Blend recognizability in English as a foreign language. An experiment


Abstract


Recognisability is one of the major constraints that most linguists place on lexical blends and their well-formedness. Blends indeed display an unpredictable output that is not transparently analysable into morphemes, and their source words are difficult to recognise for both hearers and readers. The possible combinatory patterns of the source lexemes, the different portions that are retained in the final blend, and their semantic contribution to the overall meaning increase the number of variables and classificatory criteria for blends, thus decreasing predictability of the output given an input. For students of EFL, lexical blends are even more difficult to access due to the fact that the language in which they are formed is not their native language. This paper reports on results from an experiment on 18 Italian students who were tested on English blends. The participants were asked to identify the source words and meanings of a number of blends selected according to different (phonological, morphotactic, semantic) criteria. The results of the experiment show that the recognisability of English lexical blends by Italian native speakers depends on 1) the type of characteristics that the blend displays (overlap between the source words, semantic weight of the source words, headedness, same prosodic structure as one of the source words), 2) the category (substitution vs. overlap, coordinate vs. attributive) to which the blend belongs, and 3) the context where it is used. In general, the experiment sheds some light on the type of processes (e.g., decomposition and textual reference) involved in the recognition and accessibility of English lexical blends

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v54p31

Keywords: lexical blends; EFL; recognisability; source words

References


Arndt-Lappe S. and Plag I. 2013, The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends, in “English Language and Linguistics” 17, pp. 537-563.

Aronoff M. 1976, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bat-El O. 2006, Blends, in Brown K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 66-70.

Bat-El O. and Cohen E.-G. 2012, Stress in English blends: A constraint-based approach, in Renner V., Maniez F. and Arnaud P. (eds.), Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 193-211.

Bauer L. 1983, English Word-formation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bauer L. 2012, Blends: Core and periphery, in Renner V., Maniez F. and Arnaud P.J.L. (eds.), Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 11-22.

Bauer L. and Huddlestone R. 2002, Lexical word-formation, in Huddlestone R. and Pullum G.K. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1621-1723.

Beliaeva N. 2014, A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again, in “Word Structure” 7, pp. 29-54.

Cannon G. 1986, Blends in English word formation, in “Linguistics” 24, pp. 725-753.

COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990-2017. https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (03/04/2019).

Connolly P. 2013, The innovation and adoption of English lexical blends, in “JournaLIPP” 2, pp. 1-14.

Dressler W.U. 2000, Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology, in Doleschal U. and Thornton A.M. (eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Lincom Europa, München, pp. 1-10.

Gries S.Th. 2004, Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English, in Achard M. and Kemmer S. (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 415-428.

Gries S.Th. 2006, Cognitive determinants of subtractive word-formation processes: A corpus-based perspective, in “Cognitive Linguistics” 17 [4], pp. 535-558.

Kemmer S. 2003, Schemas and lexical blends, in Cuyckens H.C., Berg T., Dirven R. and Panther K.-U. (eds.), Motivation in Language: From Case Grammar to Cognitive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 69-97.

Kubozono H. 1990, Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case for phonology-morphology interface, in “Yearbook of Morphology” 3, pp. 1-20.

Lehrer A. 1996, Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach, in “Cognitive Linguistics” 7 [4], pp. 359-390.

Martinet A. 1955, Economie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique, A. Francke, Bern.

Mattiello E. 2013, Extra-grammatical Morphology in English. Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.

Mattiello E. 2021, Blends vis-à-vis compounds in English, in “Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica” 33 [2], pp. 131-162.

NOW: News on the Web 2010-2018. https://corpus.byu.edu/now/ (03/04/2019).

OED2-3: Oxford English Dictionary Online 1989-2019, 2nd/3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/ (03/04/2019).

Plag I. 2003, Word-formation in English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renner V. 2006, Les composés coordinatifs en anglais contemporain, Dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon.

Ronneberger-Sibold E. 2010, Word creation: Definition – function – typology, in Rainer F., Dressler W.U., Kastovsky D. and Luschützky H.C. (eds.), Variation and Change in Morphology, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 201-216.

Thornton A.M. 1993, Italian blends, in Tonelli L. and Dressler W.U. (eds.), Natural Morphology. Perspectives for the Nineties, Unipress, Padova, pp. 143-155.

Thornton A.M. 2004, Parole Macedonia, in Grossman M. and Rainer F. (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 567-571.

Zipf G.K. 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge, Addison-Wesley Press.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.