Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena 9783110295399, 9783110293869

Citation preview

Extra-grammatical Morphology in English

Topics in English Linguistics 82

Editors

Elizabeth Closs Traugott Bernd Kortmann

De Gruyter Mouton

Extra-grammatical Morphology in English Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena

by

Elisa Mattiello

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-029386-9 e-ISBN 978-3-11-029539-9 ISSN 1434-3452 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. ” 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface

The purpose of this book is to fill a gap in word-formation studies, specifically with regard to that part of morphology termed “extra-grammatical”. In the past, phenomena such as clippings, acronyms, blends, and reduplicatives were generally excluded from English grammars and major theoretical morphological works, or else they were marginalised to a peripheral, irrelevant, secondary role in morphology, subordinate to what is to be considered inside morphological grammar. Recently, however, there has been a significant increase in the attention devoted to phenomena that lie outside grammatical morphology, probably as a result of their extensive use in the coinage of neologisms in all languages, and especially in English. Yet these phenomena have been hitherto investigated only individually by scholars, and more for their relevance to the phonological system than as a set of processes that pertain to irregular morphology. The aim of the present volume is to explore morphological extragrammaticality thoroughly and systematically, and to define the topic not only as the negative counterpart of grammatical morphology, but as a subdiscipline per se, comprising a number of different phenomena worthy of attention in English on account of their high frequency and wide exploitation in many different fields and communicative settings. The data included demonstrates the role of abbreviatory devices and similar creative processes not only in informal language and oral communication, areas which have already been noted in the literature, but also in more formal contexts, including professional jargon and scientific discourse. Many people have played a role in the writing of this book. First and foremost, I would like to thank Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, who has encouraged me and supported this project from the very outset. Her feedback and insightful observations on earlier drafts of the manuscript have been invaluable. Many thanks are also due to Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler for his useful remarks on the abbreviatory phenomena examined in chapter 3. I am also very grateful to Roberto Peroni for his discussions and critical comments on the theoretical chapter. Other people provided useful comments or information at various stages of the project: Maurizio Gotti, Bernd Kortmann, Elke Ronneberger-Sibold, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and the participants at several

vi

Preface

conferences. Naturally, all remaining errors are solely my own responsibility. I also wish to thank Antonio Bertacca, Marcella Bertuccelli Papi, and Susan George for their constant encouragement and support in the course of my work. I am also indebted to Stephen James Coffey, who patiently read through the book and suggested many improvements as a native speaker of English, excellent reviewer and experienced linguist. I also warmly thank my postgraduate student Maria Letizia Malatesti for many discussions on the subject. I dedicate this book to my family and, in particular, to my three-year-old daughter Matilde, who has amused me since the first months of her life with creative formations, original reduplicatives, and abbreviations of all kinds.

Pistoia, November 2012

Contents

Preface .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

v

1. Introduction . . . . . . . 1.1. Data . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Lexical status of items 1.2. Key references . . . . . 1.3. Organisation of the work . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

1 7 8 9 12

2. The theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Extra-grammatical formations in Generative Morphology . 2.2. Extra-grammatical formations in Naturalness Theory . . 2.2.1. Natural Morphology . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Natural Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Extra-grammatical morphology . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. Extra-grammatical vs. expressive morphology . . 2.3.2. Extra-grammatical vs. marginal morphology . . . 2.3.3. Extra-grammatical vs. grammatical morphology . . 2.3.4. Grammaticality and regularity of extra-grammatical morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5. Extra-grammaticality and language change . . . 2.3.6. Fundamental notions . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.7. Definition and properties of extra-grammatical morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 22 22 26 28 30 32 36

3. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Definition, delimitation, and classification . . . . . 3.1.1. Definition of clipping . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Delimitation: Clipping vs. other processes . . . 3.1.3. Classification and structure of clippings . . . 3.1.4. Definition of acronyms and initialisms . . . . 3.1.5. Delimitation: Acronyms and initialisms vs. other processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.6. Classification of acronyms and initialisms . . . 3.1.7. Acronyms and initialisms: Further remarks . . 3.2. Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena . . .

. . . . . .

64 67 68 70 72 82

. . . .

85 87 93 95

39 43 48 55

viii

Contents

3.2.1. Irregularities in abbreviations 3.2.2. Regularities in abbreviations . 3.2.3. Predictability in abbreviations 3.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

97 101 105 109

4. Blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Definition, delimitation, and classification . . . 4.1.1. Definition and main features . . . . . 4.1.2. Delimitation: Blending vs. other processes . 4.1.3. Classification and structure of blends . . 4.1.4. Blends: Further remarks . . . . . . 4.2. Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon . 4.2.1. Irregularities in blends . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Regularities in blends . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Predictability in blends . . . . . . 4.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

111 112 112 115 118 125 127 128 131 135 138

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

141 144 144 146 148 159 160 162 165 167

6. Minor phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification 6.1.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Delimitation: Back-formation vs. other processes . 6.1.3. Classification and structure of back-formed words . 6.2. Back-formation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon . . 6.2.1. Irregularities in back-formation . . . . . . . 6.2.2. Regularities in back-formation . . . . . . . 6.2.3. Predictability in back-formation . . . . . . . 6.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness . . . . . . . . 6.3. Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification . . 6.3.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169 170 172 173 174 179 180 182 183 184 185 186

5. Reduplicatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Definition, delimitation, and classification . . . . 5.1.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. Delimitation: Reduplication vs. other processes 5.1.3. Classification and structure of reduplicatives . 5.2. Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon 5.2.1. Irregularities in reduplicatives . . . . . 5.2.2. Regularities in reduplicatives . . . . . 5.2.3. Predictability in reduplicatives . . . . . 5.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness . . . . . .

6.4.

6.5.

6.6.

Contents

ix

6.3.2. Delimitation: Infixation vs. other processes . . . 6.3.3. Classification of infixes . . . . . . . . . Infixation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon . . . . 6.4.1. Irregularities in infixation . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2. Regularities in infixation . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3. Predictability in infixation . . . . . . . . 6.4.4. Criteria of well-formedness . . . . . . . . Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification 6.5.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2. Delimitation: Phonaesthemes vs. other morpho(no)logical concepts . . . . . . . . 6.5.3. Classification of phonaesthemes . . . . . . . Phonaesthemes as an extra-grammatical phenomenon . . 6.6.1. Irregularities in phonaesthemes . . . . . . . 6.6.2. Criteria for identification . . . . . . . . .

187 188 192 192 194 196 197 198 200 202 202 206 207 208

7. Extra-grammatical formations in use . . . . . . 7.1. Principles of contextual suitability . . . . . . 7.2. Typical contexts and domains . . . . . . . 7.3. Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena . . 7.3.1. Clippings . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2. Acronyms and initialisms . . . . . . . 7.3.3. Blends . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4. Reduplicatives . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5. Back-formation, infixation, and phonaesthemes

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

210 212 215 216 217 225 232 238 244

8. Conclusions .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

250

Notes . . . . . References . . . Sources for data Lexical index . . Subject index . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

258 270 285 287 330

Chapter 1 Introduction

Within a positive perspective, investigations of extragrammatical … morphology should not be restricted to a status of aftermath patchwork, but should be elevated to the rank of a systematic study of basic questions which are likely to illuminate research in morphology at large. (Dressler 2000: 8)

“Extra-grammatical morphology” is a term introduced by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 36–41) which partially overlaps with Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) “expressive (vs. plain) morphology”. It applies to a set of heterogeneous formations (of an analogical or rule-like nature) which do not belong to morphological grammar, in that the processes through which they are obtained are not clearly identifiable and their input does not allow a prediction of a regular output. Widely accepted examples of extra-grammatical morphological phenomena include: blends, acronyms, initialisms, clippings, hypocoristics, reduplicatives, back-formations, and expletive infixes.1 In the literature, these phenomena are classified among the language “oddities” by Aronoff (1976: 20), included among “unpredictable formations” by Bauer (1983: 232), considered of “minor” importance by Scalise (1984: 98), and as part of “word-creation” by Haspelmath (2002: 25), and therefore dismissed from grammatical morphology. Similarly, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1632) consider them to be both “minor” and “marginal”, since, unlike regular morphological phenomena, “They do not yield words of a distinct morphological structure or result in new combinations of independently meaningful components”. There are some writers, nonetheless, who view the phenomena in a different light. Plag (2003: 117), for example, considers them to be “highly systematic … products of word-formation” deserving the same attention and classification as rules. However, although extragrammatical operations may resemble morphological rules, Dressler and Karpf (1995: 101) remark that their “only unifying property is that some principle of morphological grammar is violated”. It is especially the latter

2

Introduction

remark and the distinction between extra-grammatical and grammatical morphology that are the main focus of my investigation. Extra-grammatical morphology is a recent area of research. Many studies on extra-grammatical phenomena have appeared in the last decade and many others are of imminent publication (e.g. Kilani-Schoch and Dressler; Philps; the contributions in Renner, Maniez, and Arnaud). The growing interest in extra-grammatical morphological phenomena principally arises from the increasing number of novel words obtained by means of these non-rulegoverned mechanisms. The English lexicon, in particular, appears to be very dynamic in terms of new accessions involving a large variety of wordformation techniques, and of neologisms capable of covering changes in all sectors of society. Recent examples spicing the news jargon are the lexical blends Brangelina and Bennifer, respectively referring to the celebrity couples Brad Pitt–Angelina Jolie and Ben Affleck–Jennifer Lopez, and the acronyms POTUS and FLOTUS, used in news reports to refer to the President and First Lady of the United States.2 In magazines, we often find attractive headlines such as J. Lo ‘Jennifer Lopez’ enjoys showing off her bling bling ‘flashy jewellery’ from Ben (People, 02 October 2003, in The Rice University Neologisms Database). Internet terminology is likewise involved in the creation of new coinages, such as the blends netizen and netiquette (‘internet citizen/etiquette’), and e-voting, e-shopping, e-love denoting ‘electronic voting/shopping/love’, all exhibiting recurring splinters (Lehrer 1996, 2007). Nowadays, “non-affixational word-formation processes” (Plag 2003: 107) are indifferently used in specialised and professional contexts, for example in law (A.-G. ← Attorney-General), medicine (CAD ← Coronary Artery Disease; cf. ← Computer-Aided Design), and technology (wi-fi ← wireless + -fi, after hi-fi, and later reinterpreted as a shortening of wireless fidelity, OED3),3 as well as in advertising and the mass media (glam ← glamorous, infotainment ← information and entertainment) (Ronneberger-Sibold 2008: 206–207). A recent television advertising slogan states HIPHOPIZE YOUR LIFE, from the brand name of a well-known watch. Another lexical domain favouring the use of creative word-formation techniques is juvenile slang (Mattiello 2008a), which includes a large variety of fashionable words, such as beaulicious (← beautiful and delicious) and BRB (← Be Right Back). Are all these neologisms extra-grammatical? Do they obey any rules of English prototypical grammar? Can we identify any regularity or predictability in their formation? These are some of the questions which are dealt with in this book. Although many papers, collections and forthcoming books are devoted to the various extra-grammatical phenomena, there is no previous study which

Introduction

3

brings all the phenomena together and systematically investigates both their irregularities and their regularities. This book explores each phenomenon individually, but also makes internal comparisons between the various extra-grammatical operations, identifying criteria of well-formedness and also principles of contextual suitability. The aim is to motivate the preference for extra-grammatical formations over regular ones, which may be observed in particular communicative contexts and domains, both informal and technical. In general, the present book aims to reopen – and make a contribution to – the debate on the position that word-formation phenomena such as blending, alphabetisms and others occupy within the relevant morphological theories: namely, Generative Morphology (Aronoff 1976, 1983), Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987; Dressler 1999, 2005), Expressive (vs. Plain) Morphology (Zwicky and Pullum 1987), and Extra-grammatical vs. Marginal Morphology (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Doleschal and Thornton 2000). More precisely, this book aims to show that, in contrast with what many scholars claim (e.g. Aronoff 1976; Scalise 1984; Spencer 1991; Haspelmath 2002), extra-grammatical morphology is as worthy of morphological study as grammatical morphology. In fact, a systematic study of the former may allow a better understanding of the latter, and may therefore “illuminate research in morphology at large” (Dressler 2000: 8). At the same time, this book also argues against those who treat extragrammatical formations in the same way as grammatical ones (e.g. Cannon 1986, 2000; Bat-El 2000; Kemmer 2003), or who, like Plag (2003: 116– 127), accommodate abbreviations of the type disco, NATO and USA within grammatical word-formation (cf. Conti and Mattiello 2008; Mattiello 2008a). The present volume illustrates in what sense blending, acronym formation, and related phenomena violate universal properties and principles of grammatical word-formation, and are therefore separate from the module of morphological grammar (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Dressler 2000). Furthermore, it reconsiders extra-grammatical morphological phenomena in the light of their preferred patterns, especially as regards parameters of naturalness (Dressler 2005), and offers a (hopefully) clear-cut and thorough taxonomy covering the processes involved. Some of the phenomena considered in this work, namely reduplicatives and phonaesthemes, interface with both morphology and phonology, as their formation mechanisms draw on both systems. Other processes, such as acronyms and blends, are also discussed in terms of their pronounceability

4

Introduction

(3.2.4, 4.2.4), and many regularities in blends are related to their phonological structure (4.2.2). Phonological issues, therefore, are dealt with in this work insofar as they are helpful in describing the processes, the regularities and the well-formedness of extra-grammatical formations. The analyses, however, primarily concentrate on their morphology, since acronyms, blends, reduplication, and related phenomena have traditionally been described as word-formation devices. My primary concerns in this work, then, are the following: 1) the identification of the qualitative differences between extra-grammatical morphology and the prototypical core of morphological grammar, and 2) a fine-grained analysis of certain morphological phenomena that in the literature are either considered irrelevant to linguistic theory or else erroneously included within the treatment of regular word-formation. The boundary between what is to be considered inside and what is, by contrast, outside morphological grammar is defined. This definition accounts, for example, for the inclusion within grammatical word-formation of secreted combining forms of the type -holic (computerholic) and -scape (skyscape), although these are marginal in morphology, since, in Dressler’s (2000: 7) terms, they are “nonprototypical” and, in particular, “transitional … between derivation and compounding”. Unlike blends, which are extra-grammatical because they are obtained by an abbreviation and/or fusion process in a way which is only partially predictable, combining forms can be described by regular morphological rules, in that they involve a secretion process preserving some semantic features of the base words (alcoholic, landscape) in a productive way (Warren 1990: 119; Mattiello 2007: 123–127; cf. Fradin 2000). With these purposes in mind, I take into consideration key concepts such as “creativity” (Ronneberger-Sibold 2008) and “analogy” (Kiparsky 1992; Bauer 2001), and distinguish them from more stable notions, i.e. “productivity” and “regularity” (Plag 1999, 2003; Bauer 2001). Bauer (2001: 64) proposes that creativity and productivity be considered as hyponyms of innovation, to be distinguished according to whether or not regularity (rulegovernedness) is envisaged. In Plag’s (2003) approach, all word-formation phenomena exhibit identifiable regularities. This issue, in fact, is a complex one, since the majority of scholars do not agree with this line of reasoning and consider clipping, blending, acronym formation, etc. as non-rulegoverned processes, thus making it impossible for analysts to predict and explain the kind of formation patterns that might typically be involved. From a morphological point of view, these processes are considered unpredictable, in the sense that we cannot predetermine how much of the original lexeme will be retained in the new formation, nor can we identify stable criteria

Introduction

5

according to which one type of word-formation mechanism is preferred over another. Yet scholars such as Kelly (1998: 580) have asked whether any general principles might explain why existing forms have prevailed over other options. In my analysis, I classify extra-grammatical phenomena such as abbreviations and blends as analogical in nature. Although they belong to nonrule-governed morphological innovation, and basically lack generality and absolute predictability, there are, however, formal similarities which allow language users to coin new words on the basis of attraction to sets of forms that have already emerged in the language and to which new forms can be assimilated. The resulting words will either be nonce formations or neologisms (see Brinton and Traugott 2005: 45 for a distinction). In this study, I borrow Kilani-Schoch and Dressler’s (forth.) term “irregular regularity”, introduced to define those recurrent patterns that depart from the prototypical rules of morphological grammar. I find this term typically applicable to extra-grammatical morphological phenomena, whose mechanisms are not rule-bound, yet which exhibit underlying preferences for some recurring morphological patterns. What I wish to discover is whether the regularities and tendencies of extra-grammatical operations can allow stable predictions regarding their output, and whether there are clear criteria which justify one choice or another. For each phenomenon being investigated, I identify a number of defining criteria based on regularities, but at the same time expect that only some of these will be fully applicable (partly confirming Plag’s 2003 assumptions), while others will be disconfirmed by a variety of counterexamples. As an illustration, consider the phenomenon of blending.4 In my study, blends are first of all distinguished from grammatical word-formation processes, and in particular, from compounds (Ronneberger-Sibold 2006). Like compounds, they are made up of two or more bases, but, unlike them, the bases are shortened in rather irregular ways (cf. Bat-El 2006), so that the input is often barely recognisable from the output, and, vice versa, the output cannot be totally predicted from the input. However, there is also a certain amount of regularity in the formation of blends, which has encouraged linguists such as Plag (2003: 126) to support the contention that they “should … not be excluded from what has been called ‘grammatical morphology’”. The (irregular) regularity of blends is, however, not ascribable to a proper rule. As we shall see in the relevant chapter (chapter 4), Plag’s (2003) blending rule (AB + CD → AD) is valid only for prototypical blends such as beaulicious (called “linear” by Gries 2004a: 645), and has several exceptions, among which “intercalative” blends

6

Introduction

(chortle ← chuckle and snort), where the two words “are so tightly integrated” (Kemmer 2003: 72) that there is no clear-cut distinction between the various parts of the blend. It will also be shown that the prevalence of some blending patterns over others is not accidental, but principally motivated by criteria of wellformedness such us analogy, pronounceability/euphony, recoverability, semantic blocking, meaning prominence, saliency, and similarity. As we shall see, they also tend to show preferences based on the Peircean semiotic principles of iconicity/diagrammaticity, indexicality, transparency (vs. opacity), biuniqueness, and figure/ground (Dressler 2005). Blends are words obtained by fusing parts of at least two source words, at least one of which is curtailed and/or there is a graphemic/phonemic overlap between them. Hence, they exhibit some sort of structural fusion, which is reflected in their semantics; that is, beaulicious means both ‘beautiful’ and ‘delicious’, and infotainment includes both ‘information’ and ‘entertainment’ in its meaning (cf. exo- vs. endo-centric blends in Bat-El 2006). The formation of blends is therefore governed by the sub-parameter of constructional iconicity, in that their fusion in signans/form corresponds to fusion in signatum/meaning. Furthermore, blends tend towards transparency. Morphotactic transparency, which favours patterns where the beginning of at least one source word is retained, holds in both beaulicious and infotainment, where the beginning of a word is followed by the end of another. Yet patterns with two word endings are not impossible in English (cf. Lehrer 2007), as netizen and netiquette demonstrate, but rather “dispreferred because of the higher saliency of word- and syllable-initial consonants” (Thornton 1993: 147–148). It should be added that info and (the) net are no longer felt to be shortened words, as they have now acquired more or less autonomous lexical status. This facilitates the morphotactic analysis of blends such as infotainment (info + entertainment)5 and netizen (net + citizen). Morphotactic transparency also favours patterns which preserve as many segments from the base words as possible. It is best illustrated by “partial” (Thornton 1993) or “overlap” blends (Kemmer 2003), such as Bennifer and Brangelina, where either the first or the second base is not shortened (Ben, Angelina) and where there is an overlap between the source words (Bennifer, Brangelina). The tendency towards identity at the juncture of the source words in a blend also facilitates recoverability, which is maximised in a word such as slanguage, where the overlap admits the presence of both bases in their full form.

Data

7

Many scholars try to provide motivations guiding these formations, or inducing the preference for one structure over another. Kelly (1998), for instance, tries to predict how components will be ordered in blends, what their boundaries will be, and where exactly they will be joined, thus explaining the production of brunch, rather than brench or breakfunch (see also Gries 2004a, 2004b). Syllabic structure and overlapping constituents are certainly crucial to blending. Yet blends often violate prototypical or recurrent patterns, for instance, by inserting one word into another, as in entreporneur, where porn is intercalated within entrepreneur, thus violating a preference for continuous constituents. As we shall see, the segments and patterns of blends are too varied to predict their final make-up; only tendencies can be identified. Indeed, predictions are often confuted by examples which are only barely relatable to fixed patterns, and where input is fuzzy or even unrecognisable and output is motivated solely by human language creativity. The dynamic character and complex nature of blends admit no generative-like rules, or put even more strongly, “no general rules can be given; all cases are word-specific” (Lehrer 1996: 363). These are some indications of the issues confronted in this work. The sources for examples, some key references, and the organisation of the work as a whole are set out in the next three sections. 1.1.

Data

Although the analysis of blends, acronyms and similar mechanisms carried out in this work is basically qualitative, the database had to be extensive enough to provide illustrative examples of all the various word-formation techniques involved in English extra-grammatical morphology. Hence, my database has been put together from a number of different sources and types of source: ― ―

Previous studies (see the Key references in section 1.2 below); Online dictionaries, databases, web pages, and encyclopedias. Especially, the Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED2–3), the MerriamWebster Online Dictionary, Benjamin K. Shisler’s online Dictionary of English Phonesthemes, Jason A. Polko’s Dictionary of Reduplicated Words, John Kremer’s pages on Squeasel Words and Sing-song Words, Suzanne Kemmer’s Rice University Neologisms Database and her collection of Neologisms, the database Acronyms, Initialisms, Alphabet-

8

Introduction

isms and other Abbreviations, the web pages on BBC Learning English, and Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Further sources are listed in the relevant section of the References. The database contains a total of 1,871 examples, 535 of which are pure clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names or hypocoristics, 278 are acronyms and initialisms, 296 are blends, 360 are reduplicatives, 254 are backformations, 125 are infixed words, and 23 are phonaesthemes. All the examples (with the exception of hypothetical cases used to test predictability) are reported in the Lexical index at the end of the book. This index is subdivided into categories, so as to facilitate consultation, and in the case of infixation, there is a further sub-division according to the type of infix (63 expletive items, 26 -ma- items, 29 -iz- items, 5 -diddly- items, 2 -wait for ititems). Within the category of reduplication, the shm-/schm- items (22) are listed separately from the rest. For many of the types of formation discussed, examples of authentic usage have been included. This data has been drawn from a variety of sources, including films and television series, newspaper and magazine articles and headlines, scientific journals, and the electronic archive Eur-Lex. Most of the examples are to be found in chapter 7, which is a socio-pragmatic investigation of extra-grammatical formations, aimed at identifying the primary contexts and domains suited to such formations. The sources for this part of the work are described at the beginning of section 7.3, and also listed in the “Sources for data” section of the References. 1.1.1. Lexical status of items In the database, I have included examples whose use is attested at least once either in the relevant literature or in the various above-mentioned sources. Needless to say, some of these formations are ephemeral creations, nonce words or occasionalisms, rather than actual neologisms. In other words, the database is heterogeneous, and includes both stable items (e.g. ad, dingdong, DNA, GP, and smog), and more ephemeral items. Examples of the latter are the blends earthoon and moorth, which were suggested in 1964 by the physicist George Gamow as names for “the primordial body that violently split apart to become the earth and the moon” (Bryant 1974: 178 [emphasis mine]; also in Bat-El 2006). Examples of more recent ephemeral formations are the blends Go-Gurt and Wheatables, and the idiosyncratic infixation porn-wait for it-ography used by a character in the sitcom How I

Key references

9

Met your Mother. Although ephemeral items and occasionalisms may be unfamiliar to most native speakers, Baayen and Renouf (1996) propose that pattern-based “hapax legomena” (or one-offs) are an important measure for estimating the productivity of a morphological process, especially in terms of type frequency. Thus, hapaxes can help to illustrate the range of patterns which are of relevance to the analysis of extra-grammatical morphological phenomena. This also underlines the methodological importance of recording hapaxes, rather than just repeated lexical items. A further point with regard to the database is the fact that, since mine is not an exclusively synchronic, contemporary study, there are a number of items in the database which are now considered old-fashioned, archaic, or even obsolete. For instance, the acronym DORA and the reduplicative seabee are historical formations (OED2), and cuz, from cousin, is obsolete (OED2). Nor is the study confined to standard English. Thus, there are some items which are held to be regionalisms, and others which are judged to be dialectal or slang. For instance, Mex, from Mexican, is North American, and stupe, from stupid, is labelled colloquial and dialect in OED2. There may also be a mixture of the two axes (historical and non-standard), with some items being both archaic and slang: for example, Archie, from the male forename Archibald, is a historical slang clipping meaning ‘an anti-aircraft gun’ (OED2). 1.2.

Key references

Before delineating the structure of the work, I would like to mention the enormous and varied bibliography on the topics of extra-grammatical morphology and creative phenomena. A seminal study including a clear-cut differentiation between extra-grammatical morphology and morphological grammar is Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994). Here, however, the authors’ investigation of the pragmatic meanings available through grammatical morphology excludes extra-grammatical formations. Elsewhere, in a chapter entitled “Morphologie grammaticale et extragrammaticale”, Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 25–28) similarly identify universal criteria for the classification of a lexical unit as either grammatical or extragrammatical, yet, again, their focus is on the former, the grammatical. The widely celebrated paper by Arnold M. Zwicky and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1987) represents a watershed in morphology for its clear and valuable demarcation between expressive and plain morphology. However, the ex-

10

Introduction

pressive phenomena which they consider only partially overlap with the areas of extra-grammaticality illustrated in the present book. Another seminal work is Doleschal and Thornton’s (2000) edited volume, which includes a distinction between extra-grammatical and marginal morphology (Wolfgang U. Dressler), and also insightful discussions on specific phenomena, namely blends and acronyms in Hebrew (Outi Bat-El), blends and combining forms in French (Bernard Fradin), and creative trade names in German (Elke Ronneberger-Sibold). These contributions have been stimulating from many viewpoints, though the discussions on the same topics in chapters 3 and 4 of my own work show that my position is different from that of both Bat-El and Fradin. Works on morphology, grammar and word-formation abound in the literature. Notably, for general overviews of certain extra-grammatical morphological phenomena I will make reference to: Jespersen (1942), Marchand (1969), Adams (1973), Bauer (1983, 1988), Quirk et al. (1985), Stockwell and Minkova (2001), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), and Fradin (2003). I also refer to generative-oriented studies, such as Aronoff (1976), Scalise (1984), Spencer (1991), and Haspelmath (2002), especially in relation to their tendency to marginalise or even neglect extra-grammatical phenomena on the grounds that they are unanalysable in terms of rules. By contrast, studies which offer a natural approach to word-formation, for example those of Dressler et al. (1987), Dressler (1999, 2005), Ronneberger-Sibold (2008), and the recent paper by Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.), provide an interesting framework for the accommodation of blends, acronyms and reduplicatives within Natural Morphology. Crucially, I disagree with Ingo Plag (2003), whose inclusion of extra-grammatical formations into regular wordformation I specifically criticise. In relation to the individual phenomena discussed in this book, a great deal of research has been carried out and many studies have been published, both to describe and classify each phenomenon and to identify specific characteristics: (ir-)regularities, predictable patterns, contexts of use, etc. Many papers on acronyms, blends, clippings, reduplicatives, and infixes have appeared in the journal American Speech since the second half of the last century, namely Howson (1945), Baum (1955, 1956, 1957, 1962), Heller and Macris (1968), Bryant (1974), Algeo (1977), McMillan (1980), Cannon (1989), and Dienhart (1999). These are primarily descriptive in character, and have provided me with a vast number of examples to consider. Booij, Lehmann, Mugdan, Kesselheim, and Skopeteas are the editors of a useful handbook which appeared in 2000 – Morphologie – which includes three interesting papers on, respectively, creative processes (Philip Baldi), blend-

Key references

11

ing (Garland Cannon), and clippings and acronyms (Charles W. Kreidler). The latter two are mainly re-workings and developments of previous studies on the same topics, namely Kreidler (1979), Cannon (1986), and the abovementioned Cannon (1989). The second edition of Keith Brown’s Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics also hosts intriguing papers on English blends (Bat-El), on reduplication (Inkelas), and on other shortening processes (López Rúa) which are critically discussed in the relevant chapters of the present work. With regard to abbreviations in particular, Paula López Rúa has published extensively on acronyms and neighbouring categories (2002, 2004, 2006), and recently, in 2007, on lexical creativity in electronic communication (cf. Fandrych 2007, 2008 for discussions on the same topics). In the same year, Merlini Barbaresi (2007) published an article on Italian acronyms and initialisms. The paper on English acronyms and initialisms which I have co-authored with Sara Conti (Conti and Mattiello 2008) focuses on the extra-grammaticality of these phenomena. In a recent paper, Jamet (2009) studies English clippings from a morphonological perspective. As for blends, the most extensive monographs are Pound (1914) and Grésillon (1984), as well as a forthcoming collection of papers by Renner et al. Gries (2004a, 2004b) and Hong (2004) are three basic papers for the analysis of blending structure in English (cf. Bertinetto 2001 for other languages). I have drawn on them both for bibliographical references (e.g. Soudek 1978; Kubozono 1990; Kelly 1998; Kemmer 2003) and for the study of blending patterns. Experimental approaches to English blends are to be found in Lehrer (1996, 2007), whereas Ronneberger-Sibold (2006) focuses on their classification in terms of transparency/opacity within the framework of Natural Morphology. Thornton (1993), although using Italian data, provides an interesting account of blends within the same framework. Lastly, the present author (Mattiello 2007, 2008b; cf. Warren 1990) has distinguished blends from combining forms in two articles, with the aim of illustrating the difference between the extra-grammatical and the marginal in morphology. With regard to reduplication, the literature offers both monographic works, the most extensive and complete for English being Thun (1963) – but see also cross-linguistic studies such as Raimy (2000) and Inkelas and Zoll (2005) – and research papers. A very recent paper on the extragrammaticality of English reduplicatives (Merlini Barbaresi 2008) offers a series of fascinating ideas on the analysis of these formations, as well as a wide-ranging examination of existing accounts.

12

Introduction

Reduplication has been studied in connection with infixation by Yu (2004) and Elfner and Kimper (2008). Other studies concerned with the various types of infixation include: McCarthy (1982), Zonneveld (1984), and, more recently, Viau (2002) and Yu (2007). Back-formation is the object of study of Marchand (1963), Shimamura (1984), and Becker (1993). Nagano (2007) is a revision of Marchand’s (1963, 1969) analysis of back-formation. For phonaesthemes, there are older studies, such as Householder (1946), together with more recent ones, such as Waugh (1994), McCrum (2002), Bergen (2004), Drellishak (2006), and Philps (forth.). Each of the studies mentioned above has dealt with extra-grammatical phenomena only partially and specifically. In the present work, by contrast, I bring the various phenomena together and develop criteria for identifying and describing them both in general and individually. 1.3.

Organisation of the work

The work is subdivided into six main chapters. Chapter 2 examines the theoretical framework of morphological research. It shows the marginal role played by extra-grammatical operations in Generative Grammar (Aronoff 1976; Scalise 1984; Spencer 1991; Haspelmath 2002), and illustrates how the theoretical model of Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987; Dressler 1999, 2005) can show the limits of morphology, in terms of the prototypical vs. marginal and the grammatical vs. extra-grammatical. In a similar way, the theoretical model of Natural Phonology (Stampe 1969, 1979; Donegan and Stampe 1979; Dressler 1984) helps explain some (phonotactic and prosodic) preferences in language change, for instance in abbreviatory techniques (cf. Ronneberger-Sibold 1996 for preferences in German and French shortenings). A distinction is made in this chapter between “extra-grammatical” and “expressive” morphology (Zwicky and Pullum 1987), two terms that are generally conflated in relevant studies (e.g. in Dressler 2000), and also between “extra-grammatical” and “marginal” morphology (Dressler 2000), respectively illustrated by blending and combining form combination (Warren 1990; Mattiello 2007). Extra-grammatical morphology is also considered in terms of regularity, creativity, and analogy. The relevance of extragrammatical formations to language change is also taken into account in this chapter, especially its role in the processes of lexicalisation (Brinton and Traugott 2005) and grammaticalisation (Hopper and Traugott 2003). Lastly, the chapter concentrates on the distinctive properties of extra-grammatical

Organisation of the work

13

morphology, and offers basic parameters to accommodate blends, abbreviatory phenomena, reduplicatives, etc. within this framework. In the following chapters, specific extra-grammatical phenomena are considered in more depth, with exclusive focus on the English language. In particular, chapter 3 investigates abbreviations, used here as a cover term to include both clippings and alphabetisms, with the latter being further subdivided into acronyms and initialisms (Conti and Mattiello 2008). Abbreviations are, in the first instance, differentiated in terms of their structure, clippings generally retaining more material from the source words than alphabetisms (with a few exceptions, e.g., slang H. ← heroin), and therefore expected to be more transparent. Within alphabetisms, acronyms are differentiated from initialisms on the basis of their pronunciation, and both are distinguished from a variety of adjacent categories which are commonly conflated with them due to their abbreviatory character and orthographic shape, e.g. graphic abbreviations which are expanded in pronunciation (e.g. Dr. ← Doctor) and alphanumeric combinations mostly used in text messaging (e.g. GR8 ← great). These latter categories are not included in my investigation, because they fall outside the morphological phenomena taken into consideration. Against Plag (2003: 116–117), I argue that what he calls “name truncations” are also extra-grammatical in nature, because 1) they are not formed by a rule in a totally predictable way, and 2) the same truncated name may come from different bases (Al ← Albert, Alfred or Alonzo), making the relationship between input and output obscure. A similar position is taken by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 40), who exclude hypocoristics such as Lisa, Liz and Bet (← Elisabeth) from grammar, but include Lizz-y and Bett-y, obtained by rule from clipped bases (cf. Mattiello’s 2008a: 70 borderline cases in slang). The prototypicality of alphabetisms is also taken into account, discriminating “elliptic” from “non-elliptic” acronyms, and “semantically-irrelevant” from “semantically-relevant acrostics” (i.e. acronyms whose reading coincides with an English homophone, see Conti and Mattiello 2008: 562–564). Within acronyms, the non-elliptic type can be considered more morphotactically transparent (i.e. its constituent parts are easier to identify) than the elliptic type, while semantically-relevant acrostics can guarantee a high degree of morphosemantic transparency (i.e. compositional meaning), in that the semantic relatedness between the acrostic and its homophone facilitates a partial recoverability of the lexical meaning conveyed by the acrostic itself. Nonetheless, I show that shortenings are only partially predictable (cf. Bauer 1983). Their shape cannot be envisaged from the input (compare ad

14

Introduction

with advert, both from advertisement), and at times they are ambiguous, in that the same output may come from two or more different source forms (e.g. B.A. ← Bachelor of Arts or British Airways). Moreover, unlike regular compounding and derivation, their basic components are blurred, and their head is unclear, difficult to assign, or even absent, as in initialisms originating from lists (BLT ← bacon, lettuce, and tomato referring to a type of sandwich; cf. exocentric compounds). Most importantly, shortenings do not produce new words, distinct from their bases, nor do they change the grammatical category of the source word or phrase (cf. Bat-El 2000). Lastly, the criteria generally used to separate acronyms from initialisms are criticised, in that some abbreviations which could be pronounced as words according to the rules of English phonetics (GOP, OD, WHO) are actually pronounced letter by letter, as initialisms, as a further confirmation of the irregularity of these formations. Chapter 4 is entirely devoted to the blending phenomenon. Blends are classified in the light of previous accounts (especially Cannon 1986, 1989, 2000; Kemmer 2003; Gries 2004a, 2004b; Hong 2004), and distinguished from related by-forms, namely “clipped forms” (Bauer 1983: 233), “syntagmatic shortenings” (Dressler 2000: 5), “shortened/abbreviated compounds” (Plag 2003: 122), “clipped compounds” (Bat-El 2006: 66), “contaminations” (Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 158), and “syntagmatic truncations” (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). These different terms show that there is still much confusion in the distinctions made between true blends and neighbouring categories. Blends are “deliberate extragrammatical compound[s]” (RonnebergerSibold 2006: 155), and at the same time a special abbreviatory mechanism. Thus, they differ both from regular compounds and from other extragrammatical mechanisms labelled as “abbreviations” in chapter 3. They do, however, share some of the features of both, namely the presence of more than one base (like compounds) and the abbreviation of the source forms (like other forms of abbreviation). Definitions and subcategorisations of blends, as in Fradin (2000), Bat-El (2006), Ronneberger-Sibold (2006), Lehrer (2007), and others, are critically discussed, my personal focus being on the detection of both prototypical and non-prototypical types. I also consider blends in relation to combining forms (Warren 1990). For reasons of productivity and regularity, the two constitute different phenomena, and at the same time the relationship between them cannot be viewed as one of hyponymy (Mattiello 2007). Chapter 5 is devoted to the analysis of reduplicatives (or echo-words). For their classification I adopt Merlini Barbaresi’s (2008) typology, distin-

Organisation of the work

15

guishing between ablaut/apophonic, rhyming, and copy reduplicatives. Echowords are also compared to regular compounds, in terms of their base(s) and meaningfulness. For instance, in the ablaut/apophonic type (e.g. tick-tock, zigzag), obtained from the morphological operation of total reduplication with vowel modification, one or both bases are neither lexical nor morphological items, and this differentiates them from grammatical compounds, whose bases are preferably words, stems, roots, or phrases. For the same reason, rhyming reduplicatives such as okey-dokey, in which only one base carries meaning, must be kept distinct from rhyming compounds (e.g. walkie-talkie), in which both bases are meaningful. Furthermore, reduplication does not involve a specific grammatical class of bases. Nor, in most cases, does meaning change involve the addition of meaningful elements, as happens in rule-governed morphology. Even the most regular and predictable type, schm-/shm- reduplicatives (e.g. variables shmariables), included within “sophisticated coinages” by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 39), exhibits some variability in terms of formation and meaning conveyed, and is indeed an illustrative example of what Zwicky and Pullum (1987) call “expressive morphology”. These are some of the reasons which motivate their inclusion within extra-grammatical morphology. Echo-words are preferred formations in baby talk as well as in adult language (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). As I claim in chapter 5, according to naturalness parameters they are highly iconic: for instance, in the apophonic type (zigzag), the repetition of the same consonantal frame mirrors the repetition of movements in the word’s meaning, while the change of the vowel metaphorically symbolises change of direction. Iconicity is even greater in onomatopoeic ideophones (dingdong), in which the reduplicative shows a phonetic resemblance with the sound it describes. Another iconic/diagrammatic process is back-formation (or backderivation), in that it is equally subtractive in form and meaning (cf. Nagano 2007). In chapter 6, I distinguish back-formation both from grammatical morphological operations, such as derivation, and from other extragrammatical operations, such as clipping. Unlike regular derivation, backderivation deletes a real or supposed affix from a base to change its meaning, as in the verb edit (← editor), by analogy with, for example, act/actor. On the other hand, unlike subtractive techniques such as clipping, backformation generally changes the part of speech or the word meaning, whereas clipping only creates shortened words from longer bases, without changing their denotative meaning. In the same chapter another distinction made is between back-derivation and zero-derivation (or conversion) (cf. Marchand 1963, 1969; Nagano

16

Introduction

2007). I claim that back-derivation is extra-grammatical because it is the result of analogical patterns, whereas zero-derivation is grammatical because it is the result of word-formation rules. The fact that conversion does not exhibit any overt marker when passing from the input to the output and that its directionality is problematic is predicted by the model. By contrast, the behaviour of back-formation is not entirely predictable, in that it applies a rule in the opposite (right-to-left) direction, although “in English there is no productive process of suffix deletion attested” (Plag 2003: 187). The latter claim goes against Marchand’s (1969: 2) inclusion of back-derivation (along with zero-derivation, regular derivation and compounding) within the category of “words formed as grammatical syntagmas, i.e. combinations of full linguistic signs”. Chapter 6 also deals with the phenomenon of “expletive infixation” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 330–332). In particular, it is claimed that infixes used to form deprecative constructions (e.g. abso-blooming-lutely, fanfucking-tastic)6 belong to extra-grammatical morphology, in that they obtain neither new words nor inflectional word forms. Furthermore, expletive infixation is more marked than pre-/suf-fixation, in that it operates on discontinuous bases. My analysis of the phenomenon of infixed expletives shows the correlation between expressive and extra-grammatical morphology, thus extending the study of the latter to an affixational process (cf. Plag 2003). In this same chapter I also consider the types of infixation occurring in h-izouse, tele-ma-phone, and wel-diddly-elcome, which have recently been investigated by Viau (2002), Yu (2004, 2007), and Elfner and Kimper (2008), following their use in songs and television series. Lastly, the final part of the chapter is devoted to phonaesthemes, an example of which is the sl- cluster (as in slug, slurp, slut) associated with a pejorative connotative value (Firth 1930). This category of words must be kept distinct from those which involve derivation-based mechanisms. At the same time, however, their capacity to contribute connotative meaning independent of denotative meaning, and the resulting communicative potential, widely exploited in language use (especially in word-play), testify to their expressivity. In chapter 7 I classify the typical lexical domains and the major communicative contexts in which extra-grammatical morphological phenomena occur. For instance, many blends are product and trade names (frappuccino ← frappé and cappuccino, Kodacolor ← Kodak and color), or are used by the media or in advertising and show business (Californication ← California and fornication, ‘a television series’). Abbreviations are generally used in specialised domains, such as politics, law, economy, medicine, and tech-

Organisation of the work

17

nology (e.g. MP ← Member of Parliament, dem ← democrat, DNA, PC), or they are typical of youth slang, as in bib (← Fr. bibliothèque), celly (← cellular phone), cruits (← recruits), LOL (← Laughing Out Loud), etc. I try to identify criteria of contextual suitability for these phenomena. Yet such a classification is only tentative, in that the same phenomenon can conform to different criteria and belong to different registers: alphabetisms, for instance, obey both the Principle of Linguistic Economy (i.e. short and simple communication) and that of Naming (i.e. denomination of new inventions, discoveries, processes, associations, etc.), and can be either formal (MP) or informal (LOL). In this final chapter I also draw attention to the reasons motivating the coinage of extra-grammatical formations. In spite of their obscurity and difficult accessibility, new creative words are constantly formed and reused as part of the English lexicon, and they are often preferred over grammatical (more transparent) formations. I show that the motives behind their formation are various, and depend on the context, the user, and the receiver. Shortenings, for instance, may represent a conscious act of economising, especially in technical and in-group language, where the user and receiver share a common jargon, or in newspaper headlines, where the abbreviation cataphorically anticipates a more explicit form to be expanded later in the article (Mattiello forth.). Reduplicatives may provide a connoted (more informal, familiar or jocular) alternative to neutral language, and be indexical of the user’s emotional states. Moreover, they may suit child-directed speech as well as artistic (poetic) contexts, because of the musicality they entail. Blends may similarly suit poetry, music, and art in general, since they express the user’s originality and desire to impress. Overall, speakers and writers in many different fields show a preference for creative formations because of their power both to attract the receiver’s attention and to provoke laughter, that is, for their humorous effects. Extra-grammatical formations, therefore, are relevant not only to morphological research, but also to sociology, pragmatics, and morphopragmatics (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994). And even though these areas of investigation will only be briefly touched upon in the present work, they appear to offer significant potential for future research into extragrammatical morphological phenomena. Let me conclude this introduction with a quote from Zwicky and Pullum (1987):

18

Introduction We must stress that we are not claiming that such formations lack regularity or that they are not a proper object of study for linguists. (p. 338 [emphasis in the original])

The question as to whether this statement applies only to phenomena of expressive morphology or whether it also applies to so-called “extragrammatical” phenomena remains an open one. In this book I hope to demonstrate that: 1) extra-grammatical formations exhibit some regularity, though in terms of analogical patterns rather than in the traditional sense of morphological rules, 2) they can be studied systematically, and 3) their study can make a contribution to linguistic theory more generally.

Chapter 2 The theoretical framework

A treatment of extra-grammatical morphology requires consideration of the main word-formation studies published to date, and of the relevant theoretical frameworks. Among the various approaches to morphology, the bestfitting theoretical model for my study is Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987; Dressler 1999, 2005). In principle, this deals with all aspects of the morphological module, although rule-bound grammatical processes remain its main object of investigation. A clear definition of what is grammatical in morphology presupposes a series of defining criteria that apply either prototypically or only marginally, thus negatively identifying the extragrammatical phenomena dealt with in this book. In this chapter, I first of all show the status of extra-grammatical morphological phenomena within the theories of Generative Morphology and Natural Morphology, and then concentrate on the distinction between extragrammatical morphology and the grammatical module of morphology, as identified by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 36–41; see also Dressler 2000; Mattiello 2008a; cf. Bat-El 2000; Plag 2003; Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009). Reference will also be made to the theory of Natural Phonology (Stampe 1969, 1979; Dressler 1984), which is able to explain some preferences and choices, especially in the blending and clipping processes. Finally, reference will be made to “expressive morphology” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987), which overlaps, but only partially, with the notion of extragrammaticality I adopt in this book. In this chapter I also discuss the role of extra-grammatical phenomena in language change (cf. Fischer 2007 for morphosyntactic change), and its relevance to such processes as lexicalisation (Brinton and Traugott 2005) and grammaticalisation (Traugott and Heine 1991; Hopper and Traugott 2003). Lastly, I discuss the properties exhibited by extra-grammatical phenomena, and conclude with a distinction between productive rules (Plag 1999; Bauer 2001), and analogical processes (Kiparsky 1992) – the latter thought to be of central importance in the analysis of creative formations such as abbreviations, blends, and reduplicatives. The aim of this chapter is to identify criteria that characterise extragrammatical morphological phenomena, and at the same time distinguish

20

The theoretical framework

them from rule-governed word-formation processes. Although there are some principles and regularities in the production of blends, acronyms, and related word creation techniques, these regularities are not productive rules, in the sense that, unlike derivational or compounding rules, they do not allow full prediction of a regular output. The analogical principle governing their formation is indeed more permissive than rules, admitting a variety of patterns which would be excluded from ordinary morphology. Hence, the separation of blending, abbreviations, and reduplications from the module of morphological grammar. This does not mean, however, that such phenomena cannot be systematically analysed, or that they do not deserve the attention of linguists, as often claimed, especially within the generative approach to morphology. 2.1.

Extra-grammatical formations in Generative Morphology

Within Generative Grammar, blends, acronyms, and similar abbreviations are not assigned the status of word-formation rules (WFRs), i.e. rules which specify sets of words on which they can operate (Aronoff 1976: 20–22). In Aronoff (1976: 20), they are labelled “oddities” and viewed as “rather unusual coinages” escaping word-formation processes. Although some examples may appear more transparent (e.g. smog, NATO), on the whole they are considered to be opaque, in that they exhibit no recognisable internal structure or constituents. Aronoff (1976) adopts a theory of “word-based morphology”, that is, he starts from the assumption that word-formation rules operate on “words” (cf. Bauer 1979). This automatically excludes processes of extragrammatical nature, which are neither word- nor morpheme-based, from his theory of word-formation. Fandrych (2004: 18) observes that these processes belong to “non-morphematic word-formation”, that is, they use elements which are not morphemes, but “splinters” (sm/oke + f/og),7 initial letters (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), phonaesthemes (cr- as in crisscross),8 or even supposed morphemes, as in the back-formed verb televise (← television), in which -ion is analysed as a deleted suffix, but is in fact only analogical with the suffix used in, for example, revision (← revise, Marchand 1969: 393). In this latter aspect, I do not agree with Fandrych (2004: 18), who considers back-formation as morphematic. Indeed, as we will see in 6.1.1, some word parts that are removed in back-formation do not correspond to any existing affix, hence, they cannot be classified as proper morphemes.

Extra-grammatical formations in Generative Morphology

21

Furthermore, extra-grammatical processes do not comply with Aronoff’s (1976: 47) “Unitary Base Hypothesis”, according to which word-formation rules operate on syntactically distinct classes of bases. Although this hypothesis is thought to be untenable in word-formation by many linguists (e.g. Plank 1981; Plag 1999, 2004; Ryder 1999), and although Aronoff (1976: 48) himself admits that it is “a strong assumption and easily refuted”,9 the fact that information about the syntactic category of the input is totally irrelevant in predicting the output of extra-grammatical operations is symptomatic of their irregularity. It is indeed puzzling why Aronoff (1976: 69–70) describes the process of expletive infixation as “a very productive English infixing rule”. Although expletive infixation operates on words, which are however interrupted by an infix, it applies to various base categories, including adjectives (fan-fuckin-tastic), verbs (in-fuckin-stantiate), proper names (Kalama-fuckin-zoo), and potentially all syntactic classes, thus exhibiting what Zwicky and Pullum (1987: 336) call “promiscuity with regard to input category”. Likewise, Scalise’s (1988) “Unitary Output Hypothesis” is disconfirmed by extra-grammatical processes, resulting in words which exhibit alternative outputs. Variability in input, input category, and output will be considered three defining properties of extra-grammatical phenomena (2.3.7.2–2.3.7.4). In the generative approach, Aronoff (1976) in principle considers only those morphological processes which can be properly called “productive”, especially in terms of semantic coherence (i.e. predictability of meaning).10 Thus, extra-grammatical formations, which are mainly based on analogical patterns, and which do not generally change the denotative meaning of the input, but only express a certain attitude on the part of the speaker, are again irrelevant within the generative approach to word-formation. In Aronoff’s (1976, 1983) terms, they cannot be defined as “potential words”. Within the same approach, Scalise (1984: 98, footnote 1) calls blends, acronyms and clippings “minor word formation processes” and Spencer (1991: 461, footnote 16) dismisses them as not “of any importance to morphological theory”. In both cases, extra-grammatical phenomena are deliberately excluded from any morphological discussion and only relegated to footnotes. In a similar vein, Haspelmath (2002: 25) states that “not all processes of word-creation fall under word-formation”; hence, abbreviations such as acronyms, clippings and blends “will play no role in [his] book”. The fact that these phenomena cannot be predicted by the WFRs of Generative Grammar is stressed also by Bauer (1983: 232), who groups them under the label “unpredictable formations”. Yet Bauer (1983, 1988) devotes an extensive discussion to these types of morphological formation, because,

22

The theoretical framework

as far as English is concerned, they are so common that it is misleading to consider them unusual. The number of attested blends, acronyms and clippings has certainly increased since the second half of the last century, and many studies have since been devoted to their classification, description, and analysis.11 Frequency, however, is only one of the criteria determining morphological productivity (Bauer 2001; Mattiello 2007; cf. “profitability” in Plag 1999 and Bauer 2001). As I will show, in spite of their frequency, these formations are based on creativity and analogy rather than on productivity and rules. Within Natural Morphology these formations are still considered out of the ordinary, as they do not comply with morphological rules, though they do exhibit various internal regularities. Some of these formations, as we will see, fall into more natural/less marked patterns than others, thus distinguishing what is prototypical and more predictable from what is marginal and dispreferred. 2.2.

Extra-grammatical formations in Naturalness Theory

2.2.1. Natural Morphology Within the theory of Natural Morphology (NM), the subtheory of universal morphological naturalness/markedness focuses on universal preferences, which, according to Dressler (2005: 268) hold both for “grammatical” and for “extragrammatical morphology”, where preferences are not curbed by grammatical system adequacy. Universal preferences are based on the semiotically-derived parameters of iconicity, indexicality, (morphosemantic/morphotactic) transparency, biuniqueness, and figure/ground. With regard to the first of these parameters, iconicity, there are three aspects relevant to the present work. Two involve the comparison between input and output, specifically, the separate relationships which hold between the respective signantia (forms) and between the respective signata (meanings). For instance, in the case of lab, reduced from laboratory, we can observe a reduced signans in the output, but not a reduced signatum. It is clear that the signantia are dissimilar, but not the signata, which are denotationally and referentially (although not contextually) identical. In this case, then, as we go from input to output there is a reduction in the degree of iconicity. The third aspect concerns the mechanism of reduction which produces the output. This mechanism is non-iconic, because the reduction operated on the signans is not counterbalanced by a reduction in the signatum. To the con-

Extra-grammatical formations in Naturalness Theory

23

trary, the signatum may acquire extra meanings (mostly pragmatic in nature) by different users and different contexts. In blending, the subtractive technique is, by contrast, more iconic, in that fusion in the form of the blend reflects fusion in meaning, as in smoke and fog resulting in smog. In clippings, the subtracted form (e.g. bro, prof) is iconic of a reduced distance between the user and his addressee. In name truncations (e.g. Musso ← Mussolini) and hypocoristics (e.g. Patty ← Patricia), subtraction in the signans may have the iconic function of reflecting semantic privation, devaluation, or smallness in the signatum. A higher amount of iconicity is shown by echo-words, such as ping pong and zigzag, in which repetition in form is diagrammatic of repetition in meaning, the change of the vowel symbolising change of direction. The principle of iconicity can also explain why many languages of the world use reduplication for grammatical purposes. For instance, in Malay full reduplication is used for inflectional purposes (e.g. buku ‘book’ → buku-buku ‘books’) (Nadarajan 2006: 40), in that addition in the signans is diagrammatic with addition in the signatum. In Samoan, reduplication is iconically used to obtain the superlative form of adjectives, as in tele (‘big’) → tele-tele (‘very big’) (Cuzzolin and Lehmann 2004: 1217).12 In English it is mainly used to coin new words, such as hocus-pocus (‘jugglery’) and tussie-mussie (‘a small bouquet of flowers’). However, there are some cases of English reduplicated words with an elative function: for example, in pretty-pretty (‘excessively pretty’) or super-duper (‘extremely good, excellent’), reduplication has a slightly more grammaticalised meaning comparable to superlative formation (see 2.3.5.2). Furthermore, in English, as well as in other languages, reduplication is one of the most frequent processes of first language acquisition (Jakobson 1944). It abounds in “premorphology”, that is, in small children’s speech before the development of the submodule of morphological grammar (Dressler and Karpf 1995), especially to compensate for children’s inability to pronounce the second part of polysyllabic words (Ingram 1974), as in  for water,  for candy, and  for bacon (Ingram 1979). Turning now to the parameter of indexicality (direct reference of signans to signatum), expletive infixation is more marked than prefixation or suffixation because it adds something in between an affix and its base (in-bloodycredible), or may even interrupt a base, as in im-fuckin-portant. With regard to the same parameter, ablaut reduplicatives are more marked than endocentric compounds. In the former, the head is rarely assignable (tip-top) and the bases are hardly recognisable as pre-existent meaningful morphemes (riff-

24

The theoretical framework

raff) (Merlini Barbaresi 2008), while the latter have their head within the compound, as in black-bird, a type of bird. As to the parameter of morphotactic transparency, blends and other abbreviatory operations are both marked and marginal.13 As a result of the universal preference for binary relations, blends usually consist of combinations of two lexemes. Yet high morphotactic opacity (i.e. difficulty in identifying the constituent parts) occurs in those blends which are formed from two shortened lexemes, or so-called “splinters” (Lehrer 1996, 2007), as in beaulicious (← beautiful + delicious). Higher opacity is illustrated by “intercalative blends” (Kemmer 2003: 72), in which a word (or a splinter) is embedded in (part of) another source word (e.g. enshocklopedia ← encyclopedia + shock, entreporneur ← entrepreneur + porn or pornography), creating discontinuity of bases. On the other hand, wintertainment (← winter + entertainment) and Amerindian (← American + Indian) are more transparent, because they combine a splinter with a full base. Lastly, higher transparency is illustrated by overlapping blends with a homophonous string (e.g. sexpert ← sex + expert), which do not have proper truncated source words (see Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth. for comparable French data). With reference to the same parameter, especially to the universal preference for word-based morphology, clippings are opaque, and all the more so when they retain less salient parts of words, such as the end of a word (loid ← celluloid), or the middle of a word (flu ← influenza), which illustrate progressive degrees of opacity. Alphabetisms are even more opaque, in that they retain only initial letters from the source words (e.g. BBC ← British Broadcasting Corporation). With reference to the principle of perceptual salience (Dressler et al. 1987: 116–117), according to which, within a word, word-initial consonants are most salient, acronyms are preferred over “telonyms” (cf. BBC vs. *H.G.N.).14 Furthermore, since the beginning and the end of a word are more salient than what comes in between, prototypical blends take the head of the first component and the tail of the last component, as in motel (← motor + hotel; cf. *torhot). The principle of perceptual salience also explains why, according to Lehrer (2007: 117–120), blends can also be formed from the beginning of two words (e.g. Mexicali ← Mexico + California), but “the beginning of a blend cannot be the end of a word” (e.g. *glyson ← ugly + person, also in Lehrer 1996: 364), an exception being the word blog (← web + log). With regard to the parameter of biuniqueness (one-to-one relations), marked (unique) formations are those in which one and the same signans corresponds to two or more signata: the initialism AC, for instance, stands

Extra-grammatical formations in Naturalness Theory

25

for different full forms (Aero Club, Air Corps, Alpine Club, alternating current, Appeal Court, and others). The most marked ones are, however, ambiguous formations, in which one form corresponds to many source forms and vice versa: for example, the back-clipping adv is obtained from various bases (advanced, adverb, advertisement, advocate), but when it refers in particular to advertisement, it is in competition with other shortenings, namely ad, advert, advt. With regard to the final parameter, figure/ground, Dressler (2005) claims that in word-formation the figure is represented by the head and the ground by the non-head. Thus, morphotactic and “morphosemantic transparency of the head is more important than that of the non-head” (Dressler 2005: 274). Accordingly, subordinate blends such as portalight (← portable + light) (4.1.3.5), in which the head light is clearly identifiable in that it occupies a prototypical position on the right (the other member being the modifier), are less marked than what I call coordinate blends (4.1.3.6). Examples of the latter are alphameric (← alphabetic + numeric) and zebrule (← zebra + mule), in which both members belong to the same syntactic category, have the same semantic status, and serve as heads. Indeed, I consider coordinate blends like brunch (← breakfast + lunch) or smog (← smoke + fog) to be close to coordinate compounds of the type speaker-hearer and bitter-sweet. Like coordinate compounds (Dressler 2005), coordinate blends have two morphosemantic heads and therefore exhibit no clear figure/ground distinction. Therefore, unlike Bat-El (2006: 67), I do not believe that the semantic relationship between the members of the blend is exocentric, or that it depends on the meaning we assign to the blend (e.g. smog ‘a mixture of fog and smoke’ vs. ‘an airborne pollution’). A higher degree of markedness is shown by reduplicatives, which exhibit no clear-cut figure/ground distinction between head and non-head. In the rhyming and ablaut types, headedness is difficult to assign, since they may be formed either from a left-hand or a right-hand base (cf. easy-peasy and chit-chat), or have no existing base at all, as in the onomatopoeic type (booboo). The theory of Natural Morphology seems to offer an interesting framework for a discussion not only of grammatical formations, but also of extragrammatical ones. In particular, the subtheory of universal morphological naturalness allows some predictions on the distribution and frequency of such formations. We can, for instance, predict that extra-grammatical morphology will often be more natural than grammatical morphology, in the sense that universal preferences for iconicity and other parameters can operate in an unrestricted way in extra-grammatical processes: for example, total

26

The theoretical framework

reduplication is common in extra-grammatical morphology, but rarely used in English morphological grammar (Dressler 2000, 2005). We can also predict that more natural options on one parameter will occur more frequently than less natural ones on the same parameter. Thus, we can identify the most prototypical pattern of each morphological process, and distinguish it from less or non-prototypical ones. However, contrary to expectations, more marked formations may be produced in the place of less marked ones, and less prototypical patterns may occur more frequently than prototypical ones. For instance, in terms of morphotactic transparency, elliptic acronyms such as FOB (← Fresh Off the Boat) and NASA (← National Aeronautics and Space Administration), in which the initial letters of the article the and of the conjunction and are omitted, are more marked/less prototypical than non-elliptic ones (e.g. NIMBY ← Not In My BackYard). Yet their frequency is generally higher, because they are efficient, economical and consistent with the phonology of English. In my analysis, I will show that iconicity is often a characteristic of extra-grammatical formations, whereas other preferences in Natural Morphology, such as morphosemantic and morphotactic transparency, do not play the same role as they have in canonical formations. Reduced transparency will indeed be classified among the defining properties of extra-grammatical morphology (2.3.7.10). 2.2.2. Natural Phonology Tendencies and prototypical patterns in extra-grammatical formations can also be discussed in terms of universal phonological preferences, as elaborated and developed within the theory of Natural Phonology (NP) (Stampe 1969, 1979; Donegan and Stampe 1979; Dressler 1984). This theory, not to be confused with Natural Generative Phonology (Hooper 1976), operates with phonological processes (cf. phonological rules), which constitute natural responses of the human vocal and perceptual systems to the difficulties encountered in the production and perception of speech. Thus, classical Natural Phonology refers to the tension between two conflicting criteria: ease of production (pronounceability) vs. clarity of perception (perceptibility) (Dressler 1984: 32; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2007: 71). According to this theory, processes perform changes or substitutions in order to adapt the speaker’s phonological intentions to his phonatory capacities, as well as to enable the listener to decode the intentions from the flow of speech. In particular, two types of processes seem to play a role in easing the

Extra-grammatical formations in Naturalness Theory

27

speaker’s pronounceability as well as increasing intelligibility for the hearer: dissimilatory processes (fortitions) and assimilatory processes (lenitions).15 The latter processes are more likely to operate in faster, more colloquial styles, and are germane, for instance, to such extra-grammatical operations as blends, whose formation is governed by the well-formedness criteria of pronounceability and euphony (4.2.4).16 Within the functional-explanatory model of Natural Linguistics, there are higher (non-linguistic) principles (e.g. least effort, cognitive economy)17 which motivate linguistic preferences (e.g. the preference for simple phonotactics, for a CV structure), and which have consequences such as the reduction of consonant clusters to single segments (Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2007: 71). Thus, in English, the formation of a blend like bisalo (← bison + buffalo) would sound more natural (easily pronounceable and accessible) than non-existing *bisfalo, which exhibits a dispreferred cluster . Similarly, the intercalation of the word lingual into delinquency has produced a blend (delinguancy) which is in accordance with Shariatmadari’s (2006) “Ease of Articulation Hypothesis”.18 First, the cluster  is easier to articulate than  because, among velars, the voiced stop  is closer to the nasal  than the corresponding voiceless . Second, the final lateral alveolar sound  of lingual drops to facilitate articulation of a series of adjacent consonant sounds. Third, there is a plausible “assibilation process” at the end (Stampe 1979: ix), changing  to  before , i.e. , whence . Another preference established by Natural Phonology (again in Stampe 1979: ix) concerns deletion of unstressed syllables. Thus, the formation of agitprop, from the unstressed parts of agitation and propaganda, is prosodically marked, but motivated by the principles of 1) salience (i.e. the word beginning is more salient than the word end), and 2) morphotactic transparency/recoverability (i.e. recognisability of the bases) (4.2.4). By contrast, the deletions operated on some clippings (e.g. pram ← perambulator) conform to naturalness preferences, in that unstressed vowels are deleted, including the schwa. An application of the model of Natural Phonology to German and French shortenings (Ronneberger-Sibold 1996) has given interesting findings which could be compared to my English data. Ronneberger-Sibold (1996) investigates whether language users are constrained by preferences for certain phonological properties when they form a new root through abbreviatory techniques (e.g. acronyms and clippings, including suffixed ones). From her study, three main results deserve attention: 1) in both languages, there exist some phonotactic and prosodic properties that define the ideal new root; 2) some of these properties (e.g. the preference for a closed syllable in mono-

28

The theoretical framework

syllabic words, but for open syllables in polysyllabic ones, and an overall preference for disyllables) are shared by both languages, whereas others are not; and 3) system-independent characteristics tend to prevail over systemdependent ones in newly created roots. These results show that choices in new roots may be curbed by “universal needs for shortness, phonotactic and rhythmical optimization and distinctiveness” (Ronneberger-Sibold 1996: 287). As we will see in chapter 3, English abbreviations exhibit their own regularities and preferences. For instance, unlike French and German clippings, English ones (including clipped names) are preferentially monosyllabic (e.g. fem, Pat). Yet English disyllabic clippings often display an -ie/-y or -o suffix (e.g. Comm-ie/Comm-o ← Communist), comparable to German -i, as in Fundi (← Fundamentalist ‘radical Green’), or French -o, as in prolo (← prolétaire ‘proletarian’). English also exhibits a preferential template C(onsonant)V(owel)C(onsonant), as in the above-mentioned fem and Pat. Other phonotactic and prosodic tendencies in the formation of English abbreviations will be explained in 3.2.2, and analogous phonotactic and prosodic regularities for blending will be described in 4.2.2. 2.3.

Extra-grammatical morphology

As mentioned in the Introduction, extra-grammatical morphology includes morphological phenomena which Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 36– 41) have clearly distinguished from morphological grammar. Specifically, the authors identify some well-defined criteria which allow a distinction to be made between morphological rules and extra-grammatical morphological operations, such as blends, hypocoristics, echo-words, and others, which are said to violate various universal principles of grammatical morphology (see also Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009). For this reason, they consider extra-grammatical phenomena secondary for the subdiscipline of Morphopragmatics, which integrates morphology and pragmatics, and whose core “must be the pragmatics of morphological grammar” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 38). Since the publication of this work, extra-grammatical morphology has attracted the attention of many linguists. It has been seen: 1) as relevant for language acquisition, especially for premorphology (Dressler and Karpf 1995; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.); 2) as a synonym of Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) “expressive morphology”; 3) as a component of morphology to be kept distinct from “marginal morphology” (see Doleschal and

Extra-grammatical morphology

29

Thornton 2000, especially Dressler’s contribution therein); 4) as a superordinate of “word creation” (Ronneberger-Sibold 2008);19 5) as governed by universal preferences, especially for iconicity in echo-words and blends, in spite of their lack of transparency (Dressler 2005; Ronneberger-Sibold 2006); 6) as presenting some regular patterns (e.g. from the phonological or semantic viewpoints) in spite of their irregularity (Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). For the majority of scholars, blends, clippings, acronyms, reduplicatives, and similar formations seem to be excluded from grammatical status (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Dressler 2000; Ronneberger-Sibold 2006; Conti and Mattiello 2008; Merlini Barbaresi 2008; Mattiello 2008a; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). The main reason for excluding them from regular formations is the impossibility of predicting a regular and consistent output given an input. Contrary to this, some scholars recognise that such formations do not occur randomly, but follow some general principles. Here, I am referring especially to Outi Bat-El (2000) and Ingo Plag (2003), who explicitly claim that the formations which I consider extra-grammatical do not actually lie outside morphological grammar. More precisely, they claim that the fact that blends and other abbreviatory mechanisms exhibit more irregularities than derivation or compounding is not a sufficient reason to dismiss them from grammatical morphology. Both Bat-El (2000) and Plag (2003) admit a certain variability in the formation of blends, name truncations, acronyms, and clippings. Nevertheless, they add, such formations are predictable and highly systematic, and their regularities can be treated as proper “rules” (Plag 2003: 117). Against these claims, in section 2.3.6.2 a distinction will be made between proper rules, allowing total predictability and systematicity, and analogies, which are less constrained than rules and allow only partial predictability on the basis of a resemblance to pre-existing patterns. In the sections which follow, I will attempt to identify the boundaries between extra-grammatical morphology and the core of morphological grammar. Later (2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10), I posit a number of criteria by which we might categorise extra-grammatical phenomena and distinguish them from what is “marginal” – but still grammatical – in morphology (Dressler 2000), as well as from processes that are qualified as being “expressive” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987), which is not the same thing as being extra-grammatical.

30

The theoretical framework

2.3.1. Extra-grammatical vs. expressive morphology In the relevant literature, extra-grammatical morphology is generally associated with Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) “expressive morphology”, including processes belonging to the artistic or playful use of language, such as expletive infixation (abso-blooming-lutely), shm-reduplication (transformations shmansformations), and word-formation with -(e)teria (basketeria). Actually, the two terms do not entirely overlap, although they share most properties. Both extra-grammatical and expressive morphology must be kept distinct from the module of morphological grammar. Zwicky and Pullum (1987: 332–335) use the contrasting terms “expressive morphology” vs. “plain morphology” to draw a distinction between the above-mentioned morphological processes and “the ordinary productive (and nonproductive) word formation and word structure rules of a language”. I will draw a similar distinction between “extra-grammatical” and “grammatical morphology” (2.3.3), that is, between phenomena which are not rule-governed (but constructed or based on analogy) and those which are governed by recognised morphological rules. Among the criteria which, according to Zwicky and Pullum (1987), characterise expressive morphology is its “pragmatic effect” (pp. 335–336 criterion 4.1). Expressive morphology is said to be associated with “an expressive, playful, poetic, or simply ostentatious effect of some kind” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 335). This is often also the case with extra-grammatical formations, whose musicality and jocularity are generally connected with the user’s intention to produce a humorous or poetic effect of some type. Yet some such formations may be used merely for reasons of efficiency. For instance, acronyms (AIDS, DOS, NASA) and initialisms (HIV, MP, UN) are privileged choices in specialised sectors and among experts, since they are more succinct and efficient than the corresponding full forms (see the Principle of Economy in 7.1). In such cases there is no intention of producing an artistic, playful or pretentious pragmatic effect. Another characterising criterion of expressive morphology which is also of relevance to extra-grammatical morphology is Zwicky and Pullum’s criterion 4.2 “promiscuity with regard to input category” (1987: 336). According to Zwicky and Pullum (1987), expressive morphological processes “have variable and peculiar effects on syntactic categories and … apply promiscuously to a variety of categories” (p. 336). This applies to a number of phenomena, including the already mentioned (2.1) expletive infixation. Reduplicatives are likewise variable as regards the syntactic category of their input,

Extra-grammatical morphology

31

as shown by argle-bargle, silly-billy, and tip-top, respectively from a verb (to argue), an adjective (silly), and a noun (top). Similarly, in the case of abbreviations a large variety of grammatical structures are allowed as input. Moreover, clippings such as caff (← café) and glam (← glamorous) do not even change the base category, nor do acronyms and initialisms,20 which simply exhibit a shift from phrases, generally with a noun or adjective as their heads, to a corresponding noun, adjective, etc. The related criterion 4.3 “promiscuity with regard to input basehood” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 336) also appears pertinent to extra-grammatical morphology. Zwicky and Pullum (1987), quoting Zonneveld (1984: 55), explicitly admit that expletive infixation, applying quite readily to compounds and even to syntactic phrases (e.g. kick the frigging bucket, from the informal idiom meaning ‘to die’), “is not a grammatical rule at all, but rather an extragrammatical phenomenon” (p. 336). On the other hand, the case of inflected word forms used as bases (e.g. drygood-s-teria) does not seem pertinent to extra-grammatical phenomena, in which inflectional affixes apply regularly to abbreviated word forms, as in MP-s (← Member of Parliament + plural -s; cf. Member-s of Parliament). Furthermore, extra-grammatical phenomena, like expressive morphological ones, may form “alternative outputs” (Zwicky and Pullum’s 1987: 337 criterion 4.5), that is, alternative forms obtained from the same input by the same process. For example, the back-clippings ad and advert are both obtained from advertisement, by curtailing different segments from the base, and the rhyming reduplicatives itty-bitty and bitsy-witsy are both from the base bit, as further confirmation of variability of head position.21 A different case is perhaps that of the initialisms USA and US, both coming from the source phrase United States of America, but with a further clipping in US, curtailing the final A from USA.22 Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987: 337) criterion 4.4 of “imperfect control”, which refers to a speaker’s lack of “productive” control of expressive phenomena, is also important in my investigation on extra-grammatical phenomena, but with particular reference to reduplicatives and similar inventive processes, and not to abbreviations used in specialised sectors. I would of course exclude any idea of productive rule from my study, but do claim that the regularities under some acronyms and initialisms (AIDS, NFT ‘NeuroFibrillary Tangle’) are not the product of language games, punning, or jokes, and, therefore, they are controllable, especially by experts in the sector. Similarly, criterion 4.6 related to “interspeaker variation” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 337) may be relevant to expletive infixing, but not to the formations used in scientific and technical vocabulary, since the latter are

32

The theoretical framework

highly specific labels which cannot allow variation in form. Furthermore, even though experimental data may provide evidence for variation from speaker to speaker in the production of infixed expletives, McCarthy (1982) observes that certain phonological constraints do exist, admitting, for instance, fan-fuckin-tastic, but excluding *fant-fuckin-astic and *fa-fuckinntastic. Even less relevant to my account is Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987: 337–338) criterion 4.7 of “special syntax”, which is completely extraneous to my focus on word-formation. To sum up, I do not believe that expressive and extra-grammatical morphology are assimilable under the same heading. Expressive morphology applies only to those phenomena that have a humorous or artistic effect, whereas extra-grammatical morphology extends also to phenomena that show the users’ intention to condense linguistic information into shorter forms or to find more specific denominations (see the Principles of Economy and of Naming in 7.1). On the other hand, what unites them is the fact that they cannot be treated within a theory of grammar as ordinarily conceived, since both exhibit various violations of the rules established within plain or grammatical morphology. 2.3.2. Extra-grammatical vs. marginal morphology The distinction between extra-grammatical and marginal morphology is clarified in a collection of papers edited by Doleschal and Thornton (2000), which deals with “non-fully-regular morphological phenomena” “variously labeled as ‘extragrammatical’, ‘marginal’, ‘minor’ or ‘expressive’ morphology” (p. iii). In their foreword, Doleschal and Thornton (2000: iii–vii) admit that the referential domain addressed is “rather fuzzy”, and they therefore recognise the need for theoretical definitions and delimitations, especially for extra-grammatical and marginal morphology, claiming that the two concepts should not be conflated. In particular, Dressler (2000) argues that the two do not overlap and that neither is a subpart of the other; rather, extragrammatical morphology is opposed to grammatical morphology, while marginal morphology in his approach is opposed to prototypical morphology. Thus, the former “lies outside morphological grammar”, whereas the latter “lies at its boundaries” (Dressler 2000: 1). Dressler’s (2000) paper appears the most pertinent to my investigation, in that it clearly discriminates between the two types of morphological operations, therefore defining the area of my analysis. The term “extragrammatical morphology” refers to phenomena that “exhibit varying combi-

Extra-grammatical morphology

33

nations of violations of basic properties of morphological grammar” (Dressler 2000: 3), such as abbreviations, blends, sophisticated terminological coinages, and children’s attempts at morphology. “Marginal morphology”, on the other hand, is defined with respect to the “external boundaries … between morphology and other modules or components” (Dressler 2000: 6), i.e., syntax, phonology, etc., and with respect to “internal boundaries within morphology” (Dressler 2000: 6), i.e., inflection, derivation, and compounding. From these assumptions, we can deduce that extra-grammatical and marginal morphology are not on the same level. Thus, both extra-grammatical and marginal morphology should be compared with morphological grammar rather than with one another: i.e., marginal morphology is grammatical, but simply non-prototypical, whereas extra-grammatical morphology is not grammatical, which does not mean it is ungrammatical (i.e. incorrect).23 Since a general distinction between extra-grammatical and grammatical morphology will be the topic of the next section, here I would like to deal with two specific phenomena, namely blending and combining form combination, as a way of explaining why the former is extra-grammatical and therefore excluded from morphological rules, while the latter is not excluded but marginalised, because considered borderline between derivation and compounding. Consider first of all the lexical blends advertainment, infotainment and wintertainment reported in Bat-El (2006) and Lehrer (2007). They are all formed by combining two bases, the second of which is entertainment. However, unlike regular compounds, which are formed by combining two (or more) full words, they combine shortened words, which can at times merge where there is a graphic and/or phonological overlap. Hence, entertainment is shortened into a splinter (-tainment) and attached to clipped words (advert ← advertisement, info ← information), or to a full word with an overlap (winter + entertainment). Again, unlike grammatical compounds, whose structure is entirely predictable and morphotactically transparent, blends are not completely predictable and exhibit different degrees of opacity, from the type that Ronneberger-Sibold (2006: 173) calls “semi-complete blending” (wintertainment), containing one element in full, to the type of “fragment blending” (Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 174) (infotainment), where all constituents are shortened and therefore more difficult to recognise, with an intermediate degree of transparency in advertainment, where the overlap between advertisement and entertainment contributes to keep as much material as possible from the source words (see the criterion of Recoverability in 4.2.4).

34

The theoretical framework

Other types of blends exist, not exemplified here (see 4.1.3 for a complete classification), but the ones just mentioned are enough to substantiate Dressler’s (2000) assertion that: the morphotactic devices for forming blends are … much less regular than those of grammatical compound formation, i.e., the final segmental makeup is often unpredictable, there are merely preferences (cf. Dressler 1976). This has induced morphologists such as Bauer (1983: 234–237) and Rainer (1993: 87–90) to exclude blending from morphological grammar. (p. 5)

Another reason for excluding blending from morphological grammar is its semantics. Although some splinters, like -tainment above, may be used repeatedly in the blending process, they are not reinterpreted, but simply undergo a process of “abbreviation”, which, according to Warren (1990: 119), should be kept distinct from the process of “secretion”, involving reinterpretation of linguistic units.24 Thus, abbreviation confines blends to extra-grammaticality, typically characterised by the difficulty to predict the output given an input. Secretion, on the other hand, differentiates secreted combining forms (e.g. -holic in computerholic) as being grammatical, although non-prototypical, and productive in terms of frequency, semantic coherence, and applicability.25 In other words, -tainment is a frequent splinter in blends, but it has not yet acquired morpheme status, whereas -holic (and its variants -aholic/-oholic, as in foodaholic, workoholic) has lost its connection with the source word alcoholic and can be considered as a morpheme in its own right (Warren 1990; Lehrer 1996, 2007; Mattiello 2007, 2008b).26 What I claim, therefore, is that combining form combination is different from blending, and that the latter is not a subtype of the former (cf. Fradin 2000: 53). Partially following Warren’s (1990: 115) classification, in this study I distinguish between two types of combining forms: 1) allomorphic variants of (Latin or Greek) model words (e.g. astro- ← Lat. astrum, as in astrodome, and -drome ← Gr. dromos, as in alpinodrome); 2) parts of model words which undergo a secretion process (e.g. -scape ← landscape, as in cityscape, and -holic above), which at times happen to have a homograph in English (e.g. -gate ← Watergate, as in Yuppiegate, cf. the free word gate).27 In previous studies (Mattiello 2007, 2008b), I have also introduced the concept of:

Extra-grammatical morphology

35

3) abbreviated combining forms (e.g. eco- ← ecology, as in eco-art, eco-activist), which are borderline cases between splinters (with no morpheme status) and combining forms of type 2 (cf. Fischer 1998: 39). Commenting on some (even less regular) splinters that reappear in several blends (e.g. -licious ← delicious, as in bubblicious ‘a delicious bubble gum’, and jocular blendalicious), Lehrer (2007: 122) claims that it is debatable whether these deserve morpheme status, in that they are not independent of their source words. The continual use of splinters such as -licious is the effect of analogical patterns, but neither regularity nor productivity occur (Bauer 2001). Hence, -licious is a “potential morpheme” (Lehrer 1996: 362), but not an actual one, and blendalicious is a creative nonce formation which depends on delicious for its semantic interpretation. This is the reason why, in my distinction, this type of splinter would be a more plausible candidate for extra-grammatical than for marginal phenomena. By contrast, types 1–2 above are assumed to belong to marginal morphology. Type 1 is used to form what Plag (2003: 155) and others call “neoclassical compounds”, which are, in fact, a subtype of compounds, but not a subtype of blends (cf. Bauer 1983: 236). Like regular compounds, they combine two bases – of which at least one is of neoclassical origin – to obtain new words whose meaning results from the combination of the two constituents’ meaning. What differentiates neoclassical compounds from other compounds, and therefore makes them non-prototypical and marginal in morphology, is the fact that neoclassical combining forms such as hydro- and -logy do not usually occur as free-standing words: that is, no free morpheme *hydro or *logy exists in English, though hydor (‘water’) exists in Greek and logía (‘word, discourse’, ‘science’) exists in Latin. When they are used in isolation, as in bio, from biology, it is by effect of clipping and not because they are free forms at their origin (cf. ade and ism in 2.3.5.1). Thus, like affixes, combining forms are bound morphemes in English, but, unlike them, they regularly combine either with a word (hydro-electric) or with another combining form (hydrology). Two affixes, by contrast, are impossible bases for compounds. Neoclassical combining forms are therefore part of marginal morphology because they lie at the boundary between derivation and compounding. The same can be stated for type 2. This type includes, as has been said, secreted combining forms (Warren 1990; Mattiello 2007, 2008b), i.e., end parts of model words with a novel semantic interpretation.28 Again, they attach to other bases to obtain new words. However, unlike the constituents of compounds, they discard certain semantic elements from their source

36

The theoretical framework

words: for instance, a sugarholic is ‘a person addicted to sugar’, but has nothing to do with ‘alcohol’. Once they have been assigned their novel meaning, secreted combining forms are regularly reused to form a variety of new words (bookaholic, caffeineoholic, cameraholic, newsaholic, shopaholic, etc.), which provide further evidence of their productivity and related grammaticality. Yet, like type 1, type 2 is a transitional phenomenon between derivation and compounding, since -holic belongs to semantically independent morphemes that happen to be bound (Lehrer 1996: 362). To sum up, while blends are always part of extra-grammatical morphology and excluded from rules, combining form combinations are only marginal phenomena as compared with prototypical morphological processes (e.g. compounding), but nonetheless grammatical and productive, unless the combining form is attached to a splinter, as in chocoholic (← chocolate + -holic), which is, overall, an extra-grammatical formation. 2.3.3. Extra-grammatical vs. grammatical morphology Following Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) bipartition between “plain” and “expressive morphology”, Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 36–41) propose to distinguish between “morphological grammar” and “extragrammatical morphology”. According to Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994), morphological grammar “consists of categories, rules (or processes) expressing or manipulating them, and principles governing rules” (p. 39), whereas extra-grammatical morphology is negatively defined as a set of “heterogeneous morphological phenomena which do not belong to morphological grammar” (p. 38). In their seminal work on the Theory of Morphopragmatics, they identify precise criteria able to set apart these two classes of morphological operations, and make their boundary explicit by a series of clear-cut examples. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994) criterion 1.9.2.1 establishes that “morphological grammar belongs to grammatical competence. Other morphological operations belong to other competences” (p. 38). This criterion excludes sophisticated coinages such as language games, which conscientiously manipulate morphological structure, from morphological grammar.29 Similarly, deprecative constructions (shm-reduplication) and blends, which deviate from any criterion of grammaticality, are excluded. According to criterion 1.9.2.2, “Morphological rules are essential elements of morphology” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 39). Hence,

Extra-grammatical morphology

37

analogical formations such as those produced in child language lie outside morphological grammar, in that they do not involve any rule. A more relevant criterion for us is postulated in 1.9.2.3: i.e. “Morphological rules manipulate meaning and form in a regular, that is, predictable, way” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 39). Thus, the morphological rules forming compounds are regular, because they change both meaning and form, whereas the operations forming blends are irregular, and therefore excluded from morphological grammar (cf. Bauer 1983; Bat-El 2000; Plag 2003). Specifically, the final make-up of blends is often unpredictable or only partially predetermined, and also “alternative outputs” are admitted (Dressler 2000: 2), as in absolutely + positively, admitting both absotively and posilutely (more in 2.3.7.2 below). The operations forming acronyms (e.g. Personal Identification Number → PIN) and clippings (e.g. picture → pic) are also excluded, because they do not form new words, but only connoted variants. Furthermore, their morphotactics is not completely predictable, because the parts affected by abbreviatory processes are varied. In clippings, the deleted part may be the coda (democrat → dem), the beginning (telephone → phone), both beginning and coda (refrigerator → fridge, with an added -d- in writing but unaltered pronunciation of the affricate ), or the middle (breath analyser → breathalyser). Acronyms generally retain the first letter of each word in the source phrase, but some (mainly grammatical) words can be omitted in the graphic representation, as in elliptic acronyms (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation → laser), or else more than one initial letter can be retained, as in RAdio Detection And Ranging → radar. Another equally important criterion is formulated as follows: “A morphological rule applies to a distinct class of bases. … Bases are lexical and morphological items, such as (preferably) words or stems, roots, (lexicalised) phrases” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 40, 1.9.2.4, also in Dressler 2000: 2; see also Aronoff’s 1976 Unitary Base Hypothesis). As the authors observe, this criterion excludes reduplicatives like super-duper, chitchat and zigzag from grammar, because they cannot be assigned to a grammatical rule based on the first or second constituent. They may exhibit either a left-hand or a right-hand base, or have no independently existing bases, as in ideophones (e.g. dingdong). Yet another significant criterion (1.9.2.5) establishes that “The meaning change involved in rule operations is additional” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 40). Compounds, combining the meaning of their bases, involve an additional meaning change, whereas conversion merely changes one category into another, but is again part of morphological grammar. On the other

38

The theoretical framework

hand, back-formation such as editor → to edit is extra-grammatical, because a verb base is reconstructed from a human agent noun by a subtractive technique. Criterion 1.9.2.6, related to 1.9.2.3 above, establishes that “Morphological rules of word formation produce new words, distinct from their bases” (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 40). Hence, acronyms, clippings, and expletive infixation of the type absolutely → abso-bloody-lutely are not part of morphological grammar, because they produce outputs not classifiable as new words. These distinctions and the principles on which they are based make up the main frame of reference for my study. Although extra-grammatical morphology is not Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994) focus of analysis, the criteria they elaborate to characterise and describe morphological grammar allow a clear identification of what is excluded from it as being extragrammatical.30 Starting from the same criteria and expanding them, Dressler (2000: 3–4) claims that extra-grammatical morphological operations “neither belong to the sub(module) of grammatical morphology nor do they form a module of their own”. What unites heterogeneous extra-grammatical formations of what he calls “paramorphology” (e.g. echo-words, blends, hypocoristics, abbreviations, and back-formations) are “varying combinations of violations of basic properties of morphological grammar” (Dressler 2000: 3; and see Dressler and Karpf 1995 for “premorphology”). Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009) formulate similar criteria to treat the dichotomy between grammatical and extra-grammatical morphology. Firstly, they claim that extra-grammatical morphology does not conform to the principles of morphological grammar (i.e. simultaneous change of meaning and form, regular and predictable applicability to a distinct class of bases, additional meaning change, production of new lexemes or word forms) (Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009: 25). Secondly, they elaborate their own criteria to define what is extra-grammatical: namely 1) the conscious character of the creation (as in language play, for example secret languages like verlan; cf. back-slang in Mattiello 2008a); 2) typological extension of the process (i.e. non-prototypical or marginal processes, such as abbreviations, have a limited applicative domain); 3) productivity of the process (i.e. extra-grammatical processes are expected to be unproductive); 4) interaction among different modules of grammar (i.e. what is extragrammatical for one component, e.g. morphology, can show regularity for others, e.g. prosody) (Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009: 27–28). The

Extra-grammatical morphology

39

above criteria re-elaborate and expand upon those identified by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994). By contrast, Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994) criteria are criticised by Bat-El (2000), who argues that: 1) some of the characteristics associated with their notion of extra-grammaticality can also be found in what is conventionally considered grammatical morphology, and 2) the properties of grammatical morphology also apply to morphological operations such as blends and acronyms. A similar position is found in Plag (2003: 117), who rejects the idea of excluding these operations from rules, and assumes a notion of wordformation wide enough to accommodate name truncations, clippings, and diminutives as products of word-formation. Against Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994), Bat-El (2000) and Plag (2003) respectively posit that there is a certain “grammaticality” or “systematicity” in the formation of blends, acronyms, etc. That is, they interpret the so-called “irregular regularities” (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.) of extra-grammatical morphology as proper morphological rules, which is an untenable claim, as I will show in the next section. 2.3.4. Grammaticality and regularity of extra-grammatical morphology This section is an attempt to demonstrate that the position of those who treat extra-grammatical operations in the same way as grammatical ones is at least arguable. The debate in this area is an open one, and the issue is controversial, but many scholars (e.g. Ronneberger-Sibold 2006, 2008; Mattiello 2008a; Merlini Barbaresi 2008; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.) still continue to keep the notion of extra-grammatical morphology distinct from that of morphological grammar, and to adopt the concept of extragrammatical operations as the background of descriptions and explanations of blending, acronyms, reduplicatives and similar formations. I agree with this latter approach, but also believe that, like grammatical phenomena, extra-grammatical ones exhibit some kind of regularity, which facilitates their recognition and interpretation, although it does not permit substantial or total predictions about new words modelled on productive patterns. As I will explain in 2.3.6.2, the principle governing extra-grammatical formations is analogy, allowing only partial predictability based on similarity to preexisting patterns. What follows now is a re-examination of Bat-El (2000) and Plag (2003), and of their conception of grammaticality/regularity.

40

The theoretical framework

Against the claim made in Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994) that analogical formations in child language are extra-grammatical, Bat-El (2000) suggests that analogy in adult language “can be accounted for within a grammatical theory” (p. 63).31 I agree that analogy may be transversally relevant within both grammatical and extra-grammatical morphology (cf. 2.3.6.2). But analogy is not the same as rules. Extra-grammatical formations such as bootylicious are formed by analogy with other blends admitting fusion beside concatenation, but they are not the result of rules. Rules only govern grammatical derivation (delicious-ly, -ness) and compounding (booty call ‘phone call to arrange for sex’). As far as hypocoristics are concerned, Bat-El (2000: 63) suggests that McCarthy and Prince’s (1986) “notion of Minimal Word” may be employed to derive Lisa and Liz from Elizabeth. Yet the fact that two outputs exist for the same input, and a third can be added (Bet), shows the impossibility of making absolute predictions with regard to hypocoristic formation. On the other hand, both the diminutives Lizz-y and Bett-y are formed by rule from irregular bases (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 40) and represent borderline cases (Mattiello 2008a: 61) exhibiting regularity in the process of morphotactic concatenation, but extra-grammaticality in the base form (cf. Bat-El’s 2000: 65 “Grammaticality Continua”). As far as blends are concerned, Bat-El (2000) suggests that their irregularities (as compared with the regularities of compounds) are no sufficient reason to exclude them from grammatical morphology, because also “derivational morphology is often irregular in one way or another” (p. 63). On the contrary, derivational morphology is not irregular. There may be counterexamples, but these are rare cases within the lexical storehouse of the English language. Blends, on the other hand, are morphotactically complex and noncomponential: their source words are often hardly recognisable, because of some previous abbreviatory process, or they may be so tightly integrated “that the sounds of one source word are interspersed between the other” (Kemmer 2003: 72), as in the intercalative type (e.g. chortle ← chuckle + snort). As far as acronyms are concerned, Bat-El (2000: 63–64) argues that the “acronym word usually refers to something more specific than its base” and that it “may also change the grammatical category” (e.g. from phrase to noun). Against these claims, I argue (Conti and Mattiello 2008) that acronyms and initialisms refer to the same entities as their original phrases, lists, compounds, etc., though in a more concise way. Thus, FAQ (← Frequently Asked Questions) and WH (← White House) exhibit no change in denotative meaning, nor do they change their grammatical category (see also 2.3.1).

Extra-grammatical morphology

41

Connotative meaning, however, may change in acronymic words, as when they are used by insiders to exclude outsiders, or to establish in-group cohesiveness. The initialism TBI, for instance, has an in-group flavour which the full phrase Traumatic Brain Injury does not have, and the acronym LOL is used among young speakers to mark their social identity (see Social or Professional closeness in 7.1). The only admission Bat-El (2000) makes with regard to the extragrammaticality of these formations is that their input “is much more permissive than that in core morphology” (p. 64; and see Zwicky and Pullum’s 1987: 336 “promiscuity with regard to input category”). For instance, acronyms also admit a list as their input (e.g. Passion-fruit, Orange, Guava → POG), and blends admit two semantically related words (e.g. fantastic + fabulous → fantabulous). However, this property of acronyms and blends does not appear convincing enough for Bat-El (2000) to dismiss them from grammatical morphology. Nor does the property of “absence of lexical head” (Bat-El 2000: 64–65), because, as she herself points out, also exocentric compounds (pickpocket) do not have a lexical head, although they exhibit grammaticality in the predicate-complement dependency. The point is actually debatable, as the head in abbreviated formations is obscured rather than absent (see 2.3.7.6 for a longer discussion on this point), or there may be two heads, as in the above-mentioned blend fantabulous, which is not irregular because of its semantics but for its morphotactics (cf. coordinate compounds). A similar approach is found in Plag (2003: 116–129), where truncations, blends, abbreviations and acronyms are regularly included within English regular word-formation, as part of what he calls “derivation without affixation” (p. 107). Against Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994) claim that name truncations and clippings lie outside morphological grammar, Plag (2003: 117) argues that in English they “are highly systematic”, and he even states that they are “products of word-formation”. For Plag, although they do not add new semantic meaning to a base, they express the speaker’s familiar attitude, and this should justify their status as new lexemes (cf. 3.1.1). While discussing the formal properties of these formations, Plag (2003) also notices that there are some regularities, mainly based on their prosody:32 for instance, truncated names “have a strong tendency to conform to a rather fixed prosodic structure” (p. 118), the so-called “template”. Thus, Eve (← Evelyn) conforms to the template V(owel)C(onsonant). However, given a certain input, the output is only partially predictable or even unpredictable, as it may vary depending on the part of the base name we decide to retain

42

The theoretical framework

(Eve or Lyn ← Evelyn, Liz or Bet ← Elizabeth), and whether or not we decide to intervene orthographically (Floss ← Florence, Sal ← Sarah, Trish ← Patricia). Moreover, the output does not allow input identification, as the same truncated name may come from different bases, e.g., Al (← Albert, Alfred or Alonzo) and Belle (← Arabella or Belinda). Plag (2003) also includes -y diminutives in his discussion. In my treatment diminutives are perfectly regular if they comply with a word-based morphology. For example, words like ciggie (← cigarette) or Lizzie are extra-grammatical in the mechanism forming the base words, but when they add the -ie/-y diminutive they comply with the rule of diminutive formation, which is word-based (2.1). Thus, I would rather claim that -y diminutives belong to marginal morphology (2.3.2). For clippings, Plag (2003: 121) only identifies “strong tendencies”, which, however, would not justify their inclusion within morphological grammar. In clippings, we can retain different parts of the base words (ad ← advertisement, fess ← confess), or different portions (ad vs. advert), or combine them with the -ie/-y suffix (telly), sometimes after an orthographic change (brolly). For blends, Plag (2003: 122–123) identifies “a surprising degree of regularity”, which accounts for his elaboration of a proper “blending rule” (AB + CD → AD). However, the blending rule appears to hold only for prototypical blends (breakfast + lunch → brunch),33 but it actually has several exceptions. For instance, in overlapping blends (e.g. slanguage), B and C merge into one, whereas in intercalative blends (e.g. slithy ← slimy + lithe) there is no clear-cut distinction among the various parts of the blend (Kemmer 2003; Gries 2004a, 2004b). Moreover, as Plag (2003: 123) himself admits, in modem the structure of the blend is AC rather than AD. Lastly, for abbreviations, Plag (2003: 126–129) provides regularities in pronunciation, clearly distinguishing initialisms (USA) from acronyms (NATO), but he acknowledges that more than one spelling is often allowed (cf. ASAP vs. a.s.a.p.). Even more relevant is Plag’s (2003) remark that “abbreviations do not show a meaning difference with regard to their base words” (p. 129). This remark indeed validates their inclusion within extragrammatical morphology because they do not predict the changing of meaning from input to output. In the following sections, I will identify the role of extra-grammatical formations in language change (2.3.5), and define some fundamental notions (2.3.6), as well as the limits and properties of extragrammatical morphology (2.3.7).

Extra-grammatical morphology

43

2.3.5. Extra-grammaticality and language change “Change” refers to a radical, universally accepted development in a language, not to be confused with “innovation”, which may be idiosyncratic and uninfluential on the general evolution of the language (Milroy 1992; Fischer 2007). Admittedly, within this distinction, many extra-grammatical formations belong to innovation rather than to proper change. Many occasionalisms and nonce words occur on a daily basis, but most of them soon fall into disuse. In the discussion which follows, by contrast, I will focus attention on neologisms, which are more stable, and generally become “institutionalized” as part of the accepted vocabulary of a community (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 45, also in Fischer 1998: 15–16). Extra-grammatical neologisms are indicative, as we shall see, of the important role which the processes leading to their creation have in word-formation (2.3.6). 2.3.5.1. Lexicalisation. One process that is usually associated with language change is lexicalisation, which has been understood both synchronically, as “coding of conceptual categories”, and diachronically, as “adoption into the lexicon” (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 18). Lexicalisation is transversally present in grammatical, extra-grammatical and marginal morphology, in that all three realms may be obvious sources of lexicalisations. It should be added that analogy is strictly connected with lexicalisation in the sense that lexicalised words frequently become authoritative models easily memorised for reuse. Thus, analogy has an element of diachrony: that is, it is useful not only for the origin of the model, but also for the stabilisation of the mechanism. Within the diachronic perspective, the term “lexicalisation” traditionally refers to routine processes of word-formation. For instance, derivation and compounding may be obvious sources of lexicalisations, in that they involve fusion processes which serve to erase boundaries between morphemes and make them merge into unified lexemes which may be adopted into the lexicon over time (e.g. buxom ← Old English buh ‘bending’ + -sum ‘having the quality of’, gospel ← Old English god ‘good’ + spell ‘tidings’). However, in Brinton and Traugott (2005: 40–42), extra-grammatical phenomena are also adduced as cases of lexicalisation. Many clippings are of relevance here: for example, cases in which either stressed or nonstressed syllables are selected from a word (fridge, phone; bus, fan), or a compound (pub, sci-fi; narc).34 Similarly, other extra-grammatical processes can be treated as instances of lexicalisation. For example, blending (bit, blog), back-formation (emote ←

44

The theoretical framework

emotion, laze ← lazy), acronym formation (AIDS, laser, radar), and the production of initialisms (HIV, ID, VIP) all give rise to new lexemes and create monomorphemic forms by fusion (i.e. eliminating morphemic boundaries) (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 44), or by (incorrect) analysis of a simple word as a morphologically complex one (*emot-ion, *laz-y). In back-formation, the creation of a new form may also originate from the analysis of a supposedly complex form (especially of foreign origin) on the basis of analogy with inflectional patterns. For instance, Old Northern French cherise (cf. Modern French cerise) has been reinterpreted in English as a singular form cherry plus the plural suffix -s (OED2; see also Anttila 2003: 427), and the root-final -s of the French term pease has been analysed in English as a plural inflectional mark, hence the singular pea (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 42). Similarly, biceps, given in OED2 as a word of Latin origin (bi- + ceps, caput ‘head’), has been analysed in non-standard English as a plural form of bicep. Another form of lexicalisation is the unification (or “univerbation”) of a syntactic phrase or construction into a single word (see Brinton and Traugott 2005: 48 and the literature therein). This phenomenon is illustrated, among others, by some rhyming reduplicatives of old provenance: e.g., hobnob (← Old English hab ‘have’ ne-hab ‘not have’, OED2), mayday (← French (venez) m’aider, OED3, also in Dienhart 1999), and willy-nilly (← Old English will ye ‘want you’ nill ye ‘not want you’, OED2). By analogy with this latter formation, the ablaut reduplicative shilly-shally has come into being (← shill I shall I, a fanciful reduplication of shall I?). Thun (1963: 268) also offers the case of riff-raff, dated 1470 and originating from the coordinated phrase riffe and raf (1338). Cases of “full syntacticization” (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 60) are likewise relevant to lexicalisation. They involve changes from inflectional or derivative bound morphemes to free morphemes with an independent status (Ramat 1992, 2001). Examples of changes from an affix to an autonomous word are the fore-clippings ade (‘fruit juice’, ← lemonade, orangeade) and ism (‘doctrine, theory, practice’, ← fascism, communism), and the backclippings bi (← bi-sexual), ex (← ex-husband/wife), and teen (← teenager). Also the above-mentioned bus (← omnibus) belongs here, in that it was originally part of the Latin dative plural -ibus inflection. Lexicalised forms have a fundamental role to play in the coinage of analogy-based extra-grammatical formations. As we will see (2.3.6.2), analogical processes are based on similarity to existing items, which provide suitable patterns for new words to be formed on. But what type of items provide the most suitable patterns for analogical creation? In my opinion, lexicalised

Extra-grammatical morphology

45

items are the best candidates for the application of analogical mechanisms. For instance, some lexicalised acronyms or initialisms are the models for new alphabetisms: radar attracts the coinage of colidar and ladar, and HIV provides the model for FIV, with a substitution of initial H with F for Feline. New blends are also generally analogical with lexicalised forms, as in linner (← lunch + dinner) and boatel (← boat + hotel), constructed on the patterns of brunch and motel (more on this in 2.3.6.2). Among reduplicatives, lexicalised ping-pong and zig-zag certainly provide the patterns for the most common vowel alternations in the apophonic type. Analogy, therefore, is primarily a diachronic process, which finds in frequency of use and lexicalisation the stimuli to re-apply existing patterns as prototypes for new words. 2.3.5.2. Grammaticalisation. Another process that pertains to language change is grammaticalisation (also called “grammaticisation” in Dressler et al. 2005: 456), i.e. that part of the study of language change that is concerned with the way in which, in certain linguistic contexts, lexical items come to serve grammatical functions, or the way in which grammatical items develop new grammatical functions (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 1; see also Traugott and Heine 1991). From a diachronic viewpoint, grammaticalisation is commonly understood as a process in which “originally autonomous, fully referential items acquire a purely grammatical function in the course of time” (Fischer 2007: 59), as in the diachronic transformation of the Latin syntactic construction cantare habeo (‘I have to sing’) into the inflectional category of the future in Romance languages, for example Italian (canterò) and French (chanterai). An instance of grammaticalisation in English is the transformation of the phrase be going to from an original purpositive meaning involving actual physical dislocation in space to its being used as a future construction, the latter then undergoing further grammaticalisation to the form be gonna, with reanalysis (change of category label, boundary loss) and phonological reduction (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 1–3). Although the phenomena investigated in this book are classified as wordformation (rather than morphosyntactic) processes (cf. Fischer 2007), I cannot deny the relevance of reduplication to grammaticalisation. This relevance is especially evident in languages other than English, where reduplication confers, for example, plurality on nouns, intensity on adjectives, and iterativity, progressivity, or intensity on verbs (Inkelas 2006: 417). In many languages of the world, reduplication is a widespread morphological operation, regularly employed for grammatical, derivational or se-

46

The theoretical framework

mantic purposes. In Malay, for instance, total reduplication denotes plurality in nouns (e.g. anak ‘child’ → anak-anak ‘children’, guli ‘marble’ → guliguli ‘marbles’) (Raimy 2000; Rastall 2004; Nadarajan 2006), and in Agta (Central Cagayan) partial reduplication has the same function (e.g. takki ‘leg’ → tak-takki ‘legs’) (Marantz 1982). In Sanskrit and neoclassical languages, it is a preterite marker in verbs (e.g. Skt. dā- ‘give’ → dadāú ‘gave’, Lat. spondĕo ‘I vow’ → spŏpondi ‘I vowed’, Gk. leípō ‘leave’ → léloipa ‘left’) (Baldi 2000). In Hausa (Nigeria), reduplication is used as a derivative process, to form adjectives from common nouns (with shortening of final vowel), as in gishiri (‘salt’) → gishiri-gishiri (‘salty’) (Inkelas and Zoll 2005), whereas in Malay its use may also involve semantic change (e.g. malam ‘night’ → malam-malam ‘late at night’). In English, reduplication is used especially for expressive or aesthetic effects (Rastall 2004), as is well illustrated by the shm-type (e.g. breakfast shmreakfast, crisis-shmisis, Pedro-Schmedro), whose mechanism of formation is meant to express derogatoriness. The origin of English reduplication is indeed less connected with grammar than with the lexicon. In Old English, Thun (1963: 254–255) mentions only a handful of instances, most of which are imitative (e.g. ha(h) ha(h), 1000), or hypocoristic personal names (e.g. Godgod, Tata). The alternation of vowels in English reduplicatives (e.g. shilly-shally, tick-tock) is for some scholars modelled on the ablaut-series of the third class of Germanic strong verbs (Old English bindan/band- bundon, bunden), or made to correspond to bindan-bond (with rounding in the past tense form). For others, it is connected with French influence (e.g. clic clac, flic floc). Present-day reduplication in English is commonly associated with infant speech or nursery language (Jakobson 1944; Thun 1963; Dressler et al. 2005), especially with the early stage termed “babbling”. Because of its synaesthetic character and playfulness, reduplication is particularly germane to child’s language, or to child-centred speech. However, its high degree of iconicity makes it also relevant to grammar, especially to plural noun formation and to superlative adjectival forms, through the mechanism of addition or intensification. Intuitively, a language which admits more sophisticated operations such as affixation and composition, should, at least at its origin, have also accepted primitive processes such as full reduplication. Thus, during the premorphological phase, English small children, whose language is unaffected by adults’ morphological rules, may have a tendency to adopt reduplication for grammatical reasons, like pluralisation of nouns or intensification of adjectives. Yet their contact with adults’ language, as well as

Extra-grammatical morphology

47

their acquisition of the inflectional submodule contribute to make affixation prevail over total reduplication. With regard to young children’s reduplications, Dressler et al. (2005: 468) hypothesise a certain “innateness of principles of reduplication”, on the basis of the tendency of French, German, Polish and Russian children to produce reduplicative constructions, although these are not used in the target languages they are acquiring. With regard to adult reduplications, Dressler et al. (2005: 456) even venture the hypothesis that iconic meanings of adult grammatical reduplications (i.e. meanings which signal greater extension, continuity, intensity, iterativity, or plurality) may originate in child language. They distinguish between grammatical (modularised) reduplications and extra-grammatical (non-modularised) ones. According to them, extragrammatical reduplications include onomatopoeic sound-imitations, as in French sib sib sib referring to bird cries. A symptom of partial grammaticalisation of these forms is the reduction from multiple to simple binary reduplication in the corresponding noun, as in Swiss French bi bi bi attributed to le bibi (‘the chick’) (cf. the preference for binary relations in Natural Morphology, 2.2.1). The fact that in English reduplication is more pertinent to (extragrammatical) word-formation than to morphological grammar should be investigated in a separate (more diachronically-oriented) work. Yet some English reduplicative words seem to deserve attention from the grammatical viewpoint as well. In particular, the group of words that Thun (1963: 143– 147) discusses under the heading “high degree” appears suggestive of a grammaticalisation process. Relevant examples include words that express excellence: e.g., dimberdamber (dated, ‘very pretty’, from dimber ‘pretty’), and tip-top (noun ‘the very top’, or adjective ‘superlatively good’, from either tip + top, or a reduplication of the latter). Other such words are used to express smallness: e.g., teeny-weeny, tiny-winy, teeny-tiny (‘very small’, both teeny and weeny are probably blends of tiny and wee according to Thun 1963: 144),35 titty-totty (‘very small, extremely tiny’, from titty ‘small, tiny’). Further reduplicated words express exaggeration: e.g., girly-girly (‘girlish in an exaggerated manner’), goody-goody (‘good in a weak and sentimental way’), and prettypretty (‘that overdoes the pretty’). In these words, reduplication serves a grammatical (superlative) function, besides the various pragmatic overtones in meaning. We could therefore posit a transfer from a mere repetition of lexical items, as in It is tiny, tiny or She is pretty, pretty to the corresponding reduplicative forms conveying an iconic meaning of intensity: i.e., It is

48

The theoretical framework

teeny-tiny or She is pretty-pretty. These latter forms could be adduced as instances of grammaticalisation. 2.3.6. Fundamental notions The aim of this section is to discuss some fundamental notions that are necessary in the study of extra-grammatical processes. In particular, an attempt will be made to clarify the distinction between recurring dichotomies, such as 1) productivity vs. creativity (2.3.6.1); 2) rule vs. analogy (2.3.6.2); and 3) profitability vs. availability (2.3.6.3), and to separate what is relevant to the module of morphological grammar from what also or exclusively pertains to extra-grammatical morphology. 2.3.6.1. Productivity vs. creativity. The first dichotomy requiring clarification concerns the widely discussed concepts of productivity and creativity. I define productivity as that property of language which allows a native speaker to create new words in a rule-governed way.36 Three prerequisites for productivity are commonly mentioned in the relevant literature: namely, frequency (Fleischer 1975; Kastovsky 1986), semantic coherence (Aronoff 1976; Cutler 1980), and the potential to produce new forms (Aronoff and Anshen 1998; Plag 1999; Bauer 2001).37 Creativity, on the other hand, is the native speaker’s ability to extend the language system in a motivated, but unpredictable (non-rule-governed) way. Hence, it can be negatively defined as a lack of rule-governedness, generality, and predictability. Unlike productivity, which is a gradual phenomenon ranging from unproductive38 to fully productive (Plag 1999: 11–12), creativity is an absolute phenomenon, with no intermediate degrees. That is, either a morphological formation is obtained creatively or it is not. However, the line between productive and creative processes is blurred and often difficult to draw, as when a rule is applied to an irregular base. For example, the verb hiphop-ize or the noun MP-ship illustrate productive processes creatively operating on a reduplicated or shortened source word. Thus, even the extension of a derivative mechanism to an unusual base may be creative. Both productivity and creativity give rise to a large number of new words and thus bring about lexical innovation (see language change in 2.3.5).39 Yet, whereas productivity coins new words by exploiting word-formation rules, creativity coins new words by considering both rules and analogical patterns, or, from a generative perspective, by changing the rules (see Botha

Extra-grammatical morphology

49

1968: 135, cited in Bauer 2001: 71), as when two words are fused together in the blending process, although fusion is not allowed in regular composition. As a result, words coined by using word-formation rules are entirely predictable, while words exploiting analogical patterns are only partially so (2.3.6.2). Moreover, it is commonly believed that those new words which are formed regularly (i.e. by way of productive word-formation processes) become established as part of the norm (see “institutionalization” and “lexicalization” in Brinton and Traugott 2005: 45–46),40 whereas those which are formed creatively may fail to become part of the norm. In other words, truly productive neologisms tend to be accepted by the speech community, whereas creatively-formed new words may remain nonce formations or occasionalisms. Interestingly, however, many English neologisms are formed by using non-rule-bound mechanisms, and this makes the equation between productivity and institutionalised neologisms – or between creativity and nonce words – often incorrect. Many English blends, abbreviations, reduplicatives, and back-formations have entered the English lexicon, and many more can be treated as instances of lexicalisation (2.3.5.1), that is, they have acquired an autonomous status as a result of their frequent and extensive use. What is, therefore, the dividing line between productive and creative processes? Are blending, clipping, acronym formation and the like productive processes, inasmuch as they are frequently used to obtain institutionalised neologisms? Or are they rather creative processes on account of their irregularity and difficult predictability? It is clear that productivity is irrelevant as a criterion for predicting neologisms, which can also be obtained through creativity. In the literature on word-formation, the above-mentioned processes are excluded from the domain of productivity because 1) they are not rulegoverned (Aronoff 1976: 21), and 2) they have no morphological structure which allows morphosemantic interpretation (Mayerthaler 1981: 128–129). Furthermore, they fail to obey the above-mentioned criteria for productivity. With regard to frequency, there is a high number of attested blends, abbreviations, and reduplicatives, but they are relatively few as compared with canonical derivatives and compounds. With regard to semantic coherence, most extra-grammatical formations do not change meaning with respect to their bases, but some acquire a connotative value, becoming more specialised or more informal than their regular alternative forms; others obtain new meanings in a rather irregular way. Lastly, extra-grammatical formations offer the language user the potential to produce new words, but this potential is a matter of availability rather than of actual profitability (2.3.6.3). Thus,

50

The theoretical framework

we cannot imagine a large number of possible words obtained on the basis of irregular patterns (see Plag 1999: 16), as we can for regular derivatives. Extra-grammatical processes must be necessarily included in the realm of creativity, in that rather than being controlled by productive generative-like rules, they are only to some extent predictable by means of analogy, i.e. similarity to existing patterns.41 The concept of analogy will be more clearly distinguished from rules in the next section. 2.3.6.2. Rule vs. analogy. The second dichotomy deserving clarification and differentiation is embodied by the notions of rule and analogy.42 According to Plag (1999: 17), a traditional generative word-formation rule can be considered “a regular, predictable process which operates in a non-arbitrary manner on a more or less well-defined set of possible input words”. Basing his discussion on such a definition, Plag firmly criticises Becker’s (1990) equation of classical (generative) morphological rules with the notion of analogy. In Plag’s (1999) opinion, the two concepts do not overlap, nor can the concept of rule be eliminated in favour of an analogical model of morphology. Actually, analogy is a vast notion which belongs to grammatical as well as to extra-grammatical morphology. For instance, it is by the process of analogy that obsolete word forms such as the Middle English preterite and past participle of help (holp, holpen), perceived as irregular, have been discarded and replaced by the regular forms helped, helped. Furthermore, new regular words can be obtained by analogy with existing ones: examples are the compound noun software, which according to the Online Etymology Dictionary is analogical with hardware, and the derivative underwhelm, which is superficially analogical with overwhelm. Thus, an analogical model of morphology does not eliminate the concept of rule. In a discussion on the same dichotomy, Bauer (2001: 76–84) lists all arguments and counter-arguments regarding a rule-governed approach to morphology. For instance, rules can predict the output of a morphological process (i.e. its phonological structure, syntactic category, and meaning), in that they are more constrained than analogies. The notion of “constraint” plays an important role in the model of Optimality Theory, especially in the study of prosodic morphological phenomena. Within this model, rules are rejected, and constraints are considered as violable and ranked, that is “lower-ranked constraints can be violated in an optimal output form to secure success on higher-ranked constraints” (McCarthy and Prince 1993: 6). Constraints are also discussed in relation to productivity. Plag (1999: 45–61), for instance, lists ten constraints suggested in the literature on word-formation which

Extra-grammatical morphology

51

concern restrictions on base and affix combinations,43 but he dismisses most of them as not relevant in determining the productivity of a morphological process. Bauer (2001: 126) adopts a similar position, claiming, however, that the use of the term “constraint” has the advantage of suggesting that “restrictions are not necessarily absolute” (cf. “preferences” in Naturalness Theory, Bertacca 2009: 89). It is the latter suggestion that I wish to emphasise when I claim that rules are more constrained than analogies. In other words, the higher the number of (compatible or interrelated) constraints intervening in the application of a morphological process, the higher the possibility to predict its output. As a corollary, analogies are less constrained or more permissive than rules, allowing irregularities in form and form-meaning relationships. Bybee (2010: 57) similarly claims that “Analogy is considered to contrast with rule-governed productivity because it is heavily based on similarity to existing items rather than on more general symbolic rules”. Yet analogy can also intervene in regular processes of word-formation. Thus, the concept of analogy does not contrast with rules. What differentiates rules from analogies is that, in an analogical approach to word-formation there is no concept of “potential word” (Aronoff 1983), because all words are potentially created, or possible, as long as there is an actual or existing word formed analogously, and the new word obeys the principles of pronounceability and euphony (2.2.2). By contrast, in rulegoverned morphology there are further restrictions and constraints on the productivity of rules, concerning not only the phonological structure, but also: 1) the type of process involved; 2) the base used in the process; and 3) the type of output produced. These restrictions are not absolute, as has been said, but show preferences that interact, so that among possible words produced by rules, some are more probable than others (Bauer 2001: 207). Furthermore, in a rule-governed approach, some words can be considered ungrammatical because they break rules. By contrast, in an analogy-based approach, formations are not ungrammatical, but only more or less likely, i.e., better or less well supported by a network of parallel structures (Becker 1990: 17–18). Thus, while the principle of analogy would admit the formation of the blend sexercise (← sex + exercise), on the basis of the existence of sexpert (← sex + expert) and sexploitation (← sex + exploitation), rules would not, since, in addition to concatenation, there is also fusion with an overlap between the bases, which is inadmissible in regular compounding. Analogy would also exclude some formations, such as the string *sex-y-ation, because there is no model word for it, but this is the only restriction in the no-

52

The theoretical framework

tion of analogy: i.e., “any new form can be created as long as there is a suitable pattern for it to be formed on” (Bauer 2001: 76). By contrast, in rulegoverned morphology, the word *sex-y-ation would be excluded from the domain of possible words, because an adjectival base sexy would not admit -ation suffixation, and a nominal output would not allow concatenation of -y and -ation. Bauer (2001) concludes that the two notions of rule and analogy coexist within word-formation, and that neither one nor the other can underlie morphological innovation by itself. My position, as I have stated before, is close to Bauer’s. That is, although analogy may fail to make suitable predictions and, unlike rules, is permissive in terms of input and output categories and structure, it certainly plays a considerable role in word-formation and language change.44 In particular, whereas rules can explain only the functioning of productive morphological processes, analogy – and its correlate reanalysis45 – can motivate both grammatical word-formation and the mechanisms involved in creative formations, because it can be viewed as the reason for a superficial similarity between two structures. As Fischer says (2007: 123–124), “It is the superficial similarity (analogy) that a language user perceives between two structures and between two communicative uses of them that causes a reanalysis in one of them, so as to bring it in line with the other”. Hence, a reanalysis of a structure does not, as a rule, result in a new structure, but in an already existing one. This is substantially the primary distinction between analogy and rule. This distinction appears evident in the phenomenon of back-formation, as compared with canonical derivation. For instance, the verb self-destruct, back-formed from the noun self-destruction, is obtained by the deletion of material (a supposed suffix -ion) rather than by the reversal of a wordformation rule producing destruction from destroy (cf. Aronoff 1976). Similarly, the verb lase is obtained from the acronym laser (by analogy with, e.g., cut/cutter, mix/mixer, etc.), although the deleted part -er is not an actual suffix, but the shortening of Emission of Radiation. Analogy also gives a rationale to phonaesthemes, i.e. recurrent sounds or sound clusters which, although they are not classifiable as proper morphemes, evoke similar sensations, feelings, and meanings. Indeed, as observed by Bauer (2001: 84), if any (generative-type) rule were at work in the association of the sound sequence  with ‘light’ and ‘brightness’ in words like gleam, glimmer, glare, glitter, etc., then this rule could not explain why words such as glory or gloom should be excluded. Abbreviations, as well, are based on analogical patterns and reanalysis. Many clipped words ending with the vowel o (e.g. demo, disco, hippo, intro,

Extra-grammatical morphology

53

limo) have been reanalysed as complex words exhibiting a familiarising -o suffix (see “familiarity markers” in Quirk et al. 1985: 1584; “delexicalisation” in Brinton and Traugott 2005: 102–103), and have therefore been analogically reproduced in aggro (← aggravation/aggression), ammo (← ammunition), combo (← combination), lesbo (← lesbian), etc. The acronyms colidar (← COherent LIght Detecting And Ranging) and ladar (← LAser Detection And Ranging) have been coined on the analogy with lexicalised radar (Adams 1973: 137), whereas the initialism V.J. (‘Video-Jockey’) is alternatively spelt veejay, by analogy with the pairing D.J./deejay. Blends, unlike regular compounds, are likewise based on analogy rather than on rules. For instance, the occurrence of the splinter -licious (from delicious) in beaulicious and bootylicious has attracted some new coinages: e.g., Girlicious (‘a musical lady trio’), Kittylicious (‘referring to Hello Kitty movies’), and Lehrer’s (2007) jocular blendalicious. Similarly, the blend boatel (← boat + hotel) is definitely coined after the structure of motel, and linner (← lunch + dinner) is analogical with lexicalised brunch. Moreover, many characters of television series for children are named today by using reduplicative words which appear analogical with existing ones. For instance, Tinky-Winky (in the BBC television series Teletubbies) exhibits the same consonant alternation as existing teeny-weeny, and Igglepiggle (in the BBC series In the Night Garden) is analogical with higgledypiggledy.46 The notion of analogy is therefore crucial to extra-grammatical morphological formations, whose underlying mechanisms are not productive wordformation rules, but analogical patterns obtained from morphological structures already in use elsewhere. Analogy, rather than strict rules, leaves a wide margin for choice, which explains the difficulty of predicting the output. Therefore, in extra-grammatical processes the output is neither fully predictable, as with rules, nor fully unpredictable, but partially predictable on the basis of the availability of a certain process and of its potential to create new words. 2.3.6.3. Profitability vs. availability. The third dichotomy that I would like to discuss concerns the concepts of profitability and availability. Actually, these two notions are originally part of Corbin’s (1987: 177) trichotomy, which also includes ‘regularity’.47 According to Corbin (1987), a derivational process is ‘profitable’ if the number of attested derivatives is relatively high, it is ‘regular’ if the shape and meaning of its derivatives are highly predictable, and it is ‘available’ if it can be used to produce new words. In

54

The theoretical framework

her distinction, all three aspects are connected with the notion of productivity. In two successive works, both Plag (1999: 34) and Bauer (2001: 205– 209) discuss the notions of “profitability” and “availability” as being relevant to morphological productivity. According to Bauer (2001: 211), productivity deals with the number of new words that can be formed using a certain morphological process, and is ambiguous between the “availability” of the process (i.e. “its potential for repetitive rule-governed morphological coining”), and its “profitability” (i.e. “the extent to which its availability is exploited in language use”). In other words, availability is a qualitative notion and has to do with the existence of a morphological process as a pattern to be reused in new coinages, whereas profitability is a quantitative notion and is strictly linked with the frequency of a process in new coinages. Bauer’s (2001) definition, however, presupposes that availability is connected with rule-governedness, and this automatically excludes the concept of availability from an analogy-based approach to word-formation. Against this view, I would distinguish between: 1) productive (rule-governed) morphological coining, which is definable in terms of regularity (full predictability),48 profitability (type frequency or number of attested formations), and availability (potential to form new words), and 2) creative (analogy-based) morphological coining, which is irregular and only partially predictable, and yet admissible, depending on the availability of parallel structures already in use and ready to be reused. Profitability here depends on which models have been or will be exploited in language, and on whether they have been or will be necessary to satisfy language users’ communicative needs. Hence, in my approach, the notion of availability is applicable not only to productive rules, but also to analogical patterns, because it opens up the possibility of creating new words supported by pre-existing constructions. Extra-grammatical formations, like grammatical (rule-bound) formations, may serve as patterns for new coinages, that is they provide the language user with a potential to exploit an already existing morphological structure. However, while rules are more constrained and do not admit departures from the norm, analogies are more tolerant, admitting, as we will see, the presence of irregularities alongside regularities and preferences.

Extra-grammatical morphology

55

2.3.7. Definition and properties of extra-grammatical morphology As stated at the beginning of the chapter, in this study I adopt Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994) term “extra-grammatical morphology”, rather than Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) term “expressive morphology”, because the phenomena under investigation are not always expressive (e.g. UN, NATO), and because, as suggested by the meaning of the prefix extra-, this term stresses its being situated outside the module of grammatical morphology (whether prototypical or non-prototypical/marginal).49 Extra-grammatical morphology is understood as an umbrella term for heterogeneous analogy-based operations violating various universal principles of English grammar, in terms of irregularity of the bases and partial or un-predictability of the output, and partly governed by universal preferences (notably, for iconicity), although their morphotactic/morphosemantic transparency is reduced as compared with that of morphological rules. Examples of extra-grammatical morphological operations include: blends, clippings, hypocoristics, acronyms, initialisms, reduplications, backformations, infixation, and phonaesthemes. I therefore exclude from my investigation a number of operations which resemble extra-grammatical mechanisms to a greater or lesser degree, but which are performed unintentionally, for example: ―

―

―

Small children’s surface analogies (e.g. papapia, after Italian mamma mia, in Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 39), often leading to reduplications, mainly due to lack of morphological or incomplete phonological competence in premorphology (Dressler and Karpf 1995); Folk etymology and malapropisms, which are similarly due to incomplete morphological and lexical competence in later stages of language acquisition and even in adults (Ronneberger-Sibold 2002). For folketymological perversions of the type jawbacious (← jaw + audacious), see Pound (1914: 8). Cf. malapropisms for jocular purposes (e.g. trick cyclist ← psychiatrist) in English slang (Mattiello 2008a: 151–152); Slips of the tongue or brain (e.g. grun ← go + run, reported in Cannon 2000: 953), which are speech errors, generally performed involuntarily by persons with psychological or mental disorders (Dressler 1976). Cf. contaminations in Adams (1973), simultaneous pronunciation due to overlapping in Cannon (1986), blend(ing) errors in Kubozono (1990), Bertinetto (2001), and Gries (forth.).50 On the other hand, conscious creations of the type fantabulous (← fantastic + fabulous), with the fu-

56

The theoretical framework

sion of two semantically related words, are included in my analysis of blends (chapter 4). Another category of formations which is beyond the scope of this investigation as being not based on a linguistic input is: ―

Free/root creation or word-manufacture, i.e. purely arbitrary (unmotivated) creations which are formed ex nihilo, as in the case of many brand names (e.g. Kodak in Bauer 1983: 239, also in RonnebergerSibold 2008: 210), the slang words boff (‘to have sex with’, Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1632) and scag/skag (‘heroin’, Mattiello 2008a: 155), and other neologisms (Dacron, Kevlar, Orlon, etc.) mentioned in Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 5). See also Baldi (2000: 965–966).

In the literature, extra-grammatical morphology is not characterised by positive properties, but only negatively defined as “the antonym of morphological grammar” (Dressler 2000: 1). Extra-grammatical morphological operations are excluded from the module of morphological grammar, “because each of them violates some of its basic principles” (Dressler and Karpf 1995: 101), and therefore “cannot be described by regular morphological rules” (Doleschal and Thornton 2000: iv). Extra-grammatical morphology, as distinct from grammatical morphology, is a kind of derivational morphology that exhibits most of the special characteristics listed in the following subsections. 2.3.7.1. (Non-)predictability of output. Rules of canonical derivation and compounding are predictable with regard to form change, affixes being added to continuous bases (re- + form, form + -ation), or bases being regularly combined (tax + form, form + letter). Extra-grammatical morphological operations, in contrast, obtain outputs which are not fully predictable from their inputs, since their morphotactics is irregular. In back-formations, (supposed) affixes are subtracted from a base, as in the verbs televise (← television) and baby-sit (← baby-sitter). In expletive infixation used to form English deprecatives (e.g. abso-bloody-lutely), the base is discontinuous, that is, interrupted by the infix. Predictability is possible to some extent, when models are frequently exploited or easily available, as is the case, for example, with series of words (brunch, linner; baby-sit, dog-sit, etc.). This is, of course, predictability based on analogy.

Extra-grammatical morphology

57

The morphotactic mechanisms for forming blends are also less regular than those forming grammatical compounds. The output of blends cannot be fully predicted by the input and a given rule or model, in that the source words are variously (or even not) shortened in the fusion, depending on the blending technique applied. In “semi-complete blending”, either the first or the second source word is left intact (e.g. fanzine ← fan + magazine, Eurasia ← Europe + Asia), whereas in “contour” and “fragment blending” all constituents are shortened (e.g. bisalo ← bisont + buffalo) (RonnebergerSibold’s 2006 terminology). The final segmental make-up is even less predictable in the blends variously labelled as “inclusive” or “intercalative” (Kemmer 2003; Gries 2004a, 2004b; Ronneberger-Sibold 2006; KilaniSchoch and Dressler forth.), in which one constituent includes the other, as in ambisextrous (← ambidextrous + sex). In the telescope type of banniversary (← ban + anniversary), the blend even exhibits overlapping constituents, which are impossible in regular compounds. Abbreviations such as clippings and hypocoristics are similarly difficult to predict, in that different parts of the source word can be retained: e.g., the beginning in lab (← laboratory) and Andy (← Andrew), the middle in flu (← influenza) and Liz (cf. Beth), and the end in phone (← telephone) and Ron (← Aaron). Even discontinuous solutions are possible, as in ana (← anorexia) and Floss (← Florence) (see Irregular subtraction of word parts in 2.3.7.7). This latter is also abbreviated to Flo, disregarding the output constraint of a closed syllable. The output of acronyms (e.g. SMILE ← SMall, Intelligent, Light, Efficient) and initialisms (e.g. MAE ← Master of Arts in Education) is also hardly predictable, since more than one letter may be retained from the words in the source phrase (SM are both from small), or not all the initial letters of the source phrase may be graphically represented in the derivative. Non-salient grammatical words (of, in) are often omitted. 2.3.7.2. Alternative outputs. In extra-grammatical operations, more alternative outputs are admitted than in the performance of morphological rules (cf. Scalise’s 1988 Unitary Output Hypothesis).51 In some blends, for instance, the combination of two base words may provide two different outputs depending on the order of the constituents, as in moorth (← moon + earth) vs. earthoon (← earth + moon) (Bryant 1974; Bat-El 2006; see 1.1.1), tigon (← tiger + lion) vs. liger (← lion + tiger) (Bat-El 2006), geep (← goat + sheep) vs. shoat (← sheep + goat) (Cannon 1986; Plag 2003), Oxbridge (← Oxford + Cambridge) vs. Camford (← Cambridge + Oxford) (Casta-

58

The theoretical framework

nier 2009). In regular compounds, changes in the order of the bases correspond to meaning changes (plant pot vs. pot plant). Not even in the appositional/coordinate type, which exhibits two bases of equal status, can the order of constituents be freely chosen, because some orders are preferred to others (Queen Mother, Prince Consort), especially for saliency reasons (see the universal preference for figure/ground distinction in 2.2.1). Alternative forms are also derived from the same source by the same abbreviatory operation: e.g., zedonk alongside zonkey, both attested blends from zebra and donkey, ad alongside advert, both clippings from advertisement, US alongside USA, both initialisms from United States of America, and Al alongside Alf, both hypocoristics from Alfred. By contrast, the clipped pair uni and varsity (← university), or the hypocoristics Liz and Beth, from Elizabeth, do not depend on the portion retained, but apply different curtailing techniques (back- vs. fore-clipping, 3.1.3.1–3.1.3.2) to the same source word. The former examples, therefore, contradict Plag’s (2003: 119) claim that “What part of the name makes it into the truncation is often variable, but nevertheless predictable”. Indeed, his own examples of truncated names (Al or Lon ← Alonso, Eve or Lyn ← Evelyn, Pat or Trish ← Patricia, etc.) provide further evidence of their difficult predictability. Lastly, reduplicatives, which may be formed either from a left-hand or a right-hand base, admit more than one option as their outputs, as illustrated by the rhyming reduplicatives itty-bitty, itsy-bitsy and bitsy-witsy, all derived from the base bit. 2.3.7.3. Alternative inputs. In extra-grammatical morphological operations, but not in rules, different source words can correspond to the same output, thus obstructing input identification. Alternative inputs are especially frequent in hypocoristics, whose bases can merge in the same truncated name, as in Ron (← Aaron or Ronald) and the above-mentioned Al and Belle (2.3.4). Other mechanisms illustrating this property of extra-grammatical morphology are clippings (e.g. cred ← credit or credibility, spec ← specialist or specification), and alphabetisms (e.g. AI ← Artificial Intelligence, Amnesty International, All-Inclusive, etc.), whose basic components are typically blurred because of their abbreviatory nature. This criterion is against naturalness preferences for transparency and biuniqueness (see 2.2.1). Inputs can be recovered only on the basis of contextual information, and, in specialised terminology, by a term’s “monoreferentiality” (Gotti 2005: 33; Mattiello forth.; see also 7.1).

Extra-grammatical morphology

59

2.3.7.4. Alternative input categories. Standard morphological rules mostly comply with Aronoff’s (1976) Unitary Base Hypothesis, counterexamples being discussed, among others, in Plank (1981), Plag (1999, 2004), Ryder (1999). By contrast, extra-grammatical morphological operations do not apply to distinct classes of bases, but rather admit various base categories for the same affix, thus exhibiting the so-called “promiscuity with regard to input category” (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 336). This is the case with expletive infixes (-bloody-, -blooming-, -fuckin-, etc.), applied primarily to nouns and adjectives (emanci-fuckin-pator, im-fuckin-portant), but also to adverbs (abso-fuckin-lutely), verbs (in-fuckin-stantiate), etc. This is also the case with reduplicatives, which apply to words of any category (e.g. okey-dokey, pee-wee, see-saw, silly-billy, super-duper) and sometimes produce outputs that do not seem to belong to any category, as in tick-tack and other echowords. 2.3.7.5. Uncertain basehood. Conventional word-formation rules rely on existing stem, root or word bases, and marginally on lexicalised phrases. By contrast, the bases of extra-grammatical reduplication are hardly recognisable as pre-existent meaningful morphemes (hanky-panky, hotsy-totsy, zigzag), or they are modified before reduplication and thus made less recognisable (boo-boo ← boob, goo-goo ← googly). In onomatopoeic ideophones (dingdong, pip-pip), no independent word bases are identifiable, since the two constituents form a phonetic unit. Nor can the rhyming and ablaut types be analysed as rules based on either the first or second constituent, since both syntagmatic directions are possible (cf. easy-peasy and chit-chat). As a consequence of their versatile character, extra-grammatical formations can function as bases of word-formation rules (Bat-El 2000; Conti and Mattiello 2008), as in the formations Natoism and MP-ship, respectively from an acronym and an initialism. 2.3.7.6. Uncertain headedness. In endocentric grammatical compounds, the head is immediately identifiable, since it is within the compound (e.g. hippocket is ‘a type of pocket’). In exocentric grammatical compounds, the head has to be inferred, as in pick-pocket, but it is still identifiable from the predicate-complement relationship (‘a person who picks pockets’) (cf. BatEl 2000). In extra-grammatical reduplication, on the other hand, headedness is only rarely assignable. In contrast with Williams’ (1981) Righthand Head Rule, reduplicatives may be either left-headed (handy-dandy) or right-

60

The theoretical framework

headed (dilly-dally), or have no head at all, as in zigzag, with no semantic relation between the two members, one being merely a repetition of the other with vowel modification. The head of alphabetisms is similarly unclear and difficult to assign. Whereas in derivatives and compounds head status is assigned to a morpheme, in acronyms and initialisms it is, somewhat absurdly, assigned to a letter or letter combination. As a consequence, compounds and derivatives (with the exception of conversions and pure ablaut forms) can be segmented into morphemes, but alphabetisms cannot. Moreover, their head may be either the right-hand (as in NHS ← National Health Service) or the lefthand member (as in MAFF ← Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food), depending on the head position in the source phrase. In some cases, the head is even absent, as in PACE (← Police And Criminal Evidence act) and in formations whose base is a list (e.g. POG ← Passion-fruit, Orange, Guava, referring to a juice drink). Headedness is a controversial issue also in blends, which are more permissive than compounds in terms of the semantic relationship between the two members. Coordinate blends exhibit two semantic heads, as in alphameric (← alphabetic + numeric), tangemon (← tangerine + lemon), and Texaco (← Texas + (New) Mexico) (cf. Bat-El 2006). 2.3.7.7. Irregular subtraction of word parts. Subtractive morphological rules exhibit a tendency to delete a small (usually final) part of the base (nominate → nomin-ee), or, with two bases, part of the first base, as in the truncation and -o- interfixation in Afr-o-American, from African and American. By contrast, extra-grammatical subtractive operations, including blends, clippings, and clipped compounds, may delete larger and not necessarily non-salient parts: i.e., the coda (emo ← emotional, narc ← narcotics informant), two codas (sitcom ← situation comedy, modem ← modulator + demodulator), the beginning (zine ← magazine, shake ← milkshake), both the coda and the beginning (flu ← influenza, tec ← detective), or the middle part, as in ana (← anorexia), ginormous (← gigantic + enormous), ambisextrous (← ambidextrous + sex). In acronym words, subtraction of word parts is even stronger, retaining only initial letters (VAT ← Value Added Tax), or, at most, initial syllables (radar ← RAdio Detection And Ranging), hence Aronoff’s (1976: 20) label “syllable words”. Among subtractive techniques, the most regular is back-formation, deleting word parts that are supposed affixes reconstructed by analogy with ac-

Extra-grammatical morphology

61

tual ones: e.g., the verb edit (← edit-or) or the noun paramedic (← paramedic-al). 2.3.7.8. Invariability of meaning. In word-formation rules, meaning is regularly manipulated, while in extra-grammatical operations, it often remains unchanged. Thus, grammatical rules obtain new words, while extragrammatical operations obtain merely abbreviated forms, which do not qualify as new words, distinct from their input. Abbreviatory devices, in particular, create words which do not generally exhibit any semantic difference between input and output (cf. Compact Disc and CD, Disk Operating System and DOS). However, in specialised languages, they may be viewed as more precise and unambiguous terms than their base word(s), as in TB for tuberculosis, or SETI for Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (Bat-El 2000: 63; Mattiello forth.). Sometimes, connoted variants are obtained, as in reduplicatives (e.g. O.K. → jocular okey-dokey), expletives (e.g. rude every-bloody-body), clippings (e.g. bicycle → informal bike, potato → tato, tabloid show → tab show), and deliberate acrostics, which are chosen, humorously, after preexistent English words (e.g. SMILE in 2.3.7.1). Reduplicatives, expletives, and abbreviations are often connoted in terms of intensified emotional nuances attached to them, indexical of the user’s emotional states, or, at least, of his humorous (“non-serious”) attitude (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994). They are often used to produce a playful, expressive effect. Yet expressiveness does not hold for all phenomena of extra-grammatical morphology, distinguishing it from Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) “expressive morphology” (2.3.1). 2.3.7.9. Non-additional meaning change. In word-formation rules, meaning change is additional (e.g. to work + -er → worker ‘one who works’, hand + work → handwork ‘work by hand’), with the exception of conversion, changing one syntactic category into another (e.g. Verb → Noun, to work → a work). In back-formation, by contrast, a new lexeme is formed by removing hypothetical affixes from a supposedly complex base. Thus, in curator → to curate, typewriter → to typewrite, handwriting → to handwrite, verb bases are reconstructed by deleting supposed suffixes (-or, -er, -ing) from agent or abstract nouns.

62

The theoretical framework

2.3.7.10. Reduced transparency. Extra-grammatical formations exhibit a reduced transparency in comparison with regular formations. Regular wordformation generally produces morphologically transparent words, whose input is easily recoverable. Contrary to this, most extra-grammatical operations modify their linguistic input in such a way that makes it difficult to be recognised. Even if the input is contained in full in the output, as in overlapping blends of the type sexploitation (← sex + exploitation), it is combined in an unexpected manner, obstructing the semantic interpretation of the output. Extra-grammatical phenomena are “non-morphematic” processes (Fandrych 2004: 18), that is, they are not transparently analysable into morphemes, but into so-called splinters (television + broadcast → telecast), initial letters (Genetically Modified Organism → GMO), phonaesthemes (flas in flip-flop), and similar parts of words which are often difficult to associate with existing morphemes. There are different degrees of decreased transparency in extragrammatical operations, which are interpreted in terms of more/less marked choices on the parameter of morphotactic transparency within the Naturalness/Markedness Theory (Dressler et al. 1987; Merlini Barbaresi 1988; Dressler 1999, 2005). Hence, uni (← university) is a more transparent/less marked clipping than varsity from the same base, because the word beginning is a more salient part than the word end (and also because of the spelling adjustment e → a), and the partial blend paratroops (← parachute + troops) (4.1.3.2), with shortening of only one constituent, is more transparent than the total blend ballute (← balloon + parachute) (4.1.3.1), in which all constituents are shortened; both, moreover, are less transparent than slanguage, with its overlapping constituents (4.1.3.3). However, the lower degree of transparency of extra-grammatical formations is often compensated for, especially in blends (Thornton 1993), by a higher degree of iconicity. The characteristics of extra-grammatical morphology mentioned above (covering, as far as I know, all the properties that appear in the relevant literature, and re-elaborating them) are not listed in order of importance, although some are more important than others in terms of applicability to most extragrammatical morphological phenomena. For instance, the output of all the phenomena under investigation in this book is not fully predictable (2.3.7.1), and often correlated to a reduced morphotactic transparency (2.3.7.10), which makes the input unrecognisable, and difficult to assign to a specific base or category (2.3.7.4–2.3.7.5). On the other hand, not all extra-

Extra-grammatical morphology

63

grammatical operations are subtractive in form, or meaning, thus making the properties of irregular subtraction of word parts (2.3.7.7) and non-additional meaning change (2.3.7.9) less prototypical for extra-grammaticality. As far as regularity is concerned, each phenomenon exhibits its own preferences and recurrent patterns, which will be explained individually in the following chapters.

Chapter 3 Abbreviations

“Abbreviation” (or “shortening”) is an umbrella term used in this book to refer to three correlated phenomena: namely, clippings (Jespersen’s 1942: 538 “stump-words”), acronyms, and initialisms. These processes share the same abbreviatory mechanism, obtaining new word-forms by shortening existing lexemes. A clipping is obtained by shortening a (simplex or complex) lexeme to one, two or (rarely) three syllables, as in photo (← photograph) and pub (← public house). Acronyms and initialisms, grouped together under the label “alphabetisms” in my classification, are obtained by shortening a multi-word sequence (phrase, compound, title, or list) to the initial letters, as in AIDS (← Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and BBC (← British Broadcasting Corporation). As observed by Kreidler (2000: 957), “The use of abbreviations goes back to antiquity”; examples are Latin alphabetisms such as INRI and SPQR and Hebrew acronymic personal names, for example Rambam ← Rabbi Moses ben Maimon. Yet it is principally in modern times, from the late nineteenth century onwards, that clippings, acronyms and initialisms have proliferated. There are two main reasons for their proliferation. One of these, accounting especially for the use of acronyms and initialisms, is the need for a more efficient vocabulary in technical sectors, such as medicine, politics, law, and commerce (see Economy in 7.1). As advances in computer science and technology brought with them a constant stream of new concepts and terms, the practice of abbreviating words (CAE ‘Computer-Aided Engineering’, DOS, HTML, mms) became increasingly convenient. The use of alphabetisms has been further popularised with the emergence of Short Message Service – itself an initialism (sms) – giving birth to neologisms such as LOL, which stands either for Laughing Out Loud or for Lots Of Love/Luck. The second reason, which affects especially clippings, is the element of familiarity or intimacy (see Informality in 7.1; also Mair’s 2006 concept of “colloquialization”). Clipped words are generally used in less formal contexts than their full-length counterparts: words such as auto, gym, lab, pop (← popular music), and prof indicate an attitude of familiarity on the user’s part, either towards the object denoted, or towards the audience (Adams 1973). Many clipped words belong to specific slang, such as tab, a drug-addicts’ term for a tablet (of LSD), frat used by American college students instead of

Abbreviations

65

fraternity, or pecs, used among bodybuilders to refer to pectoral muscles (Mattiello 2008a). Others originated as terms of special groups, but then became colloquial language. Examples come from the language of schoolmates (maths for mathematics, uni or varsity for university), soldiers (cap for captain, chute for parachute), family members (hubby for husband, sis for sister, telly for television), doctors and scientists (chemo for chemotherapy, mono for mononucleosis), and teenagers (disco for discotheque, fries for French frie(d potatoe)s, and pics for pictures, also spelt pix) (see Social or Professional closeness in 7.1). Although the creation and use of abbreviations has become a more and more widespread phenomenon in English, the abbreviations themselves, as well as the various sub-types – clippings, acronyms, and initialisms – have received relatively little attention in the literature generally, and very little serious consideration in morphological works in particular, at least in comparison with other word-formation processes. This fact is also demonstrated by the terminological divergences in pertinent scholarship. As we will see, studies probing these phenomena (e.g. Cannon 1989; López Rúa 2002), disagree on terminology, and use one label or another, in somewhat disparate fashion, with confusion as to which is the superordinate and which the subordinate term. Also, the general term “abbreviation” is not unanimously accepted, and “shortening” is often preferred (e.g. by Heller and Macris 1968; Kreidler 1979; Cannon 1989; López Rúa 2002, 2004). I will propose my own taxonomy (Conti and Mattiello 2008; Mattiello 2008a) in the descriptive section below (3.1). As discussed in the Introduction, few scholars appear interested in the topic, because these abbreviations seem to be irregular and sporadic as compared with canonical affixation and compounding (Kreidler 2000: 959), and this encourages many linguists to exclude them from morphological theory (Aronoff 1976; Scalise 1984; Spencer 1991; Haspelmath 2002), or to marginalise their formation mechanisms as unpredictable processes. The difficult predictability, or even un-predictability, of clippings and acronyms is a recognised fact (Bauer 1983: 233–238). There are no clear word-formation rules by means of which we might predict where a word will be cut. Moreover, especially in acronyms, the input “is treated with a certain amount of freedom” (Bauer 1983: 237), because the output must conform to the phonological canons of English. Haspelmath (2002) even concludes that, although these operations can be used to create new words, they “do not fall under morphology, because the resulting new words do not show systematic meaning-sound resemblances of the sort that speakers would recognize” (p. 25).

66

Abbreviations

Authors who devote their papers exclusively to these phenomena appear more concerned with giving examples than with examining the processes. Cannon (1989), for instance, uses an extensive database of abbreviations (631 items) for purely descriptive and taxonomical purposes, as he is convinced that these items “shed no light on morphology or lexical theory” (p. 102). On the other hand, Plag (2003) observes that restrictions on prosodic categories “constrain both the structure of clippings and their relation to their base words” (p. 121). Hence, he establishes prosodic regularities for clippings as well as for truncated names (Plag 2003: 119–121). For acronyms and initialisms, on the other hand, he indicates certain orthographic and phonological properties which allow a systematic analysis of possible patterns, and permit the inclusion of these abbreviation types, together with clippings and blends, within regular word-formation. The fact that abbreviations do not change the denotative meaning of their base words is an indication of their extra-grammaticality (2.3.7.8). Indeed, unlike new derivatives and compounds, new words formed by shortening are merely instances of re-naming, giving more efficient labels or a flavour of familiarity to concepts that already have designations. Both Bat-El (2000: 63) and Fradin (2003: 249–250) disagree with this, claiming that acronyms and clippings become more specialised than their bases. This is true for abbreviations used in specialised domains, but is not generalisable to all cases. Kreidler (2000: 959, after Marchand 1969: 441) further observes that clippings may develop autonomously from their source, acquiring a new meaning. Examples of this type, as we will see, are limited to a set of cases whose source is forgotten, as in taxi, from taximeter cabriolet. (Sub)regularities as well as irregularities of acronyms and initialisms have been highlighted in Conti and Mattiello (2008). The clipping process is similarly governed by universal preferences, such as the prosodic preference for a monosyllabic structure ending in a consonant (Kreidler 2000: 960), but it is not morphologically constrained, admitting variant processes and therefore alternative outputs (2.3.7.2). This is the reason why Jamet (2009), after Plag (2003) and others, tries to formalise the study of clipping by identifying grammatical, morpho(no)logical and semantic restrictions, which are, however, only “tendencies”, rather than “strict golden rules” (Jamet 2009: 30), of the generative type. The extra-grammatical character and irregularity of abbreviations will be discussed in this chapter. Their regularities will also be examined (see BatEl 2000; Kreidler 2000; Plag 2003; Jamet 2009), and their preferences taken

Definition, delimitation, and classification

67

into account, in order to establish whether new clipped words or acronyms can be predicted by applying precise criteria. Although my definition of acronyms and initialisms rules out a number of borderline cases, which will be excluded from my analysis, I still expect alphabetisms to be difficult to predict. It is also likely that clippings and clipped names, or hypocoristics, are random and partially unpredictable, or that they do not always conform to distinctive patterns. Ambiguity between different inputs (sub is either from submarine or from substitute, BA is Bachelor of Arts as well as British Airways, A.W.O.L. originates from Absent WithOut Leave or Absent Without Official Leave) or alternative outputs (e.g. ad vs. advert, A.W.O.L. spelt as a series of letters or as a word, i.e. awol) are symptomatic of the extra-grammaticality (2.3.7.2–2.3.7.3) and irregularity of abbreviated forms. 3.1.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

In the literature on abbreviations, there is a lack of consistency and much vagueness as well as overlapping with respect to what is termed an abbreviation in general, in contrast with what should be regarded, for instance, as a proper clipping, an alphabetism (term which I use as a hyperonym for the following two phenomena), an initialism, or an acronym. The term “abbreviations”, for instance, is not commonly used as the general label. Cannon (1989: 106), considers as legitimate abbreviations only words which are pronounced by their initial letters, such as D.B.S. (← De Bonis Suis), while López Rúa (2002: 40) reserves this label for a heterogeneous set of cases which are only used in writing and with a variable degree of shortening (e.g. Dr. ← Doctor, Mr ← Mister). “Shortening” is, in both studies, the preferred alternative. Furthermore, as Cannon (1989) observes, dictionary practice has been nurturing a general confusion of terms “Since the fifteenth century” (p. 106) by listing as abbreviations not only acronyms and clippings, but also contractions and visual devices. The position of clippings, acronyms, and initialisms within the category of abbreviations is even more controversial, and terminology varies from one author to another. Jespersen (1942: 533–552), for example, under the label “shortenings”, lists “clipped” or “stump-words” such as sec for second, as well as “alphabetic shortenings”, either read letter by letter (M.P. for Member of Parliament) or read as regular words (Dora for Defence Of Realm Act). Marchand (1969: 452–454) relegates acronymic abbreviations to the process of word-manufacture,52 distinguishing between “letter-words” (e.g.

68

Abbreviations

Eto ← European Theater of Operations), “syllable-words” (e.g. sial ← silicon + aluminium), and a combination of the two (e.g. radar). Initialisms like YMCA (← Young Men’s Christian Association) are described by means of pronunciation, but they are not labelled or categorised. Bauer (1983: 233– 238) takes only clippings, blends, and acronyms into account, thus excluding initialisms of the type USA from his morphological description. Cannon (1989: 99), by contrast, employs the term “initialisms” as a “general rubric for acronyms and abbreviations” (see also Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1632–1633), whereas López Rúa (2002, 2004) considers initialisms as a superordinate category comprising acronyms and alphabetisms. On the other hand, in Adams (1973) and Kreidler (1979, 2000) “acronyms” is a cover term including the other two categories, classified by Kreidler (2000: 957) as “alphabetic, or letter-naming” (e.g. UK) and “orthoepic, or letter-sounding” (e.g. NATO). Like Plag (2003), I classify the first of these as initialisms, reserving the term “acronym” for the orthoepic type. Unlike Plag (2003), however, I include under the heading “clippings” not only clipped common words, such as lab (← laboratory), but also clipped compounds (pub), clipped names or hypocoristics (Mike, Patty), and clippings with suffixes (aggr-o ← aggravation, Auss-ie ← Australian, champ-ers ← champagne). The label “truncations”, often used synonymously with “clippings” (e.g. in Jamet 2009), is reserved in this study to the type in which the final part of a word is dropped, as in the afore-mentioned lab. Blends, which are generally viewed as a special type of abbreviation and therefore grouped together with the other categories mentioned here,53 will be treated separately in this study, their specificity being the fact that they operate on two or more base words. As this very brief and sporadic exploration of existing nomenclature shows, there are fuzzy borders among the categories considered, and disagreement among linguists on a general taxonomy, which is often mentioned as a reason for the lack of a systematic study (Cannon 1989; López Rúa 2004). The next seven sections are devoted to the definition, delimitation and categorisation of these phenomena. 3.1.1. Definition of clipping Clipping is a process which abbreviates a word to one of its parts, with a consequent loss of phonetic material, as in fash (← fashion/fashionable), flu (← influenza), and plane (← airplane/aeroplane). Different definitions underline one aspect or another of the phenomenon, but they often agree that clipping does not involve any semantic change. In Bauer’s (1983: 233) defi-

Definition, delimitation, and classification

69

nition, for example, clipping is negatively defined as a process without any semantic consequences, but with a change in the stylistic value: Clipping refers to the process whereby a lexeme (simplex or complex) is shortened, while still retaining the same meaning and still being a member of the same form class. Frequently clipping results in a change of stylistic level.

Kreidler (2000), who claims that a clipping “is derived from a simple lexeme and consists of one, two, or occasionally three syllables of that word” (p. 956), is more specific on this point. He distinguishes clipped forms that are essentially identical with the source, except for an added familiar connotation (e.g. gym(nasium), ref(eree)), from those that become totally separated from the source (e.g. taxi ‘the vehicle’ ← taximeter ‘device that computes the distance travelled’).54 A third group includes instances that undergo a specification/narrowing process, as in demo, denoting not ‘any demonstration’, but ‘a political display’ (Br.E.) or ‘a demonstration car’ (Am.E.) (also in Jamet 2009). In relation to this, Adams (1973: 136) observes that “Clippings show various degrees of semantic dissociation from their full forms”: e.g., mob (← Lat. mobile vulgus) and pants (← pantaloons)55 are no longer felt as clippings, because the longer forms are not used, and, similarly, lunch, movie and pram have now superseded their source words/phrases luncheon, moving picture and perambulator. In other words, the new item has become “an unrelated lexical unit” (Marchand 1969: 441). Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 10) even observe that the etymology of some clipped forms is sometimes unrecognisable, as in gin, from Dutch genever ‘spirit obtained from juniper berries’ (cf. folk-etymological association with the name of the city of Geneva) (OED3). Plag (2003: 128) instead states that clippings bring – if not a new meaning – a “social meaning” carrying a different connotation from the base lexeme. In a previous publication (Mattiello 2008a: 141), I similarly claim that clipped words acquire a pragmatic meaning, expressing a particular attitude of the speaker and lowering the stylistic level of discourse to less formal speech: this allows the standard word criminal and the slang word crim to co-exist and select different registers. Katamba (2005) provides a definition related to Bauer’s (1983), but adds a phonological dimension, claiming that clipped words are formed “by lopping off a portion and reducing it to a monosyllabic or disyllabic rump” (Katamba 2005: 180). Three syllables are also possible (see Kreidler 2000: 956), generally with clippings from complex words, as in digi cabes (← digital cable), hetero (← heterosexual), intercom (← intercommunication

70

Abbreviations

system) (reported by Jamet 2009: 25). López Rúa (2006: 676) also notes that there may be phonological modification in terms of changed or additional vowels or consonants, so that “a different graphic version with occasionally spelling adjustments” is obtained, as in bike for bicycle, coke for cocaine, natch for naturally. Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 10) also add a syntactic dimension, noting that this process applies not only to a single word, but also to a whole phrase or compound, as in glutes (← gluteus maximus), perm (← permanent wave), siggy (← significant other) and zoo (← zoological garden). In this respect, Kreidler’s definition (2000: 956, given above) is more restrictive, in that it confines clipping to the formal shortening of simple lexemes, although he later admits that, semantically, it may derive from a compound or phrase (Kreidler 2000: 962). In relation to the syntactic class of the bases, both Kreidler (2000) and Jamet (2009) underline the predominantly nominal nature of clipped forms, although they observe that other less frequent categories do exist: e.g., adjectives (fave ← favourite), verbs (prep ← prepare), adverbs (inf ← infinitely), and more rarely, conjunctions (’cos ← because) and interjections (lor ← lord), the latter two being in any case much less frequent word categories in the language as a whole. In relation to morphotactics, clippings can be classified according to which part of the source remains in the output – the initial, medial, or final portion – and whether any suffix is added (Mattiello 2008a).56 Before offering my own classification based on such morphological criteria, a delimitation of the clipping process is in order. 3.1.2. Delimitation: Clipping vs. other processes Although scholars follow different linguistic approaches and provide differing definitions of the clipping process, all definitions are interrelated and oriented towards the same concept. However, this concept is at times conflated with other related but, separate, notions. First of all, the distinction between clipping and back-formation, as diachronic processes, is not always clear (Kreidler 1979: 26, 2000: 957). According to Bauer (1983: 232) and Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 10) backformations like burgle (← burglar), edit (← editor), and peddle (← peddler) are to be considered as special cases of clipping.57 On the one hand, they are both kinds of shortening, but on the other hand, they differ from many points of view. First, the material removed in back-formation is more

Definition, delimitation, and classification

71

predictable (by analogy) than that removed in clipping, because it normally has the status of a (supposed) morpheme, rather than being material with no morphemic status (Kreidler 1979: 26; cf. Jamet 2009: 17). Second, the removed material in back-formation is generally the final part of a word, whereas clipping, as we will see, curtails words in various ways. Third, back-formations always change the grammatical category of the base word (e.g. Noun → Verb, as in baby-sitter → baby-sit, sculptor → sculpt), whereas this is not the case with clippings, which almost always belong to the same word class as the base (e.g. both corp and corporation are nouns, both fess and confess are verbs, etc.).58 Thus, back-formation obtains new words, clipping only connoted variants.59 Another necessary distinction is between clipping and the process of ellipsis. According to Kreidler (2000: 962), clippings derived from compounds or phrases, like pub or typo (← typographical error), are extensions of the process of ellipsis, by which, for instance, a construction of modifier + head is reduced to the modifier, deleting the head, as in capital for capital city, capital letter, etc., general for general servant, and Underground for Underground railway. In decaf for decaffeinated coffee and neg for negative photograph part of the modifier is also deleted. These elliptic forms take on the meaning of the source forms, and also their syntactic class, as the plural marker of final-s from final examinations or primar-ies from primary elections demonstrate. Therefore, I consider the above-mentioned words as cases of clipping. I distinguish ellipsis from clipping on the basis of their morphological relevance. Ellipsis is essentially a textual phenomenon (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Beaugrande and Dressler 1981), in that the deep structure is recoverable from context and the omitted material can be generally determined by making reference to the immediate co-text. Clipping, on the other hand, is a morphological phenomenon, and the omitted part is not always unambiguously determined or recovered by means of con-/co-textual information. The concept of clipping may also be confused with that of blending. This confusion is normally due to the similarity between some clippings derived from complex bases and blends, typically merging two or more bases. As I will explain in more detail in the next chapter (4.1.2), clipped compounds, such as hi-fi (← high fidelity) and adman (← advertising man), differ from blends because their bases have a composite rather than independent meaning. The demarcation between the two processes is especially complex not with coordinate blends of the type bilk (← beer + milk) or linner (← lunch + dinner), whose bases are paradigmatically related, but above all with the attributive type (e.g. blog ← web + log), whose bases are syntagmatically

72

Abbreviations

related (more in 3.1.3 and 4.1.3). A dubious case is the noun quasar, analysed by Bertinetto (2001: 100) as a blend from quasi and stellar, but actually originating from an adjectival base quasi-stellar having a composite meaning (OED3). A further point with regard to the notion of clipping is that it excludes a series of purely graphic abbreviations, i.e., sequences of letters which, when converted to speech, are pronounced as the source words they abbreviate, like Dr. (← Doctor), ed. (← editor), Mr. (← Mister), or, from a Latin base, etc. (← et cetera). On the other hand, Dem (← Democrat), Inc (← Incorporated), Jan (← January) are hybrids between clippings and graphic abbreviations, because they can be read out in expanded or unexpanded form. Lastly, clippings with a high degree of shortening (e.g. c. ← century, H. ← hydrogen, p. ← page) may conflate with acronyms or initialisms of the type FAQ and CD (Conti and Mattiello 2008: 560). Indeed, like them, they are made up of the initial letters of words. Even more blurred is the border between alphabetisms and instances of two or more letters taken from a single word, as in ADG for adermatoglyphia, ID for identification (as in ID number/card, user ID, or on its own), TB/tb for tuberculosis, TV for television or, in slang, for transvestite. However, all these abbreviations have a single word as source form, whereas acronyms and initialisms come from a multi-word sequence (Frequently Asked Questions, Compact Disk). As a corollary, short clippings of the type c., H., etc. are highly ambiguous, admitting alternative inputs (e.g. in slang H. means heroin; see 2.3.7.3), and potentially standing for any word beginning with the initial letter retained. By contrast, a combination of letters, as in alphabetisms, leaves a smaller number of options to disambiguation. 3.1.3. Classification and structure of clippings Clippings are commonly classified according to which part of the base is deleted, with distinctions being made between back-clipping, fore-clipping, edge-clipping, and mid-clipping. 3.1.3.1. Back-clipping (called “‘hind’ clipping” by López Rúa 2006: 676)60 deletes the final part of the word, thus preserving the initial portion. Another appropriate label for this type is “truncation” (cf. Plag 2003 and others who extend the term to the whole variety of clippings). Back-clippings represent the highest percentage in English and other languages, in that the beginning

Definition, delimitation, and classification

73

is considered the most salient part of a word (Dressler 2005). This pattern is illustrated by many nouns, either monosyllabic or disyllabic: ad/advert(isement), auto(mobile), bi(sexual), bro(ther), cap(tain), demo(nstration), disco(theque), emo(tional), gym(nasium),61 lab(oratory), photo(graph), pic(ture), prof(essor), sis(ter), uni(versity) have already been mentioned. Other examples include: admin (← administration), amp (← amplifier), app (← application, and recently also from appetizer), bra (← brassière), bronc (← bronco), cam (← camera), cig (← cigarette), condo (← condominium), croc (← crocodile), curio (← curiosity), deb (← debutante), deli (← delicatessen), dino (← dinosaur), dorm (← dormitory), exam (← (academic) examination), fan (← fanatic), gas (← gasoline), grad (← graduate), homo (← homosexual), mag (← magazine, cf. zine below), mayo (← mayonnaise), memo (← memorandum), mimeo (← mimeograph), pen (← penitentiary), porn (← pornography), pres (← president), promo (← promotion), Rasta (← Rastafarian), rehab (← rehabilitation), sax (← saxophone), stude (← student), talc (← talcum), tech (← technology), teen (← teenager), tick (← ticket), tu (← tuition), U (← University; cf. initialisms in 3.1.4), vamp (← vampire) ‘seductive woman’, zep (← zeppelin). A final -s is kept in binos (← binoculars), celebs (← celebrities), congrats (← congratulations), hols (← holidays), maths (cf. Am.E. math), mocs (← moccasins), specs (← spectacles), at times with a semantic specification, as in pants. Turps (← turpentine) is “embellished” by an -s (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1636). In gents (← gentlemen’s lavatory), the final -s is a residue of the genitive. Back-clipped adjectives and verbs are less frequent: the former are illustrated by comfy, fab, hyper, imposs, marvy, mizzy, preg, rad, respectively from comfortable, fabulous, hyperactive, impossible, marvellous, miserable, pregnant, and radical, the latter by frat, prep, psych,62 rehab, sum, veg, from fraternize, prepare, psychoanalyse, rehabilitate, summarize, and vegetate (‘pass the time in vacuous inactivity’). Back-clipped adverbs like def(initely) and inf(initely) are rare. Some back-clippings are shortenings of slang rather than standard words (Mattiello 2008a: 143): e.g., boob (← booby ‘a stupid fellow’), fag (← faggot ‘a male homosexual’), Mex (← Mexican ‘foreign currency’), mike (← microgram ‘a microgram of a drug’), mush (← mushroom ‘an umbrella’), nig (← nigger ‘a dark-skinned person’). Others were slang words at their origin, but are no longer considered stylistically marked, due to their frequency of use in everyday language. Examples of this kind are: brill (← brilliant), divi. (← dividend), ma (← mama), meth (← methamphetamine; cf. meth(s) from methylated spirit, OED3), op (← operative/operator ‘a

74

Abbreviations

private investigator’; cf. optical in op art), phenom (← phenomenon), pol (← politician), pros/pross (← prostitute), Prot (← Protestant), stupe (← stupid), teach (← teacher), etc. Against Kreidler’s (1979: 27) claim that “the short form has to resemble its source in some fairly unambiguous way”, sometimes input recognition is obstructed not only by shortening, but also by orthographic change, as in bike, biz (← business), cuke (← cucumber), delish (← delicious), fax (← facsimile), mike (← microphone), pram (← perambulator), slang Jeez (← Jesus), loony/-ey (← lunatic), mensh (← mention), natch, pash (← passion), sarge (← sergeant), and trank (← tranquillizer).63 However, some of these changes (e.g. in delish, natch, pash) were necessary in order to preserve the original pronunciation. Minor spelling adjustments may also involve the addition of the hypocoristic suffix -ie/-y, as in the above-mentioned comfy, marvy, and loony, or the slang suffixes -o (lesbo ← lesbian) and -ers (preggers ← pregnant). Input may be ambiguous because of homophony (i.e. complete loss of contrast): for example, ad can stand for advertisement or administration, demo for demonstration or demolition, doc for doctor or document, comp for computer or competition, mac/Mac for macaroni or Macintosh, op for optical, operator, or opportunity, spec for speculation, or for specialist/specification in slang, sub for submarine or substitute, veg for vegetable (as in vegan ← veg + -an, OED3) or vegetarian, vet for veteran or veterinarian. Coke is also ambiguous, being both a clipping from Coca cola and a clipped slang word for cocaine. However, different users or contexts may immediately select one etymology and exclude the other (cf. mac/Mac ‘a type of pasta’ vs. ‘a series of personal computers’). Graphically, the capital letter may also help discriminate between the two possibilities. Lastly, ambiguity or vagueness may involve source words which belong to different syntactic classes, as in dif for difference or different, fash for fashion or fashionable, glam for glamour, glamorous and glamorize, homo for homosexual (noun and adjective), perv/perve for perversion, pervert or perverted (also pervy), and psycho for psychopath or psychopathic. 3.1.3.2. Fore-clipping deletes the initial part of the word, thus preserving the final portion, which is a rather salient word part (preserved, e.g., in baby talk, Marchand 1969: 443). Some historical clippings belong to this type: (a)bet, (a)cute, (ad)venture, (a)mend, (ap)ply, (at)tend, (cara)van, (de)fence, (de)fend, (de)spite, still (from distil), (di)sport, (e)spy, (e)strange, (hi)story, (omni)bus, (o)possum, (peri)wig, (rac)coon, (vio-

Definition, delimitation, and classification

75

lon)cello (reported by Kreidler 1979: 27–29). More recent examples include: bot (← robot), choke (← artichoke), chute (← parachute), copter (← helicopter), droid (← android), fiche (← microfiche),’Fro (← Afro), lax (← relax, also used as a verb, see Rice University Neologisms Database), mia (← bulimia), mum (← chrysanthemum), phone, rents (← parents), tard (← retard), tude (← attitude), Am.E. vator (← elevator), zine (← magazine). As these examples show, most fore-clippings are formed from nouns, but also from adjectives (strange), verbs (mend, niff ← sniff, spy), conjunctions (cos), adverbs (’deed ← indeed), and prepositions (’gainst ← against, ’neath ← beneath or underneath, ’tween ← between). Some are graphically marked by an apostrophe: e.g., ’cause for because, ’cept for except, ’cruits for recruits, ’fess for confess, ’fraid for afraid, ’zing for amazing, and the above-mentioned adverbs and prepositions. Others exhibit minor spelling adjustments, as in leet for elite, nuff for enough, sheen for machine, varsity, Yard for Montagnard. The following clipped words have a slangy flavour: gator (← alligator), loid (← celluloid), Nam (← Vietnam), nana (← banana ‘a foolish person’), Scouse (← lobscouse, ‘a native or inhabitant of Liverpool’), tache (← moustache), tato (← potato), za (← pizza) (Mattiello 2008a: 145). 3.1.3.3. Edge-clipping (or “ambiclipping” in Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1635) deletes the initial and final parts of the word, thus preserving the medial portion. Admittedly, this type is rare and its transparency is highly endangered. A few examples are: flu, fridge, jams (← pyjamas), polly (← apollinaris), tec, van (← advantage). Adams (1973: 136) also cites script for prescription, later also used in slang to indicate ‘a prescription for narcotic drugs’ (Mattiello 2008a: 145), and Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 10) mention quiz (← inquisitive).64 The origin of the word gypsy is from Egyptian, with a high degree of opaqueness. The clipping ’lax (← relaxed; cf. relax above) has been recently used in an e-mail message (Rice University Neologisms Database). 3.1.3.4. Mid-clipping (cf. “median clipping” or “contraction” in Jamet 2009: 18, after Tournier 1985) deletes the middle part of the word, thus preserving both extremities. This is the rarest type, and the least transparent due to discontinuity of the base, as in ana for anorexia, cortisone for corticosterone,65 proctor for procurator, secy for secretary. The word miss (← mistress) also belongs to this group, because the final -s is not a plural marker,

76

Abbreviations

but the word ending. Other peripheral mid-clippings include apostrophes or hyphens, as in the place names B’ham (← Birmingham), B-way (← Broadway), Jo’burg (← Johannesburg). 3.1.3.5. Random clippings retain some scattered letters, specifically, consonants, from the base word. Examples are: dlr (← dollar), HRN (← heroin), Jpn (← Japan), Ltd (← limited), mgr. (← manager), nr. (← near). Other such clippings are abbreviations used in text messages: e.g., jst for just, msg for message, pls for please, ppl for people, rgds for regards, spk for speak, sry for sorry, vry for very, wk for week (López Rúa 2007). However, their relevance is more in writing than in oral speech. Cannon (1989) considers bldg (← building) a visual device with “no real theoretical import” (p. 105). 3.1.3.6. The various types of clipping mentioned so far can also be found with complex bases. The items resulting from this process are referred to as clipped compounds. Clipped compounds (also “clipping-compounds” in Marchand 1969: 445, “clipped forms” in Bauer 1983: 233, “shortened/abbreviated compounds” in Plag 2003: 122) reduce a compound to one of its parts. They are kept separate from the usual patterns of clippings because, like blends, they are made up of two or more bases. At the same time, however, they differ from blends because, while in blends the bases have an autonomous sense, in clipped compounds they have a composite meaning (Mattiello 2008a: 146). Examples of clipped compounds include back-clippings: exec (← executive officer), graph (← graphic formula), lat (← latissimus dorsi), oppo (← opposite number ‘a partner’), narc/nark (← narcotics agent), poke (← pocket book), prefab (← prefabricated structure), pre-nup (← pre-nuptial agreement),66 stereo (← stereophonic system), and tempo (← temporary building). The -s of plurality is retained in caps (← capital letters, cf. capital). A more transparent group leaves the first element intact: jumbo (← jumbo jet), piano (← pianoforte), and slang after (← afternoon), common (← common sense), hard (← hard labour), mobile (← mobile (tele)phone), natural (← natural life), skin (← skinhead). At times also a portion of the second member is kept, as in fanfic (← fan fiction), high-tech, kid-vid (← kid video).

Definition, delimitation, and classification

77

Fore-clippings are less common – e.g., (air)plane, (check)mate, (cock)roach, (earth)quake, (ice)berg, (turn)pike – but also more transparent because what is preserved is the head component. The middle of the compound can be dropped either by leaving the first element intact, as in backstitution (← backsubstitution ‘a mathematical process’), breathalyser (← breath analyser), or by preserving the second element, as in adman (← advertising man), cell phone (← cellular (tele)phone), op art (← optical art), org-man (← organization man), pulmotor (← pulmonary motor). There are also cases in which only the first letter of the first member is kept, as in B-girl (← Bar girl), C-section (← Caesarean section), or E. coli (← Escherichia coli, or, in OED3, from Entamoeba coli). By contrast, in shrink (← head-shrinker) the middle of the compound is retained. Even discontinuous pieces can be clipped, as in biopic (← biographical picture), bodbiz (← body business), Chicom (← Chinese communist), Comsymp (← communist sympathizer), conlang (← constructed language), cyborg (← cybernetic organism), edbiz (← educational business), fro-yo (← frozen yogurt), hi-fi (← high fidelity), midcult (← middle culture), op-ed (← opinion editorial), pro-am (← professional amateur), scifi (← science fiction), sitcom (← situation comedy), and wi-fi (← wireless fidelity), all of which retain the beginning of both bases. This class is frequently found in slang: e.g., des res (← desirable residence), misper (← missing person), slomo (← slow motion), spag bol (← spaghetti Bolognese), sysop (← system operator). The types adman and sci-fi are often confused with blends, for instance, by Jamet (2009: 17–18), who, however, admits that it is sometimes difficult to decide if we are confronted with clipping or blending. A distinction based on various parameters can be found in section 4.1.2. Furthermore, the items hi-fi and sci-fi are included in Dienhart’s (1999: 25) classification of reduplicative compounds, since their components exhibit rhyme with different consonant onset. Rhyme appears crucial in these items, intentionally read  and  in spite of their full forms’ pronunciation. However, their constituents are clipped forms of existing compound members, which differ from the bases of rhyming reduplicatives, like super-duper, in that both of them are meaningful and contribute to the meaning of the whole (see also 5.1.2 and Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 233–234 for a similar account).

78

Abbreviations

3.1.3.7. Another subcategory of the clipping process has proper names as the base. Clipped names or hypocoristics are abbreviated proper names which are used to express familiarity. Subtractive hypocoristics are metaphors of the pragmatic relation between the addresser and the addressee: morphotactic truncation is iconic of the reduced distance (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Plag (2003: 116–121) amply illustrates each type of what he calls “truncated names”, focusing on their formal properties and prosodic structure. I will therefore limit this brief account on clipped names to observe that, like clippings of common nouns, clipped names obey various patterns and hence exhibit different degrees of transparency. The most transparent type preserves the initial portion of the name (Barb ← Barbara, Bart ← Bartholomew), at times with some spelling adjustments obstructing input recognition, as in Abe (← Abraham), Bob (← Robert), Dol (← Dorothy), Hal (← Harry), Mike (← Michael), Rick (← Richard), Sal (← Sarah), Tom (← Thomas), Vee (← Veronica).67 Examples preserving the final portion of the name are also frequent, although less transparent than the former type: Bert (← Herbert or Albert), Dora (← Theodora, but no longer felt to be connected with the long form), Fred (← Alfred), Gail (← Abigail), Net (← Antoinette), Ron (← Aaron), and, with adjusted spelling, Belle (← Arabella), Bes (← Elizabeth, cf. Bet), Tilda (← Mathilda), Trix (← Beatrice). A lower degree of transparency is in names whose medial portion is preserved, as in Dolph (← Adolphus), Liz, Lum/Lom (← Columbus), Mel (← Amelia), Tish (← Letitia), Trish (← Patricia), Ves (← Sylvester), and Xan (← Alexandra), where the most salient parts are dropped. The least transparent type is in Floss (← Florence), with a discontinuous base. The ambiguity (or vagueness) of clipped names, however, is even more manifest than that of common nouns. The same input may obtain different outputs, as in Al and Lon from Alonzo, Eve and Lyn from Evelyn, Liz and Bet from Elizabeth, Pat and Trish from Patricia, and a set of names are shortened into the same output: Al stands for Albert, Alfred and Alonzo, Bert for Adelbert, Bertram and Robert, Belle is either Arabella or Belinda. As we will see, some of them may also acquire an -ie/-y suffix (Bertie, Patty). These are further confirmations of the difficult predictability of clipped forms.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

79

3.1.3.8. As mentioned above, in a significant number of cases clipping is accompanied by suffixation, hence suffixed clipping. The suffix is generally used to convey a familiarising, hypocoristic or jocular flavour (Merlini Barbaresi 2001; Mattiello 2008a). Hence, this type of suffix is called a “familiarity marker” by Quirk et al. (1985: 1584). Suffixed or “embellished” clippings (vs. “plain” in Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1636) can be divided into three groups: ―

Clippings with -ie/-y. By analogy with shortenings ending with a final vowel -i (e.g. deli), some clippings take an -ie/-y suffix (orthographic variants of which are -i and sometimes -ee), generally making monosyllabic into disyllabic words (Kreidler 1979: 29–30). This phenomenon, studied by Merlini Barbaresi (2001), involves diminutive formation, as well as nicknames and familiar versions of common nouns and proper names, such as divvy (← dividend), Gerry (← Gerald), Mandy (← Amanda), sausie (← sausage), telly. It is also mentioned by Plag (2003), who states that “sometimes truncation and affixation can occur together, as with formations expressing intimacy or smallness, so-called diminutives” (p. 13).68 The combination of shortening and diminutive/familiar suffixation is favoured by the fact that these processes generally share the same communicative contexts and pragmatic situations. Hence, the main areas of use of clippings and diminutives are hypocoristics, slangy use, familiar language, and speech situations characterised by a close relationship and intimacy among speakers. The following are examples of clipped hypocoristics with a proper name or surname as their base: Andy (← Andrew), Angie (← Angela), Barbie/Babbie (← Barbara),69 Bernie (← Bernard), Bertie (← Albert or Bertram), Charlie (← Charles or Charlotte), Debby (← Deborah), Gerry, Patty, Richie, Robbie (← Roberta); Bogey (← Bogart), Boney/Bonny (← Bonaparte), Bozzy (← Boswell), Dizzy (← Disraeli), Fergie (← Ferguson), Gorby (← Gorbachev), Montie (← Montgomery), Sherry (← Sheridan), Woolies (← Woolworths), Wordy (← Wordsworth). Back-clippings are the most common form, as the abovementioned examples show, but other patterns may also occur, such as edge- and fore-clippings, as in Lizzie and Betty (← Elizabeth), Lexie (← Alexandra), Mandy (← Amanda), Netty (← Antoinette), Sandy (← Alexander). In slangy use, such hypocoristics may pass into the category of common nouns, to name everyday objects, as in Archie (← Archibald) ‘an anti-

80

―

Abbreviations

aircraft gun’, maggie/-y (← Margaret) ‘a prostitute’, patsy (← Patrick) ‘someone who is the object of ridicule’, and appellatives for cowards or effeminate men (e.g. gussie ← Augustus, Lizzie/lizzie ← Elizabeth). Other slang words with an -ie/-y suffix include: Argie (← Argentinian), Aussie (← Australian), bevie/bevvy (← beverage), divvy, footie/-y (← football), maggie (← magazine), Polly (← Apollinaris) ‘Apollinaris mineral water’, pornie (← pornography), surfie (← surfer), tatie/tattie (← potato), U-ey (← U-turn), and, from complex bases, billies (← dollar bills), chippie/-y (← chip-shop), goalie (← goalkeeper), offie (← off-licence shop) (see Mattiello 2008a: 107–108). The noun cutie/-ey used for ‘an attractive young woman’ is a suffixed word from cute, which is originally an aphetic form of acute (OED2).70 Clippings with an -ie/-y suffix which are familiar rather than slang are equally frequent, though the borderline between the two is often blurred. Examples include: addy (← address), alky (← alcoholic), barbie (← barbecue), bermies (← bermudas), biccy (← biscuit, after spelling modification; cf. Australian bickie), Caddie/-y (← Cadillac), cardie (← cardigan), ciggie/-y (← cigarette), Chevy (← Chevrolet), Commie (← Communist), hanky (← handkerchief), hubby, pollie (← politician), sausie, sissy, telly, and cozzie, mozzie (modified from costume, mosquito). The base is an adjective in comfy, grotty (← grotesque), marvy. The same pattern from a complex base is found in benny (← benzedrine tablet), boatie (← boatman), credie (← credit card), druggie (← drug addict), folkie (← folk singer), grannie (← grandmother or grandfather), juvie/-ey (← juvenile delinquent), movie, nightie (← nightdress), preemie (← premature baby), postie (← postman), shoppie/-y (← shop assistant). The plural suffix regularly occurs after derivation, as in civvies (← civilian clothes), pokies (← poker machines), rellies (← relatives), sunnies (← sunglasses), undies (← underwear), veggies (← vegetables). Fore-clippings, such as baccy (← tobacco), bikie (← motorbike), brolly (← umbrella), are again less recurrent. Clippings with -o. The type with an -o suffix is less common. It is found in historic beano (← bean-feast), robbo (← Robinson, as in Red Robbo ← Derek Robinson), Salvo (← Salvationist), and more recent aggro (← aggravation/aggression), ammo (← ammunition), combo (← combination), lesbo (← lesbian, after homo(sexual)), and milko (← milkman). This type is formed by analogy with clippings ending with an original vowel o: e.g., anthro(pology), demo, disco, hippo, intro, limo(usine), loco(motive), mayo, memo, mono, photo, physio(therapist), polio(myelitis), promo, rhino(ceros), stereo, tempo.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

81

The -o suffix frequently occurs in Australian and New Zealand slang formations (as observed by Mattiello 2008a: 115): e.g., ambo (← ambulance worker), Commo (← Communist), compo (← compensation), garbo (← garbage collector) ‘a dustman’, gyppo (← gipsy), jollo (← jollification), journo (← journalist), muso (← musician), preggo (← pregnant), reffo (← refugee), rego (← (car) registration), servo (← service station), smoko (← smoke) ‘break from work’, starko (← stark naked), wino (← wine) ‘alcoholic’. Some such words also display alteration of the base spelling, as in arvo (← afternoon), Nasho (← National Service), sammo (← sandwich), and secko (← sex) ‘a sexual pervert’.71 Unlike words with the -ie suffix, terms formed using the -o suffix (or naturally ending with o) tend to be coarse, vigorous, excessive, or contemptuous, and used more by males than by females. They are often used to criticise public figures and movements (e.g. Cathos for Catholics, and Commo above) (Kidd, Kemp, and Quinn 2011). Clippings with -er(s). Even less common is the type with an -er suffix, as in bedder (← bedroom), or -ers (cumulated with -s), as in champers/shampers and preggers. The earliest attested examples are nouns connected with sport and university habits, as in footer (← football, 1863), brekker (← breakfast, 1889), ekker (← exercise, 1891), soccer/socker (← association football, 1891), and rugger (← rugby football, 1893). Other familiar examples with an -er/-ers ending are bathers (Aus.E., ← bathing shorts, also swimmers ← swimming shorts), bed-sitter (← bed-sitting room), collekkers (← collections) ‘an Oxford examination’, leccer (← lecture, also lecker, lekker), and starkers (← stark naked, see starko above). Kidd, Kemp, and Quinn (2011: 365) remark that the -s suffix is “almost exclusively reserved for proper nouns”, as in Honkers (← Hong Kong), Sainters (← St Kilda Football Club), Sydders (← Sydney). The -s suffix is attached to a clipped base in Babs (← Barbara), and in Australian defs (← definitely), maybs (← maybe), mobes (← mobile phone), peeps (← people), probs (← probably; cf. prob(lem)s), and whatevs (← whatever) (Kidd, Kemp, and Quinn 2011: 365).72

Table 1 summarises the various types of clippings described in this section.

82

Abbreviations

Table 1. Types and examples of English clippings Examples Type Backclipping

Foreclipping

Edgeclipping

Mid-clipping

Random Clipping

Suffixed Clipping

Description The final part of the word is deleted The initial part of the word is deleted The initial and final parts of the word are deleted The middle part of the word is deleted Some scattered letters/parts of the word are deleted Some part of the word is deleted and a suffix is added

Clipped word73 ad ← advertisement

Clipped compound prefab ← prefabricated structure

Clipped name

mia ← bulimia

berg ← iceberg

Bert ← Albert

tec ← detective

shrink ← head-shrinker

Xan ← Alexandra

secy ← secretary

breathalyser ← breath analyser

Floss ← Florence

HRN ← heroin

biopic ← biographical picture

—

barbie ← barbecue, aggro ← aggravation, preggers ← pregnant

chippie/-y ← chip-shop, garbo ← garbage collector, swimmers ← swimming shorts

Mandy ← Amanda, Robbo ← Robinson, Sydders ← Sydney

Barb ← Barbara

3.1.4. Definition of acronyms and initialisms Acronyms and initialisms – which I group under the superordinate category of alphabetisms (cf. Quirk et al. 1985; López Rúa 2002) – are words obtained from the initial letters of the words in a phrase, title, compound, or

Definition, delimitation, and classification

83

list, as in Aids, FAQ, laser, VAT or B.B.C., C.O.D., IMHO, OED (see Bauer 1983, 1988; Plag 2003; Conti and Mattiello 2008). Although terminological distinctions are not always so clear-cut, as seen above, scholars generally agree that they represent two different processes, to be distinguished on the basis of their pronunciation. Indeed, the form of acronyms is orthoepic – i.e. they are pronounced as full words – whereas the form of initialisms is letter by letter. Hence, the acronym Aids (← Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is pronounced by applying the regular reading rules (), but the initialism B.B.C. by naming each individual letter of the abbreviated words (). Kreidler (1979: 25) labels these two types “letter-sounding” and “letter-recitation”, later renamed “orthoepic” vs. “alphabetic” in Kreidler (2000: 957). However, as he admits, this distinction is not always so definite, as hybrid cases exist accepting both pronunciations (e.g. aka/AKA, a.s.a.p./A.S.A.P., awol/AWOL, Raf/RAF, vip/V.I.P., ufo/U.F.O., more examples in López Rúa 2002), or combining alphabetic pronunciation with orthoepic rules (e.g. BTEC , CD-ROM , JPEG , MPEG, MS-DOS , NSAID ) (Conti and Mattiello 2008). Moreover, the terms jeep and Veep, respectively from GP (‘General Purpose (vehicle)’) and VP (‘Vice-President’), are pronounced by taking the name of the first letter and the value of the second,74 whereas V.J. (‘VideoJockey’) is alternatively spelt veejay, by analogy with D.J./deejay. Other words which “are given ‘pronunciation-spellings’” (Adams 1973: 136) are: emcee (← M.C. ‘Master of Ceremonies’), okay/okey (← O.K. ‘oll/orl korrect’, also reduplicated as okey-dokey, see chapter 5), teevee75 (← TV ‘television’, borderline with clipping) (see Baum 1955, 1957), and, in Am.E. jaycee (← J.C. ‘Junior Chamber of Commerce (member)’). The process occurring in these formations is a case of “letter pronunciation” (Mattiello 2008a: 152). Lastly, there are words which look like acronyms, but behave like initialisms: GOP (← Grand Old Party) and WHO (← World Health Organization) are read letter by letter, in the latter case probably to avoid ambiguity with the relative pronoun. Plag (2003: 127) proposes another distinction, based on orthography. Both acronyms and initialisms can be spelt with either capital or lower-case letters (as in NATO vs. Nato, SMS vs. sms), but, intuitively, only initialisms can have dots (U.S.A.), though there seems to be a tendency towards avoiding them (USA). However, cases with four different spellings are also possible (e.g. U.F.O., UFO, Ufo, ufo), which may diachronically represent progressive degrees of lexicalisation (2.3.5.1; see also López Rúa 2006: 677).

84

Abbreviations

Capital letters are usually considered a formal device to link the acronym, or the initialism, to its base word. But, nowadays, some words that historically originated as acronyms are no longer spelt with capital letters, and for the majority of speakers they tend to be also no longer related to the word they originally abbreviated (Plag 2003: 127–128). Some items, like laser and radar, even superseded the full forms (Cannon 1989: 103). Sometimes capitals or dots can determine a different reading of the alphabetism, either as an acronym (ASAP , vat ) or as an initialism (a.s.a.p. , VAT ) (Bauer 1983: 237). Bat-El (2000: 67), though using different terminology, even claims that every acronym has a corresponding base and initialism, but not every initialism has a corresponding acronym. Actually, many alphabetisms have a double pronunciation (e.g. DAT, FAQ, VIP, etc.). Hence, initialisms can also be read as words, as long as they are in accordance with the reading rules of a language. A further point concerns the orthographic basis of acronyms and initialisms, whose pronunciation depends on the orthographic status acquired rather than on the phonetic value of each initial letter in the original words. Thus, while the letters A in Amplification and I in International are respectively pronounced  and , the same letters in laser and IPA (‘International Phonetic Alphabet’) are diphthongised, as  and  (Aronoff 1976; Bauer 1983; Merlini Barbaresi 2007; Conti and Mattiello 2008; Mattiello 2008a). Moreover, “while English words beginning with a consonant sound are regularly preceded by the indefinite article a, initialisms may be preceded by either a or an depending on the consonant pronunciation: i.e., a Member of Parliament, but an MP” (Conti and Mattiello 2008: 565). A final aspect which is generally noted in the literature concerns the formation of acronyms, which generally involves “considerable freedom” (Kreidler 1979: 25). According to Kreidler (2000: 958), “In order to create an acronym which is not only pronounceable but also euphonious or suggestive of some other meaning, the letters of the source form are sometimes chosen at will and vowel letters may be added”. In Univac (← UNIVersal Automatic Computer) and radar, for instance, it is not only the first letters that are retained in the acronym. Sometimes the acronym is even made to coincide with an existing word whose meaning is appropriate to the referent, as in CARE (← Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere) (see acrostics in the classification given in 3.1.6.7–3.1.6.8). This latter type, confirming the difficult predictability of acronymic formations, will be considered more marked than the prototypical type, exemplified by Aids.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

85

3.1.5. Delimitation: Acronyms and initialisms vs. other processes A preliminary delimitation of the two concepts under investigation is in order, since there are a variety of adjacent categories which are commonly conflated with alphabetisms due to their abbreviatory character and orthographic shape (Conti and Mattiello 2008). First of all, alphabetisms do not conflate with blends.76 López Rúa (2006) concisely states that alphabetisms of the type laser and BBC “are the result of maximal reduction plus minimal fusion (i.e., the simple concatenation of constituents)” (p. 676). This definition distinguishes them from blends of the type motel (← motor + hotel), which, according to López Rúa (2006: 676) are “the product of medium to minimal reduction and maximal fusion”, the latter underlined in the blend motel. However, there are an increasing number of cases which approach the periphery of either typical blends or typical alphabetisms, and are therefore difficult to categorise. For instance, Satcoma (← SATellite COMmunications Agency) is a fluctuating hybrid, in that it involves medium reduction, like blends, but also minimal fusion, like alphabetisms. Cases like SMART (← Swatch Mercedes ART) are likewise hybrid formations in between acronyms and blends (see extended acronyms in 3.1.6.4). On the other hand, acetal (← acetic + alcohol) is simply a less prototypical type of blend involving two word beginnings, with no fusion between them (this point will be discussed also in 4.1.2). Secondly, alphabetisms do not conflate with clippings with a high degree of shortening, i.e. made up of one or very few letters, such as c. (← century/chapter), dlr (← dollar), H. (← Hydrogen), p. (← page), vs. (← versus). Indeed, whereas such clippings have a single word as their source form, alphabetisms originate from multi-word sequences, including less central cases from compounds (B.S. ← BullShit, DL ← Down-Low, OD ← OverDose). Furthermore, acronyms and initialisms, at least the prototypical types analysed in López Rúa (2002), retain only the initial letters, whereas this happens neither with the mid-clipping in vs. nor with the random clipping in dlr (3.1.3.4–3.1.3.5), both incorporating non-initial letters (especially consonants). In c. from chapter, the letter retained does not even correspond to the initial phoneme of the word , but this is not a discriminatory aspect: cf. the pronunciation of UFO () and the initial vowel  of Unidentified. Thirdly, according to Conti and Mattiello (2008: 560–561), alphabetisms should be kept distinct from a variety of “Graphic abbreviations or symbols, which are unexpanded in writing, but generally expanded in pronunciation”. For instance, quantificational marks (e.g. kg ← kilogram, km ← kilometre)

86

Abbreviations

are not pronounced as a series of letters, but read expanded. Further examples are language names in precise time periods (e.g. E.E., M.E., OE ← Early/Middle/Old English), cardinal points (e.g. N.E. ← North-East, S.W. ← South-West), and international chemical symbols (e.g. K ← L. kalium ‘potassium’, Na ← L. natrium ‘sodium’). Some other abbreviations of neoclassical origin, for example c.v. (← curriculum vitae), and also city names, for example LA (← Los Angeles) and NYC (← New York City), are peripheral to the category of alphabetisms, since they can be read expanded or unexpanded (cf. López Rúa 2002). These may be contrasted with cases such as a.m./p.m. (← ante/post meridiem) and i.e. (← id est), which are read only unexpanded, like initialisms, but are less relevant for the purposes of this study in that they are not specifically English. Note too the abbreviation e.g. (← exempli gratia), which may be read either in unexpanded form or as the words ‘for example’, which may be considered the English (but not Latin) expanded form. The concept of backronym is also different from that of acronym. Backronyms are constructed a posteriori, mostly by folk etymology, from a previously existing word. For instance, Adidas, actually a blend from the company founder’s nickname (Adi Dassler ← Adolph Dassler), has been reinterpreted as ‘All Day I Dream About Sports (or Sex)’, Ford, the car company founded by Henry Ford, was said to stand for ‘First On Race Day’, ‘Fix Or Repair Daily’, or ‘Found On Road, Dead’, and LETS/Lets, an invented name for ‘a self-regulating economic network’, has been later rationalised as ‘Local Exchange (or Employment) Trading System’. Unlike acronyms, which are acts of economising, backronyms are often used for ludic purposes: for instance, the acronym YMCA (← Young Men’s Christian Association) has been reinterpreted as ‘Your Money Cheerfully Accepted’ (Kreidler 2000: 958), VIP is used in advertising for ‘Very Intelligent Pocket’ or ‘Very Important Pet’, and slang phat (‘sexy, attractive’), perhaps a respelling of fat, has been later explained as an acronymic formation from various phrases (‘Pussy, Hips, Ass, and Tits’ or ‘Pretty, Hot, And Tempting’). The last category which partially overlaps with acronymic formations is that of alphanumeric combinations used in text messaging. In such combinations, a syllable is replaced by a homophonous letter and/or number: e.g., B4 (‘before’), d8 (‘date’), 4NR (‘foreigner’), 4U (‘for you’), GR8 (‘great’), ICQ (‘I seek you’), IH8U (‘I hate you’), IOU (‘I owe you’), L8R (‘later’, also CUL8R), m8 (‘mate’), no1/sum1 (‘no one, someone’), QT (‘cutie’), RU3? (‘Are you free?’, with a different pronunciation of the  as ), TNX (‘thanks’) or 10Q (‘thank you’), 2moro (‘tomorrow’), 2U2 (‘to you too’),

Definition, delimitation, and classification

87

U8 (‘You ate?’), XLNt (‘excellent’). These combinations, as well as cardinal points and language names, are in fact mere graphic abbreviations that do not coincide with an actual reduction in the phonetic realisation (more in Fandrych 2007; López Rúa 2007). 3.1.6. Classification of acronyms and initialisms Acronyms and initialisms are two general labels, allowing further analysis and subcategorisation. Acronyms are classified on the basis of two main criteria, namely morphotactic and morphosemantic (cf. “orthographic” vs. “word-based” in Conti and Mattiello 2008: 562). According to the first criterion, we can differentiate between elliptic and non-elliptic acronyms. 3.1.6.1. Non-elliptic acronyms are words which retain the initial letters of all the words contained in the source phrase. Examples include: COLA (← Cost Of Living Adjustments), DAT (← Digital Audio Tape, also read letter by letter), FAQ, LAB (← Logistics Assault Base), LOL, MIDI (← Musical Instrument Digital Interface), NATO, NIMBY, OTE (← On Target Earnings), RAM (← Random Access Memory), RASC (← Royal Army Service Corp), REACT (← Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology), SIDS (← Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), Unicef (← United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund),77 slang snafu (← Situation Normal: All Fouled/Fucked Up), and recent Wysiwyg (← What You See Is What You Get), originally from computing, to mean that ‘what you see on the screen is what you get in the output’. In ASBO (← Anti-Social Behaviour Order/s) the initial letter of both the prefix Anti- and the adjective Social has been retained. This type is clearly more prototypical and transparent than the elliptic one, since in non-elliptic acronyms grammatical words (of, in) and the initials of both compound bases (backyard) are both graphically represented, strictly complying with the standard definition. 3.1.6.2. Elliptic acronyms, in contrast, do not retain all the initials of the words contained in the source phrase. Makkai (1972: 350) calls the words which are not graphically represented “suppressed lexons”. The most common type omits grammatical words (underlined in the following examples), such as prepositions (ARCA ← Automobile Racing Car of America, ASCII ← American Standard Code for Information Interchange, NASDAQ ←

88

Abbreviations

National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations), conjunctions (CERCLA ← Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, NASA ← National Aeronautics and Space Administration, UNESCO ← United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), articles (FOB ← Fresh Off the Boat), auxiliary verbs (HIG? ← How’s it going?), as well as combinations of these different word types (ASLEF ← Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, BAFTA ← British Academy of Film and Television Arts, NACRO ← National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, PETA ← People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). In some elliptic acronyms, however, some grammatical words are included and others are not: in TOEFL (← Test Of English as a Foreign Language) the O is included to avoid ambiguity with TEFL (← Teaching English as a Foreign Language). AWOL still remains a dubious case.78 The omission of lexical words is rarer, due to the fact that such words are more relevant (in terms of lexico-semantic content) to the realisation of the acronym than are grammatical words. PACE (← Police And Criminal Evidence act) and historical Ned (← National Economic Development council) illustrate this type. Interestingly, in PACE the A of the conjunction is included but that of the full lexical word act is not. In the case of ESPRIT (← European Strategic Programme for Research and development in Information Technology), both grammatical and function words are omitted in the interests of pronounceability and easy memorisation (see 3.2.4 and acrostics in 3.1.6.7–3.1.6.8). Peripheral cases even lack a source form, as in qwerty/QWERTY, a modern-day keyboard layout whose name comes from the first six letters appearing in the top letter line of the keyboard, read left to right (López Rúa 2004: 126). 3.1.6.3. As has been said, there are some even more marked types, whose morphotactic and morphosemantic transparency can be endangered by: 1) the addition of vowel letters (see below), 2) a lower degree of shortening (3.1.6.4),79 or even 3) homophony with existing words (3.1.6.7–3.1.6.8). Acronyms with vowel addition is the label given to those acronyms which undergo a process of “vowel insertion” (Makkai 1972: 351), as in Humvee (← High-mobility Multi-purpose wheeled Vehicle) and WREN (← Women’s Royal Naval service), with insertion of vowels for euphony. The Lunar Module has even become Lunar Excursion Module to make the acronym pronounceable as lem (see Pronounceability in 3.2.4). However, cases

Definition, delimitation, and classification

89

of graphic vowel insertion are relatively infrequent, representing a low percentage of all acronyms. Vowels are more frequently inserted in pronunciation, as in NWAVE (← New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English) and SLRF (← Second Language Research Forum), which are made pronounceable as  and  (Plag 2003: 128),80 or in the above-mentioned cases of BTEC, JPEG, and NSAID.81 Lastly, vowels may be inserted to obtain words that are suggestive of some other meaning, i.e. homophones with existent words (3.1.6.7–3.1.6.8). This is the case with Footsie (← Financial Times-Stock Exchange), jocularly coined after the slang word meaning ‘amorous play with the feet’. 3.1.6.4. Extended acronyms are formations composed of more than one initial letter for each word of the full expression, as in the well-known case of radar and its by-forms colidar (← COherent LIght Detecting And Ranging), ladar (← LAser Detection And Ranging), and comparable cases reported in Adams (1973: 137). Similar examples include: AMESLAN (← AMErican Sign LANguage, also ASL), INSET (← IN-Set Education and Training), NORAD (← NORth American Aerospace Defense command), NOTAR (← NO-TAil Rotor), and OFFER (← OFFice of Electricity Regulation). In these cases, the letters retained do not necessarily correspond to a syllable (see LIght, IN-Set, NORth). Hence, Aronoff’s (1976: 20) term “syllable words” (after Marchand 1969: 452) does not properly label this pattern, nor does Bertinetto’s (2001: 81) “syllabic acronyms”. 3.1.6.5. Recursive acronyms are formations in which one word of the source phrase coincides with the acronym itself, as in CAVE (← Cave Automatic Virtual Environment), LAME (← Lame Ain’t an MP3 Encoder), slang mung (← Mung Until No Good) ‘destroy or corrupt (data, etc.)’, and the above-mentioned INSET. ALLEGRO (← Allegro Low LEvel Game ROutine) is both recursive and extended (3.1.6.4). 3.1.6.6. Inverted letter acronyms are those in which the ordering of some letters is changed: for instance, in MISHAP (← MIssiles High-Speed Assembly Program), the H and S are inverted for reasons of pronounceability and homophony (3.2.4). This is the rarest pattern and the most uncertain in the analysis: the S of MISHAP may simply come for the beginning of MISsiles.

90

Abbreviations

3.1.6.7. Another distinction within the category of acronyms is not operated on a structural and graphic criterion, but rather on a semantic one. The pertinent class includes acrostics, i.e. “acronyms whose reading/pronunciation coincides with a homophone word in the English language” (Conti and Mattiello 2008: 563). The identified homophony can be either semanticallyrelevant or not. Semantically-irrelevant acrostics are those whose phonetics is unintentionally identical to that of an existing word, but no semantic connection between the acronym and the actual word can be retraced, as in SWOT (← Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), which has no semantic connection with the informal verb and noun swot. Other examples of this type include: BANANA (← Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), BOAT (← Byway Open to All Traffic), CAB (← Citizens Advice Bureau), GHOST (← Global HOrizontal Sounding Technique), LIFE (← Laboratory for International Fuzzy Engineering research), MACHO (← MAssive Compact Halo Object or Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object), PIN, the above-mentioned PACE, PAL (← Phase Alternate Line), SHAPE (← Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe), SLEEP (← Scanning Low Energy Electron Probe), SOP (← Standard Operating Procedure), and WASP (← White Anglo-Saxon Protestant).82 There are also some acrostics of this type which involve proper names, for example SARAH (← Search And Rescue And Horning) ‘a portable radar transmitter’ (mentioned by Baum 1956: 224), and TESSA (← Tax Exempt Special Savings Account). Although the formation of the above acrostics is not relevant from the semantic point of view, they can aid memorisation (3.2.4), in that an already existing word is easier to memorise than any series of letters pronounced as a word. 3.1.6.8. Semantically-relevant acrostics are combinations that intentionally give rise to homophones. In such cases, the result of homophony is a pun (hence called “punning acronym” by Makkai 1972: 345), which semantically connects the meaning conveyed by the acrostic to that of the homophone word, as in AID (← Agency for International Development), AIM (← American Indian Movement), BASIC (← Beginners’ All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code), the above-mentioned CARE, CORE (← Congress Of Racial Equality), FREE (← Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange), FUSE (← Faiths United for Sustainable Energy), HOPE (← Health Opportunity for People Everywhere), MANIAC (← Mathematical Analyzer, Numerical Integrator, And Computer), NOW (← National Organization of Women),

Definition, delimitation, and classification

91

PUSH (← People United to Save Humanity), SAD (← Seasonal Affective Disorder), SALT and START (← S(T)rategic Arms Reduction/Limitation Talks),83 and TOP (← Termination Of Pregnancy). In certain cases, it is not clear whether the form of the acronym is actually the abbreviation of a pre-existing expression or whether the opposite is true, i.e. the acronym is the starting-point and the full expression is constructed to suit the acronym. For instance, in scientific terminology personal names which are reminiscent of Greek mythology (CALIPSO ← CloudAerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) are often chosen to convey an idea of prestige (Mattiello forth.). Hence, Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 9) propose the label “reverse acronyms” for these formations,84 which differ from backronyms (3.1.5) in that the latter either have a straightforward etymology (e.g. Ford from the founder’s name) or an invented one (‘First On Race Day’). In all such cases, a double functional purpose is achieved through homophony, in that the semantic relatedness between the acrostic and the homophone word not only eases memorisation (3.2.4), but also facilitates a partial recovery of the lexical meaning conveyed by the acrostic. In general terms, it should be clear that the distinction between simple acronyms and acrostics is drawn on what we might call a semantic criterion and not on a structural one. Indeed, acrostics – both semantically-relevant and irrelevant – as well as acronyms, can be either elliptic (see AID, FREE, LIFE, SHAPE) or non-elliptic (see CORE, MACHO, PIN, SAD). Thus, the two criteria are independent, even though they intersect in the classification. 3.1.6.9. The other general label mentioned above is that of initialisms. Like acronyms, they can be subcategorised on the basis of their structure into elliptic and non-elliptic. Non-elliptic initialisms include the initial letters of all the words contained in the source phrase, although they are pronounced as single letters. Examples of non-elliptic initialisms are: aka (← Also Known As), AOL (← America OnLine), CIA (← Central Intelligence Agency), C.O.D. (← Cash On Delivery), DIY (← Do-It-Yourself), DRAM (← Dynamic RandomAccess Memory), ECB (← European Central Bank), EEC (← European Economic Community), GDP (← Gross Domestic Product), GMO, GMT (← Greenwich Mean Time), MOT (← Ministry Of Transport), OHMS (← On Her/His Majesty’s Service), SUV (← Sport Utility Vehicle), UNSC (← United Nations Security Council), URL (← Uniform Resource Locator), VIP, WTO (← World Trade Organization), and informal/slang words used

92

Abbreviations

in text messages (e.g. CWOT ← Complete Waste Of Time, JIC ← Just In Case, TTFN ← Ta-Ta For Now).85 The longest non-elliptic initialisms that I have come across are S.F.T.P.O.D.R.A.B. (← Society For The Prevention Of Disparaging Remarks About Brooklyn), reported by Howson (1945: 127), and Cannon’s (1989: 101) USAMSMADHS (← United States Army Medical Service Meat And Dairy Hygiene School). 3.1.6.10. Elliptic initialisms are those in which some initial letters are not initialised. Like acronyms, they tend to omit grammatical words, as in ESL (← English as a Second Language), FBI (← Federal Bureau of Investigation), GCSE (← General Certificate of Secondary Education), ICA (← Institute of Contemporary Art), MAE (← Master of Arts in Education), TGIF (← Thank God It’s Friday), and UNHCR (← United Nations High Commission for Refugees). Howson (1945: 127) mentions elliptic G.A.S.G.A.S.G.A.S. (← Gild of Ancient Suppliers of Gas Appliances, Skill, Gins, Accessories, and Substances) among his “curiosities”. Ellipsis rarely involves lexical words; exceptions are EBD (← Electronic Brake force Distribution), and A.T.&T., C. & W., PB & J, P. & O., and V. and A., all mentioned below. The very recent formation afk/AFK (← away from keyboard) could also be viewed as being elliptical, since the second base of the compound is not graphically represented, almost certainly because of its lexicalised status, and the same is true for NBC (← National Broadcasting Company). Another currently attested term is F.I.N.E. (← Fucked up, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional), whose meaning plays on the homophonous English word, which is the polar opposite of the combined effect of the adjectives. Like acronyms, there are peripheral cases of initialisms which lack an original expression, as in KLF, the name of a pop music band mentioned by López Rúa (2004: 126). However, unlike acronyms, which are more restrictive on their structure, initialisms may also exhibit: ―

―

Symbols, such as - and / (as in A.-A. ← Anti-Aircraft, p-y-o ← PickYour-Own, S-R ← Stimulus-Response; A/S.R.S. ← Air-Sea Rescue Service, I/O ← Input/Output, N/A ← Not Applicable, n/s ← NonSmoking, S/E ← Stock Exchange, W/T ← Wireless Telegraphy); Coordinators, such as &, and or ’n’ (as in A.T.&T. ← American Telephone and Telegraph Company, b. & b. ← bed and breakfast, C. & W. ← Country-and-Western music, PB & J ← Peanut butter and Jelly

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

―

93

sandwich, P. & O. ← Peninsular and Oriental steam navigation co., T. & A. ← Tonsils and Adenoids, R&D ← Research and Development; B. and S. ← Brandy and Soda, d and p ← Developing and Printing, O. and M. ← Organization and Methods, Q and A ← Question and Answer, V. and A. ← Victoria and Albert museum; r’n’b ← Rhythm and Blues, r’n’r ← Rock and Roll); Prepositions (as in C. in C. ← Commander in Chief, C. of A. ← Certificate of Airworthiness, C. of E. ← Church of England, S. of S. ← Secretary of State, U.S. of A. ← United States of America); Numerals (as in 4WD ← Four-Wheel Drive, G5/G10 ← Group of Five/Ten, the retroviruses HTLV-1, HTLV-2, HIV-1, HIV-2, NC-17 ← No Children under 17, PG-13 ← Parental Guidance for children under 13, and Steve Reich’s WTC 9/11 ← World Trade Center September 11). In this type, the numeral may also represent the number of words beginning with the same letter in the source expression, as in 4H (from the organisation’s motto Head, Heart, Hands, and Health), and slang A3 (← Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere).

3.1.7. Acronyms and initialisms: Further remarks López Rúa (2002, 2004) also proposes a classification of acronyms and initialisms in terms of prototypicality. Generally speaking, non-elliptic alphabetisms are more prototypical, in that their morphotactic analysis is more transparent than the analysis of elliptic ones. In addition, within the elliptic type, the formations which drop function words rather than content words are preferred, due to the saliency of the latter (see Salience and Recoverability in 3.2.4). On the other hand, extended acronyms, which retain more than one letter for each word of the source phrase, form a non-prototypical category, in that there is no biunique (one-to-one) correspondence between graphemes and full words (cf. Linearity and Maximisation in 3.2.4). Even less central are cases which include two or more initials per source word, or one or more non-initial letters (e.g. BORAX ← BOiling ReActor eXperiment). There are also peripheral cases of acronyms which combine initialised and clipped constituents (Algol/ALGOL ← ALGOrhythmic Language), or initials and full constituents, as in LIMEAN (← London Interbank MEAN rate). These are hybrid forms between acronyms, clippings, and blends. The least transparent type shows extra vowels which facilitate pronunciation (see Pronounceability in 3.2.4) but do not correspond to any word in the source phrase. Lastly, as regards the category of acrostics, semantically-relevant (or

94

Abbreviations

punning) acrostics are more prototypical than semantically-irrelevant ones as their form facilitates interpretation and memorisation. As we will see, prototypical categories tend to be preferred options in terms of naturalness and to exhibit some stability in terms of their formation. Prototypical and non-prototypical types of English alphabetisms are summarised in Table 2. Table 2. Types and examples of English alphabetisms Examples Type

Non-elliptic Alphabetism

Description

Alphabetism with vowel addition

The initials of all the words of a source phrase are retained Only some of the initials of the words of a source phrase are retained Extra vowels are inserted

Alphabetism with symbols, coordinators, prepositions or numerals

Symbols, coordinators, prepositions or numerals are present

Extended Alphabetism

More than one initial is retained from each word of a source phrase

Elliptic Alphabetism

Acronym (pronounced as a full word) NIMBY/Nimby ← Not In My BackYard

Initialism (pronounced letter by letter) GMO ← Genetically Modified Organism

FOB/fob ← Fresh Off the Boat

MAE ← Master of Arts in Education

Humvee ← Highmobility Multipurpose wheeled Vehicle —

—

NOTAR ← NOTAil Rotor

A3 ← Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere, B. and S. ← Brandy and Soda, I/O ← Input/Output, U.S. of A. ← United States of America —

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena Recursive Alphabetism

Inverted letter Alphabetism

Semanticallyirrelevant Acrostic

Semanticallyrelevant Acrostic

3.2.

One word of the source phrase coincides with the whole formation The order of some letters is changed The formation unintentionally corresponds to a homophonous word The formation intentionally corresponds to a homophonous word

CAVE ← Cave Automatic Virtual Environment

—

MISHAP ← MIssiles High-Speed Assembly Program PAL ← Phase Alternate Line

—

HOPE ← Health Opportunity for People Everywhere

95

WHO ← World Health Organization

—

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

Many linguists exclude abbreviations such as prof and Aids from the realm of morphology, and thereby exclude the related production mechanisms from the processes of English word-formation. The classification attempted in this study does in fact demonstrate that there are various patterns which go beyond word-formation rules, and a variety of peripheral cases which depart from central (prototypical) ones. Both Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 39–40) and Dressler (2000: 4) claim that the operations forming abbreviations are excluded from grammatical morphology, not so much because they are often irregular, but rather because they do not produce new meanings. Dressler (2005) likewise stresses this concept, claiming that: The relatively high amount of awareness in the formation of abbreviations of all types and the lack of a semantic difference between the input and the output of the abbreviatory operations of clipping, acronym formation, etc. separate them (as being extragrammatical) from grammatical word formation. (pp. 269–270)

96

Abbreviations

Bat-El (2000: 63–67) supports the opposite view, arguing that acronyms usually refer to something “more specific” than their base. Against their extra-grammaticality, she also claims that such abbreviations change the grammatical category and behave like other words, in the sense that they can function as inputs to word-formation rules (cf. Conti and Mattiello 2008). Fradin (2003: 211–212) claims that clippings satisfy the form of minimal words, and are productive in terms of applicability to new bases, although only to polysyllabic ones. Semantically, they signal a shared familiarity with either the addressee or the referred thing/object, but are class-maintaining (Fradin 2003: 249). On the other hand, the categories of acronyms and initialisms are not productive for Fradin, although they are used to create new words (Fradin 2003: 213). Other scholars believe that the study of abbreviations is closely linked to both morphology and phonology. Plag (2003: 116) goes even further and includes the study of clipping in “prosodic morphology”, i.e. the phonologymorphology interaction. He identifies phonological regularities in both clippings and clipped names. Kreidler (1979) similarly concludes that, from the phonological viewpoint, “the process of clipping exhibits certain preferences” (p. 32). In particular, from Kreidler (2000), which deals with different languages, we learn that there is a universal preference for disyllabic clippings, as in French labo(ratoire), Spanish foto(grafía), German Foto(grafie), and English photo, although monosyllabic ones (ad, lab, prof) are far more frequent in English. English shares with French a tendency to end shortened words with a vowel o, either clipping them where there is an internal o (E. demo, Fr. maso(chiste), vélo(cipède), now lexicalised), or adding a suffix -o, as in E. aggro, ammo, Fr. intello (← intellectuel) (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). From the grammatical and semantic viewpoints, however, English clippings are variable and minimally predictable (Kreidler 1979: 32–34). As far as acronyms and initialisms are concerned, many scholars agree that there is a certain amount of “freedom” in their creation. Kreidler (1979, 2000), among others, observes that vowels may be imported, different portions (rather than just the initial letters) may be retained, and the acronym may coincide with an existing word, or else the coincidence may be favoured because of semantic association. Cannon (1989: 121) observes that “other, widely varying patterns are emerging; and it is these that present most of the irregular features”. These observations, all taken into account in my classification (3.1.6), confirm that, like clippings, alphabetisms constitute an irregular phenomenon.

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

97

My position, previously explained in Conti and Mattiello (2008) and Mattiello (2008a), is that alphabetisms, as well as clippings, exhibit some (sub)regularities, but are essentially extra-grammatical. The heterogeneity of these forms makes them difficult to describe in terms of applicability, productivity, and rules. 3.2.1. Irregularities in abbreviations Although Bat-El (2000) and Plag (2003) strongly argue that clippings and acronyms are regular processes, or, at least, that they are not more exceptional than grammatical derivation or compounding, the extragrammaticality of these formations appears evident from the fact that they do not conform to canonical word-formation rules. A striking assertion is to be found in Kreidler (2000): “When a shortened form occurs for the first time, its acceptance is due to the fact that it resembles its source in a fairly unambiguous way” (p. 959 [emphasis mine]). However, since different inputs may correspond to the same output (as in ad ← advertisement/administration and BA ← Bachelor of Arts/British Airways), shortenings are not always unambiguous (cf. monorefentiality in specialised terminology, Mattiello forth.). As far as clippings are concerned, Kreidler (1979) stresses that their formation is unpredictable. In particular, we cannot predict what terms will be shortened, “the precise shape of the shortening”, or “where the cut will be made” (Kreidler 1979: 29). Although preferential patterns can be identified, definite predictions on their structure are unattainable. As far as alphabetisms are concerned, their structure is more predictable, in that they generally exhibit the highest degree of shortening (López Rúa 2002: 41–43), but they are irregular from many viewpoints: e.g., in terms of 1) hybridism, involving a combination of features from contrasting categories, 2) category shift from one abbreviation to another, and 3) intracategorial progression from centrality (prototypicality) to more marginal patterns (López Rúa 2002: 38–39). Hence, in conformity with 2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10, clippings and acronymic formations can be negatively defined by a set of violations of grammatical morphological rules. 3.2.1.1. Morphotactic irregularity. The structure of grammatical derivation and compounding is regular, their constituents are recognisable, and the

98

Abbreviations

outputs predictable. In contrast, the structure of clippings and alphabetisms varies and their output is often hardly predictable. In clippings, various parts (including non-salient ones) can be retained: the beginning (Ave(nue)), the end ((an)droid), the middle ((in)flu(enza)). In the slang verb dis, converted from disrespect, only a prefix has been kept. Even discontinuous parts are possible (as in an(orexi)a, sit(uation) com(edy)), and spelling alterations or suffix additions may obstruct base recognition (as in mike ← microphone, prog ← proc(tor); hubby ← husband, veggie ← vegetarian). In random clippings, only consonants are preserved in the output (HRN ← heroin), though in a rather irregular way (Ltd ← limited). Similarly, in alphabetisms the basic components are typically blurred because of their abbreviatory nature, and their shape is often irregular, as in the elliptic type (ESL, TOEFL), and in cases of vowel insertion (Humvee), or the retention of more than one letter of the base (radar). Initialisms may even admit extra symbols, numbers, etc. (A3, N/A, r’n’b), which are infrequent or impossible in grammatical formations. 3.2.1.2. Alternative outputs. Abbreviations are more permissive than morphological rules in terms of alternation between different outputs. The output of clippings may be obtained either from the beginning or the end of the same source word (uni or varsity for university, Eve or Lyn for Evelyn), often depending on the stressed syllable (zine or mag for magazine). There may be other differentiations as well: for example, veggie exhibits an extra suffix (cf. veg). In alphabetisms, alternation depends, in graphic representation, on the letters retained as well as on the omission of grammatical words. For instance, United States of America may be condensed into U.S. of A., U.S.A./USA, or U.S./US, indicating progressive degrees of opaqueness due to the omission of grammatical or lexical words. Alternation may also be just phonological (a.s.a.p./ASAP) or just orthographic (Aids/AIDS, Nato/NATO). 3.2.1.3. Non-morphematic analysis. Unlike derivatives (nation-hood) and compounds (nation-state), abbreviations are not transparently analysable into morphemes (cf. morpheme-based analysis). Acronyms and initialisms exhibit a maximum degree of shortening, replacing source words with initials (Aids, UN), and rarely with two letters (radar). Acrostics even happen to coincide with existing words (CARE, NOW), but their output is not divisible into morphemes. Clippings exhibit only a medium degree, but input

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

99

recognition is generally difficult from small fragments (bi(sexual)), and ambiguity between alternative inputs (e.g. ad) may contribute to obstruct recoverability (3.2.4; cf. Kreidler 1979). 3.2.1.4. Uncertain headedness. While in prototypical derivatives and compounds headedness is assigned to a morpheme, in clippings it is assigned to part of a word and in alphabetisms to a letter or letter combination. Moreover, the head is often difficult to assign: it may be either the right-hand (as in the initialism UN ← United Nations) or the left-hand member (as in the acronym MUF ← Material Unaccounted For), depending on the head position in the source phrase. In some clipped compounds, like exec(utive officer) or narc(otics agent), and in elliptic acronyms (PACE) or initialisms (EBD), the head is even absent. Similarly, several formations whose base is a list have an unexpressed head: e.g., POG (← Passion-fruit, Orange, Guava), referring to a juice drink. With regard to the lack of headedness, Bat-El (2000: 64–65) objects that “the absence of lexical head is not necessarily a characteristic of extragrammatical morphology”, in that exocentric compounds, such as pickpocket, also have their head outside the compound. However, as she recognises, exocentric compounds are regular in terms of predicate-complement grammatical dependency, whereas alphabetisms obtained from lists are not. As a result, the former are closer to word-formation rules, whereas the latter are dismissed from morphological grammar. 3.2.1.5. Irregular subtraction. While subtractive morphological rules are rare and generally tend to discard small parts from their bases, subtraction is the basic process in abbreviations. The discarded part is not always the end of words, as in laser, BBC, lab, but it may be the beginning (phone), the middle (miss), or the edges (tec). Subtraction may even involve scattered letters, as in random clippings and hybrid formations, such as the abovementioned ALGOL, BORAX, and LIMEAN. 3.2.1.6. Unchanged meaning. While word-formation rules obtain new meanings, clippings and alphabetisms obtain merely abbreviated forms (gym, NASDAQ, NBC), at least at the outset. Actually, there may exist stylistic differences between the use of full forms and their abbreviations. Clippings like bro and prof are more familiar than the extended words (Adams 1973;

100

Abbreviations

Kreidler 1979, 2000; Fradin 2003; Plag 2003). Or there may be semantic restrictions: for example, sec only refers to ‘a unit of time’ and not to the ordinal number, vamp only takes the secondary sense of vampire (i.e. ‘seductive woman’) (cf. Kreidler 1979: 33). Caf is used by students, in a pejorative way, to refer to the University cafeteria. Analogously, acronymic formations do not differ from the longer phrases they stand for, in contrast to what Bat-El (2000: 63) claims, with the exception of some connoted variants (e.g. Fannie Mae ← FNMA ‘Federal National Mortgage Association’, and SCSI ‘Small Computer Systems Interface’, pronounced scuzzy), and of some slang expressions: e.g., dinkie/-y (← double/dual income no kids + -ie/-y, on the model of yuppie), which refers to ‘either partner of a working couple who have no children’,86 and fob (← Fresh Off the Boat) used for ‘a recent immigrant’. Indeed, clippings and alphabetisms, unless they are lexicalised, can be substituted by their corresponding full forms, with no meaning change, but only a redundancy effect. By contrast, when the abbreviation is lexicalised (fridge, phone, taxi; Aids, laser, Nato, radar, USA) (2.3.5.1), it is no longer felt as a clipping or an alphabetism, and the source word or phrase is considered the marked form (Fradin 2003: 211–212). Indeed, in compounds like fridge magnet, gym shoes, phone book, and porn star the full form would sound abnormal (Jamet 2009: 20–21). 3.2.1.7. Unchanged syntactic category. As a consequence of 3.2.1.6, clippings and alphabetisms do not involve a change in grammatical category. With regard to clippings in particular, Adams (1973: 135) specifies that there is no change in function taking place in their formation. Kreidler (2000: 962), by contrast, remarks that the word psych (out) is used as a verb, but “the source must be a noun such as psychology or psychologist”. In OED3, however, the etymology is from a verb, i.e. psychoanalyse. As for alphabetisms, Bat-El (2000: 64) claims that “when the base is a phrase and the output is a noun the grammatical category is changed”. But, as previously remarked (Conti and Mattiello 2008: 568), “We cannot … define a shift from a phrase such as Very Important Person, with a noun as its head, to the noun vip/VIP, or from Politically Correct to the adjective PC as proper changes of syntactic class … and certainly they are not functional shifts”. We do admit that there are a few exceptions, such as MEGO, a journalistic acronym originating from the clause my eyes glaze over, which acquires the status of a noun (‘a boring subject or story’). But, there again, these cases are very marginal and restricted to specialised contexts.

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

101

3.2.1.8. Alternative input categories. Whereas standard morphological rules apply to a distinct class of bases, in compliance with the Unitary Base Hypothesis, abbreviatory operations admit a variety of inputs as base categories. Although nominal bases are the most numerous (Fradin 2003: 211– 213) (intro, Nato, FBI), other classes may be shortened: i.e., adjectives (comfy, fave, preg; AWOL, YAVIS ← Young, Attractive, Verbal, Intelligent, Successful), verbs (prep, mung), adverbs (def), conjunctions (’cos), prepositions (’cept), and sentences (BYOB ← Bring Your Own Bottle, RHIP ← Rank Has Its Privileges, Cannon 1989: 109). Proper names are also shortened, as in the hypocoristics Fergie, Patty, Richie, or in the initialism JFK (← John Fitzgerald Kennedy). A combination of clipping devices and acronymic base is present in Beeb (← BBC). At times the syntactic category of the base is hardly recognisable because the same shortening may stand for different classes: for example, glam is a noun (glamour), an adjective (glamorous), or a verb (glamorise), and PC is not only an adjective, as we have seen, but also a noun from Personal Computer (see also Br.E. pc from postcard). Points 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.8 provide evidence of the extra-grammatical character of abbreviations. Yet some recurrent patterns and regularities also exist, which, however, are primarily based on phonological constraints, especially for clippings (Plag 2003; Jamet 2009). In the next section some criteria of predictability will be enumerated in order to verify whether or not new abbreviations can be formed without ambiguity. The irregular nature of the phenomena under investigation leaves room for a limited number of regularities. 3.2.2. Regularities in abbreviations Cannon (1989: 104) describes abbreviations as “meaningless, often ambiguous, sometimes unpronounceable, and ugly instead of euphonic”. Some regularities, however, have been identified by other authors. Phonological regularities have been recognised by Kreidler (1979, 2000) and Plag (2003) in the clipping process, and Conti and Mattiello (2008) have identified structural properties in acronymic formations. The main (sub)regularities and tendencies include the following points (3.2.2.1–3.2.2.8).

102

Abbreviations

3.2.2.1. Prototypical initial pattern. Alphabetisms take “the initial letters of the words in a title or phrase” (Bauer 1983: 237), rather than the end of words, as in blends (smog ← smoke + fog), but they may also take more than one letter from the beginning of the words of their source phrase, as in hybrid formations combining some features of acronyms and others of blends (e.g. Daemon ← Disk And Execution MONitor, Intelsat ← INternational TELecommunications SATellite consortium). Clippings, on the other hand, take various portions from the source word(s), though back-clippings outnumber the other types.87 Typically, the clipped form is a prominent part of the source word, but it is not necessarily the portion carrying primary stress. In the following items, it is the discarded part which is stressed: (héli)copter, lib(erátion), memo(rándum), prof(éssor), (téle)phone. Indeed, we normally have stress shifts, especially from primary to secondary stress (cf. ádvèrt vs. Br.E. advertisement; cf. Am.E. advertísement) (see “leftward displacement of stress” in Jamet 2009: 28). 3.2.2.2. Polysyllabic or multi-word input. Clipped forms are usually coined from polysyllabic source words, either simplex (laboratory → lab) or complex (permanent wave → perm). Alphabetisms have at least two basic components (Merlini Barbaresi 2007). In particular, “initialisms may accept from two” (Diet Coke → DC, Fingers Crossed → FC) “to a potentially infinite number of basic components, while in acronyms the minimum number is three” (Frequently Asked Questions → FAQ) (Conti and Mattiello 2008: 568). Combining forms can also operate as components (Anglo-Saxon Protestant → ASP) (Cannon 1989). The prototypical base of all abbreviatory operations is a Noun (Phrase) (Fradin 2003; Jamet 2009). 3.2.2.3. Mono-/di-syllabic or three-letter output. In alphabetisms, the preferential output length is three letters, two are dispreferred, and more than three are less frequent. Acrostics resemble pre-existing words in length. In clipped forms, the preferential length is one syllable, as in fem(inine), ref(eree), sim(ulation), and many more that have already been mentioned. The type with two syllables from the source word is less common: exam(ination), legit(imate), matric(ulation), photog(rapher). More commonly, they retain one syllable from the source with the addition of a suffix -ie/-y (alky, carny ← carnival worker, hanky) or -o (aggro, ammo, combo). They rarely exceed two syllables, unless they are shortenings of complex bases: intercom(munication system) (Kreidler 1979, 2000; Jamet 2009).

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

103

Clipped names, on the other hand, are always monosyllabic, regardless of the length of the base word: Bart (1 syllable) vs. Bartholomew (4 syllables) (Plag 2003: 118–119), with the exception of suffixed names (e.g. Chrissie). 3.2.2.4. Distinctive spelling. The letters of alphabetisms may be separated by dots (F.B.I., N.A.T.O.), but spelling without dots is far more common, especially in acronyms (Nato). This is the initial step towards lexicalisation (2.3.5.1). Alphabetisms normally use capitals. Acronyms are written in lower-case letters when they are lexicalised (laser, scuba ← Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus), or may maintain only the initial capital letter, as in the above-mentioned Nato. Different spelling may determine different pronunciation: vat vs. VAT. To distinguish them from other words, acrostics require capital letters (BASIC). Sometimes content words are represented by capitals while function words are lower-case letters in the acronym, as in FoaF (← Friend of a Friend). Spelling changes may occur in clippings, without any change in pronunciation: coke, mike. More often, some orthographic alterations are necessary in the clipped form to make it pronounceable like the source word, as in afish (aficionado), cuz (cousin), deets (details), natch (naturally), showbiz (show business).88 Minor changes are sometimes necessary to make the clipping conform to ordinary spelling: for example, in trank, the ending -nk is preferred to -nq. 3.2.2.5. Rigid prosodic pattern. Prosody only concerns clippings, especially clipped names, which, according to Plag (2003: 118), have a strong tendency to conform to a fixed template, namely: CVC89 (Ron), CVV (Sue ← Suzanne), or VC (Ag ← Agatha). For other clippings, only tendencies are observable. According to Jamet (2009: 25–26), they seem to favour one of the following patterns: CVC (vet), CVCV (demo), CCVC (prof), CVCC (vibes), and to end with a consonant sound (lab, coke), though this is no golden rule (cf. deli, disco). Jamet (2009: 27) also proposes a phonetic template for clippings ending in o, pronounced : bro, camo(uflage), condo, curio, info, limo all respect this template, as well as suffixed clippings (aggro, combo, lesbo). 3.2.2.6. Salient form. Initialisms tend to omit function words in their output, since they are semantically less salient (see Salience in 3.2.4), as in elliptic

104

Abbreviations

B.C.E. (← Before the Common Era), B.L. (← Bachelor of Law), etc. Acronyms also omit function words, unless the relative initials are necessary to make them conform to reading canons. Hence, in BAFTA (← British Academy of Film and Television Arts) function words are excluded from the acronym, but in COLA (← Cost Of Living Adjustments) they are not. Alphabetisms may intentionally coincide with an English word (acrostics), while clippings tend to avoid ambiguity with existing full words (cf. Aronoff’s 1976: 43 notion of “blocking”).90 The form of clippings is more variable. As discussed in 3.2.2.5, they preferentially end in a consonant, with the exception of those ending with a vowel i or o, either original (deli, disco) or added (telly, aggro), and of a small number of counterexamples, like flu. Pro (← professional) does not preserve the consonant f for reasons of distinctiveness (cf. prof ← professor; and see the notion of blocking above). When the source word has an intervocalic consonant, it becomes final in the clipping, as in fem, ref. When it has two adjacent intervocalic consonants, the clipping preserves both if the first is sonorant (liquid or nasal) and the second is sonorant or obstruent (fricative or plosive): dorm(itory), talc(um), vamp(ire). On the other hand, in clusters of obstruent + sonorant, only the obstruent is preserved: ad(ministration) (in spite of the ambiguity with ad(vertisement)), pub(lic house), whereas with two obstruents, only the first is kept: cap(tain), doc(tor) (otherwise less easily pronounceable).91 However, in the case of clipped plural nouns (e.g. pecs, specs), the final -s of plurality is kept in spite of the cluster with two obstruents. 3.2.2.7. Status as words. Both alphabetisms and clippings acquire word status, in that they “can function as input to word formation rules” (Bat-El 2000: 67). Thus, acronyms and initialisms may act as bases in derivation. For example, Nato-ish and Natoism, Nimbyism, Ufologist, and Ufology are all from acronyms, while A.D.C.-ship (← Aide-De-Camp), AOLer (‘America OnLine subscriber’), MP-ship, NDPer (← New Democratic Party), OKness, anti-PC, unPC (‘politically incorrect’),92 and ZPG-er (‘supporter of the zero population growth movement’) are from initialisms. In yuppie (← Young Urban Professional), a hypocoristic suffix is added to the acronym. Similarly, a clipped form can become completely autonomous and be combined with other word-formation processes (Jamet 2009: 18). For example, in the sitcom How I Met your Mother, the word bro gives rise to bro-hood, combines with other bases to form blends (broccasion, bro-choice, brotime), and is converted into a verb (Don’t bro me!).

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

105

3.2.2.8. Inflected forms. Abbreviations also behave as regular bases in inflection. Both acronyms and clippings inflect for plural in a regular way, as in laser-s, MC-s,93 bro-s, and fridge-s, or even apply the general orthographic rule of y substitution after a consonant (as in singular Nimby → plural Nimbies). In the recent term WAGs, referring to ‘the Wives And Girlfriends of a football team’, pluralisation regularly occurs after acronym formation. 3.2.3. Predictability in abbreviations The regularities identified in the previous section are mostly tendencies and preferences, because the only obvious regularity of abbreviations is that they shorten the words or phrases from which they originate.94 Some patterns may be favoured for reasons of saliency (3.2.4), such as the preferences for word beginning over word end, word end over word middle, and word middle over other (scatter) parts. But many exceptions remain that do not strictly comply with common definitions of clippings or alphabetisms. As Cannon (1989: 122) observes, “the many, proliferating, continuously varying initialisms [his term for my alphabetisms] have considerably complicated the construction of any overall theory of even English word-formation”. Clippings are, as we have seen, even more varied than alphabetisms. A natural question now arises: Is there any predictability in the formation of abbreviations? Or, to put it differently, is there any explanation justifying the choice of one pattern over another? An intuitive answer is that there is no absolute certainty in choices, but let us analyse some possible abbreviations before coming to conclusions. Table 3 shows a number of source words and phrases together with possible respective abbreviations suggested by the present author. I must confess that the selection of phrases, titles, etc. which have not yet been abbreviated was by no means an easy task. Table 3. Possible abbreviations from existing words/phrases Source word/phrase (1) procession (2) amusement (3) intelligent (4) graciously

Possible abbreviation proc mus int, tel, gent grash, cious

106

Abbreviations

(5) pickpocket (6) University of the Arts London (7) Fields of God (8) Association of Friends of India and South Asia

picko, picky, P.P./PP U.A.L./UAL, U.O.T.A.L./UOTAL FOG/F.O.G. AFISA

The source words and phrases in the left-hand column have been chosen purposefully to illustrate various abbreviatory patterns. In compliance with 3.2.2.2, the source words in (1)–(5) are polysyllabic, while the phrases in (6)–(8) are multi-word sequences corresponding to, respectively, the name of a University in London, a song title (by Sting), and the title of an association. Possible abbreviations are shown in the right-hand column, following the above-mentioned criteria and a variety of abbreviatory mechanisms. In particular, an abbreviated polysyllabic word is more likely to obtain a clipping (as in 1–4), whereas an abbreviated phrase is more likely to obtain an alphabetism (as in 6–8). With compounds like (5) both options are possible. For clippings, the beginning of the word has been retained when possible (3.2.2.1) and conforms to one of the most frequent morphonological patterns (3.2.2.5). Other parts have been retained when conforming to the tendencies in 3.2.2.3–3.2.2.6. When required, a suffix has been added (3.2.2.3). For alphabetisms, different distinctive spelling patterns have been offered (3.2.2.4), selecting one or the other reading, but ambiguity sometimes remains as to whether the output should be read as an acronym or as an initialism. Results show that a biunique relationship can rarely be found between input and output. The various outputs disconfirm one or more of the abovementioned criteria, and the motivations of one choice over the others are often difficult to rationalise. In (1) and (2), only one output has been suggested, because they appeared the best options among possible ones. The back-clipping proc is monosyllabic (3.2.2.3), ends in a consonant (3.2.2.6), and conforms to a recurring template (CCVC) (3.2.2.5). The part retained is the most salient (the beginning), in accordance with 3.2.2.1, but unstressed (procéssion), which means that the abbreviatory process is accompanied by a stress shift (próc). Although it is analogical with existing clippings (prof, prog) and resembles them in form (2.3.6.2), proc is unambiguous, because there is no homophonous full or clipped word in English. This is the reason why the alternative outputs ending with a vowel (pro) or retaining two syllables (proces(s)) have been immediately excluded (3.2.2.6). However, proc would

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

107

involve a shift in pronunciation as compared with the beginning of the source word (). Thus, probably some spelling adjustments would be applied to make the input recoverable (see 3.2.4; cf. 3.2.2.4). One could also ask whether proc could acquire the status of a word, and be the member of a compound (funeral proc) (3.2.2.7), or regularly take a plural marker (procs) (3.2.2.8). The clipping mus is certainly less prototypical, in that, against the tendency in 3.2.2.1, it discards the edges of a word. However, amus would coincide with the verb, at least orally. The addition of a suffix -o, as in muso, has been excluded to avoid ambiguity with the slang term for ‘musician’, and musy/-ie to avoid ambiguity with a potential clipping from music (cf. 3.2.2.6). Furthermore, mus obeys the prosodic pattern CVC, which is the most frequent in clipping formation (3.2.2.5). In (3) various alternatives have been proposed for the shortening of the adjective intelligent: namely int, tel, gent. Of these three, all are one syllable in length (3.2.2.3), end in a consonant sound (3.2.2.6), and the latter two are also in accordance with a frequent prosodic template, i.e. CVC(C) (3.2.2.5). Yet tel and gent are ambiguous clippings, in that they are respectively used to abbreviate tel(ephone) and gent(leman) (cf. 3.2.2.6). The back-clipping int is more prototypical (3.2.2.1), but, since it does not carry stress, its salience is lowered (cf. 3.2.4). For the adverb in (4) two alternatives have been offered (grash, cious). The first is from the initial portion, following (3.2.2.1), but requires spelling adjustments to maintain the same pronunciation as the full word (3.2.2.4). The second is from the middle portion, a less salient part, and indeed appears highly ambiguous (i.e. many adjectives end like this). Against 3.2.2.5, neither of the two is in accordance with a recurrent template. For the compound noun in (5) alternatives include two back-clippings (picko, picky) and an initialism (PP). The basic components (pick or pocket) are impossible outputs, for obvious reasons of ambiguity with their use in isolation. Thus, we require a necessary addition (pick-o, pick-y), which makes the clipping disyllabic (3.2.2.3). The other option, PP (or spelt with dots, as P.P.) is less prototypical because it has a complex word, rather than a phrase, as its base (cf. 3.2.2.2). Word status could be confirmed for both the clippings and the initialism: for example, they could plausibly give rise to new words, such as picko-ing or PP-ing (3.2.2.7), and be pluralised as pickos, pickies, or PPs (3.2.2.8). The abbreviations in (6) are initialisms, either elliptic (U.A.L./UAL), or non-elliptic (U.O.T.A.L./UOTAL). Two spelling variants (with or without dots) increase the number of alternative outputs (3.2.2.4). An alternation

108

Abbreviations

between capital and lower-case letters, as in UotAL, would be dispreferred. By contrast, the abbreviations in (7) are acronyms (FOG/F.O.G.), although the latter spelling option could also be pronounced letter by letter (3.2.2.4). Spelling with lower-case letters has been excluded from hypothetic outputs, because the form fog would not be distinguished from the homophonous English word (cf. blocking in 3.2.2.6). The acrostic is not semanticallyrelevant, unless one wants to suggest, metaphorically, the foggy (‘vague’) character of the song lyrics. Moreover, to make the acronym conform to phonetic canons, the grammatical word of has been included in the graphic representation, as in the non-elliptic type (3.2.2.6). Lastly, the acronym in (8) (AFISA) is elliptic (3.2.2.6), since the inclusion of grammatical words (of, and) would make it unnecessarily long, difficult to memorise, and nearly unpronounceable, which goes against the nature of the acronym itself (see 3.2.4 below). Other creative possibilities would be possible: the semantically-relevant acrostic ASIA, for instance, would exhibit the characteristics of the extended and recursive types, retaining more letters from a word and corresponding to one of the words of the source phrase: ASsociation of friends of India and south Asia. This formation, however, would disconfirm most of the above-mentioned criteria of predictability. The above analysis of data seems to confirm the intuitive answer that there are no stable principles on which we can base predictions of possible abbreviations. More than one output has proved acceptable, although in most cases they do not completely conform to the prototypical patterns identified for each category. Moreover, the choice of one category over the others is not always justifiable: complex bases, for instance, appear more permissive, admitting either a clipping or an alphabetism as their output. Criteria 3.2.2.1–3.2.2.8 only show the main preferences in the formation of abbreviations, but the mechanisms involved are so various and creative that they often escape regular patterns. The (sub)regularities which we have identified are merely tendencies, especially towards more natural/less marked choices, but they are far from established word-formation rules. What can be formulated, instead, is a series of criteria of wellformedness, which accompany the more general principle of analogy, discussed in 2.3.6.2 and applied in 3.2.4 below to the formation of abbreviations.

Abbreviations as extra-grammatical phenomena

109

3.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness The preferential criteria for the formation of abbreviations, as suggested by the previous exploration of prototypical patterns and main tendencies, are the following: ―

―

―

―

―

Analogy. Both clippings and alphabetisms must be formed by analogy with pre-existing word forms. There is an evident structural similarity between the back-clippings fab(ulous) and fan(atic), which may have favoured the coinage of fag(got) in slang, or the formation of fam(ily) dram(a), retaining the same portion of the first word. Also lesbo, from lesbian, takes an extra suffix -o by analogy with homo(sexual), naturally ending in o. Moreover, analogy governs the formation of new alphabetisms, such as the initialism FIV (← Feline Immunodeficiency Virus), based on lexicalised HIV, and motivates the existence of word pairs like r’n’b and r’n’r, DNA and RNA, sms and mms, and others. Brevity. In accordance with Zipf’s (1949) “Principle of Least Effort” and Martinet’s (1955) “Principle of Linguistic Economy”, abbreviations must be brief, economical in terms of time necessary to pronounce them, and reduce the articulatory efforts necessary to generate a word (Jamet 2009). Salience and Recoverability. The portion retained in the abbreviation must be the most salient, so as to guarantee better recoverability and understanding. Prototypical acronyms and initialisms preserve the initial letters of the words (especially content words) in the source phrase. In order to facilitate recoverability, the letters retained must follow the same order as the initials of the source phrase (see also Linearity below). Prototypical clipping patterns, as in back-clippings, preserve the first syllable or word part. Easy memorisation. The output of an abbreviatory operation must be easy to memorise. Its concision, in general, helps easy memorisation. In the case of acronyms, pronounceability is also of great help. Even less demanding is the memorisation of acrostics, whose form is homophonous with an existing word, generally connected to the acrostic by semantic association, as in the semantically-relevant type. Specificity. Abbreviations must be specific, unambiguously referring to only one referent (cf. “monoreferentiality” in Gotti 2005: 33; Mattiello forth.). Acronyms and initialisms are purposefully chosen as unequivocal labels for new inventions, discoveries, associations, organisations, unions, etc., whose source phrase would be too long and of low impact.

110

Abbreviations

Clippings must be equally specific, escaping ambiguity with other standard or informal words (cf. “blocking” in Aronoff 1976: 43). In the case of ambiguous labels, con- and co-textual factors (e.g. topic, register, users, etc.) are essential for disambiguation. For instance, BA will be interpreted as Bachelor of Arts if used among students or professors in an academic context, or as Breathing Apparatus if used by physicians in a medical context, or as Bad Ass in an informal context, such as text messaging or internet slang used by teenagers. Some criteria of well-formedness are only valid for some categories of abbreviations, but not for the general grouping: ―

―

―

―

Pronounceability. This criterion only concerns acronyms, whose form must comply with general reading rules. To make the acronym pronounceable, three different strategies can be adopted: 1) only some of the initial letters of the source phrase may be retained (NASA); 2) more than one initial letter may be retained (radar); 3) extra vowels may be inserted (Humvee). Initial letters are rarely inverted (cf. 3.1.6.6). Homonymy. This criterion is essential for the subcategory of acrostics, whose spelling and pronunciation must correspond to those of a homograph/homophone word. Linearity. Linearity concerns acronyms as well as initialisms, in that it establishes that the order of the words is the same in both the base (the multi-word sequence) and the derivative (the letters standing for the words in the sequence). Maximisation. The criterion of maximisation establishes that each source word of the base is represented by a corresponding letter in the derivation. This criterion, which often clashes with the above criterion of pronounceability, is of particular relevance to non-elliptic acronyms or initialisms.

Chapter 4 Blends

Blends, also called “portmanteau words” (and sometimes “amalgams”, “combinations”, “coalesced words”, “telescope(d) words”, and a variety of other names) are new words coined by merging parts of existing words, as in beaulicious, from beau(tiful) and (de)licious, or one complete word and part of another, as in chatire (← chat + (sa)tire), cinemenace (← cine(ma) + menace), and ambisextrous (← ambi(dex)trous + sex). Although blending is an old process95 – blatterature (← blatter + literature) is dated 1512 (Cacchiani 2007: 103) and foolosopher (← fool + philosopher) dates back to 1592 (Adams 2001: 141)96 – the phenomenon has gradually gained influence over the centuries (Lehrer 2003), becoming very popular when Lewis Carroll made an extensive use of blends like slithy and mimsy in his poem “Jabberwocky”, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871), later attracting the attention of linguists such as Aronoff (1976), Bauer (1983), Carstairs-McCarthy (2002), and many others. Since then, blending has become a highly frequent word-formation process, so that in Modern English new blends are encountered almost every day (Lehrer 1996: 360).97 Blends such as camcorder, dancercise, infomercial, vodkatini appear on a daily basis and are generally regarded by most English speakers as ordinary words. However, while blends are reasonably frequent and widespread, the mechanisms governing their formation have largely remained opaque. This is mainly due to the fact that they “do not follow a single forming principle but rather tend to exhibit divergent structural patterns” (Hong 2004: 118). For this reason, linguists treat blends as peripheral with respect to English word-formation (Scalise 1984), or of no importance to morphological theory (Spencer 1991), and, consequently, confine them, together with other non-rule-governed phenomena, to the branch of morphology labelled “extra-grammatical”. Although Bauer (1983: 232–235) states that blends are “random”, “fairly arbitrary” and therefore “unpredictable”, many attempts have been made to demonstrate that the structure of English blends is quite predictable from cognitive and linguistic viewpoints. Kubozono (1990), Lehrer (1996), Kelly (1998), Kemmer (2003), Gries (2004a, 2004b), Hong (2004), and Bat-El (2006) are worth mentioning in this respect.98 Plag (2003: 121–126) even includes blends within regular word-formation, describing them in terms of

112

Blends

prosodic categories and elaborating the so-called “blending rule”, a formula which, however, as discussed in 2.3.4, does not cover the whole variety of English lexical blends and can in fact be invalidated by many counterexamples (e.g. ambisextrous above). In this chapter, blending is considered as an extra-grammatical phenomenon, but one which nevertheless exhibits recurrent patterns and regularities. The regularities of blends, however, are neither similar to, nor comparable with, morphological rules. They are merely preferences, mainly based on semiotic parameters and universal principles elaborated within the theoretical frame of Natural Morphology. After a preliminary definition of blends and a re-classification partially based on existing taxonomies, the focus of my analysis will be both their extra-grammaticality and their regularities, or preferences. Lastly, I will check whether generalisations can be made about the formation of blends, and examine the validity of some general principles predicting their structure, especially the order of their components, the boundary (or switch point) and similarities between the components, and the mechanism whereby components are combined, which is not always a concatenation process (cf. Kelly 1998: 579). 4.1.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

The extensive scholarship on blending displays wide disagreement on its terminology, definition, and place within a modern taxonomy of similar phenomena. Scholars often disagree about the terminology surrounding blends and a unique clear-cut definition seems to be unattainable. Not only are definitions inconsistent from one writer to another, but they also show confusion about what should be regarded as separate processes. While an exploration of the various technical terms given to blends is beyond the scope of this study,99 a definition of this very old process and a classification accommodating its different patterns are in order. 4.1.1. Definition and main features The term “blending” has been used in a number of different ways, usually to denote a word-formation process which combines two (or, rarely, more than two) source lexemes,100 at least one of which has been shortened in the combination, sometimes with a graphic and/or phonological overlap.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

113

Bauer’s (1983: 234) well-known definition of blends highlights the fact that they are “formed from parts of two (or possibly more) other words in such a way that there is no transparent analysis into morphs”. But the sentence which follows questions his own definition by (correctly) specifying that in some cases “at least one of the elements is transparently recoverable” (Bauer 1983: 234); examples of this are partial blends such as sinema (← sin + cinema) and cinemenace (← cinema + menace) (4.1.3.2). We might also add cases where both elements are recoverable because there is no proper truncation of the source forms, but rather “a superposition of one form upon another” (Cannon 1986: 730), as in the overlapping type (e.g. alcoholiday, slanguage) (4.1.3.3).101 Other narrow definitions offered in the literature include Plag (2003) and Bat-El (2006). Plag’s (2003) formal generalisation that in blends “it is always the first part of the first element that is combined with the second part of the second element” (p. 123) and Bat-El’s (2006) contention that “blends refer only to cases where the inner edges are truncated” (p. 66) accommodate only traditional blends in which both source words are shortened in such a way that only the outer part is left intact (see total blends in 4.1.3.1 below). Again, the above-mentioned examples are excluded, as are a number of cases where the fore parts are combined, as in agitprop (← agitation + propaganda) and modem (← modulator + demodulator). Kubozono (1990: 1) even specifies that blending “involves two source words in a paradigmatic relation”. Although this condition is necessary to distinguish blends from clipped compounds, it excludes numerous cases falling into the category of the attributive type (4.1.3.5), such as porta-light (← portable + light), whose source words are in a syntagmatic relation. Another quite restrictive definition is in Kelly (1998), who stresses that the components of the blend are stitched together “either through simple concatenation or through concatenation coupled with overlap of shared phonological segments” (p. 579). This definition can, in fact, be contrasted with a number of English counterexamples, the most famous being Carroll’s chortle, consisting of the splinter ort (← snort) embedded in a discontinuous splinter from chuckle (see the intercalative type in 4.1.3.1–4.1.3.3). Hong (2004: 119) intentionally excludes “noncontiguous blends” such as askility (← ability + skill) from his analysis, stating that “we cannot draw a cogent generalization from their combining patterns”. More recent definitions emphasise the relationship between blends and compounds. For instance, according to Lehrer (2007: 116), “Blends are underlying compounds which are composed of one word and part of another, or parts of two (and occasionally three) other words”, and Ronneberger-

114

Blends

Sibold (2006: 157) remarks that they are deliberately created out of existing words “in a way which differs from the rules or patterns of regular compounding”. Indeed, Kemmer (2003: 75) points out that what distinguishes blends from compounds is that they “combine parts of lexical sourcewords, rather than whole sourcewords”. Furthermore, in line with Cannon (1986: 730), the source words are “separate”, and not attested as compound bases (cf. “clipped compounds” in 3.1.3.6, see also 4.1.2 below). This brief characterisation of previous accounts shows that, although definitions appear to be quite controversial, two crucial features are found in almost all the voluminous scholarship on blends. First, there must be more than one source lexeme, generally two, as a consequence of the universal preference for binary relations (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Second, there must be some shortening of the source lexemes. Prototypically, the beginning of the first lexeme and the end of the second one are retained, as a consequence of the universal principle of perceptual salience (2.2.1).102 Thus, smoke and fog become smog, and breakfast and lunch are combined into brunch. Related to this criterion, at times only one source lexeme is abbreviated and the other is left unaltered. In dumbfound (← dumb + confound), the first lexeme is in its full form, whereas in paratroops (← parachute + troops), the second one is left unaltered. This is a more transparent type, termed “semi-complete blending” by Ronneberger-Sibold (2006: 173) and “partial” in my account (4.1.3.2). Bertinetto (2001: 64–65) identifies three main features for lexical blends: 1) the presence of an overlap, as in californicate (← California + fornicate), where the sequence forni belongs to both words,103 2) the full preservation of the second word: e.g., in californicate, the second word is entirely preserved, and 3) the possible existence of a shared lexical element, as in blends obtained from two compounds.104 Other features are commonly highlighted in the literature on blends, especially in Cannon (2000), Plag (2003), and Bat-El (2006), although they are not relevant to all blended words. For instance, the source lexemes generally exhibit some semantic similarity (e.g. breakfast and lunch, as in brunch, are co-hyponyms of meals), “otherwise a combination of properties would be impossible” (Plag 2003: 123), but they “are rarely synonyms” (Cannon 2000: 952), as in ginormous (← gigantic + enormous) (see Similarity in 4.2.4; cf. Gries forth.). Another feature is that the source words normally “belong to the same syntactic category” (Kubozono 1990: 3). In order of frequency, combinations include: noun + noun (boat + hotel → boatel), verb + verb (guess +

Definition, delimitation, and classification

115

estimate → gues(s)timate), adjective + adjective, as in ginormous above, adverb + adverb (absolutely + positively → absotively).105 The source words may also exhibit some phonological similarity, such as rhyming syllables, as in hesitation + inflation → hesiflation, or near-rhyme, as in channel + tunnel → chunnel (Cannon 2000: 953). More frequently, they overlap at their boundaries, as in slanguage, where a surplus lang from slang or language is deleted. This is, as we will see, the most transparent type, called “overlapping” or simply “overlap” by most scholars (“telescope” in Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 167). It is debatable whether or not overlapping blends involve an actual truncation (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Sometimes only the sound shapes overlap, but not the graphic shapes (e.g. pessimist + mystic → pessimystic), or vice versa, the same orthographic sequence can have two different pronunciations, due to surrounding graphemes, as in head  + advertising  → headvertising, octopus  + push  → octopush. 4.1.2. Delimitation: Blending vs. other processes The first set of defining features reported in 4.1.1 immediately differentiates blends from regular grammatical compounds, which are combinations of two or more source lexemes with neither shortening (Lehrer 1996: 360; Fradin 2000: 27) nor overlapping constituents (Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 159).106 In this respect, Cannon (2000: 952) admits that, although blends might be analysed as “a subclass of compounds, where there are clipped constituents”, this would make the concept of compounds less transparent. In fact, blends are extra-grammatical formations which syntactically and semantically resemble appositional or copulative compounds, except that their constituents are obscured. The above features also distinguish blends from other abbreviations, such as clippings, acronyms, and initialisms, depending on the source lexemes and the type of shortening involved. Whereas clipping shortens one lexeme (simplex or complex), and acronyms or initialisms shorten a pre-existing multiword sequence retaining only the initial letters, blending shortens two lexemes which have no composite meaning, generally retaining larger portions from them (see also Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009: 42). Thus, mag (← magazine) and mobile (← mobile phone) are clippings, NATO and OTT (← Over The Top) are, respectively, an acronym and an initialism, whereas brunch is a blend and can be analysed as neither a clipping nor as an acronym for *breakfast-lunch. Furthermore, the components of a blend may be

116

Blends

either syntagmatically related, as in the above-mentioned porta-light, or paradigmatically related, as in brunch. The components of acronyms, by contrast, are always syntagmatically related (Kreidler 2000: 957). Hence, my decision to keep the blending process distinct from the other abbreviatory operations dealt with in the previous chapter.107 However, some formations reported in López Rúa (2002: 44) lie in between non-prototypical blends and acronyms (see the extended type in 3.1.6.4). For example, HoReCa (← Hotel, Restaurant, and Café keepers), Euratom (← European Atomic Energy Community), and the international Benelux (← Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg) retain more than the initial letters, but the source words are clearly part of a phrase or list, which excludes them from blends. A hybrid case between blend and abbreviation is Ms, which is analysed by Cannon (1986: 743) and López Rúa (2002: 51) as a peripheral blend from the separate Miss and Mrs. These borderline cases will not be taken into consideration here. The dividing line between blends and clipped compounds (3.1.3.6) is even subtler. To distinguish the two concepts, Bauer (1983: 233) proposes to adopt an ad hoc phonological criterion, that is, while blends “take simple word stress”, clipped forms “retain compound stress”, as in sci-fi , sitcom , etc. A semantic criterion is offered by Plag (2003: 122), who claims that the base words of blends “are typically not attested as compounds in their full form”. Accordingly, in blends the bases have an autonomous sense which is entirely retained in the final form (e.g. a boatel is both a boat and a hotel; cf. copulative compounds), while in abbreviated compounds the bases were originally compound members, with a composite meaning, often of the type determinant-determinatum (e.g. a mocamp is ‘a type of camp’). This criterion is the most reliable in my view (Mattiello 2008a). A formal criterion is instead adopted by Bat-El (2006: 66), who, as we have seen, restricts blends to “cases where the inner edges are truncated” (e.g. Oxbridge ← Oxford + Cambridge). In her opinion, modem, where both right edges are truncated, and mocamp (← motor + camp), where only the first word undergoes truncation, are cases of clipped compounds (see also López Rúa 2002: 46). This criterion appears too restrictive, though, in that it includes within the category of blends only prototypical cases, excluding a variety of patterns which are part of all modern taxonomies, and which will be analysed in this chapter. Another necessary distinction, based on the difference between the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axis, is between blends (or “paradigmatic contaminations”) and “syntagmatic shortenings” (Dressler 2000: 5). Accord-

Definition, delimitation, and classification

117

ing to Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.), only “paradigmatic amalgams” such as smog can be considered real blends, whereas those formations which can be analysed as “syntagmatic truncations of potential compounds” (e.g. motel) cannot. However, as the authors themselves admit, their approach is “more restrictive than usually found in the literature” (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.), examples of less restrictive treatments being Algeo (1977), Thornton (1993), Fradin (2000), Lehrer (1996, 2007), and Mattiello (2008a). Syntagmatic shortenings, in their turn, are different from shortenings of attested compounds, as reported in Plag (2003: 122). Blending has also been compared with combining forms, both being viewed as “unorthodox way[s] of coining new words” by Fradin (2000: 11). Although Fradin (2000: 53) draws the conclusion that blends may be included under the heading of combining forms, the two phenomena are different, in that blends lie outside morphological grammar, combining forms lie at its boundaries. As explained in section 2.3.2, “combining forms” is a cover term for three types of formatives: 1) neoclassical forms of Latin or Greek origin, such as bio- and -logy occurring in biology, 2) secreted forms, such as -holic (← alcoholic) in computerholic, which is reinterpreted as ‘a person obsessed with computer’, and 3) abbreviated forms, with no semantic reinterpretation, such as cyber- (← cybernetic) in cybercrime, Euro- (← European) in Europarliament. Against Fradin (2000: 54), who considers only type 1 as a subpart of regular word-formation, I claim that type 2 is also regular and therefore grammatical, although marginal in morphology. Indeed, -holic, unlike cyber- or blend components, such as mo or tel, is productively combined with other bases (e.g. bookaholic, foodaholic, golfaholic, newsaholic, shopaholic, spendaholic, workaholic, etc.) to refer to any addiction named by the base. In other words, -holic, like -burger from hamburger, -fest from festival, -gate from Watergate, -scape from cityscape, -thon from marathon, etc., has acquired morpheme status, and cannot be viewed as part of a blend (see Warren 1990; Lehrer 1996, 2007; Mattiello 2007, 2008b; cf. Carstairs-McCarthy 2002: 65). Furthermore, although the term “contamination” is often used synonymously with the term “blend” (e.g. in Thornton 1993: 143), a distinction is in order here. Ronneberger-Sibold (2006) clearly differentiates the two concepts on the basis of the creator’s intention. That is, while in contaminations the creator “inadvertently mix[es] two words with the same meaning”, in blends he “deliberately conflates two words with different meanings” (Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 158; see also Cannon 1986: 727). Hence, the case of fantabulous, from two phonetically and semantically related words (fantastic and fabulous), is rather in-between: i.e., it may have been created acci-

118

Blends

dentally, as a contamination, and afterwards been reused consciously, as a blend, for its humorous effects. Lastly, as remarked by Cannon (2000: 953), the term “blend” may be used inappropriately when referred to “slips of the tongue or brain”. The latter are mainly speech errors occasionally giving rise to nonce forms that “never find their way into the language” (Cannon 2000: 953); blends, on the other hand, are recognised neologisms that have entered or are likely to enter the English lexicon (see lexicalisation in 2.3.5.1). 4.1.3. Classification and structure of blends Elaborate taxonomies categorising the structure of blends abound in the literature, from Algeo (1977) and Soudek (1978), to Cannon (2000), Kemmer (2003), Ronneberger-Sibold (2006), and Lehrer (1996, 2007). The various types of combining patterns and the different names given to each of them demonstrate that there are many parameters along which blends do vary and can be differentiated. I propose to classify blends from three perspectives: the first is morphotactic, the second is morphonological (and graphic), and the third is morphosemantic. 4.1.3.1. Morphotactically, blends can be subdivided into total and partial.108 Total blends are those in which all source words are reduced to splinters. According to the retained part(s), we can further identify a number of subpatterns: ―

The beginning of one word is followed by the end of another. This is the prototypical type of brunch, ginormous, Oxbridge, and smog, called “linear” by Gries (2004a: 645). Other examples which belong to this type are: ballute (← balloon + parachute), bisalo (← bison + buffalo), blaxploitation (← Blacks + exploitation), boost (← boom + hoist), Bub’let (← bubble + tablet) ‘trademark for foaming bath oil in tablet form’, camcorder (← camera + recorder), compander (← compressor + expander), dawk (← dove + hawk), donkophant (← donkey + elephant, with an interfix -o-), fleep (← fly + jeep), geep (← goat + sheep, also shoat), hurricoon (← hurricane + typhoon), Lipfinity (← lipstick + infinity) ‘Max Factor lipstick brand, guaranteed to last’, maridelic (← marijuana + psychedelic), mimsy (← miserable + flimsy), muppets (← marionette + puppets), popocrat (← populist + democrat), psychergy

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

―

―

119

(← psychic + energy), Spanglish (← Spanish + English), swacket (← sweater + jacket). For these blends, Ronneberger-Sibold (2006: 170) adopts the label “contour”, because there is a matrix word which is primary for analysis and provides the rhythmical contour, but is not entirely included in the blend. For example, in brunch and smog, lunch and fog are respectively the matrix words, providing the rhythm as well as the rhymes -unch and -og of the blends. Algeo (1977: 51) also observes that some of these blends are shortened “along morpheme boundaries”, as in Oxbridge, where both splinters (Ox and bridge) have homophonous English words obscuring their input (see also the partial blend dumbfound below). Both splinters are the beginning of words. This type is less frequently attested and generally includes names for chemicals or substances obtained from the mixture of two elements, such as acetal (← acetic + alcohol), and chloral (← chlorine + alcohol). Other instances falling into this group are: adorapresh (← adorable + precious, with respelling), agitprop (← agitation + propaganda), Alcan (← Alaska + Canada) ‘the Highway’, alternatuxes (alternative + tuxedos), Amerind, cabsat (← cable + satellite), Fedex (← Federal + express), fortran (← formula + translation),109 Mexicali, modem, telex (← teleprinter + exchange), Vietvet, and the trademarks Sensi-Temp (← sensitivity + temperature), and Simflex (← Simmons + flexible). Other examples generally reported in this same group (e.g. sitcom ← situation + comedy) are not real blends, but clipped forms of existing compounds. Algeo (1977: 50) also includes in this subclass of blends words such as laser (← Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), which are evident cases of acronyms, as explained in 3.1.4 and in Conti and Mattiello (2008). Both splinters are the end of words. This type, which according to Lehrer (1996, 2007) is impossible in English, is illustrated by Bullgarita and Bullmeister (← Red Bull + margarita/Jägermeister), Kittylicious (← Hello Kitty + delicious), an adjective referred to Hello Kitty movies, and, with partial overlap, by Kongfrontation (← King Kong + confrontation). Hence, although it is rather infrequent, this is not an impossible pattern. In the case of netizen, as explained in the Introduction, net is no longer felt to be the end of a word. Either the beginning or the end of a splinter is embedded in a discontinuous splinter. In this type, labelled “intercalative” by Kemmer (2003: 72), the two splinters are so tightly integrated that there is no clear distinction between them. In the following examples, the intercalated splinter is a

120

Blends

word beginning: askility (← ability + skill), autopathography (← autobiography + pathology), bamfuzzle (← bamboozle + fuzzy), busulfan (← butane + sulfonyl), delinguancy (← delinquency + lingual), slithy (← slimy + lithe). In entreporneur (← entrepreneur + porn) and miscevarsitation (← miscegenation + varsity), the intercalated word is itself an attested clipping (see 3.1.3.1–3.1.3.2). Chortle (← chuckle + snort) is the only case in which the end of a word (ort) is placed within a discontinuous splinter, whereas in burble the middle of (m)ur(mur) is inserted within b(ub)ble. 4.1.3.2. Partial blends are those in which only one source word is reduced, the other being left in its full form (see also Thornton 1993: 148). Again we can distinguish between different subtypes according to the position of the full word: ―

―

―

The full word is followed by a splinter in: blogerrific (← blog + terrific),110 bride-/dad-/mum-zilla (← bride/dad/mum + Godzilla), carbecue (← car + barbecue), chatire, cussnation (← cuss + damnation), dumbfound (← dumb + confound), familymoon (← family + honeymoon), fanzine (← fan + magazine, with fan being a lexicalised clipping from fanatic, 3.1.3.1), floordrobe (← floor + wardrobe), gaydio (← gay + radio), Gorebots (← Gore + robots) ‘people supporting Al Gore’s presidential run’, screamager (← scream + teenager), soundsational (← sound + sensational), staycation (← stay + vacation), viewshed (← view + watershed), wintertainment. The splinter is a word beginning in pixel (← pix + element, where pix is a graphic alteration of pics ‘pictures’) and TomKat (← Tom (Cruise) + Katie (Holmes)), a pun on the word tom-cat. The full word is preceded by a splinter in: amajor (← amazing + major), Amerindian (← American + Indian), Blasian (← Black + Asian), Brangelina, cinemenace, copyleft (← copyright + left), Frankenfish (← Frankenstein + fish), narcoma (← narcotic + coma), paratroops. Here the splinter is rarely the end of a word, blog (← web + log) and netiquette, although with a lexicalised clipping net, are major exceptions (see also Lehrer 2007: 118). The full word is intercalated within a discontinuous splinter (as a sort of infix) in: adorkable (← adorable + dork), ambisextrous, autobydography (← autobiography + by dog), blawg (← blog + law, with blog being itself a blend), carnibbleous (← carnivorous + nibble), cewebrity

Definition, delimitation, and classification

121

(← celebrity + web), destarture (← departure + start), disgrossting (← disgusting + gross), enshocklopedia (← encyclopedia + shock), osteopornosis (← osteoporosis + porn). Blends such as these are called “sandwich words” by Wentworth (1939, in Algeo 1977: 49), and included within the subclass of “intercalative blends” by Kemmer (2003: 72), and of “noncontiguous” or “implanted blends” by Hong (2004: 119). Blending here is generally favoured by sound similarity, e.g., between dork and dor, sex and dex, by dog and bio, etc. (see “overlapping blends” in 4.1.3.3 below). As noted by Adams (1973: 150), since “one constituent echoes in some way the word or word-fragment it replaces”, this type creates a general punning effect (see Jocularity in 7.1). 4.1.3.3. Morphonologically and graphically, blends can be subdivided into overlapping or non-overlapping, depending on whether or not there are shared sounds or letters. Overlapping blends (alias “overlap blends”) exhibit “some degree of haplology” (Adams 1973: 150), that is, a phonological overlap of vowels, consonants, or syllables between the constituents, with or without a proper shortening. Various subclasses belong to this group: ―

The constituents may overlap both graphically and phonologically, with no other shortening. This is the most transparent pattern, in which the hind part of the first constituent overlaps with the fore part of the second one, thus allowing transparent analysis into morphs.111 The extent of the overlapping varies from one phoneme to several, as indicated by the underlined letters in the following examples: anecdotage (← anecdote + dotage), beefish (← beef + fish), cattitude (← cat + attitude), clandestiny (← clandestine + destiny), faddition (← fad + addition), Funderwear (← fun + underwear), glasphalt (← glass + asphalt), glassteel (← glass + steel), palimony (← pal + alimony), Petcetera (← pet + et cetera, ‘name of a pet store’), rat-a-tattoo (← rat-a-tat + tattoo), sexpert (← sex + expert), sexploitation (← sex + exploitation), slanguage, snappetizer (← snap + appetizer). In plot boiler, the overlap involves discontinuous segments, but the two bases (plot and pot boiler) are still recognisable. Sometimes minor spelling/sound changes may occur, such as dropping a final , as in cocacolonization (← Coca Cola + colonization), or two spellings may be accepted: for example, gues(s)timate is in line with either the first or

122

―

―

Blends

second constituent (Adams 1973: 151). The overlap is between two word ends in kleptoromania (← kleptomania + Romania). The constituents overlap both graphically and phonologically, with the shortening of (at least) one of them. The following examples illustrate various patterns of combination: californicate, cinemenace, compfusion (← computer + confusion), criticular (← critical + particular), Meanderthal (← meander + Neanderthal), medicare (← medical + care), motel (← motor + hotel), mousewife (← mouse + housewife), Pictionary (← picture + dictionary), Psychedelphia (← psychedelic + Philadelphia), robomb (← robot + bomb), steelionaire (← steel + millionaire), telex, wintertainment. Also ambisextrous and other abovementioned intercalative blends belong to this subclass. The overlap is between two word beginnings in crazyologist (← crazy + craniologist), between two word ends in scandicalous (← scandalous + ridiculous). In bo(a)tel (← boat + hotel) and opinion(n)aire (← opinion + questionnaire) two different spellings are acceptable. Sometimes overlapping letters are distributed discontinuously, as in airobics (← air + aerobics), animule (← animal + mule), astrocity (← astronaut + atrocity), beefalo (← beef + buffalo), clandestical (← clandestine + fantastical), daffynition (← daffy + definition), flustrated (← flustered + frustrated), Hungarican (← Hungarian + American), pollutician (← pollute + politician), snark (← snake + shark), stripteuse (← striptease + chanteuse), suspose (← suspect + suppose), wordrobe (← word + wardrobe). These are called “imperfect blends” (Algeo 1977; Kelly 1998), because “an overlapped segment shares some, but not all, of its component features” (Hong 2004: 131): e.g., air vs. aer, mal vs. mul, etc. With three splinters, generally, the second overlaps with both the first and the third, as in Joyce’s camibalistics (← camisade + cannibalism + ballistics) (in Grésillon 1984: 15), Intelevisionary (← Intel + television + visionary), Japornimation (← Japan + porn + animation). Alternatively, the first source word may overlap with the other two words, as in Joyce’s Meandertale (← Neanderthal + meander + tale), analysed again in Grésillon (1984: 15). The constituents overlap phonologically but not orthographically. Lehrer (2007: 120) calls this type “orthographic blends” because they are marked as blends only by their spelling. Examples are: buyography (← buy + biography), cartune (← cartoon + tune, from the Am.E. pronunciation of tune), cellebrity (← cell + celebrity), fantasea (← fantasy + sea), millionheiress (← millionaire + heiress), pursonality (← purse +

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

123

personality), racqueteer (← racquet + racketeer), rendezwoo (← rendezvous + woo), shampagne (← sham + champagne), sinema. The word backronym itself is presumably a blend of this type (← back + acronym). Also in eracism (← erase + racism) and wargasm (← war + orgasm), pronunciation takes precedence over orthography. The constituents overlap orthographically but not phonologically. This is the case of smog, in which the shared letter is pronounced  in smoke, but  in fog, or of bit (← binary + unit), where the shared i is differently pronounced  in binary vs.  in unit. In pomato, the shared segment is pronounced differently in the source words: cf.  in potato vs.  in tomato, although it is pronounced in the same way in Am.E.

4.1.3.4. Non-overlapping blends (or “substitution blends”), on the other hand, exhibit neither phonological nor graphic overlap between the constituents. For instance, in Calexico, the two constituents (California and Mexico) do not share any letter or sound at their boundary, nor do boom and hoist, obtaining the blend boost. Given the preference for transparency, this type is less preferred than the overlapping one, because the reconstruction of the etyma appears more difficult from small fragments (see “fragment blending” in Ronneberger-Sibold 2006: 174). As we will see, the fact that many blends are short and do not leave the source words intact (e.g. amping ← amphetamine + smoking) largely damages their recoverability (see 4.2.4; Lehrer 1996: 366; Gries 2004b: 416).

4.1.3.5. The last differentiation that I propose for the categorisation of blends is based on their morphosemantics. As with the constituents of compounds, the components of blends also normally exhibit a semantic relationship of some kind, allowing a distinction between attributive blends and coordinate blends.112 Attributive blends (also “syntactic” or “telescope”) exhibit a relationship in which the second member functions as a semantic head and the first one as a modifier. Thus, a dogbella is ‘an umbrella for a dog’.113 This semantic type is therefore endocentric in nature, and generally entirely transparent, as in the following nouns: chemagination (← chemistry + imagination) ‘imagination in the use of chemicals’, Funderwear ‘trademark for underwear that is gaily coloured’, Kloran (← Klan + Koran) ‘bible used by members

124

Blends

of the Ku Klux Klan’, Perma-Gel (← permanent + gelatine) ‘trademark for a long-lasting textured underpaint’, porta-light, porta-play (← portable + player), psychergy ‘vitality of the intellect’, snobject ‘object having snob appeal’, sterecorder ‘tape recorder with the quality of a stereo’, vodkatini ‘Martini made with vodka’. Some adjectives also belong to this type, and in the following examples the semantic head is modified by either a noun or an adverb: airbrasive (← air + abrasive), funtastic (← fun + fantastic) ‘very enjoyable’, maridelic (← marijuana + psychedelic), numberous (← number + numerous), and sugly (← so + ugly). Bat-El (2006) observes that, like endocentric compounds, endocentric blends of the type just illustrated are also right-headed. Yet exceptions exist: e.g., dishmobile (← dishwasher + mobile) ‘movable dishwasher’ and veggie-Q (← veggie + barbecue, with a substitution of cue with the homophonous letter) ‘barbecued vegetables’ are left-headed. Furthermore, this is the type often confused or conflated with clipped compounds: for instance, for the word vidstation ‘television station’, it is very difficult to discriminate between a partial blend analysis (← vid(eo) + station), or a clipped compound analysis (← vid(eo) station). Lastly, attributive blends exhibiting an exocentric relationship between their members also exist. For instance, in Frutopia (← fruit + utopia), the semantic head ‘a beverage’ is outside.

4.1.3.6. Coordinate blends (also “associative” or “portmanteau”) display two words having the same semantic status, which both serve as head (cf. Bat-El 2006). For instance, windowall (← window + wall) is both ‘a window’ and ‘a wall’, broccoflower has some characteristics of ‘broccoli’ and some of ‘cauliflower’, Optronic (← optic + electronic) is a trademark referring to ‘an electronically controlled optical device’. Hence, while motel (‘a hotel for motorists’) is attributive, boatel is coordinate, because it is both ‘a boat’ and ‘a hotel’. Other examples of this subcategory include the nouns advertainment, beefalo, beefish, brunch, bulimarexia (← bulimia + anorexia), cat(t)alo (← cattle + buffalo), Churchvelt (← Churchill + Roosevelt), dramedy (← drama + comedy), dresshirt (← dress + shirt), geep/shoat, infotainment, liger/tigon (← lion + tiger), Oxbridge, smog, tangemon (← tangerine + lemon), zebrule (zebra + mule), the adjectives alphameric, Hungarican, rapidry (← rapid + dry), Spanglish, and the adverbs absotively and its counterblend posilutely.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

125

The two members are therefore related both syntactically and semantically. Syntactically, they are paradigmatically equivalent, i.e. belong to the same syntactic category, and both share their syntactic class with the final blend. Semantically, they are generally co-hyponyms of a superordinate term, as lion and tiger, which are both animals. As observed by Algeo (1977: 57), the “purest examples of associative blends are those that combine synonyms”,114 as in attractivating (← attractive + captivating), confuzzled (← confused + puzzled), disastrophe (← disaster + catastrophe), fantabulous, ginormous, guesstimate, insinuendo (← insinuation + innuendo), needcessity (← need + necessity), stocks (← stockings + socks), and swellegant (← swell + elegant), although the association is also facilitated by the overlapping constituents of most of these blends. Sometimes the constituents are “near-antonymically related” (Cannon 2000: 955), as in compander (← compressor + expander), demopublican (← democratic + republican), frenemies (← friends + enemies), modem (← modulator + demodulator), and transceiver (← transmitter + receiver). I consider all the coordinate blends mentioned so far to be endocentric, because, like coordinate compounds, they have two heads which are inside the blend. However, within the category of coordinate blends, exocentric cases also exist: for example, a helilift is neither ‘a helicopter’ nor ‘a lift’, but ‘a group transported by helicopter’, and fortran (← formula + translation) refers to ‘a computer language that uses familiar words and symbols’ (Bryant 1974: 175, 182). Hence, both are exocentric, but, while the former is only partially opaque, exhibiting transparency of the first member, the latter exhibits opaqueness of both members. 4.1.4. Blends: Further remarks As has already been said, the above classifications operate with reference to a number of different parameters. Thus, for example, the coordinate blend advertainment belongs to the type of total blends in which the beginning of one word is followed by the end of another (advert(isement + ent)ertainment), and also exhibits overlapping constituents (the sequence ert). The attributive blend snobject, on the other hand, belongs to the most transparent type, with no truncation but only overlapping constituents. The labels used to distinguish these blends are only partially taken from the literature, either because I felt the need to create my own taxonomy, so as to include all existing blends, or because I disagreed with some accounts, such as Bat-El’s (2006) distinction between endo- and exo-centric blends, or

126

Blends

the omission of those blends like motel, which are viewed by some scholars (e.g. Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.) as syntagmatic abbreviations of possible compounds. Table 4 summarises the types discussed in my study. Table 4. Types and examples of English blends Type Total Blend

Partial Blend

Overlapping Blend

Nonoverlapping Blend Attributive Blend

Description

Pattern

Examples

All source words are reduced to splinters

Beginning + End

ginormous ← gigantic + enormous agitprop ← agitation + propaganda Bullgarita ← Red Bull + margarita entreporneur ← entrepreneur + pornography gaydio ← gay + radio narcoma ← narcotic + coma ambisextrous ← ambidextrous + sex

Only one source word is reduced to a splinter

The source words overlap

The source words do not overlap The first source word modifies the second one

Beginning + Beginning End + End Beginning/End intercalated into a splinter Word + Splinter Splinter + Word Word intercalated into a discontinuous splinter Graphic + phonological overlap with no shortening Graphic + phonological overlap with shortening Only phonological overlap Only graphic overlap

slanguage ← slang + language californicate ← California + fornicate cartune ← cartoon + tune smog ← smoke + fog Calexico ← California + Mexico

Modifier + Head

porta-play ← portable + player

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon Coordinate Blend

4.2.

The source words have the same semantic and syntactic status

Head + Head

127

broccoflower ← broccoli + cauliflower

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

Although a classification of existing blends appears a feasible task, and although scholars more or less explicitly recognise that certain recurrent patterns can be identified in blending, the grammatical status of the blending process is generally excluded as an option. Marchand (1969: 451) briefly affirms that “Blending … has no grammatical, but a stylistic status”. Bauer (1983: 234–237) and Rainer (1993: 87–90) agree that blends are different from regular formations because of their unpredictability and irregularity. The irregularity of blends is also stressed by Grésillon (1984), who metaphorically calls them linguistic ‘monsters’ fluctuating between “une certaine régularité [a certain regularity]” and “une incontournable irrégularité [an inevitable irregularity]” (p. 2). Cannon (1986) even concludes his account on blends claiming that: the numerous patterns that they exhibit are too diverse to be generated within the traditional framework of generative rules, which must be either recast or else abandoned in favor of a more powerful kind of device that can accommodate these often unpredictable items. (p. 748)

Blending patterns are, according to Kemmer (2003: 71), “so varied that no neat taxonomy can do justice to the full range of the phenomenon”. That is, the heterogeneity of blends makes them difficult to describe in terms of applicability, productivity, and grammatical rules. Ronneberger-Sibold (2006: 159) attributes their exclusion from morphological grammar to their “lack of transparency” and to “the impossibility of predicting the exact output of a blend, given its input”. Although many attempts have been made to predict the output of blends, thus demonstrating that they do not occur randomly, their phonological and semantic structures vary, depending on the characteristics of their source words. Furthermore, alternative options are possible when the source words allow this, for example options regarding the order of constituents (posilutely vs. absotively), their combination (Amerind vs. Amerindian), or

128

Blends

spelling (guesstimate vs. guestimate). The few phonological regularities identified by Plag (2003: 121–126) cannot describe the whole variety of blending patterns and his blending rule has many exceptions, being applicable only to prototypical cases. Also, the principles governing the formation of English blends indicated by Bat-El (2006: 70) are not always obeyed, “exceptions [being] often due to some extragrammatical factors” (cf. Bat-El 2000). The extra-grammatical nature of blends was first recognised by Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994), and repeatedly confirmed and demonstrated by Dressler and Karpf (1995), Dressler (2000, 2005), Ronneberger-Sibold (2006, 2008), Mattiello (2008a), and Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.). The irregularities of blends can be described in terms of a combination of violations of grammatical morphological rules. 4.2.1. Irregularities in blends According to Grésillon (1984: 138–139), blends follow neither structural nor phonological schemas: morphotactically, they break the linearity of the signantia, and semantically, they admit co-predication. Bat-El (2006: 67) claims that the coordinate type alphameric and tangemon is headless. Yet coordinate blends behave like coordinate compounds, while attributive blends such as Kloran and keytainer (← key + container) behave like endocentric (right-headed) compounds. Many scholars agree that blends are not transparently analysable into morphemes (Bauer 1983), but composed of “phonological strings that trigger meaning” (Kemmer 2003: 77). Their segmentation often violates morpheme boundaries, as in info + tainment (← inform-ation + entertainment), and also affix-stem boundaries, as in posi + lutely (← positive-ly + absolute-ly). Although there have been many attempts at predicting their structure, blends exhibit no general syllabic regularities (cf. Plag 2003; Bat-El 2006), their switch point is variable, and length and stress do not always follow predetermined principles (cf. Hong 2004). Lastly, they violate many of the rules of grammatical morphology. The major grammatical rules that appear to be violated in blend formations, compared with canonical formations, are those discussed in 4.2.1.1–4.2.1.7 below.

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

129

4.2.1.1. Morphotactic irregularity and output (un-)predictability. Grammatical derivatives and compounds are regular and predictable in terms of their morphotactics, since they combine two or more entirely recognisable morphemes through a concatenation process. In contrast, the basic components of blends are typically blurred because of their abbreviatory nature, and their output is often difficult to predict, allowing the combination of full words with splinters (chat-(sat)ire, narco(tic)-coma), overlapping segments (at and co in the previous examples), and intercalation of a shorter word (or a splinter) into a longer matrix word, as in de(part)ure + start → destarture. Intercalative blends also contravene the rule of concatenation forming all regular complex words (Grésillon 1984: 138). 4.2.1.2. Alternative outputs. Blends are more permissive than morphological rules in terms of output structure. Thus, alternative forms are obtained from the same source words, depending on their final segmental make-up (e.g. zebra + donkey → zedonk vs. zonkey, Amerind vs. Amerindian), or according to the order of the segments (e.g. moon + earth → moorth vs. earth + moon → earthoon). 4.2.1.3. Non-morphematic analysis. Whereas derivatives and compounds are transparently analysable, total and most intercalative blends are made up of one or more splinter(s), i.e., opaque fragments which often do not correspond to word syllables, as in br(eakfast) + (l)unch, or even ch(uck)le + (sn)ort. As a consequence, compounds and derivatives can be regularly segmented into morphemes, while blends (with the exception of partial ones) generally cannot, unless we analyse the source words of substitution blends like bullionaire (← bullion + billionaire) and overlapping blends like slanguage (← slang + language) as not properly truncated. The homophonous segment lang in the latter example has a double status (Grésillon 1984: 138). 4.2.1.4. Uncertain headedness. Whereas in prototypical derivatives and compounds headedness is immediately identifiable, the head of blends is difficult to assign. In contrast with Williams’ (1981) Righthand Head Rule, it may be either the right-hand (as in dancercise ← dance + exercise) or the left-hand member (as in dishmobile ← dishwasher + mobile), depending on the head position in the source words (cf. Kubozono’s 1990: 16 notion of

130

Blends

“morphological/phonological head”). In some cases the head is absent, as in the afore-mentioned helilift, which, like exocentric compounds, has its head outside the blend. Coordinate blends of the type beefish and Spanglish, on the other hand, have two semantic heads (cf. Kemmer 2003; Bat-El 2006). 4.2.1.5. Irregular subtraction. Subtractive morphological rules are rare and generally tend to remove small parts from their bases. By contrast, blend formations are generally based on subtraction of word parts, and the deleted parts are large and very erratic: e.g., the middle part, as in Ox(ford + Cam)bridge → Oxbridge, fan + (maga)zine → fanzine, a(b)ility + skill → askility; two codas (mo(dulator) + dem(odulator) → modem); the beginning ((we)b + log → blog), or, rarely, two beginnings, as in (Hello) Kitty + (de)licious → Kittylicious, and (inter)net + (cit)izen → netizen. The cases of blog and netizen infringe what is normally considered the only regularity of blends, i.e. “the beginning of a blend cannot be the end of a word” (Lehrer 1996: 364; also in Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Even more exotic is the case of chortle, where the end of a word (ort ← (sn)ort) is embedded in a discontinuous base, ch(uck)le. 4.2.1.6. Discontinuity of bases. Word-formation rules do not allow discontinuous bases, which, in contrast, are customary in intercalative blends, such as the above-mentioned askility and chortle. Discontinuity may also involve the overlapping segments of blends, as in beefalo (← beef + buffalo), plot boiler (← plot + pot boiler), and snark (← snake + shark). 4.2.1.7. Alternative input categories. Whereas standard morphological rules apply to specific categories of bases, blends allow a variety of combinations between different base categories. This is also pointed out by Bat-El (2006: 67): “Blends allow any possible combination of lexical categories, including some that do not appear in compounds”. For instance, two verbs, as in gallop + triumph → galumph are impossible compound members.115 Other unusual base categories include adverbs (e.g. so + ugly → sugly), proper names (Federico Fellini + fool → Federico Foolini, James Bond + industry → James Bondustry, Obama + economics → Obamanomics), titles (Mrs + missile → Mrssile), and longer phrases, as in the intercalative blends The Big Wiesy (← The Big Easy + Wie) ‘nickname for the golfer Michelle Wie’, and big dame hunter (big game hunter + dame) ‘ladies’ man’. The original-

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

131

ity of blend words even permits combinations with phrases reduced to acronyms or initialisms, as in ZIP (‘Zone Improvement Plan’) + symposium → Ziposium, and UN (‘United Nations’) + onomatopoeia → UNomatopoeia. Even more strikingly, the first base of Abra CaBubble (← abracadabra + bubble) ‘trademark for a bubblegum’ is a nonsense word with no syntactic category at all. Furthermore, the bases of blends are often two semantically related words which are paradigmatically equivalent, such as two nouns (smoke + fog), two adjectives (fantastic + fabulous), two adverbs (absolutely + positively), and two verbs in guesstimate. Even synonymous bases are permitted (gigantic + enormous). Points 4.2.1.1 to 4.2.1.7 clearly accommodate blends within extragrammatical morphology (2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10), recognising that they are – in spite of their apparent resemblance to grammatical compounds – characterised by many irregularities. Yet blends also present some recurrent patterns and regularities which help understanding and aid the prediction of new formations by analogical processes. 4.2.2. Regularities in blends Previous studies have observed a certain number of more or less confirmable regularities in blend formation. When speaking of regularities, scholars tend to show statistical results from their data. However, it is my impression that most of them select an ad hoc database. Only some of them (e.g. Lehrer 1996) really take into account all existing patterns, and a great majority (e.g. Hong 2004) deliberately exclude the intercalative type from their analyses, since it does not conform to the tendencies of the prototypical pattern. By including all the patterns identified in 4.1.3, some generalisations can be made about blend (sub)regularities and tendencies. 4.2.2.1. Phonological regularity. Blends do not infringe the phonological rules of a language. This is stressed by Grésillon (1984: 135) for all natural languages, and corroborated by Bat-El (2000: 78) for Hebrew blends. English blends are likewise consistent with the phonology of the English language. Specifically, in line with Kubozono (1990), there are two phonological constraints on the forms resulting from blending. The first constraint prohibits “forms which do not conform to the phonotactic structure of the

132

Blends

language” (Kubozono 1990: 5) (e.g. *smonk ← smo(ke + dri)nk, vs. correct smink). The second prohibits “forms which happen to be identical in phonemic shape to either of the source words” (Kubozono 1990: 5) (e.g. *best ← be(st + mo)st, *which ← wh(at + wh)ich). 4.2.2.2. Conformity with the source words as regards stress.116 According to Cannon’s (1986: 741) size-based approach, in blends primary stress generally occurs in the same position as one of the source words. For example, in drámedy (← dráma + cómedy) it corresponds to the primary stress of the first word, in infomércial (← informátion + commércial) to that of the second word, and in ambiséxtrous to the primary stress of both words. According to the position-based approach (Bat-El 2006), instead, the stressed syllable in a blend corresponds to the stressed syllable of the right base word (regular head position), as in aggranóying (← ággravating + annóying), fertigátion (← fértilizer + irrigátion). A third approach, combining the above views, is that of Bat-El and Cohen (forth.), who claim that, since there is inter-word variation, in some blends size wins and in others position wins. 4.2.2.3. Conformity with the source words as regards length. English blends tend to have the same number of syllables as, or one syllable more or less than the longer source word (Cannon 1986: 741; Hong 2004: 134). However, this is a somewhat rigid rule, and one which is only partially confirmed by some of Cannon’s (1986) examples: e.g. psychedelicatessen (← psychedelic 4 + delicatessen 5) is 7 syllables, that is two syllables longer than its longer source word. Even stricter is Kobozono’s (1990: 12) length rule, according to which the right-hand source word and the resultant blend consist of the same number of syllables. This rule is close to Plag’s (2003: 125) phonological constraints that either “the blend is of the same size as the constituents” (e.g. boom 1 + hoist 1 → boost 1, channel 2 + tunnel 2 → chunnel 2, compressor 3 + expander 3 → compander 3), or the size of the blend “is determined by the second element” (e.g. boat 1 + hotel 2 → boatel 2, breakfast 2 + lunch 1 → brunch 1). These constraints erroneously rule out both blends whose length is determined by the first word (e.g. narcoma 3 ← narcotic 3 + coma 2) and blends like happenident 4 (← happen 2 + accident 3) and fanzine 2 (← fan 1 + magazine 3), which are either longer or shorter than the second source word.

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

133

In intercalative blends, the embedded part is usually a short word, whereas the discontinuous base is the matrix, providing the length and rhythmic contour of the blend (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). 4.2.2.4. Prototypical beginning-end pattern. Preferably, there will be two components in a blend, in conformity with the naturalness preference for binary relations (see 2.2.1 and Dressler 2005). The prototypical binary structure takes the first part of the first source word and the final part of the second source word, as in fanta(stic) + (fa)bulous → fantabulous.117 Many authors agree with Lehrer (1996: 364) that “the beginning of a blend cannot be the end of a word”. Hong (2004) re-expresses this idea as follows: “If a splinter precedes a full word or another splinter, it must constitute the first part of a word” (p. 123 [emphasis in the original]). But this affirmation is not without exceptions, as blog (← (we)b + log) and netizen (← (inter)net + (cit)izen) demonstrate. Nor is Hong’s (2004) ancillary contention “If a splinter follows a full word or another splinter, it is the final part of a word” (p. 123 [emphasis in the original]): modem is made up of two word beginnings. Thus, Plag’s (2003: 123) blending rule (AB + CD → AD), after Kubozono’s (1990: 4) formation rule (AB/XY → AY), is infringed by many English blends. For instance, in overlapping blends (e.g. alcoholiday), either B or C are null. Moreover, neither partial blends (Brangelina, TomKat), combining part of a word with a full word, nor intercalative blends (e.g. ambisextrous, enshocklopedia), with an embedded word/splinter, comply with the prototypical pattern. 4.2.2.5. Tendency towards transparency. Blends exhibit a tendency to maximise semantic transparency by preserving “as many segments from the base words as possible” (Bat-El 2006: 67; also in Cannon 1986; Gries 2004a). This point can be illustrated by overlapping blends, which ideally combine the source words where they display homophonous segments (slanguage), resulting in “no deletion at all” (Kaunisto 2000a: 49, in Gries 2004a: 650). Partial blends (vodkatini) also seem governed by a desire to guarantee the recognisability of at least one source word (see Recoverability in 4.2.4). However, this tendency is disconfirmed by fragment blends, such as amping (← amphetamine + smoking) and bit (← binary + unit), whose source words are hard to recognise because only small fragments have been preserved (Gries 2004b).

134

Blends

4.2.2.6. Similarity/Identity at the juncture. Another tendency is to segmental or syllabic similarity, or even identity at the juncture (Kelly 1998; Cannon 2000; Kemmer 2003; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). In line with Kelly (1998: 587), “blends do tend to be arranged so that the boundary involves similar phonemes”, as in alcoholiday and slanguage above. In the attributive bisquick (← biscuit + quick), the adjective has even been postponed to obtain similarity at the juncture. Thus, the overlap may be one of the parameters according to which blend components are ordered, others being the frequency, length, prototypicality, and positive connotation of the components (see Kelly 1998).118 Yet overlap blends do not necessarily share identical segments: in beefalo (← beef + buffalo), the overlap is imperfect or discontinuous. 4.2.2.7. Switch point at phonological (or morphological) joints. Switch points between the blend components fall primarily at major phonological joints, such as syllable (appestat ← appe.(tite + ther.mo.)stat) and onsetrhyme boundaries (br(eak.fast + l)unch). Breaks at other boundaries, such as body-coda, are disfavoured (Kubozono 1990; Kelly 1998; Hong 2004),119 unless they coincide with a morpheme boundary, as in pantdress (← pant(-s) + dress). Nevertheless, morphological switch points (earwitness ← ear + (eye)witness) are less frequent. 4.2.2.8. Co-predication. Coordinate blends exhibit a co-predication, i.e. two simultaneous predications (Grésillon 1984: 134–138), which is different from coordination, which involves one predication after another. Plag (2003: 125) goes even further, claiming that “blends behave semantically and syntactically like copulative compounds”. Thus, Oxbridge simultaneously refers to the two main British universities (Oxford + Cambridge), and brunch is ‘breakfast taken nearly at lunchtime’, thus including both meals.120 Coordination is more frequent or prototypical of the meaning of blends than the coordinate or copulative patterns in compounds, although other semantic patterns exist in blends, such as modifier + head in the attributive type.121 4.2.2.9. New meaning. Unlike other subtractive techniques (see Abbreviations in chapter 3), blends generally “add new meanings to the lexicon” (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Although lexicalised blends such as smog and brunch are not numerous, they contribute to lexical innovation (2.3.5),

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

135

as do other new formations characterised by a playful impact and surprising effect. 4.2.2.10. Iconicity. In blends “an iconic relation between the structure of the signans and that of the signatum holds” (Thornton 1993: 152). This motivates their frequency, in spite of the blurred morphological boundaries, which are dispreferred in Natural Morphology. The semantic composition of hybrids (beefish, broccoflower, tangemon, zebrule) and chemicals (acetal, chloral) is reflected in the naming process which has led to the blends. In the case of couples (Brangelina, TomKat), the union of the members is iconically reproduced by the binary relation of the blend. In hybrid languages (Amerind, Spanglish), the blurring of morphological boundaries reproduces the blurring of intra-linguistic differences. Grésillon (1984: 134, after Jakobson 1966), claims that the iconic relationship between signans and signatum is best illustrated by overlapping blends, sharing a homophonous (or similar) string which belongs to both source words (slanguage). Hence, the double structure and overlap of the signans mirror the double predication (see 4.2.2.8 above). 4.2.3. Predictability in blends As we have seen in the previous section, it is difficult to make generalisations about all blending patterns. Regularities are peculiar to specific types, and even these individual regularities may, in many cases, be invalidated by interesting counterexamples. Even Lehrer’s (1996: 364) claim that a blend starts with the first part of the first source word, viewed by many scholars (e.g. Hong 2004; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.) as the only true regularity of blends, is infringed by some English cases. Predictions about stress, length, order of the components, switch point, and general structure are blatantly confuted, the intercalative type being completely excluded from any prediction. The shortening of blends also remains a controversial issue, since overlap blends with a homophonous string do not really exhibit a shortened source word (López Rúa 2002: 46). My question again is: Is there any predictability in blend formation? To answer this question I propose to analyse the formation of some possible blends from the source words (SW1–SW2) reported in Table 5.

136

Blends

Table 5. Possible blends from existing source words Source Word 1 (SW1)

Source Word 2 (SW2)

Possible blend

(1) milk  (2) newspaper  (3) eat  (4) look  (5) sexy  (6) stupid  (7) politely 

coffee  magazine 

milkoffee, coffilk newzine, newsine

drink  glorify  excellent  silly  graciously 

eatink lookify, glookify sexcellent, sexylent stupilly, sillupid politeciously, polaciously absurdlutely

(8) absolutely 

absurdly 

SW1 and SW2 have been chosen on the basis of their paradigmatic relation. Moreover, they are not casually ordered, but arranged so as to favour similarity or identity at the juncture (4.2.2.6), or otherwise according to Kelly’s (1998) parameters of frequency, length, prototypicality, positive connotation, etc. (see also Gries forth.). When two parameters are in contrast, a compromise solution is offered giving prominence to frequency over length, to length over prototypicality, and so on. Potentially, SW1–SW2 should be the best order for the blend components. Possible blend structures have been envisaged in line with criteria 4.2.2.1–4.2.2.10 above. That is, the final form of the blend should conform to the phonology of English, its stress should correspond to primary stress of either SW1 or SW2, the number of syllables should not be greater than one more than the longer SW, etc. However, some criteria have been considered as primary. For example, the prototypical pattern combines the beginning of SW1 with the end of SW2 (4.2.2.4), SW1 and SW2 preferably overlap (4.2.2.6), either phonologically, graphically or both, and their semantic transparency is maximised by preserving as many segments as possible (4.2.2.5), which makes them more recognisable and unambiguous (see Recoverability in 4.2.4 below). Results show that more than one possible output can be predicted given an input, each output disconfirming at least one criterion among 4.2.2.1– 4.2.2.10 above. For instance, in (1), two possible blend forms have been suggested. The first (milkoffee) retains as many segments as possible from the base words (4.2.2.5), and combines them at a phonological overlap

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

137

(4.2.2.6), but does not conform to the prototypical AD structure (4.2.2.4), retaining one word in full (milk), which makes milkoffee one syllable longer than its SW2 (cf. 4.2.2.3). The second (coffilk) equals the syllables of SW2 (4.2.2.3), but it does not save the overlap. In (2), both alternative outputs (newzine, newsine) are dispreferred: the switch points between the blend components do not occur at syllable boundaries (new(s.pa.per + mag.a.)zine, news.(pa.per + mag.a.z)ine), nor at morphological boundaries (new(s-paper)), thus violating criterion 4.2.2.7. In the case of newzine, the breakpoint falls at the coda, which is a disfavoured phonological pattern. Criterion 4.2.2.5 is also violated, because SW1 is nearly unrecognisable, and in newzine the semantic analysis is blurred by the coincidence of the splinter new with a full word. In (4), intercalative glookify displays both maximum preservation of segments and overlap (4.2.2.5–4.2.2.6), but it does not follow the prototypical pattern (4.2.2.4), nor does the partial blend lookify, in spite of its concatenation. In the latter case, segmentation occurs at a morphological boundary ((glor)-ify), in line with 4.2.2.7, but the suffix -ify does not say much about SW2, infringing 4.2.2.5. In (5), the overlap blend sexcellent, with a homophonous string at the juncture (4.2.2.6), is certainly preferred over the partial blend sexylent, which highly obscures SW2 to give prominence to SW1. Yet sexcellent jeopardises criterion 4.2.2.8 on co-predication. In fact, there are two possible interpretations: coordinate (‘both sexy and excellent’) vs. attributive (‘excellent in sex’), reinterpreted as sex + excellent. Both stupilly and sillupid in (6) exhibit prototypical structures (4.2.2.4), but, against 4.2.2.7, they display dispreferred breakpoints, infringing syllable boundaries (← stu.p(id + s)ill.y, sill.(y + st)u.pid). Moreover, against 4.2.2.6, their overlapping segments are at the juncture only in stupilly, but not in sillupid. The latter also imposes a reversal between the blend components, disconfirming Kelly’s (1998) results about optimal order. Politeciously and polaciously in (7) are prototypical in terms of their morphotactics, but the latter does not conform to criterion 4.2.2.7, overcoming major phonological joints (← po.l(ite.ly + gr)a.cious.ly). Furthermore, both are one syllable longer than their SWs, contravening Kobozono’s (1990) length rule in 4.2.2.3. Eatink and absurdlutely appear the best possible options in (3) and (8), although they are respectively a partial blend with no similarity at the juncture (cf. 4.2.2.4, 4.2.2.6), and a blend with an ambiguous analysis: i.e., either intercalative (ab(so)lutely + (ab)surd(ly)) or prototypical (absurd(ly + abso)lutely), with a reversed ordering of the components.

138

Blends

In reply to the above question, this brief discussion suggests that there is no full predictability in blend formation, alternative outputs being consistent with the phonology of English, and one or another output being inconsistent with the regularities and tendencies discussed in 4.2.2.1–4.2.2.10. Moreover, against Plag (2003) and Bat-El (2006), no valid generalisations can be made for blends, which, as has been shown, appear to be much more heterogeneous and unpredictable than compounds. Criteria 4.2.2.1–4.2.2.10 show the main preferences in blending patterns, in line with naturalness parameters, but the number of actual and possible blends respecting all criteria is low, smog being an ideal type. 4.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness Instead of rules or (sub)regularities, what can be offered for blends is a series of criteria of well-formedness. Again, analogy is the primary criterion and the crucial principle governing the formation of blends. ―

―

―

Analogy. Like abbreviations (chapter 3), blends too are analogical formations, i.e. formations created by analogy with previously encountered patterns of formation (see Lehrer 2007). Thus, frappuccino (from frappé + cappuccino) is based on the analogous formation mochaccino (from mocha + cappuccino), Krustelope (from Krusty + Penelope), used in an episode of The Simpsons, is analogical with Brangelina, and Girlicious, the name of a female musical group, is comparable to many prior formations of the same type (beaulicious, bootylicious, etc.). In the latter case, -licious is a potential final combining form which may gain an established status in the near future. In contrast with regular compounds, which are entirely based on concatenation, new blends resemble existing ones, and also admit fusion, overlapping segments, and even intercalation. Pronounceability/Euphony. Blends must be easy to pronounce and agreeable to the ear. They must conform to the general reading rules, avoiding impossible clusters or unpronounceable sound sequences (see Natural Phonology in 2.2.2). Their form must be audible and comprehensible to the hear. Only a few dispreferred cases (e.g. compfusion) partially disobey these criteria. Recoverability. In accordance with naturalness preferences for morphotactic and morphosemantic transparency (Dressler 1999, 2000, 2005), the components of the blend must be recognisable from its final segmen-

Blending as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

―

―

―

139

tal make-up. Blends must preserve as many segments from the source words as possible (Cannon 1986; Gries 2004a; Bat-El 2006) in order to guarantee recoverability (see overlapping blends). This criterion corresponds to the notion of “recognisability” in Gries (forth.). Semantic blocking. A blend cannot be formed in a given language if it coincides with a homophone or homograph word of that language. In accordance with Aronoff’s (1976: 43) notion of “blocking”, the formation of a blend like *smoke (← sm(ell + ch)oke) would be blocked, because it has the same form as an existing word. Moreover, the segments from the source words must not coincide with existing lexemes. Accordingly, blends such as *breaklunch or *lunchfast are blocked, because break and fast are existing English words (cf. broccoflower where flower is an existing word; see Recoverability above). Prominence. One of the constituents of a blend must be prominent in terms of length, stress, and, in the attributive type, position and meaning (see Salience below). In other words, one component is the matrix: it provides the rhythmical contour, the rhyme, and generally corresponds to – or is one syllable shorter than – the whole formation. In the attributive type, this component is normally the right-most element and plays the role of semantic head. Salience. The order of the blend components must respect the semantic criterion of salience. For instance, in wintertainment, the second element (entertainment) is the most salient in determining the meaning of the blend, and therefore occurs in head position. Of course, other factors may come into play in determining the order of the source words: for instance, in brunch, breakfast comes before lunch not only because this latter is the matrix and more prominent word, but also because this order iconically reproduces the chronological sequence of the two meals.

A further criterion is especially relevant for the coordinate and overlapping types of blends: ―

Similarity. In most intentional (coordinate) blends (and also in speecherror blends, though these are not dealt with in the present study), the speaker tends to choose two source words which are similar to each other in terms of: 1) phonemic and/or graphemic length and stress pattern, 2) part of speech, and sometimes even 3) semantics (as in fantabulous). Accordingly, the source words channel and tunnel are chosen and combined into chunnel because they exhibit similarity at many different levels: a) similar phonemes and graphemes, b) similar articulatory fea-

140

Blends

tures, even when the phonemes are not the same (cf.  vs. ), c) identical structure with regard to CV segments (CVCVC), d) identical syllable length, e) identical stress pattern, and f) same part of speech (nouns) (Gries forth.). Lastly, in many blends there also tends to be similarity or identity at the juncture, as in the overlapping type.

Chapter 5 Reduplicatives

Reduplicatives, also called “echo-words”, “sing-song words”, “wishy-washy words”, “rhyming words”, and a host of other names, are words obtained by repeating sounds, syllables, or words, either exactly, as in boo-boo, or with alternation of vowels (chit-chat), consonants (teeny-weeny), or groups of sounds (creepy-crawly), sometimes with meaningfulness of both bases, as in the latter case and in artsy-craftsy, based on art and craft. Some authors distinguish between total reduplication, which doubles the entire word or stem, as in boo-boo above, and partial reduplication, which doubles some phonologically characterised subpart of the word or stem, as in clickety-click, where the doubled part (the so-called replicans) only partially reproduces the replicatum (Marantz 1982). In many languages of the world, reduplication is a widespread morphological operation, regularly and grammatically employed in both inflection and word-formation (see 2.3.5.2), whereas in Western European languages, it is a rare and marginal phenomenon of word-formation only. English, unlike its sister languages, widely and productively exploits reduplication, but its mechanism of formation does not allow for its inclusion within the grammar of the language (cf. grammaticalisation in 2.3.5.2), despite the various regularities observable in the outputs. In English, reduplication is mainly used for expressive, playful or aesthetic effects. For instance, in Yiddish English, shm-reduplication (e.g. babyschmaby, fancy-schmancy) belongs to expressive morphology (Zwicky and Pullum 1987). Here sound repetition iconically represents insistence, stress, emphasis. An intensifying function is also present in some rhyming examples, as in easy peasy (‘really simple’) and super-duper (‘extremely good, excellent’). But its iconicity is especially evident in the ablaut type, where vowel alternation may metaphorically indicate alternative movements (e.g. flip-flop, ping pong, wigwag), alternating sounds (tick-tock), and indecision (shilly-shally). From a semantic point of view, onomatopoeic formations of the type bibble-babble, bow-wow, chuff-chuff, and trit-trot have in common their expressivity, which links them to other phenomena exhibiting the same property, such as sound symbolism and phonaesthesia. However, the latter

142

Reduplicatives

expressive phenomena are not included in the present analysis (see 6.5–6.6), since they do not exhibit repetition as their main feature. Within extra-grammatical morphology, reduplication is a particularly interesting phenomenon, since it largely departs from those so far analysed. In contrast to the shortening mechanisms of blending, clipping, and acronymic formation, all oriented towards the principle of economy, reduplication appears to be based on lengthening and on a criterion of redundancy. However, although it increases the communicative cost of an utterance without any significant addition to the central meaning, it is, at the same time, useful both for peripheral meaning and for memorisation. It should also be added that it is sometimes accompanied by truncation, as in slang nig-nog, from a first base shortened from nigger. English makes use of reduplication in deprecative constructions (Art-shmart, I call it garbage!), as well as in less formal (okey-dokey), humorous (Humpty-Dumpty), or nursery language (wee-wee ‘urine’). The importance of premorphological reduplications is unquestionable, and many onomatopoeic forms (choo-choo), as well as forms used in childdirected speech (din-din ← dinner, wa-wa ← water) increase the number of either new words or connoted variants, although they are restricted to a specific variety (i.e. baby talk). The use of reduplicatives may also signal a love-centred speech situation, where the users reduce their distance by choosing childish names such as kissy-kissy or tootsy-wootsy. In general, reduplication conveys a pragmatic meaning of non-seriousness (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994), that is, it is “indexical of the user’s emotional states, or, at least of his ‘non-serious’ attitude” (Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 235). Yet English reduplicatives contribute to the enrichment of the lexicon not only in terms of connotation (2.3.5.1). Some fully lexicalised examples of reduplicatives are knick-knack (‘a trinket’), nitty-gritty (‘very detailed’), ping-pong, tussie-mussie (‘a small bouquet of flowers’), yo-yo (‘the toy’), and zig-zag, some of them covering specific semantic spaces and having no commonly used synonym. However, as we will see, reduplicatives tend to exhibit a certain semantic indeterminacy, since their meanings are often connected with vague concepts, namely indecision, confusion, carelessness, disorder, foolishness, etc. (Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 235). Reduplicatives are quite frequent and widespread, and, as the over 2,000 examples collected by Thun (1963) amply demonstrate,122 they have been so for a number of centuries. The type with exact repetition (ha-ha) is first recorded before the year 1000, and the rhyming (hotchpotch) and ablaut (mish-mash) types respectively in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is,

Reduplicatives

143

however, since the sixteenth century that they have become more frequent, and audacious nonce formations of this type are currently created in such areas as poetry, song lyrics, political slogans, newspaper headlines, advertising, brand names, and slang. There are many recent examples in trade names (Reese’s Pieces ‘a candy’), songs (Laffy Taffy),123 and cartoons for children (Igglepiggle and Makka Pakka in the series In the Night Garden; Laa-Laa, Noo-Noo, and Tinky-Winky in Teletubbies; Oogie Boogie in The Nightmare Before Christmas). Many well-established examples like chit-chat and pooh-pooh are still in active use, for instance, in the sitcom The Simpsons, and the noun hurly-burly has been reused for the title of a film (Hurlyburly, based on the play of the same name). Other old reduplicatives acquire new meanings and uses: for instance, fiddle-faddle (originally ‘nonsense’) has also become the name of a ‘candy-coated popcorn’, and zigzag, commonly used in the standard meaning ‘sharp turns in alternating directions’, is used in slang to refer to a ‘drunk’ person, from his typical way of walking. Despite its frequency as a word-formation phenomenon, reduplication is still neglected by morphologists dealing with the English system, mainly because of its irregular mechanism of formation, which marginalises it to extra-grammatical morphology or else to expressive morphology (Zwicky and Pullum 1987; Baldi 2000). The variety of reduplicative patterns does not allow scholars to analyse them as a homogeneous set. Moreover, it is not clear where reduplicative words should be placed within a description of the language, as they lie at the intersection of phonology and morphology, drawing on both linguistic systems (Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 2; Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 229). I will focus only on the use of reduplication as a word-formation device, and make reference to phonology – especially for the ablaut and rhyming types – only insofar as it will be necessary to motivate structural regularities. The literature offers differing points of view as to whether reduplication should be considered morphologically as an example of affixation or as compounding (Inkelas 2006: 417). Many researchers adopt the proposal by Marantz (1982) that both total and partial reduplication involve the affixation of a phonologically skeletal morpheme (cf. McCarthy and Prince 1986). The alternative view sees reduplication as the morphological doubling of a subconstituent, which occurs twice in the same word, at times with phonological truncation, as in partial reduplication. The morphological description of English reduplicatives dates back at least to Jespersen (1942: 173–183) and Marchand (1969: 429), who respectively labelled these formations “reduplicative compounds” and “pseudocompounds”. Quirk et al. (1985: 1579) define reduplicatives as “compounds

144

Reduplicatives

[that] have two or more constituents which are either identical or only slightly different”. Thun (1963), which is at present the most extensive monograph on the subject, argues that it is not “tenable to regard all forms of reduplicative word-formation as a kind of composition” (p. 11). As we will see, reduplicatives are neither derivatives nor compounds in the traditional sense. They are difficult to describe in terms of rules, their bases being often unrecognisable, and the onomatopoeic type (e.g. clip-clop) being typically acephalous. Their classification also poses problems: the traditional division into total and partial does not cover all types of English reduplicative, which, as the above-mentioned examples show, fall into various subgroups. A very convincing classification including all patterns, which will be of central importance in 5.1.3, is that given by Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 230–231). 5.1.

Definition, delimitation, and classification

Terminology on reduplication is, as we have seen, varied and heterogeneous. Other terms also occur in the literature (e.g. “gemination”, “duplication”, “reiteration”, see Thun 1963: 11), which, however, appear less appropriate than the term “reduplication” used here. Opinions also diverge as to whether this phenomenon should be classified as inflectional, derivational or compositional, which partly depends on the language involved. Some scholars give such vague definitions that a delimitation of the phenomenon appears difficult. A broad view includes within reduplication both syntactic repetition, as in black black or long long (‘very long’) and syllabic repetition, as in kiwi, while the narrow view includes only repetition with nonsense bases, as in hubba hubba (Dienhart 1999). An exploration of existing definitions and taxonomies and a clarification of what is meant by reduplication in this book are therefore in order. 5.1.1. Definition Reduplication is a word-formation process whereby some portion of a word is repeated, either totally, as in copy reduplicatives (e.g. gogo), or partially, with apophony of the (internal) vowel (as in riff-raff), or with rhyming constituents and apophony of the initial (consonant) sound (as in boogiewoogie). The rhyming type may exhibit two meaningful bases (as in walkie-

Definition, delimitation, and classification

145

talkie), hence subcategorised by Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 231) as “rhyming compounds”. Some scholars provide much vaguer definitions, which are not as language-specific as the one just offered. Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 18), for instance, define reduplication as a “rather unimportant, though often amusing, resource for expanding the vocabulary … in which part or all of a word is repeated”. Inkelas (2006: 417), dealing with various languages, similarly describes it as “a morphological word formation process in which some portion of a word is doubled”, and then distinguishes between the total and partial types, whereas in Inkelas and Zoll (2005: 1) reduplication is described as “grammatical doubling”. A cross-linguistic study of (full and partial) reduplication is to be found in Nadarajan (2006), who specifies that in reduplication “some part of a base (a segment, syllable, morpheme) is repeated, either to the left, or to the right of the word or, occasionally, within the middle of the word” (p. 40). While the latter case is not pertinent to our set of examples, the fact that the replicans can occur either to the right or to the left of the base will be considered one of the irregular features of English reduplicatives (5.2.1.4). Dienhart (1999), rather than providing a proper definition, proposes an algorithm to establish membership to the category of reduplicatives. He starts by defining the broadest set, consisting of “any sequence X1X2, where X2 is related to X1 by being identical (boo-boo), by differing in consonant onset (hocus-pocus), or by differing in vowel peak (mish-mash)” (Dienhart 1999: 13). He then proposes two filters: the Single Phone Condition (SPC), which removes forms like baby, and the Affix Condition (AC), which removes forms like dismiss (see 5.1.2 below). Most studies on reduplication – including the one just mentioned – focus on phonological aspects, such as phonological shape, prosodic constraints, and stress patterns. Baldi (2000), by contrast, stresses the pragmatic importance of the phenomenon. Reduplicative constructions are part of “unusual coinages, which are expressive in that they convey a special pragmatic effect which extends beyond their lexical meaning” (Baldi 2000: 963). Admittedly, many reduplicatives are more expressive variants of non-connoted words; and hence they select a register (informal, playful) and often also an audience, children being their preferential addressees. Expressivity, however, is a relative notion, depending on the language involved: although it holds for English, it does not for languages where reduplication is used in ordinary morphology, especially to denote pluralisation. A recent publication by Merlini Barbaresi (2008) concentrates on the word-formation patterns of English reduplicatives, considered in her account

146

Reduplicatives

as part of extra-grammatical morphology. She does not offer a definition of the overall category, but carefully describes each type providing examples and analyses. Although she admits that reduplicatives “interface with both phonology and morphology”, it is in the latter that she finds an explanation to the fact that “they fail to conform to canonical morphological rules” (Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 229). This paper, together with the theoretical analysis provided by Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.) for French reduplicatives, shed light on the irregularities of the phenomenon under investigation. 5.1.2. Delimitation: Reduplication vs. other processes The definition given above allows a primary differentiation between the phenomenon of reduplication and other processes that are sometimes conflated with it because of their repetitive nature.124 A first distinction is between reduplication and repetition. Only the former can in fact be characterised as a word-formation device, the latter being merely a syntactic reiteration of words belonging to various classes. Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 234) stresses that there is much confusion and often overlap between copy reduplicatives of the type goo-goo and my-my and syntactic repetition used to stress the true identity of an item as compared to imitations (e.g. food food ‘not junk food’, fur fur ‘real fur’), the certainty of an action (Are you leaving leaving ‘really leaving’ now?), or as a form of intensification, as in here here (‘precisely here’). These two processes can be distinguished on the basis of a number of criteria, as has been pointed out by Thun (1963: 8–9). First, there is a prosodic difference between the stress pattern of reduplicative formation, which acquires compound stress (býebye, prétty-pretty), and that of simple repetition, which maintains stress on each single word repeated (býe býe, prétty prétty). Second, there is a morphological difference, in that only reduplication allows pluralisation (byebyes, noun pretty-pretties), or derivation (pretty-pretti-ness). Third, there is a semantico-pragmatic difference, in that the repeated adjective in pretty pretty preserves its basic meaning, whereas pretty-pretty takes on a derogatory meaning when used as an adjective (‘excessively pretty’), and a completely new meaning when it is a plural noun (‘ornaments’).125 Another necessary differentiation is between reduplicatives and other words which, in spite of their apparent binary make-up, are the result of some other process. From derivation we have words containing affixes which happen to be phonologically similar to the roots to which they are

Definition, delimitation, and classification

147

attached. For instance, prefixed dismiss, undone or suffixed kingling, sillily, stresslessness involve an accidental reduplication, which can be filtered out by applying Dienhart’s (1999) Affix Condition.126 Indeed, the affixes dis-, un-, -less, -ling, -ly, and -ness have a general distribution, attaching freely and productively to a range of roots, in addition to the ones in question. In compounding there are a large number of regular compounds which have a rhyming pattern that is again the effect of chance, or whose rhyming quality is an additional element which facilitates memorisation (as in flower power ‘hippie love power’). Other examples include: blackjack, brain drain, cookbook, double trouble, grandstand, payday, and snail mail. Although these compounds are clearly modelled on a rhyming pattern, they comply with grammatical rules and in this differ from rhyming reduplicatives. Endocentric cookbook is ‘a type of book’, and it has a unitary meaning contributed by both bases. Compounds of this sort, as well as the previous set of derivatives (e.g. dismiss), are examples of what Thun (1963: 12–16) calls “false reduplicatives”, which will be kept distinct from true rhyming reduplicatives and also from rhyming compounds (see Merlini Barbaresi 2008 and 5.1.3.2.2–5.1.3.2.3). Another category of words whose reduplicative-like shape needs to be commented on are monomorphemic items like baby, bozo, cuckoo, khaki, Nina, puppy, viva, and Zulu. In fact, these words cannot be analysed as *ba + by or *Ni + na, because, unlike true reduplicatives, they do not consist of two components. The similarity between the two syllables is therefore due to phonological accident rather than to any intentional reduplication. Dienhart (1999: 12) establishes another filter (the above-mentioned Single Phone Condition)127 to exclude these “syllable rhymes”128 from either copy reduplicatives (boo-boo, go-go) or ablaut ones (click-clack, zig-zag). Some clipped compounds of the type hi-fi, sci-fi, wi-fi or evo-devo (‘evolutionary developmental biology’), fro-yo, and slo-mo require further comments in this section, although they have been previously discussed in 3.1.3 as instances of shortening.129 The bases of these compounds, although abbreviated, are well-established words and contribute to the meaning of the overall compounds, which can be transparently analysed as high + fidelity, science + fiction, frozen + yogurt, etc. On the other hand, the phonological pattern is more significant, in that it favours rhyme between, for example, fi and hi, sci or wi (Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 233–234), and, through the addition of a suffix -o to the second constituent, between devo and evo. This phonological bias makes them resemble rhyming reduplicatives, or rhyming compounds (Marchand 1969: 438). But their morphosemantic transparency is closer to that of canonical compounds. In my analysis, examples of this

148

Reduplicatives

kind are included within the category of clipped compounds (3.1.3.6), because it is their opaque morphotactics, more than their rhyming nature, that confines them to extra-grammatical morphology. 5.1.3. Classification and structure of reduplicatives While some scholars concentrate on one or more specific categories of English reduplicative (e.g. Marchand 1969 completely ignores the copy type, while Minkova 2002 gives a convincing account of the ablaut type), others offer complex taxonomies which take into consideration a heterogeneous set of items. My own classification uses previous terminology (mainly Jespersen 1942; Dienhart 1999; Merlini Barbaresi 2008), but reorganises traditional categories (generally, a tripartite division with the addition of a fourth type by Merlini Barbaresi 2008) into subcategories, which results in a more detailed differentiation of existing types. Reduplication is, as a consequence, divided into two macro-classes and a number of subclasses. 5.1.3.1. Total (or Full) reduplication involves the exact repetition of a sound, a word, or part of a word (e.g. bye-bye, cha-cha, gaga, gale-gale, gogo, pom-pom). The result of this process is what is often called “copy” or “exact reduplicatives”. Copy reduplicatives, whose replicans is the exact copy of the replicatum (called “kernel” by Jespersen 1942: 174), are the oldest in English (Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 234), and the most profuse in languages generally. This class in fact includes many foreign borrowings in English, for example beriberi (‘a type of disease’), bonbon, chow-chow, couscous, hula-hula (‘Hawaiian dance’), and wonga-wonga (‘large Australian pigeon’). We can further differentiate copy reduplicatives on the basis of the nature of the kernel. ―

In copy reduplicatives belonging to baby talk, the kernel is normally morphologically unmotivated. Babies tend to repeat long strings of identical syllables without attaching any meaning to them, and parents later reuse such strings assigning meaning. Most of children’s copy reduplicatives are words used to name bodily functions (ca-ca, doo-doo, pee-pee, poo-poo, wee-wee), but words like knock-knock (‘a type of joke’), mama, papa, ta-ta (‘goodbye’), and yo-yo also belong to this group. The word boo-boo used with babies to refer to ‘a mistake’, may be echoic of

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

―

―

149

people’s production of this sound when someone makes some sort of mistake, especially in sports. The kernel is an existing word, as in: buddy-buddy (‘brother, friend’), fifty-fifty (‘equally divided’), footie-footie or footy-footy (slang, ‘amorous play with the feet’), girly-girly (‘exaggeratedly girlish’), goodygoody, kissy-kissy (‘lovey-dovey’), my-my (‘used to express surprise’), never-never (‘imaginary’), no-no (‘forbidden thing’), plotty-plotty (‘trickery’), sing-sing (‘a singing sound’), so-so (‘indifferent’), too-too (‘overly’), twenty-twenty (‘having normal vision’), win-win (‘describes a situation where both parties gain something’), zero-zero (‘having zero visibility’), and the above-mentioned bye-bye and pretty-pretty. The kernel is a shortened word, as in: goo-goo (‘an amorous look’) from googly, ju-ju (drug slang) from marijuana, nonny-nonny from nonsense, rah-rah (‘very enthusiastic’) and yé-yé (‘exuberant’), respectively from hurrah and yeah. Some copy reduplicatives involving reduction are examples of baby talk (e.g. din-din, wa-wa).130 Copy reduplicatives obtained from truncated names are rare hypocoristics in English: e.g., JoJo (from Josephine), CoCo (from Collette) (Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 89).131 In a slight variant of the exact pattern, the two elements are not quite identical because an extra syllable (or two) is added to the first element. This extra material typically ends in -ety: bumpety-bump, clanketyclank, clickety-click, cloppety-clop, and hippety-hop. According to Dienhart (1999: 18), another type of variant involves such constructions as back-to-back, blow-by-blow, half-and-half, heart-to-heart, word-forword, or even numerals like forty-four, sixty-six. Personally, I do not find cases like these to be purposefully constructed by reduplication.

The category of copy reduplicatives is not the most productive in English, and certainly less frequent than the other subclasses included within partial reduplication. 5.1.3.2. Partial reduplication involves reduplication of only a part of a word (e.g. chit-chat, flip-flop, roly-poly). As these examples show, alternation may concern either vowel or consonant sounds. 5.1.3.2.1. Ablaut (or apophonic) reduplicatives exhibit repetition of the same basic component (a morpheme or pseudo-morpheme) with vowel aphophony, i.e. alternation of the (internal) vowel.

150

Reduplicatives

Ablaut reduplicatives have no fixed position for replicans and replicatum: lexical stems can be positioned either in the left slot (e.g. mingle-mangle, rickety-rackety, swing-swang), or in the right slot (e.g. chit-chat, crisscross, dingle-dangle, kit-cat, mish-mash) (cf. the head position in regular compounds). Variability depends on what Minkova (2002: 137) calls “prosodic well-formedness”. Furthermore, there are some ablaut reduplicatives in which both parts are real stems, as in sing-song, and others in which neither part is an attested lexical item, as in riff-raff. Again in line with Minkova (2002: 133), ablaut reduplicatives in English are characterised by two distinctive properties, namely: 1) “identical vowel quantity in the stressed syllable peaks”, and 2) “maximally distinct vowel qualities in the two halves”, with a high front vowel, normally , appearing in first position, and a low back vowel, more often , in second position. Hence, the most productive vowel alternation is ~,132 followed by ~ (Marchand 1969: 429; Bauer 1983: 213). ―

―

The pattern with an ~ alternation can be illustrated by bibblebabble (‘idle talk’), chitchat (‘gossip’, also chitter-chatter), dilly-dally (‘waste time’), dingle-dangle (‘a swinging to and fro’), fiddle-faddle (‘trifle’), flicflac (‘type of dance step’), flim-flam (‘idle talk, rubbish, deception’), flip-flap (‘sudden reversal’), gibble-gabble (‘senseless chatter’), kit-cat (‘the game of tipcat’), knick-knack (also nick-nack ‘ornamental trinket’), mingle-mangle or mish-mash (‘confused mixture’), rickrack (‘kind of serpentine braid’), riff-raff (‘disrespectable people’), riprap (‘broken stones used for a wall’), skimble-skamble (‘confused’), ticky-tacky (‘shoddy; flimsy’), trick-track (‘variety of backgammon’), whim-wham (‘odd, fanciful object, trifle’), wigwag (‘move to and fro’), and zigzag. The bases of these words are often obscure, as in shillyshally, given by Jespersen (1942: 177) and Marchand (1969: 432) as etymologically derived from shall I?. The same alternation with an extension of one member is found in clinkety-clank. The alternation ~ is sometimes found in two existing words (e.g. drip-drop ‘drop slowly’, sing-song ‘monotonous or regular voice; an informal session of singing’, tip-top ‘first class’). More often, only one base is meaningful: criss-cross (‘move back and forth over something’), flip-flop (‘unexpected reversal’), hip-hop (‘subculture of big-city teenagers’), ping-pong (‘table tennis’), slipslop (‘meaningless or trifling talk’), and wibble-wobble (‘move unsteadily’). In ickle-ockle, this vowel

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

151

alternation is in initial position. In wish-wash and wishy-washy, it is caused by the transition from  to  after . Other vowel patterns are far less frequent, or even constitute “isolated” cases (Marchand 1969: 431), as in feery-fary, gew-gaw, say-so, seesaw, shiffle-shuffle. For evident physiological reasons, a high vowel is generally in first position, with very few exceptions (hoo-ha).

“Ablaut combinations”, as Marchand (1969: 429) calls them, are connected with iconicity and symbolism, represented by a systematic alternation or polarity of vowels. This polarity may suggest to and fro rhythm in words expressive of movement (criss-cross, flip-flop, wigwag, zigzag), or a twophase movement in games (kit-cat, ping-pong); it may also express an idea of hesitation, vacillation, indecision, as in dilly-dally, shilly-shally. A variant to the same concept is the expression of ambivalence and double-faced character, as we find in flim-flam and whim-wham. The idea of confusion (mish-mash, skimble-skamble) is also suggested by the same polarity. In general, this polarity may be expressive of a hesitant, doubtful or negative attitude towards the referent, as in the many words for ‘idle talk’ (chitchat, gibble-gabble, twiddle-twaddle), or in nig-nog, ning-nong, riff-raff, and ticky-tacky.133 5.1.3.2.2. Rhyming reduplicatives (or “rime combinations” in Marchand 1969: 432) exhibit repetition of the same basic component (a morpheme or pseudo-morpheme) with consonant gemination. The two elements (twins or daughters) are therefore joined by rhyme, but only one of them is meaningful. This type, like the previous one, does not exhibit constraints as to where the meaningful constituent is positioned: it may be the left-most element, as in fuzzy-wuzzy, hotsy-totsy (slang, based on hot), hurly-burly, roly-poly (from roll), super-duper, or (more rarely) the right-most one, as in hubblebubble. It is to be noted that some reduplicatives given by Marchand (1969: 434) as based on the right element are described in OED2 as being of uncertain etymology, for example the synonymous harum-scarum and helterskelter, or higgledy-piggledy, said to be a play on (almost unrecognisable) pig. The adjective teeny-weeny, and its variant teensy-weensy (with a cumulation of suffixes), are based both on alterations of tiny and of wee (as the semantics suggests) (cf. Merlini Barbaresi 2008: 230; Marchand 1969: 434). In okey-dokey and okle-dokle, the base is an initialism (O.K.). Both bases are unmotivated in boogie-woogie, hocus-pocus, and mumbo-jumbo.

152

Reduplicatives

Recurrent patterns of consonantal apophony are more difficult to identify than the patterns of vowel apophony: we find only preferences. The element occurring in the second part of the combination often starts with a labial consonant (Dienhart 1999: 23). ―

―

―

―

Examples with the bilabial plosive  include: Charlie-parlie (‘pet form of the name Charles’), clatter-patter (‘of a horse’), Georgy-Porgy (from a personal name), hanky-panky (‘trickery’), higgledy-piggledy (‘confusion’), hocus-pocus (‘jugglery, trickery’, also hokey-pokey), hodgepodge (‘heterogeneous mixture’), Lodgie-Podgie (Ruskin, from Logic), namby-pamby (‘weakly sentimental in style’), niminy-piminy (‘very small; effeminate’), roly-poly (‘short and pudgy’), and rumpy-pumpy (‘sexual intercourse’). The pattern with the corresponding voiced  is illustrated by arglebargle, argy-bargy (‘vigorous discussion or dispute’, both slang, from argue), holus-bolus (‘altogether; all at once’), hubble-bubble (‘uproar’), hunkum-bunkum (‘excellent’), hurly-burly (‘confusion, struggle’), and itsy-bitsy (‘very small’). Another frequent pattern is with the bilabial approximant , as in Andy Wandy, boogie-woogie (‘form of instrumental blues’), curly-wurly (‘a fantastically curling ornament’), eensy-weensy (‘tiny’), kickiewhickie (‘wife, woman’), palsy-walsy (‘friendly’), peewee (‘very small’), pinkie-winkie (‘a pastime’), popsy-wopsy (‘little girl; father’), pow-wow (‘a noisy assembly’), slang-whang (‘nonsense, abusive talk’), snuggly-wuggly (‘caressing adjective’), teensy-weensy and tootsiewootsie (slang, ‘sweetheart’ and in pl. ‘feet’), and twisty-wisty (‘in a twisty manner’). Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 232) also mentions fuzzywuzzy, Lizzy-Wizzy (also Liz-Wiz, from Elizabeth), owlie-wowlie, and a series of reduplicatives used by Ruskin in some intimate letters to his family: diary-wiary, diffy-wiffy (‘difficult’), growly-wowly, puzzledwazzled, tabby-wabby. A frequent occurrence is the initial glottal fricative  in the first element of the combination, as in handy-dandy (‘convenient or useful’), hanky-panky (‘jugglery; trickery; sex; foolishness’), heebie-jeebie(s) (‘a feeling of discomfort, apprehension, or depression’), hobnob (‘associate on very friendly terms’), hocus-pocus, hodgepodge, hoity-toity (‘pretentious’), holy moly (‘used to express surprise’), hotsy-totsy (‘just fine, satisfactory’), and many of the previously mentioned words. Other consonantal alternations include: fuddy-duddy, killer-diller, loco-foco,

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

―

153

mumbo-jumbo, pokemoke, ragtag (also tagrag), ram-jam, and superduper (Wang 2005: 513). In the rhyming type, only rarely does one of the constituents start with a vowel: argle-bargle, argy-bargy, artsy-fartsy or arty-farty (‘arty’), eensy-weensy, even Steven (also spelt even Stephen ‘having no debt on either side’), itsy-bitsy, and itty-bitty constitute a small group of examples (see also Andy Wandy). The etymology of arsy-versy (‘in a backward or thoroughly mixed-up fashion; contrary’), from slang arse and Latin versus, makes this reduplicative close to being a regular compound (see 5.1.3.2.3). In the final type, the initial consonant of the replicatum may be replaced by the consonant cluster shm-, also spelt schm-, as in apple-shmapple, art-shmart, can’t-shman’t, child schmild, clever-shmever, crisisshmisis, fancy-shmancy, marry-shmarry, moon-schmoon, etc. This subtype appears more predictable than the previous ones, in that variability depends on the initial phoneme of the first constituent, which may be a lone consonant (baby shmaby, table-shmable), a consonant cluster (breakfast shmreakfast or gravity schmavity, plan shman), or a vowel (arcade-shmarcade, opinion shmopinion). Furthermore, shmreduplication always exhibits a replicatum-replicans correspondence (i.e. *shmopy copy is impossible). Syntactically, this type of formation is marked by a topic-initial position (e.g. Europe-Shmeurope, who wants to go there!). According to Nevins and Vaux (2007), shm-reduplication came into English from Yiddish, where words beginning with s(c)hmhave negative connotations. Indeed, this type of construction generally shows a dismissive usage, but can also be employed to downplay a situation or problem that is potentially overwhelming or threatening, or to lighten a situation with humour (Nevins and Vaux 2007; see also Katamba 2009).134

Rhyming reduplicatives, like ablaut combinations, can be accommodated into a restricted number of semantic groups. Rhyme seems particularly used in the sphere of jugglery, trickery, secrecy, as in handy-dandy, hocus-pocus, hokey-pokey, or to convey an idea of confusion, disorder, as in higgledypiggledy, hurly-burly. Some rhyming reduplicatives also convey a derogatory meaning, as in fuddy-duddy (‘old-fashioned person’). Marchand (1969: 434) finds this type characterised by non-seriousness, and principally represented by nursery words: Humpty-Dumpty, popsy-wopsy. Rhyme is indeed less serious than ablaut, which in English and other Indo-European languages can play a grammatical role: e.g., drink/drank/drunk.

154

Reduplicatives

5.1.3.2.3. Rhyming compounds – as the name itself suggests – are in between rhyming reduplicatives and canonical compounds. Like the former, they are phonologically marked by rhyme, like the latter, they are motivated by two meaningful constituents. Some examples are: artsy-craftsy (‘pretentious’), chug-drug (‘the sound of an explosion’), clap-trap (‘nonsensical talk’), flubdub (‘nonsense’), funny bunny (‘peculiar’), harum-scarum (‘reckless; disorganised’, from the verbs hare and scare), hugger-mugger (‘secrecy; disorder, confusion’), humdrum (‘bore’), nitwit (‘stupid or foolish person’), peepie-creepie (‘a portable television camera’), razzle-dazzle (‘showiness; jollity’), rumble-tumble (‘rough or chaotic activity’), and stinky pinky (‘type of word game’). Although two bases are here recognisable, as a consequence of a preference for binary relationships, they do not contribute to the meaning of the rhyming combination as regular bases do in canonical compounds. For instance, a chug-drug is not ‘a type of drug’, nor is funny bunny ‘a type of bunny’. They are semantically non-compositional, and the overall meaning is neither literally nor metaphorically suggested by the two bases. This class, pioneered by Merlini Barbaresi (2008), does not include what Minkova (2002: 135) calls “‘syntactic’ compounds with an anchored head”, that is regular compounds in which one part clearly modifies the other, as in bedspread, brain drain, cookbook, funny money, payday, toy boy (‘the younger partner of an older woman’), zoot suit, etc.135 The regularity of these combinations is evident from two main conditions: 1) they are endocentric and hence clearly exhibit a syntactic head: i.e. a bedspread is ‘a type of spread’, brain drain is ‘a type of drain’, a cookbook is ‘a type of book’, etc., and 2) they have a unitary meaning contributed by both bases, which can be paraphrased as ‘a spread for beds’, ‘a drain of brains’, ‘a book for cooking’, or, metaphorically, as ‘a boy who is a toy’. Other regular compounds which have to be kept distinct from the class of rhyming compounds include exocentric compounds (mainly belonging to slang use or jargon), like culture vulture (‘a person who is voracious for culture’), fag hag (‘heterosexual female who seeks out male homosexuals’, fag is from faggot), fat cat (‘a political backer’), fender-bender (‘a motor accident’), gender-bender (‘a person who deliberately affects an androgynous appearance’), jelly-belly (‘a fat person’), town clown (‘a policeman working in a village or small town’), and the recent creature-feature (‘a movie that includes a monster or similarly ‘scary’ entity’), happy-clappy (‘excellent’), lap tap (‘the act of left clicking on a computer by tapping lightly on the touchpad instead of clicking the left mouse key’, formed by analogy with lap top), and Vomit Comet (‘airplane used to give astronauts

Definition, delimitation, and classification

155

experience of weightlessness’). These, again, are modelled on the phonological pattern of rhyming compounds, but their overall meaning is regularly contributed by both bases, at various degrees of metaphoric interpretation. Other rhyming doublets which are semantically unmotivated, but have an etymological explanation are: mayday (‘distress signal’), seabee (‘member of the construction battalion of the US Navy’), and willy-nilly. According to Dienhart (1999: 9–10), mayday, which is of course not ‘a day in May’, is coined after French (venez) m’aider, its rhyme being a necessary addition to ease memorisation. For seabee, Dienhart (1999) provides a different explanation: the origin is from the pronunciation of the initialism C.B. (‘Construction Battalion’), later turned into seabee to bring in naval associations. Lastly, willy-nilly (‘willingly or unwillingly, without choice’) is modelled on Latin nolens volens and comes from the Old English bases will and nill (2.3.5.1). However, its Australian sense ‘a cyclone or dust-storm’ seems not to be connected with this etymology. A case of difficult classification is walkie-talkie (‘combined transmitter and receiver’), which Marchand (1969: 436) considers a playful combination whose elements were attracted by the aesthetic element of rhyme. Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 231) includes it both in the class of rhyming reduplicatives and in the class of reduplicative compounds. Both bases are meaningful, which suggests their exclusion from rhyming reduplicatives, but the meaning of the verbal bases to walk and to talk is not totally distant from the meaning of their combination ‘a device through which one talks while walking’. Like copulative compounds, walkie-talkie is made up of two semantically related modifiers which have their head (‘device’) outside the compound. This is the reason why I find walkie-talkie closer to regular compounds marked by rhyme (the cookbook type) than to rhyming compounds of the type chug-drug. As this brief discussion shows, the line dividing rhyming compounds from regular compounds exhibiting rhyming constituents is subtle, and in ambiguous cases a semantic analysis appears the most legitimate and interesting line to follow. 5.1.3.3. The last category of reduplicatives worthy of attention is the onomatopoeic type, examples of which have not been included in the above classification, though individual onomatopoeic reduplicatives do fall into the copy, ablaut or rhyming classes, as in clop-clop, ding-dong, bow-wow. Onomatopoeic reduplicatives or “ideophones” (cf. Voeltz and KilianHatz 2001), such as bow-wow, are not based on actual words. They are

156

Reduplicatives

primary phonosymbolic formations which “resemble their referent auditorily” (Baldi 2000: 964).136 They represent iterative sounds through the use of repeated monosyllables, imitating either a natural sound, or one produced by humans, animals, engines, etc. (cf. unrepeated onomatopoeic sounds like bang, boom, meow). Following the previous groupings, we can further distinguish between three subcategories. ―

―

Repetitive items, which correspond most closely to the copy type, constitute the largest number of onomatopoeic reduplicatives. Examples include animal noises, such as arf-arf (dog), baa-baa (sheep or lamb), jug-jug (nightingale), meow-meow (cat), oink-oink (pig), quack-quack (duck), tweet-tweet, weet-weet (bird), and woofle-woofle (dog). In baby talk and nursery language, some of these reduplicative onomatopoeias are used as nouns, to label the animals themselves.137 Sounds produced by humans also belong to this type: e.g., laughter (haha, hah hah), footsteps (chug-chug, clop-clop, patter-patter, pattlepattle), chatting (blah-blah, gobble-gobble), breathing (pech-pech), expressing derision or disdain (ho-ho, pooh-pooh), complaining (mungemunge), swallowing (glut-glut), expressing enjoyment, especially in the taste of food (yum yum), etc. Sounds produced by musical instruments are represented by clang-clang (bells), diddle-diddle (fiddle), honk-honk (motor horn), pip-pip (motor car horn), tam-tam (gong), tan-tan, tom-tom (drum). They may be used as verbs, as in tum-tum (‘to play monotonously’). The last group of reduplicative onomatopoeias comprise noises produced by objects or things in movement, such as choo-choo, chuff-chuff (train), chug-chug (engine), click-click (pins, needles), frou-frou (clothing), hish-hish (rain), ramp-ramp (sea), snip-snip (scissors), ting-ting (small bell, glass), tuff-tuff (gas), and woo-woo (wind). Tick-tick is not only imitative of the sound of the clock, but also a children’s name for the object itself. In all these words, the bases are only motivated phonologically, and word repetition iconically echoes the repetition of sounds. In onomatopoeic reduplicatives following the ablaut pattern, vowel variation symbolises polarity, especially a bipolar range of sound possibilities (Marchand 1969: 431). Again, there are words which indicate sounds produced by animals (cherry-churry ‘the note of the lesser pettychaps’, plit-plat or trit-trot ‘sound of trotting’, prid-prad ‘the blue titmouse’, twit-twat ‘noise of the house-sparrow’), and sounds produced by people, especially indicating

Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

157

vain chatter (bibble-babble, blib(ber)-blab(ber), blish-blash, bribblebrabble, tittle-tattle) and the noise produced by many people talking at once (gibbie-gabbie, giggle-gaggle, liglag), as well as other human noises (pid-pad ‘the sound of footsteps’, smick-smack ‘a smacking noise’, whittie-whattie ‘to speak low or secretly’, yolp-yalp ‘a snarl’, with an unusual vowel alternation). The imitation of sounds produced by musical instruments motivates the following reduplicatives: bim-bom or ding-dong (‘the sound of bells’), diddle-daddle (‘violin music’), strim-stram (‘a rude stringed instrument of the guitar kind’), strim-strum (‘unmusical’), twing(le)-twang(le) (‘the sound of a harp’). Other general noises include: brittle-brattle (‘hurried motion causing a clattering noise’), click-clack (‘the noise of the watch’), pinkle-pankle (‘the sound of liquid in a bottle’), pipple-papple (‘to patter, pop’), snipsnap (‘the imitation of the sound of the scissors’), (s)plish-(s)plash (‘to splash repeatedly’), tick-tack, tick-tock (‘imitation of the ticking of a clock’). In onomatopoeic reduplicatives following the rhyming pattern we can likewise include animal noises, such as bow-wow (‘barking’), cawdeymawdey (‘the hooded crow’), curmur (‘the purring of a cat’), hee-haw (‘the noise of the donkey’), huzz-buzz (‘the common cockchafer’), pinktwink (‘the chaffinch’), pooly-wooly (‘the cry of the curlew’), row-dow (‘the noise of the sparrow’), terry-rerry (‘the song of the blackbird’), too-whoo (‘the sound of an owl’), and wey-hey (‘the sound uttered by horses’). Other rhyming reduplicatives of this type designate sounds produced by people, such as cushle-mushle (‘a low whispering’), howk-chowk (‘the noise as if poking in deep mud’), hummel-bummel (‘an imitation of mumbling’), mack-lack (‘to do something in a clattering way’), mumblejumble (‘to speak indistinctly and incoherently’), trill-ill (‘the sound of flowing liquid’, with two meaningful bases but no compositional meaning), tug-slug (‘to make a noise in walking’), and yaw-haw (‘to laugh rudely and noisily’). The imitation of musical instruments generates the following onomatopoeias: ran-dan (‘the sound of the bells’), toodle-loodle (‘the sound of a pipe or a flute’), tra-ra (‘the noise of a horn’), and, with a sort of infix, rub-a-dub and hub-a-dub (‘the sound made in beating a drum’).

Table 6 summarises the types, subtypes, and patterns described in this section, though without a specific grouping of the onomatopoeic type.

158

Reduplicatives

Table 6. Types and examples of English reduplicatives Type Total/Full Reduplication

Partial Reduplication

Description

Subtype

Pattern

Examples

A sound, word or word part is exactly repeated in the replicans

Copy/Exact reduplicative

With nonexistent replicatum With existent replicatum With shortened replicatum With extra syllable(s) added to the first element With ~ alternation

ta-ta, onom. meow-meow

Only a part of a word is repeated in the replicans

Ablaut/ Apophonic reduplicative

With ~ alternation With an infrequent alternation Rhyming reduplicative

The second element starts with a labial , , or  The first element starts with a glottal  The replicans starts with the cluster s(c)hm-

fifty-fifty ← fifty ju-ju ← marijuana cloppety-clop ← clop

chitchat ← chat, onom. tick-tack criss-cross ← cross, onom. dingdong shiffle-shuffle ← shuffle, onom. yolpyalp hocus-pocus, argle-bargle ← argue, slang-whang ← slang, onom. bowwow hocus-pocus, onom. hooblegooble appleshmapple ← apple, child schmild ← child

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon Rhyming compound

5.2.

With meaningful and rhyming bases, but no compositional meaning

159

funny bunny ‘peculiar’, onom. trill-ill ‘the sound of flowing liquid’

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

Reduplicatives constitute a heterogeneous set of words typically characterised by phonetic features (repetition, rhyme, vowel alternation, consonant gemination, onomatopoeia), but with a low degree of morphological regularity. The main recurrent patterns which have been discussed are based on phonological constraints rather than on morphological rules. This explains why reduplication has attracted the attention of many phonological studies, but has been neglected or marginalised in morphology. English reduplicatives have been recently described in terms of extragrammatical morphology by Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 229), who claims that “the process of their formation is not rule-governed, in the sense that they exhibit various violations of basic properties of morphological grammar”. She summarises the primary violations of grammatical rules as: 1) noncomponential semantics and irregular morphotactics, 2) absence of semantic change, and 3) absence of head and unrecognisable bases. French reduplicatives have been described in similar terms by Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.), who exclude the possibility of treating reduplication in terms of either grammatical or morphopragmatic rules. Like diminutives in several languages (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994), it involves empathy or endearment in child- or love-centred speech situations, but in other situations it expresses derogatoriness or rudeness, as in hoity-toity, roly-poly, and all shm-formations. Onomatopoeias constitute the most irregular type. According to Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz (2001: 3), ideophones have the unique property of simulating “an event, an emotion, a perception through language”.

160

Reduplicatives

5.2.1. Irregularities in reduplicatives Reduplicatives represent a phonological class of their own, with several phonetic and prosodic regularities (Dienhart 1999). However, from the point of view of their morphology, many irregularities exclude them from wordformation rules. English reduplication is confined to extra-grammatical morphology (2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10) for the following reasons. 5.2.1.1. Morphotactic irregularity and output (un-)predictability. Reduplicatives exhibit some degree of very general regularity but their output, which involves either identical or partial repetition, is difficult to predict. Either the internal vowel or the initial consonant may change in the replicans. At times the base is truncated, as in din-din, or made unrecognisable by the modification of some grapheme or phoneme (teeny-weeny from tiny and wee), or by the addition of familiarising suffixes, as in lovey-dovey. Additional meaningless elements may be inserted, as in clickety-clack, clinkety-clank, clippetyclop, where -ety increases the opaqueness of the ablaut formations. 5.2.1.2. Alternative outputs. As in the case of blends, reduplication is more permissive than morphological rules in terms of its output structure. Whereas the only variation in compounds concerns spelling – i.e. as one word, with a hyphen, or as two words (wordformation vs. word-formation vs. word formation)138 – reduplicatives are ony loosely restricted and variants may occur: e.g., argle-bargle and argy-bargy (from argue), chit-chat and chitter-chatter (from chat). There is even more interspeaker variation (Zwicky and Pullum 1987) in child-centred speech (teeny-weeny, teensyweensy, eensy-weensy). Alternative outputs may also discriminate between one category or another (cf. copy tick-tick vs. ablaut tick-tock), or between one pattern and another (cf. tick-tock vs. tick-tack with different vowel alternation). 5.2.1.3. Non-morphematic analysis. While regular formations are transparently analysable and segmented into morphemes, the bases of reduplicatives are almost unrecognisable and often meaningless (at least the replicans). Onomatopoeic formations like bow-wow or choo-choo even repeat sounds, rather than actual words, which cannot be considered bases, since they do not occur autonomously in the language. When there is a meaningful base, it

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

161

is often made unrecognisable or opaque by shortening devices (gale-gale ← nightingale, goo-goo, rah-rah), or by extra material added to convey a nonserious feature (clickety-click, see 5.1.3.1 above). Note that there are no clear morphological constraints on truncation, only preferences, for example the preference for left-edged reduplications in baby talk (wa-wa ← water), which may be compared with examples such as Liz-Wiz (← (E)liz(abeth)) in hypocoristics and rah-rah (← (hur)rah) above. 5.2.1.4. Uncertain headedness. For reasons explained in 5.1.3.3, onomatopoeic reduplicatives of the type clang-clang and frou-frou are typically headless. Reduplicatives connected with child- or love-centred speech situations are also acephalous: there is no head in ta-ta. In the ablaut and rhyming types, the head may occupy the left-most (super-duper, fuzzy-wuzzy) or right-most position (criss-cross, hubble-bubble), variability depending on prosodic factors. When both bases are meaningful (sing-song), neither of them is the semantic head, when they are unmotivated (hocus-pocus, riffraff), no headedness can be assigned. 5.2.1.5. Alternative input categories. Whereas word-formation rules apply to specific classes of bases, in the case of reduplicatives there are a number of different types of base possible. We find nominal bases (kit-cat), proper names (Charlie-parlie, Pedro-Schmedro), adjectives (arty-farty), full verbs (argle-bargle), including participle forms (locked-shmocked), and even auxiliary verbs (can’t-shman’t, willy-nilly). In the case of okey-dokey, the input is an initialism. 5.2.1.6. Unchanged denotative meaning. Reduplication in English does not usually produce new words, unlike rules. Reduplicatives have no new denotative semantic meaning, but only pragmatic values, such as empathy, endearment, or even derogatory attitude depending on the speech context and addressee. By contrast, grammatical derivation only rarely results in pragmatic meaning (e.g. non-seriousness in diminutives, Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; cautiousness or detachment in negative prefixes, Mattiello 2009); rather, it is generally accompanied by a change in semantic meaning (e.g. smallness in diminutives; negation, contradiction, etc. in negative prefixes).

162

Reduplicatives

To summarise, the operation of reduplication appears to have no grammatical constraints regarding bases, but only vague tendencies, and these are of a phonological nature. No homogeneous morphological classes can be established among reduplicative forms. With the exception of certain lexicalised forms (e.g. ping-pong, yo-yo, zigzag), reduplication does not form new words, in terms of new semantic meanings, but only variants, selecting a specific audience or speech situation. It only exhibits some pragmatic features, which qualify it as an extra-grammatical phenomenon. 5.2.2. Regularities in reduplicatives As we have seen in the classification provided in 5.1.3, English reduplicatives exhibit some regularities of a phonological nature. Their structural properties are only preferences based on universal parameters. They do not allow stable predictions, but only discriminate between prototypicality and marginality. In the following subsections an attempt is made to list some generalisations. 5.2.2.1. Preference for binary structure. Like blends and canonical compounds, reduplicatives exhibit a tendency for a binary structure (bye-bye, hob-nob, zigzag). Triplets (tick-tack-toe) or trinomials (Milly Molly Mandy) are dispreferred. Insertions interrupting the concatenation process, as in tinga-ling, are also dispreferred. Rather, additions are made to both constituents, as in Lizzy-Wizzy, lovey-dovey, in order to favour rhyme. 5.2.2.2. Preference for disyllabic structure. Reduplicatives are very often reduplications of monosyllabic units. Thus, they tend to be disyllabic formations (clop-clop, liglag). However, polysyllabic reduplicatives may also occur (clitter-clatter, limo-limo ‘a hot lime drink’), especially after -ie/-y or -ety/-ity suffixation on either one (bibbity-bob, clickety-clack) or both constituents (boogie-woogie, walkie-talkie, fuddy-duddy, hoity-toity). The simplified structure of English reduplication includes some recurrent templates. For full reduplication, CV.CV (wee wee) and CVC.CVC (dumdum) are the most frequent patterns. For partial reduplication, CV1C.CV2C (ding-dong, zigzag) is most likely to occur in the ablaut type, C1VC.C2VC (hob-nob, hub-bub) or C1V.C2V.C3V.C2V (roly-poly, willy-nilly) in the rhyming type.

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

163

5.2.2.3. Tendency towards initial consonant. All types exhibit a tendency towards consonantal onset. In copy reduplicatives, exceptions are rare: e.g., onomatopoeic arf-arf and oink-oink. In the ablaut type, vowel alternation is more likely to occur in middle position, an exception being ickle-ockle. In the rhyming type, the second element generally starts with a consonant, the first one may also begin with a vowel, as in argle-bargle, art-shmart, itsybitsy, okey-dokey. 5.2.2.4. Consonant/Vowel change. The rhyming and ablaut types exhibit an apophony of the initial consonant or a gradation of the internal vowel. Wang (2005: 513) distinguishes between the following patterns: 1) consonant apophony preferentially follows an h-C pattern (handydandy, hobnob, hurly-burly), or a C-w pattern (bow-wow, popsy-wopsy, teeny-weeny); 2) vowel gradation is normally between ~ (chitchat, drizzledrazzle, riprap) or ~ (criss-cross, ding-dong, flip-flop), with very few exceptions (see 5.1.3.2). 5.2.2.5. Single or double stress pattern. For each type, Dienhart (1999) distinguishes between single and double stress. Copy reduplicatives with single stress are generally nouns from a monosyllabic base (bóo-boo, chówchow), whereas those with double stress are not nouns (e.g. verb póoh-póoh, adverb chóp-chóp), or their bases are polysyllabic (wónga-wónga ‘type of Australian wine’). Rhyming reduplicatives with a primary stress on the first syllable are based on monosyllabic elements (hódge-podge, nítwit), while those with double stress are based on polysyllabic elements (hókey-pókey, súper-dúper). Rhyming compounds, by contrast, have single stress (cúlture vulture, fénder-bender, génder-bender). Lastly, ablaut reduplicatives also exhibit single stress (chít-chat, clíp-clop), regardless of the lexical category or number of syllables. All the above generalisations, however, have counterexamples in English (see Dienhart 1999). 5.2.2.6. Tendency towards nominal outputs. Another tendency of reduplication is to form nouns, as in argle-bargle (‘vigorous discussion’), boo-boo (‘an error’), etc. But they can also cover other syntactic categories, such as verbs (criss-cross ‘to move back and forth over something’, dilly-dally ‘to vacillate, waste time’), adjectives, often with intensification (rah-rah ‘very

164

Reduplicatives

enthusiastic’), adverbs (chop-chop ‘quickly’, helter-skelter ‘in headlong and disorderly haste’), and interjections (ha-ha ‘used to express amusement’, tuttut ‘used to express contempt’, yum yum). 5.2.2.7. Word status. English reduplicatives behave like other ordinary words. That is, nouns are regularly inflected with a plural suffix (bye-bye-s), and verbs with a past tense suffix (cha-cha-ed, yoyo-ed). With regard to derivation, agentive nouns are regularly formed by adding an -er suffix (e.g. a wig-wag-g-er is ‘someone who moves to and fro’), whereas nominal derivatives are obtained with the addition of -ing, as in chit-chat-t-ing, crisscross-ing. The verb hiphop-ize mentioned in the Introduction is regularly derived from a nominal base. Merlini Barbaresi (2000: 5) also mentions the apophonic reduplicative knick-knack, giving rise to a series of derivatives: e.g., knick-knackery, knick-knacky, knick-knackish, and the diminutive knick-knacket. 5.2.2.8. Semantic indeterminacy. Unlike other extra-grammatical phenomena, reduplication in English is characterised by a certain semantic indeterminacy and vagueness. With the exception of the onomatopoeic type and of hypocoristics, reduplicatives can be accommodated within a limited number of meaning areas: i.e., pretentiousness (artsy-fartsy), smallness (itsy-bitsy), indecision (shilly-shally), confusion (higgledy-piggledy), trickery (hokeypokey), foolishness or inferior quality (nit-wit, nig-nog).139 Many such words are mutually substitutable: examples are the numerous options indicating smallness (bitsy-witsy, itty-bitty, teeny-weeny, etc.). Only rare cases (nick-nack, nitty-gritty, tussie-mussie) are semantically specific. 5.2.2.9. Iconicity. Like blends, reduplicatives are characterised by their iconic nature.140 Alternating movements or vacillation, hesitation, and disorder are iconically represented by the alternation of vowels or consonants (see Alternation in 5.2.4). In the ablaut type (ding-dong, zigzag), alternation metaphorically indicates movement in opposite directions. In the rhyming type (shilly-shally, willy-nilly), it is more likely to indicate indecision. In super-duper, formal redundancy is an index of meaning redundancy. In the onomatopoeic type (bibble-babble, trit-trot), the iconicity lies between intralinguistic elements and the extra-linguistic world. Exact repetition, as in the

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

165

ha-ha or bye-bye type, is echoic of reiteration (repeated laughter, waving of the hand, etc.). 5.2.3. Predictability in reduplicatives Are the previous tendencies also criteria of predictability? Can we imagine novel reduplicatives being coined on the basis of the templates for existing ones? In English, reduplicatives show some regularities in their outputs, but there are several examples which escape fixed patterns, and many which are coined from the same inputs, following different types. Although reduplicatives are predictable, at least to a certain extent, in terms of their semantic value (5.2.2.8) and iconic character (5.2.2.9), their form is very difficult to predict. The exact shape of the ablaut and rhyming types is often erratic, while the shape of onomatopoeic items is not morphologically, but phonosymbolically determined. Let us consider the new, invented, instances reported in Table 7. Table 7. Possible reduplicatives from existing source words or onomatopoeic sounds Base (1) quick

(2) dog (3) stop (4) sexy (5) Bob (← Robert) (6) mag (← magazine) (7) chip (onomatopoeic of a bird’s noise) (8) trum (onomatopoeic of car’s noise)

Possible reduplicative quick-quick, quick-quack, quickiequackie, quick-quock, quick-wick, hick-quick, quickety-quick, etc. dog-dog, dig-dog, diggie-doggie, diggy-doggy, dog-wog, hog-dog stop-stop, stip-stop, stippy-stoppy, stop-wop, stop-pop, hop-stop sexy-sexy, sexy-wexy, sexy-pexy, sexy-bexy, sexy-saxy Bob-Bob, Bib-Bob, Bob-Wob, BobbieWobbie, Bob-Rob mag-mag, mag-wag, hag-mag, migmag, mig-a-mag chip-chip, chip-chap, chippy-chappy, chip-wip, hip-chip trum-trum, trum-wum, trum-tram

Again, the choice of the bases in the first column is not arbitrary. With the exception of sexy, they all consist of one syllable, which is a general

166

Reduplicatives

preference in reduplication (5.2.2.2). Two polysyllabic bases (Robert and magazine) naturally give rise to monosyllabic truncated forms. All selected bases start with a consonant, which is another tendency (5.2.2.3). The bases belong to various syntactic categories, as do the outputs, although nouns prevail over the other classes (5.2.2.6). The bases in (7) and (8) are intended to be onomatopoeic of some noise or sound, and therefore to have no denotational meaning. Accidentally, chip happens to be homophonous with an English word, but its meaning is different. As for outputs, in accordance with 5.2.2.1, I have excluded triplets from potential formations, since they are dispreferred. I have offered instances falling into the various types and subtypes, and the recurrent templates in 5.2.2.2 seem to be well illustrated by these outputs. Extensions with an -ie/-y (also -ety) suffix have been envisaged for nearly all cases (e.g. quickiequackie, quickety-quick, stippy-stoppy), mostly to favour rhyme, at the expense of shortness (cf. 5.2.2.2). In (4), the adjectival suffix -y could not be added to the homophone -ie or the homograph -y. A (meaningless) infix -ahas also been envisaged to divide the components in mig-a-mag. The potential reduplicatives offered in the second column show that, for all bases, an exact copy is possible. The ablaut type is possible with both common vowel alternations (see 5.2.2.4) when the stressed vowel of the base is  (quick-quack, quick-quock). When it is , as in dog, only ~ (digdog) has been offered. Other, infrequent, vowel alternations have not been considered, except in (4), where the reduplication sexy-saxy has been included as an attempt to apply the ablaut pattern. Onomatopoeic trum-tram in (8) would be likewise dispreferred. Results also show that the replicans may happen to be an existing word, such as hick, quack, wick in (1), or hog, wog in (2). In these cases, the formations are rhyming compounds rather than rhyming reduplicatives, because both bases are meaningful, but they do not contribute to a unitary meaning of the whole. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the formations in (7) are not based on the existing base chip, but on an onomatopoeic word which is accidentally homophonous with it (cf. existing tweet-tweet, weetweet referring to a bird song). As far as semantics is concerned, I have not attempted to assign meanings to the above new formations, because what I wish to demonstrate is that they are morphologically difficult to predict, and this appears corroborated by the many alternative outputs produced. This tentative analysis and the provisional results obtained verify my hypothesis that there is no stability in reduplicative formation. Regularities and

Reduplication as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

167

tendencies do not operate on bases as word-formation rules do. While many of the above-mentioned criteria can be disconfirmed by a number of counterexamples, the extra-grammaticality of the overall phenomenon is certainly confirmed. 5.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness The tendencies and (sub)regularities identified in 5.2.2 are not rigid or stable, and do not allow full predictability, but they can help us formulate some preferential criteria of formation for reduplicatives. The first criterion concerns their analogical nature. ―

―

―

―

Analogy. Existing types and subtypes of reduplicatives provide patterns for new formations to be coined on the basis of analogy (structural similarity). The names given to the characters of the television series In the Night Garden are all based on existing patterns: e.g., Pinky Ponk and Ninky Nonk belong to the ablaut type of tick-tock, with an ~ alternation and an extension of the first element; Igglepiggle and Makka Pakka, by contrast, belong to the rhyming type, especially that with a bilabial plosive  at the beginning of the second element (as in higgledypiggledy and hanky-panky). The onomatopoeic type is found in the name of the Haahoos. Binarity. Reduplicative words exhibit a binary structure. Ternary patterns are rare and can be viewed as double duplications of the same replicatum. In onomatopoeic reduplicatives, binarity is an echo to sound repetition. In the other types, it is an icon, an index, or a metaphor of wavering movements or indecisive behaviour. Similarity. In reduplicatives, replicans and replicatum are linked by a relationship of similarity or even identity. In the copy type, one is the exact replica of the other, whereas in the ablaut and rhyming types similarity is in terms of the same consonantal contour or identical rhyme. Rhythm. Reduplicatives can be viewed as rhythmical units, i.e. words characterised by a repetition of sounds, morphemes, words, or parts of words, and acquiring single or double stress depending on the syntactic and phonological properties of the replicatum.

With the exception of the copy type, criteria of well-formedness also involve:

168 ―

Reduplicatives

Alternation. In the ablaut type alternation concerns a modification or gradation of the internal vowel, whereas in the rhyming type the alliterative sound is modified, generally fluctuating between two different consonantal sounds, or sometimes alternating an initial consonant with a vowel sound. For rhyming compounds, another criterion must be mentioned:

―

Meaningfulness. The bases must be meaningful, although they do not provide a unitary meaning. In other words, unlike transparent endocentric compounds, rhyming compounds are non-compositional: i.e., the meaning of the whole compound is not regularly derived by the combination of the meanings of the bases.

Chapter 6 Minor phenomena

This chapter deals with three minor phenomena, namely back-formation (e.g. edit ← editor), infixation (e.g. -blooming- in abso-blooming-lutely), and phonaesthemes (e.g. gl- in glass, gleam, glisten, etc.). These phenomena are obviously different from many viewpoints and their treatment in the same chapter may appear somewhat odd. My decision to include them under the same heading is purely motivated by their marginal importance and lower frequency in English. However, the use of “marginal” here does not refer to “marginal morphology” (Doleschal and Thornton 2000; Dressler 2000). Indeed, the three phenomena lie not at the boundary of morphological grammar, but outside it, on the periphery of extra-grammatical morphology (see 2.3.2). Both back-formation and infixation involve affixes, but not in the canonical sense. Back-formation involves subtraction of affixes from a supposedly complex base, reanalysed as *edit + *-or by analogy with other formations (e.g. act + -or). Infixation, by contrast, involves insertion of infixes within a discontinuous base, as in the above-mentioned abso-blooming-lutely, or in other peculiarly atypical positions, such as between morphemes (in-bloodytolerant). Therefore, they clearly depart from word-formation rules: unlike ordinary derivation, back-formation removes, rather than adding, an affix, whereas infixation interrupts a (simplex or complex) base, rather than regularly attaching a bound morpheme to it, as in prefixation or suffixation (in+ tolerant + -ly). These considerations account for my inclusion of backformation and infixation in a book on extra-grammatical morphology. The other phenomenon under investigation falls into the wider category of “phonetic symbolism”, “sound symbolism” (Marchand 1969: 397), “phonosymbolism” (Baldi 2000: 963), or “echoism” (Rastall 2004: 39). We have seen some examples of primary phonosymbolism or onomatopoeia (i.e. direct imitation of naturally occurring sounds or natural correspondence between sound and sense) in the classification of reduplicatives such as chufchuf, ding-dong, tick-tack (5.1.3.3). Here I deal with another type of echoic expression, which falls into the class of secondary phonosymbolism, or phonaesthesia, i.e. repetition for aesthetic or expressive effects (Firth 1930). For instance, the initial phonemic sequence gl- is felt to be appropriate to the meaning of the lexemes in the word group glass, gleam, glisten, and so

170

Minor phenomena

forth, in that it carries the idea of ‘light, shine’. This does not imply, however, that the phonomorph gl- can be systematically assigned a specific meaning throughout the language: cf. the word gloom, whose meaning is antithetical to ‘lightness’. Nor does it imply that the above-mentioned lexemes derive from a word-formation rule (e.g. *gl- + *ance), in that phonaesthemes are not morphemes (Shisler 1997). As we will see in this chapter, however, we can legitimately include them within extra-grammatical morphology. Among the phenomena discussed in this chapter, only back-formation may be considered a derivational process, as the alternative label “backderivation” used by Marchand (1969: 391) suggests. Back-formation changes the syntactic class of the base, but it does so in an unusual direction (e.g. Agent Noun → Verb), and by subtracting, rather than adding material. Infixation, by contrast, is class-maintaining (adjective intolerant → adjective in-bloody-tolerant). Its relevance, indeed, is to expressive morphology (Zwicky and Pullum 1987), because it is used not to form new words, but to form negatively connoted variants, mostly, obscene deprecative formations of the type just mentioned. Sound symbolism is equally irrelevant to derivation, in that its primary system of reference is phonology. Yet, against Baldi’s (2000: 964) claim that “words containing phonosymbolic segments are not unconventional or expressive”, I view phonaesthesia as emotionally expressive: e.g., the sound , which is frequent with diminutive and pet suffixes (dear-ie, girl-ie), is suggestive of the short emotive distance from the addressee, while initial  and , as in pish, pooh, fart, fuck, are generally used to express scorn, disapproval, or disgust (Marchand 1969: 397). As discussed in 2.3.1, the terms “extra-grammatical” and “expressive” as applied to morphology do not overlap, at least not completely. If it is true that infixation and phonaesthemes have expressive value, the same is not true for back-formation, which does not seem to convey any emotion, whether positive or negative. The three phenomena examined in this chapter lie outside morphological grammar because they infringe grammatical wordformation rules, but they infringe different rules and not in the same ways. Therefore a unitary account would be impracticable, and each phenomenon will be described and analysed individually. 6.1.

Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

The debate on back-formation is currently a heated one, and its relevance to either diachronic or synchronic study is still a divisive issue. Aronoff (1976:

Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

171

27) and Quirk et al. (1985: 1522) claim that the process is of diachronic relevance only, while from a synchronic perspective the shorter words (e.g. edit) are to be considered the bases and the longer words (e.g. editor) the derivatives. Bauer (1983: 230), Becker (1993: 6), and Nagano (2007: 35), on the other hand, stress that it is a synchronic word-formation process in English, in that, semantically, the shorter words depend on the longer ones (e.g. edit means ‘act as an editor’), and not vice versa. Nagano (2007: 37– 38, footnote 3) observes that the verb edit represents a special case of backformation, because it has not only a meaning involving the noun (i.e. ‘act as an editor’), but also an independent, semantically detached, meaning, that of ‘prepare for publication’. I believe that these two meanings are connected: in fact, an editor prepares an edition of a work for publication. Marchand’s (1963, 1969) position reconciles the two views. Although he strongly claims that back-formation “has diachronic relevance only” and that “synchronic analysis is not affected by it” (Marchand 1969: 391), he later admits that “content must be the final criterion of derivational relationship for any pair of words” (p. 392). Indeed, while the noun peddler can be semantically analysed as ‘one who peddles’, although it is older than the verb, the noun burglar cannot be analysed as ‘one who burgles’, because the verb relies for its analysis on content features of the noun (i.e. burgle ‘act the burglar’). Thus, if historically peddler and burglar are the bases, the former must be regarded as the derivative for synchronic analysis, whereas the latter is the derivational base. I agree with Marchand (1963, 1969) that semantic analysis must be a fundamental criterion to distinguish between regular derivation and back-formation. Yet diachronic study should also provide support and evidence for the process involved, rather than contrasting with synchronic study, as in the case of peddler/peddle. Another controversial issue is whether back-formation should be considered as zero-derivation with affix dropping (Marchand 1969), as a kind of shortening (Kreidler 1979, 2000; Stockwell and Minkova 2001), as a special case of clipping (Bauer 1983), or as a combination of conversion and clipping (Nagano 2007). Scholars do not agree on whether back-derivation is actually the reverse of derivation, or on whether it involves real affixes, supposed ones (Plag 2003: 37), or no affix at all. For Plag (2003: 37), backformation is not a derivational, but an analogical process, very close to the process operating in the coinage of, for example, air-sick, after sea-sick. I likewise believe that analogy is the principle governing back-formation (6.2.4). Terminology, by contrast, appears less contentious, since the most common labels used to refer to the process being discussed are “back-formation”

172

Minor phenomena

and “back-derivation”. I will not use them interchangeably, though, because, as Bauer (1983: 230–231) observes, “it is not always a derivational process which is ‘reversed’ in back-formation”. For instance, the process forming cherry, from French cerise, with final  felt as a plural marker, is not the reverse of derivation, but of inflection.141 My definition and classification of back-formation are given below. 6.1.1. Definition Back-formation is the process whereby words like edit, televise, and typewrite are extracted from longer words whose apparent form is bimorphemic (editor, television, type-writer), by deleting supposed affixes, on the analogy with word pairs like exhibit/exhibitor, revise/revision, write/writer. Pennanen (1966), rather than focusing his attention on the length of the base words, identifies a number of defining criteria which delimit the process of back-formation. In his view, a word is back-formed if: 1) the mechanism of its formation has a regressive direction, as in the case of a verb obtained from an agent noun, 2) it operates on the basis of analogy, and 3) the word conforms with chronological and semantic criteria. Thus, he appears to combine the diachronic with the synchronic view of back-formation. Most definitions describe back-formation as the reversal of a wordformation rule. Aronoff (1976: 27) briefly states that back-formation is “a backwards application of a WFR [Word-Formation Rule]”. Becker (1993: 7) even claims that “The question, whether back-formations are applications of rules or analogies, is irrelevant”, because for him the two notions correspond (cf. 2.3.6.2), and what distinguishes back-formation from its inverse is lower productivity.142 Similarly, Haspelmath (2002: 169) defines backformation as “an application of a morphological rule in the less productive direction”. Yet many scholars disagree with the above claims. Bauer (1983: 231), for instance, considers the reversal hypothesis “slightly misleading”, because it would not account for the formation of such verbs as cohese (← cohesion), transcript (← transcription), or self-destruct (← self-destruction), whose expected forms would instead be cohere, transcribe, and self-destroy. Nagano (2007: 42–43) likewise criticises the claim that back-formation is the reversal of some affixation process, because in some counterexamples there is no corresponding rule, or no real affix involved. For instance, although the verb frivol is back-formed from the adjective frivolous, there

Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

173

exists no deverbal -ous suffixation process in English; likewise, in the verb liaise (← liaison), the deleted part -on does not exist as a suffix. Bauer’s (1983: 232) redefinition of back-formation as “the formation of new lexemes by the deletion of actual or supposed affixes in longer words” appears to stress this same fact: i.e., the affixes deleted from the input are not real but supposed. In fact, in the verb lase, back-formed from the acronym laser, one cannot consider the deleted part -er as an actual suffix: it is the shortening of Emission of Radiation. This is the reason why, as we will see in 6.1.2, some scholars include back-formation among shortening processes. Lastly, Nagano (2007: 45) claims that, within the framework of Natural Morphology, back-formation is “highly unnatural from the viewpoint of constructional iconicity”. In his opinion, it is anti- or counter-iconic, because a decrease in form corresponds to an increase in meaning: e.g., the verb rotavate, back-formed by subtracting -or from the input Rotavator (← rotatory + cultivator), means ‘use a Rotavator, cultivate with a Rotavator’. This claim strongly contrasts with my contention that meaning change in backformation is not additional, but subtractive (2.3.7.9, 6.2.1.5). Hence, when a verb base like edit is reconstructed from a human agent noun (editor), subtractive meaning is iconic with the formal subtraction of -or. 6.1.2. Delimitation: Back-formation vs. other processes The most important distinction to be drawn in this section is between backformation on the one hand and zero-derivation or conversion on the other (Marchand 1969; Nagano 2007). Marchand (1969: 392) states that back-formation is a type of zeroderivation, followed by the clipping of a pseudo-morpheme. Accordingly, the verbs peddle and stagemanage should be analysed as zero derivatives from the nouns peddler + Ø and stagemanager + Ø, from which the typical nounending -er has been dropped. This explanation, however, implies that category change is caused by a zero morpheme, and that the deletion is nothing but clipping, which is a class-maintaining process (see chapter 3). I believe, by contrast, that category change is caused by the deletion of some material, which often (and not accidentally) corresponds to an existing affix. Nagano (2007) considers back-formation to be a type of conversion. Nagano (2007: 56) defines conversion as “a word-formation process that involves changing a word’s syntactic category without any concomitant change of form”. Thus, he analyses the verbs televise and baby-sit as cases

174

Minor phenomena

of conversion from the nouns television and baby-sitter, later adjusted by clipping. I do not agree with this explanation either. First, as I have just claimed, I attribute category change to the deletion of some material, and not to syntactic change with no parallel formal change, as in conversion. Second, the material deleted is neither phonologically-determined nor difficult to predict, as in clipping, but generally corresponds to an existing morpheme, which indicates that the analogy with other word pairs is fundamental in back-formation. Lastly, in terms of Natural Morphology, conversion is a non-iconic process because there is no form change corresponding to meaning/category change, whereas back-formation is iconic, because subtraction in meaning is paralleled by subtraction in form. Various studies (Jespersen 1942: 537; Kreidler 1979: 26, 2000: 957; Bauer 1983: 232; Stockwell and Minkova 2001: 10) suggest that backformation is a special case of shortening or clipping. Jespersen (1942: 537) even calls back-formations “subtraction-forms”. As we have seen in the relevant chapter (see Unchanged syntactic category in 3.2.1.7), shortenings are class-preserving, whereas this is not the case with back-formation, which changes the syntactic category of the input. Thus, tele and TV, shortened from the noun television, are nouns as well, whereas televise, from the same nominal base, is a verb. Glam is a shortened adjective or noun from glamorous or glamour, but is a denominal verb in back-formation. Moreover, although some back-clippings like butch(er), darl(ing), and flex(ible) delete a final part which accidentally happens to correspond to a suffix, in many cases (especially with polysyllabic bases) the deleted part does not correspond to an affix: for example, in ad/advert(isement), anon(ymous), neg(ative), tab(ulator), and vent(riloquist) more material has been deleted than the mere suffixes -ment, -ous, -ive, -or, -ist. In this study, therefore, back-formation is considered neither as a type of zero-derivation/conversion, nor as a type of shortening, nor as a combination of these processes, but, rather, as an autonomous process deserving further investigation. 6.1.3. Classification and structure of back-formed words Back-formed words can first of all be divided into two primary groups, namely the simple-word type and the compound-word type.143

Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

175

6.1.3.1. Simple-word back-formation includes those words that are backformed from non-compound bases, such as edit and televise mentioned above. Within this group, we can differentiate between various patterns showing different functional shifts: ―

Noun → Verb: The most common pattern is the televise/television type (also mentioned by Quirk et al. 1985: 1578), which involves a noun ending in -ion. This type includes the already mentioned cohese and transcript, as well as many more instances: abduct (← abduction), advect (← advection), attrit (← attrition), automate (← automation), aviate (← aviation), coit (← coition), commote (← commotion), concuss (← concussion), conscript (← conscription), demarcate (← demarcation), destruct (← destruction), emote (← emotion), evolute (← evolution), excurse (← excursion), formate (← formation), inscript (← inscription), insurrect (← insurrection), intuit (← intuition), locomote (← locomotion), orate (← oration), perorate (← peroration), perspirate (← perspiration), repercuss (← repercussion), resolute (← resolution), resurrect (← resurrection), reune (← reunion), sanitate (← sanitation), vacate (← vacation). Another rather frequent type is that illustrated by peddle/peddler. Many back-formed verbs indeed originate from what Marchand (1969: 394) calls “pseudo-agent substantives”: e.g., bum (← bummer), burgle, buttle (← butler), compute (← computer), cuttle (← cutler), demerge (← demerger), duff (← duffer), foray (← forayer), hijack (← hijacker), lase, lech (← lecher), mug (← mugger), mull (← muller), outrig (← outrigger), scavenge (← scavenger), schoon (← schooner), spinst (← spinster), swindle (← swindler), tile (← tiler), trig (← trigger), tweeze (← tweezer), ush (← usher), york (← yorker). Examples based on nouns with a variant -or ending are: auth (← author), edit, escalate (← escalator), mote (← motor), rotavate, sculpt. The verb perk is atypically from percolator. The variant -eur, as in chauffe (← chauffeur), colport (← colporteur), is rarely used to back-form verbs. The verb beg, back-formed from beggar, also belongs to this type. A third type involves a -y ending being treated as a suffix, as in chiromance/chiromancy. Other examples are: geomance (← geomancy), hypocrise (← hypocrisy), jell (← jelly), jeopard (← jeopardy), and pillor (← pillory). Another pattern involves the pseudo-suffix -ance/-ence, which can be seen in the bases of reluct/reluctance and adolesce/adolescence. Other

176

―

Minor phenomena

examples are surveille (← surveillance); iridesce (← iridescence), luminesce (← luminescence), and reminisce (← reminiscence). Isolated or infrequent word pairs include the following: gondole (← gondola), propagand (← propaganda); salve (← salvage), vint (← vintage); loll (← Lollard); rotisse (← rotisserie); arch (← archery), skuldug (← skulduggery); strump (← strumpet); bolsh (← Bolshevik); rattle (← ratlin(e)), tiff (← tiffin); jog (← jogging), nut (← nutting), quisle (← Quisling, ‘act like Quisling’), recycle (← recycling); lyse (← lysis), synostose (← synostosis); brux (← bruxism); nonconform (← nonconformist); fugle (← fugleman), rancel (← rancelman); eclaircisse (← eclaircissement); liaise; delir (← delirium), hoke (← hokum), ultimate (← ultimatum); nomenclate (← nomenclature); pegase (← Pegasus). In some of these cases, deletion is motivated by an evident resemblance with an actual English suffix (e.g. -age, -ism, -ist). In others, we can tentatively reconstruct resemblance with a foreign suffix (Italian -a, French -erie, Greek -is, Latin -um/-us). But it is difficult to explain the cancellations in bolsh or liaise, which are considered by some scholars (e.g. Nagano 2007) as adjustments by shortening. Adjective → Verb: Verbs are also back-formed from adjectives, as in the laze/lazy type. This type is also illustrated by: cose (← cosy), dizz (← dizzy), google (← googly), haze (← hazy), rort (← rorty), shab (← shabby), sprightle (← sprightly), and sulk (← sulky). Another subtype appears to delete an -ed participial suffix, as in dishevel (← dishevelled), grizzle (← grizzled), and nake (← naked). Other isolated or rare cases include: sull (← sullen); phosphoresce (← phosphorescent); cathect (← cathectic), romant (← romantic); manarvel (← manarvelin), maudle (← maudlin); peeve (← peevish), squeam (← squeamish); frivol, stupend (← stupendous); hush (← husht), rap (← rapt).

The following four patterns include sporadic, occasional formations reported in Jespersen (1942), Pennanen (1966), Marchand (1969), Adams (1973), and Nagano (2007): ―

― ―

Adjective → Noun: epileptic → epilept, greedy → greed, illogical → illogic, paramedical → paramedic, petty → pet, polymeric → polymer, tatty → tat, unrepaired → unrepair, unsuccessful → unsuccess, unsurprising → unsurprise. Adverb → Adjective: aslant → slant, gingerly → ginger. Adverb → Verb: darkling → darkle, sideling → sidle.

Back-formation: Definition, delimitation, and classification ―

177

Noun → Adjective: gullibility → gullible.

Other rare patterns include instances which are labelled back-formations in some dictionaries, for example Merriam-Webster and OED2: ―

―

Some English nouns are re-analysed as plurals and therefore singularised by deleting the -s ending, as in biceps → bicep, eaves → eave, staves → stave. Also the word cherry is back-formed from Old French cerise, treated as an English plural. Some English adjectives are obtained by deleting a supposedly negative prefix from the base, as in insipid → sipid, non-committal → committal, uncouth → couth, unkempt → kempt.

6.1.3.2. Compound-word back-formation includes those words that are back-formed from compounds, like brainstorm (← brainstorming) and type-write (← type-writer). Again, the two main patterns are represented by denominal or deadjectival verbs: ―

Noun → Verb: Denominal verbs are obtained from either compound nouns headed by an agentive -er noun or compound nouns headed by an action -ing noun. The first type is illustrated by: air-condition (← air-conditioner), babysit, bulldoze (← bulldozer), cheerlead (← cheerleader), cliff-hang (← cliff-hanger), hang glide (← hang glider), jay-hawk (← jay-hawker), knuckle-dust (← knuckle-duster), loud-hail (← loud-hailer), matchmake (← match-maker), pile-drive (← pile-driver), prize-fight (← prize-fighter), ring-lead (← ring-leader), self-feed (← self-feeder), slave-drive (← slave-driver), stage-manage (← stage-manager), stenograph (← stenographer, which includes two neoclassical combining forms), supply-teach (← supply-teacher), tape-record (← taperecorder), trend-set (← trend-setter), tub-thump (← tub-thumper), turbocharge (← turbocharger), vacuum-clean (← vacuum-cleaner), whipper-snap (← whipper-snapper), wiredraw (← wiredrawer); artedit (← art-editor; cf. edit above), word-process (← word-processor). Examples of the -ing type are: affix-hop (← affix-hopping), book-hunt (← book-hunting), die-cast (← die-casting), dry-farm (← dryfarming), face-lift (← face-lifting), frostbite (← frostbiting), handwrite (← hand-writing), house-clean (← house-cleaning), house-keep (← house-keeping), job-hunt (← job-hunting), kite-fly (← kite-flying),

178

―

Minor phenomena

lip-read (← lip-reading), logroll (← logrolling), map-read (← mapreading), name-drop (← name-dropping), pan-broil (← pan-broiling), pied-pipe (← pied-piping), possessor-raise (← possessor-raising), queue-jump (← queue-jumping), Red-bait (← Red-baiting), role-play (← role-playing), role-take (← role-taking), safe-keep (← safekeeping), scat-sing (← scat-singing), shadow-cast (← shadowcasting), shoplift (← shoplifting), show-jump (← show-jumping), sight-see (← sight-seeing), skywrite (← skywriting), soft-land (← softlanding), sun-bathe (← sun-bathing), surf-cast (← surf-casting), thought-read (← thought-reading), time-share (← time-sharing), triple-tongue (← triple-tonguing), type-cast (← type-casting), valet-park (← valet-parking), window-shop (← window-shopping). Other minor types may be seen in: ill-use (← ill-usage); back-form (← back-formation), chain-react (← chain-reaction), phase-modulate (← phase-modulation), self-destruct, sound-substitute (← soundsubstitution), trickle-irrigate (← trickle-irrigation); cross-refer (← cross-reference); home-deliver (← home-delivery); ill-treat (← illtreatment), pressure-treat (← pressure-treatment), wh-move (← whmovement), and, with combining forms, bibliograph (← bibliography), choreograph (← choreography), holograph (← holography). Adjective → Verb: Compound verbs may be obtained from compound adjectival bases. The second component of the base is generally a participle. The base has a regular participle in: hard-boil (← hard-boiled), jam-pack (← jam-packed), tongue-tie (← tongue-tied), whereas the following verbs display an irregular participle in the base: awestrike (← awestruck), horrorstrike (← horror struck), jerrybuild (← jerrybuilt), sunburn (← sunburnt), tailor-make (← tailor-made), thunderstrike (← thunderstruck). Unproductive patterns are illustrated by: Adjective → Noun (e.g. multihulled → multi-hull, poly-angular → poly-angle) and Noun → Adjective (e.g. greensickness → greensick, homesickness → homesick).

Table 8 summarises the various types and patterns described. Table 8. Types and examples of English back-formations Type Simple-word Back-formation

Description

Pattern

Examples

The base is a non-compound word

N→V

emotion → emote, computer → compute

Back-formation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon Adj → V Adj → N Adv → Adj/V

Compoundword Backformation

The base is a compound word

N → Adj Pl. N → Sg. N – Adj → + Adj N→V

Adj → V Adj → N N → Adj

6.2.

179

lazy → laze, naked → nake illogical → illogic aslant → slant, sideling → sidle gullibility → gullible biceps → bicep insipid → sipid bulldozer → bulldoze, shoplifting → shoplift hard-boiled → hardboil poly-angular → poly-angle homesickness → homesick

Back-formation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

Among extra-grammatical morphological phenomena, back-formation appears to be less irregular than other processes. The fact that in many cases there is a corresponding word-formation rule that acts in the reverse direction makes back-formation more predictable than other shortenings. Moreover, the fact that there is a functional shift from the input to the output makes it closer to derivation and conversion than other, class-maintaining processes, such as clipping, acronym formation, reduplication, and, as we will see, infixation. Nevertheless, back-formation is excluded from morphological grammar on account of a semantic criterion. That is, while rule operations involve the conferring of additional meaning, back-formation is based on subtraction, both formally and semantically. According to Nagano (2007) and others, back-formed words exhibit marked properties that the outputs of rule-governed word-formation processes do not. Firstly, they are generally restricted to colloquial style or slang, and often used with humorous intent (see also Pennanen 1966: 132; Marchand 1969: 106; Adams 1973: 112; Shimamura 1984: 81). However, this is not the case with many lexicalised examples, such as the verbs baby-sit,

180

Minor phenomena

tape-record and type-write, now commonly used in any context. Secondly, there is more interspeaker variation than with regular derivatives, since the acceptability of back-formed words may vary from one native speaker to another. These unnatural properties of back-formed words partially explain why they often have a regular counterpart, for instance, in conversion: e.g., from the nouns author, martyr, and usher, we obtain both the converted verbs (author, martyr, usher) and the back-formed verbs (auth, mart, ush). These properties also explain why back-formation is not blocked when there is a regular standard counterpart, as in the doublet verbs form and formate. Here the standard verb form regularly derives the noun (formation), which then back-forms formate. The fact that back-formation shares some properties with conversion presupposes that it shows some type of regularity, but its connection with shortening devices such as clipping is also symptomatic of its irregularity. 6.2.1. Irregularities in back-formation Back-formation, like the other processes discussed so far, is irregular when compared with word-formation rules. In particular, we can identify the following violations of canonical rules. 6.2.1.1. (Un-)predictable output. The output of back-formation is often irregular and not easily predictable. Variability is not as high as in clipping, but in many cases it does not permit an exact prediction of what the result of the process will be. What is deleted from the base word may be a hypothetical or pseudo-affix, but not necessarily so. For instance, there is no -evik suffix in English, and yet bolsh is back-derived from Bolshevik. 6.2.1.2. Non-morphematic analysis. Unlike regular derivatives and compounds, back-formation bases are not transparently analysable into morphemes: e.g., liaison cannot be segmented into *liaise + *-on, nor is laser analysable as *las(e) + *-er.144 Also, input recoverability is often difficult, especially when word-formation rules would lead to a different outcome, as in verb form + -ation → noun formation vs. noun formation – -ion → verb

Back-formation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

181

formate. Lastly, in back-formed compound verbs, the output is not regularly obtained by combining two free morphemes, but by subtracting a supposed bound morpheme, as in noun baby-sitter – -er → verb baby-sit, and noun brainstorming – -ing → verb brainstorm. 6.2.1.3. Irreversibility. Back-formation is not always based on a previous rule. For instance, there is no English word-formation rule producing nouns by -y suffixation of verbs. Yet when final -y is deleted from a noun such as bibliography, a verb (bibliograph) is back-formed. Moreover, when it seems to be rule-based, there may be competing rules allowing different formations. Thus, there is no one-to-one correspondence between wordformation rules and their reverse back-formations, especially with phonologically irregular words. The verb corresponding to cohesion could be either cohede (after delude/delusion), cohere (after adhere/adhesion), or cohese (after confuse/confusion), but only the latter is the result of back-formation (Becker 1993: 7).145 6.2.1.4. Alternative input categories. Although nouns and adjectives prevail as input classes in back-formation, other categories are admitted: e.g., adverbs (aslant → slant) and proper names (Quisling → quisle). Acronyms and blends are also admitted as inputs, as in the above-mentioned laser → lase and Rotavator → rotavate. 6.2.1.5. Subtractive meaning. In back-formation, meaning change is not additional, as in rules, but subtractive (see also Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; cf. Nagano 2007). For instance, the verbs auth, cheerlead, compute, tape-record are reconstructed from agent (author, cheerleader) or instrument nouns (computer, tape-recorder). Similarly, singulars are backformed by subtracting the plural marker, as in eave and non-standard bicep, from eave-s and bicep-s. While the irregularities in 6.2.1.1–6.2.1.5 confirm that back-formation is a phenomenon of extra-grammatical nature (cf. 2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10), the following regularities or tendencies appear to suggest some kind of predictability.

182

Minor phenomena

6.2.2. Regularities in back-formation Pennanen (1966) formulates his theory of back-formation by trying to combine the two principal methods of linguistic approach: diachronic research and synchronic description. His defining criteria (see 6.1.1) may be viewed as regularities that tend to occur in the back-formation mechanism. On the basis of such regularities, the following main tendencies can be identified. 6.2.2.1. Regressive direction. The direction of the process is regressive, namely, from a derivative/inflected form towards a primitive (e.g. editor → edit, type-writer → type-write, cerise → cherry, insipid → sipid). Regression is both in form and in meaning. That is, formally, we subtract a supposed affix from a base, and semantically, we subtract some meaning component: e.g., agent, instrument, plural, or negative features in the above examples. 6.2.2.2. Chronological antecedence of the input. The input of backformation must historically precede the output. In other words, the backformed word has to be chronologically more recent than the base word from which it is obtained. However, as Štekauer (2000: 72) observes, chronological data has to be used carefully, because “a genuine back-formation may make its appearance in historical written sources earlier than the word it is derived from”. Hence, the definition of a word as back-formation should not be based exclusively on chronological data. 6.2.2.3. Meaning agreement. Besides formal analogy, there must be analogical meaning between the root word and the derivative.146 In particular, the back-formed word must be semantically analysed on the basis of its root word. For example, the verb laze relies for its analysis on the content of the adjective lazy (‘be lazy’), and televise must be analysed as ‘put on television’. This criterion is of special importance for pseudo-compound verbs, such as baby-sit, brainwash, and type-write. These cannot in fact be analysed as regular endocentric compound verbs (i.e. as ‘sit by the baby’, ‘wash the brain(s)’, ‘write in type’). For their semantic analysis, we have to make reference to the related nouns: thus, baby-sit means ‘act as baby-sitter’,

Back-formation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

183

brainwash ‘subject to the process of brainwashing’, type-write ‘write with a type-writer’. 6.2.2.4. Class/Meaning change. Unlike clipping and other shortenings, back-formation is a class-changing process which mainly forms verbs, but also nouns or adjectives. It may also involve inflectional change, as from plural to singular nouns. In any case, what we obtain is a new word or grammatical form, as with rules. 6.2.2.5. Iconicity. Against Nagano (2007), I claim that back-formation exhibits an iconic relationship between form and meaning. More specifically, a subtraction in form diagrammatically corresponds to a subtraction in meaning. 6.2.3. Predictability in back-formation On the basis of the criteria listed above (6.2.2.1–6.2.2.5), I will now check the predictability of both simple- and compound-word back-formation. Table 9. Possible back-formations from existing source words Source word

Possible back-formation

(1) N volition ‘an act of making a choice or decision’ (2) N orthography ‘the art of writing words’ (3) N synthesis ‘the combination of parts’ (4) Adj religious ‘manifesting faithful devotion to a deity’ (5) Adj aleatory ‘depending on an uncertain event’ (6) Adj dissolute ‘lacking restraint’

V volit ‘make a volition’

(7) N schoolteacher ‘one who teaches in school’

V orthograph ‘practice orthography’ V synthese ‘combine by synthesis’ (cf. synthesize) V relige ‘act in a religious way’ V aleate ‘be aleatory’ Adj solute ‘not being dissolute’ (cf. N solute ‘a dissolved substance’) V schoolteach ‘act as a schoolteacher’

184

Minor phenomena

(8) N churchgoer ‘one who habitually attends church’

V churchgo ‘be a churchgoer’

Source words have been selected on account of their possible segmentation into at least two pseudo-morphemes. Furthermore, the meanings of either the root word or the candidate back-formed word have been adjusted so as to meet the semantic criterion in 6.2.2.3. Of course, the selected source words cannot meet the chronological criterion 6.2.2.2, since their outputs are invented words.147 Possible back-formations are principally verbs, as the outputs in the right column show. Only one tentative instance obtaining the positive counterpart of an apparently negative adjective dissolute has been offered, in (6). All the examples seem to meet criterion 6.2.2.1. Each of them demonstrates that the correct direction in back-formation is regressive, from the supposed derivative/inflected word to the root word or primitive. The most frequent pattern is Noun/Adjective → Verb. In (1)–(8) a supposed affix (-er, -ion, -y; dis-) has been deleted to backform a new word (see 6.2.2.4). Yet the examples in (2)–(4) are only analogical with other back-formation pairs, rather than with actual derivational word pairs (cf. 6.2.4). As observed in the literature (Nagano 2007), there is no deverbal adjective in English which is derived by -ous suffixation (cf. 4, fabricated on the analogy with stupend/stupendous). The connection between the adjective aleatory and the verb aleate in (5) is even more obscure, since there is no analogical pattern back-forming a deverbal adjective by -ory suffixation. As has been said, meaning agreement is respected in all the examples (6.2.2.3). The compound verbs in (7) and (8) (schoolteach, churchgo) are analysed as back-formed from synthetic compounds: i.e. [[school + teach] + -er]; [[church + go] + -er]. The chronological criterion (6.2.2.2) is not of direct relevance to the invented examples, since the selected source words of necessity precede the (invented) words in the right-hand column. 6.2.4. Criteria of well-formedness By taking into account the above-mentioned regularities (6.2.2.1–6.2.2.5), I will try to extract some criteria of well-formedness for back-formation.

Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification ―

―

―

6.3.

185

Analogy. Back-formation operates on the basis of analogy, namely the existence of a root word and a set of derivative(s) (or inflections) that are formed in the reverse direction by a morphological rule. For instance, on analogy with elect/election, execute/execution, revise/revision, etc. television has back-formed the missing member televise. The frequent alternation verb/noun -ate/-ation, as in modulate/modulation, has helped to back-form verbs such as donate and orate from the respective nouns. Most verbs are back-formed from pseudo-agent nouns, as in edit/editor, scavenge/scavenger, sculpt/sculptor, etc. These word pairs correspond to other analogical pairs in regular derivation (e.g. act/actor, speak/speaker, write/writer). Thus, in contrast with abbreviations, blends and reduplicatives, in which analogy is with pre-existing abbreviatory or reduplicating patterns, in back-formation analogy is also with regular patterns of derivation or inflection, although not always (cf. liaise from liaison) and not in the expected – e.g. verb-to-noun or singular-to-plural – direction. Conciseness. Back-formation entails a morphological choice which is more concise and more efficient than a longer syntactic phrase: for instance, the verbs baby-sit and compute are shorter than the verb phrases ‘act as baby-sitter’, ‘use a computer’, or ‘calculate by means of a computer’. This criterion differs from the Brevity criterion identified in section 3.2.4 for clippings and alphabetisms (cf. “conciseness” in Gotti 2005: 40), in that back-formation is not an abbreviated morphological form, like prof or PC, but a morphological choice instead of a syntactic one. Subtraction. In back-formation we have simultaneous deletion in form and meaning. A supposed affix (e.g. -er, un-, -s) is generally deleted from an apparently complex base, and this formal change corresponds to the subtraction of some semantic feature, namely, agentivity (lase), instrumentality (tape-record), negativity (couth), plurality (cherry), etc. Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

Scholars generally agree that infixation is infrequent in English. Whereas prefixation and suffixation are typically found in English derivational morphology, infixation is typologically marginal in English, which is usually a non-infixing language. Furthermore, while some Indo-European and Austronesian languages like Greek and Atayal rely on infixation to signify important grammatical func-

186

Minor phenomena

tions, English has infixes only within extra-grammatical morphology. For instance, in colloquial speech and slang, it makes use of expressive expletives like -bloody-, -blooming-, and -fuckin(g)- to form deprecative words with additional emphasis, such as in-bloody-tolerant, abso-blooming-lutely, and fan-fucking-tastic (Aronoff 1976; Siegel 1979; Bauer 1983; Baldi 2000; Plag 2003; Dressler 2005; Mattiello 2008a). Traditional infixation such as the type just illustrated is sometimes discussed as part of English derivational morphology. Aronoff (1976: 69–70), for instance, describes it as “a very productive English infixing rule” (see also McMillan 1980: 167). Yet the derivational or inflectional status of infixes could be objected to, since no new words are formed by inserting an infix into the middle of a base word (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 41; cf. Plag 2003: 101–103). This type of infixation is better seen as part of Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) expressive morphology, since it has the function of expressing a (generally negative) attitude on the part of the speaker (Aronoff 1976: 69; Baldi 2000: 970; Plag 2003: 101), and because the acceptability of infixed words varies from speaker to speaker. Expletive infixation has attracted considerable theoretical debate in the literature (e.g. McCarthy 1982; Zonneveld 1984; as well as the abovementioned studies). Yet the present account of infixation will not be limited to the expletive type. I will also include three recently studied phenomena referred to respectively as “Homeric” or “ma-infixation” (e.g. tele-maphone, vio-ma-lin) (Yu 2004, 2007), “diddly-infixation” (e.g. ac-diddlyaction, wel-diddly-elcome) (Elfner and Kimper 2008), and “hip-hop” or “izinfixation” (e.g. b-iz-itch, h-iz-ouse) (Viau 2002), some examples of which are concomitant with partial reduplication (see chapter 5). 6.3.1. Definition Infixation involves the insertion of an affix in the middle of a simplex word (ah-iz-ead, per-bloody-haps, secre-ma-tary), or, rarely, of a complex word (e.g. un-fucking-touchable, air con-friggin’-ditioner), or of a lexicalised phrase (e.g. Jehovah bloody Witnesses). As these examples show, the inserted affix (the “infix”) can either be a bound morpheme (-iz-, -ma-), or correspond to a free morpheme (bloody, friggin’, fucking). Sometimes infixation can be accompanied by reduplication of part of the base word, as in mur-diddly-urder, parta-ma-ty. The above definition immediately distinguishes between infixes, which occur in the body of a base, and affixes which appear before (e.g. re-touch),

Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

187

or after a base (e.g. touch-able). It is to be noted that the presence of infixes in a language entails the presence of prefixes and/or suffixes, but the reverse is not true. In other words, no language employs infixes exclusively (Yu 2007: 1). Some definitions of the expletive type stress the fact that expletives are used “to create new words expressing the strongly negative attitude of the speaker” (Plag 2003: 101). Although infixed words like kanga-bloody-roo exhibit an additional nuance of meaning that tells us something about the speaker’s attitude, I do not agree with Plag (2003) that infixation creates new words. Furthermore, Plag (2003: 101) also claims that “there are no bound morphemes that qualify for infix status”. This claim, however, does not take into account other types of infixation which insert segments that cannot be used in isolation, such as -diddly- (ac-diddly-action), -iz- (w-izork), or -ma- (underesti-ma-mate). Yu’s (2007) definition also appears too restrictive, though for a different reason. He considers affixation to involve infixing if the infix “appears as a segmentally distinct entity between two strings that form a meaningful unit when combined but do not themselves exist as meaningful parts” (Yu 2007: 11). Accordingly, -bloody- in abso-bloody-lutely can be considered an infix because it is both preceded and followed by meaningless parts (abso, lutely), becoming meaningful when they are combined (absolutely). However, in acdiddly-action mentioned above, the part following -diddly- (action) is not meaningless; similarly, in Jehovah bloody Witnesses the parts preceding and following -bloody- are not meaningless. The above definition would therefore exclude complex bases such as compounds or phrases from the input of expletive infixation, as well as those infixes which admit reduplication. Lastly, some recent definitions (e.g. Elfner and Kimper 2008: 150) focus attention on the stress of the base word, and on the possibility to have reduplication of the stressed syllable, as in or-diddly-órder. The fact that infixation in English is determined by the metrical structure of the base has attracted the attention of many scholars (Aronoff 1976; Siegel 1979; McCarthy 1982), and is the reason why Plag (2003: 103) considers it a case of “prosodic morphology” (like truncations and blends in his account). 6.3.2. Delimitation: Infixation vs. other processes It has been suggested that English irregular past tense and participle formations (e.g. sing/sang/sung) may be analysed in terms of infixation (see the references in Yu 2007). However, besides being a matter of inflection, rather

188

Minor phenomena

than a derivation operation, ablaut modification does not involve the same insertion and discontinuity as in proper infixation. Another frequent but erroneous confusion is between infixation and the process of “tmesis”, commonly defined as “the separation of the elements of a compound word by the interposition of another word or words” (OED, in McMillan 1980: 166), as in chit and chat from chit-chat and what might be soever from whatsoever. As we have seen, infixation not only interrupts compounds, but also simplex words (fan-fucking-tastic, kanga-bloody-roo, o-damn-clock), and therefore admits a wider range of bases than tmesis. On the other hand, emotive intensifier insertion admits a very restricted class of inserts, typically expletives such as -bloody-, -damn-, -fuckin-, and the like, whereas traditional tmesis is more permissive with regard to the insert type: cf., e.g., what place soever with what might be soever above. Moreover, expletive infixation should not be conflated with the insertion of emotive intensifiers into normally uninterruptible collocations. In my opinion, the following examples belong to the process of “syntactic interposing” (McMillan 1980: 167–168), so do not qualify as lexically infixed forms: don’t X forget, half X dead, fat X chance, happy X birthday, not X likely, take your X time, thanks a X lot, etc. (cf. Baldi 2000: 970). 6.3.3. Classification of infixes Although expletives still represent the best known type of infix in English, in the contemporary language there are in fact four different categories of infix. 6.3.3.1. Expletive infixation (also called fuckin-infixation, from the most common infix used) concerns the insertion of expressive (often vulgar or obscene) expletives into words. Examples of expletive infixes include: -bally-, -bleeding-, -blessed-, -bloody-, -blooming- (see the consonant cluster bl- in 6.5.3 below), -friggin(g)-, -fuckin(g)-, -goddamn(ed)-, -motherfuckin(g)-, -pissin(g)-, -piggin(g)-, -soddin(g)-, etc. These infixes are typically used in low registers, such as colloquial language or slang. The expletive type is the most permissive with regard to input category (see 6.4.1.3 below). McMillan (1980: 163–164) notes that any expletive (symbolised by X) may appear: 1) inside morphemes, as in amalga-X-mated, Chi-X-nese, emanci-Xpator;

Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

189

2) between bases and affixes, as in dis-X-member, im-X-possible, in-Xcredible, also before a combining form in megalo-X-mania; 3) inside compounds, as in any-X-thing, every-X-body, kinder-X-garten, rail-X-way; 4) inside letter and numeral words, as in 19-X-43, O-X-K, V-X-IP; 5) inside names, as in Massa-X-chusetts, So-X-ho, many of which are made up of two words, as in Sir-X-Lancelot, United-X-Kingdom. In B-Bloody-C, the infix replaces the internal B of BBC, acting as a splinter in an intercalative blend (see 4.1.3). In the case of 2, the infix is generally inserted between the prefix and the base (e.g. un-believable → un-fuckin-believable, in-tolerant → in-bloodytolerant). McCarthy (1982: 585), however, provides examples of infixed forms where the expletive does not fall at the prefix juncture: imma-bloodymaterial (with partial reduplication), inde-goddamn-pendent, irre-fuckinsponsible. On the other hand, the expletive does not normally occur at the suffix juncture: cf. emancipat(e)-or → emanci-motherfuckin-pator. The position of the infix is, indeed, not morphologically but prosodically determined. Expletives in their infixal usage generally appear before a stressed syllable or between primary and secondary stress, as in bàn-bloody-dánna, cárni-bloody-vóre, fròn-fuckin-tíer (Plag 2003: 102; see also Aronoff 1976; McCarthy 1982; more discussion in 6.4.2.1 below). 6.3.3.2. Homeric or ma-infixation concerns the insertion of the infix -mainto words, as in dia-ma-lectic and saxo-ma-phone. Homeric infixation is a morphological construction which was popularised by the speech of Homer Simpson, the main character in the television animation series The Simpsons, and has recently gained currency in vernacular American English (Yu 2004, 2007). The following examples reported in Yu (2007: 184) are taken from either the World Wide Web or daily conversations: compli-ma-cated, sophisti-ma-cated, syndi-ma-cated (from the Web); edu-ma-cate, saxo-maphone, Urs(a)-ma-la, vio-ma-lin (from everyday speech). Again, the category of the infixed base may vary from noun (e.g. telema-phone, vio-ma-lin), to adjective (e.g. wonder-ma-ful), verb (e.g. underesti-ma-mate), participle (e.g. unsub-ma-stantiated), and even to place/personal/river names (e.g. Ala-ma-bama, Micha-ma-langelo, Missima-ssippi).

190

Minor phenomena

Another variation concerns the possibility of expanding the pattern by either inserting a schwa immediately before the infix, as in lively , lonely  (schwa-epenthesis), or reduplicating part of the base, as in oboe → oba-ma-boe, washing → washa-ma-shing (see “compensatory reduplication” in Yu 2004: 619). The basic pattern of ma-infixation is best illustrated by words with stress on the first and third syllables: for example, in féudalism and hippopótamus, the infix -ma- invariably appears after the unstressed second syllable (féudama-lism, hippo-ma-pótamus). In words which have stress on the first, third, and fifth syllables, infix placement varies. It can follow either the second syllable (e.g. unsubstántiated → unsub-ma-stántiated), or the fourth syllable (e.g. underéstimate → underésti-ma-mate). 6.3.3.3. Diddly-infixation is a form of expletive infixation popularised by the speech of Ned Flanders, the cheerful neighbour in the television show The Simpsons (Elfner and Kimper 2008). It concerns the insertion of the nonsense infix -diddly- into base words with initial stress, as in ac-diddlyaction, he-diddly-eaven, wel-diddly-elcome. In these words, infixation always involves reduplication of the rhyme of the stressed syllable (underlined below), so that, in the resulting form, the infix -diddly- precedes main stress, ac-diddly-áction, he-diddly-éaven, wel-diddly-élcome. This type of infixation therefore differs from other forms of expletive infixation in English, in that the other forms can appear as independent words (fuckin(g)) and occur outside the base (fuckin-fantastic). It also differs from other forms since it does not have a marked preference to operate on base words with non-initial stress (e.g. fan-fuckin-tástic). Finally, diddlyinfixation is distinguishable from expletive infixation by virtue of the fact that it involves reduplication. 6.3.3.4. Hip-hop or iz-infixation is a type of infixation popularised by rap and hip-hop music artists, such as Frankie Smith, especially in the songs Double Dutch Bus and Slang Thang, and, more recently, by Snoop Dogg and Missy Elliott (Viau 2002). Some examples include: ah-iz-ead, b-iz-itch, d-iz-apper, h-iz-ouse, pl-iz-aying, s-iz-oldiers, etc. Sometimes, the allomorphic variants -ilz-, -izm-/-izn- are found, though in a lower percentage of cases: e.g., B-ilz-arbara, B-ilz-obby, w-ilz-e; m-izm-illimeter; b-izn-ottle, m-izn-ission, t-izn-elevision, v-izn-ideos, walkie-t-izn-alkies (Viau 2002).148

Infixation: Definition, delimitation, and classification

191

The position of the hip-hop -iz- infix depends on the stress of the word into which it is inserted, lodging itself before the stressed vowel. Thus, if the base is a monosyllabic word, -iz- occurs between onset and nucleus, as in ciz-oast, dr-iz-eam, str-iz-aw. With disyllables, -iz- aligns with the stressed vowel, as in d-iz-óllar, G-iz-óogle (with stress on the first syllable) vs. behiz-áve, eff-iz-éct (with stress on the second syllable). Moreover, with infixed disyllables, stress is preserved with trochees (sóldiers → s-iz-óldiers), but shifts with iambs (surpríse → surpr-íz-ise) (Viau 2002). With more than two syllables, this type of infixation is rare (e.g. m-izm-íllimeter, t-iznélevision). In Table 10 the various types of infix are organised more systematically. Table 10. Types and examples of English infixes Type

Description

Pattern

Examples

Expletive Infixation

The base is interrupted by an expletive infix The base is interrupted by the infix -ma-

Insertion of -bloody-, -blooming-, -fuckin(g)-, etc. into a base Insertion of -ma- into a base Insertion of -ma- into a base with schwaepenthesis Insertion of -ma- with partial reduplication of the base Insertion of -diddlywith partial reduplication of the base

bandanna → banbloody-danna, unbelievable → un-fuckinbelievable saxophone → saxoma-phone lively → live-ma-ly 

Insertion of -iz- (or -ilz-, -izm-, -izn-) into a base

house → h-iz-ouse, Bobby → B-ilz-obby, millimeter → m-izmillimeter, bottle → b-izn-ottle

Homeric Infixation

DiddlyInfixation

Hip-hop Infixation

The base is interrupted by the infix -diddlyThe base is interrupted by the infix -iz-

oboe → oba-ma-boe

action → ac-diddlyaction

192

Minor phenomena

6.4.

Infixation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

McMillan (1980: 163) calls infixes “emotive intensifier[s]”, claiming that they are normally obscene, profane or euphemistic.149 The infixation of expletives in English has been included in Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987) expressive morphology. According to Baldi (2000: 970), it is part of expressive morphology for the following reasons: 1) it is used in a specific register, 2) the (obscene) meaning of the infix carries a pragmatic effect, 3) it applies to a wide range of input categories, and 4) it is typologically marginal in English. There is no doubt, in fact, that its pragmatic effects, promiscuity with regard to input category, and imperfect control are properties which characterise expletive infixation as an expressive morphological phenomenon. Similarly, for the Homeric type, Yu (2007: 184) claims that -ma- indicates “attitudes of sarcasm and distastefulness”, although it can also be used as “a form of language play”. Its expressiveness is therefore similar to that of expletives. Yet, as we will see, infixation is also part of extra-grammatical morphology. Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: 41) exclude expletive infixations of the type absolutely → abso-blooming-lutely from morphological grammar “because neither new words nor inflectional word forms are formed” (see also Dressler 2005). Against this claim, Plag (2003: 103) treats expletive infixation as regular word-formation, because the derived word acquires a “new meaning”, especially in terms of additional information about the speaker’s attitude (see also Aronoff 1976: 69). Plag (2003: 103) accommodates this type of infixation, together with other phenomena (especially truncations and blends), within prosodic morphology, that is “a kind of morphology where prosodic units and prosodic restrictions are chiefly responsible for the shape of complex words”. For the other types of infixation, Viau (2002), Yu (2004, 2007), and Elfner and Kimper (2008) similarly offer some generalisations, mainly based on prosodic aspects. Although some generalisations are possible within infixation, it goes against too many of the rules of English grammatical morphology to be considered part of regular word-formation. 6.4.1. Irregularities in infixation Infixation, unlike other derivational affixes, exhibits a number of irregularities, summarised in the following subsections.

Infixation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

193

6.4.1.1. Unchanged meaning. Whereas word-formation rules obtain new words in terms of new meanings, infixation only obtains connoted variants. There is a purely stylistic difference between the input absolutely and the output abso-blooming-lutely, between action and ac-diddly-action, house and h-iz-ouse, or between underestimate and underesti-ma-mate. The outputs of infixation share an extra pragmatic meaning, which may be either obscene or simply playful, thus providing information about the user’s attitude. In other words, infixes like -bloody- or -damned- do not maintain their denotational lexical meanings in the insert position, but convey to the new word a special stylistic and pragmatic meaning. Infixes of this kind are, indeed, typically used as intensifiers, and their function is that of “emotive stress amplifier[s]” (McMillan 1980: 165). 6.4.1.2. Unchanged syntactic category. As the above-mentioned outputs show, infixation does not change the grammatical category of the input. Thus, like their respective inputs, abso-blooming-lutely is still an adverb, ac-diddly-action and h-iz-ouse are nouns, and underesti-ma-mate is a verb. 6.4.1.3. Alternative input categories. As a corollary, infixation permits various syntactic categories as bases. The Homeric type, for instance, also admits place and person names as input (Ala-ma-bama, Micha-ma-langelo, Or-ma-well). The expletive type is even more permissive, admitting, as bases, an adjective (e.g. fan-fucking-tastic, im-fuckin-portant), an adverb (e.g. abso-bally-lutely, to-bloody-gether), a verb (e.g. ad-bloody-vance, egoddamned-vaporate), a noun (e.g. de-fuckin-fence, hypo-bloody-crite), a pronoun (e.g. no-bloody-body), an interjection (e.g. halle-bloody-lujah, hobloody-ho, Jesus-fucking-Christ), and, like ma-infixation, personal/place names (e.g. Dan friggin’ Quayle, Kalama-goddamn-zoo, Minne-bloodysota, Santa-fuckin-Cruz). 6.4.1.4. Discontinuous bases. Unlike prefixes and suffixes, which are regularly added to a continuous base, infixes interrupt a base, as in terri-matory, where the infix is inserted into the base territory. Because of the preference for morphotactic transparency, discontinuous bases are dispreferred in Natural Morphology (2.2.1; see also Dressler 2005).

194

Minor phenomena

6.4.1.5. Non-morphematic analysis. As a consequence of the preceding point, infixed forms cannot be segmented into morphemes, in that, in the above example, the two segments terri and tory do not have meaning in isolation, but only acquire meaning when they are combined. Furthermore, some infixes also occur as free morphemes (e.g. bloody, fucking), and therefore can occur outside the base (bloody-fantastic along with fan-bloodytastic), while others can only occur inside the base (*oboe-ma vs. oba-maboe). McCarthy’s (1982: 589) remark that “there is essentially no rule of Expletive Infixation” appears evident from the above irregularities. Subsections 6.4.1.1–6.4.1.5 validate the hypothesis that infixes are not only part of expressive morphology, but they are also part of extra-grammatical morphology (2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10), in that they are not analysable in terms of canonical rules. Let us now check the regularities and preferences of infixation. 6.4.2. Regularities in infixation Aronoff (1976) elaborates a rule of English derivational morphology called the “infixing rule” (p. 69). He observes that the insertion of expletives is not just a matter of morphology, but also depends on phonological factors, more specifically on the stress pattern of the base word in which the expletive will be infixed. Similarly, expletive infixation has been considered a “robust phenomenon” by McCarthy (1982: 589) on account of properties that can be derived from a prosodic theory of foot-level metrical structure. Plag (2003: 103) likewise notes the regularity of expletives in prosodic terms, which accounts for their inclusion within prosodic morphology. Viau (2002) posits various generalisations for the hip-hop type. Lastly, Yu (2007) observes that the various types of infixes seem to be attracted by stress, although the latter also determines “the diversity of the positions where infixes are found relative to the stem” (p. 2). The main tendencies and regularities in infixation seem to be based on prosody, and generalisations can be made only within each type, and not for the whole phenomenon. As we have seen, the expletive type differs from the others in that expletives can also stand as independent words, while -diddly-, -iz-, and -ma- are not found in isolation. Let us now look at infixation regularities in more detail.

Infixation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

195

6.4.2.1. Predictable infix position. Infixation patterns are predictable in terms of the infix position. Both stress and syllable boundary appear to play a role in infixation. In the expletive type, the infix generally appears immediately before the syllable of the base that bears primary stress (McMillan 1980: 164; McCarthy 1982: 575; Bauer 1983: 90), as in Ala-fuckin-báma, al-bloody-míghty, fan-fuckin-tástic, propa-fuckin-gánda (cf. Aronoff’s 1976: 70 restatement of Siegel’s 1971 “Fuckin Rule”).150 Plag (2003: 102– 103) adds that it must be inserted between two feet, before (i.e. to the left of) a stressed trochaic foot.151 Some counterexamples are offered by McMillan (1980: 164): i.e., in-X-consístent and un-X-belíevable. The Homeric infix, by contrast, must come after (i.e. to the right of) a trochaic foot, as in sáxo-ma-phone, sécre-ma-tary, where the main stress is on the first syllable, or hippo-ma-pótamus, Missi-ma-ssíppi, where stress falls on the third syllable. The -iz- infix is attracted by stress as well. However, it differs from the previous two patterns by lodging itself before the stressed vowel, as in d-izóllar and s-iz-óldiers. Moreover, with infixed disyllables, stress shifts with iambs (efféct → eff-íz-ect), but is always on the penultimate syllable (Viau 2002). However, syllable boundaries are not respected, in that the infix may also be inserted within a monosyllabic word, between onset and nucleus, as in dr-iz-eam, or even before it, as in iz-at, ilz-are, with no onset. The latter case actually contravenes the definition of infix, which, unlike prefixes, is typically inserted within a word. The -diddly- infix is similarly motivated by the main stress of the stem word, being lodged before it, as in ac-diddly-áction, wel-diddly-élcome. 6.4.2.2. Base expansion. In ma-infixation, disyllabic stems must be expanded in order to host the Homeric infix (Yu 2004). One kind of expansion involves the insertion of a schwa to form an additional unstressed syllable before ma-infixation, as in lively . Another kind involves partial reduplication of the base, as in oboe → oba-ma-boe. Like the Homeric type, diddly-infixation involves partial reduplication, as the repetition of ac and el in the above examples (see 6.4.2.1) shows. The expletive type does not normally involve an expansion of the base word, although some words have an added syllable to make insertion possible: see, for example, the forms bea-X-utiful and umber-X-ella in McMillan (1980: 164).

196

Minor phenomena

6.4.2.3. Polysyllabic base. For the expletive type, the minimal form in which an infix can occur is a disyllabic base, as in ur-fucking-bane, although words of three or more syllables are preferred bases in infixation, as in imfucking-possible, and incan-fucking-descent. Similarly, in the Homeric type, naturally polysyllabic bases are preferred, or an added syllable is obtained through either vowel insertion or reduplication (see 6.4.2.2 above). In the diddly-type, polysyllabic bases are likewise obtained by partial reduplication. On the other hand, the hip-hop type also accepts monosyllabic bases. 6.4.3. Predictability in infixation As the previous section shows, regularities are scarcely identifiable in infixation and the rare tendencies are based on prosodic constraints rather than on morphological ones. Moreover, infixes do not qualify as a homogeneous set, and each type appears to follow different patterns. The expletive type also exists in syntagmatic constructions, whereas the other types are only found in infixal position. Sometimes reduplication of the base occurs as an additional feature, but not in all types. In the light of these various points, full predictability would seem to be excluded, but let us make a tentative analysis of some hypothetical cases before drawing conclusions. Table 11. Possible infixations from existing source words Source word (1) probability  (2) fanatic  (3) New York  (4) fabulous  (5) again  (6) inadmissible 

Possible infixation proba-fuckin-bility, proba-ma-bility, probab-iz-ility (rare) fa-bloody-natic, fana-ma-natic, fan-izatic, fan-diddly-atic New-fuckin-York, New Y-iz-ork fabu-ma-lous, f-iz-abulous, fa-diddlyfabulous a-bloody-gain, aga-ma-gain, ag-iz-ain inad-bloody-missible, inad-mamissible, inadm-iz-issible

As these examples show, not all words are appropriate bases for infixation, and, especially, some are inappropriate with some types. For instance, a polysyllabic base with stress on the third syllable, as in (1) (probability),

Infixation as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

197

would be acceptable in the expletive and Homeric types, but less adequate in the hip-hop type, and unacceptable in the diddly-type, because of an unpronounceable cluster bd. A complex base with primary stress on the second element, as in (3) (New York), would block both -ma- and -diddly- insertion, because of either prosodic or pronunciation reasons. The base fabulous in (4) would block expletive infixation, because the main stress falls on the first syllable, which means that the expletive before it would be in prefixal rather than infixal position. The bases again and inadmissible in (5) and (6), by contrast, do not admit diddly-infixation, which is often blocked because of the difficult or even impossible pronunciation of the derivative. The only base which appears suitable to all types is fanatic in (2), although infixation does not occur homogeneously in the same position: cf. fa-bloody-natic vs. fan-iz-atic. With the infix -ma-, an extension of the base is necessary to admit insertion. These are further confirmations of the inconsistency and difficult predictability of the phenomenon. 6.4.4. Criteria of well-formedness In the case of infixation, the criteria of well-formedness identified for the other extra-grammatical processes investigated so far are not valid. In fact, there seems to be no appropriate parameter according to which well-formed infixed words are obtained, in that there are no relevant criteria that apply prototypically or generally, e.g.: ―

―

Compositionality. The general criterion of compositionality, i.e. compositional meaning obtained by the meanings of the base words (or affixes), is not relevant for infixation, in that infixes do not obtain new words in terms of new semantic meanings. The expletive type is only an emotive stress amplifier (McMillan 1980), whereas the other types are purely accessories with jocular effects. Pronounceability/Euphony. The criteria of pronounceability and euphony do not apply, in that infixed words are often difficult to pronounce or made pronounceable by schwa epenthesis, as in grave-mayard and live-ma-ly, or else by the aid of partial reduplication of the base word, as in ac-diddly-action, wel-diddly-elcome. In the hip-hop type, the infix -iz- is even inserted within monosyllabic bases, making them nearly unpronounceable and often incomprehensible to the listener, as in c-iz-oast, dr-iz-eam, str-iz-aw.

198 ―

―

Minor phenomena

Salience/Recoverability. The criteria of salience and recoverability do not apply either. There are no salient parts in the new infixed formations. On the contrary, the base words are interrupted to lodge the infix, and thus made less salient, more opaque and nearly unrecognisable, as in emanci-motherfuckin-pator, Tata-fuckin-magouche, he-diddly-eaven, B-ilz-obby. Concatenation/Linearity. Concatenation does not apply because infixes are not added to bases, as in regular derivation or composition, but inserted within them. Hence, infixation does not obey the parameter of linearity either, because it is a processes which involves discontinuous bases. In fact, infixes interrupt the linearity of the source words, as in ad-bloody-vance, Ha-bloody-waii, and im-frigging-portant. They may even interrupt syllables, as in the above-mentioned he-diddly-eaven and B-ilz-obby, and are not necessarily placed at morpheme boundaries: see, e.g., inde-goddamn-pendent (vs. in-depend-ent), underesti-ma-mate (vs. under-estimate), unsub-ma-stantiated (vs. un-substantiat(e)-ed).

The only principle which controls the formation of infixed words is analogy: ―

6.5.

Analogy. All the above-mentioned formations are analogical with existing patterns, allowing both the insertion of the same infix within a different word (e.g. abso-bloody-lutely and fan-bloody-tastic) and the insertion of a different infix of the same type within the same word (e.g. abso-bloody-lutely and abso-blooming-lutely). Analogy also governs the formation of similar infixed words of the ma-type (saxo-ma-phone, secre-ma-tary), of the iz-type (b-iz-itch, h-iz-ouse), and, with partial reduplication, of the diddly-type (ac-diddly-action, wel-diddly-elcome). Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification

In line with the principle of “sound symbolism” (Marchand 1969: 397), and against the Saussurian view that the sign is arbitrary (i.e. not motivated by its meaning) (Saussure 1916),152 there appear to be cases of non-arbitrary relationship between sound and meaning, as when we imitate things perceived through our senses (direct imitation or onomatopoeia), or when we use speech sounds to express feelings (expressive symbolism or phonaesthesia).

Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification

199

Anderson (1998: 43) identifies five forms of sound symbolism: kinesthesia, synaesthesia, chromaesthesia, phonaesthesia, and onomatopoeia. A classical case of kinesthesia, based upon correspondences of meaning and the physical attributes of articulation is, for example, when phonemes pronounced with bilabial rounding occur in words whose meaning includes roundness, such as round, mound, mouth, whirl, world. A well-known example of synaesthesia, based upon the relationship between language and psychological reality, is the association of front or high front vowels , ,  with smallness, constriction or narrowness, lively activity, hardness, thinness, or brightness, as in bit, chink, chit, kid, little, slim, teeny-weeny, thin, wee (with a few counterexamples, like big, thick, reported in Merlini Barbaresi 2000: 7). I have mentioned cases of English onomatopes based on sound imitation in the previous chapter (see onomatopoeic reduplicatives in 5.1.3.3). Other typical non-reduplicated examples include: bang, gulp, slam, sniff, splash, and non-grammaticalised aha, ahem, ho-hum, humph, oh, phew, etc. In this part of chapter 6, I will deal only with phonaesthesia. Phonaesthesia is a phenomenon based mainly on affinity among sets of words sharing non-etymological clusters of phonemes and, consequently, evoking similar sensations, feelings, and meanings. Phonaesthemes (Firth 1930), also labelled “secondary associations” (Hockett 1958), “submorphemic differentials” (Bolinger 1965), “emotionally expressive symbols” (Marchand 1969), “phonomorphs” (Baldi 2000), “non-morphemic sequences of phonemes”, and “psychomorphs” (Philps forth.), are relatively pervasive in human languages. In an analysis of over 660 monosyllabic words in standard and dialectal English, Fred Householder (1946) discovered that words sharing a midcentral lax vowel , as in jump, generally have a pejorative meaning related to ‘contempt, disgust, failure’. Bolinger (1965) later noticed that the phoneme  suggests ‘foolishness’ in boob, coo-coo, galoot, nincompoop, rube, stooge. According to Waugh (1994), in the series clip, dip, drip, flip, grip, nip, pip, quip, tip, yip, the post-vocalic stop is synaesthetically sensed to be like ‘a blow’ and the sound-symbolic  seems to suggest a briefer focus upon the action (vs.  in clap, flap, lap, rap, slap). The existence of phonaesthetic elements has been amply documented in English (Firth 1930; Bolinger 1940, 1965; Marchand 1969; Anderson 1998; Bergen 2004; Philps forth. and the literature therein), as well as in other diverse languages of the world (Indonesian, Japanese, Swedish, Greek, etc.). Their relevance is confirmed not only by distributional evidence, but also by their role in language change, especially in the generation of neologisms (Bergen 2004), which are symptomatic of the productivity of phonaes-

200

Minor phenomena

themes. Their cognitive status and their role in the synchronic mental organisation of language still remain open questions. The appropriate place for phonaesthemes in morphological theories and their relevance to expressive or unconventional word-formation is still a heated issue (Baldi 2000). Phonaesthemes have been recently investigated by linguists not only because they may occur in words whose internal structure is non-compositional – which excludes their morphemic status – but also because they pose considerable problems for the analysis of meaning. The most recurrent soundmeaning pairings have been described empirically by means of corpus studies based on statistical, distributional and frequency analysis, thus providing objective data for some of the features involved. Drellishak (2006), however, claims that statistical tests alone do not convincingly prove the existence of phonaesthemes, nor do they validate particular proposed phonaesthemes. Psycholinguistic experiments such as those conducted by Bergen (2004) may instead be a more valid approach. My interest in this part of the book will not focus on the cognitive status or the psycho-/neuro-linguistic relevance of phonaesthemes, but rather on their place, if any, within expressive and extra-grammatical morphology, or within morphology at large. 6.5.1. Definition Phonaesthemes are recurrent sound-meaning pairings, i.e. sounds, or groups of sounds which, although they are not classifiable as proper morphemes, are usually associated with some kind of meaning. An example is the English onset gl-, which is infrequent in English, except among words with meanings related to ‘vision’ and ‘light’ (e.g. gleam, glimmer, glint, glisten, glitter, glow, etc.) (Baldi 2000). Another frequently discussed phonaestheme is the onset sn-, which occurs in a large number of words relating to ‘nose’ and ‘mouth’ (e.g. snack, snarl, sneeze, sniff, snore, snort, snout, etc.) (Philps forth.). Bloomfield (1933) discusses phonaesthemes (without using the term) in a chapter on morphology, stating that, since they represent phonetic-semantic relationships, they should be treated as morphemes. Rhodes and Lawler (1981, in Drellishak 2006: 5) also maintain that phonaesthemes are merely sub-syllabic morphemes, not different in principle from other morphemes. Of course, the morphemic analysis of phonaesthemes has not been universally adopted. For instance, Bergen (2004: 290) negatively defines phonaesthemes as “frequently recurring sound-meaning pairings that are not

Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification

201

clearly contrastive morphemes”, thus stressing the fact that they are not morphemes. Actually, their morphemic value has been rejected by many scholars, as the various labels used to denote them suggest. Marchand (1969: 403) claims that they differ from full morphemes such as words, prefixes, or suffixes because “they combine into units which are not syntagmas in a grammatical sense, but monemes (one-morpheme words)”. This is a feature that phonaesthemes appear to share with other extra-grammatical formations. Like blends (smog) and acronyms (NATO), they are not analysable into morphemes. That is, glimmer cannot be segmented into *gl- and *immer, nor can snore be analysed as the combination of *sn- and *ore, because glimmer and snore are words made up of only one morpheme. In other words, forms containing phonaesthemes are non-compositional (see Bergen 2004 for a similar position). Baldi (2000: 964) likewise lays emphasis on the fact that words containing phonosymbolic segments are “structurally simple”, and, therefore, “do not derive from any rule of word-formation”. Moreover, he claims that they “are not unconventional or expressive in that they have no unusual effect extending beyond their lexical meaning” (Baldi 2000: 964). Merlini Barbaresi (2000: 8), by contrast, observes that lexical words linked by a “horizontal paradigm”, like glimmer, glisten, glitter, etc., give rise to a “lexical context” and create in each word of the set the ability to evoke the thought of other words and their meanings. This potential is interpreted by Waugh (1994) as a tendency of sounds toward independent signification. In Anderson (1998: 66) they are said to “evoke a ‘feeling’ rather than a meaning”. Phonaesthemes seem, indeed, to be loaded with extra meaning, an independent evocative, associative potential which allows sophisticated exploitation in creative language, and at the same time excludes certain dispreferred sounds in new coinages. For instance, in English-speaking countries, words with an initial sound sequence sl- (e.g. slug, slurp, slut) are considered undesirable, because they are associated with a pejorative connotative value (Firth 1930: 185). Or the internal sequence -oo- has a deprecative connotation in fool, goof, goon, loon, spoof, etc. (as noted by Bolinger 1965). Consequently, these sequences convey, like other expressive or extragrammatical phenomena, a special pragmatic effect. Although it is not investigated here, phonaesthemes like these are avoided in brand naming (see Baldi 2000).

202

Minor phenomena

6.5.2. Delimitation: Phonaesthemes vs. other morpho(no)logical concepts Although Bloomfield (1933) describes them as “a system of initial and final root-forming morphemes, of vague signification” (p. 245 [emphasis in the original]), phonaesthemes are not morphemes. There are many obvious similarities between a phonaestheme and a morpheme: both a prefix and an initial cluster, for example, exhibit a characteristic sound and meaning. Yet there are also several differences between these two concepts. Unlike phonaesthemes, morphemes can change the part of speech of a word and, often, they can be inserted only in certain locations within a word. Phonaesthemes can appear anywhere in a word (although initial and final positions prevail over internal clusters or vowel sounds), and they never play a syntactic role. Moreover, the semantic content of a morpheme is more stable than that of a phonaestheme. For example, in general, every word starting with a prefix proto- has something to do with ‘earliness’, but only a portion of words with an initial sequence gl- have anything to do with ‘light or shining’ (cf. glory and the above-mentioned gloom). Another necessary distinction is between phonaesthemes and onomatopoeia. Both are echoic words which form part of sound symbolism, or phonosymbolism, and generally treated together (e.g. by Bloomfield 1933; Marchand 1969; Stockwell and Minkova 2001). What distinguishes words containing phonosymbols from onomatopoeic words is the fact that onomatopoeic formations such as bang, boom, burp, cuckoo, meow, etc. are imitative of a sound, that is, they imitate by speech the sounds or noises that we hear. Phonaesthemes, by contrast, are not imitative in character, but expressive of a feeling.153 Since they are relevant to expressive morphology (cf. Baldi 2000), I have decided to investigate their relevance also to extragrammatical morphology. 6.5.3. Classification of phonaesthemes Suggested phonaesthemes typically belong to open classes, that is to content words such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives. The most recurrent ones can be categorised on the basis of their position in the words containing them. 6.5.3.1. Initial phonaesthemes are found at the word beginning. Some examples are:

Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification ―

―

―

―

―

―

―

203

bl- : The phonaestheme bl- is widely used in words associated with a negative (deprecative) value, as in bleeding, blessed, bloody, blooming, often used in infixal position (see expletive infixation in 6.3.3 above). cr- : This phonaestheme is frequent with words denoting ‘harsh sounds’ or ‘twisted movement or position’. Typical formations with this consonantal cluster as beginning are: crack (also reduplicated as crickcrack), cramp, crankle (‘run zigzag’), crawl, creep, crick, crimp, cringe, crinkle, crisp, crouch, crumple. fl- : The phonaestheme fl- introduces a number of words usually associated with ‘phenomena of movement, flying, flowing’, or ‘liquid motion’. Examples are: flack, flag, flare, flee, fleet, flicker, flirt, flit, flitter, float, flood, flop, flow, fluid, flump, flunk, flurry, flush, fly. gl- : This sound, as we have seen, occurs in many words expressive of the idea of ‘light or vision’. It occurs, for instance, in the following words: glade, glare, glass, gleam, glent (‘glean, shine’), glimmer, glimpse, glint, glister, glitter, glitz, gloss, glow. gr- : This cluster is probably of onomatopoeic origin with words denoting ‘deep-toned, menacing noises’, such as grin, grim, grimly, groin, grouse, growl, grudge, gruff, grum, grumble, grunt, gruntle, grutch. m- : The bilabial consonant is found initially with a number of words denoting ‘movements of mouth’ or ‘indistinct talk’. The pronunciation of this consonant is made with the lips firmly closed preventing clear articulation, and the act of pronouncing a word with such an initial sound iconically mimics a key aspect of its meaning. Words such as mumble, mump, munch, murmur, and mutter involve this sound at least once. However, this consonantal sound does not occur only initially, it can also be inserted in the middle of a word conveying the same meaning, as in bumble, grumble, yammer, and the above-mentioned mumble, mump, murmur. sl- : The phonaestheme sl- is initial in many words indicating ‘falling or sliding movement’ or ‘slime, slush, liquid’, as in slash, sled, sledge, sleight, slide, slime, slip, slithers, sloppy, slosh, slouch, sludge, sluice, slumps, slush. A few linguists (e.g. Firth 1930) claim that words involving this particular phonaestheme share a pejorative meaning. This idea is supported by the fact that sl- often appears as beginning of words to indicate negative actions or negative effects, such as 1) slave, slavery, sleep, sleepy, sloth, slow, which refer to ‘inaction or passive action’; 2) slime, sloth, slush, which involve the notion of ‘dirty’; 3) slide, slip, slippery, slither, with a meaning component of ‘instability’; 4) slander,

204

―

―

―

Minor phenomena

slight, slur, meaning ‘denigration’; 5) slim, slit-eyed, sliver, meaning ‘narrowness’. sn- : Another frequent phonaestheme in English is initial sn- related to ‘mouth, nose, or face’, or, by metaphorical extension, to ‘snobbishness, inquisitiveness’. Examples of this group include: sneeze, sniff, sniffle, snivel, snoop, snoot, snore, snort, snot, snout, snuff, snuffle. sw- : This phonaestheme is related mainly to the meaning of ‘flourish’ or ‘swinging’, as in swagger, swank, swap, sways, swell, swerve, swiftly, swinge, swings, swip, swirle, swish, swoon, swoop, swoosh. tw- : The initial phonaestheme tw- occurs in words denoting ‘small sounds’ or ‘twisting movements’, as in twang, twank, twat, tweak, tweet, twick, twiddle, twine, twinge, twinkle, twirl, twist, twister, twit, twitch, twitter, and reduplicated twingle-twangle, twittle-twattle.

6.5.3.2. Final phonaesthemes occur at the end of words which are connected by rhyme: ―

―

―

―

-ack : This phonaestheme is frequent with words denoting ‘sound with abrupt decay’, such as brack (‘noise, outcry’), clack (‘chatter, prate, cluck, cackle’), crack, flack (‘slap, blow’), quack (‘said of ducks’), smack (‘kiss noisily’), snack, thwack (‘beat soundly’), whack (‘thwack’). -ash : The phonaestheme -ash is final in many English words meaning ‘violent impact’, ‘violence’, ‘breaking’, or ‘fragments’, as in clash, crash (‘gnash, dash, smash’), dash, flash (originally said of water), gnash, hash, lash, mash, pash (‘dash, smash’), plash, quash, rash (‘dash’), slash, smash (‘have sex’), splash, squash, swash (‘fall of a heavy body’), thrash, trash. -ick : The phonaestheme -ick tends to appear at the end of words indicating a ‘quick sound’, as in click, crick (‘sound of grasshopper’, ‘spasm of the muscles’), flick, kick, nick, pick, prick, snick (‘click’), tick. -ump : This particular sound is often found at the end of words which are associated with ‘heaviness and clumsiness’, or ‘heavy, awkward movements’. Some examples are: bump, clump (‘tread heavily’), crump (‘noise of horses or pigs when eating’), dump (‘fall heavily’), flump, jump, plump, slump, thump, wump (‘throb, sound of fall’). It is also expressive of ‘displeasure’ in: frump (noun ‘cross, old-fashioned

Phonaesthemes: Definition, delimitation, and classification

―

―

205

woman’, or verb ‘put in a bad humour’), glump/grump (‘sulk’), hump (‘ill-humour’), lump (‘look sulky’), mump. -urry : The phonaestheme -urry conveys to the word in which it is contained the meaning ‘haste’ or ‘confusion’, as in flurry, hurry, scurry (also combined as hurry-scurry), worry. -ush : This phonaestheme, instead, tends to convey the meaning of ‘something oozy’ and ‘moist’, as in crush, dush (‘dash’), flush, frush (‘strike violently’), gush, lush (‘dash, strike’), rush, slush.

6.5.3.3. Middle phonaesthemes are rarely found and occur in medial position: ―

― ―

-i-/-ee-/-ea-/-ie- , : The high front vowels  and  frequently occur as phonaesthemes in words associated with ‘smallness’, as in brief, lean, little, meagre, mini, miniature, pinkie, teeny-weeny, thin, tiny, wee. They are frequently used also finally, as a diminutive or nonserious suffix (see -y/-ie in Merlini Barbaresi 2001). -oo- : This phonaestheme is generally associated with a deprecative meaning, as in boob, fool, goof, goon, loon, spoof. -u- : This vowel sound is very often found within words associated with various kinds of ‘dullness’ or ‘indistinctness’, as in blunt, clump, dull, dusk, mud, sludge, slump, slush, thud, thump.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide an illustrative sample of some representative sound-meaning pairings. Other cases are reported and discussed in, among others, Firth (1930), Bloomfield (1933), Bolinger (1940, 1965), Marchand (1969), Waugh (1994), and, more recently, in Baldi (2000), Bergen (2004), Drellishak (2006), and Philps (forth.). A comprehensive collection of English phonaesthemes is to be found in Shisler’s online Dictionary of English Phonestemes (1997). Table 12 summarises the above-mentioned types of phonaesthemes. Table 12. Types and examples of English phonaesthemes Type Initial Phonaestheme

Description

Sound-Meaning Pair

Examples

The phonaestheme occurs in initial position

gl-  ‘light or vision’

glade, glare, glass, gleam, glent, glimmer,

206

Minor phenomena

Final Phonaestheme

The phonaestheme occurs in final position

-ash  ‘violent impact’, ‘breaking’

Middle Phonaestheme

The phonaestheme occurs in medial position

-u-  ‘dullness’, ‘indistinctness’

6.6.

glimpse, glint, glister, glitter, glitz, gloss, glow clash, crash, dash, flash, gnash, hash, lash, mash, pash, plash, quash, rash, slash, smash, splash, squash, swash, thrash, trash blunt, clump, dull, dusk, mud, sludge, slump, slush, thud, thump

Phonaesthemes as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

It is not clear whether phonaesthemes belong more to the morphological or to the phonological system of the language. Their pertinence to the phonological system has been amply recognised – after all, this is the reason why most scholars deal with them in terms of sound or phono-symbolism. However, seminal works, such as Marchand (1969), include them in their account of word-formation, which suggests that they are also part of morphological organisation. However, as observed by Merlini Barbaresi (2000), morphologists tend to marginalise phonaesthesia as being extra-grammatical: affinity among these sets of words is based on non-etymological clusters of phonemes which do not coincide with any meaningful morphemes. Critics also point out that phonaesthemes are vague, in comparison with morphemes, in that they evoke vague sensations rather than meanings. This attitude towards extra-grammatical and expressive morphology appears rather short-sighted. As Merlini Barbaresi (2000) critically states, grammarians fail to see the communicative power of these means and how widely they are actually exploited in language. Much word-play, including Shakespeare’s punning in Romeo and Juliet – where connections are made between the words coals, colliers, choler, and collar – is based on such phenomena (Merlini Barbaresi 2000: 9).

Phonaesthemes as an extra-grammatical phenomenon

207

Baldi (2000) even excludes phonaesthemes from his treatment of unconventional word-formation processes, on account of the typical structure and lack of pragmatic effect of the words which contain them. However, although it may be true that these words do not allow segmentation into smaller meaningful units (unlike morphologically complex words), it is, at the same time, inaccurate to say that they are inexpressive or unemotional. The psychological reality of English phonaesthemes has been demonstrated through priming experiments on native speakers (e.g. Bergen 2004; Drellishak 2006). In these experiments, phonaesthemes, despite being noncompositional in nature, display priming effects close to those that have been reported for compositional morphemes. The pejorative value of sl- and duwords (slag, slug; dunce, dullard), for instance, has been investigated by McCrum (2002). These words not only have a negative meaning per se, but develop an independent pejorative value on the basis of their phonic similarity to other words sharing the same initial phonaesthemes. Words containing phonaesthemes are therefore part of expressive morphology, because they have a pragmatic effect, and can be said to violate some of the properties of canonical derivation and compounding, allowing their marginalisation to the extra-grammatical phenomena of the language. 6.6.1. Irregularities in phonaesthemes The following irregularities motivate my inclusion of phonaesthemes within extra-grammatical morphology (2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10). 6.6.1.1. Non-morphematic analysis. While regular derivatives and compounds can be segmented into morphemes, we cannot attribute morpheme status to phonaesthemes. Words such as slash, sled, sledge, sleight, slide, etc. are not formed by adding a prefix *sl- to a base (*ash, *ed, *edge, etc.), although this consonantal cluster appears repeatedly across the lexicon to convey a pejorative value. 6.6.1.2. Variable position. Unlike bound morphemes, which are placed either in initial (prefixes) or in final (suffixes) position, and more rarely internally (infixes, see 6.3–6.4 above), phonaesthemes may have a movable position within the words containing them. For instance, the vowel sound  is associated with ‘smallness’ both when it is in internal position (e.g. little,

208

Minor phenomena

tiny), and in final position, especially to indicate ‘emotionally small’, as in dearie/-y, lassie, etc. Similarly, the consonant sound  is associated with ‘the movements of the mouth’ when it is found initially, as in munch, mutter, internally, as in bumble, grumble, or in both positions, as in mumble, murmur. 6.6.1.3. Variable meaning. The meaning conveyed by phonaesthemes is more variable than the meaning conveyed by regular affixes. While all words beginning in a prefix anti- are assigned the meaning ‘against’ (anti-social, anti-virus), or ending in a suffix -less are assigned the category of adjective indicating ‘without’ (care-less, use-less), words containing phonaesthemes can be attributed different meanings activated by the same sound. For instance, the phonaestheme  can be associated with ‘energy, strength’ (passion, power), ‘weapons, fighting’ (petard, pistol), ‘pity, paleness’ (pale, passive, perish, pity), ‘contempt’ (patch ‘fool’, pig, piss, poop, puerile), and ‘anchored path or movement’ (pass, pull, pump, push, put), etc. As far as regularities are concerned, neither morphological rules nor regularities characterise words containing phonaesthemes. Only a phonicsemantic relationship allows a categorisation into groups of words. But this relationship, although not arbitrary, cannot be said to be as stable as that between a bound morpheme and its meaning in regular word-formation. The phenomenon under investigation in this section does not require further examination as to its predictability, since this would entail studies of cognitive and psychological associations which go beyond the scope of the book. Moreover, preferential criteria of formation cannot be found for words which are structurally simple or not derivative in nature. Below I propose some criteria for the identification of phonaesthemes. 6.6.2. Criteria for identification Phonaesthemes represent a category to be kept distinct from the other phenomena investigated in this book in that they combine sounds with meanings and do not involve morphological processes in the traditional sense. Thus, what I offer is not a series of criteria of well-formedness, but rather criteria for identification, i.e. determining the status of sounds as phonosymbols.

Phonaesthemes as an extra-grammatical phenomenon ―

―

―

209

Recursiveness. The sporadic distribution of sounds in a limited number of words cannot count as a criterion for determination of phonaesthemic status. Phonaesthemes must be recursive, productive, and occur frequently in a significant number of items. Homogeneity. Sounds acting as symbols must occur in a group of words which represent a homogeneous set. Homogeneity is to be seen both in phonetic terms (i.e. same pronunciation), and in structural terms (i.e. same location within the words). Semantic coherence. The words exhibiting phonaesthemes must also be uniform in semantic terms, in that they should share some regular semantic feature or expressive value which allows them to be grouped together, and allows the assignment of new items to the group on the basis of their semantic coherence.

Chapter 7 Extra-grammatical formations in use

My morphological description, investigation, and analysis of extragrammatical phenomena would appear rather ineffectual without an appropriate contextualisation of the words mentioned in this book. Do English people really use them? Or are they a purely morphological invention allowing a discussion on creative formations? What type of users prefer extragrammatical formations, as opposed to ordinary, rule-governed formations? What contexts, environments, registers favour the choice of marked (opaque) words over more natural (transparent) ones? Why are these words so frequent nowadays? To answer these questions, in the present chapter I will offer contextualised examples of clippings, acronyms, blends, reduplicatives and similar formations taken from an array of sources, including films, sitcoms, television series, newspaper headlines, news articles, magazine advertising, websites, songs, and so on. The variety, even heterogeneity of the sources used for the socio-pragmatic study of my data, provides evidence for the fact that irregular formations do not constitute a uniform phenomenon, confined to colloquial speech, excluded from written language or formal situations, and hence devoid of scholarly interest. The notion of informality, as we will see, applies only to some of them, and there are other principles of contextual suitability which may help discriminate between grammatical and extragrammatical formations, and determine the preference for the latter over the former, or for one extra-grammatical process over another. Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 44) sustain that most extragrammatical processes may be well excluded from the vocabulary of a language with no evident consequences or considerable losses. This claim appears contradicted by the massive presence of items that are created, nowadays, by means of extra-grammatical processes, and by the large exploitation of these processes in specific, or even specialised contexts (Mattiello forth.). Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 44) indeed assume that there are sociolinguistic reasons underlying the recent extensive use of extragrammatical formations, though they do not go into details. In this chapter I intend to identify these reasons, since I believe that extra-grammatical formations are essential communicative means in contemporary English and

Extra-grammatical formations in use

211

that their exclusion from the lexicon would involve a loss not only in terms of alternatives to existing words, but also in terms of different shades of meaning serving specific functions or producing particular effects on the listener. Indeed, if at times extra-grammatical formations do not change the meaning of a word, but only provide a differently connoted (more efficient, more informal, less serious) variant (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994; see also 3.2.1.6), at other times they cover semantic meanings which are not expressed by any regular word. For instance, when a new scientific discovery is made, an acronym or an acrostic is often purposefully created to name it (Mattiello forth.), and when a new product enters the market, a creative blend or reduplicative may be invented to label it (Ronneberger-Sibold 2000). Present-day English is pervaded by abbreviated forms, interspersed in the rich range of (textually) economical communications, from e-mails to text messages. It is permeated by new creative terms – either neologisms or mere occasionalisms – which are both attractive and persuasive. Adverts, promotional websites, magazine and news headlines exploit the strong impact of extra-grammatical words, such as clippings, blends, reduplicatives, and the like, in order to capture the attention of, or even mesmerise, their receivers (Cacchiani 2007). The media and commercial sectors often use such words to name new products, thus helping customers to remember the names and buy the products. Blends, acronyms, and initialisms are also innovative and often humorous (Lehrer 2003; Cacchiani 2007). They signal, in the language of young speakers, an effort to appear up-dated, fashionable, trendy, or simply to show off (Mattiello 2008a). Acronymic formations, however, may also suit more formal contexts, such as medical jargon, the language of the law, or other in-group vocabulary, where a minimal language form is sufficient to make the referent comprehensible. Ambiguity, or even vagueness may be the consequences of this extragrammatical use of the language. Another consequence is its expressivity in terms of an additional playful, humorous, jocular, informal, or otherwise secret, in-group tone. Extra-grammatical morphological phenomena often coincide with phenomena of expressive morphology, because both are normally used to produce a pragmatic effect on the hearer or the addressee. However, as we will see in the following sections, extra-grammatical formations are often lexicalised (2.3.5.1), or they may acquire the status of normal words when they act as bases to regular inflection or word-formation. This is symptomatic of their widespread recognition throughout the language and its users.

212

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Section 7.1 is devoted to the detection of some general principles of contextual suitability for extra-grammatical phenomena, and 7.2 identifies their primary domains of use. The sections which follow provide a variety of contexts which are intended to illustrate how the choices of specific phenomena are favoured and motivated. These are: clippings (7.3.1), acronyms and initialisms (7.3.2), blends (7.3.3), reduplicatives (7.3.4), and other minor formations (7.3.5). As we will see, each phenomenon meets more than one principle, and suits different domains/contexts, depending on: 1) the users, the addressees, and the social relationship between them, 2) the social functions that the new formations are meant to serve, and 3) the pragmatic effects that they are meant to achieve. 7.1.

Principles of contextual suitability

The socio-pragmatic principles which govern the users’ choices and which establish contextual suitability for the phenomena investigated so far are as heterogeneous as the set of processes, mechanisms, and formations involved. The following principles appear to be prominent: 1) Informality. Many extra-grammatical formations suit familiar contexts and select an informal, unofficial, slang, at times even debased, register (Mattiello 2008a). Most clippings provide a connoted variant to standard forms. For example, the words bike, mike, brolly and telly and their nonconnoted options bicycle, microphone, umbrella and television co-exist and select different registers. Other abbreviations, such as DJ, TV, or reduplicatives of the type bibble-babble or chit-chat, tend to be used in relaxed conversation, but are normally avoided in formal contexts. 2) Social or Professional closeness. The use of clippings, blends, and reduplicatives allows users to attain a higher degree of social closeness with their addressees.154 Moreover, alphabetisms are used to indicate either social or professional closeness. Therefore, closeness is not only in terms of familiarity and intimacy, but also of in-group restriction, privacy, and secrecy (Mattiello 2008a). In secret languages, and in social and professional jargons, insiders generally use abbreviations to exclude outsiders. For example, CI is used by physicians to refer to ‘cardiac insufficiency’ and Woof (← Well-Off Older Folk) is used in juvenile slang (Ronneberger-Sibold 2008: 206). 3) Economy. Clipped forms and alphabetisms, being derived “from a conscious action of economizing” (Dressler 2005: 269), play a fundamental

Principles of contextual suitability

213

role in language economy. That is, they conform to Zipf’s (1949) “Principle of Least Effort” and Martinet’s (1955) “Principle of Linguistic Economy”, according to which shorter and simpler communication is favoured over redundancy. In their specialised, scientific and journalistic uses, abbreviations represent marked choices, but are highly accessible to the community of speakers who belong to the same group and share a certain terminology, allowing them to abbreviate what is easily recoverable (e.g. CA ← carcinoma used by doctors for ‘cancer’) (Mattiello forth.). Blends are likewise more economical than canonical compounds. They often iconically represent, through an amalgamated noun, things or substances consisting of several amalgamated components, as in chloral for an amalgam of chlorine and alcohol. These formations, therefore, answer the need for “conciseness” which is typical of specialised discourse (Gotti 2005: 40). 4) Naming. Acronyms and initialisms often serve a naming function, that is they name new discoveries, inventions, institutions, organisations, etc., providing specific labels which can circulate internationally. For instance, LH is the recent name for the ‘Laboratory corporation of America Holdings’ and CVA is the medical term for ‘Cherry Virus A’. They are often impromptu coinages, which later acquire the status of stable widespread denominations. As noted by Ronneberger-Sibold (2008: 206), not only are these denominations easy to pronounce, perceive, and memorise, they are also motivated “by the iconic principle that one thing should be named by one word, instead of being described by several words”. Whereas, in general, “The full form is virtually always available as an alternant in the language system” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1632–1633), the abbreviated form may be more common and widespread (cf. DNA vs. deoxyribonucleic acid). In specialised domains, it becomes even monoreferential (see “monoreferentiality” in Gotti 2005: 33), that is, it acquires specificity and semantic uniqueness, so that its association to the context immediately suggests the referent. Blends serve the same naming principle when they are chosen to name new products put on the market: e.g., Go-Gurt (← go + yogurt, perhaps analogical with go-kart) ‘yogurt in a tube for eating on the go’, Palmolive (← palm oil + olive oil) ‘trade name for soap’, Wheatables (← wheat + eatables) ‘trade name for crackers’, and Yobaby (← yogurt + baby) ‘organic yogurt for babies’. 5) Jocularity. Most abbreviations and atypical combinations are used to convey a jocular, ludic, or playful tone to one’s speech. The effect of playfulness is commonly produced by blends, which often exploit the phonological

214

Extra-grammatical formations in use

similarity between the source words for humorous purposes, as in ambisextrous or foolosopher. Similarly, embellished clippings like preggers (Huddleston and Pullum 2002), or rhyming reduplicatives like okey-dokey, and most recent infixes (wel-diddly-elcome, wonder-ma-ful) aim at amusing their listeners or readers.155 An interesting phenomenon of modern slang is to choose, for example, car brand names and form humorous backronyms, such as FIAT (← Fix It Again Tony), TOYOTA (← Too Often Yankees Overprice This Auto), and VOLVO (← Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object). 6) Novelty. Since speakers have internalised regular formations grammatically, what deviates from the norm is generally impressive and attractive, since it is felt to be novel, fresh, original, or even odd. Blends like curvessence (← curve + essence) and mousewife share the property of originality with some acronyms (LOL, nimby, Wysiwyg) and initialisms (CWOT, JIC, TTFN), but especially with reduplicatives (slang footie-footie and ju-ju), as well as with some less prototypical types of clipping, such as secy and za. Back-formations are often viewed as anomalous words, with the exclusion of well-known lexicalised cases (cf. 2.3.5.1). Infixes (especially the Homeric and diddly-types) also convey an idea of novelty and creativity to the new words. In general, most extra-grammatical formations signal an attempt to renew the lexicon of a language, as well as the users’ desire to impress their hearers, or to catch their attention by some unexpected and novel means. 7) Musicality. Reduplicatives and phonaesthemes are particularly suitable in contexts where rhythm and musicality are required. Reduplicative words, especially the onomatopoeic type, are preferential choices in child-centred speech, because their musicality helps memorisation and facilitates imitation. Reduplicatives are predominant in premorphology. For example, small children’s first word manipulations belong to the copy (din-din, wa-wa) or onomatopoeic types (meow-meow, quack-quack) (see Dressler 2000; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). Phonaesthemes are favoured in advertising and brand naming, where sounds must be suggestive of meaning and be attention-catching. As noted by Thornton (2000: 123), trademarks containing the sounds -ex and -tex (e.g. Fairtex, Fortex, Fourex, Magitex) are often “emphatic denominations” which suggest exceptional or even magical performance by the product named. Hip-hop infixation (pl-iz-ay) may also contribute to the rhythm and musicality of song lyrics, lengthening a line and providing phonological cohesion to the whole text. 8) Prominence. Some extra-grammatical formations are deliberately chosen because of their prominence effect (cf. the Principle of Economy in 3 above), that is to highlight words, to emphasise concepts, to accentuate the speaker’s intentions, and to attract the hearer. Expletive infixes and most reduplicatives, based

Typical contexts and domains

215

on either an insertion (megalo-bloody-mania) or a phonic repetition of words (boo-boo), are governed by the principle of prominence. Infixation interrupts words, adding a negative (deprecative) value to them. Shmreduplication gives prominence to words, which are also syntactically emphasised by their topical initial position in the sentence (e.g. Can’t-shman’t: you did it yesterday!). Paradoxically, we can also give prominence to words by reducing their linguistic form to an abbreviation, which may be more attractive than its full form to the hearers/readers. In newspaper headlines, for example, reduced forms like clippings and acronyms/initialisms are given more significance and the readers of such forms are expected to read the article which follows. The above-mentioned principles represent two distinct sets. The qualities of Informality, Social/Professional closeness, Economy, and Naming correspond to the functions served by extra-grammatical formations, whereas Jocularity, Novelty, Musicality, and Prominence can be seen as effects obtained by their use in specific contexts/domains. 7.2.

Typical contexts and domains

The typical communicative contexts and domains calling for the use of extra-grammatical formations are the following: a) Professional jargons often provide contexts in which a word or phrase is so frequent that a shorter and more efficient form is required to save time. This is the realm of acronyms and initialisms. b) The mass media are also a form of communication in which there is typically a shortage of both time and space. News headlines, television news, and more recent means of communication, such as text messages and e-mail, make use of various types of abbreviation to condense information into smaller units. c) Humorous literature which aims at amusing or impressing its readers tends to use ludic formations, such as blends and sound symbolic words. d) Literature for children (especially nursery rhymes) also abounds in sound symbolic words, as well as in reduplicatives, which are attractive for children for their onomatopoeic character. e) Advertising makes particular use of sound symbolic words and blends, not only in product names, but also in television commercials, which are rich in new formations and attractive occasionalisms.156

216

Extra-grammatical formations in use

f) Cartoons and television series also have the tendency to exploit the power of most types of extra-grammatical formation, in order to attract and entertain their hearers, whether children or adults. In general, the majority of extra-grammatical phenomena tend to occur in colloquial speech. Exceptions are the use of acronyms and initialisms in specialised (technical and scientific) jargons, and the use of creative blends to name pharmaceutical products, chemical substances, or diseases. As we will see, oral language is more frequently affected by clippings, reduplicatives, and infixes than written language, since their immediacy, jocularity, and effectiveness are best expressed in face-to-face interaction, where comprehension is facilitated by the aid of extra-linguistic (e.g. paralinguistic) features. 7.3.

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

The sources that I have chosen for contextualised examples are heterogeneous in nature, and are meant to represent some of the typical contexts and domains in which extra-grammatical formations are preferred to their corresponding full or standard forms. They include the following: a) Television series and films. Sitcoms, such as How I Met your Mother, Friends, and The Simpsons, are representative of the language of young people, who are strongly influenced by the mass media, especially by television series, and often tend to reuse words and expressions that they hear on television to seem more trendy and up-to-date. The comedy-drama film Juno, whose protagonist is a sixteen-year-old high-school girl confronting an unplanned pregnancy, is likewise representative of the language of teenagers. Films like Trainspotting and A Scanner Darkly, whose characters adopt specific slang words, are useful to illustrate the language of restricted groups and minorities (e.g. drug users or drug dealers). Other films, belonging either to the American or to the British cultural tradition, illustrate various extra-grammatical formations in use. b) Magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. The online Celebrity Gossip & Lifestyle Magazine shows the language used in magazines whose targeted readership is the general (especially female) public, interested in celebrity gossips, fashion, beauty, and entertainment. By contrast, scientific journals (Science, Nature) and websites (Medscape Reference) provide an illustra-

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

217

tion of the jargon used in specialised sectors such as science and medicine. Wikipedia is the source for an expository article using specific and technical terminology. Moreover, articles and headlines from newspapers (e.g. Chicago Sun-Times) and BBC news provide an illustration of news jargon. Lastly, an extract from the electronic archive Eur-Lex is used to exemplify the language of the law. c) Blogs and websites. Extracts from blogs and forums show the language of the Internet, whereas the website BBC Learning English provides an interesting example of baby talk, especially useful to show reduplication in child-directed language. d) Literature. An extract from Kipling’s novel Kim as well as an example of a nursery rhyme (Dingly Dangly Scarecrow), and of a fairy story (Chicken Little) are used to exemplify reduplication. e) Musics. Extracts from songs like Destiny’s Child’s Bootylicious and West’s Through the Wire exemplify modern and sometimes ephemeral terminology. f) Conversation. Another useful source is Kemmer’s collection of Neologisms, where new words and occasionalisms are described and contextualised by her students using excerpts from spontaneous conversation. g) Advertising. Advertisements taken from Pennarola (2003) are used to illustrate the novelty and musicality of advertising language. 7.3.1. Clippings Clippings are currently used in many heterogeneous contexts and types of discourse, although they are preferentially found in low informal register and in spoken rather than written language (Fischer 1998: 64). Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1635) remark that “they are deployed only in informal style or even constitute slang when they are first coined” (see also Mattiello 2008a). Clippings are widely used in English varieties; Australian English is particularly rich, especially as regards the suffixed type (Katamba 2009). Many of them are so commonly used that they are highly accessible to anyone. 7.3.1.1. The frequent and constant use of clipped words has largely contributed to the process of their lexicalisation (2.3.5.1). Indeed, “they may wholly or largely displace the original” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1635), losing

218

Extra-grammatical formations in use

“their in-group flavor” (Plag 2003: 121). Below is a series of extracts from dialogues in which no disambiguation is necessary: (1)

Waitress: Can I get you some coffee? Monica: (pointing at Rachel) De-caff. (Friends, Season 1, Episode 1, 1994)

(2)

Ted: Congrats buddy. Marshall: Thanks. It’s kinda weird hugging with porn on. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 6, 2007)

(3)

Robin: Actually it didn’t end at all. I started getting bummed out, so I came here. It’s what I do. When my grandma died, I got a perm. Lily: Ooh, two tragedies in one day. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 4, 2006)

(4)

Barney: Oh, dude, if they’re selling condos you gotta get me in. And don’t give me the shaft. Marshall: Yeah you did. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 4, 2006)

(5)

Leah: Well, maybe you could look at one of those adoption ads. I see them all the time in the Penny Saver. Juno: There are ads? For parents? Leah: Oh yeah! ‘Desperately Seeking Spawn’. They’re right by the ads for like, iguanas and terriers and used fitness equipment. It’s totally legit. (Juno, 2007)

(6)

Juno: Wicked pic in the Penny Saver, by the way. Super classy. Not like those other people with the fake woods in the background. Like I’m really going to fall for that, you know? (Juno, 2007)

(7)

William: Yeah. Brilliant, thanks. Honey: I’ll see you tonight. Hi, Marty… Oh, sexy cardi. (Notting Hill, 1999)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

219

(8)

Robin: What’s the matter with you? I’m his girlfriend and I’m not even trying that hard. Way to wreck the curve, kiss-ass. Barney: Robin, I’m his best friend. That’s a commitment. Girlfriend, that’s like a bad flu, out of your system after a couple of weeks in bed. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 3, 2006)

(9)

Juno (V.O.): The funny thing is that Steve Rendazo secretly wants me. Jocks like him always want freaky girls. Girls with horn-rimmed glasses and vegan footwear and Goth makeup. Girls who play the cello and wear Converse All-Stars and want to be children’s librarians when they grow up. Oh yeah, jocks eat that shit up. (Juno, 2007)

Because of a preference for the word beginning over the end or other less salient parts, back-clippings largely prevail over fore-clippings (cello ‘violoncello’), and edge-clippings (flu ‘influenza’). On the basis of this preference, it is possible to predict new outputs or to exclude some patterns of formation. Consider the three different clippings from the same base – the personal name Victoria – in (10): (10) Lily: OK, let’s not lose hope. We’ll call the hotel, maybe she was staying there. We’ll have them check the registry for anyone named Victoria. Or maybe she goes by Vicky or Toria… Marshall: Or Ictor. Probably doesn’t go by Ictor. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 12, 2005) Here, the hypothesis of an edge-clipping (Ictor) is in fact rejected by the second speaker, because of its opaqueness and the difficult recoverability of the base, whereas the back-clipping Vicky or the fore-clipping Toria are considered more natural choices on the parameter of transparency (2.2.1). Another aspect of the lexicalisation of clippings is their use in complex words. Compare, in (11) and (12) below, the use of porn in isolation and as part of a clipped compound: (11) Barney: While guys like Ted and Marshall may hide their porn… Lily: Marshall doesn’t have porn.

220

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Barney: (laughs) That’s sweet. While guys like Ted and Marshall may hide their porn, I have mine professionally lit. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) (12) Barney: Ted, Ted, Ted, guy in a hat, three stripes. Ladies and gentleman, I give you Ted Mosby, porn star. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 6, 2007) The back-clipping porn, as observed by Jamet (2009: 20–21), has gained the status of a genuine lexical item. This is the reason why the compound pornography star, full form of porn star, would sound abnormal in common speech. Some clippings even act as bases in inflection and derivation, as a further evidence of their word status: (13) Ted: We were bros! These swords represent our bro-hood. And you took ’em down to make room for your fiancé’s stupid painting? Marshall: My fiancé… suddenly, she’s my fiancé. (Marshall picks up other sword) Marshall: Lily’s a part of who I am. And if you’re such a bro, she’s a part of who you are too. She’s a bro by extension. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 8, 2005) The back-clipping bro, from brother, is so widely used and understood today that, like any other word which is part of the lexicon, it can take a plural suffix, bro-s, and become the base for an abstract noun bro-hood (cf. brotherhood). 7.3.1.2. The primary functions of clipping are to establish or reinforce informality and social closeness. Clipping normally involves an informal register and contributes to the regulation of social relationships. In speech act terms, clipped words have a fundamental role in the modulation of the illocutionary force of a speech act. In particular, they appear to have a mitigatory function (Bazzanella, Caffi, and Sbisà 1991; Caffi 2001) of the unwelcome effects that an act such as an order, a request, a criticism, or the announcement of bad news may have on the addressee. Below is an example of a mitigated request:

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

221

(14) Ted: Uh, listen, can I speak to you outside for a sec? Mr. Mosby: Sure. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 3, 2006) The abbreviated form of the word second iconically represents in (14) a shortened lapse of time, and a reduced risk to obtain a dispreferred answer (i.e. a refusal) from the hearer. Analogously, the assertive speech act in (15) below takes the form of a mitigated criticism thanks to clipping devices: (15) Rachel: He’s so cute! And he seems to like you so much. Phoebe: I know, I know. So sweet… and so complicated. And for a shrink, he’s not too shrinky, y’know? (Friends, Season 1, Episode 13, 1994) The shortened word shrink, originally from headshrinker and used as a slang word to refer to ‘a psychiatrist’ (OED2), is here iconic of a reduced distance between the speaker and her referent. The clipped word is even jocularly used as the base of adjective-forming -y suffixation (shrink-y), as a further confirmation of the non-serious attitude of the speaker (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1994) and of the jocular effects she intends to achieve. The immediacy of clipped words makes them a favourite choice in familiar contexts, especially to mark an intimate or close relationship between the interactants. The familiarising use of this process is often confirmed by the addition of a suffix, predominantly -ie/-y: (16) Bridget: Am suddenly hard-headed journalist ruthlessly committed to promoting justice and liberty. Nothing can distract me from my dedication… to the pursuit of truth. Well, almost nothing. Right. I’ll just pop to the shop for some ciggies. (Bridget Jones’s Diary, 2001) (17) Gaz: … Even go and see a footie game. Nathan: Yeah? Gaz: Yeah… Sunday League going down the park. That’s got some right good players. (The Full Monty, 1997) (18) Barney: What are you gonna do tonight?

222

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Lily: Oh, I was just gonna watch Letterman, but God, this bed is so comfy. I wish you had a TV in here. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) (19) Ted: So, what brings you guys to Philly [Philadelphia]? Brunette Girl: We’re visiting our boyfriends. Blonde Girl: I think Chris is going to propose this weekend. Brunette Girl: Isn’t that great? Ted: So great. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 3, 2005) The clippings in (16)–(19) share a common function, specifically, they “express familiarity with the denotation of the derivative” (Plag 2003: 121). The suffix -o is also frequently used with clipped bases, as in (20) below: (20) Juno: I remain unconvinced. Rollo: This is your third test today, Mama Bear. Your eggo is preggo [pregnant], no doubt about it! (Juno, 2007) where pregg-o is jocularly combined with egg-o to obtain a musical effect. Yet there are also clippings naturally ending in o, in which the latter is not a suffix. The following are some examples: (21) Marshall: It’s all the information your spouse might need all in one convenient location. Lily: Yeah, account info, important addresses, a letter to the other person, all that stuff. I’ll get the next round. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 2, 2007) (22) Juno: Well, you don’t just invite a random pregnant teenager into your house and leave her unsupervised. I could be a total klepto [kleptomaniac], for all you know. Mark: I don’t get a klepto vibe from you. Evil genius? Maybe. Arsonist? Wouldn’t rule it out. (Juno, 2007) (23) Juno: Your guitar is named ‘Kimber’? Mark: Yeah.

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

223

Juno: That’s all right. My axe is named Roosevelt. After Franklin, not Ted. Franklin was the hot one with the polio. (Juno, 2007) (24) Bleeker: (meekly) We’re getting a stretch limo. Juno: Your mom must be really glad you’re not taking me. (Juno, 2007) (25) Lily: Six cups of mayonnaise? That can’t be right. Mrs. Ericksen: Oh no, dear, sixteen cups. (Mrs. Ericksen places a large glass cylinder next to Lily) Mrs. Ericksen: Mayo’s in that cabinet. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 9, 2005) There is no specific function or effect associated with an o ending, but familiarity, informality, and social closeness are certainly increased by the use of the clipped words in (21)–(25), and a jocular effect is favoured by the choice of klepto in (22). The function of social closeness is especially evident in euphemistic clippings, normally used to disguise taboo or offensive words. Terms related to sex and sexual body parts are often replaced by an abbreviated variant, which may appear less direct or less insulting than the standard form. (26) Leah: Oh, gruesome. I wonder if the baby’s claws could scratch your vag [vagina] on the way out? Juno: I’m staying pregnant, Le. Leah: Keep your voice down dude, my mom’s around here somewhere. She doesn’t know we’re sexually active. Juno: What does that even mean? Anyway, I got to thinking on the way over. I was thinking maybe I could give the baby to somebody who actually likes that kind of thing. You know, like a woman with a bum ovary or something. Or some nice lesbos [lesbians]. (Juno, 2007) (27) Ellen: How do you think I feel? I have a 100% success rate. It’s my hook. I could probably find somebody for you if you were gay. Ted: Well, I’m not. Ellen: A little bi [bisexual] maybe? (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 7, 2005)

224

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Many clippings are specific terms which are used to establish or maintain cohesion within a social group, as among students or young people: (28) Juno: Well! Nothing like experimenting. Bleeker: I did the prep [preparatory] questions for this lab last night. You can copy my answers if you need to. (Juno, 2007) (29) (Rachel starts to load her clothes) Ross: Rach, do you uh, are you gonna separate those? Rachel: Oh god. Oh, am I being like a total laundry spaz [spastic]? I mean, am I supposed to use like one machine for shirts and another machine for pants? (Friends, Season 1, Episode 5, 1994) As Marchand (1969: 447) observes, clippings “originate as terms of a special group, in the intimacy of a milieu where a hint is sufficient to indicate the whole”. Thus, prep and lab clearly originated as school slang (Marchand 1969: 447), although they are accessible today also to outsiders. The use of the hypocoristic Rach (from Rachel) in (29) helps increase social proximity between the interactants. The colloquial or slangy use of the terms hash (from hashish) in (30) and coke (from cocaine) in (31) is more specific, almost technical, among insiders, i.e. drug addicts: (30) Diane: Calm down, I’m just asking. Is that hash I can smell? Renton: No. Diane: I wouldn’t mind a bit, if it is. (Trainspotting, 1996) (31) Jim: Donna does coke, all right? Charles: Three dollars doesn’t get you a line of coke. (A Skanner Darkly, 2006) With regard to communicative effects, besides the jocularity observed in (15), (20) and (22), I would like to draw attention to the prominence effect achieved by clipped words in headlines such as (32) and (33), respectively from a gossip magazine and a scientific journal on the Web:

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

225

(32) Celebs [celebrities] Increase Cocaine Use in Women (Celebrity Gossip & Lifestyle Magazine, article title, 11 June, 2009) (33) Melanoma Drug Combo [combination] Shows Promise in Early Trial (Science, article title, 4 June, 2011) Regardless of the different readerships they target, both celebs and combo produce the effect of attracting, intriguing and encouraging readers to discover the content of the article. In the websites of specialised journals like Science, this effect is connected with the popularisation process that new genres of scientific discourse are undergoing, as a consequence both of technological advances and of the need to attract a larger (including non-expert) readership (Mattiello forth.). 7.3.2. Acronyms and initialisms Acronyms and initialisms are as common as clippings in informal contexts and spontaneous conversation. However, they often acquire a scientific and technical flavour, which makes them suitable for written or formal language and more specialised discourse. 7.3.2.1. Some acronyms have lost their connection with the original phrase they stand for. Laser and radar, for instance, are now fully lexicalised, as the examples below illustrate: (34) Lasers, the key to optical communications, data storage, and a host of other modern technology, are usually made from inanimate solids, liquids, or gases. Now, a pair of scientists have developed what could be the world’s first biological laser. Built into a single cell, the laser might one day be used for light-based therapeutics, perhaps killing cancer cells deep inside the body. (“A cell becomes a laser”, Science, 12 June, 2011) (35) Marine radars are used to measure the bearing and distance of ships to prevent collision with other ships, to navigate and to fix their position at sea when within range of shore or other fixed references such as islands, buoys, and lightships. In port or in harbour,

226

Extra-grammatical formations in use

vessel traffic service radar systems are used to monitor and regulate ship movements in busy waters. Police forces use radar guns to monitor vehicle speeds on the roads. (“Radar”, Wikipedia, last modified 23 June, 2011) Analogously, the initialisms VCR and DIY are now profusely used and amply recognised, as demonstrated by the extracts below (though VCR may not survive long since it represents a largely superseded form of technology): (36) Sally: Is that Jess on the phone? Jess: It’s Jane Fonda on the VCR. (When Harry Met Sally, 1989) (37) Dave: I didn’t go on the nick in Asda for some chuffin’ women’s DIY video. Gaz: It’s ‘Flashdance’, Dave. She’s a welder, isn’t she? (The Full Monty, 1997) However, not all alphabetisms are well-established and commonly accepted. Some are ephemeral, created on the spot, and highly idiosyncratic: (38) Lily: But the best part of SF, oh, that’s what we call San Francisco. The people! Even just riding around on the bus all summer, it was like a human tapestry. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 2, 2006) In (38), SF requires immediate clarification. In other cases, by contrast, the referent is made clear from the immediately preceding co-text, as in (39): (39) Robin: Quick announcement. I am so glad that you’re here, fellow travelers. A couple of rules, not even rules, let’s call them guidelines for harmonious living. Guideline for harmonious living number one, the kitchen sink is for dishes, the toilet is for pee-pee. GFHL number two, marijuana is illegal in the United States, even when baked into a blueberry muffin that someone might mistakenly eat for breakfast right before they leave for their job as a TV newscaster. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 2, 2007)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

227

Here, GFHL helps avoid repetition of the full phrase guideline for harmonious living. Because they do not have to conform to reading rules, initialisms have a higher distribution than acronyms, as the following two sections will confirm. 7.3.2.2. Among the principles (1)–(8) identified in 7.1, the functions of establishing informality and social or professional closeness, as well as the economy and naming principles, are all met by acronyms. By way of illustration, consider examples (40)–(42) below: (40) Juno: You should be happy, Holmes. I’m giving you and Vanessa the gift of life. Sweet, screaming, pooping life! And you don’t even have to be there when the baby comes out of me all covered in… Mark: Viscera? Juno: Blood and guts. Mark: We’d better get back downstairs ASAP [As Soon As Possible]. (Juno, 2007) (41) Lisa: Listen to this one. ‘Seeking sensitive WASP [White AngloSaxon Protestant] doctor to share candlelit dinners… long walks in Coconut Grove, marriage…?’ Brenda: What is she looking for, a corpse? (There’s Something about Mary, 1998) (42) The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) in Caen, France, which lobbies for stricter controls over genetic engineering, is particularly upset because in the experiments the students modify the bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin. Gilles-Eric Séralini, president of the organization’s scientific committee, says that CRIIGEN is in favour of genetic engineering, as long as it is properly controlled. But the necessary restrictions are not currently in place, he says. (“Transgenic bacterium sparks row in French schools”, Nature, 31 January, 2011)

228

Extra-grammatical formations in use

These examples illustrate the use of acronyms in three different situational contexts: namely an informal conversation, an announcement in a newspaper, and an extract from an article taken from a scientific journal. Both informality and social closeness are illustrated by the use of ASAP, whose abbreviated form is indexical to the meaning. The linguistic economy which is typical of newspapers is shown by the acronym WASP, which is particularly appropriate to the immediacy required in announcements. Lastly, the naming function is well served by the elliptic acronym CRIIGEN, which is given in brackets immediately after the full phrase in (42), but later reused in the text to refer anaphorically to the same entity. Thus, this acronym is not perceived as well-established, but as an attempt to find an identifying label for the Committee. Other acronyms obeying both the principle of economy and that of naming are more established. This is the case of POTUS, which is included in OED3 as a label for the ‘President of The United States’ and frequently found in journalistic terminology: (43) Love was in the air at the White House tonight, as the President and First Lady hosted a concert to honor Stevie Wonder, a man whose music they said brought them together. FLOTUS opened the event, and explained that she grew up listening to Stevie Wonder’s music with her grandfather. … We returned to the room in time for POTUS to present the Gershwin award. … (“Stevie Wonder honored at the White House… Obamas’ huge fans”, Chicago Sun-Times, 25 February, 2009) As (43) shows, in the news jargon this acronym has jocularly attracted the analogous formation FLOTUS, used for the ‘First Lady’ (see Analogy in 2.3.6.2 and 3.2.4). The effects obtained by these formations are therefore threefold: first, they impress the reader because of their originality; second, they amuse him because they are playful and out of the ordinary; and, third, they catch his attention by giving prominence through the use of capitalisation. The novelty of acronyms is also illustrated by the following extract: (44) Freshman guy: Dude! That chick – is a MILF! Freshman guy #2: What the hell is that?

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

229

Freshman guy: M-I-L-F! Mom I’d Like to Fuck! (American Pie, 1999) Here, the acronym requires disambiguation by the first speaker. Notice that, for the sake of clarity, the second time the acronym is spelt out letter by letter, as an initialism. 7.3.2.3. Initialisms are likewise versatile in terms of both functions and effects. Below are three different situational contexts which exploit this abbreviatory process: (45) Robin: … I haven’t shaved my legs. I’ve begun a strict no-shave policy for the first three dates. It’s all about self-control. If I don’t shave, I must behave. Barney: FYI [For Your Information], it doesn’t matter, baby. Guys just wanna get on the green. They don’t mind going through the rough. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 3, 2007) (46) GPs Need To Understand That There’s More To Depression (Celebrity Gossip & Lifestyle Magazine, article title, 19 April, 2011) (47) The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said no E. coli cases had been reported in the UK. (“British seed firm ‘linked to French E. coli outbreak’”, BBC, 25 June, 2011) In (45), the initialism FYI is used to lower the level of discourse to informal register and to increase social closeness. The same is true of GPs in (46), which has now superseded the full form ‘General Practitioner(s)’, whereas FSA in (47) has a naming function (see the clipping E. coli, from Escherichia coli, for the same function, Mattiello forth.). The naming function, however, seems to prevail over the others when the interactants share knowledge about the referent, as in (48) and (49) below: (48) Marshall: I got the job at the NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council].

230

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Ted: You got the job! (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 6, 2007) (49) Ted: Hello. Larry: Hi, I’m looking for Ted Mosby. It’s Larry Ross from AVW. Ted: My God, AVW. (Ted covers phone and whispers to Lily and Marshall) Ted: It’s Architecture Vision Weekly. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 6, 2007) Specialised languages also have recourse to initialisms in order to increase professional closeness among people who belong to the same group, and to use an unambiguous specific terminology. GDP, for instance, is frequently used in the language of economics: (50) The government’s no longer confident that its GDP [Gross Domestic Product] target will be met at the end of the year. (“China deficit biggest in decades”, BBC, 06 March, 2009) whereas CFI is part of legal vocabulary: (51) Also, since 1 December 2009, the Court of First Instance (CFI) is named the General Court. However, the term CFI has been maintained in the present Communication for those judgments taken before that date. (Report from the Commission – Report on Competition Policy 2009, Eur-Lex, 03 June, 2010) HVAC, instead, belongs to technical terminology, although it is used by a non-specialist in (52): (52) Juno (V.O.): My dad used to be in the Army, but now he’s just your average HVAC [Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning] specialist. He and my mom got divorced when I was five. (Juno, 2007) In police slang, the use of cryptic, secret initialisms serves both to establish group membership and to maintain in-group cohesion:

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

231

(53) Harry: This guy has no MO [Modus Operandi]. A bomber falls in love with one kind of bomb and they’re very monogamous. This guy uses C-four, dynamite, different trigger every time, and now he throws in this watch. Robin: He’s an encyclopaedia of bombs. He knows every kind. (Speed, 1994) With regard to communicative effects, novelty and jocularity are both present in colloquial contexts: (54) Lily: Marshall just ditched out on our own party. Can you get me in there? I kinda need to kill him. Robin: Actually I can’t even get myself in. (Lily sits down next to Robin) Robin: I’m such a dork. I get recognized one time and I start thinking I’m Julia Roberts. I’m no VIP. I’m not even an IP. I’m just a lowly little P sitting out here in the gutter. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 5, 2005) This may be contrasted with formal contexts, as in (51) above, where the primary effect is that of laying emphasis on significant entities or concepts. In newspaper articles, initialisms may be either anaphoric or cataphoric with respect to the entire phrase they refer to. In headlines, they are generally cataphoric (anticipatory) references, as in: (55) SNP advocates independent Scotland The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, has long advocated independence but is also realistic. (BBC, 15 August, 2007) Within texts, on the other hand, initialisms are normally anaphoric references to a previously encountered phrase, as in: (56) The catches are authorised by the International Whaling Commission. Japan has reason to be bolder this year. At last year’s IWC meeting, it persuaded a majority of other nations to make a symbolic show of support for an eventual lifting of the ban on commercial whaling. (“Japanese begin annual whale hunt”, BBC, 13 December, 2006)

232

Extra-grammatical formations in use

7.3.3. Blends Lexical blends are generally used in informal contexts and oral language, with the exception of some words that are specifically formed to define chemical or pharmaceutical products. As Bertinetto (2001: 62–63) observes, they “are particularly frequent in specific domains, like humour, advertising, and denomination of enterprises or new products (particularly those involving a mixture of two substances or objects or individuals)”. Some blends, however, do not belong to specific domains, but to ordinary language. 7.3.3.1. Examples of blends abound in film dialogues as well as in songs: (57) Juno: Yes, hello, I need to procure a hasty abortion?… What was that? I’m sorry, I’m on my hamburger phone and it’s kind of awkward to talk on. It’s really more of a novelty than a functional appliance. (She smacks the phone a couple of times) Better? Okay, good. Yeah, as I said, I need an abortion, two… sixteen… Um, it was approximately two months and four days ago that I had the sex. That’s a guestimate. Okay, next Saturday? Great. (Juno, 2007) (58) Waiter: Can I get you something? Kathleen: No, no. He’s not staying. Joe: Mochaccino, decaf, non-fat. (You’ve Got Mail, 1998) (59) I don’t think you’re ready for this ’cause my body’s too bootylicious for ya babe (Destiny’s Child, Bootylicious, 2001) Some blends are so repeatedly used that they have become lexicalised. Smog and brunch, for instance, circulate internationally. The following extract includes examples of the use of brunch: (60) Marshall: Why can’t two guys who are friends go to brunch? Ted: Because brunch is kind of… Robin: Girlie.

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

233

Marshall: Girlie? Breakfast isn’t girlie. Lunch isn’t girlie. What makes brunch girlie? (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) Furthermore, brunch behaves like any other lexeme and is regularly pluralised: (61) Marshall: You know what? You two are just threatened because I’m a single guy moving on your couples turf. Well, guess what, it’s my territory now. I’m peeing all over brunches, fancy dinners and musicals. That’s right, Brad and I are taking back Broadway. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) Some blends are even formed after clipping (see infotainment in the Introduction). For instance, the clipping bro, lexicalised from brother (see 7.3.1.1), is a splinter in the following blends: (62) Barney: Ted, you’re my bro. And you’re about to become a henpecked, beaten-down shell of a man. So tonight, we are going to have one last awesome night together as bros. It’s a bro-ing away party [bro + going-away party]. A special bro-ccasion. A bro-choice rally. Brotime at the Apollo! (Barney Stinson’s blog) (63) Brad: I have two tickets for Mamma Mia Friday night. You like Abba, right? What am I saying, who doesn’t? Anyway, I was gonna take Kara but now, it’s all you and me. We’re gonna do Broadway, bro-style. What do you say? Marshall: Yeah! (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) Needless to say, some blends are fairly ephemeral. Humorous conversation is especially creative in the formation of new blends, as shown by the following excerpts: (64) Lieutenant: Hey, I’m just doing my job. You gimme that ‘juris-mydick-tion’ crap… and you can cram it up your ass! Agent Smith: The orders were for your protection. (The Matrix, 1999)

234

Extra-grammatical formations in use

(65) Lily: You’re gonna go play hockey? (Mr. Ericksen tosses a basketball to Marcus) Lily: With a basketball? Mr. Ericksen: Well, it’s a combination of the two. We call it baskiceball. … Lily: Baskiceball? Not iceketball? Mr. Ericksen: Iceketball? Just sounds weird. Ericksens: Yeah. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 9, 2005) (66) Barney: So did you get a good look at it? Lily: Yeah. It has six legs, a hard exoskeleton like a roach… Marshall: But it has mouse-like characteristics. Grey-brown tufts of fur, a tail. Robin: So which is it, a cockroach or a mouse? Lily: It’s a cockamouse. Robin: What? Lily: It’s some sort of mutant combination of the two. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 7, 2005) (67) Ted: Is that a toilet in your kitchen? Robin: Or a stove in your bathroom? Lily: Oh, that’s not just a stove. That’s a stoveinkerator. A combination of stove, oven, sink and refrigerator. Stoveinkerator. Isn’t that futurist? Ted: God, I hope not. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 5, 2006) (68) Barney: The Thankstini. A fun and delicious new novelty drink I invented. Cranberry juice, potato vodka and a bouillon cube. Tastes just like a turkey dinner. (Barney puts bouillon cube in each of their drinks, Marshall drinks his Thankstini) Marshall: It’s like Thanksgiving in my mouth. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 9, 2005) In spite of their ephemerality, some of these formations are transparent. For instance, the intercalative juris-my-dick-tion in (64) does not involve any truncation, but a mere insertion of a short phrase within a word at a point

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

235

where the two overlap. Baskiceball in (65) is likewise intercalative, but the two components do not overlap. However, they are easily recoverable, because the deleted middle part is the least salient in a word. Cockamouse in (66) comes immediately after the mention of its components, whereas stoveinkerator in (67) cataphorically anticipates them. Thankstini in (68) is also quite transparent, not only by the aid of the co-text, but also thanks to a stable blend (vodkatini), by analogy with which it has been formed (4.2.4). 7.3.3.2. Cacchiani (2007: 103) observes that blends “can be created for all kinds of purposes”: e.g., 1) to name new communities (netizen), products (courseware ← course + software), concepts (coopetition ← cooperation + competition), etc., 2) to express mental states like sarcasm or disapproval (bridezilla for ‘a bossy bride’), or 3) just for fun (airogance ← air + arrogance). The above-mentioned data shows that, with the exception of lexicalised examples like brunch, the prevailing functions of blending are informality and social closeness. For instance, blends are used to downgrade the tone in a conversation, normally signalling a familiar attitude towards the hearer. The following extracts illustrate this aspect: (69) Brad: Damn, zucchini bread is ridonculous [ridiculous + tonk ‘especially amazing, big’]. Marshall: This isn’t weird, right? (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) (70) Brad: It gets better. The foliage in Vermont this time of year is ridonk. Marshall: Vermont? (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 6, 2006) Both the total blend ridonk and the intecalative ridonculous, from the same bases, indicate that the intention of the speaker is to reduce the level of discourse to informal speech. Below are three further instances, taken from Kemmer’s database, which serve this same function: (71) The car doors lock automagically [automatically + magic] when you go over a certain speed. (Neologisms, Conversation, 10 September, 2003)

236

Extra-grammatical formations in use

(72) Some people have beerios [beer + cheerios, ‘cereals topped with beer instead of milk’] for breakfast the morning of Beer Bike. (Neologisms, Conversation, 24 October, 2003) (73) I’m so confuzzled [confused + puzzled]. Where are we? (Neologisms, Conversation, 10 September, 2003) The economy and naming principles are more rarely met by blends, and only in specific domains. For instance, scientific discourse may exploit the blending mechanism to form new words which iconically represent the fusion of two (branches of) sciences, products, ingredients, etc. In the following medical article, the naming function is clearly carried out by the new blend cosmeceuticals: (74) Cosmeceuticals represent a marriage between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. (Medscape Reference: Drugs, Diseases and Procedures, 02 May, 2011) As for effects, blending tends to generate jocularity and to convey the idea of novelty. Most blends are playful anomalous formations which impress the hearer, especially when they are fresh, original and not previously attested, as in (75)–(78) below: (75) (Lindsay, Ted, Barney and Colleen sitting in booth) Colleen: This is our favorite restaurant in the city. Ted: Yes, I’m sure it’s the best of their 57 ‘spudtacular’ [spud + spectacular] East Coast locations. Lindsay: I’m gonna run to the restroom. Colleen: I’m gonna go too. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 2, 2007) (76) So I run 3 miles around the loop. After doing that in a disgustingly craptacular [crap + spectacular, ‘annoyingly bad, unpleasant’] time, I run another half mile to Chipotle… (Neologisms, Conversation, 17 November, 2003)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

237

(77) Sherman: She’s around. Seems that she’s taken a liking to me. Fellas, it’s time that she experienced – The Sherminator [Sherman + Terminator]. Kevin: Yeah, okay Sherman, whatever. Sherman: I’m a sophisticated sex robot, sent back through time… to change the future for one lucky lady. (American Pie, 1999) (78) Ross: No, no, NO, you cannot go to dinner with him. Rachel: What? You don’t want me to get a job? Ross: Oh yeah, I’m sure he’s gonna give you a job. Maybe make you his SEXretary [sex + secretary]. (Friends, Season 10, Episode 14, 2004) Most of these formations exploit the similarity between the source words to obtain humorous effects, as in sexretary, playing on the phonemic/graphemic resemblance between sex and sec, or in spudtacular, with a similarity between spud and spec (Mattiello 2008a; Greis forth.). As Lehrer (2007: 116) observes, “when a word-formation device like blending becomes common, other speakers and writers create similar forms by analogy simply because it is fashionable to do so; they want to show that they, too, are trendy, creative, and cool”. Analogy, as we have seen in 4.2.4, is the primary criterion of well-formedness for blends, as well as for other extra-grammatical formations. Yet blends are also creative and novel. In advertising and journalistic terminology, novel blends even acquire a certain prominence with respect to their co-texts. This is the effect created by crunk, which is capitalised in the forum below so as to be more eyecatching: (79) Come get your party on and get CRUNK [crazy + drunk] with The Ying Yang Twins Saturday, JUNE 11th at The Crunk Summer KickOff Party!!! (PartyUtah (edm) Forum, 11 June, 2011) Similarly, in the following extract from Time magazine, Governator (referring to ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger’) acquires further prominence through the alliteration with al-Gaiyar:

238

Extra-grammatical formations in use

(80) Here’s a look at how al-Gaiyar and the Governator [governor + Terminator] matched up over the years. (Neologisms, Time, 29 October, 2003) 7.3.4. Reduplicatives Reduplicative words are normally not used in formal circumstances, in that the register they select is unofficial, colloquial language. They are predominant in child-centred speech, especially in early language acquisition (premorphology), when small children have no knowledge or perception of morphological structures and rules. 7.3.4.1. Compared to the previous formations, reduplicative words are more rarely lexicalised, although many are accessible to most speakers. Some examples of lexicalised reduplicatives may be seen in the following extracts: (81) ‘You’re a consolin’ little imp. Lie down between the Drums an’ go to bye-bye. Those two boys will watch your slumbers. (Kim, R. Kipling, Chap. 5) (82) Few, though, realise that the itsy-bitsy two-piece was one of France’s main gifts to the fashion world – invented by a French car engineer, Louis Reard, who clearly understood the laws both of gravity and aerodynamics. (“Bikini anniversary”, BBC, 05 July, 2006) (83) Genetic studies of fossil and modern bears have revealed some hanky-panky 45,000 years ago, when polar bears interbred with now-extinct Irish brown bears. (“Polar Bears Rooted in Ireland”, Science, 07 July, 2011) (84) Hibbert: Homer, I’m afraid you’ll have to undergo a coronary bypass operation. Homer: Say it in English, Doc. Hibbert: You’re going to need open heart surgery. Homer: Spare me your medical mumbo-jumbo. (The Simpsons, Season 4, Episode 9, 1992)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

239

(85) Angel Guy: Whoa, I wouldn’t do that if I were you. There’s people walking down there. Barney: Come on, Ted, who are you going to listen to? Me or Mr. Goody-goody over there. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 6, 2005) (86) Phoebe: Where are you going, Mr. Suity-Man? Chandler: Well, I have an appointment to see Dr. Robert Pillman, career counsellor a go-go. (Pause) I added the ‘a go-go’. Rachel: Career counsellor? Chandler: Hey, you guys all know what you want to do. (Friends, Season 1, Episode 15, 1994) Interestingly, the second extract is from a BBC article,157 and the third one is from the scientific journal Science. This signals that the reduplicatives itsy-bitsy and hanky-panky are widely recognised and, in spite of their colloquial flavour, exploited also in written language and formal contexts. On the other hand, some reduplicative expressions do not have a very long history, and may be formed spontaneously, for instance, to disguise taboo words. This is the case with the interjection in (87), from the phrase shit a brick: (87) William: Oh. Well, great. Fantastic. That’s er… Oh… shittity brickitty. It’s my sister’s birthday. Shit. We’re meant to be having dinner. Anna: Okay, that’s fine. (Notting Hill, 1999) The rhyming elements make this neo-formation close to other rhyming reduplicatives, but the irregular form suggests its ephemeral nature. A less ephemeral case is the slang compound in (88) below, from chick (‘girl’) and flick (‘film’): (88) Rachel: Hi, how was the movie? Monica: Wonderful! Phoebe: So good! Joey: Suck-fest. Chandler: Toootal chick-flick. (Friends, Season 1, Episode 19, 1994)

240

Extra-grammatical formations in use

7.3.4.2. The onomatopoeic character of some reduplicatives makes them a favourite choice in informal contexts. The copy reduplicative blah-blah, for instance, signals the intimate relationship of the interactants: (89) Future Ted (V.O.): Kids, back in the fall of 2007, I was dating this girl named… oh God, what was her name? It’s been 23 years, I can’t remember all this stuff. For the sake of the story, let’s call her… Ted: Everyone, this is Blah-blah. Blah-blah: Please call me Blah. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 5, 2007) The functions of informality and social closeness are equally served by the rhyming reduplicative okey-dokey in (90) (from OK, see also okily dokily in example 114): (90) Morpheus: You have to let it all go Neo. Fear… doubt and disbelief. Free… your mind. Neo: Whoa. Okey-dokey. Free my mind. (The Matrix, 1999) and by wee-wees and hoo-hoos, referring to ‘male’ and ‘female sexual organs’, in (91): (91) Monica: Thank you so much for seeing us. Phoebe has told us such great things about you guys. Colleen: Oh, please, we’re happy to help. Bill: We went through the same thing when we were adopting. Chandler: So, a lot of malfunctioning wee-wees and hoo-hoos in this room, huh? (Friends, Season 10, Episode 2, 2004) In child-centred speech, apophonic, exact and less prototypical types of echo-words signal the close, intimate relationship between parents and their children: (92) Father: Come on Alex, beddy-byes! Beddy-byes! Have you got your teddy? Put on your jim-jams. Put on your jim-jams – that’s it! On they go. Jump into bed, then. Sleepy time!

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

241

Shall I sing you a song? ‘Twinkle, Twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are’. Night-night! (“Baby talk”, BBC Learning English) Reduplicatives are rarely used to name scientific processes or technical concepts. They may, however, be the source of names for new characters in fairy tales, as in the following extract: (93) They met Foxy Loxy. Goosey Loosey said, “The sky is falling, Foxy Loxy.” “How do you know, Goosey Loosey?” “Ducky Lucky told me.” “How do you know, Ducky Lucky?” “Turkey Lurkey told me.” “How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?” “Henny Penny told me.” “How do you know, Henny Penny?” “Chicken Little told me.” “How do you know, Chicken Little?” “I saw it with my eyes. I heard it with my ears. Some of it fell on my tail.” Foxy Loxy said, “We will run. We will run into my den, and I will tell the king.” (Chicken Little)158 They may also be used in the names of book titles, especially in children’s literature (e.g. Bearum Scarum by Vic Parker, Bling Blang by Woody Guthrie, Crunch Munch by Jonathan London). Reduplicative words are also frequently used as the names of games (e.g. Bubble Bobble), garments (e.g. Criss Cross ‘a bra’), and food products (e.g. Crick Crock ‘crisps’, Happy Hippo ‘a Kinder chocolate’, Chick’n Quick ‘breaded chicken patties produced by Tyson Foods’). In the following example, the speaker uses the name of a brand of mints: (94) Bleeker: Did you put like a hundred things of Tic Tacs in my mailbox? Juno: Yeah. That was me. Bleeker: Why?

242

Extra-grammatical formations in use

Juno: (blushes) Because they’re your fave. And you can never have too much of your favorite one-calorie breath mint. (Juno, 2007) The use of echo-words in jokes has an unavoidably playful effect. The tone is non-serious, ironic or even sarcastic in (95)–(97) below: (95) Barney: This is the easiest date ever. You know what I’m gonna try next? A knock-knock joke. Ted: Somehow we have managed to find the two lamest New Yorkers of all time. … Lindsay: Hey, our friends invited us to a party. You guys wanna come along? Barney: Knock knock. Lindsay: Who’s there? Barney: Yes we do. (How I Met your Mother, Season 3, Episode 2, 2007) (96) Ross: He’s a brilliant diagnostician! Chandler: Diagnostician or boo-boo fixer? Rachel: Ross, seriously! You’ve gotta go to an appropriate doctor. Chandler: Hey, you guys all know what you want to do. (Friends, Season 9, Episode 3, 2003) (97) Bridget: So how do you feel about this whole situation… in Chechnya? Isn’t it a nightmare? Daniel: I couldn’t give a fuck, Jones. Now, look, how do you know Arsey Darcy? Bridget: Apparently, I used to run ’round naked… in his paddling pool. (Bridget Jones’s Diary, 2001) In (96), Chandler laughs at Ross by using a slang reduplicative word originating from boobies (‘a woman’s breast’), whereas in (97) Daniel even laughs at a person named Mark Darcy by coining a derogatory reduplicative, rhyming with arse-y. The use of echo-words in advertising produces a comparably “humorous effect”, as noted by Pennarola (2003: 29) with reference to the following two examples:

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

243

(98) Death by Chocolate is no fwuffy wuffy lickle cakey-wakey full of air and good intentions. (p. 30) (99) If your lipstick is more like lipslip, you need Lipcote. (p. 30) in which baby talk is combined with paronomasia. Reduplicatives may also be seen as original words, renewing the English lexicon: (100) Mac: I’m not ready to be a Pop-Pop. Bren: You’re not going to be a Pop-Pop. And Juno’s not going to be a ma. Somebody else is going to find a precious blessing from Jesus in this garbage dump of a situation. I friggin’ hope. (Juno, 2007) Here Pop-Pop stands for ‘father’ (cf. popsy-wopsy), although only context can help disambiguation. The musicality of these formations is especially evident in the apophonic type: (101) Una: Tick-tock, tick-tock. ‘Hello, Dad’. ‘Hello, darling’. How’s it going? Torture. Dad: Your mother’s trying to fix you up with some divorcee. Uhh. Human-rights barrister. Pretty nasty beast, apparently. Bridget: Hoo. Ding-dong. Maybe this time Mum had got it right. Come on. Why don’t we see if Mark fancies a gherkin? (Bridget Jones’s Diary, 2001) Such reduplicatives are also found in nursery rhymes: (102) I’m a Dingly Dangly Scarecrow. With a flippy floppy hat. I can shake my hands like this. I can shake my feet like that. (Dingly Dangly Scarecrow) Lastly, musicality and prominence are the effects produced by win-win in the headline below:

244

Extra-grammatical formations in use

(103) Reserves ‘win-win’ for fish and fishermen (Nature, article title, 23 February, 2010) 7.3.5. Back-formation, infixation, and phonaesthemes The three phenomena investigated in chapter 6 differ in domains of usage, functions performed, and effects produced. For this reason, I will discuss them individually. 7.3.5.1. Like many other extra-grammatical formations, some back-formed words are now lexicalised. This is the case of the verb baby-sit, of which we can find copious examples: (104) Ted: Look, while we’re away this weekend, you keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn’t call that hotel. Barney: You want me to baby-sit him? $ 20… an hour… and money for pizza. Ted: Uh, yeah, how about you do it for free or every time we hang out we do this. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 1, 2006) However, against Nagano’s (2007: 66) claim that “many back-formed verbs are limited in use to a colloquial style or slang”, back-formation also seems to suit more formal contexts, such as scientific discourse. The following extracts are taken from two famous scientific journals: (105) Building a laser requires two things: a lasing material that amplifies light from an external source (a ‘gain medium’) and an arrangement of mirrors (an ‘optical cavity’), which concentrates and aligns the light waves into a tight beam. … Technologies to make such cavities are emerging, he says, and once they are available they could be used to create a cell that could ‘self lase’ from inside tissue. (“Human cell becomes living laser”, Nature, 12 June, 2011)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

245

(106) To lase, the GFP in the cells needed to be pumped with another laser, one that sends pulses of blue light at a low energy of about 1 nanojoule. (“A cell becomes a laser”, Science, 12 June, 2011) Both journals use the back-formed verb lase (or self lase), from the respective acronym laser, and Nature also uses the corresponding backformed adjective lasing. Yet the overall tone is far from familiar. The main functions are certainly those of economising in language and increasing professional closeness at the same time. To confirm the above assumption that back-formation is not reserved to colloquial contexts, another formal example taken from the BBC shows the use of the verb bulldoze, back-formed from the complex noun bulldozer: (107) Up to 200,000 tons of stinking household trash is being bulldozed by the army and loaded onto cargo ships and freight trains to destinations in various parts of Italy. Local landfills around Naples are all full. (“Italy in rubbish crisis”, BBC, 16 January, 2008) I would not deny, however, that back-formation is predominantly used in informal language, to establish social bonds and to produce humorous effects. Below is an excerpt from a conversation which corroborates this viewpoint: (108) Robin: Oh, you are gonna love Kelly. She’s fun, she’s smart, she lives in the moment. Barney: Translation: She’s ugly, she’s ugly, she ugs in the ugly. Robin: Oh, and she’s totally hot. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 5, 2005) The verb ug(s) has been coined to create a parallelism with the previous sentence. Interestingly, the supposed suffix -ly is deleted from an adjective to form a verb, whereas in regular derivation it is normally attached to a nominal base (e.g. noun friend → adjective friendly), and even more commonly added to an adjective base to form an adverb (e.g. adjective sad → adverb sadly).

246

Extra-grammatical formations in use

A comparable jocular effect may be produced by conversion, but the regularity of the latter process makes it more predictable and therefore less striking. Compare (108) with (109) below: (109) Ted: She said it’d take three days. It’s been five days. Should I be worried? Lily: Oh, just play it cool. Don’t Ted out about it. Ted: Did you just use my name as a verb? Barney: Oh, yeah, we do that behind your back. Ted-out: to overthink. Also see Ted-up. Ted-up: to overthink something with disastrous results. Sample sentence: Billy Tedded up when… Ted: OK, I get it. Don’t worry, I’m not gonna ted anything up or out. I’ll just give it a few more days. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 7, 2005) Here a phrasal verb (Ted-out/up) is converted from a personal name, but the effect is less comical than the one obtained through back-formation. 7.3.5.2. Infixation qualifies as an expressive phenomenon because the various types of infixes are all said to produce an emotive effect. For instance, according to McMillan (1980), expletives do not add lexical meaning to their matrices, but an “emotive intensity” (p. 167). They are viewed as intensifiers which signal the speaker’s emotions (e.g. vehemence, (dis)approval, playfulness, irritation) through a marked construction interrupting a base. The use of expletive infixation certainly selects an informal register and contributes to strengthen social connections, as in (110) and (111) below: (110) Ted: Look. Here’s why I should get the place. You and Lily, you get to be married. What do I get, right? I get to be unmarried, alone, minus two roommates. And on top of that I could be homeless. Does that seem fair? Marshall: Oh, boo-freakin-hoo. Ted: What? (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 8, 2005)

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

247

(111) Begbie: Picture the scene. Wednesday morning in the Volley. Me and Tommy are playing pool. No problems, and I’m playing like Paul fucking Newman by the way. … (Trainspotting, 1996) Furthermore, infixation brings in a tinge of novelty and jocularity, especially when it is spontaneous and highly idiosyncratic, as in the following cases: (112) Girl: Jerk! That was fun. Barney: De-wait for it-nied! Denied. Ted: We’re going out tomorrow night. (How I Met your Mother, Season 1, Episode 1, 2005) (113) Barney: Fine, do you want to know what Robin’s secret is? Ted: You know? Barney: Of course I know. She couldn’t look at us. Her face got flushed. That’s shame. Our friend, Robin, used to do porn-wait for it-ography. (How I Met your Mother, Season 2, Episode 9, 2006) (114) Ned: Hi-diddly-ho, neighbor! Homer: Get lost, Flanders. Ned: Okily dokily. (The Simpsons, Season 5, Episode 16, 1993) (115) Ned: I wish there was some other explanation for this, but there isn’t. I’m a murderer, I’m a murderer! Bart: Then that’s not the real Ned Flanders. Ned: (yelling) I’m a mur-diddly-urderer! (The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 1, 1994) Although it is not meaning-bearing (Viau 2002), infixation in English is useful for pragmatic purposes. This explains why it is restricted to nonstandard varieties, such as colloquial or bad language, vernacular, and hiphop slang. Below is a verse from a hip-hop song, in which the infix -iz- contributes to the general musicality:

248

Extra-grammatical formations in use

(116) I drink a boost for breakfast, and ensure for dizzert Somebody ordered pancakes, I just sip the sizzurp That right there could drive a sane man bizzerk Not to worry y’ll Mr. H 2 the Izzo’s back to wizzerk (K. West, Through the Wire, 2003) 7.3.5.3. Musicality is the primary effect of phonaesthemes. The examples below are all taken from advertisements reported in Pennarola (2003). They all appear to play with the initial consonant clusters sh-, sl-, spl-, sm-, st-: (117) Add moisture and a pearly shine to bring out their natural shimmer with Nivea Lipcare and Shine. (p. 36) (118) Splash on some shine! (Maybelline) (p. 73) (119) Soft smooth lips in a handy stick (Labello) (p. 59) (120) Slimming has never tasted so good (Slimma-shake) (p. 58) (121) Smooth, smoother, smoothest 3 blades to shave you close, close, close. (p. 51) Although most of these sounds have been described and associated in the literature to various concepts (falling or sliding movement, frictional noise, slimy, slushy matter, etc.), the above words containing them are suggestive of something positive, charming, even magical. Thus, they are exploited for their evocative character, to give prominence to words and concepts, or even to name products (Slimma-shake). This brief survey of the social contexts, lexical domains, and registers which select or favour the use of extra-grammatical formations has shown that they are by no means unusual phenomena. Although they are more marked on the parameter of transparency, because their meaning is usually difficult to penetrate and their input(s) is/are often inaccessible, they are nonetheless widely used in English, as a result of: 1) their informal nature and the social bonds they create among users (clipping, blending, reduplication), 2) their potential efficiency in specialised fields and their suitability for labelling both concepts and material things in unambiguous fashion (acronyms, initialisms, back-formation), and 3) their potential to amuse or attract the

Contextualising extra-grammatical phenomena

249

hearer (blending, reduplication), to express the speaker’s feelings (infixation), or to evoke ideas and sensations (phonaesthemes). These considerations can now allow us to answer the questions I posed at the beginning of this chapter. The use of extra-grammatical formations does appear to be amply confirmed and widely attested by the examples investigated so far. The individual users of the various extra-grammatical operations do not all belong to the same social or professional group (cf. acronyms and initialisms in 7.3.2). The various phenomena investigated serve different functions and produce various effects which are not obtained by using comparable word-formation rules. We cannot, indeed, economise with the language or create new and attractive terms by applying rules based on concatenation and the addition of material; subtraction, by contrast, both favours economy and is well suited to the function of naming. Nor can we generate humour or suggest novelty by using a common derivative or a regular endocentric compound, whereas infixed, reduplicative and blended words generally achieve ludic effects. These socio-pragmatic motivations account for the frequency and pervasiveness of extra-grammatical formations, and for their tendency towards productivity in English.

Chapter 8 Conclusions

Not every regularity in the use of language is a matter of grammar. (Zwicky and Pullum 1987: 330)

By way of conclusion, I would like to sum up the results of my analysis of extra-grammatical phenomena. The principal aim of this book has been to bring together all those phenomena that have been labelled as “extragrammatical” and to find unifying criteria for their formation as well as similarities as regards rule violation. What I have demonstrated, both through the study of individual phenomena and through comparisons between the various types, is that the central unifying property of extragrammatical phenomena is 1) the impossibility to predict a stable regular output from their input. A corollary property is 2) the difficulty to recognise the input from the output, because 3) extra-grammatical formations are generally not transparently analysable into morphemes, and 4) their head is often blurred or even absent. Each chapter of the book was meant to contribute to the theoretical debate on extra-grammatical morphology and the results obtained seem consistent enough to provide a unitary picture of extra-grammaticality. In chapter 2, a comparison between extra-grammatical morphology and the other branches of morphology, namely grammatical and marginal morphology (2.3.2–2.3.3), shows what the main features characterising extragrammatical formations are 2.3.7.1–2.3.7.10, thus differentiating between what is to be considered regular word-formation and what is instead outside morphological grammar. In particular, from a theoretical perspective, this chapter explains the reasons why extra-grammatical formations are excluded from the theory of Generative Grammar, and generally marginalised or denigrated within morphological theories (2.1). The numerous patterns that extra-grammatical formations exhibit are too heterogeneous to be generated within the traditional framework of generative rules. Moreover, the bases to which they apply are various and not unitary, and the same is true of the outputs, which

Conclusions

251

do not belong to a distinct class and are less predictable than those obtained when rules of ordinary word-formation are at work. These formations are excluded from the set of regular words by Aronoff (1976), because most of them are not new words, only connoted variants. Since they are not analysable in terms of rules, Scalise (1984), Spencer (1991), and Haspelmath (2002) even believe that they are not worthy of morphological study (cf. Dressler 2000), and it is this opinion, with which I instinctively disagreed, which led me to undertake a systematic study of extra-grammatical phenomena. Chapter 2 also explains that the notions of extra-grammatical and expressive morphology do not completely overlap. Expressive morphology is always connected to an expressive, playful or poetic pragmatic effect (2.3.1). However, extra-grammatical morphology is not, as is shown by the use of acronyms and initialisms in specialised discourse. This chapter demonstrates that the patterns forming blends, acronyms, reduplicatives, and similar formations appear to be best described and explained within the framework of Natural Morphology, in terms of prototypical and marginal types (2.2.1). Although these formations are not the primary focus of Naturalness Theory (2.2), they can be viewed as marked choices on the parameters of morphotactic/morphosemantic transparency, biuniqueness, figure/ground, etc. But the analysis also reveals aspects of iconicity which make formations natural choices in some circumstances. Lastly, chapter 2 provides an overview of the role played by extragrammatical formations in lexical change. Many such formations are stable and contribute to the process of lexicalisation (2.3.5.1), or even to grammaticalisation (2.3.5.2), especially in languages other than English. Although they are not analysable in terms of productive rules (2.3.6.1), abbreviations, blends and reduplicatives are mostly governed by the principle of analogy, i.e. structural similarity to pre-existent (available) patterns (2.3.6.2–2.3.6.3). Analogy is more permissive than rules, allowing only partial predictability, but does provide an explanation for the existence of creative formations of the type investigated in this book. Chapter 3 demonstrates that, in opposition to Plag’s (2003: 117–121) claim that truncations are predictable and highly systematic in nature, especially from the viewpoint of prosodic morphology, abbreviations exhibit a high degree of irregularity and a low degree of predictability. Indeed, the wide taxonomy of clippings, acronyms, and initialisms provided here (3.1.3, 3.1.6) offers evidence for their inclusion within extra-grammatical morphology (3.2). The irregularities of abbreviations typically concern their irregular morphotactics, their alternation between different outputs, the impossibility

252

Conclusions

to segment them into morphs, and the uncertainty of their head. Furthermore, they do not apply to a distinct class of bases, subtract unpredictable parts from them, and leave the input unaffected in terms of semantic (denotative) meaning and part of speech (3.2.1.1–3.2.1.8). The regularities identified in 3.2.2.1–3.2.2.8 turn out to be only tendencies and preferences, because they do not apply indifferently to all patterns, but only to prototypical ones. Moreover, they do not allow a certain prediction of new outputs based on hypothetical shortenings of existing words or phrases (3.2.3), because they are not as stable as rules, but, at most, are based on analogy with current (previously-attested) patterns. Therefore, the most significant results for the category of abbreviations are what I call “criteria of well-formedness” (3.2.4). To be well-formed, abbreviations must comply with the general criteria of analogy and brevity (see the Principle of Economy in 7.1). Moreover, the part retained in the output must preferably be the most salient, so as to facilitate recoverability of the source word/phrase and easy memorisation. But the output must also be specific and unambiguous, a contextualisation being otherwise required to disambiguate it. Other criteria – namely, pronounceability, homonymy, linearity, and maximisation – prove to be relevant only to some of the subcategories. Chapter 4 demonstrates that blending is not easily predictable (4.2.3), since the combination of blend components disregards too many of the rules of canonical composition. This is in opposition to Plag’s (2003: 121–126) claims that blends exhibit a surprising degree of regularity and should therefore not be excluded from grammatical morphology (see Bat-El 2000 for a related position). The regularities and tendencies discussed in 4.2.2.1– 4.2.2.10 only partially confirm Bat-El’s (2006) contention that the formation of blends is governed by certain general principles. This is not surprising, since Bat-El’s analysis of English blends is confined to prototypical cases, and excludes most of the examples that I include in my analysis. The intercalative type (Kemmer 2003), for instance, proves to be irregular because there is no real concatenation of words but only an intercalation of a short word into a longer matrix word. The overlapping type, with a homophonous string, also exhibits an irregular pattern, especially when no proper truncation occurs. Many of the irregularities identified in blending are not specific to this phenomenon, but shared with abbreviations: specifically, irregular morphotactics, with consequent difficult predictability of the output, alternative outputs, a non-morphematic analysis, uncertain headedness, irregular subtraction, and alternative input categories. Unlike abbreviations, however, there is meaning change in blending, in that two, or rarely more than two,

Conclusions

253

bases are fused together to result in a new word. In general, there is concatenation in blends, but there may also be intercalation of one base into another, causing discontinuity. These remarks give support to my assumption that lexical blends are extra-grammatical in nature, and regulated, at most, by analogical processes. In this chapter, a number of criteria of well-formedness are identified for lexical blends (4.2.4). Firstly, analogy with previously coined blends facilitates the creation of new ones, whereas the existence of a homophonous word in a language may block their coinage. Furthermore, to be well-formed, blends must be pronounceable and euphonious, their source words must be easily recoverable, and one of them must function as matrix word, i.e. be prominent in terms of length, stress and position, and salient in terms of meaning. Lastly, similarity between the components at various levels is preferred in the coordinate type of blends, whereas similarity or identity at the juncture is favoured in the overlapping type. In chapter 5, my analysis of English reduplicatives corroborates the assumption that reduplication, like the previous phenomena, should be excluded from the module of English grammatical morphology (5.2). The main regularities identified in 5.2.2.1–5.2.2.9 are mere tendencies, and do not result in a homogeneous and unified phenomenon. Furthermore, the various types described do not lend themselves to rule-based analysis, since the bases of reduplicative words are often blurred or absent, and even when they can be recognised, the variability of their position – either in the right or the left slot – makes the output unpredictable, or even fluctuating between different alternatives (see 5.2.3). Unlike regular endocentric compounds, many reduplicatives are acephalous (e.g. the onomatopoeic type), and rarely exhibit two meaningful constituents. When they do, as with rhyming compounds, their semantics is non-compositional. Moreover, like English blends and abbreviations, English reduplicatives exhibit irregular morphotactics and are not transparently analysable into morphemes. However, unlike blends and abbreviations, reduplication is not based on abbreviatory mechanisms, such as shortening, truncation, fusion, or overlap. Rather, it is redundant in character, which makes it an independent phenomenon. In addition to the general criterion of analogy (5.2.4), the criteria of wellformedness identified for reduplicatives include: binary structure, with similarity (or even identity) between replicans and replicatum, and rhythm. The ablaut and rhyming types (but not the copy type) also obey an alternation criterion, involving either gradation of the internal vowel, or consonant gemination and final rhyme. Lastly, meaningfulness of both bases is a rele-

254

Conclusions

vant criterion for rhyming compounds, though this does not lead to a unitary meaning. In chapter 6, which deals with minor phenomena, the most significant results concern back-formation, which is clearly distinguished both from other extra-grammatical phenomena, like clipping, and from grammatical phenomena, like zero-derivation/conversion (6.1.2). Indeed, there has been much confusion in the literature on this point, and a clarification was necessary to find the exact locus of this phenomenon. I demonstrate that back-formation is to be considered an extra-grammatical phenomenon because, unlike conversion and regular derivation, it is unpredictable, not transparently analysable into morphemes, applicable to various input categories, and its meaning is subtractive rather than additional (6.2.1, 6.2.3). It is not even the reversal of a word-formation rule, as many scholars suggest (e.g. Adams 1973; Aronoff 1976; Becker 1993; Haspelmath 2002), because there is not always a real affix corresponding to the deleted part. However, like the other phenomena under investigation in this work, it does obey some criteria of wellformedness, namely, it is concise, in that it selects a morphological option rather than a syntactic one, it involves simultaneous form/meaning subtraction (cf. abbreviations), and its mechanism of formation is based on analogy. Moreover, in back-formation analogy is not only with other back-formed words, but also with word pairs regularly obtained by derivation or, rarely, inflection. These latter word pairs provide patterns for the reanalysis of monomorphemic forms as morphologically complex ones. For the process of infixation, this study offers a thorough classification which takes into account not only the traditional (expletive) type, but also recently investigated types (ma-infixation, diddly-infixation, iz-infixation) (6.3.3.2–6.3.3.4). This re-classification obviously increases the number of possible patterns, and impedes the analysis of infixation as a uniform phenomenon. Indeed, what can be considered as regularity for one type is not applicable to the others. Again, predictability of the output is hardly attainable (6.4.3). A specific irregularity of infixes, qualifying them as extragrammatical, is their insertion into bases. Discontinuous bases are indeed marked and dispreferred in Natural Morphology (2.2.1). Interestingly, there seems to be no appropriate parameter according to which well-formed infixed words are obtained, in that there are no relevant criteria that apply prototypically or generally (cf. 6.4.4). Only analogy with previously created infixed forms holds as a relevant criterion. Lastly, for phonaesthemes this study shows some irregularities (6.6.1.1– 6.6.1.3) as well as criteria for identification: i.e. recursiveness, homogeneity in phonetic and structural terms, and semantic coherence (6.6.2). Their

Conclusions

255

communicative power makes phonaesthemes an expressive phenomenon (cf. Baldi 2000), whereas the impossibility to segment the words which contain phonaesthemes into smaller units excludes them from regular wordformation processes. Their variability in terms of both meaning and position motivates their exclusion from morphological grammar. As a more general aim, the analysis conducted here intended to reevaluate all these phenomena in the light of their frequency in language use and their contribution to the development of the English lexicon. Chapter 7 explores extra-grammatical morphology at work, and demonstrates that the reasons for its pervasiveness in English are connected with the specific functions it serves as well as with the pragmatic effects it produces in certain communicative contexts/domains. As far as functions are concerned, I pinpoint four main principles of contextual suitability, namely, Informality, Social or Professional closeness, Economy, and Naming (7.1, points 1–4). As far as effects are concerned, I indicate the following principles: Jocularity, Novelty, Musicality, and Prominence (7.1, points 5–8). Extra-grammatical phenomena are more appropriate than regular formations in many different contexts and domains. Abbreviations are largely exploited in professional jargons and in communication where time is short, because they are brief and efficient (7.3.1–7.3.2). Furthermore, acronyms and initialisms (more rarely blends) are particularly productive naming devices, since they are highly specific and ease memorisation as well as worldwide circulation (7.3.2) (Mattiello forth.). Blends and sound symbolic words are well suited to humorous literature, television series, and advertising, since they are original and playful (7.3.3, 7.3.5.3), whereas reduplicatives are naturally suited to children’s literature, nursery rhymes, and cartoons, thanks to their musicality and generally attractive qualities (7.3.4). Back-formation and infixation are typical of oral conversation, being used to obtain humorous effects (7.3.5.1–7.3.5.2), but are also useful to express the speaker’s emotions (expletive infixation), and to economise in specialised discourse (back-formation). Shm-reduplication and phonaesthemes both give prominence to words, although for different purposes. In general, the present study contributes to the debate on extragrammatical morphology from different viewpoints: ― ―

Firstly, it sheds light on the differentiation between grammatical phenomena and phenomena which are morphologically extra-grammatical; Secondly, it clarifies that phenomena which have a regular occurrence and high frequency are not necessarily grammatical;

256 ―

Conclusions

Lastly, it demonstrates that the wide range of extra-grammatical phenomena should be neither neglected nor marginalised, not only because they are common and widespread, but also because they are interesting from the point of view of their contextual specificity and pragmatic importance.

Therefore, this study offers a new notion of regularity, which is rooted in Zwicky and Pullum’s (1987: 330) idea that not every regularity in morphology has to be expressed in terms of grammatical rules. Although extragrammatical phenomena are not analysable in terms of traditional rules, they exhibit some recurring patterns which Kilani-Schoch and Dressler (forth.) call “irregular regularities”, in that they differ from both grammatical regularities and subregularities. In this study, regularities of extra-grammatical operations involve: 1) the notion of analogy, which helps motivate new coinages on the basis of pre-existing patterns, 2) other criteria of wellformedness, which help distinguish between prototypical and marginal types, and 3) principles of contextual suitability, which help understand the reasons at the basis of their coinage and their incidence in English. The study of morphological extra-grammaticality in English also raises several interesting questions for further research in different areas, for example: ―

―

―

―

Cross-linguistic study: Are there similarities between different languages in the field of extra-grammatical word-formation? Do all languages use the same mechanisms to serve the functions and/or produce the effects discussed in chapter 7? Translation: How are the extra-grammatical formations of a source language rendered into a target language? How can missing types of formations be compensated in translation? First language acquisition: Do English children use the same extragrammatical morphological processes as adults in their early language acquisition process? Do they use other patterns, or perhaps the same patterns but in different proportions? Second language acquisition/Foreign language learning: What is the role played by extra-grammatical formations in second language acquisition or in foreign language learning? At what stage of the learning process are these formations taught? Are they taught at all?

Some of the questions related to first language acquisition have partly been answered by Dressler and his colleagues (Dressler and Karpf 1995;

Conclusions

257

Dressler et al. 2005; Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.), but not specifically with regard to English. In general, it seems that extra-grammatical morphology has been neglected – and still is – by teachers, students, and professional workers in many subjects and fields. This part of morphology is not only the realm of linguists, but is also of relevance to many other academic and occupational contexts. This suggests that it is an important field of investigation, and that future morphological research should be expanded in this direction.

Notes

1.

Phenomena of extra-grammaticality are not restricted to morphology. For example, interjections such as ho-hum, humph, and phew illustrate phonetic extra-grammaticality, and telegrams exemplify syntactic extragrammaticality (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). 2. In OED3, the first citation for the word POTUS is dated 1895. Originally, it was a newspaper wire and telegraph ‘code word’, and it was later used especially among White House staff before passing into more general use. It has probably been revived quite recently (see, e.g., a 1999 citation in the OED). 3. Since the online version of the OED is being continuously updated from the 2nd edition to the 3rd edition, when citing in the text, I distinguish between entries belonging to either the second (OED2) or the third (OED3) edition. 4. In this work, ‘blending’ is referred to in a strictly morphological sense, not to be confused with the Theory of Conceptual Blending (or Conceptual Integration) developed by Fauconnier and Turner (2002). 5. As Lehrer (2007: 116) states, “In infotainment ← information + entertainment, info is a clipping and can stand as an independent word”. The usual pronunciation of the first two syllables of infotainment would also corroborate the origin from info and entertainment. See also OED3, where both infoand -tainment are viewed as combining forms, and compare infomercial. 6. Not all uses of expletive infixes are in fact ‘deprecative’. For example, beafucking-utiful is a very positive word. What they all have in common is the very informal nature of the lexical items used for infixation, some of which are considered to be swear words (hence, “expletive infixation”), and the fact that the infixes are intensifiers. 7. The term “splinter” was first used by Adams (1973: 149) to define the elements in ball/ute (← ball/on + parach/ute), and later by Cannon (1986, 2000), Lehrer (1996, 2007), Hong (2004), and others. In Lehrer (1996: 361), splinters are defined as “parts of words in blends which are intended to be recognized as belonging to a target word, but which are not independent formatives”. 8. Also called “submorphemes” (Philps forth.). 9. Cf. Dressler (2000: 2), who considers Aronoff’s (1976) unitary base constraint “an extreme formulation”, but suggests that, unlike morphological rules, extra-grammatical operations do not “apply to distinct classes of bases”. 10. Aronoff and Anshen (1998: 242) define morphological productivity as “the extent to which a particular affix is likely to be used in the production of new words in the language”.

Notes

259

11. The most extensive collection of studies on various languages is edited by Doleschal and Thornton (2000). But see the Introduction (1.2) for specific studies on each phenomenon. 12. Full reduplication is more iconic than partial reduplication because “identity is more iconic than similarity between base and copy” (Dressler et al. 2005: 456). 13. See Mattiello (2003) for the morphotactic and morphosemantic complexity of slang compounds. 14. The term “telonym” is taken from Dressler et al. (1987: 117). 15. According to Dressler (1984: 38), “Dissimilatory processes refer to the perception of the phonological intentions; assimilatory processes to their adaptation to the speech-tract”. 16. In line with Jespersen (1922: 278), euphony depends on both “ease of articulation” and “ease of perception”. Thus, what requires difficult movements of the organs of speech or what is indistinct to the ear is considered cacophonous. 17. See Jespersen’s (1922) Ease Theory, according to which “the changes of language go in the direction of greater ease, in other words, … they manifest a tendency towards economy of effort” (p. 261). 18. In this hypothesis, Shariatmadari (2006: 207) supports the idea that there exists “a tendency to conserve energy in the use of the articulatory organs, with ‘easy’ sounds being those that require less physical effort to produce on the part of the speaker”. 19. Ronneberger-Sibold (2008: 203) defines “word creation” as “a subtype of extragrammatical morphology characterized by intentionality”. 20. With reference to acronyms, Bat-El (2000: 64) affirms that “when the base is a phrase and the output is a noun the grammatical category is changed”. On the other hand, Conti and Mattiello (2008: 568) state that there is no proper change of syntactic class when we pass, for instance, from a phrase such as Very Important Person, with a noun as its head, to the noun vip/VIP. 21. On the basis of etymological description in OED2, itty-bitty could also be seen as being double-headed, itty being a baby-form of little. Cf. Williams’ (1981) Righthand Head Rule. 22. Clipping of final A may be enabled by the fact that USA is often pronounced US of A, where of A is a modifier. However, US could also be analysed as a direct abbreviation from United States. 23. Cf. Dressler’s (2000: 1) tripartition into “extragrammatical morphology vs. marginal grammatical morphology vs. prototypical grammatical morphology”. 24. Warren (1990: 119) distinguishes secretion from abbreviation in the following terms: “Secretion is a process in which certain semantic elements in a linguistic unit are kept and others discarded. Abbreviation is a process in

260

25. 26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Notes which all the semantic elements are kept, although the form of the unit is made shorter”. Cf. Dressler’s (2000: 7) association of “non-productivity” with “marginality” in morphology. Cf. Algeo’s (1977: 50) inclusion of foodoholic within the category of “blends with clipping”. This inclusion may have diachronic motivations: i.e. in the 1970s the combining form -holic had not yet acquired morpheme status. Warren (1990: 115) includes -gate in an independent group, but I believe that this is only a subtype of the second group, since its meaning is completely unrelated to the meaning of gate. Note, however, that the word Watergate, in its original meaning (from which the name of the building in Washington derives), contains the word gate in one of its normal senses. For a thorough study of English secreted combining forms (e.g. -burger, -fest, -gate, -holic, -rama, -scape, -speak, -thon), see Mattiello (2007, 2008b). Dressler (2000: 2) observes that “The performance of linguistic games is more error-prone than that of MRs [Morphological Rules]”. Cf. Doleschal and Thornton’s (2000: iii) remark: “since [Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s (1994)] discussion is hidden in a book on diminutives and intensifiers, it has not had much impact on morphological theory”. Bat-El (2000) reports examples taken from Hebrew, which, however, are beyond the scope of my discussion. See Plag’s (2003: 103) “prosodic morphology”. See also McCarthy and Prince (1986). Following Dressler (2000), Plag (2003: 122–123) does not consider formations of the type motel (← motor hotel) as “proper blends”, but rather as “shortened compounds”. More on this distinction is in 4.1.2. In Brinton and Traugott (2005: 40), abbreviations like narc and pub are called “ellipses”. Cf. 3.1.2 in the present work. Cf. OED2, where teeny is given as an emphasised form of tiny, and weeny as analogical with teeny when they combine. Bertacca (2009: 118) considers productivity to be “the prototypical property of rules” in that it reinforces their strength and diachronic stability. Plag (1999: 13–14) also mentions the criterion of unintentionality, but does not take it to be a necessary characteristic of productive processes, in that, as Bauer (2001: 68) puts it, “all rules can be applied intentionally”. For instance, -th nominalisation, as in depth and strength, is obtained by rule, but it is an unproductive process, in that it is no longer used to form new words. Bauer (2001: 64) considers creativity and productivity as hyponyms of innovation, to be distinguished according to whether or not rule-governedness is envisaged.

Notes

261

40. In Bauer (2001: 46) “institutionalised” and “lexicalised” are complementary terms, i.e. co-hyponyms of “established”. 41. The word ‘analogy’ comes from Greek άναλογία (analogía), a mathematical term which Greek grammarians like Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace used to indicate “a real mathematical proportion in order to find out morphological forms” (Schironi 2007: 322). 42. Roman grammarians inherited the Greek word analogía and translated it with proportio, comparatio, similitudo, or even with regula (Schironi 2007; cf. rule). 43. Plag’s (1999: 45) list includes: a) the word base hypothesis, b) the compositionality hypothesis, c) the binary branching hypothesis, d) locality conditions, e) recursion and repetition constraints, f) the open-class base hypothesis, g) the unitary base hypothesis, h) the unitary output hypothesis, i) blocking, j) stratal constraints. Some of these points are discussed in 2.1 of the present book. 44. According to Fischer (2007: 324), formal and functional analogy (see Anttila’s 2003 analogical grid) can be viewed as one of the main mechanisms or motivating factors in language change. Analogy indeed operates not only in morphosyntactic change, as widely demonstrated by Fischer (2007), but also in the coinage of new words. 45. Fischer (2007: 123) argues that “analogy is primary or at least stands on an equal footing with reanalysis”. Cf. the notions of “reanalysis” and “analogy” involving innovation on a syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic axis in Hopper and Traugott (2003). 46. Surface analogies also occur in child speech, and play a significant role in first language acquisition (see Laaha 2004), but this aspect goes beyond the scope of my study. 47. The original French terms are “rentabilité”, “regularité”, and “disponibilité”. Their English translations – namely, “profitability”, “regularity”, and “availability” – are taken from Carstairs-McCarthy (1992: 37). 48. As Bertacca (2009: 118) remarks, “productivity can only be based on regularity, but regularity by itself does not necessarily result in productivity”. 49. Cf. other terms (reported in Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat 2009: 21 [my translation]) to define what does not conform to rules: i.e., “non-” or “ungrammatical”, “marginal”, “minor”, “peripheral”, “creative”, “expressive”, “unconventional”. None of these labels coincides with the notion of “extragrammatical” adopted here. 50. The dividing line between conscious and unconscious blends is actually debatable, as shown by the word torrible (← terrible + horrible) classified in Gries (2004b: 425) and Cacchiani (2007: 110) as a real blend, but very close to its counterpart herrible, which others consider a simultaneous pronunciation.

262

Notes

51. See Zwicky and Pullum (1987: 337, criterion 4.5) for the same property in expletive infixation, and see Dressler (2000: 2) for this property in language games. 52. Cannon (1989) critically observes that, instead of relegating alphabetisms “to a peripheral process of word manufacturing, we should study them for possible insights into language change” (p. 122). 53. Kreidler (1979: 24), for instance, defines blends as “multiple clippings” and does not discuss them separately from other abbreviations. Analogously, Quirk et al. (1985: 1580) include clippings, acronyms, and blends under the same label, “Abbreviations” (cf. Fischer 1998: 1). 54. The etymology of the term taxi is actually more complex, its source phrase being taximeter cabriolet. Hence, the clippings taxicab and Am.E. cab refer to the same vehicle. 55. The meaning of pants in Am.E. (i.e. ‘trousers’) is more closely connected with the full word pantaloons (cf. Br.E. ‘a pair of underpants’). 56. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1634) name the source of the clipping the “original”, the phonological material that is cut away the “surplus”, and the remaining material the “residue”. 57. Back-formation will be dealt with in chapter 6. 58. Some exceptions are noted by Jamet (2009: 17): “adjectival clipped forms are often converted into nouns, which confirms the supremacy of nouns as clipped forms (bisexual → bi; traditional → trad, etc.)”. However, trad is actually a clipped compound from the noun traditional jazz (Marchand 1969: 442), so its syntactic class does not vary from input to output. 59. A similar position is to be found in Jespersen (1942: 538): “shortenings of this category [i.e. back-formations] differ from the other categories in that they often lead to a new word belonging to another word-class than the original word”. 60. This type is called “apocopation” or “apocope” by Jamet (2009: 17; also in Fradin 2003: 211). However, as appropriately observed by López Rúa (2006: 677), apocope, aphaeresis and syncope are phonetic concepts concerning oral clippings, which are graphically marked by means of apostrophes, as in ’fraid for afraid, ’deed for indeed, and o’er for over. 61. Also from gymnastics. Note that stress here is on the second syllable (gymnásium/gymnástics), which is deleted (Marchand 1969: 442). The same is true for other words, such as prof(éssor), uni(vérsity), etc. See also 3.2.2.1. 62. Also from the noun psychology. 63. According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1581), informal spelling, as in mike, p’raps (‘perhaps’), telly, etc., reflects “The informality that is typical of clipped forms”. 64. In OED3, the relationship between quiz and inquisitive is less certain, the former being viewed as probably influenced by (but not necessarily derived from) the latter.

Notes

263

65. See OED2 for the more complicated original form of cortisone, the chemical name 17-hydroxy-11 dehydrocortico-sterone. 66. Cf. the word prepreg, which is clipped from a derivative (pre-impregnated), discarding the less salient parts. 67. According to Marchand (1969: 444), the origin of most shortened names with altered spelling is in child language. Since children are unable to pronounce difficult sounds, they substitute them with easier forms: Dol, Hal, Sal, where the original  has been replaced by a liquid . Back-clippings as well as sound substitutions in the pronunciation of names also characterise Italian child language, especially in the phase of pre-morphology, as in Loi for Lolita, Ma for Matilde, and Sa, Saa or Sava for Sara (also reduplicated as Sasa). However, these tendencies do not influence hypocoristics of adult language (cf. Loli, Mati or Tilde). 68. Plag (2003: 117) makes a distinction between -y diminutives, on the one hand, and truncated names and clippings, on the other. For him, truncated names and clippings are used to express familiarity, whereas diminutives are used to express familiarity as well as a (usually) positive attitude towards the referent. For this topic, the reader is referred to Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1994). 69. Cf. Italian children’s tendency to assimilate consonants, especially with clusters of difficult pronunciation, in Italian personal names, like Vacco for Vasco, as well as in English ones, like the famous doll’s name, Barbie, pronounced Babbi. 70. For cute from acute, see also Kreidler (2000: 962). 71. A collection of Australian English clippings can be found in Rossi (2007: 70–74). 72. Because of its marginality and low frequency, the suffix -a has not been included in this classification. Two attested examples are sanga for sandwich and cuppa for cup of tea (Kidd, Kemp, and Quinn 2011: 365). 73. By “clipped word” I mean a clipped simplex word: i.e., a clipped noun, adjective or verb. 74. See also TTIC (← Terrorist Threat Integration Center), pronounced tee-tic (Fandrych 2008: 112). 75. Forms like this one, as we will see in chapter 5, can be confused with rhyming reduplicatives of the type hocus-pocus, in that they analogously exhibit consonant alternation and rhyme. 76. Cf. “pure” vs. “impure acronyms” in Baum (1962). 77. Cf. López Rúa’s (2002) analysis as a less prototypical acronym from the phrase United NatIons Children’s (Emergency) Fund, with “the addition of isolated constituents which are not strictly initials” (p. 42). 78. There are divergent views on the origin of AWOL, which is either from Absent WithOut Leave or from Absent Without Official Leave. Only in the latter case would the acronym be considered elliptic. Baum (1955: 105) is even un-

264

79. 80. 81.

82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

Notes certain about the status of AWOL as an acronym word, in that in speech it may be alternatively pronounced letter by letter. A maximal degree of shortening is viewed as prototypical for acronyms (López Rúa 2002). For NWAVE an expanded pronunciation (new wave) also exists. See also SNCC (← Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and ROTC (← Reserve Officers Training Corps), both with “imported” vowels to make them pronounceable within the existing canons, i.e. SNCC  and ROTC  (Kreidler 1979: 25). Cf. WASP 18, the name of a star. According to Plag (2003: 128), the political acrostic START has been purposefully chosen to persuade an audience and favour political adherence. Fandrych (2008: 112) also includes within the category of reverse acronyms initialisms of the type ABC (← A Better Chance (program)). Although the use of TTFN is especially frequent nowadays in text messages and Internet slang, the initialism does in fact have quite a long history (see OED2). Cf. the analysis provided by Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1633), who interpret the final y of dinky as the initial of yet (double income, no kids yet). This analysis, however, would not account for the alternative spelling dinkie. See Jamet (2009: 18) for quantitative data. For this reason, the word bike is analysed by López Rúa (2002: 43) as coming from bi(cy)c(l)e. Indeed, only the second graphic c corresponds to the sound  of bike. C stands for Consonant, V for Vowel. Note also that in Plag’s (2003: 118) template, two vowels (VV) stand for either a long vowel or a diphthong. Aronoff (1976: 43) defines blocking as “the nonoccurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another”. For instance, the existence of the noun glory blocks the -ity derivative from the adjective glorious (i.e. *gloriosity; cf. curious → curiosity). This notion can also be applied to semantics, semantic blocking being the nonoccurrence of one word due to the existence of another having the same form but a different meaning (cf. homonymy). More examples are reported in Kreidler (1979). Note that the initialism has taken a distinct negative prefix un- (vs. incorrect). Cf. the full form Master-s of Ceremonies. In line with Jamet (2009: 24), “a long and frequent word is more frequently clipped than a short and rare (scarcely-used) word”. See Bertinetto (2001: 62): “LEX-BLs [Lexical blends] are a fairly old phenomenon, known at least since the times of classical Greek”. For a catalogue of the earliest attested blends, see Adams (1973). This claim is of diachronic relevance, since, about forty years ago, Adams (1973: 148) stated that: “compound-blends are rather rarely used”, and

Notes

265

around twenty-five years ago, Cannon (1986: 725) claimed: “blending mainly produces oral forms that quickly die. The process has not significantly expanded the English lexicon”. Cf. Bertinetto (2001: 66): “English seems to be the language that makes the largest use of this word formation procedure”. 98. Cf. Pound (1914), Algeo (1977), and Cannon (1986), which are mainly taxonomic in nature and contribute little to the explanation of why blends have the structure they have. 99. For the rich and often contradictory terminology employed to label blends, see Cannon (1986, 2000). 100. An example of an English blend containing three lexemes is compushity (← compulsion + push + necessity) reported by Kelly (1998: 582). Cf. “syntactic blends” in Algeo (1977: 48) and Cannon (1986: 726). 101. See Ronneberger-Sibold (2006) for a scale of transparency in lexical blends. 102. Hence the German name “Kopf-Schwanz-Wort” (lit. ‘head-tail-word’, Dressler et al. 1987: 126). 103. Actually, Bertinetto (2001: 60) analyses this blend as overlapping only in the sequence for: Calinicate. 104. Property 3 is found in some languages, for example German (e.g. Apfelkernreaktor ← Apfelkern + Kernreaktor), but not attested in English: cf. bonefisherman (← bonefish + fisherman), where fish and fisher are not the same word (Bertinetto 2001: 65, footnote 9). 105. See Algeo (1977) and Cannon (1986) for taxonomic analyses with corresponding descriptive statistics. 106. Cf. Kreidler (1979: 24), who describes blends as words “made by decomposition and composition”. 107. See chapter 3 of the present book for a distinction between clippings, acronyms, and initialisms. See Cannon (1989) for a discussion on terminological and conceptual distinctions in the literature. 108. Both total and partial blends are included within the category called “blends with clipping” by Algeo (1977: 50), i.e. with some part(s) omitted. 109. This blend exhibits an alternative form in capitals (FORTRAN), which, according to López Rúa (2002: 44), makes it less prototypical (cf. alphabetisms in 3.1.4). 110. Here the first source word (blog) is itself a blend; see below in the classification. 111. According to Kaunisto (2000a: 49, in Gries 2004a: 650), “Ideal blends then would naturally be ones where the ending of the first source word and the beginning of the second one overlap, resulting in a way in no deletion at all”. 112. For the main semantic relationships between the components of French blends, see Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 39–42).

266

Notes

113. Kubozono (1990: 3): “the word whose non-initial component constitutes the non-initial component of blend forms serves as the ‘head’ of the whole expression”. Thus, motel is ‘a kind of hotel’ rather than ‘a kind of vehicle’. 114. Cacchiani’s (2007: 109) “pleonastic blends”. 115. Compare OED2’s suggestion that galumph was perhaps formed “with some reminiscence of” gallop and the adjective triumphant. 116. According to Cacchiani (2007: 105), “The similarity-motivated preservation of one source word’s stress pattern is considered more important than the recognizability-motivated preservation of letters and phonemes”. Cf. my criteria of Recoverability and Similarity in 4.2.4. 117. For prototypicality in blends, see López Rúa (2002: 43–44). 118. The first component tends to be, according to Kelly (1998), shorter, more frequent, more prototypical and positively connoted than the second one, or to occur before the second one on a temporal scale (as in breakfast + lunch). 119. Cf. Plag’s (2003: 125) constraint that “blends only combine syllable constituents (onsets, nuclei, codas, rimes, or complete syllables)”. 120. Cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1583), who claim that brunch is “a special kind of lunch which has some of the features of breakfast”. 121. The meaning of blends constitutes a highly debated issue and for some scholars it is more than the addition of the meanings of the blend constituents (Kemmer 2003: 83). For instance, Pictionary (← picture + dictionary) is neither ‘a picture’ nor ‘a dictionary’, but ‘a game where you have to guess words based on drawings’. See also Bat-El (2006). 122. See Wang (2004) for a corpus-based study of reduplication and repetition. 123. This is the song title of the music group D4L, but also a brand of candy manufactured by the Willy Wonka Candy Factory, and distributed by Nestlé (Wikipedia). 124. Examples of triplication like copy drip-drip-drip and ablaut flip-flap-flop (Marchand 1969: 439) will not be discussed in this book, since they are exceptional in English and often unattested in dictionaries (though not always – see, e.g., impure tick-tack-toe ‘a children’s game’ in OED2). 125. See Nadarajan (2006) for more on syntactic repetition. 126. According to the Affix Condition, membership is denied to any polymorphemic construction consisting of an affix (or more than one, as in -less -ness) and a root, where the form of the affix is not conditioned by the phonological make-up of the root (Dienhart 1999: 12). 127. According to the Single Phone Condition, membership is denied to any monomorphemic construction consisting of the form CVCV, where the reduplication involves only a single phone, either C or V (Dienhart 1999: 12). 128. Dienhart (1999: 12) uses this term, although in some of the cases he mentions (e.g. khaki) there is no proper rhyme. 129. Additional cases with a final consonant include fam(ily) dram(a), lit(erary) crit(icism), and rom(antic) com(edy) (cf. also blends in 4.1.2).

Notes

267

130. The practice of creating infantile words by reduplicating the initial syllable of a word is common in French: e.g., facile (‘easy’) → fafa, poisson (‘fish’) → poipoi, mignon (‘small’) → mimi (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.). In Italian, small children tend to reduplicate either the initial (Kitty → Kikky) or the final syllable (Bambi → Bibi). 131. Cf. frequent and productive hypocoristics for names in French (e.g. Viviane → Vivi, Zinédine Zidane → Zizou) (Kilani-Schoch and Dressler forth.), as well as in Italian (e.g. Lele from Emanuele, Gabriele and Raffaele, Mimì from Domenico and Sasà, and Totò from Salvatore). These are difficult to distinguish, however, from truncated names, with or without suffixation, as in Liliana → Lili/-y. 132. This is also the most frequent type in many languages of the world (Jespersen 1942: 176). 133. Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 238) notes that the same vowel pattern, from high to low, is found in other categories, for instance, to evoke proximity vs. remoteness in this/that, these/those, here/there, etc. 134. According to Katamba (2009: 89), “The meaning of the reduplicated word tends to have uncomplimentary connotations”, as in You call yourself a captain? Captain shmaptain, what leadership did you show?. 135. In his analysis of stress in reduplicatives, Dienhart (1999) also includes within this group syntactic phrases like power tower and shock rock, which have not yet acquired the status of compounds. 136. Cf. secondary phonosymbolism, that is, phonaesthemes such as gl- in glance, glimmer, glitter, etc. (see 6.5). 137. See the same tendency in Italian, where pio pio is used for ‘chick’ and cip cip for ‘bird’ in child-parent talk. 138. For some reduplicatives, the same types of orthographic variation may be found in English: e.g. hiphop, hip-hop, hip hop; zigzag, zig-zag, zig zag all attested in the British National Corpus (Wang 2005: 507). 139. Only one representative example for each semantic area is reported here. More data may be found in Merlini Barbaresi (2008: 235). 140. In languages throughout the world, reduplication is often semantically iconic, conferring not only plurality on nouns, but also iterativity on verbs, as in many Bantu languages: e.g., in Swahili, piga means ‘to strike’ and pigapiga ‘to strike repeatedly’ (Wikipedia). 141. In view of this, a distinction should be made between “back-derivation” and “back-inflection”. 142. Cf. cross-formation “if there is no difference of productivity between the two directions” (Becker 1993: 8). 143. For a semantic categorisation of back-formed verbs, see Nagano (2007: 60– 64). 144. Stockwell and Minkova (2001: 10) claim that back-formations are opaque: “They came into the language, after all, because the form they came from

268

Notes

was itself opaque and open to the wrong analysis”, or “misanalysis”, as they call it (cf. “metanalysis” in Jespersen 1942: 537). 145. According to Aronoff (1976: 28), the appropriate choice in back-formation is motivated by the principle of least effort: “when, in the course of our ‘reconstruction’, we arrive at a choice which is arbitrary, we choose the form which is ‘closest’ to the one we started out from”. 146. According to Štekauer (2000: 73), disagreement in meaning excludes pairs such as the infinitive verb unwish (‘to retract, to cancel’, ‘to make an end by wishing’, 1594), and the participle unwished (‘not desired, unwelcome’, 1583) from back-formation, despite the formal analogy and chronological data. 147. For the origin of the source words, the Online Etymology Dictionary was consulted. 148. Viau (2006: 2) mentions other less frequent allomorphs, namely -id- and -in-, without, however, providing examples. Cf. the phenomenon of -izzle or -eezy suffixation, often occurring after truncation: e.g., for sure → fo’ shizzle or fo’ sheezy. 149. McMillan (1980: 163–164) distinguishes between different kinds of items used as infixes. Some are obscene, profane and irreverent: e.g., bloody-hell, by God, by heaven, damned, fucking, goddamn, motherfucking, the devil, the fuck, the hell. Others are euphemistic: e.g., bally, bleeding, bleep, blessed, blooming (cf. bloody), fugging (cf. fucking), jolly. Neutral terms are rarely used as infixes, a few exceptions being absolutely in guaran-absolutely-tee and extremely in terra-extremely-firma, with a purely intensifying function. 150. According to Aronoff (1976: 69–70, after Siegel 1971), the infix must immediately precede the primary stress and must be preceded somewhere in the word it is inserted into by a tertiary stress, as in fa³n-fu²ckin-ta¹stic, Sa³ntafu²ckin-Cru¹z. 151. Plag (2003: 102) defines a foot as “a metrical unit consisting of either one stressed syllable, or one stressed syllable and one or more unstressed syllables”. 152. On the arbitrariness of signs and their meaning, see Aronoff (1976: 8, 15). 153. Bloomfield (1933: 156) actually subdivides echoic words into three groups: 1) those that are really imitative (ah, ouch), 2) those that are coined to sound like a noise made by some object or creature (bang, meow, splash), and 3) those that have the property that “to the speaker it seems as if the sounds were especially suited to the meaning” (flap, flicker, flimmer, flip, flitter, flop, etc.). 154. Cf. Social closeness with the notion of “connivence affective [affective connivance]” in Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 35). 155. Cf. Jocularity with the notion of “connivence ludique [ludic connivance]” in Fradin, Montermini, and Plénat (2009: 35).

Notes

269

156. In English, many instances of blending coined in advertising are reported in Pennarola (2003: 30): e.g., Appletiser, Diorific, Essensuals, Innervigoration, Innovalue, LogiCook, Revitalift, Vitaminfo. In Italian, recent advertisements have included the coined words cerchiotto (← cerchietto ‘hairband’ + orsacchiotto ‘teddy bear’), referring to a hairband for little girls, and morbistenza (← morbidezza ‘softness’ + resistenza ‘strength’) to define a type of toilet paper. 157. Since itsy-bitsy is used here in reference to bikinis, the choice of word is undoubtedly due to its association with a famous song by Brian Hyland entitled Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. 158. In some versions of the fairy tale, the name of the main character is also a reduplicative word, i.e. Chicken Licken (Wikipedia).

References

Adams, Valerie 1973 An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. London: Longman. 2001 Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education/Longman. Algeo, John 1977 Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech 52 (1/2): 47–64. Anderson, Earl R. 1998 A Grammar of Iconism. Madison (NJ): Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Anttila, Raimo 2003 Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda (eds.), 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell. Aronoff, Mark 1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1983 Potential words, actual words, productivity and frequency. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguistics, Shirô Hattori, and Kazuko Inoue (eds.), 163–171. Tokyo: Permanent International Committee on Linguistics. Aronoff, Mark, and Frank Anshen 1998 Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), 237–247. Oxford: Blackwell. Baayen, Harald, and Antoinette Renouf 1996 Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72 (1): 69–96. Baldi, Philip 2000 Creative processes. In Morphologie–Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), 963–972. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Bat-El, Outi 2000 The grammaticality of extragrammatical morphology. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), 61–84. München: Lincom Europa.

References 2006

271

Blends. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Keith Brown (ed.), 66–70. Oxford: Elsevier. Bat-El, Outi, and Evan-Gary Cohen Forth. Stress in English blends: A constraint-based approach. In Crossdisciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, Vincent Renner, François Maniez, and Pierre Arnaud (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauer, Laurie 1979 Against word-based morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 508–509. 1983 English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988 Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2001 Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baum, S.V. 1955 From ‘AWOL’ to ‘VEEP’: The growth and specialization of the acronym. American Speech 30 (2): 103–110. 1956 Feminine characteristics of the acronym. American Speech 31 (3): 224–225. 1957 Formal dress for initial words. American Speech 32 (1): 73–75. 1962 The acronym, pure and impure. American Speech 37 (1): 48–50. Bazzanella, Carla, Claudia Caffi, and Marina Sbisà 1991 Scalar dimensions of illocutionary force. In Speech Acts: Fiction or Reality?, Igor Ž. Žagar (ed.), 63–76. Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler 1981 Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Becker, Thomas 1990 Analogie und Morphologische Theorie. München: Wilhelm Fink. 1993 Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, Geert E. Booij, and Jaap van Marle (eds.), 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004 The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80 (2): 290– 311. Bertacca, Antonio 2009 Natural Morphology and the Loss of Nominal Inflections in English. Pisa: Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press. Bertinetto, Pier Marco 2001 Blends and syllabic structure: A four-fold comparison. In La gramàtica i la semàntica en l’estudi de la variació, Mercè Lorente, Núria Alturo, Emili Boix, Maria-Rosa Lloret, and Lluís Payrató

272

References

(eds.), 59–112. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1940 Word affinities. American Speech 15: 62–73. 1965 Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryant, Margaret B. 1974 Blends are increasing. American Speech 49 (3/4): 163–184. Bybee, Joan 2010 Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cacchiani, Silvia 2007 Discourse-pragmatic features of novel evaluative blends. In Cityscapes: Islands of the Self. Language Studies, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the 22nd AIA Conference, Cagliari, 15–17 September 2005, Laura Jottini, Gabriella Del Lungo, and John Douthwaite (eds.), 103–114. Cagliari: CUEC. Caffi, Claudia 2001 La mitigazione: Un approccio pragmatico alla comunicazione nei contesti terapeutici. Münster: LIT. Cannon, Garland 1986 Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24: 725–753. 1989 Abbreviations and acronyms in English word formation. American Speech 64 (2): 99–127. 2000 Blending. In Morphologie–Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), 952–956. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 1992 Current Morphology. London/New York: Routledge. 2002 An Introduction to English Morphology: Words and their Structure. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Castanier, Jérémy 2009 How blendiloquent! A phonetic study of English lexical blends, Master diss., University of Poitiers.

References

273

Conti, Sara, and Elisa Mattiello 2008 Extra-grammatical morphology: English acronyms and initialisms. In Threads in the Complex Fabric of Language: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, Marcella Bertuccelli Papi, Antonio Bertacca, and Silvia Bruti (eds.), 559– 573. Pisa: Felici Editore. Corbin, Danielle 1987 Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 Vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cutler, Ann 1980 Productivity in word formation. Chicago Linguistics Society 16: 45– 51. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Christian Lehmann 2004 Comparison and gradation. In Morphologie–Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), 1212–1220. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Dienhart, John M. 1999 Stress in reduplicative compounds: mish-mash or hocuspocus?. American Speech 74 (1): 3–37. Doleschal, Ursula, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.) 2000 Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München: Lincom Europa. Donegan, Patricia J., and David Stampe 1979 The study of Natural Phonology. In Current Approaches to Phonological Theory, Daniel A. Dinnsen (ed.), 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Drellishak, Scott 2006 Statistical techniques for detecting and validating phonesthemes. Department of Linguistics, University of Washington. LSA Annual Meeting. Anaheim. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1976 Tendenzen in kontaminatorischen Fehlleistungen (und ihre Beziehung zur Sprachgeschichte). Die Sprache 22: 1–10. 1984 Explaining Natural Phonology. In Phonology Yearbook, Vol. 1, Colin J. Ewen, and John M. Anderson (eds.), 29–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999 What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)?. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 3: 135–144. 2000 Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), 1–10. München: Lincom Europa.

274

References

2005

Word-formation in Natural Morphology. In Handbook of Wordformation, Pavol Štekauer, and Rochelle Lieber (eds.), 267–284. Dordrecht: Springer. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Natalia Gagarina, and Marianne Kilani-Schoch 2005 Reduplication in child language. In Studies on Reduplication, Bernhard Hurch (ed.), 455–474. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Annemarie Karpf 1995 The theoretical relevance of pre- and protomorphology in language acquisition. In Yearbook of Morphology 1994, Geert E. Booij, and Jaap van Marle (eds.), 99–122. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang U. Wurzel 1987 Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi 1994 Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna 2007 Natural Phonology: Universal principles for the study of language (insiders meet outsiders). In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 06–10 August 2007, Jürgen Trouvain, and William J. Barry (eds.), 71–75, available also at www.icphs2007.de. Elfner, Emily, and Wendell Kimper 2008 Reduplication without RED: Evidence from diddly-infixation. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Natasha Abner, and Jason Bishop (eds.), 150–158. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Fandrych, Ingrid 2004 Non-morphematic word-formation processes: A multi-level approach to acronyms, blends, clippings and onomatopoeia. Unpublished Ph. D. diss., University of the Free State, Bloemfontein. 2007 Electronic communication and technical terminology: A rapprochement?. AWA Journal of Language and Communication 1 (1): 147–158. 2008 Submorphemic elements in the formation of acronyms, blends and clippings. Lexis: Lexical Submorphemics 2: 105–123. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. Firth, John R. 1930 Speech. London: Ernest Benn.

References

275

Fischer, Olga 2007 Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Roswitha 1998 Lexical Change in Present-day English. A Corpus-based Study of the Motivation, Institutionalization, and Productivity of Creative Neologisms. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fleischer, Wolfgang 1975 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fradin, Bernard 2000 Combining forms, blends and related phenomena. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), 11–59. München: Lincom Europa. 2003 Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Fradin, Bernard, Fabio Montermini, and Marc Plénat 2009 Morphologie grammaticale et extragrammaticale. In Aperçus de morphologie du français, Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux, and Marc Plénat (eds.), 21–45. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Gotti, Maurizio 2005 Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. Grésillon, Almut 1984 La règle et le monstre: Le mot-valise. Interrogations sur la langue, à partir d’un corpus de Heinrich Heine. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gries, Stefan Th. 2004a Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42 (3): 639–667. 2004b Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), 415–428. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Forth. Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitivelinguistic perspectives. In Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, Vincent Renner, François Maniez, and Pierre Arnaud (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Halliday, Michael A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan 1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Haspelmath, Martin 2002 Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold Publications.

276

References

Heller, L.G., and James Macris 1968 A typology of shortening devices. American Speech 43 (3): 201– 208. Hockett, Charles F. 1958 A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hong, Sung-Hoon 2004 Properties of English word-blends: Structural description and statistical distribution. English Language and Linguistics 18: 117–140. Hooper, Joan B. 1976 An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Householder, Fred W. 1946 On the problem of sound and meaning, an English phonestheme. Word 2: 83–84. Howson, Roger 1945 A handbook of abbreviations. American Speech 20 (2): 125–128. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingram, David 1974 Phonological rules in young children. Journal of Child Language 1: 49–64. 1979 Phonological patterns in the speech of young children. In Language Acquisition, Paul Fletcher, and Michael Garman (eds.), 133–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inkelas, Sharon 2006 Reduplication. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Keith Brown (ed.), 417–419. Oxford: Elsevier. Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll 2005 Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jakobson, Roman 1944 Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jamet, Denis 2009 A morphophonological approach to clipping in English. Can the study of clipping be formalized?. Lexis Special: Lexicology & Phonology 1: 15–31.

References

277

Jespersen, Otto 1922 Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin. 1942 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Kastovsky, Dieter 1986 The problem of productivity in word formation. Linguistics 24: 585–600. Katamba, Francis 2005 English Words. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge. 2009 Morphology: Word structure. In English Language: Description, Variation and Context, Jonathan Culpeper, Francis Katamba, Paul Kerswill, Ruth Wodak, and Tony McEnery (eds.), Chap. 5, 77–110. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kelly, Michael H. 1998 To ‘brunch’ or to ‘brench’: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics 36 (3): 579–590. Kemmer, Suzanne 2003 Schemas and lexical blends. In Motivation in Language: From Case Grammar to Cognitive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, Hubert C. Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, KlausUwe Panther (eds.), 69–97. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kidd, Evan, Nenagh Kemp, and Sara Quinn 2011 Did you have a choccie bickie this arvo? A quantitative look at Australian hypocoristics. Language Sciences 33: 359–368. Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Wolfgang U. Dressler Forth. Irregular regularities in extragrammatical morphology. In Irregularity in Inflectional and Derivational Morphology, Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (ed.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kiparsky, Paul 1992 Analogy. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 1, William Bright (ed.), 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press. Kreidler, Charles W. 1979 Creating new words by shortening. Journal of English Linguistics 13: 24–36. 2000 Clipping and acronymy. In Morphologie–Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1, Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), 956–963. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Kubozono, Haruo 1990 Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case for phonology-morphology interface. In Yearbook of Morphology 1990,

278

References

Geert E. Booij, and Jaap van Marle (eds.), 1–20. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Laaha, Sabine 2004 Développement précoce de la morphologie verbale: Une étude comparative sur l’acquisition de l’allemand autrichien et du français, Ph. D. diss., University of Vienna/Sorbonne. Lehrer, Adrienne 1996 Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (4): 359–390. 2003 Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica 15 (2): 369–382. 2007 Blendalicious. In Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, Judith Munat (ed.), 115–133. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. López Rúa, Paula 2002 On the structure of acronyms and neighbouring categories: A prototype-based account. English Language and Linguistics 6 (1): 31–60. 2004 Acronyms & Co.: A typology of typologies. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 12: 109–129. 2006 Nonmorphological word formation. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Keith Brown (ed.), 675–678. Oxford: Elsevier. 2007 Keeping up with the times. Lexical creativity in electronic communication. In Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, Judith Munat (ed.), 137–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Mair, Christian 2006 Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makkai, Adam 1972 Acronymy in English: A stratificational re-examination. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, Luigi Heilmann (ed.), 345–363. Bologna: Il Mulino. Marantz, Alec 1982 Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483–545. Marchand, Hans 1963 On content as a criterion of derivational relationship with backderived words. Indogermanische Forschungen 68: 170–175. 1969 The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd ed. München: Beck. Martinet, André 1955 Economie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: A. Francke.

References

279

Mattiello, Elisa 2003 Slang compounds as one case of morphological complexity. In Complexity in Language and Text, Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (ed.), 343–377. Pisa: Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press. 2007 Combining forms and blends: The case of scape. In Cityscapes: Islands of the Self. Language Studies, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the 22nd AIA Conference, Cagliari, 15–17 September 2005, Laura Jottini, Gabriella Del Lungo, and John Douthwaite (eds.), 115–130. Cagliari: CUEC. 2008a An Introduction to English Slang: A Description of its Morphology, Semantics and Sociology. Monza: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher. 2008b From sexgate to vallettopoli: Contrasting English and Italian combining forms. In Conversarii: Dynamics of Language Contact in the Twenty-first Century, Vol. 2, Carla Vergaro (ed.), 177–190. Perugia: Guerra. 2009 A morphopragmatic analysis of English and Italian negative prefixes. Studi e Saggi Linguistici XLVII: 125–156. Forth. Initialisms & Co.: Lexical and stylistic choices in scientific terminology. Proceedings of the Seminar on the Popularization of Scientific Discourse in a Changing World: Lexical and Stylistic Choices Past and Present, Lecce, 26–27 January 2012. Mayerthaler, Willi 1981 Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenäum. McCarthy, John J. 1982 Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language 58 (3): 574–590. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince 1986 Prosodic Morphology 1986, Technical Report #32, University of Massachusetts, Amherst/Rutgers University. 1993 Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction, Technical Report 3, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University. McCrum, Andrew 2002 A cultural-linguistic study of English sound symbolic pejorative lexemes beginning in sl- and du-. Iconicity in Language 82: 303–331. McMillan, James B. 1980 Infixing and interposing in English. American Speech 55 (3): 163–183. Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia 1988 Markedness in English Discourse. Parma: Zara. 2000 Iconicity in language and text. Paper presented at the ESSE Conference, Helsinki, 2000. 2001 The pragmatics of the ‘diminutive’ -y/ie suffix in English. In Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler

280

References

Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Chris SchanerWolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Neubarth (eds.), 315–326. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier. 2007 Il fenomeno delle sigle: Un primo schema di analisi. In Linguistica, linguaggi specialistici, didattica delle lingue: Studi in onore di Leo Schena, Giuliana Garzone, and Rita Salvi (eds.), 37–47. Roma: CISU. 2008 Extra-grammatical morphology: English reduplicatives. In Words in Action: Diachronic and Synchronic Approaches to English Discourse. Studies in Honour of Ermanno Barisone, John Douthwaite, and Domenico Pezzini (eds.), 228–241. Genova: ECIG. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Available at http://www.merriam-webster.com. Milroy, James 1992 Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Minkova, Donka 2002 Ablaut reduplication in English: The criss-crossing of prosody and verbal art. English Language and Linguistics 6 (1): 133–169. Nadarajan, Shanthi 2006 A crosslinguistic study of reduplication. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT 13: 39–53. Nagano, Akiko 2007 Marchand’s analysis of back-formation revisited: Back-formation as a type of conversion. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54 (1): 33–72. Nevins, Andrew, and Bert Vaux 2007 Metalinguistic, shmetalinguistic: The phonology of shmreduplication. In CLS 39-1: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Jonathan E. Cihlar, Amy L. Franklin, David W. Kaiser, and Irene Kimbara (eds.). Chicago: AuthorHouse, available at http://cambridge.academia.edu/BertVaux/Papers/136862/. Online Etymology Dictionary Available at http://www.etymonline.com/. Oxford English Dictionary Online 1989 2nd ed. (OED2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.oed.com/. 3rd ed. (OED3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.oed.com/. Pennanen, Esko V. 1966 Contributions to the Study of Back-formation in English. Series A, Vol. 4. Tampere: Acta Academiae Socialis.

References

281

Pennarola, Cristina 2003 Nonsense in Advertising: Deviascion in English Print Ads. Napoli: Liguori Editore. Philps, Dennis Forth. Reconsidering phonæsthemes: Submorphemic invariance in English ‘sn-words’. Lingua 2011, available at www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua. Plag, Ingo 1999 Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2003 Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004 Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica 58 (3/4): 193–226. Plank, Frans 1981 Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Pound, Louise 1914 Blends: Their Relation to English Word formation. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman. Raimy, Eric 2000 The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ramat, Paolo 1992 Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30: 549–560. 2001 Degrammaticalization or transcategorization?. In Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Neubarth (eds.), 393–401. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier. Rastall, Paul 2004 Playful English: Kinds of reduplication. English Today 20 (4): 38– 41. Rainer, Franz 1993 Spanisches Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Renner, Vincent, François Maniez, and Pierre Arnaud (eds.) Forth. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

282

References

Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke 1996 Preferred sound shapes of new roots: On some phonotactic and prosodic properties of shortenings in German and French. In Natural Phonology: The State of the Art, Bernhard Hurch, and Richard A. Rhodes (eds.), 261–292. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000 Creative competence at work: The creation of partial motivation in German trade names. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), 85–105. München: Lincom Europa. 2002 Volksetymologie und Paronomasie als lautnachahmende Wortschöpfung. In Historische Wortbildung des Deutschen, Mechthild Habermann, Peter O. Müller, and Horst Haider Munske (eds.), 105– 127. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2006 Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica XL (1/2): 155–181. 2008 Word creation. Definition – function – typology. In Variation and Change in Morphology. Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, Franz Rainer, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, and Hans C. Luschützky (eds.), 201–216. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Rossi, Andrea 2007 The phenomenon of clipping in AusE. In Cityscapes: Islands of the Self. Language Studies, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the 22nd AIA Conference, Cagliari, 15–17 September 2005, Laura Jottini, Gabriella Del Lungo, and John Douthwaite (eds.), 67–81. Cagliari: CUEC. Ryder, Mary Ellen 1999 Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3: 269–297. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916 Cours de linguistique générale. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, and Albert Riedlinger (eds.). Lausanne/Paris: Payot. Scalise, Sergio 1984 Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. 1988 The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1988, Geert E. Booij, and Jaap van Marle (eds.), 229–245. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schironi, Francesca 2007 Analogía, analogia, proportio, ratio: Loanwords, calques, and reinterpretations of a Greek technical word. In Bilinguisme et terminologie grammaticale gréco-latine, Louis Basset, Frédérique Biville, Bernard Colombat, Pierre Swiggers, and Alfons Wouters (eds.), 321–338. Louvain: Peeters.

References

283

Shariatmadari, David 2006 Sounds difficult? Why phonological theory needs ‘ease of articulation’. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 207–226. Shimamura, Reiko 1984 Back-formation of English compound verbs revisited. The Tsuda Review 29: 79–108. Shisler, Benjamin K. 1997 The influence of phonesthesia on the English language. Avalable at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/9783/phonpap1.html. Siegel, Dorothy 1979 Topics in English Morphology. New York: Garland. Soudek, Lev I. 1978 The relation of blending to English word-formation: Theory, structure and typological attempts. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Linguists, Vienna, 28 August–02 September 1977, Wolfgang U. Dressler, and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), 462–466. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Spencer, Andrew 1991 Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Stampe, David 1969 The acquisition of phonetic representation. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 443–454. 1979 A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Štekauer, Pavol 2000 English Word Formation: A History of Research (1969-1995). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Stockwell, Robert, and Donka Minkova 2001 English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thornton, Anna M. 1993 Italian blends. In Natural Morphology: Perspectives for the Nineties, Livia Tonelli, and Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), 143–155. Padova: Unipress. 2000 On -ex and -tex. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M. Thornton (eds.), 107–126. München: Lincom Europa. Thun, Nils 1963 Reduplicative Words in English: A Study of Formations of the Types Tick-tick, Hurly-burly and Shilly-shally. Uppsala: Carl Bloms.

284

References

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Bernd Heine (eds.) 1991 Approaches to Grammaticalization. 2 Vols. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Viau, Joshua 2002 Accounting for -Iz Infixation in Rap and Hip-hop Music, Unpublished manuscript, Evanston, Northwestern University. Voeltz, F.K. Erhard, and Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.) 2001 Ideophones. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Wang, Shih-ping 2005 Corpus based approaches and discourse analysis in relation to reduplication and repetition. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 505–540. Warren, Beatrice 1990 The importance of combining forms. In Contemporary Morphology, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison (eds.), 111–132. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Waugh, Linda R. 1994 Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (1): 55–70. Williams, Edwin 1981 On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12 (2): 245–274. Yu, Alan C.L. 2004 Reduplication in English Homeric infixation. In Proceedings of the 34th North East Linguistic Society, Vol. 34, Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf (eds.), 619–633. Amherst: GLSA. 2007 A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zipf, George K. 1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press. Zonneveld, Wim 1984 The name of the game: Expletive insertion in English. Linguistic Analysis 13: 55–60. Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum 1987 Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip (eds.), 330– 340. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Sources for data Acronyms, Initialisms, Alphabetisms and other Abbreviations Available at http://www.all-acronyms.com/.

Sources for data American Pie 1999 Paul Weitz. USA. Barney Stinson’s blog Available at http://www.myspace.com/owsleys. BBC Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/. BBC Learning English Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/. Bootylicious 2001 Destiny’s Child. USA. Bridget Jones’s Diary 2001 Sharon Maguire. UK/USA. Celebrity Gossip & Lifestyle Magazine Available at http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/. Chicago Sun-Times Available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/. Chicken Little Available at http://www.smart-central.com/. Dictionary of English Phonesthemes Available at http://reocities.com/SoHo/Studios/9783/phond1.html. Dictionary of Reduplicated Words Available at http://allusional.info/dictRedup/index.php. Dingly Dangly Scarecrow Available at http://www.smart-central.com/. Eur-Lex Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. Friends 1994– 2004 Kevin Bright, David Crane, and Marta Kauffman. USA. The Full Monty 1997 Peter Cattaneo. UK. How I Met your Mother 2005– 2011 Carter Bays, and Craig Thomas. USA. Juno 2007 Jason Reitman. USA. Kim Rudyard Kipling. Chap. 5. Available at http://www.classicreader.com/. The Matrix 1999 Andrew Wachowski, and Larry Wachowski. USA. Medscape Reference: Drugs, Diseases and Procedures Available at http://emedicine.medscape.com/.

285

286

References

Nature Nature Publishing Group. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/. Neologisms Available at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/neologisms/a.html. Notting Hill 1999 Roger Michell. UK/USA. PartyUtah (edm) Forum Available at http://www.partyutah.com/edm/. The Rice University Neologisms Database Available at http://neologisms.rice.edu/. A Scanner Darkly 2006 Richard Linklater. USA. Science American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/. The Simpsons 1989– 2011 Matthew A. Groening. USA. Sing-song Words: Reduplicatives and Rhyming Words Available at http://www.waybackwords.com/reduplicatives.htm, http://www.waybackwords.com/reduplicatives2.htm. Speed 1994 Jan de Bont. USA. Squeasel Words: Portmanteaus and Blends Available at http://www.waybackwords.com/portmanteaus.htm, http://www.waybackwords.com/portmanteaus2.htm. There’s Something about Mary 1998 Bobby Farrelly, and Peter Farrelly. USA. Through the Wire 2003 Kanye West. USA. Trainspotting 1996 Danny Boyle. UK. When Harry Met Sally 1989 Rob Reiner. USA. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia San Francisco: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Available at http://wikipedia.org/. You’ve Got Mail 1998 Nora Ephron. USA.

Lexical index

As explained in 1.1, the present index includes my total database, arranged into lists representing different morphological categories. The entries of the index are ordered alphabetically within the lists. For each entry, the index provides the part-of-speech, a definition, word sources (where opaque), and cross-references. Clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names, hypocoristics Abe (name) Abraham. ad (noun) administration. ad, advert (rarely adv, advt) (noun) advertisement. addy (noun) address. ade (noun) fruit juice. From lemonade, orangeade. ADG (noun) adermatoglyphia. adman (noun) advertising man. admin (noun) administration (also ad). adv (ppl adjective) advanced; (noun) adverb; advertisement; advocate. afish (noun) aficionado. after (noun) afternoon. Ag (name) Agatha. aggro (noun) aggravation; aggression. Al (name) Albert; Alfred (also Alf); Alonzo (cf. Lon). alky (noun) alcoholic. ambo (noun) ambulance worker. ammo (noun) ammunition. amp (noun) amplifier. ana (noun) anorexia.

Andy (name) Andrew. Angie (name) Angela. anon (noun) anonymous. anthro (noun) anthropology. app (noun) application; appetizer. Archie (noun) an anti-aircraft gun. From Archibald. Argie (noun, adjective) Argentinian. arvo (noun) afternoon. Aussie (noun) Australian. auto (noun) automobile. Ave (noun) Avenue. Babs, Babbie (name) Barbara. baccy (noun) tobacco. backstitution (noun) backsubstitution. Barb, Barbie (name) Barbara. barbie (noun) barbecue. Bart (name) Bartholomew. bathers (noun, plural) bathing shorts. beano (noun) bean-feast. bedder (noun) bedroom. bed-sitter (noun) bed-sitting room.

288

Lexical index

Beeb (noun) British Broadcasting Corporation. From BBC. Belle (name) Arabella; Belinda. benny (noun) benzedrine tablet. berg (noun) iceberg. bermies (noun, plural) bermudas. Bernie (name) Bernard. Bert, Bertie (name) Adelbert; Albert; Bertram; Herbert; Robert. bet (noun) abet. Bet, Beth, Betty, Bes (name) Elizabeth. Cf. Lisa, Liz(zy). bevie, bevvy (noun) beverage. B-girl (noun) bar girl. B’ham (name) Birmingham. bi (adjective, noun) bisexual. bib (noun) library. From Fr. bibliothèque. biccy (noun) biscuit (cf. Aus.E. bickie). bike (noun) bicycle. bikie (noun) motorbike. billies (noun) dollar bills. binos (noun) binoculars. biopic (noun) biographical picture. biz (noun) business. bldg (noun) building. boatie (noun) boatman. Bob (name) Robert. bodbiz (noun) body business. Bogey (name) Bogart. Boney, Bonny (name) Bonaparte. boob (noun) a stupid fellow. From booby. bot (noun) robot. Bozzy (name) Boswell. bra (noun) brassière.

breathalyser (noun) breath analyser. brekker (noun) breakfast. brill (adjective) brilliant. bro (noun) brother. brolly (noun) umbrella. bronc (noun) bronco. bus (noun) omnibus. butch (noun) butcher. B-way (name) Broadway. c. (noun) century; chapter. CA (noun) cancer. From carcinoma. cab (noun) taximeter cabriolet. Caddie/-y (noun) Cadillac. caf (noun) cafeteria. caff (noun) café. cam (noun) camera. camo (noun) camouflage. cap (noun) captain. capital (noun) capital city; capital letter. caps (noun, plural) capital letters. cardi, cardie (noun) cardigan. carny (noun) carnival worker. Catho (noun) Catholic. ’cause, ’cos, cos (conjunction) because. celebs (noun, plural) celebrities. cell phone (noun) cellular telephone. cello (noun) violoncello. celly (noun) cellular phone. ’cept (preposition) except. champers, shampers (noun) champagne. Charlie (name) Charles; Charlotte. chemo (noun) chemotherapy. Chevy (noun) Chevrolet.

Clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names, hypocoristics

Chicom (noun) Chinese communist. chippie/-y (noun) chip-shop. choke (noun) artichoke. Chrissie (name) Christine. chute (noun) parachute. cig, ciggie/-y (noun) cigarette. civvies (noun, plural) civilian clothes. coke (noun) coca cola; cocaine. collekkers (noun) collections, an Oxford examination. combo (noun) combination. comfy (adjective) comfortable. Commie, Commo (noun) Communist. common (noun) common sense. comp (noun) computer; competition. compo (noun) compensation. Comsymp (noun) Communist sympathizer. condo (noun) condominium. congrats (noun, plural) congratulations. conlang (noun) constructed language. coon (noun) raccoon. copter (noun) helicopter. corp (noun) corporation. cortisone (noun) corticosterone. cozzie (noun) costume. cred (noun) credit; credibility. credie (noun) credit card. crim (noun) criminal. croc (noun) crocodile. cruits, ’cruits (noun, plural) recruits. C-section (noun) Caesarean section.

289

cuke (noun) cucumber. curio (noun) curiosity. cute (adjective) acute. cutie/-ey (noun) an attractive young woman. From cute, originally an aphetic form of acute. cuz (noun) cousin. cyborg (noun) cybernetic organism. darl (noun) darling. deb (noun) debutante. Debby (name) Deborah. decaf, de-caff (noun) decaffeinated coffee. ’deed (adverb) indeed. deets (noun, plural) details. def, defs (adverb) definitely. deli (noun) delicatessen. delish (adjective) delicious. Dem, dem (noun) Democrat. demo (noun) demonstration; demolition. des res (noun) desirable residence. dif (noun) difference; (adjective) different. digi cabes (noun) digital cable. dino (noun) dinosaur. dis (verb) to show disrespect. From the noun. disco (noun) discotheque. divi., divvy (noun) dividend. Dizzy (name) Disraeli. dlr (noun) dollar. doc (noun) doctor; document. Dol (name) Dorothy. Dolph (name) Adolphus. Dora (name) Theodora. dorm (noun) dormitory.

290

Lexical index

droid (noun) android. druggie (noun) drug addict. E. coli (noun) Escherichia/Entamoeba coli. edbiz (noun) educational business. ekker (noun) exercise. emo (adjective) emotional. Eve (name) Evelyn. Cf. Lyn. evo-devo (noun) evolutionary developmental biology. ex (noun) ex-husband; ex-wife. exam (noun) examination. exec (noun) executive officer. fab (adjective) fabulous. fag (noun) a male homosexual. From faggot. fam dram (noun) family drama. fan (noun) fanatic. fanfic (noun) fan fiction. fash (noun) fashion; (adjective) fashionable. fave (adjective) favourite. fax (noun) facsimile. fem (adjective) feminine. fence (noun) defence. fend (verb) to defend. Fergie (name) Ferguson. fess, ’fess (verb) to confess. fiche (noun) microfiche. finals (noun, plural) final examinations. flex (adjective) flexible. Flo, Floss (name) Florence. flu (noun) influenza. folkie (noun) folk singer. footer, footie/-y (noun) football. ’fraid (adjective) afraid. frat (noun) fraternity; (verb) to fraternize.

Fred (name) Alfred. fridge (noun) refrigerator. fries (noun) French fried potatoes. ’Fro (noun) Afro. fro-yo (noun) frozen yogurt. Gail (name) Abigail. ’gainst (preposition) against. garbo (noun) garbage collector. gas (noun) gasoline. gator (noun) alligator. general (noun) general servant. gents (noun) gentlemen’s lavatory. Gerry (name) Gerald. gin (noun) spirit obtained from juniper berries. From Dutch genever. glam (noun) glamour; (adjective) glamorous; (verb) to glamorize. glutes (noun) gluteus maximus. goalie (noun) goalkeeper. Gorby (name) Gorbachev. grad (noun) graduate. grandma (noun) grandmother. grannie (noun) grandmother; grandfather. graph (noun) graphic formula. grotty (adjective) grotesque. gussie (noun) an effeminate man. From Augustus. gym (noun) gymnasium; gymnastics. gypsy, gyppo (noun) Egyptian. H. (noun) hydrogen; heroin. Hal (name) Harry. hanky (noun) handkerchief. hard (noun) hard labour. hash (noun) hashish.

Clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names, hypocoristics

hetero (noun, adjective) heterosexual. hi-fi (noun) high fidelity. high-tech (noun) high technology. hippo (noun) hippopotamus. hols (noun, plural) holidays. homo (noun, adjective) homosexual. Honkers (name) Hong Kong. HRN (noun) heroin. hubby (noun) husband. hyper (adjective) hyperactive. ID (noun) identification. imposs (adjective) impossible. inf (adverb) infinitely. info (noun) information. intercom (noun) intercommunication system. intro (noun) introduction. ism (noun) doctrine; theory; practice. From fascism, communism. J. Lo (name) Jennifer Lopez. jams (noun) pyjamas. Jeez (interjection) Jesus. Jo’burg (name) Johannesburg. jollo (noun) jollification. journo (noun) journalist. Jpn (noun) Japan. jst (adverb) just. jumbo (noun) jumbo jet. juvie/-ey (noun) juvenile delinquent. kid-vid (noun) kid video. klepto (adjective) kleptomaniac. lab (noun) laboratory. lat (noun) latissimus dorsi. ’lax (ppl adjective) relaxed. lax (noun, verb) (to) relax.

291

leccer, lecker, lekker (noun) lecture. leet (noun) élite. legit (noun, adjective) legitimate. lesbo (noun) lesbian. Lexie (name) Alexandra. Cf. Xan. lib (noun) liberation. limo (noun) limousine. Lisa, Liz, Lizzy (name) Elisabeth. Cf. Bet(h), Betty. lit crit (noun) literary criticism. Lizzie/lizzie (noun) an effeminate man. From Elizabeth. loco (noun) locomotive. loid (noun) celluloid. Lon (name) Alonso. loony/-ey (noun, adjective) mad (person). From lunatic. lor (interjection) lord. Ltd (ppl adjective) limited (of a company). Lum, Lom (name) Columbus. lunch (noun) luncheon. Lyn (name) Evelyn. Cf. Eve. ma (noun) mama. mac (noun) an Italian. From macaroni. Mac (noun) Macintosh. mag, maggie (noun) magazine. maggie/-y (noun) a prostitute. From Margaret. Mandy (name) Amanda. marvy (adjective) marvellous. mate (noun) checkmate. maths (noun) mathematics. matric (noun) matriculation. maybs (adverb) maybe. mayo (noun) mayonnaise. Mel (name) Amelia. memo (noun) memorandum.

292

Lexical index

mend (verb) to amend. mensh (verb) to mention, chiefly in don’t mensh. meth (noun) methamphetamine; methylated spirit, also with -s. Mex (noun) foreign currency. From Mexican. mgr. (noun) manager. mia (noun) bulimia. midcult (noun) middle culture. Mike (name) Michael. mike (noun) microphone; microgram (of a drug). milko (noun) milkman. mimeo (noun) mimeograph. misper (noun) missing person. miss (noun) mistress. mizzy (adjective) miserable. mob (noun) mobile vulgus. mobes, mobile (noun) mobile telephone. mocs (noun, plural) moccasins. mono (noun) mononucleosis. Montie (name) Montgomery. movie (noun) moving picture. mozzie (noun) mosquito. msg (noun) message. mum (noun) chrysanthemum. mush (noun) an umbrella. From mushroom. muso (noun) musician. Musso (name) Mussolini. Nam (name) Vietnam. nana (noun) a foolish person. From banana. narc, nark (noun) narcotics agent; narcotics informant. Nasho (noun) National Service. natch (adverb) naturally. natural (noun) natural life.

’neath (preposition) beneath; underneath. neg (noun) negative photograph. Net, Netty (name) Antoinette. niff (verb) to sniff. nig (noun) a black person. From nigger. nightie (noun) nightdress. nr. (adverb, preposition) near. nuff (noun, adjective, adverb) enough. o’er (preposition) over. offie (noun) off-licence shop. op art (noun) optical art. op (noun) operator; opportunity; (adjective) operative; optical. op-ed (noun) opinion editorial. oppo (noun) opposite number. org-man (noun) organization man. p. (noun) page. pants (noun, plural) a pair of underpants. Am.E. trousers. From pantaloons. pash (noun) passion. Pat, Patty (name) Patricia. Cf. Trish. patsy (noun) someone who is the object of ridicule. From Patrick. pecs (noun, plural) pectoral muscles. peeps (noun, plural) people. pen (noun) penitentiary. perm (noun) permanent wave. perv, perve (noun) perversion; (sexual) pervert; (adjective) perverted (also pervy). phenom (noun) phenomenon. Philly (name) Philadelphia.

Clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names, hypocoristics

phone (noun) telephone. photo (noun) photograph. photog (noun) photographer. physio (noun) physiotherapist. piano (noun) pianoforte. pic (noun) picture. pix (noun, plural) pictures, especially photographs. pike (noun) turnpike. plane (noun) airplane, aeroplane. pls (verb) to please. ply (verb) to apply. poke (noun) pocket book. pokies (noun, plural) poker machines. pol, pollie (noun) politician. polio (noun) poliomyelitis. polly, Polly (noun) Apollinaris mineral water. pop (noun) popular music. porn, pornie (noun) pornography. Also in porn star. possum (noun) opossum. postie (noun) postman. ppl (noun, plural) people. pram (noun) perambulator. p’raps (adverb) perhaps. preemie (noun) premature baby. prefab (noun) prefabricated structure. preg, preggers, preggo (adjective) pregnant. pre-nup (noun) pre-nuptial agreement. prep (verb) to prepare; (adjective) preparatory. prepreg (ppl adjective) preimpregnated. pres (noun) president.

293

primaries (noun, plural) primary elections. pro (noun) professional (prostitute). pro-am (noun) professional amateur. probs (noun, plural) problems; (adverb) probably. proctor (noun) procurator. prof (noun) professor. prog (noun) proctor. promo (noun) promotion. pros, pross (noun) prostitute. Prot (noun) Protestant. psych (noun) psychology; (verb) to psychoanalyse. psycho (noun) psychopath; (adjective) psychopathic. pub (noun) public house. pulmotor (noun) pulmonary motor. quake (noun) earthquake. quasar (noun) a celestial object that resembles a star optically. From quasi-stellar. quiz (noun) a questionnaire, an examination or test of knowledge. From inquisitive. rad (adjective) fantastic. From radical. Rasta (noun) Rastafarian. ref (noun) referee. reffo (noun) refugee. rego (noun) car registration. rehab (noun) rehabilitation; (verb) to rehabilitate. rellies (noun, plural) relatives. rents (noun, plural) parents. rgds (noun, plural) regards. rhino (noun) rhinoceros.

294

Lexical index

Rick, Richie (name) Richard. roach (noun) cockroach. Robbie (name) Roberta. robbo (noun) a horse and trap. From Robinson. rom com (noun) romantic comedy. Ron (name) Aaron; Ronald. rugger (noun) rugby football. Sainters (name) St Kilda Football Club. Sal (name) Sarah. Salvo (noun) Salvationist. sammo (noun) sandwich. Sandy (name) Alexander. sarge (noun) sergeant. sausie (noun) sausage. sax (noun) saxophone. sci-fi (noun) science fiction. Scouse (noun) a native or inhabitant of Liverpool. From lobscouse. script (noun) prescription. sec (noun) second. secko (noun) a sexual pervert. From sex. secy (noun) secretary. servo (noun) service station. shake (noun) milkshake. sheen (noun) machine. Sherry (name) Sheridan. shoppie/-y (noun) shop assistant. showbiz (noun) show business. shrink (noun) a psychiatrist. From head-shrinker. siggy (noun) significant other. sim (noun) simulation. sis, sissy (noun) sister. sitcom (noun) situation comedy. skin (noun) skinhead.

slomo, slo-mo (noun) slow motion. smoko (noun) break from work. From smoke. soccer, socker (noun) association football. spag bol (noun) spaghetti bolognese. spaz (noun) spastic. spec (noun) speculation; specialist; specification. specs (noun, plural) spectacles. spite (preposition) despite. spk (verb) to speak. sport (verb) to disport. spy (verb) to espy. sry (adjective) sorry. starkers, starko (noun) stark naked. stereo (noun) stereophonic (system). still (verb) to distil. story (noun) history. strange (verb) to estrange. stude (noun) student. stupe (noun) a stupid person; (adjective) stupid. sub (noun) submarine; substitute. Sue (name) Suzanne. sum (verb) to summarize. sunnies (noun, plural) sunglasses. surfie (noun) surfer. swimmers (noun, plural) swimming shorts. Sydders (name) Sydney. sysop (noun) system operator. tab (noun) tabulator; tablet (of LSD). tab show (noun) tabloid show. tache (noun) moustache.

Clippings, clipped compounds, clipped names, hypocoristics

talc (noun) talcum. tard (noun) retard. tato, tatie, tattie (noun) potato. taxi, taxicab (noun) taximeter cabriolet. TB, tb (noun) tuberculosis. teach (noun) teacher. tec (noun) detective. tech (noun) technology. teen (noun) teenager. tele, telly (noun) television. tempo (noun) temporary building. tend (verb) to attend. tick (noun) ticket. Tilda (name) Mathilda. Tish (name) Letitia. Tom (name) Thomas. Toria (name) Victoria. Cf. Vicky. trad (noun) traditional jazz. trank (noun) tranquillizer. Trish (name) Patricia. Cf. Pat(ty). Trix (name) Beatrice. tu (noun) tuition. tude (noun) attitude. turps (noun) turpentine. TV (noun) television (also teevee); transvestite. ’tween (preposition) between. typo (noun) typographical error. U, uni (noun) university. Cf. varsity. U-ey (noun) U-turn. Underground (noun) underground railway. undies (noun, plural) underwear. vag (noun) vagina. vamp (noun) seductive woman. From vampire.

295

van (noun) advantage; caravan. varsity (noun) university. Cf. U, uni. vator (noun) elevator. Vee (name) Veronica. veg (noun) vegetable; vegetarian; (verb) to vegetate, to pass the time in vacuous inactivity. veggie (noun) vegetarian; vegetable. vent (noun) ventriloquist. venture (noun) adventure. Ves (name) Sylvester. vet (noun) veteran; veterinarian. vibes (noun) vibraphone. Vicky (name) Victoria. Cf. Toria. vry (adjective, adverb) very. vs. (preposition) versus. whatevs (pronoun) whatever. wi-fi (noun) wireless fidelity. wig (noun) periwig. wino (noun) alcoholic. From wine. wk (noun) week. Woolies (name) Woolworths. Wordy (name) Wordsworth. Xan (name) Alexandra. Cf. Lexie. Yard (noun) Montagnard. za (noun) pizza. zep (noun) zeppelin. zine (noun) magazine. ’zing (adjective) amazing. zoo (noun) zoological garden.

296

Lexical index

Acronyms and initialisms 4H (noun) head, heart, hands, and health. 4WD (noun) four-wheel drive. A3 (adverb) anytime, anyplace, anywhere. A.-A. (noun) anti-aircraft. ABC (noun) a better chance program. AC (noun) Aero Club; Air Corps; Alpine Club; alternating current; Appeal Court. A.D.C. (noun) aide-de-camp. AFK, afk (adverb) away from keyboard. AI (noun) Artificial Intelligence; Amnesty International; (adjective) all-inclusive. AID (noun) Agency for International Development. AIDS, Aids (noun) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIM (noun) American Indian Movement. A.-G. (noun) Attorney-General. AKA, Aka, aka (adjective) also known as. ALLEGRO (noun) Allegro low level game routine. a.m. (adverb) ante meridiem. AMESLAN (noun) American Sign Language (also ASL). AOL (noun) America online. ARCA (noun) Automobile Racing Car of America. A.S.A.P., ASAP, a.s.a.p. (adverb) as soon as possible.

ASBO (noun) anti-social behaviour order(s). ASCII (noun) American Standard Code for Information Interchange. ASL (noun) American Sign Language (also AMESLAN). ASLEF (noun) Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. ASP (noun) Anglo-Saxon protestant. Cf. WASP. A/S.R.S. (noun) Air-Sea Rescue Service. A.T.&T. (noun) American Telephone and Telegraph Company. AVW (noun) Architecture Vision Weekly. A.W.O.L., AWOL, awol (adjective) absent without (official) leave. B.A. (noun) Bachelor of Arts; British Airways; Breathing Apparatus; bad ass. BAFTA (noun) British Academy of film and television arts. BANANA (noun) build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. B. and S. (noun) brandy and soda. BASIC (noun) the name of a highlevel programming language designed for easy learning. From Beginners’ All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.

Acronyms and initialisms

B.B.C., BBC (noun) British Broadcasting Corporation. B.C.E. (adverb) Before the Common Era. b. & b. (noun) bed and breakfast. Benelux (noun) Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg. B.L. (noun) Bachelor of Law. BLT (noun) bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. BOAT (noun) byway open to all traffic. BORAX (noun) boiling reactor experiment. BRB (adverb) be right back. B.S. (noun) bullshit. BTEC (noun) Business and Technician Education Council. BYOB (abbreviation) bring your own bottle. CAB (noun) Citizens Advice Bureau. CAD (noun) Coronary Artery Disease; computer-aided design. CAE (noun) computer-aided engineering. CALIPSO (noun) Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations. CARE (noun) Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere. CAVE (noun) cave automatic virtual environment. CD (noun) compact disc. CD-ROM (noun) compact disc (with) read-only memory. CERCLA (noun) Comprehensive Environmental Response,

297

Compensation, and Liability Act. C. & W. (noun) country-andwestern music. CFI (noun) Court of First Instance. CI (noun) cardiac insufficiency. CIA (noun) Central Intelligence Agency. C. in C. (noun) Commander in Chief. C.O.D. (noun) cash on delivery. C. of A. (noun) Certificate of Airworthiness. C. of E. (noun) Church of England. COLA (noun) cost of living adjustments. colidar (noun) coherent light detecting and ranging. CORE (noun) Congress of Racial Equality. CRIIGEN (noun) Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering. c.v. (noun) curriculum vitae. CVA (noun) Cherry virus A. CWOT (noun) complete waste of time. d and p (noun) developing and printing. DAT (noun) digital audio tape. D.B.S. (abbreviation) de bonis suis. DC (noun) diet coke. dinkie/-y (noun) either partner of a working couple who have no children. From double/dual income no kids.

298

Lexical index

DIY (noun, adjective) do-ityourself. D.J., DJ (noun) disk-jockey (also deejay). DL (noun) down-low, secret. DNA (noun) deoxyribonucleic acid. DORA, Dora (noun) Defence of Realm Act. DOS (noun) disk operating system. DRAM (noun) dynamic randomaccess memory. EBD (noun) electronic brake force distribution. ECB (noun) European Central Bank. EEC (noun) European Economic Community. e.g. (abbreviation) for example. From Lat. exempli gratia. ESL (noun) English as a Second Language. ESPRIT (noun) European strategic programme for research and development in information technology. Eto (noun) European theater of operations. Euratom (noun) European Atomic Energy Community. FAQ (noun) frequently asked questions. F.B.I., FBI (noun) Federal Bureau of Investigation. FC (abbreviation) fingers crossed. F.I.N.E. (adjective) fucked up, insecure, neurotic, and emotional.

FIV (noun) feline immunodeficiency virus. Cf. HIV. FLOTUS (noun) First Lady of the United States. Cf. POTUS. FNMA (noun) Federal National Mortgage Association (also Fannie Mae). FoaF (noun) friend of a friend. FOB, fob (noun) a recent immigrant. From fresh off the boat. Footsie (noun) Financial TimesStock Exchange. FREE (noun) Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange. FSA (noun) Food Standards Agency. FUSE (noun) Faiths United for Sustainable Energy. FYI (abbreviation) for your information. G5, G10 (noun) group of five/ten. G.A.S.G.A.S.G.A.S. (noun) gild of ancient suppliers of gas appliances, skill, gins, accessories, and substances. GCSE (noun) General Certificate of Secondary Education. GDP (noun) Gross Domestic Product. GFHL (noun) guideline for harmonious living. GHOST (noun) global horizontal sounding technique. GMO (noun) genetically modified organism. GMT (noun) Greenwich Mean Time. GOP (noun) Grand Old Party.

Acronyms and initialisms

GP (noun) general purpose vehicle (also jeep); General Practitioner. HIG? (abbreviation) How’s it going?. HIV-1, HIV-2 (noun) human immunodeficiency virus type 1/2. HOPE (noun) Health Opportunity for People Everywhere. HoReCa (noun) Hotel, Restaurant, and Café keepers. HTLV-1, HTLV-2 (noun) human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1/2. HTML (noun) Hypertext Markup Language. Humvee (noun) high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle. HVAC (noun) heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning. ICA (noun) Institute of Contemporary Art. i.e. (abbreviation) that is to say. From Lat. id est. IMHO (abbreviation) in my humble opinion. INSET (noun) in-set education and training. I/O (noun) input/output. IPA (noun) International Phonetic Alphabet. IWC (noun) International Whaling Commission. J.C. (noun) Junior Chamber of Commerce member (also jaycee). JFK (name) John Fitzgerald Kennedy. JIC (abbreviation) just in case.

299

JPEG (noun) joint photographic experts group. LA (name) Los Angeles. LAB (noun) Logistics Assault Base. ladar (noun) laser detection and ranging. LAME (noun) Lame ain’t an MP3 encoder. laser (noun) light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. lem (noun) lunar excursion module. LH (noun) laboratory corporation of America holdings. LIFE (noun) laboratory for international fuzzy engineering research. LOL (abbreviation) laughing out loud; lots of love/luck. MACHO (noun) massive (astrophysical) compact halo object. MAE (noun) Master of Arts in Education. MAFF (noun) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. MANIAC (noun) mathematical analyzer, numerical integrator, and computer. M.C. (noun) Master of Ceremonies (also emcee). MEGO (noun) a boring subject or story. From my eyes glaze over. MIDI (noun) musical instrument digital interface. MILF (noun) sexually attractive person. From mom I’d like to fuck.

300

Lexical index

MISHAP (noun) missiles highspeed assembly program. mms (noun) Multimedia Messaging Service. MO (noun) modus operandi. MOT (noun) Ministry of Transport. M.P., MP (noun) Member of Parliament. MPEG (noun) moving picture experts group. MS-DOS (noun) Microsoft disk operating system. MUF (noun) material unaccounted for. mung (verb) to destroy or corrupt (data, etc.). From mung until no good. N/A (abbreviation) not applicable. NACRO (noun) National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. NASA (noun) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASDAQ (noun) National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations. N.A.T.O., NATO, Nato (noun) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NBC (noun) National Broadcasting Company. NC-17 (abbreviation) no children under 17. NDP (noun) New Democratic Party. Ned (noun) National Economic Development Council. NFT (noun) neurofibrillary tangle.

NHS (noun) National Health Service. NIMBY, Nimby, nimby (noun) a person who objects to the siting of something unpleasant or dangerous in his or her locality. From the slogan Not in my backyard. NORAD (noun) North American Aerospace Defense Command. NOTAR (noun) no-tail rotor. NOW (noun) National Organization of Women. NRDC (noun) Natural Resources Defense Council. n/s (adjective) non-smoking. NSAID (noun) non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug. NWAVE (noun) new ways of analyzing variation in English. NYC (name) New York City. O. and M. (noun) Organization and Methods. OD (noun, verb) (to) overdose. OED (noun) Oxford English Dictionary. OFFER (noun) Office of Electricity Regulation. OHMS (abbreviation) On Her/His Majesty’s Service. O.K. (adjective) oll/orl correct (also okay/okey). OTE (abbreviation) on target earnings. OTT (adjective) over the top. PACE (noun) Police and Criminal Evidence Act. PAL (noun) phase alternate line. PB & J (noun) peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Acronyms and initialisms

PC, pc (noun) personal computer; postcard; (adjective) politically correct. P. & O. (noun) Peninsular and Oriental steam navigation co. PETA (noun) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PG-13 (noun) Parental Guidance for children under 13. PIN (noun) personal identification number. p.m. (adverb) post meridiem. POG (noun) a drink. From passion-fruit, orange, guava. POTUS (noun) President of the United States. Cf. FLOTUS. PUSH (noun) People United to Save Humanity. p-y-o (adjective) pick-your-own. Q and A (noun) question and answer. radar (noun) radio detection and ranging. RAF, Raf (noun) Royal Air Force. RAM (noun) random access memory. RASC (noun) Royal Army Service Corp. REACT (noun) Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology. R&D (noun) Research and Development. RHIP (abbreviation) rank has its privileges. RNA (noun) ribonucleic acid. r’n’b (noun) rhythm and blues. r’n’r (noun) rock and roll. ROTC (noun) Reserve Officers Training Corps.

301

SAD (noun) Seasonal Affective Disorder. SALT (noun) Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. SARAH (noun) a portable radar transmitter. From search and rescue and horning. Satcoma (noun) Satellite Communications Agency. SCSI (noun) small computer systems interface. scuba (noun) self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. S/E (noun) Stock Exchange. SETI (noun) search for extraterrestrial intelligence. SF (name) San Francisco. S.F.T.P.O.D.R.A.B. (noun) society for the prevention of disparaging remarks about Brooklyn. SHAPE (noun) supreme headquarters allied powers in Europe. SIDS (noun) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. SLEEP (noun) scanning low energy electron probe. SLRF (noun) Second Language Research Forum. SMART (noun) Swatch Mercedes ART. SMILE (adjective) small, intelligent, light, efficient. SMS, sms (noun) Short Message Service. snafu (noun, adjective, verb) situation normal: all fouled/fucked up.

302

Lexical index

SNCC (noun) Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. SNP (noun) Scottish National Party. S. of S. (noun) Secretary of State. SOP (noun) standard operating procedure. S-R (noun) Stimulus-Response. START (noun) Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. SUV (noun) sport utility vehicle. SWOT (noun) strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. TBI (noun) Traumatic Brain Injury. T. & A. (noun) Tonsils and Adenoids. TEFL (noun) Teaching English as a Foreign Language. TESSA (noun) Tax Exempt Special Savings Account. TGIF (abbreviation) Thank God it’s Friday. TOEFL (noun) Test of English as a Foreign Language. TOP (noun) termination of pregnancy. TTFN (abbreviation) ta-ta for now. TTIC (noun) Terrorist Threat Integration Center. U.F.O., UFO, Ufo, ufo (noun) unidentified flying object. UK (noun) United Kingdom. UN (noun) United Nations. UNESCO (noun) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNHCR (noun) United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Unicef (noun) United Nations international children’s emergency fund. Univac (noun) universal automatic computer. UNSC (noun) United Nations Security Council. URL (noun) Uniform Resource Locator. U.S.A., USA, U.S. of A., U.S., US (noun) United States (of America). USAMSMADHS (noun) United States army medical service meat and dairy hygiene school. V. and A. (noun) Victoria and Albert museum. VAT, vat (noun) Value Added Tax. VCR (noun) video cassette recording. V.I.P., VIP, vip (noun) very important person. V.J. (noun) video-jockey (also veejay). VP (noun) vice-president (also Veep). WAGs (noun, plural) wives and girlfriends (of a football team). WASP (noun) white Anglo-Saxon protestant. Cf. ASP. WH (noun) White House. WHO (noun) World Health Organization. Woof (abbreviation) well-off older folk.

Blends

WREN (noun) Women’s Royal Naval Service. W/T (noun) Wireless Telegraphy. WTC 9/11 (name) commemorative composition by Steve Riech. From World Trade Center September 11. WTO (noun) World Trade Organization. Wysiwyg (adjective) denoting the representation of text, graphics, etc., onscreen in a form exactly corresponding to its

303

appearance on a page. From What you see is what you get. YAVIS (adjective) young, attractive, verbal, intelligent, successful. YMCA (noun) Young Men’s Christian Association. yuppie (noun) young urban professional; young upwardly mobile professional. ZPG (noun) Zero Population Growth.

Blends Abra CaBubble (name) trademark for a bubblegum. From abracadabra and bubble. absotively (adverb) absolutely and positively (also posilutely). acetal (noun) acetic and alcohol. adorapresh (adjective) adorable and precious. adorkable (adjective) adorable and dork. advertainment (noun) advertisement and entertainment. aggranoying (adjective) aggravating and annoying. agitprop (noun) agitation and propaganda. airbrasive (adjective) air and abrasive. airobics (noun) air and aerobics. Alcan (name) the Alaska Highway. From Alaska and Canada.

alcoholiday (noun) alcohol and holiday. alphameric (adjective) alphabetic and numeric. alternatuxes (noun) alternative and tuxedos. amajor (adjective) amazing and major. ambisextrous (adjective) bisexual. From ambidextrous and sex. Amerind, Amerindian (adjective) American and Indian. amping (noun) amphetamine and smoking. anecdotage (noun) anecdote and dotage. animule (noun) animal and mule. appestat (noun) appetite and thermostat. askility (noun) ability and skill. astrocity (noun) astronaut and atrocity.

304

Lexical index

attractivating (adjective) attractive and captivating. autobydography (noun) autobiography and by dog. automagically (adverb) automatically and magic. autopathography (noun) autobiography and pathology. backronym (noun) back and acronym. ballute (noun) balloon and parachute. bamfuzzle (verb) to bamboozle (deceive) and fuzzy. banniversary (noun) ban and anniversary. baskiceball (noun) basketball and ice (hockey). beaulicious (adjective) beautiful and delicious. beefalo (noun) beef and buffalo. beefish (noun) beef and fish. beerios (noun, plural) cereals topped with beer instead of milk. From beer and Cheerios. Bennifer (name) Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. big dame hunter (noun) ladies’ man. From big game hunter and dame. bilk (noun) beer and milk. bisalo (noun) bison and buffalo. bisquick (noun) biscuit and quick. bit (noun) binary and unit. Blasian (adjective) Black and Asian. blatterature (noun) blatter and literature. blawg (noun) blog and law.

blaxploitation (noun) blacks and exploitation. blendalicious (noun) jocularly coined from blend and delicious. blog (noun) web and log. blogerrific (adjective) blog and terrific. Cf. blog above. bo(a)tel (noun) boat and hotel. bonefisherman (noun) bonefish and fisherman. boost (verb) to boom and to hoist. bootylicious (adjective) booty and delicious. Brangelina (name) Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. bridezilla (noun) bride and Godzilla. broccasion (noun) brother and occasion. broccoflower (noun) broccoli and cauliflower. bro-choice (noun) brother and choice. bro-ing away party (noun) brother and going-away party. bro-style (noun) brother and style. brotime (noun) brother and time. brunch (noun) breakfast and lunch. Bub’let (name) trademark for foaming bath oil in tablet form. From bubble and tablet. bubblicious (adjective) bubble (gum) and delicious. bulimarexia (noun) bulimia and anorexia. Bullgarita (name) Red Bull and margarita.

Blends

bullionaire (noun) bullion and billionaire. Bullmeister (name) Red Bull and Jägermeister. burble (verb) to bubble and to murmur. busulfan (noun) butane and sulfonyl. buyography (noun) to buy and biography. cabsat (noun) cable and satellite. Calexico (noun) California and Mexico. californicate (verb) California and to fornicate. Californication (noun) California and fornication. camcorder (noun) camera and recorder. Camford (name) Cambridge and Oxford (also Oxbridge). camibalistics (noun) camisade, cannibalism, and ballistics. carbecue (noun) car and barbecue. carnibbleous (adjective) carnivorous and to nibble. cartune (noun) cartoon and tune. cat(t)alo (noun) cattle and buffalo. cattitude (noun) cat and attitude. cellebrity (noun) cell and celebrity. cewebrity (noun) celebrity and web. chatire (noun) chat and satire. chemagination (noun) chemistry and imagination. chloral (noun) chlorine and alcohol.

305

chortle (verb) to chuckle and to snort. chunnel (noun) channel and tunnel. Churchvelt (name) Churchill and Roosevelt. cinemenace (noun) cinema and menace. clandestical (adjective) clandestine and fantastical. clandestiny (noun) clandestine and destiny. cocacolonization (noun) coca cola and colonization. cockamouse (noun) cockroach and mouse. compander (noun) compressor and expander. compfusion (noun) computer and confusion. compushity (noun) compulsion, push, and necessity. confuzzled (adjective) confused and puzzled. copyleft (noun) copyright and left. cosmeceuticals (noun, plural) cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. craptacular (adjective) annoyingly bad, unpleasant. From crap and spectacular. crazyologist (noun) crazy and craniologist. criticular (adjective) critical and particular. crunk (adjective) crazy and drunk. curvessence (noun) curve and essence. cussnation (noun) cuss and damnation.

306

Lexical index

dadzilla (noun) dad and Godzilla. daffynition (noun) daffy and definition. dancercise (noun) dance and exercise. dawk (noun) dove and hawk. delinguancy (noun) delinquency and lingual. demopublican (noun, adjective) democratic and republican. destarture (noun) departure and start. disastrophe (noun) disaster and catastrophe. disgrossting (adjective) disgusting and gross. dishmobile (noun) dishwasher and mobile. dogbella (noun) dog and umbrella. donkophant (noun) donkey and elephant. dramedy (noun) drama and comedy. dresshirt (noun) dress and shirt. dumbfound (verb) to dumb and to confound. earthoon (noun) earth and moon (also moorth). earwitness (noun) ear and eyewitness. e-love (noun) electronic and love. enshocklopedia (noun) encyclopedia and shock. entreporneur (noun) entrepreneur and porn(ography). eracism (noun) to erase and racism. e-shopping (noun) electronic and shopping.

Eurasia (name) Europe and Asia. e-voting (noun) electronic and voting. faddition (noun) fad and addition. familymoon (noun) family and honeymoon. fantabulous (adjective) fantastic and fabulous. fantasea (noun) fantasy and sea. fanzine (noun) fan and magazine. Fedex (noun) federal and express. fertigation (noun) fertilizer and irrigation. fleep (noun) fly and jeep. floordrobe (noun) floor and wardrobe. flustrated (adjective) flustered and frustrated. Foolini (noun) Fellini and fool. foolosopher (noun) fool and philosopher. fortran, FORTRAN (noun) a computer language that uses familiar words and symbols. From formula and translation. Frankenfish (noun) Frankenstein and fish. frappuccino (noun) frappé and cappuccino. frenemies (noun, plural) friends and enemies. Frutopia (name) fruit and utopia. Funderwear (name) fun and underwear. funtastic (adjective) fun and fantastic. galumph (verb) to gallop and to triumph. gaydio (noun) gay and radio.

Blends

geep (noun) goat and sheep (also shoat). ginormous (adjective) gigantic and enormous. Girlicious (name) a musical lady trio. From girl and delicious. glasphalt (noun) glass and asphalt. glassteel (noun) glass and steel. Go-Gurt (name) yogurt in a tube for eating on the go. From go and yogurt. Gorebots (noun, plural) people supporting Al Gore’s presidential run. From Gore and robots. Governator (name) an appellation for Arnold Schwarzenegger. From governor and Terminator. gues(s)timate (verb) to guess and to estimate. happenident (noun) to happen and accident. headvertising (noun) head and advertising. helilift (noun) a group transported by helicopter. From helicopter and lift. hesiflation (noun) hesitation and inflation. Hungarican (noun, adjective) Hungarian and American. hurricoon (noun) hurricane and typhoon. infomercial (noun) information and commercial. infotainment (noun) information and entertainment.

307

insinuendo (noun) insinuation and innuendo. Intelevisionary (noun) Intel, television, and visionary. James Bondustry (noun) James Bond and industry. Japornimation (noun) Japan, porn, and animation. juris-my-dick-tion (noun) jurisdiction and my dick. keytainer (noun) key and container. Kittylicious (adjective) Hello Kitty and delicious. kleptoromania (noun) kleptomania and Romania. Kloran (noun) bible used by members of the Ku Klux Klan. From (Ku Klux) Klan and Koran. Kodacolor (name) Kodak and color. Kongfrontation (noun) King Kong and confrontation. Krustelope (name) Krusty and Penelope, two characters of the series The Simpsons. liger (noun) lion and tiger (also tigon). linner (noun) lunch and dinner. Lipfinity (name) Max Factor lipstick brand, guaranteed to last. From lipstick and infinity. maridelic (adjective) marijuana and psychedelic. Meandertale (noun) Neanderthal, meander, and tale. Meanderthal (noun) meander and Neanderthal.

308

Lexical index

medicare (noun) medical and care. Mexicali (name) Mexico and California. millionheiress (noun) millionaire and heiress. mimsy (adjective) miserable and flimsy. miscevarsitation (noun) miscegenation and varsity. mocamp (noun) motor and camp. mochaccino (noun) mocha and cappuccino. modem (noun) modulator and demodulator. moorth (noun) moon and earth (also earthoon). motel (noun) motor and hotel. mousewife (noun) mouse and housewife. Mrssile (noun) Mrs and missile. mumzilla (noun) mum and Godzilla. muppets (noun, plural) marionette and puppets. narcoma (noun) narcotic and coma. needcessity (noun) need and necessity. netiquette (noun) Internet and etiquette. netizen (noun) Internet and citizen. numberous (adjective) number and numerous. Obamanomics (noun) Obama and economics. octopush (noun) a game similar to ice hockey. From octopus and push.

opinion(n)aire (noun) opinion and questionnaire. Optronic (name) an electronically controlled optical device. From optic and electronic. osteopornosis (noun) osteoporosis and porn. Oxbridge (name) Oxford and Cambridge (also Camford). palimony (noun) compensation made by one member of an unmarried couple to the other after separation. From pal and alimony. Palmolive (name) trademark for soap. From palm oil and olive oil. pantdress (noun) pants and dress. paratroops (noun, plural) parachute and troops. Perma-Gel (name) trademark for a long-lasting textured underpaint. From permanent and gelatine. pessimystic (adjective) pessimist and mystic. Petcetera (name) a pet store. From pet and et cetera. Pictionary (name) a game where you have to guess words based on drawings. From picture and dictionary. pixel (noun) pix (graphic alteration of pics ‘pictures’) and element. plot boiler (noun) plot and pot boiler. pollutician (noun) to pollute and politician. pomato (noun) potato and tomato.

Blends

popocrat (noun, adjective) populist and democrat. portalight (noun) portable and light. porta-play (noun) portable and player. posilutely (adverb) positively and absolutely (also absotively). psychedelicatessen (noun) psychedelic and delicatessen. Psychedelphia (name) psychedelic and Philadelphia. psychergy (noun) vitality of the intellect. From psychic and energy. pursonality (noun) purse and personality. racqueteer (noun) racquet and racketeer. rapidry (adjective) rapid and dry. rat-a-tattoo (noun) rat-a-tat and tattoo. rendezwoo (noun) rendezvous and woo. ridonculous, ridonk (adjective) from ridiculous and tonk ‘especially amazing, big’. robomb (noun) robot and bomb. Rotavator (name) rotatory and cultivator. scandicalous (adjective) scandalous and ridiculous. screamager (noun) scream and teenager. Sensi-Temp (name) sensitivity and temperature. sexpert (noun) sex and expert. sexploitation (noun) sex and exploitation.

309

sexretary (noun) sex and secretary. shampagne (noun) sham and champagne. Sherminator (name) Sherman and Terminator. shoat (noun) sheep and goat (also geep). sial (noun) silicon and aluminium. Simflex (name) Simmons and flexible. sinema (noun) sin and cinema. slanguage (noun) slang and language. slithy (adjective) slimy and lithe. smink (noun) smoke and drink. smog (noun) smoke and fog. snappetizer (noun) snap and appetizer. snark (noun) snake and shark. snobject (noun) snob and object. soundsational (adjective) sound and sensational. Spanglish (noun) Spanish and English. spudtacular (adjective) spud and spectacular. staycation (noun) stay and vacation. steelionaire (noun) steel and millionaire. sterecorder (noun) tape recorder with the quality of a stereo. From stereo and recorder. stocks (noun) stockings and socks. stoveinkerator (noun) stove, oven, sink, and refrigerator. stripteuse (noun) striptease and chanteuse.

310

Lexical index

sugly (adjective) so and ugly. suspose (verb) to suspect and to suppose. swacket (noun) sweater and jacket. swellegant (adjective) swell and elegant. tangemon (noun) tangerine and lemon. telecast (noun) television and broadcast. telex (noun) teleprinter and exchange. Texaco (name) Texas and New Mexico. Thankstini (name) the name of a drink. From Thanksgiving and Martini. The Big Wiesy (name) nickname for the golfer Michelle Wie. From The Big Easy and (Michelle) Wie. tigon (noun) tiger and lion (also liger). TomKat (name) Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. torrible (adjective) terrible and horrible. transceiver (noun) transmitter and receiver.

UNomatopoeia (noun) UN (United Nations) and onomatopoeia. veggie-Q (noun) barbecued vegetables. From veggie (vegetable) and barbecue. Vietvet (noun) Vietnam and veteran. viewshed (noun) view and watershed. vodkatini (noun) Martini made with vodka. wargasm (noun) war and orgasm. Wheatables (name) trademark for crackers. From wheat and eatables. windowall (noun) window and wall. wintertainment (noun) winter and entertainment. wordrobe (noun) word and wardrobe. Yobaby (name) organic yogurt for babies. zebrule (noun) zebra and mule. zedonk, zonkey (noun) zebra and donkey. Ziposium (noun) ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) and symposium.

Reduplicatives Andy Wandy (name) from Andrew. arf-arf (noun) the noise of a dog. argle-bargle, argy-bargy (noun) vigorous discussion or dispute; (verb) to exchange words in

argument. From the verb argue. Arsey Darcy (name) jocular name for Mark Darcy. From arse. arsy-versy (adverb) in a backward or thoroughly mixed-up fash-

Reduplicatives

ion; (adjective) contrary. From arse and Lat. versus. artsy-craftsy (adjective) pretentious. From art. artsy-fartsy, arty-farty (adjective) pretentiously artistic. From art. baa-baa (noun) the noise of a sheep or lamb. Bearum Scarum (name) title of a book by Vic Parker. beddy-bye(s) (noun) bed; sleep (nursery). beri-beri (noun) type of disease. bibbity-bob in the phrase to go bibbity-bob, to move up and down. bibble-babble, blib(ber)blab(ber), bribble-brabble (noun) idle talk. From babble. bim-bom (interjection) reproducing the sound of bells; (noun) bells. bitsy-witsy (adjective) tiny. From bit. blah-blah (noun) meaningless, nonsensical, insincere, or pretentious talk. Bling Blang (name) title of a book by Woody Guthrie. bling bling (noun) (the wearing of) expensive designer clothing and flashy jewellery. blish-blash (noun) vain chatter. bonbon (noun) candy. boo-boo (noun) an error. From boob; the breasts. From boobies.

311

boogie-woogie (noun) form of instrumental blues. From boogie. bow-wow (interjection) reproducing the sound of a dog barking; (noun) a dog (nursery). brittle-brattle (noun) hurried motion causing a clattering noise. Bubble Bobble (name) trade name of a game. buddy-buddy (noun) brother, companion, friend. bum-bum (interjection) representation of the sound of monotonous music. bumpety-bump (adverb) with a bump, suddenly, violently. bye-bye (interjection) good-bye. bye-byes (noun) especially in go to bye-byes, a childish name for sleep or bed. ca-ca (noun) faeces (nursery); rubbish, nonsense. cakey-wakey (name) the name of a cake manufacturing company. Perhaps based on Wakey wakey, an informal reduplicate meaning ‘Wake up!’. cawdey-mawdey (noun) the hooded crow. cha-cha (noun) type of dance. Charlie-parlie (name) pet form of the name Charles. cherry-churry (noun) the note of the lesser pettychaps. Chick’n Quick (name) trade name for breaded chicken patties produced by Tyson Foods.

312

Lexical index

chick-flick (noun) a film for girls. From slang chick and flick. chip-chop (interjection) the sound of axes. chit-chat, chitchat, chitterchatter (noun) gossip, light conversation. choo-choo (noun) the noise of a train; train (nursery). chop-chop (adverb) quickly; (interjection) hurry up!. chow-chow (noun) type of Chinese dog; a mixture or medley of food. chuff-chuff (noun, interjection) the noise of a train. chug-chug (noun, interjection) the sound of footsteps; the sound of an engine. chug-drug (noun, interjection) the sound of an explosion. clang-clang (noun) imitation of the ringing of bells. clankety-clank (noun) a repeated clanking sound. clap-trap (noun) nonsensical talk. clatter-patter (interjection) reproducing the trotting of a horse. click-clack (noun) the noise of the watch; (noun, verb) (to make) a repeated sound like a click. click-click (noun) clicking noise made by steel pins, a needle, a loom. clickety-clack, clickety-click (noun) a fast and rhythmic click-clack. clinkety-clank (noun) a repeated usually rhythmic clanking sound.

clip-clop (noun) an abrupt alternating sound as of the beating of a horse’s hoofs on a hard surface; (verb) to make such a sound. clippety-clop (noun) the sound of a horse trotting. clitter-clatter (noun) a light or repeated clatter; idle gossip. From clatter. clop-clop, cloppety-clop (noun) an abrupt sound as of heavy shoes or a horse’s hoofs on a hard surface; (verb) to make such a sound. CoCo (name) Collette. couscous (noun) a spicy North African dish. creepy-crawly (adjective) that creeps and crawls; sneaking; servile; (noun) a creature that creeps and crawls, an insect. Crick Crock (name) trade name for crisps. crick-crack (noun, interjection) (reproducing) a repeated sharp, explosive, or light cracking noise. Criss Cross (name) trade name of a bra. criss-cross (verb) to move back and forth over something. Crunch Munch (name) title of a book by Jonathan London. culture vulture (noun) person with an excessive or pretentious interest in the arts. curly-wurly (noun) a fantastically curling ornament.

Reduplicatives

curmur (noun) the purring of a cat. cushle-mushle (noun) a low whispering; a confused muttering and movement. From mushle, confusion. diary-wiary (noun) diary. diddle-daddle (noun) violin music. diddle-diddle (noun) the sound of a fiddle. diffy-wiffy (adjective) difficult. dilly-dally (noun) trifling hesitancy; (verb) to vacillate; to waste time. dimber-damber (adjective) very pretty (dated). din-din (noun) dinner (nursery). dingdong, ding-dong (interjection) reproducing the sound of bells. dingle-dangle (noun) a swinging to and fro. dingly dangly (adjective) which swings to and fro. doo-doo (noun) faeces (nursery). drip-drop (noun) continuous dripping with alternation of sound; (verb) to drop slowly. drizzle-drazzle (interjection) imitating the sound of rain. Ducky Lucky (name) the name of a character in the fairy tale Chicken Little. dum-dum (noun) a stupid person. from the adjective dumb. easy-peasy (adjective) really simple. eensy-weensy (adjective) tiny, very small (nursery).

313

even Steven, even Stephen (adjective) having no debt on either side. feery-fary (noun) bustle, confusion. From fary, a state of tumult or consternation. fender-bender (noun) collision between vehicles in which there is only minor damage. fiddle-faddle (noun) trifle, nonsense; the name of candycoated popcorn. fifty-fifty (adverb, adjective) equally divided. flicflac (noun) type of dance step. flim-flam (noun) idle talk, rubbish, deception; (adjective) frivolous, nonsensical. flip-flap (noun) sudden reversal. flip-flop (noun) unexpected reversal. flippy floppy (adjective) making unexpected reversals. flubdub (noun) nonsense. footie-footie, footy-footy (noun) amorous play with the feet. Foxy Loxy (name) the name of a character in the fairy tale Chicken Little. frou-frou (noun) frills on clothing. fuddy-duddy (noun) an oldfashioned person; (adjective) old-fashioned. funny bunny (adjective) peculiar. fuzzy-wuzzy (noun) a black person; nickname for a Sudanese warrior. fwuffy wuffy (noun) used in an advertisement.

314

Lexical index

gaga (adjective) senile; mad, crazy; foolish; (noun) a senile or foolish person. gale-gale (noun) a noisy fellow. A perversion of nightingale. gender-bender (noun) someone who blurs the differences between the sexes. Georgy-Porgy (name) from George. gew-gaw (noun) a (gaudy) plaything or ornament; a (showy) worthless thing or person. gibbie-gabbie, gibble-gabble, giggle-gaggle (noun) senseless chatter. girly-girly (adjective) exaggeratedly girlish, effeminate. glut-glut (interjection) imitating the sound of swallowing. gobble-gobble (interjection) reproducing the sound of chatting; (noun) turkey. gogo, go-go (adjective) unrestrained, energetic; (of music) full of verve, movement, and excitement. goody-goody (adjective, noun) (a person who is) sentimentally, affectedly virtuous. goo-goo (noun) an amorous look. From googly. Goosey Loosey (name) the name of a character in the fairy tale Chicken Little. growly-wowly (adjective) like a growl. Haahoos (name, plural) the name of some characters in the tv series In the Night Garden.

ha-ha, hah hah (interjection) used to express amusement or to represent laughter. handy-dandy (noun) a children’s game; (adverb) alternately. hanky-panky (noun) jugglery; trickery; sex; foolishness. Happy Hippo (name) trade name for a Kinder chocolate. harum-scarum (adjective) reckless, careless, disorganised; (adverb) recklessly. From the verbs hare and scare. heebie-jeebie(s) (noun) a feeling of discomfort, apprehension, or depression. hee-haw (noun) (a representation of) a donkey’s bray. helter-skelter (adverb) in headlong and disorderly haste. Henny Penny (name) the name of a character in the fairy tale Chicken Little. higgledy-piggledy (noun) confusion; (adverb) in utter confusion or disorder. hip-hop, hiphop, hip hop (noun) subculture of big-city teenagers; brand name of a watch; (adverb) with successive hops (also hippety-hop). hish-hish (interjection) reproducing the sound of the rain. hobnob (verb) to drink to each other or together; to associate on very friendly terms. hocus-pocus, hokey-pokey (noun) jugglery, trickery. hodgepodge, hodge-podge (noun) heterogeneous mixture.

Reduplicatives

ho-ho (interjection) expressing derision or reproducing derisive laughter. hoity-toity (adjective) pretentious; petulant. holus-bolus (adverb) altogether; all at once. holy moly (interjection) used to express surprise. honk-honk (noun) the harsh sound of a motor horn. hoo-ha (noun) uproarious commotion; (interjection) used to express mock surprise or excitement. hoo-hoo (noun) female sexual organ. hotchpotch (noun) thick soup or stew; a mixture of heterogeneous things. hotsy-totsy (adjective) just fine, satisfactory. From slang hot. howk-chowk (noun) the noise as if poking in deep mud. hub-a-dub (noun) the sound made in beating a drum. hubble-bubble (noun) simple form of the hookah; uproar; confused talk. hub-bub (noun) a confused noise of a crowd shouting or talking. hugger-mugger (noun) secrecy; disorder, confusion. hula-hula (noun) Hawaiian dance. humdrum (noun) monotony, bore. hummel-bummel (interjection) an imitation of mumbling.

315

Humpty-Dumpty (name) eggshaped character in a nursery rhyme. hunkum-bunkum (adjective) excellent. hurly-burly (noun) confusion, struggle, tumult. Hurlyburly (name) the title of a play/film. huzz-buzz (noun) the common cockchafer. ickle-ockle (adjective) hypocoristic form of little (nursery). Igglepiggle (name) the name of a character in the tv series In the Night Garden. itsy-bitsy, itty-bitty (adjective) very small. jim-jams (noun) pyjamas (nursery). JoJo (name) Josephine. jug-jug (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the noise of a nightingale; the sound of a motorcycle. ju-ju (noun) marijuana. kickie-whickie (noun) wife, woman. killer-diller (noun) something having a devastating effect. kissy-kissy (noun) a term of endearment, lovey-dovey. From kiss. kit-cat (noun) the game of tipcat. knick-knack (noun) ornamental trinket (also nick-nack). knock-knock (noun) type of joke. Laa-Laa (name) the name of a character in the tv series Teletubbies.

316

Lexical index

Laffy Taffy (phrase) a song title by the music group D4L; (name) a brand of candy manufactured by the Willy Wonka Candy Factory. liglag (noun) the noise produced by many people talking at once. From the verb lig, to talk a great deal. limo-limo (noun) a hot lime drink. lipslip (noun) used in an advertisement. A word play on lipstick. Liz-Wiz, Lizzy-Wizzy (name) from Elizabeth. loco-foco (noun) New York City radical democratic faction. Lodgie-Podgie (noun) from Logic. lovey-dovey (noun) used as a term of endearment, sweetheart. mack-lack (verb) to do something in a clattering way. Makka Pakka (name) the name of a character in the tv series In the Night Garden. mama (noun) mother. mayday (noun) distress signal. After Fr. (venez) m’aider. meow-meow (interjection) the noise of a cat. Milly Molly Mandy (name) from Amanda. mingle-mangle (noun) confused mixture. mish-mash (noun) confused mixture. mumble-jumble (verb) to speak indistinctly and incoherently. From mumble.

mumbo-jumbo (noun) an object of an unintelligent veneration; meaningless talk; nonsense. munge-munge (verb) to moan, to bellow; to grumble in low, indistinct tones. my-my (interjection) expressing surprise or admiration. namby-pamby (adjective) weakly sentimental in style. never-never (adjective) imaginary, unrealistic. nick-nack (noun) a trinket (also knick-knack). night-night (interjection) goodnight. nig-nog (noun) a foolish person (also ning-nong); a black person. From nigger. niminy-piminy (adjective) very small; effeminate. Ninky Nonk (name) the name of a sort of airship in the tv series In the Night Garden. nitty-gritty (noun) the heart of the matter; (adjective) very detailed. nitwit, nit-wit (noun) stupid or foolish person. nonny-nonny (noun, interjection) used as a meaningless or euphemistic refrain in songs, etc. From nonsense. no-no (noun) forbidden thing. Noo-Noo (name) the name of a character in the tv series Teletubbies. oink-oink (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the grunt of a pig.

Reduplicatives

okey-dokey, okily dokily, okledokle (adjective, interjection) used to express agreement. From O.K. Oogie Boogie (name) the name of a character in The Nightmare Before Christmas. owlie-wowlie (noun) an owl (nursery). palsy-walsy (noun) a friend; (adjective) friendly. papa (noun) father. patter-patter, pattle-pattle (verb) to walk in and out constantly; to fidget about. From patter, to walk with quick short steps. pech-pech (noun) the sound of heavy breathing made during any severe exertion. pee-pee (noun) urine (nursery). peepie-creepie (noun) a portable television camera. peewee (noun) a small child; (adjective) very small. pid-pad (interjection) imitation of the dull sound of footsteps. From pad, sound of steps on the ground. ping pong, ping-pong (noun) table tennis. pinkie-winkie (noun) a pastime; children’s game. pinkle-pankle (noun) the sound of liquid in a bottle; (verb) to emit such a sound. pink-twink (noun) the chaffinch. Pinky Ponk (name) the name of a kind of train in the tv series In the Night Garden.

317

pip-pip (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the sound of a motor car horn. pipple-papple (verb) to patter, to pop, to do anything with sudden noise or motion. plit-plat (interjection) expressive of the sound made by a horse’s hoofs as it trots along the road. plotty-plotty (noun) trickery. From plotty, connected with plot or intrigue. pokemoke (noun) a swindle. pom-pom (noun) tuft (e.g. of feathers). pooh-pooh, poo-poo (noun) faeces (nursery); (verb) to express disdain. pooly-wooly (interjection) the cry of the curlew. pop-pop (noun) father. popsy-wopsy (noun) little girl; girlfriend; term of affection. pow-wow (noun) a noisy assembly. pretty-pretty (adjective) excessively pretty; (noun, plural) ornaments. prid-prad (noun) the blue titmouse. puzzled-wazzled (ppt adjective) puzzled. quack-quack (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the harsh sound characteristic of a duck; a nursery name for a duck. ragtag (noun) the rabble; a lowclass or disreputable person (also tagrag).

318

Lexical index

rah-rah (noun, interjection) (a cry) expressing encouragement, approval; (adjective) very enthusiastic. From hurrah. ram-jam (adverb) crammed (full). ramp-ramp (noun, interjection) the sound of the sea. ran-dan (noun, interjection) the sound of the bells. razzle-dazzle (noun) showiness; jollity. Reese’s Pieces (name) trade name of a candy. rickety-rackety (adjective) unsteady. rickrack (noun) kind of serpentine braid. riff-raff (noun) disrespectable people, the rabble. riprap (noun) broken stones used for a wall; a sharp blow. roly-poly (adjective) short and pudgy; (noun) a kind of pudding. From roll. row-dow (noun) (the noise of) the sparrow. rub-a-dub (noun) the sound made in beating a drum. rumble-tumble (noun) rough or chaotic activity. rumpy-pumpy (noun) sexual intercourse. say-so (noun) one’s personal statement or assertion. seabee (noun) member of the construction battalion of the US Navy. From the pronunciation of C.B. (Construction Battalion).

see-saw (noun) an up-and-down or to-and-fro motion; (verb) to move up and down or backwards and forwards. shiffle-shuffle (noun) trickery. From shuffle, to bring in a deceitful, tricky, or surreptitious manner. shilly-shally (verb) to show indecision. shittity brickitty (interjection) from shit a brick. silly-billy (noun) a foolish person. sing-sing (noun) a singing sound, monotonous or regular voice. skimble-skamble (adjective) confused; (noun) confused talk. slang-whang (noun) nonsense, abusive talk. slipslop (noun) meaningless or trifling talk. smick-smack (noun) a smacking noise. snip-snap, snip-snip (noun) the action or sound of clipping with the scissors; (verb) to clip with a snipping sound. snuggly-wuggly (adjective) a caressing adjective. so-so (adjective) indifferent. (s)plish-(s)plash (verb) to splash repeatedly. stinky pinky (noun) type of word game. strim-stram (noun) a rude stringed instrument of the guitar kind. strim-strum (adjective) unmusical.

Reduplicatives

super-duper (adjective) extremely good, excellent. swing-swang (noun) a swinging to and fro. tabby-wabby (noun) from tabby. tagrag (noun) the rabble (also ragtag). tam-tam (noun) a large metal gong. tan-tan (noun) the sound of a drum. ta-ta (interjection) goodbye. teensy-weensy (noun) sweetheart. teeny-tiny (adjective) very small. teeny-weeny, teensy-weensy (adjective) tiny, very small. terry-rerry (noun) the song of the blackbird. tick-tack, tick-tock (interjection) imitation of the ticking of a clock. tick-tack-toe (noun) a children’s game. tick-tick (noun) the sound of the clock; clock (nursery). ticky-tacky (adjective) shoddy; flimsy. Tic tac (name) brand name of small hard mints. ting-a-ling (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the sound of a small bell ringing. ting-ting (noun, interjection) (reproducing) the sound of a small bell, glass, etc. Tinky-Winky (name) the name of a character in the tv series Teletubbies. tiny-winy (adjective) very small.

319

tip-top (noun) first class; (adjective) superlatively good; at the very top. tittle-tattle (noun) gossip; foolish chatter. titty-totty (adjective) very small; extremely tiny. tom-tom (noun) the sound of a drum. toodle-loodle (noun) the sound of a pipe or a flute. too-too (adverb) overly. tootsy-wootsy, tootsie-wootsie (noun) a term of endearment, sweetheart; (plural) feet. too-whoo (interjection) the sound of an owl. tra-ra (interjection) the noise of a horn. trick-track (noun) variety of backgammon. trill-ill (interjection) the sound of flowing liquid. trit-trot (interjection) the sound of trotting. tuff-tuff (interjection) the sound of gas. tug-slug (verb) to make a noise in walking. tum-tum (verb) to play monotonously. Turkey Lurkey (name) the name of a character in the fairy tale Chicken Little. tussie-mussie (noun) a small bouquet of flowers. tut-tut (interjection) used to express contempt.

320

Lexical index

tweet-tweet (interjection) imitation of the noise of a bird (also weet-weet). twenty-twenty (adjective) having normal vision. twiddle-twaddle (noun) idle talk. twing(le)-twang(le) (noun) a continuous or repeated resonant sound made by a harp. twisty-wisty (adverb) in a twisty manner. twittle-twattle (noun) idle talk. twit-twat (noun) the housesparrow. walkie-talkie (noun) combined transmitter and receiver. wa-wa (noun) water (nursery). weet-weet (interjection) imitation of the noise of a bird (also tweet-tweet). wee-wee (noun) urine (baby talk); an act of urination; the penis. wey-hey (interjection) a conventional representation of the sound uttered by horses. whim-wham (noun) odd, fanciful object, trifle. whittie-whattie (noun) vague talk; indecision; (verb) to speak low or secretly; to be undecided. wibble-wobble (adjective) unsteady; (verb) to move unsteadily, to vibrate, to quiver. wigwag (verb) to move to and fro. willy-nilly (adverb) willingly or unwillingly, without choice; (noun) Aus.E. a cyclone or dust-storm.

win-win (adjective) describes a situation where both parties gain something. wish-wash (noun) foolish talk or writing; weak, insipid, watery drink. wishy-washy (adjective) weak and insipid. wonga-wonga (noun) a large Australian pigeon. woofle-woofle (interjection) the barking or snarling of a dog. woo-woo (interjection) imitative of the sound of the wind. yaw-haw (verb) to laugh rudely and noisily. yé-yé (adjective) exuberant. From yeah. yolp-yalp (noun) a snarl. yo-yo (noun) type of toy. yum yum (adjective) excellent, first-rate; (interjection) used to express enjoyment, especially in the taste of food. zero-zero (adjective) having zero visibility. zig-zag, zigzag, zig zag (noun) sharp turns in alternating directions; a drunk person. Shm-/schm- items apple-shmapple (noun) from apple. arcade-shmarcade (noun) from arcade. art-shmart (noun) from art. baby-schmaby (noun) from baby.

Back-formations

breakfast shmreakfast (noun) from breakfast. can’t-shman’t (verb) from can’t. captain shmaptain (noun) from captain. child schmild (noun) from child. clever-shmever (adjective) from clever. crisis-shmisis (noun) from crisis. Europe-Shmeurope (name) from Europe. fancy-schmancy (verb) from fancy. gravity schmavity (noun) from gravity. locked-shmocked (ppt adjective) from locked.

321

marry-shmarry (verb) from marry. moon-schmoon (noun) from moon. opinion shmopinion (noun) from opinion. Pedro-Schmedro (name) from Pedro. plan shman (noun) from plan. table-shmable (noun) from table. transformations shmansformations (noun, plural) from transformations. variables shmariables (noun, plural) from variables.

Back-formations abduct (verb) from abduction. adolesce (verb) from adolescence. advect (verb) from advection. affix-hop (verb) from affixhopping. air-condition (verb) from airconditioner. arch (verb) from archery. art-edit (verb) from art-editor. attrit (verb) from attrition. auth (verb) from author. automate (verb) from automation. aviate (verb) from aviation. awestrike (verb) from awestruck. baby-sit (verb) from baby-sitter. back-form (verb) from backformation.

beg (verb) from beggar. bibliograph (verb) from bibliography. bicep (noun) from biceps. bolsh (verb) from Bolshevik. book-hunt (verb) from bookhunting. brainstorm (verb) from brainstorming. brux (verb) from bruxism. bulldoze (verb) from bulldozer. bum (verb) from bummer. burgle (verb) from burglar. buttle (verb) from butler. cathect (verb) from cathectic. chain-react (verb) from chainreaction. chauffe (verb) from chauffeur.

322

Lexical index

cheerlead (verb) from cheerleader. cherry (noun) from Old Northern Fr. cherise, Modern Fr. cerise. chiromance (verb) from chiromancy. choreograph (verb) from choreography. cliff-hang (verb) from cliffhanger. cohese (verb) from cohesion. coit (verb) from coition. colport (verb) from colporteur. committal (adjective) from noncommittal. commote (verb) from commotion. compute (verb) from computer. concuss (verb) from concussion. conscript (verb) from conscription. cose (verb) from cosy. couth (adjective) from uncouth. cross-refer (verb) from crossreference. curate (verb) from curator. cuttle (verb) from cutler. darkle (verb) from darkling. delir (verb) from delirium. demarcate (verb) from demarcation. demerge (verb) from demerger. destruct (verb) from destruction. die-cast (verb) from die-casting. dishevel (verb) from dishevelled. dizz (verb) from dizzy. dry-farm (verb) from dryfarming. duff (verb) from duffer. eave (noun) from eaves.

eclaircisse (verb) from eclaircissement. edit (verb) from editor. emote (verb) from emotion. epilept (noun) from epileptic. escalate (verb) from escalator. evolute (verb) from evolution. excurse (verb) from excursion. face-lift (verb) from face-lifting. foray (verb) from forayer. formate (verb) from formation. frivol (verb) from frivolous. frostbite (verb) from frostbiting. fugle (verb) from fugleman. geomance (verb) from geomancy. ginger (adjective) from gingerly. glam (verb) from glamour. gondole (verb) from gondola. google (verb) from googly. greed (noun) from greedy. greensick (adjective) from greensickness. grizzle (verb) from grizzled. gullible (adjective) from gullibility. handwrite, hand-write (verb) from handwriting. hang glide (verb) from hang glider. hard-boil (verb) from hardboiled. haze (verb) from hazy. hijack (verb) from hijacker. hoke (verb) from hokum. holograph (verb) from holography. home-deliver (verb) from homedelivery. homesick (adjective) from homesickness.

Back-formations

horrorstrike (verb) from horror struck. house-clean (verb) from housecleaning. house-keep (verb) from housekeeping. hush (verb) from husht. hypocrise (verb) from hypocrisy. illogic (noun) from illogical. ill-treat (verb) from ill-treatment. ill-use (verb) from ill-usage. inscript (verb) from inscription. insurrect (verb) from insurrection. intuit (verb) from intuition. iridesce (verb) from iridescence. jam-pack (verb) from jampacked. jay-hawk (verb) from jay-hawker. jell (verb) from jelly. jeopard (verb) from jeopardy. jerrybuild (verb) from jerrybuilt. job-hunt (verb) from job-hunting. jog (verb) from jogging. kempt (adjective) from unkempt. kite-fly (verb) from kite-flying. knuckle-dust (verb) from knuckleduster. lase (verb) from the acronym laser. lasing (adjective) from the acronym laser. laze (verb) from lazy. lech (verb) from lecher. liaise (verb) from liaison. lip-read (verb) from lip-reading. locomote (verb) from locomotion. logroll (verb) from logrolling. loll (verb) from Lollard. loud-hail (verb) from loud-hailer.

323

luminesce (verb) from luminescence. lyse (verb) from lysis. manarvel (verb) from manarvelin. map-read (verb) from mapreading. mart (verb) from martyr. match-make (verb) from matchmaker. maudle (verb) from maudlin. mote (verb) from motor. mug (verb) from mugger. mull (verb) from muller. multi-hull (noun) from multihulled. nake (verb) from naked. name-drop (verb) from namedropping. nomenclate (verb) from nomenclature. nonconform (verb) from nonconformist. nut (verb) from nutting. orate (verb) from oration. outrig (verb) from outrigger. pan-broil (verb) from panbroiling. paramedic (noun) from paramedical. pea (noun) from Fr. pease. peddle (verb) from peddler. peeve (verb) from peevish. pegase (verb) from Pegasus. perk (verb) from percolator. perorate (verb) from peroration. perspirate (verb) from perspiration. pet (noun) from petty.

324

Lexical index

phase-modulate (verb) from phase-modulation. phosphoresce (verb) from phosphorescent. pied-pipe (verb) from piedpiping. pile-drive (verb) from pile-driver. pillor (verb) from pillory. poly-angle (noun) from polyangular. polymer (noun) from polymeric. possessor-raise (verb) from possessor-raising. pressure-treat (verb) from pressure-treatment. prize-fight (verb) from prizefighter. propagand (verb) from propaganda. queue-jump (verb) from queuejumping. quisle (verb) to act like Quisling. From Quisling. rancel (verb) from rancelman. rap (verb) from rapt. rattle (verb) from ratlin(e). recycle (verb) from recycling. Red-bait (verb) from Red-baiting. reluct (verb) from reluctance. reminisce (verb) from reminiscence. repercuss (verb) from repercussion. resolute (verb) from resolution. resurrect (verb) from resurrection. reune (verb) from reunion. ring-lead (verb) from ringleader.

role-play (verb) from roleplaying. role-take (verb) from role-taking. romant (verb) from romantic. rort (verb) from rorty. rotavate (verb) from the blend Rotavator. rotisse (verb) from rotisserie. safe-keep (verb) from safekeeping. salve (verb) from salvage. sanitate (verb) from sanitation. scat-sing (verb) from scatsinging. scavenge (verb) from scavenger. schoon (verb) from schooner. sculpt (verb) from sculptor. self-destruct (verb) from selfdestruction. self-feed (verb) from self-feeder. shab (verb) from shabby. shadow-cast (verb) from shadowcasting. shoplift (verb) from shoplifting. show-jump (verb) from showjumping. sidle (verb) from sideling. sight-see (verb) from sightseeing. sipid (adjective) from insipid. skuldug (verb) from skulduggery. skywrite (verb) from skywriting. slant (adjective) from aslant. slave-drive (verb) from slavedriver. soft-land (verb) from softlanding. sound-substitute (verb) from sound-substitution. spinst (verb) from spinster.

Back-formations

sprightle (verb) from sprightly. squeam (verb) from squeamish. stagemanage, stage-manage (verb) from stagemanager. stave (noun) from staves. stenograph (verb) from stenographer. strump (verb) from strumpet. stupend (verb) from stupendous. sulk (verb) from sulky. sull (verb) from sullen. sun-bathe (verb) from sunbathing. sunburn (verb) from sunburnt. supply-teach (verb) from supplyteacher. surf-cast (verb) from surfcasting. surveille (verb) from surveillance. swindle (verb) from swindler. synostose (verb) from synostosis. tailor-make (verb) from tailormade. tape-record (verb) from taperecorder. tat (noun) from tatty. televise (verb) from television. thought-read (verb) from thought-reading. thunderstrike (verb) from thunderstruck. tiff (verb) from tiffin. tile (verb) from tiler. time-share (verb) from timesharing. tongue-tie (verb) from tonguetied. transcript (verb) from transcription.

325

trend-set (verb) from trend-setter. trickle-irrigate (verb) from trickle-irrigation. trig (verb) from trigger. triple-tongue (verb) from tripletonguing. tub-thump (verb) from tubthumper. turbocharge (verb) from turbocharger. tweeze (verb) from tweezer. type-cast (verb) from typecasting. typewrite, type-write (verb) from typewriter, type-writer. ug (verb) jocular verb from ugly. ultimate (verb) from ultimatum. unrepair (noun) from unrepaired. unsuccess (noun) from unsuccessful. unsurprise (noun) from unsurprising. ush (verb) from usher. vacate (verb) from vacation. vacuum-clean (verb) from vacuum-cleaner. valet-park (verb) from valetparking. vint (verb) from vintage. whipper-snap (verb) from whipper-snapper. wh-move (verb) from whmovement. window-shop (verb) from window-shopping. wiredraw (verb) from wiredrawer. word-process (verb) from wordprocessor. york (verb) from yorker.

326

Lexical index

Infixations Expletive items 19-bloody-43 (numeral) 1943. abso-bally-lutely, abso-bloodylutely, abso-blooming-lutely, abso-fuckin-lutely (adverb) absolutely. ad-bloody-vance (verb) to advance. air con-friggin’-ditioner (noun) air-conditioner. al-bloody-mighty (adjective) almighty. amalga-bloody-mated (participle, adjective) amalgamated. any-bloody-thing (pronoun) anything. ban-bloody-danna (noun) bandanna. B-Bloody-C (noun) the initialism BBC. bea-fucking-utiful (adjective) beautiful. boo-freakin-hoo (interjection) boohoo. carni-bloody-vore (noun) carnivore. Chi-bloody-nese (noun, adjective) Chinese. Dan friggin’ Quayle (name) Dan Quayle. de-fuckin-fence (noun) defence. dis-bloody-member (verb) to dismember. e-goddamned-vaporate (verb) to evaporate.

emanci-(mother)fuckin-pator (noun) emancipator. every-bloody-body (pronoun) everybody. fan-fucking-tastic (adjective) fantastic. fron-fuckin-tier (noun) frontier. guaran-absolutely-tee (verb) to guarantee. Ha-bloody-waii (name) Hawaii. halle-bloody-lujah (interjection) hallelujah. ho-bloody-ho (interjection) ho-ho. hypo-bloody-crite (noun) hypocrite. im-bloody-possible, im-fuckingpossible (adjective) impossible. im-frigging-portant, im-fuckinportant (adjective) important. imma-bloody-material (adjective) immaterial. in-bloody-consistent (adjective) inconsistent. in-bloody-credible (adjective) incredible. in-bloody-tolerant (adjective) intolerant. incan-fucking-descent (adjective) incandescent. inde-goddamn-pendent (adjective) independent. in-fuckin-stantiate (verb) to instantiate. irre-fuckin-sponsible (adjective) irresponsible.

Infixations

Jehovah bloody Witnesses (phrase) Jehovah Witnesses. Jesus-fucking-Christ (interjection) Jesus Christ. Kalama-fuckin-zoo, Kalamagoddamn-zoo (name) Kalamazoo. kanga-bloody-roo (noun) kangaroo. kinder-bloody-garten (noun) kindergarten. Massa-bloody-chusetts (name) Massachusetts. megalo-bloody-mania (noun) megalomania. Minne-bloody-sota (name) Minnesota. no-bloody-body (pronoun) nobody. O-bloody-K (interjection) the initialism OK. o-damn-clock (adverb) o’clock. Paul fucking Newman (name) Paul Newman. per-bloody-haps (adverb) perhaps. propa-fuckin-ganda (noun) propaganda. rail-bloody-way (noun) railway. Santa-fuckin-Cruz (name) Santa Cruz. Sir-bloody-Lancelot (name) Sir Lancelot. So-bloody-ho (name) Soho. Tata-fuckin-magouche (name) Tatamagouche. terra-extremely-firma (noun) terra firma. to-bloody-gether (adverb) together.

327

umber-fucking-ella (noun) umbrella. un-fuckin-believable (adjective) unbelievable. un-fucking-touchable (adjective) untouchable. United-bloody-Kingdom (name) United Kingdom. ur-fucking-bane (adjective) urbane. V-bloody-IP (noun) the initialism VIP. -Ma- items Ala-ma-bama (name) Alabama. compli-ma-cated (adjective) complicated. dia-ma-lectic (adjective) dialectic. edu-ma-cate (verb) to educate. feuda-ma-lism (noun) feudalism. grave-ma-yard (noun) graveyard. hippo-ma-potamus (noun) hippopotamus. live-ma-ly  (adverb) lively. lone-ma-ly  (adverb) lonely. Micha-ma-langelo (name) Michaelangelo. Missi-ma-ssippi (name) Mississippi. oba-ma-boe (noun) oboe. Or-ma-well (name) Orwell. parta-ma-ty (noun) party. saxo-ma-phone (noun) saxophone. secre-ma-tary (noun) secretary.

328

Lexical index

sophisti-ma-cated (adjective) sophisticated. syndi-ma-cate (verb) to syndicate. tele-ma-phone (noun) telephone. terri-ma-tory (noun) territory. underesti-ma-mate (verb) to underestimate. unsub-ma-stantiated (participle) unsubstantiated. Urs(a)-ma-la (name) Ursala. vio-ma-lin (noun) violin. washa-ma-shing (participle) washing. wonder-ma-ful (adjective) wonderful.

ilz-are (verb) are. iz-at (preposition) at. m-izm-illimeter (noun) millimeter. m-izn-ission (noun) mission. pl-iz-ay (verb, noun) (to) play. s-iz-oldiers (noun, plural) soldiers. sizzurp (noun) syrup. str-iz-aw (noun) straw. surpr-iz-ise (noun) surprise. t-izn-elevision (noun) television. v-izn-ideos (noun, plural) videos. walkie-t-izn-alkies (noun, plural) walkie-talkies. w-ilz-e (pronoun) we. w-iz-ork, wizzerk (noun) work.

-Iz- items -Diddly- items ah-iz-ead (adverb) ahead. beh-iz-ave (verb) to behave. B-ilz-arbara (name) Barbara. B-ilz-obby (name) Bobby. From Robert. b-iz-itch (noun) bitch. b-izn-ottle (noun) bottle. bizzerk (adjective) crazy; angry. A play on the word berserk, found in the expression go berserk. c-iz-oast (noun) coast. d-iz-apper (adjective) dapper. d-iz-ollar (noun) dollar. dizzert (noun) dessert. dr-iz-eam (noun) dream. eff-iz-ect (noun) effect. G-iz-oogle (noun) Google. h-iz-ouse (noun) house.

ac-diddly-action (noun) action. he-diddly-eaven (noun) heaven. hi-diddly-ho (interjection) hi-ho. mur-diddly-urder (noun) murder. wel-diddly-elcome (interjection) welcome. -Wait for it- items de-wait for it-nied (participle) denied. porn-wait for it-ography (noun) pornography.

Phonaesthemes

329

Phonaesthemes -a-  emphasising an action, as in clap, flap. -ack  denoting a sound with abrupt decay, as in brack, crack. -ash  denoting violent impact, violence, breaking, as in crash, swash. bl-  associated with deprecative meaning, as in bloody, blooming. cr-  denoting harsh sounds, as in crack; denoting twisted movement or position, as in crankle; to run zigzag, crisscross. du-  having pejorative value, as in dunce, dullard. f-  expressive of scorn, disapproval, or disgust, as in fart, fuck. fl-  denoting movement, flying, flowing, as in flag, fly; associated with liquid motion, as in flow, fluid. gl-  related to vision, light, as in glare, gloss. gr-  denoting deep-toned, menacing noises, as in grumble, grunt. -ick  denoting quick sounds, as in click, tick. m-  denoting movements of mouth or indistinct talk, as in mump, murmur.

-oo-  associated with foolishness or deprecative meaning related to contempt, disgust, failure, as in boob, fool. p-  expressive of disapproval or disgust, as in pish, pooh. -p  suggestive of a blow, as in clip, drip. sl-  denoting falling or sliding movement, as in sleight, slide; having a pejorative value, as in slug, slut. sn-  related to nose, mouth, as in sneeze, sniff. sw-  denoting something flourishing or swinging, as in swell, swoon. tw-  denoting small sounds or twisting movements, as in tweet, twist. -u-  denoting dullness or indistinctness, as in blunt, dusk. -ump  denoting heaviness, or heavy, awkward movements, as in clump, dump; denoting displeasure, as in frump, mump. -urry  denoting haste, confusion, as in hurry, scurry. -ush  denoting something oozy or moist, as in crush, dush.

Subject index

abbreviation, 3–5, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 31, 33, 38, 41, 42, 49, 52, 57, 61, 64–110, 115, 116, 134, 138, 185, 212, 213, 215, 251–255, 259, 262 graphic, 13, 72, 85, 87 acronym, 1–4, 7–11, 13, 14, 20–22, 24, 26, 27, 29–31, 37–42, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 64–68, 72, 82–93, 95–106, 108–110, 115, 116, 119, 131, 142, 173, 179, 181, 201, 210–216, 225– 229, 245, 248, 249, 251, 255, 259, 262–265 elliptic, 13, 26, 37, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99, 103, 107, 108, 228, 263 extended, 85, 89, 93, 94, 108, 116 inverted letter, 89, 95 non-elliptic, 13, 26, 87, 91, 93, 94, 107, 108, 110 recursive, 89, 95, 108 with vowel addition, 88, 89, 94 acrostic, 13, 61, 84, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 98, 102–104, 108–110, 211, 264 semantically-irrelevant, 13, 90, 91, 94, 95 semantically-relevant (punning), 13, 90, 91, 93–95, 108, 109 Affix Condition (AC), 145, 147, 266 affixation, 41, 46, 47, 65, 79, 143, 173, 187

alphabetism, 3, 13, 17, 24, 45, 58, 60, 64, 67, 68, 72, 82, 84–86, 93–100, 102–106, 108, 109, 185, 212, 226, 262, 265 alphanumeric combinations, 13, 86 alternation (of vowel/consonant sound), 45, 46, 53, 141, 149– 152, 157–160, 163, 164, 166– 168, 253, 263 ambiguity, 14, 25, 67, 72, 74, 78, 83, 88, 99, 101, 104, 106, 107, 110, 137, 155, 211 analogy (vs. rule), 1, 4–6, 12, 15, 16, 18–22, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43–45, 48–56, 60, 71, 79, 80, 83, 106, 108, 109, 131, 138, 154, 167, 169, 171, 172, 174, 182, 184, 185, 198, 213, 228, 235, 237, 251–254, 256, 260, 261, 268 availability (vs. profitability), 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 251, 261 baby talk, see child language back-formation, 1, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 38, 43, 44, 49, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 70, 71, 169–185, 214, 244– 246, 248, 254, 255, 262, 267, 268 compound-word, 174, 177–179, 183 simple-word, 174, 175–178, 183 backronym, 86, 91, 214 basehood, uncertain, 31, 59

Subject index base (word), 4–6, 13–16, 21, 23–25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40–42, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55–62, 66, 68–72, 75–81, 84, 87, 92, 96, 98–105, 107, 108, 110, 116, 117, 121, 130–133, 136, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 154, 157, 159–175, 177–180, 182, 185– 191, 193–198, 207, 211, 219– 222, 235, 245, 246, 250, 252– 254, 258, 259, 261 complex, 61, 71, 76, 80, 102, 108, 169, 185, 187, 197 discontinuity, 16, 24, 56, 75, 78, 130, 133, 169, 193, 198, 254 expansion/extension, 195, 197 meaningfulness, 15, 22, 141, 144, 150, 157, 160, 161, 166, 253 beginning-end pattern, prototypical, 133 binarity, 24, 47, 114, 133, 135, 146, 154, 162, 167, 253 binary relation, see binarity biuniqueness, 6, 22, 24, 58, 93, 106, 251 blend (portmanteau word), 1–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19–25, 27–29, 33–42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55–58, 60, 62, 66, 68, 71, 72, 76, 77, 85, 86, 93, 102, 104, 111–140, 160, 162, 164, 181, 185, 187, 189, 192, 201, 210–216, 232, 233, 235–237, 251–253, 255, 260–262, 264–266 attributive, 123–126, 128, 134, 139 coordinate, 25, 60, 71, 123–125, 127, 128, 130, 134, 139, 253 endocentric, 6, 124, 125

331

exocentric, 6, 125 intercalative/inclusive, 5, 24, 42, 57, 121, 122, 129, 130, 133, 189 linear, 5 non-overlapping, 115, 121, 123, 126 overlap/overlapping, 6, 24, 42, 62, 115, 121–123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133–135, 137, 139, 253, 265 partial, 6, 62, 113, 119–121, 124, 126, 129, 133, 137, 265 subordinate, 25 total, 62, 113, 118–120, 125, 126, 235, 265 blending, 3–7, 10–12, 14, 19, 20, 23, 28, 33, 34, 39, 43, 49, 55, 57, 71, 77, 111–113, 115–117, 121, 127, 131, 135, 138, 142, 235–237, 248, 249, 252, 258, 265, 269 fragment, 33, 57, 123, 133 rule, 5, 42, 112, 128, 133 semi-complete, 33, 57, 114 blocking, 104, 108, 110, 261, 264 semantic, 6, 139, 264 brevity, 109, 185, 252, 255 child-centred (or directed) speech, 17, 46, 142, 159–161, 214, 217, 238, 240, 267 child/nursery language, 15, 23, 37, 40, 46, 47, 74, 142, 148, 149, 156, 161, 217, 243, 261, 263 chromaesthesia, 199 clipped (abbreviated/shortened) compound, 8, 14, 60, 68, 71, 76, 77, 82, 99, 113, 114, 116, 119, 124, 147, 148, 219, 262

332

Subject index

clipped name, 8, 28, 67, 68, 78, 82, 96, 103 clipping, 1, 4, 8–11, 13, 15, 19, 21– 25, 27–29, 31, 33, 35, 37–39, 41–44, 49, 52, 55, 57, 58, 60–62, 64–83, 85, 93, 95–110, 115, 120, 142, 171, 173, 174, 179, 180, 183, 185, 210–225, 229, 233, 248, 251, 254, 258–260, 262– 265 back- (hind clipping), 25, 31, 44, 58, 72–74, 76, 79, 82, 102, 106, 107, 109, 174, 219, 220, 263 edge- (ambiclipping), 72, 75, 79, 82, 105, 219 fore-, 44, 58, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 219 mid-, 72, 75, 76, 82, 85 random, 76, 82, 85, 98, 99 suffixed, 27, 28, 42, 52, 53, 68, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 96, 102, 103, 107, 108, 217, 221, 222 cohesiveness/cohesion, in-group, 41, 224, 230 colloquialization, 64 colloquial (language/style) 9, 27, 65, 179, 186, 188, 210, 216, 224, 231, 238, 239, 244, 245, 247 combining form, 4, 10–12, 14, 33– 36, 102, 117, 138, 177, 178, 189, 258, 260 abbreviated, 35, 117 neoclassical, 34, 35, 117, 177 secreted, 4, 34–36, 117, 260 compositionality, 13, 154, 157, 159, 168, 197, 200, 201, 207, 253, 261 compound(ing), 4, 5, 8, 14–16, 20, 23–25, 29, 31, 33–37, 40, 41, 43,

49–51, 53, 56–60, 64–66, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77, 82, 87, 92, 97–100, 106, 107, 113–117, 119, 123– 126, 128–131, 134, 138, 143– 148, 150, 153, 154, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 168, 174, 175, 177–184, 187–189, 207, 213, 219, 220, 239, 249, 253, 254, 259, 260, 262, 267 appositional/copulative, 115, 116, 134, 155 clipped, see clipped compound coordinate, 25, 41, 125, 128, 134 endocentric, 23, 59, 124, 128, 168, 182, 249, 253 exocentric, 14, 41, 59, 99, 130, 154 neoclassical, 35 rhyming, 15, 145, 147, 154, 155, 159, 163, 166, 168, 253, 254 reduplicative, see reduplicative compound concatenation, 40, 51, 52, 85, 112, 113, 129, 137, 138, 162, 198, 249, 252, 253 conciseness, 185, 213, 254 conformity with source words, 132 connotative meaning, 16, 17, 37, 41, 49, 61, 69, 71, 100, 134, 136, 142, 145, 153, 170, 193, 201, 211, 212, 251, 266, 267 constraint, 32, 50, 51, 57, 101, 131, 132, 145, 151, 159, 161, 162, 196, 258, 261, 266 contamination, 14, 55, 116–118 contextual suitability, principles of, 3, 17, 210, 212–215, 255, 256 conversion (zero-derivation), 15, 16, 37, 60, 61, 171, 173, 174, 179, 180, 246, 254

Subject index co-predication, 128, 134, 137 see also blend, coordinate creativity (vs. productivity), 2, 4, 7, 9–12, 17, 19, 22, 35, 48, 50, 52, 54, 108, 201, 210, 211, 214, 216, 233, 237, 251, 260 delexicalisation, 53 derivation, 4, 14–16, 20, 29, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 52, 53, 56, 80, 97, 104, 110, 144, 146, 161, 164, 169–172, 179, 184–186, 188, 192, 194, 198, 207, 220, 245, 254 without affixation, 41 diagrammaticity, see iconicity diminutive (suffix), 39, 40, 42, 79, 159, 161, 164, 170, 205, 260, 263 Ease of Articulation Hypothesis, 27 Ease Theory, 259 echo-word, 14, 15, 23, 28, 29, 38, 59, 141, 240, 242 economy, see Principle of (Linguistic) Economy ellipsis, 71 euphony, 6, 27, 51, 84, 88, 101, 138, 197, 253, 259 expressive (vs. plain) morphology, 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 28– 32, 36, 55, 61, 141, 143, 170, 186, 192, 194, 200, 202, 206, 207, 211, 251 extra-grammatical morphology, 1–4, 7, 9–13, 15, 16, 19, 25, 26, 28–63, 111, 131, 142, 143, 146, 148, 159, 160, 169, 170, 186, 192, 194,

333

200–202, 206, 207, 250, 251, 255–257 operation/phenomenon, 1–5, 9– 22, 25–32, 35, 38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 53, 55–63, 95, 112, 127, 159, 162, 164, 167, 179, 181, 192, 197, 206, 207, 210, 212, 216, 249–251, 254–256, 258 familiarity, 17, 41, 64, 66, 69, 78– 81, 96, 99, 160, 212, 221–223, 235, 245, 263 markers, 53, 79 see also informality figure vs. ground, 6, 22, 25, 58, 251 folk etymology, 55, 69, 86 fortition, 27 frequency, 9, 22, 25, 26, 34, 45, 48, 49, 54, 73, 114, 134–136, 143, 169, 200, 249, 255, 263 full syntacticization, 44 fusion, 4, 6, 23, 40, 43, 44, 49, 51, 55–57, 85, 138, 253 Generative Morphology/Grammar, 3, 12, 19–22, 250 grammatical morphology (morphological grammar), 1–5, 9, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–34, 36–42, 47, 48, 55, 56, 95, 99, 117, 127, 128, 159, 169, 170, 179, 192, 250, 252, 253, 255, 259 grammaticalisation (grammaticisation), 12, 19, 45–48, 141, 251 haplology, 121 headedness, uncertain, 25, 59, 99, 129, 161, 252 head (of a word), 14, 23–25, 31, 41, 59, 60, 71, 77, 99, 100, 123–130,

334

Subject index

132, 134, 139, 150, 154, 155, 159, 161, 177, 250, 252, 259, 266 homogeneity, 143, 162, 196, 209, 253, 254 homonymy, 110, 252, 264 homophony, 13, 24, 74, 86, 88–92, 95, 106, 108–110, 119, 124, 129, 133, 135, 137, 139, 166, 252, 253 humorous effect, see pragmatic effect, humorous/playful hypocoristic, 1, 8, 13, 23, 28, 38, 40, 46, 55, 57, 58, 67, 68, 74, 78, 79, 101, 104, 149, 161, 164, 224, 263, 267 iconicity, 6, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 46, 47, 55, 62, 78, 135, 139, 141, 151, 156, 164, 165, 173, 174, 183, 203, 213, 221, 236, 251, 259, 267 identity at the juncture, 6, 134, 136, 137, 140, 253 see also similarity (of source words) ideophone, see reduplicative, onomatopoeic imperfect control, 31, 192 indexicality, 6, 17, 22, 23, 61, 142, 228 infix, 1, 8, 10, 16, 21, 56, 59, 120, 157, 166, 169, 186–198, 207, 214, 216, 246, 247, 254, 258, 268 infixation, 8, 12, 16, 55, 169, 170, 179, 185–198, 214, 215, 244, 246, 247, 249, 254, 255 diddly-, 186, 190, 191, 195, 197, 254

expletive (fuckin-), 16, 21, 23, 30–32, 38, 56, 59, 186–192, 194, 195, 197, 203, 246, 254, 255, 258, 262 hip-hop (iz-), 186, 190, 191, 214, 254 Homeric (ma-), 186, 189–191, 193, 195, 254 inflection, 16, 23, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 105, 141, 144, 172, 183, 185– 187, 192, 211, 220, 254, 267 informality, 3, 17, 31, 49, 61, 64, 90, 91, 110, 145, 210–212, 215, 217, 220, 223, 225, 227, 228, 232, 235, 240, 245, 248, 255, 258, 262 see also familiarity initialism, 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 24, 30, 31, 40–42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 57–60, 64–68, 72, 73, 82–87, 91–94, 96, 98, 99, 101–107, 109, 110, 115, 131, 151, 155, 161, 211–216, 225–227, 229–231, 248, 249, 251, 255, 264, 265 elliptic, 91, 92, 103, 107 non-elliptic, 91, 92, 107, 110 initial pattern, prototypical, 102 innovation, 4, 5, 43, 48, 52, 134, 260, 261 (cf. language change) input(s), 1, 5, 7, 13, 16, 21, 22, 29– 31, 34, 40–42, 50, 52, 56–58, 61, 62, 65, 67, 74, 78, 95–99, 101, 104, 106, 107, 119, 127, 136, 161, 165, 173, 174, 179–182, 187, 188, 193, 248, 250, 252, 262 alternative, 21, 58, 72, 99 categories, alternative, 21, 30, 31, 41, 59, 101, 130, 181, 188, 192, 193, 252, 254

Subject index multi-word/polysyllabic, 102 institutionalisation, 43, 49, 261 interspeaker variation, 31, 160, 180 invariability of/unchanged meaning, 40–42, 49, 61, 66, 69, 95, 99, 100, 161, 193, 211, 252 (cf. meaning change) irreversibility, 181 jargon, 2, 17, 154, 211, 212, 215– 217, 228, 255 jocularity, 17, 30, 35, 53, 55, 61, 79, 89, 121, 197, 211, 213–216, 221–224, 228, 231, 236, 246, 247, 255, 268 see also pragmatic effect, humorous/playful/jocular kinesthesia, 199 language acquisition, 23, 28, 47, 55, 238, 256, 261 language change, 12, 19, 42–48, 52, 199, 261, 262 language play/game, 31, 36, 38, 192, 260, 262 lenition, 27 lexicalisation, 12, 19, 37, 43–45, 49, 53, 59, 83, 92, 96, 100, 103, 109, 118, 120, 134, 142, 162, 179, 186, 211, 214, 217, 219, 225, 232, 233, 235, 238, 244, 251, 261 linearity, 93, 110, 128, 198, 252 malapropism, 55 marginal morphology, 3, 4, 10–12, 28, 29, 32–36, 42, 43, 55, 117, 169, 250, 259, 260

335

markedness, 16, 22–27, 62, 84, 88, 108, 210, 213, 246, 248, 251, 254 (cf. naturalness) maximisation, 93, 110, 252 meaning agreement, see semantic coherence meaning change (new meaning), 15, 20, 36–38, 41, 49, 58, 66, 69, 99, 134, 143, 146, 161, 162, 174, 183, 192, 193, 197, 252 (non-)additional, 15, 38, 61, 63, 173, 179, 181, 254 subtractive, 15, 63, 173, 181, 254 meaning prominence, 6, 139 memorisation, easy, 43, 88, 90, 91, 94, 109, 142, 147, 155, 213, 214, 252, 255 metaphor, 15, 78, 108, 127, 141, 154, 155, 164, 167, 204 minimal word, notion of, 40, 96 minor phenomenon/formation, 169– 209, 212, 254 modulation (mitigation) of illocutionary force, 220 monoreferentiality, 58, 109, 213 morpheme, 20, 23, 34–36, 43, 44, 52, 59, 60, 62, 71, 98, 99, 117, 119, 128, 129, 134, 143, 145, 149, 151, 160, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174, 180, 181, 184, 186– 188, 194, 198, 200–202, 206– 208, 250, 253, 254, 260 potential, 35 morphological grammar, see grammatical morphology morphopragmatics, (theory of), 17, 28, 36 morphotactic irregularity, 56, 97, 98, 129, 159, 160, 251–253

336

Subject index

musicality, 17, 30, 214, 215, 217, 243, 247, 248, 255 Natural Morphology (NM), (theory of), 3, 10–12, 19, 22–26, 47, 112, 135, 173, 174, 193, 251, 254 natural(ness), 3, 10, 15, 22, 25–27, 51, 58, 62, 94, 108, 133, 138, 210, 219, 251 Natural Phonology (NP), (theory of), 12, 19, 26–28, 138 neologism, 2, 5, 8, 43, 49, 56, 64, 118, 199, 211 new word, 5, 14, 16, 23, 35–39, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 61, 65, 66, 71, 96, 107, 111, 117, 142, 161, 162, 170, 183, 184, 186, 187, 192, 193, 197, 214, 217, 236, 251, 253, 258–262 see also neologism nonce word/formation, see occasionalism non-morphematic analysis, 98, 129, 160, 161, 180, 181, 194, 207, 252 process, 20, 62 non-serious(ness), 61, 142, 153, 161, 205, 221, 242 novelty, 2, 165, 214, 215, 217, 228, 231, 236, 237, 247, 249, 255 occasionalism (nonce word), 5, 8, 9, 35, 43, 49, 118, 143, 211, 215, 217 (cf. neologism) onomatopoeia, 15, 25, 47, 59, 141, 142, 144, 155–161, 163–167, 169, 198, 199, 202, 203, 214, 215, 240, 253

opacity/opaqueness (vs. transparency), 6, 11, 20, 24, 33, 75, 98, 111, 125, 129, 148, 160, 161, 198, 210, 219, 267, 268 Optimality Theory, model of, 50 output(s), 1, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 20–22, 29, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40–42, 50–53, 55–59, 61, 62, 65–67, 70, 78, 87, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 106– 109, 127, 129, 136–138, 141, 160, 163, 165, 166, 179–182, 184, 193, 219, 250–254, 259, 261, 262 alternative, 21, 31, 37, 57, 58, 66, 67, 78, 98, 106, 107, 129, 136–138, 160, 166, 251, 252 overlap(ping), 6, 7, 33, 51, 55, 57, 62, 112–115, 119, 121–123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133–140, 235, 251–253, 265 see also blend, overlap/overlapping paramorphology, 38 (cf. premorphology) perceptibility, 26 see also euphony phonaestheme, 3, 8, 12, 16, 20, 52, 55, 62, 169, 170, 198–209, 214, 244, 248, 249, 254, 255, 267 final, 204–206 initial, 202–205, 207 middle, 205, 206 phonaesthesia, 141, 169, 170, 199, 206 poetic effect, see pragmatic effect possible (potential) word, 21, 50–52 pragmatic effect, 30, 145, 192, 201, 207, 211, 212, 251, 255

Subject index aesthetic/artistic/poetic, 30, 32, 46, 141, 169, 251 expressive, 30, 46, 61, 141, 169, 251 humorous/playful/jocular, 17, 30, 32, 61, 118, 121, 135, 141, 197, 213, 221, 223, 224, 236, 237, 242, 245, 246, 249, 251, 255 pretentious, 30 pragmatic meaning, 9, 69, 142, 161, 193 predictability, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 22, 29, 33, 37–39, 41, 48–50, 53, 54, 56–58, 62, 71, 78, 84, 96–98, 101, 105–108, 111, 129, 135–138, 153, 165–167, 179– 181, 183, 184, 195–197, 208, 246, 251, 252, 254 of meaning, 21 preference (universal), 3, 5–7, 12, 17, 19, 22, 24–29, 34, 47, 51, 54, 55, 58, 63, 66, 96, 105, 108, 112, 114, 123, 133, 138, 152, 154, 161, 162, 166, 190, 193, 194, 219, 252 prefixation, 16, 23, 169, 185 premorphology, 23, 28, 38, 55, 214, 238 Principle of Least Effort, 27, 109, 213, 269 Principle of (Linguistic) Economy, 17, 30, 32, 64, 109, 142, 212– 215, 227, 228, 236, 249, 252, 255 Principle of Naming, 17, 32, 213, 215, 227, 228, 236, 255 productivity (vs. creativity), 4, 9, 14, 16, 19–22, 30, 31, 34–36, 38, 39, 48–54, 96, 97, 117, 127, 141,

337

147, 149, 150, 172, 186, 199, 209, 249, 251, 255, 258, 260, 261, 267 profitability (vs. availability), 22, 48, 49, 53, 54, 261 prominence, 214, 215, 224, 228, 237, 243, 248, 255 promiscuity of input category, see input categories, alternative basehood, see basehood, uncertain pronounceability, 3, 6, 26, 27, 51, 84, 88, 89, 93, 103, 109, 110, 138, 197, 252, 253, 264 prosodic morphology, 96, 187, 192, 194, 251, 260 pattern (template), 41, 103, 107 prototypicality, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12–14, 19, 22, 24–26, 32, 36, 42, 55, 63, 84, 85, 87, 93–95, 97, 99, 102, 107– 109, 114, 116, 118, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 136, 137, 162, 197, 214, 240, 251, 252, 254, 256, 259, 263–266 reanalysis, 45, 52, 254, 261 recoverability (recognisability), 6, 13, 27, 33, 62, 71, 93, 99, 107, 109, 113, 123, 133, 136, 138, 139, 180, 198, 213, 219, 235, 252, 253, 266 recursiveness, 209, 254 redundancy, 100, 142, 164, 213, 253 reduplication, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 20, 23, 26, 44–47, 55, 59, 141–149, 153, 158, 164, 166, 179, 186, 187, 190, 191, 195–198, 217,

338

Subject index

248, 249, 253, 255, 259, 266, 267 partial, 46, 141, 143–145, 149– 155, 158, 162, 186, 189, 191, 195–198, 259 total (full), 15, 23, 25, 26, 47, 141, 143–145, 148, 149, 158, 162, 259 see also reduplicative reduplicative (reduplicated word), 1, 3, 8–11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29–31, 37, 39, 44, 45, 47–49, 53, 58, 59, 61, 77, 83, 141–169, 185, 199, 203, 204, 210–212, 214–216, 238–243, 249, 251, 253, 263, 267, 269 ablaut/apophonic, 15, 23, 44, 142, 147–151, 158, 162–164, 166, 253 compound, 77, 143, 155 copy (exact), 15, 144, 147, 148, 158, 163, 240, 253 onomatopoeic (ideophone), 15, 25, 37, 59, 141, 142, 144, 155–159, 161, 163–167, 199, 214, 215, 240, 253 rhyming, 15, 31, 44, 58, 77, 142, 147, 151–155, 157, 158, 162, 163, 166, 214, 239, 240, 253, 263 shm-/schm-, 8, 15, 30, 36, 46, 141, 153, 215, 255 register, informal, 217, 220, 229, 246 see also informality regularity, 1–5, 10, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 29, 31, 33–42, 45, 49–51, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–62, 66, 80, 83, 84, 96, 97, 99, 101–105, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115,

117, 127–135, 138, 141, 143, 147, 150, 153, 155, 159, 160, 162–169, 171, 180–185, 192– 196, 198, 207–209, 211, 214, 233, 245, 246, 249–256, 261 irregular, 5, 39, 256 phonological, 96, 101, 128, 162 prosodic, 28, 66, 160 repetition, syntactic, 144, 146, 266 rhythm, 28, 119, 133, 139, 151, 167, 214, 253 Righthand Head Rule, 59, 129, 259 rule (vs. analogy), 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13–16, 18–22, 26, 28–33, 36–40, 42, 46, 48–61, 65–67, 83, 84, 95–101, 103–105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 127–133, 137, 138, 144, 146, 147, 159–161, 167, 169, 170, 172, 179–181, 183, 185, 186, 192–195, 201, 208, 210, 238, 249–254, 256, 258–261 infixing, 21, 186, 194 word-formation (WFR), 16, 20, 21, 48–50, 52, 53, 59, 61, 65, 95–97, 99, 104, 108, 130, 160, 161, 167, 169, 170, 172, 179–181, 193, 201, 249, 251, 254 salience/saliency, 6, 24, 27, 58, 62, 73, 74, 78, 93, 103–107, 109, 114, 139, 198, 219, 235, 252, 253, 263 scientific/technical vocabulary, 17, 31, 64, 91, 112, 213, 217, 230 see also jargon secretion, 4, 34, 259 see also combining form, secreted secret language, 38, 212, 230

Subject index semantic coherence, 21, 34, 48, 49, 182– 184, 209, 254 indeterminacy, 142, 164 semiotic principle/parameter, 6, 22, 112 shortening, 2, 11–14, 17, 25, 27, 46, 52, 62, 64–67, 70, 72–74, 79, 85, 88, 97–99, 101, 102, 107, 114– 117, 121, 122, 126, 135, 142, 147, 161, 171, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 183, 252, 253, 262, 264 see also abbreviation signans, 6, 22–24, 128, 135 signatum, 6, 22–24, 135 similarity (of source words), 6, 114, 115, 121, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 214, 237, 253, 266 Single Phone Condition (SPC), 145, 147, 266 slang, 2, 9, 13, 17, 30, 55, 56, 64, 69, 72–77, 79–81, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 98, 100, 107, 109, 110, 142, 143, 149, 151–154, 179, 186, 188, 212, 214, 216, 217, 221, 224, 230, 239, 242, 244, 247, 259, 264 slips of the tongue/brain, 55, 118 social/professional closeness, 41, 65, 212, 215, 220, 223, 227–230, 235, 240, 245, 255, 268 sophisticated coinage, 15, 33, 36 sound/phono-symbolism, 141, 169, 170, 198, 199, 202, 206, 267 spelling adjustment/change, 62, 70, 74, 75, 78, 80, 81, 98, 103, 107, 121, 263 distinctive, 103, 106

339

splinter, 2, 20, 24, 33–36, 53, 62, 113, 118–120, 122, 126, 129, 133, 137, 189, 233, 258 status as word (word status), 104, 107, 164, 211, 220 subtraction, irregular, 57, 60, 63, 99, 130, 252 suffixation, 16, 23, 52, 79, 162, 169, 173, 181, 184, 185, 221, 267, 268 surface analogies, children’s, 55, 261 syllable words, 60, 89 synaesthesia, 46, 199 syntactic category, unchanged, 100, 174, 193, 259 syntactic interposing, 188 syntagmatic shortening, 14, 115, 116 tmesis, 188 transparency (vs. opacity), 6, 11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 24–27, 29, 33, 55, 58, 62, 75–78, 87, 88, 93, 98, 113– 115, 121, 123, 125, 127–129, 133, 136, 138, 147, 160, 168, 180, 193, 210, 219, 234, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 265 morphosemantic, 13, 22, 25, 55, 88, 133, 136, 138, 147, 251 morphotactic, 6, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 33, 55, 62, 88, 93, 193, 251 reduction, 26, 55, 62 truncation, 13, 14, 23, 29, 39, 41, 42, 58, 60, 66, 68, 72, 78, 79, 113, 115–117, 125, 142, 143, 149, 161, 187, 192, 234, 251– 253, 263, 267, 268

340

Subject index

name, 13, 23, 29, 39, 41, 42, 58, 66, 78, 149, 263, 267 see also clipping, backunification/univerbation, 44 Unitary Base Hypothesis, 21, 37, 59, 101, 258, 261 Unitary Output Hypothesis, 21, 57, 261 well-formedness, 3, 4, 6, 27, 108– 110, 138, 150, 167, 184, 197, 208, 237, 252–254, 256 criteria of, 3, 6, 27, 108–110, 138, 167, 184, 197, 208, 237, 252–254, 256

word-based morphology, 20, 24, 42 word-creation, 1, 20, 21, 29, 259 word-formation, 1–5, 7, 10, 16, 19– 22, 25, 30, 32, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47–54, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 95–97, 99, 104, 105, 108, 111, 112, 117, 130, 141, 143–146, 160, 161, 167, 169–173, 179– 181, 192, 193, 200, 201, 206– 208, 211, 237, 249–251, 254– 256, 265 word-manufacture, 56, 67 zero-derivation, see conversion