Lably
Skip to content

Portmanteau

Word consisting of two words

  • 21 min read
  • 6 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Linguistics, Contraction (grammar) and Compound (linguistics)

In some languages, contamination refers to a subset of blends, where the words combined are synonyms or have similar meanings. This kind of blend can be deliberate or accidental. A blend is similar to a contraction. On one hand, mainstream blends tend to be formed at a particular historical moment followed by a rapid rise in popularity. On the other hand, contractions are formed by the gradual drifting together of words over time due to the words commonly appearing together in sequence, such as do not naturally becoming don't (phonologically, becoming ); however, don't is also an example of a portmanteau morph. A blend also differs from a compound, which fully preserves the stems of the original words. The British lecturer Valerie Adams's 1973 Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation explains that "In words such as motel..., hotel is represented by various shorter substitutes – ‑otel... – which I shall call splinters. Words containing splinters I shall call blends". Thus, at least one of the parts of a blend, strictly speaking, is not a complete morpheme, but instead a mere splinter or leftover word fragment. For instance, starfish is a compound, not a blend, of star and fish, as it includes both words in full. However, if it were called a "stish" or a "starsh", it would be a blend. Furthermore, when blends are formed by shortening established compounds or phrases, they can be considered clipped compounds, such as romcom for romantic comedy.

Classification

Blends of two or more words may be classified from each of three viewpoints: morphotactic, morphonological, and morphosemantic.

Morphotactic classification

Blends may be classified morphotactically into two kinds: total and partial.

Total blends

In a total blend, each of the words creating the blend is reduced to a mere splinter. Some linguists limit blends to these (perhaps with additional conditions): for example, Ingo Plag considers "proper blends" to be total blends that semantically are coordinate, the remainder being "shortened compounds".

Commonly for English blends, the beginning of one word is followed by the end of another:

  • breakfast + lunch ⇒ brunch
  • low-key + genuinely ⇒ lowkenuinely

Much less commonly in English, the beginning of one word may be followed by the beginning of another:

  • teleprinter + exchange ⇒ telex
  • American + Indian ⇒ Amerind
  • microcomputer + software ⇒ Microsoft

Some linguists do not regard beginning+beginning concatenations as blends, instead calling them complex clippings, clipping compounds or clipped compounds.

Unusually in English, the end of one word may be followed by the end of another:

  • Red Bull + margarita ⇒ bullgarita
  • Hello Kitty + delicious ⇒ kittylicious

A splinter of one word may replace part of another, as in two coined by Lewis Carroll in "Jabberwocky":

  • chuckle + snort ⇒ chortle
  • slimy + lithe ⇒ slithy

They are sometimes termed intercalative blends; these words are among the original "portmanteaus" for which this meaning of the word was created.

Partial blends

In a partial blend, one entire word is concatenated with a splinter from another. Some linguists do not recognize these as blends.

An entire word may be followed by a splinter:

  • fan + magazine ⇒ fanzine
  • dumb + confound ⇒ dumbfound

A splinter may be followed by an entire word:

  • Brad + Angelina ⇒ Brangelina
  • American + Indian ⇒ Amerindian

An entire word may replace part of another:

  • adorable + dork ⇒ adorkable
  • disgusting + gross ⇒ disgrossting

These have also been called sandwich words, and classed among intercalative blends.

(When two words are combined in their entirety, the result is considered a compound word rather than a blend. For example, bagpipe is a compound, not a blend, of bag and pipe.)

Morphological classification

Morphologically, blends fall into two kinds: overlapping and non-overlapping.

Overlapping blends

Overlapping blends are those for which the ingredients' consonants, vowels or even syllables overlap to some extent. The overlap can be of different kinds. These are also called haplologic blends.

There may be an overlap that is both phonological and orthographic, but with no other shortening:

  • anecdote + dotage ⇒ anecdotage
  • pal + alimony ⇒ palimony

The overlap may be both phonological and orthographic, and with some additional shortening to at least one of the ingredients:

  • California + fornication ⇒ Californication
  • picture + dictionary ⇒ pictionary

Such an overlap may be discontinuous:

  • politician + pollution ⇒ pollutician
  • beef + buffalo ⇒ beefalo

These are also termed imperfect blends.

It can occur with three components:

  • camisade + cannibalism + ballistics ⇒ camibalistics
  • meander + Neanderthal + tale ⇒ meandertale

The phonological overlap need not also be orthographic:

  • back + acronym ⇒ backronym
  • war + orgasm ⇒ wargasm

If the phonological but non-orthographic overlap encompasses the whole of the shorter ingredient, as in

  • sin + cinema ⇒ sinema
  • sham + champagne ⇒ shampagne

then the effect depends on orthography alone. (They are also called orthographic blends.)

An orthographic overlap need not also be phonological:

  • smoke + fog ⇒ smog
  • binary + digit ⇒ bit
  • bro + trogladyte ⇒ brogladyte

For some linguists, an overlap is a condition for a blend.

Non-overlapping blends

Non-overlapping blends (also called substitution blends) have no overlap, whether phonological or orthographic:

  • California + Mexico ⇒ Calexico
  • beautiful + delicious ⇒ beaulicious

Morphosemantic classification

Morphosemantically, blends fall into two kinds: attributive and coordinate.

Attributive blends

Attributive blends (also called syntactic or telescope blends) are blends where one of the ingredients is the head and the other is attributive. A porta-light is a portable light, not a 'light-emitting' or light portability; in this instance, light is the head, while "porta-" is attributive. A snobject is a snobbery-satisfying object and not an objective or other kind of snob; object is the head.

As is also true for (conventional, non-blend) attributive compounds (among which bathroom, for example, is a kind of room, not a kind of bath), the attributive blends of English are mostly head-final and mostly endocentric. As an example of an exocentric attributive blend, Fruitopia may metaphorically take the buyer to a fruity utopia (and not a utopian fruit); however, it is not a utopia but a drink.

Coordinate blends

Coordinate blends (also called associative or portmanteau blends) combine two words having equal status, and have two heads. Thus brunch is neither a breakfasty lunch nor a lunchtime breakfast but instead some hybrid of breakfast and lunch; Oxbridge is equally Oxford and Cambridge universities. This too parallels (conventional, non-blend) compounds: an actor–director is equally an actor and a director.

Two kinds of coordinate blends are particularly conspicuous: those that combine (near‑) synonyms:

  • gigantic + enormous ⇒ ginormous
  • insinuation + innuendo ⇒ insinuendo

and those that combine (near‑) opposites:

  • transmitter + receiver ⇒ transceiver
  • friend + enemy ⇒ frenemy

Blending of two roots

Blending can also apply to roots rather than words, for instance in Israeli Hebrew:

  • רמז (√rmz 'hint') + אור (or 'light') ⇒ רמזור (ramzor 'traffic light')
  • מגדל (migdal 'tower') + אור (or 'light') ⇒ מגדלור (migdalor 'lighthouse')
  • Mishnaic Hebrew: דחפ (√dħp 'push') + Biblical Hebrew: חפר (√ħpr 'dig') ⇒ דחפור (dakhpór 'bulldozer')
  • Israeli שלטוט shiltút 'zapping, surfing the channels, flipping through the channels' derives from
    • (i) (Hebrew>) Israeli שלט shalát 'remote control', an ellipsis – like English remote (but using the noun instead) – of the (widely known) compound שלט רחוק shalát rakhók – cf. the Academy of the Hebrew Language's שלט רחק shalát rákhak; and
    • (ii) (Hebrew>) Israeli שטוט shitút 'wandering, vagrancy'. Israeli שלטוט shiltút was introduced by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in [...] 1996. Synchronically, it might appear to result from reduplication of the final consonant of shalát 'remote control'.
  • Another example of blending which has also been explained as mere reduplication is Israeli גחלילית gakhlilít 'fire-fly, glow-fly, Lampyris'. This coinage by Hayyim Nahman Bialik blends (Hebrew>) Israeli גחלת gakhélet 'burning coal' with (Hebrew>) Israeli לילה láyla 'night'. Compare this with the unblended חכלילית khakhlilít '(black) redstart, Phœnicurus' (<Biblical Hebrew חכליל 'dull red, reddish'). Synchronically speaking though, most native Israeli-speakers feel that gakhlilít includes a reduplication of the third radical of גחל √għl. This is incidentally how Ernest Klein explains gakhlilít. Since he is attempting to provide etymology, his description might be misleading if one agrees that Hayyim Nahman Bialik had blending in mind."

"There are two possible etymological analyses for Israeli Hebrew כספר kaspár 'bank clerk, teller'. The first is that it consists of (Hebrew>) Israeli כסף késef 'money' and the (International/Hebrew>) Israeli agentive suffix ר- -ár. The second is that it is a quasi-portmanteau word which blends כסף késef 'money' and (Hebrew>) Israeli ספר √spr 'count'. Israeli Hebrew כספר kaspár started as a brand name but soon entered the common language. Even if the second analysis is the correct one, the final syllable ר- -ár apparently facilitated nativization since it was regarded as the Hebrew suffix ר- -år (probably of Persian pedigree), which usually refers to craftsmen and professionals, for instance as in Mendele Mocher Sforim's coinage סמרטוטר smartutár 'rag-dealer'."

Lexical selection

Blending may occur with an error in lexical selection, the process by which a speaker uses his semantic knowledge to choose words. Lewis Carroll's explanation, which gave rise to the use of 'portmanteau' for such combinations, was:

Humpty Dumpty's theory, of two meanings packed into one word like a portmanteau, seems to me the right explanation for all. For instance, take the two words "fuming" and "furious." Make up your mind that you will say both words ... you will say "frumious."

The errors are based on similarity of meanings, rather than phonological similarities, and the morphemes or phonemes stay in the same position within the syllable.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Language and linguistics