Four types of morpheme: evidence from aphasia, code switching, and second-language acquisition

Abstract

This paper presents empirical evidence supporting a new model of morpheme classification called the 4-M model. This model emphasizes the notion that lemmas underlying different types of morphemes become salient at different levels of production. This explains their different distributions. While the 4-M model classifies morphemes, it is primarily a model of how morphemes are accessed. The argument is that particular instantiations of morphemes are classified as a consequence of the mechanisms that activate them. The evidence considered comes from studies of code switching, Broca's aphasia, and second-language acquisition. One finding that the 4-M model captures is that not all functional elements pattern alike. Some are conceptually activated at the level of the mental lexicon along with their contentmorpheme heads. Two other types of functional element are structurally assigned and do not become salient until later in the production process. These differences explain their different distributions in the data considered.

Single Word Insertions as Code-Switching or Established Borrowing?

“…The unit of analysis in the present study was based on the complementiser phrase (hereafter CP). According to the 4M model (Myers-Scotton & Jake, 2000), CP, the projection of the complement node is the unit of analysis for bilingual speech. In the current study, eight hours of spontaneous conversations were transcribed and were categorised in different tables.…”

The Bilingual Lemma Activation Model as a Comparative Approach to Codeswitching

“…Grosjean, 1997) and preverbal message (cf. Myers- Scotton & Jake, 1995, 2000a to be desired. If the speaker chooses the monolingual mode, no CS will occur; if the speaker chooses the bilingual mode, then he/she must decide whether intersentential or intrasentential CS should be performed.…”

The Appearance of Persian-English Compound Verbs in Persian Structure

“…Myers-Scotton (2000) mentioned that when bilingual compound verbs appear, the 'do construction' is the only way to use the bare infinitive of the EL verb in the ML structure. In a study about CS between Dutch-Turkish bilingual speakers, Backus (1996) showed that the Dutch infinitive verbs and the Turkish auxiliary yap appear together to make a bilingual compound verb.…”