CC BY
26
Лаврова Н.А.
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент, ФГБОУ ВПО МПГУ «Московский педагогический государственный университет»
BLENDS: A FAIT ACCOMPLI
Аннотация
Статья посвящена анализу возрастающей популярности контаминации (блендинга) в современном английском языке. В работе показано, что основное функциональное назначение контаминации служить кратким, неформальным, экспрессивно-оценочным средством воздействия на читателя (слушателя). Несмотря на то, что в неологических словарях контаминанты все еще представлены недостаточно репрезентативно, удельный вес контаминированных авторских неологизмов неуклонно растет, особенно в заглавиях периодических изданий.
Ключевые слова: бледны, гибридизация понятий, периодика, заголовок Keywords: blends, hybridization of notions, periodicals, headline
Blends have actively been studied for over a century now; the treatment of their status has varied, however, and there is still no unanimous opinion as two their structural, semantic, functional and pragmatic aspects. The emotional and evaluative edges that are traditionally associated with blends emerge as a result of the psychological need of expressing oneself through the medium of language. This is not at all surprising, and it explains why the majority of them are still not in dictionaries, although extensive lists of blends can be found on various webpages, blogs and discussion forums. This is not to say, though, that blends lack seriousness: terms that are created through blending are a fairly recurring phenomenon, in medicine and chemistry they emerge on a regular basis with a view to designating new compounds, mixtures and medication.
There is not any one single function associated with blending and blends, what is clear is that when the need to express a certain hybridization of notions arises, blends are created. The fact that blends are only very reluctantly entered in dictionaries is, arguably, down to dictionary-compilers' uncertainty as to whether blends describe notions that are a figment of somebody's imagination or whether they refer to real objects and phenomena that have emerged recently. The truth of the matter is somewhere in between: most of the notions blends refer to are either new to society and are shared by a limited segment thereof or they are in flux, emotionally charged and evaluation-wise marked. Consequently, dictionary-compilers are skeptical and hesitant about including them: arguably, there seem to be much safer terms and notions that need to be reflected by dictionaries.
Blends are known to have been regarded as fancy formations that are detrimental to language (the English language particularly, as they are on the rise in it). Some scholars are of the opinion that blends are a cachet of language decay. This stance seems to be rather more emotional than argumentative, because if we abstract ourselves from what some of the blends denote (words formed according to other word-building patterns may denote some disagreeable notion as well or be derogatory in nature), blending is not a deficient or handicapped model per se: a compound word, for instance, is as good as a word-combination (and in most cases a compound reveal a relationship between its components characteristic of that in a phrase), and blending is as good as a word-combination, too. It may be argued that it is more economical and, consequently, efficient in conveying a thought, an idea, a new hybridized notion. Creating blends is a highly expedient way of attracting the recipient's attention, which explains why this device is
extensively used by journalists as an efficient way of expressing evaluation and critical attitude to something. A blend which is created for that reason is short, informal, expressive and vivid.
The bias against blends has been that they are mostly resorted to by journalists who work for the tabloids. However, close examination of some analytical periodicals, both British and American, reveals that broadsheets are not immune to blending, either: blends are created there when serious political and economic matters are discussed. By way of illustration, abstracts from "The Economist" and "Newsweek" can be furnished:
Then there is "gladvertising" and "sadvertising", a rather sinister-sounding idea in which billboards with embedded cameras, linked to face-tracking software, detect the mood of each consumer who passes by, and change the advertising on display to suit it. The technology matches movements of the eyes and mouth to six expression patterns corresponding to happiness, anger, sadness, fear, surprise and disgust. An unhappy-looking person might be rewarded with ads for a sun-drenched beach or a luscious chocolate bar while those wearing an anxious frown might be reassured (some might say exploited) with an ad for insurance [2, http: //www.economi st. com/node/185873057-
The inverted commas used around the words "gladvertising" and "sadvertising" imply that these are not fully-fledged advertising terms - they are only suggestive of the way this new type of technology operates. Arguably, they have what it takes to be a proper term: they are informative, revealing, transparent and more or less objectively reflect the properties of the new device. In contrast to these blends, the blend "globaloney" is markedly more expressive and evaluative, although its informative value should not be discarded: it clearly indicates that the speaker is skeptical about globalization in the way that its actuality and even its presence is not evidenced by statistics and the facts: The case against globaloney
Mr. Ghemawat points out that many indicators of global integration are surprisingly low. Only 2% of students are at universities outside their home countries; and only 3% ofpeople live outside their country of birth. Only 7% of rice is traded across borders. Only 7% of directors of S&P 500 companies are foreigners—and, according to a study a few years ago, less than 1% of all American companies have any foreign operations. Exports are equivalent to only 20% of global GDP. Some of the most vital arteries of globalisation are badly clogged: air travel is restricted by bilateral treaties and ocean shipping is dominated by cartels [3, http: //www.economi st. com/node/18584204.7.
The second component of the blend is the word "baloney", which is a slang word for "nonsense", "gobbledygook". This blend does not meet the requirements for being regarded as a term, because the evaluative, expressive and emotive plains thereof are not subdued, apart from that, it lacks objectivity and societal support. It may also be that it shatters the popular stereotype that globalization is a fait accomli.
In one of the recent articles of the "Newsweek" journal, the blend "militrician" is used three times, the meaning of the blend presumed known. Militricians are military politicians-turned dictators in Nigeria. As becomes clear from the context, the connotations of the word "militrician" are negative, words that frame it unambiguously demonstrate it: "House of Spoils", "self-serving", "in an arbitrary manner":
We must travel back in time. The nation endured military dictatorships for more than three fifths of its independence. After the death of the sadistic dictator Gen. Sanni Abacha in 1998, Nigeria underwent a one-year transitional military administration headed by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who uncharacteristically bowed out precisely on the promised date for military disengagement [..J.
Are there other causes for this assisted suicide mission? Certainly. Before leaving office in 1999, after a total of nearly three decades in government, the militricians—as they are locally known—crafted every legislature into a glorified House of Spoils [...].
Evasion of these questions makes one despair if, among the political office seekers, change will ever emerge, even a minority with the moral courage to initiate the assault on a fundamentally flawed Constitution imposed upon the nation by self-serving militricians, and in an arbitrary manner that even the former colonial masters never dared? [1,10,11].
Blends are predominantly used in the type of discourse that is meant to produce an immediate impact, blends are to be perceived in the "here-and-now" context, hence the journalistic bent towards blending. Once blends are created, they start a life of their own, competing with words formed according to other word-building patterns for survival and acceptance by both language authorities and society. Chances are that if they are not terms or form part of some jargon, after a short period of time they will be forgotten or, at best, quoted and dug out for research purposes.
Drawing the line at the discussion of blends and blending, let me emphasize that the usage of blends is not as wide-spread as some language pundits and purists fear: unlike junk-word and hesitation-fillers that may pop up in speech inadvertently, blends are usually situationally justified and, if created ad hoc, serve the purpose of entertaining one's interlocutor by drawing, partly, a hidden, partly, an explicit comparison between two objects or phenomena.
Литература
1. Newsweek. - New York, April 11, 2011. - 56 p.
2. The Economist [electronic source] / URL: http://www.economist.com/node/18587305
3. The Economist [electronic source] / URL: http://www.economist.com/node/18584204
