Phonological study of blends and puns-Poznań-Juszczyk-2005

Page 1

THE PHONOLOGICAL STUDY OF BLENDS AND PUNS Konrad Juszczyk juszczyk@amu.edu.pl Department of Psycholinguistics - Institute of Linguistics Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

1st Student Conference on Formal Linguistics 1 11-01-05

September 28, 2004


What are puns? ä

Puns are a kind of witticisms, a part of joyful language ä  Used in jokes, ads or titles of newspaper articles ä

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. (Washington Post)

ä  Use

of ambiguity and sound similarity

ä  Metaphors

be with you (from the website on metaphors)

ä  Understanding

puns requires the knowledge of cultural context (see Kemmer’s study on mental spaces)

ä  Polish

examples from advertisements:

ä  Ciała

przyjemność po mojej stronie.

ä  (The

2 11-01-05

ä  Kostki

pleasure is all mine)

zostały rzucone.

ä  (Iacta

alea est – The dice is cast)


How are blends and puns related? ä  It

happens that…

ä  blends

look like puns because of ambiguity ä  or puns make use of blends to achieve ambiguity, ä  moreover both benefit from sound affinity.

ä  You

can’t find much in literature on phonologica affinity, although it is a characteristic feature of puns and blends.

3 11-01-05


What are blends? ä  Blends

are a kind of compound where morphemes sometimes overlap each other ä  Therefore

morphemes in blends are rather parts of source forms truncated at some point

ä  English

examples:

ä  chunnel,

swooshtika, smog, brunch, viagra, grue…

ä  Polish

examples: dyskretyn, terroretyk, idiotele… ä  Other terms describing these phenomena: ä  portmanteau 4 11-01-05

words (coined by Lewis Carroll)

ä  mixonymes ä  Polish

terms: kontaminacja or adideacja


The need of phonological resemblance ä  These

source-parts may overlap only if they are similar in sound, which is in a phonological matter.

ä  Kemmer

(2003) also claims that:

ä  „phonological

5 11-01-05

properties are highly relevant to

blending; ä  phonological similarity of the blend with part or whole source lexeme increases the likelihood or felicity (the ‘goodness’) of a blend.”


ä  Other

studies of lexical blends described:

ä  phonological

affinity on the suprasegmental level (Kemmer, 2003)

ä  Morphology,

morphonology of Spanish blends couched within Optimality Theory (Pin)eros, ROA): ä  featural

faithfulness, ä  IDENT, MAX(SF-BW) and other constraints. 6 11-01-05


7 11-01-05


Biurnonsens /b j u r n o n s e n s/ b!

j

u!

b!

r ! o ! p! j! u! r! n ! o ! n ! s ! e ! n ! s !

j! ! u!

r!

n! o! n! s! e! n! s!

ä  This

blend plays on words apparently known in English and having similar meaning in Polish: ä  bureau

(French origin) ä  pure nonsense

Blend describes pure nonsense that one can encounter in a bureau or office. 8 ä  SOURCE: title in the Polish daily newspaper GW. ä

11-01-05


What happens in /b j u r n o n s e n s/? b!

j

u!

b!

r ! o ! p! j! u! r! n ! o ! n ! s ! e ! n ! s !

j! ! u!

r!

n! o! n! s! e! n! s!

Arrows show correspondence relationships between segments of source forms and the blend. ä  Every phoneme in the blend has its correspondent in one of the source forms. ä  Crossing arrows show one-to-many correspondence 9 relationships between similar phonemes. 11-01-05 ä


Phonological similarity in the blend ä  The

first four phonemes in the blend have its ‘company” in both source forms, due to their almost complete phonological similarity. ä  The first one /b/ refers both to /b/ and /p/ that are not identical in sound, but are similar. b!

10 11-01-05

j

u!

r ! o ! p! j! u! r!

b!

j ! u!

r!

n !o! n! s! e! n! s!

n! o! n! s! e! n! s!


Natural class of sounds ä  Sounds

/b/ and /p/ can be said to constitute a natural class since they share features like ä  [+stop][+labial][+consonantal]

ä  Sounds

in natural class are to be all affected by phonological processes like assimilation. ä  The process in the blends presented above may be interpreted as feature-changing assimilation. ä  In biurnonsens and barkiet assimilation takes place in the begining, whereas in drabieżnik - in 11 the middle (examples will be shown in a moment). 11-01-05


Which features are changed? ä  The

differencing features should be easily noticeable (realized by speakers).

ä  These

differences are minimal because the more a blend „echoes” the source forms, the better.

ä  Features ä  Those 12 11-01-05

of place of articulation and voicing

features differentiate sounds in oppositions

ä  proportional,

privative and bilateral (correlation)


It looks like voicing assimilation, doesn’t it? [-voice]

[+voice]

CC VCCVCCVCC

[-voice]

[+voice]

CC VCCVCCVCC

pj u rnonse ns bj u rnonse ns ä  The rule of spreading in autosegmental phonology ä  The voicing in /p j u r n o n s e n s/ is an autosegment that spreads to the initial phoneme in association with /bjuro/ (bureau). 13 ä  Spreading – dotted line and delinking is a line with bars. 11-01-05


Spreading and delinking in blend /p/ root

/b/ root + consonantal - sonorant

laryngeal supralaryngeal

+ consonantal - sonorant

laryngeal supralaryngeal

=

14 11-01-05

-voice place manner velum

+voice place manner velum

+labial coronal -cont

+labial coronal -cont

vď śâ€ŻThis is a tree adopted from the feature geometry showing assimilation of voicing in /p j u r n o n s e n s/.


More examples of voicing assimilation d ! r a ! p j !e! Z! n! i! k !

b ! j! e ! Z ! n ! i ! k !

d! r a! ! b! i! e! Z n! i! k!

drapieżnik ≈ bieżnik drapieżnik (predator, beast of prey) 15 11-01-05

bieżnik (tread)


16 11-01-05


More examples of voicing assimilation b ! a r ! l ! i ! n! e! k!

p! a ! r! c ! e ! t !

b! a r! ! c e! t! ä  barlinek

≈ parkiet

ä  Barlinek 17 11-01-05

(brand name for parquet floor)


18 11-01-05


Majdłuższy weekend - /n/ ó /m/ /n/ root

/m/ root + consonantal + sonorant

+ consonantal + sonorant

laryngeal supralaryngeal

laryngeal

+voice velum manner place

+voice place manner velum

+nasal –cont

coronal

supralaryngeal

+labial –cont

+nasal

complete/total assimilation majdłuższy ≈ najdłuższy (the longest) 19 markomania ≈ narkomania (the drug habit/abuse) 11-01-05 maturalna kolej rzeczy. maturalna ≈ naturalna +anterior


*

20 11-01-05


Metaphors be with you /l/ ó /m/ /l/ root = laryngeal

/m/ root + consonantal + sonorant

+ consonantal + sonorant

supralaryngeal

laryngeal

+voice place manner velum coronal +cont

-lateral

supralaryngeal

+voice place manner velum -nasal

+labial –cont

complete/total assimilation Syllable structure resemblance with +anterior

21 11-01-05

„Let the force be with you”

+nasal


Evidence from psychophonetic study ä  Experiments

on subjective consonant similarity in Polish (Łobacz, 1995) also show that ä  consonants,

which differ in one feature are perceived as more similar than these which differ in more than one feature. ó /b/ - 254 ä  /n/ ó /m/ - 140 ä  /p/

ä  In

/p/ ó // - 908 /n/ ó /Ç/ - 904

other words:

ä  phonological

affinity = auditive similarity

22 11-01-05 ä

Phonetic distance in English for /l/ ó /m/ - 75/100


Summary: ä  The

aim of the study was to show how phonological processes in lexical blending and punning resemble assimilation. ä  This kind of assimilation is rather peculiar: ä  A

„classic assimilation” occurs when adjacent sounds influence each other so that they become more alike. ä  Those sounds are in syntagmatic order. ä  Sounds assimilated in blend are like one under another. ä  Hence, 23 11-01-05

we may call it a paradigmatic assimilation.


More examples – more questions… ä  English

(Kemmer, 2003):

ä  chunnel

= tunnel + channel ä  smog = smoke + fog ä  brunch = breakfast + lunch ä  grue = green + blue ä  motel =motor + hotel ä  Spanish ä  d

(Pin)eros, ROA):

e d o ‘finger’ + d e m o c r a c i a ‘democracy’

ä  d

e d o c r a c i a ‘an arbitrary system of election by pointing with the finger’

24 11-01-05

ä  g

o l ‘goal’ + f u t b o l ‘football’

ä  f

u t g o l ‘football (soccer) magazine published in Spain’


Bibliography: Kemmer, S. 2003. Schemas and lexical Blends. w: H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, K-U Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ä  Szpyra-Kozłowska, J. 2002. Współczesne teorie fonologiczne. Lublin: Wyd. UMSC. ä  Redfern, W. 2000. Puns. More senses than One. London: Penguin. ä  Nash, W. 1985. The language of humour. Style and technique in comic discourse. New York: Longman. ä  Łobacz, P. 1995. O percepcyjnej klasyfikacji polskich głosek raz jeszcze. [in:] Pogonowski, J. (red.) 1995. Eufonia i logos. Poznań: Wyd. Nauk. UAM. ä  Davenport, M. & Hannahs, S.J. 1998. Introducing phonetics and phonology. London: Arnold. 25ä  Laver, J. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Oxford: OUP ä

11-01-05


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.