Codeswitching and generative grammar: A critique of the MLF model and some remarks on “modified minimalism”

Abstract

This article presents an empirical and theoretical critique of the Matrix Language Frame (MLF) model (Myers-Scotton, 1993; Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2001), and includes a response to Jake, Myers-Scotton and Gross's (2002) (JMSG) critique of MacSwan (1999, 2000) and reactions to their revision of the MLF model as a “modified minimalist approach”. The author argues that although a new structural definition of the Matrix Language (ML) makes the MLF model falsifiable, its empirical predictions are inconsistent with the facts of codeswitching (CS). The author also identifies significant theoretical problems associated with the MLF model, and suggests that it be rejected on empirical and theoretical grounds, and on grounds of scientific parsimony. In addition, the author contends that JMSG's critique of the Minimalist approach to CS rests on conceptually significant misreadings of published research in CS and in the theory of syntax, and that JMSG fail to motivate their central claim, namely, that a Minimalist approach to CS cannot succeed without incorporating the ML construct. It is further shown that an analysis of the CS facts which JMSG consider as their test case may be straightforwardly pursued within the Minimalist Program without appealing to the ML construct or any other aspect of the MLF model. The author concludes with the recommendation that research on CS depart from the formulation of general CS-specific constraints like the MLF model and engage in the task of analyzing language contact phenomena in terms of independently motivated constructs of linguistic theory.

Language Mixing and Diachronic Change: American Norwegian Noun Phrases Then and Now

“…See [1] for discussion of these terms and how they relate to each other. From a formal perspective, there are two main ways of approaching and analyzing language mixing: to posit special constraints to account for mixing data [29,30], or to assume that mixing is constrained by the same principles as monolingual speech [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. In the literature, the latter approach is referred to as a Null Theory [31] or constraint-free approach to language mixing [33].…”

“…These approaches are all motivated by monolingual data, meaning that they are not specially designed to handle language mixing, but do nevertheless prove to be good analytical tools for bilingual grammars. The specific model employed in the current article relates mainly to the works by Borer [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], Åfarli [44], Lohndal [46,47], and Marantz [38,39]. Additionally, the current approach also incorporates insights from Distributed Morphology (DM), e.g., [49][50][51], especially concerning the process of late insertion, which I will discuss below.…”

Demystifying Language Mixing: Spanglish in School

“…In the code-switching literature, this is usually referred to as the base or matrix language. Myers-Scotton (1993) proposed a code-switching model that explains the grammatical union of the matrix and embedded languages; however, not all linguists are in agreement about this characterization of the grammar of code-switching (MacSwan, 2005). Because Spanglish includes, but is broader than, code-switching, I've opted to couch my description as a sociolinguistic one by drawing a parallel with the evolution of a Creole.…”

Code-Switching by Phase

“…The only account that we are aware of is MacSwan's [40]. His proposal is that the auxiliary haber 'have' triggers restructuring while estar 'be' does not.…”