Bongartz's monograph uses a crosslinguistic typological approach to examine the impact of first language (L1) noun combination strategies on the development of analogic interlanguage forms. A three-language comparison of the typologically distinct languages Czech, Chinese, and English shows two basic noun combination patterns: phrasal combinations and the use of incorporation strategies for the creation of compounds. Czech prefers phrasal combinations, English allows for both phrasal combinations and compounds, whereas Chinese is at the opposite end of the typological continuum insofar as it demonstrates a preference for compounds. Empirical data from Czech and Chinese learners of English as a second language reveal that L1 combination preferences indeed affect which English strategy is chosen: Czech learners use phrasal combinations more often and Chinese learners prefer compounds.

Bongartz opens with a detailed treatment of each of the three theories that form the backbone for her study: typology theory, transfer theory, and Chomsky's Minimalist Program and Universal Grammar (UG). Although, in the past, these theories were thought to be incompatible, the author states that the “emerging lines of convergence” (p. 2) among them allow for a more complete analysis, adding that “absolute approaches do not work” (p. 11). She then develops a theoretical framework that uses UG and language transfer research as the base theories and language typology research as the bridge between them. The convergence of these approaches is further situated within Chomsky's Minimalist Program.

Next, Bongartz provides an analysis of noun combinations, carefully detailing their syntactic properties in terms of typology and universal language principles. Noun combinations are formed by two basic processes: phrasal combinations (the result of syntactic mergers) and compounds (the result of lexical mergers). Phrasal combinations are marked by the use of a preposition (e.g., a song about love), whereas compounds consist of a possessive DP, prenominal modifier, and incorporation structures (e.g., a love song). Although there exist various possibilities for the ways in which nouns combine (among them, compounding, transforming, etc.), incorporation is preferred in this experiment, as it “avoids the necessity of differentiating between syntactic and lexical processes when dealing with noun compounds and their phrasal counterparts” (p. 25). Bongartz, using Klein and Perdue's (1997) basic variety theory, proposes that “L1 influence will most likely occur when the target language … has two options to express the intended meaning … learners will choose the option that is closest to their L1 given the variation” (p. 4).

The empirical study examines whether or not L1 preferences play a role in the development of noun combination strategies in the interlanguage grammar. She provides a contrastive analysis of noun patterns in general and then turns to the three languages in question. In terms of language typology, Czech (an inflected language) and Chinese (an isolating language) fall on opposite ends of the continuum, with English falling somewhere in between. Three groups of participants—Czech learners of English, Chinese learners of English, and a control group of native English speakers—performed a series of productive tasks (dyadic interviews, picture elicitation, and story-telling) as well as completed a grammaticality judgment task. Within each of the experimental groups, learners were further divided by proficiency level, which resulted in six high-proficiency and six intermediate-proficiency participants for each language.

Results of the productive tasks “completely support a role for L1 typology in learner choices for noun combination patterns” (p. 132). Czech learners demonstrated a marked preference for phrasal combinations, whereas Chinese learners preferred incorporation structures. Proficiency was a factor in both groups, with higher-proficiency learners consistently showing greater diversification of form. The results of the grammaticality judgment task were inconclusive because of task design problems.

Bongartz concludes that the typological intersections of the language groups affect learner preferences and interlanguage grammar development. Interlanguage grammars are “contact-induced systems” (p. 146), and the typological intersections explain why language groups tend to use one means of producing a noun combination over another.

This work, which is based on Bongartz's award-winning dissertation (recipient of the Emma Marie Birkmaier Dissertation Award from ACTFL and the MLJ in 1999), provides helpful insight into three understudied areas: the development of interlanguage, language typology, and noun combination research. As Bongartz points out, without nouns there is no language, and learners are forced to use them in order to communicate. Noun combinations are a very productive part of language, and the ways in which languages go about developing new combinations is a task with which the learner must contend. The author does an excellent job of synthesizing the literature from the various component approaches into a readable and accessible work. Moreover, she provides valuable empirical data to support her conclusions.