Meaning differences between the inputs to syntactic blends

Abstract When speakers combine (or blend) expressions – that is, utter them in overlapping fashion there is usually some degree of semantic overlap between the expressions. There much agreement on this point. Some authors have gone further and suggested involved are synonyms or near-synonyms. Others still, claiming, at least implicitly, blends always involve In paper I show many cases where combined they differ substantially meaning, even expressing distinguishable events. regularity nature differences often correspond to construal distinctions identified cognitive linguistics literature. Four degrees identified: synonymy; subsumption, meaning one expression encompasses other as well contributing a bit extra; partial complementarity, each conveys element not conveyed by other; distinctness. Despite parsing cost hearer speaker combining two rather than choosing over other, complementarity can be seen serving useful purpose. By content conventionally cover more his/her intended meaning. And different construals same (e.g. interpretive descriptive, viewpoints, stative dynamic, agentive non-agentive, etc.) equivocate areas commitment required. Twelve recurrent illustrated with examples from three datasets.