2. Review of Related Theories
This section reviews six theories related to the study of English blending. These theories are word-formation process, combining patterns of English blends,
syllabification theory, prosodic analysis in English blends, word category, and meaning identification in blending.
a. Word-formation Process
Word-formation process is one of the morphological rules applied in the composition of word. Generally, there are two kinds of morphological rules
characterized by the notion of lexemes, namely inflection rule and word formation rule Plag, 2003: 17. The former targets the same lexemes, whereas the latter
targets different lexemes. As the examples, the word balls and casts apply inflection rule, while football and independent apply word formation rule. When
inflection rule is implemented in a word, the resulting word refers to the same lexeme. The insertion of affix
–s in balls and casts does not make the words produce different lexemes. Rather, they remain as the same lexemes as the
original words ball and cast. On the contrary, when the word formation rule is implemented in a word, the resulting word yields different lexemes. Football is a
kind of sport, thus it produces different lexeme with the original words foot and ball. The word independent also produces different lexeme with the root depend
and the base dependent. Finally, it is obvious that the inflection rule does not produce a new lexeme, yet the word formation rule does.
In general, word formation rule consists of two types, namely compounding and derivation Plag, 2003: 17. The first type produces a new lexeme by
combining two existing words. The words butterfly, basketball, earthquake, moonlight, and lifetime are the examples of compounds. The second type produces
a new lexeme with and without affixation. Therefore, it is then divided into two forms. The first form is derivation with affixation and the second form is
derivation without affixation. Derivation with affixation is a type of word- formation process which affixes are inserted within a word. For instances, the
affixes of dis-, -er, and –ee are inserted in the word dishonest, writer, and
employee. Therefore, this process involves prefixation, suffixation, and infixation. Derivation without affixation does not need affixes to produce a new lexeme.
Rather, it depends on existing words. Accordingly, blending belongs to this category since it does not need affixes to derive a new lexeme. Some other types
of derivation without affixation are conversion such as in poor-the poor, empty-to empty, and water-to water and truncation such as in lab, demo, and condo.
As stated previously that the process of blending is commonly derived from two words which made up into one, it can be compared to another similar word-
formation process. Referring to its nature, blending resembles compounding, especially in terms of combining multiple words. The base words of blending can
be derived from compound words. There are two types of blends which resemble compound words Plag, 2003: 122. The first type is shortened compounds in
which the first element modifies the second one. The example is motel motor + hotel. Thus a motel is a kind of hotel, not a kind of motor. The second type is
more less the same as copulative compounds. The example is brunch which is taken from breakfast and lunch. Both breakfast and lunch are the base words
which have the similar semantic relation as in copulative compounds. Thus, it can be inferred that brunch is both breakfast and lunch.
Despite the similarities, blends are different from compounding in some aspects. Lappe and Plag 2012: 2 present two differences in terms of prosodic
properties such as syllable and stress. The first dissimilarity is that blends are syllabified and stressed like one phonological word, while compound words are
treated as two. The second dissimilarity is that some phonological materials in blends are deleted, while compounds are not.
Blending and inflection are different in some aspects such as the notion of lexeme and its productivity Plag, 2003: 14. In the notion of lexeme, blending
belongs to derivation word formation process in which it produces new lexeme, whereas inflection does not. In terms of productivity, blending is less productive
than inflection. Unlike blends, inflection is not limited to many restrictions. Most English words especially nouns and verbs can obtain inflection regarding to the
choice of grammar plural and tenses. For instance, the word house becomes houses whenever it is in a plural form. The verb watch, watches, watched,
watching are also used for the sake of grammar, depending on the the number of person and tenses.
b. Combining Patterns of Blends
The study of blending has become the object of analysis by some researchers for years. One of the aspects which becomes the focus of their
research is on blends ‟ classifications based on the way of combining source
words.
Dealing with classifications of blend, the patterns of combining source words into blends are also taken into account. Algeo 1977 as cited in Hong
2004: 120 said that English blends were classified into three combining patterns, namely blends with clipping, blends with overlapping, and blends with clipping
and overlapping. The first combining pattern consisted of blends with clipping. Blends with clipping occured when one part or more was deleted. Enarsson 2006:
5 mentioned four types which fitted into this pattern. The first type was when the whole part of the first word joined together with the last part of the second word.
The examples were foodoholic food + alcoholic and fanzine fan + magazine. The second type was when the first part of the first word combined with the whole
part of the second word. The blends Eurasia Europe + Asia were the examples of the second type. The third type was when the first part of the first word
combined with the last part of the second word. The blend brunch breakfast + lunch became the example. The fourth type was when the first part of both
elements was combined. The examples were agitprop agitation + propaganda and aldehyde alcohol + dehydrogenatum.
Blends with overlapping occured when there was an overlap in both of the source words. Examples provided by Enarsson 2006: 4 were cellebrity cell +
celebrity and sinema sin + cinema. It was obvious that there were elements of two source words which were similar so that it created an overlap in the blend. In
celebrity, the word cell completely overlapped with the first part of second word celebrity to form a blend cellebrity. Doing the same analysis, in sinema, the
overlap occurred between the whole first word sin and the first part of second
source word cinema.
Kategori