Vol. 60 No. 4 (2012)
Research Article

The Fandom Pairing Name: Blends and the Phonology-Orthography Interface

PDF
  • Cara M DiGirolamo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000034

Published 2012-12-01

Keywords

  • Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC),
  • sociophonetics,
  • sociolinguistics,
  • onomastics,
  • MetaFilter,
  • community
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2012 American Name Society 2012

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Abstract

In English, blending is a highly predictable and productive naming process. However, no systematic morphological template for blends has yet been proposed. Using data from Internet fandom pairing names (FPNs), I describe the phonological and orthographic constraints that shape blended words, such as preference for complex onsets, maintenance of stress placement, and phonological and orthographic overlap. Outputs are compared with lexical neighbors to evaluate their phonotactic acceptability and orthographic transparency. This model of blending describes the interaction of many layers of representation, and also shows the effect of the Internet as a text-based speech community participating in linguistic decision-making.

PDF

References

  1. Albright Adam, Hayes Bruce. 2003. ‘Rules vs. Analogy in English Past Tenses: A Computational/Experimental Study.’ Cognition 90: 119–161.
  2. Boomwizard. 2009. ‘Moniker Poll.’ rachel_quinn. [Livejournal Post]. Available at: <http://rachel-quinn.livejournal.com/3381.html?view=74293> [Accessed July 19 2012].
  3. Cannon Garland. 1986. ‘Blends in English Word-Formation.’ Linguistics 24(4): 725–753.
  4. Grainger Jonathan. 1992. ‘Orthographic Neighborhoods and Visual Word Recognition.’ Orthography, Phonology, Morphology and Meaning. Ed. , Frost R, Katz L. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 131–146.
  5. Gries Stefan Th. 2004. ‘Some Characteristics of English Morphological Blends.’ Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Vol. II. The Panels. Ed. , Andronis Mary A, Debenport Erin, Pycha Anne, Yoshimura Keiko, eds. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 201–216.
  6. Gubbins Edward. 2004. ‘Extreme Makeover.’ Connected Planet. Feb 9. [Print Article]. Available at: <http://connectedplanetonline.com/mag/telecom_extreme_makeover/> [Accessed July 19 2012].
  7. Johnson NealF. 1992. ‘On the Role of Cohorts of Neighbors in Visual Word Recognition.’ Orthography, Phonology, Morphology and Meaning. Ed. , Frost R, Katz L. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 147–164.
  8. Kemmer Suzanne2003‘Schemas and Lexical Blends.’Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden., Cuyckens Hubert, et al.. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 69–98.
  9. Laubstein Ann Stuart. 1999. ‘Word Blends as Sublexical Substitutions.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44(2): 127–148.
  10. Pound Louise. 1914. ÒBlends: Their Relation to English Word Formation.Ó Anglistische Forschungen 42. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
  11. Selkirk ElizabethO. 1982. ‘The Syllable.’ The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II, Ed. , Van der Hurst H, Smith N. Dordrecht: Foris, 337–383.
  12. Shademan Shabnam. 2006. ‘Is Phonotactic Knowledge Grammatical Knowledge?’ Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. , Baumer Donald, Montero David, Scanlon Michael, 371–379. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  13. Wentworth Harold. 1934. ‘Blend-Words in English’ .Unpublished dissertation, Cornell University.