Scholars working on bilingual acquisition commonly assume that it involves acquiring two separate, autonomous systems. This chapter shows that the argument presented for this assumption, based on 'functional separation' is misguided. In particular, it is shown that the MDM model can handle functional separation without difficulty. Work on syntactic coactivation and priming supports the integrated hypothesis. If there is a processing cost to code-switching, it comes about as a result of disengaging one of the languages, not as a result of engaging a new system.

Ths chapter introduces MacSwann’s (1999) model. It is a minimalist framework within separationist assumptions to the extent that it is claimed that the bilingual has two lexicons and two PFs. The chapter also presents two empirical challenges to this model: mixed selection and noun classes. Mixed selection refers to the empirical fact that an item from “one lexicon” may select for an item in “the other” lexicon. Under the label “noun classes,” I show that an English noun can be inserted into a Swahili discourse, in the process acquiring a noun class. Both these well-known features of code-switching are empirical problems for any theory that posits separate lexicons. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of Multiple Grammar Theory highlighting the points of contact and divergence with the integrationist approach.

This chapter makes an initial presentation of the 1Lex hypothesis. It is shown that the mixed selection and noun class puzzles disappear if there is only one lexicon. It is followed with a discussion of how the lexicon of a biingual must be organized and the possibility of competition at the vocabulary insertion point. It also explores some of the consequences of the hypothesis for our understanding of borrowing, loan translation, and syntactic transfer.

This chapter introduces the theoretical assumptions that ground the analyses in later chapters. I refer to this model as MDM: Minimalist Distributed Morhpology. It presents a minimalist syntax with emphasis on phases as cycles of syntactic derivation. Roots and categories are separated as distinct syntactic nodes and roots are reanalyzed as indices that link an Encyclopedia item with an exponent. Morpholoy is realizational, with an important role for impoverishment rules and vocabuary insertion rules. Code switching data is used to present these assumptions. The third module of the model is the Encyclopedia, where minimal syntactic structures find conceptual meaning.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to dative case. It starts by listing a number of theta-roles with which dative case-marking is closely associated, such as recipient, benefactive, malefactive, goal and experiencer. Examples from different languages are provided. Additional uses of the dative are then discussed, such as: dative arguments of modal predicates, possessive dative, co-referential dative constructions (CDCs), ethical dative, affected dative and the use of the dative that creates a reduced agentivity effect. The discussion covers the arguments that are considered to constitute dative subjects, relates to the question of their syntactic status, and addresses certain subject case alternations. Syntactic and semantic analyses of the dative are then considered, including the empty preposition approach, the applicative head analyses, and accounts based on binary features, such as [+/−c] (causes change) and [+/−m] (mental state is relevant).

Chapter 5 deals with (asymmetric) differential object marking (DOM), a phenomenon occurring in over 300 languages whereby the object of a verb can be either marked or unmarked for morphological case, depending on a number of factors. These factors have to do with the individuation/prominence of the object, often its definiteness, specificity and animacy value. The chapter begins with illustrations of the phenomenon in several languages, showing its sensitivity to different properties of the object. The reasoning behind DOM is then discussed. Two specific proposals are considered: one treats DOM as a signal of higher transitivity; the other views it as a disambiguation mechanism whereby a non-prototypical object is marked and, as a result, not confused with the subject. In addition to features of the object, properties of the verb have been argued to play a role in DOM; this relation is considered in a separate section. Further, several cross-linguistic analyses of the phenomenon are reviewed.

Chapter 6 is dedicated to the non-canonical genitive case-marking on objects in Balto-Slavic languages, concentrating primarily on Russian facts. It deals with the genitive/accusative alternation on direct objects and, to a lesser degree, the genitive/nominative alternation on subjects. First, Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive are discussed. The two phenomena, which involve genitive case-assignment to the object of a negated or intensional verb, are unified under the term Irrealis Genitive. The chapter considers those properties that affect the choice of case, including definiteness, scope, number, abstractness, and a range of syntactic and semantic analyses that have been proposed to account for the case alternations. Second, we take a look at Partitive Genitive. Here, the genitive object is interpreted quantificationally, indicating an indeterminate amount of the matter denoted by the noun. Characteristics of the phenomenon, such as homogeneity of the object and perfectivity of the verb, are listed, and two accounts are considered: one positing that the non-canonical genitive is assigned by a phonologically empty quantifier and the other treating genitive objects as nominal measure predicates. The chapter also discusses the relation between non-canonical genitive case and DOM.

Chapter 1 is devoted to an introduction into the topic of case in general and its relation to semantics in particular. It illustrates a range of case alternations in different languages, showing, on the intuitive level, the ways in which the form of the noun affects sentential meaning. The inherently relational nature of case is discussed, and the distinction is made between abstract, morphological and morpho-syntactic case. The chapter further addresses the classification of cases into structural/configurational, inherent, lexical and semantic. Examples of several case systems in different languages of the world are provided, and the distinction between ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative languages is introduced. The chapter also briefly illustrates the interrelation between case-marking and theta-role assignment, a phenomenon that is familiar primarily from the literature on inherent case. Finally, the structure of the following chapters is outlined.

Chapter 3 deals with the topic of spatial case. It considers the range of spatial notions which can be reflected in the case system of a language, including configuration, directionality and distality. A particular emphasis is placed on Nakh-Daghestanian languages, which are characterized by especially rich spatial case systems. The question is raised as to whether an empty adposition analysis is appropriate for such languages. Does the case-marker make a truth-conditional contribution by specifying a certain spatial relation, or is this function fulfilled by a functional element which is present in the structure but not phonologically realized? The chapter also considers non-spatial uses of spatial cases, specifically, instances of metaphorical extension and reduced agentivity. Finally, we take a look at the interrelation between overt spatial prepositions and case-assignment in a number of Indo-European languages.