Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 19:1 (2019) ► pp.27–47

French and English lexical blends in contrast

ORCID logo | University of Lyon

Two sets of 97 French and 374 English lexical units identified as lexical blends are examined from a contrastive perspective. It appears that English displays a wider variety of patterns than French does – a larger number of marginal types of lexical input combination, of lexical shortening and of phonological splitting. Striking dissimilarities between the two languages also include an inclination for the pattern of double inner shortening in English and the pattern of left-hand-side inner shortening in French, as well as a preference for semantic and phonological right-headedness in English and the absence of a preferred lateral head position in French.

Keywords: morphology, word-formation, lexical blending, French/English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining and collecting lexical blends
  • 3.Formal description
    • 3.1Lexical typology
    • 3.2Morphophonological typology
      • 3.2.1Patterns of lexical shortening
      • 3.2.2Segment overlap
      • 3.2.3Patterns of phonological splitting
  • 4.Headedness
    • 4.1Semantic headedness
    • 4.2Phonological headedness
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16020.ren
References
Ahn, S.
2014 Faithfulness conflict in Korean blends. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1):21–30.Google Scholar
Arcodia, G. F. and Montermini, F.
2012 Are reduced compounds compounds? Morphological and prosodic properties of reduced compounds in Russian and Mandarin Chinese. In Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, V. Renner, F. Maniez and P. Arnaud (eds), 93–113. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S. and Plag, I.
2013 The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends. English Language and Linguistics 17(3):537–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, O.
1996 Selecting the best of the worst: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13(3):283–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Blend. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, second edition, Volume 21, K. Brown (ed.), 66–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Blends. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, G. Khan (ed.), 371–373. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
2008 Exocentric compounds. Morphology 18(1):51–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliaeva, N.
2014 Unpacking contemporary English blends: Morphological structure, meaning, processing. PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Berg, Th.
2009 Structure in Language: A Dynamic Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
2007 The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. and Brdar, M.
2008 On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovije 9(1–2):171–194.Google Scholar
Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary
, eighteenth edition, P. Roach, J. Setter and J. Esling (eds) 2011 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
2000 Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, U. Doleschal and A. M. Thornton (eds), 1–10. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2006 Compound types. In The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, G. Libben and G. Jarema (eds), 23–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grand Robert de la langue française
, online edition (version 3) 2013 Available at [URL] [last accessed 11 November 2016].Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
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 Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, V. Renner, F. Maniez and P. Arnaud (eds), 145–167. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halupka-Rešetar, S. and Lalić-Krstin, G.
2009 New blends in Serbian: Typological and headedness-related issues. Annual Review of the Faculty of Philosophy – University of Novi Sad 34(1):115–124.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. and Sims, A. D.
2010 Understanding Morphology, second edition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Kang, E.
2013 An optimality-theoretic analysis of lexical blends in Korean. The Journal of Studies in Language 28(4):653–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konieczna, E.
2012 Lexical blending in Polish: A result of the internationalisation of Slavic languages. In Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, V. Renner, F. Maniez and P. Arnaud (eds), 51–73. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A
2007 Blendalicious. In Lexical Creativity, Texts, and Contexts, J. Munat (ed.), 115–133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman Pronunciation Dictionary
, third edition, J. C. Wells (ed.) 2008 Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lyster, R.
2006 Predictability in French gender attribution: A corpus analysis. Journal of French Language Studies 16(1):69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E.
2013 Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. G.
2014 English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
online edition. Available at [URL][last accessed 11 November 2016].
Plag, I.
2003 Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A. and Xydopoulos, G. J.
2012 Blend formation in Modern Greek. In Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, V. Renner, F. Maniez and P. Arnaud (eds), 35–50. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renner, V.
2006 Les composés coordinatifs en anglais contemporain. PhD Thesis, University of Lyon.Google Scholar
2014 A study of element ordering in English coordinate lexical items. English Studies 95(4):441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E.
2012 Blending between grammar and universal cognitive principles: Evidence from German, Farsi, and Chinese. In Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, V. Renner, F. Maniez and P. Arnaud (eds), 115–143. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S. and Fábregas, A.
2010 The head in compounding. In Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, S. Scalise and I. Vogel (eds), 109–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
, sixth edition 2007 (electronic edition for iPhone and iPad, 2013). Available at [URL] [last accessed 11 November 2016].Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Balteiro, Isabel & Laurie Bauer
2018. List of references. Lexis :14 DOI logo
Grlj, Tina
2022. Blending as a Word-Formation Process. Journal for Foreign Languages 14:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Jeremić, Jelena Danilović
2019. Ada Böhmerová, Blending As Lexical Amalgamation and Its Onomatological and. Lexis DOI logo
Renner, Vincent
2020. An ecosystem view of English word-formation. The Mental Lexicon 15:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Renner, Vincent
2023. Blending. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Renwick, Adam & Vincent Renner
2018. New lexical blends in The Simpsons: a formal analysis of English nonce formations and their French translations. Lexis :14 DOI logo
Tarasova, Elizaveta & Natalia Beliaeva
2020. On twittizens and city residents . The Mental Lexicon 15:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Tomić, Gorica
2018. Headedness in contemporary English slang blends. Lexis :14 DOI logo
Vasileanu, Monica, Cristian Moroianu & Cristina-Andreea Radu-Bejenaru
2023. Lexical Blending in Romanian Academic Dictionaries. Philologica Jassyensia 38:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Villalva, Alina & Rafael Dias Minussi
2022. Description and analysis of a Portuguese blend corpus. Corpus :23 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 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.