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
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

Cited by 3 other publications

Balteiro, Isabel & Laurie Bauer
2018. List of references. Lexis :14 DOI logo
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
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 12 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.