The Fandom Pairing Name - Blends and the Phonology-Orthography Interface

Aug 25, 2026

Uploaded by Aurora

Blending in English name formation is a highly predictable process, yet no unified morphological template for blends has been proposed. Using Internet fandom pairing names (FPNs) as data, the study models how phonological and orthographic constraints shape blended words, including preferences for complex onsets, stress placement maintenance, and overlap in sound spelling. Outputs are tested against lexical neighbors to assess phonotactic acceptability and orthographic transparency, revealing layer-by-layer representation effects in a text-based speech community.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Blending as compounding in English naming

Fandom pairing names (FPNs) on the Internet

Phonological and orthographic constraints

Evaluation by the speech community

Case study: Faberry

The poll and the replacement of Quichel

names, Vol. 60 No. 4, December 2012, 231–43 The Fandom Pairing Name: Blends and the Phonology-Orthography Interface Cara M. DiGirolamo Cornell University, USA 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 asa 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 blendsin English texts appear as early as the sixteenth century, such as the Shakespearean rebuse (rebuke/abuse) (Cannon, 1986) . Some, like travelogue and electrocute, became part of the language (Pound, 1914), and others appeared only incidentally as literary puns, e.g. alcoholiday and balconinny (Wentworth, 1934). Today, blending is popular for naming. Newly developed software like Linux (Linus/ Unix) and celebrity couples like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (Brangelina) are given blended names to signify that two entities are merged into a single unit. The semantics of lexical blends like confuzzled, sexile, and burninate 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 © American Name Society 2012 DOI 10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000034 232 CARA M. DIGIROLAMO (e.g. Drarry, a blend of Draco and Harry from Harry Potter) . FPNs usually appear as some form of compound. Some pairings are represented by clipping compounds (LinCin = Lindsay/ Cindy) and others use initialisms (FAB = Frankie And Bianca) or descriptive/metaphorical expressions (Catfighters = Liz/Tess), 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 subsequently 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. Brangelina, a term promoted by tabloid newspapers, is phonologically acceptable, but Spirmitment, 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, peop

FAQs

What is the central focus of the study on fandom pairing names (FPNs)?

The study analyzes how phonological and orthographic constraints determine how blended words in FPNs are formed and evaluated.

Why do phonology and orthography both matter for FPN blends?

Speakers reject ill-formed FPNs using both orthographic principles (how strings merge) and phonological principles (how blends sound), which affects whether a term survives or is replaced.

How does the case study of Faberry illustrate the blend constraints?

Quichel was phonologically well-formed but failed orthographically because the merged spelling had to transparently represent the intended pronunciation without inserting, deleting, or replacing letters.

Aug 25, 2026

Uploaded by Aurora