`
107
LEXICAL BLENDING AS A MECHANISM OF LEXICAL INNOVATION IN
CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH
Ismoilova Kamola Rafikovna
Teacher of Kokand State University, Faculty of Philology.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15636967
Annotation
Lexical blending, a non-canonical yet increasingly prolific word formation process,
occupies a significant role in the evolution of contemporary English. By integrating segments
from two or more lexemes into a novel, semantically cohesive unit, blending serves as a locus
of linguistic creativity and socio-cognitive relevance. This study investigates the morphological
structures, phonological constraints, and semantic mechanisms underlying blend formation. It
also explores the cognitive operations facilitating blend comprehension and the sociolinguistic
contexts driving their proliferation. Drawing on recent examples from corpora and digital
discourse, this paper demonstrates that lexical blending is not merely a peripheral
phenomenon but a productive, rule-governed, and socially salient mechanism of neologism.
Keywords:
lexical blending, word formation, neologism, morphology, cognitive
linguistics, semantic transparency, sociolinguistics, digital discourse.
Annotatsiya
Leksik aralashmalar (blending) zamonaviy ingliz tilidagi yangi so‘zlarning shakllanishida
muhim rol o‘ynaydigan samarali va ijodiy jarayondir. Bu maqolada aralashmalar tuzilishi,
fonologik cheklovlari va semantik mexanizmlari ilmiy asosda tahlil qilinadi. Shuningdek,
bunday so‘zlar qanday kognitiv jarayonlar orqali idrok qilinishi hamda ijtimoiy-tilshunoslik
kontekstlarida qanday ma’no kasb etishi ko‘rib chiqiladi. Tahlillar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, aralashma
so‘zlar nafaqat lingvistik innovatsiyalarning mahsuli, balki til iqtisodiyoti va madaniy
dinamikaning ham ifodasidir. Bu maqola leksik aralashmalarni morfologik va kognitiv nuqtai
nazardan chuqur o‘rganishga qaratilgan.
Kalit so‘zlar:
leksik aralashma, so‘z yasash, neologizm, morfologiya, kognitiv tilshunoslik,
semantik aniqlik, ijtimoiy tilshunoslik, raqamli nutq
Аннотация
Лексическое смешение (blending) представляет собой продуктивный и
креативный способ словообразования в современном английском языке. В данной
статье рассматриваются морфологическая структура, фонологические ограничения и
семантические особенности образования лексических смесей. Особое внимание
уделяется когнитивным механизмам восприятия таких слов, а также их социальной и
дискурсивной значимости. На основе анализа современных примеров показывается, что
лексическое смешение является не маргинальным, а вполне систематическим и
социально значимым процессом, отражающим языковую экономию и культурную
динамику. Работа предлагает всесторонний подход к изучению лексических смесей с
морфологической и когнитивной точек зрения.
Ключевые слова:
лексическое смешение, словообразование, неологизм,
морфология,
когнитивная
лингвистика,
семантическая
прозрачность,
социолингвистика, цифровой дискурс
Introduction
`
108
The English lexicon is in a state of perpetual flux, constantly shaped by internal dynamics
and external pressures, including globalization, technological advancement, and media
influence. Within this context, lexical blending emerges as a salient word-formation strategy,
marked by its ability to generate novel lexical items through the fusion of parts of existing
lexemes. Although traditionally marginalized in morphological theory due to its irregularity,
blending has gained scholarly attention for its increasing frequency, cognitive salience, and
socio-discursive relevance.This paper aims to advance a more systematic understanding of
lexical blending by addressing three interrelated dimensions: its morphological and
phonological architecture, its cognitive processing, and its sociolinguistic functions. The
ultimate goal is to argue that blending is not an aberrant or marginal process but a highly
productive morphological operation reflective of both linguistic economy and creative agency.
Morphological Structure and Taxonomy of BlendsLexical blends exhibit considerable
structural variation, yet they conform to underlying morphological patterns. Typically, blends
are formed via truncation and concatenation of non-morphemic fragments of two source
words. The dominant typologies include:
Telescopic blends: e.g., brunch (breakfast + lunch)
Overlapping blends: e.g., chillax (chill + relax)
Portmanteau morphs: e.g., smog (smoke + fog)
Clipping-acronym hybrids: e.g., glamping (glamorous + camping)
While blends deviate from canonical affixation or compounding, they exhibit predictable
morphological constraints, particularly in terms of syllable retention, stress assignment, and
root identification. Notably, the Maximal Onset Principle and Sonority Sequencing Principle
frequently guide phonotactic admissibility in blend formation.
Phonological and Prosodic Considerations:Blends typically maintain phonological
salience by preserving the initial consonantal onset or stressed syllables of their source
components. Euphonic harmony and prosodic balance significantly influence blend
acceptability. Prosodic constraints, such as trochaic or iambic patterns, are evident in well-
formed blends (e.g., Netflix vs. Flixnet).Furthermore, the interplay of morphophonemic
constraints ensures that blends retain articulatory fluidity while minimizing semantic
ambiguity. This tendency aligns with Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993), wherein
competing constraints are hierarchically ranked to yield the most optimal output.
Semantic Transparency and Interpretive Mechanisms:Blends vary in terms of semantic
transparency, with some offering clear compositional meanings (webinar = web + seminar) and
others requiring inferential reasoning (mansplaining = man + explaining, with a pejorative
gender-based connotation). Semantic opacity often arises when source lexemes undergo
metaphorical extension or index social commentary.The semantic salience of blends is
anchored in dual-source activation, wherein speakers retrieve both source meanings
simultaneously. This dual activation aligns with Conceptual Blending Theory (Fauconnier &
Turner, 2002), which posits that meaning emerges from the integration of multiple mental
input spaces.
Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Dimensions:From a cognitive perspective, blends engage
mechanisms of pattern recognition, analogy, and lexical entrenchment. Recent psycholinguistic
research (e.g., Gries, 2012) suggests that blends are processed as unified lexical items once they
`
109
reach a threshold of frequency and familiarity. Experimental data also indicate that the success
of a blend correlates with its retrievability, phonological simplicity, and semantic coherence.
Moreover, blends capitalize on the economy principle in communication, enabling
speakers to condense complex ideas into phonetically economical forms. In this sense, blending
reflects both cognitive efficiency and stylistic innovation.
Sociolinguistic Contexts and Discursive Functions:Blending is not merely a linguistic
operation but a socially embedded practice. It frequently arises in contexts characterized by
lexical innovation, such as branding (Spotify), journalism (Brexit), and digital communication
(infotainment). In these domains, blends fulfill rhetorical and mnemonic functions, enhancing
message impact and memorability.In addition, blends function as identity markers in youth
language, subcultures, and online communities. Neologisms such as cringe-core, alt-right, and
edutok encapsulate complex ideological or aesthetic stances within compact lexical forms. This
underscores blending's role in the indexicalization of social meaning.
Conclusion
Lexical blending, once viewed as peripheral and idiosyncratic, should now be recognized
as a dynamic, productive, and cognitively grounded mechanism of word formation. Its
morphological variability, phonological regularities, and semantic agility render it a powerful
tool for linguistic innovation. Moreover, blending reflects broader socio-cognitive processes by
enabling speakers to adapt language to emergent realities and communicative exigencies. As
the lexicon continues to evolve, blending will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of creative
and functional neologism.
References:
Используемая литература:
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the
Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
2.
Gries, S. T. (2012). "Quantitative Corpus Data on Blend Formation: The More, the Better?"
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 49–66.
3.
Lehrer, A. (2003). “Understanding Trendy Neologisms.” Italian Journal of Linguistics,
15(2), 369–382.
4.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge University Press.
5.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in
Generative Grammar. Blackwell Publishing.
6.
Cannon, G. (2000). "Blends in English Word Formation." Linguistics, 38(4), 771–791.
