Paralexification in language intertwining (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reduplication in the English word-formation system
Eurasion Journal of Philology: Science and Education, 2022
The article is dedicated to the relevance of the study is due to the fact that interdisciplinary theoretical studies in English and Kazakh linguistics make it possible today to determine the main directions related to translation, to determine the need to select specific patterns for adequate translation of materials in these languages, within the framework of general and particular linguistics. Clarification of the data of scientific research puts before scientists new ways of solving various issues in this area. In this regard, the methods and ways of transferring bilingual words into the Kazakh language create a number of prerequisites that are the basis of a number of valuable studies. There is no doubt that the adequacy of the transmission of paired English words and the definition of their equivalents in the Kazakh language are one of the urgent and complex problems facing linguistics today. Our study pays considerable attention to the peculiarities of their translation, which are the connecting link of literary and cultural ties and development between different peoples. Despite the fact that there are certain achievements in the field of translation, we still cannot deny the theoretical and practical significance of studying various works in this area. Therefore, work on the consideration of transformational models for the translation of paired words in English, although it does not completely eliminate the tasks set, an attempt to make a certain contribution in the search for solutions in this direction takes place. Given the numerous scientific works and modern works, there is an acute need to analyze scientific research on the specifics of paired words in foreign languages, including in English and the ways of their translation into Kazakh, which contribute to the strengthening and development of ties between the literature and culture of our country and other peoples. Key words: reduplication, semantics, functionality, word formation, expression, vocabulary, sociolinguistics, general linguistics, comparison.
On the marginality of lexical blending
Linguistics, 2008
In spite of a recent surge of interest in it, blending remains among the most poorly understood and elusive word formation processes. What almost everybody seems to be agreed on is that, although it appears to be attested in many languages, it is doubtlessly a marginal morphological process. However, a closer look at crosslinguistic data reveals that there are striking differences between individual languages concerning the degree of its marginality. The goal we set ourselves in the present paper is to motivate the observed cross-linguistic differences by discussing two clusters of factors that may play an important role in making blending more or less marginal, i.e. serve as functional prerequisites for the spread of blends. One of these are certain constructional traits of the languages involved. What we primarily have in mind here is the prominence of the constructional schemas for two other word formation processes-compounding and clipping. The other cluster of factors involved here has to do with the dynamics and flexibility in the lexicon, viz. the speed with which foreign lexemes are adapted and become near-native elements of the lexical stock. Our claim is that the less open and flexible a language is in this respect, the more marginal the blends that are found (if any) will tend to be.
L1 transfer in L2 word formation
Introduction Compounding is a word formation processes together with inflection and derivation. The product of compounding is a word structure consisted of two major constituents each of which belong to the category of either a N(oun), an A(djective), a V(erb) or a P(reposition). Cross-linguistic studies have revealed that the majority of compounds are right-headed, i.e. the rightmost compound constituent carries the important grammatical characteristics of the newly formed word (Selkirk 1982). 1 In other words, the rightmost constituent determines the phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic features of the compound. Compounding has been extensively dealt with theoretically for Greek and other languages (
Cognition, 2021
This study asks if monolinguals can resolve lexical interference within a language with mechanisms similar to those used by bilinguals to resolve interference across languages. These mechanisms are known as bilingual language control, are assumed to be at least in part top-down, and are typically studied with cued language mixing, a version of which we use here. Balanced (Experiment 1) and nonbalanced Spanish-English bilinguals (Experiment 2) named pictures in each of their languages. English monolinguals from two different American cities (Experiments 3 and 4) named pictures in English only with either basic-level (e.g., shoe) or subordinate names (e.g., sneaker). All experiments were identically structured and began with blocked naming in each language or name type, followed by trial-level switching between the two languages or name types, followed again by blocked naming. We analysed switching, mixing and (introduced here) post-mixing costs, dominance effects and repetition benefits. In the bilingual experiments, we found some signs of dominant deprioritization, the behavioral hallmark of bilingual language control: larger costs for dominant-than for nondominant-language names. Crucially, in the monolingual experiments, we also found signs of dominant deprioritization: larger costs for basiclevel than for subordinate names. Unexpectedly and only in the monolingual experiments, we also found a complete dominance reversal: Basic-level names (which otherwise behaved as dominant) were produced more slowly overall than subordinate names. Taken together, these results are hard to explain with the bottom-up mechanisms typically assumed for monolingual interference resolution. We thus conclude that top-down mechanisms might (sometimes) be involved in lexical interference resolution not only between languages but also within a language.
The Phenomena of Interlanguage Interference at the Morphemic Level
International Journal of English Linguistics, 2016
The phenomena of language interference at the morphemic level as a type of grammatical interference were not accepted by the linguists who considered morphological interference impossible. However, there are linguists who claim that in language contacts morphological systems of languages affect each other and they consider it quite acceptable. Divergences in morphological systems of contacting languages cause morphological interference in bilinguals' speech. Morphological peculiarities of contacting languages explain the reason of such deviations. Morphemes are two-sided units which are identified by the unity of phonetic or exponential (expository) and semantic features. Due to major differences in morphological structures of English and Azerbaijani languages, Azerbaijani students confuse English morphemes with the morphemes in their native language that is reflected in the phenomena of morphemic interference in their speech. So, in the study of morphemic interference it is significant to consider the types of contacting languages that is the basis of typological research in condition of bilingualism and language contacts.
Bilingual compound processing: The effects of constituent frequency and semantic transparency
Two lexical decision experiments were designed to address the effects of frequency and semantic transparency of the constituent morphemes in bilingual compound processing. In Experiment 1, the frequency of the second constituent morphemes and the lexicality of the translated compounds in the non-target language were manipulated. A significant interaction in RT data between the constituent frequency and the lexicality of the non-target language was revealed: the lexicality effect of the non-target language was stronger for compounds with high-frequency second constituents compared to those with low-frequency ones. In Experiment 2, the semantic transparency of the constituents of the target language, the lexicality of the non-target language, and the second language (L2) proficiency of the participants were manipulated. A significant three-way interaction was found: for the high-proficient group, there was a lexicality effect for opaque words but not for transparent words. For the low-proficient group, no interaction was found between semantic transparency and the lexicality of the non-target language. Taken together, these findings provided evidence for compound decomposition, cross-language activation in bilingual mental lexicon, and for the mediator role of L2 proficiency.
The Morphophonology of Intraword Codeswitching: Representation and Processing
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.
A source of parametric variation in the lexicon
Linguistica, 2016
An influential conjecture concerning parameters is that they can possibly be “restricted to formal features of functional categories” (Chomsky 1995: 6). In Rizzi (2009, 2011) such features are understood as instructions triggering one of the following syntactic actions: (1) External Merge; (2) Internal Merge (Move); (3) Pronunciation/Non pronunciation (the latter arguably dependent on Internal Merge – Kayne 2005a, b). In this article I consider a particular source of parametric variation across languages in the domain of the lexicon (both functional and substantive) which appears to be due to the possibility of underspecifying certain features in some languages. The paradigmatic variation can be characterized as follows: language A has two (or more) lexical items which correspond to just one lexical item in language B.