Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLiceras, Juana M.
dc.contributor.authorMartínez, Capelo
dc.contributor.authorPérez Tattam, Rocío
dc.contributor.authorBorraz Perales, Susana
dc.contributor.authorFernández Fuertes, Raquel 
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-29T13:20:12Z
dc.date.available2019-11-29T13:20:12Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.citationLefebvre, Claire; White, Lydia; Jourdan, Christine (eds.). L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2006, p. 113-144es
dc.identifier.isbn9789027285249es
dc.identifier.urihttp://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/39668
dc.descriptionProducción Científicaes
dc.description.abstractLanguage contact which manifests itself as “code-mixing” constitutes a natural ground for investigating possible commonalities and differences between the L2 acquisition and pidginization/creolization processes. In this paper, we analyze spontaneous and experimental functional-lexical DP mixings in order to address the differences and similarities between the mental representation of language in the bilingual child, the bilingual adult and adult non-native language. Drawing a parallel with Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2001) proposal concerning the relationship between nominative case (nominative case is a T feature on D) and agreement (phi) (agreement is a D feature on T), we assume that Gender is an N feature on D and Gender Agreement is a D feature on N. This dichotomy allows us to make a number of predictions as to how the native and non-native mental representation of these features determines the directionality of code-switching (which language contributes the functional or the lexical category). We will argue that the comparative priorities for the specification of uninterpretable features in a given pair of languages that are already present in the emergent bilingual grammar are transferred to the adult bilingual grammar but do not show up in the case of the non-native grammar. We attribute this to the fact that adult native speakers do not process and internalize formal abstract features from input in the same way as children do (Liceras 2003). Thus, in the spirit of Bickerton (1984, 1996, 1999), we will argue that adults do not “create” language and, in this respect, adult non-native systems and pidgins may share a number of properties, as initially proposed by Schumann (1978) or Andersen (1983) and recently discussed by DeGraff (1999) and Winford (2003), among others. However, in the case of the pidgin/creole continuum, the non-native system will eventually become a native-like system as it develops into a creole, although due to the special language contact situation, some formal features may only make it into the creole system in cases where contact between the creole and the lexifier persists through several generations.es
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfes
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherJohn Benjaminses
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subject.classificationSegunda lengua - Adquisiciónes
dc.titleL2 Acquisition as a Process of Creolization: Insights from Child and Adult Code-Mixinges
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bookPartes
dc.rights.holder© 2006 John Benjaminses
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027285249-08lices
dc.description.projectMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades - Dirección General de Investigación Científica - FEDER (grant DGICYT #BFF2002- 00442)es
dc.description.projectSocial Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant SSHRC #410-2004-2034)es
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones
dc.subject.unesco5701.03 Bilingüismoes


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record