Gradient phonological similarity in blend formation

Kalomoira Nikolou & Anthi Revithiadou

(University of the Aegean & Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)

Key words: blend, portmanteau, phonological similarity, Gradient Harmonic Grammar, Greek

In this article we investigate the phonological conditions that determine blend formation in
Greek and other languages (e.g., Spanish, English) (e.g., Algeo 1977, Kubozono 1990, Piñeros
2000, 2002). We focus on portmanteaus, which are formed through the concatenation of
truncated components of existing words, provided they exhibit phonological similarity (Kelly
1998). The blended word has compositional semantic content (1a–c), but outputs with
phonological overlap and nonce semantics are also possible (1d):

(1) Portmanteaus WD1 & WD 2

a. laˈdɾonals < [laˈdɾon] & [makˈdonals] Spanish
‘McDonalds as a rip off’ ‘thief’ ‘McDonalds’ (Piñeros 2000)
b. bɑɹˈkejd < [ˈbɑɹ] & [ɑɹˈkejd] (Schoenfeld et al. 2019) English
‘bar and arcade’ ‘bar’ ‘arcade’
c. ˈseksali < [ˈseks] & [eˈksali] Greek
‘mad for sex’ ‘sex’ ‘enraged’
d. ʣiˈpuɾa < [ˈʣip] & [ʦiˈpuɾa]
‘no meaning’ ‘jeep’ ‘sea bream’

The head in portmanteaus (usually WD2) determines the morphosyntactic (and semantic)
features of the output structure, as well as its size and stress (Piñeros 2002, Trommer &
Zimmermann 2010, 2012). According to T&Z (2012), the source words are fully prosodified
when combined. Moreover, the blended construction results from a compromise between the
need for all segmental material to be integrated under the prosody of the head
(HEADDOMINANCE) and, at the same time, the requirement to preserve material from the non-
head component (MAXSNonHead). In this article, we probe into an issue that has not received
much attention in the literature (see, however, Bat–El 1996, Schoenfeld et al. 2019), namely
the degree of phonological overlap shared by the concatenated elements, which ranges from
segments to rhymes and whole syllables:

(2) C(C) [sekseˈneɾoti] < [ˈseks] & [kseˈneɾoti] ‘sex’ & ‘killjoy’
VC(C) [ˈseksali] < [ˈseks] & [ˈeksali]
CVC [ʣiˈpuɾa] < [ˈʣip] & [ʦiˈpuɾa]

We propose that the degree of phonological similarity in portmanteaus is due to gradient

faithfulness (Gradient Harmonic Grammar, Smolensky & Goldrick 2016), which evaluates the
segmental and featural (mis)matches between WD1 and WD2 as follows: Assuming that each
segment has activity 1, segment-zero mismatches, as in (3a), incur a –1 penalty score of
MAX(S). On the other hand, total mismatches, like the ones in (4a), are too costly for the
grammar, thus blocking the blended output from surfacing. The example in (3b) illustrates a
case of featural mismatch in [voice], which triggers a –1 violation of IDENT[F] (assuming again
that each [F] has activity 1). However, the penalty of (3b) is less serious compared to the
penalties triggered by the multiple featural mismatches of (4b). As a result, the blended
construction is green-lighted in the former but not in the latter case.

(3) a. WD1 seks s 1 e 1 k1 s 1

↭ b. ʣip ʣ1 i1 p1
| | | | | |
WD2 eksali ∅ e1 k1 s1 a1 l1 i1 ʦipura ʦ1 i1 p1 u1 ɾ1 a1
(4) a. WD1 tatu t1 a1 t1 u1 b. zum z1 u1 m1
↭
↭
↭
↭

↭
↭
↭
‘tattoe’ ‘zoom’
WD2 eksali e1 k1 s1 a1 l1 i1 ʦipura ʦ1 i1 p1 u1 ɾ1 a1

References
Algeo, John (1977), Blends, a structural and systemic view, American Speech 52: 47–64.
Bat-El, Outi (1996), Phonologically-based word formation: Modern Ηebrew blends, in U.
Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in phonology, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 231-250.
Kelly, Michael H. (1998), To ‘brunch’ or to ‘brench’: Some aspects of blend structure,
Linguistics 36: 579–590.
Kubozono, Haruo (1990), Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case of
phonology-morphology interface, in G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), Yearbook of
Morphology 1990, Dordrecht: Foris, 1-20.
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo (2000), Word-blending as a case of non-concatenative morphology in
Spanish, Rutgers Optimality Archive 343-0999.
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo (2002), The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical
morphology of Spanish, Rutgers Optimality Archive 526-0602.
Smolensky, Paul and Matthew Goldrick (2016), Gradient Symbolic Representations in
Grammar: The case of French liaison, Ms. ROA 1552.
Schoenfeld, Aviv, Evan-Gary Cohen and Outi Bat-El (2019), Variable base-word positioning
in English blends, Lexis—E-Journal in English Lexicology 14: Blending in English —
L'amalgamation en anglais (December 2019).
Trommer, Jochen and Eva Zimmermann (2010), Portmanteaus as Generalized Templates,
Paper presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting (IMM 14), Budapest, 16th
May 2010.
Trommer, Jochen and Eva Zimmermann (2012), Portmanteaus as Generalized Templates, in
V. Renner, F. Maniez & P.J. L. Arnaud (eds), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical
blending, Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 233-258.