Blaženka Juren

Morphology

University of Zadar

January, 2018

BLENDING
1) INTRODUCTION

„Emoticon“ is a word which is combined out of „emotion“ and „icon“, and this process of
playing with language is called blending. This paper will review the definition of blending
and it's characteristics refering to the International Handbook of the Languages of Europe
called „Volume 1- Word formation“ (Fradin, Bernhard, 386-413). Blending is generally
considered as a process of combining the begging of one term and the end of another in order
to form a new term. This issue is important to analyse because there is a need to distinguish
blending from other word formation processes.

There are three reasons which explain the difficulty of defining what blending really is. 1)
There is no precise way to notice blend, in some languages such phenomenon doesn't exist, 2)
blends are conditional upon the stress and intonation patterns of an utterance so they are not
the same in every language, 3) blends are composed of parts of different kinds, 4) According
to Thornton and Piñeros, some blends are not even apt in everyday language (1993; 2004:
234). This research paper is marked by sections. In section 2, I will compare features of word-
formation processes with features of blends, in section 3, I will explain grammatical
perspective of blends and do they actually undergo grammatical rules, in section 4, I will
analyse truncation, linearization and overlapping, in section 5, I will point out the relationship
between semantics and bleding, and finally, in section 6, I will describe how blending is
actually unique word-formation process.

2) FEATURES OF BLENDS

There are three main features which describe the results of word-formation processes. 1)
morphological compound is composed out of the meaning of the origin lexeme and the order.
2) the phonological relationship between input and output unit is invariable for every output
or result of the same process. 3) there is a connection between the manner in which
phonological elements are connected.

According to Olsen French compounds share first and the last feature in most cases (2000:
898), and Neef states that it is also case of German compounds (2009: 394). But when talking
about French blends, they do not acquire the third feature, because there is no relationship
which signifies the semantic relationship between lexemes (semantic head is lexeme 1 in
elevache, but it is lexeme 2 in hippidemie). Here is concluded that blends do not satisfy the
most general features of word-formation, specifically first and the third one. There is another
feature which distinguishes compounds from blends, so called „hapatic nature of blends“
which means that blends do not create a sequence. There are three most important
characteristics of blends: a) no maintenance of lexical unity. There is no pattern in which
lexemes are combined into the blend. b) there is no strict pattern how blends are composed. c)
blend is so called „type hapax“ (p. 390)

3) GRAMMATICAL PERSPECTIVE ON BLENDS

As reported by Dressier and Bauer there is no grammatical rule for the way in which lexemes
are merged into the blend (2000; 1988: 39). On the other hand, some linguists state that
blending should be regulated by grammatical rules as any other word-creation processes.
There are 3 opposite sides: regular vs. irregular, grammatical vs. extragrammatical and
universal vs. specific. Unlike the compounds, blends do not have a pattern which serves as a
base, they are hapaxes. Moreover, blending should not be understood as word-creation
process, but it sometimes undergoes lexicalization. Blends neither have template nor corpus.
Conforming to Thornton (1993), Kelly (1998), Gries (2004) and Ronneberger-Sibold (2006)
blending has to satisfy two conditions 1) reduction of the source lexeme in order that blend
looks like a separate lexeme and as reported by Bat El 2) conservation of parts of source
lexeme (2006). Compounds, however, do not need to acquire this, because there is no need of
reducing the source lexeme. The difference between compounds and blends is that blends
indicate linguistic creativity. I like the fact that they are symbols of how languages grow,
develop, and present particular culture. „Diminution vs. maximization may involve three
operations: a) truncation, b) linearization, and c) overlap“ (p. 393) which is actually the way
of dividing blends.
4) PHONOLOGICAL CONCERNS

There are two words „smoke“ and „haze“, and in consonance with Kelly (1998) result of
blending of these two can be: smaze, hoke or smoze, but smaze if far the best one. But can this
order „Wı before Wı“ (p. 393) be the same for every case of blending? In order to solve this,
classification of blends is needed, so there are three possible operations which reveal blends
mentioned before. A) Truncation can be assigned over the segments of blend or bounded just
to one. It means that the segment of the source lexeme is not connected in the blend. Breakfast
+ lunch = brunch. B) Linearization of segments. The segments of blend are continuously
arranged when no segment of a blend is connected to the first source lexeme should be
processed after segments of the second source lexeme have been processed. Carnibbleous =
Car <niver> to/nibble/ ous C) Overlap of segments. Two phonologically comparable
segments overlap when both emerge in the source lexemes, only one persist in the blend.
Overlapping is equal to haplology. Wildschön = Wild + bildschön

According to Piñeros, Ronneberger-Sibold and Kemmer, the most widespread distinction of

blends is between telescope blends and substitute blends. In telescope or overlap blends, the
source lexemes are put side by side, e.g. „feminazi = femin (ist) + Nazi, and in substitute
blends one source lexeme comprises part of the other lexeme e.g. „foodoholic = food +
alcoholic .

Kubozono states that the source lexemes have to be of the same class (1990: 3). „Inclusive
blending“ (p. 396) is the case where articulation of the blend is exact as the articulation of the
longer source lexeme, e.g. electrocute = electricity + execute. Moreover, Kelly claims,
inspired by Kubozono's observations, that shorter source lexemes are likely to come first
(1998).

As reported by Gresillon, Plag and Piñeros, overlapping is decisive property of blending, but
it relies on the language, according to Bertinetto, it is more common in German and French,
rather than in English or Italian (2001). A syllable organization in blends can be: a)[ Onset,
Nucleus, Coda]; b) [[body – Onset, Nucleus] Coda]] and c) [Onset[rhyme- Nucleus, Coda]].
Bertinetto claims that English favors the third type of organization (2001).

5) SEMANTICS AND BLENDING

There are at least two semiotic perspectives in consonance with which blend is created. The
first one states that the purpose of blending is creating a name for recent objects or
phenomena. According to the second, blending is just a witty way of replacing old words with
new ones to indicate innovativity. There are four semantic patterns of interpretation of blends.
1) both lexemes are equivalent in a blend, 2) intersective interpretation- „fantabulous =
fantastic + fabulous“, 3) one source lexeme is predicate where the second one is an argument
–argumentative interpretation, 4) relationship between event, of which one lexeme is
argument while another lexeme is agent or another event.

7) DEMARCATION OF BLENDING

Speech errors (interference blends) and neoclassical compounds are dissimilar to the
intentional blends. There is also a need to distinguish acronyms and clipping, because
blending is a process in which lexemes are combined, there is always more than one lexeme,
which is not the case in clipping where one lexeme is just shortened. Furthermore, secreted
affixation is also different from blending because, according to Tournier, the segment of the
blend cannot appear in any other form (1985: 87). Concealed compounds are not the same as
blends because they can produce series of words, while blends cannot.

8) CONCLUSION

Given these points, blending should be considered distinct of all other word-formation
proceses. It is an innovative way of creating new words by combining existing words. The
most important characteristic of blending is that blends do not have a specific pattern which
indicates the way lexemes are combined. Blends are often called „hapaxes“. It was argued
whether blends undergo grammatical rules, but it is concluded that they do not. There are
three possible operations in which blends are made: truncation, overlapping and linearization.
There are four semantic patterns of interpretation of blends. It is crucial to distinguish blends
from speech errors, neoclassical compounds, acronyms, clipping, secreted affixation and
concealed compounds. I chose this topic because blending is an interesting phenomenon in
language and it shows how people can be creative in order to make common language more
understandable and simple. It would be advisable to provide detailed analysis of blending in
English language, specifically how it separates from other languages.

9) REFERENCES

Main reference: „Volume 1- Word formation“ (Fradin, Bernhard, 386-413)

Thornton and Piñeros (1993; 2004: 234)

Olsen (2000: 898); Neef (2009: 394)

Dressier and Bauer (2000; 1988: 39)

Thornton (1993), Gries (2004) and Ronneberger-Sibold (2006)

Bat El (2006).

Kelly (1998)

Gries (2006: 538-539)

Kubozono (1990: 3)

Bertinetto (2001)

Tournier (1985: 87)

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/New-Blends-in-English-Language.pdf