Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-d6ndz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T15:46:54.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting the best of the worst: the grammar of Hebrew blends*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2010

Outi Bat-El
Outi Bat-El
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Blends, also called portmanteau words, are formed by fusing two words into one new word, where internal portions of the base words are often subtracted (one segmental string from the right part of the first word and another from the left part of the second word). For example, the English blend nixonomics has been formed by combining nixon and economics and subtracting the string neco. (For clarity of exposition, blends will be usually represented as nixo <n⋅eco> nomics, where the subtracted material is enclosed in angled brackets and the boundary between the base elements is indicated by ⋅).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 283 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adam, G. (1995). The fate of spirantization in Modern Hebrew: free variation in Optimality Theory, Ms, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. (1989). Phonology and word structure in Modern Hebrew. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Bal-El, O. (1993). Parasitic metrification in Modern Hebrew stress system. The Linguistic Review 10. 189–210.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. (1994a). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. NLLT 12. 571–596.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. (1994b). The optimal acronym word in Hebrew. In Koskinen, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. 23–38.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Benua, L. (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman, J., Urbanczyk, S. & Walsh, L. (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 77–136.Google Scholar
Berman, R. (1989). The role of blends in Modern Hebrew word-formation. In Wexler, P., Borg, A. & Somekh, S. (eds.) Studia linguistica et orientalia memoriae Haim Blanc dedicata. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 45–61.Google Scholar
Berman, R. & Ravid, D. (1985). Lexicalization of compounds in Hebrew. (In Hebrew.) Hebrew Computational Linguistics Bulletin 24. 5–22.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1989). On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology. 46–65.Google Scholar
Broadwell, A.(1987).Subtractive morphology in Southwest Muskogean.Paper presented at the 40th Annual Kentucky Foreign Language Conference.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The problem of transfer in nonlinear phonology. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 38–73.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 282–333.Google Scholar
Even-Shoshan, A. (1982). The condensed Hebrew dictionary. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (ed.) (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1988). Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. NLLT 6. 247–270.Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment. In Merchant, J., Padgett, J. & Walker, R. (eds.) Phonology at Santa Cruz. Vol. 3. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, UCSC. 27–46.Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1995). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith (1995). 817–838.Google Scholar
Itô, J., Mester, A. & Padgett, J. (1993). Licensing and redundancy: underspecification in optimality theory. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, UCSC.Google Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1985). The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, H. (1990). Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case for phonology-morphology interface. Yearbook of Morphology. 1–20.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38. 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993a). Prosodic Morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993b). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1995a). Prosodic morphology. In Goldsmith (1995). 318–366.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1995b). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (1988). Subtractive morphology as dissociation. WCCFL 7. 229–240.Google Scholar
Nir, R. (1993). Word-formation in Modern Hebrew. (In Hebrew.) Tel-Aviv: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Lebel, C. (1994). Contrasts from segmental parameter settings in loanwords: core and periphery in Quebec French. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 75–94.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (1978). Word-formation processes in Modern Hebrew nouns and adjectives. MA thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (1990). Internal structure constraints on new-word formation devices in Modern Hebrew. Folia Linguistica 24. 289–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1988). Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5. 73–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Warren, B. (1990). The importance of combining forms. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E. & Rennison, J. R. (eds.) Contemporary morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. LI 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Linguistics 21. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar