CC BY
81
Lavrova N.A.
Ph.D, Associate Professor, Department of English Lexicology, Moscow State Pedagogical University
BLENDS: STRUCTURE, SEMANTICS, WORD-BUILDING STATUS
Summary
The given article strives to give credit to blends, which have often been considered as irregular morphemic structures and therefore often disregarded fields of study. The article examines in some detail structural, semantic and word-building aspects of blends, showing that in some cases it may be rather difficult to draw a demarcation line between neological blends and blended nonce-formations. Being wide-spread in the sphere of cyber communication, blends can be regarded as a conventional code used by interlocutors to communicate in an efficient manner. Blends are a proper means of conveying one's evaluation of some fact or phenomenon.
Keywords: blends, monemes, dvandva-blends, hybrid blends Ключевые слова: слова-бленды, двандва-бленды, гибридные бленды
In blends (contaminated words) pieces of two or more words are combined to create new words. As a rule the words which contribute the pieces which go into the make-up of the new word are semantically related in some way, sometimes as synonyms for things which have the same or a very similar meaning. Some blends are purposefully humorous or sarcastic in their origin; others are more accidental, sometimes believed to originate as slips of the tongue which combine aspects of two related forms. Of late blends based on the word "cappuccino" and "magazine" have become particularly popular: mochaccino (mocaccino), muggaccino, frappuccino, cyberccino (involving an Internet coffeeshop), skinniccino, (small black coffee), skimmuccino (cappuccino made with skim milk), decaphaccino (cappuccino made with decaffeinated coffee), soyaccino, kiddiccino, fanzine (fan group newsletter magazine), videozine (videotape featuring items comparable to print magazines), webzine (Internet sites in magazine format), e-zine. There are also syntactic blends. Many examples thereof are found in H. Paul [3]: I am friends with him (I am a friend with him + we are friends) [3, 150]. The nonstandard German "Mich freut deines Mutes" (Ich freue mich deines Mutes + Mich freut dein Mut) [3, 149].
Most blends are formed by one of the following methods:
The beginning of one word is added to the end of the other. For example, "brunch" is a blend of "breakfast" and "lunch". One of the two may be a whole word if it is short. This is the most common method of blending. A monosyllabic word is divided into its onset and rime if necessary. A blend of this type typically has the same number of syllables as the second word. Variance in the syllabic structure of blends can be described by one of the following types [1]: broccoli (3) + cauliflower (4) ^ broccoflower (4) breakfast (2) + lunch (1) ^ brunch (1) camera (3) + recorder (3) ^ camcorder (3) education (4) + entertainment (4) ^ edutainment (4) information (4) + commercial (3) ^ infomercial (4, exception) motor (2) + hotel (2) ^ motel (2)
simultaneous (5) + broadcast (2) ^ simulcast (3, exception)
smoke (1) + fog (1) ^ smog (1)
spoon (1) + fork (1) ^ spork (1)
stagnation (3) + inflation (3) ^ stagflation (3)
Blends that result from the processes described above are usually regarded as monemes whose meaning is in no way a mere sum of the meanings of the motivating words. The meaning of blends is either identical with the original word or is derived from it. Only a small number of blends are stylistically neutral words. Most of the blends are stylistically coloured, slang expressions or they can occur also as nonce-formations, and so they are restricted to certain style levels. Therefore they can be found in advertisements, newspapers, commercials, but also in the scientific and technical literature (e.g. cattalo = cattle + buffalo, plumcot = plum + apricot). The existence of blends is another evidence of the general trend in the English language aimed at the economy of speech and monosyllabism.
Structurally and semantically, blends can be divided into the following types: 1) Endocentric blends. The first base word is a determinant, the second a determinantum. The first word modifies the second one. Blends which have an adjective and a noun as a base belong here: "frogurt": frozen yogurt; "webinar": a seminar conducted on the Web.
2) Dvandva-Blends. The base words are equal to one another. They are semantic coordinatives. Most often, a blend consists of a noun, rarely adjectives: "guestimate", "meamble": a cross between "meander" and "amble", meaning "to go from point to point leisurely"; "humidature": the combination of humidity and temperature.
In some cases it can be rather difficult to draw a demarcation line between neological blends and nonce-formations. This problem can be simply terminological, if we accept a broad view of neology and regard all new formations as neologisms. This stance, though, is often regarded as too general and imprecise, with the implication that nonce-formations are stylistically marked and possess different types of connotations - emotive, expressive, evaluative, nor are registered by dictionaries. New terms and words describing new concepts and realia are therefore treated as neologisms proper. The on-line list of neologisms "Selected Neologisms from 1994 till 2008" offers the following blends as neological. Some of them are indisputable so (e.g. "candwhich", "transcooter"), others occupy an intermediate status (e.g. "shockvertising"), still others are more nonce-formations than neologisms proper, for there is no stable concept for the process they describe (the examples below are available at http://rdues.uce.ac.uk/newwds/1994-2.html:
Candwich - is the perfect product for the people on the go such as students, construction workers, soccer moms and outdoor enthusiasts. Unique packaging offers convenience and protection while backpacking, camping, biking and other activities. Easy store display, does not require refrigeration. Candwhich has a shelf life that is perfect for emergency food storage needs in the event of natural disasters. Three great tasting products are available as single can, four pack or case display.
Communicopia. It's intended to describe any company with multi-media pretensions, companies at the cutting edge of convergence between television, telephons and computers.
Mentioners. Pensioners who mention their age.
Transcooter. A scooter that has a 1.2 hp, 22.5 cc engine strapped over the back wheel.
Shockvertising. The advertising industry's attempt to get the public to sit up and take
notice.
Craugh - to laugh and cry simultaneously.
Blends are wide-spread in the sphere of cyber communication, which has certain peculiar features that need to be meticulously examined in relation to the process of enriching the lexicon. Novel blends in this sphere can be regarded as a certain conventional code to be used by interlocutors to communicate productively and effectively. M.S. Rhyzhkov [4] distinguishes the following functions of novel lexemes in the regarded type of discourse: metalinguistic; contact-initiating (neologisms evoke the We-feeling; the latter reflecting interlocutors' realization that they belong to a certain community within which they interact with one another); emotive (neologisms express emotions either explicitly or implicitly in a more intense and vivid way);
diacritic (neologisms aim at a compression of speech efforts); magical (neologisms make pannational participants in virtual discussions impenetrable and protected for "intruders from outside" belonging to some other national segments of the Internet). Below are some examples of novel blends that emerged in the sphere of cyber-communication (examples are borrowed from M.S. Rhyzkov, 2008):
1) spim - (n) (spam + instant messenger) the process and the result of sending unsolicited messages.
2) infomania - (n) (information + mania) the addiction resulting from the constant urge to read and reply in short messages while talking to someone, or to frequently check your email during your working day, both of which are potentially harmful to one's concentration.
3) irritainment - (n) (irritation + entertainment) the entertainment and media spectacles as well as advertisements (also on the Internet) that are annoying but you find yourself unable to stop watching them.
4) nouse - (n) (nose + mouse) a device which has the same pointing function as a computer mouse, but is controlled with movements of the nose by those people who have some physical disabilities.
5) plagiarhythm - (n) (plagiarism + rhythm) the process of taking (usually via the Internet) another person's lyrics and tunes, and using them as if they were your own.
6) sheeple - (sheep + people) - (n) people who are easily persuaded (usually via the Internet) and tend to follow what others do.
Blending can be regarded as a result of word play, which is especially relevant for the formation of slang words based on it. Some examples thereof are: womanager, sexceppeal, (sex + appeal + Excel), vokiller (vocal + killer: a talented rock singer).
One of the numerous varieties of blends is graphically derived blending, which is based on different alphabetic symbols, for example, on Latin and Cyrillic. Such formations are called "hybrids", "centaur" words, "monster" words, "graphic derivation". Graphic word play based on blending is particularly characteristic of modern mass communication - it is regularly found in advertising, in newspaper and journal headlines. They are conscious creations which reflect the potential of the language during a deliberate juggling of words. Blended hybrids can also be visual, when approximately one and the same phonetic realization is achieved by means of graphemes belonging to different languages: VIPендриваться ^ VIP + Russ. "выпендриваться", ^Ьшься ^ club + Russ. "клубиться", PRодукция ^ PR + Russ. "продукция, PRocmra ^ PR + Russ. "простота", PRофессия ^ PR + Russ. "профессия", первоPRоходцы ^ PR + Russ. "первопроходцы".
Blends are characterized by an arbitrary nature of intermorphemic boundaries and augmented semantic volume as compared to a one-stem word or even a compound word, insofar as the latter usually conveys one concept and its meaning may be idiomatic. Blends are an efficient means of conveying one's evaluation of some fact or phenomenon.
The word-building status of contamination is still debatable, regarded by different scholars as ranging from highly productive to negligible or marginal. This point should definitely be elucidated. It is true that most of the words that are formed and find their way into a dictionary are not formed by contamination, therefore it cannot be regarded as an institutionalized or codified word-forming model. Having said that, a rider should be made: at least one-fifth of novel occasional nonce-words are formed by contamination, which places it in the viable position alongside such patterns as composition, derivation, shortening, abbreviation, all of which are typologically innate in the English language. It follows that neological lexemes that are formed for designation of new concepts and phenomena do not extensively make use of contamination, partly in reverence for tradition, partly because of the spreading reputation of words formed by contamination: most of them appear to be facetious and humorously-tinged. Occasional nonce-words, however, are part and parcel of advertising and mass communication,
because they are a means of creating vivid metaphorical images that on the perceptional level are more catching and ultimately efficient.
The problem of distinguishing between compound words and blends is far-fetched, for compound words are never formed by means of morphemic splinters, although they admit of truncated elements. The curtailed part, however, should be either codified and registered by dictionaries or is part of professional jargon, either emergent or more or less stable. Thus, such contractions as "mo", "g.f", "sec" are regular contractions in virtual communication, therefore, it is logical to presume that if they are part of a word that has a regular stem as its second part, we deal with a compound. Morphemic splinters do not follow phonotactic rules of word organization. Apart from that, in the case of compound words the constituent elements are always discernible, which does not hold true for blends. Thus, the blend "fogust" may produce the false impression of the second element being the word "gust", which would be more or less logical given that the first element is "fog" (both belong to the thematic field of "weather phenomena"). In reality, the second component is the word "august", and the whole word refers to the last month of summer and the beginning of autumn when in some parts of the world there is a lot of fog:
"In the autumn, I increasingly find myself in the desert area of our yard at dusk. Here cactus, yucca, and succulents make their stand, buffeted each year by liquid "Fogust" sunshine and the howling winds of winter". [2].
Contaminated words (that is, blends) have always been considered irregular morphemic structures and therefore often disregarded fields of study. Of late, however, whole conferences have been devoted to lexical blending (or contamination), the latest being the International Conference on Lexical Blending that took place on the 10th of June in 2010. Blends are rewarding from the point of view of the study of their perception and interpretation both by native speakers and foreign learners of English with advanced level of knowledge thereof.
References
1. Campbell L. Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. - Edinburgh: MIT Press, 2004. - 470 p.
2. McFedries P. Word Spy. The Word Lover's Guide to Modern Culture [electronic source] / URL: http://www.wordspy.com/ (date of reference 04.08.2010).
3. Paul H. Principles of the History of Language. - 1890. - 574 p.
4. Ryzhkov M.S. Neologism as Prevailing Language Indicators of the Endemic Speech Strategy of Participants in the English Internet-Discourse // Lagos Papers in English Studies Vol. 3: Yelets State Bunin University, 2008. - P. 124-135
