Constructing interlanguage: building a composite matrix language

Treating interlanguage as language contact results in an explanatory account of second-language acquisition (SLA). The proposed model is informed by three sets of assumptions. First, lexical structure is composed of levels or substructures; the relevant levels are lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological-realization patterns (Talmy 1985; Jackendoff 1990; Myers-Scotton and Jake 1995). Second, the distinction between content and system (i.e. functional) morphemes, developed in the matrix language frame model of intrasentential code switching (Myers-Scotton 1993), determines how lexical items can contribute to building the interlanguage grammatical system. Two types of system morphemes are recognized: conceptually activated system morphemes and structurally assigned system morphemes (Bock and Levelt 1994 ; Jake and Myers-Scotton 1996). Finally, the matrix-language and embedded-language distinction structures interlanguage. In SLA an INTENDED matrix language, the target language, and a DE FACTO matrix language, the developing linguistic competence, are recognized. The L1 acts as an embedded language. Interlanguage structures are projected by lexical substructures of the three linguistic systems in contact. Principles structuring language contact and the nature of the grammatical elements projecting lexical structure determine what types of grammatical structures each system can contribute and how they are combined into a developing composite matrix language

[1]  G. L. Trager,et al.  Linguistics across cultures , 1957 .

[2]  S. P. Corder.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS , 1967 .

[3]  Jack C. Richards,et al.  Error analysis and second language strategies , 1971 .

[4]  William Nemser,et al.  APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS , 1971 .

[5]  Steven Abney,et al.  The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect , 1972 .

[6]  Marina K. Burt,et al.  GOOFING: AN INDICATOR OF CHILDREN'S SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES1 , 1972 .

[7]  Marina K. Burt,et al.  NATURAL SEQUENCES IN CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION1 , 1974 .

[8]  Carolyn G. Madden,et al.  IS THERE A “NATURAL SEQUENCE” IN ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING? , 1974 .

[9]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[10]  Fred R. Eckman,et al.  The pidginization process : a model for second language acquisition , 1980 .

[11]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[12]  Jürgen M. Meisel,et al.  On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition , 1981, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[13]  E. Tarone.  On the Variability of Interlanguage Systems , 1983 .

[14]  Irene Mazurkewich,et al.  THE ACQUISITION OF THE DATIVE ALTERNATION BY SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND LINGUISTIC THEORY , 1984 .

[15]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

[16]  Lydia White,et al.  THE “PRO-DROP” PARAMETER IN ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 1985 .

[17]  Joseph E. Emonds,et al.  A unified theory of syntactic categories , 1985 .

[18]  B. Levin,et al.  What to do with theta-roles , 1986 .

[19]  Sharon Hilles,et al.  Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter , 1986 .

[20]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  (1) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms; and , 1987 .

[21]  Gabriele Kasper,et al.  Variation in Interlanguage Speech Act Realization , 1988 .

[22]  David Birdsong.  Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence , 1989 .

[23]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[24]  F. Grosjean.  Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person , 1989, Brain and Language.

[25]  Edgar B. Zurif.  Language and the brain , 1990 .

[26]  S. Gass,et al.  Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition , 1990 .

[27]  J. Sadock.  Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations , 1990 .

[28]  J. Ouhalla.  Functional Categories and Parametric Variation , 1991 .

[29]  A. Friederici,et al.  Pronoun comprehension in aphasia: A comparison of three languages , 1991, Brain and Language.

[30]  J. Giacobbe.  A cognitive view of the role of L1 in the L2 acquisition process , 1992 .

[31]  Ad Backus,et al.  Patterns of language mixing : a study in Turkish-Dutch bilingualism , 1992 .

[32]  W. Klein,et al.  The acquisition of temporality , 1993 .

[33]  Clive Perdue,et al.  Adult language acquisition : cross-linguistic perspectives , 1993 .

[34]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Language production : Grammatical encoding , 1994 .

[35]  Janice L. Jake,et al.  Intrasentential code switching and pronouns: on the categorial status of functional elements , 1994 .

[36]  Lynn Eubank,et al.  The current state of interlanguage : studies in honor of William E. Rutherford , 1995 .

[37]  Janice L. Jake,et al.  Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and production model: evidence from intrasentential code switching , 1995 .

[38]  Ellen Bialystok.  Why we need grammar , 1995 .

[39]  Lynn Eubank,et al.  The current state of interlanguage: Introduction , 1995 .

[40]  Gita Martohardjono,et al.  Language transfer: What do we really mean? , 1995 .

[41]  Virginia Yip,et al.  I-interlanguage and typology , 1995 .

[42]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction , 1995 .

[43]  Theo Bongaerts,et al.  Verb Placement in L2 Dutch: A Double Case Study , 1995 .

[44]  Janet M. Fuller,et al.  When cultural maintenance means linguistic convergence: Pennsylvania German evidence for the Matrix Language Turnover hypothesis , 1996, Language in Society.

[45]  Carson T. Schütze.  The empirical base of linguistics , 2016 .

[46]  Arabic and Constraints on Codeswitching , 1996 .

[47]  Wayne Cowart,et al.  Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments , 1997 .

[48]  Joanne Sher Grumet,et al.  Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English By Virginia Yip (review) , 2015 .