Linguistic model Peter MacClure has suggested the following structure (based on modern children’s nicknaming): Phonological variation: Will > Bill Morphological variation: Robert > Bobby (often involves abbreviation, suffixation or both) Lexical variation: surname ‘Carver’ > ‘Doone’. Rich inventiveness through wordplay Lexical variation – phonological: Maddox > Haddocks; Leigh > Flea; Mills>Pills Lexical variation – morphological: Underwood>Underwear Lexical variation – lexical: a. collocational substitution through partial harmony: Broad for Bean b. synonyms: Coat < (Parka) < Parker c. antonyms: Queen < King d. metonyms: Weed < Gardener Semantic a. Literal epithets –Lofty, Shorty b. Metaphoric epithets- Ginger, Oxfam c. Metonymic (based on incidents, sayings –often obscure) (1-3) nicknames are formed through the structure of the personal name; (4) leaps straight to a primary nickname. (P MacClure, 1981, Nomina 5) Can this modern model be applied to medieval nicknaming? “In one respect at least this will not be so; modern nicknames, forming part of a system where the family-name dominates over the individual name, necessarily have a ‘syntax’ totally different from the medieval one. Nowadays soubriquets of all kinds, when not used independently, are commonly prefixed to surnames, so that, far from qualifying ‘individual’ names, as in the medieval mode, they usurp their place [examples, e.g. Grumpy Lloyd, Frenchie Nicholson + +]. When a nickname does qualify a ‘first’ name, then still, whatever its own structure, it is prefixed, adjective-like, more often than suffixed: thus Little Edie, Marmalade Emma…” (Cecily Clark, 1981, Nomina 5)