* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 17.2977

Wed Oct 11 2006

Diss: Applied Ling/Lexicography: Pycroft: 'Exploring the Boundaries...'

Editor for this issue: Hannah Morales <hannahlinguistlist.org>


To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Kelly Pycroft, Exploring the Boundaries of Formulaic Sequences: A corpus-based study of lexical substitution and insertion in contemporary British English


Message 1: Exploring the Boundaries of Formulaic Sequences: A corpus-based study of lexical substitution and insertion in contemporary British English
Date: 10-Oct-2006
From: Kelly Pycroft <kellypycrofthotmail.com>
Subject: Exploring the Boundaries of Formulaic Sequences: A corpus-based study of lexical substitution and insertion in contemporary British English


Institution: University of Sheffield
Program: Department of English Language and Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2006

Author: Kelly Pycroft

Dissertation Title: Exploring the Boundaries of Formulaic Sequences: A corpus-based study of lexical substitution and insertion in contemporary British English

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
                            Lexicography

Subject Language(s): English (eng)

Dissertation Director:
Susan Fitzmaurice

Dissertation Abstract:

This thesis presents an investigation into formulaic sequences; namely
multi-word prefabricated phrases of either literal (e.g. good morning) or
non-literal (e.g. kick the bucket) reading. A property of such sequences is
variation. Formulaic sequences can be subject to varying degrees of lexical
substitutions, grammatical variations, and insertions. This thesis
investigates the boundaries of variation: the limits of lexical
substitution and insertions for formulaic sequences, i.e. how much
variation can occur before the sequence stops being fixed and becomes
context-dependent. The boundaries between one formulaic sequence and
another and the boundaries between a literal and non-literal reading are
also explored.

The formulaic sequences for investigation were chosen from The Longman
Idioms Dictionary (1998) and were explored using the British National
Corpus (BNC). To investigate the limits of variation, I developed and used
a technique that I term the chaining process. This is a systematic method
of searching for sequences to find the maximum lexical substitutes and
insertions. The frequencies of variant forms found during the study were
recorded and analysed to highlight both so that both common and rare
lexical substitutions and insertions could be examined, and their limits
explored.

A result of using the chaining process was that sequences could be seen to
"link" together. Formulaic sequences with the same underlying meaning and
similar lexical set were found to form groups. Use of the chaining process
showed how different formulaic sequences with similar meanings could link
together in networks via common lexical substitutes, e.g. flip your lid and
blow your top link via flip your wig → lose your wig → lose your temper and
blow your temper. The use of the chaining process shows that formulaic
sequences are more similar than different in terms of semantics as well as
construction. Sequences are not autonomous; networks show that the
boundaries of sequences are not as fixed as idiom dictionaries may lead us
to believe. These phrasal networks formed via the chaining process provide
a regular method of grouping formulaic sequences. This technique and
analysis contribute to lexicography and inform cognitive models of storing
and organizing language.



Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.