Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||IS THE CONGRUENCE CONSTRAINT ON SUBSTRATE TRANSFER TRULY CATEGORICAL? AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION USING R||Authors:||LIN TAOHAI||Issue Date:||15-Apr-2019||Citation:||LIN TAOHAI (2019-04-15). IS THE CONGRUENCE CONSTRAINT ON SUBSTRATE TRANSFER TRULY CATEGORICAL? AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION USING R. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.||Abstract:||Substrate transfer occurs when lexical items in a contact language derive their lexical form from a lexical item in its superstrate, and take additional grammatical properties from a lexical item in its substrate not available from the superstrate lexical item. According to Siegel (2008a), the congruence constraint proposes categorically that substrate transfer occurs only when both the lexical items in the superstrate and substrate have related meanings (semantic congruence), and are in the same surface position in a sentence (syntactic congruence). Hence, this thesis conducts an experiment with Singlish already, to see if the congruence constraint on substrate transfer is indeed categorical with only two strictly binary outcomes: if semantic and syntactic congruence are (un)satisfied, transfer can(not) occur. After comparing how Sinitic and non-Sinitic Singlish speakers rate both congruence-satisfying (sentence final already) and congruence-violating (pre-object already) features, there is evidence that congruence is not always as categorical as proposed by Siegel (2008a). This is because for both constructions, there is a statistical difference between how Sinitic and non-Sinitic speaker groups rate the features; results not predicted to occur currently by the congruence constraint. Hence, the congruence constraint should be refined, taking into account how first-hand knowledge of the substrate (for Sinitic speakers) can cause substrate transfer above and below the level of grammaticality. Transfer above/below the level of grammaticality refers to when all speakers rate a substrate feature as grammatical/ungrammatical in the contact language; yet there is still a difference in the magnitude of grammaticality/ungrammaticality.||URI:||https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/155984|
|Appears in Collections:||Bachelor's Theses|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
|EL-Lin Taohai-HT-1820.pdf||916.88 kB||Adobe PDF|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.