclusion: Premise A: If [+child] is [+little], AND… Premise B: If [+child] is [+dear], THEN… Conclusion: [+little] is [+dear] (hence forth, DIM = little and/or DIM = dear) This, for some linguists, may be considered a type of semantic shift, where the word or morpheme takes on a new meaning often related to the original one. Under this approach, we can then conc lude that even though there is nothing “little” in the notion of “dear ” (in pure semantic terms) of the DIMs, the common use of such affixes with the endearing function co mes from the experien tial association of children with features such as “littleness” a nd “endearment” (in logic terms). It seems to be an example of metonymy, since there seem s to be an association by context. It is

PAGE 100

89 empirically observable in many cultures and la nguages of the world that the language in children-oriented environments is heavily ch aracterized by such morphemes. This is probably the reason why “little” and “dear” ar e the functions or “meanings” of the DIMs normally accounted for in the literature. This endearment notion discussed above is the direct source for some uses of DIMs that my study labels as flirtatious. The “flirty ” DIM is a semantic/pragmatic extension of “dear” to the sex or the sex-related arena. This DIM means “dear” but “sexually dear”. Thus, it is a type of endearme nt with sexual connotations, or in simple terms, sexual affection or interest. The following is an example: 4) “y junio (the calendar fireman for that month): Mig..MiguelITO” “Ay virgen santa!” & June: Miguel…Miguel+DIM. “Wow, Holy Virgin !” This DIM may mean “dear Miguel” but also “sexy/hot Miguel”. A young woman looks at firemen posing for a picture calendar. She obvi ously admires the physical appearances of these firemen models. For the speaker, this fireman is so sexy that she likes him very much. This may be a link between the [dear] a nd [flirt] function in a real-life context. Let us now go to the opposite meaning of DIMs, in comparison to the three accounted for thus far. Many of DIM’s uses actua lly mean the contrary of [child], [dear], and [little], especially the last two. These are examples of irony or sarcasm, which represent the most difficult conno tations or uses to argue for in this semantic connection. Furthermore, we also see that, according to Kruez (1996), the first and primary cues that may help signal irony are precisely the counter-factual ones. These two ideas, direct opposite and counter-factual, imply that when meant to be ironic, the DIM actually means “big” or more commonly “not dear or not appreciated” ; the opposite of the common notions of DIMs (little, dear). It seems that through the agency of semantic

PAGE 101

90 polarization, DIMs made a leap to the [-little ] or [-dear] senses. Thus, semantic extension, association, or metaphoric speech on the one hand and semantic polarization on the other may be the ways or links through which this polysemy spreads. For example, whereas “littleness” connects to the ideas of “chil dness” and “dear” via semantic association/ extension or via metaphoric speech, DIMs re late to irony via semantic polarization. In relation to the other seemingly contrary sense of DIMs, that of intensification or “very”, there may be an important connec tion between this notion and the idea of endearment. This use is normally observed w ith bases for which the speaker shows some type of appreciation. For example, qualities that a certain entity is supposed or expected to have may be intensified (with the adve rbial weight or function of “very”) via diminutivization of the adjective that describe s such quality. For example, something that is supposed to be white, if diminutivize d, may be interpreted as “very white”. 5) A homeowner asks a maid to do something The maid: “enseguidITA” right-away+DIM In example 5 above, the maid knows the action is appreciated and expected by her boss, so she intensifies this adverb. On the other hand, if something is not s upposed to be white (for example, a black T-shirt), when modified by “white+DIM”, it may be interpreted as “a little white”. This can also be observed in adjectives such as “ugly”. When we hear words like “ugly+DIM” ( fe+ITO ), we normally interpret it as meaning “a little ugly”, and very unlikely or infrequently as “very ugly” because “uglines s” is an unexpected quality (we normally do not expect entities to be ugly) Here again we see an exampl e of semantic extension or association, which shows up in the data in examples like the following:

PAGE 102

91 6) “pero t te mueres por las madurITAs ”…”te gustan maduras. Qu tan grandes?” but you die for the gr own-ups(female)+DIM. you like grownups. How big/old? Aging is not a much appreciated characteristi c in the groups analyzed. Thus, “grown-up” here is diminutivized, with a potential meani ng of “a little old/grown-up”, not “very old”. Regarding the [commiserative] function, we need to remember that children are typically considered defenseless, in need of protection, and dear to us. By extension, people or animals that are defenseless and need protection and affection share these characteristics with children. Here we find such an example in the data regarding a kitten: 7) Female host: (to one fireman interviewed in one TV program) “Y uds. salvan a gatITOs?” & you-all save cats+DIM? No doubt this is the reason of the use of the DIM with the comm iserative connotation. Thus, once more, the pragmatic function may be connected to an original meaning or connotation, or in Jurafsky’ s terms, a ra dial category. The meaning of pejoration in some DIMs ma y be connected to the core sense of “littleness”. The pejorative force of DIMS may have to do with the notion that some entities are not supposed to have the [+little] feature. Profe ssionals, for example, are not supposed to be “little doctors” (next chapte r discusses this example further) or “little professors”. In cases like this, calling some body a “little doctor” or a “little professor” ( profesorcita/o ) implies that the person is not really a professional, or that the person still has much to do and learn before becomi ng a respectable one. Similarly to some attenuating connotations, this pe jorative function may reflect some type of base identity diminution as suggested by Hardman (2005, personal communication), or “ debilitamiento del significado de la base ” (weakening of the meaning of the base), as suggested by

PAGE 103

92 Reynoso (2002: 941). The referent may be [+little] in some distinctiv e semantic features of the base (respect, professionalism, capability, credibilit y, and the like). Let us consider now the polite DIM, and how it may be inferentially linked to the core sense [little] or to the [child] sense di rectly, and to the [dea r] meaning indirectly. Probably the need to protect (face, for example) is more obvious in t hose that are little (children), who are typically s een as defenseless; thus, if someone needs protection and care, it is the child. We need to recall here that that this idea of pr otection and care relates directly or indirectly to th e notion of face-saving and the concern for others, which are fundamentals in our understanding of politeness. This is clearly shown in Leech’s (1983) Politeness Principle, Goffman’s (1983) FaceSaving notion, and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. According to the prin ciples suggested in the Politeness Theory, we all have a certain appreciation ([dear]) for all our addressees; probably not an affective [dear] but a societal [dear]. In f act, the attenuating func tions discussed below and in the next chapter may have this “socie tal endearment” pressure. Henceforth, we can find a binding (in Jurafsky’s terms) between the polite DIM and the major common source of DIMs (child/little/dear). Regarding the [attenuating] functions, whic h belong in the category of polite DIMs, we can relatively clearly establish a seman tic/pragmatic association among all of these functions, including that of e uphemism, to the [+little] idea. In utterances whose major goal is speech acts such as requests, fo r example, the speaker consciously or subconsciously attempts to instill in the listener’s mind the idea of “littleness”. Since requests, favors and other similar acts are very face-threatening (Goldschmidt, 1998), the speaker makes such acts “little”, and conse quently, mitigates those acts. See example 8:

PAGE 104

93 8) Carlos to Monica (Carlos is Monica ’s brother and is visiting her): “Monica, dame juguITO” Monica, give-me juice-ITO In an interview immediately after his utterance, Carlos said that what he really meant was “Please”. He recognized that had he said “juice” without DIM, it would have sounded rude and very demanding. In the case of euphemisms, DIMs mitigate, reduce or make the taboo (e.g., swearing words, terms associated with death such as serious illness) “little”. Let us finish this discussion of seman tic-pragmatic binding of DIM senses and force by considering those DIM uses that ha ve to do with the [+female] feature. The [female] DIM is difficult to c onnect to a single core sense. This connection, whatever it might be, reveals a great deal about our perc eptual and societal schemata. Its difficulty and its revealing potential cons titute the motivation for discussing it at the end of this section. The [female] DIM may be connected to two different senses: [little] and [child]. Societal norms may motivate the little-fem ale binding, whereas perceptual habits might motivate the child-female binding. The latter would be a cognitive-semantic association, whereas the former constitu tes a pragmatic extension. In many societies female caregivers (mothers, nannies, grandma) and childre n are at times seemingly inseparable pairs. This might connect the notions of “child” and “female”. However, what seems to be more influential in the female-DIM connection is the perceived “littleness” of women, which may constitute a type of derogation of women in society. It is believed that “women are physically smaller and less powerful than me n…in …folk categorization of …languages” (Jurafsky, 1996: 546). As discussed in Chapter 5, from a sociolinguistic perspective, this “littleness” may not be just physical but also in the value or appreciation of women in many modern societies. That chapter elaborat es further and more clearly in this women

PAGE 105

94 derogation aspect and its connection with DIMs. That is why Jurafsky connects the [female] meaning with the sense of [little ]. Admittedly, even though the child-female connection may have cognitive and perceptual grounding, the little-female binding seems to be a more determining motivation in modern uses. (For a socioli nguistic perspective on specific examples from data, see Chapter 5.) Augmentatives Core Sense Let us recall that one of Lakoff’s (1987) cr iteria for determining core semantics in radial category models is relations to other sp atial particles or contra st sets. This criterion crucially influenced the choice of “littleness” over “childness” for th e semantic core of DIMs in my study. Due to consistency and syst em symmetry, then, we need to conclude that the best contrast set for the [little] DIM is the [big] AUG. The other core sense suggested in the literatu re (i.e., [child]) fails to contribu te to this contrast and symmetry that the [little]-[big] cont rast provides to the whole sy stem of Spanish evaluative morphology. In order for the [child] sense to account for this symmetry in the system, it would need to contrast to some abstract [child] or [adult] sense, which has not been systematically formalized as the core se nse for AUGs. If so, then it would create innumerable unfortunate and nonsensical inte rpretations. For example, if “car+DIM” somehow has to do with the child world, then “car+AUG” has to do with the adult world, which is hardly an accessible interpretation for Spanish speakers. If a “toy+DIM” is a child toy, then “toy+AUG” would be an adult to y, which is untrue from any perspective. First, intuitively it is very unlikely that any Spanish sp eaker would interpret “toy+AUG” as a toy for adults or an “adult toy”. Second, “toy+AUG”, really continues to be commonly interpreted as a child toy, even with the AUG suffix. Finally, “big” is the

PAGE 106

95 opposite extreme in the range of the primitive category of size, which, as argued before, constitutes the base for many metaphorical a nd inferential associations. Thus, my study shows formal cognitive semantic support for the popular assumption of “bigness” as the core sense of AUGs. The following data example has this meaning: 9) (in the Despierta America TV program) “manOTA!” hand+AUG! A female host used this term to refer to a ma le host when he was touching -a little too mucha female model who was reporting on the weather conditions. It was like calling him “Big Hand!” As shown already, beyond sp eculation and folk knowledge, we find important psychological and linguistic eviden ce that formalizes this assumption. Chaining Links How can we connect all these various uses of Spanish augmentative suffixes? The search for an answer to this question agai n follows from the assumption that all these semantic-pragmatic extensions (of this and any other suffix that pr esent this type of polysemy, according to Nerlich and Clarke, 200 3) should emerge from a common source: “bigness”. The following are the AUG func tions analyzed in my study: bigness, intensification, irony, pejorati on, attenuation, euphemism, aff ection, and flirtation. As a summary and introduction to this discussi on, figure 4 shows AUG’s core sense and the semantic chains. This graph is to be compared to the semantic mapping for DIMs above, in figure 3, since both follow similar principles of cores and chains. [big] [intense] [dear] [flirt] [irony] [PEJ] (-azo/n)[brief] [attenuate] [euphemism] Figure 4. Radial categories for AUGs

PAGE 107

96 One of the most common functions of AUGs, apart from the “bigness” sense, is the intensifying function. The connection between the two seems obvious. As it happens, the “big” AUG normally attaches to nouns with gradable size, whereas the “very” (or intensifying) AUG normally attach es to gradable adjectives with no direct reference to size but to amount. The “big” AUG augments the size whereas the “very” AUG augments the quality of the base. The esse ntial semantics or pr opositional meaning of both types of AUGs is “greater than the us ual norm/standard”. The size of a “car+AUG” is greater than the standard ca r, at least in the subjective perception of the speaker. An elegantOTE or “elegant+AUG” person is often one that is elegant in a greater degree than normal or common expectations. Both share this property of “greater than”. For consistency with our arguments above regard ing the core sense of AUGs, the notion of “greater than the standard or normal size of the base” in the “big” AUG was extended to “greater than the standard or normal quality of the base” in the “very” AUG. In this way, we conclude that the meaning “very” in the AUGs with intensifying functions emerged from the core sense of “bigness” via semantic extension. This intensifying sense of AUGs ga ve rise to two seemingly opposing AUG functions: the pejorative and the affectionate functions. Both emerged precisely because of the “very” meaning. As mentioned above, the quality expressed by the base (normally an adjective) augments when an AUG attach es, whether it be a positive or a negative quality. This positive or negative dichotomy determines the affectionate or the pejorative function, respectively. For example, if adjectiv es such as “poor” ar e augmentivized, then it may have pejorative functions because of the negativity (s ocially speaking) of being poor or better, “ very poor”. Grandi (2003), from a dynamic typology perspective in

PAGE 108

97 Mediterranean languages, observed that AUGs express two conceptual categories: “big X” and “one who is/makes/has X in an exaggerate way” This notion of exaggeration may have caused the pejorative connotati ons. On the other hand, if nouns such as “brother” or “friend” receive the AUG suffix wi thout the “big size” referent, then these can reflect affection since it would imply something like “ very much a brother” or “ very much a friend”, which are normally positive properties that inspire affection. This “very” meaning can be further extended to have se xual connotations, which my study labels as the “flirty” AUG. In nouns that refer to a ttractive people or body part s, this flirtatious AUG may convey the idea of “ very much of a woman/man”, for example. The pragmatic chapter (Chapter 4) shows the need to keep th is affectionate DIM as a distinct category and not simply as the “very” AUG. One function of AUGs that seems contrary to the core sense of this suffix is that of the attenuating or diminution function, what can be labeled as the “diminutive AUG”. There are two possible answers as to how th is [attenuate/diminution] function of AUGs (only observed in two types of Spanish AUGs: n/-azo ) binds with the “bigness” sense. One is that it emerges from the pejorative f unction. Something that receives pejoration loses value. This value loss may have generate d the interpretation that the base (for the AUG attachment) loses some of its inherent valu e or identity. It reflects, then, an identity diminution process, which resembles the pr operties described above for the pejorative DIMs. The other possibility is that the at tenuating sense emerges from some uses of AUGs n and azo labeled as nomina actionis in Pharies (2002). These types of AUGs can express the idea of sudden actions. Words like vistazo (look+AUG), apagn (blackout+AUG) normally express the idea of sudden and brief actions. Because of this

PAGE 109

98 notion of brevity and “suddenness” in these words, this [brevity] feature may have been expanded to adjectives, thus producing a diminu tion of the identity of the base as shown in example 10 below. 10) Young woman to a female friend: “pero esos zarcillos estan elegantONES” but those earrings are elegant+AUG Example 10 refers to some earrings which may, in the opinion of the speaker, be not really “very” or “too” elegant but “somewhat elegant” Indeed, one of the people present at the moment when interviewed said th at this is how she interpreted this word, as meaning “sort of elegant”. A ttenuating functions like this ma y have given rise to the euphemistic AUG because, like the euphemistic DIM, it mitigates the force of taboos such as illness, sex, or death related terms. Finally, these cases of AUG’s uses with ironic functions correspond to a simple antithetical process also discussed when c onsidering the ironic force of DIMs. Again, the core sense for this AUG function is the notion of “bigness”. The antithetical process goes from [+big] to [-big]. As any other ironic process, the ironic uses of AUGs convey, in a sarcastic way, the idea opposite to that expressed by the linguistic form (i.e., [-big] or “not very”). Superlatives The last of the Spanish EVALs analyzed he re is the one with the least degree of frequency, productivity, and polys emy as table 1 and figure 1 s howed. It is also the only one that most clearly shows a process of linguist ic change or semantic shift. As discussed in the historical section of the previous ch apter, the proto-semantics of such an affix reflects a pure grammatical func tion. It used to mark the re lative superlative degree (the

PAGE 110

99 most) in Latin as indicated in Pharies (2002) and Jrnvig (1962). Today, it has the core meaning of “very”. Thus, it is essentially an intensifier, but to di stinguish it from other EVALs with very similar functions, this repres ents the highest degree of all EVALs with the same function. Thus, we can label it tenta tively as a “super intensifier”. Many cases of honorifics marking have been reported bo th in old and modern Spanish. Let us now semantically bind these three sens es: “most”, “very” and honorific. Considering that “the most” is the early attested meaning of this suffix, which is one of Lakoff’s (1987) criteria for determining core senses, let us assign to this sense the core function in this semantic mapping. How can “the most” generate the “very” sense? To be “the most” of X quality, an entity must be “very” of that X quality, at least in relation to the other members of a gro up. An element A with a property X is the most X only and only if it is also very X, with respect to the standards in a certain group or probably a particalr person (speaker). Being “t he most” entails or semantically/logically implies being “very”. There were no cases in which the SUPERL was used that it did not imply “very”. Probably this l ogical and inevitable entailmen t gave rise to the “very” meaning, which is one more example of infere ntial thinking. This is reflected in data examples like the one below: 11) Despierta America male host to the weather woman as she gave him the floor: “mi queridISIMA Jacki” my dear+SUPERL Jacky (= my VERY dear Jacki) Finally, it is not difficult to see how eith er meaning, “the most” or “very”, may relate to the honorific function. In Latin and early Spanish, a very common use of such an affix was with positive qualities such as “excellent”, which conveyed an idea of admiration. The Latin relative SUPERL clearly conveyed the idea of the “highest degree”

PAGE 111

100 of all, which also may express an idea of admiration and respect. These facts explain clearly the honorific f unction of SUPERLs. It is important to note, however, that in many dialects of modern Spanish, the “most” sens e has been lost. The core sense in modern Spanish tends to be the absolute SU PERL with the “very” meaning. Conclusion Despite the polysemy observed in Spanish EVALs in my study and elsewhere, for each of these Spanish affixes, there is a core sense that can be traced back to either the origin of such an affix in Spanish or to th e inherent properties that characterize many of the functions of those affixes in modern Sp anish. The diversity of functions can be explained from a cognitive semantic perspec tive using Lakoff’s (1987) Radial Categories and applying it to Spanish EVALs as Jurafsky (1996) applied it to DIMs in general. The analysis in this chapter shows that the core sense of DIMs is “littleness”, the core sense for AUGs is “bigness”, and the co re sense for SUPERLs is “very” (or high degree). From these core se nses, the other many semantic-pragmatic nuances emerge via basically metaphorical and in ferential thinking. Some inconsistencies of previous accounts have been considered, and this chap ter has also presente d cognitive linguistic evidence that supports appropriate ness of the traditional gra mmatical terms used for these affixes: diminutives, augmentatives, and superlatives. The semantic weights of such affixes ha ve been connected but at the same time contrasted with their pragmatic force. Thes e are two different but connected types of meaning. This chapter addresse d the question about the core senses of these affixes and the possible metaphorical, inferential conn ections and “pragmatic strengthening” (Traugott, 1989) that explain th is distinctive diversity and polysemy of Spanish EVALs.

PAGE 112

101 The next chapter treats these differe nt uses of EVALs from a pragmatic perspective. It focuses on the non-refere ntial meaning which, based on analysis of specific examples from naturalistic data, complements the referential meaning and semantic extensions discussed here.

PAGE 113

102 CHAPTER 4 PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS The pragmatic analysis of this chapter st arts with one of the conclusions of the semantic account shown in the previous ch apter. Chapter 3 indicated that semantic extensions emerge through metaphorical/in ferential connections and pragmatic strengthening. This last aspect is what constitutes a fundamental link between the previous chapter and this one. In the fi eld of cognitive linguist ics, two important assumptions are 1) that meaning extension is principled and mo tivated; and 2) that language is a usage-based system (Evans, 2005; Traugott, 1999). Evans (2005) suggests that this implies that meaning extensions may derive from situated use of language, which we know implies pragmatic motivations Traugott (1989) more overtly indicated that the context dependent formation of situ ation-constrained meanings (i.e., semantic change’s actuation or the cause that motivat es this), has a very important pragmatic ingredient. She calls this “pragmatic strengthening” because the new meaning can apply to other contexts that are seemingly unrel ated to the original one (Traugott, 1988). Furthermore, Traugott has shown the important role of pragmatics in any theory of semantic change. Thus, one critical contribution of my study is that it provides one more piece of empirical evidence that shows that pragmatic pressure seems to cause semantic extension, shift, or generalization. It is important to clarify, once again, th at my study makes a distinction among the semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic aspect s discussed here. Semantics deals with the propositional meaning or the sense (in Leech’s 1983 terms) of the affixes analyzed (i.e.,

PAGE 114

103 “little” for DIMs, “big” for AUGs, and “very” for SUPERLs). The area of sociolinguistics deals with the group or societal context marki ng effects of these suffixes. All the other functions, or forces (in Leech’s terms), of such a ffixes are considered in the present chapter. These pragma tic motivations, according to Reynoso (2002), seem to be defined both by the perspective or position of the speaker in the discourse and by the relationship that the speaker herself/himself esta blishes with the entity referred to or with the audience. Let us then focus now primarily on this essential pragmatic component of Spanish EVALs specifically. This chapter presents an analytical description of the data from a pragmatic perspective. The first section deals wi th aspects such as speech act coloring or what Kiefer (1998) refers to as “modification of the relative strength of a speech act” (p. 276) (i.e., the attenuation/mitigation or intensif ication of speech acts), pragmatic features, politeness, and face-saving. The discussion be gins with the pragmatics of DIMs, then AUGs, and finally SUPERLs. This order is consistent with the freq uency, degree of polysemy and pragmatic multi-functionality (or “polypragmy”) of these Spanish EVALs. Based on the data and analysis it is obvious that DIMs are the suffi xes with the most pragmatic functions, and the SUPERLs are the ones with the least prag matic force. Recall that figure 1 shows the frequency of such Spanish semantic-pragmatic morphemes (i.e., diminutives, augmentatives, and superlatives) in the data corpus. In modern Spanish, it seems difficult at times to distinguish between the fre quency of SUPERLs and AUGs. However, DIMs are indeed the most common, not only in the da ta here but elsewhere, as figure 1 showed.

PAGE 115

104 Diminutives According to the literature and the data and analysis in my study, we can conclude that the DIM suffix is essentially a seman tic-pragmatic diminisher (e.g., it diminishes size, value, social distance, face threat). The previous chapter di scussed how the three senses commonly associated with DIMs are often (and only) [little], [child] and [dear] (Mackenzie, 2001), and it also elaborated on the semantic aspect of this phenomenon. The present chapter elaborates principally on th e pragmatic side of this suffix, with brief overviews of relevant semantic aspects. Apar t from the [little], [dear] and [child] features or functions of DIMs, the remainder of the functions discussed in my study has received little or no formal attention in the linguistic literature. The remainder of the pragmatic functions observed in the data may be associated more or less directly to on e of these main uses of the DIMs (e.g., littleness, endearment), but ultimately they emerge from the “littl eness” sense. Pragmatically speaking, modern Spanish DIMs seem to have taken three some times overlapping but distinct paths with respect to this original common source: the independent, the antonymous, and the relatively transparent paths. These three pa ths constitute the base for the three major pragmatic categories of DIM’s functions my study presents below. These paths roughly relate to different degrees of opacity in relation to how transparent or how opaque the relation of such path is with respect to th e common point of departure for the three of them: the littleness sense. If we trace an im aginary opacity scale, the independent path roughly corresponds to the most opaque of all, the antonymous path is midway, and the transparent path is of course the least opaque of all. In ot her words, in modern Spanish, the meaning relation between the DIMs on the transparent path, for example, and the “littleness” sense is not obscure, at least not as obscure as the other DIM functions. The

PAGE 116

105 independent path gives rise to the affection category, the antonymous path corresponds to the derogation category, and the more transparent path motivates the attenuation category. Each of these three categories manife sts itself through differe nt specific uses or functions, which this chapter discusses below. The discussion below organizes the uses of DIMs first on its semantic-pragmatic range, and then the discussion focus mostly on the pragmatic uses. The first section describes the two senses that have been labe led as central senses of DIMs: [little] and [child]. These represent uses that tend to relate more directly with the propositional meaning of DIMs. Therefore, they are labeled as “semantics-driven” or “neutral” uses of DIMs. The second section examines pragmatic uses; those that fall under the affection, derogation, and attenua tion categories. Figure 5 below visually summarizes the pr esentation following it. This branching diagram starts with the quinte ssential function of DIMs: di minishing. The lines represent the relation “..manifests as..” and the arrows represent the relation “…gives rise to..” (for example, the DIM as a diminisher manifests as having semantic, semantic/pragmatic, purely pragmatic functions; the semantic sens e gave origin to the pragmatic force). Dotted lines represents the relation “…manifests secondarily as…” which is the case of the derogation function of DIMs. I need to clar ify here that the label “neutral” above is regarding pragmatic effects; the first two divi sions of the diagram below ([little], [child]) are pragmatically neutral since their prag matic force is either null or minimal in comparison to functions such as affec tion, derogation, and attenuation (i.e., those considered not neutral and classified under the pragmatic label in the branching graph below).

PAGE 117

106 Diminisher Semantic Semantic/pragmatic Pragmatic [little] [child] ! ! ! Affection Derogation Attenuation [dear] [pejorative] [mitigate] [intense] [irony] [euphemism] (“very”) [+female] [flirt] [commiserate] Figure 5. Semantic-pragmatic functions of Spanish DIMs Let us explore this in detail from a pragmatic perspective. Semantic/Neutral Uses of the Diminutive The pragmatic force in this type of DIM’s us es is either null or minimal. The effect or the interpretation of such DIMs relies mostly on the referential type of meaning; thus, context, societal norms, and maxims of conversation seem irrelevant or secondary to access an accurate interpretation of such uses My study classifies the [little] and [child] senses in this category. This t ype of use represents just 22% of the data examples in the corpus analyzed here. Only around 100 tokens or diminutivized words in the corpus, out of 450 DIMs, may convey a relatively pragmatic ally neutral sense. It is important to clarify here that at times it is very diffi cult to decide in favor of one or another interpretation. For example, at times a DI M may have a “littlene ss” sense but it could

PAGE 118

107 also have an “endearment” connotation. In such cases, they should be double-counted in two different categories (littlen ess and affection, respectively), to do justice to the data. Regarding these neutral senses, there are not really pragmatic effects other than the effects that the pure and basic primary denot ation of [+little] or the secondary sense of [+child] may have. The only pragmatic-like i ssue in which the [+child] sense may have some relevance is the societal group-marking ef fect that the socioli nguistic analysis (next chapter) addresses. Recall that this relative absence of a pragmatic evaluative subjective effect is what causes these uses to be labe led as neutral. The notion of “neutral” and features used here fits within the approach of Tatevosov (2003) when analyzing Siswati DIMs. Siswati has two diminutive affixes: the prefix kwe and the affix ana There are two possibilities for their combina tion with a noun. The combinations kwe -noun (22b) or nounana (22a) yield a neutral diminutive mean ing “little-noun”. As we can see, Tatevosov also called the meaning “little” a neutral use of DIMs. The [little] DIM This specific use constitutes only 13% of the data, which is relatively little if we considered that this derives most of the remainder of the DIM uses. Even though this constitutes semantic centrality, a clear “l ittle” meaning is only present in 59 of all the 450 DIM tokens in the data; probably contrary to popular beliefs about these suffixes, which are thought to mean [lit tle] most of the time. Below there are some representative examples of such use: 1) A Mexican guy telling a joke in the street: “…Un pollITO chiquITO….” A chicken+DIM little+DIM The previous example obviously has the meaning of “small”, which is clear by the other lexical item accompanying (little). This example no doubt refers to size. DIMs may mean “small” even with the absence of explicit adjectives such as “little” or “small”, but

PAGE 119

108 their explicitness makes it much more transp arent, especially considering the DIM’s polysemy extensively discussed above. There ar e other cases with the “littleness” sense that do not necessarily translat e as “small” but as “little” because they refer to amount and not necessarily to size. This was, precisel y, one of the major reas ons to label the core sense as “littleness” and not as “smallness” because it can account for all these very related uses. Below there are two examples with the amount reference: 2) A university professor tells a grad student visiting at his office: “hay un dinerITO por ah y decidimos dividirlo” there's a money+DIM there & we decided to split it up (Referring to some travel funds prom oted by the professor’s department) 3) A TV talk show female host to one of the female guests: “Idalia, ahorITA tocamos puntos importantes contigo” Idalia, now+DIM we touched upon important points with you Example 2 refers to a little amount of mone y that the graduate student could receive as a travel grant. It was a relatively small amount of money. Example 3 has the “now+DIM” adverb, which is very ambiguous in Spanish. In this case, however, it may be translated as “a few moments ago”. This idea of “a few” is also expressed with the [little] DIM. It is important to point out here a critic ism of Reynoso’s (2002) perspective on this seemingly neutral or referential us e of DIMs. Reynoso indicates that “ si el diminutivo se usa sobre entidades susceptibles de ser dism inuidas, la intencin comunicativa se centrar en el uso del diminutiv o como cuantificador dimensional ” (if DIMs are used with diminishable entities –bases-, the comm unicative intention will focus on the use of the DIM as a dimensional quantifier) (2002: 940). This has many counter-examples. “Car” is in essence a gradable entity (or a di minishable one). It can be little or small under many criteria. According to Reynoso, “C ar+DIM” means “little car”. However,

PAGE 120

109 there are many cases in which this is not the case. “Car+DIM” can reflect affection, meaning “dear car”, or pejoration (bad car) fo r example. Thus, the semantic features of the base do not necessarily limit the referent ial or non-referential use of DIMs. What is definitely true is that this [little] DIM is used only with gradable bases, but gradable bases do not only or necessarily require the [little] DIM. The [child] DIM Chapter 5, the sociolinguistic ch apter, elaborates on this use since this type of suffix has important sociolinguistic effects. In the diagram above, it was labeled as a semantic-pragmatic manifestati on of the essential diminishing function of DIMs. The “pragmatic” label precisely coheres with the effects that this suffix may have at the sociolinguistic level. Even though my study supports the [little] sense as the core semantics, it is obvious that [childness] cons titutes also some centrality in DIMs. This is probably the reason these two have been assigned to DIM core sense, and at times they are presented as the two cen tral senses of DIMs (Jurafsky, 1996). Even though [child] may have emerged from [little] and not vice vers a, we have to recognize the centrality of such a function in the meaning of modern Span ish DIMs. This is the reason [childness] is included under the semantic category above. Furthermore, this does not neatly fit under any of the pragmatic categories discussed be low. Let us consider now DIMs that have more pragmatics-driven uses. These roughly correspond to the affection, derogation and attenuation functions mentioned above, both in the diagram and in the discussions in previous paragraphs. These are, symmetri cally, the non-neutral counter parts of the senses discussed above. In other words, prag matically these are not neutral because they have important pragmatic force.

PAGE 121

110 Pragmatic Uses of DIMs The pragmatics-driven uses represent 78% of the DIM uses in the corpus, which clearly shows the predominance of such uses in this data. All the purely pragmatic uses of DIMs may fall under one of the three categories mentioned above: affection, derogation, or attenuation. Each of these three categories manifests itse lf in specific uses of DIMs explained below. The affection function Despite the semantic centra lity of the core senses mentioned above, [little] and [child], the [dear] function and its derivatives definitely, according to the data examined in my study, constitute the most common f unction of DIMs. Affection-driven uses represent 49% of all DIM uses in this corpus. In other words, this represents almost half of all DIMs. There are four sp ecific affection-driven uses: the [dear] DIM itself and three important derivatives: the [intense] or intensif ying DIM, with the meaning of “very”, the [flirt] DIM, and the [commiserative] DIM. The [dear] DIM The endearment connotation is the most common single function of DIMs. It represents 26% or approximately a quarter of the whole DIM data set. One of the most common uses in this respect is hypoc oristics or endearing terms of address. In English, this would be similar to introducing a name with the word “dear” in informal situations like: “Dear Peter” (or the truncat ed form, “Pete”). The formal “dear” (used in formal letters, for example) is left out of consideration since it does not correspond to any DIM form in Spanish. No DIMs are normally found in formal letters in Spanish. Six Spanish speakers read a letter where three EVALs appeared: two DIMs and one SUPERL. They were asked to indicate if there was something wrong or unusual in the letter. Three could not answer the question (it is unclear if it is because they did not see

PAGE 122

111 anything unusual or because they did not know what was unusual). One referred to a supposed orthographic mistake (which is not r eally a mistake in Spanish but in English). Another answered that the content was very poor for a person with a Bachelor’s degree. Another explicitly indicated that the writer first referred to her daughter formally (“Elena Franco”), but then referred to the same daughter as “ Elenita ” (Helen+DIM). Having words like “ Elenita ”, a hypocoristic, because the formal name was expected (Elena). In informal letters or encounters, then, it is possible to find this t ype of hypocoristics with DIMs (e.g., English “John” “Johnny”; “Vick” “Vicky”). In Spanish, it is common to diminutivize (and also truncate) many names or terms of address of people for whom we have an appreciation. Just like “mom” “mommy” and “dad” “daddy” in English, in Spanish we have Mama mamita (Mom+DIM) and pap papito (dad+DIM). The data corpus has examples such as “mom+DIM”, “grandma+DIM”; and “sister+DIM”. These last three examples refer to family members or relatives, since these are normally beloved people. All these uses ma inly imply such meanings as “dear mom”, “dear grandma”. This use is observed mo stly among people who know each other and whose relationship is characterized by some degree of intimacy, familiarity, or some special appreciation. Addressing a stranger or a socially distant person with a DIM would cause some degree of pragmatic infelicity. It is necessary to point out also that there are inanimate entities that are diminutivized with this [dear] function as well. Examples of this endearing diminutivization of inanimate nouns are the following, where food items are described as something “dear” and appreciated: 4) Middle-age mother to her 30-year old s on: “Quieres caf, jugo y una panquequITA?”. D’you-want coffee, juice & a pancake+DIM?

PAGE 123

112 5) TV talk show female host: (the last pi ece of advice for some sisters in a fight) “Cuando se echen el cafeCITO, me invitan” when you have your coffee+DIM (time), invite me A male who uttered another expression with a food item (“chicken+DIM”) was interviewed during the data triangulation time In the informal interview we had, he explained that not using the diminutive with “chicken” would make the utterance lose some of the flavor he had in his mind. He meant to express that he really liked and enjoyed that chicken. Not only food items but also body parts ma y be diminutivized. When these words receive the DIM, these body parts often have the characteristic of being either beautiful or we ll liked by many (more on this below under the [flirt] DIM). TV reports, interviews, and shows constitute the source of many data examples in the corpus. One such major program in the corpus is Despierta Amrica or “D.A.” (Wake Up America). It is a daily 3-hour morning magazine that includes news, interviews, music, jokes, skits, and many other secti ons. It is a source of information and entertainment for all the Spanish-speaking co mmunity in the USA, and especially in South Florida. One of the most important features is its de gree of spontaneity (a live program), its informality, and the convergence of many dialects (the four hosts are all from different Hispanic countries). In a sp ecial report and interview with a musical group that had just produced a new Compact Disc, the interviewer refers to the content in this new musical production, wh ich contains also baladitas (ballads+DIM). It is to be interpreted as songs, with a ballad rhythm, th at are very much liked and appreciated by the audience of that talk show and of course by the speaker, who is the interviewer. Thus, “ballads+DIM” may be interpreted as “those well-liked ballads”.

PAGE 124

113 In another segment of the program, a young woman sends, a besito muy grande (kiss+DIM very big) to another woman who just solved a huge problem she had. This DIM here obviously has nothing to do with [lit tle] since this “kiss” is “very big”, as we can see explicitly stated in the post-nominal modifying adjective phrase muy grande This is a “dear kiss”, a kiss with love, and a sp ecial kiss with endearment. There was also reference to calorcito (heat+DIM), which can be interp reted as a hot weather that is actually liked or a hot day to enjoy. Some people were asked the question: “what is a ‘house+DIM’?” as part of the data triangu lation. 100% of the respondents agreed that casita (house+DIM) is one’s belove d home (with no reference to size at all). Some said that this could give the idea of a house acquired with much effort. Color terms were also diminutivized with the [dear] function in the data as shown in example 6 below, in which the speaker used the word “color” itself with a diminutive. 6) a 27-year-old female: “en ese comp lejo hay casas con unos colorCITOs” in that complex ther e are houses with such colors+DIM It has nothing to do with “l ittle color”. The young woman wh o used it pluralized this word to refer to the different colors in whic h different houses in a very colorful complex had been painted. She was also informally in terviewed at the moment she uttered that DIM. She explained after some time that she really liked the way the complex looked due to those diverse colors, and that is why she used the wo rd “colors+DIM” instead of “colors”. The word bronceado (tanned), which is a skin color, is used with the DIM in the data. In the context presented, this does not mean “a little (bit) tanned”. This simply means “a nice tan color”. Other entities are often also diminutivized in the data such as clothing items and money. The latter, again, does not necessarily mean “(a) litt le money” according to the

PAGE 125

114 context. In the contexts in the data, at leas t in most of them, the idea is “that beloved money”; that money that we appreciate so mu ch because of the difficulty in earning it. Also, many clothing items (e.g., sandals, shoes, clothe ornaments) are diminutivized to express the idea that those are beautiful and that those are much appreciated. The following example reveals much regard ing this inherent [dear] DIM function. 7) “yo le ped la receta a Jorge y le dije que l mismo me la di era, bien escritICA” I asked the recipe from Jorge & told him to write it himself, well written+DIM The young woman who uttered it (another person interviewed at the moment of using the DIM) indicated that she was expecting a friend to write a recipe for her. She told that friend that he had to give the recipe to her “well written”. The “writt en” verbal participial is what she actually diminutivized first ( bien escritica ). It is important to note that grammatically speaking, we do not often find verb al participials with DIMs since they do not seem to subcategorize for evaluativene ss. Yet, it was diminutivized and all the listeners could process the expression without major problems. She later informed that she simply meant that she expected for her frie nd to write that recipe in such a way that showed care or appreciation for her. She imme diately gave another example to clarify her point. She said that when one of her Spanis h-speaking bosses (her job is cleaning houses and offices) tells her haz una limpiadita all (do some cleaning+DIM there), she normally interprets that as referrin g to a cleaning job expectedly with love or appreciation. Which nouns or words receive this [d ear] function more often may reflect something very important about many Spanish-sp eaking societies; the aspects of life that are very important, appreciated, and liked in the such culture. We have seen that family members receive many DIMs. We also observed that food items are diminutivized with certain frequency. Some places, like home a nd own businesses (regardless of size) are

PAGE 126

115 much appreciated. Music and dance are othe r DIM’s favorites. Spanish-speaking people may also express, in many cases, a great appreciation for their own culture via diminutivization. In Premio a lo Nuestro (Award to Ours), which is an annual TV event where prizes or awards are given to importa nt Hispanic show business people in the USA (something like a Grammy Awards event), one of the awards presenters said: 8) “nuestra sangrecITA y nuestro saborcITO” Our blood+DIM and our taste/flavor+DIM In the context of this utterance, this meant: “our dear/beloved blood or race”. In relation to this affectionate use, we also see what may be called the “familiar/intimate DIM”. Most of the affectionate functions of the DIM express some degree of familiarity or intimacy. Thus, we may say that this suffix is also marking this type of (at least expe cted) closeness between the interactants. This is the reason many DIMs are used when addressing at or referri ng to family members, relatives, significantothers, close friends, and the like. We also find this [familiar] DIM used even among interactants that are not relati ves whatsoever. In these instan ces, we may observe a desire of the speaker to bring some closeness or familiarity to interactions with people that are not relatives or good friends. It is a type of camaraderie building, as shown in example 9: 9) “¡saluCITA!” (final C is dropped, and -cita is added, instead of –ita because of the stress on the last syllable. This is also observed in the “Attitude+DIM” example above.) cheers+DIM! A Mexican young man was giving a toast in one episode of Casos de La Vida Real – (Cases of Real Life). He was drinking with his friends and diminutivized the word “cheers!” It was diminutivized without necessarily having the [dear/intimate] connotation. In this case, a few men are celebrating that they ha ve a job, and that they just

PAGE 127

116 got paid. These are neither relatives nor good friends. These are just a type of drinking companions. They gather just for beer drinking and chatting. In the Despierta America program, we observe a clear example of emphasizing the [-dear] concept via DIM withdrawal: 10)Young male host:(performs a funny character of an old Colombian woman, “Meche”). Meche (talking to the hairdresser Sammy ) “Mira Samuel Suarez!.." (offends Sammy) Look, Samuel Suarez This “Colombian woman” became uneasy b ecause Sammy told her about many changes she needed to make in her face. Interesti ng here is the dropping of the hypocoristic and DIM in the name Sammy. Brown and Levinson (1987) described this as “withdrawal of positive politeness and its associat ed emotional support” (p. 110). The [flirt] DIM. This represents a not very co mmon extension of the [dear] connotation to the sex-related arena. We discussed above how body parts with the [dear] DIM, for example, may have this sexual c onnotation. The following interaction in a TV entertainment show ( Sbado Gigante = “Giant Saturday”) sh ows this DIM connotation. 11) -50-year-old male host (in couples contes t): “Qu es lo que tiene mejor tu novio?” What is the best part of your boyfriend? -The girlfriend: “ yo pienso que el cuellITO” I think that the neck+DIM -Host: “Qu te gusta a ti ms?” What do you like better? The girlfriend: “me gusta l completICO” I like him complete+DIM -Host: “Qu tiene el cuello de l?” What does his neck have? -Girlfriend: “Es suaveCITO” It’s soft+DIM There is a certain witty humorous refere nce to the sex appeal of the body of the boyfriend. There is a reference to how much the speaker may like his physical

PAGE 128

117 appearance. This [flirt] DIM is not only with body-related words but also other words in general. In the example below, the expression “a friend” is diminutivized. This example comes up in the context of a family case stor y (in a “Jerry Springer”-like talk show in Spanish). A 19-year-old boy becomes the boyfriend of a 40ish-year-old woman, who used to be his mother’s best friend. The mother is obviously upset about it. The boy at one point has to admit that he has a part icular relationship with a young girl, who he called amiguita ( “friend+DIM”). This amiguita word has sexual connotations. They are also called amigo/as con derecho (“friends with rights”) in popular Spanish. These terms refer to dates. Thus, here, a friend is obvi ously not the same as a “friend+DIM”. The sexual connotation in “friend” is abse nt, unlike this type of “friend+DIM”. 12)-“ella es una amiga (pause, then he’s confronted). Lo que llamamos una amiguITA” She is a friend. She’s what we call a friend+DIM 13)-Female host of Viviana TV show: “Continuamos con el llamado ‘cosITO Rico’” we’ll continue w/the so-called ‘thing+DIM delicious’ The female host in l3 refers to the at tractiveness of the guest, via this DIM. The [intense] DIM This is the second most comm on specific DIM function in the data. It represents around 16% of all the DI M tokens. The intensifying functions of the DIMs have been cited already by Alvar and Po ttier (1987) but in a very marginal way. The only examples they cited were churros calentITOS (churros hot+DIM) with the meaning of “VERY hot”, and de rodillITAs y a mis pies (p. 87) with the meaning of “kneeling+DIM down and at my feet”. The former example is the only one that they clearly present with [+intense] effects. The translation they gave for the second example does not show [intense] functions. One possible reading of the “…kneeling+DIM

PAGE 129

118 down…” expression is that of a man completely on his knees asking for something. If this is the case, then the adverb “completely” refl ects the [intense] effect of such an affix; which is not clearly explained by Alvar and Pott ier. However, the authors think that this use of the DIM is just stylistic and shoul d not be really considered a morphological process. However, there is no reason for not considering this a morphological process. Even if it is just style, it is a style mark ed via affix (DIM) atta chment; henceforth a morphological process with stylistic or prag matic effects or a morphopragmatic process. Reynoso (2002) more clearly recognizes the in tensifying value of “very” in examples such as “walking straight+DIM, with the head...”. We may call it an augmentative DIM. 14)-Female cook: “el puerco est limpiecITO” the pork is clean+DIM In sentence 14 above, for example, we can not conclude that this means “a little clean”. This was a cooking demonstration on TV. The pork someone is about to cook or eat cannot be just a little clean. It has to be very clean, in order for us to be able to eat it. The basic meaning of this augmentative DIM is “very”, that is why this is called the intensifying function of DIMs. Let us observe another example for further clarification. 15)-A female reporter (in her 30’s) interv iewing a woman expert in wedding cakes. “asi que ya no son esos pasteles tradicionales que tenan que ser romnticos, blanquITOs” so, no more those traditional cakes that had to be romantic, white+DIM Example 15 simply means that traditionally, people used to have very romantic and VERY white cakes. The diminutivized words in the two examples above (“white” and “clean”) were chosen as part of the ques tionnaires used, after ethnographic interviews took place. They were given in isolation. The participants had to answer the question: “What does ‘white+DIM’ and ‘c lean+DIM’ mean?” More th an 50% of the respondents interpreted the words “white+DIM” and “clea n+DIM” meaning “very/rather white” and

PAGE 130

119 “very/rather clean” respectively. It is very im portant to note that they interpreted the DIMs here as “very” even without a clear cont ext. This just reflects how easily accessible this meaning of DIM is, which shows its frequency. This is not part of the traditional teaching of DIMs; and even more, this use has been relatively absent in formal accounts of Spanish EVALs, as shown above. Yet, the majority of the people still associate this DIM with the idea of “very” and not with the idea of “little”. One unique aspect of Spanish DIMs (and al l the other EVALs analyzed here) is that they can go through a pro cess similar to that of par tial or total morphological reduplication. More precisely, however, this is a type of iteration. This iteration has the main purpose of intensification. These iterative cases intensify even further the meaning of the base. The expression poquit-it-it-it-o (little-DIM-DIM-DIM-masculine) means “little, little, lit tle” or “very very little” since the base means “little”. Igual ititita means “ equal /alike, equal/alike, equal/alike” or “very very equal /similar/alike” because the base means “equal/similar/ alike”. Finally, la primer ititita vez means “the first first first time” or “the very very first time” because the base means “first”. Jurafsky (1996) considers that this type of DIM relates to “littleness” somehow, in the sense that this diminutivization implies th at something is very white or clean because it does not have dirt or just a li ttle dirt. Thus, he argues that not all colors can receive this DIM because “white” may imply absence of dust or dirt but not colors like “blue”. That is why he shows the followi ng supposedly ungrammaticality: azulito “a little blue”, but *“very blue”. This is simply not true. An expression like el cielo est azulito (the sky is blue+DIM) is very possible in many dialec ts of Latin American Spanish with the meaning of “The sky is very blue”, as mu ch as “the prairie is green+DIM” with the

PAGE 131

120 meaning of “very green”. Six people were interviewed about the meaning of the phrases: El cielo est azulito (the sky is blue+DIM) and la pradera est verdecita (The prairie is green+DIM). All of them associated these se ntences with positive feelings like “a very sunny and beautiful day, a healthy prairie, nice prairie” and other positive comments. It is interesting to note here that these positive comments came mostly due to the force of the suffixes. One person even added that it meant th at the prairie was “totally green”. Thus, it was never interpreted as “a little blue” or “a little green”. Recall from our discussion in the previous semantic analysis that this [i ntense] DIM connects more directly to [dear] than to [little]. There are still, admittedly, some questions unanswered in this respect. For example, this [intense] function is pr obably being extended to cases that are difficult to explain with the connection to [dear]. When informants were asked about the meaning of viejito (old+DIM), for example, some associated this with the idea of “very”. Some definitions they gave were: “a very old person” and “an old person with many problems (health, for instance) because of being very old”. It is di fficult to conclude that this is connected to the idea of [dear] since “oldne ss” is probably not an expected and appreciated feature in people. This case is particularly interesting due to the diversity of definitions given for “old+DIM”. Other respondents a ssociated this directly with the [dear] function. In this respect, some defined the term “old+DIM” as “very old person who reflects honesty and maturity”; “an old person that inspires tende rness or love”; and “an old person that is lovely or endearing”. Yet, anothe r saw this as a pejorative word. Finally, regarding this [intense] DIM, Reynoso (2002) observed a type of emphatic DIM ( segurito que ese fregadazo era para don Jesus = “ I’m sure that sink was for Mr.

PAGE 132

121 Jesus ” ). This is also observed in the data in the example where a woman emphasizes that she only has one cookie left: 16)-A young mother: “Me queda unITA” is left one+DIM (ONLY one is left) This [intense] and emphatic DIM is better translated here as “only” than “very”. However, this is basically still an intensifier. The [commiserate] DIM This is another uncomm on function of DIMs. When expressing commiseration, someone or someth ing (the referee or the referred entity) might be in a negative condition (e.g., pain, in feriority, and disadvantag e) and in need of sympathy. According to Webster’s dictiona ry, to commiserate is “to condole or sympathize (with)”. It implies a certain degree of affection and compassion for those in disadvantageous positions. Alonso (1937) cite s an example from the literature where a mendicant begs for food and uses many DIMs, esp ecially in terms that referred to himself (e.g., poor+DIM, fainting+DIM). Alonso suggests accurately that the mendicant is trying to inspire the listene r (a girl) with compassion or sy mpathetic affection. The mendicant seems to be presenting himself as worthy of pity via the use of such DIMs, which are captatio benevolentiae (“to capture benevolence”; Latin label by Alonso and others). The following example was extracted from the data corpus: 17)(on a report on tu rtles hurt by seashore) "Es dificil encontrar tortuguITAs viva s despus de accidentes como stos" It's difficult to find turtles+DIM alive after accidents such as these -"pobrecITA" (several times) poor+DIM Example 17 above emerged in the context of a report on hurting animals. The main function of the diminutive in “poor+DIM” or “turtle+DIM” was to empathize with the

PAGE 133

122 pain of the turtle and to express pity and compassion for the pain of this animal. The turtle had been hurt by a boat in Florida and wa s referred to with a DIM. Yet, this turtle was in fact big. One of the male hosts calcu lated the turtle’s age at around 70 years old. Thus, obviously this DIM has no “littleness” connotation. It is important to note here that commis erating is in itself a speech act (Boxer, 1993). We have here an example of a speech act being performed, not mitigated nor attenuated (colored), by the DI M itself. In the word “poor+D IM”, we can argue that the commiserating act is realized by the word “poor ”; in other words, the base, not the affix carries the [commiserate] notion. However, in “turtle+DIM” in example 17 the base has no commiserating functions; yet, the speech act of commiserati ng is still at play in that case. It seems clear that it is the DIM itself that is performing the act of commiseration. This is admittedly unusual, since in most cases, EVALs color (e.g., mitigate, attenuate, intensify) the speech acts; but in this case, the speech act itself requires the presence of the affix to be performed. One word of caution regarding this us e has to do with the definition of commiseration. If we consider commiseration as a way of (a person) identifying with the sufferer, then this might be a type of end earment, which constitutes the main motivation for including this under the affection category. If commiseration refl ects inferiority or a disadvantageous position, as mentioned a bove, then it might be classified under a negative category. However, commiseration s eems to emphasize a type of affection. The derogation function Of the three major pragmatic categories di scussed in my study, derogation is the one with fewest instances in the data. Der ogation-driven uses represent the 14% of all 450 DIMs in the corpus. It consists basically of functions that somehow have a negative

PAGE 134

123 connotation or effect, whether it is inten tionally, unintentiona lly, consciously, or unconsciously. It involves three specific DI M functions: Irony, femaleness (see Chapter 5), and pejoration (in order of frequency). As with the case of [child] DIMs, the [female] DIM also marks a segment of the society, theref ore it is analyzed from a sociolinguistic perspective in the next chapter. Next ch apter makes clear why this is under the derogation-driven uses of DIMs. Now, we discuss the other thr ee derogative functions, again, in order of frequency in the data. The [irony] DIM. There are only 40 examples in the data that could be considered as having ironic functions, which is only about 10% of the whole DIMs data. Here, ironic examples have a sarcastic function with effect s similar to those reported by Nelms (2001) such as humor and attention catcher but mo re importantly, deroga tion-like effects. Sarcasm and irony are normally linked togeth er. Indeed, based on Nelms (2001), as cited in Boxer (2002), it is clear that irony is sarcasm’s corollary. Boxer defines sarcasm as “overt irony intentionally us ed by the speaker” (p. 100). Ir ony here is defined as “a method of …. expression in which the intended meaning of the word is the direct opposite of their usual sense” according to Webs ter’s College dictionary (Neufeldt, 1997). The following are examples of such ironic function: “ actitucita ” (attitude+DIM) and “ Carlitos ” (Charles+DIM). These examples in the data do not mean “little/dear” attitude or “little/dear” Carlos, precisely. In the former example, a little girl was angry and protesting during a car tri p. Instead of being a “dear” at titude, this was really an attitude a mother did not at all approve of her daughter, and th e daughter was being reprimanded for that. Henceforth, here we fi nd an explanation for this negative meaning

PAGE 135

124 of “bad” of this DIM in these cases. In this ca se, the meaning is not [-little], like in other ironic DIMs. It is [-dear] instead of [-little] si mply because nouns such as “attitude” are [-gradable] (in the little-big sc ale); thus, they cannot be assi gned a rate or grade in the scale of “littleness”. Had this DIM not been interpreted or used with the “dear” (or its opposite “not dear” or “bad”) function, it would have been rendered ungrammatical because this is not a gradable noun, unless th ere were a semantic shift of the word “attitude”, which does not appear to be the case here. In the case of “ Carlitos ” (Charles+DIM), the speaker introduc es a male called “Carlos” while videotaping a vi sit of a church group to a pa rk in Orlando. This “Carlos” is known at that church because of his many obligations in and out of church. He often arrives late at church events and always presents excuses re ferring to incidents occurring on his way. The speaker in the video introdu ces him as “Carlos+DIM, the complicated one”. Playing with this [dear] DIM and the adjective “complicated” makes this use ironic. It may be interpreted as the “dear but not so dear” Carlos. A clear example of the [-little] DIM is the following: 18) Host of a talk show: “c onoceremos a la madre de esta criaturITA de 36 aos” We’ll meet the mother of this baby(creature)+DIM of 36 years old A possible paraphrase for this is: “this absolute ly [-little] boy, who thinks he is still little but is 36 years old already”. Thus, ironic DIMs basically mean either [-little] or [-dear]. The [pejorative] DIM The least frequent function of DIMs is pejoration, probably because of the pressure of the very comm on function of endearment. Yet, admittedly, they exist, and we need to account for these uncommon uses as well. There are entities or nouns that inherently are not supposed to have a [+little] feature. For example, giants and basketball players are not supposed to be littl e. There are others which are more highly

PAGE 136

125 valued if bigger (e.g., a house, a country). In other words, the bigger (or si milar features) the entity is, the better or the more appr eciated or expected by societal norms. For example, “house+DIM” may have a pejorative or condescending effect in some uses (we saw above that this same example may ha ve positive [+affectionate] effects). A sentence like “yes, they have a house+D IM” may mean something like “well, at least they have a place to sleep and eat. It is not much, t hough”. In the data, we have the example of “piano” used with a DIM. One of the listeners thought that this was a lack of respect or a sign of not sufficiently appr eciating the piano unde r consideration. She explicitly said to the person diminutiviz ing “piano”, “don’t be disrespectful!” Diminutivizing words like “car” also may have th is condescending or pejorative effect in many occasions. In such cases, “car+DIM” may refer to that little car that somebody has (probably the speaker herself/himself) that is not very new or in good condition (like cochecillo –“car+DIM”in Spain). Similarly, a “s erenade+DIM” is not a well appreciated serenade, as the following example from the data shows: 19)-“Esa serenatICA majunche” that serenade+DIM horrible Many professions are regarded with high es teem in the Hispanic culture (and many other cultures). Physicians, lawyers and professors are among these professionals. In many Hispanic countries, both lawyers and phys icians are called “doctors”. This was more common historically, but there are stil l many examples of this in contemporary Spanish. In Doa Brbara an early 20th-century Venezuelan novel by novelist Rmulo Gallegos, one of the two main characters was a lawyer, and he was widely referred to as “doctor”. By his enemies, however, he was called doctorcito (doctor+DIM), also shown in the data as:

PAGE 137

126 20)-A middle aged Venezuelan cop in a movie: “esa doctorCITA es una p….! ” (swearing here, meaning “prostitute”) that female doctor+DIM is a p….. In both cases, a lawyer (or “doctor”) is re ferred to as “doctor+DIM” by enemies, obviously with an offensive and pejorative se nse. In example 20, a detective got himself into trouble, and one female lawyer is after hi m. He said this after an interview with her and other high-rank officers. The attenuation function or polite DIM Before actually presenting the descriptive analysis of polite DIMs in the data, let us clarify the notion and important features of politeness in general, drawn from Leech’s (1983) politeness principle and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. In Brown and Levinson theory, politeness is understood as that basic instin ct of interactants to preserve face; the face of the addressee, mainly, but also the speaker’s face (the concept of face is that of Goffman’s 1983, as explained below). Among the major assumptions of this Politeness Theory, some deserve special attenti on here due to their relevance to my study. This theory proposes th at every “model” (or id eal) interactant has face (both negative, the need/desire to prot ect one’s space and freedom, and positive face, the image of self portrayed). It is also assumed that interactants want to maintain each other’s face (it is of mutual interest), and as a consequence, they will want to minimize face threatening. These assumptions apply to many uses of DIMs in the data via attenuating functions. In other wo rds, by applying this theoretical approach to the data in my study, we can find reasonable explanations for many common uses of these Spanish DIMs. This function of the DIMs has been acc ounted for in languages such as Greek. Sifianou (1992), for example, investigated this function of diminutives in English and in

PAGE 138

127 Greek. Sifianou pointed out that in Gree k, although the prototypical function of dimunitives is to indicate [littleness], such affixes extensively also mark politeness. Furthermore, Greek diminutives serve to esta blish or reaffirm a solidary framework for verbal interaction. Thus, both names can be gi ven to this DIM, the [attenuate] and the [polite] DIM because attenuation occurs because of politeness pressure. Let us see some preliminary examples of politeness in DIMs, which constitute 1/5 of the DIMs data. In the following example, a male member of a church addresses the pastor by: 21)-“Pastor, le guard una pizzITA” Pastor, I saved a pizza+DIM for you. According to the context, we can observe that there is no reference to the size of the slice of pizza (it was regular size). We can also observe that, unlike with other food items, this DIM does not express the idea of that pizza be ing delicious or esp ecially good (it was a regular delivery pizza). The most plausible explanation for this use is that the speaker is being polite and respectful with the church pastor. This expl anation is based first on the relationship of the two (pas tor and church member), and secondly on the church member’s personality (always trying to help the church leaders). We can argue that the church member is trying to save the positive face of the addressee as being the pastor (as pastor, he also deserves to be served, and as pastor, he cannot be left without food). Furthermore, we can argue that there may be al so an attempt to save negative face. It may be interpreted as if the church member is trying to avoid imposing on the pastor’s eating habits, eating preferences or eating time/schedule. Another example of polite DIMs is the one found in a common farewell expression in modern Spanish: hasta lueguito (see you later+DIM). It can certainly be interpreted as having either attenuating functions (meaning “some time later, without specifics”) or

PAGE 139

128 intensifying functions (meani ng “see you in a bit”), dependi ng how we interpret this reference to time. However, there are cases, like the one in the data, where it is difficult to argue for either interpre tation. This message (see you later+DIM) was left in the answering machine of a collea gue of the caller, whom he saw very sporadically. The relationship is mostly by sporadic emails or sporadic greetings on campus. The message was not interpreted as having the attenuating/ diminutivizing or intensifying functions described above. It was used as a polite mark er. He was calling at the colleague’s home (private space), and late at night (private time). Thus probably it was a subconscious effort to preserve the addressee’s negative face. The following is the polite DIM at a service encounter (e.g., restaurant): 22)-A woman client to a waiter at a restaurant: “nos trae la cuentica?” Will you bring us the bill+DIM? One of the major manifestations of this t ype of use is the function of mitigation, as example 22 may show. Let us look at this function more closely. The [mitigate] DIM This attenuating force emph asizes another very common function associated with the DI M according to all the literatur e reviewed above. This is in direct connection with speech act performa nce. This function of DIMs consists in reducing the degree of imposition or face threat ening of speech acts. This DIM represents approximately 12% of all DIMs. This facet of the DIMs in relation to pr agmatic effects in the speech acts of requesting or demanding, for example, has b een briefly discussed by Alonso (1937). He explained that “ los diminutivos mismos piden y demandan, y con ms eficacia, generalmente, que los imperativos y sus va riantes gramaticales, precisamente por ser

PAGE 140

129 medios indirectos de expression (B ally’s 1936 “expresividad linguistica ”) p. 49. “The diminutives themselves request and demand, and with more effectiven ess, generally, than the imperatives and their grammatical variants precisely because they are indirect means of expression” (Bally’s 1936 linguistic expressiveness). 23)-“no, djame mi agita aqu” no, leave me my water+DIM here Even though some may argue that the DIM in 23 above has the [dear] function, the fact that its absence makes th is a very direct and uneasy de mand or order contributes to the assumption that the most important functi on here is that of [mitigate], even if the [dear] connotation is true. Th ese are two young women talking in the hearer’s house. The speaker is her sister-in-law spending a few da ys in that home. The hearer is cleaning up the table and is about to pick up the speaker’s glass of water. The context of this speech behavior requires the softeni ng of this request. The followi ng is another good instance: 24)-Young woman inviting another young woman to a birthday party: “bueno, si tienes un chancecITO” well, if you have a chance+DIM In example 24 above the word “chance” is diminutivized. One young woman invites another young woman (from the same c hurch) to a social gathering. To avoid imposing on the hearer’s time and plans, th e speaker uses the DIM. Here, we have another act, invitation, being atte nuated via diminutivization. In this particular case, there can be also a connection with the goal of saving the hearer’s face. Now, why is it that DIMs are pragmatic attenuators par excellence ? The reason is precisely their connection with the radial categories of [dear ] and [little]. When asking a favor, for example, the hearer may subconscious ly think that she/he is “dear” to the speaker, and henceforth, she/he cannot refuse to do the fa vor. Some people interviewed

PAGE 141

130 and some respondents of the questionnaires di rectly mentioned that they would use DIMs when asking for favors, to soften that favor Another possibility is that the hearer may understand this use subconsciously as meaning “little”. In the case of some types of playful insults (“silly” and “liar” in the data ), for example, the insulting adjective may be mitigated by this “little” meaning. The hear er, then, does not see herself/himself as “silly/liar” but just as “a little silly/liar”. In the same speech act of asking for a favor mentioned above, we can also see how this [ little] effect may mitig ate the demand. It is just a “little” favor, after all, how can the hearer refuse to do it? By using the DIM as a pragmatic attenuator, the speaker tries to not impose on the hearer, and thus, saves the hearer’s face. In addition to this, we can also find exam ples of attenuation in non-face-threatening acts such as assertion. Th e common Spanish expression estoy comiendito (I am eating+ DIM), or other similar diminutivized partic ipials, is an example of this assertion mitigation. In diminutivized expressions like me compr un carrito, por fin! (I bought me a car+DIM, finally!), the speaker may attenuate the assertion “I have a new car” to avoid committing or compromising herself/himself to hi gher expectations (i.e., “not a great deal of a car; don’t expect too much”). It re sembles the English attenuator – ish in expressions such as “see you at threeish ”. Howard (1998) associates this suffix with the “approximation” function in cases such as “greenish”. This English suffix is often used to mitigate the degree of commitment, in this case to time and punctuality. When American English speakers hear this, then they know th ey cannot complain if the person arrives at three fifteen. In this respect, the [mitigate] DI M and the English suffix –ish have similar illocutionary and perlocutionary force.

PAGE 142

131 There is yet one more important polite attenuating function of DIMs; that of euphemism. According to Carnoy (1927), politen ess and respect for th e interactants is one of the main causes for which euphemisms ar e often used. Thus, there is an important connection between politeness a nd euphemism. However, due to the singularity of the euphemistic uses, this takes a diffe rent section in this chapter. The [euphemism] DIM Euphemism, in this particular work, is understood as “means by which a disagreeable, offensive, or fe ar-instilling matter is designated with an indirect or softer term. [They are used] to disguise an unpleasa nt truth, veil an offense, or palliate indecency.”, as Kany (1960: v) states. In early-20th-century Spanish, Alonso (1937) cites an anecdotal example in this respect from Santo Domingo. -A Judge: “cmo encontr a la pareja acusada?” how did you find the couple accused? -Witness: “Pues, qu se cr ee ust, seor juez?, singando ” (obscene word) well, what do you think Mr. judge?, f…ing (the F-word) -Judge: “use un lenguaje ms decente” use a language more decent -Witness: “bueno, pues, singandito ” o.k., well, f…ing+DIM Alonso assigns to this a politeness functi on. However, more specifically, this type of politeness is shown by using a euphemism. Swearing or obscene words are taboos, especially in formal and public contexts such a court of law, in the mi ddle of a trial and in front of a judge. Because of this, the judge asks the witness to use a language more appropriate to the speech situ ation. The witness changes the simplex obscene word to the same word but with a DIM. The DIM is c onsidered, by the witness, the only resource s/he needs for making the language more decent, acceptable.

PAGE 143

132 There are 32 examples (approximately 9 %) of this function in the data. The following has to do with the relati vely tabooed topic of age. 25)-“haban cuatro viejITOs” there-were 4 old-people+DIM Had the speaker said “4 old people” with no DIM, it would have sounded pejorative and very harsh. Actually, in the interviews and questionnaires, around 50% of the respondents agreed that the absence of – ito in viejito (old+DIM) sounds harsh and insulting. Age or reference to it is considered a taboo in some cultures or contexts. Old age is apparently an age many people do not want to get to, probably because of its closeness to death, to illness, or incapacity. Thus, a direct referen ce to old age has to be euphemized. This is very likely the reason for “old” to be diminutivized in this context. Sickness-related situations are euphemized via DIMs in some of these examples. This is probably caused by the fact that sickness somehow relates to death, a taboo. 26)“Ah, ¡est enfermITA?!” Ah, is she sick+DIM?! The word “sick” “ enfermita ” (sick+DIM) in example 26 euphemizes this taboo. On another occasion, when referring to some problems a person on a wheelchair was having, the word “problem” was diminutivized. The person in the wheelchair was a church member that suffered an accident and almost di ed. He miraculously survived the accident but was in a very unstable and critical condition. He had been suffering serious respiratory problems ever since. That is why “problem” is diminutivized ( problemita ). It was a big problem, really but one that had to do with this unfortunate situation (disease and death are probably the taboos here). Ther e may be contradictions if we assign to

PAGE 144

133 these uses a real “little” se nse. For instance, it would be nonsensical to assign the meaning of “little” to th e word “bad+DIM” below: 27)“mi compaero(trabajo) estuvo muy malITO. Lo desahuciaron” my (work)mate was very sick(bad)+DIM. He was diagnosed terminal The word “gossip” was also euphemized via DIMs. People are not supposed to gossip. Gossiping is socially stigmatized (even though many may do it). Insults may also receive mitigation via DIMs (e.g., “silly” and “disrespectful”), as example 28 shows: 28“Como que el hombre s es mujerieguecITO” like --the man really is womanizer+DIM Figure 6. Frequency of uses for DIMs Table 2. Frequency of use for DIMs Semantic/pragmatic? Major category # of uses/tokens (out of 450) Percentages (%) Semantics-driven Littleness 59 13 uses Childness 43 10 Affection 223 49 Pragmatics-driven Attenuation 91 20 uses Derogation 64 14 TOTALS 480 106 The apparent discrepancy in numbers is cau sed by the double-counting explained above. Augmentatives The other most important EVAL, from a pr agmatic perspective, is the AUG. Let us recall that “ los sufijos aumentativos indican ta mao grande en su significado primario. Los principales son –n/a, -ote/a, y azo/a” (Hualde et al., 2001, p. 169). (the semantic senses (~20% of uses) pragmatic force (~80%) 0 50 100 150 200 250 littleness childnessaffectionderogation attenuation

PAGE 145

134 augmentative suffixes indicate big size in its pr imary meaning. The principal ones are –n/a, -ote/a, y azo/a. .. –azo ). Now, this is not true onl y in Spanish but in many other languages. Grandi (2002) did a cross-linguistic study of AUGs in the Mediterranean area. He observed in this area tw o important trends: AUGs are significantly less widespread than DIMs and they are also polysemous. He argues that this polysemy consists in two major senses: “big” (often attached to nouns ) and the meaning that has to do with an exaggerated quality or ac tion, especially if att ached to adjectives. Grandi’s findings are consistent with th e results of my study. My study labels this first tendency as the core sense of AUGs, as explained in Chapter 3. The second tendency is associated with the meaning of “very” in my study. These two tendencies are reflected in different specific uses of AUGs, as shown below. Regardless of this polysemy, we can conclude that AUGs in modern Spanish ar e essentially aggrandi zing suffixes: they aggrandize size or quality. We begin with the account, based on the data, of the semantics-driven uses: “big” for –ote a nd –n, and “hit” for –azo. After this, we concentrate on the major category of pragmaticsdriven uses: the inte nsification functions (with the meaning of “very” and relate d meanings), and the seemingly opposite, attenuation function. In a sense, AUGs and DIMs have the same major pragmatic categories: intensification, attenuati on, derogation, and affection. The difference lies on the predominance of one over the others. For DIMs, attenuation and aff ection are the primary ones whereas for AUGs it is the intensification function that is the most predominant. There are other subtle differences that ha ve to do with the connection between one function and the other and the quality of the function itself. For example, the attenuation

PAGE 146

135 function in DIMs come from the “littleness” sense whereas the attenuation function in AUGs may come from the “brevity” sense of some AUGs, such as –n, and –azo. In addition, the intensification function in DIMs a ffect mostly appreciated qualities, whereas the intensification of AUGs affects any quali ty. Below, we can s ee the distribution in frequency of these pragmatics-driven uses vs. the semantics-driven ones. Semantics-Driven Uses The “hit” –AZO As recorded already in the liter ature, many uses of –azo imply the violent hit that is given with objects. For example, a “bat+AZO ” may mean imply “a hit or punch with a (baseball) bat”. This use is still part of the senses of this suffix in modern Spanish as reflected in the data. In the following example, a famous Hispanic singer is referring to an experience she had w ith her ex-husband, also a famous Hispanic actor. 29) “se cas conmigo y al siguient e da me avent un cenicerAZO” he married me & the next day he threw me an ashtray+AUG The [big] AUG There are different suffixes which meant “big” or something like that in the data: -ote/a, n/a, -azo, and –al. The second one in the list is used in example 30 below, azo in example 31, and the other appears in example 32. 30)-A “gossip reporter”: “Ernesto LaGuardia nos di tremendo noticI"N” Ernest La Guardia (to)us gave tremendous news+AUG 31) “Ya decid hablar porque slo con letrerAZO, No!” I decided to talk because only via letters+AUG, No” 32)Widow: “¡Qu dinerAL me va a salir el velorio!” what a money+AUG is the funeral going to cost The [+big] meaning, based on semantic antith esis, gave rise to ironic senses of AUGs. Because it only appeared onc e in the data, there is not a separate section for this function. It was counted under the [big] senses. As figure 7 and table 3 show, this type of

PAGE 147

136 use is relatively infrequent if compared w ith the pragmatics-driven uses in the data analyzed. Figure 7. Frequency of uses for AUGs Table 3: Frequency of uses for AUGs Semantic/pragmatic? Major category Specific function # of uses Specific function % Major category % Total % “big” [big] 2 2.15% 3.2% Semantics-driven [irony] 1 1% 8% “hit” [hit] 4 4.3% 4.3% [intense] very 54 58% Intensification[dear] 5 5.3% 72% Pragmatics-driven [flirty] 6 6.5% 92% [pejorative] 2 2.15% Attenuation [mitigate] 16 17% [euphemism]3 3.2% 20% Pragmatics-Driven Uses The intensification function of AUGs. As can be noted from table 3, intensificat ion is the primary pragmatic function of modern Spanish AUGs. It represents a little more than 70% of all the 93 uses of AUGs analyzed. Included under this cat egory are the specific functi ons of [intense] (with the meaning of “very”, the [dear] (and directly re lated to this, the [flirt]) AUGs, and finally the [pejorative] AUG. It intensifies the qua lity via an adverbial function like “very”. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 pragmaticintense pragmaticattenuate semanticBIG-hit Function types # of uses (/93)

PAGE 148

137 Depending on the quality intensified, negative or positive, this intensification gives rise to affectionate or pejorative c onnotations. Let us first consider specific examples of this function without affectionate or pejorative connotations. The [intense] or “very” AUG This is the one single most common function of AUGs. It represents a little above half of all the AUGs under scrutiny here. In the example below, we find AUG attached to adj ectives. The most suitable translation in English is that of “very” because of the a dverbial function in the adjective phrase. In example 33, it modifies an adjective that de scribes a possible spot on the moon (which can be bought in the future) as “great/good”. 33-Female host: "Un acre pero padr OTOTOTOTE" (“en la luna”) An acre but good+AUG+AUG+AUG ( in the moon ) The [dear] AUG. This very uncommon use of AUGs emerges because of the attachment of AUGs to bases that in themselv es express an appreciated quality or entity. In the data, one male greets another male, w ho he has not seen for a long time, with the following expression: hermanAZO (brother+AUG!). In normal interactions in modern Spanish in many Latin American environmen ts, this is interpreted as “beloved/ appreciated/very dear brother!” The base “brother” in itself represents a positive quality: brotherhood, intimacy, friendship. With the attachment of AUG, the goodness of such quality is aggrandized and hencef orth, it is interpreted as “very dear”. This type of use is also observed in expressions like carrAZO (car+AUG), where it may be translated as “geat car!” This “great” adjective implies that it is liked and appreciated. Therefore, these could be labeled as affec tionate uses of AUGs. The [flirt] AUG. As with DIMs, an affecti onate suffix is extended to other arenas. Recall that the [dear] DIM was extended to the sexual arena and ga ve rise to sexual

PAGE 149

138 connotations. The same happens with AUGs. The appreciated qualities of a man or woman are aggrandized with some flirtatious e ffects. The qualities, in this type of AUG, normally have to do with physical body or el ements that may produce sexual attraction or pleasure. In the following example, the wo man addressee of the greeting looked very sexy, and that is what the AUG reflects here ; obvious sexual connotat ion. Interestingly here, the speaker contrasted the DIM with the AUG. 34)-In “ La Jaula ” (The Cage) comedy (bachelors br ing single women to their home) -One of the guys to one of the women: “Hola MartICA, no martICA no, MartOTA” Hi Marta+DIM,no Marta+DIM no, Marta+AUG 35)-A young male introduces a famous Latin female model/singer; like Pam Anderson: “¡qu cuerpAZO!” what a body+AUG! The young male host describes the sexually attractive body of the model/singer with this AUG. There were also examples of women describing or referring to men with AUGs with similar connotations. The data doe s not show a clear te ndency regarding male vs. female preferences, but intuitively, it seems clear that this [flirt] AUG is more common among men addressing to women than vice versa, probably because men more often than women compliment the opposite ge nder (see Chapter 5 for more on this). The [pejorative] AUG. The last specific function within the category of intensification is that of pe joration, which hardly occurred in the data. One example is very clear in this respect: soltern/solterona (single+AUG = b achelor). More than half of the people answering the question “what does so ltern/solterona mean?” responded that it had pejorative connotations. Interesting here is the fact that the feminine version of such expression is the one with more obvious pejorative connotation. A woman, in many modern societies, is not suppos ed to be single after a certai n age. If so, then it is a

PAGE 150

139 negative characteristic. It is relatively true with men also, but there seems to be more negative effect in the singleness of a 30 or 40-year old woman than a man. That is why attaching an AUG to this word (single) exaggerates this negativity. This word (single+AUG), especially when describing wome n, often implies that that woman is not only single but also that she will probably never get married. Popularly also, features such as anger, depression, and obstinate charact er are believed to be distinctive features of “solteronas”. This is a clear pejorative effect. The attenuation function of AUGs This is the second most common major ca tegory of AUGs but is the less common of the two major pragmatic categories. It repr esents a fifth of all the AUGs in the corpus. As discussed before, it withdraws some of the identity of the base. We argued before that this meaning of AUGs may have emerged eith er from the pejoration function (because of the lose of value of base) or from the “brevity” feature in the nomina acti onis -n and –azo (the only AUGs that occur with this func tion). Regardless of th e origin, this function implies a type of identity diminution; that is why we could label this the “diminutive AUG”. It manifests itself via the specific func tion of [mitigate] and subsequently, and in connection with the latter, via the [euphemism] function. The [mitigate] AUG As with DIMs, [mitigate] AUGs also attenuate speech acts. It minimizes the degree of imposition of a face-threatening act or it may reduce the negative burden of a word or expression. It can also simply diminish the value of the base identity. This is the second most common speci fic function of AUGs found in the data. It accounts for around 17% of all the AUGs. Here are some examples of such use. 36) Weather forecast woman: “Vamos a dar el ltimo vistAZO al tiempo” let’s go to give the last view+AUG at weather( =let’s have a last brief look at climate)

PAGE 151

140 37)-“look medio rocker"N” look sort of rocker+AUG 38)-“un roz"N” a (soft/quick) touch+AUG Example 36 implies a very brief look at th e weather, during the weather forecast of D.A. In example 37, the adverb medio (sort of) clarifies the a ttenuating function of this AUG when describing how much of the look of a rocker cer tain clothing style shows. Finally, example 38 occurred in a soccer game The broadcaster meant that a certain player just touched the ball but could not really kick it. Again, as Reynoso (2002) asserted, “ se expresa un debilitamiento del significado de la base ” (p. 41) (it expresses a weakening of the meaning of the base). Ha rdman (2005, in personal communication) also observed this type of functi on in this type of AUG. The [euphemism] AUG This [mitigate] AUG or atte nuating function of AUGs may be extended to taboos or similar expres sions or topics. In Example 39 below at a church talk, the speaker (church pastor) referred to someone who founded several churches despite his poor reading skills. Ill iteracy is a characteristic of uneducated people, often from low-income families. This is of course a social stigma; hence, a direct and clear reference to this characteristic is somehow a taboo in this public church environment. Adding the suffix –n to this adjective-like base reduces the direct force of this potentially negative word. 39)-“hasta analfabet"N era el hermano” Even illiterate+AUG was the brother Several insults or no t positive attributes are also used with AUG. We need to note here that these examples of insults (or ba d attributes) with AUG do not make a reference to “bigness” whatsoever. Actually, there is a reduction force in th e contexts above. For

PAGE 152

141 example, (phonetically transcribed with an intervocalic consonant inserted) [feyn] (Ugly+AUG), used when descri bing a hotel room where a fam ous singer spent the night, does not mean “very ugly” or “big ugly”, but something like “a little ugly”. The modifier medio (sort of) also confirms the attenuating function of th is AUG. Had the speakers not used the forms with AUG, they would have sounded very harsh and direct, which was not appropriate since he was a public figure with a role of entertaining people. Criticisms and rudeness would not contribute with the portrayal of the image he intended. Let us keep in mind that in many instances, directness is face threatening. Thus, the affixed words (with AUGs) make the reference to the bad attribute or insult an indirect one. This indirectness softens the taboo, and henceforth carrie s a euphemistic function. Because this indirectness is achieved main ly via AUGs, we can conclude then that these AUGs are euphemizers in these contexts. As can be seen from both [euphemism ] DIM and AUG, euphemization may be achieved not only via word s ubstitution but also through wo rd affixation. Evaluative suffixes such as Spanish augmentatives and di minutives then may be used pragmatically for euphemistic purposes. In the data, any inst ance of the use of these suffixes to reduce the force of a potential face-threatening act (FTAs) in Goffman’s (1983) terms is considered an example of euphemistic use. This euphemistic use has at least two implications important implications. The first implication is that my study pr esents another euphemistic strategy not found in linguistic literature (neither on Spanish linguist ics nor on the linguistics of euphemism). This not-accounted for strategy is word affixation; more specifically, via Spanish evaluative suffixes. Thus, affixation should be included in any comprehensive

PAGE 153

142 list of euphemistic strategies The examples analyzed in this paper show this other euphemistic strategy. The other implication is that this paper presents, also, another perspective on Spanish diminutives and augmen tatives; namely, the euphemistic impact of such suffixes. The implication for this is that many traditional accounts of such suffixes in the Hispanic linguist ic literature today are lack ing an important aspect of Spanish evaluative morphology. Any comprehensive account of Spanish evaluative suffixes should include the pragmatic e uphemistic function of such suffixes. Superlatives Superlativization, in general terms, is an intensification proce ss. It either marks high degree/highest degree of a gradable qua lity or a feeling of exultant joy/pride. Because of the latter marking effect, Jrnvig (1962), in what represents one of the very first complete studies of Spanish SUPERLs, labels this suffix as “elative”, more than SUPERL. Jrnvig clarifies that there are other intensification processes in Spanish; some are more analytical than others (e.g., muy “very”, harto/bien “rather”), which are normally labeled in Spanish grammar as “per iphrastic processes”. SUPERLs, on the other hand, represent the synthetic or non-periphrastic alternatives for the sa me process. It is very similar to the Hungarian excessive su ffix (EXS) that Dressl er and Kiefer (1990) investigated. They observed that Hungarian EXS – leg expresses the absolute highest degree of a property (in comparison to other entities which can have a high degree of such property), and it expresses emphasis and is often used to impress the audience. Spanish SUPERLs are essentially semantic-pragmatic intensifiers in modern Spanish, as shown in the literature reviewed and the data analyzed here. Their pragmatic effects are minimal if we compare SUPE RLs with DIMs or AUGs. It is the least productive and the most monosemous of a ll Spanish EVALs under scrutiny here. The

PAGE 154

143 meaning of modern SUPERL is mostly “very”, which can be obs erved in all uses of such affix today. There are no instances in the da ta where we cannot associate the notion of “very” to the SUPERLs found. As we saw in Chapter 2, in the diachronic account of this affix, “very” may have not been the most common function of Latin SUPERLs. We see probably a semantic shift in this Spanish EVAL Recall that this used to mean more often “most” and complied with grammatical rules in Latin. It was a gr ammatical suffix that constituted the relative supe rlative degree of adjectives like “-est” (e.g., the long est ) in modern English. The major function today, however, is that of intensification, and secondarily we can see some uses connected to honorific f unctions. Externally, we can see how this suffix may mark formal or informal encounters. This is discussed in Chapter 5, when we consider some sociolinguistic issues. Let us see examples of these two specific pragmatic functions of SUPERLs: inte nsification and honorific. The [intense] SUPERL. Jrnvig (1962) indicated that “ hoy da el elativo sintetico expresa grado ms alto que el pr ocedimiento analtico con ‘muy’ ” (p. 73) (today, the synthetic elative expresses a higher degree than the analytical counterpart “very”), unlike early Spanish SUPERL. It is consistent with the data analyzed here where superlativized words express more than non-superlativized ad jectives. Furthermore, Jrnvig asserts that due to the humanistic spirit dominant in th at time, early Spanish SUPERL was mostly considered like a Latin ornament in the Spanish language (e.g., Sancho in Don Quixote II). Later on, once it was a definite part of the Spanish grammar and lexicon, this suffix acquired the property of giving a special force and meaning to the word it modified. This is precisely what motivates discussing this under the pragmatics of EVALs.

PAGE 155

144 40) female TV host: (describing a coming show of a famous Hispanic singer in the USA) “va a estar padrISISISISIMO” it’s going to be good+SUPERL+SUPERL It expresses, obviously, a very high value (f or the speaker) of such show. It even increases this expressiveness by the partial iteration of the suffix itself. Of all the EVALs, this is the one that apparently more often presents such phenomenon of iteration. It is not strange if we consider the e ssential feature of SUPERLs (int ensification) and the essential function of this itera tion (intensification). The [honorific] SUPERL. Even though this SUPERL may also mean “very”, it requires further attention because of its effects, which may be distinct from a simple “very” meaning. In this instance below, we ha ve a reference to God in the context of a public prayer. This particular speech event, public prayer, has an important feature: It exalts God. This context requires the exalting of God, and it is partially achieved via an honorific. Exalting, as suggested by Armon (2005, personal communication), requires the mobilization of all linguistic resources po ssible: hence SUPERLs, association with heaven, and others. In this cas e, the SUPERL is one more of these resources to exalt or honor God. 41)-male praying: “Amantsimo Padre Celestial” lover+SUPERL Father Heavenly Another reason for associating the honorif ic function to this instance is the linguistic environment; not only the speech situation. The word Amantsimo is followed by two words with high honorificlike connotation: “Fat her” and “Heavenly”. This use is similar to other relatively common uses of this suffix in formal encounters such as “Reverendsimo” (Reverend+SUPERL) and “ Excelentsimo ” (Excellent+SUPERL), which were not recorded in th is corpus. The former has been used to introduce important

PAGE 156

145 pastors or church leaders and the latter to introduce the president of a country. This seems to be the only EVAL with such function, contrary to Jurafsky’s (1996) arguments in relation to a supposed honor ific DIM. Jurafsky cited Virgencita (Virgin+DIM) and Diosito (God+DIM). These terms do not repres ent honorifics. They simply have an affection purpose. It is like sa ying “Dear Virgin” or “Dear God”. Conclusion The Spanish DIM is essentially a semantic -pragmatic diminisher; the AUG suffix is essentially a semantic-pragmatic aggrandizer; and the SUPERL is a semantic-pragmatic intensifier. Pragmatically speak ing, the DIM is primarily a sp eech act attenuator and an affective binder, whereas the AUG is an in tensifier. The pragmatic functions of SUPERLs are minimal, and they always correspond to the propositional meaning of “very”. The pragmatic functions of Spanish EVALs se em more relevant than (or at least as relevant as) the semantic sens es of such suffixes, if we consider their frequency and productivity. Pragmatically, these suffixes ha ve a very diverse ra nge of functions and effects. At least in the data analyzed he re and in other studies pragmatic functions account for more EVALs than semantic senses. DIMs are classified under three major pr agmatic categories: affection, attenuation and derogation (in order of frequency). These are realized via specific functions such as [dear], [flirt], [intense], [mitigate], [euphe mism], [pejoration], [irony]. AUGs are classified under two major pragmatic categori es: intensification (t he most common) and secondarily attenuation. We fi nd specific AUGs such as [intense], [irony], [dear], [flirt], [mitigate]. As can be seen, both DIMs and AUGs have similar functions but they differ in

PAGE 157

146 the predominance of distinct categories. Fi nally, SUPERLs, the l east pragmatic of all EVALs, is basically an intens ifier, and secondarily it may ha ve an honorific function. As can be seen, common traditional theoretical linguistic fields such as semantics and (syntax)morphology do not account for all the nuances of Spanish EVALs. Leaving the pragmatics of EVALs aside is unfortuna te if we want to deeply understand the meaning and uses of these Spanish affixes. The semantic chapter showed that there is much more to EVALs than their simple propositional meanings. Thus, my study concludes that on the one hand, pragmatic an alyses are indeed necessary to fully understand linguistic processes like the ones an alyzed here. On the other hand, my study shows one more piece of empirical evidence for the need of integrated accounts of language use and structure. Both fields of linguistics, theoretical and applied, complement each other. The next chapter s hows the relevance of one more of these applied theoretical fields: sociolinguistics.

PAGE 158

147 CHAPTER 5 SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS This chapter deals with EVAL functions th at have to do with aspects such as group marking, social distance, and social context marking. These are sociolinguistic aspects in nature, and in my study, they are kept separa te from pragmatic functi ons that have to do with speech act performance. This sepa ration requires further explanation. The broad definition assumed in this work for sociolinguistics is that of Holmes (1992). Holmes defines sociolinguistics as th e study of the relationship between language and society. In general, soci olinguists try to explain langua ge differences in different social contexts, functions of language in th e society, and how language is used to convey social meaning. Both Hymes (1972) and Canale and Swain (1980) incl ude sociolinguistic aspects in their theory of communicative co mpetence, as mentioned before. Canale and Swain explained that Hymes’ reference to speakers’ knowledge of contextual appropriateness of particular linguistic forms has to do with sociocultural competence. This type of knowledge that they labeled as “sociocultural” refers to the social meaning or value of a given utterance. This type of knowledge or competence is “the basis for judgments as to the appropriatene ss of a given utterance in a pa rticular social context” (p. 16; Canale & Swain, 1980), which is consiste nt with Hymes’ Et hnography of Speaking; an important methodological approach in my study. Thus, this type of competence is a fundamental target of analysis in my study. When discussing applying sociolinguisti cs, Boxer (2002) rec ognizes a difference between micro and macro aspects of the fiel d, which is also discussed by other authors

PAGE 159

148 such as Fishman (1972a) and Romaine ( 1994). Macro-sociolinguistics deals with phenomena involving communities at large such as multilingual societies. Phenomena such as language planning, language and na tions and the like are within the macro perspective of sociolinguistics. Micro-soci olinguistics, on the ot her hand, involves faceto-face interactions, person-to-person verbal encounters, and the study of areas such as pragmatics and discourse. Macro-sociolingui stics (also sometimes called sociology of language) starts with society and analyzes la nguage in it. Micro-linguistics (often focused on monolingual interactions) begi ns with language and analyzes the social forces that influence it. Thus, my study emphasizes a micro perspective of sociolinguistics supplemented by macro-sociolinguistic aspect s whenever necessary. For example, there is reference here to aspects such as gende r and language, which in Boxer’s (2002) words “spans both micro and macrosociolinguistics” (p. 3). In brief, for organization and presentation purposes, my study s ub-divides the fields of sociolinguistics and pragmatics. We alrea dy have seen that there is a clear interface between the two, and the latter can be considered a sub-field of the former, at least in the notion of sociolinguistics considered in this section. In this chapte r, unlike the pragmatics chapter, the focus is primarily on aspects such as group marking, society contexts, and society power structure, which are clearly bett er fitted with the sociolinguistic label. This chapter consists of three major sec tions: 1) Group marking effects, 2) Context marking, and 3) Power and society considera tions. In the first section, this chapter discusses in detail the following functions of Spanish evaluative suffixes: the [child] DIM, the [+female] DIM, and the dialectal DIM. The other major function category is that of context marking. In this respect, this chapter discusses the styl e or register (degree

PAGE 160

149 of formality) functions of EVALs in general and of SUPERLs in particular. The third and last major category this chapter covers is th at of society and power. This last section presents general reflections on the notion of power in society as reflected in particular uses of Spanish EVALs. Unlike the other two majo r sections of this chapter, this goal of this last section is to provide the reader with food for thought more than to state conclusive remarks. Group Marking The term “group identity” refers here to the marking of one person (speaker, listener, or another referent) as part of a particular societ y segment. It includes “in-group identity markers” within a politeness appr oach (Brown & Levinson, 1987), but it also includes group marking without reference to politeness and group marking from the outside (not only markers of membership in the interactants’ group but markers that even outsiders use to mark group membership). Te rkourafi (1999) shows that in the Greek culture in general, solidarity in in-group re lationships motivates widespread diminutives use. In the data analyzed here, at least, DIMs mark three distinct groups of people: children, women, and ethnic/nationality groups Some uses of DIMs imply that the referent (of such DIM word) has some de gree of [+child] ([child] DIM), [+female] ([female] or gendered DIM], or [+ethnic/nationality] (“dialecta l” or “regional” DIM). The [Child] DIM Traditionally, DIMs have been associated with children. In fact, as established before, Jurafsky’s (1996) model assigns the [+ child] function to the core semantics of such suffix. Melzi and King (2003) have also studied this connection between Spanish diminutives and children. In a study on Russi an DIMs, Andrews (1999) also found, after analyzing many responses to que stionnaires, that “t eenagers believe that morphologically

PAGE 161

150 complex diminutive forms are used considerab ly more frequently in conversation with small children than nonsuffixed, simplex lexi cal forms” (p. 90). Ba sed on statistical analyses, Andrews observed support for the hypothesis that children receive direct exposure to a significantly high percenta ge of complex diminutivized words. In his discussion of vocative acts or E nglish terms of address more specifically, Schneider (2003) has indicated that childre n are not normally addressed in English speaking societies with full forms of their names. Rather, adults use diminutives or diminutivized forms of the children’s names. Schneider points out that –ie or –y DIMs (e.g., doggIE, puppY, RonnY) are the standard form s for addressing chil dren, at least in American English. These, he added, are not often used with grown-up children, unless the parents ignore or are reluctant to accept the growing and adulthood of their sons or daughters. Addressing adults with DIMs, he argued, normally violates politeness norms. These facts clearly show the [+ch ild] function of English DIMs. Thus, in the data and all the examples cite d below, this use of the DIM marks this segment of the society, the children. The use of this type of diminutivization may reflect [+child] features of different t ypes of interactants; the referent s, the recipients (listeners), or the users (speakers) of such DIM. Sin ce the data under analysis in my study come from adults, children as users of DIMs was not observed, but it is also well-known that children use many diminutivized words, not only in Spanish, but also in English (e.g., doggie, daddy, mommy; Schneider, 2003). Schneider (2003) pointed out that, especially in early years, children have the tendency of excessively us ing diminutivized words, and even multiple DIMs (e.g., Auntie Lizzie).

PAGE 162

151 Close to 10% of diminutivized words in the data under analysis in my study have this age group marking effect Out of around 470 DIM words in the data, 43 may be said to have this group-marking effect. There are tw o particular speech situations in the data that are characterized by an extensive use of [+child] diminutives. Two church events addressed to children took place during data collection: children’s camp and vacation (summer) Bible school. Many words in these tw o speech situations have this type of DIMs. The reason for this abundant use of [child ] DIMs is simply the t ype of audience of such events, children. Many Spanish nouns related to the speci fic activities for the children were diminutivized: “drawings+DIM”, “animals +DIM”, “fish+DIM”, “contests+DIM”, “song+DIM”, “balloon+DIM” among many othe rs. When the activity leaders gave instructions (in Spanish) to the children, they used many DIM words: “seated+DIM”, “quiet+DIM”, “closed eyes+DIM”, “eat all+DIM the toast+DIM”, among others. Andrews (1999) also observed that this [ch ild] DIM, in Russian, is more frequent with certain types of words. In her study, she observed that many animals were diminutivized, as well as body parts, parents and siblings clothing items and ot her inanimate objects normally associated with ch ildren. Andrews observed that proper names and naming in general are the most common types of lexical items for the use of DIMs in discourse. We see this type of use clearly marking a child-like environment. It is obviously marked by the explicit presence of children, who are the main participants of this event. In the examples cited above, “drawings”, “fish” and “animals”, for instance, were not necessarily small; actually, the size of the drawings of the animals was irrelevant.

PAGE 163

152 Eventhough they do not refer to littleness, thes e nouns are diminutivized, simply to mark the audience or participants in the event: children. Apart from this speech situation-marki ng effect, the [child] DIM also marks audience. During another church activity, a male in his thirties gave a sermon to children. He made an extensive use of [child] DIMs. Religion-associated nouns such as “God” and “Jesus” were diminutivized. It is necessary to mention here that “God” and “Jesus” are obviously very far from having th e “little” featur e, at least in the beliefs shared by this religious group. Thus, this DIM has nothing to do with the littleness of the referents but the “childness” of the audience. Parents and caregivers also use many DI Ms when the audience is a child. Here there are two examples of this. The first one is a mother talking to her 5-year-old son after blowing a little bi t of air on a piece of fish to cool it off, and the other is the grandmother talking to the same child, trying to find out if he had ha d breakfast already. 1) “viste, te quemaste. Ese que es taba ahi ya estaba sopladITO” you see? You got burnt. That one there was already blown+DIM 2) “tiene hambrecita?” have hunger+DIM? (are you hungry?) These audience-marking effects have been also used for advertising purposes. A Univision (Spanish-speaking TV channel) TV cereal commercial, fo r instance, utilized the following expression: 3) “sabores tostadITOs”: flavors toasted+DIM The only person shown in the commercial wa s a child. Children are obviously the intended audience in this commercial. This type of advertising appeal s to this particular

PAGE 164

153 audience, and this DIM contribu tes to that commercial purpos e. Another instance of this audience-marking effect of [child] DIM in the advertising world is the following: 4)"ah, sacaron un disco tambin para los ms pequeINes?” ah, you made a record also for the most little+DIM (ones)? After this utterance, both the female host in this musical production launching interview and the male singer used many DI Ms because they were talking about music for children. When promoting the “CareBear” movie in Spanish, this was translated as los cariosITOs (The CareBear+DIM). Obviously, this m ovie was targeted at this particular segment of the population, hence the DIM. We have seen so far two important aspect s of the [child] DIMs: speech situation and audience marking. Let us examine instance s of referent marking. In this particular use, the [child] DIM is mainly marking the age group of a particular referent. 5) “(esa parejITA tiene) tres aITOs” (this pair+DIM –of twins) is three years+DIM old 6) “mira que Linda! Esa carITA, esos ojIT Os” (in the Happy B-Day time for children) look how beautiful! That face+DIM, those eyes+DIM 7) 40-year-old mother: “le compramos jueguITOs” We bought him games+DIM Example 5 refers to a 3-year-old pair of twins; example 6 describes a child feature, and example 7 refers to games that parents bought for children. In this last instance, “games+DIM” does not necessarily refer to “little” games; actual size or value seems irrelevant here. This DIM implies that this is a children’s game. The Gendered DIM As in the case of children, we also trad itionally assume an important connection between women and diminutives. Baker and Freebody (1989) found, for example, that the adjective “little” (or, in broader terms, the notion of diminution) is applied more

PAGE 165

154 frequently to girls than boys Gleason, et al. (1994) found in a laboratory setting, where both mothers and fathers of young children partic ipated, that mothers used a total of 248 DIMs whereas the fathers used only 185. Ev en though there was a difference, this difference was not statistically significan t. However, these authors found significant difference in the language a ddressed to the young children. Mothers, they reported, produced twice as many DIMs to girls as to boys when the children were about 30 months old. They concluded that “girls did indeed hear more diminutives than boys at all ages studied” (p. 69). Later on, Andrews (1999), in her study of Russian DIMs, observed that her interviewees (mostly teenagers), regardless of gender, believed that female speakers use DIMs more frequently than males. Her st udy, based only on students’ responses to questionnaires about the freque ncy of use of DIMs, seems to support the observation that “males appear to use diminutives less than fe males” (p. 97). This, of course, is not a definite conclusion of actual frequency of us e, since her analysis was based on what her participants believed to be the actual frequency. In fact, Andrews recognizes that perception of usage and actual usage are distin ct categories. However, it does show what average people feel about this particul ar phenomenon. Probably more important, from Andrew’s conclusions, is the fact that male s indicated that they did not like it when people used DIM forms in conversations with them, whereas the majority of female speakers indicated that they had no preference. Andrews clarifies that it is not strange that women use more DIMs than men, especially in conversations with children, since the quantity of female discourse in this context is much greater than male discourse. In other contexts, it seems very hard to see a significan t difference. That is why one of Andrews’

PAGE 166

155 conclusions was that at the level of discrete utterances, the frequency of DIM use may be relatively similar between females and males. On the other hand, another conclusion of Andrews was that women are more likely to use DIMs with a broader range of interlocutors than men. The [+female] use of DIMs seems to hold true for English also, according to Schneider (2003). As pointed out above, Schne ider believes that, at least in some English-sepaking societies, addressing a dults with DIMs may violate politeness. However, he added that this is especially true when used for adult males. Regarding terms of address, Schneider also found that titles, including the M-forms (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms.), are not used with DIMs. However, there is an important exception; “little Miss” and “Missey”. Thus, the onl y title that is often diminutivized, both at the synthetic and at the analytical level in English, is “Miss”. Here we see a combination of both [+child] and [+female] marking. Much more revealing, probably, is the fact that Schneider’s corpus presents many occurrences of “Aunt+DIM” (in his kinship terms of address) but “Uncle+DIM” occurs only on ce. The only difference between “aunt” and “uncle” is precisely gender; [+female] and [female], respectively. The [-female] kinship term hardly ever has the DIM, whereas th e [+female] term is often diminutivized. Because of this and other similar findings, he concluded that female relatives and females in general are addressed much more fre quently by –ie forms than males. In Spanish this does not seem to be di fferent. Recently, Fischer-Dorantes (2001) found the adjective “little” more with girls than with boys in Mexico school textbooks. In Spanish this is easy to observe, since adje ctives are normally marked for gender. Thus, the adjective “little” in her study more freque ntly had the feminine marker [a] than the

PAGE 167

156 masculine marker [o] when referring to chil dren. Fischer-Dorantes also found more DIMs when describing girls than boys in the sc hool textbooks she analyzed. Another recent study by Makri-Tsilipakou (2003) shows that women in Modern Greek culture are the primary recipients of DIMs (even though it wa s also found that men were the primary users). This connection between women and dimi nutives, for some, may be in direct relation with the natural connection between children and women. According to scientists of the CNR Institute of Neuroscience, Psychobiology, and Psychopharmacology in Rome (D'Amato et al., 2004), there is an impor tant mother-child bonding, and this is neurologically based. Contributions from ps ychoanalytic and attachment theories and day-care research by Frankel ( 2004) have also shown the excl usivity of the mother-child bond. Even though children seem capable of forming multiple bonds, beginning in the first year of life the mother-child bond reta ins central importance. My study concluded that there is evidence that this core connecti on remains intact and has first priority in a child's mind regardless of other opportunities to relate. However, in modern use of Spanish EVALs as discussed below, this connection between women and diminutives may be relate d to a tendency in some societies to consider women in a subordinate status. This based on the relevant literature reviewed, will be further discussed here as a manifestat ion of the infantilization of women (Brown and Gilman, 1960; Henley, 1977; Wolfson a nd Manes, 1980; Wolfson, 1989). The idea or feature of [littleness] or [childness ] is somehow assigned to women, which is particularly observed when DIMs are used with [+female] terms but not with the corresponding [-female] counterpart as shown below.

PAGE 168

157 In the data analyzed here, admittedly, this use is not very frequent. It only represents approximately 4% of all the DIM words. Only 16 words were clearly diminutivized with the [+female] DIM when in contrast with [+male]. Despite the relatively small frequency of this type of DI M, it still needs to be accounted for. Let us now look at specific examples from the da ta which show this connection and this [+female] function of DIMs. The following three examples come from the popular TV program Despierta America (Wake Up America). 8) Host R. Gonzalez (A male host) “Para los gordos y gordITAs” for the fat (men) and fat+DIM (women) 9) Gisselle: (female host) in a section with children” “Aqui tengo mis princesI TAs y mis prncipes” here I have my princesses+DIM & my princes 10) Roxana (a female guest host): “Y ahora, la SeorITA Junio, y el Seor Junio” & now, Miss+DIM June, and Mr. June These three examples are insightful in that they do not necessarily refer to the users or the recipients of DIMs, but the referents. In this respect, there is reference to third parties not necessarily present in the conversation. The use or non-use of such an affix marks the gender of the referents as plus or minus female ([+ female]). The [+female] referents were diminutivized whereas the [-fe male] were not. In reference to example 9, it is noteworthy that the mascul ine of “princess+DIM” is ha rdly ever used in Spanish. When used, they often have [+female] connot ations. In example 8, on the other hand, we notice a type of euphemistic DIM (“fat+DIM”), but this is only used with the feminine adjective. It is probably cause d by the fact that women receive more social pressure to keep in shape. Wolfson (1989) observed how women –in many societiesare expected to

PAGE 169

158 be as attractive as possible. A woman’s a ppearance has traditionally been her job. For example, women are supposed to be inte rested in clothing, jewelry, hairstyles, adornment, and also in home and children. Wo lfson believes that look ing attractive is for women one aspect of acting out a socially c onditioned role, which shoul d then be seen as role performance regardless of the woman’s professional status. Wo lfson asserted that this is why women receive many more compliments than men. In many Latin American cultures, being an overweight man is not necessarily considered an unacceptable attribute or de spicable physical feature. However, and probably unfairly, women are normally expected to be physically attractive, and being slim is one of these expectations. Modern Western societies seem to condone obesity in males more than in females. Actually, impor tant male athletes may have these obesity features, unlike female athletes. That is why “fat” is euphemistically diminutivized in its feminine version but not in its masculine one There is a clear gender marking effect in this respect. Example 10 requires further discussion, since it was included in the quasiethnographic questions used for data tria ngulation. The question the participants answered was: “Why do you think the word seorita (Miss or Mrs.+DIM+Feminine marker) is common in Spanish but not its masculine counterpart (Mr.+DIM+masculine marker)?” Most interviewees (both ma les and females) pointed out that seorito (Mr.+DIM) is inappropriate for males. A “Mr+DIM” is given a [female] connotation, many indicated. One of the interviewed peopl e even mentioned that one possible cause for men obviously di sliking the word seorito is because it is normally associated with being a virgin (which is what “Miss” or “Mrs.+DIM” normally implies in Spanish), and

PAGE 170

159 this is not expected for men in Spanish-speak ing societies. Male chauvinism seems to be a characteristic of many Spanish-speaking soci eties, and this may be the reason for highly valuing virgin females but not virgin ma les. Also, in literary works such as Fortunata y Jacinta by Galds (late 1800’s), seorito may connote a spoiled upper middle class male, as suggested by Armon (2005, personal communication). Let us see another example with [+female] effects. 11)Despierta America female host:(referring to the “de cargo” fashion style for women). “la moda con los cinturoncITOs” the fashion with the belts+DIM This DIM may have gender connotations, according to the context. This section of the program addresses fashion topics, and th e specific audience is women. The host and guests talked about clothing items normally associated with wome n (e.g., women’s belts). This is similar to another speech event recorded, which consists of an interview with a hairdresser and some of hi s recommendations for women’ s hair care and hairdos. Obviously the audience and the topic is [+ female] (everybody in this TV segment was female, except the actual hairdresser, who s eemed a homosexual male). In this segment, there were many DIM words (e.g., “Hor se tail+DIM”, “bread+DIM”, “donkey tail+DIM”; which were ba sically hairdo styles). 12) The Mexican (male) host introducing a female joke-teller: “MartITA Rojas” Martha+DIM Rojas The previous example, also from the Despierta America Program, shows a male speaker diminutivizing the name of a female he is introducing. The speech situation here is a joke-telling contest, in which this woma n participated with two other men. The only name that this host diminutivized was the woman’s name.

PAGE 171

160 During a 3-month internship in the Centra l American country of El Salvador, I worked for a non-profit Non-Government al Organization (NGO). A young female receptionist used to page the different em ployees of this organization when someone came for them at the reception desk. When paging, some female names were diminutivized, especially thos e with the cleaning job or w ith very low rank in the company and low social status. There was never a male name used with the DIM. Let us remember that paging consists of a public call which all the people in the institution can hear. At this public level, diminutivizing a ma le name seems to be inappropriate. This suffix seems to have gender marking effects in such contexts; ind eed, they are highly relevant marking effects. In a TV program called Trato Hecho (Deal) from Los Angeles, California, the male host, in his forties and well-dressed ( obvious difference between the host and the audience, who were either in casual clothes or in costumes), used about fifteen DIMs in a 30-minute period. This shows that even this type of person (male, adu lt, leading role in the situation, obvious higher status than the audience) may use many DIMs, which is opposed to the idea of men’s limited use of DIMs. However, the recipients of his DIMs were almost exclusively females, to whom he also referred using terms equivalent to “beauty” and “honey”. Only one of his DIMs wa s not addressed to a female but a fake pig figure. More revealing is the fact th at in one occasion this host brought two contestants to the main floor: one female and one male of approximately the same age. In around five minutes, the host addressed the fema le with three different DIMs and none to the male.

PAGE 172

161 Another EVAL, namely AUG, may have a marg inal effect in the data. There were only three AUGs used as vocatives or direct terms of address: Martota (Martha+AUG, a young woman’s name), Muchachones (Young People+AUG, especially males), and Hermanazo (brother+AUG). These were uttered only by males. This use of AUGs, especially of –azo does not seem to be a feature of female speech. However, this should be taken cautiously since ther e are very few examples in th e corpus. This requires further observation and analysis. To conclude this [+ female] DIM discussion, it is necessary to clarify that in spite of the many fuzzy areas and the relatively low frequency of this [female] DIM, my study and ma ny others indicate that some of these suffixes indeed have a group-marking effect. However, as ca n be seen here, this use is relatively infrequent, and the common belief than wome n use much more diminutivization than males does not hold true in the data analyzed in my study. The Regional EVALs Reynoso (2001) presented a very good summary and critique of the studies of the uses of Spanish DIMs. She said that in th e field of Hispanic linguistics, two major conclusions have been drawn. On the one ha nd, many researchers attr ibute to the Spanish DIM a very important dialectal marking functi on (especially distinguis hing Peninsular vs. Latin-American Spanish). On the other hand, ther e are other researchers that attribute to this type of suffix only a stylistic function. The first type of conclusion, Reynoso argues, is problematic primarily because of the difficu lty of concretely describing a dialect that we could label "Latin American" because of the many linguistic variations on this continent (Lipski, 1994). However, DIMs do ha ve dialectal marking functions, as shown in the data of my study and the arguments be low. Reynoso seems to accurately indicate that dialectal marking functions are not the primary ones in modern Spanish. Alonso

PAGE 173

162 (1937), on the other hand, assigns a dialectal value to diminutive allomorphy, even a long time ago. Hualde et al. (2001) recognizes this dialectal marking of DIMs. They stated that the DIM – illo is particularly frequent in Andalusian Spanish and al so in some parts of South America, whereas the DIM – ico is more frequent in Caribb ean Spanish and also in the Extremadura and Aragonese regions of Spain. It may have historical connection with the way migration took place from Spain to the Americas. Mackenzie (2001) explains that Spanish colonial administrative division cr eated Viceroyalties and Audiences in the Americas. Canary Islands and Andalucia em igrants settled in the Caribbean. If we connect these Viceroyalties a nd Audiences with the Caribbean region, we can conclude that probably that is the reason for the co mmonalities among the Caribbean countries in this respect. In general, Hual de et al. (2001) recognize that diminutives are more frequent in the Andean regions of S outh America and in Mexico. Reynoso (2002) compared specifically modern Spanish in Madrid and Mexico. Via quantitative analysis, that study contrasted the two types of us es of DIMs: the semantic or referential sense (meaning “li ttle”) and the non-referential or pragmatic force (without the “little” meaning). She observed that Madr id’s Spanish does not present a significant preference between these two types of uses; whereas Mexico City’s Spanish presented a clear significant preference for the pragmatic use. There are probably five major obvious dialect al differences in relation to DIMs. The – ico vs. – ito dialects. The use of some regional/local diminutives such as – illo, -in, -aco, -ingo The “now+DIM” distinction.

PAGE 174

163 Excess vs. relative absence of DIMs Semantic vs. Pragmatic preferences. The last two are more general and ar e the ones observed by Reynoso (2002), as mentioned above. The first and second differen ces were not clearly observed in my study. These two differences, however, are well know n. For example, Costa Rican Spanish and Caribbean Spanish are known for having the –ico DIM as an allomorph for -ito in roots with final [t] (Alonso, 1937). Even though Al onso did not assign the label “Caribbean”, he did mention specific countries in the regi on such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Dominican Republic. While many Mexicans say patito (duck+DIM), many sp eakers from countries such as Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rica and others say patico Actually, Costa Ricans are often referred to, especially by other Central Americans, as ticos precisely because of this abundant use of – ico In a dialectological study on formal asp ects of Spanish DIM formation, Ambadiang (2001) indicated that many scholars in the fiel d tend to associate th e particular use of DIMs in Latin American Spanish to the enormous wealth of formal markers, affective or honorific tones, and formulas that characteri ze the indigenous languages in the Americas in general –abundant DIM uses and the ve ry productive property of DIM formation. Ambadiang (2001) suggests that another distin ctive feature of DIMs in American Spanish is their semantic and pragmatic complexity. Ambadiang also suggest s that DIM iteration (a reduplication-like phenomenon of the type poquititito –little+DIM+DIM+DIM) does not seem to be a part of Peninsular Span ish DIMs. Another difference is that Spanish American varieties have DIMs attached to non-Spanish words, unlike Peninsular Spanish.

PAGE 175

164 Ambadiang observed differences in DI M formation between these two major varieties of Spanish (Peninsular and Amer ican). Furthermore, Ambadiang observed important differences not only “interdialecta l” (Peninsular vs. American Spanish) but also “intradialectal” (diffe rences among American Spanish countries). For example, Colombia has iteration with both DIMs, -ico and –ito whereas other dialects only iterate with – ito Bolivian and Chilean Spanish (the ones most distant from Peninsular Spanish in DIM formation according to Ambadiang’s study), for example, use the allomorph – cito/a in monosyllabic words whereas many other varieties of American Spanish use the allomorph – ecita/o for the same bases. He seems to hold the hypothesis that the more convergence between a certain variety of Sp anish American and indigenous languages, the more distant this Spanish dialect is from Peninsular Spanish regarding DIM formation. Some early grammarians a nd dialectologists, experts on areas such as Chile, Argentina, Andalusia, Central America, Mexic o, and others have even indicated, as cited by Alonso, that “ el diminutivo es una de las ms d ecisivas caractersticas del habla de nuestro pueblo ” (the diminutive is one of the most de cisive characteristics of the speech of our people) (1937: 52). Even though Alonso criticizes this generalization (because a Mexicanist, for example, may be ignoring wh at happens in Andalusia, where DIMs can be excessive also), he recogni zes that this excessive use of DIMs is a regional feature and not a general one, or one not considered esse ntial part of what may be called general standard Spanish. As the date of Alonso’s st udy shows, this dialec tal feature has been observed since a long time ago, and the sa me tendency seems to continue today.

PAGE 176

165 In relation to the data presented here, le t us go back to the “now+DIM” distinction mentioned above. The present corpus of data did show such distinction. Some countries use ahorita (“now+DIM”) with the meaning of “rig ht now”, whereas others use the same word “now+DIM” with the meaning of “later ”. The DIM in the “right now” meaning obviously has an intensification function, wher eas the DIM with the meaning of “later” has an attenuating effect. The Cubans intera cting in the sequences below, for example, might have a tendency to emphasize the attenuating use of ahorita The Puerto Ricans in the same interaction, on the other hand, might prefer the in tensifying use of ahorita (right now). This was shown in the following example from the data: 13-Pastor’s wife (from Cuba): “ahorITA (to a girl who asked when)’‘el a horita mio que es de aqui a un rato” Now+DIM the now+DIM mine that’s ………later 14-Puerto Rican male and church member: “no es como el ‘ahorITA’ Puerto Riqueo” It isn’t like the now+DIM Puerto Rican 15-Another Puerto Rican male: “e l ahorita de ella –(pastor’s wife)es “later” The nowDIM of hers is later This verbal interaction took place during a Children’s Summer Camp activity when the children met inside the church buildi ng. A young girl wanted to know when another activity was going to take place. When the Cuban female answered “now+DIM”, the participants entered in the discussion above. The interactants seem to be discussing the topic at the meta-linguistic level. They are not only using the word but are also talking about the word. One possible reason for th is quasi-metalinguistic awareness is the apparent frequent misunderstandings that su ch words cause in similar interactions. It seems to be so common in cross-nationality ve rbal interactions in Spanish that people have had to learn about this in these multi-national settings.

PAGE 177

166 It is difficult to tell what make some speakers emphasize the [intense] function over the [attenuate] function. Alonso (1937), fo r example, cited a Mexican linguist (D. Mariano Silva y Aceves) who believed that so me ways of speaking of Mexicans’ follow from their psychology as a group, especially that habit of at tenuating (commonly achieved via diminutivization). Alonso suggested that this may be a f eature also of all the American Spanish dialects and some peninsular dialects; but he men tions this more as a question to investigate than a conclusion. Even though much language change has no doubt taken place since 1937, the attenuating functi ons observed in DIMs seem to be still a feature in many Spanish-speaking societie s today. Regardless of the reason why one group emphasizes one DIM function over the other, the fact is that this emphasis of one pragmatic function over the other shows a dial ectal difference, and this difference could tell us something about the cultural va lues of certain speech communities. In multi-national settings, these ethnic/nationality issues may have sociolinguistic effects. It is important to note that many of the sources of the data under scrutiny here are Spanish-speaking environments in the USA. As such, different Hispanic nationalities converge. People from some countries may ha ve pre-formed opinions or stereotypes in relation to people with different nationalities with whom they often interact. These may cause social judgments about others’ language Particular features of these different nationalities inevitably appear in these multi-national linguistic encounters. This fact often raises certain meta-linguistic awareness of some of these linguistic differences in the interactants, as shown in the data and analysis here. These differences emerge in different regions, but when converged w ith other regions. They may cause groupmarking. We can conclude here that, in agre ement with Alonso (1937) this dialectal DIM

PAGE 178

167 has an “evocation” power. Evocation as defi ned by Bally (1936) in his theory of linguistic expressivity means the property of linguistic forms to evoke place of origin when used out of such context or place. Alonso mentions specific examples in this respect: io evokes Galicia, in Asturias, uco Santander, iyo Sevilla, and – ico Caribbean Spanish among others. This type of DIM, thus, presents this evoking property. Not only DIMs but also AUGs may have th is group-marking or dialectal effect (admittedly, much less than DIMs). Hualde et al. stated that “ .. –azo ms extendido en Sudamrica, y –ote es ms comn en Mxico ” (2001: 169) (azo more widespread in South America, and – ote is more common in Mexico). A Marginal Group-Marking Effect: Social Class Social class was not a soci olinguistic variable clearl y defined and observed during data collection and analysis in my study. However, in my 3-month internship in El Salvador, as mentioned above, these social-m arking effects were marginally observed. In addition, other studies have addressed important aspects of social cl ass marking that are necessary to mention here. Conclusions of thos e studies indicate that the use of excessive DIMs, especially in particular contexts, is a feature of lo w-social class membership. In the case of the euphemistic DIM, for exam ple, an early study (Kany, 1960) recognized variation in the usage of euphemisms across so cial classes. More specifically in the Spanish language, the use of euphemistic DIMs has been shown to be socially constrained in Puerto Rico, in relation to the socio-economic vari able (Lopez, 1997). Not only does this suffixation have this e uphemistic function, but Lopez found that euphemisms may have a certain social mark ing function. Alonso’s (1937) early work already noticed that the allomorphs ito and illo also varied accordi ng to social class in some occasions. He reported that at that time, ito was preferred by the high class, and

PAGE 179

168 – illo characterized more rural contexts and more playful language, which were not features of high class people. As can be see n, authors in three different periods of time (early, mid, and late 20th century) also observed some DIMs as social-class markers. Recall that one of my main observations during the inte rnship in Central America (already discussed in the [female] DIM section) was that females’ names were the only ones diminutivized during name paging. Yet, not every female’s name was diminutivized, but only those of apparently lo wer status. Their lower social status was apparent from the variety of language they employed (very distinct from the language of the educated people in the institution), th e apparent socio-economic level (based on physical appearance, clothing, and transporta tion), their very low level of education (elementary level), and their type of job (janito rial/custodial). Thus, this DIM seems to be marking not only [+female] featur es but also [+low] features in relation to social class. Again, this needs further analysis, with more clear social categories, better specified sociolinguistic variables, some statistical considerations, and a much bigger sample. Societal Context/Speech Situation Marking In this section, two major aspects are cons idered: style and social distance. These two aspects have significant re lationships to the types of speech situations in which a linguistic interaction takes place. Register or style (terms he re used interc hangeably) here specifically refers to the degree of formality in everyday interactions. Social distance, on the other hand, refers to the degree of familiar ity of the participants in an interaction. These two interrelated aspects are expressed via the use or non-use of EVALs. As mentioned above in the dialectal marking discussion, Reynoso’s (2001) summary and critique of the studies on th e uses of Spanish DIMs found that both dialectal marking and stylistic functions were very important conclusions about DIMs in

PAGE 180

169 the literature she reviewed. Regarding the latter perspective on Spanish DIMs as a stylistic marker, it is necessary to agree with Reynoso that if this is all we have to say about Spanish DIMs, we leave much unexplai ned. However, even though there is much more than that to Spanish EVALs, as has b een shown thus far, st ylistic functions are indeed part of the effects of such affixes. In the following section, the focus is on the formal vs. informal styles, and familiar vs non-familiar contexts as expression of these stylistic effects. The Informal EVALs DIMs and AUGs as informal context markers Romaine (1994) discusses the notion of style in relation to register s. She states that style can range from formal to informal de pending on social context. She explains that stylistic differences may be reflected at th e lexical level (vocabul ary choice), at the syntactic level (more passiviza tion in formal English), and at the phonological level (e.g., colloquial pronunciation of singin’ instead of singing). However, my study shows that the morphological level (which is missing in Roma ine’s explanation) al so reflects stylistic differences. As we saw above when consider ing the issue of politeness, Sifianou (1992) pointed out that Greek DIMs may be used as politeness markers. However, Sifianou clearly stated that DIMs marked friendly a nd informal politeness. In his discussion of some early studies of the Spanish grammar, Jrnvig (1962) pointed out that there has been some reference to the [-formal] marking effect of EVALs. In an example, he showed that suffixes like AUGs were much more used in early-20th-century colloquial (informal) Spanish than in the books (formal) of the same time. Pragmatically, Kiefer (1998) asserts, DIMs like the Australian Engl ish “–ie” express informality, and therefore, they are not appropriate in formal contexts.

PAGE 181

170 One hour of interviews in El Salvador with CARE personnel rendered virtually no EVALs. There was only one DIM (uttered by a woman) and one SUPERL (of the type of SUPERL that may be of formal nature, li ke “much+SUPERL”). The interviews had two purposes for the present research. On the one hand, part of my job in this Central American country was writing an annual report for the institution. This implied talking to CARE personnel and revising their documents. On the other hand, one of the intentions was to collect spoken language data for further linguistic analysis. The reason for the absence of EVALs in these interviews is the [+formal] nature of the context. The formality of the speech s ituations was caused by various factors. One trigger for the [+formal] linguistic style wa s the presence of the outsider interviewer. Another motivator for formal language was the nature of the topics (the institution’s dynamics and results). A third reason for this degree of formality was likely the interviewees’ awareness of being tape-recorded. Finally, the contexts where these interviews took place were normally work-related (e.g., office, field trip). It is widely agreed that work environments normally require a certain degree of formal aspects in the language used. The interviewees were never overtly informed that this was a formal interview. However, the obvious presence of th e above factors causes a change in style or tone, from informal features to formal ones. This is clearly a part of native speakers’ subconsciously mastered communicative competence. These arguments constitute pieces of important empirical evidence of this [formal] marking of many EVALs, especially DIMs and AUGs. SUPERLs have a distinct behavi or in this respect, which is discussed below.

PAGE 182

171 The formal vs. the informal SUPERL. Two types of SUPERL relate to style marking. On the one hand, we have the simo that marks informal contexts, as much as any other Spanish EVAL studied so far. Everyday examples of this informal SUPERL are: buensimo ( good+SUPERL) grandsimo ( big+SUPERL), partially reduplicated SUPERLs such as padrisisissimo (great+SUPERL +SUPERL), among many other such examples. On the other hand, we have the formal SUPERL, which is characterize d by being attached to titles, mostly, with the purpose of honorifics. Examples of this formal SUPERL are th e following titles or terms of address: Reverendsimo ( Reverend +SUPERL) Excelentsimo (Excelent+ SUPERL), and Amantsimo ( loving+SUPERL), the only formal SUPERL in my study’s corpus. Before we continue, it is important to note that for many lexical items there are two forms of superlatives: Fortsimo vs. fuertsimo ( strong+SUPERL) grossimo vs. gruessimo ( wide+SUPERL), novsimo vs. nuevsimo ( new+SUPERL). The main feature here is that this represents a pair of lear ned (the first in the pair) vs. non-learned or colloquial words (the 2nd in the pair). Both types of words exist in modern Spanish, but they usually reflect level of education and probably social status. The difference lies on the base for these superlativized words. The base that presents the common Latin-Spanish changes (i.e., [o] diphthongization to [ue] or [we]) represents the colloquial form, and the ones without this change re present the learned words and those more common among educated people. Even though the learned vs. colloquial distinction is mostly caused by the base, it should be noted here that the SU PERL attachment triggers the base change. Without the SUPERL suffix, these learne d bases are either infrequent (e.g., groso ) in modern Spanish or are not used at all (e.g., novo ).

PAGE 183

172 It was discussed already that historically this suffix experienced a type of shift in which it spreaded to many informal contexts. It may have been very common in formal contexts in Old Spanish because of the le arned status it had. In Jrnvig’s (1962) discussion, it seems plausible to conclude that the two major [-formal] characteristics of the suffix were its high frequency and its hi gh productivity. The learne d suffix (in formal contexts) became relatively infrequent, and it was only attached to a limited number or types of words, mainly title s and honorifics and usually with adjectives. However, Jrnvig (1962) cites many SUPERLS with th e informal properties with many different bases: adjectives, nouns, adverb s, verbals, and others ( seorsimas Mrs.+ SUPERL+plural; poetsimo poet+SUPERL). Familiar/intimate vs. non-familiar encounters The [+familiar/intimate] function of DIMs was connected to the [+dear] function discussed in the previous chapter. It is worth mentioning here because it may mark not only the addressee or the referent in the linguistic interaction as [familiar], as in the case with the [dear] functions, but also whole cont ext or speech situation. In these cases, there is a reference to social distance in the context given. Schneider (2003), for example, showed that some DIMs (e.g., Georgie-Porgie, Annie-Pannie) may be relatively stable terms of address for adults in minimally distant relationships. Braun (1988) extensively discussed the topi c of terms of address and showed how the choice of one or another is constrained by sociolinguistic variables. As shown so far in my study, there is no doubt that the linguisti c choice of a particular term of address, either with DIM or without DIM, for example, is constrained by variables such as gender, age, and social status/distance of the interactants.

PAGE 184

173 Finally, it should be noted here that many kinship terms are diminutivized (e.g., dad, mom, aunt, grandma). In the data under analysis here, we observe “mom+DIM” and “grandma+DIM”. Even though there are other kinship terms (e.g., “aunt”, “uncle”), only “mom” and “grandma” were diminutivized. Th ere are only two instances of “grandma” in the data, and both were diminutivized; unlik e “mom”, which is also used without DIM. The abundance of the [familiar/intimate] DIM with these terms of address reflects precisely the [+familiar] type of interaction in which these are used. Addressing close family members, thus, may trigger the [familiar/intimate] DIM, which at the same time may have an effect on the marking of the type of this interaction. Societal Power Structure and EVALs The conclusion drawn from Sifianou’s (1992) comparison between English and Greek DIMs is that they reveal differe nt underlying cultural norms and values: a preference for distance and formality in Eng lish, versus a tendency for intimacy and informality in Greek. The latter seems to be also a common characteristic of many Hispanic cultures, at least as shown in the data for my study. In his discussion of SUPERLs, Jrnvig (1962) observed that in the origin of this suffix in Spanish (as a learned suffix according to our discussion above) the use or nonuse of such learned/formal suffix had impor tant social impact. Those who had more education and consequently more knowledge of Latin used this original SUPERL more. On the other hand, the low level of education and the scant knowledge of Latin of those in low-social classes kept them from using this suffix frequently, at least early on. Thus, the early period of the emergence of this su ffix in Spanish showed a clear distinction between these two social classes: the class wi th power (The “Clas-issimus”) and the class without power (the Class, plain). In fact most SUPERLs (normally with titles and

PAGE 185

174 honorifics) were used in reference to members of the “Classissimus”: The Roman/Spanish Nobility and the Catholic Clergy (undoubtedly, the class with power). Finally, Jrnvig referred to literary records in which names and adjectives for people of high importance were added the SUPERL suffix whereas “very” was used with people of less importance, in a time wh en the synthetic elative (simo ) started expressing a higher degree than the analytical elative muy (“very”). The findings are important for historical sociolinguistics, since they show how Spanish EVALs have and have had important soci olinguistic effects. In this case, we can see how social pressure motivated a linguistic change. The linguistic change here consists of the introduction of Latin –i ssimus into early Spanish on the one hand, and then the new meaning and uses of modern Spanish simo on the other hand. The social pressure, according to Jrnvig (1962), consisted of the de sire of the high class to speak more Latinlike (which sounded more scholarly, more educ ated, more fashionable at the time) on the one hand, and on the other hand and later on, the desire of the low-social class to speak “better” or more like the high social class; a clear manifest ation of linguis tic insecurity. Alonso (1937) also showed how this distin ction related to rural vs. urban speech; the latter with more Latinisms like –issimus than the former. In relation to [female] DIMs, Yokoyama ( 1991) believes that one reason for this apparent greater frequency of DIMs in female s is the traditional subordinate status of women in society. In research in gender and language, it has b een suggested that this type of gender-sex based language is caused by the sexism inherent in many cultures, especially those with an I ndo-European origin (Hardman, 1993). Miller (1977) presents records of various traditions that treated women at best as second-class citizens. Recall

PAGE 186

175 that the speech community anal yzed here is of Indo-Europe an tradition. In reference to the English language, or more broadly, to E nglish-speaking societie s, Schneider (2003) asserted that the DIM M-Forms referred to above (“little Miss” and “Missey”) are normally used by male speakers, which may reflect “the traditiona l power relationship between the sexes in society” (p. 144). One of Andrews’ (1999) conclusions in her analysis of Russian DIMs was that the relati onship between the speaker and the listener was one of the most important determinants of DIM use. Laalo (1998) observed that “almost all diminutive formations in Finnish have a positive meaning component but at least naikkonen (from nainen “woman”) has a pejorative m eaning” (p. 141). This, of course, reflects a great deal about the hi erarchy and power structure of a society. One theoretical framework within the realm of sociolinguistics th at addresses these aspects of gender and power mentioned above is Brown and Gilman’s Power and Solidarity framework (1960). These authors exem plified some of these issues with their well known discussion of the pragmatic distinction of V-T (Fr. vous-tu ) pronouns. They developed a complete theory of Power-Solidar ity. Some of the major points relevant to my study have to do with li nguistic choices being made based on this dichotomy of power or solidarity. A person may de cide to address a person with a tu pronoun (equivalent to first-name basis treatment in E nglish) just to show solidarity. Other people may opt for the vous form (the formal and the more soci ally distant treatment) when they consider the addressee to have a higher status than their own. More specifically in my study, in reference to DIMs, for example, form s with such suffixes may be equivalent to the tu pronouns in the case of address terms, and the non-suffixed (non-DIM) forms are equivalent to the vous choice.

PAGE 187

176 The Australian (pseudo)DIM –ie, accordi ng to Wierzbicka (1984) and Kiefer (1998) expresses solidarity because they “are in appropriate in speech situations in which solidarity is excluded” (Kiefer 1998: 276). Depending on the context, a diminutivized term of address (such as a first name or a t itle) may show either a higher status of the speaker (mother to child, man to woman –i n the speaker’s judgment) or a desire to express some degree of affection or familia rity (i.e., solidarity). Thus, the seemingly opposing forces of power and solidarity determin e a great deal of DIM use. This can also be seen in cross-class (social class) interactions, as mentioned earlier. Does the speaker belong to a higher social class? If so, doe s s/he want to still maintain a friendly environment in their interactions? Or, is it important to show distance? All these questions come to play when opting for E VAL or NON-EVAL forms, as shown above. Brown and Gillman (1960) furthermore indi cate that non-reciprocal address forms (for example, a person using DIMs in the name of the addressee but not expecting to be treated with DIMs) carry with them norma lly the implication that the addressee is somehow subordinate to the speaker (e.g., ch ildren). In the real m of Communications studies, Erbert and Floyd (2004) recognize how (especially non-reciprocal) affectionate expressions can be perceived by the receiver of such expression as a threat to her/his negative face because the sender may be “at tempting to alter the nature of the relationship… or to manipulate them” (p. 267). Terms of address reflect a great deal of this power structure of societies. Hymes (1974) states that "one value of terms, or mode s, of address as a focus is that it makes so clear that the relation of linguistic form to social setting is no t merely a matter of correlation. Persons choose among alternative modes of address, and have knowledge of

PAGE 188

177 what the meaning of doing so may be that can be formally explicated" (p. 111). Another researcher in the sociolingui stic field, Gumperz (1972) also points out that even though one term or another (one with DIM and the other without the DIM, for example) does not necessarily change the nature of the inform ation conveyed (a form of address) but “it does determine how the person addr essed is to be treated, and to what social category he is to be assigned. Selection among such gramma tically equivalent alternants thus serves social rather than lingui stic purposes” (p. 206). As Henley (1977) has demonstrated in her research, “dominants” (either by social class, age, occupational position, race, or ge nder) are most commonly referred to by their last names (often prefaced by titles such as "Mr."). Henley points out that "dominants" are (socially/organizat ionally) allowed to refer to "s ubordinates" (e.g., younger people, employees, lower class people, ethnic minoritie s, women) by their first names. Referring to dominants more as “Mr.” or by last names (“formal”), and to subordinate more with 1st names (“informally”) linguistically assigns to the dominant an adult-like status while marking the subordinates in an infantilizing way. Wolfson and Manes (1980) particularly observed service encounters and forms of address. They found that opting for one form of address or the other is one way in which speakers express and influence their position re garding others in a particular linguistic interaction (p. 79). In their study, Wolfson and Manes noticed that in parallel or equivalent circumstances, two forms of addr ess (“sir”, which implies respect, and the “zero address form”) exist for males and a third one (apart from the previous two) for women; a term of endearment. They observed that in cases where males receive the "sir" treatment, females receive the “dear” treatm ent rather than the apparently corresponding

PAGE 189

178 term "ma'am". They concluded that "wheneve r two or more forms can occur within the same frame with no change in referential meaning, their di fferential usage is likely to carry social meaning" (p. 82). It is very rare to find terms of endearment (including DIMs) addressing males in service encounters, and apparently if any, it is never used by a male addressing another male (p. 91). In Spanish, many terms of address are dimi nutivized, which may have the effect of affection, pejoration, subordination or infantiliz ation with respect to the addressee. It is necessary to note to recall he re the example given above about the diminutivized names of females in El Salvador institution men tioned above. It seems to be in line with Wolfson and Manes when they assert that “women are frequently addressed by terms of endearment even in situations where the speak er is a total stranger or a nonintimate with whom the female addressee is not in a pos ition to reciprocate such terms” (p. 168) Therefore, it seems plausible to concl ude that using DIMs to address women regardless of status, much more than me n, may be “a subtle and powerful way of perpetuating her subordinate role in soci ety” (Wolfson, 1989:173). It may be disguised, as Wolfson points out, as feeling of friendlin ess or solidarity, but this difference in the use of linguistic resources su ch as DIMs in address forms may be heavily loaded with connotations of subordinate stat us of females in society. Wo lfson cited an example of a series of interactions that were recorded in which one wo man after another was addressed by a salesclerk as “hon” or “dear”, while me n in the same line, asking for service from the same clerk, were regularly addressed as “s ir”. There were no instances of the reverse occurring. It is well known that in modern Spanish, only the female equivalent of

PAGE 190

179 “Mister” is often diminutivized ( Seorita “Miss”, literally, “Mister+DIM and feminine marker) Examples like these show a common use of DIMs with address terms for females, which can result in infantili zation of women, as mentioned above. These types of nonreciprocal terms mentioned above show the s ubordinate status of women. DIMs are used with children because they are subordinate to adults. In the same token, women may be considered subordinate to men, just as child ren are subordinate to adults. "It signifies condescension...because this non-reciprocal be havior is normally associated with interactions with children" (Wolfson, 1989: 90). This type of usage implies the subordinate and perhaps even child-like status of the addr essee, in this case, women. Conclusion Evaluation (in language) in general, both analytical and synthetic, may have important sociolinguistic effects. In the Spanish language, EVAL suffixes such as DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs have evolved sociolingui stic effects over time. Currently, in modern Spanish, they have such impact. The two major sociolinguistic effects considered in this chapter have been: a) Group marking effects, and b) Context (speech situation) marking. In relation to the first type of effect, we observed how three distinct groups or segments of the society may be marked more or less by the use of suffixes such as DIMs and AUGs. More specifically, we saw how child ren, women, and different ethnicities or nationalities are marked by what we termed the [child] DIM, the [female] DIM, and the dialectal DIM, respectively. In relation to the second type of effect, we saw how the use or non-use of DIMs, for example, may mark certain speech situations or contexts of society in the [+formal] and [-formal] range. We noted how DIMs and AUGs normally

PAGE 191

180 are used in informal contexts, whereas SUPE RLs are of two types in this respect: the [+formal] SUPERL and the [-formal] SUPERL Some types of superlativized words, especially those labeled as le arned words, have a formal nature, whereas superlativized colloquial words have a [-formal] effect. We can conclude that some information about societal power structure can be obtained by analyzing the use of Spanish E VALs in everyday linguistic interactions. DIMs, for example, are commonly associated with segments of the society that traditionally have been bereft of influential power or status in the community at large, namely women, children, and low social classe s. Therefore, without passing judgment on what is right or wrong, these particular linguistic phenomena analyzed here, Spanish morphological evaluativeness processes, may shed some important light on the dynamics of power structure in Span ish-speaking societies. As Reynoso (2002) put it, it is definitely important to continue to study “ este fenmeno morfo-pragmtico, cuyo desarrollo en el espaol parece estar fuer temente vinculado a la relacin lengua y cultura” (this morpho-pragmatic phenomenon, whose development in Spanish seems to be strongly linked to the language and cu lture relation) (2002: 942). More refined analyses are needed to generalize these c onclusions to other societies with similar morphological processes.

PAGE 192

181 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Spanish Evaluative Morphology in my study involves processes such as diminutivization and augmentativization prototyp ically, and marginally processes such as (absolute) superlativizati on and pejoration. These pro cesses represent relatively productive and frequent suffixa tion in modern informal Span ish. It is unfortunate that many studies fall short of offering clear and complete accounts for these processes. The lack of sufficient integrative formal res earch on the pragmatic and sociolinguistic implications of such suffix es constituted a major motivation for my study, which has yielded several overarching conclusions. The integrative nature of this analysis is observed in the three major lines of focus (or research questions), which represented the main thrust of this investigation: The ways in which Spanish evaluative suffixes (EVALs) affect speech act performance (pragmatic focus). The effects Spanish evaluative suffixes can have in linguistic interactions in society (sociolinguistic focus). The (semantic-pragmatic) connection of the various and many meanings and uses of such affixes (semantic focus). The definition of evaluativeness in general is a fundamental starting point. Evaluativeness, as a primitive linguistic ca tegory, involves both semantic features (e.g., “littleness”/“bigness”) and pragmatic f eatures (e.g., “attenuation”, “admiration”, “endearment”, “modesty”). Categories such as “littleness”, “chil dness” and “endearment” may have been elevated to a postulate based on observations of this type of marking in

PAGE 193

182 many languages and cultures in the world. La nguages often mark this linguistic category via diminutives, augmentatives, pejoratives, and other related morphemes. Evaluatives may exhibit different morphosyntactic behavior s from language to language, even though they tend to preserve similar semantic a nd pragmatic connotations cross-linguistically. Marking this feature analytical ly (e.g., in English), or synthetically (e.g., Spanish or Fula) may depend on historical, cultural or cogni tive factors. Evaluative morphology is precisely the marking of this feature at th e synthetic level. Ho wever, evaluativeness implies cross-linguistic semantic/pragmatic connotations at diffe rent grammar levels. This primitive category, then, seems to cr oss boundaries of grammar levels/components, languages, and even cultures. In Spanish, one of the main features of this type of morphological marking is its very diverse polysemy and polypragmy However, despite the polysemy observed in Spanish EVALs in my study and elsewhere, fo r each of these Spanish affixes there is a core sense that can be traced back to either the origin of such an affix in Spanish or to the inherent properties that characterize many of the functions of those affixes in modern Spanish. The diversity of functions can be analyzed from a cognitive semantic perspective (Radial Categories). The analysis in my study shows that the core sense of DIMs is “littleness”, the core sense for AUGs is “bigness”, and the core sense for SUPERLs is “very”. From these core senses, the many other semantic-pragmatic nuances emerge via basically metaphorical and inferential thinking. Some inconsiste ncies in previous accounts have been considered, and my study has also presente d cognitive linguistic evidence that supports

PAGE 194

183 the appropriateness of the traditional grammatical terms used for these affixes: diminutives, augmentatives, and superlatives. The semantic weights of such affixes have been compared and contrasted with their pragmatic force. These are two different but interrelated types of meaning. My study has addressed the issue of the core senses of these affixes and the possible metaphorical, inferential connections and pragmatic strengthen ing that explain this distinctive diversity and polysemy of Spanish EVALs. However, mo re importantly for the goals of my study is that it treats these different uses of E VALs from a pragmatic perspective. It focuses on the non-referential meaning which, based on analysis of specific examples from naturalistic data, complements the referential meaning and semantic extensions discussed here. The pragmatic functions of Spanish EVALs a ppear to be more relevant than (or at least as relevant as) the seman tic senses of such suffixes, if we consider their frequency and productivity. Pragmatically, these suffixes ha ve a very diverse range of functions and effects. In the data analyzed here and in other studies, pr agmatic force accounts for more EVAL uses than semantic sense. DIMs may be classified under three ma jor pragmatic categories: affection, attenuation and derogation (i n order of frequency). Thes e are realized via specific functions or features such as [dear], [flirt], [intense], [mitigate], [euphemism], [pejoration], [irony], for example. AUGs can be classified under two major pragmatic categories: intensification (the most co mmon) and secondarily attenuation. We find specific AUGs functions or featur es such as [intense], [ir ony], [dear], [flirt], [mitigate]. As can be seen, both DIMs and AUGs have similar functions, but they differ in the

PAGE 195

184 predominance of distinct categories. Finally, the SUPERL, the least pragmatically diverse of all EVALs, is basically an intensifier, and secondarily it ma y have an honorific function. As can be seen, common traditional theoretical linguistic fields such as semantics and (syntax)morphology do not account for all the nuances of Spanish EVALs. Leaving the pragmatics of EVALs aside is unfortuna te if we want to deeply understand the meaning and uses of these Spanish affixes. My study has shown that there is much more to EVALs than their simple propositional m eanings. This is in line with Miller’s (personal communication) disc ussion on the relation among grammar, meaning, and the language faculty. Miller obser ves that the meaning of meaning is diverse. The meaning we attach to what we hear is not only determined by grammar but also by other knowledge. He argues that first there is an idea or meaning in our minds, and then grammatical structures contribute more m eaning (interpreted at LF). However, both Miller and my study show that this is not the end of story to our understanding of utterances. Other meanings (e.g., interpreta tions, implications), then, are provided by context and various types of (real-wor ld) knowledge. Apart from grammatical knowledge, Miller indicates that there are cu ltural, pragmatic, and conceptual types of knowledge. All this together c onstitutes our langua ge faculty. Pragmatics, then, which implies situational, at titudinal, and task c ontexts, is an important part of the language system.Thus, in this respect my study presen ts two important conclusions: 1) pragmatic analyses are indeed necessary to fully unders tand linguistic processes such as the ones analyzed here; and 2) my study shows one mo re piece of empirical evidence for the need

PAGE 196

185 for integrative accounts of language use and st ructure. Both fields of linguistics, theoretical and applied, complement each other. In the realm of sociolinguistics, evaluati on (in language) in general, both analytical and synthetic, may have important effects. In the Spanish language, EVAL suffixes such as DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs have had socio linguistic effects over time. Still now, in modern Spanish, they may have such imp act. Some major soci olinguistic effects considered in my study are: Group marking effects, and Context (speech situation) marking. These are discussed further below. In relation to the first type of effect, we observed how three distinct groups or segments of the society may be marked more or less by the use of suffixes such as DIMs and AUGs. More specifically, it was disc ussed how children, women, and different ethnicities or nationalities are marked by what has been termed here the [child] DIM, the [female] DIM (which may have important dero gatory implications, as discussed in my study), and the dialectal DIM respectively. In relation to the second type of effect s, my study demonstrated how the use or non-use of DIMs, for example, may mark certain speech situations or contexts of society in the [+formal] and [-formal] register/sty le range. It was noted how DIMs and AUGs normally are used in informal contexts, whereas SUPERLs are of two types in this respect: the [+formal] SUPERL and the [-form al] SUPERL. Some types of superlativized words, especially those labeled as learne d words, have a formal nature, whereas superlativized colloquial word s have a [-formal] effect. My study also shows how the use or non-us e of EVALs reflects what members of a particular society believe rega rding their hierarchy of stat us and power. As shown above,

PAGE 197

186 child/woman/low-class-related terms are more li kely to be diminutivized than other terms that have nothing to do with women, childre n or low-class members. In other words, those segments of the society that traditionally have been bereft of influential power or status in the community at large are th e ones that are more likely targets of diminutivization. Therefore, Spanish morphol ogical evaluativeness processes may show some important elements of the dynamics of power structure in Spanish-speaking societies today as shown in the da ta and in the discussions above. General Findings Diminutives, augmentatives, and superlativ es in the Spanish language (or Spanish EVALs) are all parts of a major linguis tic phenomenon: subjective evaluation via morphology. Preliminarily, these are semantic suffixes, which morpho-syntactically can be seen as the head constitu ents of EVAL phrases. Furthe rmore, in their morphological nature, these are classified neither as inflectional (no grammar compliants) nor derivational (on many occasions, they seem to have been bereft of any individual differentiating propositional meaning). From a th eoretical point of vi ew and as a starting point, then, my study proposes to label them si mply as semantic eval uative affixes. My study shows that fundamental major uses of these suffixes go beyond pure basic semantic morpho-syntactic features. On the one hand, the type of evaluation th at Spanish EVALs express can be at the semantic or referential level (“little”, “b ig”, “very”), which implies a subjective appreciation of dimensional and gradable features of the entity to which they refer. On the other hand, this evaluation can be at the pragmatic or non-re ferential level (e.g., “endearment”, “derogation”, “politeness”), which implies an emotive or social appreciation of the entity to which they refer or the audience in the linguistic interaction.

PAGE 198

187 As can be seen from the previous analyses presented, this second t ype of evaluation may be more common and more relevant in the use of EVALS in many dialects of modern Spanish, especially in the Americas (main focus of my analysis). In conclusion, the three main categorie s of the morphological apparatus called Spanish Evaluative Morphology in my study re present three distinct but related major functions. The Spanish DIM is pr imarily a semantic-pragmatic diminisher The Spanish AUG is primarily a semantic-pragmatic aggrandizer The other column of this whole Spanish morphological evaluativeness is the Spanish SUPERL, which is essentially an intensifier The following diagram attempts to visu ally show this range of meanings, particularly at the sema ntic/propositional level: diminisher (DIM) ------aggrandizer(AUG) -----Intensifier (SUPERL) The diagram above shows a somehow ideal ized abstract (pseudo-mathematical) plane, which is crucial for performing the s ubjective evaluation that characterizes this type of evaluative morphology. Speakers evaluate entities or concepts in this range. On this line or imaginary plane, we can find conc rete gradable features such as size, distance and amount (the more to the right, the more the value). However, there are also (and probably more commonly) more abstract fe atures such as value, appreciation, and intimacy, which are hard to clearly show in th is plane. This graph represents simply an attempt to somehow visualize the Spanish evaluative morphology (propositional) system. As an abstract idealization, it, of course, fails to show everything ther e is to show, since it shows propositional or referential values but does not clearly show non-referential (pragmatic) ones. Importan pragmatic aspects (e .g., affection) are missing in the diagram. It is not necessarily the case th at the more to the right (on the plane), the more affection,

PAGE 199

188 and vice versa. We already know that the DIM suffix, the leftmost point on the plane, is the one that, paradoxically, expresses affection more prototypically. Yet, the graph above is still a conceptual visual tool, especially if we recall that the affection feature may have emerged as a metaphorical or inferential exte nsion from that plane, which now seems to function independently from its original core sense. Many names have been given to these types of suffixes or this type of morphology: affective, emotive, expressive, quantita tive, and evaluative morphology. My study favors the evaluative label since it is the only one that s eems to account for all the different uses and effects of such Spanish suffixes. These are several reasons fo r rejecting the other labels proposed in the litera ture. The “affective” label does not account for the referential uses mentioned above, since the adjectives “litt le” or “big” do not necessarily relate to affection. The label “emotive”, much like the “a ffective” label, misses this referential or pure semantic use of Spanish EVALs, which is the same problem “expressive morphology” shows. “Quantitative”, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the dimensional features of Spanish EVALs. Ho wever, my study has shown that many uses of Spanish EVALs have nothing to do with quantitative appreciation; for example, the non-referential functions mentioned above. The term evaluative is the only one that may involve both pragmatic and semantic uses (i .e., referential and non-referential meanings) as explained above. It is sensible to include the suffixe s analyzed in my study (DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs) in a single study, since all of th em share important similar features, as observed in the previous discussions, in the an alyses, and in the data presented. The first obvious commonality is that they all express a t ype of evaluation of the entity represented

PAGE 200

189 by the bases they modify. They all attach to adjectives, especially gradable adjectives. They all show a certain level of potentiality for (total or partial) morphological iteration or similar properties ( poquitititito = “little+DIM+DIM”); carrotote = “car+AUG+AUG”; bellisisissima = “beautiful+SUPERL+SUPERL+ SUPERL ”). It is interesting to note here that these are the only Spanish suffi xes that show such a property with such connotations (of intensification of the base ). Morpho-syntactically speaking, these are evaluative heads; probably this is why such iteration may take place. Regarding meaning and function, they are polysemous and polypragmous since they have different (semantic) senses and different (pragmatic) forces. They all may mark informal and/or familiar speech situations. Thus, it is i ndeed necessary to put all these suffixes together in a single analysis, which has helped us see such affi xes as distinct part s of the same major morphological phenomenon: Spanish evaluativeness. In my study, this morphological phenomenon has been accounted for from three different but connected perspectives: seman tic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic. From the point of view of semantics, we have observed that the different mean ings or functions of these three types of affixes all converge to or emerge from a single core meaning, which has provided the answer for the last of the three research questions. DIMs, for example, have the basic meaning of “little”, “AUGs” mean “big”, and SUPERLs mean “very”. Via a cognitive semantic model of radial categ ories and semantic networks, we concluded that all the distinct uses of DIMs in the data may be connected, through interconnected chains and links, to this basic meaning. Th is does not imply, however, that we observe the [little] feature in all of these uses. In th is semantic mapping or network, there may be nodes which are so distant from the core cente r (for DIMs, this woul d be “little”) that

PAGE 201

190 they may not be associated with the concept of “littleness”, such is the case of the [dear] or the [intense] DIMs, for example. The [d ear] connotation, as a sp ecific instance, now may be totally independent (synchronically speaking) and different from the [little] function. Examples such as Diosito (God+DIM) prove this point. In this context, there is obviously no reference to the idea of little God is the Supreme Being and the biggest being of all according to the be liefs of the person uttering this expression. AUGs, on the other hand, have the core meaning of “big”. Again, there are functions of AUGs that have nothing to do with “bigness” (e.g., the attenua ting functions). Finally, SUPERLs have the meaning of “very”, and this meaning does s how up more or less in every use of such affix. This is the EVAL suffix with the least semantic diversity and the fewest pragmatic effects. Recall that the three pragmatic categori es assigned to DIMs in my study (i.e affection, politeness, and derogation), ev en though distinct, are cognitively and semantically interrelated, as shown in this analysis. A politeness theory approach helped us formally understand and categorize many of these otherwise unexplai nable uses. In the data analyzed here, pragmatic force of DIMs accounts for most diminutivized words. In other words, in the data and an alysis presented here, this su ffix is more a pragmatic suffix than a semantic one. It has been noted in th e literature that even in dialects where the “littleness” sense is very common (e.g., Madr id’s Spanish), pragmatic uses of DIMs are relatively as common as the semantic uses. In many other dialects (e.g., Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico), the pragmatic uses of such a ffix seem to be much more common. AUGs, on the other hand, also present similar categorie s as DIMs (e.g., affecti on and derogation); however, one major pragmatic function is that of intensification. This intensification

PAGE 202

191 force of AUGs is probably the node closest to the core semantics of “bigness” in the radial category model for this suffix. Apart from intensification (under which affection and derogation-like uses can be classified), the second major pragmatic category of AUGs is that of attenuation; which apparent ly represents an antithetical sense of intensification. It seems to be that thr ough the agency of semantic polarization, AUGs made a leap to attenuating connotation.Thus AUGs sub-divide into two major and seemingly opposing categories: intensificat ion and attenuation. Finally, SUPERLs are clearly and primarily pragmatic intensifiers. It is important to note here that some of these different pragmatic categories may be found, at a minor or major scale, in all thr ee suffixes. This furthe rmore shows how these three types of affixes contri bute to the same goal of evaluativeness marking at the morphological level. For example, all three suffixes have affecti on and intensification properties. DIMs tend to emphasize the first of these two, where as AUGs and SUPERLs show much more the intensif ying uses, which is the primary one in SUPERLs. This pragmatic analysis has answered resear ch question number one: How do Spanish Evaluative suffixes (EVALs) affect speech act performance? Question two, which refers to the effects that Spanish evaluatives can have in linguistic interactions in soci ety, has been the focus of the sociolinguistic analysis. The semantics and pragmatics of Spanish EVALs discussed in my study have indirect sociolinguistic effects or what c ould be considered part of the metamessage of such affixes1. Spanish EVALs may have three major so ciolinguistic effects: group marking, speech situation/context marki ng, and (societal) power marki ng. Many of such effects are explainable under a Power and Solidarity fram ework. These are indirect or side-effects

PAGE 203

192 because even though the first conscious motivat or for using such affixes may not be the ones discussed in this section (e.g., group mark ing), they inevitably produce this type of sociolinguistic marking. It is part of a me tamessage because it goes beyond the message (or the words) itself, but inevit ably it is part of what is being conveyed (consciously or subconsciously). DIMs, for example, tend to ma rk certain segments of the society more than others (e.g., children, women, and lower-c lass or uneducated people). In a similar fashion, the use or non-use of such affix may re flect an important dial ectal distinction as extensively discussed in the literature. AUGs may behave si milarly, especially in the social class and dialectal mark ing functions. In the case of th e SUPERL, it is necessary to note here that the most important issue of such Spanish suffix is the fact that it is the only one that has obviously suffered a clear and defi nite linguistic change in comparison to its Latin etymon, in which it was mostly a gram matical affix marking the relative superlative degree of comparative adjectives (“the most”) This fact has had crucial sociolinguistic effects such as formal vs. informal mark ing and educated vs. uneducated speech, as discussed in the sociolinguistic chapter (C hapter 5). Unlike SUPERLs, which may mark either informal or formal contexts, depe nding on the type of SUPERL (learned vs. unlearned SUPERL, for example), DIMs and AUGs only mark informal contexts. Implications Implications for Theoretical Linguistics One important theoretical aspect addressed here is the definition of pragmatics. The major proposal of my study is that pragma tics (and related aspects such as microsociolinguistics, for example) is an esse ntial element and component of the language system. Whether it is considered part of grammar or not is th e object of another discussion. What is very clear, in light of the discussions above, is that people normally

PAGE 204

193 do not process language without consideration of pragmatic aspects, as shown in the discussion of types of knowledge above. Both for production and comprehension of language, interactants resort to impli catures, presuppositions, maxims, status of participants, context and other pragmatic as pects if aiming at successful communication. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to e xplain the great diversity of uses of Spanish EVALs in modern dialects. More importantly, this takes us to the ba sic theoretical question of “What exactly constitutes language?” The proposal of my st udy is, again, that whatever the answer for this question is, which is out of the dir ect scope of my study, pragmatics should be somehow part of that answer, if this answer is to be an accurate, integrative and complete one. In other words, both language use and langua ge structure should be part of what we understand as language. My study simply claims, then, that the field of linguistics will benefit also from integrative approaches to language study. Implications for Applied Linguistics One clear implication of my study in the fi eld of applied linguistics is in the pedagogical field of Second Language Acqui sition (SLA). My study on Spanish EVALs has important pedagogical implications for the field of Spanish L2 instruction, particularly. Research has shown that prag matic proficiency and grammatical knowledge do not necessarily develop simultaneously and that pragmatic emphasis may be lacking in our SLA classrooms/textbooks (Kasper and Rose, 2001, 2002). Smith and Carvill (2000) give an illustrating anecdote. In China, a Chin ese driver hit a bus with American tourists, and then he became extremely frightened. Many Chinese gathered debating, which the Americans did not understand. The translator ex plained to the confused Americans that the Chinese driver did not feel forgiven. The translator further explained that the driver

PAGE 205

194 and the rest of the Chinese around were expectin g a word of forgiveness directly from the Americans. Neither the textbook nor the phr ase book the American team leader had “counted forgiving among the essential languag e functions a foreigner might need.” (p. 56). It is obvious also, as re search has shown, that pragmatic errors are less often excused than grammatical errors. It has also been not ed that emphasis on pragmatic issues may be very minimal or marginal in foreign language contexts, probably caused by the pressure to cover grammatical knowledge. Given that pragmatic competence is indeed part of communicative competence, and that pragmatics is one of the various types of knowledge of the language faculty, there seems to be a mismatch between what we expect our students to do (or at least what we know they should be able to do) when they finish a foreign/second language course and wh at we actually prepare them for. Pragmatics is part of everyday intera ctions of native speakers of any language. Language users (need to) perform sp eech acts; they normally (need to) say more than they actually utter; they obey conversational ma xims; they need to "color" (mitigate/aggravate) speech acts; they need to obey appropriate norms that are not in grammar rules (e.g., politeness; social di stance). For achieving a good level of communication, then, our foreign language st udents need to achieve a good level of pragmatic competence. Thus, the inclusion of a pragmatic component is crucial for better preparing our learners to communicate eff ectively and appropriately in the target language. The least we can do as teachers is including this component at least in some sections of our curriculum or lesson plan s. Textbook writers a nd program directors should also take this into account if aimi ng at more effectiveness of their foreign language teaching/learning materi als and programs. The teaching of pragmatics is indeed

PAGE 206

195 a feasible task. Some scholars have done it and suggested it. Smith and Carvill (2000) also remind us that in the American Sta ndards for Foreign Language Learning one can find that “even if students never speak the language after leaving school, for a lifetime they will retain the crosscultural skills and knowledge, the insights, and the access to a world beyond traditional borders” (1996: 24). The proposal here in this sense is ba sically and specifically to include the pragmatics of Spanish EVALs in our L2 Spanish classrooms. As we already saw, Spanish EVALs have important pragmatic uses that shou ld be learned by our L2 learners. There is a need to teach not only speech acts or language functions, but also the degree of compromise, force, affection, and involvement in such linguistic acts. For example, when giving an order, using the Spanish DIM may atte nuate the burden of such an order. This is what my study refers to as the “coloring” of speech acts or functions. This may be a new ingredient in the teaching, acquisiti on, and development of L2 pragmatics of Spanish. This skill probably has to be achie ved developmentally. The ability to “color” (attenuate or express affection in) a certain speech act comes after the ability to perform such a speech act since coloring is a secondary function (first a speaker feels the need to ask for a favor, or request something, and then the context may pressure to mitigate or intensify those functions). My study proposes first the inclusion of such a “coloring” ingredient in L2 classroo ms and secondly the inclusion of this focus on coloring strategies taking into account deve lopmental stages of pragmatics. Also, EVAL suffixes are freque nt in modern Spanish. I carr ied out a brief survey to observe the frequency of these suffixes in modern Spanish TV, for which popular TV programs of UNIVISION (well known Spanis h-speaking channel in the USA based on

PAGE 207

196 Miami, Florida) were selected. On five separate days (January 11, 12, 20, 24, and February 10), I counted the number of Span ish EVALs uses in intervals of 30-minute periods at different times of the day (mor ning, afternoon, and night). The average found was 58 EVALs per hour. This relative high fr equency of EVALs is another reason to teach them in our L2 classrooms. In conclusion, Spanish evaluatives have important pragmatic connotations and functions and they may be very frequent in modern Spanish interactions. Consequently, in any process of pragmatic teaching or ac quisition in L2 Spanish classrooms, these suffixes should be part of the process. Use of Spanish DIMs with pragmatic effects, for example, is very natural in L1 acquisiti on, but it has not been taken much into consideration in Spanish L2 pedagogy. During this investigation, not a single Spanish textbook was found that described effectively such pragmatic facets of these suffixes. Thus, morphopragmatic awareness unfortuna tely may be lacking in some SLA approaches. We know little about morphological acquisition. Furthermore, what little knowledge we do have does not sufficientl y connect morphological processes with pragmatics in areas such as SLA. My study proposes that Spanish L2 instruc tion might benefit from making students aware of, among other things, the EVALs’ pragmatic functions and morphological forms, and should take into account the learners’ de velopmental stages. Thus, an integrated approach that takes into account mor phology and pragmatics may be in order2. Limitations and Further Research The aspects discussed in this section repres ent issues that could be further explored. One important element of Spanish EVAL mo rphology was purposely left out of formal consideration; the pejora tive suffixes or PEJs (e.g., –uelo, -ucho ). There are several

PAGE 208

197 reasons for having left Spanish PEJs out of c onsideration in my study. One reason is that morho-syntactically they behave differently from the other EVALs. For example, they are hard to classify as gradable constituents (they are not gradable in the sense of the other EVALs), and they do not go under the t ype of iteration that the other EVALs do ( flacucho, *flacucucucho; *flacuchuchucho = “thin+PEJ). The other reason is that we may say that PEJs have already received prag matic treatment. The label “pejorative”, in itself, could be considered of pragmatic nature. Thus, any account of the meaning and uses of such affixes is, in a sense, pragma tic. Finally, PEJs are rela tively scarce in many modern Spanish dialects when compared w ith the productivity of the other EVALs. Another limitation of my study is in c onnection with quantit ative analyses and sociolinguistic variables. Due to the qualitative nature of the study, the only quantitative issue considered was frequency of EVALs. However, more quantitative analyses with statistical measures could make the findi ngs more generalizable. Socio-linguistic variables such as social class, education, a nd age did not constitute fundamental variables in the analysis. These variables can definite ly affect EVALs usage, and thus, should be further investigated. Further formal quantifica tion of the participant variables may help us provide a clearer pict ure of Spanish morphological evaluation. Another potential limitation is the type of speech communities analyzed. Recall that many of the data analyzed come from a religious speech community, which can be very structured and with clear expectation in language performance. This group has a common cause and spiritual commitment. This probably affected the predominance of positive over pejorative uses, for example. It would be useful to do similar studies with very different types of speech communities.

PAGE 209

198 One final limitation observed has to do w ith dialectological considerations. The participants were not formally assigned to an ethnic/nationality group. However, many pragmatic uses of EVALs in modern Spanish seem to hold cross-dialectally (e.g., the [dear] connotation and the attenuating functions ). Admittedly, there are differences from dialect to dialect, as discu ssed in the dialectal marking of DIMs in the so ciolinguistic chapter. Also, the conclusions of my study refe r mostly to varieties of Spanish in Latin American countries, without furt her specifications. The label “S panish” in the title of my study should be understood from this perspec tive, since my data reflects different varieties of the Spanish language in the Am ericas. It would be insightful to observe specific varieties in the Latin American world, and also the sp ecific varieties in Peninsular Spanish, which is absent in my data. Conclusions Regarding the use of Spanish evaluative mo rphology in modern dialects of Spanish (especially in Latin American regions), it seems that its pragmatics is at least as important as its semantics and its morphology. This conclu sion of my study is not an isolated one. This conclusion agrees with Savickien (1998), who analyzed the acquisition of DIMs in Lithuanian in a longitudinal child case study. Through a quantitative and qualitative analysis, Savickien concluded that “the primary mean ing of diminutives used in child and input speech is pragmatic, expressing ende arment” (p. 133). She also added that this crucial importance of pragmatics characteriz es not only Lithuanian DIMs and but also DIMs in other Indo-European languages. In non Indo-European languages, this relevance of DIM’s pragmatics over DIM’s semantics se ems to be similar. In Hebrew, Ravid (1998) reported that i (Hebrew has other DIMs) diminutiv ization is more pragmatic than semantic. In Italian, De Marco (1998) showed that children use DIMs first pragmatically

PAGE 210

199 (with notions such as “dear”, for example) and then semantically (with the “small” notion), when they acquire the semantic opposite of DIMs (i.e., the AUGs). To conclude, EVALs are primarily pragmatic not semantic (or referential), suffixes in many dialects of modern (Latin American) Spanish. As primarily pragmatic, they involve important socio-cultu ral and psychological nuances in everyday interactions. They shape, modify, or express much about th e nature of linguistic interactions. Spanish EVALs use and perception, as shown here, cons titutes empirical evidence for the fact that, as Boxer (2002) put it, “what we do with words affects our most important relationships.” (p. 45) Notes 1 This is according to Bateson (1972) a nd the later application of the term metamessage to linguistic interactions in society by Tannen (1986). 2 Since this is a study primarily on pragmatic s, a specific pedagogical proposal does not seem appropriate here. However, it would be helpful to look at the possibility of combining communicative approach techniqu es with elements mentioned above. The results of this might be the object of further studies.

PAGE 211

200 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 1 1) Qu es una solterona? y qu es una soltera? ________________________________ Qu es un soltern? y un soltero?_________________________________________ 2) Qu es un rico? ________________________________________________ Qu es un ricachn? ____________________________________________ Alguna diferencia? _____________________________________________ Y pobre vs. pobretn?____________________________________________ 3) Qu significa ‘limpiecito’’? ______________________________________ y blanquito?__________________________________________________ 4) Cundo t drias ‘ese viejo’? ________________________________________ Cundo drias ‘ese viejito’? _________________________________________ Por qu?_________________________________________________________ 5) Por qu se escucha ms ‘se orita’ y no tanto ‘seorito’?________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 6) Imagina que un amigo tuyo tiene un familiar querido muy enfermo. Cmo t crees que esa persona dira?: a)“mi familiar est enfermo”, b) “est enfermito” c) “est enfermote”, o d) “est enfermsimo ”? (escoge una) Tienes idea por qu? _________________. ___________________________________________________ 7) Si alguien dice: “M i casita”, y de hecho la casa es grande, qu entonces podra significar “mi casita”?______________________________________________________ 8) Quines o quin t crees que use ms palabras con ‘-ito’ o terminos parecidos? ________________________________________________________________________ 9) Qu t crees que puedan signi ficar las siguientes expresiones? a) De verdacita_____________________________________________________ b) Me queda unita___________________________________________________ c) Bueno, espero que se ponga mejorcita_________________________________ d) Qu tal los numeritos? ( en un juego de basketball)______________________ 10) En qu situaciones definitivamente no usaras ese tipo de palabras (con –ito u –ote, o –simo, o palabras por el estilo)?

PAGE 212

201 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 2 1) Si hay algo un tanto extrao en la siguiente carta, por favor subryalo. En el espacio de abajo, trata de poner en palabr as (si puedes), qu es lo extrao en lo que subrayaste?. “Muy respetada Profesora Mara Velasco, Soy la madre de una de sus alumnas, El ena Franco. La presente tiene como motivo formalmente hacer de su conocimiento que mi hijita estar ausente durante la primera semana de abril. Por una semana, estaremo s visitando a mi madre. Ella quisiera muchsimo ver a Elenita, y queremos darle es e placer ya que est muy enferma. Espero pueda entender esta situacin familiar. Sin ms a que referirme, se despide de Ud. muy respetuosamente, _____________________ Lic. Rosana Franco” ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2) Qu significan las si guientes expresiones? ‘el cielo est azulito’:______________________________________________________ ‘la pradera est verdecita’___________________________________________________ 3) Completa las siguientes frases: (Del verbo ‘conversar’) ‘conversador’ = Persona que___________________________________________ ‘conversn’ = Persona que ____________________________________________ (Del verbo ‘trotar’) ‘trotador’= Persona que___________________________________________ ‘trotn’ = Persona que ____________________________________________

PAGE 213

202 APPENDIX C OTHER EVAL SPANISH SUFFIXES SUFFIX EXAMPLE (LANGUAGE) ANCESTOR ORIGINAL FORM MEANING Acho riacho Mozarabic asturiaLeo culum (+alia) Orig. instruments w/little importance Ajo migaja Latin “ Pej. now; also came from collective -alia Allo clerigalla Other Romance “ Pure pejorative ancho garrancho Hispanic Latin anco + ulus Dim + pejorative asco peasco Pre -IE -asko?? ” culo corpuscul Latin -culus/m Dim. (sense lost) Eco diableco o.u.o. Unknown Orig. DIM? Ejo azulejo Latin (i)culus Dim & pej.; Atte-now Elo cerebelo Latin Ellus Lost Dim ete/a ampolleta Catalan Aragonese -et –eta (ittus) Pej (productive now) Dim (not productive) Ico villancico Vulgar Latin *iccus Pure Dim. Illo hombrecill Latin -ellus Pure Dim In chiquitin Portu./Galician -inus Dim ingo blandingo Spanish -ng-series Dim & ate. Ino blanquecino Portu./Galician -inus Dim Io campia Portu./Galician -inus Dim Ito carrito Hispanic Latin -ittus dim Oco fiestoca PreRoman -occu dim orro aldeorro Basque -VrrV Dim-pej ucho casucha Latin -us + -culus (reanalyze corpusculum= corpusculum Dim, but more as Pej Uco almendruco o.u.o. Unknown Dim-pej ueco ranueco Pre-Roman Occu uelo polluelo Late Latin olus, old LAT dim but lost against –ulus dim Ujo papelujo Spanish V vary–Vjo pej Ulo puellula Latin -ulus Dim lost u/oncho flacuncho Latin -un + -culus Pej., mostly

PAGE 214

203 APPENDIX D DATA 1-At a chat room of Venezuelans ab road (http://www.terra.com.ve/foros/) “si, europa es lo maximo....sobretodo el sueldeCITO que me gano Yes, Europe is the best………… especially the salary-DIM that I earn que en venezuela ni que fuera that in Venezuela not even if I was politico lo ganaria, eso si lo gano honrradamente… a politician it I’d-earn, but hey, it (I)earn honestly… …amigo venezolanos, no sean conformistas con …friends (from)Venezuela, don’t be resignated with sueldos tan mseros...” (02/09/2003) salaries so tiny/little/miserable” 2-Male adult to the children dur ing the “Children’s sermon” time “DiosITO, JEsusITO, amiguITOs, etc” God+DIM, Jesus+DIM, friends+DIM 3-two females in their 30’s, talking about a certain man: “Como que el hombre si es mujerieguecITO” like --the man re ally is womanizer+DIM 4-ahorITA vs ahora ???????? now+DIM vs now 5-A. to M. (early 30’s female friends. A. is a guest at M.’s mum’s place): “no, dejame mi aguITA aqui” no, leave me my water+DIM here 6-C. to M. (C. is M.’s br other and is visiting her): “M., dame juguITO” Monica, give-me juice-ITO (In a seudo-ethnographic interview immediately after his utterance –since I was there myself, C. said that what he really meant was “Please”. He recogni zed that had he said “juice” without DIM, it would have sounded rude and very demanding)

PAGE 215

204 7-In a soap opera in Spanish: “enseguidITA” right-away+DIM 8-Church pastor, referring to a church-p lanter in some place of Latin America: “hasta analfabetON era el hermano” Even illiterate+AUG was the brother (This person Ni. referred to planted severa l churches despite his poor reading skill) 9-Two male friends: “Que carrAZO hermano!” what a car+AUG, bro 10-Pastor and I talking while he was helping me move (Feb 26/2003) (NI. used the following suffixes: a-‘Ni.-ito’ Ni.+DIM (He said that he is called that way by those involved in his upbringing). b-‘conciertazo’ concert+AUG (a tremendous, very good, concert; which impacted him a lot) c-‘conciertICO’ concert+DIM (concert that did not impress him much) d-‘habian cuatro viejITOS’ there-were 4 old-people+DIM Had he said “4 old people” with no DI M, it would have sounded pejorative e-‘tecladITO’ keyboard+DIM (referring to a keyboard he was gi ven.It did not have as many resources as others he knows. He clarified that th is keyboard was not necessarily small) f-‘cantatICA’ (Cuba is an –ico dialect) musical+DIM 11-Nora (Carlos’ mother) to Carlos: “Quieres caf, jugo y una panquequITA?”. D’you-want coffee, juice & a pancake+DIM? (Nora seemed a little bit mad but she shows that she’s not angry with the son by using this diminutive when talking to him. Had the DIM not been used, the son would very likely have thought that mo m was angry at HIM. 12-M. to MaE, a friend, when this friend cam e for his son when M onica was baby-sitting: Monica: Ma E., ya comiste?

PAGE 216

205 Ma E., already (you)ate? Ma E.: Bueno, agarre algo ahi cuando me vine. Well, I-grabbed something there when I left Monica: porque yo tengo alli pollITO Because I have there chicken+DIM (The idea here is that the chicken is not much. M. seems to be trying to tell Ma E: “don’t think it’s a perfectly cooked chicken; it’ s not a big deal; don’t expect too much”) 13-At a musical rehearsal at church: Ivon: “Victor, tu vas a tocar el pianITO” Victor, you will play the piano+DIM Ma E: “Bueno, y esa falta de respeto??” Well, why that disrespect 14-(Pastor and I at his church office, when I let him use my laptop to check his emails) Victor: "Ya chequeaste tus emails?" Already checked your emails? Ni.: "si tenia un mensajITO alli, sin mucha importancia." Yes, I had a message +DIM there, w/out much importance 15-My wife and I: Monica: "Ah, tu eres bobo" You’re silly Victor: "No me-digas bobo" Don’t call-me silly Monica: "Ah, tu no me dices boba a mi?" You don’t call ME silly (to me)? Victor: "no, boba no, bobITA" No, ‘silly’ no, silly+DIM Monica: "Ah, bueno" Oh, then? Victor: "Es lo mismo, boba y bobITA?" Is it the same, silly & silly+DIM? Monica: "no"….(thinking)

PAGE 217

206 16-Don P. (~60 years old) to me while we were doing some construction work: “la ‘troca’ esta un poco fallONA’ (unsure if this is an adjectivizer or actual AUG) the truck is a little flawful+AUG or ADJ????? 17-M. to Fav., a friend of hers (by email) “Victor y yo nos la hemos pasado bien ocupadITOS este verano (2003) Victor & I (we) it have spen t very busy+DIM this summer 18-E. (on a trip to a church camp at Camp Joy): a-“De verdaCITA”. Really+DIM b--"con esa actituCITA" with that attitude (referring to a bad attitude of her daughter’s when asking for food) c--En todo el “mediAZO’ = “en el mismo medio” in all the middle+AUG =on the very middle+AUG 19-M. dijo (en viaje de regreso a G’ville de spues de Camp Joy con los P. family): “Me queda unITA” is left one+DIM (ONLY one is left) 20-M.P. (en mismo viaje de regreso): “Medio dificilON” (medio dificilon) a little difficult+AUG (or ADJ.) 21-“cubanAZO” (A Cuban living in the USA w ith still strong & obvious Cuban customs) 22-M. to Sf. (inviting her to a prayer service) “el culto dura solo una horITA” the service last s only one hour+DIM 23-Inspector Rodriguez (IR) to Alicia Mach ado (an ex-Miss Universe) in a funny show called “Que Locura” (How crazy). -"tu eres falta de respetICO" you have lack of respect+DIM (In this program, IR is a fake inspector or TV station guard. He is often at the gate entrance and catches victims (famous people) there. He pretends he does not find their names in the guests list, so he doesn’t let them in. They often become very angry.) 24-DESPIERTA AMERICA (Wake Up America!, a Hispanic American program with a diversity of sections: news, jokes, musici ans, guests, intervie ws, etc.) (Ago 25/2003) a-One of the “Despierta Amer ica” female hosts (Gisselle) ‘vamos a una pausITA y regresamos BIEN rapidITO” let’s go to a break+DIM & we ’ll return very fast+DIM b-Host R., host, to the weather lady as she gave him the floor: ‘mi queridISIMA Jacki’

PAGE 218

207 my dear+SUPERL Jacky c-The Mexican male host, Fernando (in the Bi rthdays section): ‘X nio cumple 3 aos’ X child turns 3 years (old) d-Female host: "cumple 5 aITOs; 2 aitos" (Gooch’s (1967:17) “transference”) turns 5 years+DIM; 2 years+DIM Host R.: "cumple 1 ao" Turns 1 year e--Another female host (a blond young lady called ANA): “ya regresamos con mas chismecITOs desde Mexico” we’ll be right back with mo re gossip+DIM from Mexico f-The narrator (only the voice is heard): “mas tarde llega a casITA…” later arrives at house+DIM g-Fernando to a Mexican music group: “la epoca de machos, machos, de machAZOs” the era of machos, machos, of machos+AUG (referring to the era of the Mexican Revolution) h-Ana: "los pobrecITOS" the poor+DIM (this was in reference to the pol ar bears rescued from suffering) i-“chiquITITO” (Host R., refe rring to the new cell phones) small+DIM+DIM 25-Hypothetical example (from my own intuition): “Escribio un poemITA/cancioncITA” etc… (s/he)wrote a poem+DIM/song+DIM (IF we say “X artist wrote X poem/song+DIM, the diminutive may reflect a sense of inferiority of the speaker towards that poem/song. 26-In comedy TV show “Q ue Locura” (Aug. 30/03): a-Rene (Venezuelan singer): “Poco profesional es es te programITA” little professional is this program+DIM b-Inspector Rodriguez: (to Chiquinquira, an actress) "Tu eres faltICA de respeto" You have lack+DIM of respect

PAGE 219

208 27-DESPIERTA AMERICA (Sept 2/03) a-Weather forecast lady: “Vamos a dar el ultimo vi stAZO al tiempo” let’s go to give the last view+AUG at weather(= let’s have a last brief look at climate) (this augmentative seems to have diminutivizing func tions) b-Giselle: (in a phone discussion with street people that called the program to answer the question “Who drives better? A woman or a man?”) “hola IrmITA” Hello Irma+DIM (this DIM probably had the intention of em pathizing with the other woman she was talking to since this was a woman-man debate) c-Giselle: (referring to a fashion style for women called “de cargo”). “la moda con los cinturoncITOs” the fashion with the belts+DIM Note: This DIM may have gender connotat ions, according to the context. d-Luis Magagna (a young guy, very refined, w ho is in charge of finding show business gossip, or interesting news about actors, singers, etc. famous for Hispanics) “volvemos en unos momentITOs mas” we’ll return in some moments+DIM more (we’ll be back in a few minutes) e-Luis Magagna: “Ernesto LaGuardia nos dio tremendo noticION” Ernest La Guardia (to)us gave tremendous news+AUG 28-In a TV cereal commercial in Univisi on (Hispanic TV channel). The only person showing up in the commercial was a kid. “sabores tostadITOs”: flavors toasted+DIM I think this commercial was cl early addressed at children par ticularly; henceforth the use of the DIM. This is probably an inst ance of the ‘commercial power’ of DIMs. 29“Despierta America” (Sept 4/03) a-Host R.: "nos das un consejo, asi en una manera concentradITA" (to)us give some advice, like in a manner concentrated+DIM b-Giselle: "con permisITO dijo MonchITO" with permission+ DIM (excuse me+DIM) said Moncho+DIM ca (female) cook:“el puerco esta limpiecITO” the pork is clean+DIM This really means “very clean”. T hus, here the DIM means “very” (AUG function) d -"nos resultara un caldITO bieeeen sabroso"

PAGE 220

209 (to)us will result a soup+DIM very delicious (we’ll end up with a delicious soup) e-Host R. (to the cook): “no puedo echar un poquI TITO mas de salsITA de tamarindo” Can’t (I) put a little+DIM+DIM more of sauceDIM of ….” 30-In “La Jaula” (“The Cage” is a comedy program that ofte n presents a group of bachelor mid-40 guys bringing single women to their apartment. They are just womanizers. (Sept 7/03) -One of the guys to one of the women: “H ola MartICA, no martICA no, MartOTA” Hi Marta+DIM,no Marta+DIM no, Marta+AUG (Obvious sexual connotation. The woman looked very hot & sexy, and that’s what the AUG reflects here) 31-"hay unos mas recatadITOs" there are some more conservative+DIM?? 32-“salga y disfrute del calorcITO” go out & enjoy the heat+DIM 33-In “DESPIERTA AMERICA” Ana: (giving some news about some anis e drink from Japan that the FDA does not approve.) “hay una anis estrellado que es bastante malITO” there's an anise (drink) that is rather bad_DIM (there seems to be here a contradictio n: augmentative ‘bastante’ with DIM. There may also be here a euphemistic function) 34“saluciITA” cheers+DIM (when giving a toast “salud!” cheers !a Mexican guy in the “Casos de La Vida Real" Cases of Real Lifeshow –Sept 11/03) He was drinking with his friends. 35-In “DESPIERTA AMERICA”: “que durITO estas, que rico!” how hard+DIM you are, how nice! (a girl to a Venezuelan soap opera star, refe rring to the strong and firm muscles of his arms; which she felt when he hugged her) 36-DESP. AMERICA: ‘hay hombres que usan su cremITA” there are men that use their cream+DIM 37-DESPI. AMERIC: “manOTA”

PAGE 221

210 hand+AUG (Ana Canseco told the Mexican guy host wh en he was touching -a little too mucha female model who was reporting on the weather conditions) 38-Ana Canseco (DESP. AMERICA): “hombres q' se cuidan mucho fisicament e –cutis, uas…pero son muy pero muy hombrecITOs” men who take-care of selves much physi cally-face, nail..but they're very but very men+DIM (Defining what a “metro-sexual” was) 39-A man interviewed about the metro-sexuals: ‘tengo las uas de los pies bien arregladITAs’ I have the nails of my feet well taken-care-of+DIM 40-Luis Magagna (DESPIERTA AMERICA) interv iews Marta Susana, a talk show host. Marta Susana (Host of another talk show of this Hispanic channel): “hay que tener algun vicio.NO bebo, no me dr ogo por lo menos un cigarrITO, dejame!!” there has to be some vice. I don't drink, do drugs…at least a cigar+DIM, let me (do it) 41-Giselle (DESPIERTA AMERICA): “al que lo quieren, tiene que tener bien su corazoncITO” him who is loved, (he) has to have well his heart+DIM 42-Monica (my wife to a friend): “pero esos zarcillos estan elegantONES” but those earrings are elegant+AUG ( meaning: “sort of elegant”, in Nora’s -Monica's mumopinion) 43-DESP. AMERICA: a)-The Mexican host guy duri ng the sports section: “Es especial para jovenes. Si tienes entr e 18 y 25 aos esto es para ti. Ahi te va jovenAZO” It's special for youth. If you're between 18-25 years old it's for you. There you have young+AUG b)-Mexican host: (referring to a esthetic treatment): “ah, entonces se lo hace una vez y a los 3 meses se va y se hace un chequeaITO” ah, then you do it once and 3 months later is gone and you do a check+DIM 44-Monica, talking to Yoleth on the phone inviting her to a birthday party “bueno, si tienes un chancecITO” well, if you have a chance+DIM 45-Monica to Juanfer (one of her brothers):

PAGE 222

211 “Ese cuaderno es tuyo? Y Esto tambien? (riendose), ayyy papITO (ironico)” that notebook is yours? & this also? (laughing) ayyy, pop+DIM (Ironically) (She was teasing him because he had a childish or female type of notebook) 46-Ana Canseco (Despierta America, Oct 9/ 03): a-“Oye, se reunio bastantITA gente” (Wow! A good number of people gathered!) listen, gathered many+DIM people b-Host R.” “y dinerITO!!” & money+DIM On a report on a hats stor e famous in California: c-“Un sombrerITO que cuesta nada mas y nada menos miles de dolares” a hat+DIM that costs nothing more & nothing less (than) thousands of dollars d-“Hasta el Papa escogio su modelITO” even the Pope chose his model+DIM e-“Este sombrero les gusta arremangaITO hacia abajo” this hat, (they) like rolled+DIM towards the bottom f-“Los precios empiezan en los 40 dolarITOs hasta los 3 mil dolares” the prices begin in the 40 dollars+DIM until the 3 thousand dollars 47-Dr Cps., a university professor, told me: “hay un dinerITO por ahi y decidimos dividirlo” there's a money+DIM there & we decided to split it up (referring to some travel funds prom oted by the LIN Dept & the RLL Dept) 48-a) Ana Canseco: (referring to a s oon-to-be show by Gloria Stefan) 'padrISISISISIMO' good+SUPERL+SUPERL bThe Mexican guy host (referring to a belly dance): “eso es un ejerciciAZO” that is an exercise+AUG c-Ana Canseco: (in an interview with an alleged astrologer about shoes and signs) "Bueno, hoy nos hablaran de la moda y que tiene que ver con los zapatITOs" well, today we will hear about fashion & what it has to do with the shoes+DIM 49-DESPIERTA AMERICA (Oct 15/03) a-Ana Canseco (announcing a twins contest in El Salvador): "No hay dos personas igualITITAS" there are no two people equal+DIM+DIM b-Ana Canseco:

PAGE 223

212 'El maquillador nos trae otros truquITOs para los machos, para que se pongan mas PapasOTEs!' a make-up expert brings other tricks+DIM fo r machos, so they can get more 'papi'+AUG (Note: 'papi' or something similar is of ten used in informal Spanish with sexual connotations in reference to a hot guy, very handsome or sexy. 'Mami' is the female equivalent) c-La catira: "Un acre pero pa drOTOTOTOTE" (en la luna) ( in the moon ) Ana Canseco: An acre but good+AUG+AUG+AUG d-La catira: "Dos millones de lotecITOs". (en la luna) two millions of lots+DIM (in the moon) e-(on a report on turt les hurt by seashore) "Es dificil encontrar tortuguITAs vivas despues de accidents como estos" It's difficult to find turtles+DIM alive af ter accidents such as these (The turtle Ana was referring to was act ually big because the Mexican guy host calculated it was about 70 years old) (The turtle had been hurt by a boat in Florida. fAna: "pobrecITA" (several times) poor+DIM (Probably here we have the DIM being us ed to express certain empathy, pity and compassion for the pain of the turtle) 50-DESPIERTA AMERICA (Oct 15/03) During the section of a hairdresser. He’s a guy in his 40s with very refined manners. His name is Samuel, but he’s usually called “Sammy”. a-El samisAZO (the name of the section of the program) the Sammy+DIM b-Giselle: "que usen sus chancletITAS" Let-them use their shower-shoes+DIM c-Sammy (the refined hair-doer):"LOS cepillIT Os para que se cepillen sus pies". The brushes+DIM so they brush their feet d-A Mexican guy telling a joke in the street : “Un pollITO chiquITO” A chicken+DIM little+DIM 51-(In an interview with a Mexican band that fused two Latin rhythms) a'Si, la bachatITA' yes, the bachatITA (probably because this band isn't from a bach ata region. So, this is their own version of bachata)

PAGE 224

213 b-Ana: "ah, sacaron un disco tambien para los mas pequenINes?” ah, you made a record also for the most little+DIM (ones)? (After this point, they used a lot of DI Ms because they were talking about music for children) c-Host R., the Venezuelan host: (performi ng an old Colombian lady. "she" talks to Sammy) “Mira Samuel Suarez!.." (and then offended Sammy) Look, Samuel suarez This Colombian 'lady' got mad because Sammy told her about a lot of changed she needed to make in her face. Interesting he re is the dropping of the hypocoristic & DIM in the name Sammy (This was of course a li ttle performing sketch) d-Luis Magagna: "Hola Ana Canseco, despues te doy el chismerO de la fiesta del Gordo y la Flaca." Hi, Ana Canseco, later I'll give y ou the gossip+AUG of the party of "El Gordo y la Flaca e-“Bueno, entonces lo tiene muy calladITO” well, then it, he has very quiet+DIM (referring to a gossip Luis Mg., fa mous Latin singer, has not told) f-“el hotel estaba medio fellON” the hotel was a little ugly+AUG (referring to a show business guy w ho left a hotel with cockroaches) 52-DESPIERTA AMERICA (Oct20/03) a-A contest called "Los IgualITOs") ( the equals+DIM ) took place. (They were supposed to find imitators of the hosts of the show.). I think there is a double pragmatic effect. It marks the playful character of the contest, and this DIM is also a type of AUG. bAna Canseco: “Vamos a los feli ces muchachONEs y muchachONAS” Ana Canseco: let's go to the happy boys+AUG and girls+AUG (referring to the birthday people they were about to announce, often kids.) c-“Escuela de MachAZOs” School of Machos+AUG (It was a funny mini skit with the Mexican guy host and a Mexican band) dA Despierta America host to a makeup expert, who was showing how to avoid wrinkles and was referred to an oil product to use: “Y donde encontramos ese aceitITO”

PAGE 225

214 & where can we find that oil+DIM? The make up expert: (at the end of the interview) "Asi que no gaste su dinerITO” so, don't spend your money+DIM (in unnecessary things) e-“1500 dolarITOS por noche”. 1500 dollars+DIM a night (A little ironic here, and probably insinuating that $1500 wa s nothing for them –J.Lo & Ben Affleck, who were seen in a Vegas hotel) 53-MARTA SUSANA (A talk show): A Mexican lady guest of low social class: “La primerITITA vez que le pegue” (referring to the very first tim e she hit her daughter) the first+DIM+DIM time I hit her 54-(in ‘premio a lo nuestro’ – Award to Ours-, Feb 5, 2003): “Premio a lo Nuestro” is an annual TV ev ent where prizes or awards are given to important Hispanic show business people in the USA. Something like a Grammy Awards event. a) The host: ‘tengo que rebajar unos kilITOs’ I have to lose some kilos+DIM (or pounds) b) One of the awards presenters: “nue stro sangrecITA y nuestro saborcITO” Our blood+DIM and our taste/flavor+DIM 55-In “la copa de oro”, 2003 (Gold Soccer Cup) -“la gente del Barcelona esta preocupadONA ” the people of Barcelona Football Club are worried+AUG 56-A talk between Ros. (Mexican Monica’s hairdresser) and me: Ros.: “Esta Monica? …………..Est a acostada, esta enferma” Is Monica in?……………. She’s lying down, She’s sick 56-a) Ros.: “Ah, esta enfermITA?!” Ah, is she sick+DIM?! 56-b) Ros.: “Bueno, digale que me llame, si?, me hace el favorcITO” o.k., tell her to call me, please? Can you do me that favor+DIM 56-c) Ros.: “Bueno, hasta luego, que siga mejorcITA” Wel, see you later, may she be better+DIM Note: she sounded very nice and polite on the phone. My wife also told that she did in fact sound very nice, tender, lovely…

PAGE 226

215 57-Ma E: (at a prayer service, Feb 24/04, during thanksgiving time) “Gracias a Dios porque esta Juancarlo s mejor, ya que estuvo malITO, muy malITO” Thanks to God because Juancarlos is better,since he was bad(sick)+DIM, very sick+DIM 58-Monica: “Le ayude a hacer 20 postreCITOS” (Feb 28/04) I helped her to make 20 desserts+DIM (Monica a Ly. talking about the deserts she helped Eva to make for lunches to sell for Centroamerica) The feeling is that she did help, probably not much because she was sick, but she did help 59-DOMINGO Feb 29/04 a-Gonz. C. (Preaching about sexual temptations): “quizas diga: no importa. Nadie me ve.; ha(iro nic), tengo noticias para uds. hermanITOs” maybe you say: no problem. Nobody sees me; ha,I have news for you, brethren+DIM b-Elz.: (after he and I were sear ching on the Internet for songs.) “No te preocupes. Despues yo busco con calmITA” don’t worry. Afterwar ds, I’ll look with calm+DIM 60-“la ultimITA” the last+DIM (meaning the very last) 61-Echale canela a la chic ha, que le da un saborCITO (Ly. to Monica) March 5, 2004 put some cinnamon powder to the ‘chicha’ (r ice drink); it gives it a taste/flavor+DIM 62-Monica to me: “tienes tiempITO sin ayudar” you have a while+DIM without helping (she wanted me to help her with the dishes but when she came to the kitchen, they were not done. She was disappointed, but at the same time she knew I was very busy that week) 63-Male friend (to me): “hey, (looking at a grill for sale at Home Depot), “cuando tenga mi propia casa. Tendre uno de es os. Para hacer mi carnITA, mi pollITO” when I get my own house, I’ll have one of these to prepare my meat+DIM, my chicken+DIM (My friend then told me that “carnITA” implied something more delicious, more enjoyable –I asked him why didn’t he say simply “carne” or “pollo”) 64-Host R. (Venezuelan young guy visiti ng the church in Gainesville): a“No, fritanga esta medio flojON” No ‘Fritanga’ is a little slow+AUG b“Medio malAZO” A little bad+AUG

PAGE 227

216 65-DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) a-Ana Canseco (gossiping about Hisp anic actors/actresses/singers) “su hermana no dijo nada. estuvo calladITA” her sister didn’t say anything. She was quiet b-“si se sabian que habian sus problemIT As aqui y alla, pero no se sabia…..” we did know thay had their problems+ DIM now & then, but we didn’t know… c-Host R.: “A donde vamos ahora, CarlITOs?” (asked a guest about next segment of the program) where are we going now, Carlos+DIM? d-News announcer (finishing the 2nd segment of news & announcing the next one-The Weather) “seguimos aqui en CasITA” we continue here at House/Home+DIM 66DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) a-Ana Canseco: (at an interview) The interviewee suggests asking questions She said: “si, debemos preguntar porque a veces nos quedamos ahi calladITOs” Yes, we must ask because sometimes we remain there, quiet+DIM b-“ok, vamos a comprar; ya tenemos el di nerITO, pero huuuy, nos sale un dinerAL.” Ok, let’s buy ; already we ave the money+DIM, but, wow, it costs money+AUG c-‘Bueno, ahora seguimos, Ahora volvemos con la pachangONA de Lupita D’Alesio’ well, in minutes we continue; we’ll be back with the party+AUG of Lupita’s 67DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) a-Carlos: (A guest, from “Desayuno Alegre” (After a parody by Host R. and Gisselle, rapping) “Oye, como que se queda el ritmITO, uno no puede parar” look how this rhythm remains (stuck), one cannot stop b-(At some moment, this guest said “estoy orgulloSISIMO de estar aca” I am proud+SUPERL to be here c-Host R.: “miren esos cachetICOS!” (referr ing to the cheeks of a baby in a picture) look at those cheeks+DIM! d-A Despierta America commercial: “Participen Y competiran por este carrAZO!!” participate & you’ll enter in the contest for this car+AUG

PAGE 228

217 68DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) a-Luis Magagna: (After Ana Canseco said hi to him) ‘Aca, Un poquito desveladON’ here, a little restless+AUG b-Luis Magagna: “Nos echaron un chisme medio raro; de un regalITO” we were told a gossip a li ttle strange; about a present+DIM c-Ana Canseco: “Oye, LuisITO, te quiero mucho” Listen, Luis+D IM, I love you much Luis Magagna: “Igualmente, Un besOTE!” The same, a kiss+AUG d-Ana Canseco: “Luis Ponce nos cuenta de todITITO lo que pa so detras de la filmacion de su nvo. Video” Luis tells us about everything+DIM that happened off camera in his new video 69DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) Expert on a new therapy for beauty a-(A middle age woman said ‘poquitICO’ different times). “Un poquITICO de Valium, antes de la operacion.” A little+DIM+DIM of Valium, before the surgery “Un poquITICO mas tarde” –referring to effects of the therapy; a little+DIM+DIM later “quizas tenga un poquITICO de inflamacion” maybe you’ll have a little+DIM+DIM of inflammation (swelling) b-“la estamos tratando con cariITO” we are treating you with dearness/love+DIM (Gisselle said that to a lady who volunteered for this beauty treatment. The lady was a little bit nervous because the treatm ent implied little vaccinations…) 70DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) a) Luis Fonsi, a new Hispanic singer (on a phone interview with La Catira) “tengo la voz un poquITO ronquITA” (I had a concert last night) I have my voice a little+DIM rusky+DIM b) “Bueno, nos quedaremos en Mexico un mes enterITO” Well, we will stay in Mexico a whole month c) “por lo general las visitas s on cortITAs, pero nos quedamos mas” generally, the vistis are short+DIM but we stay longer

PAGE 229

218 71-DESPIERTA AMERICA (MARCH 11, 2004) Gisselle: “que ojaZOS” What eyes+AUG! (referring to the eyes of a one-year old kid during the children segment) 72-Programa “CONTROL” (March 13, 2004) S ection: What would you say to the cockroaches?”) A young guy: “Mi vecino siempre me llama a la policia.Le diria a las cucarachas que hagan el partyCITO alla” my neighbor always calls the police agains t me. I’d tell the r oaches to have the party+DIM there (Notice the word “party” in Spanish) 73a-Monica: “Bueno, porque necesitamos una maquinITA mas” well, because we need one more machine+DIM (Monica said this to an acquaintance of hers, with whom she does not have an intimate friendship. She sounded a little bit uncomfortable to ask fo r a favor: a sewing machine, when they were sewing the costumes for a passion play at church) b-Ly.: (In the same situation): “Pidele unas tijerITAs” ask her for some scissors+DIM (Ly. obviously needed some big scissors to finish up some costumes. She was already using small scissors but she needed ones bigger) 74-Que Locura: (March 20, 2004) El Inspector Rodriguez: “La benditICA guerreitICA de los seixITOs” the blessed+DIM was+DIM of the sexes+DIM 75-At Ron.’s (a teenager who grew up in church and now gradua ted from high school. He’s now leaving for anot her city to study) high sc hool graduation party: (there was a slide show with pictures. One ha d Ron. as a little boy scout) A woman at the party said: -“Ron.CITO!’ Ron.+DIM 76-People started giving little talks at this graduation party for Ron.: a-Erlinda: ‘quiero decirles que este muchachITO que ven aca, aunque es mas grande que mi’ want-I to tell-you that this bo y+DIM that (you)see here t hough is more big than me b-Abuela: “bueno, yo soy la abuelITA de Ron..” Well, I am the grandma+DIM of Ron.

PAGE 230

219 c-Jth. Francisco: (reading a funny poe m that he improvised for Ron.) “Ron.cito, pito culITO, gracias por ser un buen primITO” Ron.+DIM butt+DIM than ks for being a good cousin+DIM d-Mama: “Bueno, aunque crezca, siempre se ra (ALL: Ron.cITO)….mi bebe” Well, eventhough (he)grows always (will)be Ron.+DIM my baby e-Yoleth: “bueno, Ron. seguira siendo… mi Ron.C ITO” (all laughed) Well, Ron. (will)continue being my Ron.+DIM f-Pastor Al.: “aunque suene muy raro decirte Ron.CITO, siempre seras nuestro Ron.CITO” eventhough (it)sounds ver y strange call-you Ron.DIM, always (will)be our Ron.DIM (people: si, si…) yes, yes… 77-(at the same graduation party) Elz.: “Un permisITO” (carrying a chair from a table to another) A permit+DIM 78-Vacation Bible School (or EBV in Spanish) (2003) a-Suh.:“quien estuvo conmigo en la clase de EBV:quien leyo la Bib lia todos los dias? Those that were w ith-me inthe class of EBV: who read the Bible all the days? esta semana?AJ?, Mlsa.? Que les he dicho yo cuando no leemos la Biblia?El espiritu se this week? A.J? Mlsa?What to-you have said I when don’t read the Bible? The spirit pone..? bien delgadITO, verdad?” gets very skinny+DIM, right? b“Todos los nios buscaban los ve rsos rapidos porque les daba.. concursITOs All the kids looked up the verses rapidly ‘cause them-gave..contests+DIM 79Vacation Bible School (or EBV in Spanish) (2003) 79-a) Puppets: “hola amiguITOs” Hello friends+DIM 79-b) “vamos a cantar una cancioncITA con uds. antes de despedirnos” let’s go to sing a song+DIM with you before of saying bye 80-Children Summer Camp, at a kids’ game (2003) a-Carlos T.: (leading a kids’ game; the “hot potato”) “Cuando la musica pare, el que tenga la bombITA canta conmigo una cancion” When the music stops the one having the balloon+DIM sings with-me a song

PAGE 231

220 b-J. Rf. Colon: (trying to get his son a little space in the circle where children were for a game) “Con permiso,… dale un huequITO ahi” With permission(=excuse me) giveHIM a room+DIM there c-Carlos: (to the kids, before Ta. star ted giving them the camp shirts out) “Todos tienen que estar sentadITOs” all have to be sitting+DIM Children Summer Camp, the kids met inside the temple (2003) d-Ta.: “ahorITA (to Mimi, who asked when)’‘el ahorita mio que es de aqui a un rato” Now+DIM the now+DIM mine that’s ………later e-Davicito: “Mami” (Ta. didn’t hear him or di d not want to pay attention to him then), …”Mami!!” “Mami!!” (Ta. didn’t h ear)….”MamITA”” (Now, Ta. did hear?????) Mum+DIM mumDIM Mum+DIM f-J. Rf. Colon: “no es como el ‘a horITA’ Puerto riqueno” It isn’t like the now+DIM Puerto Rican g-Carlos T.: “el ahorita de ella –Ta.es “later” The nowDIM of hers –Ta.is later h-Ta.: “vamos a cerrar los ojITOs y vamos a orar” Let’s go (&) close the eyes+DIM & let’s go to pray i-Jth.cITO =/= Jth. (Jth.cITO = Jth. Jr) 81-Children Summer Camp, (in food time, with the kids): (2003) a-Carlos T. “Pastor, le guarde su pizzITA. Una de pepperoni y.. (Pastor laughed & so did Carlos) Pastor, to-you (I)saved your pi zza+DIM one of pepperoni &.. b-MaE:(to Si.ita when the kids were gi ving kisses to parent s and grandparents) “Oye, y a tia, a tia no le vas a dar un besITO?” Listen, & to aunt, to aunt aren’t you going to give a kiss+DIM c-Nasira: (when she realized that little Isab ela was trying to take Si.ita’s hand but could not ‘cause Si.ita kept on runni ng) “ah, isabela quiere la manITO de Si.a” Oh, Isabela wants the hand+DIM of Si.a’s d-Ni. (while videotaping the kids having breakfast) “TostadITAs!” Toasts+DIM! e-Carlos T.: “Tosta ditas” (low voice) Toasts+DIM f-Ni.: “JHN-cito se la come toda. TodITA. TodITA”.

PAGE 232

221 JTHn-DIM it eats all all+DIM all+DIM g-Ni.: “Jn.-qui!” (Ni. & othe rs call Jn.-Carlos ‘Juanqui’) h-Ni.:(videotaping)‘y Si.ita!! Mira Si.ita alli.La comidITA’(focusing on her food). & Si.a+DIM, look Si.ita there. The food+DIM 82-At a church concert, by a middle-aged male singer, Rn.: a-Rn.: (introducing his next song. He was narra ting a past event when one day he was in his house praying and painting relaxed): “Tenemos un pequeo pajarITO en mi casa We have a smal l bird+DIM in my house b-Rn. (Introducing a song th at told about a kid): “el nino y su papa vivian en un ranchITO’ The kid & his dad lived in a shack+DIM c-Rn.: (at the end of the song “I’ve not offered a garden of roses”. Rn. referred to Jesus’ eternal companionship): “Y Jesus nos dice que siempre estara cerquITA de ti” & Jesus to-us says that always (will)be near+DIM of you 83-FERIA HISPANA (Hispanic Fair) a-Carlos S.: “Se me olvido la botellITA de Havana Cuba” I forgot the bottle+DIM from Havana Cuba b-Carlos T.: “Mientras, mollejITA, abuchuelas, etc, a 50 centavITOs” me anwhile, molleja+DIM, beans+ DIM, etc, fifty cents+DIM (while selling food at the fair and wai ting for another country group to perform) c-Ni.: hey! “Denmen un filITO ahi” give me a space+DIM there (Ni., while videotaping, was asking some room to be ab le to audiotape Virginia) 84-A friend to me, saying hi: “hermanAZO!, que mas?!” brother+AUG, what’s up? 85-At a church men meeting: a) Chris. (a 30-year-old young guy) “Estuve en Guatemala, y estuve con mi familia, pero solo fue un pasON” I was in Guatemala, & I was with my family, but only (it)was a pass+AUG In this example, Chris. meant that his time w ith his family was very little. He explained that he was a whole week in his home countr y, but he only spent two hours sharing with his family.

PAGE 233

222 b) Ni.: “Yo le preparo un langostON” I to-him prepare a lobster+AUG In here, there was no reference necessarily to the size of the lobste r but probably to the great taste of it. Ni. reported what a Chef in Cuba said” Examples 86-97 come from TV Program ‘Despierta America’ (May 17 Monday, 2004) 86-Host R., The Venezuelan host is giving so me news about Christian Castro’s ex-wife auctioning her wedding dress. This ex-wife said that “el dinerITO que se recoja se donara a la Fundacion de Amigos del Nino con Cancer” the moneyDIM collected will be given to the Friends of Children with cancer Foundation 87-a)A female reporter, Paola, (in her 30’s) interviewing a lady expert in wedding cakes. “asi que ya no son esos pasteles tradicionales que tenian que ser romanticos, blanquITOs” so, no more those traditional cakes that had to be romantic, white+DIM 87-b) The same reporter speaking about hair-dressing styles by ‘Sammy’: ‘peinados para que luzcan bellISIMAs’ hairdos for them to look beautiful+SUPERL 87-c) She adviced humourously that the brides should have them so… “el novio va a caer rendIDITO al suelo y les dara el ‘si’ inmediatamente” the boyfriend will fall surrendered+DIM on the floor & will say ‘yes’ immediately 88-The news reporter after Paola passed it back to her. “y te ves preciosa PaolITA, lista como para casarte otra vez…” & you look beautiful Paula+D IM, ready for like wedding again 89-a) Jennifer Pena, advertising one of her new songs: “es una cancion buenISIMA” it’s a song good+SUPERL 89-b) Host R.: (Interviewing Jennifer Pena) “Y vemos un cambio de imagen en ti tambien, te vemos un poco mas ‘chenchualONA’” & we se a change of image in you as we ll, we see you a little more sensual+AUG 89-c) Gisselle (the host), interviewing Jennifer Pena “te ha tocado estar ahora en medio de un chismecITO bastante duro” it has been your turn now to be in th e middle of a gossip+DIM rather hard” During the “Sammisazo” time: 90-a) Sammy: (describing how to do a certain hairdo) “y por supuesto hacerlo fuera de la cara, bien estiradITO” & of course, to do it out of the face, rather stretched+DIM 90-b) ‘cruzas la parte de arriba muy suavecITO’

PAGE 234

223 cross the upper part very softly+DIM 90-c) He used several diminutives:’colita’, ‘ganchillos’, ‘panecitos’, ‘rabito de burro’, etc Horse tail+DIM ‘ ‘bread+DIM’, donkey tail+DIM, etc 91-Giselle: “Hay que lindo!!” “Me esta (Fer nando) ensenando una foto de su hijITO” how beautiful. (Fernando) is showing me a picture of his son+DIM 92-a) ‘esta pareja tiene una parejITA de gemelas” (on a report on sextuples) this couple has a pair+DIM of twins 92-b) ‘(esa parejita tiene) tres aITOs’ (this pair –of twins) is three years+DIM old 93The Mexican: (giving news about a croc odile found with broken arms on the street) “va a andar con su brazITO asi (the alligator w ith the splinter)” he will be with his arm+DIM like this 94-On an “El Gordo y la Flaca” commercial “Cazamos a Luis Mg. en su yate …y armo tremendo reventON” we captured Luis Mg. in his Yatch..and he made a huge party+AUG (breakage+AUG) 95-Host R., about to finish the intervie w with Jennifer Pena for her to sing “dentro de un ratITO vas a cantar” in a while+DIM you’ll sing 96-“vea la forma de reducir esas ru lITAs ?? que tanto le incomodan” see the way to reduce those rolls+DIM that so much bother you (to lose weight) 97-a) An expert on wedding dresses fashi on, talking about what the bride needs. ‘lo primerITO que tiene que saber [sic] es su cuerpo’ the first+DIM (thing) that sh e has to know is her body 97-b) The host asking the dress expert some questions: ‘y el detallITO de las plumas?” & what about the detail+ DIM of the feathers? 97-c) The host asking more questions: ‘elegantISIMO, no es cierto?” elegan+SUPERL, isn’t it? CASOS DE FAMILIA (May 17, 2004) ‘Sra. Vi ctoria: Me siento abandonada por mis hijos’ (Mrs. Victoria: I feel abandoned by my children) This is a sort of ‘Jerry Springer’ type of show. Its title is “Family Cases”. They bring different family members with different prob lems and they talk about those problems in

PAGE 235

224 the show, with the supposed goal of solving th e problems. They bring real people, and the discussion tend to be spontaneous, led by the host 98-The female blond host in the 30’s: “muchISIMAs gracias” Many+SUPERL thanks 99-a) “muchISIMO tiempo” much+SUPERL time (without seeing the family) 99-b) “que sientes tu Manuel ahorITA (en estos momentos)?” what do you feel Manuel now+DIM (at this moment)? 99-c) ‘detengame ahi tantITO, porque hay mu cho q relatar’ ‘vamos a unos comerciales’ stop there a while+DIM ‘cause there’s a lot to say. Let’s go to commercials (During commercials) 100An ex-wife of Andres Garcia: (with a hand-signal like throwing an ashtray)” “se caso conmigo y al siguiente dia me avento un cenirAZO” he married me & the next day he threw me an asht ray+AUG (???) 101-Narrator: (of the commercial fo r this ‘Cristina’ program) “escandalos del galanAZO Andres Garcia” scandals of the movie-star+AUG Andres Garcia 102-a) (Back to CASOS DE FAMILIA) ‘ya platicamos un poquITO con Idalia y Manuel. Ahora converaremos con…JOse.’ We talked a little with Idal ia & Manuel. Now we’ll talk with Jose 102-b) (The host to one of the guests) “Idalia, ahorITA (a few moments ago) tocamos puntos importantes contigo” Idalia, now+DIM we touched upon important points with you 102-c) ‘gracias a Dios ya te me controlaste un poquITO’ thanks to God you already got control of yourself (for me) a little+DIM 102-d) ‘el saludo de Uds. bien (a mama y hermano) les veo la sonrisOTA,. a tu hermana tan frio’ the greeting of you-all good (to mon & brother) I see the smile+AUG, to your sister, cold 102-e) One of the guests, Idalia the daughter ‘a mi me daban las sobras de ella (sister sh e didn’t want to see).m e dolia desde chiquITA’ to me they gave the remainders of hers it hurt me since little+DIM 102-f) ‘OK Jose, ahora yo te vol teo la pelotITA. Por que TU no fuiste a buscarla a ella?” OK, Jose, now I flip over the ball+DIM to you, Why di d you not go for her?

PAGE 236

225 DESPIERTAAMERICA (May 21 Friday 2004) 103-a) Giselle: (Interviewi ng an old lady that dances with a cup on her head) ‘AY, virgen santISIMA!’ wow, virgin holy+SUPERL! 103-b) ‘Aqui SI que hay az uquITA en la cintura’ here there IS indeed sugar+DIM in the waist 103-c) ‘tenemos 20 segundITOs para irnos (a comerciales) we have 20 seconds+DIM to go (to commercials) 104-a) Ana Canseco: (Intervi ewing Gisselle, a Merengue singer from Puerto Rico) ‘estas contenta. te nombraron la gran mariscal o la reinITA del desfile Pto Rico en Nva Y you’re glad.They named you Great Mariscal or the P. Rico in N.Y. parade’s queen+DIM 104-b) Gisselle (The meringue singer) ‘contenta porque represento a mi islITA chiquITITA’ glad because I repres ent my island+DIM little+DIM 104-c) Ana Canseco: ”bueno, tienes tambien baladITAs, y un poquITO de todo” Well, you have also ballads +DIM & a little+D IM of everything 104-d) Gisselle: (the singer) “mi hijo esta grandISIMO, cumple 10 aos en junio” my son is big+SUPERL, he’ll be 10 years in June 104-e) Ana Canseco: “ya vistes los bomberos? Estan buenISIMOs” already saw the firemen? They’re hot+SUPERL 105Ana Canseco: (Passing the turn to Neida, the news announcer) “Hola NeidITA” Hello, Neida+DIM 106-Neida: (in an interview-news se ction about a lady with pr oblems with immigration) ‘ha llorado muchISIMO porque teme ser deportada” (she)has cried much+SUPERL because she’s afraid of being deported 107-Gisselle (Despierta America Host) ‘un besITO muy grande” (for the lady w ho just solved her deportation problem) a kiss+DIM very big 108-The Miami Dade Fire Dept spokespers on,while presenting th e 2005 firemen calendar

PAGE 237

226 ‘donamos a otros tambien porque siempre hay un poquITICO de dinero left-over’ we donate to others also because always th ere’s a little+DIM+DIM of money leftover 109-“y junio (the calendar fireman for that month): Mig..Mg.ITO” “Ay virgen santa!” & June: Mg.…Mg.+DIM. “Wow, Holy+SUPERL Virgin !” 110-Doa Meche: ‘Aqui esta mi calendario.Aca esta Agosto, aayy con mi gordITO bello’ Here is my calendar. Here is August, ooh! With my fat+DIM (guy) beautiful (Doa Meche in the picture with a fat guy, hand-in-hand) 111-Commercial narrator promo ting a special Cristina program: ‘ven a celebrar con nosotros el reventON del ao!” come & celebrate with us the party+AUG of the year 112-Song “Nothing left” (no queda nada), by Giselle, the Merengue singer “Oye, no te confundas, que aqui no queda ni el humITO” listen, don’t get confused, that here no thing is left, not even the smok+DIM (this is said during the song without music, like speaking) 113-a) Host R. (at the beach) introducing his workmates from the radio station “y Roxana –bellISIMAGarcia” & Roxana-beautiful+SUPERLGarcia 113-b) “y el queridISI MO Javier Romero” and the dear+SUPERL Javier Romero 114-a) Gisselle (the host) : “Javier ven aca un segundITO” Javier, come here a second+DIM 114-b) “El se lo va a poner ahorITA” (A bathing suit) He’ll put it on now+DIM 115-Host R.: “ya va, ya va, que yo qui ero saludar a OswaldITO tambien” wait, wait, that I want to say hi to Oswald+DIM also 116-(In the Spain Prince’s wedding with Letizia) “No le daran sombrillas, solo por un agu acero. Deben aguantar la llovIZNA pequena” there won’t be umbrellas, only in strong rain.They must bear the rainDIM(sprinkle) small 117-Neida: “Bueno, ahora quiero aprovechar de mandarle un be sITO a Elba, la niera de mi sobrina” well, now I want to use this time to send a kiss+DIM to Elba, babysitter of my niece 118-Neida: (humorously) “Ahora paso a Ana, la princesITA mexicana, que la acompaa el conde de Caracas” now I pass to Ana, the princess+DIM Mexi can accompanied by the Count of Caracas

PAGE 238

227 119-Host R.: “gracias Reina de Honduras.Nosotros aqui ha blando de algo importante, verdad AnITA?” thanks Queen of Honduras. We here sp eaking of something important, right AnaDIM 120-Host R. and Ana informing about what is common among th e non-Royal people who married Royal people. One commonality was th at they did not show interest in the Prince’s treasures. Ana said that they probably said: “Yo con simples piedrITAs me conformo” I, with simple stones+DIM, am OK 121-a) Ana “Cuidado que los principes se pueden convertir en simples sapITOs” Watch out that the princes may become simple frogs+DIM 121-b)Host R.:‘Si, se pueden convertir en simples sapos.Con el beso se convierten en sapos’ Yes, they may become simple frogs with a kiss they become frogs 122-a) Roxana “bellisima” (to one of the fireman models) ‘A ver Rudy, una modeladITA una caminadITA por favor para poder contemplar la ropa’ let’s see Rudy, a modeling+DIM, a walk+DIM please so we can see the outfit 122-b) Roxana: (to another model) “Mg.ITO, una vueltITA por favor, Mg.ITO” Mg.+DIM, a turn+DIM, please, Mg.+ DIM (with a little sexy tone) 122-c) Roxana: “Y ahora, la SeorITA Junio, y el Seor Junio” & now, Miss+DIM June, and Mr. June (Gisselle was humorously modeling with one of the models. Notice that the lady is called with the DIM but not the guy) 122-d) Roxana: (to one of the firemen) “Y uds. salvan a gatITOs?” & you-all save cats+DIM? 122-e) Gisselle “Veo los colores azulITOs” (referri ng to the clothes of the firemen) I see the blue+DIM colors 123-A guy in the audience at the beach: “Quiero saludar a mamITA en Ecua dor” (He sounded a little weird) I want to greet my mom+DIM in Ecuador 124-Host R. de Molina (In a commerci al break during Despierta America) “cachamos a Juan Gabriel imponiendo moda…de sombrerITOs” we spotted Juan Gabriel making fashion… of hats+DIM

PAGE 239

228 125-D’fern (half-woman half-man character interpreted by Fernando-Despierta America) “Vamos a hacer todo este pasITO que es el pasITO del caballITO” (beach dancing) let’s do all this step +DIM that is the step +DIM of the horse+DIM 126-Neida (joking before starting news narration) “D’fern tiene las piernITAs un poco blancas.” D’fern has the legs+DIM a little white 127-A female news reporter from Madrid “Madrid esta preparadISIMO para la gran ceremonia (Boda Real)” Madrid is prepared+SUPERL for the great ceremony (the Royal Wedding) 128-Neida: “hay que estar, mas flaquITO, no” (after news about obesity in the world) We have to be more thin+DIM, right? 129-Ana “bueno, el calorcITO esta riquISIMO por aca. Tremenda soleada que nos estamos dando” well, the heat+DIM is great+SUPERL here. A huge sun-taking we are having 130-Ana ‘creo .[Letizia] va a entrar redondITO[in th e Royalty] porque tiene un carisma increible’ I think will fit round+DIM (ver y well) because she has an incredible charisma 131-Prof. Sayago (Astrologist giving predictions about the Prince and Letizia wedding) “Es posible que en el 2005 haya un varoncITO” It’s possible that in 2005 there’ll be a boy+DIM During commercials 132-Narrator (Commercia l on ‘Univision.com’) “puedes encontrar de todo. RopITA para tu bebe” you can find everything. Clothes+DIM for your baby 133-(Sf., my wife’s friend, called in that moment) “No, aqui, llamando a MoniquITA, para ver que hacemos esta semana” no, here, calling Monica+DIM so we can see what to do this week 134-Back to DESPIERTA AMERICA El General (‘The General’) : “este es mi ambiente, la playa y con ta ntas chicas bien ricas y apretadITAs” this is my atmosphere, beach and with so many girls hots and stretched+DIM 135-Ana: “Y muchas gracias a toda la gente que vino desde tempranITO” & many thanks to all the people that came since early+DIM CASOS DE FLIA (May 21/2004) “Hispanics Vs Hispanics”

PAGE 240

229 136-a) Judith Grace: “MuchISISISIMAs gracias” many+SUPERL thanks 136-b) “a pesar de los aos que tengo soy media nuevecITA en este pais” in spite of the years I ha ve here, I’m sort of new+DIM in this country 136-c)“Ud. se preocupa por la Guerra de Iraq? Tenemos otra aqui cerquITA” d’you worry about the war in Iraq? We have another here, near+DIM 137-A store in Gainesville: “mi tiendecITA” My store+DIM 138-An Univision program: “La EscuelITA VIP” The school+DIM VIP DESPIERTA AMERICA: (July 6/2004) 139-Host R. (the Venezuelan host) “Ah, con razon la copITA” ah, that’s the reason for the cup+DIM (It was a big wine cup, remembering the birt hday celebration cup of Host R. de Molina, from “El Gordo y la Flaca”)(It was comic sketch about cups) 140-Ana Canseco to Gisselle: “Una competencia de llorones. Oye tu eres bue na porque a ti te sale la lagrimITA rapido” a competition of criers. Listen, you’re good ‘cause you bring out a teardrop+DIM fast 141-Ana and Gisselle (news about some tiny hens from Europe) “unas gallinas chiquITITAS” “los gallos chiquITOs” “gallITOs” some hens little+DIM+DIM th e rooster little +DIM rooser+DIM 142-Gisselle: ”Me recuerdo del caf de mi abuelI TA. Era el unico caf que yo tomaba” I remember the coffee of my grandma+ DIM. It was the only coffee I drank During Commercials 143-Narrator: (about the “L A Escuelita program”) “y llega a la escuelITA, Ana BArbarITA” (T his is a famous sexy Mexican singer/actress) and to the school+DIM comes Ana Barbara+DIM 144-a) Back to “Despierta America” Neida: (news announcer) “y ahora con un grupo que han es tado aqui desde tempranITO” & now to a group that has b een here since early+DIM (presenting the “La Autentica de Jerez” Band).

PAGE 241

230 144-b) A “La Autentica de Jerez” member”: “Se celebra con el tamborAZO” it is celebrated with the drum+AUG During commercials 145-Narrator: “Otro cont ricante para el cha rrAZO famoso?” Another rival for the charro+AUG famous? (In an announcement about a festival party, where a famous Mexican singer, and others, would be) 146: Back to Despierta America: (In an interview with a young fashion designer from Colombia, Esteban Cortazar) Ana Canseco: “Oye y eso de ‘el nino genio de la moda’?” Listen, & what about that of ‘the genie kid of fashion’? Esteban Cortazar: (The young refined fashion designer) “No, no, no. No Sali de una botellITA” no, no…….I did not come out of a bottle+DIM CASOS DE FAMILIA (July 6/2004) (‘en Guerra por la sobrina’) 147-Host (Judith Grace): “Un besOTE para San Antonio, TX” A kiss+AUG for St. Antonio, TX 148Judith Grace: “Tu la tienes muy facilITA porque tu estas con tu esposo sola, you have it very easy+DIM ‘cause you’re with your husband alone y no con su flia. Asi que no tiene s que lidiar con su flia.” & not with his family, so you don’ t have to deal with his family (The host was talking to the wife of a guest in the program who was very sad because he did not have his family with him. He was broug ht up to give advice to those in fight with their own sisters/brothers –m ain topic of that program) 149-Judith: “Como encuentras a tu hermano? GuapetON verdad” How do you find your brother? Handsome+AUG, right? 150-Judith Grace: “Yo les pido un aplauso, pero rapidIN” I ask for a round of applause, but rapid+DIM 151-Judith: “Yo se que estas contento de ver a tu hermanITA despues de 10 aos I know you’re happy to see your sister+DIM after 10 years (It was a grown up sister, around 35 years old)” 152-Judith: (the last piece of a dvice for the sisters in fight)

PAGE 242

231 “Cuando se echen el cafeCITO, me invitan” when you have your coffee+DIM (time), invite me 153-Judith: “bueno, pero aclaren eso. Es o no enojONA. Porque tiene que estar claro” well, but, clarify that. Is she or not an angry+AUG person? Because that has to be clear 154-3:30 pm soap-opera (July 7, 2004) two bad-girl characters in a soap opera: “ahora solo te falta que se te muera la enfermITA” now the only thing left is t hat the sick+DIM+Fem dies (ironic, speaking about what’s needed for one of the girls to be left al one with her lover.) Recording from EL SALVADOR: 155-El cojolILLO is the tree of the ‘cojol’ fruit. This –illo DIM is being used as a distinguisher (Cojol, fruit; CojolILLO plant). A lexicalization process The PRIETOs (my family) Video (July 2003) 156-a) Nali: “Mandale un sal udITO a tu tio Chino” Send(him) a greeting+DIM to your uncle Chino 156-b) Nali: “Mira, mira a tu mama, Que raro! Comiendo….Mira, mira, comiendITO” Look, look at your mom, how strange! Eating! Look, look, eating+DIM 156-c) Nali: “esta es la hi ja chiquITICA de Ruth” This is the daughter li ttle+DIM+DIM of Ruth’s 156-d) Ruth: “One, Two,….ten, hasta llega mi ingles, mi panITA” …………………until there my English, my friend+DIM 156-e) Ruth: “Mandenle una peluquITA (to mom)” Send a wig+DIM 156-f) Judith: “Un besITO a mi gordo bello” A kiss+DIM to my fat(dear) beautiful 156-g) Nali: ‘no hablan nada. La unica q’ hablo fue esta muchachITA’ they don’t speak/say anythi ng. The only who spoke was this girl+DIM 156-h) Nali: (Dec. 2004) “Est e es el mas tranquiLITO de la casa (Ironic)” This is the most quiet+DIM of the house 157Nali: “Te acordaras de Bk. C., la que se la pasaba jugando con un palITO?” D’you remember Bk. C., the one always playing with a stick+DIM? Bk. C: “Con una palITO?” With a stick+DIM?

PAGE 243

232 Nali: “Con un palo” With a stick Despierta America, May 14, 2004 158-a) Ms. Garrido: -“vamos a ver las condiciones del tiempo rapidITO” let’s see the conditions of the weather quickly+DIM 158-b) Va a ser un mal Viernes y se lo digo bien TempranITO It’ll be a bad Friday and to -you I say (it) rather early+DIM Contest: “Cuentame un Chiste” (tell a joke) 159-a) “NerviosISIMO” nervous+SUPERL 159-b) “JesuscrITICO” (A Jesus very small, in a joke) Jesus Christ+DIM 159-c) “un chiste rapidITO” a joke quickly+DIM 159-d) The Mexican (guy) host intr oducing a female joke-teller: “MartITA Rojas” Martha+DIM Rojas 159-e) A Mexican lady telling a joke about “un marranITO” ( a pig+DIM ): She used many DIMs. She diminutivized a ll the animal names (lion, tiger, etc.) 160) My wife to my son, while having dinner “viste, te quemaste. Ese que estaba ahi ya estaba sopladITO” you see? You got burnt. That one there was already blown+DIM (mom blew a little bit of air on a piece of fish to cool it out). 161) My father-in-law, telling me what he had done with friends a while ago: “nos tomamos unos vinITOs” we drank some wines+DIM COPA AMERICA 2004 (Important biannual soccer competition in the Americas) July 7 (Mexico-Uruguay game) 162-a)Narrator(the 3 narrators we re guys in the 40’s from 3 diffe rent Hispanic countries): “el compaero de Mexico debe estar viendo el juego porque es un fanaticAZO del futbol” our workmate from Mexico must be watchi ng the game since he’s a fan+AUG of soccer 162-b) “Hace mucho tiempo que no vemos a X. Hace un ratITO ya” long time ago that we don’t see X. It’s already a while+DIM ago

PAGE 244

233 162-c) “Quiere jugar unos metrICOS adelante” he wants to play (a few) meters ahead 162-d) “esta soplando mucho el vi entITO ese…y se lo regalo” it’s blowing much, that wind+DI M…& I give it away to you (I don’t want it) 162-e) “estuvo muy movi dITO el tema de…” was very moved+DIM the topic of… (The re was a lot of talk about a certain topic) CHURCH TRIP TO a Theme Park in Orlando” (March 15, 2003) 163-a) EL.: “no, mi seora esta malI TA, me trajo hasta aca y ..vaya”… No, my wife is sick+DIM, she borught me here &…well… 163-b) “Ahi esta Carlos (T.), CarlIT Os el complicado…de Puelto Rilco” There is Carlos (T.), Carlos+DIM the complicated one...from Puerto Rico 163-c) “El chamACO ya viajando (refi riendose a Luquitas, de bebe)” the boy+DIM already tr aveling (referring to little Luke, a baby) 163-d) “Alla va durmiendo, el chiquitIN” there is sleeping, the little+DIM 163-e) ‘llego la familia, el familiON, el familioN completo aqui’ arrived the (pastor) family, th e family+AUG, the family+AUG complete here 163-f) ‘esta saliendo ya el va n de Rf.ITO Colon’ (29-year old guy with wife & 2 kids) It’s leaving already, the van of Rf.+DIM Colon 163-g) ‘aca tenemos a NilITO’ here we have Ni.+DIM 163-h) “Sube esa ventana Fd., un poquITICO mas” (door window was still open l inch) pull that window up, Fd., a little+DIM+DIM bit more 163-i)‘Erk. la estrella (appears Tif.)la es trellITA (and then Vs.) la estrellEZA’ Erk., the star the star+DIM the star+AUG (Erk. is about 10 years old, Tif. about 8, and Vs. about 12) 163-j) ‘Aqui nos estamos refrescando en la sombrITA porque el sol esta un poco picante’ here we are freshing up by the shadow+DIM becaus e the sun is a little hot 163-k) (Introducing three of the party having lunch), ‘Don P., La nia El papa, el cubanAZO, Ed.’ Mr P., the little girl the dad, the Cuban+AUG Ed. 163-l)‘estamos en el mismo lugar,un poquITO juntITO pero no importa’ (some missing)

PAGE 245

234 we’re in the same place, a little+DIM toge ther+DIM, but no problem 163-m) ‘aqui tenemos a Don P. comiendose su manzanITA’ here we have Mr P. eating his apple+DIM 163-n) ‘los mas viejITOs somos los que estamos cansados’ the most old+DIM are the ones that are (we) tired 163-o) “huele, huele a ovejITA si” it smells, it smells like sheep+DIM, yes 163-p) Elz. (praying) “amantIS IMO Dios Padre Celestial…” Loved+SUPERL God Heavenly Father JTH.’s (an ex-missionary) VISIT 164-a) Monica (In the Children’s camp) “cuentenle los dibujITOs que hicieron” (t ell the pastor what you did today) tell him about the drawings+DIM that you did 164-b) “estamos tratando de hacer animalITOs” we’re trying to make animals+DIM 164-c) “vamos a hacer un peceCITO” we’re gonna make a fish+DIM 165) Jth. (Ni.’s brother) ‘vamos a leer rapidITO alli’ let’s read quickly+DIM there 166) ‘es como una foto instantanea. Primero no ve pero espera un ratITO y ya lo ve” it’s like instantaneous photos. First, you can’t see but wa it a while+DIM & then you see 167) ‘no se podia entrar. El ba rco lo dejaban lejos y se en traba en un boteCITO pequeno’ it wasn’t accessible. The ship remained far and you could enter on a boat+DIM little (In Fiji Islands with cannibals) 168) “los latinos somos igualITOs a la gente en los paises arabes” we Latin are equal+DIM to the people in the Arabic countries (He meant Arabs and Latins phys ically looked a lot alike) 169)‘Luc. dice:‘te vi’y manda fotos.Es un musulman como yo con chivITA y narizON” Luc. says ‘I saw you’. He sends photo & it ’s a Muslim like me, with beard+DIM & he’s nose+AUG 170) ‘el challenger se hizo papILLA" (lexicalized??) The Challenger became potato pudding+DIM

PAGE 246

235 171) ‘la estadia en el cosmos es un vacilON” staying in the cosmos is a joke+AUG 172) Yn.: “Mira! Tremendo platOTE de comida (de Ram.)” Look! Huge dish+AUG of food (of Ram.’s) 173-a) Yth.: “(Cual fue la) palabrITA?” Which one was the word+DIM? 173-b)Yn.: “PAlabrOTA!” Word+AUG 174)Ly.: “tuvimos que ir a otro lugar porque en Sam’s vendian un paquetON completo” We had to go to another place because at Sam’s they sold a whole pack+AUG 175)Monica ‘Hay unas partes simplONAs y ot ras dulces” (of a water melon she gave me) There are parts simple+AUG & others sweet 176) Wendy’s salad commercial (with skinheads) “tiene cebollas, dos pedazos de pollo, tomatITO, …” it has onions, two pieces of chicken, tomato+DIM 177) ‘El Metido’, funny char acter in ‘LENTE LOCO’ (a hidden camera show) “esta tan viejITA que ya no puede pegar duro” She’s so old+DIM that she can’t hit hard any more 178-a) Narrator (COPA AMERICA 2004) “Mexico ya hizo cambios en este partidAZO” Mexico already made changes in this match+AUG 178-b) “Ya volvemos a este SUPE R partidAZO Mexico-Argentina” we’ll be back to this super match+AUG Mexico-Argentina LA HORA PICO (The Rush Hour, a funny show) 179-a) “me llamo pompin, pompin, NO pomposo” (to a gay character) I am Pompin, Pompin, not Pomposo 179-b) Gay: “Pero no importa, pompI N y ejercicio y despues pompON” But, no problem, pomp+DIM & exercise & then pomp+AUG SABADO GIGANTE: 180Don Francisco: “y con Uds. el guapetON, Javier Romero” & with you, the handsome+AUG, Javier Romero 181Don Francisco (in a contest for couples ) “Que es lo que tiene mejor tu novio?” What is the best part of your boyfriend? 181-a) The girlfriend: “yo pienso que el cuellITO”

PAGE 247

236 I think that the neck+DIM 181-b) -Don Francisco: “Que te gusta a ti mas?” What do you like better The girlfriend: “me gusta el completICO” I like him complete+DIM 181-c) -Don Francisco: Que tiene el cuello de el? What does hi neck have? -Girlfri end: “Es suaveCITO” It’s soft+DIM 181-d) Don Francisco: “Javier, te gusto ese ch isteCITO mio?” Javier, did you like that joke+DIM of mine? 182) COPA AMERICA 2004 (Mex ico-Argentica July 10) Narrator: “Ahi esta enfrentITO del defensa” There he is, in front+DIM of the defense 183) Gisselle (Despierta America commercial) “conozca la dieta que le desintoxica y le da un empujonCITO al animo” know the diet that (to you) des-intoxicate & gives a push+DIM to your cheers/desire COPA AMERICA Summary (3:30 pm, July 11) 184-a) By The female host, Roxana, of REPUBLICA DEPORTIVA (Sports Republic) “punterAZO, goLAZO, caonAZO” kick with the tip of the shoe, goa l+AUG, strong kick (like a cannon+AUG) 184-b) “Y quien sera la mamaCITA de esta copa?” & who will be the mom+DIM of this Cup 184-c) “esta carITA de angel (the most beautiful of the fans)” this face+DIM of angel 184-d) “y como estan los numerITOS?” & how about the figures+DIM? COPA AMERICA (Brasil-Costa Rica) 185-a) Narrator “Brasil prometio despues del pitAZO final que mejorarian” Brazil promised after the final whis tle+AUG that they would improve 185-b) Narrator “el balon pasa un po quiTITO mas alla de la linea” The ball passes a little+DIM+DIM beyond the line 185-c) “Brasil sale a ju gar desde tempranITO”

PAGE 248

237 Brazil starts to (really) play early+DIM (means ‘very early in the game) 185-d) “Luisao deja (the ball) ahi cortITO” Luisao lea ves ------there, short+DIM 185-e) “El arquero de Brasil es medio at ajadorCITO (atajo mucho, no sale…etc)” the goalie of Brazil’s es a little ca tcher+DIM. He caught a lot, he doesn’t go out…etc 185-f) “a lo mejor le da de rozON (a player seems to have hit the goalie)” he may have kicked him with just a (quick tiny) touch+AUG 185-g) ‘chuta, mete el centrITO…’ (a player centers the ball) he shoots, puts it in the center+DIM… 185-h) ‘lentISIMO Ferreira, por eso lo alcanzaron” slow+SUPERL Ferreira, that’s why they got him 185-i) “Costa Rica esta concentradISIMO” Costa Rica is concentrated+SUPERL 185-j) (X player) “Es un chamACO tecnico” is a boy+DIM technical 185-k) “pobrISIMO, bien pobre el planteamiento de Brasil” poor+SUPERL, very poor the performance of Brazil’s 185-l) ‘pelotAZO, zapatAZO’ ball+AUG (the ball is hit hard), shoe+AUG (a hard kick, with the shoe, to the ball) 185-m)A reporter with Brasil fans “Aca es tamos, FernandIO, celebrando el gol” Here we are, Fernando+DIM, celebrating Brazil’s goal 185-n) “Un tapadodON lo que hizo el arquero!!!” a block+AUG+AUG what the goalie did 185-o) “en poquISIMOS minutos Brasil le cambio el juego” in few+SUPERL minutes, Brazil (to them) changed the play 185-p) “quedan 20 minutos larguITOs (a little over 20’) sufridITOs para costa Roca” (still) left remain 20 minutes long+DIM suffering+DIM for Costa Rica 185-q) “la (the ball) dejo pasar comodITA para su amigo…” he let it pass/go comfortable+DIM (easy) for his friend 185-r)“miren nada mas la copITA,la copITA America”(showed a gold big beautiful cup) look, look, the cup+DIM, the cup+DIM ‘America”

PAGE 249

238 LENTE LOCO (Crazy Camera; a hidden camera show) 186-a) “Que hubole viejITA?!!” what’s up, old+DIM? 186-b) “Era una bromITA” it was a joke+DIM 186-c)“esa risITA dasela a todos los amigos de Lente Loco (estas en Lente Loco)” that smile, give it to all the friends of Lente Loco (You are in a hidden camera) 186-d)‘es una broma seora, ahi esta la camarITA” it’s a joke, Ma’am, there is the camera+DIM 187-a) “tienes que darle un besITO muy chiquITITO” you have to gi ve it (an iguana) a kiss+DIM very small+DIM+DIM 187-b)“lo que tienes que hacer es abre la boquITA asi y le das un besITO” what you have to do is, open your mouth+DIM like th is & give it a kiss+DIM 187-c)“claro, tiene lenguITA (the iguana)” of course, it has a tongue+DIM 187-d) “Pero (el besito) to caITO (the girl to kiss the iguana said)” but (the kiss+DIM) just a touch+DIM AFTER PARTY of the “ACAPULCO DE NOCHE”(Night Acapulco) show 188-a) “el traje de Avalon, medio transparentON” the dress of Avalon, a little transparent+AUG 188-b) “X actriz mostrando sus piernITAs” X actress showing her legs+DIM 188-c) “este es un trajeCIT O bastante tradicional” this is a dress+DIM rather traditional 188-d) “y ese piedrON lo trae X artista que le combina con ese vestido” & that stone(gem)+AUG X actre ss wears it. It matches her dress 188-e) “si te gusta el look me dio rockerON te presento a…” if you like a little rock-like+AUG look, I introduce you to… 189) “aca esta el galanAZO de Acapulco” here is the (handsome male) movie-star+AUG of Acapulco 190) “Y que dicen de esta gorrITA invertida??” & what about this upside down hat+DIM

PAGE 250

239 191) “Ana Barbara impresiono a toditICOS su espectadores” Ana impressed all+DIM her spectators 192) “todos los artistas estaban disfrutando juntITOS del ambiente en Acapulco” all the actr esses/actors/etc enjoyed together+DIM of the environment in Acapulco 193)‘y los artistas tuvieron su tiempeCITO para limar asperezas (to rehearse)” & show-business people had thei r time+DIM arrange details ( to rehearse) 194) ‘y tambien disfrutamos de la mamaSOTA de Ana Barbara” & we also enjoyed the mom+AUG Ana B. 195) y los de Panama llegaron con su regueton sabrosON’ & those from Panama arrived with their reggae delicious+AUG 196) ‘(en un momento) y ya veremos quien llego solITO’ (a moment) & we’ll see who arrived alone+DIM 197-a) ‘bien tostadITA’ (l iterally, well toasted) well tanned 197-b) ‘vean el color de esta modelITO’ observe the color of this model+DIM (A female model with a great tan) 197-c) ‘no los huracanes del norte sino los cuerpAZOs (fat, here) del norte’ no, not the ‘hurricanes of the North’ but ‘the bodies+AUG of the North’ CATWOMAN movie commercial: 198)“parte gatITA y 90% peligrosa” in part a kitty+DIM & 90% dangerous 199) Sf.: “en ese complejo hay casa s con unos colorCITOs” in that comlex there are hous es with such colors+DIM (she said it was because the co lors were varied & beautiful) 200) Sf.: ‘un hombre que entienda.Los hijos se ponen dificilITOs cuando se ponen caprichosITOs’ a man understanding. The children become di fficult+DIM when they get cranky+DIM 201) Monica: “Hay una solterONa” There is a single+AUG female 202-a) Ly.:

PAGE 251

240 “yo le pedi la receta a Jg. y le dije qu e el mismo me la diera, bien escritICA” I asked the recipe from Jg. & told himto write it himself, well written+DIM (Ly., in a little interview I had with her said th at it had to do with dearness. She expected Jg. to give her the recipe with ‘carino’). 202-b) Ly.: It’s like, she said, when somebody tells you “hazme una limpiadITA alli” do me some cleaning+DIM there This is an expected cleaning job with love or appreciation 203) Carlos: “No no voy a ‘La Tienda’ por qur ahi te cobran la entradITA” No, I’m not going to the store b ecause there they charge you for the entrance+DIM 204) Carlos” “mi papa se levanta y ya saca el temITA del dinero y las deudas” My dad gets up & imme diately brings up the topic+DIM of money & debts COPA AMERICA commercial: 205) “vamos a ver el juegAZO Colombia-argentina” let’s see the match+AUG Colombia-Argentina 206) “Henao es una arquerAZO” Henao is a goalie+AUG 207-a) Narrator (Colombia-Arge ntina game, semi-final) ‘ “hubo un rosON de la pelota” there was a (quick, tiny) touch+AUG to the ball 207-b) ‘lo tenia adelantITO” (ahead but very near) he had him ahead+DIM Casos de Familia (July 29, 2004): (the case was an old lady whose 49-year old son and 30-year old granddaughter –with her husband & kidlived in her house and she was tired of this) 208-a) ‘por que tiene a su hijo en su casa si esta bastante mayorCI TO?” (49 years old) why do you have your son in your hous e if he’s rather grown+DIM up? 208-b)An old lady: “como va a encontrar si sale bien prendidITO” (with fancy outfit) How will find (a plumbing job) if he leaves the house well dressed+DIM 208-c) Granddaughter’s husband: “Ya nos vamos, pero primero arreglamos un asuntITO” ok, we’ll leave but firs t we’ll solve a matter+DIM 208-d)“Arreglamos unas cuentITAS tu y yo” we solve some issues+DIM, you and me

PAGE 252

241 209) Mr. F. GirAl.: “Bueno, se esta dando un gustAZO Monica” ( during our vacation trip to Clearwater) well, Monica is giving he rself a taste/pleasure+AUG (Note: Monica loves the beach). 210) “tomelo con calMITA. No se emoci one mucho, Mg., porque ud esta enfermo” take it easy+DIM. Don’t get s excited, Mg., because you are sick) 211-a) Cristina S. (in her program about the most hated guests) “ella dice que no quiere un pobretON” she says that she doesn’t want a poor+AUG 211-b) “Ella sigue buscando su ricachON” she keeps looking for his rich+AUG (guy) 212) Monica: “baja tu camisITA” get your Tshirt+DIM off (the car) NOTE: In this case, Monica, my kid and I were in the car. We were about to get off the car and Monica said that. Now, for a few s econds I didn’t know if she was being ironic, sort of scolding or reprimanding me for having left a shirt in the car, or if she was telling my kid, in a nice way, to take a T-shirt we had just bought him at school. If she was talking to my kid, then I would interpret this DIM as an endearing and polite reference. The T-shirt then would be ‘that beautiful, cute small Tshirt we just bought for our kid’. If she was talking to me, then this Tshirt was THAT tshirt I always leave in the car. The Tshirt she already told me to take out of the car but I had not done it. She would be complaining in this case. It turned out to be my kid the one she was talking to. 213) Monica to me: “dame la sabanITA” give me the (bed) sheet+DIM Monica told me she said “sabanita” instead “s abana” in order not to sound so rude. I had the sheet with me on the sofa, which she does not like at all. So she was indeed complaining or reprimanding me. 214) As. (“Profesor Espanol ”): “Vi a (Dr.)H., y nos pus imos a hablar un ratAZO” I saw (Dr.) H. & we got to chat/speak a while+AUG 215) Ly.: “Carlos me pidio que le trajera unas peliculITAs” Carlos asked me to bring some movies+DIM (Ly. told me afterwards when I ‘pseudo-ethnogr aphically’ interviewed her, that Carlos told her this because it implied for her to m ove all the way from her place to Carlos’ place. So, he did not we want to sound harsh or imposing to Ly.) Despierta America., Oct. 7/2004

PAGE 253

242 216) Jacky Garrido (the weatherwoman): “y nuestra gente de Texas seguiran con su calorCITO” & our people from texas will co ntinue with their heat+DIM 217) Ana Canseco: “vamos a una pequena pausITA” let’s go to a little pause/break+DIM 218) N.Y. reporter (mid-30 lady) “Nos calentamos las dos juntITAs” we warm each other together+DIM (She was with Daisy Fuentes in a cold day in N.Y.) 219) The “CareBears” movie was translat ed as “los carinosITOs” in Spanish (during COMMERCIALS). This shows the end earment aspect of “Care” with DIM. 220) “como te fuiste a casar con un pobretON” how did you end up marrying a poor+AUG (In a commercial about “Amor Real”, a new soap opera) During an interview of the NY reporter with Daisy Fuentes (about a fund raising for breast cancer fight foundation) 221-a) ‘las notITAs adhesivas” the sticky notes+DIM (referring to ‘sticky notes’ that were fo rming a giant pink ribbon in N.Y. City) 221-b) ‘mi mama se encontro un bultI TO en su seno’ (Daisy Fuentes) my mon found herself a bulk+DIM in her breast 221-c) The NY reporter: “Como va la boda” ‘yo soy malISIMA para eso’ ( to prepare a wedding) –Daisy Fuentes I am terrible+SUPERL for that 221-d) Reporter to Daisy Fuente s: “yo te doy la bendicion pero tu estas solITA en esto” I give you my blessing but you are alone+DIM in this 222-diaper commercial:‘para que andes comodo con tus amiguI TOs’(like talking to baby) so you can be co mfortable with your friends+DIM (During a report on new telephone i nventions with imaging/video) 223-a) “tienen como 300 espejITOs” they have around 300 mirrors+DIM (Ana Canseco reporting on a new telephone wher e the image of the sp eaker can be seen) 223-b) Fernando: “en ‘star wars ’ presentaron un aparatITO” in Star Wars they show ed a machine+DIM (Fernando the Mexican host referring to a similar phone machine in that movie) 223-c) Gisselle: ‘yo quiero que inventen uno don de se pueda dar un besITO y se sienta’

PAGE 254

243 I want them to make up one where we can send a kiss+DIM and feel it Ana Canseco (reporting on J.Lo) 224-a) “J.Lo. ahora si guarda el se cretITO” (about keeping the romance) J.Lo. now yes, she does keep the secret+DIM 224-b) “J.Lo. ahora esta celosISIMA porque Ben Affleck anda con otra actriz” J.Lo now is jealous+S UPERL ‘cause Ben Affleck is with another actress 224-c) “la otra actriz esta bellISIMA” the other actress is beautiful+SUPERL 224-d) “ahora Ben Affleck esta afeitadITO” now Ben Affleck is shaved+DIM 225) ‘si tiene stress, aca le daremos el truquITO’ (Gisselle) if you have stress, here we will give you the trick+DIM 226) “A BB player se iba a quedar calladITO c on este hit” (Fernando in the sports news) [A baseball player] was about to remain silent+DIM with this hit 227) A Venezuelan lady, sending greetings to Vzla. “A mi flia en Venezuela, Los quiero y extrano mucho. BesITOs” to my family in Venezuela, I lo ve you and miss you much. Kisses+DIM 228) “pongan muchISISIMA atencion” pay much+SUPERL+SUPERL attention (Ana, about to announce the “Camino a Via” contest) 229) “mira que Linda! Esa carITA, esos oj ITOs” (in the Happy B-Day time for kids) look how beautiful! That face+DIM, those eyes+DIM 230) Ana Canseco: “aqui tambien yo tengo mi moITO” here also I have my ribbon+DIM (here I also have my ribbon+DIM for the breastcancer society) 231) NY reporter: “Daisy Fuentes nos dijo que su mama se toco una pelotITA en el seno” Daisy Fu ents told us that her mom touched a ball+DIM in her breast 232) ‘es especialITO el seor’ is special+DIM the mister (Ana describing a new character by Fernando, ‘the old American scientist inventor’) 233) ‘y aguITA a correr’ (an invention of Ja panese for sounds in the bathroom) by Ana & water+DIM, run!

PAGE 255

244 234) In a section on cooking: 234-a)‘ya estoy cocinando la cebollITA’ (a fe male chef in her forties or fifities) I’m already cooking the onion+DIM 234-b) ‘le pones la lechuguITA, el to matITO, chilITO, quesITO’ (the chef) you put the lettuce+DIM, tomato+DIM, chili+DIM, cheese+DIM (None of these expressed the idea of little in that context by the way) 234-c) ‘esto se lo pones al ladITO’ (the chef) this, you put it by the side+DIM 234-d) ‘y el cilantrITO arriba’ (the chef) & the cilantro+DIM on top 234-e) ‘el queso yo me lo como solITO’ (the chef) the chees e, I eat it by itself+DIM 234-f) ‘gracias por esta recet a sencillITA’ (Ana Canseco) thanks for this recipe (so) simple+DIM 235) in the section of Gi selle with the children” “Aqui tengo mis princesITA s y mis principes” (DIM was not used for boys) here I have my princesses+DIM & my princes 236) COMMERCIAL on a Kellogs Cereal: “con rodajITAs de banana” with slices+DIM of bananas CASOS DE FAMILIA: 237-a) Host: “trajimos a Sonia con mentirITAs blancas” we brought Sonia with white lies+DM (a daughter that did not know she was goi ng to meet her father after 28 years) 237-b) The host to Sonia:“Como ves la sorpresI TA que te teniamos?”(her father showed) how about this surprise+DIM we had for you? 237-c) Host: “Sonia, crees que te habiamos tr aido solamente para darte la vueltecITA?” did you think we had brought you all the way just for the round/trip+DIM? 238) “Fuiste la unica mujercITA que tuve?” you were the only woman+DIM that I had (A mother in her 30’s talking to her daughter to the TV cameras because she can’t see her for many years) 239) The host to the 16-year old son of the mother who lost her daughter: ‘apoya a tu mama. Yo se que lo ha s hecho pero un esfuerCITO mas”

PAGE 256

245 support your mother. I know you have done it but, more effort+DIM 240-a) “Aunque Barbados es pequenITO” however,, Barbados is little+DIM (Examples #240 were during a chatting sessi on I had with Venezuelan female friends who live out of the country now. Barbados, Canada, and USA were in this chatting) 240-b) “y cabia dentro del huracan completITO” and it fitted inside the hurricane complete+DIM 240-c) “PobreCITOs!” poor+DIM! 240-d) “estaban asustadITOs” They were scare+DIM MOVIE “DETRAS DEL PARAISO” (‘behind Paradise’) (A little crash between a young woman and a funny old guy) 241-a) Old guy: “Le dio a mi carro! Que esta nueveCITO!” you hit my car! Which is new+DIM! 241-b) Old guy: “que bueno! Qu e esta vivITA y coleando” how good! That you’re alive+DIM and ‘kicking’ 241-c) Old guy: ‘mi compaero(trabajo) estuvo muy malITO. Lo desahuciaron’ my (work)mate was very sick(bad)+DIM. He was diagnosed terminal 242-Young guy (movie star): “y el trabajo que nos costo el teatrITO con los jibaros” And how much work it was for us the perfor mance/! With the indigenous 243-Old guy: “Ojala esta carcach a no explote como globITO” I wish this junk-car wouldn’t explode like a balloon+DIM “CALIENTE” (Hot) PROGAM (Oct 9/2004) 244-a) “Le regalaremos 100 dolarITOs en ef ectivo a la ‘cantaautora’ ‘caliente’” We will give away 100 dollars+DIM cash to the ‘hot’ ‘singer-author’ (Singing contest with two Latin female models, sexy girls) (Introducing the contestant singers) 244-b) –“Marisol: Una vuelteCITA, a ver!!” Marisol, a turn+DIM (turn around), let’s see 244-c) -Oye, vieron el soleCITO?” Listen! Did you see the sun+DIM?

PAGE 257

246 (referring to a sun tattoo on the back, clos e to the bottom, of one of the girls) 244-d) -Que lindo el soleCITO!!! How beautiful the sun+DIM (Introducing a famous Latin female singer/ model/Lorena Herrera; like Pam Anderson) 245-a) “que ojAZOs!” what (a pair of) eyes+AUG! 245-b) ‘que cuerpAZO!” what a body+AUG! 245-c) Lorena Herrera: “Ahi tienes la vuelteCITA” there you have your turn+DIM (she turned around for him to see her) 245-d) Lorena: “Te vengo a canta r una cancionCITA del nuevo CD” I’ve come to sing (to you) a song+DIM of my new CD 245-e) Host (A young male in his 20 s): “Lorena, estas solterITA?” Lorena, are you single+DIM? 245-f) Lorena: “Si, y los hombres me gustan chaparrITOs” yes, and the men, I like them short+DIM 245-g) Lorena: “con ojos claros y bronceadITO” with clear/light eyes and (skin)tanned+DIM 246-Host: “Oye Lorena, que te parece si ahora te presento unos chamacONes” Listen Lorena, how about if I now introduce to you some dudes+AUG (Introducing “Los Ilegales” –‘The Illegals’ band) 247-Host: “Si, aca estamos caliente con ese soleCITO” yes, here we are hot with that sun+DIM 248-Host: “seguimos despues de comercia les con el tremendISIMO ‘caliente’” we continue after some commercials with the tremendous ‘hot’ (show name) 249-Host: “Nios, padres, etc, todos alla en casITA” children, parents, etc all, o verthere at home+DIM 250-Host: (to Lorena, in reference to a little butterfly ta ttoo on her back) “Alguna otra cosITA, un aretITO, aparte de esta mariposITA que tienes en la espalda?” some other thing+DIM, ring+DIM?, apart fr om the butterfly+DIM you have on the back 251-Lorena: “le mando un besOTE bien grande a mis diseadores”

PAGE 258

247 I send a kiss+AUG very big to my (clothes)designers 252-Host: “Tremendo merengAZO!” (after a meringue group performance) treme ndous Meringue+AUG! (Latin music rythm) PROGRAM “CONTROL” (Sat. Oct. 9/2004) 253-Mexican band singer: “A la gente le gusta el pasITO de la nalgadITA” to the people who lik e the step+DIM of the butt slap+DIM 254-a) Rambo (A Latin character): “Quien la viera tan santITA!” (at a museum) (ironically) who could see her so saint+DIM! 254-b) The host/interviewer (g irl in her early 20s): “Rambo, Debes tener esto muy apretadITO” Rambo, you must have this very tight+DIM 254-c) Interviewer girl:(compares the 2 Rambos): ‘aquel esta como muy blanquI TO’(The statue of Rambo) that one is like very white+DIM 255) Another interviewer girl (on a re port on a rickshaw ride in Miami): “Cuanto cuesta este paseITO?” how much is this ride+DIM? 256-a) Main host (on a repor t on nude painting class) “esta chica va a clases sin na dITA de ropa y le pagan” this girl goes to class with nothi ng+DIM of clothes and she gets paid 256-b) Host: “bueno, se pr eguntaran cuanto vale esta claseCITA. $2000” well,you may wonder how much is this class+DIM. $2000 257-Monica to Victor E. (while having lunch) “Los pies juntITOs” the feet together+DIM 258-Monica to me (she brought me food to th e couch hoping that it remained clean) “no me hagas reguerITO” don’t make a mess+DIM 259-Neida Sandoval (Despierta America newswoman) “hasta la cara se le puso rojITA” even the face turned red+DIM This happened after two politicians (one Democrat and one Republican) commented on the results of the last debate. The Democrat was on the studio with the reporter and he went red in the face. There are probably tw o pragmatic effects here; the intensifying

PAGE 259

248 effect (“very red”) and the attenuating eff ect for face saving, since he is an important Hispanic politician (going red in the face might be face threatening) 260-A young lady (in her mid or late twenties) “yo se como conseguir el perdon de mi esposITO” I know how to get forgiv eness from my husband+DIM This was a character in a soapopera, and she performed a very bad lady/wife. She had just been unfaithful to her husband with his best friend. She was talking to her lover after the husband discovered them and they both escaped. Th ere is the ironic ([-dear]) effect, since obviously she does not love her husband. 261-a 40-year-old mother: “le compramos jueguITOs” We bought him games+DIM This does not necessarily refer to a ‘little’ ga me. The actual size or value of the game is probably orrelevant here.The DIM just indicat es that this is a child game. ([+child]) 262-report on a traditional Hispanic dance of old people (Desp. Am. Oct 15/2004) 262-a) Reporter:”Este es el DanzON” (differentiator: danza =/= danzon) this is the dance+AUG 262-b) “y se viste elegante asi. Con esa floreCITA” (dear=beautiful) and you dress up so elegant. With that flower+DIM (had a flower on the blouse) 262-c) Asi, asi, suaveCITO, despaCITO like that, like that, soft+DIM, slowly+DIM 262-d) The other reporter (Fernand o) on the studio, giving a demo: “tiene que ser un cuadrITO” (pure DIM –little) it has to be a square+DIM 263-Ana Canseco: “Estare con’Recodo’ y el Lu nes les cuento todITITO lo que paso” I’ll be with ‘Recodo’.on Monday I’ll tell you everything+DIM that happenened 264-a) (in ‘Don Francisco’ on Oct. 16/2004, a 3-hour Saturd ay show with different entertainment: contexts, jokes, singers, interviews, etc) (Invisible) Narrator: ‘Don Francisco, asi puede rebajar esa panCITA…’ Don Francisco,that way you can reduce that belly+DIM b) ‘con esa bailadITA’ with that dancing+DIM 265-Don Francisco: “esta solterISIMA” she’s single+SUPERL (introducing an attractiva young woman contestant in the singing contest, -“El Chacal”)

PAGE 260

249 266-Giselle (Despierta America, Oct 19/2004) : “hazlo por media horITA cada dia” do it during half an hour+DIM each day (this was in reference to a meditation/rela xation exercise a guest was recommending to the audience to do in order to handle stress) 267-a) Mid-30s female host of “C ASOS DE FAMILIA” (Oct 19/2004): “que gustAZO que nos deje entrar en casITA” what a pleasure+AUG that you let us enter your home+DIM 267-b) “un besOTE para nuestro coordinador” a kiss+AUG for our coordinator 267-c) “Gracias por una cartI TA muy bella que recibi” thanks for a letter +DIM very beautiful I received 268-Host introduced the topic: “Vago, vete de mi casa” (Lazy! Get out of my home!) a) Host to the step-father: que edad tiene el muchachITO? (36 years old) how old is this boy+DIM? b) Host: “vamos a recibir este regalOTE para Don Lazaro” (She invited the big son in) let’s receive this present+AUG for Don Lazaro c) The step-son: “Bueno, hay altas y bajas” Well, there are ups and downs Host: “pero la tuya fue un bajONONON” But your was a down+AUG+AUG+AUG d) “O sea ud llega cansadITO a casa y encuentra a su hijastro” you mean, you arrive tired+DIM to home & find your step-son e) Host to the step-son: “yo te veo enterITO compadre” I see you complete+DIM friend f) (To the step-son’s girlfriend, a 50-year-old lady) Host: la culpa no es tuya, tu eres un angelITO alli The fault is not yours, you are an angel+DIM there g) Step-son’s girlfriend: “Lazaro (step-father) accepts it porque Isabel (the mother) le echa una lagrimITA y ya” h) Host: “conoceremos a la madre de esta criaturITA de 36 aos” Let us meet the mother of this baby(creature)+DIM of 36 years old i) Mother (to the girlfriend): “vet e y le das la papITA en la boca” Go and you give him food+DIM in his mouth

PAGE 261

250 j) Mother: “cogen sus bultICOs y se van de mi casa” Get your suitcases+DIM and leave my home k) Host: Eres abusivo. No hay otra pa labra para ti PapacITO, disculpame You are abusive. There’s no other word for you, Papi+DIM, sorry l) Mother: Sale de puntillITA al bao para que yo no escuche She leaves like sneaking to the bathroom so I can’t hear her m) Don Lazaro: “no, los dos estan bien gordITOs” No, both are rather fat+DIM n) Mother: “Dos boquITAs mas!?, no, no!” Two mouths+DIM more?!no, no! 269) Soap opera “Sabor a Ti” (Oct 19/04) 269-a) The lover (a young guy in an SUV with her lover, af ter his friend -his lover’s husbanddiscovered them in his bed). “Solo esto me faltaba para completar la nocheCITA” just this I needed in order to close/complete the night+DIM 269-b) Husband (totally angry): “Y yo como un mismISIMO cretino!” And I, like a very+SUPERL jerk! Stupid! 269-c) A young guy: “Un cafeCITO bien cargadITO, por favor” A coffee+DIM, ra ther charged+DIM (very black, a lot of caffeine) please 269-d) A grandma to her grandchild, who was very scared: “quedate tranquilITO” remain calmed down+DIM 269-e) “Esa serenatICA majunche” that serenade+DIM horrible 270-Monica: “te conte que mi mama dijo que vio al tio Carlos bien malITO?” did I tell you that my mom said she saw Uncle Carlos rather sick+DIM? 271-Sf.: “A mi me gusta el beisbol, pero eso se volvio medio chimbIN en Vzla” I like baseball, but that b ecame sort of bad+DIM in Venezuela 272-a) (The interviewer to El Metido) “Cuidado que este esta un poco grandeCITO” be careful that this one is a little big+DIM (En El Metido de Lente Loco, a ‘hidden camera show”) Oct Sunday 23

PAGE 262

251 the victim was a little bit taller than the tall interviewer, and the victim was also muscular. 272-b)-El Metido: “Ah, CrespITOs tan lindos!” (ref erring to the hair curls of the big guy) Oh, curls+DIM so beautiful! 273)-Female Newsreporter in her 40s (Afternoon News) “Ahora los japoneses inventaron una maquinITA para que suee bonito” now the Japanese invented a machine+DIM so we can dream beautifully 274) Gisselle (Despiert America Host): “si planifica su viajeCITO para este fin de semana, cuidado con los hotels ‘embrujados’” if you plan your trip+DIM for this week-e nd, be careful with the ‘haunted hotels’ 275-a) Ana Canseco (re porting on the weather): -“En el norte esta verdeCITO” (50 farenheit and less) in the North is green+DIM 275-b)-“En el sur esta medio amarillITO” (60 and more) in the South is sort of yellow+DIM (the green section looked very (plain) gr een, but the yellow section had orange and reddish spots also) 276-Fernando (In the sports section): “miren ese atrapadON, atrapadON!” look at that catch+AUG, catch+AUG (He was announcing a GREAT catch by a prof essional football player; a receiver) 277-Gisselle: “Ahora nos vamos de Cayo Hueso a Indonesia” Host R.: “CerquitITA!!, cerquitITA!” (laugh) (Probably an irony use) Near+DIM!!, near+DIM! 278) Ex-addict (50-year-old lady ) converted to Christianity: “teniamos una casa donde todos estaban BIEN apretadITOS” we had a house where everybody was rather tight+DIM She was talking about a Christian place for addicts “The Home of the Nazarene” 279) Gisselle: “Yo no te dije mentir oso, yo te dije mentirosITO.” I did not call you a liar, I called you a liar+DIM (during a report on liars) 280-a) corsets modeling(a report by Ana Canseco and a guest): Designer (40-year-old la dy) “se ve hermostITO” It looks beautiful+DIM 280-b) Ana: “El corset nos hace cinturITA” the corset gives us a waist+DIM

PAGE 263

252 281) Ana: “Ya le daremos el secreto para rebajar esas indeseables librITAs de mas” soon we’ll give y ou the secret to lose t hose unwanted pounds+DIM extra 282-a) Fernando: (on an interview with a Mexican North Music Duet) “Su ritmo es ranchero, ranchero, ranchero, rancherOTE” your rhythm is country, country, country, country+AUG 282-b) The singer: “Si, bueno, norteOTE” (musica nortea) yes, well, northern+AUG 283) Neida Sandoval (reporting a Ha lloween party for animals) “Los animalITOs grandes y pequeos…” the animals+DIM big and small… 284) Indigenous woman in Ecuador (on a report on weaver women) “este tejido/fur es mas gruesITO” that weaving/fur is more thick+DIM 285) (after announcing birthdays. The last one was a young girl in “Halloween” theme) Fernando: “ella va a ser bruja” (refe rring to the last little girl) Host R.: “Fernando!” (like chastising Fe rnando for calling the little girl ‘witch’) Gisselle: “brujITA” (like minimi zing the insult; euphemistic?) Witch+DIM 286-a) Reporter (on an intervie w with a person with an algae treatment for losing weight/ cellulites ): “V ale barriguITA?!” also for belly+DIM?! 286-b) Guest: “traiga el sarapI TO mas calientITO que tenga…” bring the hot-cloth+DM most hot+DIM you have 286-c) “…y nos ponemos calorCITO en la celulitis” & we put ourselves heat+DIM in the cellulites 286-d) Reporter: “son secretITOs que no nos cuestan mucho” they’re secrets+DIM that do not cost much 287) “Family Cases (Oct 26)” Host: “no te da cosITA? No at ender a los hijos” don’t you have a thing+DIM not taking care of these children 288) “yo le compre ropITA buena” (Family Cases) I bought them good clothes+DIM 289) The Host: “Hay gente que hace milagrITOs y la gente se asombra de lo que logran” there are people who do miracles+DIM & people are awed due to what they do (Family Cases)

PAGE 264

253 290) The Host: “Baje, Senora, porque me quedo muy arribITA” come down, Mrs, because you are very up+DIM (one lady in the audience of “Family Cases” wanted to talk) 291) “y lograr que sea un lugar calientITO donde vivir” and being able to make this a warm+DIM to live (commercial on a project for a better home) 292-a)The host (Family Cases):“Yo se si a mi s amigas le gustan chaparros, morenAZOs.” I know if my friends li ke them(boys) short, brown-skin+AUG 292-b) The 40-year-old mother of a young boy who is dating her best friend: “estoy enojada porque ella vio crecer a mi hijo y convertirse en hombreCITO” I am angry because she saw my son grow up and become a man+DIM 292-c) The young boy with the old lady girlfriend: ella es una amiga (pause, and then he ’s confronted).Es lo que llamamos una amiguITA She is a friend. She’s what we call a friend+DIM The 292 examples refer to a single family case where a 19-year-old boy becomes the boyfriend of a 40ish-year-old la dy, who used to be his mother’s best friend. The mother is really angry about it. The boy at one point has to recogniz e that he’s going out with a young girl, who he called a ‘friend+DIM’. This ‘amiguita’ word has sexual connotations. They are also called ‘amigo/as con derecho’ (‘friends with rights’) in popular Spanish. Thus, here, a friend is obviously not the same as a friend+DIM. 293-As.: “hasta lueguITO” (he left a message on the answer machine asking me a favor) until later+DIM Despierta America: (Oct 28/04) 294) Fernando: Les voy a dar una receta muy sencillITA I’m gonna give you a recipe very simple+DIM (about tipping) 295) Ana: “Pero bien tapizaITO” (de oro), but very well glazed+DIM (with gold) This was in the context of a report on the mo st expensive (gold) ice-cream of the world. 296) Viviana’s (sexy beautiful actress lady in Venezuela) “Confidencias” show (Oct 30) 296-a) “las muchachITAs se mueren por ti” the girls+DIM die for you 296-b) “pero tu te mueres por las madurIT As”…”te gustan maduras. Que tan grandes?” but you die for the grown-ups+DIM you like grownups. How big/old? 296-c) “las muchachITAs no son echaITAs pa ’lante. Apenas estan en secondaria” the girls+DIMs are not upf ront+DIM. They are just in secondary school

PAGE 265

254 296-d) “la novela se acaba pero to davia queda mas de ‘cosITA Rica’” the soap opera ends but st ill we have more left of ‘thing+DIM delicious’ 297) With another guest of Viviana’s, a young Colombian actor (Novoa): 297-a) Young actor: “Emails me parece impersonal. Prefiero la llamadITA” emails look impersonal to me. I prefer the call+DIM 297-b) Viviana: “Me cuentas al regreso cmo esta el corazonCITO de Novoa” tell me when we come back how is the heart+DIM of Novoa’s 297-c) Viviana: “Continuamos con el llamado ‘cosITO Rico’” we’ll continue w/the so-c alled ‘thing+DIM delicious’ 298-a) Derbez’ Comedy show: (as a ‘ ghost hunter’ in a silent movie) “Ya decidi hablar porque solo con letrerAZO, No” I decided to talk becaus e only via letters+AUG, No” 298-b) Eugenio (to the g host): “Ya viste que bien esta la viudITA” did you already see how good(hot) is the widow? 298-c) Widow: “Que dinerAL me va a salir el velorio!” what a money+AUG is the funeral going to cost 299) Narrator on Commercial for the Derbez show: “Diciembre viene cargadITO” December is coming charged/heavy+DIM 300) TV Commercial: “le invitamos a un fiestON de las brujas” we invite you to a party+AUG of Halloween 301) early-30’s female talking to me: “La vieja me dijo que…” The old(lady) told me that… Victor: “La vieja??” The old(lady)? Female: “Bueno, una viejITA” Well, an old+DIM (lady) Victor: “Y ahora por que viejITA?” & now why old+DIM? Female: “Ah, porque no queria que sonara tan duro, …pero es que ella no nos dio el trabajo” oh, because I didn’t want it to sound harsh,..but th e thing’s that she di dn’t give us the job 302-A middle aged Venezuelan cop in a movie:

PAGE 266

255 “esa doctorCITA es una p….! ” (swearing here, meaning ‘prostitute’) that female doctor+DIM is a p….. (The detective cop got himself into trouble, and one female lawyer, who are often called ‘doctor’ in many Hispanic count ries, is behind him. He said this after an interview with her and other high-rank officers) 303-My mother-in-law 303-a) to her grandson (my son) “tiene hambrecita” have hunger+DIM? (are you hungry?) (at a Resort, and all the family together. His grandma is asking the 5-year-old boy if he has had breakfast already) 303-b) to me “tiene hambrecita” have hunger+DIM? (are you hungry?) (a a Resort, and all the family together. My mother-in-law knows I have been working by myself at the hotel and not eating the whol e day. She thinks I must be very hungry) 304-my wife: “deme unITO” give-me one+DIM (My wife saw many gift certifi cates on a table at one of her friends’ house. She’s joking with another friend about that, and she said that she wanted to tell that house’s owner to give her one of those gift certicates) 305-J. D.l (a brother-in-law cooki ng meat on a grill, in Venezuela) “la carne ya estaba medio blandITONA” the meat already was sort of soft+DIM+AUG 306-A lady client to a waiter at a restaurant in Venezuela: “nos trae la cuentica?” Will you bring us the bill+DIM?

PAGE 267

256 REFERENCES Abney, Steven P. (1987). The English NP in its sentential aspect Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D. dissertation. Alba, Orlando. (1990). Variacin fontica y diversidad soci al en el espaol dominicano de Santiago. Santiago: Pontfica Universidad Catlica Madre y Maestra. Alexopoulos, E.C. (1994). The use of diminutiv es and augmentatives in modern Greek. In Nicolaidis I. Philippaki-W arburton & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek linguistics (pp. 283–288). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Allwood, Jens; Anderson, Lars-Gun nar; & Dahl, sten. (2001). Logic in linguistics New York: Cambridge University Press. Alonso, Amado. (1937). El artculo y el diminutivo Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile. Alvar, Manuel & Pot tier, Bernard. (1987). Morfologa histrica del espaol Madrid: Editorial Gredos (Biblioteca Romnica Hispnica). Ambadiang, Thophile. (1997). Las bases morfolgicas de la formacin de los diminutivos en espaol. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxa 24, 99-132. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Ambadiang, Thophile. (2001). Variacin dial ectal en la formacin del diminutivo Espaol: Implicaciones para la estructura de los nombres y adjectivos. In Cristina Matute & Azucena Palacios (Eds.), El indigenismo americano II (pp. 163-190). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Valncia. Anderson, S. R. (1976). On the descrip tion of consonant gradation in Fula. Studies in African Linguistics 7(1), 93-136. Los Angeles: The University of California, Linguistics Department and th e African Studies Center. Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-612. Anderson, S. R. (1990). Sapir’s approach to typology and present issues in morphology. In Wolfgang Dressler, Hans Luschtzky, Oskar Pfeiffer, & John Rennison (Eds.), Trends in Linguistics: Contemporary Morphology 49, 277-295. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

PAGE 268

257 Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 62 Cambridge: University Press. Andrews, Edna. (1999). Gender roles and perc eptions: Russian diminutives in discourse. In Margaret H. Mills (Ed.), Slavic Gender Linguistics (pp. 85-111). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Arnheim, Rudolph. (1988). The power of the center California: The University of California Press. Austin, J.L.(1962). How to do things with words Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Baker, C. D. & Freebody, P. (1989). Children’s first school book s: Introduction to the culture of literacy Great Britain: Billing & Sons Ltd., Worcester. Baker, Mark. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bally, Charles. (1936). El impresionismo y gramtica. In El impresionismo en el lenguaje Buenos Aires: Universi dad de Buenos Aires. Bateson, G. J.R. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind New York: Ballantine. Bauer, Laurie. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bauer, Laurie. (1996). No phonetic iconi city in evaluative morphology. Studia Linguistica: A Journal of General Linguistics (50) 2,189-206. B. Aarts & C. Meyer (Eds.). Cambridge: BLACKWELL. Bauer, Laurie. (1997). Evaluative mo rphology: In search of universals. Studies in Language 21:3, 533-575, B. Comrie & M. Noonan (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beard, Robert & Szymanek, Bogdan. (1988). Bibliography of morphology 1960-1985. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Borer, H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky, The handbook of morphology (pp. 151-190). Massachusetts : Blackwell Publishers. Bosque, I. & Mayoral, J.A.. (1979). Formacin de palabras. Ensayo bibliogrfico. Cuadernos bibliogrficos 38: 245-75. Boxer, Diana. (1993). Complaining and commiserating: A speech act view of solidarity in spoken American English New York: Peter Lang. Boxer, Diana. (2002). Applying sociolinguistics: Domain s and face-to face interaction Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

PAGE 269

258 Braun, Friederike. (1988). Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language Cambridge, MA: Massach usetts Institute of Technology Press. Bruyne, J, de. (1974). Over het gebr uik van het Spaanse suffix –simo. Linguistica Antverpiensia 8, 7-16. Bruyne, J. de. (1989). Algunos aspectos de la problemtica de la traduccin al alemn delos sufijos apreciativos espa oles. In Neumeister, S. (ed.), Actas del IX congresode la Asociacin Internacional de Hispanistas (pp. 93-102). Frankfurt: a. M., S. Bubenik, Vit. (1999). An Introduction to th e study of morphology Munich, Germany: LINCOM Europa. (LINCOM coursebooks in linguistics; 07) Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Calero-Fernndez, Mara Angeles. (1993). Estu dio sociolingistico del habla de Toledo : Segmentos fonolgicos -/S/ Y -/J / /. Collecci El Fil d'Ariadna ; 16. Srie Lingstica Toledo: Universitat de Lleida. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretica l bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47. Cantero, Mnica. (2001). La morfopragmtica del espaol. LINCOM Studies in Romance Linguistics 24. Caravedo, Roco. (1990). Sociolingstica del espaol de Lima Lima, Per: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per, Fondo Editorial. Carnoy, Albert J. (1927). La science de mot. Traite de semantique Louvain: Editions “Universitas”. Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

PAGE 270

259 Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corbin, Danielle; Dal, Georgette; Fr adin, Bernard; Habert, Benot; Kerleroux, Franoise;Plnat, Marc; & Roch, Mich el (Eds.). (1999). La morphologie des drivs valuatifs. Forum de morphologie (2e rencontres). Actes de colloque de Toulouse. Silexicales 2 Lille: SILEX. Corver, Norbert. (1997). “Muc h”-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1,119163. Crocco Galas, G. (2002). A morphopragmatic approach to Greek diminutives. In C. Clairis (ed.), Recherchers en linguistique greque I (pp. 151–154). Paris: L’Harmattan. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Daltas, P. (1987). Some pattern s of variability in the use of diminutive and Augmentative suffixes in spoken Modern Greek Koine (MGK). Glossologia 4, 63–88. D'Amato, Francesca R.; Moles, Anna; & Kieffer, Brigitte L. (2004). Deficit in attachment behavior in mice lacking th e -opioid receptor gene. Science 304, 5679, 19831986. De Marco, Anna. (1998). The acquisition of di minutives in Italian. In S. Gillis (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of number and diminutive marking (pp. 175-192). Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95. Dolan, W.; Vanderwende, L.; & Richardson, S. (2000). Polysemy in a broad-coverage natural language processing system. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock, Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178204. Dressler, W. & Kiefer, F. (1990). Austro-Hunga rian morphopragmatics. In W. Dressler; H. Luschtzky; O. Pfeiff er; & J. Rennison (Eds.), Contemporary morphology 6977. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Merlini-Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and ot her languages. In Werner Winter (Ed.), Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 76. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Entwistle, William J. (1948). The Spanish language London: Faber & Faber Limited.

PAGE 271

260 Erbert, Larry A., & Floyd, Kory. (2004). Affec tionate expressions as face-threatening acts: Receiver assessments. Communication Studies 55 (2), 254-270, J. L. Query (Ed.). Ephrata, PA: Central St ates Communication Association. Erikson, Erik. (1950). Childhood and society New York: Norton. Ettinger, Stefan (1974). Form und Funkti on in der Wortbildung: Die Diminutivund Augmentative modifikation im Lateinni schen, Deutschen und Romanischen. Ein kritischer Forschungsbericht 1900-1970. Tbingen: Gunter Narr. Evans, Vyvyan. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41, 1. Fernandez Ramirez, Salvador. (1986). La derivacin nominal. Anejos del Boletn de la Real Academia Espaola (XL). Madrid: Imprenta Aguirre. Fischer-Dorantes, Erica. (2001). Language and gender in Mexican free textbooks for the 5th grade of elementary school Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Fischer-Jorgensen, E. (1978). On the univers al character of phone tic symbolism with special reference to vowels. Studia Linguistica 32, 80-90. Fishman, Joshua. (1972a). The relationship betw een microand macrosociolinguistics in the study of who speaks what language to whom and when. In John B.Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 15-32). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fishman, Joshua. (1972b). Historical dimensi ons in the sociology of language. In Roger Shuy (Ed.), Monograph series on languages and linguistics 25 (pp. 145-155). Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press. Frankel, Steven A. (2004). The exclusivity of the mother-child bond. In A.J. Solnit, P. Neubauer, S. Abrams, & A. Dowling (Eds.). The psychoanalytic study of the child New Haven: Yale University Press. Fruyt, Michle. (1989). Etude semantique de s ‘diminutifs’ latin. In M. Lavency & D. Longre, Proceedings of the Vth Colloquium on Latin Linguistics 15:1-4 (pp. 127138). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Giakoumaki, E. (2000). E o [ Euphemism. A linguistic approach .] Athens: Eleftheria Giakoumak. Givn, Talmy. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s fieldtrip. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7 (pp. 394-415). Gleason, Jean Berko; Perlmann, Rivka Y.; Ely, Richard; & Evans, David W. (1994). The babytalk register: Parents’ use of diminutiv es. In Jeffrey L. Sokolov & Catherine E. Snow (Eds.), Handbook of research in language development using childes (pp. 50-74). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 272

261 Goffman, Erving.(1983). Felicity's condition. American Journal of Sociology 89:1, 1-53. Goldschmidt, Myra. (1998). Do me a favor : A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 29 (2), 129-153. Gonzlez Oll, F. (1962). Los sufijos diminutivos en castellano medieval Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cien tficas [Revista de Filologa Espaola (LXXV)]. Gonzlez Oll, F.; & Casado Velarde, M. (1992). Formacin de palabras. In Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik vol. VI-1 (pp. 91-109). Gooch, Anthony. (1967). Diminutive, augmentative and pejorative suffixes in modern Spanish: A guide to their use and meaning London: Pergamon Press. Grandi, Nicola. (2002). Deve lopment and spread of augmentative suffixes in the Mediterranean area. In P. Ramat & T. Stolz (Eds.), Mediterranean Languages (pp. 171-190). Bochum, Germany: Universittsve rlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer University Press. Grandi, Nicola. (2003). Matrici tipologich e vs. tendenze areali nel mutamento morfologico. La genesi della morfologia valu tativa in prospettiva interlinguistica. Lingue e linguaggio 3, 105-145. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversati on. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts 3. New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, John. (1972). Sociolinguistics and communication in small groups. In J.B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.) Sociolinguistics Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. In Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1. Cambridge: University Press Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Hanssen, Jens S. (1952). Latin diminutives: A semantic study Bergen: John Grieg. Hardman, M.J. (1993). Gender through the levels. Women and Language 16, 2, 42-49. Hardman-de-Bautista, M.J. & Honsa, Vladimir (1978). Linguistic postulates and applied anthropological linguistics. In Papers on linguistics and child language (pp. 117136). New York: Mouton Publishers. Hasselrot, Bengt. (1957). Etudes sur la formation diminut ive dans les langues romanes Upsal: Almquist & Aktiebolag.

PAGE 273

262 Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Holmes, Janet. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics New York: Longman. Holton, David; Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. (1997). Greek: a comprehensive grammar of the modern language New York: Routledge. Howard, Harry. (1998). Spanish diminutives a nd neocognitron-type neur al processing. In First International Conference of th e Asociacin Espaola de Lingstica Cognoscitiva. Alicante, Spain: University of Alicante. Hualde, Jos I.; Olarrea, Antxon; & Escobar, Anna M. (2001). Introduccin a la lingstica hispnica New York: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoff (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaki ng. In T. Gladwin & W.C. Sturdevant, Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 15-53). Washington D.C: Anthropological Society of Washington. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interac tion of language and social life. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics : The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguis tics: An ethnographic approach Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jaeggli, Osvaldo. A. (1980). Spanish diminutives. In Frank H. Nuessel, Jr. (Ed.), Contemporary Studies in Romance Language s: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 142-158). Indiana: Indiana University. Jaworski, Adam & Coupland, Nikolas (Eds.). (1999). The discourse reader New York: Routledge. Jeffers, R. J., Lehiste, I. (1979). Principles and methods fo r historical linguistics Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jrnvig, Rolf. (1962). El elativo en –simo en la lengua castellana de los siglos XV y XVI. In Bengt Hasselrot (Ed.), Studia Neophilologica 34, 57-85. Jurafsky, Daniel. (1996). Universal tendencie s in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72, 533-578. Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 274

263 Kany, Charles. E.(1960). American-Spanish euphemisms Berkeley: University of California Press. Kasper, G. & K. R. Rose. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Kiefer, F. (1998). Morphology and pragmatics. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky, The handbook of morphology (pp. 272-279). Massachusetts : Blackwell Publishers. Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical phonology a nd morphology. In In-Seok Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm Seoul: Hanshin. Kruez, R. (1996). The use of verbal irony: cu es and constraints. In J. Mio & A. Katz, (Eds.), Metaphor: Implicati ons and applications (pp. 23-38). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kury owicz, Jerzy. (1964). The inflectional categories of Indo-European Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag. Laalo, Klaus. (1998). Diminutives in Finnish child-directed speech and child-speech. In S. Gillis (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of number and diminutive marking (pp. 137-148). Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95. Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City Washington, D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lang, M.F. (1990). Spanish word formation: Productiv e derivational morphology in the modern lexis New York: Routledge. Latorre, Federico. (1956). Diminutivos, despec tivos y augmentativos en el siglo XVII. In Archivo de filologa aragonesa 8-11 (pp. 105-120). Zaragoza. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics New York: Longman. Lindauer, M.S. (1988). Size and distance perc eption of the physiognomic stimulus taketa. In Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 26(3), 217-220.

PAGE 275

264 Lippi-Green, Rosina. (1997). English with an accent: language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States New York: Routledge. Lipski, John. (1994). Latin American Spanish New York: Longman. Lopez-Morales, Humberto (1997). Papel del nive l sociocultural y del estilo lingstico en el uso del eufemismo. In Moreno Fernandez (Ed.), Trabajos de sociolingstica hispnica Alcal de Henares: Universidad de Alcal. Lovaina, Annimo de. (1555). til y breve institucin para aprender los principios y fundamentos de la lengua Hespaola Lovaina. Lowie, Wander. (1998). AIM, The acquisition of interl anguage morphology: A study into the role of morphology in the L2 learner’s mental lexicon Netherlands: University of Groningen, PhD Dissertation. Mackenzie, Ian. (2001). A linguistic introduction to Spanish. In LINCOM Studies in Romance Linguistics 35. Muenchen, Germany: LINCOM EUROPA. Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (2003). Greek diminutiv e use problematized: Gender, culture and common sense. Discourse Society ; 14(6), 699 –672. Malkiel, Yakov. (1959). The two sources of the Hispanic suffix –azo, ao. Language 35, 193-258. Malkiel, Yakov. (1989). The Spanish nominal au gments reconsidered. In J.R. Craddock, (Ed.), Romance Philology 43, 1, 90-112. McIntosh, Mary. (1984). Fulfulde syntax and verbal morphology Boston: Melbourne & Henley. Medina-Rivera, Antonio. (1997). Phonological and stylistic va riables in Puerto Rican Spanish Ph. D. dissertation at the University of Southern California. Ann Arbor, Michigam: University Microfilms International. Melzi, G. & King, K. (2003). Spanish dimi nutives in mother-child conversations. Journal of Child Language 30, 1-24. Menndez-Pidal, R. (1977). Manual de gramtica histrica espaola (15th ed.). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S.A. Mey, J.L. (1989). Valentie en interferentie in morfologie en discourse: een pragmatische studie. Journal of Pragmatics 13, 881-897. Miller, D. G. (1977). Tripartism, sexism, and the rise of the feminine gender in IndoEuropean. The Florida Journal of Anthropology 2, 3-16. Miller, D. G. (1993). Complex verb formation Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

PAGE 276

265 Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks Oxford: Blackwell. Miranda Miranda, Ins. (1999). An optimality theoretic analysis of Nicaraguan Spanish diminutivization: Results of a field survey PhD dissertartion: University of Washington. Moskowitz, Breyne Arlene. (1998). The acqui sition of language. In V. Clark, Paul Eschholz, & Alfred Rosa (Eds.), Language: Readings in language and culture (6th edition). New York: Bedford/St. Martin. Mukoshy, Ibrahim A. (1991). A review of the Fu lfulde classes. In I. Abba Alkali, I. Mukoshy, & G. Tahir (Eds.), Studies in Fulfuldelanguage, literature, and culture: Proceedings of the 1st-4th international conferences (pp 12-17). Kano: Bayero University, the Centre for St udy of Nigerian Languages. Muoz, Carmen M. (1994). La sufijacin culta en espaol Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Myers, S. (1994). OCP effects in optimality theory Austin: University of Texas, Rutgers Optimality Archive. Nez F., Emilio. (1973). El diminutivo: Historia y func iones en el espaol clsico y moderno Madrid: Editorial GREDOS, S.A. [Biblioteca Romnica Hispnica]. Nebrija, Antonio de. (1492). Gramtica de la lengua castellana [editio princeps]: Edicin crtica por Antonio Quilis (1992). Madrid : Ediciones de Cultura Hispnica. Nelms, Jodi Lynn. (2001). A descriptive analysis of the uses and functions of sarcasm in the classroom discourse of higher education PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Nerlich, Brigitte & Clarke, D. David. (Eds .). (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overview. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D, Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Neufeldt, V. (Ed.). (1997). Webster’s New World College Dictionary (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Ninio, Anat & Snow, Catherine E. (1996). Pragmatic development Colorado: Westview Press. O’Grady, William; Dobrovolsky, Mi chael; & Aronoff, Mark. (1997). Contemporary linguistics (3rd Ed.). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Pattison, D.G. (1975). Early Spanish suffixes: A functional study of the principal nominal suffixes of Spanish up to 1300. In Publications of the Ph ilological Society (XXVII) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

PAGE 277

266 Penny, Ralph. (1993). Gramtica histrica del espaol (A Spanish version of: A History of the Spanish Language). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel. Perissinotto, Giorgio Sabino Antonio. (1975). Fonologa del espaol hablado en la Ciudad de Mxico: ensayo de un mtodo sociolingstico ; Ral Avila (Trans.). [Serie Estudios de lingstica y lite ratura]. Mxico: Colegio de Mxico. Pharies, David. (1994). Bibliography of Latin and Ibero-Romance suffixation Madison: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, Ltd. 12. Pharies, David. (2002). Diccionario etimolgico de los sufijos espaoles y de otros elementos finales Madrid: GREDOS. Pike, Kenneth Lee. (1958). Language and life Glendale, California: SIL. Pounder, Amanda. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology New York: M. de Gruyter. Raffelsiefen, Renate (1996): Gaps in wo rd-formation. In Ursula Kleinhenz (Ed.), Interfaces in phonology (pp. 193-208). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Ravid, Dorit. (1998). Diminutive –i in early child Hebrew: an initial an alysis. In S. Gillis (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of number and diminutive marking (pp. 149-173). Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95. Reeder, Kenneth. (1996). Literate apprenti ceships: The emergence of language and literacy in the pre-school years. In Advances in discourse processes 5, 56 (pp. 5379). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Resnick, Melvyn C. (1981). Introduccin a la histor ia de la lengua espaola Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Reynoso Novern, J. (2001). La pragmtica como evidencia en el contacto espaollenguas indgenas: El diminutivo en el espaol actual. In Cristina Matute & Azucena Palacios (Eds.), El indigenismo americano II (pp. 213-222). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Valncia. Reynoso Novern, J. (2002). El diminutivo en el espaol actual: De la gramtica a la pragmtica. In M. Echenique Eliz ondo & J. Snchez Mndez (Eds.), Actas del V congreso internacional de historia de la lengua Madrid: Gredos. Rijkhoek, Paulien. (1998). On degree phrases and result clauses Groningen University: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, 27. Romaine, Susan. (1994). Language in society New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 278

267 Rosch, Eleanor. (1983). Prototype classification and logica l classification: The two systems. In E. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory? Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Sapir, E. (1911). The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropology 13, 250-82. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech N.Y.: Harcourt & Co. Sapir, Edward. (1956). Language, culture and personality [ed. D G Mandelbaum]. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Un iversity of California. Savickien Ineta. (1998). The acquisition of diminu tives in Lithuanian. In S. Gillis (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of number and diminutive marking (pp. 115-135). Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95. Sbis, Marina. (1995). Speech act theory. In J. Verschueren, Jan-Ola stman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Scalise, Sergio. (1988). In flection and derivation. Linguistics 26, 561-581. Scalise, Sergio; & Grandi, Ni cola. (2001). Semantic restrict ions on diminutive formation. In Naturally!, linguistic studies in honour of Ulrich Dressler, Rosemberg & Sellier (pp. 133-142). Schneider, Klaus P. (2003). Diminutives in English Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language London: Cambridge University Press. Seitz, J. A. (1997). Metaphor, symbolic pl ay, and logical thought in early childhood. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123(4), 373-391. Seitz, J. A. (2000). The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology: An International Journal of I nnovative Theory in Psychology 18(1), 23-40. Seitz, J. A. (2001). A cognitive-perceptu al analysis of projective tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills 93, 505-522. Seitz, J. A. & Beilin, H. (1987). The de velopment of comprehension of physiognomic metaphor in photographs. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 5, 321331. Sifianou M. (1992). The use of diminutives in expressing politeness Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics 17 (2), 155-173.

PAGE 279

268 Smith, David I. & Carvill, Barbara. (2000). The gift of the stranger: Faith, hospitality, and foreign language learning Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Smith, Robin. (1989). Aristotle. Prior analytics /Aristotle [translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary by Robin Smith]. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Co. Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory Oxford: Blackwell. Steriade, Donca. (1988). Reduplication and syll able transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5, 73-155. Stump, Gregory T. (1992). How p eculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics, 29, 1-36 Great Britain: Cambri dge University Press. Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant! How conve rsational style makes or breaks relationships New York: Ballantine Books. Tatevosov, Sergei. (2003, September). Situational diminutives: towards a typology Paper presented at the ALT V Conference, Cagliari, Italy. Taylor, John. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Pr ototypes in linguistic theory New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, John. (2003). Cognitive models of polysemy. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D, Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible pattern s of meaning in mind and language New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Terkourafi, M. (1999). Frames for politeness: a case study. Pragmatics 9 (1) 97-118. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Mee ting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 406-416). Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57, 33-65. Traugott, Elizabeth C. (1999). The role of prag matics in a theory of semantic change. In J. Verschueren, (Ed.), Selected papers from the 6t h international pragmatics conference, II (pp. 93-102). Antwerp: Intern ational Pragmatics Association. Triantafyllidis, M. (1941).N o K ( o K [ Modern Greek grammar (of the Demotic) .] Athens: Organismos Ekdoseos Scholikon Vivlion. Ultan, R. (1970). Size-sound symbolism. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 3, 1-31. van Dijk, T. (1981). Studies in the pragmatics of discourse N. Y: Mouton Publishers.

PAGE 280

269 Varro, Marcus Terentius. (1938). On the Latin language (Kent Roland, Trans.). Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard Univ ersity Press; London, W. Heinemann, Ltd. Vera-Lujan, Agustin. (1986). Aspectos sintctico-semnticos en la sufijacin Murcia: Unidad Grafica de Universidad de Murcia. Verschueren, Jeff; Otsman, JanOla; & Blommaert, Jan. (1995). Handbook of Pragmatics Philadelphia: John Benjam ins Publishing Company. Voeykova, Maria D. (1998). Acquisition of diminutives by a Russian child: Preliminary observations in connection with the ear ly adjectives. In S. Gillis (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of number and diminutive marking (pp. 97-113). Antwerp: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95. Volek, Bronislava. (1987). Semantic functioning of de rived nouns in Russian Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wallace, Rex. (1989). The origins and developm ent of the Latin alphabet. In Wayne M. Senner (Ed.), The origins of writing (pp. 121-153). Lincoln and London. Wierzbicka, A. (1984). Diminutives and depr eciatives: Semantic representation for derivational categories. Quaderni di Semantica 5, 123-130. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1974). Philosophical grammar Anthony Kenny (Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wolfson, Nessa. (1989). Perspectives: Socioli nguistics and TESOL Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Wolfson, Nessa; & Manes, Joan. (1980). Don't dear me! In S. McConnell-Ginet, Ruth A. Borker, & Nelly Furman (Eds.), Women & language in literature and society New York: Praeger and Greenwood. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (1994). Natural morphology. In R.E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics 5 (pp. 2590-2598). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Yokoyama, O. (1991). Shifters and non-verbal categories of Russian. In L.R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds). New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zuluaga, A. O. (1991) La funcin del diminutivo en espaol. Thesaurus 1, 305–330.

PAGE 281

270 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Victor Moises Prieto was born in Ca racas, Venezuela on February 23, 1968. He completed his elementary and secondary schooli ng in Venezuela. In his home country, he also obtained two bachelor’s de grees: one in theology, from the Seminario Teolgico Bautista de Venezuela (Venezuelan Baptist Theologica l Seminary); and the other in education (modern language s specialty), from the Universidad de Carabobo (University of Carabobo). He was awarded with a scholarsh ip-loan in his country to do graduate studies abroad. He came to the USA in December 1998 and started his graduate education in linguistics at the University of Florida (UF) in August, 1999. In May 2001, he obtained a masters’ degree in linguistics from UF’s Program in Linguistics, where he also continued his PhD program. He became a PhD candidate in December 2003, and he expects to graduate with his PhD on August, 6, 2005. During these last five years, he has been teaching subjects such as linguistics, Spanish, and English as a second language at UF. He was recently hired as a Spanish a nd Linguistics professor by North Greenville College in South Carolina, which he expects to begin in August, 2005.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010940/00001

Material Information

Title: Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010940:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010940/00001

Material Information

Title: Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010940:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












SPANISH EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY:
PRAGMATIC, SOCIOLINGUISTIC, AND SEMANTIC ISSUES















By

VICTOR MOISES PRIETO


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Victor Moises Prieto

































This document is dedicated to God; my wife, Monica; my son, Victor Emanuel; my
mother, Silvia; my father, Juvenal; my siblings: Raxil, Isaac, Daniel, Ruth, David, Javier,
Judith, Martin, Nali, Antoine, and Pipo; the linguistics and Spanish departments at the
University of Florida; Baptists in all the world; Hispanics in the USA; my home country,
Venezuela; and my second home countries: Colombia and the USA. .















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank God for His help and company during all these years of fights and victories,

sadness and happiness, and defeats and triumphs. I feel forever grateful to my wife,

Monica; my son, Victor Emanuel; my parents; and my siblings.

I would like to express my special gratitude to my supervisory committee chair and

advisor (Dr. Diana Boxer) for all her support, understanding, teachings, and help during

these years of graduate school. At the same time, I thank my other supervisory committee

members; Dr. D. Gary Miller, Dr. David A. Pharies, and Dr. Shifra Armon. Each one of

them immensely contributed to my training, learning, and research during this time of

reading, preparation, investigation, and writing. Other professors who are not members of

my committee also contributed to this final product at some point: Dr. Caroline Wiltshire,

Dr. Joachim Camps, Dr. Theresa Antes, Dr. Eric Potsdam, Dr. M.J. Hardman, Dr. Ratree

Wayland, and Dr. Edith Khan. I also express my gratitude to Steve Flocks, my editor; and

to my classmates. In general, I feel appreciation for the Program of Linguistics at the

University of Florida for its office staff, Joan and Jolee; and for its entire faculty. Finally,

I would like to express words of gratitude to the Baptist Hispanic Church of Gainesville,

FL. since they constituted one of my main sources of data and information. I will never

forget these people, this department, this university, and this church.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

L IST O F TA B LE S ......... ............ .............................. .. .. ....... .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B STR A C T ................................................. ..................................... .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

R research Q uestions........... .................................................................... ........ .. .. ...
L literature R review ................................................................ 3
Pragm atics ............................................................ 4
Pragm atic Theoretical Tenets .................................................................. ... 6
Sociolinguistic Perspectives ............................................ ........... ............... 8
Evaluative M orphology ......................................................... .............. 10
M orphology in general ....................................................... .... ........... 10
Evaluativeness in morphology .......... .................................... ..................11
M methodology ..................................... ................................ ........... 22
E thnography .......................................................................22
D ata and Participants ........................................................................... 23
D ata A n aly sis................................................ ................ 2 6
M orphopragm atics .............................. ...... ......... ............28
Conclusion ................................. .......................... ..... ..... ........ 30

2 EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: FUNDAMENTALS ................ ......................32

E v alu ativ eness in G eneral................................................................ .....................32
T he M orphology of E valuatives ................................................................................34
Evaluativeness Cross-Linguistically........................................................................ 40
Non(morphologically) Evaluative Languages: Evaluative Syntax ...................40
Morphologically Evaluative Languages: Two Types.......................................43
Linguistic Postulates and Evaluative Morphology............................................47
Origins of Spanish EVALs ................................................................... 49
PIE and Latin antecedents ............................................................................50
Other non-DIM Latin suffixes................................ ........................ 52










D IM s form al gram m ar ....................................................... ..... .......... 52
D IM 's original sen ses..................................................................................54
Changes in meaning and productivity .......................................................55
A u g m entativ es ........................................................... ........ ........ ......... 5 8
-az o .............. ................. ............................................................... 5 8
-a l .........................................................6 0
o n ............................................................................................................ 6 1
-o te :..................................................................................6 2
Superlative ............. ..... ......... .... ...............63
C on clu sion .............. ................. ................................................................6 5
N o te s .............. ..... ............ ................. ......................................................6 6

3 SE M A N T IC IS SU E S ............................................................................................. 67

Sem antic vs. Pragmatic Polysemy ................................. ...................... ............. 67
Cognitive Semantic M odel: Radial Categories.............................. ............... 70
D im in u tiv e s............................................................................................................ 7 5
C ore Sense of D IM s ................................................ ............... 75
C h gaining L ink s ..............................................................86
A u gm entativ es ................................................................94
C o re S e n se ................................................................... ................................9 4
C h ain in g L in k s ................................................................9 5
Su p erlativ es ................................................................................................... 9 8
Conclusion ........................ ....................... .... 100

4 PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS ..................................................102

D im inutives............................. .................. ...................... 104
Semantic/Neutral Uses of the Diminutive ....... ... .... .............. 106
Pragm atic U ses of D IM s ................................. ........ ............................110
The affection function ...... ..............................110
The derogation function ......................................... 122
The attenuation function or polite DIM ........................................... 126
A u g m en tativ e s ..................................................................................................... 13 3
Sem antics-D riven U ses ............................................... ......... 135
Pragmatics-Driven Uses .......... ................................136
The intensification function of AUGs ....................................................... 136
The attenuation function of A U G s .............................................................139
S u p e rlativ e s .......................................................................................................... 14 2
Conclusion ......................................... 145

5 SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS ........................................ ... ........ 147

G group M parking ...............................................................149
T h e [C h ild ] D IM ........................................................................................... 14 9
The G endered D IM ....................................................................153
The Regional EVALs .............................................. ...............161









A Marginal Group-Marking Effect: Social Class............................................167
Societal Context/Speech Situation M parking ...........................................................168
The Inform al EV AL s.............................................. ................ ............... 169
DIMs and AUGs as informal context markers................ ....................169
The formal vs. the informal SUPERL...... ...........................................171
Familiar/intimate vs. non-familiar encounters .......................................172
Societal Power Structure and EVALs.................................................... 173
Conclusion ................................... ................................. ......... 179

6 CON CLU SION S ................................. ... .. .......... .. .............181

G en eral F in din g s............ .... ................................................................. ....... ........... .. 186
Implications ............................. ..........................192
Im plications for Theoretical Linguistics ................................. ............... 192
Implications for Applied Linguistics......................... ....................... 193
Lim stations and Further Research..................................... ........................ ......... 196
C o n clu sio n s.................................................... ................ 19 8
N o te s .............................................................................................. 19 9

APPENDIX

A Q U E ST IO N N A IR E 1 ...................................................................... ...................200

B Q U E ST IO N N A IR E 2 ...................................................................... ...................20 1

C OTHER EVAL SPANISH SUFFIXES ............................. ..................... 202

D D A T A .................................................................................2 0 3

REFERENCES .................. ..... ......... .... .. ....... ........ 256

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................270
















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

1. Frequency of Spanish EV ALs ........ ...... ....................... ............... ... ............17

2 F requency of u se for D IM s ........................................................................... .... 133

3: Frequency of uses for AU G s ........... .......... ........ .. ................ ............... 136
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pge

1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs ...................................... ........................... 18

2 T ree diagram of E V A L s......................................................................... .................. 38

3. New proposal for DIM's radial categories....................................... ..................... 86

4 R adial categories for A U G s ................................................................ .....................95

5. Semantic-pragmatic functions of Spanish DIMs................................................... 106

6. F requency of u ses for D IM s ............................ ................................. .....................133

7. Frequency of uses for AU G s ...................................................................... 136















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



SPANISH EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY:
PRAGMATIC, SOCIOLINGUISTIC, AND SEMANTIC ISSUES

By

Victor Moises Prieto

August 2005

Chair: Diana Boxer
Department: Linguistics

Spanish evaluative morphology (diminutive and augmentative suffixes,

prototypically; superlatives and pejoratives, marginally) has been the focus of many

studies in linguistics. However, important practical and theoretical aspects have not been

formally considered accurately or in entirety. The pragmatics and the sociolinguistics of

such Spanish suffixation is one such area in which more research is needed. My study

brings all of these morphological processes together under one major category:

evaluativeness. First I analyzed important pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of such

Spanish morphological phenomena. Second, I considered relevant semantic and

morphological issues. Theoretically, my study shows the need to redefine or clarify

pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and morphological concepts. Methodologically, my study was

ethnographic in its data collection and analysis. The data corpus consists of around 600

Spanish evaluatives (EVALs) found in spontaneous verbal interactions. My study also









shows the many different uses, meanings, and functions of these suffixes and connects

them to their basic functions, according to radial category models and pragmatic and

sociolinguistic categories. The multiplicity of functions of the morphemes analyzed here

(at times seemingly contradicting traditional Spanish grammar) is better understood using

an integrative analytical approach. By considering the potential morphological status of

such morphemes, their core semantic senses, their pragmatic functions, and their

sociolinguistic effects, I show the usefulness of this integrative approach to language

study. The following are the major conclusions observed:

* Conclusion 1: Pragmatically, diminutives are essentially attenuation, affection and
derogation markers; whereas augmentatives and superlatives are intensifiers, and at
times, augmentatives may serve as attenuators.

* Conclusion 2: Sociolinguistically, evaluatives may mark contexts (e.g.,
informality) and groups or segments of the society (e.g., children, women, and low
classes), which may reveal much about the power structure in modern societies of
the Spanish speaking world.

* Conclusion 3: Semantically, all the diverse meanings of these suffixes emerge
cognitively or conceptually from single core senses in each case via metaphorical
connections, inferences, or reanalysis.

* Conclusion 4: Morphologically, these suffixes are all part of one single category:
heads of evaluative phrases.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This is an analysis of the pragmatic and sociolinguistic effects of Spanish

evaluative suffixes (diminutives, augmentatives, and superlatives) in linguistic

interactions of everyday life. The study also indicates some important morphological and

semantic issues related to these pragmatic uses of these suffixes.

Spanish suffixation processes are many and have multiple functions. Explanations

for these have been the focus of many formal linguistic analyses in the areas of

morphology, semantics, phonology and syntax. Morphological analyses have shown how

complex words are formed and for which purposes. Semantic analyses have shown the

specific meaning and use of these affixes. Phonological studies have accounted for the

specific phonetic form of the affixes, their phonotactic constraints, and also the

allomorphy found in many of them (Miranda, 1999), among other aspects. In syntax,

specific lexical categories are affected by these processes, and also by the equivalency

between suffixed (synthetic) and non-suffixed (analytical) forms such as the prepositional

phrase and the adjective in Vera-Lujan's (1986) examples: "Pedro es de Valencia" and

"es ValenciANO" (from Valencia vs. ValenciAN). My study also addresses other crucial

issues in morphology and semantics.

Traditional accounts of Spanish diminutives, augmentatives, and superlatives leave

much unexplained. Phenomena such as navaj+ero (knife+agentive -er) with the meaning

of "someone who often uses a knife with criminal purposes" (Vera-Lujan, 1986: 32)

cannot be fully explained without further pragmatic analyses. For instance, we cannot









explain (based only on morphosyntactic and/or phonological and semantic accounts)

where the idea of criminality comes from, if we do not refer to contextual and social

factors.

We also could not explain the fact that some processes occur more frequently in

some social groups than in others (e.g., diminutives are used more often with women-

related words than with men-related lexical items). Such phenomena require a two-fold

analysis in our systematic account of language use. First, we must account for these

formal aspects of language (including these suffixation processes) from a morpho-

syntactic, semantic, or phonological perspective. Second, such phenomena need

systematic sociolinguistic and/or pragmatic explanations. This second analysis is the

main purpose of my study. In this way, my study applies formal discoveries in linguistic

research to our daily life contexts and situations.

My study focuses on a specific linguistic phenomenon called "evaluative

morphology" or more specifically "evaluative Spanish suffixation," observed in its

sociolinguistic and pragmatic dimensions. The Spanish evaluatives suffixes (or EVALs)

my study considers are diminutives (DIMs), augmentatives (AUGs), and superlatives

(SUPERLs).

Suffixation is the most common resource for word formation in Spanish and the

other Romance languages (Mufioz, 1994). Given this fact, the data consist of a large and

rich corpus of EVALs. Moreover, while many pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies deal

with phonological and syntactic issues, very few deal with Spanish morphological

phenomena. My study should contribute to filling this linguistic research gap.









Research Questions

Given the lack of analyses of this type of Spanish morphology, the primary aim of

my study was to qualitatively describe the use of Spanish evaluative suffixes (EVALs)-

namely DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs-from a pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspective.

Schneider's (2003) exhaustive study on diminutives (especially English) indicates that

one reason for the problematic and puzzling state of DIMs (from a conceptual, scientific,

and academic perspective) is that these suffixes "have not, as a rule, been studied from a

pragmatic perspective" (p. 1). The objective is, therefore, to answer the following three

research questions:

* Question 1: How do Spanish EVALs affect speech act performance?

* Question 2: What effects do Spanish EVALs have in linguistic interactions in
society?

* Question 3: How can we account for the various meanings and uses of such
affixes?

Question 1 deals with pragmatics. Question 2 deals with sociolinguistics.

Pragmatics and sociolinguistics are the two main areas my study focused on. Question 3

deals with semantics. Although not necessarily a semantic analysis, the semantic

denotations of the affixes I studied need to be clearly discussed, to account for the

different pragmatic effects of these EVALs.

Literature Review

Three areas were related to my study: pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and evaluative

morphology. Theories of morphology and semantics are mentioned as they relate to this

discussion. Some morphological issues are addressed in the section on evaluative

morphology. Semantics is compared to pragmatics in the first section of this literature









review. The order of presentation simply follows the relevance of such issues for the

goals and scope of the present research.

Pragmatics

Pragmatics is the study of language use in context; or more accurately, "the

cognitive, social, and cultural study of language and communication" (Verschueren et al.,

1995: ix). However, it is necessary to further clarify the use of this term in the present

study. Since this is a relatively new field of linguistics, the conceptual framework is still

relatively vague. There are two major conceptual approaches to defining the field of

linguistic pragmatics: the holistic approach and the segmental approach. The segmental

approach concerns the different language components studied in linguistics

(phonetics/phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics). It is called segmental

because it deals with one specific area of language competence. This approach considers

pragmatics one more language component. In other words, pragmatics is part of a native

speaker's competence (Hymes, 1972). This issue gave rise to criticism of Chomsky

(1965) who (in the view of a number of linguists) overlooked pragmatics as a language

component, or part of the linguistic competence of native speakers. In the conceptual

segmental approach, pragmatics deals with what semantics (and other grammar

components) do not fully account for. It involves the study of speech acts, conversation

norms, politeness, discourse structure, and (micro)sociolinguistic aspects.

Many linguists today agree with this view. Pragmatics is then considered part of

grammar (Moskowitz, 1998). Moskowitz attempts to define language by first considering

what language consists of (for example, rules of language structure or grammar).

Moskowitz indicates that grammar includes "rules of phonology ... of syntax ... of

semantics ... and rules of pragmatics, which describe how to participate in a









conversation, how to sequence sentences, and how to anticipate the information needed

by an interlocutor." (p. 530). Other proponents of such an approach are Jaworsky and

Coupland (1999), who take a discourse analytic view. They made an important

distinction between pragmatics and semantics: pragmatics deals more with the meaning

of utterances in specific contexts of use. All of these authors see pragmatics as a

component of language.

The holistic approach examines language use across all instances of language. In

this approach, every linguistic analysis accounts for language use. In other words, any

linguistic analysis that entirely and openly ignores language in use is superfluous and

disposable. Proponents of the holistic approach see pragmatics more as a perspective on

language than a component of language. Some proponents of the holistic approach are

Kasper and Rose (2001), and Verschueren et al. (1995). The main tenet is that every

language utterance is performed in a context, with a clear goal, and an ultimate (maybe

subconscious) intention. Kiefer (1998), in line with Verschueren, indicates that

pragmaticss can de defined as the functional perspective on language" (p. 272).

Both approaches are important: my study takes an eclectic approach. It examines

language use in specific contexts and across all instances (Ninio and Snow, 1996). A

segmental approach lets us answer questions such as:

* How do people process a communicative act in a concrete speech situation?
* What do people attempt to accomplish by communicating?

A holistic approach may help us examine the implications of these questions for all

components of language. This perspective view is epistemologically sound, since it

reminds us of the integrated nature of language. The segmental approach is









methodologically practical, since we can segment our object of study (language) for

academic and research purposes.

For the purpose of my study, then, a pragmatic function has to do with the ultimate

cognitive (and sometimes subconscious) intention of the speaker when uttering a

linguistic unit (phoneme, morpheme, lexical item, and so on); and more specifically the

intention of the speaker when uttering a bound morpheme. Finally, whether seen as a

component of language or a perspective on language, pragmatics must be part of any

linguistic analysis with integrative purposes because "a language user makes a systematic

analysis of the social context. This analysis is based on strategies involving schematic

knowledge structures (frames) about social, interactional and communicative behavior of

speakers" (van Dijk, 1981: 298).

It is important to note here that in the area of pragmatics, my study does not deal

with some formal pragmatic aspects such as presuppositions and implicatures. As a

pragmatic study, my study deals with ultimate intentions and effects in linguistic

interactions. More specifically, it deals with the (sometimes subtle) reasons for and

effects of using a diminutivized, augmentativized, or superlativized word instead of its

non-EVAL version.

Pragmatic Theoretical Tenets

My notion of a speech act as a primary pragmatic unit comes from Austin (1962)

and Searle's (1969) Speech Act Theory. According to Sbisa (1995), one of the two main

ideas in Speech Act Theory is that any kind of utterance can be considered an act.

Examples of these speech acts are asking for information, requesting, asserting, and

complaining. Speech acts are normally performed via an actual linguistic utterance such

as a declarative sentence or an interrogative phrase, which is considered the locution of









the speech act. However, the intention or final goal of the speaker may be different from

that of the apparent syntactic form of the locution. For example, a question may be asked

without really asking for information but for another reason; greeting, for example ("How

are you?"). This intention of the speaker is called the illocutionary force in Speech Act

Theory. The effect on the addressee (the actual final result of the speech act) is the

perlocutionary force.

Speech Act Theory demands a distinction between the semantic weight and the

pragmatic force of these suffixes. This is another fundamental principle of Speech Act

Theory. As Sbisa (1995) said, "a distinction has to be drawn between the meaning

expressed by an utterance [semantics] and the way in which the utterance is used

pragmaticss]" (p. 496). Jaworsky and Coupland (1999) showed the difference between

understanding a sentence based on the meanings of its words and the referential

meanings, and understanding the same sentence in relation to its intended meaning in a

particular context.

Important differences exist between the basic semantics of Spanish EVALS and

their pragmatic functions. The basic semantic denotation of DIMs (Chapter 3) is littleness

(hence the grammatical name "diminutive"). The basic denotation of AUGs is bigness.

The basic denotation of SUPERLs is very (more common in modem Spanish) and most

(which can be considered a type of semantic shift). These would be, in technical semantic

terms, the intensions of these affixes. Now, many of the uses of such suffixes go beyond

these basic semantic effects. Again, in technical semantic terms, other extensions of these

Spanish suffixes could be associated with their semantic connotations, and these









ultimately may be linked to pragmatic norms (for a better understanding of the terms

intension, extension, denotation, and connotation, see O'Grady et al., 1997).

Although potentially connected (shown below), it is still necessary to keep the

semantic denotation and the pragmatic effects of EVALs separate, as two distinct

linguistic components. Even from a formal semantic perspective, it is recognized that

the fact that [some expressions] would be considered ... very strange ... in [a]
situation ... shows that over and above truth-functional [semantic] properties there
are other factors which decide our interpretation of linguistic utterances. One
suggestion for an analysis of these factors is to say that there is a set of
communicative norms which aim at making the exchange of information between
the participants in a speech situation as effective as possible. Basing oneself on
these norms one could say: one should not say p v q if one can say p or p & q, both
of which by virtue of their truth-conditions give more definite information than p v
q. One should utilize linguistic expressions as effectively as possible, making both
what one says and what one does not say relevant to how what is said is
understood. This is normally one of the implicit assumptions of linguistic
communication (Allwood et al., 2001: 37).

The norms (in bold letters above) the writers refer to in the previous quotation are

pragmatic in nature. That these are pragmatic norms is clear because Allwood et al.

directly referred to the Gricean Maxims (Grice, 1975).

My study adheres to Austin and Searle's notion of speech act as a major unit of

pragmatic analysis. Since context and communicative intentions beyond purely

grammatical rules (grammatical from a traditional view) are essential parts of our

everyday linguistic interaction, we cannot ignore pragmatics when studying EVALs.

Sociolinguistic Perspectives

Sociolinguistics is the study of language in society. One main objective of

sociolinguistics is to study the interplay of language, society, and culture in human

communication (Wolfson, 1989). Sociolinguistics, then, may observe linguistic variations

with various societal functions. A sociolinguistic analysis is needed to accurately









determine social motivations of Spanish suffixation processes. According to Lippi-Green

(1997), people "situate themselves in relationship to others, the way they group

themselves, the powers they claim for themselves and the powers they stipulate to others

... People use language to indicate social allegiance ... to create and maintain role ... in

such a manner that the linguistic varieties used by a community form a system that

corresponds to the structure of the society" (p. 31). My study aims at observing

sociolinguistic issues regarding evaluative suffix use.

Despite the apparent importance of such an endeavor, there is a paucity of formal

published work on the interface between Spanish morphology and sociolinguistics. The

scarcity of studies addressing the sociolinguistic implications of Spanish suffixation is

obvious when we examine important and extensive bibliographies on the topic both

recent and early (Bosque & Mayoral, 1979 and Pharies, 1994). The gap in dates of these

two bibliographies shows that this paucity in research has not improved significantly over

the years. At the Spanish morphology level, thus, we have few studies in the

sociolinguistic arena, unlike the numerous studies in the area of phonological variation

and sociolinguistic impact (Perissinotto, 1975; Caravedo, 1990; Alba, 1990; Calero-

Fernandez, 1993; Medina-Rivera, 1997). This is true in Spanish and also in English,

observable in studies on the interface between phonology and sociolinguistics, such as

Labov's (1966, 1972) pioneering work and others.

An extensive literature search yielded few formal linguistic accounts showing the

sociolinguistic implications of these suffixes. One isolated account requires mentioning

here. Mufioz (1994) assumes that some of these forms were cultas (learned, educated,

with culture/education) whereas others were not. Mufioz implies that some words with









certain EVAL suffixes characterized people with a low level of education. This would

give us a linguistic criterion to mark these people socially as belonging or wanting to

belong to the class culta (i.e., the high social class, the one with education, and normally

the one with power). Mufioz is one of the few studies connecting Spanish EVALs and

societal impact.

Other than this isolated mention, there is a significant lack of formal references to

the connection between some Spanish suffixation processes and its sociolinguistic

implications and effects on the interlocutors. Consequently, my study aims to account for

those still-unexplained processes and to fill this gap in the literature on sociolinguistic

research in the Spanish language. It is important to note that my study does not touch

upon major macro-sociolinguistic aspects such as language planning, language policies,

and the like. The focus here is primarily microsociolinguistic.

Evaluative Morphology

Before further defining the type of morphology my study focuses on, let us

consider some general issues in the realm of morphology.

Morphology in general

Theoretical approaches in the field of morphology do not deal clearly or directly

with the type of morphology discussed in my study. My study focuses on the pragmatics

and sociolinguistics of the morphological phenomena. As a conceptual tool, I treat these

linguistic units (Spanish EVALs) as separate morphemes, which is in line with both

traditional linguistic theories and more recent theories such as Halle and Marantz's

(1993) Distributed Morphology (or DM). This morphological approach considers both

stems and affixes as lexical entries or vocabulary items. Thus, my present study considers

DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs as separate morphemes, with relatively independent









semantic and phonological information. As a starting point, my study addresses semantic

affixes (Miller 2003, personal communication) and not other types of affixes (such as

phi-feature affixes observed by Chomsky, 1993). Henceforth, my study avoids the fuzzy

and unclear derivation-inflection dichotomy as a theoretical foundation because of the

arguments outlined below.

Evaluativeness in morphology

Evaluative morphology (more prototypically, diminutive and augmentative

morphology) has given rise to much research and interest. Many studies address this type

of morphology (Corbin, et al., 1999), probably because of its unusual characteristics in

relation to other types of morphology. Evaluative morphology has also been called

affective morphology (Beard and Szymanek, 1988; Volek, 1987). Mackenzie (2001)

called the DIMs, AUGs, PEJs (his list did not include SUPERLs) "affective" suffixes.

Bruyne (1989) called this type of morphology appreciative. Howard (1998) called it

expressive. Hualde et al. (2001) classified the Spanish diminutive and augmentative

suffixes as emotive or appreciative morphemes.

Chapter 2, which covers important fundamentals of EVAL morphology, elaborates

further on the definition of this type of morphology. A brief introduction is given here as

an overview. In simple terms, evaluative morphology refers to the synthetic marking of

features such as size and positive/negative emotional affect, which is the reason

"affective" is another term used to describe this type of morphological processes (Bauer,

1997.) Of course, Bauer recognizes that this would define mostly the core or prototypical

evaluative morphemes, but not the marginal ones, which also exist. Considering Sapir's

(1921) typology regarding morphological processes, evaluative morphology would be

classified within the affixation processes (Sapir, 1911, cited by Anderson, 1992:326).









In line with this simple definition, many authors such as Bauer suggest that the core

areas of evaluative morphology are diminutivization and augmentativization. However,

other areas (such as pej oration and endearment) are also described in this type of

morphology. Furthermore, languages exist (such as Spanish and Italian) in which these

two types of processes (DIM/AUG vs. pej oration/ endearment) are hardly kept apart.

Although Bauer includes concepts such as intensification, politeness, and modesty in the

realm of evaluative morphology, we can conclude that the prototypical elements of this

type of morphology are the diminutive (DIM) and the augmentative (AUG).

The specific types of affixes I studied have the following characteristics:

* They often attach to bases such as nouns (N), adjectives (A), adverb-verbs (Adv-
V), pronouns (Pro), and interjections; in order of importance/hierarchy as suggested
by Ettinger (1974), according to Bauer's (1997) citations.

* They are quantitative (augmentatives, diminutives, superlatives) according to Alvar
and Pottier (1987) since they express some type of degree or gradable quality;
without necessarily having any affective purposes.

* They may have emotive, appreciative, and expressive connotations, according to
Lang (1990). In fact, Volek (1987) describes emotive attitudes expressed by DIMs.

* They have similar functions and behavior as degree words (e.g., much, very)
accounted for as functional heads as in Abney (1987), Corver (1997) and Cinque
(1999). Cinque (1999), particularly, includes Moodevaluative markers in his list of
functional heads (pp. 71, 76). This is precisely the motivation for EVALS to be
considered functional heads.

Pragmatically, this type of morphology can be labeled as "expressive" and not

always "plain" morphology. Expressive morphology has to do with playful expressions,

and poetic, and/or ostentatious effects. Plain morphology, on the other hand, tends to be

purely semantic, and therefore does not express these characteristics (Bauer, 1997). More

accurately and importantly, however, is that the main difference is that expressive









morphology is conscious explicit knowledge, vs. the implicit knowledge of grammatical

markers (Miller 2005, personal communication).

Scalise's (1988) study on Italian, as cited by Stump (1992), presents distinctive

features of this type of morphology. Among these features are the following:

* Base semantic change (which should be taken cautiously, based on the arguments
discussed below).

* Possibility of consecutive application of more than one rule of the same type.

* Syntax-preserving features.

Stump describes evaluative morphology in the broader label of category-preserving rules.

However, Spanish EVALs do not really involve rules (discussed later). These suffixes are

probably more accurately analyzed here as syntactic heads.

Finally, EVAL morphology has been often considered to be morphology with

iconic tendencies. Since DIMs refer to littleness, and AUGs refer to bigness, many

authors think that the linguistic forms may express these gradable features iconically. In

line with tenets of Natural Morphology (Wurzel, 1994), some authors cited by Bauer

(1996) (such as Sapir, 1956 and Fischer-Jorgensen, 1978) stress this idea of the universal

tendency of EVAL morphology for iconicity. They argue that a preference exists for the

[i] vowel in DIMs and for [o] in AUGs, based simply on the commonality of some

phones in the EVALs that they observed. The front vowel, for example, may be

interpreted as expressing smallness, whereas the back vowel expresses bigness. However,

the iconic value of such phones is still unclear. Bauer (1996) shows that this is not the

case in his 50-language sample. He explicitly concluded that "there does not appear to be

any universal principle of sound symbolism operating in markers of the [DIM] and

[AUG]" (p. 201). The slight tendency among some languages may be caused by









coincidence; frequency of some sounds over others in a language; and most probably, this

tendency may be caused by an over-emphasis on some major language families, such as

Indo-European. Thus, he concluded that the tendency for iconicity might very well be

culture specific, not universal. Bubenik (1999) argued the same when he stated that "we

have to assume that various languages would rank differently on the scale of iconicity"

(p. 7).

Spanish EVALs. Spanish morphology requires us to discuss Penny's (1993) view

of Spanish evaluative morphology. His diachronic account of Spanish grammar calls this

type of morphology "derivation". He molds his definition to include Spanish EVALs in

the category of derivational processes. Spanish derivation, in Penny's view, involves

adding suffixes to preexisting roots with two different purposes: forming new lexemes

(e.g., Lim6n+ada = Lemon+ade) and marking the speaker's attitude toward a certain

entity or reality (e.g., pejoratives). He called the first process "lexical derivation", and the

second "affective derivation". However, these suffixes should not be described as

derivational.

Halle and Marantz's (1993) Distributed Morphology may account for fundamental

morpho-syntactic characteristics of Spanish EVALs. The Distributed Morphology

approach conceptually categorizes Spanish EVALs as distinct morphemes. Because of

the relative conceptual adherence to this morphological theory, my study does not make

the traditional distinction between derivational and inflectional affixes, even though

traditional Spanish accounts of these suffixes categorize them as derivational.

The derivation vs. inflection distinction is completely artificial and adhoc: no

consistent examples in real languages sustain such a distinction. Miller (1993) argues that









this dichotomy is not even a continuum, as Kiparsky (1982) and Bybee (1985) seem to

suggest. The language-particular realization of grammatical vs. semantic affixes is

categorical: one or the other. Miller (1993) clearly states that "many affixes cannot be

classified as either derivational or inflectional" (p. 13). Spanish EVALs give empirical

evidence for this statement.

Spanish DIMs, for example, do not change lexical category. If they attach to a

noun, the resulting word is also a noun. There may not be a semantic change at all. A

"car" may be exactly the same as a "car+DIM", just with smaller proportions. What

should we say about this DIM? Is it still a derivational suffix, even though it does not

affect lexical category or semantics? The solution adopted in my study and many others

is to simply dispose of this dichotomy in the treatment of such affixes; or, at least, to not

consider this dichotomy as fundamental for general morphological conclusions.

Ambadiang (1997) observed similar issues in the morphology of DIM formation: some

important features of the morphology of DIM formation are not properties of common

derivational processes (e.g., the relationship among the different allomorphs). Well-

known scholars in the field of morphology (Anderson, 1982; and Spencer, 1991) have

also recognized this problem. Spencer literally indicated that this type of morphology

"falls midway between inflection and derivation" (p. 197); one of many ad hoc

stipulations by which authors force the use of such dichotomy.

Penny's (1993) approach, like many other studies that use the derivation-inflection

dichotomy, faces categorization problems. He recognizes that in derivational affective

processes, there is no formation of new lexemes with different meanings from the base or

new semantic-syntactic categories, for which he uses the "cat+DIM" example. He argues









(accurately) that "cat" and "cat+DIM" could have essentially the same referent. Most

explanations of derivation (vs. inflection) characterize derivation as producing new

words, lexemes, or a large meaning change with regard to the base (Kurylowicz, 1964;

Bybee, 1985; Bauer, 1988; Bubenik, 1999). This presents a conceptual problem with

Penny's account. Some of his examples are also problematic. Such is the case with

"car+DIM", which can actually mean the same thing, contrary to what he stated. He does

recognize that there are cases that are difficult to account for, and this is precisely the

reason for not adhering to such a dichotomy as a major conceptual tool in my study.

Another conceptual problem is that Penny does not explain why affective processes

should be labeled derivational (considering that they may not produce or derive new

words).

Penny classifies Spanish evaluative morphology within the affective derivational

processes, where he includes diminutivization, pej oration, and augmentivization.

Superlatives are not classified in this type of processes in Penny's account, but within

adjectival comparative processes. In classifying such morphological processes as

affective, we face another problem. One of the most common and important pragmatic

functions of DIMs and AUGs is speech act attenuation. In some cases, an assertion is

marked with a DIM to mitigate the degree of commitment of the speaker, which is hard

to connect to an affective purpose. Important pragmatic functions exist that are clearly

affective, such as marking proper nouns with the [dear] feature via diminutivization.

However, affection is just one of the several components or features of this

evaluativeness. The term evaluative covers all these different functions of such suffixes,

unlike the term affective.









Since they are a type of semantic suffixes, they are distinct from other affixes with

more grammatical functions; such as those "phi-feature" affixes discussed in Chomsky

(1993) and others in relation to Agreement (Agr). In syntactic theory, Agr is a collection

of (p-features (e.g., gender, number, person) common to the systems of subject and object

Agr.

One of Lowie's (1998) conclusions most relevant to my study (after reviewing

important morphological theory and psycholinguistic models) is that "lexical

representations should contain or refer to properties defining syntactic, semantic/

pragmatic information. The syntactic properties can be seen as ... argument structures of

the lexical representation." (Lowie, 1998: 63). Since Chapter 3 focuses on EVALs'

semantics, and Chapter 4 deals with pragmatic issues, I briefly considered the important

morpho-syntactic aspects above as a preliminary base (for this pragmatic rather than

morpho-syntactic study).

To finish this summary of morphological properties of Spanish EVALs, let us

briefly consider some frequency and productivity issues. Regarding frequency of Spanish

EVALs, approximately 75% (447 of the 573 words) of all the EVAL words in the data

analyzed are DIMs; around 20% of all the EVALs (around 100 words) have AUGs; and

only 5% (30 words) have SUPERLs. Thus, the data include four times as many words

with DIMs as words with AUGs, and AUGs are used around four times more than

SUPERLs (see table 1 and figure 1). Even though the table and figure below reflect only

the data analyzed, DIMs seem to be the most common EVAL elsewhere.

Table 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs
DIMs AUGs SUPERLs Total
# oftokens 443 100 30 573
Percentage 77% 18% 5% 100%















m DIMs
AUGs
% SUPERLs




Figure 1. Frequency of Spanish EVALs

Regarding productivity, we normally find in the data that SUPERLs attach to

adjectives only; AUGs attach to nouns and adjectives; and DIMs attach to nouns,

including abstract nouns that traditionally do not subcategorize for EVALs

("attitude+DIM" or "lack+DIM"); adjectives, adverbs ("now+DIM", "near+DIM"), verbs

("eating+DIM"), numerals ("one+DIM"), exclamatory expressions ("cheers+DIM!",

"certainly+DIM!"), other quantifiers ("many+DIM"), one prepositional use ("in-front-

of+DIM"). Even though it is not in the data, other uncommon uses of DIMs, such as one

with a pronominal (suyita or "yours+DIM") have been attested in modern Spanish.

Some may argue that a type of AUG attaches to verbs (llor6n = cry+AUG) and

makes up a noun or adjective. Some others may argue that the SUPERLs also attach to

adverbs (much+SUPERL). This is debatable in grammatical terms, but regardless, DIMs

are still much more productive than AUGs in the data and elsewhere, and AUGs are at

the same time more productive than SUPERLs.

EVALs illustrated: diminutives. Let us now exemplify or illustrate this concept

of evaluation with one of the most prototypical and studied EVALs; namely, the

diminutive. DIMs have received much attention in linguistic research, especially from a

semantic perspective (Hasselrot, 1957; Alexopoulos, 1994; Jurafsky, 1996; Scalise &









Grandi, 2001). In the Spanish language this has not been different (Alonso, 1937;

Gonzalez-Olle, 1962; Nafiez, 1973; Zuluaga, 1991; Howard, 1998). For Alonso (1937),

one of the first Spanish grammarians to formally account for DIM meaning and uses,

DIMs are more related to affection than to littleness. This shows the evaluative nature of

DIMs, since these suffixes are part of those affixes with which "nuestro pensamiento no

se detiene en las palabras ... sino que las atraviesa como la luz al aire y va a dar de un

modo peculiar en las cosas mismas o derechamente en el animo del pr6jimo...indudable

valor sistematico-estilistico" (Alonso, 1937: 43) (our thoughts do not stop in the words ...

but they go through them as light through air and end up, in a peculiar way, in the things

themselves or directly in the mood of the others...without a doubt, a systematic-stylistic

value). He perceives DIMs as having a fictive and/or ludic character, since they express a

somehow either imaginary or playful mood, which is in line with Dressler and Merlini-

Barbaresi's (1994) [-serious] feature. For Alonso the basic sense, or "sentido nuclear" as

he called it, of the DIMs is that of mood expression, which is consistent with Cinque

(1999). In general then, DIMs are semantic/pragmatic markers of a subjective evaluation/

appreciation of (often) littleness/affection towards the entities to which they refer.

Nafiez (1973) explains (based on his studies of traditional Spanish grammars) that

the diminutive indicates a conceptual quantitative distinction regarding the magnitude of

the entity referred to by the base. In this quantitative tendency, it often refers to the

general concept of smallness. However, Nafiez criticizes these traditional grammars for

their overemphasis on only this one function of DIMs. He recognizes other important

connotations in the DIMs not recognized by traditional grammarians such as Nebrija

(1492) and the anonymous grammar known as Lovaina (1955), among others. My present









study makes constant reference to these other meanings or functions. Dressier and

Merlini-Barbaresi (1994) present a more complete account regarding diminutives. They

describe diminutive formation as "evaluative (cf. the traditional term valutativi for Italian

diminutives, augmentatives, and pejoratives), that is, diminutives express an evaluation or

judgment 'as to value' (not 'as to fact'), according to the evaluator's intentions,

perspective and standards of evaluation" (p. 153). This is precisely one of the major

arguments for the evaluative label for the type of morphology analyzed in my study. In

the case of diminutives, the evaluation of the entity would be that of a (subjectively)

small, appreciated (or its opposite), and/or endeared one. According to Dressler and

Merlini-Barbaresi, the basic pragmatic connotation would be that of the [-serious]

feature, which is questionable according to the data and analysis presented here, as we

will see in the following chapters.

The following are uses of the DIM already documented. Jurafsky (1996) assigns

the [child] feature as the basic notion of these suffixes. My data and analysis seem to

favor the littlenesss] feature as the basic semantics of DIMs instead. Jurafsky also

presents other semantic senses that emerge from that basic notion mentioned above:

small/little, female, imitation, intensity/ exactness, approximation, and individuation or

partitive. We will discuss more about Jurafsky's arguments later. In relation to pragmatic

functions, the following have been cited: affection, contempt, playfulness, and child/

animal context marking. Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi (1994), on the other hand, agree

with Jurafsky regarding the semantic base of the DIMs (i.e., [child]). In relation to what

he calls the "pragmatic base", he suggests the [-serious] feature at its core.









Before referring to other authors, let us consider some arguments against Jurafsky

and Dressier and Merlini-Barbaresi's proposal of [child] as the core sense of DIMs. It

seems more plausible to consider [+little], not [child], as the core semantics of DIM and

[dear], not [-serious], as its nuclear or core pragmatics. On the one hand, the label

diminutive approaches more logically the idea of littleness than the idea of childness.

More importantly, however, the [little] feature, with its primarily adjectival (and

consequently modifying) function seems to be more easily morphologically embedded

(as a bound morpheme in a word) than the feature of [child]. The latter is more a

referential item (more a nominal function, primarily), whereas the former is more of a

modifier. Thus, due to this important difference between the morpho-syntactic and

semantic behaviors of these two features, the [little] feature seems to represent the

nucleus of this bound morpheme. We will see, however, that morpho-syntactically

speaking, DIMs (and the other EVALs) present an important core: Mood/modality

function, in line with Cinque (1999).

On the other hand, the pragmatic core of [-serious] proposed by Dressler and

Merlini-Barbaresi misses many important pragmatic functions of such affixes, for

example, that of affection. Not only are there many uses of DIMs that are not [-serious] in

essence, but furthermore, many uses present challenging difficulties if we try to present

some type of semantic or pragmatic association with DIMs. Thus, neither directly (in

essence) nor indirectly (by semantic/pragmatic association) may many DIM uses be

bound by this [-serious] feature. Chapter 3 deals with this in more detail.

In the Greek language there have been important studies on DIMs, and particularly

on their pragmatics. Triantafyllidis (1941), for example, calls the DIMs also "caressives"









and assigns to this suffix the pragmatic function of request mitigation. Holton et al.

(1997) explains that one of the major functions of this type of affix is that of depreciation,

which is in line with the pejorative uses found. Other authors have related these suffixes

to speech acts (Sifianou, 1992). For Sifianou, they may serve as markers of informal

positive politeness and friendliness. Alexopoulos (1994) agrees with Sifianou in this

politeness marking function. Crocco-Galeas (2002) suggests the following pragmatic

functions: attenuation, understatement, meiosis of the speaker's commitment to the

illocutionary force of the speech act, and the mitigation of the interlocutors' obligations.

Giakoumaki (2000) also discussed what my study refers to as the "euphemistic" DIM.

In the realm of sociolinguistics, authors such as Giakoumaki (2000) and Daltas

(1987) refer to the gender-marking functions of DIMs. They observed that, in general,

females use more DIMs than males (they suggest that this is caused by more involvement

of women with children). Giakoumaki particularly observed that women use more

euphemistic DIMs than men in Greek.

Methodology

Ethnography

My study takes primarily an Ethnography of Speaking approach (Hymes, 1962).

Hymes' SPEAKING model provides a structure for my study to perceive components of

the interactions analyzed: setting, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentality,

norms, and genre. As can be observed, the model is very appropriate for my study since it

implies sociolinguistic and pragmatic perspectives. In many of the descriptions herein,

there is reference to one or more of these speech components to expand such

descriptions. My study is primarily a micro-sociolinguistic approach (focus on face-to-

face interactions and reference to speech communities), supplemented when appropriate









by macro-sociolinguistic issues (for example, Chapter 5 addresses gender-related issues,

which have been studied from a macro perspective). Since my study combines both

function elements (the pragmatic functions of EVALs) and form elements (the forms of

these suffixes), it resembles Schneider's (2003) formal-functional paradigm in his

analysis of English DIMs.

Data and Participants

The data corpus (Appendix D) that is the basis for the analysis in my study consists

of 580 (7 were not analyzed because after further analyses, they did not really constitute

examples of EVALs) tokens found in about 300 situations where evaluative suffixes were

used in spontaneous interactions in Spanish. The motivation for categorization of data

into situations or events is that ethnography (more details below), pays special attention

to speech events. Examples from this corpus were selected and discussed in detail for the

data analysis chapters. All the examples are given first in Spanish (as originally uttered)

in quotation marks with a literal translation into English in italics underneath. If the literal

translation seems unclear, another translation is given in parentheses, next to the literal

one, for clarification purposes. The use of the suffixes in the examples is marked by DIM,

AUG or SUPERL (in capitals) for easier reading.

Using the ethnographic approach (Hymes, 1962) for data collection, a large portion

of the data were taped conversations among native speakers of Spanish. These

conversations took place without any prescribed task in encounters such as church

fellowship meetings, services, phone conversations, television programs, and other less

structured interactions. A long subset of the data examples comes from one particular

speech community, a Spanish-speaking religious group in Gainesville, FL. where the

researcher is a member. By being a member of such a speech community under study, the









researcher could approach this not only as an outsider linguist and researcher but also

with an emic perspective, as defined by Pike (1958). In Pike's discussion of such a

methodological approach, it is clear that the emic perspective helps the researcher to

concentrate on the intrinsic socio-cultural distinctions that are relevant and essential

according to the members of the community, group or society under study. It helps the

researcher to discover which phenomena, properties, or features constitute the worldview

of a given society.

From this investigative perspective, it is critical that the researcher observe the

community as is. Therefore, in such a linguistic study, naturalistic data are the most

suitable. Boxer (2002) believes that "most good analyses of spoken discourse employ

data that captures spontaneous speech among interlocutors, since elicitation instruments

necessarily interfere with the naturalness of spontaneous discourse" (p. 10).

Radio and TV talk, one of the data sources for my study, is one of the many

techniques for data collection that Boxer (2002) surveys. Admittedly, she recommends

being cautious of this type of data, since it may not be representative of naturally

occurring conversations. However, most of the TV programs that contributed to the data

here were live spontaneous entertainment programs or talk shows in interaction with a

live audience. In this way, these are still samples of naturalistic data (admittedly, with

perhaps a slight difference in speech event). There are also several movies and soap

operas, which may be less naturalistic; but they still provide adequate samples of the use

of the suffixes under study.

The data collection in my study resembles that of Milroy's (1980). Milroy audio

taped spontaneous linguistic interactions by interviewing people. There were









interruptions (e.g., telephone calls) during such interviews, but the audio taping was not

interrupted at any time. People then were recorded in both types of interaction: being

interviewed and also interacting with people off-record (on-interview data and off-

interview data). These off-record pieces of interactions were crucial for her analysis. In

this way she captured spontaneous talk and avoided what Labov (1972) called the

Observer's Paradox. Milroy's argument was that these off-record pieces captured true

spontaneity in language use because of the interviewees being unaware of being

recorded. That was precisely the reasoning behind the taping that took place for the

collection of the data for my study. People were first unaware of being recorded for the

type of linguistic analysis I carried out; thus, their language use was truly spontaneous.

Unlike Milroy's method, the data in my study do not come from interview contexts but

purely spontaneous interactions.

The main speech community analyzed is a Spanish-speaking church of about 70

people where many nationalities converge in different types of social activities. Even

though a religious environment, the amount of social encounters is significant. Also, it

represents an encounter point for people of different nationalities. Most of the

participants were either Cubans or Puerto Ricans, with others from Honduras, Nicaragua,

Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, and other Latin-American countries.

As indicated above, some data also came from TV programs (soap operas, movies, talk

shows, entertainment programs, and so on) in a well-known Spanish-speaking TV station

based in Miami, Florida, USA: Univision. Some data also came from Internet sites or

chat groups, phone conversations, and everyday talk where the researcher was one of the

interactants. Direct participation of the researcher in such interactions was very useful,









especially when trying to understand the nature, purpose, and context of these linguistic

interactions.

Data Analysis

After collecting the data, I transcribed the suffixed words, paying special attention

to the contexts of those words to determine the meaning and intention of the suffixation.

Then, it was necessary to categorize the suffixed words into major sociolinguistic and

pragmatic categories. To perform such taxonomy, this categorization process considered

the different SPEAKING speech components described above and also common

sociolinguistic and pragmatic labels in the corresponding literature described below.

Subsequent to transcription and classification, triangulation of the data took place.

This is a common approach in studies of this type to tap into the participants' own

perspectives on interactions under analysis (Gumperz, 1982). Two triangulation

techniques were used: quasi-ethnographic interviews (as defined in Boxer, 2002) and

questionnaires (see appendixes). The questionnaires were given to Spanish L1 speakers.

Twenty-five L1 speakers' questionnaires were analyzed, and the discussion is presented

in the data analysis chapters (primarily Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). In the ethnographic

interviews that took place after the recording, the interviewees answered questions that

helped to either confirm or reject hypotheses in relation to particular instances. These

answers enriched and supplemented the analysis at the time.

These interviews (around 20 in total) with native speakers of Spanish also took

place. These informants' (in both the interviews and questionnaires) ages spanned some

forty years (from late teens to early sixties). Both female and male speakers participated

in the data triangulation process. Also, speakers from different countries (mostly Latin

American countries) participated. Some of the interviewees contributed to the data corpus









and others did not. These interviewees that did not contribute to the data corpus

commented on the grammaticality, potential meaning, and effects of the expressions they

were given. During these quasi-ethnographic interviews, the interviewees answered

triangulatingg" questions with simple non-technical terms which were useful to determine

the participants' opinion of the semantics, pragmatics, grammaticality, and

sociolinguistics of the suffixes used. These questions served to delve more deeply into

the interviewees' perception of such linguistic forms, since much of this is not at the

conscious level of the speakers. The following are examples of the types of questions in

the interviews:

* Can you tell me the difference between carro (car) and carrlTO (car+DIM)?

* Why didn't you say carro instead of carrlTO at this moment?

* What can you tell me about the person or activity you hear in this recording?

* Can you paraphrase what you just heard?

* What is this person trying to do or achieve here? What's her/his ultimate intention?

* Can you imitate a person with the following characteristics (e.g., a rich lady at a
party)?

* What do you think is going to happen after this point in the recording (the tape
paused)?

* Is this acceptable or good Spanish for you?

* What degree/size do the following features/items have?(car vs. car+Dim; blue vs.
blue+Dim)

* Why do you think this word can have an ito/-ote/-isimo but this other word
cannot?

Many of the questions used in the questionnaire and the interviews had a

psycholinguistic motivation based on Reeder's (1996) speech act comprehension

strategy. This technique was used to test children's pragmatic awareness (of speech acts)









in Reeder's study. The children undertook 12 task items in a randomized fashion. Before

receiving a stimulus sentence, they were given an explanation of the context of the

sentence they were about to hear ("Would you like to look at the books?"). This sentence

took place in a classroom format, and a teacher had uttered this sentence to indicate to the

students to start the reading section of the class. In the testing section, after this

clarification, the children were asked which alternative (of two) or meaning they thought

the teacher had in mind when she said "Would you like to look at the books?" The two

response alternatives were: 1) "I want you to look at the books", and 2) "Do you want to

look at the books?" According to the general procedure of the experiment, #1 was the

expected answer and #2 was just a distractor. It would show whether the children

participating in the test were in fact aware of the actual speech act (command) given by

the utterance. In my study, these questions were intended to determine what this (already

internalized) pragmatic awareness of L1 speakers informed us about the different

functions of Spanish evaluative suffixes.

The results of this data analysis process are presented in Chapter 4 (Pragmatic

Functions) and Chapter 5 (Sociolinguistic Effects). The first one focuses on pragmatic

categories such as speech acts attenuation or intensification, politeness marking, and

related issues. The second addresses sociolinguistic categories such as in-group identity,

social distance, and social context marking.

Morphopragmatics

In relation to the type of linguistic phenomena analyzed in my study and its goals,

this is a morphopragmatic study, since it shows the interface between morphology and

pragmatics. Morphopragmatics has been defined simply as morphologizedpragmatics

(Dressler & Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994: 55), or in other words, pragmatic functions









performed via morphological processes. This is a relatively new sub-field of linguistic

research. The first studies that were formally categorized as morphopragmatic appeared

in the mid eighties (for detailed explanations, definitions and history of this field, see

Dressler & Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994).

Recall that my study analyzes Spanish morphological processes from a

sociolinguistic and pragmatic perspective. It also looks at pragmatic effects caused by

Spanish bound morphemes. My study has this dual nature: pragmatic and morphological.

The reason for this is that "grammar and pragmatics are complementary domains within

linguistics" (p. 4) as defined by Leech (1983). Because of this double-fold nature

(pragmatic and morphological), my study falls under the category of morphopragmatic

research.

Extensive review of literature in Spanish in the topic yielded only one study that

openly described itself as morphopragmatic (Cantero, 2001). Cantero presents adequate

theoretical accounts of this field in the Spanish language. Yet, we still need many more

formal Spanish descriptive studies in this new and important field of linguistic research.

My study also aims at contributing to filling this gap in the general field of

morphopragmatics, and more specifically in the field of Spanish morphopragmatics. We

definitely need morpho-pragmatic analyses because they show how bound morphemes

may not only obey basic semantic (semantic affixes) or grammatical (phi-feature

markers) requirements of the language (e.g., Spanish) but also may have pragmatic

functions.

Mey (1989), who is not a morphologist but a well-known pragmatician, pleads for

the investigation of this connection between morphology and pragmatics. Interestingly,









and in line with my study, Mey (as cited by Kiefer, 1998) shows some morphological

processes that express power and solidarity, which is the case of Spanish EVALs as

shown throughout my study. In conclusion, methodologically, this is a morphopragmatic

descriptive account of Spanish naturalistic data using an ethnographic approach. In

essence, my study is morphopragmatic, qualitative/descriptive, naturalistic, and

ethnographic.

Conclusion

My study, in sum, represents an ethnographic attempt to qualitatively describe

morphological phenomena with pragmatic and sociolinguistic implications. The specific

type of morphological phenomena analyzed is Spanish Evaluative Morphology, which

involves prototypically processes such as diminutivization and augmentativization, and

marginally processes such as (absolute) superlativization and pejoration. Pejoration will

be analyzed only as a subcategory of DIMs and AUGs, not independently. My study

leaves suffixes that have already been accounted for as pejoratives (e.g., ejo, ajo, ucho,

uelo) out of formal consideration. There seems to be not much more to say about these

suffixes, pragmatically speaking. In fact, the term "pejorative" is essentially a pragmatic

one. Thus, any account of such suffixes is in essence, a pragmatic account. My study is

limited to the other EVALs: diminutives (DIMs), augmentatives (AUGs), and

superlatives (SUPERLs), which appear to have had up to this point insufficient or

incomplete pragmatic and sociolinguistic formalization.These processes represent

relatively productive and frequent suffixation in modem informal Spanish.

The literature reviewed has shown two important impetuses that motivated this

topic. On the one hand, there is not much formal research on the pragmatic and

sociolinguistic implications of such suffixes. On the other hand, most studies that do









analyze these aspects of such phenomena fail to account for important issues in this

respect. My study, then, is an attempt to fill this gap in the research.

It is a primary goal that, by the end of my study, the reader will have a fuller

understanding of three important related issues (three research questions): 1) The ways in

which Spanish evaluative suffixes (EVALs) affect speech act performance; 2) the effects

Spanish evaluative suffixes can have in linguistic interactions in society; and 3) the

(semantic-pragmatic) connection of the various and many meanings and uses of such

affixes. These aspects constitute the main goals in this work.














CHAPTER 2
EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: FUNDAMENTALS

Evaluativeness in General

The linguistic items analyzed here (e.g., DIMs, AUGs) as any other type of

evaluation expressed in linguistic form, are evaluative in the sense that they convey

(consciously or subconsciously) a type of value of the referents or audience, according to

the speaker's judgment. Hunston and Thompson (2000) give an overview of evaluation,

its discourse functions and how to recognize it, and they observe a lack of consensus

among linguists in regards to its delimitations, categorization and definition. The authors

distinguish two major types of evaluation-driven marking in language: affective (good-

bad) opinion, primarily in reference to entities; and epistemic or probability opinion (e.g.,

"it is fairly certain ..."), in connection normally to propositions. They view these two

types of speaker/writer's opinion as subcategories of evaluation. Hunston and Thompson

further elaborate on subcategories and add two more types of evaluation: expectedness

(i.e., how much resemblance to the norm) and importance (i.e., subjective value in

relation to degree of relevance).

They suggest that parameters such as expectedness and importance can be related

to the basic good-bad parameter. Hunston and Thompson argue that identifying

evaluation "is a question of identifying signals of comparison, subjectivity and social

value ... evaluation consists of anything which is compared to or contrasts with the norm"

(p. 13). This definition encompasses linguistic structures; attitudinal, interpersonal and

discourse-organizational functions; pragmatic inferences as well as conventional, coded









meanings. Since these authors recognize that (linguistic) evaluation can be achieved via

lexical, syntactic or morphological marking, then it follows that we may find evaluative

lexicon, evaluative syntax and evaluative morphology in human languages.

Evaluativeness in Morphology: Evaluative Morphology: Based on the

discussion above and arguments in the previous introductory chapter, evaluative

morphology refers basically to the marking of subjective appreciation of the referents via

bound affixes. The specific types of subjective evaluation analyzed here are those of

diminution, augmentation, and intensification. These correspond respectively to

diminutive, augmentative, and superlative affixes. Chapter I already elaborated on the

definition of evaluative morphology, but this section presents some important additions to

that discussion to place evaluative morphology in a broader context.

The category of diminution, as a general concept, is a universal category since it

may be expressed in all languages (Schneider, 2003). The difference from language to

language is the particular linguistic devices used (e.g., suffixes, separate lexical items,

tones). We then can logically expect its opposite, augmentation, to be found also in many

languages, if not all. Superlativization is a concept that some authors do not even

consider within the same category of diminutivization or augmentivization. However, as

shown in subsequent chapters, in many respects, superlatives (in Spanish at least) behave

similarly to diminutives and augmentatives. Furthermore, as mentioned above, SUPERLs

present a subjective evaluation of the referent. In conclusion, all these evaluative

processes (i.e., diminution, augmentation, superlativization) express the speaker's

attitude/appreciation towards a certain abstract or concrete entity, state or event. They

refer to entities when attached to nouns, states when attached to adjectives, and events









when attached to verbs. They may even evaluate modifications of actions/states when

attached to adverbs.

The Morphology of Evaluatives

Let us start with some simple notions. Traditionally, EVALs have been considered

derivational affixes (Fernandez, 1986). In Modern Spanish, DIMs attach to many bases

such as Nouns (N), Adjective (A), Adverb-Verb (Adv-V), Pronoun (Pro), and Interjection

(in order of importance/hierarchy as suggested by Ettinger (1974), according to Bauer's,

1997 citations). One restriction we observe in modern Spanish DIMs regarding

productivity is the impossibility of attachment to abstract Ns, which is noticed in the

unacceptability of *felicidadita (happiness + DIM), *dependencita (dependence+ DIM),

*inteligencita (intelligence+DIM), *entendimientito (understanding+DIM), *pacita

(peace+DIM). We also have a certain allomorphy in some dialects of Spanish regarding

the distribution of -ito and -ico. In some Caribbean varieties of Spanish, -ico is an

allomorph of -ito (or -cito) when following root-final [t]. The phonological motivation

for ico may be captured in an Optimality Theory approach (Kager, 1999) by making

reference to a well studied constraint called the Obligatory Contour Principle or OCP.

This principle is commonly understood as a constrain prohibiting the adjacency of two

identical elements on a tier (Myers, 1994). For the dialects that use this allomorph, then,

the OCP constraint is high-ranked; whereas this is a low-rank constraint for the "non-ico"

dialects. Speakers of dialects with a high-ranked OCP would have the following forms:

[kart-a] (letter+FEMININE) [kart-ika] (letter+DIM) but not *[kart-ita], for example. It

is a type of dissimilation process; dissimilation of two successive [t]s at the phonological

consonantal tier (t V t t V c).









AUGs have very similar contexts as DIMs, but they are still less productive. For

example, there are no attested examples of AUGs attaching to gerunds (*comiendote=

eating+AUG), contrary to attested cases of comiendito (eating+DIM). Even more, some

AUGs such as -azo and -6n are further restricted, probably due to the etymons that gave

rise to these suffixes, unlike the "pure" AUG -ote. For example, the adjective grande

("big") normally accepts the -ote AUG. Not any other AUG is normally found with this

adjective (grande+ote; *grande+azo, and ?grand+ n).

Superlatives attach to adjectives, not to adverbs (in the case of attachment to Ns,

usually these Ns are, at least potentially, adjectives also). It has been suggested that it

attaches to adverbs. However, let us consider the following arguments against attachment

of -isimo to adverbs:

* -mente (-ly) adverbs do not accept SUPERL (*lentamentisima; lentisimamente),
* Nor do monomorphemic adverbs: (ex. *bienisimo vs buenisimo).

In a few words, this SUPERL attaches to whatever may be used as an adjective. It does

not attach to pure adverbs (bien and -mente adverbs). Let us now look at this morphology

more accurately and in detail.

Morphological Theoretical Tenets: Even though my study has no real foundation

in morphological theory (it is more pragmatic in nature), there are still important

morphological conceptual aspects to clarify. There have been two major theoretical

approaches to morphology and its relation to the lexicon: The word-based lexicon (words

are stored in the lexicon as whole units, not as separate affixes and bases) and the

morpheme-based lexicon (only roots are stored and then rules are applied). My study

adheres to Lowie's (1998) and Miller's (1993) assumption that there is actually a

connection between the two. "Most linguists as well as psychologists will now agree that









instead of a choice between listing and active-rule word formation both strategies are

likely to interact in a complete model of producing and processing morphologically

complex words" (Lowie 1998: 7). These approaches complement each other. Some

morphologically complex words may be stored and accessed in the lexicon as a whole

(especially those less frequent, less productive and more opaque), and others may be

analyzed (those more frequent, productive, and transparent). For example, Lowie

mentions DIMs as a very transparent affixation process (modern illo, an exemption),

which would therefore be formed through rules.

One clear account that connects morphological theory, evaluative morphology and

cognitive fields is provided by Pounder (2000). Pounder set up a list of word-formation

functions, which she divided into primary and secondary. Even though this distinction is

not clearly explained, it seems to be related to the degree of productivity and frequency of

such functions. Thus, diminutivization, which she labeled as DIM('X') and defined as

"'X' is made smaller, diminished" (p. 118), is a primary function. In the data analyzed in

my study, DIM is definitely a much more productive and frequent suffix than the other

two evaluatives analyzed here (AUG and SUPERL). These other two evaluatives,

accordingly, were labeled as secondary in Pounder's list. Even though Pounder does not

overtly cite a "SUPERL" category, she has an "INTENS(X)" function, which resembles

our SUPERL. This INTENS('X') function is defined as "'X' is associated with a high

degree of expressive-emotional intensity or as present in an extraordinary degree" (p.

121). AUG('X') is simply defined as "'X' is increased'" (p. 121) and opposite to DIM. In

all these instances, "X" refers to the base for the affix or function in consideration.

PEJ(X), one of the functions of the DIMs and AUGs analyzed in my study, is also part of









the secondary functions and is defined as "'X' is evaluated negatively" (p. 120). In fact,

Pounder states that most secondary functions belong to evaluative morphology, the main

focus of my study. However, this is more a psycholinguistic approach, which leaves

important morphological aspects unanswered. Furthermore, it seems to be simply a

taxonomic model in that it provides classificatory labels more than theoretical

explanations.

EVALs as morpho-syntactic markers: As in all Phrase Structure morphological

accounts since Baker (1988), my study relies on the notion that word formation and

phrase formation involve the same operations. Borer (1998) explains that "the thrust of

the argumentation in these works is to show that WF [word formation] phenomena

adhere to syntactic constraints and interact with syntactic rules, and hence are best

characterized as syntactic" (p. 157). Miller (1993) clearly indicates that "the order of

affixes obeys the same principles that govern sentence formation; this can hardly be

coincidental" (p. 16). My study proposes a single head-complement relation for EVALs.

In Distributed Morphology, DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs may be said to function

as operators which occupy the head of a whole functional phrase, which shares features

with what Abney (1987), Corver (1997) and Rijkhoek (1998) called "Degree Phrase".

According to Abney and Corver, degree elements (e.g., "so", "more", SUPERL) are

heads that select APs (and other phrases) as their complements. In this syntactic model, it

is said that they project a Degree Phrase (DegP) and select an AP. In their analysis, based

on the X X' X" structuring (common in syntactic models), the constituency is the

following:











Spec -Deg-
Deg AP

Because of the similar syntactic behavior of Spanish EVALs to functional phrases

(when compared to degree operators such as "very" and "more"), based on our definition

of evaluativeness above, and considering Miller's (personal communication) suggestions

and Cinque's (1999) treatment of evaluatives, we propose the following general morpho-

syntactic structure for Spanish EVALs:

EvalP

Spec val'

EvaJLX (P)

Figure 2. Tree diagram of EVALs

Since DIMs, AUGs, and SUPERLs all have an evaluative function, it is reasonable

to unify them as incorporations of an evaluative head. The head of the tree above is the

suffix itself (DIM, AUG, or SUPERL), and the complement of this head could be phrases

such as NPs, APs, AdvP, or VPs (in short, any phrase that can be evaluated via these

suffixes). We would then have the following specific configurations:

1 2 3 4
EVAL-P EVAL-P EVAL-P EVAL-P

EVAL' EVAL' E AL' EVAL'

EV N(P) EVAL A(P) EV Adv(P) EAL (P)
..o .... .ti
N Eval
car, -ito -ote grand -isimo much -ito trotando

In this hypothesized representation, there is left adjunction, in line with the

syntactic model above. In Kayne's (1994) antisymmetry hypothesis adopted by Rijkhoek









(1998), movement to the right and right-adjunction are illegitimate. Thus, the X(P)

constituents move to adjoin to Evalo or Eval, deriving words such as carrito (car+DIM)

in configuration 1, grandote (big+AUG) in 2, muchisimo (much+SUPERL) in 3, and

trotandito (jogging+DIM) in 4.

One potential problem with the previous proposal involves its account of the

reduplicative or iterative property of Spanish EVALs. On the one hand, iterative cases

(e.g., poquitititito = little+DIM+DIM+DIM) can be treated as successive adjuncts,

assuming it is necessary in the logical form (LF) component of the grammatical system,

where derivations get interpretation. On the other hand, if they are not processed at LF,

then they may be simply phonological copies (PF copies) or part of language play. My

study argues that these iterative cases do convey some type of interpretative force;

namely that of intensification. Even though my study suggests that it be further looked

into, especially by studies of a more morphosyntactic nature than this one, it hypothesizes

that these reduplication-like (or more accurately, iteration) cases constitute a type of

successive adjunction to EVAL-heads. Regardless of how they are treated, it is important

to note that this type of right-edge iteration seems to be a unique property of these

functional phrases (FP). FPs do not normally have this property. In fact, it seems to

violate the haplological constraint or OCP as formalized before (Raffelsiefen, 1996).

Usually, this type of iteration is permitted only on the left-edge, and strictly forbidden on

the right edge. In fact, Miller (in personal interviews) mentions the following examples to

show how this constraint works: boyish vs *fishish. Even though these are not examples

of morphological reduplication, these show that repeating similar syllabic groups on the

right edge is not permitted; which seems to be the only reason for the illformedness of









"fishish". To account for the type of iteration found in evaluative items, we would need

to propose that iteration may be an inherent property of EVAL-Ps (also seen in English

phrases such as "very very very good"). This is one thing that makes these Spanish

suffixes special; they seem to violate a strong constraint.

Evaluativeness Cross-Linguistically

Non(morphologically) Evaluative Languages: Evaluative Syntax

"Evaluative syntax" is symmetrical to "evaluative morphology". The latter

involves the marking of EVAL features at the morphological level. Thus, we can extend

the definition to the area of syntax. We can think of"EVAL syntax", then, as the marking

of EVAL features at the syntactic level; or in other words, not synthetically but

analytically. Essentially, the difference between analytical and synthetic is that the latter

involves affixal instantiations of the former. One fundamental similarity is that both

markers occupy head positions on EVAL-P trees. We discuss specific examples below.

In relation to languages without EVAL morphology, it should be first noted that "it

is difficult to be sure from grammars that a given language does NOT have a particular

phenomenon", as Bauer (1997) clearly states, in relation to universal tendencies in

evaluative morphology precisely. However, based on traditional typologies and some

discoveries in the review of the relevant literature, this chapter presents some potential

examples. We could logically assume that languages traditionally classified as analytical

will have no EVAL morphology. Such category involves English, marginally, and more

clearly Chinese. The latter has been reported as marking all categories at the syntactic

level, with isolated (and often monosyllabic) words (Crystal, 1997). Even purely

grammatical functions such as tense would be marked lexically (with different lexical









items). Thus, it is easy to predict that the same is true for marking [+EVAL] features

when applicable.

English, on the other hand, has synthetic (work+ED) and analytical (WILL work)

features; which makes it mixed. However, there is a consensus among linguists that

English tends to be more analytical than synthetic. Actually, in historical perspective,

English has been changing from synthetic to analytic structures. In relation to EVAL

marking, we also see the two tendencies: Synthetic (John-Y, dogg-IE) and analytical

(LITTLE/DEAR John, LITTLE/DEAR dog) (Schneider, 2003). However, there are more

cases of analytical EVAL marking than synthetic EVALs. For example, there is no real

morphological equivalent of Spanish -isimo (one marginal EVAL suffix), which means

something like "very". English more often uses the separate lexical item "very" for this

intensive function, even though in modem English a few synthetic instantiations of this

function can be observed in cases like "the bestest" vs. "the very best". Also, English

DIMs such as "-let" (piglet), "-ling" (duckling), and "y-ie" (Johnny, doggie) are not very

productive (Schneider, 2003).

The bases for these few English diminutives are very restricted (often infantile

terms), unlike the analytical equivalents (little/small), which combine with many lexical

categories. That is why we have "lousy little..." in English instead of pejorative DIM

affixes such as the Spanish and Fula ones. This may be also observed in the fact that

analytical expressions such as "itsy bitsy, teeny weeny" (analytic diminutivization, even

if we consider final -y as a remote DIM) are common DIMs for certain English-speaking

groups (Schneider, 2003). Some other languages without EVAL morphology are









Samoan, and Quiche Mayan, of which Crystal (1997) says: "many of the features of

Anglo-American motherese ...-such as diminutives- were found to be absent." (p.237)

Thus, it is obvious that some languages have evaluative morphology while others

express related semantic nuances lexically; henceforth analytically. On the analytic side,

we have languages such as Chinese, English, Samoan, and Quiche Mayan. On the

synthetic/morphological side we have many Indo-European languages (e.g., German,

Latin, Dutch, Greek, Scottish), including more distinctively Romance languages (e.g.,

Spanish, Italian), and other non-IE languages such as Fula, Swahili, and Japanese.1

The marking of evaluativeness at one level or the other may have to do with

historical processes or with (typological) representational preferences. These two types of

motivations are in line with Jurafsky (1996), who believes that by "considering the

dependence of synchronic meaning on both historical and human cognitive context it is

possible to tease apart the seemingly paradoxical and unmotivated components of a

particular semantic category: [for example] the diminutive." (p. 562). Anderson (1992)

states that it is not uncommon across languages for the "internal structure of words [to]

derive from earlier syntactic constructions" (p. 348). He cites Giv6n's (1971) famous

aphorism "today's morphology is yesterday's syntax" (p. 348). Anderson (1990) also

supports this idea, since he thinks that "words have the form they do ... especially ...

because of the history of the language with respect to both grammar and to sound." (p.

278). However, it is important to keep in mind that this may not be the end of the whole

story. Recall that it is also possible for morphological anomalies to be altered in language

change to conform to the syntax of the language. Even though there may still be









unexplained phenomena across languages from a historical perspective, it definitely is an

explanation for the difference between evaluative morphology and evaluative syntax.

Diachronically, it is possible that those languages that do not have evaluative

morphology but syntactic or analytic EVALs, have simply not gone through linguistic

changes of the analytical-to-synthetic type. Those that do have EVALs at the

morphological level did go through (or are going through) the changes already. However,

even within the morphological EVAL languages, it is totally possible that those affixes

emerged not from lexical items but from previous bound morphemes. This is very

probably the case with Spanish EVALs. In this sense, reanalysis may have taken place

and previous non-EVAL affixes were re-interpreted or understood as EVALs. Below, we

discuss a language with evaluative morphology (or EVAL morphology language), Fula.

Anderson (1992) explains how noun class suffixes in Modern Fula can be traced back to

earlier pronominal elements. In the section below on Fula, we see that EVALs are also

class suffixes; thus, this could be a reason to hypothesize that EVAL class suffixes also

may have had a non-affixal or non-grammatical status. This can be a good example of a

historical motivation for EVAL morphology.

In conclusion, the reason for marking some categories at different levels across

languages may have an explanation in the history of the language, in basic human

cognition and cultural or pragmatic forces (last two elaborated later since they may be

connected).

Morphologically Evaluative Languages: Two Types

Let us start this section with a reference to Fula EVAL morphology, which should

help us observe the relationship of evaluative morphology to the Agr evaluatives such as

the Fula pejorative DIM. According to McIntosh (1984), Fula (West Atlantic branch of









the Niger-Congo language family) has a rich nominal declension system with 25 N

classes, 19 singular and 6 plural. That is why Anderson (1976) calls it a "class language"

and explains that the complete declension often contains 7 forms: citation form (class 1)

and its Pl. (cl. 2), DIM (3) and its Pl. (6), DIM Pej. (5), AUG. (7), and its Pl. (8). Stem

initial consonants (Cs) vary (often within 3 possibilities or grades such as stops, [-stop],

and prenasal stops) or agree/inflect with noun classes, which is known in Fula grammar

as "C gradation" or "alternation". Each noun class has a corresponding form or grade for

the initial C of the stem. For example, when "man" (dim-/rim-/ndim-) attaches to PL. -be,

the initial C grade is continuant ([r]), producing the form rimbe (men); when attached to

DIM -el, the grade is stop ([d]), producing the form dimel (little man); and when attached

to the DIM Pl. -on, the grade is prenasal stop ([nd]), deriving ndimon (little men).

All this morpho-phonological explanation in the previous paragraph should make it

clear that nominal stems are constituents of the same XP as nominal-class markers (i.e.,

noun roots must be accompanied by a nominal-class suffix). In our morphological model,

we could say that these nominal-class suffixes are functional heads whose complement is

an NP (whose head is the noun root). The class suffix limits the reference of the stem. We

need to keep in mind here that Fula EVAL suffixes such as DIMs and AUGs are just part

of these class-suffixes with clear and heavy class-marking features and functions. The

Fula language has 6 evaluative suffixes: ngel (DIM. Sing.), koyU (DIM. Pl.), kal (DIM.

Qu.), nga (AUG. Sg.), ko (AUG. Pl.), and the pejorative DIM ngum (McIntosh, 1984).

Mukoshy (1991) makes a distinction in the 25 N classes referred above: Basic

classes and subsidiary/secondary classes. Among the latter, Mukoshy included the

evaluative suffixes we are dealing with in this paper. In another paper, Mukoshy (1991)









clarified this distinction. The primary class refers to Ns that are fixed within a particular

class and will not change to another (for example, "horse" will always belong to the

nonhuman class). On the other hand, secondary classes (like DIMs) may take any N.

All these suffixes mark features or functions very essential to Fula speakers; as

important as gender reference in Spanish, or number reference in English. In Spanish, we

always find reference to the gender (often Masculine-Feminine) of entities in discussion.

In English, we cannot speak without referring to the number (Sing-Pl) of the entity we

talk about (more on this below in reference to Hardman's, 1978 linguistic postulates). In

the same fashion, Fula people cannot speak without reference to aspects such as class,

quantity, and animateness. According to Mukoshy (1991), in Fula, "a thing is either

ordinary/normal, large, small, or tiny." (p. 25). That is why he states that, unlike other

cultures, Fula people do not see things in terms of masculinity or femininity (like

Spanish-speaking people), but rather in terms of distinctions such as countable/

uncountable, animate/inanimate, and human-nonhuman.

On the other hand, these nominal suffixes, including the evaluative ones, mark

class membership. This is precisely the reason for classifying the Fula evaluative suffixes

as grammar-compliant (vs. pure semantic affixes such as Spanish EVALs), since they are

basically class/number and concord/agreement morphemes, unlike the same type of

morphemes in other languages. They are basically grammatical markers (i.e., they code

redundant information or information already present in the derivation). Anderson (1992)

pointed out that this type of affixes include some sort of [+Agr] features within the phrase

(feature absent in Spanish EVALs). These features can be imposed on class-markers

(such as Fula's evaluative suffixes in our case) due to the position they have in the larger









phrase and in relation to other phrase constituents. Anderson argues that in this Fula class

paradigm, DIM/AUGs act, morpho-syntactically, exactly as the PL(ural) suffixes. Thus,

both PL and DIM, for example, should get the same label.

The other type of morphological marking of evaluativeness corresponds to most

cases of morphological EVALs: semantic suffixes. These, again, are optional in nature

and not required by grammar-compliant rules. Spanish EVALs fall within this category

as do the rest of the Romance languages EVALs and those of many other languages.

This, at first sight, may seem to correspond to the inflectional-derivational distinction.

However, as argued before, this dichotomy is not principled and finds many counter-

examples. We simply refer to these two types of morphological marking as grammar vs.

semantic suffixes (i.e., as a terminological tool).

However, in our morpho-syntactic model, this distinction does not seem relevant,

since both markings may be accounted for by similar principles. We just need to keep in

mind that the difference between the two relies on LF processing. The "grammatical"

type (e.g., Fula) involves redundant features adjoined at spellout or assignment of

phonetic form-PF (not at LF) whereas the "semantic" type (e.g., Spanish) involves non-

redundant features required for LF interpretation. This distinction is only important when

further analyzing the specific grammars of languages with EVALs.

In conclusion, languages mark the category of evaluativeness (or use EVALs) in

one of two ways, synthetically affixall instantiation) or analytically (non affixal

instantiation), which may be in direct connection with the marking of language-specific

postulates. This takes us to the assumption that evaluativeness may be in fact a linguistic

postulate.









Linguistic Postulates and Evaluative Morphology

Hardman (1978) defines linguistic postulates as "those recurrent categorizations in

the language... most directly and most tightly tied to the perceptions of the speakers" (p.

122). These are so imposed that the interactants view them as natural parts of their

universe or reality. The importance of this in linguistic research is simply that the more

powerful a postulate is, the more involved it is in a language's grammatical system. Very

succinctly, Hardman explains that these postulates are language specific, and that they

may be realized at different levels; morphologically or syntactically, for example, which

was shown in the previous section. Hardman mentions some examples of these postulates

in two different language families. On the one hand, we have postulates such as sex and

number in Indo-European languages. On the other hand, we have data source (something

similar to what O'Grady et al (1997) called "assertion" in Hidatsa) and humanity as

linguistic postulates in Jaqi languages.

We can assume, then, that these postulates originate as human conceptual

categories which may develop special significance in a particular culture and

consequently get coded in the language of that culture. We can also assume that this may

be the case for EVAL marking and for the evaluativeness postulate. If we extrapolate,

then, it would not be strange at all that so many languages exhibit this EVAL feature,

even though it seemingly ought to be culture specific. The important point is that

cognitive/conceptual categories (e.g., littleness) may have culturally very different

realizations. It would be similar to other linguistic postulates, such as number. Hardman

mentioned number in Indo-European (IE) languages, in which this category is a postulate.

Other non-IE languages may also mark number (e.g., Hebrew, Fula). Miller (1993) points









out that all languages have numerals, supporting the idea that number is conceptual (i.e.,

enumerating entities is a cognitive process).

Postulates can pervade languages/cultures and even language families, as the

arguments above suggest. If this is true with number and sex, there are no reasons to

believe that it may not happen with other postulates such as the type of evaluation

discussed in my study. Because of the observations mentioned so far and my findings in

the literature, no doubt DIMs (or EVALs) are "among the grammatical primitives which

seem to occur universally or near-universally." (Jurafsky 1996: 534).

On the other hand, we may need to resort to historical and anthropological

linguistics to give another possible answer to the question of the pervasiveness of

evaluativeness. As Hardman suggests, postulates such as sex and number are inherent in

IE languages. What this implies is that these features are almost unavoidable when

speaking an IE language. However, for non-IE speakers, those features are not of general

importance; they are features with which they do not need to be concerned. One possible

hypothesis for the existence of different linguistic features in a language is that these may

come from language ancestors or Proto-languages. In the case of IE languages, historical

linguists propose a Proto Indo-European or PIE stage (Jeffers and Lehiste, 1979). Thus,

we might hypothesize that one reason sex and number marking occurs in so many IE

languages is that these were also PIE's linguistic postulates (Miller, in personal

communication, clarifies that sex only became a postulate after the Anatolian branch split

off); they just spread to many of its daughters. Even though it might need more historical

reconstructions (which Jurafsky claims to have done for DIMs, as explained in the next

chapter), this is a very plausible explanation for understanding the existence of similar









postulates across languages. We have here another possible reason why the evaluation

postulate is found in many languages. Due to the importance of historical developments

in language, the next section presents a relatively brief overview of EVALs' history.

Origins of Spanish EVALs

It is important to look at EVALs from a diachronic perspective, even if the main

focus of analysis is pragmatic-sociolinguistic. A well-known sociologist of language,

Joshua Fishman (1972b), argued that sociolinguistics might well benefit from historical

perspectives. Fishman believes that "time [or historical] perspective deepens our

understanding of and appreciation for any particular sociolinguistic topic." (p. 146).

Jurafsky (1996): "In recent years, however, many scholars have begun to treat the

synchronic state of the semantics of a language as profoundly bound up with its

diachronic nature" (p. 533). Let us consider each one of Spanish EVALs, in order of

frequency. Even though the following is not a historical linguistic treaty, it should help

the reader to know somewhat more about the suffixes under scrutiny here.

Diminutives

The 24 Spanish suffixes below have been associated more or less with DIM

functions in the literature review (mainly based on lists by Gonzalez Olle, 1962; Gooch,

1967; Fernandez Ramirez, 1986; Penny, 1993; and Pharies, 2002) across dialects and

across time. In Appendix C, the reader can observed a table with these suffixes and some

information about their origins and meanings. Let us list them all here as a starting point,

even though some of them will be hardly discussed since they have either lost DIM

functions or are hardly productive: -acho, -ajo, -ancho, -allo, -asco, -culo, -eco, -ejo, -elo,

-ico, -illo, -in, -ingo, -ino, -iTo, -ito, -oco, -orro, -ulo, -ucho, -uco, -uelo, -ujo, and

uncho.









When looking into the history of Spanish, we need to look first into the (mainly

Vulgar) Latin language, its main ancestor (the IE language that appeared in Italy probably

around centuries VI or VII, given that Wallace (1989) lists Latin inscriptions form 620-

600 BC). Admittedly, there are influences on Spanish from other languages such as

Basque, Greek, Arabic, Proto-Germanic, and others, as Entwistle (1948) clearly shows.

We can also look for more remote origins if we look at the ancestors of Latin, namely the

Proto-Indo European (IE) language, whose daughters include Italic/Latin (Crystal, 1997).

PIE and Latin antecedents

There were Indo-European suffixes withfunci6n minorativa (Gonzalez-Olle 1962:

177). Of these, according to Gonzalez-Olle, -lo- evolved the most in Latin (> -olo- > -

ulo-). But -ko- is also a reported IE suffix (even though some argue that it had DIM

functions, it was mostly an emphatic affix), which probably gave rise to the Latin DIM

-culus when combined with lo-. Thus, we may summarize saying that there were two

main DIMs in Latin, -ulus, DIM for nouns of 1st and 2nd declension, and culus, DIM for

the rest of the declensions, reflections of the IE equivalents -lo- and -ko-, respectively.

The other Latin DIM -ellus (or its allomorphs -illus/-ollus/-ullus according to root final

vowels) is believed to come from a morphonological variation of -ulus. In relation to the

use of this suffix, Gonzalez-Olle explains (which has been known already) that in root-

final liquids and nasals, assimilation takes place (of -root- Cs to the suffix [1]), after the

loss of its initial V, producing the variant -ellus, according to root final vowels (p. 178).

This would give us cases like *librelo > *librlo > *liberlo >libellus (Steriade, 1988).

However, whatever the specific origins of the LAT DIMs were, we may assert, as Pharies

(2002) did, that there were really only two LAT DIMs:-(c)ulus and (c)ellus (p. 366)

(four if culus is separated from ulus and cellus from ellus), at least in the form they









were really used in LAT. Let us see the development of these and other related suffixes

that gave rise to Spanish DIMs. References to specific phonological changes from Latin

to Spanish are based on historical accounts by Resnick (1981) and Penny (1993).

-ellus (Acc. -ellum > -ellos; the first is a short vowel, and Il is a geminate or long

[1]). It has produced Spanish forms with an initial [e], its diphthong [ie], or the reduced

diphthong [i], whence the Spanish DIM -illo and its variants. In relation to the new final

vowel, there was a process of vocalic changes often implying a certain degree of vowel

(V) lowering or opening (u- o), according to description of common Latin-to-Spanish

phonological changes. Until the XIV century, the most frequent form was -iello, and for

approximately the next two centuries, -illo was the most common variant.

-(i)(c)alis (sometimes it had a short or long -i): Common Latin (LAT) stress

pattern rules causes the first -u of the suffix to be in unstressed position. When short

vowels (e.g., -i) were in this position, they were normally lost from LAT to Spanish

(SPN). It (plus rules mentioned above) would produce -iclo. Another common

phonological rule (i.e., -cl- -j-) gives us a new form -ijo with no clear relation to

vowel length. Vocalic changes such as -i e gave rise to -ejo, and in rare cases, when

the -i- was long, it might have produced -ijo. However, this last relationship described is

not totally clear. Pharies (2002) proposes more a semantic tie, rather than a phonological

one. The allomorph -ulus gave rise also to -ulo, which seems more a learned suffix,

unlike those discussed above.

-olus. (Late LAT) For this suffix, similar processes of vowel opening (u- o) and

vowel dipthongization (stressed short o-ue) take place. This gives us modern Spanish

DIMs such as uelo or uela. The former comes from the accusative masculine singular









form (-olum), which also implies a final-m deletion process, and the latter comes from its

feminine counterpart (-ola).

Other non-DIM Latin suffixes

-inus: It would clearly produce our modern -in(a/o) suffixes, according to the rules

mentioned above. However, we should keep in mind that this is not a LAT DIM suffix.

-ittus: (hypocoristic anthroponomy, which will be discussed under "Meaning

Changes"). This LAT suffix produces the widespread and productive modern -ito, even

though it should have produced -eto, which has also been observed as another DIM. This

may be related to the DIM series in -et (ete- eta- eto). Admittedly, this was not really a

LAT DIM since "Le latin ne possedaitpas de suffixe diminutive en tt-" (Hasselrot 1957:

9) (Latin did not have DIMs in -tt-). There is more on its original use and meaning

below.

-*iccus: (o.u.o.)(Vulgar LAT but not LAT, Pharies, p. 306) This gave rise to -ico.

These are the most common historical accounts of the etymological origins of the

Spanish DIMs discussed in this paper. Let us now discuss some modem and historical

morpho-semantic restrictions on these suffixes.

DIM's formal grammar

Regarding Latin, there were clear grammar restrictions for the suffixes discussed

thus far. Some LAT suffixes are -ulus and -culus, which gave rise to several Spanish

suffixes such as -culo/-ejo. They attached to nouns and adjectives to form their DIMs.

The suffixes -ulus and -culus were in an allomorphic relation, probably morphologically

motivated. The morphological motivation was in relation to noun classes. -ulus was used

with nouns of the Ist and 2nd declension. Some examples mentioned by Pharies are:

porta ae >portula (1st declension) and servus i > servulus (2nd declension). On the









other hand, -culus was used for the rest of the declensions. For example,flos oris >

flosculus (3rd declension), manus us > manuscula (4th declension), and dies diei >

diecula (5th declension). In Latin, according to Varro, a well-known Latin grammarian,

suffixes such as -ulum (DIM in modern grammar) were used to mark one of the

differences among nouns (Kent, 1938). Varro, according to Kent's (1938) translation,

asserted that Latin nouns "are varied in form to show differences in those things of which

they are the names or to denote those things outside, of which they are not the names" (p.

381). Diminutives are used to mark differences with reference to the whole thing, not a

part of it. Plurality and smallness were the two main categories mentioned by Varro in

reference to this aspect of nouns. The examples of smallness are: homunculus, which

meant "manikin" (from homo, which meant "human being" plus the diminutive); and

capitulum, which meant "little head" (from caput, which meant "head" plus the

diminutive). Varro also comments on the possibility for recursiveness of DIMs in cases

where double and even triple DIMs can be found (Ex. Cista "box" cistula "little box"

- cistella "a smaller box" cistellula "very little box"). Such cases were used on a

sliding scale of greater diminution (i.e., 3 l's is smaller than 2 l's and 2 smaller than 1).

The other Latin DIM -ellus (etymon of Spanish DIM -illo), used to be an

allomorph (phonologically motivated) of-ulus for roots ending in a liquid or nasal

consonant. This happened especially when the first -u was lost (caused by the common

unstressed vowels deletion mentioned above) and then the final consonant of the root

(especially nasals and liquids) assimilated to the -1- of-ulus. Pharies mentions the

example of liberulus liberlus libellus (diminutivization of "book"). However, -ellus

started replacing -ulus regardless of phonetic environment (probably around the first two









centuries AD). The non allomorphic and productive -ellus used to have different

connotations depending on the lexical category of the base; with adjective bases it had an

attenuative function, and with nominal bases it was a diminutivizer and/or differentiator.

Pharies cites Gonzalez -Olle and Casado Velarde (1992) in relation to the

distribution of the three main Old Spanish DIMs: -uelo (pedazuelo "little piece"), -ejo

(portalejo "small portal"), and -i(e)llo (cosilla "little thing"). The first was used mostly

with root-final non-liquid sonorants; -ejo was used for root-final liquids, and -iello,

elsewhere. However, for the XV century, -i(e)llo started being used in phonetic contexts

of its allomorphs (which gave rise to the significant productivity of -illo during those

times.) Pharies cites Gonzalez-Olle's about two variants of -iello in Old Spanish: -iello

and -ciello. The variant with -c- (derived itself from -culus, and this from the IE suffixes

*ko+lo) is used for two-syllable bases ending in -e, iambic bases ending in -n/-r, and

monosyllables ending in consonants, which is similar to the distribution of -ito/-cito and

illo/-cillo in Modem Spanish (with few alterations and much dialectal variation;

Mackenzie, 2001).

DIM's original senses

Varro (1938), Hanssen (1952), Ettinger (1974) and Fruyt (1989) all show that Latin

made extensive use of DIMs, and these suffixes were normally associated with the idea

of littleness. The pure meaning of DIMs was, according to Malkiel (1989) "genuine

miniaturizing... [it] underlies the relationship of casa 'house' to casita 'small house', or

\eitia '(married) lady' to \ei)
(1977), in reference to the Hispanic Romance times (probably around the 9th century),

explained that the people then used to use DIMs (such as articiilus) in a concrete sense of

littleness of the base (p. 10). In the very first grammar written for any Romance










language, around Renaissance and Middle Spanish times, Nebrija (1492) considered the

DIM as one of the nine forms or differences for derived nouns, together with

patronymics, possessives, augmentatives, comparatives, denominatives, verbal,

participials, and adverbials. He defined derived DIMs as diminution of the original base:

ombre (man) ombrezillo (man+DIM) =pequeho ombre (little man); thus the basic

sense for early grammarians (Varro and Nebrija) is "little/small" (p. 93-94). Pattison

(1975) separated diminutive and augmentative suffixes from the rest of early Spanish

suffixes as "affective" or "appreciative". The rest he called "categorials" (p. 5), which

have basically a function of structural and logic order.

Changes in meaning and productivity

In general, there is a tendency of the type DIM > PEJ, not only in

Spanish, but it seems to be a universal tendency, at all times and in

all languages, as suggested by Pharies (in personal communication).

Pharies further clarifies that not only DIM>PEJ but also AUG>PEJ is

possible. Anything that is supposed to be big but is actually small

causes the DIM>PEJ process. On the other hand, anything that is

supposed to be small but is actually big causes the AUG>PEJ process.

This section emphasizes the former process (DIM>PEJ). In the case of

Spanish, much of the basic Latin sense of littleness in the diminutive

is lost in many of the Spanish suffixes; and in many of those cases, it

is the pejorative idea that prevails. Pharies (2002) thinks that this

is the normal trajectory or course of Latin DIMs that end up becoming Spanish

pejorative suffixes (p. 423), even though this is one of the attested functions in Latin, as

shown in the following example mentioned by Miller (2003) in personal interviews:

Graeculus = "lousy little Greek!" This is the most essential change in the semantics and

pragmatics of the diminutives. This can be observed in the following DIMs that now have









both diminutive and pejorative functions in Spanish: -ancho, -ejo, -ete, -ucho, and -

uncho. All these had a smallness sense in their Latin origins (e.g., -culus), but now this

littleness sense seems to be competing with pejorative connotations. Other suffixes exist

whose diminutive sense has been completely lost: -elo, and -ulo (from Latin -ellus and -

ulus, respectively).

There are yet other less frequent phenomena in relation to the semantic

development of these Spanish DIMs: One is reanalysis, and the other is semantic

association. Some reanalysis is observed in -usculum, which becomes a suffix via a

wrong morphological analysis, which reanalyzes corpus-culum as corp-usculum (Pharies

2002: 507). Semantic extension or association is a plausible explanation for the origin of

the very productive DIM -ito, according to Pharies (2002), Gonzalez-Olle (1962), and

others. Originally, it is believed that -ittus was used with anthroponyms (especially as

nicknames for people). It is logical, semantically speaking, to see the connection between

these types of names and the diminutives since both share hypocoristic connotations. It is

not uncommon to see these types of names given to children, and this could have been

the explanation of its association with the sense of smallness, which probably was

extended later to inanimate entities. Also, Alonso (1937) considers more important for

the DIM the idea of hypocoristic and expressiveness than smallness. This, again, could

have been an even stronger reason to extend -ittus to its DIM behavior.

In relation to productivity, it is noticeable that many suffixes treated in this paper

are not productive. They are either productive only dialectally (like -oco in Chile), or

with very limited productivity (such as -ujo or -ucho), or with no productivity at all

(-uco, -ulo, -ueco, among others). There seem to be around four that are productive in









modern Spanish, namely -ejo, -ico, -illo, and -ito. Of these, -ejo is not really a

diminutive; it serves more pejorative and attenuating functions, as Pharies' example with

azulejo (bluish) shows. Thus, my study focuses on the productivity of the other three.

-ico. -ico was productive between the XV and the XVII centuries. Today it is

mostly in allomorphic variation with -ito in Caribbean Spanish (which has already been

discussed under "Formal Grammar"). Very few -ico diminutives are found in Spanish

literature of the 2nd half of the XVII century. In one example Pharies cites, there were

only five -ico DIMs found in Don Ramon de la Cruz's comedies. In the same literary

works, 206 times illo was found, and 1008 times for ito. Thus, obviously in this time,

-ito was the most productive DIM, followed by -illo, and finally -ico.

-illo. This suffix becomes generalized between the XIV and XV centuries. Before,

it was -iello, which was the Spanish DIMpar excellence. The suffix -illo is related to -

/llus, which is not frequent in Latin until the Post-Classical period (centuries I, II AD). At

that moment, -ellus started replacing -ulus, which was the most productive Latin DIM

until that time. Around the XV century, -illo competed hand-in-hand with -ito. However,

after this period, -ito wins the productivity race. Alvar and Pottier (1987) present -ito

even attaching to verbs (dormitar= "sleep+DIM").

-ito. The suffix -ito becomes more common during the XV century, and its

frequency and productivity continues to grow until today, when it represents the Spanish

DIMpar excellence. Until the XV century, -illo was apparently the most productive

Spanish DIM. However, Gonzalez Olle suggests a very interesting explanation regarding

this apparently long period of time between ittus and the appearance of -ito during the

12th and 13th centuries and then the long time before the great productivity of such affix









in the 15th century. Gonzalez Olle suggests that it may be the case that -ito was used

during these apparent times of absence but in uneducated or very informal environments,

which made it inappropriate for formal writings of the time. This is the reason this suffix

is not found in the documents that researchers normally have access to.

The productivity of -ito in the 15th century may be caused by two factors. One is the

linguistic pressure to use new expressive resources in the literature of the time, which

was in need of such a revival. The other factor, more at a societal dimension, was that

popular issues gained some prestige during this time caused by the social mobility (to

higher social status and positions) of members of the low social classes. Thus, the

language of such low social classes (among whose features were the uses of -ito),

similarly to other cultural manifestations, started acquiring more importance and respect,

to the point of including it in the literary works of the time. As can be seen, this is

obviously a sociolinguistic phenomenon, reflected here by the use of DIMs. This loss of

productivity of -illo is clear in the lexicalization of words ending in -illo, as Pharies

suggests. In Spanish, we now assume that words such as comilla (comma+ DIM =

quotation marks) bolsillo (bag+DIM = pocket) and others are monomorphemic, because

-ito attaches to them with a clear diminutive function. Admittedly, -illo still keeps some

productivity but at the dialectal level, as other DIMs.

Augmentatives

-azo

This is often an adjectivizer and nominalizer that attaches to nouns. Pharies (2002)

recognizes two semantic senses in modem Spanish: a) Augmentative (it makes the base

N bigger than what is normal or convenient, or it intensifies the adjective base); and b)

Names the objects that can be used for hitting or the hit that can be given with such









objects. The suffix -azo comes from Latin -aceus, where it had the original function of

deriving adjectives of belonging from nouns. On the one hand, Pharies explains that the

augmentative sense appears first in the spoken Latin of the Western region, and the

"hitting" sense in the Spanish of the XV century, which represents a secondary evolution

of the augmentative sense. On the other hand, he recognizes that it is very difficult to

connect or to show the evolution from the original sense in Latin to the modern senses (of

augmentative nature, mostly). He agrees with Malkiel (1959) in the sense that this

evolution may represent a post-classical-Latin innovation. Malkiel, as cited by Pharies

(2002), believes that this evolution may be caused by a series of nouns which had this

suffix and referred to bulks or piles of something or big things. Another possibility for

this connection or semantic binding, using Jurafsky's (1996) terms, is that markers of

belonging or pertaining (such as Latin -aceus, English -ist, or Spanish -al or -ista)

normally imply not only a sense of belonging to the base but also having the qualities

expressed by the base in a characteristic way. We need to remember here that this is

probably the same type of evolution observed in Spanish -al. The sense of belonging is

such that the entity is characterized primarily by such a quality (A Latin Americanist, for

example, is a professional that focuses only or primarily in Latin American issues); in

this way, we can say that this quality is augmented.

My study does not elaborate further on the modern sense of -azo of nomen actions

(the naming of an action -in this case of "hitting") since it is not AUG. Some argue that

these two senses are so different that it may be necessary to see this as another

homophony in the language, which synchronically may be the case, but diachronically is









debatable. This second sense is not essentially or transparently an augmentative;

therefore, a discussion on the evolution of such sense is irrelevant in my study.

-al

According to Pharies (2002), this suffix comes from Latin -dlis. Both in Latin and

in most uses in Modern Spanish, this suffix is an adjectivizer attached to nouns. In

Spanish, this has three main connotations:

* Expression of belonging or a similar relationship.
* Place naming, especially where items like plants are abundant.
* Collectivity.

In the second sense, it normally has the form of a nominalized adjective. Pharies

cites examples in both senses. Sense 'a' can be found in words such as: annual (annual)

(belonging to aho or "year"), internal (winter+the suffix al) meaning "relative to winter".

For the second sense, Pharies cites naranjal (orange+the suffix al) meaning a place with

many orange trees, and maizal (corn+the suffix al) meaning a piece of land where they

grow corn.

Even though Pharies does not mention the augmentative function of -al, in some

dialects of Modern American Spanish, this suffix is used with such functions, meaning

"much" or "a big amount of". This is in line with the second sense of the affix but also

with the third sense. We can clearly see how these senses mentioned above gave origin to

the idea of "much" or "big". Both give the idea of a significant number of something.

Now we can see examples such as pantanal (mud+a/) and dineral (money+a/). The latter

example was cited by Pharies as a collectiveness marker. In this sense, there may be a

clear contrast with the DIM; dinerito (a little money) vs. dineral (a lot of money). From









here, we can see how in some dialects of of modem Spanish, this suffix may be used as

an AUG.

-on

Pharies (2002) observes two distinct origins and functions of this suffix: The

augmentative and the nomina actions (naming of an action). The AUG -6n comes from

Latin -6, onis, which in Latin attaches to nouns and verbs to designate people that are

particularly characterized by some action, feature or habit, undesired generally. In

Spanish, we still see this type of use in words such as llor6n, chill6n (cry+6n = person

that cries too much) andfrent6n (forehead+6n= person with a big forehead). Thus, this

type of function is still an AUG function. The nomina actions -6n comes from its Latin

counterpart -(i)o, onis. Even though different, these two origins and functions end up

influencing each other, as explained by Pharies. Finally, Pharies and Gonzalez Olle

(1962) recognize the diminutive function of this AUG, shown in the present analysis.

Pharies (2002) also recognizes the pejorative function of this AUG. Pharies suggests that

certain actions are considered negative if they are intensified. For example, it is bad to

sleep too much, whereas it is not necessarily bad to read or study too much. If the suffix

is added to verbs like to sleep, then that creates a pejorative connotation, which is not the

case with verbs such as to breathe or to study. This is in line with the findings in my

study.

Regarding the second sense of 6n (nomina actionss, Pharies explains that

different authors believe that this second sense in many cases (e.g., rascaz6n

"scratch+6n", hartaz6n "swallow/eat + 6n") is also interpreted as an augmentative, and

that in some cases it is almost impossible to separate these two uses (baj6n "pull

down+6n", visit6n "to visit+ 6n"). In light of this discussion, many such uses of -n in









the data under scrutiny here have been labeled as augmentatives, even though we have to

recognize the different origins and uses.

-ote:

According to Gooch (1967), -ote became very productive in the 19th and 20th

centuries. Pharies (2002) argues for the hypothesis of the Catalan origin of such suffix

instead of the French origin, as other authors have suggested. It seems that all the authors

agree that there is no Latin etymon for Spanisn -ote. The ultimate origin may be -ottus, a

non-Latin hypocoristic and probably analogically related to ittu (etymon of Spanish -

ito), originally. Many authors agree in the direct genetic relationship of this -ottus,

Vulgar Latin suffix of foreign origin, and the Catalan ot. Pharies rejects the French

hypothesis because the bases of the few -ote words that were borrowed from French into

Spanish were not transparent to the Spanish speakers of the time, unlike the Catalan

loans. The Catalan bases for the suffix -ot were indeed understood by Spanish speakers

(e.g., animalot), and the suffix in Catalan has the same evaluative function as the Spanish

-ote today. Apart from this, there is a parallel borrowing from Catalan to Spanish of the

DIM -ete. All these arguments, according to Pharies, are enough to sustain the Catalan

hypothesis. The final vowel (e) in -ote is paragogic to satisfy phonotactic constraints in

Spanish. It is not uncommon in Spanish since there are common schwa insertion

processes (e.g., speak espeak) that satisfy Spanish phonotactics in foreign words;

probably a simple case of phonological adaptation.

Because of this origin and the modern uses of-ote, Pharies labels this suffix as an

augmentative-pejorative, which was essentially the use in the Catalan etymon; except in

North East Catalan, where it was a diminutive-pejorative suffix. There seems to be

primarily a pejorative and an augmentative use, and secondly a diminutive function.









Pharies indicates that this uncertainty between DIM and AUG, always with the

pejorative, is also observed in Spanish, even though 95% of the cases it is the AUG the

one that is realized (p. 456). Some have argued that pejorative connotations may be

inherent in augmentative functions. Pharies cites Latorre (1956) who thinks that the AUG

has the particular property of communicating a mocking, joke, and cartoon-like tone.

Latorre thinks that what is great is never expressed via AUGs, but only what is

extraordinarily out of shape or proportions (modern -azo, an exception).

This should be taken with caution. What is undesired, funny or joke in one culture

may be the opposite in another. Admittedly, as Pharies (in personal communication)

suggests, anything that is smaller or bigger than the norm can inspire negative or

pejorative connotations because it is too small or too big. Thus, if bigness is fine or

positively viewed, then the AUG would not create pejorative connotations (and if

smallness is positive, then DIMs would not produce pejoration). For some, what is

extraordinarily big may be what is desired and smallness may be undesired or funny; in

which case, DIMs would very likely become pejoratives. AUG -azo in modem Spanish,

for example, may mean "great" (car+azo).

Superlative

Regarding this suffix, Nebrija asserted that the Castilian (Spanish) language of his

time did not really have superlatives (as explained by Alvar and Pottier, 1987: 378).

Then, we may ask, technically, does modern Spanish have SUPERLs? If superlative is

considered the grammatical function of "most" as observed in comparative adjectives

such as positive (good), comparative (better), and superlative (best), then as in Nebrij a's

times, -isimo is not really a superlative (at least not one with the meaning of "the most")

in Modern Spanish. Unlike Latin, whose SUPERL meant "most" and "very", Modern









Spanish SUPERL means mostly "very". There are still a few cases with relative

superlative functions but mostly for honorific reasons and mostly in learned words

(Excelentisimo .ilr Presidente or "Excellent+SUPERL Mr. President", for example).

However, this suffix does exist in modern Spanish, which is apparently a difference

between contemporary Spanish and Nebrija's Spanish, in which this suffix was not part

of Spanish morphology. SUPERL does exist in contemporary Spanish but with a

somewhat different connotation from its ancestor or etymon in Latin. If SUPERL simply

means "very", as my study and many others suggest, then this function is performed in

Spanish both analytically/periphrastically and synthetically. Synthetically is performed

via prefixes such as re-, requete, and others, as Alvar and Pottier (1987) suggest and via

the SUPERL suffix -isimo, which these authors do not account for.

Jornvig (1962) indicated that this synthetic elative, in its origin, represented a

learned suffix of late introduction to Spanish (from Latin). This Latinism in Spanish was

caused by the Latin Renaissance, very influential during the John II of Castile reign

(1406-1454). Because of this, many Latinisms invaded the Spanish language; and this

SUPERL was one of them. Jornvig cites the XV century as the first time in which this

suffix appeared in Spanish. However, the spread of this suffix did not occur significantly

until the second half of the XVI century, when it was also commonly observed in

informal settings; thus, not more a learned suffix necessarily. He criticized the theory that

the origin of this suffix in Spanish was due to the Italian language. He concluded that the

appearance in Spanish emerges from its Latin etymon, as mentioned before, but its fast

spread later on was definitely influenced by Italian but also by the influence of Catholic

preachers in Spain, who used this suffix extensively. Recall that one of the most powerful









tools of conquest and colonization of the Roman Empire was the Catholic Church.

Catholic preaching and teaching was a constant in Roman Empire times, thus, listening to

Catholic preachers was a very common activity in the cities where this Empire ruled.

Therefore, Catholic preachers' language may have easily influenced the language of their

audience. These preachers were not only Romans (the ruling class) but also those who

spoke in the name of God, so they may have enjoyed an important reputation for a long

time. It is not strange, then, that this elite class of "good, ruling, holy and powerful'

preachers had linguistically influenced the masses.

Conclusion

Evaluativeness, as a primitive linguistic category, involves both semantic features

(such as "littleness"/"bigness", "approximation", "insignificance", "intensification" and

the like) and pragmatic features (such as "attenuation", "admiration", "endearment",

"modesty", and others related.) This is a very common feature cross-linguistically, which

is manifested in child-related language and language acquisition observations. Thus,

categories such as littleness, childness, and endearment may have been elevated to a

postulate. Languages often mark this linguistic category via diminutives, augmentatives,

pejoratives, and other related morphemes. Evaluatives may have different morpho-

syntactic behaviors from language to language, even though they tend to preserve similar

semantic and pragmatic connotations crosslinguistically. Marking this feature analytically

(as in English, for example), or synthetically (as in Spanish or Fula) depends on either the

history of the language or the degree of significance of such a feature in a particular

culture and cognitive aspects. Evaluative morphology, the main focus of this paper, is

precisely the marking of this feature at the synthetic level in some languages. However,

evaluativeness may imply cross-linguistic semantic and pragmatic connotations at









different grammar levels. This category crosses boundaries of grammar levels and

cultures.

Notes

1 References on languages cited: for Japanese, Suzuki, R. (1999). Language socialization
through morphology: The affective suffix -CHAU, in Journal ofPragmatics 31, pp.
1423-41; for Greek, Alexopoulos, E. (1994). Use of Diminutives and Augmentatives in
Modem Greek. In Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science,
IV. pp. 283-88. Irene Philippaki-Warburton (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins; for Swahili,
Frankl, P.J., and Omar, Y. (1994). Diminutives and Insignificance, Augmentatives and
"Monstrosity": Examples of Class Reassignment in Swahili, in S.u,,l African of African
Languages, 14:3, pp. 113-116; for Dutch: Robinson, O. (1980). Dutch Diminutives Over
Easy. In Dutch Studies, 4, pp. 139-157; and for German: Schneider, K. (1993).
Pragmagrammar and the Case of German Diminutives. In Wieviel Grammatik braucht
der Mensch? pp. 158-73. Theo Harden (Ed.) Munich: ludicium.














CHAPTER 3
SEMANTIC ISSUES

A complete analysis of Spanish EVALs' functions and uses must start with

fundamental semantic considerations. This chapter answers two interrelated questions: 1)

What are the propositional meanings of Spanish EVALs?, and 2) How can we account

for the diversity of meanings and uses? This discussion takes us to the core semantics of

Spanish EVALs and to an explanation of their polysemy, which is an important

characteristic of this type of Spanish morphology (unlike other Spanish morphological

processes). This chapter first addresses some general and fundamental semantic issues

regarding the model adopted here and then focuses on each of the three Spanish EVALs,

in the following order, according to their degree of polysemy: DIMs, AUGs, and

SUPERLs.

Semantic vs. Pragmatic Polysemy

We can look at the case of polysemy observed in Spanish EVALs, especially DIMs

and AUGs, from the perspective of cognitive semantics, since it has to do with the way

speakers of Spanish organize this type of concept or category: evaluativeness. Here

polysemy is defined, according to Taylor (2003) and from a cognitive semantic

perspective, as the association of two or more related meanings with a single

phonological form. The term polysemy normally refers to semantic senses, but it can

obviously extend to pragmatic forces. In the case of Spanish EVALs, we observe a type

of polysemy more at the pragmatic level, which can be labeled as "polypragmy". When

we say that Spanish DIMs are "polypragmous", then, we mean that DIMs have many









(connected but different) pragmatic functions, which may be distinct from pure semantic

polysemy. Ambadiang (1997) suggests that the very complex morphology of DIM

formation (e.g., various allomorphs, various options for the same base) may be due

precisely to the fact that diminutivized words may receive multiple interpretations.

Reynoso (2002) referred to this polysemy as "uno de los aspects mds caraterizadores

del uso del diminutive" (one of the most distinctive features of the use of DIMs) (2002:

937). For example, she referred to at least seven different connotations of this suffix (all

of which were observed in the data analyzed as shown in the pragmatic analysis

presented in the next chapter): affection ([dear]), pej oration, littleness, intensification

("very"), euphemism, emphasis (a type of intensification in the present analysis), and

subjective expressive diminution of base identity.

This type of polysemy of EVALs (especially DIMs and AUGs) is complementary

in Nerlich and Clarke's (2003) terms, since all the various senses analyzed here are

connected. This constitutes a fundamental principle for this chapter. This principle goes

back to Wittgenstein's (1974) "family resemblances" used in prototype theory.

Wittgenstein indicated that

What a concept-word indicates is certainly a kinship between objects, but that
kinship need not be the sharing of a common property or a constituent. It may
connect the objects like the links of a chain, so that one is linked to another by
intermediary links. Two neighboring members may have common features and be
similar to each other, while distant ones belong to the same family without any
longer having anything in common. The relations between the members of a
concept may be set up by the sharing of features which show up in the family of the
concept, crossing and overlapping in very complicated ways. (1974: 35)

This may explain why Jaeggli (1980) refers to diminutivization (and EVALs in general)

as one of the most productive morphological processes of Spanish.









Two distinct types of functions or connotations of Spanish EVALs clearly exist:

semantic and pragmatic ones. These should be kept separate even though they are related.

Reynoso (2002), in one of the most recent semantic-pragmatic accounts of DIMs in the

Spanish language, makes a difference between semantics (referential) and pragmatics

(non-referential) also, but she includes both under the general cover term of semantics.

Pure semantic aspects in her analysis are under the semantic-referential category; the

pragmatic aspects are under the semantic-pragmatic category.

This is precisely where Reynoso's study and my study converge but diverge at the

same time. Like Reynoso's, my study shows both types of effects. However,

theoretically, the non-referential aspects are not semantic here precisely because of their

non-referential nature. This difference may be more a conceptual that a practical one,

however. My study discusses the neutral sense ([little]) mostly in this chapter, where the

semantic connections of DIMs are shown to grow out of this basic littleness notion. In the

pragmatic chapter, this neutral or non-referential use is briefly discussed, with examples

from the data. The majority of the next chapter focuses, however, on non-referential or

pragmatic functions, which synchronically and functionally have little or nothing to do

with the core sense of littleness. That is one of the main reasons these two areas are

conceptually and organizationally kept separate in my study.

One more important difference of my study to Reynoso's analysis is that my study

places the DIM within a broader study of Spanish evaluatives. In this way, we can

observe some important aspects that are true not only to DIMs but also to Spanish

EVALs in general. DIMs are just part of a broader phenomenon: Spanish evaluativeness.









Admittedly, it is at times very difficult to separate semantic from pragmatic

functions. However, there are many instances where it is very clear that a non-referential

(pragmatic) use is at play. We will see later that context is a crucial aspect in this respect.

For example, DIMs are normally associated with the meaning of littleness but also with

endearment (Jaeggli, 1980; Hualde et al., 2001). The latter is a more pragmatic function

whereas the former a more semantic one. Based on different contexts, there are many

other pragmatic functions of such affixes: irony, euphemism, intensification, and

augmentativization, among others. Now, the main question is: What is the connection, if

any, between the pure basic semantic denotation and these other pragmatic functions of

the DIM; and the other EVALs? The next section discusses these issues.

Cognitive Semantic Model: Radial Categories

One possible explanation for the multiplicity of pragmatic functions is extension or

association (some may also argue that we see semantic shift as well, at least in the case of

the endearment notion). This present analysis shows, based on the theoretical framework

used here (Jurafsky, 1996), that all the pragmatic functions observed grow out of or

emerge from the basic littlenesss" notion. This chapter is, in essence, a cognitive

semantic one with the purpose of answering the first research question of my study: How

can we link the diverse meanings and uses of Spanish EVALs? Even though we need to

refer to many pragmatic features, they all are connected to a basic semantic-referential

meaning.

Jurafsky's model builds on Lakoff s (1987) radial categories, the first to formally

and overtly apply Rosch's (1983) psychological model of prototypes to linguistics, and

cognitive linguistics in particular. We also discussed above how this model emerges from

the field of philosophy in the works of Wittgenstein (1974). As mentioned, one of









Wittgenstein's major findings is that some categories do not express a single concept or

meaning. Categories may be instead characterized by family resemblances (or related

features). These resemblances are widely shared among the different nodes or members

of this semantic mapping or network (or "category members") in an overlapping fashion,

such that no one feature is common to all.

This framework suggests that these members have an internal structure. There are

members that are typical, there are others that are exemplary, and yet there may be others

that are anomalous. In many cases, Spanish EVALs for example, we see what Rosch

(1983) and Lakoff (1987) call a "radial structure", since there are core meanings. In

Rosch's prototypical model, a prototype (an element in a category used to represent the

category as a whole) is used as a cognitive construction to perform some kind of

reasoning. It basically functions as a cognitive reference point. The central subcategory

(e.g., littleness for DIMs, as suggested below) of this network provided the basis for

extending the category in new ways and for defining variations. Lakoff suggests that at

the cognitive root or core of the formation of categories, we find image schemata and

their metaphorical tokens. That is the reason one of the most useful cognitive tools in this

type of semantic mapping are general extension mechanisms such as the metaphor or

metonymic chaining.

In summary, the cognitive semantic approach applied in my study builds upon

Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance categories based on a complicated network

of similarities or associations that may overlap and criss-cross. This criss-crossing allows

in category members with hardly any element in common, but it is crucial that each

overlap with certain other members of the category. Such is the case of seemingly









opposing connotations as endearment vs. pej oration and littlenesss" vs. "very" (in the

case of DIMs), attenuation vs. intensification (in the case of AUGs), and formality vs.

informality (in the case of SUPERLs). Wittgenstein (1974) proposed then a certain level

of tolerance for fuzzy boundaries or blurred edges. Rosch (1983) and Lakoff (1987), on

the other hand, observed a certain automatic and unconscious tendency in humans to

perceive categorically and to base those categories on prototypical examples. Radial

categories are composed of chained elements that radiate out from the central

(prototypical) examples, and this chaining is frequently a matter of metonymic links as

well as shared features.

Cruse (1986) observes similar principles, more from a lexical semantic perspective.

In Cruse's model, related meanings of a word blend fluidly into one another, and

different aspects of a word's meaning may be emphasized or de-emphasized depending

on the context in which it occurs. This framework has even been applied to computer

models for Natural Language Processing (NLP) in cases of polysemy. Dolan et al. (2000)

for example, show how their computer model's (MindNEt) "processing of the discrete

senses in machine-readable dictionaries yields a representation of lexical semantics with

the continuous properties of Cruse's model" (2000: 182). This all emerged from many

instances of polysemy and the practical task of word sense disambiguation in natural

language processing. Thus, the principles my study adheres to have been useful in

philosophy, cognitive sciences, computer sciences, and linguistics. The following is an

example of its linguistic application, our main concern.

Jurafsky's Model: DIM's Radial Category: Let us now consider more

specifically the issues concerning evaluative morphology and the Radial Category Model









described above. The only EVAL that has received more formal consideration in this

approach is the DIM. Jurafsky's (1996) Radial Category Model argues that despite the

crucial dependence of synchronic meaning on both historical and cognitive context,

researchers have traditionally used different tools for capturing synchronic and diachronic

generalizations in modeling a complex semantic category like the diminutive. In the case

of the diminutive, this is partly caused by the extraordinary, often contradictory range of

senses synchronically (small size, affection, approximation, intensification, female

gender), and the difficulty of proposing a coherent historical reconstruction for these

senses.

Jurafsky (1996) synchronically tries to explain the varied and contradictory senses

of the diminutive. Diachronically, the radial category acts as a kind of archaeology of

meaning, capturing the generalizations of the classic mechanisms of semantic change

(metaphor, abstraction and inference). He claims to have compared DIMs and their

origins in more than 60 languages, particularly in Indo-European where the theory

suggests a new reconstruction of the proto-semantics of the PIE suffix *-ko-. Jurafsky

shares with Lakoff the fundamental intuition that the body is a central site in grounding

interpretations of the world, including those that involve power and dominance issues.

Thus, much of his reasoning in the linking chains for DIMs lies on this body-world

connection.

In summary, Jurafsky's (1996) Radial Category Model accounts for both the

synchronically and diachronically diverse semantics of the diminutive. This is a type of

structured polysemy, which clearly binds the various DIM senses. From a synchronic

approach (the main focus of my study), the model accounts for the various and apparently









contradictory senses of the diminutive, for example in cases when a DIM has AUG

functions (see the "Intensifying DIM" below). Historically, Jurafsky also presents a

binding of these diverse senses with a common original source. He concludes that "the

origins of the diminutive cross-linguistically lie in words semantically or pragmatically

linked to children" (1996: 533). The following is a summary of the diagram Jurafsky

proposed. In his diagram, numbers indicate the sequential order or semantic associations.

For example, he assigns 1 to the [child] sense, and 2 to [affection]. This simply means

that first is the sense of childness (the core), and then it expands to have the notion of

affection (2) and then the idea of smallness (3). From the sense of smallness, several

other connotations emerge, again in order of sequence: contempt, female, resemblance,

and approximation. These other nodes also may originate other ideas or connotations. For

example, the resemblance node gives rise to the idea of imitation, and the approximation

node gives rise to the function of hedging. Other functions of DIMs also appear in

Jurafsky's diagram, but the ones summarized here are the ones found in the data.

The various uses or functions in the data are explained based on this model.

Following Jurafsky, all the functions of DIMs may be bound to some more general and

common sources. The innovations of my study, in the application of this model, are the

following:

* Application to a synchronic naturalistic data study in monolingual Spanish
contexts.

* Accounting for other uses of the DIM not accounted for by Jurafsky; namely, the
euphemistic, ironic, and commiserating functions.

* Extension to other Spanish EVALs (not only to DIMs, as Jurafsky did).

* Emphasis on the pragmatic aspect of such semantic binding or association.









One important consideration that distinguishes my study from Jurafsky (1996) has

to do with the universality of such a model. Even though the categories analyzed here

(e.g., DIMs) may be universal, it is very hard to use this type of model (Radial

Categories) to explain the connections of diverse uses of DIMs made in all cultures

(where DIMs constitute a linguistic category) and languages. Instead of universalizing

such proposal, my study uses this model to describe potential links between the core

sense of littleness and the other uses or meanings of DIMs (and other EVALs) within a

particular context: Spanish-speaking groups observed in the data. Thus, in my study, it is

not necessarily a theoretical explanatory model but a potential descriptive tool of some

specific linguistic behavior in a particular speech community.

Diminutives

Core Sense of DIMs

The goal in this section is to explore and propose a plausible definition of the basic

semantics of DIMs. In other words, following the Radial Category Model, it is an attempt

to answer the following question: Which sense is the one that connects, somehow, all the

other senses of this suffix (at least in the data analyzed here)? Voeykova (1998) indicates

that there are basically two formal hypotheses about the basic semantics of DIMs that

may have served as a base for the many other variations in meaning at present:

"smallness" (Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994; Ravid, 1998) or "childness"

(Wierzbicka, 1984; Jurafsky, 1996). Because of the arguments below, my study rejects

the "childness" hypothesis and favors the more traditional perspective; "smallness", but

with some modification. My study proposes that the notion or concept of littlenesss", and

not necessarily "smallness", is what constitutes the core sense of DIMs in general, and

Spanish DIMs in particular (assuming littlenesss" is a broader term than "smallness";









"small" seems to refer only to size, but "little" also refers to amount, for example).

Below, let us see first the inconsistencies in which Jurafsky fails when trying to assign

the "childness" sense to the nucleus of this semantic category of DIM.

Jurafsky suggests that an acceptable semantic analysis of DIMs cannot rely on just

a single abstract concept based on "small". The reason for this, he argues, is that we

would need many metaphorical, inferential, or abstractive extensions in order for "small"

to be able to model senses such as individuating, imitation or exactness functions.

According to Jurafsky, the notion of "small" does not connect whatsoever with words

such as Spanish boquete ("hole") derived from boca ("mouth"), since a boquete indeed

can be larger than a boca. He furthermore cites Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi (1994) to

indicate that the diminutive cannot simply be listed in the lexicon/grammar with the

"smallness" abstract meaning only, and that other senses are derived by contextually-

based inferences when the diminutive is used. Dressier, Merlini-Barbaresi and Jurafsky

point out that if it were the case ("small" as the core), then we would expect these same

inferences for words for "small" in each language (i.e., Italian piccolo should behave like

the diminutive -ino); this does not occur. They concluded that there must be some

additional, complex, lexicalized meanings specific to this type of suffix.

However, there are some inconsistencies in the previous arguments. First,

metaphorical and inferential extensions are an essential part of the cognitive model

Jurafsky is applying. How can they then be left out? Why not link the sense "little" to

other senses via metaphors or inferences? Furthermore, any link of the "child" sense with

other connotations will also need metaphoric and inferential abstractions. If we do not

apply this type of semantic extension, we will not be able to assign any concept to a core









sense of any category, and the model of Radial Category turns useless. Second, the only

concrete example he showed to argue against littlenesss" as the basic sense is the boquete

example. However, this word can indeed be interpreted with the approximation or

imitation function Jurafsky mentioned before. A boquete is "sort of a mouth", but not

really a mouth. A boquete is missing many features to make it a real mouth, and that is

why it is just "a little bit like a mouth". It, in fact, can be easily connected with the

littlenesss" concept. Finally, it would be even more difficult and much more abstract to

connect this DIM with the concept of "childness". Third, if we were to adhere to Dressler

and Merlini-Barbaresi's (1994) argument above, then again we could not assign to DIMs

any core sense, since the equivalent lexical items for this type of morphological marker

can always behave differently. For example, the word for "child" (Jurafsky's suggestion)

does not behave the same as the morpheme ito in Spanish.

The following is the only section in Jurafsky's paper where some argumentation is

given for the choice of childness: "My tentative conclusion is that the origin of the

morphological diminutive is the sense Child. We show that in almost every case in which

a historical origin can be determined for a diminutive morpheme, the source was either

semantically related to Child (e.g., a word meaning "child" or "son"), or pragmatically

related to Child (e.g., a hypocoristic suffix on names)" (p. 562). However, without

looking at the specific examples, these words or morphemes that probably meant "child",

"son" or hypocoristics (probably in ancestors and proto-languages), could also be

interpreted as "little". For example: Victorcito can mean "little Victor", "Victor's son",

"child Victor" or "Victor Jr.". What tools were used to determine that the meaning was

"child" and not "little" is not clear in Jurafsky's study. He also mentioned hypocoristics









and toponyms as sources of DIMs in many languages, especially Indo-European

languages. However, that does not show the original sense of "child". On the contrary,

how can we explain that names for places (e.g., cities, towns, regions) gave origin to the

notion of"childness"? It is more plausible to associate place names with the notion of

littlenesss" because one of the inherent properties in places is size; which may be related

to littlenesss" more than to "childness".

At times, there is much ambiguity regarding his proposal for a core sense. For

example: "our examination of the IE data suggests a completely different reconstruction,

in which 'child' and not 'related-to' is the proto-semantics of *-ko-, and the various

approximation and related-to senses are extensions of this core small/child? sense" (bold

and question mark added; Jurafsky, 1996: 565). One possible reason for this ambiguity is

precisely the apparent contradiction that his own data showed. For example, he shows the

different PIE's daughter languages he analyzed to reconstruct the semantics of *-ko- (p.

566). In the section that he categorizes as the "SMALL/CHILD" senses, of the eleven

examples he gave, nine have clearly the "small" or "little" sense and only two have

apparently the "child/son" sense. Even more, in the only case where this type of DIM

does not have a modified base or noun, it simply meant "small" (not "child"). It is

important to note here, however, that in Spanish (and other Romance languages), it is not

the PIE suffix ko- but -lo- the one that constitutes the etymon for many Spanish DIMs

today (Pharies, 2002). This ambivalence of Jurafsky's examples probably constitutes the

main reason for him to recognize, at times, not one but two central senses for DIMs: "...

the central senses Child and Small. Every diminutive in our database has either the Child

or Small sense" (p. 561).









One more inconsistency shown in Jurafsky (1996) was in relation to the analytical

or periphrastic DIMs (adjectives such as "little" or "small"). Jurafsky observed thatpetit

in French is grammaticalizing as a diminutive, and the former diminutive suffix -ette is

disappearing. In Spanish and Italian (with very productive morphological DIMs), these

analytical adjectives (pequeho and piccolo respectively) are not common. The French

adjective for "little/small" is more common than the DIM suffix, whereas in Spanish it is

the opposite. Jurafsky concluded, literally, that "for at least these periphrastic

diminutives, then, the original sense of the diminutive seems to be Small, and not Child.

Further study is needed to examine the origins and development of these periphrastics."

(p. 569). It is quite inconsistent and inelegant to conclude that for DIM affixes the

original sense is "child", but for DIM adjectives, the original sense is "little/small".

Another study by Voeykova (1998) on Russian DIMs has also criticized Jurafsky.

Voeykova observed that the "smallness" sense is very important for the child when

acquiring DIMs in Russian. Even though both Voeykova (1998) and my study recognize

the value of the arguments favoring the "child" meaning, it is necessary to point out that

"this meaning is less relevant for the acquisition of language by a child in comparison to

"smallness", since it demands a very high degree of abstraction in all cases ... about

inanimate objects" (Voeykova, 1998: 112).

Just by considering the inconsistencies above, we can see the need for another

proposal. As mentioned above, littlenesss" seems to fit plausibly in many more examples

than "childness". Jurafsky himself argued that "the diminutive function (for the purposes

of this paper defined as any morphological device which means at least "small") is

among the grammatical primitives which seems to occur universally or near-universally"









(1996:534). "Littleness" fits more within the category of "grammatical primitives" than

"childness"; all objects may be defined within a littlenesss" range, and not necessarily

within a "childness" range. If one of these two features is the core of the DIM, then, it

should be the most primitive category: littlenesss". Even Lakoff, in an important point of

departure for Jurafsky, describes basic-level status solely in terms of objects and

recognizes that the relatively subjective notion of littlenesss" is at the center of this

conceptual category of "diminutiveness", in part because it has many of the

characteristics and the attractiveness of basic-level terms (fundamental in body-world

connections). It is easy to use, it is the most contextually neutral term, and it is the first to

enter most readers' lexicons.

The "childness" sense, for example, finds hardly any relation to the DIM functions

in Cantonese mentioned in Jurafsky (1996). On the contrary, littlenesss" seems to be a

sense that better accounts for such diverse uses. The partitive function can be interpreted

as "a little of that"; resemblance with larger object can be interpreted as "sort of a little

X"; as a marker of approximation, this Cantonese DIM (marked by tone) may be

interpreted as "reddish or a little red"; the pragmatic hedge function may be interpreted as

"a little favor" instead of "a favor"; the DIM marker of marginalized women can be

interpreted as "just a little of a woman, not much (of a woman)". Probably because of

this, Cantonese DIMs also mark the [female] feature. Linking all these to a primitive

category of littlenesss" seems more plausible than linking those to the "childness"

function. He mentions DIMs in languages such as Nahuatl, Ojibwa, Yiddish, Ewe,

Londo, Hungarian, Boro, Kayah, Khase and Tboli. Interestingly, in all these languages

the core sense is "little", as he himself showed in the translations.









This proposal (of littlenesss" as the core sense) shows more evidence for the

common tendency in semantic extension and change. The reason for this is that the radial

category for the diminutive extends the central physical domain of size to the other non-

physical domains (a common trend in this type of semantic association) of gender, social

power and others. In this way, it also provides further widespread evidence about the

unidirectionality of semantic change from the physical to the social and conceptual

domains discussed above.

In an Amharic example given by Jurafsky, the case of "this man-teacher" vs. "this

woman-teacher", where the only morphemic difference is the inclusion of the feminine

marker with DIM functions in the second expression, is very revealing. There is a more

direct connection between the idea of "this little teacher" and "this woman-teacher" than

between "this child-teacher" and "this woman-teacher". Probably because of the inferior

status given to women in many societies, the metaphoric connection of "woman

professional" = "little professional" is at play. It is important to note here that the same

difference is observed in minimal pairs such as "book" and "booklet" in Amharic, where

the DIM form makes "book" into a "booklet" (a little book; not necessarily a child book).

Many explanations about different DIMs in different languages and different uses

of DIMs start from the littlenes sense in Jurafsky's explanations. The "word chotto,

whose central (and historically prior) meaning is something like 'a little', functions like a

diminutive in Japanese" (p. 557). His lambda-abstraction examples also emerge from this

core sense. "For the diminutive, this process takes the original concept small(x), which

has the meaning smaller than the prototypical exemplar x on the scale of size, and

lambda-abstracting it to lambda(y)(smaller than the prototypical exemplar x on the scale









y)" (1996: 555). The pragmatic hedges and politeness-marking functions he discussed are

also based on this littleness concept. He mentions, for example, that "in a number of

languages, including Tamil and Malagasy, this use of diminutives for politeness is even

more grammaticalized, and the word for 'a little' functions generally like English

'please'" (1996: 558). All his partitive and exactness examples find an explanation that

connects to the basic idea of littlenesss".

In his examples of animal offspring, we can see that all of those DIMs can also be

translated as "little". For example, "a bear cub" can be a "little bear". However, not all of

them can be translated as "child" or "son". For example, in "chicken" and "chick" (the

latter had a DIM in the language cited), can we translate "chicken+DIM" as "the child of

chicken", or better and simply as "little chicken" or "chick"? The latter seems more

plausible.

Furthermore, since metaphoric speech constitutes an essential element in the model

discussed here, we need to at least superficially consider which of the two senses ([little]

or [child]) fits more in what we know about metaphoric thinking. As it happens, the

notion of size (in which littlenesss" belongs) constitutes the base for many metaphors.

The reason for this is that it has basic physiognomic and perceptual properties. In fact,

Seitz (2001) distinguishes four key aspects of early or primary metaphors: perceptual

(e.g., color, shape, size), enactive (movement, action), physiognomic (i.e., visual-

affective), and cross-modal or synesthetic experiences. It is well established that humans

exploit perceptual features such as shape, color, size and others when performing

metaphoric thinking (Seitz, 1997). Even though size is not really a physiognomic feature

(like facial features), it shares with physiognomy the visual property.









Children can exploit the physiognomic (i.e., visual-affective) basis of metaphor

(Seitz & Beilin, 1987). Indeed, physiognomic perception has been well studied and there

is an extensive literature (see Seitz & Beilin, 1987, for a review and empirical analysis of

the physiognomic basis of metaphor). This perception may be bodily-based (motion,

gesture, or bodily action; see Seitz, 2000 for a more elaborate discussion on this

cognition-perception link). In his considerations in the psychology of visual perception,

Arnheim (1988) indicates that people perceive a building, for example, because of spatial

properties (lines, volume, size) that are distinctive in the visual dynamics of such solid

structure, which is the perceived form. Thus, size littlenesss) serves better as a base for

metaphoric chaining (in our model of radial categories) than age-related properties

(childness) since it shows more basic perceptual primitives. Other studies directly

connect size with symbolism and physiognomic stimuli (Ultan, 1970; Lindauer, 1988).

Finally, and probably more importantly in support of the littlenesss" core proposal,

Lakoff (1987) listed five criteria for determining the central sense (what he also called

"proto-scene", derived from spatial scenes) of any category: 1) earliest attested meaning,

2) predominance in the semantic network, 3) use in composite forms, 4) relations to other

spatial particles (contrast sets), and 5) predictability of other senses in the network.

"Littleness" seems to be the earliest attested meaning for DIMs, even in Jurafsky's

examples. This notion of littlenesss" dominates most links among senses (more than the

"childness" notion), even though it is not necessarily the most common sense in modem

Spanish uses of DIMs. Criteria number 3 does not support one proposal or the other.

Criterion number 4 above is critical in Spanish morphological evaluativeness. As shown

before, DIMs are part of a broader system: Spanish evaluative morphology. There is









plausible symmetry and contrast in the system caused by the opposites littlenesss"

(DIMs) and "bigness" (AUGs). If we accept Jurafsky's "childness" core proposal, then

this symmetry and contrast is lost in the system, which is unfortunate from a linguistic

perspective and criterion 4 is not met. The section on AUGs below elaborates more on

this symmetric contrast in the system. The littlenesss" proposal also satisfies the criterion

of predictability (5 above), at least partially; admittedly as much as the "childness"

proposal. Criteria 1, 2, and 4 above seem more critical to support the littlenesss"

proposal.

Studies on DIM's meaning such as the one carried out by Savickiene (1998) in

relation to Lithuanian L1 acquisition seem to oppose "smallness" as a semantic core for

DIMs. Savickiene concluded that "the non-semantic meaning of the earliest diminutives

disconfirms the assumption of smallness as central meaning of the earliest diminutives"

(p. 133). My study agrees and disagrees at the same time with this conclusion. This

agreement or disagreement depends on what she meant by "central meaning". If it refers

to the semantic core sense, then my study disagrees. The fact that the most important and

common use of DIMs is [dear] does not oppose the idea that this sense may have

emerged from the [little] core sense. We simply need to recall that important

metaphorical and inferential semantic extensions are at play here. On the other hand, she

does not present any argument regarding what the core sense could be. If "central

meaning" means "most common use", then my study agrees, and the next chapter comes

back to this issue.

Admittedly, many uses of DIMs in the data analyzed here may be confused

between [little] and [child] connotations, like the following two examples:









1) Male church singer: (introducing his next song):
"Tenemos un pequefio pajarlTO en mi casa"
We have a small bird+DIM in my house

2) A mother to her 6-year-old son: "iQuieres pifiITA?"
Do you want pineapple +DIM?

In both cases, the DIM may be ambiguous. A further look to the context (at times,

the only help we have to accurately interpret EVALs) seems to indicate that example 1

has the [little] function, whereas 2 has the [child] connotation. In 1 there is no reference

to the age of the bird whatsoever, thus it looks more as a reference to size. In 2, the same

mother asked the same question to her husband without using the DIM suffix. Thus, this

[little] vs. [child] debate is justified but regarding original denotations of such suffixes,

my study takes a clear stand.

Because of all these arguments, the littlenesss" proposal supported in my study

renders the radial category graph shown in figure 3. This graph shows littlenesss" as the

core sense of DIMs primarily and "childness" secondarily; which are within a circle to

signal this semantic core. All the other DIM functions/senses grow out of this core sense

via linking chains and constitute pragmatics-driven uses; all those out of the circle. The

pragmatic uses on top represent the affection category; the middle line shows the

pragmatic category of attenuation, and the bottom line contains derogation-driven uses.

Whenever two (or more) arrows point at a single function, it implies that that function

may have two (or more) paths for semantic-pragmatic extension. Some functions do not

directly connect to the core sense, which semantically distances those functions from the

core sense and causes less semantic transparency. Yet, even those relatively obscure

functions indirectly connect to the core, as this semantic network shows. Thus, this graph

connects this section (DIM: core sense) to the next section of this chapter (DIM: chains).









[intense] '


[irony] [female] [pejorative]

Figure 3. New proposal for DIM's radial categories

Let us keep in mind always that Figure 3 presents a description of the potential

associations of the meanings and functions of DIMs in a particular speech community

(the participants in the data collection process). We should not lose sight of the cultural

relativity of the links in this graphic representation.

Chaining Links

The following are the (non-discrete but continuous) categories, senses or

connotations observed in the data in relation to DIMs: endearment (or [dear], according

to the type of notation used in semantic decomposition analyses), littleness ([little]),

childness ([child]), irony ([-dear], [-little]), intensification ("very"), attenuation,

euphemism, flirtation, femaleness ([+female]), commiseration, and pejoration. These

eleven uses of DIMs in the data are analyzed from a pragmatic perspective in the next

chapter (Chapter 4). That chapter elaborates on each of these and the major pragmatic

categories under which they may be classified. The present semantic analysis shows how

all these notions are related.

Let us consider first the related notions of "child", "little" and "dear". The

following may be one logical and natural connection between the [little] and [dear]

functions. As Taylor (1995) put it: "Human beings have a natural suspicion of large

creatures; small animals and small children on the other hand can be cuddled and









caressed without embarrassment or fear" (p. 145). This connection between the [little]

and [dear] notions "is thus grounded in the co-occurrence of elements within an

experiential frame" (p. 145). It is naturally embedded in human beings' perceptions and

previous experience. Without necessarily rejecting the previous proposal, my study

suggests that there can also be another possibility. The previous hypothesis is of a more

inferential nature (i.e., if then). The second possibility is of a more metaphorical

nature. The notion of littlenesss" or "smallness" may have been transferred from the size

plane to the distance plane: The more distance between two people, the less intimacy and

affection between the two. Thus, since the distance (between mother and child, for

example) is so little or small, then it may reflect a high degree of affection or endearment;

thus, there could be a metaphoric association between the [little] and [dear] meanings.

One example from the data that may show this connection between [dear] and

[little] is the one below, where some people are celebrating the high school graduation of

a teenager:

3) Young man: (reading a funny poem that he improvised for a teen highschool graduate)
"Ron.CITO, gracias por ser un buen primlTO"
Ron. +DIM thanks for being a good cousin+DIM

Ron. was, at that moment, 17 years old, but he has been at church since he was born.

Thus, most of the people at the party are friends or relatives that know him as a child and

care for him very much. This is a celebration for Ron. to show their appreciation for him

precisely. Even though he is not a child any more, he continues to be loved by these

people, and they continue to call him "Ron.+DIM".

Regarding the [child] and [little] connection, DIMs are normally associated with

children because they are "little". Thus, children and DIMs is a normal observed









connection cross-linguistically (Jurafsky, 1996; Melzi and King, 2003). We typically

observe in children two main features: littleness and endearment. Children are LITTLE

and they are DEAR to us. Even animals (at least most of them, especially those with

some cortical endowment or limbic functions; e.g. mammals who bear live young) tend

to love, protect and care for their offspring. According to the famous psychoanalyst

Erikson (1950), generativity (which is embodied in the need to care for, raise, and mentor

the offspring) is a crucial stage of development of many living beings. This readiness to

parent, Erikson asserts, may be viewed as naturally built into our species.

Thus, it is not absurd to think that this may be (at least) a reason for the common

connection of DIMs with endearment. Children are little and children are dear; thus, this

littlenesss" may be "dear". This is based on a basic logic syllogism of the type "if ...

then" (Aristotle's Prior Analytics in Smith, 1989).

There are two premises and one conclusion:

Premise A: If [+child] is [+little], AND...

Premise B: If [+child] is [+dear], THEN...

Conclusion: [+little] is [+dear] (henceforth, DIM = little and/or DIM = dear)

This, for some linguists, may be considered a type of semantic shift, where the word or

morpheme takes on a new meaning often related to the original one.

Under this approach, we can then conclude that even though there is nothing

"little" in the notion of "dear" (in pure semantic terms) of the DIMs, the common use of

such affixes with the endearing function comes from the experiential association of

children with features such as littlenesss" and "endearment" (in logic terms). It seems to

be an example of metonymy, since there seems to be an association by context. It is









empirically observable in many cultures and languages of the world that the language in

children-oriented environments is heavily characterized by such morphemes. This is

probably the reason why "little" and "dear" are the functions or "meanings" of the DIMs

normally accounted for in the literature.

This endearment notion discussed above is the direct source for some uses of DIMs

that my study labels as flirtatious. The "flirty" DIM is a semantic/pragmatic extension of

"dear" to the sex or the sex-related arena. This DIM means "dear" but "sexually dear".

Thus, it is a type of endearment with sexual connotations, or in simple terms, sexual

affection or interest. The following is an example:

4) "y junio (the calendar fireman for that month): Mig..MiguelITO" "Ay virgen santa!"
& June: Miguel...Miguel+DIM. "Wow, Holy Virgin!"

This DIM may mean "dear Miguel" but also "sexy/hot Miguel". A young woman looks at

firemen posing for a picture calendar. She obviously admires the physical appearances of

these firemen models. For the speaker, this fireman is so sexy that she likes him very

much. This may be a link between the [dear] and [flirt] function in a real-life context.

Let us now go to the opposite meaning of DIMs, in comparison to the three

accounted for thus far. Many of DIM's uses actually mean the contrary of [child], [dear],

and [little], especially the last two. These are examples of irony or sarcasm, which

represent the most difficult connotations or uses to argue for in this semantic connection.

Furthermore, we also see that, according to Kruez (1996), the first and primary cues that

may help signal irony are precisely the counter-factual ones. These two ideas, direct

opposite and counter-factual, imply that when meant to be ironic, the DIM actually

means "big" or more commonly "not dear or not appreciated"; the opposite of the

common notions of DIMs (little, dear). It seems that through the agency of semantic