Cover not available
Part of
Lexical Priming: Applications and advances
Edited by Michael Pace-Sigge and Katie J. Patterson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 79] 2017
► pp. 121–139

Lexical priming and the selection and sequencing of synonyms

Detailed corpus-based research has identified factors that describe various reasons for the preference of one synonymous lexical item over another (or others). This paper continues along these descriptive lines while presenting the versatility of synonyms and their functions. In addition to statistical results, we also investigate the psychological reasons for our choices by exploring what is referred to in psycholinguistic priming tasks as the frequency effect. We will find that this psychological, subliminal effect can importantly add explanation to description for corpus-based studies, which finely dovetails with Hoey’s theory of Lexical Priming.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Semantic priming
    • 1.2Lexical priming
  • 2.The functions of synonyms
    • 2.1Collocation and colligation
    • 2.2Avoiding repetition
  • 3.Sequencing of synonyms: Use of the most frequent synonym first
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2The frequency effect and spreading activation
    • 3.3The tsunami corpus
    • 3.4Other corpora and software used
    • 3.5Categorizing
    • 3.6The selection of candidate synonyms
    • 3.7Findings from the tsunami corpus
    • 3.8Probability measurement
      • 3.8.1One-tailed binomial test
      • 3.8.2Results of one-tailed binomial distribution test
      • 3.8.3Pragmatic association
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Software
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.05baw
References (34)
References
Adelman, J. S. et al.. 2006. Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision time. Psychological Science 17: 814–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82. DOI logo
Barnbrook, G., Mason, O., & Krishnamurthy, J. 2013. Collocation: Applications and Implications. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bawcom, L. 2010. What’s in a Name? The Functions of Similonyms and Their Lexical Priming for Frequency. PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool.
Bod, R. 2000. The storage and computation of three word sentences. Paper presented at architectures and mechanisms of language processing conference, Leiden, The Netherlands.
. 2001. Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences. Paper presented at CUNY 2001, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Liversedge, S.P, et al. 1995. Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistics 24(6): 489–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clear, J.H. 1993. From Firth principles – Computational tools for the study of collocation. Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 271–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82: 407–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. 2008. Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than non-formulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics 29(1): 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimich, M. & Goodside L. (Dir). 2008. The Ellen Degeneres Show. New York NY: National Broadcasting Company.Google Scholar
Edmonds, Philip. 1999. Semantic representations of near-synonyms. Unpublished thesis, University of Toronto.
Faigley, L. (ed.) 2005. The Penguin Handbook. New York NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Firth, J.R. [1951]1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952–59, F. Palmer (ed.), 168–205. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, H., Aaron, J. & Okoomian, J. (eds). 2007. The Little Brown Handbook. New York NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keeble, R. 1998. The Newspapers’ Handbook, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kess, J.F. 1992. Psycholinguistics: Psychology, Linguistics, and the Study of Natural Language [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 86]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A. & Charles, W.G. 1991. Contextual correlates of of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes 6:1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, W.S. & Forster, K.I. 2004. Serial mechanisms in lexical access: The Rank Hypothesis. Psychological Review 111(3): 721–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 1998. Patterns and Meanings [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.H. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. [1997]2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus, and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001. Words and Phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. Corpus analysis: The state of the art and three types of unanswered questions. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, G. Thompson & S. Hunston (eds), 15–36. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B.L., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. 2011. Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61: 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Software
Bloomfield. L. 2004. Wcopyfind 2.6. Charlottesville VA: University of Virginia. 〈[URL]〉 (18 June 2006).Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). 〈[URL]〉Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2006. Wordsmith Tools, Version 4. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
The British National Corpus, Version 2 (BNC World). 2001. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dyvik Cardona, Margrete
2022. More than just an immigrant: The semantic patterns of (im)migrant/predicate-pairings in news stories about Mexican and Central American (im)migrants to the USA. A corpus-assisted discourse study. Discourse & Communication 16:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.