Gardner-Chloros , p. Fotopoulou cites Greek-German examples where no inflection is added to the German noun and the determiner comes from Greek:.
- Manufacturing consent over Distributed Morphology | Word Structure.
- Moving Pieces: Book I: Shadows.
- Navigation menu;
- Download Limit Exceeded.
- OLAOLU Years of Daily Discovery.
- Fancy Nancy: Tea Parties.
Goula observes similar cases of mixing in Greek-English, which she tested experimentally. When the morphology of the noun is not adapted, the determiner may come from Greek. She moreover notes that sometimes the determiner bears default gender, e. Goula shows that the translation equivalence choice was preferred in the comprehension task, while the default choice was preferred in the production task. Alexiadou , b proposes the structure in 21 : gender and inflection class information are on n.
In fact, the nominal mixing data support the view that neither gender is a property of roots, as argued for in detail in Kramer nor inflection class, as they can be freely assigned structurally. In this section, we will consider word-internal mixing in a variety whereby German and Spanish are mixed. Before we turn to the verbal and nominal domains, a brief note about the data is in order. They report that the data come from the German School of Barcelona. This school consists of between 1, and 1, students who from an early age generally have a high exposure to both languages.
This multilingual environment, much like other multilingual environments, make use of language mixing. In word internal mixing, speakers are able to combine a Spanish root with a German verbal inflection, as shown in However, these same bilinguals reject a word made up of a German root and a Spanish verbal inflection. Furthermore, v bears unvalued features for conjugation class.
In order to value this feature, V-to-v movement needs to take place. Crucially, German verbs do not carry a specification for conjugation class. Therefore, it cannot be the case that a German verbal root could incorporate into a v that is specified for conjugation class. However, a Spanish verbal root can be embedded and incorporate into a German v because this v is unspecified for conjugation class, as in 25b.
The light v is always realized with the Spanish verb in 25a. The singular marking suggests that they are not Spanish nouns as they should end in - a. He argues that this case is different from that of verbal mixing: In the verbal mixing there is overt verbalizing morphology, e. This affix creates a German verbal stem to which further German affixes can be added. This is not the case in the nominal domain. The Greek mixing data seen in the previous section further support this. There is no overt nominalizing morphology present. We note that within Distributed Morphology, this intermediate step is not necessary: Little n is the nominalizer and carries all inflection.
From this perspective, in Spanish-German the direction of affixation is as shown in Put differently, Spanish functional material is able to combine with a German root. In 29 , the gender of the article corresponds to the gender of the German noun. As Spanish lacks neuter, all German nouns that are neuter are preceded by the Spanish masculine article, which is the default gender in the language. This latter case is more complex. In other words, this group preserves its gender. In the case of masculine Spanish nouns, the only articles that are allowed are those that are syncretic for masculine and neuter.
As a result, indefinite determiners are preferred, as shown in 31a.
- Star Wars Clone Wars Jedi in Training (DK Readers Level 2)!
- Bards and Sages Quarterly (July 2013)?
- Fecondazione assistita e conseguenze legali (Italian Edition).
- What He Demands - What He Wants 2 - My Alpha Billionaire: A New Adult Romance?
- Elogio del Happy End (Premio Terenci Moix) (Spanish Edition).
- Topic Modeling Genre: An Exploration of French Classical and Enlightenment Drama.
- Topic Modeling!
- Partizipation als Instrument einer nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung (German Edition).
- Child of Brii: A Novel of the Sayan;
The only exception discussed involves genitive case, where no switch is allowed, although both masculine and neuter indefinite articles bear the same form, 31b. As Spanish lacks case morphology, genitive German inflection is blocked from appearing on a Spanish noun. This contrast suggests to us that not only gender but also case inflection is on n, as argued for Greek in Alexiadou b , and see Anagnostopoulou a for a general claim on the relationship between n and case. Since n is Spanish, no case morphology can appear there and concord is blocked:. In the next section, we turn to a different pair of languages, namely English and Norwegian.
In this section, we will consider mixing of varieties where Norwegian is one of the languages.
American Norwegian is a heritage language of Norwegian. It is spoken in North America, mainly in the United States. Its speakers today are descendants of immigrants who came from Norway approximately from the s until the s. This makes American Norwegian a minority language which exists in a language community significantly dominated by English. All American Norwegian speakers share the following characteristics: American Norwegian is their L1, and in many cases this was their only language up until school age.
In recent decades, all speakers of American Norwegian have been heavily English-dominant, resulting in significant lexical access issues when speaking American Norwegian. This means that they often display a mixture of the two languages, making their speech ideal for studying language mixing Grimstad, ; Riksem, Haugen conducted the first large-scale investigation of American Norwegian.
He provides examples like the following. More recently, the establishment of the Corpus of American Nordic Speech Johannessen, has generated a lot of new work on American Norwegian see e. In particular, Grimstad et al. These speakers are all between 70 and years of age and constitute probably the last generation of American Norwegian speakers. The following discussion will be based on data from Riksem et al. The main language can be argued to provide the overall grammatical structure, including more or less all derivational and inflectional morphology.
In many cases, the lexical items also come from the main language, but when they do not, they come from the secondary language. Riksem et al. The former is illustrated in 35 and the latter in In the verbal cases, we see that an English item can acquire both the infinitival form, the present tense and the past tense see Eide and Hjelde, for more on tense in American Norwegian. Crucially, the English roots do not have any grammatical features. Rather, features are merged in the functional spine and morphophonological exponents come to realize them.
Explorations In Nominal Inflection (Interface Explorations)
An abstract structure for the American Norwegian noun phrase can be illustrated in 37 Riksem et al. In this structure, definiteness, number, and gender are all encoded on one functional projection. It could also be that gender is encoded on n Alexiadou, , a ; Kramer, , this particular choice does not matter for present purposes.
The features then combine with the root to yield the actual exponent, as shown in A similar logic underlies verbal mixing. In general, then, we see that English roots can combine with Norwegian functional material to yield instances of word-internal mixing. Norwegians generally have a high proficiency in English, in particular the younger generations. In Norway, it is well-known that they often mix English words into their Norwegian. A recent study by Sunde investigates a gaming community, which is a community where English is especially important.
Based on oral and spoken data, Sunde argues that Norwegian is clearly the matrix language in Myers-Scotton sense, as it is the language contributing the morphosyntactic frame. That is, Norwegian determines the order of morphemes and functional morphology. One example of this is provided in 40 ; the translation into English is ours Sunde, , p. Sunde , p. Some of her examples are given in Turning to word-internal mixing in the nominal domain, Sunde , p.
DEF in inventory. DEF my.
Again, we see that the lexical items can come from English whereas the morphology comes from Norwegian. The same analysis as Riksem et al. No further assumptions need to be made. The data are based on acceptability judgments. They observe an asymmetry similar to the one we have observed for other pairs discussed above when looking at a mixing variety of English-Telugu: Only Telugu roots can combine with English - ify.
It is not possible for an English root to combine with the Telugu - inc affix, as the contrast between 43 and 44 shows. NOM me. The authors attribute this to the fact that Telugu affix is an incorporator, while the English affix is not.
They relate this to English systematically disallowing incorporation into verbal heads. For example, English does not allow 45 but instead makes use of If incorporation were to take place in 44 , an ill-formed head at PF would be the result, assuming that mixing below the head-level is banned MacSwan, , , a claim Bandi-Rao and den Dikken endorse. Thus, it is avoided. By contrast, the Telugu root and the English affix only come together as a unit at PF, i. For American Norwegian, the root can be either Norwegian or English, but we generally do not find a Norwegian root with English inflection Grimstad, ; Grimstad et al.
This is also the case in the nominal domain. Furthermore, Telugu displays an asymmetric pattern whereby Telugu roots can combine with English functional morphology but English roots cannot appear together with Telugu functional morphology. The following table offers an overview of the patterns seen in our survey.
One potential answer to this question is to suggest that the asymmetries we observe are simply an effect of the main language. In other words, the morphosyntactic spine comes from the language whose affixes the speakers employ, i. However, it is important to clarify what we mean by main language. For instance, Myers-Scotton , and Jake et al. A matrix language is the main language of the speaker and it has a grammatical correlate: It is responsible for word order and for providing functional morphemes. The embedded language can provide lexical items. Scholars have extensively discussed the predictions and factual accuracy of the matrix language model see MacSwan, , pp.
Evidence that this may be problematic as a general answer is provided by the Telugu cases since there, it is the secondary language that provides the functional morphology.