





































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

1 
 

Original Paper 

The Composite Abstract Lexical Structure of Interlanguage and 

Its Implications for Second Language Acquisition 

Longxing Wei1* 

1 Department of Linguistics, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA 

* Longxing Wei, Department of Linguistics, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA 

 

Received: July 31, 2023     Accepted: August 19, 2023      Online Published: September 5, 2023 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v4n4p1         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v4n4p1 

 

Abstract 

This paper explores the nature of interlanguage with a focus on its lexical structure in relation to second 

language acquisition. The lexical structure of any language is assumed to be ‘abstract’ in that the mental 

lexicon contains ‘lemmas’, which are pieces of information about individual lexemes at three abstract 

levels: lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological realization 

patterns. The abstract lexical structure of IL is assumed to be ‘composite’ in that during the process of 

second language acquisition several linguistic systems are in contact, each of which contributes different 

amounts to interlanguage (i.e., the developing linguistic system). This study claims that lemmas are 

language-specific and the bilingual mental lexicon contains cross-linguistic lemmas at each of these 

abstract levels. It further claims that bilingual lemmas are in contact in interlanguage production, and it 

is cross-lemma variations in the composite abstract lexical structure of interlanguage which induce 

learner errors. Naturally occurring interlanguage production data for the study include several first and 

second language pairs. Based on the research findings, this study concludes that interlanguage 

variations are driven by an incompletely acquired abstract lexical structure of a target language and 

offers some implications for second language acquisition.  

Keywords 

composite, abstract, lexical structure, lemma, lexical-conceptual, predicate-argument  

 

1. Introduction 

In studies of second language acquisition (SLA), four theories or models have been recognized to 

account for sources of learner errors. The first theory is the that second language (L2) learners tend to 

employ their first language (L1) knowledge and other languages known to them in their production of the 

target language (TL) items (Lado, 1957). This theory regards L1 influence as a major source of learner 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

errors. The second theory is that L2 learners always test their hypotheses formed on the basis of the L2 

data available to them (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). This theory claims that L2 learners always rely on 

whatever L2 knowledge as acquired at any moment of learning in their L2 production. It puts no or much 

less emphasis on L1 influence. The third theory is that several linguistic systems are involved in L2 

learning, such as learners’ native language (NL) (i.e., L1), their TL (i.e., L2), and their interlanguage (IL) 

(i.e., developing linguistic system), each of which plays its role in SLA (Selinker, 1972; Eubank, Selinker, 

& Sharwood Smith, 1995; Wei, 2015). This theory claims it is the interaction of these linguistic systems 

which contributes to learner errors. The fourth theory is that the nature and activity of the bilingual 

mental lexicon determine the process of IL development and learner errors are the outcome of bilingual 

lemmas in contact (Jake, 1998; Myers-Scotton & Jake, 2000; Wei, 2000a, 2000b). Wei (2002, 2003) 

proposes the Bilingual Lemma Activation (BLA) model of SLA in terms of the composite abstract lexical 

structure of IL. This model relates sources of learner errors to the nature and activity of the bilingual 

mental lexicon at an abstract level.  

Adopting the BLA model, this study makes three assumptions about IL as a developing linguistic system. 

The first assumption is that the mental lexicon contains ‘lemmas’, which are pieces of information about 

individual lexemes (Levelt, 1989). Lemmas of the mental lexicon are language-specific (Myers-Scotton 

& Jake, 2000; Wei, 2002). The second assumption is that lexical structure is ‘abstract’ because of the 

abstractness of lemmas in three discrete but interacting subsystems: lexical-conceptual structure, 

predicate-argument structure, and morphological realization patterns. The third assumption is that the 

abstract lexical structure of IL is ‘composite’ because it has sources from the learner’s L1 and/or TL.  

Parts of the lexical structure from the learner’s L1 may influence the lexical structure of incompletely 

acquired TL lexical entries in constructing IL utterances.  

Several NL-TL pairs are included for the study: Japanese-English, Chinese-English, and 

English-Japanese. Some typical instances of L1 lemma transfer involving other NL-TL pairs are also 

cited in support of the claim that the composite and abstract nature of the lexical structure underlying IL 

is one of the major sources of learning difficulty and learner errors.  

 

2. Lexical Structure and Its Abstractness 

Lexical structure is abstract in that lexemes contain more abstract elements than surface lexical items. 

Such abstract elements are called ‘lemmas’ of the mental lexicon. For example, the lemmas for she 

require this pronoun to be used of a female and any main verb in the present tense to be inflected with -s 

for the subject-verb agreement; the lemmas for kill require a subject noun to express the thematic role of 

AGENT and an object noun to express the thematic role of THEME, and these lexical items to be 

arranged in a particular order; the lemmas for give require a subject noun to express the thematic role of 

AGENT, a direct object noun to express the thematic role of THEME, and an indirect object noun to 

express the thematic role of RECIPIENT, and these lexical items to be arranged in two possible orders: 

Subject—Indirect Object—Direct Object (John gave Mary a gift) or Subject—Direct Object—Indirect 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Object introduced by a preposition (John gave a gift to Mary). Lemmas also contain information about a 

verb’s subcategorization frame (i.e., each verb is subcategorized for the number of argument nouns and 

their respective thematic roles), and information about a lexical item’s phonological segments and 

composition, its syllable structure and its accent structure. Lemmas may also contain information about a 

lexical item’s register, the kind of discourse it enters into, its pragmatics, stylistics, and affect. 

Lexical structure is abstract because lexemes have more abstract elements than surface lexical items and 

such abstract elements make lexical structure complex and abstract (Kempen & Huijbers, 1983; Talmy, 

1985; Rappaport & Levin, 1988; Jackendoff, 1990; Roelofs, 1992; Levelt, 1989, 1995; Bock & Levelt, 

1994; Kroll & de Groot, 1997). To be more specific, abstract lexical structure contains three subsystems 

as indicated in Figure 1.  

 

 

Figure 1. Abstract Lexical Structure 

 

‘Lexical-conceptual structure’ conflates universally available conceptual information about lexical 

entries as prelexical feature bundles; ‘predicate-argument structure’ specifies the properties of verbs in 

terms of their subcategorization frames, the number of arguments they may take and the thematic role 

each argument receives; ‘morphological realization patterns’ spell out surface devices for word order, 

agreement, tense/aspect/voice/mood marking, etc. These subsystems play their respective and interactive 

roles in language production (Myers-Scotton & Jake, 1995, 2000; Jake, 1998; Fuller, 1999; Wei, 2001, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2002, 2003). The lexical-conceptual structure of a particular lexeme contains its semantic and pragmatic 

feature bundles and pointers to other lexemes with which it occurs. Lexical-conceptual structure maps 

onto predicate-argument structure because the theta criterion (i.e., each required argument must be 

assigned a particular thematic role) requires the mapping of lexical-conceptual structure onto 

predicate-argument structure. Predicate-argument structure ensures each thematic role assignment and 

then maps onto morphological realization patterns which encode the realization of a particular morpheme 

or word order for surface speech production. For example, the English morphological realization patterns 

encode the realization of the thematic role of THEME as an object of a verb: John gave a gift to Mary, as 

an object introduced by a verb-satellite: The kind man gave up his seat/gave his seat up to the old woman, 

as an object introduced by a verb + preposition: Mary listened to John’s story, as an object introduced by 

a noun + preposition: The reporter interviewed the students of linguistics, or as object introduced by an 

adjective + preposition: The students of linguistics are proud of their achievements. 

It becomes clear that lexical structure in the mental lexicon becomes abstract because it cannot be clearly 

observed at any surface level but at a deep level of the mental lexicon. This deep level is abstract because 

the mental lexicon does not simply contain lexemes and their semantic content but lemmas, which are 

defined as abstract entries in the mental lexicon that support the surface realization of actual lexemes. 

Furthermore, what makes lexical structure complex and abstract is that it contains three subsystems, 

which are sequentially related to each other in speech production. 

 

3. Abstract Lexical Structure of Interlanguage and Its Composition 

Like every linguistic system, the developing linguistic system of IL also has its abstract lexical structure, 

which also contains three discrete and interacting subsystems. One of the most important assumptions 

underlying the BLA model is that lemmas are language-specific in the bilingual mental lexicon, and 

language specific-specific lemmas are in contact in IL production. This is because IL is always the 

learner language which shows the surface forms of the intended TL, but it also contains abstract lexical 

structures from both the L1 and the TL (Myers-Scotton, 1994; Jake, 1998; Wei, 2000a, 2000b, 2002). It is 

in this sense that the abstract lexical structure of IL is composite. The composite nature of the abstract 

lexical structure of IL is illustrated in Figure 2.  

Abstract lexical structure is modular and can be split and recombined in novel, yet constrained ways in 

constructing the IL system (Jake, 1998). IL abstract lexical structure has various sources. This is because 

at various stages of SLA, parts of the abstract lexical structure of learners’ L1 may influence the abstract 

lexical structure of incompletely acquired TL. In other words, learners’ L1 may contribute different 

amounts of its abstract lexical structure to the TL abstract lexical structure along the IL continuum 

(Selinker, 1972). Consequently, each of the three subsystems of the IL abstract lexical structure may 

contain elements (i.e., lemmas underlying lexical entries) from learners’ L1 and/or TL. It is different 

sources or a mixture of different sources which make the IL abstract lexical structure composite.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 2. Composite Abstract Lexical Structure of IL 

 

IL is an incremental and transitional linguistic system and must be governed by some underlying 

principles. Jake (1998) proposes two such principles:  

“The target-language principle: To the extent possible, construct the IL from the TL lexical structure” 

(Jake, 1998, p. 341). This is because starting in early stages of L2 learning, learners attempt to construct 

the developing IL from the TL abstract lexical structure. “All IL surface structures are projected by 

TL-based lexical items in the grammatical system underlying IL” (Jake, 1998, p. 342). Due to the 

composite nature of the abstract lexical structure of IL, language transfer or influence of L1 abstract 

lexical structure is unavoidable but must be sufficiently target-like so as to contribute to the developing 

system of IL. As predicted, all language transfer or L1 influence is TL-orientated (Kellerman, 1986; 

Giacobbe, 1992; Wei, 2000a, 2000b).  

“The complete-projection principle: To the extent possible, satisfy the requirements of the grammar of 

the matrix language through the specification of all requisite grammatical features of the entries in the 

mental lexicon (i.e., lemmas)” (Jake, 1998, p. 342). This principle stipulates that L2 learners attempt to 

fill all levels of the abstract lexical structure (i.e., each of the three subsystems) of IL based on their 

current knowledge of the abstract lexical structure of the TL. That is, the TL abstract entries in the mental 

lexicon (i.e., lemmas) must be as completely specified as possible in order to project lexical properties 

onto syntax (Levelt, 1989). This is because in various stages of learning learners may not have full access 

or have only partial access to the grammatical system whose phrase structures are projected by the TL 

lexical entries in the mental lexicon (Wei, 2002). Thus, when the TL lexical entries in the bilingual 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

mental lexicon are insufficiently acquired or incompletely specified, certain features of the L1 abstract 

lexical structure may be involved in learners’ L2 production to meet their immediate communicative 

needs, resulting in an incomplete projection of the TL lexical entries. Abstract lexical entries in the 

bilingual mental lexicon are assumed to be language-specific and are in contact in IL production. The 

complete projection of the TL abstract lexical structure “through the specification of all requisite 

grammatical features of the entries in the mental lexicon (i.e., lemmas)” (Jake, 1998, p. 342) can be 

achieved only incompletely by L2 learners. As commonly observed in SLA, IL abstract lexical structure 

in various stages of learning reflects learners’ incomplete projection of TL abstract lexical structure and 

may contain certain linguistic features of learners’ both L1 and TL, resulting in the composite abstract 

lexical structure of IL.  

 

Figure 3. Bilingual Abstract Lexical Structure Continuum 

 

Figure 3 illustrates that in the early stage of L2 learning, the bilingual abstract lexical structure is a 

composite due to the lack of learners’ full access to the TL abstract lexical structure. According Jake’s 

target-language principle (1998), L2 learners always try to use the TL lexical items even though their 

selection of those items may be caused by their incomplete knowledge of each level of the TL abstract 

lexical structure (i.e., lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological 

realization patterns). As L2 learning progresses, learners will gradually separate TL/L2 and NL/L1 

abstract lexical structures along the bilingual abstract lexical structure continuum, from ‘composite’ to 

‘compound’, and then from ‘compound’ to ‘coordinate’. According to Jake’s complete-projection 

principle (1998), as learners acquire more and more knowledge of the lemmas for particular TL lexical 

items, their bilingual abstract lexical structure will expand to make the TL lexicalization patterns possible. 

Figure 3 predicts that when bilingual abstract lexical structure becomes ‘compound’, there will be less 

NL/L1 influence, and that when bilingual abstract lexical structure become ‘coordinate’, learners will be 

able to separate their NL/L1 abstract from their TL/L2 abstract lexical structure and have full access to 

the latter.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Interlanguage Construction Projected by Bilingual Lemmas in Contact 

The BLA model (Wei, 2002, 2003) assumes that the abstract lexical structure of IL is a composite and 

lemmas in the bilingual mental lexicon are in contact in IL production. The BLA model offers several 

implications for IL construction. First is the implication that, as evidenced in other language-contact 

situations, IL construction is a linguistic outcome from learners’ L1 and TL in contact at abstract levels. 

To be more specific, lemmas in the bilingual mental lexicon are in contact in IL production. Second is the 

implication that IL construction is necessarily projected by its composite abstract lexical structure, which 

lacks certain aspects of the abstract lexical structure of the TL. Learners may turn back on their L1 

abstract lexical structure and/or their partially acquired TL abstract lexical structure in order to frame IL 

constituents. Third is the implication that language transfer or L1 influence should be understood as 

lemma transfer of L1 lexical structure at several abstract levels: lexical-conceptual structure, 

predicate-argument structure, and morphological realization patterns. Such a transfer becomes necessary 

and unavoidable for learners to fill particular gaps in the incompletely acquired TL abstract lexical 

structure. However, the contributions of L1 abstract lexical structure at various abstract levels are more 

constrained than those of the TL to the composite abstract lexical structure of IL. 

Under the assumption that IL construction is projected by bilingual lemmas in contact, the BLA model 

regards learner errors as incomplete projection of TL abstract lexical structure at each of the three 

abstract levels. 

4.1 Incomplete Projection of TL Lexical-Conceptual Structure 

Lexical-conceptual structure is the first subsystem of abstract lexical structure. As claimed by Levelt 

(1989) and Bierwisch and Schreuder (1992), the conceptual structure may not be language-specific, but, 

as proposed by Talmy (1985), Jackendoff (1991) and Levin and Pinker (1991), languages may differ in 

lexicalizing the components of a particular conceptual structure. There is abundant evidence that IL 

lexical-conceptual structure of certain lexemes may be influenced by semantic/pragmatic features from 

L1 counterparts. One often cited example is from Talmy (1985, p. 69) for the notion of language-specific 

lexicalization patterns: 

The bottle floated into the cave. 

La botolla entró flotando en la cueva.  

the bottle entered floating into the cave 

The above example shows that the lexicalization pattern differs across the two languages. In English 

motion with manner or condition of movement can be conflated into a single lexical item: float, but in 

Spanish the notion of FLOATING is expressed periphrastically by using the gerund: flotando. “Lemmas 

in the mental lexicon are argued to form a connection between the lexical features and conceptual 

features, which map to and from syntax” (cf. Kroll & de Groot, 1997; Wei, 2020, p. 58). “Conceptual 

equivalence facilitates L2 vocabulary learning through positive transfer …, partial (non)equivalence 

facilitates learning through partial overlap (positive transfer), yet also complicates it when learners 

assume complete equivalence and display negative transfer …; non-equivalence simultaneously 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

complicates learning, as learners have to develop new categories …” (Pavlenko, 2009, p. 152).  

Similarly, the BLA model relates incomplete projection of TL lexical-conceptual structure to the nature 

of the bilingual mental lexicon. It claims that because some of the L2 lexical items are not yet fully 

specified in terms of their semantic, pragmatic, syntactic and/or morphological information, learners’ L2 

lexicon may be partial or incomplete (Wei, 2002, 2020). That is why learners’ L2 lexicon is recognized as 

their IL lexicon. As commonly practiced in SLA, when the incompletely acquired L2 lexical items are 

insufficient for learners to convey their communicative intentions or intended meanings, they may turn to 

the similar or seemingly equivalent lexical items in their L1, resulting in incomplete projection of TL 

lexical-conceptual structure (Wei, 1995, 2015; Dewaele, 1998; Jake, 1998). In other words, learners’ L1 

lexicalization patterns may come into play in IL production (Talmy, 1985; Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Wei, 

2020). Such a phenomenon has been commonly observed in SLA research. As shown in Figure 2, 

lexical-conceptual structure as the first level of L1 abstract lexical structure in the composite abstract 

lexical structure of IL may instigate inappropriate lexical choices in IL production. For example, (the 

expected L2 lexical items are indicated in the brackets), There are many works (jobs) in the city (Zughoul, 

1991). … they thought it’s a good possibility (chance) to catch him … (Lennon, 1991). To count (take) 

someone’s pulse (Biskup, 1992). I go to the oven (bakery) in the morning to buy bread. My father is a 

long (tall) thin man (Jiang, 2000). You close (turn off) the light (Wei, 1995).   

The BLA model assumes that lemmas as abstract entries in the bilingual mental lexicon are 

language-specific, and such language-specific lemmas can be activated in IL production before the 

acquisition of TL abstract lexical structure. If this happens, in this case, TL lexical-conceptual structure 

becomes incompletely projected. In other words, L1 lexical-conceptual structure can be transferred in IL 

production. It is the transfer of L1 lexical-conceptual structure which causes inappropriate lexical 

choices.  

[1] She now do meal. 

[2] You close light.  

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1995) 

[3] There have English class, free. You go? 

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 423) 

[4] Yesterday in library I look Japanese magazine. 

(Japanese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 423)   

[5] My husband doesn’t wash … never wash the dishes. 

[6] When I’ve cold I eat medicine, cold medicine.  

[7] In Japan students do many tests and exams in class. 

(Japanese L1: Wei, 2003, p. 65) 

[8] watashi wa mai nichi juuni ji hirugohan ga aru. 

I PART/TOP every day 12 o’clock at lunch PART/NOM have 

‘I have lunch at 12 o’clock every day.’ 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

[9] haha wa shokuji no atode shokki o suru. 

mother PART/TOP meal PART/POSS after dish PART/OBJ do 

‘(My) mother do the dishes after the mean.’ 

[10] kare wa shaken o toru. 

he PART/TOP test PART/OBJ take 

‘He will take the test.’ 

[11] yoru anata ni denwa o ageru. 

evening you to phone PART/OBJ give 

‘(I) will give you a call in the evening.’ 

[12] watashi wa tenisu o asobu. 

I PART/TOP tennis PART/OBJ play 

‘I play tennis.’ 

(English L1; Wei, 2003, p. 65) 

Chinese L1 – English L2 

In [1], ‘do’ means ‘cook’. It also means ‘play, work, play’ in Chinese. In [2], ‘close’ means ‘turn off’. It 

also means ‘stop, shut’ in Chinese. In [3], ‘have’ means ‘exist’. It also means ‘possess’ in Chinese.  

Japanese L1 – English L2 

In [4], ‘look’ means ‘read’. It also means ‘see, look at, visit, observe’ in Japanese. In [5], ‘wash’ means 

‘do’ in Japanese.  It seems that the learner does not know the collocation of ‘do the dishes’ in English. In 

[6], ‘eat’ means ‘take’ in Japanese. In [7], ‘do’ means ‘take’ in Japanese.  

English L1—Japanese L2 

In [8], the learner uses the English concept ‘aru’ (have) for ‘have lunch’ rather than the L2 ‘taberu’ (eat) 

for the equivalent concept. In [9], the learner translates the English collocation ‘do the dishes’ into 

Japanese by using ‘suru’ (do) rather than ‘arau’ (wash). In [10], the learner uses ‘toru’ (take) rather than 

‘ukeru’ (receive) for the equivalent English expression ‘take the test’. In [11], the leaner translates the 

English concept into Japanese by using the verb ‘ageru’ (give) rather than ‘shimas’ (do) as required in 

Japanese. In [12], the learner uses the verb ‘asobu’ (play) based on the English expression rather than 

‘suru’ (do) as used in combination with other relevant nouns. 

The above typical instances of L1 lexical-conceptual structure in IL production provide the evidence that 

in early-stage L2 learning the TL lexical-conceptual structure is not available to learners. Of course, 

learners always try to use the TL lexical items available to them, but their selection of those lexical items 

may be caused by their incomplete knowledge of the TL lexical-conceptual structure of particular 

lexemes or may be influenced by their L1 lexical-conceptual structure. As claimed by Talmy (1985), 

Pinker (1989a, 1989b), Jake (1994), and Wei (1994, 1996a, 1996b), learners acquire certain TL content 

morphemes first which match up possible L1 conflation categories of semantic notions (i.e., several 

semantic notions are conflated in a single lexical item).  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.2 Incomplete Projection of TL Predicate-Argument Structure 

Predicate-argument structure is the second subsystem of abstract lexical structure. In addition to the 

incomplete projection of TL lexical-conceptual structure, because of their incomplete knowledge of 

certain TL lexical items, although they may choose the right TL verbs, they may not know the 

predicate-argument structure as projected by the lemmas underlying those verbs, resulting in 

inappropriate or incomplete projection of TL predicate-argument structure. Consequently, any 

incompletely acquired TL verbs (i.e., IL verbs) may project the number of arguments (i.e., the number of 

lexical nouns) as required and the thematic roles (i.e., the semantic/pragmatic functions) assigned to 

individual arguments as their counterparts in the L1, resulting in incomplete projection of TL 

predicate-argument structure. In other words, transfer of L1 predicate-argument structure may occur in 

IL production. 

[13] Please help me look my child. 

[14] You’re listening music? 

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1995) 

[15] Today he help dinner. 

[16] She cost me hundred dollar, … bad tooth. 

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 422) 

[17] His words in class laugh me. 

[18] I can wait you here. 

[19] Why you ask many questions for me?  

(Japanese L1; Wei, 1995) 

[20] I first fill water in glass. 

[21] He not help my homework. 

[22] Parent provide money to me.  

(Japanese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 422) 

[23] My brother also graduated New York University. 

(Japanese L1; Wei, 2003, p. 66) 

[24] densha o totte gakkoo e iku. 

train PART/OBJ take school go 

‘(I) take the train to go to school.’ 

[25] haha wa shopping iku. 

mother PART/TOP shopping go 

‘(My) mother goes shopping.’ 

[26] gozen chuu kare o yonda. 

in the morning him PART/OBJ called 

‘(I) called him in the morning.’ 

[27] kereno uchi made moseru o ageta. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

his home to ride PART/OBJ gave 

‘(I) gave him a ride home.’ 

(English L1; Wei, 2003, pp. 67-68) 

Chinese L1—English L2 

In [13], the preposition ‘after’ does not appear to introduce the THEME my child since the Chinese 

counterpart verb ‘zhaoliao’ (look) does not need a preposition to introduce the THEME. In [14], the 

THEME music is introduced without the preposition ‘to’ since the Chinese counterpart verb ‘ting’ (listen) 

can take the THEME as its internal object. In [15], ‘help’ assigns the THEME directly to the object 

without the preposition ‘with’ as required in English since in Chinese, the counterpart verb ‘bang’ (help) 

can assign the thematic role directly to the object. In [16], ‘cost’ assigns the AGENT, rather than the 

THEME (the thing on which the money is spent) to the subject (the person who spends the money), but 

such a predicate-argument structure for the equivalent verb is very normal in Chinese.  

Japanese L1—English L2 

In [17], the Japanese causative lexical-conceptual structure affects the predicate-argument structure and 

its morphological realization patterns. In this example, ‘me’ is the PATIENT, which should be ‘I’, the 

AGENT, as required in English, and ‘his words’ is the causer, which should be a prepositional stimulus 

‘at this words’ (e.g., I laugh at his words in class). In [18], ‘you’, the THEME, is introduced by ‘wait’ 

without the preposition ‘for’ as required in English since the Japanese counterpart verb ‘matsu’ (wait) can 

take its internal object. In [19], ‘me’, the GOAL, is introduced in a prepositional phrase, structurally 

subordinate to the verb internal object ‘many questions’, the THEME, since the Japanese counterpart 

verb ‘suru’ (ask) projects the GOAL as the object introduced by the postposition ‘ni’, rather than the 

indirect object introduced by the verb itself as required in English (e.g., Why do you ask me many 

questions?). In [20], ‘fill’ assigns the THEME to ‘water’, rather than the PATIENT to ‘glass’ and 

introducing the THEME by the preposition ‘with’, and ‘glass’ is assigned the LOCATION by the 

preposition ‘in’, rather than the PATIENT as required in English. In [21], the preposition ‘with’ to 

introduce the THEME does not appear, since in Japanese the verb ‘tetsudau’ (help) itself can assign the 

thematic role directly to the object. In [22], ‘provide’ assigns the THEME, rather than the RECIPIENT, to 

the object, violating the English predicate-argument structure where the THEME must be introduced by 

the preposition ‘with’. In [23], the Japanese predicate-argument structure is used, and the SOURCE 

‘New York University’ is introduced without the preposition ‘from’. 

English L1—Japanese L2 

In [24], the English predicate-argument structure is used for the verb ‘toru/totte’ (take) where the means 

of transportation ‘densha’ (train) is introduced as the THEME, violating the Japanese predicate-argument 

structure where ‘densha’ must be introduced as the LOCATIVE by the verb ‘noru/note’ (take) in a 

prepositional phrase headed by ‘ni’ (e.g., dansha ni note gakkoo e iku). In [25], the English expression 

‘go shopping’ is translated into Japanese, violating the Japanese predicate-argument structure of the verb 

‘iku’ (go). In English ‘shopping; is introduced as the GOAL by the verb ‘go’, but in Japanese ‘shopping’ 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

is introduced as the GOAL by the preposition ‘ni’ (e.g., haha wa shopping ni iku). In [26], the English 

predicate-argument structure for the verb ‘call’ (yoru/yonda) is used, where the semantic features of 

‘communicate with by phone’ are conflated in the verb ‘call’. In English, the object of ‘call’ is assigned 

the RECIPIENT, but in Japanese the RECIPIENT must be introduced by a preposition, and the 

phone-call itself must be introduced as the THEME (i.e., the object) by a specific verb such as ‘suru’ or 

‘kakeru’ (e.g., gozen chuu kare ni denwa o shita (or: denwa o kaketa)). In [27], the English expression 

‘give a ride’ is translated into Japanese, violating the Japanese predicate-argument structure. In English 

‘ride’ (noseru) is introduced as the THEME (i.e., the object) by the verb ‘give’ (ageru), but in Japanese 

the means of transportation must be introduced by a preposition as the INSTRUMENT (e.g., kereno uchi 

made kuruma de okutte ageta). 

The above typical instances of L1 predicate-argument structure in IL production provide the evidence 

that in early-stage of L2 learning L1 predicate-argument structure, like L1 lexical-conceptual structure, 

also contributes to composite abstract lexical structure of IL, resulting in incomplete projection of TL 

predicate-argument structure. As commonly observed, L1 predicate-argument structure may play a role 

in constructing TL sentences during IL development.   

4.3 Incomplete Projection of TL Morphological Realization Patterns 

Morphological realization pattern is the third subsystem of abstract lexical structure. At the positional 

level, this subsystem of abstract lexical structure deals with surface devices for word order, agreement, 

case assignment, tense/aspect/voice/mood marking, etc. Like the other two subsystems, learners’ lack of 

knowledge of TL morphological realization patterns may cause transfer of L1 morphological realization 

patterns or incomplete projection of TL morphological realization patterns in IL production. Such a 

phenomenon has been commonly observed in learners’ early-stage IL production.  

[28] I English not speak. 

[29] Because I study English, just more study English. 

[30] My husband in USC study. 

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1995) 

[31] Hello … she not in home. She at outside at playground playing. You come? You not come? 

[32] Go swim? No. Parent no go, you no go swim. 

[33] You go too? We have three ticket. 

[34] You not go library? I go.  

[35] Tomorrow I no go work.  

(Chinese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 421) 

[36] In Japan student English junior high school start. 

[37] I in Japan my city like. 

(Japanese L1; Wei, 1995) 

[38] I English … speak not well. 

[39] I everyday use bike. Taxi? No. I live not far. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

[40] I go to party with friend tomorrow. We together cook, interesting.  

(Japanese L1; Wei, 1996a, p. 421) 

[41] Tomorrow to New York we’ll go with some friends. 

[42] Sorry. Only little English I know.  

(Japanese L1; Wei, 2003, p. 69) 

[43] watashitachi wa shigoto ni iku mainichi. 

we PART/TOP work to go every day 

‘We go to work every day.’ 

[44] watashi wa moou kakoowatta watashino repooto. 

I PART/TOP already finished my paper 

‘I already finished my paper.’ 

(English L1; Wei, 2003, p. 69) 

Chinese L1—English L2 

In [28], ‘English’ is the direct object, but it is placed before the verb. In [29], ‘more’ appears before the 

verb phrase ‘study English’. In [30], the prepositional phrase of location ‘in USC’ is placed between the 

subject and the verb. Such word orders are non-English-like, but in Chinese they are very normal. In 

addition to Chinese word orders, in [31], the copula ‘be’ does not appear in ‘… she (is) not in home’, the 

auxiliary ‘be’ does not appear in ‘She (is) at outside at playground playing’, there is no auxiliary verb for 

formulating a question in ‘(Will/Can) you come?’, and there is no auxiliary verb for negating a verb in 

‘You (will/can) not come?’. The missing auxiliary verbs as required in English for such grammatical 

functions are also observed in [32], [33], [34], and [35]. One possible reason for early-stage learners not 

to produce these auxiliary verbs is that Chinese does not possess and does not need such auxiliary verbs 

for the same grammatical functions. In addition to Chinese word orders and missing auxiliary verbs, in 

[33], ‘ticket’ is not inflected with ‘-s’ for plural marking, in [34], the preposition ‘to’ does not appear to 

introduce the goal (go (to) library), in [35], the preposition ‘to’ does not appear (go (to) work), in [32], the 

possessive adjective does not appear to modify the noun ((Your) parent), and in [34], the definite article 

‘the’ does not appear to modify the noun ((the) library). In Chinese no such grammatical devices are 

available for the same grammatical or morphological purposes. 

Japanese L1—English L2 

In [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42], the Japanese basic word order Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) is 

used, where, in addition to the object, any other constituent can be placed before the verb. In [38] and 

[39], the verb is not negated by an auxiliary verb because in Japanese verbs can be negated directly by a 

negative particle. In [40], no auxiliary verb appears before ‘go’ for tense marking. In [40], the article ‘the’ 

does not appear before ‘party’, and no article or possessive adjective appears before ‘friend’. All such 

grammatical or morphological devices are not available or required in Japanese.  

English L1—Japanese L2 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In [43], the sentence basically follows the Japanese verb final word order, but the adverbial of time 

‘mainichi’ (every day) is placed in the sentence final position. Such a word order is allowed in English, 

but not in Japanese. In [44], the sentence elements are arranged in the typical English word order where 

the object is placed right after the predicate verb. 

The above typical instances of L1 morphological realization patterns provide the evidence that, in 

addition to L1 lexical-conceptual structure and predicate-argument structure, early-stage leaners may 

turn back on their L1 morphological realization patterns before they completely acquire their TL 

morphological realization patterns.   

 

5. Implications for Second Language Acquisition 

The particular instances of incomplete projection of TL lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument 

structure, and morphological realization patterns offer several implications for SLA.  

The lexical-conceptual structure of the TL abstract lexical structure is not available to early-stage 

learners. In SLA, although learners always try to use the TL lexical items (cf. the target-language 

principle (Jake, 1998)), their selection of those items may be caused by their incomplete knowledge of 

the TL lexical-conceptual structure of particular lexemes. As claimed in the BLA model, lemmas as 

abstract entries in the mental lexicon are language-specific, and language-specific lemmas in the 

bilingual mental lexicon are in contact in SLA. Consequently, learners’ L1 lemmas for the universal 

concepts may activate or retrieve the TL lexical items in an inappropriate manner, resulting in L1 

lexical-conceptual structure in IL production. As predicted, as learners acquire more and more 

knowledge of the lemmas underlying particular TL lexical items, their bilingual mental lexicon will 

expand to include the TL lexical-conceptual structure of particular lexemes, which will make the TL 

lexicalization patterns possible (cf. the complete-projection principle (Jake, 1998). 

In early-stage of SLA, L1 predicate-argument structure also contributes to the composite abstract lexical 

structure of IL. In SLA, although learners’ ‘target’ is always and should be the L2 predicate-argument 

structure, their incomplete knowledge of this subsystem of the TL abstract lexical structure may also 

affect their production of the TL predicate-argument structure, resulting in the ungrammaticality of the 

TL syntax. That is, learners’ production of the predicate-argument structure does not match the syntactic 

requirements in the TL. Thus, Like L1 lexical-conceptual structure, L1 predicate-argument structure 

makes the abstract lexical structure of IL composite. In SLA, learners’ acquisition of TL lexical items 

must include complete knowledge of lemmas underlying particular verbs in order to produce the TL 

syntactic frame. 

Early-stage learners may produce appropriate TL lexical items, but they may fail to follow the TL 

morphological realization patterns. At the sentence positional level, learners may miss surface devices 

for abstract grammatical concepts as required in the TL. They may also turn back on their L1 

morphological realization patterns in IL sentence production, resulting in complete projection of the TL 

morphological realization patterns. L1 morphological realization patterns may also contribute to the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

composite abstract lexical structure of IL. The complete acquisition of TL morphological realization 

patterns turns out to be more difficult that the complete acquisition of TL lexical-conceptual structure and 

predicate-argument structure for early-stage learners because of the abstractness of the TL surface 

grammatical devices. Thus, complete acquisition of TL abstract lexical structure must also include 

complete acquisition of TL morphological realization patterns in IL production. 

 

6. Conclusion 

This study relates learner errors to the nature and activity of the bilingual mental lexicon. Adopting the 

BLA model, it makes three claims. The first is the claim that the mental lexicon contains lemmas, which 

are abstract entries about particular lexemes, and thus lexical structure is abstract in that it contains three 

abstract subsystems: lexical-conceptual structure, predicate-argument structure, and morphological 

realization patterns. The second is the claim that lemmas in the bilingual mental lexicon are 

language-specific, and IL abstract lexical structure is composite. Language-specific lemmas are 

contained in each of the subsystems of composite abstract lexical structure of IL. The third is the claim 

that learners’ incomplete knowledge of TL abstract lexical structure (i.e., TL lemma specifications) 

instigates incomplete projection of TL lexical-conceptual structure, TL predicate-argument structure, and 

TL morphological realization patterns. Thus, sources of learner errors or language transfer are explored 

in terms of L1 lemmas transfer. The particular instances of incomplete projection of TL abstract lexical 

structure as discussed in this study support such claims. 

This study proposes that in early stages of L2 learning, learners may employ their L1 abstract lexical 

structure in IL production. TL is always learners’ target, and successful SLA requires learners to acquire 

complete knowledge of each of the subsystems of TL abstract lexical structure so as to make their IL 

speech production more target-like. 

 

References 

Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 41, 23-60. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90039-K 

Biskup, D. (1992). L1 influence on learners’ rendering of English collocations: A Polish/German 

empirical study. In P. J. L. Arnaud, & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 

85-93). London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_8 

Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. 

Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). New York: Academic Press. 

Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The 

influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-Z 

Dewaele, J-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19, 

471-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.471 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90039-K
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_8
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-Z
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.471


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1995). The current state of interlanguage: Introduction. 

In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies 

in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 1-10). Philadelphia: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73 

Fuller, J. M. (1999). The role of English in Pennsylvania German development: Best supporting actress? 

American Speech, 74(1), 38-55. 

Giacobbe, J. (1992). A cognitive view of the role of L1 in the L2 acquisition process. Second Language 

Research, 8(3), 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800304 

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9-45. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800304 

Jake, J. L. (1994). Intrasentential codeswitching and pronouns: On the categorical status of functional 

elements. Linguistics, 3, 271-298. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.2.271 

Jake, J. L. (1998). Constructing interlanguage: Building a composite matrix language. Linguistics, 36, 

333-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.333 

Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 

21(1), 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47 

Kellerman, E. (1986). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 

lexicon. In E. Kellerman, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in second 

language acquisition (pp. 35-48). Oxford: Pergamon.  

Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: 

Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90029-X 

Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form 

to meaning in two languages. In A. M. B. de Groot, & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: 

Psychological perspectives (pp. 169-200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, ML: 

University of Michigan Press. 

Lennon, P. (1991). Error and the very advanced learner. IRAL, 29, 31-44. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1991.29.1.31 

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). The ability to talk: From intention to spoken words. European Review, 3, 13-23. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798700001290 

Myers-Scotton, C. (1994). Language processing and the mental lexicon in bilinguals. In R. Dirven, & J. 

Vanparys (Eds.), New approaches to the lexicon (pp. 73-100). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 

Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. L. (1995). Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and 

production model: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Linguistics, 33(5), 981-1024. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.981 

https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73
https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800304
https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800304
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.2.271
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.333
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90029-X
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1991.29.1.31
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798700001290
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.981


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Myers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. L. (2000). Four types of morpheme: Evidence from aphasia, codeswitching, 

and second language acquisition. Linguistics, 38(6), 1053-1100. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.021 

Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary 

learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 

125-160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691262-008 

Pinker, S. (1989a). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

Pinker, S. (1989b). Resolving a learnability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. In M. L. Rice, 

& R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 13-61). Baltimore, MD: Brushwood 

Graphics. 

Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with theta-roles. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and 

semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 7-34). New York: Academic Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003 

Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107-142. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F 

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-230. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical items. In T. Shopen (Ed.), 

Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3 (pp. 57-149). Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Wei, L. (1994). Organizing principles governing early second language acquisition. Paper presented at 

the Annual Meeting of New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV), Stanford University, CA. 

Wei, L. (1995). Chinese and Japanese learners’ interlanguage data (unpublished corpus). University of 

South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 

Wei, L. (!996a). Organizing principles behind code switching and interlanguage development in early 

adult second language acquisition. In J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, S. Schwenter, & J. Solomon 

(Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis (pp. 417-431). Stanford, CA: CSLI 

Publishers. 

Wei. L. (1996b). Variation in the acquisition of morpheme types in the interlanguage of Chinese and 

Japanese learners of English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University 

of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.  

Wei, L. (2000a). Unequal election of morphemes in adult second language acquisition. Applied 

Linguistics, 2, 106-140. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 

Wei, L. (2000b). Types of morphemes and their implication for second language morpheme acquisition. 

International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(1), 29-43. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040010301 

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.021
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691262-008
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040010301


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 4, No. 4, 2023 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Wei, L. (2001). Lemma congruence checking between languages as an organizing principle in 

intrasentential code switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5, 153-173. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050020201 

Wei, L. (2002). The bilingual mental lexicon and speech production process. Brain and Language, 81, 

691-707. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2557 

Wei, L. (2003). Activation of lemmas in the multilingual mental lexicon and transfer in third language 

learning. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 57-70). 

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48367-7_5 

Wei, L. (2015). Interlanguage: The abstract level in language acquisition. New York: The Edwin Mellen 

Press. 

Wei, L. (2020). The bilingual mental lexicon. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 

Zughoul, M. R. (1991). Lexical choice: Towards writing problematic word lists. IRAL, 29, 45-59. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050020201
https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2557
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48367-7_5

