Interlanguage Signs and Lexical Transfer Errors

INTERLANGUAGE SIGNS AND LEXICAL TRANSFER ERRORS Atle Ro Department of Linguistics and Phonetics University of Bergen ro@hLuib.no Abstract A theory of interlanguage (IL) lexicons is outlined, with emphasis on IL lexical entries, based on the HPSG notion of lexical sign. This theory accounts for idiosyncratic or lexical transfer of syntactic subcategorisation and idioms from the first language to the IL. It also accounts for developmental stages in IL lexical grammar, and grammatical variation in the use of the same lexical item. The theory offers a tool for robust parsing of lexical transfer errors and diagnosis of such errors. Introduction ~ Computational error diagnosis of second language (L2) input should be based on L2 acquisition theory. In this paper, I outline a theory of second language lexical items which can be exploited computationally for robust parsing and error diagnosis. L2 is interpreted as interlangnage (IL) in the sense of Selinker (1972). A unification-based lexicalist view of grammar is assumed (HPSG theory). The paper has the following outline: first lexical transfer is presented, then interlanguage lexical entries are discussed, and finally some problems concerned with robust parsing and error diagnosis based on such lexical entries are pointed out. Lexleal transfer A theory of IL should account for lexical transfer from the first language (L1). By lexical transfer I mean that idiosyncratic properties of L1 lexical items are projected onto the corresponding target language (Lt) lexical items. By 'corresponding' I mean translationally related. I will consider two types of lexieal transfer; translational transfer of idiomatic expressions, and transfer of L1 subcategorisation frames. Translational transfer of L1 idiomatic expressions is exemplified in (1), with translational transfer from French (Cf. Catt (1988)). (1) *My friend has hunger. Mon ami a faim. In unification-based grammatical frameworks, like HPSG, idiomatic expressions like avoir faim can be formalised as special cases of subcategorisation (for an LFG-style account of idioms, see Dyvik (1990)) 1, and can thus be covered by the account I give of this type of transfer, to which we will now turn. The examples in (2)-(3) illustrate negative lexical transfer from Spanish in Norwegian interlanguage. (2) *Jeg kunne ikke svare til Per. I could not answer to Per. (3) No podfa responder a Per. Not could- 1 sg answer to Per. 'I could not answer Per'. Tile Norwegian verb svare subcategorises for an object NP, while the Spanish verb with tile same meaning, responder, subcategorises for a PP headed by tile preposition a ("to"). The Spanish subcategorisation frame thus admits the erroneous VP (w.r.t. Norwegian grammar) in (2). i assume that 1L lexical items are linked to corresponding L1 items by structt~re- sharing. Thus subcategorisation information from L1 lexical items can be used in generating interlanguage strings, and lexical transfer of the kind illustrated in (2) can be accounted for. I further make the idealisation that LI word forms are not used as "terminal vocabulary" in interlanguage strings. Lexical entries in IL How can these ideas be formalised? We will first consider the format which will …

Content truncated to 500 words