Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:49:34.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2013

SABINE ARNDT-LAPPE  and
INGO PLAG
SABINE ARNDT-LAPPE
Affiliation:
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, English Language and Linguistics, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 40204 Düsseldorf, [email protected], [email protected]
INGO PLAG
Affiliation:
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, English Language and Linguistics, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 40204 Düsseldorf, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates a variety of ways in which prosodic factors influence blend structure in English. Recent approaches no longer consider blends unpredictable, but the role of stress in blend formation has not been investigated in detail yet. This article addresses this problem, focusing on the role of stress in determining the switchpoint of the two bases in the blend, and on the question of what determines the stress pattern of the blend. We investigate these questions using experimentally derived forms, coined by native speakers on the basis of carefully controlled word pairs as stimuli. The results demonstrate that the length of the blend, the location of the switchpoint, and the stress of the blend are crucially determined by stress properties of the two base words of the blend, above all by those of the second word. At a theoretical level, the most important single finding is that preservation of the stress of the second word may happen independently of preservation of segmental material of the stressed syllable (e.g. préstitant from prestígious + dóminant). In contrast to stress, and contrary to earlier claims, syllabic constituency is shown to be of minor importance for switchpoint location. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. On a methodological level, our results show that experimentally elicited blends constitute a valid and highly useful resource for research on blend structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 537 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximising first positions. In Féry, Caroline & van der Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5, 1–19. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2012. Templatic and subtractive truncation. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The phonology and morphology of exponence – the state of the art, 289–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1996. Selecting the best of the worse: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13, 283–328.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2006. Blend. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn, 66–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi & Cohen, Evan-Gary. 2012. Stress in English blends: A constraint-based approach. In Renner, Vincent, Maniez, François & Arnaud, Pierre J. L. (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 193–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2012. Blends: Core and periphery. In Renner, Vincent, Maniez, François & Arnaud, Pierre J. L. (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 11–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ben Abdallah, Manel. 2008. The structural predictability of English blends: A case study of novel blend formation in Northern Ireland English. Master's thesis, University of Siegen.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 2000. Phonological relationships between words. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cannon, Garland. 1986. Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24, 725–53.Google Scholar
Costa, Nicoletta. 2008. Das Phänomen der Wortkreuzung im Deutschen. Verona: Università degli Studi die Verona Tesi di laurea specialistica.Google Scholar
Fischer, Roswitha. 1998. Lexical change in Present-Day English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2004a. Isn't that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. In Achard, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 415–28. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2004b. Shouldn't it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of the structure of blends. Linguistics 3 (42), 639–67.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2006. Cognitive determinants of subtractive word-formation processes: A corpus-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4) in press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2012. Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Renner, Vincent, Maniez, François & Arnaud, Pierre J. L. (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 145–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1990. Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case of phonology-morphology interface. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1990, 1–20. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lappe, Sabine. 2007. English prosodic morphology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. Categories and types of Present-Day English word-formation. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction (Technical Reports of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science 3). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1998. Prosodic morphology. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 283–305. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Piñeros, Carlos E. 2000. Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in Spanish truncation. Linguistics 38, 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñeros, Carlos E. 2004. The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical morphology of Spanish. Probus 16 (2), 203–40.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen & Zimmermann, Eva. 2012. Portmanteaus as generalized templates. In Renner, Vincent, Maniez, François & Arnaud, Pierre J. L. (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 233–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar