Other NPR listeners may have heard this same promo, in which several teenagers describe the places they live, from way out in the sticks to the middle of big cities. One girl says she lives in a “small little cabin in the woods”, and it bugs me every time. :smack:
But when I reflect on it, it strikes me that just substituting “tiny” for “small” makes all the difference, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Still redundant either way, right?
“Tiny” is cuter, hence cozier. It’s how cabins are described in fairy tales. Mind you, a lot of blood-curdling shit goes down in tiny, fairy tale, cabins. But it’s all very quaint, which is cute, which is cozy.
Number of syllables.
Using “small” doesn’t really give any additional information beyond “little”. OTOH, “tiny” lets you know the cabin is very little.
But then why aren’t I bugged by the inclusion of “little” instead of just saying “tiny cabin”?
The syllable thing seemed like a possibility, but OTOH I don’t flinch if someone says “I live in a nice little cabin in the woods”.
I am no grammar expert, not even a current student of it however to me ‘small little cabin’ seems like both small and little are modifying cabin together which does not help as they mean the same, while ‘tiny little cabin’ seems to have tiny modifying the word little and then ‘tiny little’ take as one word (phrase) modifying cabin.
This and the fact that you’re used to it. If “small little” was regularly used to mean “tiny”, it wouldn’t grate on you.
Now you could argue that this is circular, and that “small little” isn’t used because it grates, not the other way round, but in my opinion there are lots of commonly used combinations that are just as odd.
For me, it’s this. ^^^ Every cabin that is “small” is “little.” And every cabin that is “little” is “small.” But while every cabin that is “tiny” is “little,” it is not the case that every cabin that is “little” is “tiny.”
“Tiny little cabin” has a musicality that “tiny cabin” lacks.
For me, anyway.
And apparently, for you, too. 
“Tiny little cabin” is three trochees in a row, while “small little cabin” is a heavy foot plus two trochees, which isn’t as nice a pattern, and also puts two heavy feet one after another, and at the beginning no less.
Reduplication isn’t the problem here; English speakers use it all the time in casual speech. Puppy dog, kitty cat, baby child.
Say it “small-a little cabin” and you’ll see how the meter affects the impression.
I’ve now learned (thanks to Google) some terms relating to poetic meter I had previously never heard of. Interesting!
It can be surprising how much such an “esoteric” view of language can apply to everyday speech. As in this example, we prefer phrases that fit a common, balanced meter to ones that don’t, even if the meaning is the same or even-even if it’s actually a slightly bent meaning. It all goes to explain why we have so many common phrases that sound better than they technically interpret.
From someone who can’t recognize English feet unless you hit me over the head with them, another possibility is having the same phoneme together-but-separate. Having the end of “small” match the beginning of “little” kind of requires a tiny stop in between or the two words merge in a way that’s confusing. That breaks the flow.
Some Spanish words which are (f) take the (m) article in the singular to avoid that kind of situation.
That does make sense. I wonder then why this girl gravitated to this construction?
The phrase “tiny little” is sort of idiomatic, maybe for the metrical reasons Sattua mentioned.
I was going to mention that, too. We just often refer to things being “tiny little.” It shows up in the rhymes we hear as children, though with “teeny” in front of it.
I believe that some children are just born evil.