Cover not available
Article published In:
The Dynamics of Lexical Innovation: Data, methods, models
Edited by Daphné Kerremans, Jelena Prokić, Quirin Würschinger and Hans-Jörg Schmid
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:1] 2018
► pp. 142–173

Cognitive constraints in English lexical blending

A data collection methodology and an explanatory model

| Umeå University, Sweden
The complex characteristics of lexical blending have long troubled mainstream word formation research to the extent that it has typically been considered a peripheral issue in linguistics. In recent years this has begun to change, and there is currently a growing body of evidence uncovering the intriguing nature of this word formation process. In the present study, underlying principles and usage-based aspects of lexical blends were examined. Analyses of derivatives of three matrix words, republican, liberal, and vegetarian, revealed the impact of three cognitive constraints on the use of lexical blends: schema transfer effects, neighborhood effects, and effects of the influence from morphological lexicalization. The first constraint fueled blend formation, while the other two displayed a hampering effect on the use of lexical blending. Furthermore, a study of the word class distribution in the datasets showed that there were significant differences in the grammar of lexical blending and compounding, respectively.
Keywords: lexical blending, word formation processes, cognitive constraints, corpus, investigation, language in use
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Terminology
    • 3.2Methodological concerns
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
  • 4.Data and results
    • 4.1Study 1: Structural analysis of blend formations
      • 4.1.1Republican
      • 4.1.2Liberal
      • 4.1.3Vegetarian
      • 4.1.4Summary of the structural analyses
    • 4.2Study 2: Word class distribution
      • 4.2.1Republican
      • 4.2.2Liberal
      • 4.2.3Vegetarian
      • 4.2.4Summary of the analyses of word class distribution
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Schema transfer effects
    • 5.2Neighborhood effects
    • 5.3Morphological lexicalization
    • 5.4Implications of word class distribution
    • 5.5Summary of discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
References (48)
References
Algeo, John. 1977. Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech 52(1). 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alm-Arvius, Christina. 2012. Comprehensive semantics: Lexicon, grammar, text cognition & the world. Stockholm University: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles, Joan C. Beal & Philip A. Shaw. 2009. The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Compounds and minor word-formation types. In Bas Aarts & April M. S. MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English Linguistics, 483–506. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliaeva, Natalia. 2014. A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure 7(1). 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergström, Gustaf Adolf. 1906. On blendings of synonymous or cognate expressions in English: A contribution to the study of contamination. Lund University (Press) / Lund: H. Ohlsson.Google Scholar
Cannon, Garland. 1986. Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24(4). 723–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Paul. 2012. Using social media to find English lexical blends. In Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld & Julie Matilde Torjusen (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress, 846–854. Oslo: Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Cook, Paul & Suzanne Stevenson. 2010. Automatically identifying the source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics 36(1). 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Internet linguistics: A student guide. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000. Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton (eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology, 1–10. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fandrych, Ingrid. 2008. Pagad, Chillax and Jozi: A multi-level approach to acronyms, blends, and clippings. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication 2(2). 71–88.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2015. Blending. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, 386–413. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004a. Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. In Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 415–428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2004b. Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42(3). 639–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation: A corpus-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 535–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Vincent Renner, Pierre Arnaud, Volker Gast & François Maniez (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 145–167. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Trevor A. 2008. The psychology of language: From data to theory. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 391. 1041–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, Barbara J., Rebecca L. Johnson & Jennifer Brewer. 2016. An investigation into the processing of lexicalized English blend words: Evidence from lexical decisions and eye movements during reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46(2): 1–14.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael. 1998. To “brunch” or to “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics 36(3). 579–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Schemas and lexical blends. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg & René Dirven (eds.), Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science: Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 69–97. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1996. Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics 7(4). 359–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech 73(1). 3–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Blendalicious. In Judith Munat (ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, Gary, Martha Gibson, Yeo Bom Yoon & Dominiek Sandra. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84(1). 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Rúa, Paula. 2004. The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies 851. 63–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pound, Louise. 1914. Blends: Their relation to English word formation. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Jan Svartvik, Geoffrey Leech & Sidney Greenbaum. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent, François Maniez & Pierre Arnaud (eds.). 2012. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2006. Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica 40(1–2). 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 1990. On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 42(3). 529–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sereno, Joan A. & Allard Jongman. 1997. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition 25(4). 425–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soudek, Lev. 1968. Further members of the “burger” family. American Speech 431. 74–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. The development and use of the morpheme burger in American English. Linguistics 91. 61–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 1990. The importance of combining forms. In Wolfgang Dressler, Hans C. Luschutzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 111–132. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wentworth, Harold. 1933. Twenty-nine synonyms for ‘portmanteau word’. American Speech 8(4). 78–79.Google Scholar
Withington, Robert. 1932. More “portmanteau” coinages. American Speech 7(3). 200–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Karpova, Kateryna & Tetyana Chaiuk
2020. Vocabulary enrichment of modern English via world-formation (on the material of the language of COVID-19 pandemic). Actual issues of Ukrainian linguistics theory and practice :41 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Balteiro, Isabel & Laurie Bauer
2018. List of references. Lexis :14 DOI logo
Kjellander, Daniel
2018. Gold Punning: studying multistable meaning structures using a systematically collected set of lexical blends. Lexis :14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.