Phonological Construction of Indonesian Blends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v42i1.559Keywords:
blend, phonological construction, constraint, word formationAbstract
Blends are formed by joining two clipped words into one. For example, in English, ‘breakfast’ and ‘lunch’ are joined to become ‘brunch’. While studies of blends usually focus on the morphological aspect, this study aims at describing the phonological aspects of blend formation, particularly the syllable formation of Indonesian blends. Moreover, the phonological constraints for blend formation are also investigated. The data were obtained from observing blending words used in daily conversations, as well as in media such as television and online news. To gather the data, the researcher asked each of her 20 students to find five samples of Indonesian blends. As a result, as many as 100 Indonesian blends were found. The data were then categorized based on their syllable structures and the phonological constraints for blend formation were analyzed using optimality theory. The results showed that blending words can be categorized into six types, which are (CVC+CVC), (CV+CVC), (CV+CVC), (V+CVC), (CV+CV), and (VC+CVC). For example, the second type (CV + CVC) ‘mager’ is formed from the first part of the first source word and the first part of the second source word as in ‘malas’ and ‘gerak’. Moreover, there are some possible constraints that make a new blend acceptable or unacceptable in Indonesian, such as the recognizability of blend from its source words and the semantic similarity of the blend with the already existing word. For example, the word ‘mantul’ is acceptable blend of mantap + betul, since ‘mantul’ already exists but it has different meaning. The results of this study imply that forming new words by blending the already existed words is still possible, but their acceptance or usage depend on the users’ familiarity with phonological knowledge.
References
Arndt‐Lappe, S., & Plag, I. (2013). The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674313000154
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bednárová, K.G. (2014). Some Insights into Portmanteau Words in Current Fashion Magazine. Jazyk a kultúra, 5(19-20), 0-0.
Beliaeva, N. (2014). A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again” in Paster, M., Rainer, F., Spence, A. & Stump, G. (eds.). Word Structure 7, pp. 29-54. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-511
Beliaeva, N. (2019). Blending in morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beliaeva, N. (2019). Blending creativity and productivity: on the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, (14). URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/4004
Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24, 725–753.
Carr, P. (2021). English Phonetic and phonology: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Enarsson, A. (2007). New blends in the English language. Karlstad University. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-674
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2017). Introduction to language. Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Giyatmi, Wijayava, R., & Arumi, S. (2017). English Blends Found in Social Media. Jurnal Arbiter 4(2), 65-75.
Gries, S. T. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English.
Gries, S. T. (2006). Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. Language, culture, and mind, 415-428.
Gries, S. T. (2012). Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive linguistic perspective. Linguistics, 17(4), 535-558.
Hamans, C. (2021). The difference between blends and clipped compounds. Proceeding of IATL, p. 89-101. University of Poznan.
Hosseinzadeh, N. M. (2014). New blends in English language. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 2(2), 15-26.
Kaunisto, M. (2000). Relations and proportions in the formation of blend words. Conference handbook, Fourth conference of the international quantitative linguistics association (Qualico), Prague, August 24-26.
Kemmer, S. (2003). Schemas and lexical blends. Motivation in Language: From Case Grammar to cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Lehrer, A. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(4), pp. 359-390. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400
Roach, P. (2013). English Phonetics and phonology: A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (2020). The Study of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seo, H. (2021). English blending revisited: An optimality theoretic approach. Studies in English Language & Literature, pp. 257-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.21559/aellk.2021.47.2.013
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Linguistik Indonesia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The name and email address in this journal will only be used for the benefit of the Indonesian Linguistics journal and will not be used for other purposes.