To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This paper presents a comparative evaluation of Word Grammar (WG), the Minimalist Programme (MP), and the Matrix Language Frame model (MLF) regarding their predictions of possible combinations in a corpus of German–English mixed determiner–noun constructions. WG achieves the highest accuracy score. The comparison furthermore revealed a difference in accuracy of the predictions between the three models and a significant difference between WG and the MP. The analysis suggests that these differences depend on assumptions made by the models and the mechanisms they employ. The difference in accuracy between the models, for example, can be attributed to the MLF being concerned with agreement in language membership between the verb and the subject DP/NP of the clause. The significant difference between WG and the MP can be attributed to the distinct roles features play in the two syntactic theories and how agreement is handled. Based on the results, we draw up a list of characteristics of feature accounts that are empirically most adequate for the mixed determiner–noun constructions investigated and conclude that the syntactic theory that incorporates most of them is WG (Hudson 2007, 2010).
This paper argues that a set of codeswitching data has implications for the nature of cognitive control in bilingualism and for models of language production in general. The data discussed are Embedded Language (EL) nonfinite verbs that occur in Matrix Language (ML) frames with appropriate ML inflectional morphology in some codeswitching (CS) corpora. Notably EL infinitives are involved, as in wo mu conçevoir be nuɖe . . . “they don't imagine that something . . .” (from Ewe–French CS). The main argument is that such nonfinite forms are selected because they only need checking at the lexical-conceptual level of abstract structure with the speaker's intended semantic-pragmatic meaning. That is, they do not project information about syntactic and argument structure that is included in the abstract structure of finite verbs. Nonfinite EL verbs occur because they better satisfy the speaker's intentions regarding semantic and pragmatic meaning than NL finite verbs. The employment of nonfinite EL verbs instead of EL finite verbs partially explains why codeswitching in general and such verb phrases in particular is perceived as fast and effortless. How one lexical entry (the EL nonfinite verb) can take on the morphosyntactic role of another one (the ML finite verb) implies flexibility in cognitive control at an abstract level. It also implies a certain malleability at an abstract level in the ML morphosyntactic frame that makes it possible to take in a nonfinite verb in a slot for a finite verb.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.