Blending is anything but a new phenomenon in the English language. This is proven by the fact that the word brunch, which is one of the most widely known blends, was first recorded in 1896 - more than 100 years ago (Quinion 2014). However, only over the last couple of decades has blending become a very popular word-formation process. Today, in the English lexicon a large number of blends can be found which are no longer recognized as such since they have been in everyday use for quite a long time (Katamba 1994: 184). This can be explained by the fact that blends tend to be abbreviations in the beginning and, due to their word-like appearance, are lexicalized over time (Hadžiahmetović-Jurida 2006: 283). Although blending plays a significant role in terms of word-formation, it is hardly mentioned in monographs focusing on this particular aspect of morphology.
This paper aims to explore the rules that determine the creation of blends as well as to have a closer look on two ways of categorizing them.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Blending: A creative way of coining new words
3 The process of blending
4 Blending and word classes
4.1 Blending within one word class
4.2 Blending across word classes
5 The classification of blendings according to Plag
5.1 Shortened compounds
5.2 Proper blends
5.3 Bauer’s way of categorizing blends
6 Blends in everyday speech
7 Summary
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the morphological rules governing the creation of blends in the English language and critically evaluates different classification frameworks, specifically comparing the approaches of Plag and Bauer. The core research aim is to understand the formation process, the influence of word classes on blending, and the prevalence of this creative mechanism in modern communication.
- Rules and restrictions in the formation of blends
- Analysis of source word classes and their impact on blending
- Critical discussion of morphological classification systems (Plag vs. Bauer)
- The role of phonological and syllabic structure in blend creation
- The use and integration of blends in contemporary everyday language
Excerpt from the Book
The process of blending
Lipka (2002: 110) argues that blendings can not be defined as complex lexemes since they are not the result of morphemes combined to a syntagma. Moreover, he claims that blendings are not arbitrary words as, to some extent, their linguistic form is the force motivating them. Therefore, Lipka (2002: 145 f.) concludes that blendings are not a result of grammatical word-formation since they can neither be categorized as syntagmas nor as combinations of full units. Other non-morphemic word formation patterns are clipping, acronymy, abbreviation and reduplication (Schmid 2011: 88).
According to Plag (2003: 123) blendings are the result of two clipped words that are blended together. As a rule, to receive a blend the first part of the first source word is combined with the second part of the second source word. Gries (2004: 418) observed that usually the shorter source word delivers the larger part to the blend and the longer source word contributes less to it. Consequently, Plag (2003: 123) formulates the blending rule AB + CD => AD. The vast majority of all blends follows this rule. However, examples that violate this rule can be found, although they are rather rare.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the significance of blending in English and outlines the scope and structure of the research.
2 Blending: A creative way of coining new words: Discusses the difficulty of defining blends due to their overlap with other word-formation processes and presents initial paradigm examples.
3 The process of blending: Examines the morphological and syllabic rules, including stress patterns and the "AB + CD => AD" rule of combination.
4 Blending and word classes: Analyzes how different word classes (nouns, adjectives, verbs) interact to form blends, both within and across class boundaries.
5 The classification of blendings according to Plag: Critically evaluates Plag’s categorization into shortened compounds and proper blends while contrasting it with Bauer’s approach.
6 Blends in everyday speech: Highlights the practical application of blending in contemporary culture, including celebrity couple names, company nomenclature, and geography.
7 Summary: Recaps the main findings regarding the rules of formation, the variety of word-class combinations, and the necessity of a robust classification system.
Keywords
Blending, word-formation, neologisms, morphology, Plag, Bauer, lexicalization, syllabic structure, stress match, compound-blends, nominal blends, adjectival blends, verbal blends, coordinate blends, determinative blends.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the morphological mechanisms of "blending" in the English language, investigating how new words are created by combining parts of existing ones.
What are the central themes of the research?
Key themes include the rules of blend formation, the influence of phonology and stress, the role of word classes, and the categorization of these words in morphological theory.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to explore the rules determining blend creation and to critically compare different taxonomic approaches, specifically Plag's and Bauer's models.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a descriptive and analytical literature-based methodology, comparing existing linguistic frameworks against empirical examples of blended words.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the process of formation, the interaction between different word classes, and a critical discussion of how to best classify these neologisms.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Keywords include Blending, morphology, word-formation, lexicalization, and coordinate/determinative classification.
How do "coordinate" and "determinative" blends differ according to Bauer?
Coordinate blends are not semantically headed (e.g., smog), whereas determinative blends have a clear head that determines the meaning of the word (e.g., motel).
Why does the author criticize Plag’s classification?
The author argues that Plag’s system is less practicable because many existing blends contradict his definitions of "shortened compounds" and "proper blends."
How do modern digital tools affect the blending process?
The author notes that "blending-creator-machines" on the internet suggest that virtually any words can be combined, though there is no guarantee these words will be accepted or lexicalized.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Carmen Peresich (Autor:in), 2014, Blends. A creative means of word-formation, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/287710
