tortoISE M AIL?
3. RHYME WITH AN ALREADY EXISTING COMPOUND
Often, creative compounds rhyme with an already existing (creative) compound.
It is hypothesized here that this analogy is deliberate, and it serves two functions:
1) help the hearer/reader to uncover the meaning of the novel expression by foregrounding the source compound; and 2) bring forth conceptual similarities between the referents of the source compound and the novel expression, hence accentuating the inherent humour of the novel coinage. An example for the first case is grass ceiling (‘a set of social, cultural, and discriminatory barriers that prevent or discourage women from using golf to conduct business’):15 when coming across the expression, it is inevitable that the more lexicalized compound glass ceiling (‘an unofficial or unacknowledged barrier to personal advancement, esp. of a woman or a member of an ethnic minority in employment’16 also comes to mind, thanks to the close phonological resemblance between the two. Glass ceiling is an instantia-tion of the career is an upward journey metaphor: reaching a socially higher position is understood as upward physical movement in the course of a journey.17 The compound brings forth the idea that the journey has an end point for women, the “ceiling”, while no such end point exists for men – therefore, their career path is unlimited. The fact that the ceiling is made of glass implies that women are able to “see” the possible path that their careers might follow (but, due to the limiting
“ceiling”, they are, nevertheless, unable to go ahead and do so). The novel coinage of grass ceiling ties into the meaning of the source compound, as it also refers to the limited opportunities in business for women as opposed to men, but it places this
14 As elaborated upon by Kövecses 2010 [2002]: 177, metonymic relationships also occur in the semi-otic triangle (i.e., between form – concept – thing/event), a.k.a. the linguistic sign. Form, therefore, can stand for concept; this form–concept unity is the basis of the form–meaning relationship of any sign.
15 Source: Wordspy.
16 Source: OED.
17 See Kövecses 2010 [2002]: 252.
50
limiting factor unto the golf course. This specification of meaning is accomplished by the modifying element, grass, which metonymically stands for the golf course (via the material constituting an object for the object metonymy).
The role of the source compound in uncovering the meaning of the novel expres-sion can be modelled as a series of three steps, as depicted in Figure 1. The square boxes represent the semantic and phonological poles of the source and the novel compound (with subscript 1 standing for the source compound, glass ceiling, and subscript 2 standing for the novel coinage, grass ceiling). When coming across the compound grass ceiling, the phonological analogy brings to mind the lexicalized expression glass ceiling. This is represented as “Route 1” on the diagram, where the arrow points from the phonological pole of grass ceiling to that of glass ceiling. On the basis of the form–meaning unity of words, the phonological pole of glass ceiling is linked to its semantic pole, that is, its meaning (this is shown on the diagram by dashed lines). This step is indicated by “Route 2” on the diagram, where the arrow points from the phonological to the symbolic pole of glass ceiling. As a third step, the meaning of glass ceiling helps to unravel the meaning of grass ceiling. This is shown as “Route 3” in the figure, where the arrow points from the semantic pole of glass ceiling to that of grass ceiling.
Figure 1. Uncovering the meaning of a novel compound that is based on phonological analogy to an already existing compound.
Phonological analogy to an already existing compound is also able to bring forth conceptual similarities between the source compound and the novel coinage, thereby enhancing the humorous effect of the novel expression. One such example is the already mentioned knee-mail (for a definition, see section 1).18 The compound is formed on the phonological analogy of e-mail, where the first constituent (e) represents the type of mail that is denoted by the construction as a whole (i.e.,
18 The analysis of knee-mail is based on Benczes 2006: 148–149.
SEM1 SEM2
PHON1 PHON2
Route 3
Route 1 Route 2
51
‘electronic mail’). The first constituent of knee-mail is metonymical: via the instru-ment for action metonymy, the knee (i.e., the instruinstru-ment) stands for praying while kneeling (i.e., the action). The real creativity of this compound lies in the metaphorical nature of mail, which is probably based upon the conduit metaphor, according to which ideas are objects, linguistic expressions are contain-ers and communication is sending.19 In the case of knee-mail, the prayer is what we send (“mail”) to God (the “addressee”), who “reads” our message. The humorous effect of the expression rests on the (conceptual) similarities between knee-mail and e-mail. E-mails are much faster than surface mail, and they are less prone to get undelivered. Thus the compound knee-mail suggests that the prayer definitely reaches God, and does so swiftly. Thanks to the phonological analogy to e-mail, all of these implications surface in the case of knee-mail (as opposed to the word prayer, which is the more conventional term that is used for sending God a “message”).
All in all, rhyme with an already existing compound can greatly enhance the comprehension of a creative compound; at the same time, it can also help to expose its inherent ingenuity. The idea that the meaning of a novel compound is reached via accessing a more lexicalized expression is in full agreement with the common-place claim within cognitive linguistics that word meanings are encyclopaedic.20 As Langacker points out, “concepts presuppose other concepts and cannot be
adequately defined except by reference to them”21 – therefore, we routinely and automatically search for connections between words, and make use of these in the comprehension of novel ones.
4. CONCLUSIONS
If phonological analogy, in the form of rhyme, does motivate the formation of novel creative compounds, then the question necessarily arises why we rely on this method of compound formation. On closer inspection, a number of reasons come to mind. First of all, as emphasized earlier, rhyme is very effective in foreground-ing an expression to achieve emphasis. Coupled with the rich metaphorical and metonymical imagery that creative compounds possess, which in itself is also a potent attention-grabbing device, rhyme acts like an exclamation mark in the sense that it helps to direct our attention via the form to the content. Second, rhyme plays a significant role in helping the hearer/reader decipher the meaning
19 Lakoff – Johnson 1980: 10–13.
20 For a discussion, see Langacker 1987: 155–158.
21 Langacker 1987: 147.
52
of the novel expression by phonologically linking it to the source lexeme. This reasoning is in line with the results of Gries, who, in his study of alliteration (also termed as “initial rhyme”)22 in multi-word units, came to the conclusion that
“the perception of phonological similarity may aid the identification of semantic/
conceptual constituents/poles”.23 Third, phonological similarity to lexicalized units aids the acceptability ratings of a novel expression,24 thereby enhancing its chances of entering the lexicon at large. Fourth, rhyme lends a more playful, informal quality to the compounds, which – as in the case of hobby bobby or snail mail for example – is in agreement with the informality of the compound’s meaning.
Fifth, the deliberate use of rhyme in novel compound formation is not only enjoy-able to produce for the speaker, but also requires the “active participation” of the hearer/reader in appreciating them.25 Consequently, rhyming creative compounds can assist in the creation of a “social bond” between the participants in a speech situation.26 Creative compounds are in themselves witty and innovative, as the imagery or conceptualization that they are based on is often original, humorous and unconventional. Coupled with rhyme, the effect is powerful, yet playful. This playful – ludic – function of language is severely underestimated by linguists, claims Crystal,27 even though language play serves an important social function by helping to break the ice and creating a sense of inclusion.
Turning back to the question in the title (why snail mail and not tortoise mail), the answer is obvious. Rhyme is such a natural part of language that we clearly rely on it whenever it is possible to do so. Linguistic innovativeness and creativity is omnipresent, and is a feature of language that needs to be adequately described by linguists if the goal is to uncover the true nature of language and cognition.
22 Wales 1989: 18.
23 Gries 2011: 507.
24 Bybee 2010: 60–61.
25 Chovanec 2008: 222–223.
26 Malinowski 1923: 314. According to Malinowski, langauge can be used for “phatic” purposes, where words are used to “fulfil a social functionand that is their principal aim, but they are neither the result of intellectual reflection, nor do they necessarily arouse reflection in the listener. … language appears to us in this function … as a mode of action.” (p. 315)
27 Crystal 1998.
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benczes, Réka n.d.: It’s rhyme time: Phonological analogy in novel compound formation.
Unpublished ms.
Benczes, Réka 2006: Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun–Noun Combinations. John Benjamins, Amsterdam – Philadelphia.
Bybee, Joan 2010: Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.
Chovanec, Jan 2008: Focus on form: foregrounding devices in football reporting. Dis-course and Communication 2. 3. 219–242.
Crystal, David 1998: Language Play. Penguin Books, London.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2011: Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics 22. 3. 491–510.
Katamba, Francis 2005: English Words: Structure, History, Usage. 2nd ed. Routledge, Abing-don.
Kövecses, Zoltán 2010 (2002): Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.
Lakoff, George – Johnson, Mark 1980: Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, George – Turner, Mark 1989: More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Lea, R. Brooke – Rapp, David N. – Elfenbein, Andrew – Mitchel, Aaron D. – Romine, Russell Swinbourne 2008: Sweet silent thought: Alliteration and resonance in poetry comprehension. Psychological Science 19. 709–716.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 1999: International Students Edition. 3rd edi-tion, 6th impression. Longman, Harlow.
Malinowski, Bronislaw 1923: The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: Ogden, C.K. – Richards, A.I.: The Meaning of Meaning. Routledge – Kegan Paul, London, 296–336.
Oxford English Dictionary, The 1989: Second edition; online version. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wales, Katie 1989: A Dictionary of Stylistics. Longman, Harlow.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English 1988: 3rd College Edition. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York.
54
In: Cognition and culture. Eds: Sonja Kleinke – Zoltán Kövecses – Andreas Musolff – Veronika Szelid Budapest, 2012, Eötvös University Press /Tálentum 6./ 55–63.