Cover not available
Article published In:
Epistemological issue: The importance of features and exponents: Dissolving Feature Reassembly
Edited by Cristina Flores and Neal Snape
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1] 2024
► pp. 1–36

The importance of features and exponents

Dissolving Feature Reassembly

 | Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
ORCID logo | Pennsylvania State University | University of Greenwich (CREL)
Formal approaches to bi- and multilingual grammars rely on two important claims: (i) the grammatical architecture should be able to deal with mono- and bi-/multilingual data without any specific constraints for the latter, (ii) features play a pivotal role in accounting for patterns across and within grammars. In the present paper, it is argued that an exoskeletal approach to grammar, which clearly distinguishes between the underlying syntactic features and their morphophonological realizations (exponents), offers an ideal tool to analyze data from bi- and multilingual speakers. Specifically, it is shown that this framework can subsume the specific mechanism of Feature Reassembly developed by Donna Lardiere since the late 1990’s. Three case studies involving different languages and language combinations are offered in support of this claim, demonstrating how an exoskeletal approach can be employed without any additional constraints or mechanisms.
Keywords: exoskeletal, exponent, feature, Feature Reassembly, late-insertion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1Feature reassembly
    • 2.2Exoskeletal approaches to grammar
  • 3.Feature reassembly ‘dissolved’: An exoskeletal approach to bilingual grammars
  • 4.Case studies
    • 4.1The L2 acquisition of number marking in Korean and Indonesian
    • 4.2L2 acquisition of Chinese imperfective markers
    • 4.3Definiteness in Norwegian heritage language
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.23023.loh
References (148)
References
Aboh, E. O. (2009). Competition and selection. In E. O. Aboh & N. Smith (Eds.), Complex processes in new languages (pp. 113–170). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars: Language Contact and Change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Our creolized tongues. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, Y. Reshef, & M. Taube (Eds.), Language contact, continuity and change in the genesis of Modern Hebrew (pp. 287–320). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Lessons from neuro-(a)-typical brains: Universal multilingualism, code mixing, recombination, and executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, T. A. (2007). Do verbs have argument structure? In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument Structure (pp. 1–16). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2014). Roots don’t take complements. Theoretical Linguistics, 40 1, 287–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Building verbs in language mixing varieties. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 36 1, 165–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2015). External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T. (2018). Units of language mixing: A cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). From the Origins of Government and Binding to the Current State of Minimalism. In N. Allott, T. Lohndal & G. Rey (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Chomsky (pp. 25–51). John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in press). Grammatical gender in syntactic theory. In N. Schiller & T. Kupisch (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Classifiers. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. (1992). Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Lundquist, B., & Westergaard, M. (2018). Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21 1, 748–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Baal, Y. (2020). Compositional definiteness in American heritage Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.
(2022). New Data on Language Change: Compositional Definiteness in American Norwegian. Heritage Language Journal, 19 1, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. (1981). The Indo-European Lexicon. North-Holland.Google Scholar
(1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Blix, H. (2021). Phrasal Spellout and Partial Overwrite: On an alternative to backtracking. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 6 1, 621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20 1 (pp. 1–30). GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
(2003). Exo-skeletal vs. Endo-skeletal Explanations: Syntactic Projections and the Lexicon. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 31–67). CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
(2005a). Structuring Sense, Volume 1, In Name Only. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005b). Structuring Sense, Volume 2, The Normal Course of Events. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Structuring Sense, Volume 3, Taking Form. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The Category of Roots. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax (pp. 112–148). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The Generative Word. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (pp. 110–133). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. R., & Hale, J. T. (2019). Hierarchical structure guides rapid linguistic predictions during naturalistic listening. PLOS One, 14 (1), e0207741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Cinque, G. (2006). Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University and MIT. [Revised version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975.]Google Scholar
(1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creemers, A. (2020). Morphological processing and the effects of semantic transparency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19 (1), 158–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
di Sciullo, A., & Williams, E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., Natvig, D., Pretorius, E., Putnam, M. T., & Schuhmann, K. S. (2022). Why is inflectional morphology difficult to borrow? – Distributing and lexicaling plural allomorphy in Pennsylvania Dutch. Languages, 71, 86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2005). Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of v. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Inquiries (pp. 95–120). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frasson, A. (2022). The syntax of subject pronouns in heritage languages: Innovation and complexification. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
Fruchter, J., & Marantz, A. (2015). Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the Full Decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language, 143 1, 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, L. (2009). Numeral classifiers and the structure of DP. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Getz, H., Ding, N., Newport, E. L., & Poeppel, D. (2018). Cortical tracking of constituent structure in language acquisition. Cognition, 181 1, 135–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M. T., & Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (5), 857–876. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin Davies, A. J. (2018). Morphological representations in lexical processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A. (2014). Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: A case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. Nordlyd, 41 1, 213–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimstad, M. B., Riksem, B. R., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A. (2018). Lexicalist vs. Exoskeletal approaches to language mixing. The Linguistic Review, 35 1, 187–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guo, Y. (2022). From a simple to a complex aspectual system: Feature reassembly in L2 acquisition of Chinese imperfective markers by English speakers. Second Language Research, 38 (1), 89–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gwilliams, L. (2019). How the brain composes morphemes into meaning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375 1: 20190311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1997). Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 233–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. (1997). Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), PF: Papers at the interface (Vol. 30 of MITWPL) (pp. 425–450). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 781, 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 257–268). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Language conflict in the brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18 (11), 2706–2716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hicks, G., & Domínguez, L. (2020). A model for L1 grammatical attrition. Second Language Research, 36 (2), 143–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelde, A. (1992). Trøndsk talemål i Amerika [The Trønder variety of Norwegian in America]. Tapir.Google Scholar
Huang, C., Li, Y., & Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, S. H. (2012). The acquisition of Korean plural marking by native English speakers. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
Hwang, S. H., Lardiere, D. (2013). Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research, 29 1, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2017). In defense of theory. Cognitive Science, 41 1, 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. (2015). The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). In B. Megeysi, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics 231.Google Scholar
Krauzka, A., & Lau, E. (2023). Moving away from lexicalism in psycho- and neuro-linguistics. Frontiers in Language Science, 2 1:1125127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2014). Speech planning in two languages: What bilinguals tell us about language production. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferriera, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 165–181). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapointe, S. (1980). A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the ‘fossilization’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14 1, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998b). Disassociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14 1, 359–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). On morphological competence. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004) (pp. 178–192). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 107–140). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2009). Some thoughts on a contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25 1, 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Detectability in feature reassembly. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 41–63). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. (2015). L2 acquisition of number marking: A bidirectional study of adult learners of Korean and Indonesian. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
Lee, E., & Lardiere, D. (2016). L2 acquisition of number marking in Korean and Indonesian: A feature-based approach. In D. Stringer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015) (pp. 113–123). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2019). Feature reassembly in the acquisition of plural marking by Korean and Indonesian bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9 ( 1 ), 73–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Zobl, Z., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.) (2008). The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Routledge.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2020). Born to parse. How children select their languages. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, J. (2002). Aspectual selection and temporal reference of the Chinese aspectual marker zhe . Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, 32 1, 257–296.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. (2012). Without specifiers: Phrase structure and argument structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
(2013). Generative grammar and language mixing. Theoretical Linguistics, 39 1, 215–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Phrase structure and argument structure: A case-study of the syntax semantics interface. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Neodavidsonianism in semantics and syntax. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (pp. 287–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(to appear). The exoskeletal model. In A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz, & I. Oltra-Massuet (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press.
Lohndal, T., & Putnam, M. T. (2021). The Tale of Two Lexicons: Decomposing Complexity across a Distributed Lexicon. Heritage Language Journal, 18 1, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Expanding structures while reducing mappings: Morphosyntactic complexity in agglutinating heritage languages. In M. Polinsky & M. T. Putnam (Eds.), Formal approaches to complexity in heritage languages. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, J., & Westergaard, M. (2019). Heritage language acquisition: What it reveals and why it is important for formal linguistic theories. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13 1, e12357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López, L. (2020). Bilingual Grammar: Toward an Integrated Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(to appear). Distributed Morphology and Bilingualism. In A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz, & I. Oltra-Massuet (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press.
MacSwan, J. (1999). A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. Garland Press.Google Scholar
(2000). The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3 ( 1 ), 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Code switching and linguistic theory. In T. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 223–250). Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2014). Programs and proposals in codeswitching research: Unconstraining theories of bilingual language mixing. In J. MacSwan (Ed.), Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching (pp. 1–33). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahootian, S. (1993). A null theory of code switching. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Marantz, A. (2013a). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua, 130 1, 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (7), 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meilinger, A., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Parallel processing in language production. Language, Cognition, & Neuroscience, 29 1, 663–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. (2017). Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, E. (2021). The oscillatory nature of language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Natvig, D. A., Putnam, M. T., & Lykke, A. K. (2023). Stability in the integrated bilingual grammar: Tense exponency in North American Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Natvig, D. A., Pretorius, E., Putnam, M. T., & Carlson, M. T. (to appear). A spanning approach to bilingual representations: Initial exploration. In B. R. Page & M. T. Putnam (Eds.), Contact varieties of German: Studies in honor of William D. Keel. John Benjamins.
Opitz, A., Regel, S., Müller, G., & Friederici, A. D. (2013). Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language, 89 (2), 231–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oseki, Y., & Marantz, A. (2020). Modeling human morphological competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 1:513740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2019). Exfoliation: towards a derivational theory of clause size. Ms., MIT. Available from [URL]
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). Forward models and their implications for production, comprehension, and dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (4), 377–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. (2005). Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P. (1997). Truncation in Second Language Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000a). Accounting for morphological variability in second language acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection? In M.-A. Friedmann & L. Rizzi (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax (pp. 202–235). Longman.Google Scholar
(2000b). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16 1, 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T. (2020). One feature – one head: Features as functional heads in language acquisition and attrition. In P. Guijaaro-Fuentes & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), New trends in language acquisition within the generative perspective (pp. 3–26). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T., Carlson, M., & Reitter, D. (2018). Integrated, not isolated: Defining typological proximity in an integrated multilingual architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 1, 2212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T., Perez-Cortes, S., & Sánchez, L. (2019). Language attrition and the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis. In M. S. Schmid & B. Köpke (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition (pp. 18–24). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. C. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. C., & Svenonius, P. (2014). Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences, 461, 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments (pp. 97–134). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Riksem, B. R. (2017). Language Mixing and Diachronic Change: American Norwegian Noun Phrases Then and Now. Languages, 2 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Language mixing in American Norwegian noun phrases: An exoskeletal analysis of synchronic and diachronic patterns. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). DOI logo
Riksem, B. R., Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., & Åfarli, T. A. (2019). Language mixing within verbs and nouns in American Norwegian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 22 1, 189–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 151–177). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L. (2019). Bilingual alignments. Languages, 4 1, 821: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and Events. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Seyboth, M., & Domahs, F. (2023). Why do he and she disagree: The role of binary morphological features in grammatical gender agreement in German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. First view: Published online 16 January 2023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2009). Features or parameters: Which one makes second language acquisition research easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25 ( 2 ), 313–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2021). Second language acquisition. In N. Allott, T. Lohndal, & G. Rey (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 222–231). Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Y., Do, Y., Thompson, A. L., Waegemaekers, E. R., & Lee, J. (2020). Second language uses exhibit shallow morphological processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(5), 1121–1136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockall, L., Manouilidou, C., Gwilliams, L., Neophyton, K., & Marantz, A. (2019). Prefix stripping re-re-revisited: MEG investigations of morphological decomposition and recomposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 1, 1964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugimoto, Y. (2022). Underspecification and (Im)possible Derivations: Toward a Restrictive Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Sugimoto, Y., & Baptista, M. (2022). A late-insertion-based exoskeletal approach to the hybrid nature of functional features in creole languages. Languages, 7 1, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2016). Spans and words. In H. Harley & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), Morphological metatheory (pp. 199–202). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57 (4), 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, E. (2021). Bilingual Implications: Using code-switching data to inform linguistic theory. Doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. (2014). Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2021). The syntax of number markers. In P. C. Hofherr & J. Doetjes (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number (pp. 164–196). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., & Juffs, A. (2022). Effects of L1 morphological type on L2 morphological awareness. Second Language Research, 38 (4), 787–812. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). How to describe inflection. In M. Niepokuj, M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 372–386). Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Aboh, Enoch O. & M. Carmen Parafita Couto
2024. Modelling multilingual ecologies beyond the L1-L2 Binary. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Alexiadou, Artemis
2024. Feature-exponence mapping in language contact. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Alexiadou, Artemis
2024. Double plural marking and the building blocks of nominals. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Domínguez, Laura & Glyn Hicks
2024. Feature Reassembly is concerned with syntax, but its main goal is to account for the (second) language acquisition process. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Gardani, Francesco
2024. Where are features?. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Gonzalez, Becky
2024. The role of the lexicon. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro & Francesco Romano
2024. Number feature within generative grammar and its acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Gürel, Ayşe
2024. A theory of Ln grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Inagaki, Shunji
2024. Transfer and learnability. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
Kramer, Ruth
2024. An exoskeletal approach to grammatical gender. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Leal, Tania & Elena Shimanskaya
2024. The power paradox in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Müller, Natascha
2024. From the child’s perspective. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo
Scontras, Gregory
2024. On the compatibility of models with experiments. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Sheehan, Michelle Louise
2024. Multilingual grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Thane, Patrick D.
2024. School, age, and exposure effects in the child heritage language acquisition of the Spanish volitional subjunctive. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.