Data-rich Approaches to English Morphology
July 4-6, 2012, Victoria University, Wellington
PHONOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN ENGLISH BLENDS
Sabine Arndt-Lappe & Ingo Plag
Universität Siegen
1.
Introduction
(1)
Word 1
•
Word 2
Blend
breakfast
+
lunch
brunch
fantastic
+
fabulous
fantabulous
information +
entertainment
infotainment
motor +
hotel
motel
Blends are largely predictable, but show variation (Bat-El & Cohen 2011, Bat-El 2006,
Bauer to appear, Gries 2004a, b, 2010, Kubozono 1990)
•
1.1
Range and nature of variation is largely unclear
Issues
(cf. also Piñeros 2004, Trommer & Zimmermann 2011 on Spanish, Bat-El 1996 on Hebrew)
A. Which part of Word 1 and Word 2 form the blend?
Is there an empirical foundation of existing descriptive typologies?
B. How much of Word 1 and Word 2 is included in the blend?
Are there fixed switchpoints, to be defined in terms of prosodic units in Word 1,
Word 2, or the blend?
C. What are possible blend structures?
Are there constraints on length or stress pattern of blends?
2
1.2
Methodological problem in existing analyses
•
Existing analyses generalize over existing, mostly lexicalised blends
•
Variability is investigated across types, not within types
1.3
Aim of this paper
Explore (mainly) two areas of variation as against non-variation:
•
switchpoint
•
stress in blends
... and the connection between the two
1.4
•
Where do we come from?
claims in the literature about the relevance of prosodic structure for blend formation
(esp. Bat-El 1996, Bat-El & Cohen 2011)
•
recent prosody-based analyses of subtypes of Spanish blends (Piñeros 2004, Trommer & Zimmermann 2010)
1.5
Main claims
•
Prosody acts as a key determinant of blend structure
•
Variation and non-variation in switchpoint and stress in English blends is the result
of the interaction of prosodic factors
•
this interaction also determines blend structure
•
Implications for an Optimality-theoretic model of blend formation
o necessary: dissociation of segmental and prosodic faithfulness (cf. Piñeros
2004 on Spanish)
o relevant prosodic constraints must be violable, rankings are in part variable
2.
Methodology
•
Production experiment with two given bases (Ben Abdallah 2008)
•
Analysis of 1,269 blends produced on the basis of 107 word pairs
•
part of a larger project that tests hypotheses about blend formation
•
stimuli:
60 pairs of source words, copulative semantics
3
(2)
stimuli (selection)
bar
+ restaurant →
jacket + coat
→
joat, jácoat, jacóat
pan
→
pánot, pat
→
singáctor, sáctor, síngtor
+ pot
singer + actor
•
bartaurant, baraurant, bestaurant
subjects: 29 native speakers of Irish English (students at the University of Colraine,
Ireland)
•
experimental design
o written task: questionnaire presenting source words in a carrier sentence, asking participants to create ‚one word‘ from the two source words.
o oral task: blends pronounced by participants, recorded
•
3.
•
oral data were transcribed phonemically
Findings from our analysis that are not in the focus of this talk
overall structure:
AB + CD → AD
Blends are two-constituent compounds in which at least one constituent has lost
some phonological material, and in which the first part of Word 1 and the second
part of Word 2 survives. Word 1 or Word 2 may also be preserved completely.
(3)
publisher + editor →
publeditor, pubeditor, pubitor, publitor
AC blends are marginal and follow different structural requirements.
•
Length
Blends are maximally as long as their longest source word (only 10 % violations, also: Bat-El 2006: 67, for German: Costa 2008)
4
(4)
•
publisher + editor →
publeditor, pubeditor, pubitor, publitor
bar + restaurant
bartaurant, baraurant, bestaurant
→
switchpoint and syllabic constituency
Switchpoints are mostly at syllabic constituent boundaries (after / before an onset,
nucleus or coda), but not necessarily: Complex onsets in source words may variably
split, and the parts recombined or deleted.
(5)
a.
b.
split and recombination
blue + green
→
bleen, breen
scanner + printer
→
scinter, scrinter, sprinter
split and deletion
publisher + editor →
publeditor, pubeditor
employer +director →
emplirector, empirector
lecturer + tutor
[lekjutəɹ]
→
4.
Major hypothesis about blend prosody
(6)
Blends replicate the prosodic structure of Word 2 (w.r.t. stress, number of syllables)
(7)
Word 1: lóko
[l
ó
k
o]
|
|
|
|
[k
o
l
ó
m
bj
a]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[l
o
k
ó
m
bj
a]
Word 2: kolómbia
‘Portmanteau’: lokómbia
(adapted from: Piñeros 2004: 208)
•
The blend has the prosodic structure of Word 2, and Word 1 is incorporated into
that structure
•
Exceptions/variation
5
5. Blend switchpoint: the role of Word 2
•
Switchpoint hypothesis re Word 2
Switchpoints are determined by Word 2 stress: The switchpoint is no further to the
left than in the stressed syllable of W2.
Switchpoints are determined by Word 2 stress
switchpoint by W2 str
2
3
4 5
1
1
7654 3
2
switchpoint W2, syllables from
(8)
W2 stress from right
•
only 8 % violations
•
notice: the further away Word 2 stress is from the right margin of Word 2, the more
is the switchpoint ‘pushed’ to the right (cf. below)
(9)
Switchpoint is within, or at the left boundary of, the stressed syllable of Word 2
scanner + printer
→
sc|rinter, sc|inter
gigántic + enórmous
→
gi|nórmous
Brítish + Índian:
→
Br|índian
emplóyer + diréctor
→
empl|éctor
6
•
switchpoint and W2 stress, additional evidence
o violators have also non-violating realizations of the same type:
dictionary + thesaurus → dic|thesáurus
(violator)
dictionary + thesaurus → dic|sáurus
(non-violator)
o violation is prevalent if final overlap:
consultátion + interpretation → consul|pretátion, con|pretátion, etc. (violators)
6. Blend stress and blend structure: the role of Word 2
Existing proposals
•
blend stress corresponds to Word 2 stress (Bat-El 1996, Fischer 1998, Bauer 2010); for
English: Word 2 main-stress is counted from the right word edge
stress preservation: no stress on an unstressed base syllable (Bat-El & Cohen 2011)
Blend stress from right in polysyllabic bases (N = 705)
1
2
3
4 5
54
3
2
stressed syllable in blend,
(10)
1
•
stressed syllable in W2, from rig
•
Main stress in blends is largely Word 2 stress (17% violations)
•
This holds even if the stressed syllable of W2 does not survive:
7
Blend stress from right, W2 stressed syllable is gone (N = 315)
3
4
5
2
1
2
54
3
stressed syllable in blend
(11)
stressed syllable in W2
Blend stress from left, polysyllabic bases
2
3 4
1
1
54
3
2
stressed syllable in blend,
(12)
stressed syllable in W2, from left
•
There is much more variation; word beginnings in blends very often do not show
the prosodic structure of Word 2 (34 % violators; comparison with the 17 % violators
if stress is counted from the right: p < 0.001, chi-square = 32.4, df=1),
•
‘pretonic variability’
8
•
Role of Word 1? If we preserve material of Word 1 we run the danger of losing faithful preservation of Word 2 prosody.
7. Switchpoint and structure: the role of Word 1
•
Switchpoint hypothesis re Word 1
In polysyllabic blends, there is a tendency for the W1 switchpoint not to be earlier than
the nucleus of the initial syllable of Word 1.
(13)
Preservation of the first nucleus of Word 1 (polysyllabic blends), by blend stress
2
3
45
preserved
W1 nucleus
lost
1
blend stress, from left
•
Generalizations
o If blend stress is word-initial, there is a tendency to preserve the nucleus
of the first syllable of Word 1 (25 % loss).
(14)
W1 nucleus preservation, initial blend stress
a.
The stressed nucleus of Word 1 is preserved
bár + réstaurant
b.
→
bártaurant
The unstressed nucleus of Word 1 is preserved
prestígious + dóminant
→
préstinant
9
o If blend stress is not word-initial, the nucleus of W1 is preserved almost
categorically (5 % loss).
(5% vs. 25 % loss, p < 0.001, chi-squared = 55.6939, df = 1)
(15)
W1 nucleus preservation, non-initial blend stress
a.
b.
W2 stress is noninitial
gigántic + enórmous
→
ginórmous
díctionary + thesáurus
→
dìcthesáurus
→
modímplify
W2 stress is initial
módify + símplify
8. What happens when Word 1 and Word 2 prosodies collide?
•
Violations of segmental and/or prosodic faithfulness
(16)
pílot + ófficer
frequency
pilófficer
8
pífficer, pílicer
4
pófficer
3
pícer
2
10
•
deviation from W2 pretonic prosody is kept minimal
(17)
díctionary + thesáurus
frequency
dìcthesáurus
8x
dìctionáurus
3x
dictáurus
5x
dìctionasáurus
1x
díctorus
1x
Summary
•
Pretonic blend structure is variable
•
conflicting forces: Syll1 preservation of Word 1, stressed syllable preservation of
Word 2 (ex. (14))
•
9.
There is a tendency for blends to minimally (!) deviate from W2 pretonic prosody
Variation and non-variation: a summary
No Variation (i.e. quasi-categorical behaviour)
•
What survives of Word 2?
o the prosodic head (categorically: only the prosody, ‘Blend stress is W2 stress’,
but not necessarily the segmental content, cf. jóurnerator)
o a contiguous string from the end of the word
•
What survives of Word 1?
o the initial part (categorically: only the first segment)
•
constraints on structure
o Word 2 prosody from the main-stressed syllable onwards
11
Variation, with clear tendencies
•
What survives of W2?
o in polysyllables where stress is ‘late’ in the word (seen from the left): the
vowel content of the prosodic head, and a contiguous string from there
•
What survives of W1?
o the initial part at least until the nucleus of Syll1, if blend stress (= W2 stress) is
early (seen from the left) (cf. jóurnarator)
•
Seen from the left, blend stress is close to W2 stress
10.
Modelling stress and switchpoints in English blends in OT – a sketch
Basic assumption
•
Unlike compounds, blends are singleton Prosodic Words (i.e.: one main stress)
Important constraint types
•
Anchoring constraints: left anchoring for Word 1 and stress anchoring (or right anchoring) for Word 2
•
Correspondence/Faithfulness constraints
o between prosodic heads, independent of segmental material
o between the mapping of prosody and segmental material
Anchoring
(cf. Alber & Arndt-Lappe 2009, 2012 on truncation)
(18)
ANCHOR-SYLL1 (W1): The first syllable of Word 1 has a correspondent in the first
syllable of the blend. The constraint pertains to segmental material (cf. Ito, Kitagawa & Mester 1996 for a proposal on string anchoring)
12
(19)
ANCHOR-STRESSV (W2): The main-stressed vowel in Word 2 has a correspondent
in the main-stressed syllable of the blend. Note that the constraint targets vowels,
not the syllable-initial position. Also, the constraint pertains to both segmental
material and prosodic structure.
(maybe needed: ANCHOR-R(W2): The final syllable of Word 2 has a correspondent in the final syllable of the blend)
(20)
•
ranking: ANCHOR-SYLL1 (W1), ANCHOR-STRESSV (W2) >> MAX
The ranking ensures that blends preserve the following parts of their source words:
o the initial part of Word 1
o the main stresssed part of Word 2 and subsequent material (a tendency, cf.
below)
Faithfulness to prosody vs. faithfulness to segments
•
our data provide evidence that there is a difference between the two (cf. also Piñeros
2004)
•
our data provide evidence that the ranking of sets of pertinent constraints is variable
(21)
pílot + officer
frequency
Pilófficer
8
pífficer, pílicer
4
Pófficer
3
Pícer
2
Analysis
•
correspondence constraints between stress positions in the blend and in W1/W2,
independent of segmental material
13
(20)
PROSMAX(HEAD) W2: The prosodic head of Word 2 must have a correspondent
head in the blend (adapted from Pineros 2004). The constraint is independent of
segmental material, and violated if the head of the blend and the head of Word 2
are not in the same position (counted in terms of syllables from the right word
edge, in accordance with the stress rules of English).
(22)
PROSDEP(FOOTHEAD) W2: Every foot head of the blend has a correspondent foot
head in Word 2. Violations are counted in terms of foot heads in Word 2. (cf. also
Bat-El 1996)
•
correspondence constraints between mappings of stress and segmental material:
(23)
STRESSIDENT (W1): Correspondent vowels in the blend and in Word 1 have the
same stress role.
(24)
STRESSIDENT (W2): Correspondent vowels in the blend and in Word 2 have the
same stress role.
(25)
Blending strategies
Example
violated constraints
satisfied constraints
pìlófficer
STRESSIDENT (W1)
ANCHOR- SYLL1 (W1),
ANCHOR-STRESSV(W2),
PROSMAX(HEAD)W2,
STRESSIDENT (W2)
pífficer
ANCHOR-STRESSV(W2)
ANCHOR- SYLL1 (W1),
PROSMAX(HEAD)W2,
STRESSIDENT (W2),
(STRESSIDENT (W1))
pófficer
ANCHOR-SYLL1(W1)
ANCHOR-STRESSV(W2),
PROSMAX(HEAD)W2,
STRESSIDENT (W2),
(STRESSIDENT (W1))
14
(26)
(27)
díctionary + thesáurus
frequency
dìcthesáurus
8x
dìctionáurus
3x
dictáurus
5x
dìctionasáurus
1x
díctorus
1x
Blending strategies
Example
violated constraints
satisfied constraints
dìctesáurus
PROSDEP(FTHEAD)W2
ANCHOR- SYLL1 (W1),
ANCHOR-STRESSV(W2),
PROSMAX(HEAD)W2,
STRESSIDENT (W2) STRESSIDENT
dictáurus
STRESSIDENT (W1)
(W1)
ANCHOR-SYLL1(W1),
ANCHOR-STRESSV(W2),
PROSMAX(HEAD)W2,
PROSDEP(FTHEAD)W2,
STRESSIDENT (W2)
11.
•
Conclusion
empirical: new data on English blends
o production data
o first study of within-type variation
•
focus on prosodic determinants of switchpoints, stress, and structure
o confirming earlier hypotheses that assumed a strong role of prosody
o extended these proposal, towards a unified account of blend structure that is
not restricted to particular types
15
•
variation vs. non-variation
o there is much variation in English blends
o variation is systematic and is expectable in an account based on Word 1 and
Word 2 prosodies
•
OT analysis
o separate constraints needed to model faithfulness to prosody, faithfulness to
segments, and the mapping between the two
o blend aspects under focus: result of interaction of

anchoring constraints

faithfulness constraints to prominent positions (initial material and
stress)

faithfulness to prosody-segment mapping
o variation shows: rankings must be variable (cf. clipping, Lappe 2007, Alber &
Arndt-Lappe2012)
References
Alber, Birgit & Sabine Arndt-Lappe. 2009. Rund um die Typologie von Kurzwörtern. Paper
presented at ‘Generative Grammatik des Südens’, Leipzig, May 22-24, 2009.
Alber, Birgit & Sabine Arndt-Lappe. 2012. Templatic and subtractive truncation. In
Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Phonology and Morphology of Exponence - the State of the
Art. in print, Oxford: OUP.
Bat-El, Outi. 1996. Selecting the best of the worse: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13. 283–328.
Bat-El, Outi. 2006. Blend. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 66–
70. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bat-El, Outi & Evan-Gary Cohen. to appear. Stress in English blends: A constraint-based
approach. In Vincent Renner, François Maniez & Pierre J. L. Arnaud (eds.), Crossdisciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bauer, Laurie. to appear. Blends: Core and periphery. to appear in Vincent Renner,
François Maniez & Pierre J. L. Arnaud (eds.), Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ben Abdallah, Manale. 2008. The Structural Predictability of English Blends: A Case Study of
Novel Blend Formation in Northern Ireland English. Siegen: unpublished MA thesis,
Universität Siegen.
Fischer, Roswitha. 1998. Lexical Change in Present-Day English. Tübingen: Narr.
16
Gries, Stefan T. 2004a. Shouldn't it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of the structure of blends. Linguistics 3(42). 639–667.
Gries, Stefan T. 2004b. Isn't that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional
morphological blends in English. In Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.),
Language, Culture, and Mind, 415–428. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Gries, Stefan T. 2010. Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: psycho/cognitive-linguistic
perspectives. invited plenary lecture given at the International Conference on Lexical Blending, University of Lyon, 11 June 2010.
Ito, Junko, Yoshihisa Kitagawa & Armin Mester. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: Evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5.
217–294.
Kubozono, Haruo. 1990. Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case of
phonology-morphology interface. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1990, 1–20. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lappe, Sabine. 2007. English Prosodic Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer.
Piñeros, Carlos E. 2004. The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical morphology of Spanish. Probus 16(2). 203–240.
Trommer, Jochen & Eva Zimmermann. 2010. Portmanteaus as Generalized Templates. Talk
held at the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, May 16.