Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:46:51.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word Blends as Sublexical Substitutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Ann Stuart Laubstein
Ann Stuart Laubstein*
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standard structural approach to word blends, such as noise1/sound2 → nound, has been to assume they involve a splicing together of the two words, where part of word2 is used to complete part of word1. The splice position has then been used as the source of mental lexicon generalizations. On the basis of 166 naturally occurring word blends, this article argues for a different approach—a “substitution” approach. The approach allows a comparison of the properties that word blends share with sublexical exchanges, anticipations, perseverations and substitutions; in addition, it accounts for the convergence of these properties. The substitution analysis allows a principled distinction between target and intruder; it predicts metrical structure output, and possible and impossible errors; moreover, the substitution analysis simplifies and constrains language production models.

Résumé

Résumé

L’approche structurale standard aux mots-valises («word blends»), comme noise1/sound2 → nound, a été de supposer qu’ils impliquent une jonction des deux mots par apocope et aphérèse, où une partie du mot2 est utilisée pour compléter une partie du mot1. Cette approche en termes de jonction («splicing») a par la suite donné lieu à des généralisations au sujet du lexique mental. Sur la base de 166 mots-valises produits de façon naturelle, cet article propose une approche différente — une approche dite de «substitution». Cette approche permet une comparaison des propriétés que partagent les mots-valises avec les échanges, les anticipations, les persévérations et les subtitutions de niveau sous-lexical. De plus, elle rend compte de la convergence de ces propriétés. L’analyse en termes de substitution permet d’établir une distinction de principe entre le mot «cible» et le mot «intrus» et prédit l’output structural métrique ainsi que les erreurs possibles et impossibles. Enfin, cette analyse simplifie et contraint les modèles de production du langage.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 127 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckingham, Hugh, and Christman, Sarah. 1996. Perseverative blends and splicing: Evidence for theories of syllable constituency. Brain and Cognition 32:323–325.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. 1982. Speech errors: Old data in search of new theories. In Slips of the tongue and language production, ed. Cutler, Anne, 73–108. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian, ed. 1983. Language production. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, ed. 1982. Slips of the tongue and language production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 1989. On a non-argument for the rhyme. Journal of Linguistics 25:211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary. 1986. A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93:283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary. 1995. Speaking and misspeaking. In An invitation to cognitive science language, ed. Osherson, Daniel and Lasnik, Howard, 183–208. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dell, Gary, Cornell, Juliano, and Govindjee, Anita. 1993. Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science 17:149–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary, and Reich, Peter. 1981. Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 20:611–629.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson, and Kucera, Henry. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47:27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria. 1973. Speech errors as linguistic evidence. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Garrett, Merrill. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Language production, Vol. 1: Speech and talk, ed. Butterworth, Brian, 197–220. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Merrill. 1988. Processes in language production. In The Cambridge survey of linguistics, Vol. 3: Language: Psychological and biological aspects, ed. Newmeyer, Frederick, 69–96. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Trevor A. 1984. A critique of top-down serial processing models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science 8:191–219.Google Scholar
Hotopf, W.H. 1983. Lexical slips of the pen and tongue: What they tell us about language production. In Language production, ed. Butterworth, Brian, 147–199. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri. To appear. Acquisition of syllable structure. In A Festscriftfor Bruce Derwing, ed. Smyth, Ron.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, Jörg, and Levelt, Willem. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition 20:824–843.Google Scholar
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. 1985. The nature of the ‘production grammar’ syllable. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club 1988.)Google Scholar
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. 1987. Syllable structure: The speech error evidence. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32:339–363.Google Scholar
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. 1990. The Halle-Vergnaud sonorant constituent: Error elicitation evidence. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35:145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. To appear. Lemmas and lexemes: The evidence from blends. Brain and Language.Google Scholar
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. To appear. Slips, SLIPS and the Rhyme. In A Festschrift f or Bruce Derwing, ed. Smyth, Ron.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald. 1972. The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology 3:210–227.Google Scholar
Meringer, Rudolf, and Mayer, Cark. 1895. Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart: Göschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Motley, Michael T., Baars, Bernard J., and Camden, C.T.. 1983. Experimental verbal slip studies: A review and an editing model of language encoding. Communication Monographs 50:79–101.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1979. Speech errors as evidence for a serial ordering mechanism in sentence production. In Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett, ed. Cooper, William E. and Walker, Edward C.T., 295–342. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1983. Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In The production of speech, ed. MacNeilage, Peter F., 109–136. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1987. The role of word onset consonants in speech production planning: New evidence from speech error patterns. In Motor and sensory processes of language, ed. Keller, Eric and Gopnik, Myrna, 17–53. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simner, Julia, and Smyth, Ron. 1998. Anaphoric vs. stimulus-based lexical access. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Rutgers University, March 1998.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph. 1982. The nature of segments in the lexicon: Evidence from speech errors. Lingua 56:235–259.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph. 1985. An interactive activation model of language production. In Progress in the psychology of language, Vol. 1, ed. Ellis, Andrew, 143–186. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph. 1990. Wordshape errors in language production. Cognition 35:123–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph. 1992. The reliability and replicabilitry of naturalistic speech error data. In Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition, ed. Barrs, Bernard J., 195–215. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Leiman, James M., and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1979. Evidence for the multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 18:427–440.Google Scholar