A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis

Journal in English Lexicology

14 | 2019

BlendinginEnglish

MattielloElisa

Electronicversion

URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/3660

DOI: 10.4000/lexis.3660

ISSN: 1951-6215

Publisher

Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3

Electronicreference

Mattiello Elisa, « A corpus-based analysis of new English blends », Lexis [Online], 14 | 2019, Online

since 16 December 2019, connection on 20 April 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/

3660 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3660

This text was automatically generated on 20 April 2020.

Lexis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License.

A corpus-based analysis of new

English blends

Mattiello Elisa

Introduction

[A]ll speech, smooth as well as blunderful, can be and must be accounted for

essentially in terms of the three mechanisms… analogy, blending, and editing.

[Hockett 1967: 935]

1 Lexical blending is a widely discussed topic in morphological literature. It has recently

attracted the attention of several scholars, who have focused on 1) the role of prosodic

structure in the formation of new English blends [Arndt-Lappe & Plag 2013], 2)

prototypical blend features [Bauer 2012] and regularities in blend formation [Mattiello

2013], 3) the relationship between blend structure and meaning [Beliaeva 2014], and 4)

the interpretation and acceptability of new lexical blends [Connolly 2013]. Lexical

blending has also been studied from a cross-disciplinary perspective, in a volume

collecting data from typologically different languages [Renner, Maniez & Arnaud 2012].

2 This paper investigates new lexical blends in English, their frequency, pragmatic

contexts, and functions, as well as the emergence of new splinters in their formation. In

particular, the paper analyzes a collection of 245 blends from quantitative and

qualitative viewpoints. The approach is both data-driven and corpus-based. For the

analysis, the study uses lexicographic information drawn from the online version of the

Oxford English Dictionary [OED2-3], as well as corpora of English, i.e. Corpus of

Contemporary American English [COCA] and News on the Web corpus [NOW]. The data has

been collected through an advanced search in the OED and covers a time span

(1950-2010) which testifies to the current relevance and increasing incidence of the

blending process as a word-formation mechanism for the creation of new words in

English. The OED indeed shows that the number of new entries created by blending

doubles in intervals of fifty years, namely, 33 instances in 1800-1850, 65 in 1850-1900,

147 in 1900-1950, and 246 in 1950-2000, as shown in Figure 1.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

Figure 1: Advanced search results for ‘blend’ in the OED

3 The database of the study includes both “nonce formations” [Bauer 1983: 45; or

“occasionalisms”, Chanpira 1966 in Dressler & Tumfart 2017: 155-156], which are coined

for specific textual/stylistic purposes, and more stable neologisms, which are already

or are likely to become a permanent part of the English lexicon (cf. “lexicalization” and

“institutionalization” in Brinton & Traugott [2005: 45]). However, the attention is

especially focused on neologisms, which from a quantitative viewpoint are more

frequent and, from a qualitative viewpoint, can better illustrate the contexts

motivating blending and the functions that new English blends can fulfil.

4 The goal of the study is fourfold:

First, it aims at identifying the contexts/registers which favour the formation of blend

words, ranging from slang/colloquial registers (e.g. bromance ← bro + romance) to specialized

domains. While the semantically hybrid nature of blending has been stressed in the

literature – e.g., it is used to form names for unions, alloys, companies, etc. [Thornton 1993,

2004; Renner 2006; Bauer 2012] – and this process has often been regarded as a mechanism

used to gain our attention in the media and advertising [Lehrer 2007; Ronneberger-Sibold

2010], its relevance to specialized vocabulary has not been adequately remarked hitherto.

Pertinent domains for blends include, for instance, business (adhocracy ← ad hoc +

bureaucracy), economics (stagflation ← stagnation + inflation), electronics (rectenna ← rectifying

+ antenna), technology (phablet ← phone + tablet), etc.

Second, this study addresses the question of whether blends are created with the intention

of designating a new referent, thus filling in a conceptual/lexical gap, or to give a new name

to an existing referent, as an act of economizing or creating a stylistic effect. For instance,

the blend jeggings (← jeans + leggings) has been recently coined to designate ‘tight-fitting

stretch leggings for women, styled to resemble a pair of denim jeans’, and it has even

become a proprietary name in the United Kingdom. By contrast, vodkatini and surfari are

merely shorter words for existing concepts expressed by compounds, i.e. vodka martini (‘a

martini cocktail in which vodka is substituted for gin’) and surf safari (‘a journey made by

surfers in search of good conditions for surfing’). The fact that only 4.9% of the blends in our

database fall in the latter group confirms the necessity of blending as a word-formation

mechanism used to label new complex concepts or objects, fusions, amalgams, and, more

rarely, qualities or actions.

Third, the study focuses on a particular type of blending, called ‘attributive’ or ‘headed’,

such as rockumentary (← rock + documentary), eatertainment (← eat + entertainment), and

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

Clintonomics (← Clinton + economics). Attributive blends exhibit an “endocentric relation”

with their head [Bat-El 2006: 67], which therefore has a greater semantic weight than the

first component (i.e. the modifier).

In particular, in this study, we will address the issue of attributive blends as possible schema

model for new blends, with the second splinter (e.g. -umentary, -tainment, and -(o)nomics) as

potential combining form, or secreted affix [Fradin 2000], for novel formations.

5 Issues 2 to 4 also question the boundaries between blending and clipped compounding

[Beliaeva 2014], as well as between blending and frequent splinters, combining forms,

or secreted affixes [Mattiello 2018].

1. Theoretical background

1.1. Definition and classification of blending

6 Linguists generally agree on the definition of lexical blending as the merging of two (or

more) lexemes into one involving partial loss of the phonological and/or graphic

material of at least one of them, as in smaze ← sm(oke) + (h)aze, with partial drop of

both source words. Frequently, there is an overlap between the source words, as in

boatel ← boat

+ hotel, with overlap of the phonemes /əʊt/ which favours the fusion.

Connolly [2013: 3] respectively calls these two types “substitution blends” and “overlap

blends”.

7 A different terminological distinction is provided by Ronneberger-Sibold [2006: 155],

who classifies blends according to their degree of transparency, from very transparent

“telescope blends” (e.g. G. Amtsschimmelpilz ‘red tape fungus’ ← Amtsschimmel +

Schimmelpilz) to completely opaque “fragment blends” (e.g. Cujasuma ‘a brand of

tobacco’ ← Cuba + Java + Sumatra). Three-member blends are infrequent in English (an

example is turducken ‘a poultry dish’ ← turkey + duck + chicken).

8 Finally, we can classify blends according to a semantic criterion, differentiating the

‘coordinate’ type (frenemy is both ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’) from the ‘headed’ or

‘attributive’ type (e.g. slimnastics is ‘gymnastics that slim you down’). In the headed

type, the right constituent (gymnastics) acts as head and therefore carries a greater

semantic weight than the left one (slimming).

1.2. Blends vis-à-vis other morphological categories

9 While different labels and classifications abound in the literature, scholars also

disagree on the distinction between blends and other neighbouring morphological

categories, especially clipped compounds (e.g. froyo ← frozen yogurt) and secreted

affixes (e.g. -aholic ← alcoholic in shopaholic). It is often remarked that blending can be

compared to compounding because it combines two (or more) base lexemes in order to

form a new one [Bauer & Huddleston 2002: 1636; Gries 2004: 639]. However, whereas

compounding is generally regarded as a regular, productive process, blending is viewed

as “irregular and unpredictable” [Connolly 2013: 3]. This is mainly due to the fact that

compounding combines words, whereas blending combines word parts [Kemmer

2003: 75] and its output is not regularly and transparently analyzable into morphemes

[Bauer 1983: 234].

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

10 This difficulty in identifying regularities in blends has led Laurie Bauer to list

prototypical phonological, structural and semantic features as “defeasible constraints”

for blends’ description, i.e. discriminating between the core and the periphery of

blends, thereafter concluding that “the category is a fuzzy one” [Bauer 2012: 11, 21; cf.

formal, semantic and syntactic properties in Cannon 2000]. Bat-El [2006: 66], instead,

provides a narrow definition of blends, which according to her “refer only to cases

where the inner edges are truncated” (e.g. Oxbridge ← Ox(ford) + (Cam)bridge, jazzercise

← jazz + (ex)ercise). This definition excludes from the category of blending forms where

the right edges of two words are truncated (e.g. sitcom ← sit(uation) + com(edy)) or

where only the first word undergoes truncation (e.g. mocamp ← mo(tor) + camp), which

rather belong to the category of clipped compounds [Bat-El 2006]. In general, a clipped

compound differs from a blend because it is attested as compound before being

shortened. Thus, while *jazz exercise is not attested in this full form, only the blend

jazzercise [1976] is, sitcom [1964] is shortened from the compound situation comedy [1953]

and mocamp [1967] is a clipped compound from motor camp [1925].

11 In this paper, we do not adopt Bat-El’s narrow definition, but rather extend blending to

a broader category which also includes the ‘intercalative’ type (e.g. ambisextrous, where

sex is intercalated within ambi(dex)drous) [Kemmer 2003: 72] and the type obtained

from two word beginnings (e.g. modem ← mo(dulator) + dem(odulator)), although these

are rarer than the prototypical type merging the beginning of one word with the end of

another (e.g. gasohol ← gas(oline) + (alc)ohol). The only restriction for blends seems to

be that “the beginning of a blend cannot be the end of a word, e.g. *glyson for ‘ugly

person’.” [Lehrer 1996: 364] (however, cf. the clipped compound blog ← weblog).

12 Another fundamental distinction is between blending and combining forms (or

secreted affixes). Fradin [2000: 46-47], for instance, has provided criteria to

discriminate between these two morphological categories. Phonologically, combining

forms are obtained by shortening the beginning or the end of a lexeme (e.g. -ware ←

(soft)ware in freeware, or eco- ← eco(logy) in ecotourism), whereas there are numerous

patterns in blend formation (as shown above). Semantically, while in blends the

semantic content of the components is kept intact, in secreted affixation some

semantic elements are kept and others discarded (cf. “secretion” vs. “abbreviation” in

Warren [1990: 119]). Thus, boatel ‘boat which functions as a hotel’ is a blend, while

shopaholic ‘compulsive shopper’ is a secreted formation obtained by discarding the

semantic element ‘alcohol’ from alcoholic. Therefore, secreted affixing also involves

abstraction – i.e. -(a)holic conveys the meaning ‘person addicted to the thing, activity,

etc., expressed by the first element’ (e.g. shopping) – while blending does not.

13 The distinction between compounds, combining forms, and blends leads us to a more

general tripartition which is elaborated within the framework of Natural Morphology

(esp. in Dressler [2000]), i.e. “grammatical” vs. “marginal” vs. “extra-grammatical”

morphology. In this framework, compounds like situation comedy belong to grammatical

morphology because they are regularly formed according to word-formation rules and

their outputs are fully predictable from their inputs (in this case, [situation]

[comedy]

). Combining forms like -(a)holic instead belong to marginal (but still

grammatical) morphology, in that they are non-prototypical (i.e. at the boundaries) of

morphology [Dressler 2000: 6-7]. In particular, they are transitional between two

subcomponents of morphology (i.e. derivation and compounding), depending on

whether we consider combining forms to be bound or free morphemes. In the OED, for

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

instance, -(a)holic is labelled “suffix” and the outputs foodaholic, newsaholic, shopaholic,

spendaholic, workaholic, etc. are regularly created from it. Finally, blending, like clipped

compounding (the sitcom type), is a creative technique which Ronneberger-Sibold

[2010: 201] includes among “intentional extragrammatical operations”, as opposed to

“unintentional” ones occurring, e.g., during first language acquisition or in speech-

errors. The use of extra-grammatical operations for the creation of new lexemes is

termed “word creation” by Ronneberger-Sibold [2010: 201], as opposed to regular

word-formation. Accordingly, blending is viewed as part of word-creation, rather than

as a regular process of word-formation. For example, blends like smaze and boatel are

dismissed from morphological grammar because their input does not allow a prediction

of a regular output like rules do, or their output is only partially predictable on account

of some sub-regularities or preferences for prototypicality [Mattiello 2013].

14 However, a subtler distinction should be made between new blends that are single

formations created after a model word – e.g., boatel is created after the model of motel

(← motor + hotel) – and new blends that follow a schema model. Indeed, there are some

blend “splinters” [Lehrer 1996, 2007] which recur frequently in novel coinages, thus

showing a tendency towards regularity [Mattiello 2018] and productivity [Plag 1999;

Bauer 2001; Bauer et al. 2013]. For instance, attributive blends such as eatertainment,

irritainment, and shoppertainment exhibit a splinter -tainment (shortened from

entertainment) which is also found in earlier docutainment, edutainment, and infotainment.

15 In the present study, new blends with recurring splinters such as -tainment are included

within “paradigmatic morphology” [Bauer et al. 2013], in that they suggest an analysis

in terms of paradigmatic substitution or analogy. In particular, while boatel belongs to

“surface analogy”, based on a unique model, eatertainment and the like belong to

“analogy via schema”, with a set of prototype words as model [Mattiello 2017; see

“schema” in Köpcke 1993; cf. “schemas” and “subschemas” within Booij’s 2010

Construction Morphology]. In this study, the delimitation between productive and

unproductive splinters in blending will be supported by a corpus investigation.

1.3. Contexts and recognition of new lexical blends

16 Another issue which will be addressed in this paper concerns the contexts where new

English blends are created and employed, as well as their naming function, especially in

specialized domains. In the literature, Thornton [1993: 148] has claimed that in Italian

“[t]he formation of blends is scarcely productive”, mainly limited to designate entities

such as companies, associations, unions, alloys, synthetic textiles, chemicals, and

hybrids in general. She added that the creation of blends is favoured by the iconicity

principle of Natural Morphology: i.e., the mixture of alloys, chemicals, etc. (signatum) is

iconically reflected by the mixture in the process of formation of their names (signans).

This favours the use of blends with a labelling function.

17 Similar conclusions are drawn by Ronneberger-Sibold [2006: 161] for German: “a strong

formal amalgamation of the blended words can mirror a corresponding fusion of their

referents”. For instance, substances consisting of several amalgamated ingredients are

iconically named by amalgamated nouns, such as the blend smog ← smoke + fog. In her

view, this iconicity is chiefly illustrated by brand names, which are generally created to

impress listeners, and by pharmaceutical products, which often have scientific names

reminiscent of the chemicals making them up. Ronneberger-Sibold [2010: 206-207] also

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

claims that, in general, word-creation is used in the realms of humorous literature – i.e.

literature for children or texts for adults, whose aim is to amuse their listeners or

readers – and of advertising, where the shape of a word can attract the attention of

potential customers.

18 In a study on novel English blends, Lehrer [2007: 128] has similarly remarked that

“[t]he commonest places for blends to occur are in product names, advertisements,

newspaper and magazine headlines and titles”. According to her, the creation of blends

is mainly motivated by the goal to call the reader’s attention to the product, news item,

etc. and elicit his/her favourable response, such as remembering the product name,

buying it, reading the news piece, etc. However, Lehrer [2007: 129] also notes the

ephemeral nature of most blends, which are often intended to be “nonce forms – items

produced for a specific context and occasion”. In connection with this, we assume that,

while blends created in familiar, jocular or humorous contexts may be short-lived ad

hoc creations, those formed in specialized contexts, such as pharmacy, biology, or

information technology, are more stable formations that experts adopt for their

efficiency (Language Economy Principle) and effectiveness (Iconicity Principle).

19 The demarcation line between ‘nonce’ blends (or occasionalisms) and proper

‘neologisms’, i.e. intended to enter the lexical stock of a language, is also related to the

role of blending in lexical innovation and in the overall process of language change

[Connolly 2013; cf. Milroy 1992; Brinton & Traugott 2005]. While the frequent

emergence of new lexical blends in English (Figure 1) suggests that blending is a

common process for the creation of new linguistic material (innovation), the

proliferation among wider groups of speakers (adoption) might not be homogeneous

for all innovative lexical items. Experiments have demonstrated that there is no

general consensus of the “adoptability” of innovative blends by native speakers

[Connolly 2013: 3].

20 According to Connolly [2013: 12]:

The accessibility of the meaning of an innovative blend appears to play some role in

whether or not it is adopted, but the perceived prestige and utility of the form must

also be taken into account.

21 From this claim, we gather that the spread and recognition of lexical blends are mainly

motivated by three factors. First, new lexical blends are widely accepted if their source

lexemes are easily accessible (recognizable) and their meaning straightforwardly

assigned. Second, their adoption is favoured by prestige, that is new lexical blends that

are indicative of a prestigious norm of speech will be more likely to be adopted than

those that are not. However, a substandard unit may also become lexicalized because it

is amusing, humorous, or sarcastic. Third, new lexical blends are especially adopted if

speakers perceive the utility of the form, e.g., to cover a conceptual or lexical gap in the

language, or to produce a stylistic or textual effect.

22 In this paper, quantitative data will be used to 1) discriminate between nonce blends

and blend neologisms, and 2) identify the preferential contexts and domains where

blends are created, recognized, and adopted. Section 2 explains how data was collected

and analyzed.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

2. Data collection and method

23 The data collected for this study was drawn from the online edition of the OED. For the

selection of relevant data, the advanced search tool available on the OED platform was

used. The parameters of selection were the formation process involved and the

attestation date. First, the filter ‘blend’ in the etymology slot gave us 632 instances of

blending in the overall dictionary (or, at least, those which have been labelled blends

by lexicographers). Then, the entries were chronologically ordered from Early Old

English to the present time. This ordering showed that a substantial distribution of

English blends especially occurred after 1950 (see Figure 1), although there were no

contemporary examples dated after 2010. The filter ‘1950-today’ restricted the set to

264 results, which appeared to be a representative collection of novel English blends for

our goals. The collection was finally cleaned via close reading of each entry. Closer

examination allowed us to exclude:

Abbreviations from phrases: e.g., Amex ← Am

erican Stock Exchange.

Forms with affixes or combining forms: e.g., poofteroo ← poofter + suffix -eroo, Neorican ←

neo- + Rican.

Word parts: e.g., -bot ← robot, -rific ← terrific. Although some blends are obtained from these

splinters (e.g. mobot ← mobile + robot, yogarific ← yoga + terrific), the blends which were not

attested as separate entries in the OED were not included in the database, because they

could not be retrieved systematically.

Words whose origin is only analogical: e.g., outro is analogically coined after reanalysis of

intro as a complex word in + tro, not a blend of out and intro.

Words whose origin was uncertain: e.g., scuzz might be either an abbreviation from

disgusting or a blend from scum and fuzz.

24 The final database consists of 245 English blends, including 209 nouns (85%), 32

adjectives (13%), and 4 (1.6%) verbs. Among the nouns, 48 are spelt with initial capital

letters. In other words, 23% of the nouns are proprietary or proper names. These

percentages correspond to a scale of different referents and functions in blending

formation:

Common nouns 65.7% > Names 19.6% > Adjectives 13% > Verbs 1.6%

General denomination > Labelling > Description of qualities > Reference to actions/

events.

25 Hence, preliminary quantitative results suggest that the denomination/labelling

functions of blends prevail over the description of qualities or reference to actions.

Needless to say, these results are also influenced by the larger size of the syntactic

category of nouns vs. other word classes (verbs, adjectives, adverbs) in the English

lexicon.

26 In addition, lexicographic examination provided useful information about 1) the

status of the words (e.g. ‘nonce-words’, ‘temporary words’, only one ‘historical’), and 3)

the connotation of the words, sometimes described as ‘derogatory’, ‘depreciative’,

‘humorous’, or ‘jocular’.

27 As for the methodology, a data-driven approach was combined with a corpus-based

investigation. The corpora of English selected for the analysis are freely available at

•

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

Brigham Young University website (http://corpus.byu.edu), where they were created

by Mark Davies:

Corpus of Contemporary American English [1990-2017, henceforth, COCA], which contains more

than 560 million words with different genres of texts (spoken, fiction, popular magazines,

newspapers, and academic) (last accessed April 2019);

News on the Web Corpus [2010-present, henceforth, NOW], which contains 6.9 billion words of

data from web-based newspapers and magazines (last accessed April 2019).

28 Given the different size of the two corpora, token frequencies were normalized for the

quantitative goals. Both raw and per million word frequencies were checked for all

blends in the two corpora. However, in frequency assessment, some occurrences had to

be excluded because of their irrelevance to a study on blends. For instance, the

ambiguity of the words chugger, faction, shim, and wuss gave many occurrences as

results, both in COCA and in NOW, but not all of them corresponded to the blends in our

database from, respectively, charity + mugger, fact + fiction, she + him, and wimp + puss.

Other items excluded from quantitative results were personal names or names of

companies in the corpora (Picon, Uniterm, Swingle, Skitch), which obviously did not

match with the nouns picon (← picture + icon), uniterm (← unit + term), swingle (←

swinging + single), and the verb skitch (← ski / skate + hitch) in our database. Finally, the

blend nerk (← nerd + berk / jerk) was not included in counts because, in COCA, it only

occurs as an acronym from ‘Never Eat Road Kill’, and occurrences of melded were

rejected because they were past forms of meld instead of adjectives/past participles. For

all of these reasons, the above-mentioned blends were not considered to discriminate

between nonce formations and well-established neologisms.

29 In Section 3, results from quantitative investigation (§ 3.1.) will be supported by a

qualitative analysis of the data in its contexts of use (§ 3.2.). Analogical blends and

recurrent splinters will be considered in sub-section 3.3. A general discussion of results

will follow in sub-section 3.4.

3. Analysis, results, and discussion

3.1. Nonce words vs. neologisms

30 In this sub-section, a quantitative analysis of the new blends in our database is carried

out in order to distinguish nonce blends from blend neologisms, and thus investigate

how blending contributes to the process of lexicalization [Blank 2001: 1605-1606;

Brinton & Traugott 2005: 41]. In general, both nonce formations and neologisms are

considered innovations of a language. Specifically, a “nonce formation” is “a new

complex word coined by a speaker/writer on the spur of the moment to cover some

immediate need” [Bauer 1983: 45]. If it remains a single instance in the historical

record, it is named “hapax legomenon” [Brinton & Traugott 2005: 45]. By contrast, if it

“comes to be accepted by part or all of the speech community”, it becomes a

“neologism” [Brinton & Traugott 2005: 45]. Besides becoming relatively independent of

context, a neologism is lexicalized, i.e. accepted into the lexicon of a language, and

institutionalized, i.e. spread in the language of a community and established as the

norm.

•

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

3.1.1. Nonce blends

31 In our database, 25 examples of blending (10%) are only attested in the OED, but

unattested in the two corpora of English explored. Table 1 reports a sample (ten

instances) of such nonce blends (all nouns except one adjective), followed by their

source words, date/meaning, and a contextualized example taken from the OED quotes.

The blends are arranged in chronological progression.

Table 1: Nonce blends in the OED

Blend Source words Date/Meaning Example

cozzer (n.)

copper + rozzer

[1950] a policeman; a

detective

I don’t know any cozzer who

would have tackled us, mob-

handed as we were. (OED, 1955)

squoggy (adj.)

quaggy + soggy [1950] wet and miry

The ground’s too squoggy to tell

whether they’re male or female.

(OED, 1950)

saccharhinoceros

(n.)

saccharine +

rhinoceros

[1951] a lumbering

person with an

excessively effusive

manner

The saccharine of false purity

exuded from every pore of this

saccarhinoceros advocate of

virtue. (OED, 1951)

utopiate (n.)

utopia + opiate

[1964] a hallucinogen

which induces

fantasies or visions of

a perfect existence

Their interest in psychedelics and

utopiates seems to have been

borrowed from the hippie

subculture. (OED, 2004)

advertique (n.)

advertisement +

antique

[1968] a piece of early

advertising material

There will be ‘advertiques’ such as

classic Coca-Cola signs and beer-

logo items. (OED, 1994)

computeracy (n.)

computer +

literacy

(cf. the adj.

computerate in

Table 2)

[1969] knowledge of or

skill in using

computers

Their ‘computeracy’ will provide

the basis for subsequent training,

retraining and the career changes

which will become increasingly

necessary. (OED, 1981)

vestock (n.)

vest + stock

[1975] a clerical stock

that extends to the

waist

The vestock can be described as a

sort of black bib, with a hard

upstanding collar round at the

front. (OED, 1975)

hoolivan (n.)

hooligan + van

[1985] a type of police

van carrying

photographic and

video equipment for

observing crowd

behaviour

The ‘hoolivan’ designed to detect

trouble-makers in football crowds,

was unveiled at the Chelsea-Luton

match at Stamford Bridge last

night. (OED, 1985)

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

monergy (n.)

money + energy

[1985] expenditure on

energy

They ran a major awareness

campaign called Monergy in 1986,

which was Energy Efficiency Year.

(OED, 1992)

gengineer (n.)

genetic +

engineer

[1987] a scientist who

works in the field of

genetic engineering

Biotechnologists, as the earliest

gengineers were called, had no

idea that their work would prove

so fruitful. (OED, 1987)

32 Although the blends in Table 1 are distributed between 1950 and 1987, it is not

surprising that all of them are attested before 1990. This suggests that they have not

survived more recent times. One of the blends (i.e. saccharhinoceros) is defined as a

‘nonce-word’ by the OED lexicographers themselves.

33 Table 2 instead reports a sample of ten blends for which either/both COCA or/and NOW

display few occurrences, specified in the fourth column (raw/pmw frequency). 65

instances in our database (26.5%) belong to this category.

Table 2: Nonce blends in COCA and NOW

Blend

Source

words

Date/Meaning

Raw/Pmw

Frequency

Example

legalitarian

(adj.)

legality /

legal +

egalitarian

[1959] favouring

legislation as the

best means of

bringing about

greater social

equality

1/0.00

(NOW)

[…] they have a legalitarian

standing before the law and

human conscience to pursue their

right to self-determination.

(NOW, 2017)

moondoggle

(n.)

moon +

boondoggle

[1962] lunar

exploration

regarded as a

frivolous waste of

money or time

1/0.00

(COCA)

[…] communitarian theorist

Amitai Etzioni was calling lunar

obsession a “moondoggle”…

(COCA, 2008)

acronymania

(n.)

acronym +

mania

[1968] fervent or

excessive

enthusiasm for

the use of

acronyms or

initialisms

1/0.00

(NOW)

It also pioneered modern

acronymania: its divisions were

AMX (the DSP), PMX (publisher

exchange) and MMX (network

media exchange). (NOW, 2017)

replicar (n.)

replica + car

[1968] a full-sized,

functional replica

of a vintage or

classic car

4/0.00

(NOW)

Still, he’s had some experience in

the replicar realm with his

home-built Ferrari 250 GTO.

(NOW, 2013)

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

Newyorican

(n., adj.)

New York +

Puerto Rican

[1974] a Puerto

Rican native to or

inhabiting New

York City

[1978] of or

relating to

Neoricans

1/0.00

(NOW)

Trio New York was formed in

1994 by Guillermo Colon (leader,

second voice and second guitar),

creating the sound of traditional

Puerto Rican jibaro music with a

Newyorican urban feel. (NOW,

2010)

magalogue

(n.)

magazine +

catalogue

[1978] a (usually

free) promotional

catalogue

designed to

resemble a high-

quality magazine

1/0.00

(COCA)

4/0.00

(NOW)

It’s also known for the Christmas

Book, a magalogue filled with

extravagant his-and-her gifts,

such as airplanes and submarines.

(COCA, 2007)

chemigation

(n.)

chemical +

irrigation

[1981] the

practice of

applying

chemicals to

crops by means of

irrigation water

3/0.00

(NOW)

Herbicides can also be delivered

through irrigation systems

(chemigation). (NOW, 2017)

computerate

(adj.)

computer +

literate

[1981] familiar

with or skilled in

the use of

computers

1/0.00

(NOW)

Najib revealed that computerate

corporate ownership was merely

10% and yet to achieve a target of

at least 30%. (NOW, 2013)

Squarial (n.)

square +

aerial

[1988] a

proprietary name

for a type of

diamond-shaped

dish aerial for

receiving satellite

television

broadcasts

4/0.00

(NOW)

History of BSkyB: when the ‘

squarial’ met the dish British Sky

Broadcasting (BSkyB) was

created… (NOW, 2011)

webliography

(n.)

web +

bibliography

[1995] a list of

electronic works

relating to a

particular topic

3/0.01

(COCA)

Volume 2 contains a lengthy

bibliography and webliography

of additional resources. (COCA,

2012)

34 The blends reported in Table 2 are first attested in the 1950s-1990s in the OED, but they

also occur more recently in COCA and NOW. However, these blends have been

considered nonce blends because their normalized frequency is no higher than 0.00

(max. 1 occ. in COCA or 1-4 occ. in NOW). One of them (i.e. Squarial) has been labelled

‘temporary’ in the OED.

35 Other blends in our database display the same low frequency in corpora: e.g., the

adjective sexploitative [1973] (← sex + exploitative) occurs only once in NOW, but the

related noun sexploitation ‘sexual exploitation’ already existed in 1924 and has a current

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

raw frequency of 185 occ. (0.03 pmw) in NOW (see also the noun sexploit [1960] ‘sexual

exploit’, 3/0.00 occ. in NOW).

36 Similarly, the adjective televangelical [1976] (← television + evangelical) occurs only once

in COCA, but the occurrences of the nouns televangelism [1958] (30/0.05 in COCA, 78/0.01

in NOW) and televangelist [1973] (167/0.30 in COCA, 1,494/0.27 in NOW) are undeniably

higher. The existence of word families of blends including derived nouns and adjectives

is also symptomatic of the productivity of the process and of the stability of the

pattern.

3.1.2. Blend neologisms

37 Blend neologisms are more difficult to ascertain. In order to be considered a lexicalized

word, the new blend should display high raw/normalized frequency in corpora. Table 3

only reports the blends whose normalized frequency is higher than 0.10 pmw in at least

one (but preferentially both) of the corpora checked (overall 42 instances/17% in our

database).

These are considered to be the ideal candidates for lexicalization/

institutionalization in English.

Table 3: Blend neologisms in COCA and NOW

Blend

Source

words

Date/Meaning

Raw/Pmw

Frequency

Example

Muppet (n.)

marionette +

puppet

[1955] any of a

number of

humorously

grotesque glove

puppets and

marionettes

developed by

Henson

214/0.38

(COCA)

2,833/0.52

(NOW)

There’s a wonderful

interactive “create your own

Muppet” display… (COCA,

2017)

dexamethasone

(n.)

deca- ‘ten’ +

hexadecadrol

+ methyl +

cortisone

[1958] a synthetic

steroid,

C22H29FO5, which

resembles

cortisone in its

effects and is used

as an anti-

inflammatory

agent

152/0.27

(COCA)

852/0.15

(NOW)

Global effects of a synthetic

GR ligand Dexamethasone

(Dex) have been studied in

cells treated with Dex prior to

or together with an

inflammatory stimulus.

(COCA, 2017)

cyborg (n.)

cybernetic +

organism

[1960] a person

whose physical

tolerances or

capabilities are

extended beyond

normal human

limitations by a

machine

347/0.61

(COCA)

5,972/1.09

(NOW)

It was a prototype, cyborg,

self-repairing, able to train its

own caretakers. (COCA, 2017)

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

stagflation (n.)

stagnation +

inflation

[1965] a state of

the economy in

which stagnant

demand is

accompanied by

severe inflation

115/0.20

(COCA)

1,095/0.20

(NOW)

The CED’s influence and

membership declined in the “

stagflation” era of 1973 to

1980, when the Business

Roundtable supplanted it as

the leading spokesman for big

business. (COCA, 2017)

Reaganomics

(n.)

(Ronald)

Reagan +

economics

[1970] the

economic policies

of Reagan

164/0.29

(COCA)

322/0.06

(NOW)

The Republican base was

always wary of George H.W.

Bush. In 1980, he called

Reaganomics voodoo

economics. (COCA, 2015)

televangelist

(n.)

television +

evangelist

[1973] an

evangelical

preacher who

appears regularly

on television to

preach and appeal

for funds

167/0.30

(COCA)

1,494/0.27

(NOW)

We were saying Mark Burns is

the pastor, the televangelist

with the Now Network,

because we jumped the gun.

(COCA, 2016)

brainiac (n.,

adj.)

brain +

maniac

[1975] a very

intelligent person;

an expert

[1976] very

intelligent or

clever

60/0.11

(COCA)

736/0.13

(NOW)

She is a brainiac, wicked

smart, or as the Scots would

say, wicked smart. (COCA,

2014)

Bollywood (n.)

Bombay +

Hollywood

[1976] the Indian

film industry,

based in Mumbai

(formerly

Bombay)

292/0.52

(COCA)

122,908/22.35

(NOW)

She knew Sweetie had pulled

every string he could to get

her the audition with

Bollywood’s top dance

troupe. (COCA, 2017)

bromance (n.)

bro +

romance

[2001] intimate

and affectionate

friendship

between men

80/0.14

(COCA)

3,355/0.61

(NOW)

Yes, the least – the least

convincing bromance of all

time is Donald Trump and

Mitch McConnell. (COCA,

2017)

burkini (n.)

burka +

bikini

[2002] a type of

swimsuit for

women which

covers the head

and body

21/0.04

(COCA)

2,259/0.41

(NOW)

She was also the first woman

to wear a burkini during the

swimsuit portion of the event.

(COCA, 2017)

38 The blends reported in Table 3 are distributed from 1955 to 2002. Their high frequency

in corpora suggests a status as ‘neologisms’. The specialization of some of them – e.g.,

dexamethasone is used in Pharmacology, cyborg belongs to Cybernetics and thence to

science fiction, stagflation to the field of Economics, Reaganomics to Politics – guarantees

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

that they have been accepted at least within their respective specialized communities

of experts. The acceptability and spread of the other blends may be instead linked to

their dissemination through the media: e.g., Muppet and televangelist are heard in

television, Bollywood is linked to the cinema industry, and burkini has recently heated

religious discussions in the news.

39 A more systematic examination of the registers, contexts, and functions of new blends

in English can help us corroborate the impact of blending on the innovation and

lexicalization processes.

3.2. Registers, contexts, and functions of new blends

3.2.1. Registers

40 In our database, the prevailing registers of blend lexemes include slang (i.e. language of

a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech)

(7.3%) and colloquial (i.e. informal) language (7%), on the one hand, and specialized

language and jargon (24.5%) on the other.

Slang: slang blends are often employed by speakers who intend to catch the reader/hearer’s

attention with their colourful language, to be humorous, jocular, or otherwise by those who

aim at mocking, offending others by using a sarcastic or derisive tone. Novel instances

include: chugger / chugging (← charity + mugger / mugging), cozzer (← copper + rozzer), feminazi

(← feminist + Nazi), gaydar (← gay + acronym radar), kideo (← kid + video), ragazine (← rag +

magazine), skeeze (← skank + sleaze), skitch (← ski / skate + hitch), snarfle (← snarf + snaffle /

snuffle), and ultraviolation (← ultraviolet + violation). Some slang blends display a derogatory

character (e.g. himbo ‘an attractive but unintelligent young man’ ← him + bimbo, brainiac ‘a

depreciative word for a very intelligent person’ ← brain + maniac), or are even taboo words

(fugly ‘very ugly’ ← fucking + ugly, Masshole ‘a term of contempt for a native of the state of

Massachusetts’ ← Massachusetts + asshole). Others are mere innovative original forms used by

the young (e.g. fantabulous ← fantastic + fabulous), or originated in the context of hip-hop

music (e.g. crunk ‘exciting or fun’ ← crazy + drunk).

Colloquial language: colloquial blends have a familiar flavour, which is typical of informal

registers. They include: blaxploitation (← black + exploitation), bromance (← bro + romance),

buppie (← black + acronym yuppie), Cassingle (← cassette + single), gayby boom (← gay + baby

boom), Mockney (← mock + Cockney), sexploit / sexploitative (← sex + exploit / exploitative),

Trustafarian (← trust fund + Rastafarian), and wuss (← wimp + puss). Familiar blends, such as

the form of address glam-ma (← glamour(ous) + grandma), add to other humorous nicknames,

such as Socceroos (← soccer + kangaroo) for ‘the Australian national soccer team’, or Taffia ‘any

supposed network of prominent or influential Welsh people’, from Taffy ‘familiar nickname

for a Welshman’ and mafia.

Specialized language: specialized or domain-specific blends belong to a variety of different

fields and sub-fields:

Some belong to the areas of Economics (slumpflation ← slump + inflation), Business

(adhocracy / adhocratic ← ad hoc + bureaucracy / bureaucratic, flexecutive ← flexible +

executive, freemium ← free + premium, glocal ← global + local), and Law (legalitarian ←

legality / legal + egalitarian).

Several others are used in Politics (Clintonomics ← Clinton + economics, commentariat ←

commentary + proletariat, dissensus ← dissent + consensus, hacktivism / hacktivist ← hack +

activism / activist, militician ← military + politician, politicide ← political + homicide,

•

◦

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

preferendum ← preference + referendum, selectorate ← selector + electorate, slacktivism /

slacktivist ← slack + activism / activist, veepstakes ← veep + sweepstakes, priviligentsia ←

privilege + intelligentsia).

The scientific domain also provides a range of blends which pertain to Mathematics

(diffeomorphism / diffeomorphic ← differentiable + homoeomorphism / homoeomorphic, flexagon

← flex + hexagon), Biology (algeny ← alchemy + gene, cybrid ← cytoplasmic + hybrid),

Chemistry (dielectrophoresis ← dielectric + electrophoresis), Biochemistry (ubiquinone ←

ubiquitous + quinone), Pharmacology (artemisinin ← artemisia + quinine, cephaloridine ←

cephalosporin + pyridine, nitrofurantoin ← nitrofuran + hydantoin), Surgery (dermabrasion ←

Greek δέρμα ‘skin’ + abrasion), and Genetics (biolistic ← biological + ballistic).

The technological arena ranges from Computing (Centronics ← centre / central + electronics,

Internaut ← Internet + astronaut, knowbot ← know + robot, netiquette ← net + etiquette, netizen

← net + citizen, Quotron ← quotation + electron, Usenet ← use + network) to Electronics

(molectronics ← molecular + electronics, rectenna ← rectifying + antenna), from Cybernetics

(cyborg) to Aeronautics (taileron ← tail + aileron).

Domain-specific blends belong to Film/Television/Broadcasting (animatic ← animated +

schematic, Britcom ← British + comedy, Japanimation ← Japan + animation, synthespian ←

synthetic + Thespian), Science Fiction (gengineering / gengineer ← genetic + engineering /

engineer, plasteel ← plastic + steel), Telecommunications (teletex ← telex + text), Architecture

(Populuxe ← popularity + Fr. luxe), and Nautical (Panamax ‘a class of cargo ship’ ← Panama

(Canal) + max).

Minor domains include: Agriculture (chemigation ← chemical + irrigation, fertigation ←

fertilizer + irrigation), Palaeography (expunctuation ← expunction + punctuation), and Geology

(volcaniclastic ← volcanic + clastic).

41 Specialized contexts especially favour the creation of blends whose form mirrors their

meaning. The iconicity of blends is especially evident in pharmacology, where names of

substances (artemisinin, nitrofurantoin) refer to mixtures, combinations, fusions, but also

in television and broadcasting, where an informercial (← information + commercial) is ‘an

advertisement which promotes a product, service, etc., in an informative style’, or in

publishing, where a magalogue is ‘a promotional catalogue designed to resemble a high-

quality magazine’.

3.2.2. Contexts and functions/effects

42 Blends can be found in heterogeneous contexts and used in different circumstances,

depending on their formal or informal nature, on the effects that they are meant to

produce, and on the goals that speakers intend to achieve through them.

43 In magazine and news articles, for example, creative blends are used to catch readers’

attention and encourage them in reading the whole news items. Examples (1) and (2)

are both extracts from magazines:

(1) […] she sent a sext ‘sex + text’ from the presidential Twitter account.

(COCA, 2016)

(2) Ariela Barer will play Gert, “a purple-haired, bespectacled, contemporary

riot grrrl” ‘grrr + girl’ with a strong sense of social justice. (COCA, 2017)

44 where sext refers to ‘a sexually suggestive message sent electronically’ and grrrl

designates ‘a young woman perceived as strong and aggressive’. Readers will be

particularly attracted by the originality of these expressions, and their attention will be

◦

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

focused on the fact that the text is on sexually-related topics (sext), or that the

character of the grrrl – with the interjection grrr jocularly alluding, by alliteration, to

her name Gert – expresses feminine independence, fierceness, and liveliness.

45 Informal contexts favour blend creation with the aim of creating intimacy within a

group, such as surfers:

(3) […] they were interested and in 1965 organized a “surfari” ‘surf + safari’

to the west of Ireland. (NOW, 2010)

46 who use surfari to indicate ‘a journey made in search of good conditions for surfing’.

47 By contrast, specialized contexts favour blend formations for other reasons: e.g., in

(4) Populuxe ‘popularity + luxe’ – American luxury for the masses – sent the

wealthy looking to Europe… (COCA, 1996)

48 the blend Populuxe, derived from popularity and luxe ‘luxury’, perhaps with an allusion

to pop art, has an aesthetic function. It indeed refers to ‘a style of architecture and

home furnishings design characterized by futuristic shapes and ornamentation’. Hence,

the embellishment and originality of the blend form, purposely coined to designate a

revolutionary architectural style, may reflect the design of the buildings in this style.

49 In the fields of politics and economics, blends may refer to specific phenomena, events,

or trends:

(5) People thought Reaganomics ‘Reagan + economics’ were good, but

Clintonomics ‘Clinton + economics’ is – is proving much better. (COCA, 1999)

(6) Trumpflation ‘Trump + inflation’ becomes Slumpflation ‘slump +

inflation’ as political uncertainty sees oil come to its senses and follow gold

higher. (NOW, 2017)

50 In (5), for instance, the political blends Reaganomics and Clintonomics denote two U.S.

Presidents’ (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) economic policies, while in (6) Trumpflation

is a novel term created after slumpflation [1974] referring to ‘a state of economic

depression’. In specialized domains, the creation of new blends appears to be more

regular: e.g., the target word Clintonomics [1992] is analogically coined after the model

Reaganomics [1970], and the nonce form Trumpflation is modelled on earlier stagflation

[1965] and slumpflation [1974], the latter anaphorically following the target in (6)

(Mattiello 2017; more on analogy in § 3.3.).

51 Technological settings, such as computing and the Internet, can also accommodate

novel blends, as in:

(7) The unit introduces students to the structure of blogs, the concept of a

world-wide audience, and general netiquette ‘net + etiquette’ policies.

(COCA, 2012)

(8) Kahn […] is the co-inventor of Knowbot ‘know + robot’ programmes –

mobile software agents in the network environment. (NOW, 2015)

52 where netiquette alludes to ‘the behaviour of Internet users’ (cf. netizen) and knowbot

denotes ‘a type of automated program or (Internet) software’ (cf. infobot).

53 Overall, in specialized environments, new blends have the function of creating

cohesion among experts, as well as designating specific referents by means of efficient

terminology.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

54 The denomination/labelling function, however, is the most noticeable in our database,

where new blends give names to language varieties, such as African-American English

(Ebonics), or jocular accents imitating London Cockney (mockney):

(9) He had no idea how to speak Spanish, didn’t speak Ebonics ‘ebony +

phonics’, either. (COCA, 2017)

(10) These scenes, and the mockney ‘mock + Cockney’ chants of “Who are

ya?”, were widely derided as the work of wannabes posturing for the day.

(NOW, 2018)

55 Blends are also used to refer to new types of music, such as soca, a variety of calypso (cf.

rapso ← rap + calypso), or hip-hopera, combining the two genres:

(11) Add in calypso and soca ‘soul + calypso’ music, and you have a recipe for

success week after week... and year after year; the event dates to 2000.

(COCA, 2011)

(12) Years ago, someone (was it the Fat Boys?) attempted “hip-hopera” ‘hip-

hop + opera’. (COCA, 1999)

56 Many novel forms of entertainment are given blend names. Octopush, for instance, is ‘a

game similar to ice hockey in which a weight is pushed along on the bottom of a

swimming pool by two rival teams of divers’:

(13) He needed a sport that could be played in a pool; his idea, a game called

“Octopush,” ‘octopus + push’ began to spread. (NOW, 2013)

57 and glamping is a new form of ‘camping that involves accommodation and facilities

more luxurious than those associated with traditional camping’:

(14) Let’s talk about glamping ‘glamorous + camping’. I know Beyonce and

Jay-Z do it. (COCA, 2016)

58 One can also appreciate the ‘new form of animated films produced using the graphics

engine from a video game’ (machinima):

(15) […] their storyboarding, recorded video in Second Life in a machinima

‘machine + cinema’ format, and constructed three-dimensional “emotional

spaces” called Storyworlds. (COCA, 2009)

59 or enjoy ‘episodes of a comedy series, which are made available online’ (webisodes):

(16) Nimbus became one of the early experimenters with the short online

film, or “webisode” ‘web + episode’. (COCA, 2012)

60 Tourism ‘in which travellers spend time doing voluntary work’ is now called

voluntourism:

(17) Still, so-called voluntourism ‘volunteer + tourism’ is a tricky business.

(COCA, 2013)

61 and ‘a person who follows a primarily but not strictly vegetarian diet’ is a flexitarian:

(18) If these facts have persuaded you to eat less meat, and to choose

pastured or grass-fed when you do, then you’re on the brink of becoming a

flexitarian ‘flexible + vegetarian’. (COCA, 2014)

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

62 while ‘a person who eats discarded food, typically collected from the refuse of shops or

restaurants’ is a freegan:

(19) Surplus vegetables collected by the freegan ‘free + vegan’ group were

redistributed to soup kitchens and community fridges. (NOW, 2018)

63 Fashion is another setting where new blend words may be coined, especially to find

names for garments which have a hybrid appearance, such as ‘a two-piece swimsuit for

women, consisting of a bikini bottom and a top part in the style of a tank top’ (tankini):

(20) A bold bronze tankini ‘tank top + bikini’ inspires body confidence and

attitude. (COCA, 2010)

64 or ‘a pair of shorts having a flap across the front to give the appearance of a skirt’

(skort):

(21) I’m not a fashionista, as my current attire showed: denim skort ‘skirt +

short(s)’, sleeveless white shirt, casual sandals. (COCA, 2013)

65 Finally, hybrid animals, cross-breeds from two species, are given iconic names, such as

zonkey ‘the offspring of a zebra and a donkey’ (cf. zedonk, zebrule), beefalo ‘a cross-bred

livestock animal that is three-eighths bison and five-eighths domestic cow’ (cf. catalo),

or labradoodle ‘a dog cross-bred from a Labrador retriever and a poodle’:

(22) The two pen pals producing as zonkey ‘zebra + donkey’, a cross between

a zebra and a donkey… (COCA, 2013)

(23) The Fort served perfectly medium-rare beefalo ‘beef + buffalo’. (COCA,

2004)

(24) Only Sylvia’s not a woman – she’s a dog; a labradoodle ‘Labrador +

poodle’, to be precise. (COCA, 2017):

66 The function of defining a new category of people (e.g. screenager or kidult) is less

common, and even rarer by using a blend adjective (computerate):

(25) A screenager’s ‘screen + teenager’ constant companion is the television

screen, which can be used to watch the news or a cartoon… (COCA, 1997)

(26) Many kidult ‘kid + adult’ use their savings to buy and display toys and

figurines that used to be their childhood fascination. (NOW, 2018)

(27) Najib revealed that computerate ‘computer + literate’ corporate

ownership was merely 10% and yet to achieve a target of at least 30%. (NOW,

2013)

67 New blend names are also given to towers (Skylon) and cities (Queuetopia, humorously

alluding to Great Britain’s queuing habits):

(28) Gazing out over the falls from the Skylon ‘sky + pylon’ Tower, travellers

can ride the elevator to the observation deck and enjoy a view over

American Falls, Bridal Veil Falls, and Horseshoe Falls. (NOW, 2018)

(29) In Queuetopia ‘queue + utopia’ – Britain – people are practically crazy

for queuing. (NOW, 2017)

68 In product and brand names, we find general instances, such as:

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

(30) I got a koozie ‘cool + cosy’, a beer koozie, that says storm on it. (COCA,

2012)

(31) Amazon is reportedly developing a freemium ‘free + premium’ version

of Prime Video. (COCA, 2017)

69 But we also find trademarks of, especially, foods and drinks:

(32) Their Meritage

‘merit + heritage’ Espresso is the inspiration for

Rashelle’s creamy mousse. (COCA, 2011)

(33) […] a Pinot Noir with a Hermitage vine to develop the Pinotage

‘Pinot

+ hermitage’, South Africa’s signature grape. (COCA, 2012)

(34) Add gin or vodka, dash of Tabasco, Worcestershire, Clamato

‘clam +

tomato’ juice and horseradish (optional). (NOW, 2018)

70 or other types of product:

(35) The Thinsulate

‘thin + insulate’ pants could not be doing much good

against the cold, because they left very little to the imagination. (COCA, 2016)

(36) “Psychedelicatessen

” ‘psychedelic + delicatessen’ – Advance tickets ($

12) for the Jan. 12 rave dance at International Ballroom are available at

Ticketmaster. (COCA, 1992)

(37) He wrote his first three books on an IBM Selectric

‘select + electric’

typewriter, which was more his style. (COCA, 2010)

71 Thus confirming the predominant role of blending for naming/labelling purposes, as

anticipated in § 2.

3.3. Blends and analogy

72 From the formal viewpoint, some blends can be accommodated within the model of

analogy in word-formation elaborated in Mattiello [2017]. In particular, this sub-

section is devoted to the distinction between blends that are analogical to a precise

model word – sharing formal (morphotactic) and semantic similarity with it – and

blends that are instead created after a series of words which act as schema model. The

former type is obtained by surface analogy (after Motsch’s [1981: 101]

“Oberflächenanalogie”) and the latter is created via a schema (cf. Köpcke [1993] for

“schema” in inflectional morphology). A schema does not have the same level of

abstraction as word-formation rules, but consists of two or more words which function

as concrete prototypes for novel formations.

3.3.1. Surface analogy

73 Bauer [1983: 96] defines an analogical formation as “a new formation clearly modelled

on one existing lexeme”. Compounds such as whitelist, coined after its antonym blacklist,

well illustrate this phenomenon. However, like compounds, new blends can also be

created on a precise model. Consider, for instance, the blends smaze (← smoke + haze)

and vog (← volcanic + fog), which have been coined after the exact model word smog (←

smoke + fog), lexicalized in English. The similarity relation between model (smog) and

targets (smaze, vog) can be analyzed as a paradigmatic substitution in the equations:

smoke ˄ fog : smog = smoke ˄ haze : X (X = smaze)

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

smoke ˄ fog : smog = volcanic ˄ fog : X (X = vog)

74 In these analogical proportions, the paradigmatic substitution of fog with haze gives the

blend smaze, while the replacement of smoke with volcanic gives vog. Both new blends

share with their model 1) a formal resemblance, merging a word beginning with a word

end, 2) a phonological resemblance (onset sm- /sm/ in the first blend and rhyme -og /

ɒɡ/ in the second blend), and a semantic similarity, in that, like smog, which iconically

refers to ‘fog intensified by smoke’, smaze is ‘a mixture of smoke and haze’ and vog is ‘fog

containing volcanic dust’. However, while smaze is, like smog, a coordinate blend

combining two nouns, vog is a headed blend, with an adjective (volcanic) modifying the

head fog. From the diachronic viewpoint, the targets smaze [1953] and vog [1969] follow

the model smog [1905].

75 Other novel blends in our database which are coined by surface analogy include:

blaxploitation [1972] ‘the exploitation of black people’ ← black + exploitation, after sexploitation

[1924] ‘sexual exploitation’ ← sex + exploitation;

Britcom [1977] ‘a comedy film produced in the United Kingdom’ ← sitcom [1964] ‘situation

comedy’, here the model is a clipped compound (cf. the analysis of Britcom as a blend from

British and sitcom; see also romcom [1971] ‘romantic comedy’);

Motopia [1959] ‘an urban environment designed to meet the needs of a pedestrian society by

strict limitation of the use of the motor car’ ← motor + utopia, after Subtopia [1955] ‘Suburbia

regarded as an undesirable or unattractive place to live’ ← suburb + utopia;

politicide [1967] ‘the killing of a particular group because of its political beliefs’ ← political +

homicide, after genocide [1944] ‘the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or

national group’ ← genus + homicide;

ragazine [1987] ‘a magazine of inferior quality’ ← colloquial rag + magazine, after fanzine

[1949] ‘a magazine for fans’ ← fanatic + magazine;

slumpflation [1974] ← slump + inflation, after stagflation [1965] ← stagnation + inflation (see §

3.2.2.);

threequel [1983] ‘the third of a sequence of films’ ← three + sequel, after prequel [1958] ‘a book,

film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work’ ← pre- + sequel

(with a substitution of the prefix pre- with the rhyming numeral three).

76 These examples show how analogy increases regularity and helps predictability in

blend formation. The type of blend obtained after a schema model is even more regular

and productive, in that it creates novel splinters.

3.3.2. Analogy via schema, series, and splinters

77 While Bauer [1983: 96] claims that analogy does not give rise to productive series and

Plag [1999: 210] argues that “analogical formations should be distinguished from

instantiations of productive word formation rules”, analogy via schema can originate

series, i.e. formations which share the same process. In particular, analogy can produce

novel “splinters”, defined by Bauer et al. [2013: 525] as “non-morphemic portions of a

word that have been split off and used in the formation of new words with a specific

new meaning”. Splinters can be obtained by mere abbreviation of a word, as in -ware (←

software), used in the creation of freeware, shareware ‘software which is available free of

charge’, and vapourware ‘piece of software which, despite being publicized or marketed,

does not exist’, in which the meaning conveyed is that of the full form ‘software’.

Another way to obtain splinters is by secretion, i.e. reinterpretation of a word part. For

•

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

instance, the splinter -gram (← telegram) has extended from the meaning ‘a message

sent by telegraph’ to ‘a message delivered by a representative of a commercial

greetings company, esp. one outrageously dressed to amuse or embarrass the

recipient’, as in kissogram ‘a greetings message delivered with a kiss’ or strippergram

‘message delivered by a performer of strip-tease’. Productive splinters in our database

include:

-bot (← robot) ‘automated program which searches out information’, as in infobot [1986] ‘any

of various automated systems for obtaining information’, knowbot [1988] ‘program designed

to search and retrieve information from the Internet’, cancelbot [1993] ‘a program that

searches for and deletes specified postings from Internet newsgroups’, and the nonce words

searchbot, googlebot, etc. found in the OED.

-ercise (← exercise) ‘physical or non-physical but strenuous activity’, as in sexercise [1942]

‘sexual activity regarded as exercise’, dancercise [1967] ‘dancing performed as an exercise’,

followed by jazzercise [1976] ‘a programme of physical exercises designed to be carried out in

a class to the accompaniment of jazz music’ ← jazz + -ercise, and boxercise [1985] ‘a form of

aerobic fitness routine incorporating exercises from boxing training’ ← box + -ercise.

-kini (← the atoll of Bikini, reanalysed as having a prefix bi-) ‘type of swimsuit or beach

garment for women’, as in monokini [1964] ‘a one-piece beach garment or swimming costume

worn usually by women’, trikini [1967] ‘any of various designs of ladies’ swimsuit which

consist of three main areas of fabric’, and analogical tankini [1985] ← tank top + -kini (see §

3.2.2.) and burkini [2002] ‘a type of swimsuit for women which covers the head and body’ ←

burka + -kini.

-lish (← English) ‘variety of English displaying features of other languages’, as in Spanglish

[1933] ‘a mixture of Spanish and English’, originating Chinglish [1957] ‘a mixture of Chinese

and English’ ← Chinese + -lish, Japlish [1960] ‘English language spoken in an unidiomatic way

by a Japanese speaker’ ← Japanese + -lish, Hinglish [1967] ‘a mixture of Hindi and English’ ←

Hindi + -lish, Singlish [1984] ‘an informal variety of English spoken in Sri Lanka, incorporating

elements of Sinhala’ ← Sinhalese + -lish, or Singlish [1984] ‘an informal variety of English

spoken in Singapore’ ← Singaporean + -lish.

-(o)nomics (← economics) ‘the economic policies of a President or head of state’, as in

Nixonomics [1969] ‘the economic policies of Richard Nixon’, and analogical Reaganomics [1970]

← (Ronald) Reagan + -nomics, Clintonomics [1992] ← Clinton + -nomics, Rogernomics ← Roger

(Owen Douglas, New Zealand Minister of Finance) + -nomics. This splinter is often blended

with words that end in n (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton), thus creating overlap blends.

-tainment (← entertainment) ‘genre of broadcasting in which entertainment is combined with

another genre’, as in docutainment [1978] ‘a film which includes documentary materials, and

seeks both to inform and to entertain’, infotainment [1980] ‘broadcast material which seeks to

inform and entertain simultaneously’, edutainment [1983] ‘informative entertainment’, and

analogical eatertainment [1992] ‘an experience which combines eating with entertainment’ ←

eat + -(er)tainment, irritainment [1993] ‘broadcast material which is irritating yet still

entertaining’ ← irritating + -tainment, and shoppertainment [1993] ‘the provision of

entertainment within a shopping centre’ ← shopper + -tainment.

-tarian (← vegetarian) ‘someone with a diet restriction’, as in dietarian [1880] ‘one who lives in

accordance with prescribed rules for diet’, fruitarian [1893] ‘one who lives on fruit’, nutarian

[1909] ‘vegetarian whose diet is based on nut products’, and more recent breatharian [1979] ‘a

person who consumes no nutrients other than those absorbed from the air’ ← breath + -arian

and flexitarian [1998] ‘a person who follows a primarily but not strictly vegetarian diet’ ←

flexible + -tarian.

•

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

-tel (← hotel) ‘accommodation which functions as a hotel’, as in motel [1925] ‘a roadside hotel

catering primarily for motorists’ and boatel [1950] ‘a ship or boat which functions as a hotel’,

acting as models for floatel [1959] ‘a floating hotel’ ← float + -tel and apartotel [1965] ‘a type of

hotel which offers private suites for self-catering’ ← apartment + -tel.

-umentary (← documentary) ‘programme which has the characteristics of a documentary but

also of another genre/subject’, as in mockumentary [1965] ‘a programme which adopts the

form of a documentary in order to satirize its subject’, and later rockumentary [1969] ‘a

documentary film on the subject of rock music’ ← rock + -umentary, and shockumentary [1970]

‘a documentary film with shocking subject’ ← shock + -umentary.

78 Examples of these formations are also attested in corpora. For example, in the NOW

corpus we find additional instances, mainly nonce words or hapax legomena, which

display the same splinters:

(38) According to Adelana, the chatbot contributes to facilitating and

accelerating the process of providing information to market participants.

(NOW, 2018)

(39) If you find you are little demotivated at work, do some deskercise or

even go out for a brisk walk at lunch time. (NOW, 2018)

(40) Just like wearing a mankini wouldn’t be appropriate in the office, there

are some things that just aren’t acceptable in and around your

neighbourhood. (NOW, 2018)

(41) The policy may be translated to Taglish (Tagalog-English) or the local

dialect, depending on the educational attainment of the majority. (NOW,

2018)

(42) Pushing China to change that model is a key goal of Trumponomics.

(NOW, 2018)

(43) There is infotainment and advertainment and edutainment. Food,

sports and retail have all embraced its possibilities. (NOW, 2018)

(44) High-tea options include vegan, gluten-free vegetarian, pescetarian,

and dairy-free. (NOW, 2018)

(45) Other summer documentaries include “A LEGO Brickumentary,” the

story of a toy that became a subculture. (NOW, 2015)

79 Some of these splinters are so regular that they are labelled “combining forms” in the

OED (-bot, -tainment) [cf. Bauer et al. 2013]. The splinter -ercise has also become

productive in English, so much so that Baldi & Dawar [2000: 968] have assigned it the

label of “unconventional suffix”. In their work, they also cite creative formations such

as commutercize [n.d.] and computercize [n.d.] as novel derived words. Moreover, Adams

[1973: 170] describes -tarian as a “suffix” that occurs in a subgroup of words “inspired

by vegetarian [1842] and having to do with ‘beliefs about diet’”. He also cites meatarian

[n.d.] and sea-foodetarian [n.d.] [Adams 1973: 170] among additional examples, which

cannot be considered mere blends, because their meaning involves reinterpretation of

vegetarian not including ‘vegetables’.

3.4. General discussion

80 The presence of frequent splinters in blend formation shows that a process of

regularization is underway. This regularization does not involve the same

generalization or abstraction as in rules, but it is regularization triggered by analogy.

Analogy may be based on surface (i.e. phonological, morphotactic, and semantic)

similarity between two words, such as smaze and smog, but also between one novel word

•

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

(e.g. tankini) and a series of formations which constitute a schema (bikini, monokini,

trikini, etc.). Unlike rules, a schema is a concrete template for novel formations.

81 From our analysis, it results that a schema model is especially functional in attributive

or headed blends, where the first component (or variable part) qualifies or specifies the

head. For instance, in -tarian formations, the first component specifies the type of diet

restriction, e.g., to vegetables (vegetarian), fruit (fruitarian), nuts (nutarian), meat

(meatarian), fish (pescetarian), seafood (sea-foodetarian), breathed air (breatharian), or

flexible (flexitarian). Also blends that are apparently coordinate, such as apartotel,

dancercise, docutainment, or Japlish, whose source words (i.e. apartment + hotel, dance +

exercise, documentary + entertainment, Japanese + English) seem to have equally

contributed to the meaning of the blend, are actually headed, in that the blends denote

‘a type of hotel, exercise, entertainment’ or ‘a variety of English’. In other words, the

right source word (or splinter) carries a greater semantic weight than the left one, in

that it corresponds to the head of an equivalent compound. This greater semantic

importance is linked to the process of secretion or specialization that leads splinters to

develop into combining forms or secreted affixes.

82 Thus, in blending, there is often an evolution from splinter to combining form, or

secreted suffix. In other words, when a splinter is frequently and productively used to

coin a series of new words, it can be viewed as a regular combining form, or even as a

suffix, especially if it is not only abbreviated but also involves a semantic

reinterpretation. This evolution corresponds to a development from surface analogy,

with a precise model word, to analogy via schema, with several prototype words which

constitute a series and function as model for new formations, both neologisms and

nonce words. Needless to say, not all nonce formations become lexicalized words, but

the fact that they use an existing schema as model provides further stability to the

pattern and may represent the first step towards productivity and rule.

4. Conclusions

83 The blending phenomenon is varied and hard to classify within morphological modules

and theoretical frameworks. Many blends indeed display an extra-grammatical nature,

with an unpredictable output, not transparently analyzable into existing morphemes,

and source words that are difficult to recognize. The possible combinatory patterns of

the source lexemes, the different portions that are retained in the resulting 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.

84 Unlike regular compounds, whose input is unambiguous and unequivocal, the input of

blends is generally opaque, unclear, blurred, and difficult to reconstruct due to the

missing word part(s). Unlike combining forms, whose regularity allows abstraction and

generalization based on the secretion process, blends do not allow the same abstraction

as in rules. These are some of the reasons why blends are often overlooked in

morphological theories, relegated to extra-grammatical operations of word-creation,

and confined in use to the fields of advertising and humorous literature.

85 However, this study has demonstrated that 1) blends are increasing and increasingly

important in specialized domains, besides being used in familiar contexts; and 2) they

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

mainly have a naming/labelling function, in other words, they are necessary either to

fill a conceptual and/or lexical gap, the new name being often iconic of the referent’s

meaning, or to label novel products and trademarks.

86 A lexicographic investigation combined with a corpus-based analysis have shown that

blending is growing as a word-formation process, with several new blends that are

lexicalized, included in the OED, and attested in corpora of English with low to high

frequency. A corpus-based study has supported the quantitative results, by showing the

variety of contexts that are favourable to blending as a word-formation mechanism, as

well as the functions that new blends can serve and the effects that they produce.

87 A data-driven approach has also shown that some new blends resemble existing ones.

This suggests that blending may be triggered by analogy, although the two processes do

not coincide. For instance, wargasm and ambisextrous are blends from war + orgasm and

ambidextrous + sex, not “genuine analogical formations” coined after orgasm or

ambidextrous [Bauer 1983: 96]. The “phonetic resemblance” that Bauer [1983: 96]

mentions is just a consequence of the fact that wargasm and ambisextrous include in

their form (and meaning) the words orgasm and ambidextrous. Hence, not all blends are

analogical, only those which follow a concrete model are.

88 Analogical blends, indeed, are a particular type of blend displaying phonological,

morphological, and semantic similarity with another word or series. For example,

blaxploitation is analogically formed after the model word sexploitation because:

phonologically, they share three syllables and a coda, morphologically, they are both

obtained by blending two words, and semantically they refer to the exploitation of

something or someone (sex/sexual material, black people) for commercial purposes.

This multilevel resemblance between the two blends helps English speakers recognize

the source lexemes of the new blend (black + exploitation), leads them to accept the new

blend as part of their lexical stock, and encourages them to form similar blends in the

likeness of the model.

89 Hence, this study has shown that analogy can provide some regularity to the blending

process and increase predictability in the formation of novel blends, especially those

based on a concrete schema model. For instance, novel blends such as Rogernomics,

Obamanomics, and Trumponomics can be interpreted on the basis of the existing series

Nixonomics, Reaganomics, Clintonomics, etc., which has given birth to the splinter -

(o)nomics referring to ‘the economic policies of a President or head of state’. Frequent

splinters such as -(o)nomics, -tainment, or -tarian ease source word recognizability,

facilitate blend interpretation, and encourage speakers to adopt new blends in their

vocabulary. Because of their frequency and productivity in the coinage of novel lexical

blends, some blend splinters deserve the label of ‘combining form’. In other words,

some blends are unique instances of word-creation, others are part of productive word-

formation.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS Valerie, 1973, An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation, London: Longman.

ARNDT-LAPPE Sabine & PLAG Ingo, 2013, “The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English

blends”, English Language and Linguistics 17, 537-563.

BALDI Philip & DAWAR Chantal, 2000, “Creative processes”, in BOOIJ Geert E., LEHMANN Christian,

MUGDAN Joachim, KESSELHEIM Wolfgang & SKOPETEAS Stavros (Eds.), Morphologie-Morphology: An

International Handbook of Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter,

963-972.

BAT-EL Outi, 2006, “Blends”, in BROWN Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford:

Elsevier, 66-70.

BAUER Laurie, 1983, English Word-formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BAUER Laurie, 2001, Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BAUER Laurie, 2012, “Blends: Core and periphery”, in RENNER Vincent, MANIEZ François & ARNAUD

Pierre J.L. (Eds.), Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter,

11-22.

BAUER Laurie & HUDDLESTON Rodney, 2002, “Lexical word-formation”, in HUDDLESTON Rodney &

PULLUM Geoffrey K. (Eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1621-1723.

BAUER Laurie, LIEBER Rochelle & PLAG Ingo, 2013, The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BELIAEVA Natalia, 2014, “A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again”,

Word Structure 7, 29-54.

BLANK Andreas, 2001, “Pathways of lexicalization”, in HASPELMATH Martin, KÖNIG Ekkehard,

OESTERREICHER Wulf & RAIBLE Wolgang (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2,

Berlin: De Gruyter, 1596-1608.

BOOIJ Geert E., 2010, Construction Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BRINTON Laurel J. & TRAUGOTT Elizabeth C., 2005, Lexicalization and Language Change, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

CANNON Garland, 2000, “Blending”, in BOOIJ Geert E., LEHMANN Christian, MUGDAN Joachim, KESSELHEIM

Wolfgang & SKOPETEAS Stavros (Eds.), Morphologie-Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection

and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 952-956.

COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English, 1990-2017, https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (last

accessed 07/04/2019).

CONNOLLY Patrick, 2013, “The innovation and adoption of English lexical blends”, JournaLIPP 2,

1-14.

DRESSLER Wolfgang U. & TUMFART Barbara, 2017, “New corpus-linguistic approaches to the

investigation of poetic occasionalisms: The case of Johann Nepomuk Nestroy”, in DZIUBALSKA-

KOŁACZYK Katarzyna (Ed.), Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting 3, 155-166.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

DRESSLER Wolfgang U., 2000, “Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology”, in DOLESCHAL Ursula &

THORNTON Anna M. (Eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, München: Lincom Europa,

1-10.

FRADIN Bernard, 2000, “Combining forms, blends and related phenomena”, in DOLESCHAL Ursula &

THORNTON Anna M. (Eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, München: Lincom Europa,

11-59.

GRIES Stefan Th., 2004, “Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological

blends in English”, in ACHARD Michel & KEMMER Suzanne (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind,

Stanford, CA: CSLI, 415-428.

HOCKETT Charles F., 1967, “Where the tongue slips, there slip I”, in HALLE Morris (Ed.), To Honor

Roman Jakobson, The Hague: Mouton, 910-936.

KEMMER Suzanne, 2003, “Schemas and lexical blends”, in CUYCKENS Hubert C., BERG Thomas, DIRVEN

René & PANTHER Klaus-Uwe (Eds.), Motivation in Language: From Case Grammar to Cognitive Linguistics.

Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 69-97.

KÖPCKE Klaus-Michael, 1993, Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven

Morphologie, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

LEHRER Adrienne, 1996, “Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach”,

Cognitive Linguistics 7(4), 359-390.

LEHRER Adrienne, 2007, “Blendalicious”, in MUNAT Judith (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 115-133.

MATTIELLO Elisa, 2013, Extra-grammatical Morphology in English. Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives,

and Related Phenomena, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

MATTIELLO Elisa, 2017, Analogy in Word-formation. A Study of English Neologisms and Occasionalisms,

Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

MATTIELLO Elisa, 2018, “Paradigmatic morphology: Splinters, combining forms, and secreted

affixes”, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(1), 2-22, also available http://www.skase.sk/

Volumes/JTL36/pdf_doc/01.pdf

MILROY James, 1992, Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

NOW: News on the Web, 2010-2018, https://corpus.byu.edu/now/ (last accessed 01/01/2019).

OED2-3: Oxford English Dictionary Online, 1989-2019, 2

ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

http://www.oed.com/ (last accessed 10/10/2018).

PLAG Ingo, 1999, Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Berlin/New

York: De Gruyter.

RENNER Vincent, 2006, Les composés coordinatifs en anglais contemporain, Lyon: Université Lumière

Lyon 2 dissertation.

RENNER Vincent, MANIEZ François & ARNAUD Pierre J.L., 2012, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical

Blending, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

RONNEBERGER-SIBOLD Elke, 2006, “Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex

words”, Folia Linguistica 40(1-2), 155-181.

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

RONNEBERGER-SIBOLD Elke, 2010, “Word creation: Definition – function – typology”, in RAINER Franz,

DRESSLER Wolfgang U., KASTOVSKY Dieter & LUSCHÜTZKY Hans C. (Eds.), Variation and Change in

Morphology, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 201-216.

THORNTON Anna M., 1993, “Italian blends”, in TONELLI Livia & DRESSLER Wolfgang U. Eeds.), Natural

Morphology. Perspectives for the Nineties, Padova: Unipress, 143-155.

THORNTON Anna M., 2004, “Parole macedonia”, in GROSSMAN Maria & RAINER Franz (Eds.), La

formazione delle parole in italiano, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 567-571.

NOTES

1. The dates in brackets refer to the earliest attestation of the words in the OED. See Beliaeva

[2014] for an in-depth study of the phonological and structural differences between blends and

clipping compounds.

2. The remaining 53.5% blends display a corpus frequency between 0.01 and 0.09 pmw.

ABSTRACTS

This study investigates lexical blending from a synchronic perspective, with special focus on new

blends in English. It analyses a sample of 245 English blends dated 1950-2010, from both

quantitative and qualitative viewpoints, with the purpose of reassessing the importance of the

blending phenomenon in terms of 1) its suitability in the coinage of new specialized vocabulary,

and 2) its regularity in the creation of words containing frequent splinters. From the theoretical

viewpoint, the study contributes to the issue of whether blending should be considered an extra-

grammatical phenomenon of word-creation or a regular process of word-formation. It supports

the claim that while some blends (e.g. glam-ma ← glamour + grandma) are unique instances, others

are part of series (e.g. eatertainment, irritainment, shoppertainment, all obtained from the splinter -

tainment ← entertainment), and therefore show a tendency towards greater regularity and

productivity. The goal of the study is fourfold. First, it aims at identifying the contexts/registers

which favour the formation of blend words, ranging from slang/colloquial registers to

specialized domains. Second, this study addresses the question of whether blends are created

with the intention of designating a new referent or to give a new name to an existing referent.

Third, the study focuses on a particular type of blending, called ‘attributive’ or ‘headed’, which

displays an endocentric relation with its head, as in rockumentary (← rock + documentary) and

Clintonomics (← Clinton + economics). In particular, some attributive blends will be viewed as

possible schema models for new lexical blends, with the second splinter -umentary and

-(o)nomics as potential combining forms or secreted affixes for novel formations.

Cette étude examine l’amalgame lexical dans une perspective synchronique. En particulier, elle

analyse une collection de 245 nouveaux mots-valises en anglais, sur la période 1950-2010, d’un

point de vue quantitatif et qualitatif. Cette étude a pour objectif de réévaluer l’importance de

l’amalgame 1) pour inventer un nouveau lexique spécialisé, et 2) pour créer des mots qui

contiennent des fractomorphèmes réguliers. D’un point de vue théorique, l’étude tente de

répondre à la question suivante : l’amalgame est-il un phénomène extra-grammatical de création

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019

de mot ou un procès régulier de formation de mot ? L’étude affirme que certains mots-valises

sont des cas uniques (p.ex. glam-ma ← glamour + grandma), tandis que d’autres font partie de

séries de mots (p.ex. eatertainment, irritainment, shoppertainment viennent du fractomorphème -

tainment ← entertainment) et tendent vers la régularité et la productivité. L’étude a quatre

objectifs. D’abord, elle vise à montrer les contextes/registres qui privilégient la formation des

mots-valises, et qui vont du langage familier au langage de spécialité. Deuxièmement, l’étude vise

à répondre à la question suivante : les mots-valises sont-ils créés pour designer de nouveaux

référents ou pour donner un nouveau nom à un référent existant ? Troisièmement, l’étude se

concentre sur l’amalgamation dite ‘attributive’ ou ‘endocentrique’, comme rockumentary (← rock

+ documentary) et Clintonomics (← Clinton + economics). Les mots-valises attributifs sont décrits

comme des modèles possibles ou schémas pour les nouveaux amalgames lexicaux, dont les

seconds fractomorphèmes -umentary et -(o)nomics sont des affixes secrétifs potentiels pour de

nouveaux mots.

INDEX

Mots-clés: mots-valises attributifs, nouveaux mots, néologismes, anglais, fractomorphème,

affixes secrétifs, schéma

Keywords: attributive blends, new words, neologisms, English, splinters, secreted affixes,

schema

AUTHOR

MATTIELLO ELISA

University of Pisa

[email protected]

A corpus-based analysis of new English blends

Lexis, 14 | 2019