Building verbs in language mixing varieties

Αλεξιαδου, Αρτεμισ

doi:10.1515/zfs-2017-0008

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are essentially two types of language mixing theories: those that posit special machinery to handle mixing data and those that do not. 3 The latter are the so-called null theories or constraint-free theories, see, e.g., Mahootian (1993), MacSwan (1999;, González-Vilbazo & López (2011;, Pierantozzi (2012), Bandi-Rao & Den Dikken (2014), Grimstad et al (2014), Åfarli (2015a), Merchant (2015), and Alexiadou (2017).…”

Section: Theories Of Language Mixingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Grimstad

Riksem

Lohndal

et al. 2018

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents empirical evidence that disfavors using highly lexicalist minimalist models, such as the one presented in Chomsky (1995), when analyzing language mixing. The data analyzed consist of English – Spanish mixed noun phrases discussed in Moro (2014) as well as English – Norwegian mixed noun phrases and verbs taken from the Corpus of American Norwegian Speech. Whereas the lexicalist model in Chomsky (1995) only can explain a subset of the mixing patterns attested in both authentic English – Spanish mixed noun phrases and the American Norwegian corpus, we show that an alternative exoskeletal model can account for all of them. Such a model would entail that rather than assuming lexical items with inherent, functional features that determine the derivation, syntactic structures are generated independently from the lexical items that come to realize them.

show abstract

Section: Theories Of Language Mixingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Grimstad

Riksem

Lohndal

et al. 2018

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This asymmetry, which has also recently been reviewed in Alexiadou and Lohndal (2018), supports the examples discussed in section Review of Foundational Research on Intraword Codeswitching; it seems to be the case that mixed words can be composed of roots from L A and affixes from L B but that the reverse is not possible. This asymmetry is attested/claimed for language pairs, such as Spanish/German (González-Vilbazo and López, 2011), Telugu/English (Bandi-Rao and den Dikken, 2014), Greek/English and Greek/German (Alexiadou, 2017), French/Dutch (Treffers-Daller, 1993), Spanish/English (Stefanich and Cabrelli Amaro, 2018a), and Norwegian/English (Grimstad et al, 2014;Riksem et al, 2019).…”

Section: (12)mentioning

confidence: 96%

The Morphophonology of Intraword Codeswitching: Representation and Processing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper serves as a critical discussion of the phenomenon of intraword code-switching (ICS), or the combining of elements (e. g., a root and an affix) from different languages within a single word. Extensive research over the last four decades (Poplack, 1988; Myers-Scotton, 2000; MacSwan, 2014) has revealed CS to be a rule-governed speech practice. While interword CS is widely attested, intraword code-switching has been argued to be impossible (Poplack, 1980; Bandi-Rao and den Dikken, 2014; MacSwan and Colina, 2014). However, ICS has recently been documented in language pairs ranging from English/Norwegian (Alexiadou et al., 2015) to Nahuatl/Spanish (MacSwan, 1999) to Greek/German (Alexiadou, 2017), and is a robust phenomenon. We review the foundational research on ICS, followed by an examination of the phenomenon from the perspectives of knowledge and skill. First, we examine intraword CS as part of a bilingual's I-language to determine the morphological and phonological restrictions on the phenomenon. We operationalize these restrictions within a Distributed Morphology (DM) framework (e.g., Halle and Marantz, 1994) in which the traditional lexicon is split into three lists. List 1 contains lexical roots and grammatical features or feature bundles, while Lists 2 and 3 detail instructions for phonological realization (i.e., rules for Vocabulary Insertion) and semantic interpretation, respectively. Here we probe the question of whether words which have morphological mixing also have phonological mixing. Second, building on the DM machinery, we present an account for intraword CS in performance via the modular cognitive performance framework of MOGUL (Sharwood Smith and Truscott, 2014). This modular architecture assumes (a) that lexical items are constituted by chains of representations and (b) that extra-linguistic cognitive mechanisms (e.g., goals, executive control) play a role in ICS (Green and Abutalebi, 2013). ICS is licensed by a bilingual mode of communication (following Grosjean, 2001) where the act of CS itself serves an illocutionary goal; it is the real-world context which triggers the complex CS system. Thus, viewing intraword CS as an I-language and an E-language phenomenon provides an explanatory model of the dynamic knowing that and knowing how which is manifest in the phenomenon of ICS.

show abstract

“…The only articles that we are aware of that use phases productively are [3][4][5]. This is despite the eloquent argumentation proposed by Mahootian [6] and MacSwan [7] that any restrictions we find on code-switching should be accounted for using the same tools that we use to account for any other phenomenon of linguistic competence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This is because after feature inheritance, C has no uninterpretable features that need to be valued or checked and Full Interpretation requires that it be removed. 5 In embedded interrogatives, the interpretable [Q] feature ensures that the C remains present in the next phase.…”

Section: The Principle Of Functional Restrictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Later research has shown that this restriction is too strong. There are a number of examples in the literature of apparent code-switching within the word: 6 5 Chomsky suggests that the uninterpretable phi-features and EPP of T are in fact inherited from C [23]. The notion of feature inheritance is introduced in [23] as a way to solve an apparent paradox of this system: (i) syntactic dependencies emanate from phase heads and (ii) T establishes syntactic dependencies although it is not a phase head.…”

Section: Switches Within the Wordmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Code-Switching by Phase

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We show that the theoretical construct "phase" underlies a number of restrictions on code-switching, in particular those formalized under the Principle of Functional Restriction (González-Vilbazo 2005) and the Phonetic Form Interface Condition (MacSwan and Colina 2014). The fundamental hypothesis that code-switching should be studied using the same tools that we use for monolingual phenomena is reinforced.

show abstract

Building verbs in language mixing varieties

Cited by 24 publications

References 23 publications

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches to language mixing

The Morphophonology of Intraword Codeswitching: Representation and Processing

Code-Switching by Phase

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About