To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
Studies suggest that around 25% of the European population receive treatment for a chronic condition. As the population ages, the prevalence of chronic diseases increases, with an average of two per person in their mid-60s and three for those surviving to their mid-70s (Barnett et al., 2012). People with chronic diseases now form a sizeable proportion of all hospital admissions both elective and emergency. Once admitted to hospital, people with multiple complex conditions may require a long length of stay and place a significant demand on acute hospital services.
The chapter begins with a discussion of what word learning entails within a MDM framework. It then moves onto discussing psycholinguistic models of vocabulary acquisition, in particular Kroll and Stewart (1994), Pavlenko (2009), and Schonebaert et al. (2009). It is argued that the 1LEx MDM framework can provide insight into some of the empirical puzzles that motivate these models.
In Distributed Morphology, PF is the sequence of steps that a derivational chunk takes on its way to the externalization systems. This chapter argues that these steps are also integarated in the bilingual’s mind. The empirical evidence comes from clitic combinations in Catalan/Spanish and consonant mutation in English/Welsh. It is subsequently argued that even word order and prosodification are integrated. A section of the chapter is devoted to MacSwan and Colina’s (2014) ‘PF Interface Condition,’ which makes the prediction that one cannot code-switch within the word. I argue that code-switching does not obey this restriction and the phonological effects that lead to this conclusion follow from phase theory.
This chapter presents an extended discussion of gender assignment and gender concord in four code-switching varieties: Basque/Spanish, English/Spanish, Nahuatl/Spanish, and German/Spanish. The detailed discussion of these data provides extensive support for the 1Lex MDM model.
Does a bilingual person have two separate lexicons and two separate grammatical systems? Or should the bilingual linguistic competence be regarded as an integrated system? This book explores this issue, which is central to current debate in the study of bilingualism, and argues for an integrated hypothesis: the linguistic competence of an individual is a single cognitive faculty, and the bilingual mind should not be regarded as fundamentally different from the monolingual one. This conclusion is backed up with a variety of empirical data, in particular code-switching, drawn from a variety of bilingual pairs. The book introduces key notions in minimalism and distributed morphology, making them accessible to readers with different scholarly foci. This book is of interest to those working in linguistics and psycholinguistics, especially bilingualism, code-switching, and the lexicon.
This chapter explores recent work on code-switching and code-blending that work within theoretical paradigms similar to mine. Some of this work is couched within distributed morphology, while some other work uses soft constraints in the Optimality Theory tradition. The discussion provides additional context to the proposals in this monograph while emphasizing its novelty.
This chapter introduces the separationist approach to bilingualism and shows that its foundations are shaky. More generally, Creole continua argue that thinking of languages as discrete entities is a mistake. Code-switching involves integrating different types of linguistic material and establishing dependencies among them. The chapter also discusses methodological issues and argues that acceptability judgments of deep bilinguals are a good method to obtain data.
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.