Exploring Blending in the Morphological Construction of Native Brand Names in Eastern Nigeria
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates blending as a creative morphological strategy in brand name formation and examines the factors that motivate its use.
Methodology: Drawing on Dressler’s (1987) Natural Morphology Theory, it highlights both the natural and innovative dimensions of blending in brand naming. Following Mathew’s 1974 model and Mattiello’s (2013) model, the analysis applies two main classification systems: word class and morphological structure. The word class classification includes brand names formed from Igbo nouns and verbs, combinations of loanwords and Igbo terms, English nouns and verbs, pseudo-morphemes, adjectives, and translated forms. The morphological classification distinguishes among morphotactical blends (total and partial), morphophonological blends (overlapping and non-overlapping), and morphosemantic blends (attributive and coordinate). Data were collected from the Onitsha Relief Market, Anambra State, Nigeria.
Results: The analysis reveals that morphophonological blends are the most iconic among the identified types. Blending in the data demonstrates both creative and adaptive linguistic tendencies, reflecting natural morphological processes. The findings indicate that blending in brand naming functions primarily as a creative linguistic process rather than a productive one.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the use of blending is motivated by phonological/graphological, morphological, and semantic considerations,
showcasing the dynamic interplay between linguistic innovation and communicative intent in brand creation.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Aronoff, M., & Anshen, F. (1988). Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 237-247). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166348.ch11
Bauer, L. (2012). Blends: Core and periphery. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 11-15). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110289572.11
Bailey, C. (2007). Piapoco and natural morphology theory. In R. Shields (Ed.), Proceedings of WIGL 2007 (pp. 33-53). United States: University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://langsci.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1012/2019/05/bailey.pdf
Cutler, A. (1980). Productivity in word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(3), 469-505. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/15646/6051.pdf
Danks, D. C. (2003). Separating blends: A formal investigation of the blending process in English and its relationship to associated word formation processes (Unpublished master’s thesis). England: University of Liverpool. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3174916/1/402356.pdf
Dressler, W. (1987). Word formation (WF) as part of natural morphology. München: Lin. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10.30dre
Fleischer, W. (1975). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Word formation of contemporary German]. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
Fradin, B. (2000). Combining forms, blends and related phenomena. In U. Doleschal, & A. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp.11-59). München: Lincom Europa, Lincom Europa. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01955714v1
Gries, S. (2004). Isn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. In M. Achard & Kemmersuzanne (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Kastovsky, D. (1986). Productivity in word-formation: A morphological approach. In F. Nowak, & M. M. Nowak (Eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday (pp. 287-294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856132
Kemmer, S. (2003). Schemas and lexical blends. In Radden, H. C. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: From case grammar to cognitive linguistics. Studies in Honour of Günter (pp. 69-97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.08kem
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-grammatical morphology in English. Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295399
Mayerthaler, W. (1981). Morphologische natürlichkeit [Morphological naturalness] (Linguistische Arbeiten, 105). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Panić, O. (2004). Brand names: How they are made and what they are made for. British and American Studies Journal, 10, 285-291.
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323
Room, A. (1994). NTC’s dictionary of trade name origins. Lincolnwood: NITC Business Books.