Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T04:48:04.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending a Gradient Symbolic approach to the native versus non-native contrast: The case of plurals in compounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

JOÃO VERÍSSIMO
JOÃO VERÍSSIMO*
Affiliation:
Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism
*
Address for correspondence: João Veríssimo, Potsdam Research Institute for Multilingualism, University of Potsdam, Haus 2, Campus Golm, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24–25, 14476 Potsdam, Germanyjoao.verissimo@uni-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Gradient Symbolic Computation (GSC) model presented in the keynote article (Goldrick, Putnam & Schwarz) constitutes a significant theoretical development, not only as a model of bilingual code-mixing, but also as a general framework that brings together symbolic grammars and graded representations. The authors are to be commended for successfully integrating a theory of grammatical knowledge with the voluminous research on lexical co-activation in bilinguals. It is, however, unfortunate that a certain conception of bilingualism was inherited from this latter research tradition, one in which the contrast between native and non-native language takes a back seat.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , November 2016 , pp. 900 - 902
Check for updates
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

Berent, I., & Pinker, S. (2007). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint? The Mental Lexicon, 2, 129–181.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Gerth, S., Heyer, V., & Schott, E. (2015). Morphology constrains native and non-native word formation in different ways: Evidence from plurals inside compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 10, 53–87.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., & Schwartz, L. (2016). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000802.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. (2000). Compounding and the representation of L2 inflectional morphology. Language Learning, 50, 153–197.Google Scholar