Edistyneen oppijan suomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi

Ensikielen jälkeen opittavan kielen tutkimusta ja suomi toisena kielenä alaa sen osana ovat koko niiden olemassaolon ajan hallinneet samat peruskysymykset: millaista oppiminen on eri vaiheissa ja eri ympäristöissä, sekä mikä oppimisessa on yleistä ja toisaalta mikä riippuu opittavasta kielestä ja oppijoiden kielitaustasta. Sähköisten oppijankielen tutkimusaineistojen eli korpusten lisääntymisen myötä tutkijat voivat aiempaa helpommin tutkia näitä ilmiöitä määrällisesti ja tarkastella oppijankielen sisäistä vaihtelua ja sen suhdetta tyypilliseen ensikieliseen kielenkäyttöön kielen eri osa-alueilla käyttöpohjaisesti eli todelliseen kielenkäyttöön pohjautuen. Tekninen kehitys on tuonut mukanaan aineisto- eli korpusvetoisuuden kaltaisia uusia tapoja lähestyä tutkimusaineistoa, jolloin tyypillisiä tutkimuskysymyksiä ”Miksi?” ja ”Miten?” edeltää kysymys: ”Mikä?”. Tässä väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan edistyneiden suomenoppijoiden kirjoitettua akateemista kieltä ja suhteutetaan suomen oppimiselle ominaisia seikkoja käyttöpohjaisen mallin perusolettamuksiin. Aineisto on suomea toisena kielenä käyttävien opiskelijoiden tenttivastauksia, ja se on osa Edistyneiden suomenoppijoiden korpusta. Tutkimus on osin metodologinen, sillä väitöskirjassa esitellään ja siinä sovelletaan uutta korpusvetoista avainrakenneanalyysi-menetelmää, jonka avulla aineistoa lähestytään ilman hypoteeseja siitä, mitkä kielen ilmiöt ovat ominaisia edistyneelle oppijansuomelle. Tutkimus kuuluu kieliopin tutkimuksen piiriin, ja se nojaa kognitiivisen konstruktiokieliopin ajatukseen abstraktiudeltaan vaihtelevista konstruktioista kielijärjestelmän perusyksiköinä. Tulokset puoltavat menetelmän sovellettavuutta kielen oppimisen tutkimukseen, sillä sen avulla kyettiin tunnistamaan konstruktioita, jotka erottavat edistyneitä oppijoita ensikielisistä kirjoittajista (esim. modaaliset verbiketjut), eri ensikieliä puhuvia suomenoppijoita (esim. konjunktiot) sekä konstruktioita, joiden käyttö muuttuu ajan kuluessa (esim. preteriti ja preesens). Monet havaitut erot ovat akateemisen kirjoittamisen erityispiirteitä, mikä tukee ajatusta kielen käyttö- ja kontekstikohtaisesta oppimisesta. Tuloksia voidaan yhtäältä soveltaa akateemisen kielitaidon opetuksessa. Toisaalta menetelmää voidaan käyttää kielenoppimisen tutkimuksen ohella uusien näkökulmien kartoittamiseksi erilaisten tai eri-ikäisten tekstien tyypillisten ominaisuuksien ja erojen tutkimuksessa.

Perspectives interculturelles et interlinguistiques sur le discours académique – Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Volume 1

The Department of French Studies of the University of Turku (Finland) organized an International Bilingual Conference on Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse from 2022 May 2005. The event hosted specialists on Academic Discourse from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and the USA. This book is the first volume in our series of publications on Academic Discourse (AD hereafter). The following pages are composed of selected papers from the conference and focus on different aspects and analytical frameworks of Academic Discourse. One of the motivations behind organizing the conference was to examine and expand research on AD in different languages. Another one was to question to what extent academic genres are culturebound and language specific or primarily field or domain specific. The research carried out on AD has been mainly concerned with the use of English in different academic settings for a long time now – mainly written contexts – and at the expense of other languages. Alternatively the academic genre conventions of English and English speaking world have served as a basis for comparison with other languages and cultures. We consider this first volume to be a strong contribution to the spreading out of researches based on other languages than English in AD, namely Finnish, French, Italian, Norwegian and Romanian in this book. All the following articles have a strong link with the French language: either French is constitutive of the AD corpora under examination or the article was written in French. The structure of the book suggests and provides evidence that the concept of AD is understood and tackled to varying degrees by different scholars. Our first volume opens up the discussion on what AD is and backs dissemination, overlapping and expansion of current research questions and methodologies. The book is divided into three parts and contains four articles in English and six articles in French. The papers in part one and part two cover what we call the prototypical genre of written AD, i.e. the research article. Part one follows up on issues linked to the 13 Research Article (RA hereafter). Kjersti Fløttum asks wether a typical RA exists and concentrates on authors’ voices in RA (self and other dimensions), whereas Didriksen and Gjesdal’s article focuses on individual variation of the author’s voice in RA. The last article in this section is by Nadine Rentel and deals with evaluation in the writing of RA. Part two concentrates on the teaching and learning of AD within foreign language learning, another more or less canonical genre of AD. Two aspects of writing are covered in the first two articles: foreign students’ representations on rhetorical traditions (Hidden) and a contrastive assessment of written exercices in French and Finnish in Higher Education (Suzanne). The last contribution in this section on AD moves away from traditional written forms and looks at how argumentation is constructed in students’ oral presentations (Dervin and Fauveau). The last part of the book continues the extension by featuring four articles written in French exploring institutional and scientific discourses. Institutional discourses under scrutiny include the European Bologna Process (Galatanu) and Romanian reform texts (Moilanen). As for scientific discourses, the next paper in this section deconstructs an ideological discourse on the didactics of French as a foreign language (Pescheux). Finally, the last paper in part three reflects on varied forms of AD at university (Defays). We hope that this book will add some fuel to continue discussing diverse forms of and approches to AD – in different languages and voices! No need to say that with the current upsurge in academic mobility, reflecting on crosscultural and crosslinguistic AD has just but started.

For the Record: DSpace and Academic Accreditation

Presentation at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland, June 9-13, 2014

Некоторые наблюдения по поводу построения компьютерного морфологического анализатора марийского языка. [Problems in writing a two-level model of Mari morphology]

The article describes some concrete problems that were encountered when writing a two-level model of Mari morphology. Mari is an agglutinative Finno-Ugric language spoken in Russia by about 600 000 people. The work was begun in the 1980s on the basis of K. Koskenniemi’s Two-Level Morphology (1983), but in the latest stage R. Beesley’s and L. Karttunen’s Finite State Morphology (2003) was used. Many of the problems described in the article concern the inexplicitness of the rules in Mari grammars and the lack of information about the exact distribution of some suffixes, e.g. enclitics. The Mari grammars usually give complete paradigms for a few unproblematic verb stems, whereas the difficult or unclear forms of certain verbs are only superficially discussed. Another example of phenomena that are poorly described in grammars is the way suffixes with an initial sibilant combine to stems ending in a sibilant. The help of informants and searches from electronic corpora were used to overcome such difficulties in the development of the two-level model of Mari. The variation of the order of plural markers, case suffixes and possessive suffixes is a typical feature of Mari. The morphotactic rules constructed for Mari declensional forms tend to be recursive and their productivity must be limited by some technical device, such as filters. In the present model, certain plural markers were treated like nouns. The positional and functional versatility of the possessive suffixes can be regarded as the most challenging phenomenon in attempts to formalize the Mari morphology. Cyrillic orthography, which was used in the model, also caused problems. For instance, a Cyrillic letter may represent a sequence of two sounds, the first being part of the word stem while the other belongs to a suffix. In some cases, letters for voiced consonants are also generalized to represent voiceless consonants. Such orthographical conventions distance a morphological model based on orthography from the actual (morpho)phonological processes in the language.

Dissertatio academic [sic] quantitates quasdam

Arkit: 1 arkintunnukseton lehti, A4 B1.