1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this study, we apply Gries and Deshors’s (2014) and Deshors and Gries’s (2016) MuPDAR(F) approach to explore the use of synonymous adjectives (i.e. “important”) and (i.e. “central”) in academic native and advanced learner Finnish, linking the phenomenon with the general assumptions of usage-based cognitive linguistics. This method confidently modelled the differences between using near-synonyms in native data and distinguished between native-like and non-native-like uses in learner data. Crucially, it differentiated between the contexts in which one synonym was clearly favoured and those in which either one was acceptable, in accordance with Gries and Deshors (2020). The results suggest that Finnish learners fairly coherently follow the tendencies of native speakers, but several variables differentiate their use of synonyms from the latter’s. We interpret the differences to reflect complexity- and prototypicality-related phenomena. On the one hand, learners use more common options more often. On the other, non-nativelike adjectives are used only in contexts that are structurally in the most prototypical and least complex form, suggesting that learners employ complexity-related structural alternations – e.g., non-prototypical grammatical subjects or degree modifiers – after lexical alternations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
2022-03-08
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arppe, A.
    (2002) The usage patterns and selectional preferences of synonyms in a morphologically rich language. In A. Morin & P. Sébillot (Eds.), JADT-2002: 6th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, Vol. 1 (pp.21–31). INRIA.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008) Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography – A study of synonymy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki.
  3. Biber, D. , Conrad, S. , & Reppen, R.
    (1998) Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bulté, B. , & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  5. CEFR
    CEFR (2018) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Danglli, L. , & Abazaj, G.
    (2014) Lexical cohesion, word choice and synonymy in academic writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (14), 628–632. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p628
     https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p628 [Google Scholar]
  8. Divjak, D.
    (2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220599
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjak, D. , & Gries, S. T.
    (2006) Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 23–60. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deshors, S. C. , & Gries, S. T.
    (2014) A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language. The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics (pp.179–201). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.07des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.07des [Google Scholar]
  11. Deshors, S. C.
    (2016) Multidimensional perspectives on interlanguage: Exploring may and can across learner corpora. Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Deshors, S. C. , & Gries, T. T.
    (2016) Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes. A two-step random forests analysis of ing vs. to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21 (2), 192–218. 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des [Google Scholar]
  13. Deshors, S. C. , Götz, S. , & Laporte, S.
    (Eds.) (2018) Rethinking linguistic creativity in non-native Englishes. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.98
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.98 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, N. C.
    (2008) Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In N. C. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.372–405). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, N. C. , & Robinson, P.
    (2008) An introduction to cognitive linguistics, Second language acquisition, and language instruction. In N. C. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.1–24). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N. C. , & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2009) Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59 (1), 90–125. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00537.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00537.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Firth, J. R.
    (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory. Studies in linguistic analysis (pp.1–32). Oxford Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Polysemy and synonymy. Cognitive theory and corpus method. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics (pp.7–30). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.01gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.01gly [Google Scholar]
  19. Granger, S.
    (2004) Computer learner corpus research: Current status and future prospects. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus Linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp.123–145). Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2015) Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 7–24. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S. T. , & Adelman, A.
    (2014) Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In T. Romero (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (p.35–54). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑06007‑1_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, S. T. , & Deshors, S. C.
    (2014) Using regressions to explore deviation between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora, 9 (1), 109–136. 10.3366/cor.2014.0053
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2014.0053 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015) EFL and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 130–159. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri [Google Scholar]
  24. (2020) There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal, 44 (1), 69–96. 10.2478/icame‑2020‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2020-0003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gries, S. T. , & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3 , 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (1), 163–186. 10.1075/arcl.7.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.07gri [Google Scholar]
  27. Hakulinen, A. , Vilkuna, M. , Korhonen, R. , Koivisto, V. , Heinonen, T. R. , & Alho, I.
    (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi [Online version]. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Finnish Literature Society).
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Huumo, T.
    (2007) Kvantiteetti ja aika II. Nominaalinen aspekti ja suomen predikatiivin sijanvaihtelu. Virittäjä, 111 (1), 3–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ivaska, I.
    (2014) The corpus of advanced learner Finnish (LAS2) – Database and toolkit to study academic learner Finnish. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8 (3), 21–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2015) Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 409) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Turku.
  32. Ivaska, I. , & Bernardini, S.
    (2020) Constrained language use in Finnish: A corpus-driven approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 43 (1), 33–57. 10.1017/S0332586520000013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586520000013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jantunen, J. H.
    (2001) “Tärkeä seikka” ja “keskeinen kysymys”: Mitä korpislingvistinen analyysi paljastaa lähisynonyymeistä?Virittäjä, 2 (2001), 170–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2004) Synonymia ja käännössuomi: Korpusnäkökulma samamerkityksisyyden kontekstuaalisuuteen ja käännöskielen leksikaalisiin erityispiirteisiin (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Humanities, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, University of Joensuu.
  35. (2015) Oppimiskontekstin vaikutus oppijanpragmatiikkaan: astemääritteet leksikaalisina nallekarhuina. Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi, 25 , 105–136. 10.5128/LV25.05
     https://doi.org/10.5128/LV25.05 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jarvis, S.
    (2013) Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63 (s1), 87–106. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00739.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00739.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Kangasniemi, H.
    (1997) Sana, merkitys, maailma. Katsaus leksikaalisen semantiikan perusteisiin. Finn Lectura.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kielitoimiston sanakirja
    Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2020) Kotimaisten kielten keskuksen verkkojulkaisuja 35. Kotimaisten kielten keskus.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kyle, K. , & Eguchi, M.
    (2021) Automatically assessing lexical sophistication using word, bigram, and dependency indices. In S. Granger (Ed.), Perspectives on the L2 Phrasicon: The view from learner corpora (pp.126–151). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924863‑007
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924863-007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. LAS1
    LAS1. ( n.d.). Akateemisen suomen korpus. School of Languages and Translation Studies. University of Turku. https://digilang.utu.fi/
     [Google Scholar]
  42. LAS2
    LAS2. ( n.d.). Edistyneiden suomenoppijoiden korpus. School of Languages and Translation Studies. University of Turku (Language Bank of Finland). https://digilang.utu.fi/
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, D.
    (2010) Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (1), 56–87. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.03liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.03liu [Google Scholar]
  44. Lyons, J.
    (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  45. Martin, M.
    (1987) Adjektiivipredikatiivin sijasta. Virittäjä, 91 (2), 274–278. 10.23982/vir.37557
     https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.37557 [Google Scholar]
  46. Partington, A.
    (1998) Collocation and synonymy. In A. Partington (Ed.), Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching (pp.29–47). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ringbom, H.
    (1998) Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: A cross-linguistic approach. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.41–52). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2007) Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rohdenburg, G.
    (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (2), 149–182. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sadeniemi, M.
    (1950) Totaalisesta ja partiaalisesta predikatiivista. Virittäjä, 54 , 46–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Spoelman, M.
    (2013) Prior linguistic knowledge matters. The use of the partitive case in Finnish learner language (Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B, Humaniora 111) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oulu.
  53. Vanhatalo, U.
    (2003) Kyselytestit vs. korpuslingvistiikka lähisynonyymien semanttisten sisältöjen arvioinnissa – Mitä vielä keskeisestä ja tärkeästä?Virittäjä, 107 (3), 351–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) Kyselytestit synonymian selvittämisessä. Sanastotietoutta kielenpuhujilta sähköiseen sanakirjaan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki.
  55. Wongkhan, P. , & Thienthong, A.
    (2020) EFL Learners’ acquisition of academic collocation and synonymy: Does their academic experience matter?RELC Journal, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wright, M. N. , & Ziegler, A.
    (2017) ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software, 77 (1), 1–17. 10.18637/jss.v077.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wulff, S. , Lester, N. , & Martinez-Garcia, M. T.
    (2014)  That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 271–299. 10.1017/langcog.2014.5
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.5 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
Loading
The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8, 67 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic learner language; Finnish; MuPDAR(F); random forests; synonymous adjectives

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error