LEXICAL BLENDING : A NEW TYPOLOGY

Thanassis Nakas Georgia Katsouda University of Athens Academy of Athens

anakas@primedu.uoa.gr katsouda@academyofathens.gr

ΠερίληψηΣε αυτή την ανακοίνωση παρουσιάζουμε τα συμπεράσματα τηςέρευνάς μας σχετικά με την κατηγοριοποίηση / τυπολογίατων λεξικών συμφυρμών. Βασισμένοι σ’ ένα εκτεταμένοcorpus νεολογισμών από τον δημοσιογραφικό και τονδιαφημιστικό λόγο, αλλά και από τη λογοτεχνία,προτείνουμε δύο κατηγορίες λεξικών συμφυρμών, τους: α)ολικούς (προϊόντα σύμφυρσης) και β) μερικούς (προϊόνταεπανετυμολόγησης). Οι υποκατηγοριοποιήσεις γίνονται μεβάση συγκεκριμένο κάθε φορά μηχανισμό σύμφυρσης ήεπανετυμολόγησης. Επίσης, παρουσιάζουμε τα πλεονεκτήματατης δικής μας τυπολογικής πρότασης συγκριτικά με άλλεςπαλαιότερες, ενώ, τέλος, αναφερόμαστε στον καταλυτικόρόλο της ομοηχίας ως προϋπόθεσης για τη δημιουργία συμ-φυρμικού προϊόντος.

Λέξεις-κλειδιά: total/ partial blending, blend,etymological reanalysis.

1. Introduction

In this article we present the results of our research ontypology of lexical blending phenomena. In our recentlypublished book (Katsouda & Nakas 2013: passim / 227onwards) we suggest the following categorization:

LEXICAL BLENDS

In G. Kotzoglou et al. (eds), 2014, Selected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, 1165-1176. Rhodes: University of the Aegean.http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/Assets/announcements/diafora/ICGL-Conf.html.

TotalPartial

(blending outcomes) (outcomes ofetymological reanalysis)

We divide lexical blends into two categories: ‘totalblends’ (which are always blending outcomes) in contrastto ‘partial blends’ (which are always outcomes of theetymological reanalysis see below).The most recent Greek bibliography on the subject (to

avoid the references back to Hatzidakis, Triantafyllidisand Filindas) are Arvaniti 1998, Koutita-Kaimaki & Flia-touras 2001, Karantzola & Fliatouras 2004, Moisiadis2005, Katsouda 2009, Katsouda & Kritikou 2010, Katsouda2011, Ralli & Xydopoulos 2012.All the above studies refer exclusively to total

blends. The only exception is the study of Katsouda &Kritikou (2011), in which a limited number of exclusivepartial blends is examined (the term used in this studyis ‘οπτικοί συμφυρμοί’ [to translate Bolinger’s ‘visualblends’ (1946)], while Soudek, as will be elaborated,suggests the term ‘graphic blends’ (‘γραφηματικοίσυμφυρμοί’ in Greek). In our recent publication, wepreferred to replace both terms by ‘etymologicalreanalysis’, for reasons explained below. We believe that this very ‘fresh’ book, titled Aspects to

the Neology: Blending and Lexical Reanalysis will fill the gap inthe relevant literature, as the corpus we have researchedprovided the opportunity to come to safe conclusions,owing to its quantity, time extent, and variety: 1431blends (= total blends 518 + 913 partial ones, alloutcomes of lexical reanalysis). Concerning the varietyof our corpus, it has been collected from [i] printedjournalism of the last thirty years (mainly newspaperarticles); [ii] broadcasting / electronic journalism;[iii] advertisement discourse (published in the press orindependently in leaflets, posters etc.); [iv]invitations to theatre performances or other socialevents, shop signs, demostration banners, graffiti; [v]jokes and their variations available on many blogs; [vi]satirical television and radio shows (‘Radio Arvila’,‘Ellinofrenia’ etc.); [vii] children’s literature, both

2

Greek and in translation (e.g. Eugenios Trivizas, ThetisChortiati, Christian Morgestern); [viii] sporadicfindings in poetry. Regarding terminology, we use the terms ‘συμφυρμός’ for

the final outcome and ‘σύμφυρση’ for the procedure, incorrespondence to the English terms ‘blend’ and‘blending’, as well as the term ‘αφετηριακές λέξεις’ totranslate ‘source-words’. There is a plethora of relevantterms, in international literature.

2. Total blends. A new typology by Katsouda & Nakas (2013)

By ‘total blending’ we refer to the conscious formationof a new lexical unit which is the result of clipping andcoinage of two existing words, a process which is in anycase different from that of compounding (as will beelaborated below). The outcome of the total blendingconstitutes a third autonomous word, in relation to thewords which ‘gave birth’ to it, whose signification /meaning and extralingual referent are different fromthose of the source-words. In contrast to the source-words, which are existing

words, in the sense that they have been coded as alreadypreexisting in the language system or / and in use, theblending outcome is not existing, as it does notpreexist, but is formed in a way that is unpredicted bythe language system. In other words, it is not possiblefor it to be included in a predictable, ‘potentialvocabulary’ (as Aronoff 1983 and Dressler 2000 used theterm ‘potential word’). The number of blends finallycoded varies from language to language. The coded blendsin Modern Greek are much fewer in comparison to thοse inother languages, as in English.Concerning the subcategories / types of total blending,

we have distinguished among four procedures / mechanisms(not presenting the same frequency, but applying withremarkable regularity):

BLENDING (TOTAL BLENDS)

Subcategorization based on the blending mechanism(i) antegrading AG.S2

3

‘εμπροσθοχωρητική (σύμφυρση)’{s1-s1-(S2)}S2 or

{s1-(S2)}S2

(ΕθΧ.Σ2)

(ii) retrograding ‘οπισθοχωρητική’

{(S1) -s2 -s2}S2 or {(S1) -s2}S2

RG.S2

(ΟθΧ.Σ2)

(iii) back-forth-grading ‘αλληλοεισχωρητική’{s1-s1(-s1s2-)s2-s2}S2 or {s1(-s1-s1s2)-s2-s2}S2

BfG.S2

(ΑεΧ.Σ2)

(iv) intrograding ‘ενδοεισχωρητική’

(iv/Ι): {s1-(S2)-s1}S1

(iv/ΙΙ): {s1-(s2)-s1}S1

IG.S1

(ΕεΧ.Σ1)

These four blending mechanisms cover sufficiently allthe individual cases of the corpus we dealt with,containing not only examples in Greek but also in manyEuropean languages.

2.1 Antegrading blending Examples

(a) ταρακουνώ [tarakunó] < {ταρά(ζω) [tarázo] ‘agitate’ κουνώ ‘shake’ [kunó]} [Greek]

(b) alcoholiday ‘a protracted party in which largequantities of alcohol are consumed’ < {alco(hol) holiday} [English]

(c) Kamelefant < {Kam(el) ‘camel’ + Elefant ‘elephant‘}[German]

(d) syntactichien ‘awesome syntactician’ < {syntacti(cien)‘syntactician’ + chien ‘dog’} [French]

(e) prostiputa < {prosti(tuta) ‘prostitute’ puta‘whore’} [Portuguese]

A new word is formed by the loss of the final part of thefirst source-word (see the part into parentheses) and thepenetration (with a move somehow forwards) of the entiresecond source-word, which ‘donates’ to the blending

4

outcome its own phonological, morphological and grammar-syntactic features, including its lexical stress. The second source-word also donates its own features to

the outcomes of the retrograding and the back-forth-grading blending, i.e. to three out of four subcategories.The fourth subcategory (intrograding blending) is the onlyone to which the first source-word donates to the blendingoutcome its attributes, among which its lexical stress.(The exceptions in all four subcategories are few, thusthe rule cannot be suspended). As shown in the rightcolumn of the table, the capital S, which represents theblending outcome, carries the exponent 2 three times whilecarrying the exponent 1 once).

2.2 Retrograding blending Examples

(a) σεξουσία ‘the domination of the sex’ < {σεξ ‘sex’ (εξ)ουσία ‘domination, authority’} [Greek]

(b) ΒΗΜΑgazino ‘the magazine of the newspaper Vima’ <{[Το] ΒΉΜΑ ‘title of a Greek newspaper’ (ma)gazinο‘magazine’} [Greek]

(c) κόκα-κόλα το! ‘give me five with a coca cola’ < {κόκα-κόλα ‘coca cola’ (κόλλα) το ‘give me five’}[Greek]

(d) foolosopher ‘idiot philosopher’ < {fool (phil)osopher} [English]

(e) bedventure ‘adventure in the bed’ < {bed (ad)venture} [English]

(f) Bankfurt ‘Frankfurt, a city of banks’ < {Bank (Frank)furt} [German]

(g) femmetastique ‘of the women’s fantasy’ < {femme‘woman’ (fan)tastique ‘fantasy’} [French]

(h) boilarina ‘a very fat ballerina’ < {boi ‘οx’ (bai)larina ‘ballerina’} [Portuguese]

The new word is formed by the loss of the initial part ofthe second source-word (see the part into parentheses)and the penetration (with a move somehow backwards) ofthe entire first source-word.

5

2.3 Back-forth-grading blending Examples

(a) σφανταλώνω ‘close’ < {σφα(λίζω) ‘close’ (μα)νταλώνω ‘close with lanches’} [in a Greekdialect]

(b) Αυγατηγανιστάν ‘the country of the fried eggs’ <{αβγά τηγα(νητά) ‘fried eggs’ (Αφγα)νιστάν‘Afghanistan} [Greek]

(c) σκουλικό ‘school bus for worms’ < {σκου(λήκι) ‘worm’ (σχο)λικό ‘school bus’} [From a joke: In whattransport media do the warms go to school?] [Greek]

(d) Μερκοζί ‘Merkel and Sarkozy’ < {Μέρκ(ελ) ‘Merkel’ (Σαρκ)οζί ‘Sarkozy’} [Greek]

(e) brunch < {br(eakfast) (l)unch} [English](f) automagically < {automa(tically) (ma)gically}

[English](g) flexicurity < {flexi(bility) (se)curity} [English] (h) Demokratur ‘the dictatorship of the democracy’ <

{Demokra(tie) (Dikta)tur} [German](i) Teuro ‘expensive euro’ < {teu(er) ‘expensive’

(Eu)ro ‘euro’} [German](k) tapuscrit ‘draft manuscript’ < {tap(er) (man)uscrit}

[French] (l) alicament ‘aliment and medicine’ < {ali(ment)

(médi)cament} [French]

The new word is formed by the loss of both the final partof the first source-word and the initial part of thesecond source word respectively. Somehow the two source-words penetrate each other.

2.4 Intrograding blending Examples

Ι. (a) askillity ‘ability and skill’ < {a(bil)ity skill}

[English] (b) destarture ‘start of the departure’ < {de(part)ure

start} [English] (c) δυσέβερτο ‘Evert, difficult to be found’ <

{δυσ(εύρετ)ο ‘difficult to be found’ Έβερτ ‘thename of a Greek prime-minister} [Greek]

6

(d) RRVOLVOLUTIONLUTION ‘the Volvo’s revolution’ <{re(vol)ution VOLVO} [English]

(e) αποΣΕΒήθηκαν ‘the dangers concerning the Federationof Enterprises are averted’ < {απο(σοβ)ήθηκαν ‘[thedangers] are averted’ ΣΕΒ acronym of the‘Federation of Greek Enterprises’} [Greek]

ΙΙ.a(a) slithy < {s(lim)y lith(e)} [English] (b) λαχάχανο ‘the titter of cabbage’ < {λά(χα)νο

‘cabage’ χάχα(νο) ‘titter’} [Greek] (from a joke)(c) Ισπεπονία ‘a country like Spain full of melons’ <

{Ισ(πα)νία ‘Spain’ πεπό(νι) ‘melon’} [Greek](from children’s literature)

(d) Χαρδαβδέλας ‘the journalist acting like a leech’<{Χαρδα(βέ)λας ‘name of a Greek journalist’ βδέ(λλα) ‘leech’} [Greek] (from a joke]

ΙΙ.b(e) διάτανος ‘devil, euphemistically or emphatically’ <

{διά(βολ)ος ‘devil’ (σα)ταν(άς) ‘devil’}(f) Ελλεεινίδα ‘wretched (miserable) Greek woman’ <

{Ελλ(ην)ίδα ‘Greek woman’ (ελ)εειν(ή) ‘wretched’}[Greek]

The new word is formed via two individual mechanisms:firstly (I), the loss of the middle part of the firstsource-word, where the entire second source-word pen-etrates, and secondly (II), the loss of the middle partof the first source-word, where (II.a) the initial partof the second source-word penetrates or (II.b) the middlepart of the second source-word penetrates. Based on the blending outcomes (not only those in

Greek), antegrading blending is proved to be the mostproductive mechanism (in other words, the most frequentlyoccurring subcategory), followed by back-forth grading,retrograding, and, last but not least, introgradingblending.

3. Two former typologies: Soudek (1978) and Ronneberger-Sibold (2012)

7

While speaking of the advantages of our typology, we willnot discuss the typological proposal of Ronneberger-Sibold (2012), which differs greatly from ours: Forinstance, ComMUNICHation (the cited English example ofinclusive blending) [cf. our ‘intrograding blending’] is,as shown below, only a case of etymological reanalysis(via misspelling and use of capital letters), whileTomoffel, as an example of contour blending [i.e. of theback-forth-grading, according to our terminology), doesnot have any transparency,

RONNEBERGER-SIBOLD (2012)

BLENDING

COMPLETEBLENDING

TELESCOPE BLENDINGKamelefant < {Kam(el) Elefant}Amtsschimmelpilz < Amts(schimmel)

SchimmelpilzINCLUSIVE BLENDING

ComMUNICHation CONTOURBLENDING

1< {Tom(ate) (Kart)offel}

Tomoffel 2< {Tom(ate)

(Pant)offel}SEMI-COMPLETEBLENDING

Novasil < {nova Silber}

FRAGMENTBLENDING

Persil < {Peroxyd Silikat}

as it may be the result of Tom(ate) + (Kart)offel or of Tom(ate) +(Pant)offel (according to Ronneberger-Sibold). The example inthe last cell, Persil, the brand name of a famous detergent,is certainly a case of acronym, a result of the coinageof the initial parts of the source-words and not anexample of an individual kind of blending, which(according to Ronneberger-Sibold) must be called‘fragment blending’.Consequently, we have to go back in time to Soudek’s

typological proposal for English:

BLENDSKATSOUDA &

NAKAS (2013)SOUDEK (1978)

8

TOTAL

retrograding[RG.S2]

A1. CONCATENATEDhappenident < {happen (acc)ident} B1. OVERLAPPINGbedventure < {bed (ad)venture}

[X/y]

[X(s)y]

antegrading[AG.S2]

A2. CONCATENATED pramateur < {pr(ofessional) amateur} B2. OVERLAPPINGanimule < {ani(mal) mule} alcoholiday < {alco(hol) holiday}

[x/Y]

[x(s)Y]

back-forth-grading[BfG.S2]

A3. CONCATENATEDbisalo < {bi(son) ( buff)alo} B3. OVERLAPPINGfrogurt < {fro(sen) (yo)gurt}

[x/Y]

[x(s)Y]

intrograding

[IG.S1](Ι):{s1-(S2)-

s1}S1

(ΙΙ):{s1-(s2)-

s1}S 1

C. IMPLANTEDaskillity < {a(bil)ity skill}

destarture < {de(part)ure start}

[x1/Y/x2]

?slithy < {s(lim)y lith(e)}

[x1/y/x2]

PART IAL

etymologicalreanalysis

D: GRAPHIC SELLebration < {celebration //sell}BUYcentennial < {bicentennial //buy}BOYsterous < {boisterous //boy}

[Χ=y1/y2]

In our typology (in the left column) we maintainuniform criteria and terminology: four different blendingmechanisms form four different categories of totalblends. Our proposed typology may be newly established inregards to terminology, but is essentially simpler, moreconsistent, and economical than Soudek’s, who uses four

9

(4) different criteria, some of which overlap: As therelevant table proves, although the blends pramateur and a-nimule (in the second cell of the middle column) areformed by the same mechanism, that is by antegradingblending, Soudek classifies pramateur as a concatenatedblend (Α2), because there is no kind of phonetic coin-cidence in the overlapping or deletion area. Animule, onthe other hand, is classified as an overlapping blend(Β2), because the points of contact between the twosource-words consist of phonemes, either individual or ingroups (see the underlined parts into parentheses: thephonetic coincidence between ~mal and ~mule). Employingthe same two criteria, he also splits the rest of the ex-amples which are outcomes of the same blending mechanismfor both the retrograding (in the first middle cell) andthe back-forth-grading (in the third cell). On thecontrary, for all the examples classified as implantedblends (in the fourth cell), Soudek’s criterion is nowthe blending mechanism of implantation / infixation ofthe entire second source-word (or of a part of it) in themiddle of the first source-word (cf. intrograding,according to our terminology). Soudek does not provideany example of his type [x1/y/x2] of implantation (hence,the question mark in the 5th cell –Lewis Carroll’semblematic example, slithy, was added by us). Moreover, hedisregards the fact that in the majority of the infixedblends there is a phonetic coincidence between thesource-words. The latter (i.e. partial homophony) also applies in a

catalytic and imperative manner to the etymologicalreanalysis / partial blends (this is obvious in the fewexamples cited by Soudek in the last cell D: Graphicblends). See Nakas, Magoula & Kapothanasi (2010) forthese phenomena of homophony. Thus, based on our previous work, we present in our

book examples like the following ones. They are cited ina descending order, according to the number of commonphonemes between source-words (the example of 7 commonphonemes first, followed by examples of 6, 5… commonphonemes, and so on [/ζ or ζ/ζ΄ = types of minimalpairs]):

10

(a) [title:] Φοβερίζουν με νέο Ασφαληστρικό ‘an extortionateor a predatory insurance system’ [text:] Τον μπαμπούλαμιας νέας «μεταρρύθμισης» στο Ασφαλιστικό επισείει και πάλι ηκυβέρνηση, αυτή τη φορά με το Πρόγραμμα Σταθερότητας και Ανά-πτυξης 2008-2011, το οποίο υπέβαλε στις Βρυξέλλες, προβλέπονταςεπιδείνωση των προβλημάτων για το ...2050 [ ] (newspaperEleftherotypia, 3.2.09)

(7) / ζ7 {ασφα(λιστικό) [asfalistikó] ‘insurance’ ληστρικό [listrikó] ‘brigandish’}

(b) [A:] Πώς λέγεται το ελεφαντάκι που έπεσε μέσα σε χαντάκι; [B:]Ελεχαντάκι ‘baby-elephant which fell into a ditch’(joke) (ζ6) / ζ΄6 {ελε(φαντάκι) [elefandáci] ‘baby-elephant’

χαντάκι [xandáci] ‘ditch’}

(c) [A:] Ποια είναι τα νεοκλασικά διακοσμητικά σπιτιών που φοριού-νται και από απατημένους συζύγους; [B:] Τα ακροκέρατα‘antefixes which a cuckold husband puts on as orna-ments’ (joke)(ζ5) / ζ΄5 {ακρο(κέραμα) ‘akrocérama] ‘antefixes’

κέρατα} [cérata] ‘horns’}.

4. Advantages of our typology

The favorable condition for the formation of a blend,i.e. the catalytic effect of the partial coincidencebetween the signifiers of the two source-words, has beenalready pointed out by many, such as Schmid for German,Gries for English, Conçalves for Portuguese. Referring toour corpus, we also processed our material statistically:in almost 90% (89,72) of total blends, source-words haveusually 2-4 phonemes in common (they normally share oneto eight morphemes). Only 10,28% of source-words do nothave any phonemes in common (in the overlapping area),thus producing mere concatenated blends (the term‘concatenated’ as used by Soudek), such as pramateur <professional + amateur. The linking vowel -o-, characteristic of Greek

composition, is absent in the blending procedure. While incomposition we deal with morphemes and stems, in blendingwe deal with morphological splits, which may be random and

11

unpredictable, but are coined with regularity (they areformed by specific mechanisms). We agree with all whoconsider blending ‘a deliberate extragrammaticalcomposition’. The distinctive features of successfulblending are transparency and recoverability of thesource-words within the blend. Recoverability determinesthe order of the source-words. The reason why only fewblending outcomes are adopted in standard language use istheir direct dependence on communication circumstances(this is why every blend in our book is cited within anappropriate context).

5. The partial blending

In the last part of this paper, we are going to presentour typological proposal for partial blends or lexicalreanalysis outcomes (using titles and one indicativeexample for each subcategory). We will jystify the choiceof the previous terms as follows: Lexical reanalysis isdefined as the reanalysis of an existing lexical unit andnot as the outcome of the coinage of existing words, asthe term blend seems to state by definition. The outcomeof the lexical reanalysis exists as congenitalcoexistence, as a preexisting or latent combination. Itis not the product of an unnatural crossing, in the senseof a non-systematic coinage. In other words, an existinglexical unit (‘hidden’ or blended in the sense of anoverlap) emerges from another existing lexical unit. Theneologism in this respect does not lie in the formationof a new linguistic sign, but in the emergence of apreexisting linguistic sign from within the signifier ofanother word. We traced the following mechanisms / media of emergence:

5.1 Etymological Reanalysis through typography Examples

Etymological reanalysis (I) through the exclusive usageof print (fonts, change of the font’s color, usage ofcapital letters), such as

12

(a) Η Αθήνα αλλάζει ‘Athens lives by changing’ (politicalcampaign slogan of a candidate mayor){αλλάζει [alázi] ‘it changes’ // ζει [zí] ‘it lives’}

(b) ΠρωΤΟΣΤατήσαμε ‘we are the protagonists in makingtoasted sandwiches’ (commercial for toasted bread)

{πρωτοστατήσαμε [protostatísame] ‘we are theprotagonists / architects’ // τοστ [tóst] ‘toasted

bread’}(c) Ανακαλύπτουν το παρακράτος ‘they uncover the parastate,

although they cover it’ (see the newspaper front pageheadlines, below)

{ανακαλύπτουν [anakalíptun] ‘uncover’ // καλύπτουν[kalíptun] ‘cover’ etymological relation}

(II) through the usage of acronyms / initialisms

(d) αΝΑΤομία ‘anatomy of the Navy Pension Fund’ (title ofjournal article){ανατομία ‘anatomy’ [anatomía] // ΝΑΤ [nát] acronym of

the ‘Navy Pension Fund’}(e) ΜΑΤαιότης… ‘vainness of the riot police’ (title of

journal article)

13

{ματαιότης [mateótis] ‘vainness’ // MAT [mát] acronymof the riot police, meaning ‘Units for the Reinstatement

of Order’}

(III) through the usage of Latin alphabet

(f) SCHOOLΗΚΙ ‘school worm’ (name of a school magazine){σκουλήκι [skulíci] ‘worm’ // school}

(g) Τα πτυχία copy-s κτώνται ‘university degrees obtainedstrugglingly and by plagiarism’ (graffiti on the wallof the university)

{κόποις [kópis] ‘strugglingly’ // copy]

5.2 Εtymological Reanalysis through the usage of punctuation marks Examples (a) προ(σ)κλήσεις ‘invitation and challenges’

{προσκλήσεις [prosklísis] ‘invitations’ // προκλήσεις[proklísis] ‘challenge’, etymological relation}

(b) υπερ … βολικό ‘excessive and convenient’ (commercialof a nonstick skillet)

{υπερβολικό [ipervolikó] ‘excessive’ // βολικό[volikó] ‘convenient’, etymological relation}

5.3 Εtymological Reanalysis through the usage of misspelling Examples (a) Απορρο-φυτικά ‘absorbent and vegetal’ (commercial of

absorbent pads){απορροφ η τικά [aporofitiká] ‘absorbent’ // φυτικά [fitiká]

‘vegetal’(b) ΤΥΠΟτένιος ‘paltry Press’ (name of a newspaper column)

{τ ι πο τένιος [tipotéɲos] ‘paltry’ // Τύπος [típos] ‘Press’}

5.4 Εtymological Reanalysis through the usage of symbol Examples (a) [ ] Τώρα ΔΕΝ ΜΕ. ΑΚΟΥΜΕ ‘[ ] now, we don’t speak but

we listen’ (advertisement of the radio station EVA[‘Eve’] 106,6 FM)

14

{μιλάμε [miláme] ‘we speak’ // μήλα [míla] ‘apples’

(b) 4U or 4 you (instead of ‘for you’ in sms / mail) {4, four [fōr] // for [fər]}

{U [yu:] // you [yu:]}

5.5 Successive and Combined blending Examples

We have also successive partial blends, as:

(a) Αγαπητέ κύρι€ Δι€υθυντά ‖ Σ€ αυτή τη ζωή τα θέλω μας €ίναι λίγο ωςπολύ γνωστά. Πιστ€ύω ότι [ ] ‘Dear Director, In this lifeour desires are more or less known. I believe that[ ]’ (a fictional letter of an employee requestingsalary increase from his boss)

{κύριε ‘sir’, Διευθυντά ‘director’, σε ‘in’,είναι ‘it is’, πιστεύω ‘I believe’ // € ‘the symbol of

euro’}

We have combined partial blending cases, such as:

(b) Έκλεβαν ΠΑΝΤΕΙΟτρόπως ‘they embezzled in every way inPanteio University’ (title of journal article)

{παντ οι ο τρόπως [pandiotrópos] // Πάντειο [pándio]‘Panteio University’ misspelling + capital letters}

(c) Του Κηρίου ΔΕΗθώμεν! ‘let’s pray for light to the Lordof PPC’

{κυρίου [ciríu] ‘Lord’ // κηρίου [ciríu] ‘candle’ +δεηθώμεν [ðeiθómen] // ΔΕΗ [ðeí] ‘acronym of the Greek

Public Power Corporation’ misspelling + acronym}

Analogically to the combined application of some figureof speech (as the double contrasts, the doublerepetitions etc.) we found in our corpus cases of doublepartial blending, as: (d) ΑΡΑ…ΖΩ ‘I chill out and consequently I live’ (wall

graffiti) {{αράζω [arázo] ‘I chill out’ // άρα [ára]

‘consequently’} +

αράζω [arázo] ‘I chill out’ // ζω [zó] ‘I live’}

15

Or cases of triple partial blending cases:

(c) μίλα, ρε! [míla re] ‘eh you, speak’ (expressionduring police interrogation)

{μίλα, ρε! [míla re] // μι [mí] ‘note of the pentagram’, + λα [lá] ‘note of the pentagram’

+ ρε [ré] mi ‘note of the pentagram’

as well as double total blending cases, as:(d) Edhard Schroiber ‘the name of the supposedly candidate

chancellor as it has been written in the journalisticheadlines during the election campaign of 2002 inGermany, outcome of the coinage of two Christiannames and two last names’ (Schmid (2003):

{<Ed(mund)[1α] Stoiber[1β] (Ger)hard[2α]

Schröder[2β]> +<Gerhard[2α] Schr(öder)[2β] Edmund[1α]

(St)oiber[1β]>}οr

Ed(mund)[1α]

(St)oiber[1β]

(Ger)hard[2α] Schr(öder)[2β]

Edhard[1α x 2α]

Schroiber[2β x 1β]

(See Katsouda & Nakas 2013 for further analysis andexamples).

6. Conclusion

Although many newly formed words (such as the occasionalblends) are not established in the vocabulary, they arenevertheless as if not more important as the permanentor the coded neologisms, insomuch as they create dashingcombinations and show (and they determine as well) thecontinuously renewing limits of our language(Christofidou, see Katsouda and Nakas 2013: 16-17).

References

16

Αρβανίτη, Αμαλία. 1998. “Ενδείξεις προσωδιακής δομής σεπρόσφατα λεξικά μίγματα της Ελληνικής [Indications of aprosodic structure in recent Greek blends].” Μελέτες για τηνΕλληνική Γλώσσα [Studies in Greek Linguistics] 18: 68- 82.

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1946. “Visual morphemes”. Language 22:333-340.

Conçalves, Carlos Alexandre. 2006. “A ambimorfemia decruzamentos vocabularies: una abordagem por ranking derestrições.” Revista de ABRALIN v.5, n.1 e 2: 169- 183.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000. “Extragrammatical vs.marginal morphology”. In Extragrammatical and MarginalMorphology, edited by Ursula Doleschal, and Anna M.Thornton, 1- 10. Munich: Lincom.

Gries, Stephan Th. 2004. “Isn’t fantabulous? How similaritymotivates international morphological blends in English.” InLanguage, Culture, and Mind, edited by Michael, Achard and SuzanneKemmer, 415- 428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Καραντζόλα, Eλένη και Aσημάκης Φλιάτουρας. 2004. ΓλωσσικήΑλλαγή [Language Change]. Παραδόσεις 15. Αθήνα: Νήσος.

Κατσούδα, Γεωργία. 2009. “Οι όροι contamination καιblending στην ελληνική βιβλιογραφία: προβλήματα καιλύσεις [The terms contamination and blending in Greekbibliography: problems and solutions].” Στα Πρακτικά του8ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας, Ιωάννινα (29 Αυγούστου– 2 Σεπτεμβρίου 2007 [Proceedings of the 8th InternationalConference on Greek Linguistics, Ioannina (29 August -2 September 2007)], 885- 896. [http:// www . linguist - uoi . gr / cd_web / arxiki _en.html]

Κατσούδα Γεωργία και Παρασκευή Κρητικού. 2010. “Οπτικοίσυμφυρμοί (παραδείγματα από τον Τύπο) [Visual blends(examples from the Press).” Στο Δελτίο ΕπιστημονικήςΟρολογίας και Νεολογισμών, επιστ. επιμ. ΑναστασίαΧριστοφίδου. Διπλό τεύχος 9- 10: 439- 460. ΑκαδημίαΑθηνών / Κέντρο Ερεύνης Επιστημονικών Όρων καιΝεολογισμών.

Κατσούδα, Γεωργία. 2011. “Η σύμφυρση στη ΝεοελληνικήΚοινή και στα ιδιώματα: θεωρία και εφαρμογή [Theblending in Modern Greek Koine and the dialects: theoryand application].” Νεοελληνική Διαλεκτολογία 6: 137- 163.Αθήνα: Ακαδημία Αθηνών / ΚΕΝΔΙ/ ΙΛΝΕ.

Κατσούδα, Γεωργία και Θανάσης Νάκας. 2013. Όψεις τηςΝεολογίας: Σύμφυρση και Επανετυμολόγηση (Ολικοί και μερικοί λεξικοί

17

συμφυρμοί) [Aspects to the Neology: Blending and Lexical Reanalysis].Αθήνα: Πατάκης.

Koutita-Kaimaki, Mirto, and Asimakis Fliatouras. 2001.“Blends in greek dialects : a morphosemantic analysis”.In Proceedings of the First International Conference of Modern GreekDialects and the Linguistic Theory (Patras, Greece, Oct. 12-14, 2000),edited by Angela Ralli, Brian Joseph, and Mark Janse,117- 130. Patras: University of Patras.

Meid, Wolfgang. 1977. “Beziehungen zwischen äusserer undinnerer Sprachform: verschränkte Zeichen undfusionierte Inhalte.” Veröffentlichungen der Komission fürLinguistik und Kommunikationsforschung 6: 294- 304.

Μπαμπινιώτης, Γεώργιος. 2010. Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό της ΝέαςΕλληνικής Γλώσσας. Αθήνα: Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας.

Μωυσιάδης, Θεόδωρος. 2005. Ετυμολογία (Εισαγωγή στη Μεσαιωνικήκαι Νεοελληνική Ετυμολογία) [Etymology (Introduction in Medieval andModern Greek Etymology)]. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

Νάκας, Θανάσης, Ευγενία Μαγουλά και Αφροδίτη Καποθανάση.2010. “Η ομοηχία στη Νέα Ελληνική: ορολογία καιτυπολογία. [The homophony in Modern Greek: terminologyand typology].” Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα [Studies in GreekLinguistics] 30: 436- 449.

Ralli, Angela and George Xydopoulos. 2012. “BlendFormation in Modern Greek”. In Cross-disciplinary Perspectiveson Lexical Blending (trends in Linguistics) edited by VincentRenner, François Maniez, and Pierre Arnaud, 35-50.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [http: //lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/el/research /downloads / 21.pdf].

Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2006. “Lexical blends:Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words”.Folia Linguistica XL /1-2Q 155- 181.

Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2012. “Blending between grammarand universal cognitive principles: evidence fromGerman, Farsi, and Chinese”. In Cross-disciplinary Perspectiveson Lexical Blending (trends in Linguistics), edited by Vincent Renner,François Maniez, and Pierre Arnaud, 115- 144. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Schmid, Hans Ulrich. 2003. “Zölibazis Lustballon.Wortverschmelzungen in der deutschenGegenwartssprache“. Muttersprache 3: 265–278.

18

Soudek, Lev I. 1978. “The relation of blending to Englishword-formation: theory, structure and typologicalattempts”. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress ofLinguists edited by Wolfgang U. Dressler, and WolfgangMeid, 462- 466. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwis-senschaft.

Windisch, Rudolf. 1991. “Die Wortverschmelzung ein’abscheuliches monstrum’ des franzözischen unddeutschen Wortbildung?“. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 42: 34- 51.

19