Abstract
While it is well known that phrase transformations take place, there has been very little concrete research on phrase transformations and the associated rules. To go some way to filling this gap, this paper used corpus pattern analysis (CPA) to examine of-construction phrases, as exemplified by on the face of it and on its face, and elucidate the syntactic manipulation in the semantic and functional features of on its face. The CPA revealed that on its face was semantically the same as on the face of it (i.e., seemingly), but that the meaning of face, i.e., appearance, had more stress in the on the face of it phrase than the end-focus. Further, on its face was found to more often co-occur with legal lexical items such as constitutional, invalid, and lawful, and to be used more often in legal contexts. The reason on its face was derived from on the face of it was found to be because of the end-focus and the influence of semantically compatible phrases, such as for the sake of ~ and for ~’s sake, on behalf of ~ and on ~’s behalf. However, it should be noted that not all phrases that have of-constructions can be transformed into the genitive; for example, for the life of me does not transform into *for my life because *for my life is most often literally interpreted. It appears that linguistic economy is the most probable reason for phrase transformations from of-constructions to genitive constructions.
Highlights
IntroductionThis study is part of a larger phraseological project focused on determining the rules for phrasal change through corpus pattern analysis (CPA) examinations of contemporary English examples
This study is part of a larger phraseological project focused on determining the rules for phrasal change through corpus pattern analysis (CPA) examinations of contemporary English examples.Bybee (2015) stated that any research on language change should focus on individual lexical items to expose the reality of the language changes; both individual lexical items and phrases can change
Inoue (2020a in press) recently concluded that the prepositional changes in phrases such as in accordance to were the result of the merging of in accordance with and according to. While these changes are observable, unlike other language changes, there has been little research on such transformations/changes, possibly because of: (i) ambiguous phraseological unit definitions; and (ii) difficulties in separating such phrase changes. While it appears that these phrases change randomly, it is assumed that there must be some rules for these types of phrase changes because all language changes have their own clines toward either grammaticalization or degrammaticalization
Summary
This study is part of a larger phraseological project focused on determining the rules for phrasal change through corpus pattern analysis (CPA) examinations of contemporary English examples. Inoue (2020a in press) recently concluded that the prepositional changes in phrases such as in accordance to were the result of the merging of in accordance with and according to While these changes are observable, unlike other language changes, there has been little research on such transformations/changes, possibly because of: (i) ambiguous phraseological unit definitions; and (ii) difficulties in separating such phrase changes. Vol 10, No 6; 2020 unconstitutional, invalid, etc.) + on its face] in legal discourses Other patterns, such as [a copular verb + a semantically negative word such as absurd, bad, etc.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
