Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:15:40.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Coactivation: The portmanteau constructions in bilingual grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2016

RAKESH M. BHATT*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
*
Address for correspondence: Dr. Rakesh Bhatt, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - Linguistics, 4080 FLB 707 S. Mathews Ave, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801, United States[email protected]

Extract

Goldrick, Putnam and Schwarz (Goldrick, Putnam & Schwarz) have offered an account that must delight all linguists who have spent an inordinate amount of their professional time working on understanding the grammar of bilingual language use – just how, and why, do bilinguals produce the utterances that they do. The computational approach Goldrick et al. propose blends the grammatical principles (of the optimality kind) with general processing constraints to yield patterns of code-mixing that may be sparse – the emergence of doubled elements in bilinguals’ utterances – but certainly needing an explanation. Their Gradient Symbolic Computation model is, in fact, the first robust account of the presence of doubled elements, i.e., an element of the utterance is doubled, appearing in both languages within a single utterance (see 1 below). Their account, however, does force them to make an important, but vulnerable, theoretical assumption: that grammatical principles can refer to language membership. It recalls, albeit obliquely, Belazi, Rubin and Toribio's much discussed ‘Language’ feature needed to mobilize their Functional Head Constraint (see Bhatt, 1997, for an empirical and theoretical critique of the Functional Head Constraint).

Type
Peer Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azuma, S. (1993). The frame-content hypothesis in speech production: Evidemce from intra-sentential codeswitching. Linguistics 31. 10711093.Google Scholar
Belazi, H., Rubin, E., & Toribio, A. (1994). Code switching and X-bar theory: The Functional Head Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 25/2, 221237.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. M. (1997). Code-switching and the Functional Head Constraint. World Englishes, 16.1. 171176.Google Scholar
Nishimura, M. (1985). Intrasentential code-switching in Japanese/English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar