Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding

This collection of papers on phrasal compounding is part of a bigger project whose aims are twofold: First, it seeks to broaden the typological perspective by providing data for as many different languages as possible to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon itself. Second, based on these data which clearly show interaction between syntax and morphology it aims to discuss theoretical models which deal with this kind of interaction in different ways. Models like Generative Grammar assume components of grammar and a clear-cut distinction between the lexicon (often including morphology) and grammar. Other models, like construction grammar, do not assume such components and are rather based on a lexicon including constructs. A comparison of these models on the basis of this phenomenon on the morphology-syntax interface makes it possible to assess their descriptive and explanatory power

Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding

This collection of papers on phrasal compounding is part of a bigger project whose aims are twofold: First, it seeks to broaden the typological perspective by providing data for as many different languages as possible to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon itself. Second, based on these data which clearly show interaction between syntax and morphology it aims to discuss theoretical models which deal with this kind of interaction in different ways. Models like Generative Grammar assume components of grammar and a clear-cut distinction between the lexicon (often including morphology) and grammar. Other models, like construction grammar, do not assume such components and are rather based on a lexicon including constructs. A comparison of these models on the basis of this phenomenon on the morphology-syntax interface makes it possible to assess their descriptive and explanatory power

Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding

This collection of papers on phrasal compounding is part of a bigger project whose aims are twofold: First, it seeks to broaden the typological perspective by providing data for as many different languages as possible to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon itself. Second, based on these data which clearly show interaction between syntax and morphology it aims to discuss theoretical models which deal with this kind of interaction in different ways. Models like Generative Grammar assume components of grammar and a clear-cut distinction between the lexicon (often including morphology) and grammar. Other models, like construction grammar, do not assume such components and are rather based on a lexicon including constructs. A comparison of these models on the basis of this phenomenon on the morphology- syntax interface makes it possible to assess their descriptive and explanatory power

Analysis of the genitive case in Old English within a cognitive grammar framework, based on the data from Ælfic's Catholic Homilies First Series

The primary aim of the present study is to give a semantic/conceptual analysis to the genitive case in Old English (= OE) within a Cognitive Grammar (=CG) framework (specifically Langacker's version; Langacker 1987, 1991) and explain the diversity of its use (adnominal, adverbal, adjectival, prepositional, and adverbial), as constituting a coherent network, wherein all variants share a unified semantic structure. My analysis is partly based on Roman Jakobson's (1936/1971) study on the Russian case system, which is recast and updated within a CG framework. Pivotal to my analysis of the semantic structure of the genitive case is the notion of "deprofile", whereby an already profiled (i.e. most prominent) entity in a given predicate becomes unprofiled, to reduce the amount of attention drawn onto the designatum, making it conceptually less prominent. Specifically, the function of the genitive case in OE is to deprofile the profile of the nominal predicate to which the genitive inflection is attached. The crucial claim is that a genitive nominal is a nominal predicate, in that it still profiles a region in some domain, in accordance with the schematic characterisation of the semantic structure of a noun in CG. The nominal character of a genitive nominal means that it can occur in various syntactic contexts where any other nominal expression can occur, namely in a position for a verbal, adverbial, and prepositional complement, as well as in a modifier/complement position for a noun. This account ties in with the subsequent history of the genitive case after the end of the OE period, in which some of its uses became obsolete, especially the partitive function of adnominal genitive, and all functions of the adverbal, adjectival, prepositional genitives. The cumulative effect of this is that a genitive nominal ceased to be a nominal predicate, and its determinative character which had already existed in OE side by side with its nominal character, became grammaticalised during the ME period as a general function of a genitive nominal. Chapter l outlines the history of the genitive case from OE to early ME, to introduce the problems to be dealt with in this dissertation, particularly the diversity of the genitive functions. Reviews of some previous studies relevant to the problems are also provided. Chapter 2 and 3 introduce the framework of CG. Chapter 2 summarises some basic assumptions about grammar, and Chapter 3 focuses on how syntactic issues are dealt with in CG, based on the assumptions summarised in Chapter 2. Here I also introduce Langacker's (1991) and Taylor's (1996) account of a Present Day English possessive construction, using Langacker's reference point analysis, and examine its applicability to the OE genitive. As an alternative, the notion of deprofile will be introduced. Chapters 4 and 5 are the application to the actual examples of genitive nominals, taken from Ælfric's Catholic Homilies first series; Chapter 4 deals with adnominal genitive, and chapter 5 covers all the non-adnominal genitives. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses how the diversity of the genitive functions in OE and its subsequent history may be accounted for in the light of the findings in this study

The Hardship That is Internet Deprivation and What it Means for Sentencing: Development of the Internet Sanction and Connectivity for Prisoners

Twenty years ago, the internet was a novel tool. Now it is such an ingrained part of most people’s lives that they experience and exhibit signs of anxiety and stress if they cannot access it. Non-accessibility to the internet can also tangibly set back peoples’ social, educational, financial, and vocational pursuits and interests. In this Article, we argue that the sentencing law needs to be reformed to adapt to the fundamental changes in human behavior caused by the internet. We present three novel and major implications for the sentencing law and practice in the era of the internet. First, we argue that denial of access to the internet should be developed as a discrete sentencing sanction, which can be invoked for relatively minor offenses in much the same way that deprivation of other entitlements or privileges, such as the right to drive a motor vehicle, are currently imposed for certain crimes. Second, we argue that prisoners should have unfettered access to the internet. This would lessen the pain stemming from incarceration in a manner which does not undermine the principal objectives of imprisonment—community protection and infliction of a hardship—while at the same time providing prisoners with the opportunity to develop skills, knowledge, and relationships that will better equip them for a productive life once they are released. Previous arguments that have been made for denying internet access to prisoners are unsound. Technological advances can readily curb supposed risks associated with prisoners using the internet. Finally, if the second recommendation is not adopted, and prisoners continue to be denied access to the internet, there should be an acknowledgement that the burden of imprisonment is greater than is currently acknowledged. The internet is now such an ingrained and important aspect of people’s lives that prohibiting its use is a cause of considerable unpleasantness. This leads to our third proposal: continued denial of the internet to prisoners should result in a recalibration of the pain of imprisonment such that a sentencing reduction should be conferred to prisoners

Formulaic sequences in Early Modern English: A corpus-assisted historical pragmatic study

This doctoral project identifies formulaic sequences (hereinafter FS and the plural form FSs) in Early Modern English (hereinafter EModE) and intends to investigate the functions they serve in communication and different text types, namely EModE dialogues and letters. Main contributions of the study include, firstly, the study provides solid arguments and further evidence that FSs are constructions in the Construction Grammar instead of exceptions in the traditional grammar-dictionary model. Within this theoreticall framework, I proposed a new working definition of FSs that is inclusive, descriptive, and methodologically neutral. The study also argues that there are fundamental differences between FSs and lexical bundles (LBs), although the latter often treated as an alternative term of FSs or sub-groups of FSs. Nevertheless, after a thorogh review of the characteristics of the two mult-word units, the study argues that despite of the differences, LBs can be upgrated to FSs as long as they fulfill certail sematic, syntactic, and pragmatic criteria. THis forms the fundation of the methodology design of the study. Secondly, the study enhanced the corpus-assisted approach to the identification of FSs, esp. in EModE texts. The approach consists of three steps: preparation, identification, and generalisation. The identification step was further conducted within two phases: automatic generation of LBs for a corpus and manual identification of FSs from LBs. Specifically, in the preparation step, the dissertation critically discussed how spelling variation in EModE texts shall be dealt with in investigations on FSs. I designed a series of criteria for the two-phase identification of FSs. For one thing, I disagree with previous research that two-word LBs shall be excluded from examination by arguing that many of them are formulaic and cannot be captured from longer LBs and the workload of processing the massive number of two-word LBs is actually manageable. For another, the study contributes an easy-to-follow flow chart demonstrating the procedure of the manual identification of FSs from LBs and listing the criteria that guide the decision-making process. Thirdly, the study provides systematic and comprehensive accounts of FSs in EModE dialogues and letters, esp. how their forms are conventionally mapped to their functions. Data analysis were conducted from aspects such as degree of fixedness, grammatical structures, distribution across function categories, multi-functional FSs, genre-specific FSs, etc. General findings suggest that EModE dialogues and letters actually have many similarities regarding the form and function of FSs and general trends of distribution across function categories. However, outstanding differences between the two text types can be observed too. From the perspective of form, the distinction lies in word choice in realisations of certain FSs. From the perspective of meaning/function, the distinction lies in the kinds of functions that need FSs the most or the least and common function combinations. More importantly, the study observed two types of relationships among FSs themselves and the discourse, including horizonal networks and vertical networks, which reflects the complexity of FSs and their identity as constructions. Specifically, three types of horizontal networks of FSs are embedding, attaching, and joining. A pair of new concepts is proposed to describe the vertical networks: superordinate FSs and subordinate FSs. As a result of the vertical networks, three types of functional diviation are observed: function extension, shifting, and specification