User:AnchorDoll/names/full

= The Fandom Pairing Name =

Blends and the Phonology-Orthography Interface
Names: The Journal of Onomastics, Volume 60, Number 4, Dec 1, 2012.

Cara M. DiGirolamo, Cornell University, USAcmd279@cornell.edu

Abstract
In English, blending is a highly predictable and productive naming process. However, no systematic morphological template for blends has yet been proposed. Using data from Internet fandom pairing names (FPNs), I describe the phonological and orthographic constraints that shape blended words, such as preference for complex onsets, maintenance of stress placement, and phonological and orthographic overlap. Outputs are compared with lexical neighbors to evaluate their phonotactic acceptability and orthographic transparency. This model of blending describes the interaction of many layers of representation, and also shows the effect of the Internet as a text-based speech community participating in linguistic decision-making.

Keywords
blends, orthography, morphology, word-recognition, phonology, compounds, fan culture

Introduction
Blending is a compounding process that merges two words into one. Records of  blends in English texts appear as early as the sixteenth century, such as the Shakespearean (rebuke/abuse) (Cannon 1986). Some, like  and , became part of the language (Pound 1914), and others appeared only incidentally as literary puns, e.g.   and   (Wentworth 1934). Today, blending is popular for naming. Newly developed software like  (Linus/Unix) and celebrity couples like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie  are given blended names to signify that two entities are merged into a single unit. The semantics of lexical blends like,  , and   have been well analyzed, showing that blends pick out the intersection between the semantic meanings of the two input stems (Kemmer 2003). Name blends extend this definition, forcing a semantic overlap even when none is immediately apparent. Yet most attempts to analyze blends morphologically have been unsuccessful (Gries 2004), and no complete and consistent template has been proposed.

On the Internet, a large repository of blends is found under the heading: the fandom pairing name (FPN). An FPN is a word invented by the members of a fan community and used to designate the characters’ relationship as an object of reference (e.g., a blend of   and   from Harry Potter). FPNs usually appear as some form of compound. Some pairings are represented by clipping compounds ( = / ) and others use initialisms (FAB= ) or descriptive/metaphorical expressions ( = / ), but by far the most frequently seen FPNs are blends.

Unlike speech-error blends, literary punning, or corporate branding, FPNs do not originate with isolated individuals or committees. Although individuals generate the forms, FPNs undergo evaluation by their speech community and are either accepted or rejected on the basis of the principles of natural language usage. Blends coined by the media are also evaluated, but they are difficult to reject. , a term promoted by tabloid newspapers, is phonologically acceptable, but, an attempt at blending spirit and commitment, developed as part of an advertising campaign for the Alltel wireless provider, is unacceptable (Gubbins 2004). Although the failure of the blend may have contributed to the failure of the advertising campaign, a media campaign can interfere with the process of evaluation. A term heard frequently, especially from an authoritative source, may become familiar enough to be accepted. FPNs, on the other hand, lack the pervasiveness provided by a media campaign and thus are more authentic language data.

FPNs are particularly interesting because they are a product of Internet-based speech communities. Thanks to the Internet, people who are geographically disparate can form groups based around shared interests and develop a shared vocabulary with which to discuss these interests. These communities are inherently text-based, and the influence of orthography on their linguistic decision-making processes is strong. But phonological information is equally important. Speakers use both orthographic and phonological principles when rejecting ill-formed or non-euphonic FPNs, which then fall into disuse or undergo swift replacement.

A Case Study:
In May of 2009, the TV musical comedy-drama Glee premiered, generating within weeks an explosion of fan communities. Splinter groups formed around various scripted or hoped-for couples on the show, and these couples were quickly dubbed with FPNs. One such couple, Rachel Berry and Quinn Fabray, was given the blended FPN. But by October, enough people had expressed their dissatisfaction with the name Quichel that the most active Rachel/Quinn-centric community decided to hold a poll to find a new, more satisfying, FPN (Boomwizard 2009).

On solely phonological grounds Quichel was a perfectly satisfactory and well-formed blend. The difficulty lay in the orthography. In forming FPNs the orthographic strings of the two input forms must be merged while still maintaining the linearity and contiguity of the strings. No letters can be inserted or deleted, nor can any be replaced. Yet the spelling of the blend must clearly represent the pronunciation. English, with itsidiosyncratic orthographic system, particularly for vowels, makes this problematic.

Studies of word recognition have shown that a word with a higher-frequency neighbor of a similar shape takes longer to interpret than a word with only low-frequency neighbors (Grainger 1992). Since there are few things of lower frequency than a neologism, any competitor can interfere with its recognition. The intended pronunciation of  was [kwɪtʃəɫ], but the string ‘quiche’ contained in the blend triggered the mispronunciation [kiʃɛɫ], rendering the input stems opaque and unrecoverable.

To remedy this confusion, the moderators of the community came up with ten possible blends for Rachel Berry and Quinn Fabray and put them to a vote.

As Figure 1 shows, there were two clear front-runners, the original  and.

Faberry, phonologically appropriate and orthographically interpretable, took the honors and was accepted by an ever-increasing community of fans.

The  case study illustrates two important points. First, speakers can and do evaluate blends, and, second, the textual nature of the Internet has an overt effect on morphological processes. The FPNs in my study (included in the ) were collected from Internet fan sites and communities. I removed from my initial set any FPN that was not robustly attested and any that was distinctly not a blend (no clipping compounds nor initialisms). My remaining 163 tokens are all FPNs that are accepted and frequently used by members of fan communities. In my analysis I propose a set of phonological and orthographic constraints relevant to blends and outline a model of blend generation and evaluation.