A Cognitive Approach to Compounds and Blends

1
A Cognitive Approach to Compounds and Blends

• Hicham Lahlou

2
Statement of The Problem

• Blends have traditionally been considered as
  dichotomous from compounds.

compounds
blends
3
Three unresolved issues arise with regard to
compounds and blends

• Are the boundaries between compounds and blends
  clear?
• To what extent are compounds and blends different
  or similar?
• Can compounds and blends be derived from the same
  conceptual model?

4
Objectives of the Study

• To study the nature of both kinds of neologism
  for determining whether all the cases can clearly
  be categorized into compounds and blends

• To suggest and argue for a more conceptual and
  integrated categorization of compounds and blends

• To study the internal structure of both kinds
  of neologism for determining whether they are
  motivated in the same way.

5
Assumptions

• The border between certain compounds and blends
  might be fuzzy, and
• There might be similar and shared conceptual
  processes involved in the formation and
  comprehension of compounds and blends.

6
Methodology

• Data set
• Examination of data set to determine
• the issue of categories, namely the boundaries
  and the alternative categorization by prototypes.
  
• Analysis of the cognitive motivation behind
  compounds and blends using the notions of schemas
  (ten source schemas are suggested).

7
The notion of Fuzziness

• In cognitive linguistics, the borders of
• categories are fuzzy as well as overlapping
• Fig. 4-1 Venn diagram representation of
  overlapping categories
• Such figure shows
• members obviously belonging to A
• members clearly belonging to B
• members belonging to the middle area between
• both categories.

A
B
8

• Typical compounds contain full words,
  e.g.candlelight
• Typical blends comprise parts of words, e.g.
  brunch (breakfast lunch)
• Certain cases are too difficult to decide whether
  they belong to compounds or blends, notably when
  only one of the etyma is shortened (e.g.
  mantastic (man fantastic) and bombphlet (bomb
  pamphlet). Another example of such fuzzy border
  is reflected in the existence of some cases in
  the data set that are both compounds and blends,
  e.g. autocide (a self-destroyer or a suicide as
  a neo-classical compound, and as a blend created
  from automobile and suicide.
• Hence, typical compounds can be distinguished
  from typical blends, but the two merge at their
  boundaries.

9
A cognitive categorization of Compounds and
blends

• Table 4-1 The taxonomic hierarchy of compounds
  and blends
• SUPERORDINATE WORD-FORMATION
• BASIC LEVEL SOURCE
  WORDS
• SUBORDINATE COMPOUNDS
• 
  BLENDS
• Such hierarchy can be visually represented as
• WORD-FORMATION
  (SUPERORDINATE LEVEL)
• SOURCE WORDS
  (BASIC LEVEL)
• COMPOUNDS BLENDS
  (SUBORDINATE LEVEL
• Fig. 4-2 Hierarchy of compounds and blends
• Compounds and blends are similar vertically.

10

• But, they are slightly different horizontally.
  Such difference is a matter of prototypicality,
  but at the level of form only.
• Fig. 4-3 Prototypicality of compounds and blends

11
Metonymy

• The assumed difference between typical compounds
  and typical blends the former comprise the
  combination of full words, whereas the latter
  consist of parts of words can be explicated as a
  matter of metonymy rather than dichotomy.

12
Source schemas

• Ten schemas are
• suggested to test
• whether compounds
• and blends have the
• same motivation.

13

• The only schema variant that does not give rise
  to blends based on the data set is the Location
  subschema (Time) X is located at Y, which is
  not significant, because blends can be derived
  from the Time Subschema irrespective of whether
  such location is X or Y and because both
  compounds and blends can already come into
  existence through the Location Schema as a whole.
• Compounds and blends are structured by the same
  conceptual criterion, which means that the source
  schemas from which they are derived are alike.

14
Summary of Findings and Implications

• Many words in the data set have been found to
  exist in the fuzzy area between compounds and
  blends, blurring the boundaries between the two
  types of word-formation, refuting the supposed
  dichotomy between them and proving the notion
  that both types of neologism form a continuum
  within the same category.
• The only distinction assumed between a compound
  and a blend at the level of form in the first
  step of the analysis is explicated by way of
  metonymic extension.
• The results of the investigation of the
  motivation for both compounds and blends show
  that all the ten schemas that are found in
  compounds are also found in blends. This further
  supports the contention of the thesis that
  compounds and blends are categorically similar.

15
Conclusion

• The results of the two-step analysis confirm the
  main assumption made from the outset
• Compounds and blends have similar conceptual
  patterns, and items derived from such patterns
  are technically similar irrespective of the
  variation that might occur at the form level.
• THANK YOU
• Jazakallah khair