1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 25, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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, , and , 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
2019-06-12
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Algeo, John
    1977 Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech52(1). 47–64. 10.2307/454719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/454719 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alm-Arvius, Christina
    2012 Comprehensive semantics: Lexicon, grammar, text cognition & the world. Stockholm University: Unpublished manuscript.
  3. Barber, Charles , Joan C. Beal & Philip A. Shaw
    2009 The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511817601
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817601 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, Laurie
    1983 English word-formation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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.. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch21
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beliaeva, Natalia
    2014 A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure7(1). 29–54. 10.3366/word.2014.0055
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2014.0055 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Cannon, Garland
    1986 Blends in English word formation. Linguistics24(4). 723–753. 10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.725
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.4.725 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Cook, Paul & Suzanne Stevenson
    2010 Automatically identifying the source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics36(1). 129–149. 10.1162/coli.2010.36.1.36104
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2010.36.1.36104 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crystal, David
    2001 Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164771
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164771 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 Internet linguistics: A student guide. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203830901
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830901 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Fandrych, Ingrid
    2008 Pagad, Chillax and Jozi: A multi-level approach to acronyms, blends, and clippings. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication2(2). 71–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 2004b Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics42(3). 639–667. 10.1515/ling.2004.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.021 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006 Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation: A corpus-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics17(4). 535–558. 10.1515/COG.2006.017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.017 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1515/9783110289572.145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110289572.145 [Google Scholar]
  21. Harley, Trevor A.
    2008 The psychology of language: From data to theory. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hay, Jennifer
    2001 Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics39. 1041–1070. 10.1515/ling.2001.041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, Mark
    1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 Research46(2): 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kelly, Michael
    1998 To “brunch” or to “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics36(3). 579–590. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.3.579
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.3.579 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lehrer, Adrienne
    1996 Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics7(4). 359–390. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.4.359
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.4.359 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1998 Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech73(1). 3–28. 10.2307/455924
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455924 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 Blendalicious. In Judith Munat (ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.58.16leh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.58.16leh [Google Scholar]
  31. Libben, Gary , Martha Gibson , Yeo Bom Yoon & Dominiek Sandra
    2003 Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language84(1). 50–64. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  32. López Rúa, Paula
    2004 The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies85. 63–76. 10.1076/enst.85.1.63.29107
     https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.85.1.63.29107 [Google Scholar]
  33. Plag, Ingo
    2003 Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pound, Louise
    1914 Blends: Their relation to English word formation. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Quirk, Randolph , Jan Svartvik , Geoffrey Leech & Sidney Greenbaum
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Renner, Vincent , François Maniez & Pierre Arnaud
    (eds.) 2012 Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110289572
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110289572 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
    2006 Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica40(1–2). 155–181. 10.1515/flin.40.1part2.155
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.40.1part2.155 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sandra, Dominiek
    1990 On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A42(3). 529–567. 10.1080/14640749008401236
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236 [Google Scholar]
  39. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1966 Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sereno, Joan A. & Allard Jongman
    1997 Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition25(4). 425–437. 10.3758/BF03201119
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201119 [Google Scholar]
  41. Soudek, Lev
    1968 Further members of the “burger” family. American Speech43. 74–76. 10.2307/455381
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455381 [Google Scholar]
  42. 1971 The development and use of the morpheme burger in American English. Linguistics9. 61–89. 10.1515/ling.1971.9.68.61
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1971.9.68.61 [Google Scholar]
  43. Spencer, Andrew
    1996 Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Taylor, John R.
    2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tomasello, Michael
    2003 Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1515/9783110874082.111
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874082.111 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wentworth, Harold
    1933 Twenty-nine synonyms for ‘portmanteau word’. American Speech8(4). 78–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Withington, Robert
    1932 More “portmanteau” coinages. American Speech7(3). 200–203. 10.2307/451651
     https://doi.org/10.2307/451651 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
Loading
Cognitive constraints in English lexical blending
Pragmatics & Cognition 25, 142 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18003.kje
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive constraints; corpus; investigation; language in use; lexical blending; word formation processes

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error