32.3132, Review: Cognitive Science; Syntax: Lopez (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3132. Mon Oct 04 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.3132, Review: Cognitive Science; Syntax: Lopez (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 22:52:10
From: Dennis Ott [dennis.ott at post.harvard.edu]
Subject: Bilingual Grammar

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36710637


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-2631.html

AUTHOR: Luis  Lopez
TITLE: Bilingual Grammar
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Dennis Ott, University of Ottawa

SUMMARY

In the author’s own words, the slim book under review aims to provide “a first
approximation to understanding” how “multilingual individuals must navigate a
linguistic input of considerable complexity and eventually build up a
linguistic competence system in which the various [grammatical] features fit
in their proper place” (45). This modestly stated goal summarizes by the same
token the central theoretical claim of the monograph: multilingual speakers
possess a single, integrated competence system/I-language, as opposed to some
configuration of multiple, more or less encapsulated mental grammars. To make
this case, López largely focuses on code-switching (C-S) patterns in bilingual
speakers, drawing on a growing body of literature; parts of the discussion
synthesize and extend research by López and collaborators on C-S conducted in
the UIC Bilingualism Research Laboratory (https://brl.lab.uic.edu), which he
directs.

CHAPTER 1 introduces and motivates the claim that multilingual speakers have a
unified system of linguistic knowledge, as opposed to multiple fully or
partially independent grammatical systems. López argues against this latter,
“common-sense view” of multilingualism on both conceptual and empirical
grounds. While the individuation of “languages” is intuitively appealing, we
should not impute objective reality to such intuitions (López illustrates the
futility of counting languages with a discussion of post-Creole continua, but
of course the point stands more generally); and empirically, inter-linguistic
grammatical dependencies in code-switching (C-S)—where a lexical item from
“one language” enters into a syntactic relation with a lexical item from “the
other language,” e.g., when a Basque negation licenses a Spanish NPI (or vice
versa)—show that whatever codes are perceived to be involved, they are not
siloed systems. The best way to proceed, López argues, is on the basis of the
hypothesis that “the I-language of bilinguals is not substantially different
from [that of] monolinguals” (2).

CHAPTER 2 surveys the theoretical landscape and serves as a bridge to the
presentation of López’s own model. It begins with a discussion of
“separationist” models of multilingualism, i.e., theories that postulate two
(or more) encapsulated lexicons and/or phonological systems, as exemplified by
MacSwan’s work (e.g. 1999). López rejects these models on empirical grounds,
citing again the aforementioned cross-language dependencies in C-S, further
examples of which are provided in this chapter. He then goes on to sketch an
alternative model couched in Distributed Morphology, dubbed Minimalist
Distributed Morphology (MDM). On this integrationist model, multilingual
speakers have a unified linguistic competence system, which consists of
several lists related by the generative procedure: in addition to an invariant
inventory of conceptual items, one list contains grammatical features and
roots, another vocabulary-insertion rules (VIRs).

CHAPTER 3 develops López’s MDM model in greater detail and provides some
requisite background on general syntactic theory. His assumptions include the
idea that roots are assigned categories by “little-x” heads and that certain
heads constitute phase heads; specifically: C, Voice (distinct from the
categorizer v), and K(ase), the head of nominals. Building on prior joint work
with González-Vilbazo, López argues that these phase heads have a privileged
role in C-S, in that choice of the phase head determines properties of its
complement. For instance, choice of a “Spanish” light verb (= Voice) dictates
VO order in its complement VP, whereas choice of a “German” Voice head results
in OV order. López illustrates how the realizational MDM model can account for
C-S within nominals, specifically how a K-head from a concord-less language
combined with other nominal material from a concord language effects the
suppression of concord in the overall NP. The upshot of the discussion is that
multilingual speakers differ from monolinguals essentially only in degree, not
qualitatively: their I-language is a unitary system, which incorporates a
wider range of functional categories, VIRs, and postsyntactic operations
compared to “monolinguals”.

CHAPTER 4 develops in further detail the claim that multilingual competence is
rooted in a single, unified lexicon. López again draws on “mixed” dependencies
in C-S to argue against separate lexicons and describes how his unified MDM
model can account for these dependencies. The flipside of this productivity
are constraints on C-S, such as when it is observed that a Basque negation is
incompatible with Spanish INFL and vice versa; this is explained by the
differential feature structure of the two negators. A conceptual consequence
of the one-lexicon architecture is that there is no theoretically relevant
distinction between C-S and “borrowing” (as argued by some); these only remain
as “descriptive labels for what is the output of the same [generative
procedure]” (69). Specific case studies offered in this chapter concern the
occurrence of “gender transfer” when new roots are introduced into the
lexicon, and competition among functional items and inflectional affixes from
different “languages” in (rare) cases where there is no free variation (which
López surmises are due to different featural specifications of the items
involved and different application conditions of VIRs, respectively).

CHAPTER 5, the longest chapter of the book, presents a detailed case study of
gender and concord in Spanish/X C-S, including a Spanish/German amalgam dubbed
“Esplugish” and studied in great detail in González-Vilbazo 2005. This choice
of topics is particularly appropriate in view of the fact that gender and
concord phenomena constitute a rare area of C-S research that has been
investigated in quite some detail by different researchers, i.e., where the
empirical database is relatively solid (though not free from contradictory
findings, as López concedes). This allows López to demonstrate in detail the
workings and virtues of his MDM model, specifically the significant role
played by the Subset Principle in deriving surprising asymmetries in Esplugish
D–N collocation: while Spanish determiners happily combine with German nouns,
the inverse case is intricately constrained (discriminating between nominative
and non-nominative D-heads, among other factors). Conversely, López argues,
approaches that posit multiple separate lexicons—one per each
“language”—overpredict the combinatorial options, since this very architecture
precludes the possibility of competition.

CHAPTER 6 continues the elaboration of the MDM model, defending the idea that
even the phonological competence of multilinguals does not incorporate
separate “language”-specific subsystems, but is fully integrated. The chief
witnesses for this claim are cases where phonological properties of one
language are seemingly superimposed on lexical items from the other language,
e.g., when Spanish/Catalan speakers apply a distinctly “Spanish” rule for
clitic-cluster simplification to Catalan clitics, or when prosodic-phrasing
rules of Japanese are applied to a mixed Japanese/Brazilian Portuguese
utterance.

CHAPTER 7 begins an exploration of psycholinguistic issues that continues in
the following chapter. The chapter is devoted to lexical matters: from the
perspective of the MDM model, what does it mean to learn a word? In the
general case, López argues, this feat amounts to no more than the association
of a root with a concept and a phonetic form—or multiple such forms, in the
case of multilingual speakers. The acquisition of additional exponents is no
different from the general process of lexical acquisition and implies nothing
more than a single (distributed) lexicon. The remainder of the chapter adduces
psycholinguistic evidence for this conclusion and highlights drawbacks of
competing models.

CHAPTER 8 continues the psycholinguistic theme, focusing on matters of
acquisition and processing. The discussion centers on effects of
‘interference’ and ‘convergence’ (e.g., when US Spanish speakers use gerunds
as nominal modifiers, evidently an import from English), which, López argues,
bolster further the picture of a single, integrated grammatical system
underlying multilingual competence. This jibes with observations about C-S in
children, which, just like its manifestation in adult language, bears the
hallmarks of a single integrated system; this López takes to support the idea
that multilingual acquisition, too, is an integrated process (contrary to
separationist views). The chapter closes with a discussion of various claims
about the putative processing cost of C-S.

CHAPTER 9 presents a brief discussion of related works that subscribe to a
(more) lexicalist view of C-S, by way of which López also acknowledges
antecedents of his own non-lexicalist model. López then addresses the nature
of “code-blending,” where spoken and signed language are used simultaneously.
The discussion in this chapter mainly serves to highlight the fact that many
rather fundamental questions in code-switching/blending research remain at
present unsettled.

CHAPTER 10 summarizes the central claims and conclusions of the book and
contrasts them with prima facie similar ones reached in the context of
“translanguaging” research.

Two appendices conclude the book. APPENDIX A discusses previous approaches to
constraints on code-switching. APPENDIX B elaborates briefly on the
“post-Creole continuum” discussed in chapter 1.

EVALUATION

Despite its nominal brevity of about 200 pages, López’s book covers an
impressive amount of ground in the pursuit of (at least) three interrelated
goals. One is to argue against the traditional, common-sense based
separationist view of multilingualism. Another is to highlight the benefits of
a realizational model of morphosyntax for C-S research and provide specific
case studies to demonstrate its viability. The third, and perhaps most
important, goal is to extend an invitation to theoretical linguists to
discover the empirical treasure trove that is C-S and embrace it as a useful
analytical testbed, as opposed to some negligible deviation from the “ideal
speaker–hearer”. Judged by these goals, the book is undoubtedly an impressive
success.

López is to be commended for providing the first detailed articulation of the
manifold ways in which the traditional, separationist view of multilingualism
(in its various incarnations) is misguided. In fact, I believe a stronger
point can be made: the separationist view cannot even be coherently stated. On
the one hand, if we accept some individuation of languages/codes based on what
will necessarily be arbitrary criteria, we are led to recognize that we are
all massively multilingual. As once memorably emphasized by Chomsky in an
unorthodox context (https://youtu.be/fOIM1_xOSro?t=155): we constantly use
different codes in communication, e.g., when talking to our friends vs. our
grandparents. On the other hand, adopting a cognitive-internalist perspective
on language forces us to abandon talk of “languages” as though they were
actual objects in the world and instead define technical notions (such as
I-language) as descriptors of a scientifically identifiable reality. As
forcefully argued in Chomsky 2000 in the context of this and other confusions,
common sense does not beget metaphysics; categorization of linguistic
competence by means of mono-, bi-, and multi- prefixes remains as a mere
artifact, convenient in ordinary language use but with no place in linguistic
theory.

Once the focus is shifted to linguistic capacity, it follows, as highlighted
in the book’s conclusion, “that code-switching … is an epiphenomenon” (191).
As López is careful to point out, this recognition does not make C-S any less
interesting to the theorist; on the contrary, its study is no different from
investigations in any other grammatical system (compare the conventional
designation of a particular pattern of C-S as ‘Norwegian American’), but
enriched by experimental variables not proffered by the individual “languages”
involved when considered in isolation (see Hoot and Ebert 2021 for a pertinent
recent example)—viz., the many potential grammatical conflicts navigated by
the speaker in the use of C-S. The various case studies in this book make an
impressive case for how the focus on these conflicts and their resolution not
only serves the study of C-S, but can shine a new light on general theoretical
issues in the study of language, ranging from the micro level (e.g., gender
must be represented separately from the nominal root) to the macro level (a
realizational, DM-type model emerges as the superior framework for the study
of morphosyntax generally).

The epiphenomenal character of C-S entails that it should be investigated
using the same tried and tested methods that have advanced the study of
“monolingual” competence; López cogently supports the validity of data
obtained by introspection (as opposed to a dogmatic limitation to
naturalistic/corpus data) by pointing out that ultimately all information
about grammars is elicited in this way. Through no fault of his own, the
discussion reflects the current sparsity of such introspective evidence: key
tokens of data, summarized in the concluding chapter, recur throughout the
book; and more than once only a single datum or two is used to make a rather
sweeping point. How much the reader is willing to be moved by some of the
arguments developed here will thus depend in no small part on his or her
receptiveness for qualitative data without secured quantitative footing. For
this reason alone, my feeling is that López’s book may have more of an impact
on the theoretical-linguistics community than traditionally-minded
bilingualism researchers.

The only minor criticism I could level at López’s treatise is its somewhat
unbalanced organization. Compared to the central chapters in which López’s
principal theoretical hypotheses are developed and applied, the later
psycholinguistic chapters have a bit of a “lit review” character, making at
times for a slightly tedious read. This impression is amplified by the fact
that it is not always clear that the studies discussed even focus on the same
object, as expressed by López in a caveat that opens Chapter 8 to caution the
reader that “what I call ‘syntax’ and what the psycholinguistics literature
calls ‘syntax’ are often quite different things” (146). Particularly striking
in this respect is Chapter 9’s discussion of ‘code-blending’, the—sometimes
only partially congruent—bimodal use of signed and spoken language: to my
mind, it is not obvious that the phenomenon even falls within the purview of a
competence model (as opposed to performance; an issue that López addresses in
a different context [182]). Relatedly, in the discussion of the cognitive
“cost” incurred by C-S, López’s integrationist view is said to predict “that
stopping code-switching should entail the cost of inhibiting a system”; but
neither the notion of “cost” assumed here nor the relevant linking hypotheses
are sufficiently elaborated to permit an evaluation of this claim which, at
worst, could be read as a tacit admission of separationist premises. Finally,
the motivation for excluding the material contained in the two appendices from
the main text is obscure.

My impression is that additional discussion of the MDM architecture’s
predictions concerning the constrained productivity of C-S in various areas
would have strengthened López’s case more than the somewhat cursory discussion
in these later chapters. To be sure, the near-exclusive focus on morphosyntax
is well-motivated: it is this area of research where the most data are
available, allowing López to show the workings and benefits of his model most
perspicuously and in great technical detail. But there is a much broader range
of topics and questions where C-S may provide just the right testing ground to
enable genuine advances in understanding. To mention just two examples, there
has been woefully little research into movement dependencies and ellipsis in
C-S (with some notable exceptions, such as Ebert 2014 or González-Vilbazo and
Ramos 2018), despite obvious bearing on issues such as the copy theory of
movement and ellipsis parallelism. Particularly promising with regard to these
and other investigations are scenarios of diglossia involving languages
exemplifying opposite ends of a particular parametric spectrum, such as
different alignment systems and word order (as in the Basque/Spanish case),
where much is to be gleaned from the ways in which speakers resolve inevitable
grammatical conflicts arising between the “languages” involved. Perhaps the
book would have benefitted from casting a somewhat wider net by devoting
another chapter or two to outlining such avenues for future research, even if
relevant data are sparse at present.

The above remarks should not distract from the immense merits of this
monograph. It is high time that theoretical linguists embrace the empirical
riches offered by C-S, and this book may just be the nudge that sets the ball
rolling. López’s lucid discussion offers a glimpse into this new world, most
of which remains uncharted territory, furnishing a compelling illustration of
the ways in which C-S research can emancipate itself from the shackles of
traditional orthodoxy, to the great benefit of the study of language as a
whole.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. CUP.

Ebert, S. 2014. The morphosyntax of wh-questions: evidence from
Spanish–English code-switching. PhD dissertation, UIC.

González-Vilbazo, K. 2005. Die Syntax des Code-Switching. PhD dissertation,
University of Cologne.

González-Vilbazo, K. and S.E. Ramos. 2018. Codeswitching. In J. van
Craenenbroeck and T. Temmerman (eds), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. OUP.

Hoot, B. and S. Ebert. 2021. On the position of subjects in Spanish: evidence
from code-switching. “Glossa” 6(1), 73. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1449

MacSwan, J. 1999. A minimalist approach to intrasentential code-switching.
Garland.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dennis Ott is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the
University of Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses primarily on formal syntax;
specific interests include A'-movement, dislocation, ellipsis, head movement,
locality and connectivity effects, and the interaction of grammar and
pragmatics.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3132	
----------------------------------------------------------