Chapter published in:
Lexical Priming: Applications and advances
Edited by Michael Pace-Sigge and Katie J. Patterson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 79] 2017
► pp. 254–272

Lexical and morphological priming

A holistic phraseological analysis of the Finnish time expression kello

|
Using the International Corpus of Learner Finnish, this study examines Finnish time expressions and the lexical item kello (‘watch, time, o’clock’), which is overused by learners of Finnish. The chapter provides a holistic phraseological account of kello that includes not only its collocates but also its morphological priming, n-grams and semantic associations. Previous studies on phraseology have mostly concentrated on languages like English, which have little inflection with the result that morphology has rarely been touched upon in phraseology studies. The results suggest that the analysis of learner language benefits from a holistic approach to phraseology and that morphological priming as well as semantic preference play an important role in the learner language phraseology.
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.10jar
References

References

Culpeper, J.
2009 Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P.
2009 Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 28: 157–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
2008 The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Færch, C. & Kasper, G.
1984 Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34(1): 45–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J.
2006 Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 209–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger S.
1996 From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast: Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (eds), 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
1998 Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, A. Cowie (ed.), 145–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A.
1994 Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M.
2004 The textual priming of lexis. In Corpora and Language Learners [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 17], G. Aston, S. Bernardini, & D. Stewart (eds), 21–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ISK = Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R., & Alho, I.
(eds) 2004 Iso suomen kielioppi (A comprehensive Finnish grammar). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Ivaska, I.
2015 Longitudinal changes in academic learner Finnish: A key structure analysis. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(2), 210–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, J.H.
2001 ’Tärkeä seikka’ ja ’keskeinen kysymys’: Mitä korpuslingvistinen analyysi paljastaa lähisynonyymeista? (What can corpus analysis reveal about near synonyms?). Virittäjä 105(2): 170–192.Google Scholar
2004 Synonymia ja käännössuomi (Synonymity and translated Finnish). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
2007 Oppijansuomen piirteitä korpusvetoisesti (A corpus-driven study on learner Finnish). In Virsu 3: Suomalais-ugrilaisia kohdekieliä ja kontakteja, P. Muikku-Werner, O. Kokko, & H. Remes (eds), 69–83. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
2015 Oppimiskontekstin vaikutus oppijanpragmatiikkaan: astemääritteet leksikaalisina nallekarhuina (Learning context and its effect on learner pragmatics: Degree modifiers as lexical teddy bears). Lähivõrdlusi–Lähivertailuja 25: 105–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, J.H. & Brunni, S.
2013 Morphology, lexical priming and second language acquisition: A corpus-study on learner Finnish. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead, S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (eds), 235–245. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Kaivapalu, A.
2005 Lähdekieli kielenoppimisen apuna (Contribution L1 to foreign language acquisition). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Kallioranta, O.
2009 Paljon-adverbin kollokointi oppijansuomessa: Korpusvetoinen tutkimus (The collocations of paljon adverb in learner Finnish: A corpus-driven study). MA thesis, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F.
1985 Paradigms and word forms. Studia Gramatyczne VII: 135–154.Google Scholar
1986 Frequency considerations in morphology. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39: 19–28.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G.
2008 Phraseology and language pedagogy: Semantic preference associated with English verbs in the British National Corpus. In Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, F. Meunier & S. Granger (eds), 22–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. & Eliasson, S.
1993 What causes avoidance in second language learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(1): 35–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M.
2006 Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.
1995 The Map and the Rope. Finnish Nominal Inflection as a Learning Target. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A.
2000 Strange strings in translated language: A study on corpora. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I, M. Olohan (ed.), 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
2005 Collocations in a Learner Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F.H.
1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Language and Communication, J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds), 191–226. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Rayson, P.
2008 From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. & Tribble, C.
2006 Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, K.
1999 Agenttia etsimässä. U-verbijohdokset edistyneen suomenoppijan ongelmana (In Search of an Agent. U-verb Derivations and Advanced Students of Finnish). Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Siitonen, K. & Mizuno, M.
2010 Suomen monitahoinen possessiivisuffiksi ja suomenoppija. (Many-sided possessive suffix of Finnish and a Finnish learner). Lähivõrdlusi–Lähivertailuja 19: 136–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
2009 Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M.
2013 Prior Linguistic Knowledge Matters: The Use of the Partitive Case in Finnish Learner Language. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M.
1995 Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sonnenstuhl, I. Eisenbeiss, S. & Clahsen, H.
1999 Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition 72(3): 203–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E.
1996 Corpus Theory and Practice. Birmingham: TWC Monographs.Google Scholar
Winkler, S.
2009 The acquisition of syntactic finiteness in L1 German: A structure-building approach. In Functional Categories in Learner Language, C. Dimroth & P. Jordens (eds), 97–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
2000 Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W.
2009 Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal 26(2): 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar