Home Linguistics & Semiotics What the frequency list can teach us about Turkish sign language?
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

What the frequency list can teach us about Turkish sign language?

  • Bahtiyar Makaroğlu EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 9, 2021

Abstract

Recent studies on linguistics, cognitive science and psychology have shown that describing lexical frequency characteristics can answer many critical questions on language acquisition, mental lexicon and language use. Given the importance of corpus-based methodology, this study reports the preliminary findings from the objective lexical frequency list in TİD based on 103.087 sign tokens. This paper shows that frequency occurrence has a very decisive role on the linguistics categories and language in use. With respect to the multi-functionality of pointing in signed languages, the top ranked ID-gloss occurrences are mostly shaped by the pronominal references. Moreover, when compared to previous studies in terms of lexical density and lexical diversity, TİD shares both similar and different statistical features observed in other signed languages.


Bahtiyar Makaroğlu Faculty of Language and History – Geography Ankara University Sıhhiye-Çankaya Ankara 06430 Turkey

7

7 Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a postdoctoral fellowship from the TÜBİTAK BİDEB-2219. TİD Corpus Project was supported by the Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Service. I am grateful to all of our Deaf participants for their contributions to the TİD Corpus project, without them it was impossible to complete this project. I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts in helping me improve the article. Of course, all shortcomings are my own.

List of Abbreviations

ASL

American Sign Language

Auslan

Australian Sign Language

BSL

British Sign Language

NZSL

New Zealand Sign Language

SSL

Swedish Sign Language

TİD

Turkish Sign Language

References

Alderson, J.C. 2007. “Judging the frequency of English words”. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 383–409.10.1093/applin/amm024Search in Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., I. Meir and W. Sandler. 2005. “The paradox of sign language morphology”. Language 81. 301–344.10.1353/lan.2005.0043Search in Google Scholar

Arnon, I. and N. Snider. 2010. “More than words. Frequency effects for multi-word phrases”. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 67–8710.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005Search in Google Scholar

Barlow, M. 2002. “Corpora, concordancing, and language teaching”. Proceedings of the 2002 KAMALL International Conference. Daejon, Korea.Search in Google Scholar

Barlow, M. and S. Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Bausch, K. 1979. Modalität und Konjunktivgebrauch in der gesprochenen deutschen Standardsprache: Sprachsystem, Sprachvariation und Sprachwandel im heutigen Deutsch. Max Hueber Verlag: Munich.Search in Google Scholar

Bayyurt, Y. 2010. “A sociolinguistic profile of Turkey, Northern Cyprus and other Turkic states in Central Asia”. In: Ball, M. J. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world. Routledge: New York. 137–146.10.4324/9780203869659-20Search in Google Scholar

Bock, K. and Z. Griffin. 2000. “Producing words: How mind meets mouth”. In: Wheel-don, L.R. (ed.), Language production. London, UK: Psychology Press. 7–48.Search in Google Scholar

Börstell, C., T. Hörberg and R. Östling. 2016. “Distribution and duration of signs and parts of speech in Swedish Sign Language”. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(2), 143–196.10.1075/sll.19.2.01borSearch in Google Scholar

Brentari, D. and C. Padden. 2001. “Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: a lexicon with multiple origins”. In: Brentari, D. (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 87–120.10.4324/9781410601513Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.9Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2002. “Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change”. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.003.0011Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2006. “From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition”. Language 82. 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. and J. Scheibman. 1999. “The effect of usage on degree of constituency: the reduction of don’t in American English”. Linguistics 37. 575–596.10.1515/ling.37.4.575Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. and P.J. Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45Search in Google Scholar

Caselli, N.K., Sehyr, Z.S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M., and Emmorey, K. 2017. “ASLLEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language”. Behavior Research Methods 49(2), 784–801.10.3758/s13428-016-0742-0Search in Google Scholar

Conlin, F., P. Hagstrom and Neidle, C. 2003. “A particle of indefiniteness in ASL”. Linguistic Discovery 2, 1–21.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.142Search in Google Scholar

Conrad, S. 2005. “Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching”. In: Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 393–409.Search in Google Scholar

Cooperrider K, N. Abner and Goldin-Meadow S. 2018. “The palm-up puzzle: meanings and origins of a widespread form in gesture and sign”. Frontiers in Communication. 3:23.10.3389/fcomm.2018.00023Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, K., J. Fenlon, T. Johnston, R. Rentelis, A. Schembri, K. Rowley, R. Adam and B. Woll. 2012a. “From corpus to lexical database to online dictionary: Issues in annotation of the BSL Corpus and the development of BSL SignBank”. In: Crasborn, O., E. Efthimiou, E. Fotinea, T. Hanke, J. Kristoffersen and J. Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between Corpus and Lexicon [Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC)] (pp. 5–12). Paris France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, K., A. Schembri, D. Vinson and E. Orfanidou. 2012b. “First language acquisition differs from second language acquisition in prelingually deaf signers: Evidence from sensitivity to grammatical judgement in British Sign Language”. Cognition 124(1). 50–65.10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.003Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, K., A. Schembri and B. Woll. 2013. “Pronouns and pointing in sign languages”. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 137. 230–247.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010Search in Google Scholar

Cormier, K., O. Crasborn and R. Bank. 2016. “Digging into Signs: Emerging Annotation Standards for Sign Language Corpora”. In: Workshop Proceedings 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining. ELRA. 35–40.Search in Google Scholar

Dell, G.S. 1990. “Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors”. Language & Cognitive Processes 5. 313–349.10.1080/01690969008407066Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486531Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2007. “Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change”. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Dikyuva, H., B. Makaroğlu and E. Arık. 2017. Turkish Sign Language grammar. Ankara: Ministry of Family and Social Policies Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dinkin, A. 2007. “The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation”. Paper Presented at the 31st Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Philadelphia, PA.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. 2002. “Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 143–188.10.1017/S0272263102002024Search in Google Scholar

Emmorey, K.D. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410603982Search in Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, E. 2002. “Gesture in signing: the presentation gesture in Danish Sign Language”. In: Schulmeister R. and H. Reinitzer (eds.) Progress in Sign Language Research: in Honor of Siegmund Prilwitz. Hamburg: Signum. 143–162.Search in Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., A. Schembri, R. Rentelis, D. Vinson and K. Cormier. 2014. “Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: The influence of text type”. Lingua 143. 187–202.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Fenlon, J., A. Schembri, T. Johnston and K. Cormier. 2015. “Documentary and corpus approaches to sign language research”. In: Orfanidou, E., B. Woll and G. Morgan (eds.), Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 157–169.10.1002/9781118346013.ch10Search in Google Scholar

File-Muriel, R.J. 2010. “Lexical frequency as a scalar variable in explaining variation”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 55. 1–25.10.1017/S0008413100001353Search in Google Scholar

Gabarró-López, S. (2020). Are discourse markers related to age and educational background? A comparative account between two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 68-82.10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.019Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, M.K., E.Z. Rothkopf, R. Lapan and T. Lafferty. 1987. “The word frequency effect in lexical decision: Finding a frequency based component”. Memory & Cognition 15. 24–28.10.3758/BF03197709Search in Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hanke, T. 2016. “Towards a visual sign language corpus linguistics”. In: Workshop Proceedings 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining. ELRA. 89–92.Search in Google Scholar

Hochgesang, J. A. 2019. “Tyranny of glossing revisited: reconsidering representational practices of signed languages via best practices of data citation”. Presented at TISLR13, the 13th Conference of Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Hamburg, Germany (September 26–28, 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, P.J. 1987. “Emergent grammar”. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar

Hou, L., J.P. Morford. 2020. “Using signed language collocations to investigate acquisition: A commentary on Ambridge (2020)”. First Language10.1177/0142723720908075Search in Google Scholar

Hoza, J. 2011. “The discourse and politeness functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign Language”. In: Roy, C.B. (ed.), Discourse in signed languages, sociolinguistics in deaf communities series 17. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press. 70–95.Search in Google Scholar

Johnston, T. 2010. “From archive to corpus: Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1). 106–131.10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05johSearch in Google Scholar

Johnston, T. 2012. “Lexical frequency in sign languages”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Education 17, 163–193.10.1093/deafed/enr036Search in Google Scholar

Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M., and Tomasello, M. 2010. “Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: evidence from sentential complements”. Language Sciences 32(1). 132–142.10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, 16(1), 103-121.10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023Search in Google Scholar

Krug, M. 2003. “Frequency as a determinant of grammatical variation and change”. In: Rohdenburg, G. and B. Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 7–67.10.1515/9783110900019.7Search in Google Scholar

Kucera, H. and W. Francis. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R.W. 2009. “A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition”. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 627–640.10.1515/COGL.2009.027Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, G., P. Rayson and A. Wilson. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English based on the British national corpus. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Lepic, R. 2019. “A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics”. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). 23. 1–30.10.5334/gjgl.840Search in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (ed.). 1999. The emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Makaroğlu, B. and H. Dikyuva (eds.). 2017. The contemporary Turkish Sign Language dictionary. Ankara: The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policy. Retrieved from <http://tidsozluk.net>.Search in Google Scholar

Marian, V., H.K. Blumenfeld and M. Kaushanskaya. 2007. “The Language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50. 940–967.10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)Search in Google Scholar

Mathur, G. and C. Rathmann. 2006. “Variability in verbal agreement forms across four signed languages”. In: Goldstein, L., D. Whalen and C. T. Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology VIII. Berlin: Mouton. 287–314.10.1515/9783110197211.1.287Search in Google Scholar

Mayberry, R.I., M.L. Hall and M. Zvaigzne. 2014. “Subjective frequency ratings for 432 ASL signs”. Behavior Research Methods 46(2). 526–539.10.3758/s13428-013-0370-xSearch in Google Scholar

Meier, R.P. 1990. “Person deixis in ASL”. In: Fischer, S.D. and P. Siple (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Linguistics, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 175–190.Search in Google Scholar

Mesch, J. and L. Wallin. 2015. “Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language corpus”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(1). 102–120.10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mesSearch in Google Scholar

Metzger, M. and B. Bahan. 2001. “Discourse analysis”. In: Lucas, C. (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 112–144.10.1017/CBO9780511612824.007Search in Google Scholar

McKee, D. and G. Kennedy. 2006. “The distribution of signs in New Zealand Sign Language”. Sign Language Studies 6(4). 372–390.10.1353/sls.2006.0027Search in Google Scholar

Morford, J. and J. MacFarlane. 2003. “Frequency characteristics of American Sign Language”. Sign Language Studies 3. 213–225.10.1353/sls.2003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Nation, I. 2004. “A study of the most frequent word families in the British national corpus”. In: Bogaards, P. and B. Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: selection, acquisition and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–13.10.1075/lllt.10.03natSearch in Google Scholar

Nation, P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524759Search in Google Scholar

Özsoy, A.S., M. Kelepir, D. Nuhbalaoğlu and E. Hakgüder. 2014. “Commands in Turkish Sign Language”. 言語研究 (Gengo Kenkyu) 146. 13–30.Search in Google Scholar

Philips, B. 1984. “Word frequency and the actuation of sound change”. Language 60, 320-342.10.2307/413643Search in Google Scholar

Quer, J. and M. Steinbach. 2019. “Handling sign language data: the impact of modality”. Frontiers in psychology 10. 483.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00483Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, P. and R. Garside. 2000. “Comparing corpora using frequency profiling”. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Comparing Corpora. Association for Computational Linguistics. 1–6.10.3115/1117729.1117730Search in Google Scholar

Schembri, A., J. Fenlon, R. Rentelis, S. Reynolds and K. Cormier. 2013. “Building the British sign language corpus”. Language Documentation & Conservation 7. 136–154.Search in Google Scholar

Slobin, D.I. 2008. “Breaking the molds: Signed languages and the nature of human language”. Sign Language Studies 8(2). 114–13010.1353/sls.2008.0004Search in Google Scholar

Sloetjes, H. and P. Wittenburg. 2018. ELAN (version 5.2). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Retrieved from <https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/>.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1983. “How language structure space”. In: Pick H.L. and L.P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press. 225–282.10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Vinson, D.P., K. Cormier, T. Denmark, A. Schembri and G. Vigliocco. 2008. “The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity”. Behavior Research Methods 40(4). 1079–1087.10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, E. 2016. “Finding frequency effects in the usage of NOT collocations in American Sign Language”. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1). 82–123.10.1075/sll.19.1.03wilSearch in Google Scholar

Zeshan, U. 2006. “Negative and interrogative structures in Turkish Sign Language (TİD)”. In Zeshan U. (ed.) Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. 128–164.10.26530/OAPEN_453832Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, G.K. 1945/1949. Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing co.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

Rank order of 300 frequent signs in TİD (approx. 69 percent of the signs in the TİD corpus).

Rank ID-gloss N Per (1000) % Database % Cumulative
1 PT:PRO1 8398 81.5 8.15% 8.15%
2 PT:PRO2/3 5729 55.6 5.56% 13.71%
3 PT:LOC 1494 14.5 1.45% 15.16%
4 GO 1333 12.9 1.29% 16.45%
5 KNOW 1157 11.2 1.12% 17.57%
6 HAVE 1133 11.0 1.10% 18.67%
7 TO BE 1088 10.6 1.06% 19.73%
8 HAVE-NOT 1032 10.0 1.00% 20.73%
9 WHAT 939 9.1 0.91% 21.64%
10 DEAF1/2 873 8.5 0.85% 22.49%
11 UNDERSTAND 844 8.2 0.82% 23.31%
12 LOOK 801 7.8 0.78% 24.09%
13 GOOD 783 7.6 0.76% 24.85%
14 SAY 759 7.4 0.74% 25.59%
15 SIGN 705 6.8 0.68% 26.27%
16 YES1 687 6.7 0.67% 26.94%
17 GIVE 685 6.6 0.66% 27.60%
18 COME 677 6.6 0.66% 28.26%
19 DO1/2 661 6.4 0.64% 28.90%
20 FOR 589 5.7 0.57% 29.47%
21 FATHER 560 5.4 0.54% 30.01%
22 OLD 498 4.8 0.48% 30.49%
23 SAME-LOC 496 4.8 0.48% 30.97%
24 ALL-LOC 489 4.7 0.47% 31.44%
25 FINISH 481 4.7 0.47% 31.91%
26 PALM-UP:WELL 479 4.6 0.46% 32.37%
27 DIFFICULT 476 4.6 0.46% 32.83%
28 SPEAK-2PERSON 470 4.6 0.46% 33.29%
29 WANT 455 4.4 0.44% 33.73%
30 NEVER 455 4.4 0.44% 34.18%
31 MOTHER 439 4.3 0.43% 34.60%
32 EAT/FOOD 437 4.2 0.42% 35.03%
33 PERSON 433 4.2 0.42% 35.45%
34 SCHOOL 421 4.1 0.41% 35.85%
35 NAME1/2 419 4.1 0.41% 36.26%
36 SHOULD 417 4.0 0.40% 36.66%
37 CAR 414 4.0 0.40% 37.06%
38 NOW 403 3.9 0.39% 37.45%
39 MONEY 379 3.7 0.37% 37.82%
40 SEE 378 3.7 0.37% 38.19%
41 LOVE 376 3.6 0.36% 38.55%
42 WORK1 370 3.6 0.36% 38.91%
43 YEAR 369 3.6 0.36% 39.26%
44 HEAD 359 3.5 0.35% 39.61%
45 N:ONE 349 3.4 0.34% 39.95%
46 NOT 345 3.3 0.33% 40.28%
47 TELEPHONE 342 3.3 0.33% 40.61%
48 VERY 334 3.2 0.32% 40.94%
49 N:THREE1 331 3.2 0.32% 41.25%
50 FRIEND 328 3.2 0.32% 41.57%
51 TAKE 326 3.2 0.32% 41.89%
52 PUT 320 3.1 0.31% 42.20%
53 SPECIAL 314 3.0 0.30% 42.50%
54 SELF 313 3.0 0.30% 42.80%
55 COMFORTABLE 299 2.9 0.29% 43.09%
56 WATCH 297 2.9 0.29% 43.38%
57 WRITE 290 2.8 0.28% 43.66%
58 BEFORE1/2 287 2.8 0.28% 43.94%
59 GIRL 281 2.7 0.27% 44.21%
60 BOOK1/2 272 2.6 0.26% 44.48%
61 ALWAYS 258 2.5 0.25% 44.73%
62 DOCTOR 255 2.5 0.25% 44.98%
63 TRUE 253 2.5 0.25% 45.22%
64 OKAY 250 2.4 0.24% 45.46%
65 MORE 250 2.4 0.24% 45.71%
66 FULL 246 2.4 0.24% 45.95%
67 PROBLEM 245 2.4 0.24% 46.18%
68 HOME 242 2.3 0.23% 46.41%
69 FAMILY 239 2.3 0.23% 46.65%
70 EXPLAIN 237 2.3 0.23% 46.88%
71 SENTENCE 232 2.3 0.23% 47.10%
72 N: FOUR 230 2.2 0.22% 47.32%
73 LITTLE 226 2.2 0.22% 47.54%
74 MUST 225 2.2 0.22% 47.76%
75 LATER 223 2.2 0.22% 47.97%
76 TOGETHER 219 2.1 0.21% 48.19%
77 EVERYBODY 219 2.1 0.21% 48.40%
78 CAN 218 2.1 0.21% 48.61%
79 TIME 216 2.1 0.21% 48.82%
80 AS IF/LIKE 215 2.1 0.21% 49.03%
81 CALL 215 2.1 0.21% 49.24%
82 TRAVEL 212 2.1 0.21% 49.44%
83 SICK1/2 210 2.0 0.20% 49.65%
84 ACCORDING TO 207 2.0 0.20% 49.85%
85 WORK2 206 2.0 0.20% 50.05%
86 HAPPEN 203 2.0 0.20% 50.24%
87 THINK 200 1.9 0.19% 50.44%
88 TEACHER1/2 197 1.9 0.19% 50.63%
89 SUPER 192 1.9 0.19% 50.82%
90 ROAD 191 1.9 0.19% 51.00%
91 FIND 179 1.7 0.17% 51.17%
92 IMPORTANT 176 1.7 0.17% 51.34%
93 ASK 176 1.7 0.17% 51.51%
94 BUT 176 1.7 0.17% 51.68%
95 STOP2 171 1.7 0.17% 51.85%
96 FILM 171 1.7 0.17% 52.02%
97 PLACE 163 1.6 0.16% 52.17%
98 WATER 162 1.6 0.16% 52.33%
99 INTERPRETER 159 1.5 0.15% 52.48%
100 DIFFERENCE 156 1.5 0.15% 52.64%
101 LESS 156 1.5 0.15% 52.79%
102 CL:GO-PERSON 155 1.5 0.15% 52.94%
103 N:TWO 155 1.5 0.15% 53.09%
104 BROTHER 153 1.5 0.15% 53.23%
105 HEAR 152 1.5 0.15% 53.38%
106 READ 151 1.5 0.15% 53.53%
107 GROUP 150 1.5 0.15% 53.67%
108 NEW 150 1.5 0.15% 53.82%
109 WAIT 148 1.4 0.14% 53.96%
110 EDUCATION 148 1.4 0.14% 54.11%
111 LEARN 148 1.4 0.14% 54.25%
112 WRONG 147 1.4 0.14% 54.39%
113 AGE 144 1.4 0.14% 54.53%
114 ENTER 142 1.4 0.14% 54.67%
115 MARRY 142 1.4 0.14% 54.81%
116 PARTNER 138 1.3 0.13% 54.94%
117 SIT 135 1.3 0.13% 55.08%
118 PAPER 134 1.3 0.13% 55.21%
119 GET USED TO 134 1.3 0.13% 55.34%
120 WALK 133 1.3 0.13% 55.46%
121 COMMUNICATION 132 1.3 0.13% 55.59%
122 FOR EXAMPLE 129 1.3 0.13% 55.72%
123 BE QUIET 129 1.3 0.13% 55.85%
124 MUCH 128 1.2 0.12% 55.97%
125 CANNOT 128 1.2 0.12% 56.09%
126 DAY 126 1.2 0.12% 56.21%
127 PLAY 125 1.2 0.12% 56.33%
128 PAST 125 1.2 0.12% 56.45%
129 LEAVE 124 1.2 0.12% 56.57%
130 EASY 123 1.2 0.12% 56.69%
131 AIRPLANE 122 1.2 0.12% 56.81%
132 SOMETHING 121 1.2 0.12% 56.93%
133 VARIOUS 120 1.2 0.12% 57.05%
134 RESCUE 119 1.2 0.12% 57.17%
135 THAT'S WHY 119 1.2 0.12% 57.29%
136 GOD 118 1.1 0.11% 57.40%
137 N:SECOND 117 1.1 0.11% 57.51%
138 WHERE 112 1.1 0.11% 57.62%
139 TELEVISION 111 1.1 0.11% 57.73%
140 MINUTE 111 1.1 0.11% 57.84%
141 NO 111 1.1 0.11% 57.95%
142 APPROPRIATE 110 1.1 0.11% 58.06%
143 COUNTRY 108 1.0 0.10% 58.16%
144 CL: SHORT-THIN 108 1.0 0.10% 58.26%
145 COMPUTER 108 1.0 0.10% 58.36%
146 FACE 108 1.0 0.10% 58.46%
147 MONTH 107 1.0 0.10% 58.56%
148 VOTE 105 1.0 0.10% 58.66%
149 END 105 1.0 0.10% 58.76%
150 TO BE PLEASED 105 1.0 0.10% 58.86%
151 FIRST 104 1.0 0.10% 58.96%
152 WIN 104 1.0 0.10% 59.06%
153 PT: POSS2/3 104 1.0 0.10% 59.16%
154 NOT TO BOTHER 103 1.0 0.10% 59.26%
155 SPORT 100 1.0 0.10% 59.36%
156 SEA 98 1.0 0.10% 59.46%
157 UNIVERSITY 97 0.9 0.09% 59.55%
158 N:THREE2 97 0.9 0.09% 59.64%
159 TOURISM 96 0.9 0.09% 59.73%
160 ENJOY 95 0.9 0.09% 59.82%
161 AND 94 0.9 0.09% 59.91%
162 BE CAREFUL 93 0.9 0.09% 60.00%
163 PT:BACK-LOC 93 0.9 0.09% 60.09%
164 DIE 91 0.9 0.09% 60.18%
165 ADVERTISEMENT 91 0.9 0.09% 60.27%
166 TEST 90 0.9 0.09% 60.36%
167 WHY 89 0.9 0.09% 60.45%
168 OPEN 88 0.9 0.09% 60.54%
169 PT:PRO-PL2/3 88 0.9 0.09% 60.63%
170 TASTE 88 0.9 0.09% 60.72%
171 SLEEP 86 0.8 0.08% 60.80%
172 HAPPY 85 0.8 0.08% 60.88%
173 REMEMBER 84 0.8 0.08% 60.96%
174 FORGET 84 0.8 0.08% 61.04%
175 STAY 83 0.8 0.08% 61.12%
176 HOW 82 0.8 0.08% 61.20%
177 BATTLE 82 0.8 0.08% 61.28%
178 SUPPORT 82 0.8 0.08% 61.36%
179 COLLEGE 81 0.8 0.08% 61.44%
180 REASON 80 0.8 0.08% 61.52%
181 QUICK 80 0.8 0.08% 61.60%
182 FREE 80 0.8 0.08% 61.68%
183 CULTURE 80 0.8 0.08% 61.76%
184 EYE 79 0.8 0.08% 61.84%
185 GOVERNMENT 79 0.8 0.08% 61.92%
186 CL: PERSON-PASS BY 78 0.8 0.08% 62.00%
187 LITTLE-AGE 77 0.7 0.07% 62.07%
188 PUNCH 77 0.7 0.07% 62.14%
189 FISH 77 0.7 0.07% 62.21%
190 MORAL 77 0.7 0.07% 62.28%
191 MUSLIM 77 0.7 0.07% 62.35%
192 PT: HERE-LOC 76 0.7 0.07% 62.42%
193 HEAD/CHAIRMAN 75 0.7 0.07% 62.49%
194 SO 74 0.7 0.07% 62.56%
195 HOLD 74 0.7 0.07% 62.63%
196 HOW MANY 74 0.7 0.07% 62.70%
197 DAMAGE 74 0.7 0.07% 62.77%
198 BE SATISFIED 73 0.7 0.07% 62.84%
199 RELAX 73 0.7 0.07% 62.91%
200 FEAR 72 0.7 0.07% 62.98%
201 NEWS 71 0.7 0.07% 63.05%
202 HOPEFULLY 71 0.7 0.07% 63.12%
203 CL:FLAT-HALF 71 0.7 0.07% 63.19%
204 SURPRISE 71 0.7 0.07% 63.26%
205 ASSOCIATION 71 0.7 0.07% 63.33%
206 DISABLED 71 0.7 0.07% 63.40%
207 ELECTION 71 0.7 0.07% 63.47%
208 LUCK 70 0.7 0.07% 63.54%
209 GET BORED 69 0.7 0.07% 63.61%
210 PAY 69 0.7 0.07% 63.68%
211 SCREEN 69 0.7 0.07% 63.75%
212 TRAFFIC 69 0.7 0.07% 63.82%
213 NIGHT 69 0.7 0.07% 63.89%
214 RESEARCH 69 0.7 0.07% 63.96%
215 PHOTOGRAPH 68 0.7 0.07% 64.03%
216 CHANGE 68 0.7 0.07% 64.10%
217 Turkish 68 0.7 0.07% 64.17%
218 ARRIVE 68 0.7 0.07% 64.24%
219 CL:HEAVY 67 0.6 0.06% 64.30%
220 SECURITY 67 0.6 0.06% 64.36%
221 N: FIRST 67 0.6 0.06% 64.42%
222 HARD 66 0.6 0.06% 64.48%
223 START 66 0.6 0.06% 64.54%
224 COME ON 66 0.6 0.06% 64.60%
225 IMPOSSIBLE 65 0.6 0.06% 64.66%
226 SINGLE 65 0.6 0.06% 64.72%
227 GUEST 65 0.6 0.06% 64.78%
228 AT ONCE1 64 0.6 0.06% 64.84%
229 GRADUATE 64 0.6 0.06% 64.90%
230 PLEASURE 64 0.6 0.06% 64.96%
231 N: THIRD 64 0.6 0.06% 65.02%
232 MAN1 63 0.6 0.06% 65.08%
233 ARM 63 0.6 0.06% 65.14%
234 WHO 63 0.6 0.06% 65.20%
235 DOOR 63 0.6 0.06% 65.26%
236 CLASSROOM 62 0.6 0.06% 65.32%
237 SUBTITLE 62 0.6 0.06% 65.38%
238 EAR 62 0.6 0.06% 65.44%
239 BRIDGE 62 0.6 0.06% 65.50%
240 AGAIN 62 0.6 0.06% 65.56%
241 ANYWAY 62 0.6 0.06% 65.62%
242 GROW UP 61 0.6 0.06% 65.68%
243 CAMERA 61 0.6 0.06% 65.74%
244 HEART 61 0.6 0.06% 65.80%
245 ALSO 61 0.6 0.06% 65.86%
246 LACKING 61 0.6 0.06% 65.92%
247 EMPTY 60 0.6 0.06% 65.98%
248 GRANDFATHER 60 0.6 0.06% 66.04%
249 EXPERT 60 0.6 0.06% 66.10%
250 MISTAKE 60 0.6 0.06% 66.16%
251 TOPIC 60 0.6 0.06% 66.22%
252 CL:SMALL 59 0.6 0.06% 66.28%
253 SON 59 0.6 0.06% 66.34%
254 DISTANT 59 0.6 0.06% 66.40%
255 OUTSIDE 58 0.6 0.06% 66.46%
256 WEEK 58 0.6 0.06% 66.52%
257 BEAT 58 0.6 0.06% 66.58%
258 CHAT 57 0.6 0.06% 66.64%
259 CHOOSE 57 0.6 0.06% 66.70%
260 REMOTE CONTROL 57 0.6 0.06% 66.76%
261 CL:SHOW 56 0.5 0.05% 66.81%
262 CL:PAINTING 56 0.5 0.05% 66.86%
263 BIRTH 56 0.5 0.05% 66.91%
264 TIME 55 0.5 0.05% 66.96%
265 BUS 55 0.5 0.05% 67.01%
266 WEATHER 55 0.5 0.05% 67.06%
267 CL: MEET 55 0.5 0.05% 67.11%
268 CHILD 54 0.5 0.05% 67.16%
269 THANKSGIVING 54 0.5 0.05% 67.21%
270 LONG 54 0.5 0.05% 67.26%
271 BAN 54 0.5 0.05% 67.31%
272 MAYBE 54 0.5 0.05% 67.36%
273 IDEA 54 0.5 0.05% 67.41%
274 N: ZERO 54 0.5 0.05% 67.46%
275 LOVE 54 0.5 0.05% 67.51%
276 WONDER 53 0.5 0.05% 67.56%
277 INCREASE 53 0.5 0.05% 67.61%
278 COME TO MIND 53 0.5 0.05% 67.66%
279 MUNICIPAL 53 0.5 0.05% 67.71%
280 BAD 53 0.5 0.05% 67.76%
281 SEND 52 0.5 0.05% 67.81%
282 MORNING 52 0.5 0.05% 67.86%
283 BE SAD 52 0.5 0.05% 67.91%
284 SO AND SO 52 0.5 0.05% 67.96%
285 SOUND 51 0.5 0.05% 68.01%
286 MAN2 51 0.5 0.05% 68.06%
287 SHOUT 51 0.5 0.05% 68.11%
288 NEAR BY 51 0.5 0.05% 68.16%
289 POLICE 51 0.5 0.05% 68.21%
290 PT:UP-LOC 51 0.5 0.05% 68.26%
291 NECESSARILY 51 0.5 0.05% 68.31%
292 AT ONCE2 50 0.5 0.05% 68.36%
293 BECAUSE OF 50 0.5 0.05% 68.41%
294 DECIDE 50 0.5 0.05% 68.46%
295 ESCAPE 49 0.5 0.05% 68.51%
296 JUSTICE 49 0.5 0.05% 68.56%
297 RUN 49 0.5 0.05% 68.61%
298 READY 49 0.5 0.05% 68.66%
299 MESSAGING 49 0.5 0.05% 68.71%
300 PT:OTHER-LOC 49 0.5 0.05% 68.76%
Published Online: 2021-12-09
Published in Print: 2021-12-20

© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Downloaded on 13.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2021-0022/html
Scroll to top button