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. 253–271

Lexical and morphological priming

A holistic phraseological analysis of the Finnish time expression kello

| University of Jyväskylä
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Priming, phraseology and learner language
    • 2.1Lexical priming and language learning
    • 2.2Morphological priming
  • 3.Methodology and data
    • 3.1Corpus-driven approach and keywords
    • 3.2Data
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Keywords in learner Finnish
    • 4.2The case of kello: A learner Finnish keyword or a genre-specific item?
    • 4.3 Kello as a phraseological unit
      • 4.3.1Morphological priming in time expressions
      • 4.3.2Collocates and n-grams of kello
      • 4.3.3Semantic priming of kello
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.10jar
References (43)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2006. Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 209–226. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M. 2013. Prior Linguistic Knowledge Matters: The Use of the Partitive Case in Finnish Learner Language. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2000. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. 2009. Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal 26(2): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Huang, Ming
2023. Otherness and suspiciousness: a comparative study of public opinions between the Confucius Institute and Goethe-Institut in developing countries. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Aragão, Rodrigo Moura Lima de
2022. Indícios de aparelhamento psicológico em artigos acadêmicos de pediatria e administração. Diálogo das Letras 11 ► pp. e2202 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Luojia
2022. Contrasting the primings between English and Chinese: To advance Hoey's theory of lexical priming from the perspective of culture psychology. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Hoey, Michael & Katie Patterson
2021. Lexical Priming. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 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.