In: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
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.10jar
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.10jar
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
References (43)
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.
Durrant, P. 2009. Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 28: 157–169.
Færch, C. & Kasper, G. 1984. Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34(1): 45–63.
Flowerdew, J. 2006. Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 209–226.
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.
. 1998. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, A. Cowie (ed.), 145–160. Oxford: OUP.
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.
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.
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.
Ivaska, I. 2015. Longitudinal changes in academic learner Finnish: A key structure analysis. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(2), 210–241.
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.
. 2004. Synonymia ja käännössuomi (Synonymity and translated Finnish). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
. 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.
. 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.
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.
Kaivapalu, A. 2005. Lähdekieli kielenoppimisen apuna (Contribution L1 to foreign language acquisition). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
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.
. 1986. Frequency considerations in morphology. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39: 19–28.
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.
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.
Mahlberg, M. 2006. Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 363–383.
Martin, M. 1995. The Map and the Rope. Finnish Nominal Inflection as a Learning Target. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
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.
Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549.
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–532.
Spoelman, M. 2013. Prior Linguistic Knowledge Matters: The Use of the Partitive Case in Finnish Learner Language. Oulu: University of Oulu.
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55.
Sonnenstuhl, I. Eisenbeiss, S. & Clahsen, H. 1999. Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition 72(3): 203–236.
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.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
López-Solà, Inmaculada & Fernando Lillo-Fuentes
Huang, Ming
Aragão, Rodrigo Moura Lima de
Wang, Luojia
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.
