CC BY
33
Научни трудове на Съюза на учените в България-Пловдив, Серия A. Обществени науки, изкуство и култура, том П, Съюз на учените сесия 5 - 6 ноември 2015. Scientific works of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria-Plovdiv, series А. Public sciences, art and culture, Vol. П., Union of Scientists, ISSN 1311-9400, Session 5 - 6 November 2015.
ИЗКОВАВАНЕ И ЗАЕМАНЕ НА ТЕЛЕСКОПИЧНИ ДУМИ В
БЪЛГАРСКИ ЕЗИК Корнелия Чоролеева Университет по хранителни технологии - Пловдив
COINING AND BORROWING OF BLEND WORDS IN BULGARIAN
Kornelia Choroleeva University of Food Technologies - Plovdiv
Abstract
The paper outlines the major ways of coining and adopting blend words in Bulgarian. It discusses locally formed telescopic nonce-words and neologisms as well as telescopic lexical borrowings. The examples are grouped according to their structural characteristics. The paper points out the necessity to study blending in Bulgarian in greater detail and force this word-formation process out of the marginal position it has occupied so far.
Introduction
Recent years have witnessed a growing number of blend words in Bulgarian, which is attributable to various factors, such as an increasing awareness of the pragmatic potential of this word-formative device as well as the borrowing of English blends from different spheres of knowledge and life. It seems that blending, which is understudied as a whole in comparison to other types of word-formation, gains momentum in Bulgarian, too, although in the past it was a marginal process for both Bulgarian and English.
Although considerable number of studies on blending have already appeared concerning the semantic, phonological, and morphological characteristics of this word-formative device in different languages, Bulgarian linguistics has largely disregarded blending with a few exceptions (see, for instance, 1 and 5). The aim of the paper will be to outline the major ways of coining and adopting blend words in Bulgarian on the basis of a corpus of lexical blends excerpted from Bulgarian sources or mentioned by Bulgarian authors.
Coining and Borrowing of Blends in Bulgarian
In general, Bulgarian blend words can be subdivided into two large groups: 1) local nonce-words (occasionalisms) and neologisms and 2) lexical borrowings. The former group includes blends coined by native speakers of Bulgarian in view of some immediate pragmatic or communicative goal, such as advertising a product, expressing disapproval, etc. Blends of the type are locally produced but we may tentatively say that they have a foreign word-formative stimulus since they repeat models long established in the English (or another) language. The second large group of Bulgarian blends more evidently manifests the English influence on Bulgarian in the globalization era because they reflect the socio-political, economic, and cultural power of English as a lingua franca and the desire of language users to keep up with the times by borrowing foreign words or concepts. These two groups of Bulgarian blends will be discussed here separately.
Bulgarian telescopic nonce-words and neologisms belong to several word-formative patterns, all of which can be subsumed under the general heading of blending. Most of them originate in the language of the media and serve some immediate addressee-oriented purpose. We have to point out that some of them are no longer to be considered nonce-words proper since they have evolved into neologisms gaining general acceptance into the language. Locally produced blends can be grouped into the following structural subtypes:
1) Prototypical blending in which an initial element of the first source word is combined with a terminal element of the second source word, e.g.: смешоци < смешници + мишоци (coined by the journalist Maria Kalenderska to refer to some members of Nikolay Barekov's party), булгаверна < българска (possibly through transliteration of Bulgarian) + таверна, барашон
< барака + кашон (in 5), мутреница < мутра + мартеница (in 6), реститутка < реституция + проститутка (Avramova, in 5), Шоковити < шоколадови + бисквити (in 1), Крокотак < крокодил + котарак (with the interfix -т-; a series of children's books). We have to point out that some telescopic formations may give rise to other blends which are formed by analogy, e.g.: властитутка < власт + проститутка (after реститутка). In this case, the final element of the blend (-итутка) acquires a morpheme-like character and may become an affix in the course of time. Some locally coined blends are actually hybrids between an English and a Bulgarian lexeme, e.g.: Plovdiwood (Show) < Plovdiv + Hollywood.
2) Blending in which an initial element from the first source word is combined with a whole word, e.g.: синдибос < синдикален + бос, синдилидер < синдикален + лидер, кримиконтингент
< криминален + контингент, спецзакрила < специална + закрила. This subtype of blending model is found not only in English but also in Russian (cf. капстрана < капиталистическая + страна). In the 20th century, the Russian word-formative pattern greatly influenced the Bulgarian language both with respect to the coining and the borrowing of words.
3) Blending in which the first component is a whole word combined with a splinter from the second source lexeme, e.g.: мутрафон < мутра + мобифон, графикатура < графика + карикатура (in 5);
4) Blending of entire words accompanied by graphic and/or phonic overlap at the point of fusion, e.g.: секспериментирам < секс + експериментирам, джинтуиция < джин + интуиция, чаромат < чар + аромат, педофилюстрация < педофил + илюстрация (all examples found in 1), кютекшън < кютек + екшън (Alexieva, in 5). Such blends exhibit the greatest morphotactic transparency because both source lexemes are kept intact in the derived word. (On morphotactic transparency, see, for instance, 3.)
5) Intercalative or inclusion blending in which a whole word or part of it is inserted into another word. The word into which the unit is inserted may or may not be kept in its entirety in the derived form, e.g.: ЗалоАЛОжи < заложи + ало (TV show), Хамелекон < хамелеон + Леко, оливърпулил < опулил + Ливърпул, розмагарин < розмарин + магаре (all examples in 1). In the first three blends, what is inserted is a whole word. In the fourth example, the inserted unit is a splinter (магар-), or a more or less arbitrarily clipped component of a word which is not a morpheme and cannot function as a free form.
The second large group of blend words in Bulgarian, the one of lexical borrowings, testifies to the powerful influence of English on other languages because the source language (SL) from which Bulgarian borrows words and word-formative patterns is mainly English. The study of lexical borrowings is of interest for language contact theorists who acknowledge the significance of bilingualism, multilingualism, and globalization in the dynamic development of languages in the Internet era. It seems that Bulgarian blends borrowed from English are usually necessary loans, rather than luxury loans, because most of them are adopted in order to introduce a new object or concept. In contrast, luxury loans, which refer to objects or concepts that have already been denoted in the recipient language (RL), appear to make expression more fashionable and high-class.
The excerpted Bulgarian sources show that: 1) telescopic borrowings from English follow
5
the first four major blending subtypes outlined above (since examples of intercalative blending have not been found); 2) in scientific language, borrowing is opportunistic as well: the English blend may not be borrowed even if there is no corresponding compact term in Bulgarian; 3) in non-scientific language, borrowings usually either require some specialized or technical knowledge or denote hybrid entities.
The classification of lexical borrowings to be used here is the one offered in Pulcini et al. 2012, according to which lexical borrowings are categorized into direct and indirect. Direct borrowings formally remind us of the influence of the SL, whereas indirect ones do not. Direct borrowings are subdivided into adapted or non-adapted loanwords, false borrowings, and hybrids. Indirect borrowings, which reproduce the SL model with the help of native resources, are three types of calques (loan translations, loan renditions, and loan creations) and semantic loans.
Most telescopic lexical borrowings into Bulgarian belong to the group of non-adapted loanwords, a subtype of direct lexical borrowing. A non-adapted loan is borrowed "with minor formal and semantic integration, so that it remains recognizably English in the RL" [4: 6]. Of course, as Pulcini et al. point out, some phonological modifications are to be expected due to the differences in the sound systems of the two languages. The loanwords are adopted via transcription, or adherence to the pronunciation in the SL, or transliteration, or paying attention to the graphic rendition of the word. Here are some examples:
1) Prototypical blending, e.g.: amplitron (amplifier + magnetron) > амплитрон, carboloy (carbide + alloy) > карболой (with the linking vowel -o-), comparand (comparison + operand)
> компаранд, mobisode (mobile + episode) > мобизод, smog (smoke + fog) > смог, tangelo (tangerine + pomelo) > танджело.
2) Blending of a splinter from the first source word with a whole word, e.g.: adatom (adsorbed + atom) > адатом, amphion (amphoteric + ion) > амфион, duriron (durable + iron)
> дурирон, plastisol (plasticizer + sol) > пластизол, moblog (mobile + blog) > моблог. Here the Russian influence is also evident, e.g.: райсовет (Russian) > райсъвет (районен + съвет), промкомбинат (Russian) > промкомбинат (промишлен + комбинат).
3) Blending in which the first component is a whole word combined with a splinter from the second source lexeme, e.g.: zorbonaut (zorb + astronaut) > зорбонавт, blogathon (blog + marathon) > блогатон, webinar (web + seminar) > уебинар, fieldistor (field + transistor) > фил-дистор, halvarine (half + margarine) > халварин.
4) Blending of entire words accompanied by graphic and/or phonic overlap at the point of fusion, e.g.: netiquette (net + etiquette) > нетикет, dynamotor (dynamo + motor) > динамотор, vynylon (vinyl + nylon) > винилон, weblog (web + blog) > уеблог.
Some telescopic formations in Bulgarian are adapted loanwords and demonstrate a greater degree of orthographic, phonological, or morphological integration, e.g.: нутригеномика < nutrig-enomics (nutritional + genomics), уебономика < webonomics (web + economics), нутрацевтика
< nutraceutics (nutrition + pharmaceutics), стагфлация < stagflation (stagnation + inflation), глокализация < glocalization (globalization + localization), etc.
We have also discovered borrowed blends which can be defined as hybrid borrowings because their components belong to two different languages, e.g.: аниманга < animanga < anime (Japanese clipping of the English animation) + manga (Japanese), бандини < bandini < bandeau (French; "a band-shaped covering for the breasts") + bikini (English), парафанго < parafango < paraffin (English) + fango (the Italian for "mud"), тайконавт < taikong (the Chinese for "space") + astronaut (English), фемидом < femidom < femina (the Latin for "woman") + condom (English). There are also hybrid borrowings containing a combining form, e.g.: ферокрит < ferrocrete
< ferro- (Latin combining form meaning "related to iron") + concrete (English).
Another aspect of the foreign language influence on Bulgarian is the entering of non-native suffixoidal elements such as -атон (from marathon), -тека (from discotheque), -(о)хо-
лик/(о)холизъм (from alcoholic/alcoholism), -фест (from festival), -мат (from automat), -тини (from martini), -(у)чино (from cappuccino), etc., as in блогатон, чалгатека/чалготека, ромфест (ромски + фестивал), паркомат (паркинг + автомат), шопохолик, водкатини (водка + мартини), мокачино (мока + капучино). Stamenov points out that such examples bring blending back to the observance of morphological rules, which means that blending of the type is no longer blending proper because it reminds of traditional affixation and compounding [5]. Frath, who shares this opinion, believes that the polysyllabic word which appears first, e.g. workaholic, is semantically modified via transfer of meaning on the last syllables, the latter acquiring a morpheme-like character [2]. This process, akin to the reinterpretation typical of folk etymology, makes room for a new attribute in front of the suffixoidal element, thus unleashing the formation of new words, e.g. shopaholic, chocoholic, sexaholic, spendaholic, etc. The appearance of such morpheme-like elements in Bulgarian also means that they can be combined with native resources and become more or less productive with time.
Conclusion
The paper tried to briefly outline the major ways of coining and adopting blend words in Bulgarian, a language which does not make much use of this word-formative device as compared to other languages. However, since blending has gained momentum in Bulgarian as well, we emphasize the necessity for studying it. The coinage of local telescopic formations demonstrates both the linguistic creativity of language users and their pragmatic orientation because they strive to achieve a maximum effect with minimum linguistic resources. This is done via the indirect borrowing of foreign word-formative models, largely from English. The direct influence of other languages is more strikingly visible in the case of telescopic lexical borrowings, namely adapted loanwords, non-adapted loanwords, and hybrid borrowings, of which the second group is probably the largest. English functions as a bypass for the influence of other foreign languages on Bulgarian, which happens through the adoption of hybrid loans. The foreign suffixoidal elements entering Bulgarian are also evidence of the contact between this language and English (or other languages). All the routes linking Bulgarian to other languages make way for its dynamic evolution and endow language users with greater linguistic awareness since they much more actively exploit the linguistic resources at their disposal.
References:
1. Bondzholova2007: Бонджолова, В. (Не)съществуващи думи: оказионалното словотворчество. Велико Търново: УИ „Св. св. Кирил и Методий", 2007.
2. Frath 2004: Frath, P. "Why Is There No Ham In a Hamburger?" A Study of Lexical Blends and Reanalysed Morphemisation. Archard, M., S. Kemmer (eds.). Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004, pp. 415-428.
3. Mattielo 2013: Mattielo, E. Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Walter de Gruyter, 2013.
4. Pulcini et al. 2012: Pulcini, V., Cr. Furiassi, F. R. González. The Lexical Influence of English on European Languages. From Words to Phraseology. Furiassi, Cr., V. Pulcini, F. R. González (eds.). The Angli-cization of European Lexis. John Benjamins, 2012, pp. 1-26.
5. Stamenov 2007: Стаменов, Хр. Телескопия в българското словообразуване. Багашева, А. (съст.). За човека и езика. Сборник научни статии, посветени на 60-годишнината на проф. дфн Майя Пенчева. София: УИ „Св. Климент Охридски", 2007, стр. 225-231.
6. Vateva 2012: Вътева, В. Оказионализмите в текстове от съвременната българска преса (2007-2010 г.). Съвременна хуманитаристика, бр. 1. Бургаски свободен университет, 2012, стр. 18-28.
Excerpted sources:
1. Pernishka et al. 2010: Пернишка, Е., Д. Благоева, С. Колковска. Речник на новите думи в българския език (от края на XX и първото десетилетие на XXI в.). София: Наука и изкуство, 2010.
2. Semerdzhiev et al. 1985: Семерджиев, Ст. и кол. Английско-български политехнически речник. София: Издателство Техника, 1985.
