Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T09:52:02.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Learner language morphology as a window to crosslinguistic influences: A key structure analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2017

Ilmari Ivaska
Department of Interpretation and Translation, University of Bologna, Corso della Repubblica 136, Forli (FC), Italy.
Kirsti Siitonen
Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland.
Get access


The study of crosslinguistic influences (CLI) has proven that morphosyntactic features exhibit CLI. Technical development and novel resources have enabled detection-based approaches, where potential CLI are revealed based on their observed frequencies and on differences between learners with different language backgrounds. The two research questions are as follows: (i) How construction-specific typological (dis)similarities between L1 and L2 affect the frequencies of linguistic features? (ii) Can such (dis)similarities be detected by comparing feature frequency data of L2? The data come from the International Corpus of Learner Finnish, and the methodology applied is the key structure analysis. The results support the applicability of the method: they show that constructional similarities may trigger CLI construction by construction, irrespective of the general similarities or genealogical categorizations. The results further imply the importance of controlling the genre-related and topical variation to account for skewed nature of the data when dealing with naturally occurring learner language data.

Research Article
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Aarts, Jaan & Granger, Sylviane. 1998. Tag secuenqes in learner corpora: A key to interlanguage grammar and discourse. In Granger, Sylviane (ed.), Learner English on Computer, 132141. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bielec, Dana. 1998. Polish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45 (1), 532.Google Scholar
CEFR 2006 = Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013a. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013b. Definite articles. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013c. Indefinite articles. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013d. Expression of pronominal subjects. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013e. Position of pronominal possessive affixes. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013f. Order of numeral and noun. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Dulay, Heidi, Burt, Marina & Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II [The grammar of Estonian language]. Tallinn: Eesti TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Francis, Gill. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods and examples. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill & Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, 137156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gujord, Helland, Ann-Kristin, Susan Nacey & Ragnhildstveit, Silje (eds.). 2015. BeLLS 6: Learner Corpus Research: LCR2013 Conference Proceedings. Bergen: University of Bergen. (accessed 11 November 2016).Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Buehlmann, Peter, Dudoit, Sandrine, Molinaro, Annette & Van Der Laan, Mark. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7 (3), 355373.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 148164.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2014. Edistyneen oppijansuomen avainrakenteita. Korpusnäkökulma kahden kielimuodon tyypillisiin rakenteellisiin eroihin [Key structures in advanced learner Finnish: Corpus approach towards structural differences between two language forms]. Virittäjä 118, 161193.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2015a. Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi [Corpus-driven approach towards constructional features of advanced learner Finnish: Key structure analysis]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2015b. Tracing crosslinguistic influences in structural sequences: What does key structure analysis have to offer? In Helland Gujord et al. (eds.), 23–44.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2015c. Longitudinal changes in academic learner Finnish: A key structure analysis. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1 (2), 210241.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2016. Genre effects in academic L2 writing. Presented at The American Association for Corpus Linguistics (AACL) 2016 Conference, 16–18 September 2016, Ames, IO.Google Scholar
Jantunen, Jarmo 2011. Kansainvälinen oppijansuomen korpus (ICLFI): typologia, taustamuuttujat ja annotointi [International Corpus of Learner Finnish (ICLFI): Typology, variables and annotation]. Lähivertailuja – Lähivõrdlusi 21, 86105.Google Scholar
Jantunen, Jarmo, Brunni, Sisko, Lehto, Liisa-Maria & Airaksinen, Valtteri. 2014. Oppijankieliaineistojen annotointi – esimerkkinä ICLFI:n annotoinnin prosessit, ongelmat ja ratkaisut [How to annotate learner language: Principles, problems and solutions of ICLI]. In Mutta, Maarit, Lintunen, Pekka, Ivaska, Ilmari & Peltonen, Pauliina (eds.), AFinLA-e: Special issue of Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia 2014 (7), 6080.Google Scholar
Jantunen, Jarmo & Pirkola, Silja. 2015. Oppijansuomen sähköiset tutkimusaineistot. Nykytilanne [Electronic corpora of learner Finnish: Current situation]. Virittäjä 119, 88103.Google Scholar
Järvinen, Timo, Laari, Mikko, Lahtinen, Timo, Paajanen, Sirkku, Paljakka, Pirkko, Soininen, Mirkka & Tapanainen, Pasi. 2004. Robust language analysis components for practical applications. In Gambäck, Björn & Jokinen, Κristiina (eds.), Coling 2004: Proceedings of the Workshop Robust and Adaptive Information Processing for Mobile Speech Interfaces, 5356. Riga: The Baltic Perspectives.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2000. Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50 (2), 245309.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2010. Comparison-based and detection-based approaches to transfer research. In Roberts, Leah, Howard, Martin, Laire, Muiris Ó & Singleton, David (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 10, 169192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2011. Data mining with learner corpora: Choosing classifiers for L1 detection. In Meunier, Fanny, De Cock, Sylvie, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Paquot, Magali (eds.), A Taste for Corpora: In Honour of Sylviane Granger, 131158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. 2012. The detection-based approach: An overview. In Jarvis & Crossley (eds.), 1–33.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott, Castañeda-Jimenez, Gabriela & Nielsen, Rasmus. 2012. Detecting L2 writers’ L1s on the basis of their lexical styles. In Jarvis & Crossley (eds.), 34–70.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Crossley, Scott A. (eds.). 2012. Approaching Language Transfer through Text Classification. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Odlin, Terence. 2000. Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 535556.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin. 2005. Lähdekieli kielenoppimisen apuna [Contribution of L1 to foreign language acquisition]. Ph.D. dissertation, Jyväskylän yliopisto.Google Scholar
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin & Martin, Maisa. 2007. Morphology in transition: The plural inflection of Finnish nouns by Estonian and Russian learners. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54 (2), 129156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin & Martin, Maisa. 2014. Measuring perceptions of cross-linguistic similarity between closely related languages: Finnish and Estonian noun morphology as a testing ground. In Paulasto, Heli, Meriläinen, Lea, Riionheimo, Helka & Kok, Maria (eds.), Language Contacts at the Crossroads of Disciplines, 283318. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Koppel, Moshe, Schler, Jonathan & Zigdon, Kfir. 2005. Determining an author's native language by mining a text for errors. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, 624628. Chicago, IL: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Mayfield Tomokiyo, Laura & Jones, Rosie. 2001. You're not from ’round here, are you? Naive Bayes detection of non-native utterance text. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL ’01), 239246. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Coding and behavior of Estonian subjects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 4 (2), 217293.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna & Bickel, Balthasar. 2013. Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pepper, Steve. 2012. Lexical transfer in Norwegian interlanguage: A detection-based approach. Master's thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (accessed 11 November, 2016).Google Scholar
Ringbom, Håkan. 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ringbom, Håkan. 2007. Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ringbom, Håkan & Jarvis, Scott. 2009. The importance of crosslinguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In Long, Michael H. & Doughty, Catherine J. (eds.), Handbook of Language Teaching, 106118. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike & Tribble, Cristopher. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry & Lakshamanan, Usha. 1992. Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. In Gass, Susan & Selinker, Larry (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning, 197216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Verbal person marking. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), (accessed 30 October 2016).Google Scholar
Spoelman, Marianne. 2013. Prior Linguistic Knowledge Matters: The Use of the Partitive Case in Finnish Learner Language. Ph.D. disseratation, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas & Zeileis, Achim. 2008. Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (307). (accessed 11 November 2016).Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James & Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and Random Forests. Psychological Methods 14 (4), 323348.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24 (2), 135178.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1993. Russian. In Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 827886. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.Google Scholar
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The great grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. (accessed 11 November 2016).Google Scholar
Wiersma, Wybo, Nerbonne, John & Lauttamus, Timo. 2011. Automatically extracting typical syntactic differences from corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing 26 (1), 107124.Google Scholar
Wong, Sze-Meng Jojo & Dras, Mark. 2009. Contrastive analysis and native language identification. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association, 5361. Cambridge: MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yip, Po-Ching & Rimmington, Don. 2004. Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar