This paper aims to evaluate phonemic awareness of Chinese English learners on the case of word-blending from different grades. Furthermore, on the basis of Gries’s previous studies in 2004 and 2006, this paper will focus on the factors that influence the word-blending mechanism of Chinese EFL learners and pay attention to the question whether the degree of recognizability of the source words and the similarity of source words’ syllables play a vital role in blending word formation, especially the effect of syllabic structures on word-blending.

1.1 Taxonomies and the Structure of Blends

In one of the earliest studies, Pound defines blending as two or more words, often of cognate sense (Gries, 2004). But she merely considers blending words as a list of nonexclusive labels which are produced for specific purpose. She argues that blends have to be distinguished from other methods of blending words: either analogical extensions or enlargements or whimsical folk-etymological perversions (Gries, 2004).

Algeo suggests that blending refers to “a combination of two or more forms, at least one of which has been shortened in the process of combination.” (Algeo, 1977) This definition distinguishes the blends from compounds, because it defines that the source words must be shortened in part, otherwise, it should be the compound. Based on this definition, he distinguishes three structural groups of blends: 1) blends with phonemic overlap; 2) blends with clipping; 3) blends with phonemic overlap and clipping (Algeo, 1977). In addition, Algeo also pides blending words into syntagmatic blends and associative blends from the perspectives of the relationship between two source words, which we will talk in detail.

However, Canon’s idea is different from Pound and Algeo. He considers a blend as a telescoping of two or more separate forms into one or rarely a superposition of one form upon another. And he emphasizes that the blends usually contains overlapping and preserves some of the meaning of at least one of the source words. The blending words formation criteria that Cannon proposed is similar to Algeo’s but he considers more parameters such as word classes, syllabic lengths, and morphological properties of the source word classes and so on (Gries, 2004).

My definition is similar to Algeo’s so this paper is accordingly based on the Algeo’s classification. According to Algeo’s theories, the blend-words can be pided into four groups:

1) the initial part of source word 1 + the final part of source word 2:

At present, most of the blending words are made up in this way. It is also the most commonly used method.

e.g. br (eakfast) + (l) unch → brunch;

2) the initial part of source word 1 + the initial part of source word 2:

This word formation process is usually used in the condition that the two source words are nouns. The blending words’ meanings are also combined with the two source words.

e.g. sit (uation) + com (edy) → sitcom;

3) the source word 1 inserted in the source word 2:

Generally speaking, the second source word is usually monosyllabic and can be simply spelled. Therefore this kind of blending is rare.

e.g. ambi (dex) trous + sex → ambisextrous;

4) two source words totally fusion:

The blending words made up in this way are usually difficult to indicate the two source word and this kind of words are also difficult to pronounce.

e.g. chuckle + snort → chortle.

In order to make a clear and convenient study of Chinese college students’ phonemic awareness of blending words, this paper only chooses the first word formation process to investigate. And according to the number of source words’ syllabic structures, this kind of word formation is fully detailed into five common classifications as follows:

1) monosyllabic + disyllable:

e.g. free + software → freeware

2) monosyllabic + multi-syllable:

e.g. fan + magazine → fanzine    

web + seminar → webinar