Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 8:1 (2022) ► pp.67–96
Research articles

The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language

Applying the MuPDAR(F) approach

 | University of Turku
 | University of Turku
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 tärkeä (i.e. “important”) and keskeinen (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.
Keywords: Finnish, academic learner language, synonymous adjectives, MuPDAR(F), random forests
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Learning synonymy in the crossroads of form, meaning and use
    • 2.2Corpus-based work on near-synonyms
  • 3.Dataset and methodology
    • 3.1Corpus data: Native and non-native written academic Finnish
    • 3.2Data extraction and annotation
    • 3.3The MuPDAR(F) approach
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Model 1: Random forests for NS Finnish data used to predict the near-synonymous adjectives in advanced NNS Finnish data
    • 4.2Model 2: Random forest on F2 data used to predict F1-likeness in the L2 data
    • 4.3Variables that distinguish between F1-like and non-F1-like uses
      • 4.3.1Adjective choice
      • 4.3.2Word order
      • 4.3.3Type of grammatical subject
      • 4.3.4Case marking
      • 4.3.5The use of modifiers
  • 5.Discussion and concluding remarks
    • 5.1RQ1: Similarities and differences between NS and NNS in the use of tärkeä (“important”) and keskeinen (“central”) in a predicative construction
    • 5.2RQ2: Applicability of the MuPDAR(F) approach to studying the use of near-synonymous adjectives in academic NS and NNS Finnish
    • 5.3Future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
References (57)
References
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
(2008). Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography – A study of synonymy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CEFR (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danglli, L., & Abazaj, G. (2014). Lexical cohesion, word choice and synonymy in academic writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (14), 628–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. (2016). Multidimensional perspectives on interlanguage: Exploring may and can across learner corpora. Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C., Götz, S., & Laporte, S. (Eds.) (2018). Rethinking linguistic creativity in non-native Englishes. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory. Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford Blackwell.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 1, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (1), 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Huumo, T. (2007). Kvantiteetti ja aika II. Nominaalinen aspekti ja suomen predikatiivin sijanvaihtelu. Virittäjä, 111 (1), 3–23.Google Scholar
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
(2015). Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 409) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Turku.
Ivaska, I., & Bernardini, S. (2020). Constrained language use in Finnish: A corpus-driven approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 43 (1), 33–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, J. H. (2001). “Tärkeä seikka” ja “keskeinen kysymys”: Mitä korpislingvistinen analyysi paljastaa lähisynonyymeistä? Virittäjä, 2 1(2001), 170–192.Google Scholar
(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.
(2015). Oppimiskontekstin vaikutus oppijanpragmatiikkaan: astemääritteet leksikaalisina nallekarhuina. Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi, 25 1, 105–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63 (s1), 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kangasniemi, H. (1997). Sana, merkitys, maailma. Katsaus leksikaalisen semantiikan perusteisiin. Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2020). Kotimaisten kielten keskuksen verkkojulkaisuja 35. Kotimaisten kielten keskus.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LAS1. ( n.d.). Akateemisen suomen korpus. School of Languages and Translation Studies. University of Turku. [URL]
LAS2. ( n.d.). Edistyneiden suomenoppijoiden korpus. School of Languages and Translation Studies. University of Turku (Language Bank of Finland). [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1987). Adjektiivipredikatiivin sijasta. Virittäjä, 91 (2), 274–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
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
(2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (2), 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadeniemi, M. (1950). Totaalisesta ja partiaalisesta predikatiivista. Virittäjä, 54 1, 46–53.Google Scholar
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.
Vanhatalo, U. (2003). Kyselytestit vs. korpuslingvistiikka lähisynonyymien semanttisten sisältöjen arvioinnissa – Mitä vielä keskeisestä ja tärkeästä? Virittäjä, 107 (3), 351–369.Google Scholar
(2005). Kyselytestit synonymian selvittämisessä. Sanastotietoutta kielenpuhujilta sähköiseen sanakirjaan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki.
Wongkhan, P., & Thienthong, A. (2020). EFL Learners’ acquisition of academic collocation and synonymy: Does their academic experience matter? RELC Journal, 1–16.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Lester, N., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T. (2014). That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 271–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ivaska, Ilmari & Anne Tamm
2024. Same yet different. Linguistic Variation 24:2 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Pengyuan, Jue Wen & Ning Cao
2022. Exploring the Application of the Random Matrix Thinking Model in Teaching English Predicate Constructions. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.