FORM OF INTERFERENCESTRUCTURAL

EXAMPLEAll interference

NON-STRUCTURALSTIMULIRESISTANCE FACTORSSTIMULIRESISTANCE FACTORS

Any points of difference between two sys-

Stability of systems; requirements of intel-

Social value of source (model, primary)Social value of recipient language; intoler-tems

ligibilitylanguage; bilingual interlocutors; affective

ance of interference; puristic attitudes to-speech; individual propensity for speechward recipient (secondary) language; loy-mixture; etc.

alty to mother-tongue; unilingual interlocutors; etc.

PhonicUnder-differentiation of phonemes/d/ and /t/ not differentiatedAbsence of corresponding distinctions inFunctional yield of the distinction—

Loyalty to secondary language

primary language
Over-differentiation of phonemes[k] and [kh ] treated as separate phonemes

Presence of distinction (only) in primary

—

—

—

Existence of appropriate holes in the pat-——language
Reinterpretation of relevant features

Voiceless /p/ treated as phonemicallyDifferent phonemic systems

tense and only concomitantly voicelessPhone substitution
Integration of loanwords

tern[r] for [ö] where there is only one trill

Different

phonemephonemes

pronunciations

equivalentEnglish /rajs/ into Hawaiian /lAiki/

Difference in phonemic systems; homoge-

Danger of confusion with another phoneme

Social value of primary language

Loyalty to secondary language

Potential homonymy (?)

Intolerance of recognizable loanwords;

Social value of source language

neous but different type of word structure

unilingualism of speakerin recipient language
Grammatical
Transfer of morphemes

Slovak-German in Pressburg-u; Yiddish-Congruent systems, much common vo-Non-congruent systems; complicated func-

English job-shmob

cabulary, relatively unbound morphemes,

tions of morphemes

Affectiveness of categories

Loyalty to recipient language

Affectiveness of categories

Loyalty to recipient language

greater phonemic bulk
Transfer of grammatical relations

German-English I come soon home

Different relation patterns

Change in function of “indigenous” mor-

German-English how long are you here?

Greater explicitness of model (usually)

Conflict with existing relations—

Abandonment of obligatory categories

Loss of old French tense system in Creole

Very different grammatical systems—

Makeshift language

Loyalty to recipient language

Integration of loanwords

English change into Amer.

Homogeneous word structure in recipient—

Intolerance of recognizable loanwords;

Social value of source language—

Loyalty to recipient language

pheme or category
Portuguese

chinjarlanguage

unilingualism of speaker

Lexical
Lexical interference as such—

Structural weak points in recipient vocab-

Existence of adequate vocabulary

Lexical inadequacy in face of innovations;ulary, need to match differentiations in

oblivion of infrequent words, need for syn-source language

onyms, prestige of source language, stylis-

Loyalty to recipient language

tic effect of mixture
Outright transfer of words (rather thansemantic extension)
Phonic adjustment of cognates

GermanTelephon

ratherthanFern-

Congenial form of word; possibility of pol-Potential homonymy (?);

sprecherysemy (?)

word form

Spanish /eu"ropa/ into /ju"ropa/ on En-

Economy of a single form

uncongenial—

Bilingualism of interlocutors—

Loyalty to recipient language
Loyalty to recipient language

glish modelSpecialized retention of an “indigenous”
word after borrowing of an equivalent

French chose, retained and distinguishedfrom cause

No confusion in semantemes

Elimination of superfluous terms——