International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(16): 86-105 (2010) CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org Principle of the Least Effort: Telescopic Wordformation Ekaterine Keke Bakaradze, American University, USA Abstract: The paper analyses process of formation and development of telescopic Wordformation in English and propose that one form of verbal economy law - “principle of the least effort” can be considered as one of the most significant events in linguistics within the last two decades. The focus is made towards the study and analysis of the following aspects of formation of telescopisms or blend words: Which part of speech makes the most frequent part of these coined words and what are the productive units? Which parts of two different words were used to blend in order to make one telescopic word? What is the aim of creation of such words? How are new hybrids (or words) given names? In which fields of life are such creations used? What are the popular blendings like? Are they colloquial or can we find them outside the boundaries of spoken language? According to the research and on the basis of analyzed data we drew relevant conclusions. It is interesting to investigate that part of such telescopic words the formation of which requires the minimum effort is accepted by the language and thus they are even registered in dictionaries. Keywords: Wordformation, words, language, English Introduction The present paper aims at studying the morphological process in English that is commonly referred to as (lexical) telescopic wordformation or, in other words, portmanteau or blend words. According to Gries, blending is a frequent and one of the most productive word-formation processes that can be defined as follows: blending involves the coinage of a new lexeme by fusing parts of at least two other source words of which either one is shortened in the fusion and/or where there is some form of phonemic or graphemic overlap of the source words [Stefan Th. Gries ,forthcoming]. Telescopic wordformation, or blending, has been investigated in a variety of studies including Pound (191), Irwin (1939), Adams (1973), Bryant (1974), Algeo (1977), Ginzburg (1979), Bauer (1983), Cannon (1986), Kubozono (1990), Tekauer (1991), Stekauer (1991), Kelly (1998), Kaunisto (2000), Kemmer (2003). In linguistic literature this way of wordformation is also known as blends, blendings, fusions, portmanteau words, telescopy. Thus it can be concluded that the terms: blends, telescopic and portmanteau words denote the same process of word creation. I propose that one form of verbal economy law - the “principle of the least effort” can be considered as the formation of telescopic or blend words, which is one of the most significant events in linguistics within the last two decades. This can be proved by the fact that in the first publication of Barnhart’s dictionary the number of blends comprised 4, 8%, in the second edition – already 8% and so on. 86 International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(16): 86-105 (2010) CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org As was mentioned above, there is a significant difference in the definition of blending in the linguistic literature. One reason for this is probably the fact that subtractive word-formation is among the most understudied wordformation processes. For some scholars and in a variety of textbooks, they are not even part of regular derivational word formation process because, as we can observe, they are conscious processes that defy characterization by hard-and-fast productive morphological rules. Let’s review the definition of blend words by various linguists: Bauer (1983: 234) defines blends as “a new lexeme formed from parts of two (or possibly more) other words in such a way that there is no transparent analysis into morphs.” Later on, he adds that “blends normally take the first part of one word and the last part of another” (1983: 235) (examples include mocamp [motor +camp] and Amtrack [American + track]). Kemmer (2003) adopts Bauer’s (1983: 234) definition of blends: “a new lexeme formed from parts of two or more other lexemes.” Like others, she comments on the role played by phonemic overlap and phonemic as well as phonological similarity emphasizing that these properties are not necessary conditions for lexical blends. She summarizes as follows: Blends combine parts of lexical source words, rather than whole source words; this distinguishes them from compounds. Morphological structure is not particularly relevant to blends. However, phonological properties prove to be highly relevant ; phonological similarity of the blend with a part or whole structure of the source word increases the likelihood or felicity [ . ] of the blend. (Kemmer 2003: 75) This brief characterization of the previous accounts of the distinction between blends and related/similar products of word-formation processes highlights the most important features figuring in the definition of blends. For a more thorough overview, the reader is referred to the comprehensive survey by Cannon (1986). Along with the term “blending” we can freely use the word “telescopy”, which, as well as blending, implies the way of wordformation when words are formed by splicing or merging two other words together. The meaning of a new word partially or wholly describes the meaning of the components which were used for the creation of the word. According to Ginzburg and his co-authors “Blendings are the result of conscious creation of words by merging irregular fragments of several words which are aptly called ‘splinters’. These splinters assume different shapes – they may be severed from the source word at a morpheme boundary as in transceiver < transmitter and receiver, or at a syllable boundary like cute (from execute) < electrocute or boundaries of both kinds may be disregarded as in brunch < breakfast and lunch (Ginzburg R.S. et al, 1979: 203). Pennsylvania University professor Michael Kelly describes this process in a different way: “Some English words are formed by snipping components from existing words and either stitching the components together through simple concatenation or through concatenation coupled with overlap of shared phonological segments” (Kelly Michael H., 1998, 1). From the above, we can define blendings as words where one part of a shortened word is connected to some part of another word. Despite the fact that the terms: “blending”, “portmanteau” and “telescopy” can be used interchangeably, in present-day linguistics it’s common to apply the term “blending” which will be mostly used in the present research. 87 International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(16): 86-105 (2010) CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org Finally, it can be concluded, that a definition of blending to which many scholars would probably agree is the following: “Blending as a word-formation process that involves coining a new word out of already existing source words such that, typically, two words (rather than three or more) are merged; one or both of the words undergo shortening in the merger, which may be graphemic or segmental; if no shortening occurs, the words exhibit partial overlap, which may be graphemic or segmental [Stefan Th Gries, 2006]. We believe that this definition provides the most precise description of this word-formation process. In the following section we will discuss different kinds of blends that were proposed by various linguists. Theoretical Background and the purpose of the study The term “portmanteau word”, which is one of the terms denoting the process usually referred to as blendings, was first used by Lewis Carroll in 1872 in the sixth chapter of the favorite book of every English child “Through the Looking Glass”, to explain some words in the so called nonsense poem “Jabberwocky”: “Well ‘slithy’ means ‘lithe and slimy’ … you see it’s like a portmanteau - there are two meanings packed up into one word”, - says the author. As can be seen, this can be classed as a double joke: first, a portmanteau is a suitcase, in which one would “pack” things, like the multiple meanings within portmanteau words; second, portmanteau is itself a compound word, similar to portmanteau words, in that it is derived from the French words for "carry" – porter – and "cloak" – manteau. “Portmanteau words mash together the sounds and meanings of two other words, or as Humpty Dumpty tells Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass," they pack two meanings into one word” (Thurner Dick, 2003, 12). Despite the fact that many of the words being invented by L. Carroll are not used now, some of them, among which is the term “portmanteau” itself, entered the vocabulary of the language user. For example: galumph < gallop + triumph, chortle < chuckle + snort, frumious < fuming + furious, squiggle < squirm + wriggle, mimsy < flimsy + miserable. Although they were registered in the language before, but their definition by the author has changed the meaning. According to Michael Kelly, “Lewis Carroll may have chosen “mimsy” rather than “flimserable” because this blend of miserable and flimsy created a more euphonic rhythm for the line ‘All mimsy were the borogoves’.” (Kelly Michael H., 1998, 2) Many such words that were full of Carroll’s inspiration existed in the language before as well, for example: anecdotage < anecdote + dotage was first used in 1832 to describe talkative old people, squirl < squiggle + whirl - in 1843, snivelization < snivel + civilization, was created by Herman Melville in 1849 as one term for “civilization considered derisively as a cause of anxiety or plaintiveness”; squdge < squash + pudge was registered in 1870. “ Some linguists think that examples of blendings were observed in earlier times as well. For instance, the word bash can possibly be the blend of bang and smash, also clash < clang + crash. There are many such words in the language and it is difficult to identify which words were used in order to create them. It is also interesting that such words were created quite actively by the end of XIX century, and under the influence of L.