Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:52:19.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Is Play on Words Fair Play or Dirty Play?

On Ill-Meaning Use of Morphological Blending

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Natalia Beliaeva
Edited by
Natalia Knoblock
Natalia Knoblock
Affiliation:
Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Lexical blends such as Brexit < Britain + exit have been referred to in literature as instances of word play. The playful character of blends underlie their use in such domains as slang, advertising and political media. As has been shown, blending a personal name with a common noun, e.g. Haputin < hapat’ (grab) + Putin goes along with a variety of derogatory language means. Building on the findings in Beliaeva and Knoblock (2020), this study investigates factors that may trigger the use of lexical blending as verbal aggression and aims to explore derogatory meanings of blends referring to people. It is hypothesized that blending a personal name with another word enhances the likelihood of inducing derogatory meaning. Sample texts containing blends are extracted from the Now corpus and the iWeb corpus and analysed for the presence of emotionally coloured lexical elements. The results of the study suggest that the context of blends differs from the context of their non-blended counterparts, and reveal specific features in the use of blended words with human referents.

Keywords

lexical blendspersonal namesword formationneologismscorpus data
Type
Chapter
Information
The Grammar of Hate
Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse
 , pp. 177 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allen, A. S. (1993). Blends in humorous language. In Reich, P. A. (Ed.), Nineteenth LACUS Forum (pp. 366–370). Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society, 19(3), 273–306.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2012). Blends: Core and periphery. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L. (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 11–22). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Beliaeva, N. (2014). A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure, 7(1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Beliaeva, N. (2016). Blends at the intersection of addition and subtraction: Evidence from processing. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 23–45.Google Scholar
Beliaeva, N. (2019). Blending in morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-511.Google Scholar
Beliaeva, N., & Knoblock, N. (2020). Blended names in the discussions of the Ukrainian crisis. In Knoblock, N. (Ed.), Language of conflict: Discourses of the Ukrainian Crisis (pp. 83–100). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English word formation. Linguistics, 24(4), 725–753.Google Scholar
Carpentier, N. (2017). The discursive-material Knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. (n.d.). Compleat Web VP (Version 2.1). Retrieved 15 October 2020, from –www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The News on the Web Corpus(NOW): 4.78 billion+ words, 2010–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/now/Google Scholar
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Famous nicknames: Nicknames of famous people (n.d.). The Hypertexts. www.thehypertexts.com/Famous%20Nicknames.htmGoogle Scholar
Gatti, L., Guerini, M., & Turchi, M. (2016). SentiWords: Deriving a high precision and high coverage lexicon for sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 7(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, M., Salvesen, K. E., Obeid, S. A., & Viano, L. (2015). Language attitudes toward some gendered words in English: A preliminary study. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 13, 70–76.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics, 42(3), 639–667.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2006). Cognitive determinants of subtractive word-formation processes: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics, 17(4), 535–558.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2012). Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L. (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 145–167). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY programs. www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation.aspxGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M. A., & Zeileis, A. (2006). A Lego system of conditional inference. The American Statistician, 60(3), 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. H. (1998). To ‘brunch’ or to ‘brench’: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics, 36, 579–590.Google Scholar
Kleparski, G. A. (1990). Semantic change in English: A study of evaluative developments in the domain of HUMANS. The Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar
López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies, 85(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
López Rúa, P. (2012). Beyond all reasonable transgression: Lexical blending in alternative music. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L. (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 23–34). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Payne, M. (2017). President Obama’s high school basketball team nickname was Barry O’Bomber. The Washington Post, January 14. www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/01/13/president-obamas-high-school-basketball-team-nickname-was-barry-obomber/Google Scholar
Reeve, E. (2012). Obummer, Nobama: Ranking the best Obama pun insults. The Atlantic, June 4. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/obummer-nobama-ranking-best-obama-pun-insults/327330/Google Scholar
Renner, V. (2008). On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies, 89(5), 606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, V. (2015). Lexical blending as wordplay. In Zirker, A. & Winter-Froemel, E. (Eds.), Wordplay and metalinguistic / metadiscursive reflection: Authors, contexts, techniques, and meta-reflection (pp. 119–133). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=IKKnCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA119&dq=info:PxPkzrbg2tEJ:scholar.google.com&ots=xb4tcetHuP&sig=lSLMK50WjyWLZdEtA-A4vPXV0bAGoogle Scholar
Shultz, M. (1975). The semantic derogation of woman. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 64–75). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Tarasova, E. & Sánchez Fajardo, J. A. (2020). Iconicity and word-formation: An examination of Adj+ ie/y nominalisations through a bidirectional conceptualisation model. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×