CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Re-Visiting the DP Hypothesis: An Exploration Through English/Korean Codeswitching

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics

By Sarah Phillips

May 2017

Copyright by Sarah Phillips 2017

ii

The thesis of Sarah Phillips is approved:

______Dr. Joseph Galasso Date

______Dr. Sharon Klein Date

______Dr. David Medeiros, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii

Acknowledgements

While watching an episode of “Abstact,” I was able to see into the mind of Platon, an amazing photographer who has captured passionate portraits. He says the following, “great design simplifies a very complicated world.” I believe that is the essence of theory. To see through noise and find what lays underneath, causing both form and noise, is incredibly difficult, however.

My mentors, David Medeiros and Sharon Klein, helped keep my focus lens clear. This is true in both this writing process as well as my development into becoming an academic of merit and ability. Joseph Galasso, an important reader in this process, reminded me to remember the basics and question often. I appreciate these people for grounding me, keeping form in mind.

Baring contrast, my friends and family kept my mind and hands active. They have challenged me, loved me, and motivated me. A few of whom I’d like to name (in random order) are: my mother Jahye, Maya W. C., Lu L., my cousin Paula, my sister Erica, Melissa M.-S., Cristina N., Bianca M., Ashleigh G., and Jacquelyn N. Without these people (and a few others whom I failed to mention—my apologies!), the noise would have become unbearable.

iv

Table of Contents

Copyright Page ii Signature Page iii Acknowledgements iv Abstract vii

Introduction 1 Codeswitching 1 The Problem with Nominals 2 A Possible Solution 8 A Review of the Syntactic Approaches to Codeswitching 9 Government and Binding 9 Limitations of Formal Syntax on Codeswitching 12 The Functional Head Constraint 13 Woolford’s Model 14 Mixed Language Frame Model 15 Minimalist Program and Codeswitching 17 Data Analysis 20 Evidence of “Missing” Articles in English/Korean CS 21 Evidence of Overt Articles in English/Korean CS 22 The Semantic Argument for “keu” as the Korean Article 24 The Pluralization Problem 27 An Alternative Theoretical Model for Codeswitching 30 “ify” versus “inc” in English/Telugu CS 30 Re-addressing the Pluratization Problem 32 The Relevance of Pluralization and Articles 33 Conclusion 34 References 35

v Appendix A: Korean Transcription System 39 Appendix B: Leipzig Glossing Abbreviations 40

vi Abstract

Re-Visiting the DP Hypothesis: An Exploration Through English/Korean Codeswitching

By

Sarah Phillips

Master of Arts in Linguistics

The structure of nominals has been a focal point within the theory of syntax since the 1960s. Abney (1987) proposes the DP Hypothesis to account for the internal structure of various nominal types, which his argument is noted for its empirical strength. However, Bošković (2008) challenges the notion of DP structures being universal across various language types because he argues that not all languages have articles which instantiate D0. This typological difference seems to correlate with an extensive list of syntactic generalizations. The main purpose of this thesis is to determine how well the DP Hypothesis fits for codeswitched utterances produced by bilinguals who speak a language that has articles and a language that does not, English and Korean respectively, such that the DP Hypothesis readily extends to what may be considered an ‘articleless’ language. The results of this exploration support the DP Hypothesis as well as give reason for the important role codeswitched data has in developing linguistic theory, suggesting potential research opportunities towards the end.

vii

Introduction

Much of the literature dedicated to understanding linguistic competence through syntax involves examining monolingual utterances, particularly analyzing phenomena from English. The problem with pursuing descriptive adequacy in syntactic theory by analyzing monolingual utterances is that doing so fails to include a large population of language users even within the context of examining English. Crystal (2009) estimates that approximately 41% of the world’s English speakers are plurilingual1, such that they employ English as well as at least one other language. A theory of syntax which seeks to understand linguistic competence and adequately explain a variety of language phenomena should be more inclusive of data types. One method of accomplishing this task is by examining codeswitched utterances.

Codeswitching

Understood as a behavior specific to bilinguals2, codeswitching (henceforth “CS”) is defined in this thesis as the surface realization of alternation between two (or potentially more) languages. This definition avoids the process of distinguishing lexical borrowing from CS as both should be predictable with the appropriate analysis. A few examples of CS are as follows:

1. El old man está enojado [English/Spanish] “The old man is mad” (Gingrás, 1974 [in Woolford, 1983, p.527(10)]) 2. Players-ka cichjeoss-ta [English/Korean]

players-NOM be tired.PST-DECL “[The] players were tired” (Park, 1990, p.125[120])

1 Meaning to frequently use two or more languages 2 Adopting Grosjean’s definition as one “who use[s] two or more languages in [his/her/]their everyday life” (2010, p.xiii)

1 3. One su moje cousins [English/Serbo-Croatian]

they.FEM be.3PL.PRS my.PL.FEM cousins “They are my cousins” (Savić, 1995, p.483[3])

The italicized portions in the first line of each example are lexical items from a language which is not English whereas the non-italicized portions in the first line of each example are lexical items from English. Example (1) is from English/Spanish CS, a CS pair that has been more heavily investigated; and examples (2) and (3) are from Korean/English CS and English/Serbo-Croatian CS respectively, which both have received significantly less attention in the CS literature. All three utterances are considered grammatically acceptable, and this demonstrates competence of both languages in each CS pair when an acceptable CS utterance is produced. Some of the CS literature seem to suggest that alternation concerned with noun phrases is the most common (cf. Pfaff 1979 [English/Spanish], Park 1990 [English/Korean], Nishimura 1985 [English/Japanese], Berk-Seligson 1986 [Spanish/Hebrew]). The high frequency of this CS form suggests a particular sensitivity to the structure of nominals, potentially alluding to the universality of nominal structure. This thesis seeks to further syntactic theory with respect to nominal structure using CS data from a variety of CS language pairs, particularly those that appear more typologically dissimilar (e.g. English/Korean) than those more typologically similar (e.g. English/Spanish).

The Problem with Nominals

Following Lees (1960), generative grammar must sufficiently account for the various ways in which nouns can be modified through recursive rules. Such that a noun refers to a signified object or concept, nominalization is then a process through which a signified object or concept is expressed through a composition of “simpler components” (p.xviii):

2 4. a. Nom à NP + N0 (p.14[21]) b. NP à T + N (p.15[22]) 5. a. [John] pleases Maya. b. [John’s being eager to please] pleases Maya. (based on Chomsky, 1970, p.187[3a]) c. [John’s eagerness to please] pleases Maya. (based on Chomsky, 1970, p.187[4a]) d. [John’s building a spaceship] pleases Maya. (based on Abney, 1987, p. 13[1])

Lees proposed that nominals, “Nom,” are composed of a noun phrase, “NP,” and its appropriate affix (e.g. plural marker); and the NP is composed of a determiner, “T,” and a single noun “N” which can be either concrete or abstract. Where (5a) exemplifies a simple nominal in the brackets, the proposed structures in (4) do not seem to account for the bracketed expressions (5b), (5c), and (5d). Chomsky (1970) discusses how, in English, the internal distribution of gerundive nominals, like the bracketed portion in (5b), and derived nominals, like the bracketed portion in (5c), are different though they share the same external distribution. He argues gerundive nominals seem to have undergone a transformation whereas derived nominals do not:

6. a. *[The being eager to please] pleases Maya. b. [The eagerness to please] pleases Maya. c. *[The building a spaceship] pleases Maya.

By replacing “John’s” with “the” in (5b), (5c), and (5d), the acceptability of (6b), relative to (5c), suggests that “John’s” has a similar external distribution to T in (4b) but not so in (6a) and (6c). Where Determiner is T, T is redefined as follows:

3 7. a. Det[erminer] à (prearticle of) Article (postarticle) b. Article à {±definiteness, possessive} (p.200[29])

This analysis can be referred to as the foundation of the lexicalist hypothesis, such that certain syntactic features are associated with lexical items which negotiate syntactic structure. Determiners are then constituted of articles which mark definiteness or possession, drawing a parallel between “the” and “John’s” as exhibited between (5c) and (6b). In English, “the” and “a(n)” are the articles which express definiteness and “’s” indicates possession. To account for the transformation that occurs in gerundive nominals like (5b) and

POSS-ing gerundive nominals like (5d), Abney (1987) proposes the Determiner Phrase (or “DP”) Hypothesis. An inflectional head, which are lexically instantiated as determiners, govern NPs:

8.

Doing so allows for verbs, which can take either nonfinite verbal or nominal complements, to be possessed, though requiring the morphological inflection “-ing” in English. The ability to recursively build nominals is also maintained, which supports the DP Hypothesis empirically in English. Though not argued to necessarily be used cross-linguistically, the Minimalist Program, a strain of generative grammar which arose from Chomskyan models Government and Binding (or “GB”) and Principles and Parameters (or “P&P”), has

4 widely accepted the DP Hypothesis as universal. Bošković (2008) notes that many languages, like Serbo-Croatian and Korean, do not have lexical articles like English, which are critical in both Chomsky’s (1970) lexicalist approach and Abney’s (1987) DP Hypothesis. A language’s articleness, that is to mean whether a language has articles in its lexicon, seems to correlate with an extensive list of generalizations:

9. Generalizations associated with articleness: a. “Only languages without articles (NP languages) may allow left-branch extraction. b. Only NP languages may allow adjunct extraction from TNPs. c. Only NP languages may allow scrambling. d. MWF languages without articles (NP languages) do not show superiority effects. e. Only DP languages may allow clitic doubling. f. NP languages do not allow transitive nominal with two genitives. g. Head-internal relatives display island sensitivity only in NP languages. h. Polysynthetic languages are NP languages. i. Only DP languages allow the majority reading of MOST. j. NP languages disallow negative raising. k. Negative constituents must be marked for focus in NP languages. l. The negative concord reading may be absent with multiple complex negative constituents only in negative concord DP languages. m. Radical pro-drop is possible only in NP languages. n. Number morphology may not be obligatory only in TNPs of NP languages. o. Elements undergoing focus movement are subject to a verb adjacency requirement only in DP languages. p. The sequence of Tense phenomenon is found only in DP languages” (Kim, 2011, p.259[4])

A few of the generalizations associated with articleless languages are supported by examples from Korean:

5

10. a. Ceolsu-ka chaek-eul ilk-neun-ta

Ceolsu-NOM book-ACC read-PRS-DECL “Ceolsu reads a book.” (Lee, 2007, p.1[1-1]) b. chaek-eul Ceolsu-ka ilk-neun-ta

book-ACC Ceolsu-NOM read-PRS-DECL “Ceolsu reads a book.” (Lee, 2007, p.1[1-2])

Defining scrambling as the phenomenon where nominals are allowed relatively free word order3 without semantically altering the utterance, examples (10a) and (10b) support (9c). Korean, known as a verb-final language, allows for the sentential subject “Ceolsu” and direct object “chaek” to change position without affecting meaning.

11. a. (neo/Erica) pae kopa?

(2.SG/Erica) stomach hungry.INFORM “Are you/Is Erica hungry?” b. (neo/na) kan-ta

(2.SG/1.SG) leave.PRS-DECL “You are/I am leaving.”

Examples (11a) and (11b) support generalization (9m) as Korean permits the dropping of pronouns without having an overt agreement marker on the verb. However, Korean, which is a multiple wh-fronting (or “MWF”) language, seems to exhibit an anti- superiority effect which counters (9d):

12. Koj kogo vižda/*Kogo koj vižda? who whom sees/ whom who sees “Who sees whom” (Boškovic, 2008, p. 104[19a])

3 According to Bošković (2004), scrambling is not the same as the process of topicalization or focalization which can appear linearly like a form of scrambling.

6 13. Ko koga vidi/Koga ko vidi? who whom sees/whom who sees “Who sees whom” (Boškovic, 2008, p. 104[19b]) 14. Mueos-eul wae neo-neun sa-ess-ni/ *Wae mueos-eul

what-ACC why 2.SG-TOP buy-PAST-Q why what-ACC neo-neun sa-ess-ni

2.SG-TOP buy-PAST-Q “Why did you buy what?” (Jeong, 2003, p. 131[1b/2b])

Example (12) is from Bulgarian, a multiple wh-fronting language with articles; example (13) is from Serbo-Croatian, a multiple wh-fronting language without articles; and example (14) is from Korean, a multiple wh-fronting language without articles. According to (9d), Korean should not show any kind of superiority effects. Jeong (2003) provides counterevidence, demonstrating that there is an “anti-superiority effect” where “wae” (similar to “naze” in Japanese) cannot precede any other wh-phrase. Counterevidence to (9d) indicates that Korean does not fully support Bošković’s typological categorization of it being articleless, but there is some indication that Korean is somewhat ‘articleless’ as it does support generalizations (9c) and (9m) through evidence in (10) and (11) respectively. It seems likely that DP/NP structure has less to do with the generalizations in (9). For example, he argues that superiority effects emerge because DPs with wh-words must move higher in the syntactic structure than NPs with wh-words, resulting in observation (9d). In (14), “wae” cannot move higher in the syntactic structure in Korean, and Jeong (2003) provides an account that allows for DP to participate in the occurrence of anti-superiority. Ultimately, there seems to be a disconnect between lexical articles and the features associated with them which underlie the disagreement regarding nominal structure.

7 A Possible Solution

Even though lexicons help to distinguish between languages, syntactic features are not always phonetically realized. It is true that Korean and Serbo-Croatian lack a lexical article system similar to that of English. However, a focus on the features associated with articles as in (7b) will help us determine the cross-linguistic appropriateness of the DP structure. By examining codeswitched nominals from English/Korean CS4, sensitivity in expressing definiteness and possessive features will be made clear regardless of overt pronunciation. DP structure is then cross-linguistic appropriate so long as what occupies head D is re-envisioned as not English lexical articles but a definiteness feature. Ideally, the proposed analysis should be able to apply to other CS pairs, including English/Spanish and English/Serbo-Croatian. The next chapter discusses CS-focused research to support the legitimacy of using CS data as a means for exploring morpho-syntactic construction. Thereafter, English/Korean CS data largely from Park’s (1990) dissertation will be analyzed with particular attention to nominals. The final chapter revisits the discussed theoretical models that explain CS phenomena and nominal structure, and future research will also be proposed. This thesis would then illustrate the relevance of CS data to linguistic theory should the proposed analysis be successful.

4 As I am a English/Korean bilingual

8 A Review of the Syntactic Approaches to Codeswitching

Codeswitching is a linguistic phenomenon unique to bilinguals, and some linguists once believed that CS is structurally random. Active discussion about the syntactic regularity of CS emerged in the literature during the 1970s. This started with constraint-based approaches which were founded in Government and Binding, largely examined English/Spanish CS data, and were consequently CS-specific (cf. Gumperz 1967, Gumperz 1970, Timm 1975, and Wentz 1977). However, the current approaches pursue a constraint-free approach, meaning CS-specific constraints are not needed such that a single theoretical model should explain both monolingual and bilingual phenomena. Reviewing the development of syntactic approaches to CS describes not only the reasoning behind a constraint-free approach to CS but also the relevance of CS data to the general discussion of syntactic theory.

Government and Binding

Interpreting the various approaches of CS that should follow requires emphasizing the relevant components from Government and Binding (henceforth “GB”). It is a generative model which assumes that language competence is acquired through both exposure to linguistic input as well as access to innate structural rules. The intent of GB is to understand what comprises linguistic competences to explain linguistic performance and processing. The key question is then what are the universal principles that exist innately and what parameters negotiate the principles into language-specific grammar. A grammatical sentence comprises parts, or constituents, which those parts can be understood syntactically by their distribution, or context, as well as their idiosyncrasies derived from semantic meaning:

15. a. Lu directs movies. b. Paula directs traffic.

The acceptable English sentences in (15) have an agent each, “Lu” in (15a) and “Paula” in (15b), who complete the action, “directs,” which involves patients, “movies” in (15a)

9 and “traffic” in (15b). These thematic roles (agent, patient, etc.) are assigned relative to the action being expressed, though the processes of thematic, or theta, role assignment are considered part of the grammar and not dependent on the actions themselves. The action is expressed by functioning as a verb. The verb “directs” needs two arguments, an agent functioning as a subject and a patient functioning as an object, to be fully expressed. The grammatical structure then must allocate two structural positions, distinguishing the agent-subject from the patient-object. How these arguments are structured is understood through X-Bar Theory. Because grammar must be able to provide a recursive structure that is uniform, X- Bar Theory can account for not only sentences like (15) but also the internal structure for intrasentential constituents including noun phrases. Maintaining the Projection Principle, which states all lexical information must be ‘projected’ in a phrase, the rules of X-Bar Theory are as follows:

16. a. XP à WPSpecifier; X’

b. X’ à X’; YP Adjunct

c. X’ à XHead; ZPComplement

If X is any projected item, then a VP is when a verb “V” projects for the whole phrase. In (15), “directs” would be the lexical item which sits at head-V. Its complements, “movies” in (15a) and “traffic” in (15b), sit in the ZP position as noun heads “N” projecting NPs as in (16c); the subjects, “Lu” in (15a) and “Paula” in (15b), are also head-Ns projecting NPs but sit in the WP position as in (16a):

10 17.

(17) is a visual realization of (15a) relative to the structural descriptions provided through X-Bar Theory in (16). Because adjuncts are less relevant for this thesis, (16b) is not expressed but is mentioned later in this thesis. The variation among verbs with respect to what kind and how many arguments any verb allows is considered an idiosyncratic characteristic, information that is attributed to the lexicon and not the phrase structure. GB labels this information as subcategorization rules. For the verb “directs” in (15), its lexical entry can look like (18):

18. directs: verb; [_NP/IP]

Assuming that all sentences must have a subject (which is the Extended Projection Principle in GB), the subcategorization frame “[_NP]” demonstrates that “directs” is transitive and needs a patient to be expressed. Nouns also have subcategorization rules:

19. Lu: noun; [_] 20. man: noun; [(Det)_]

“Lu” does not require a determiner to express its noun-hood as indicated in (19), whereas “man” allows for a determiner to express its noun-hood. GB then asserts that the universal principles are understood through X-Bar Theory and the language-specific grammar rules are at least partially negotiated by the subcategorization rules.

11 Limitations of Formal Syntax on Intrasentential Codeswitching

Early approaches to codeswitching were particularly interested in how it relates to language contact. Pfaff (1979) noted how sociolinguists were concerned with the “social correlates of language choice” (p.294), but this came with the assumption that codeswitching behavior was syntactically random. Pfaff, referring back to work by Gingrás (1974) and Reyes (1974), observed CS phenomena to occur “at 'clearly discernible syntactic junctures' and 'having their own internal syntactic structure'” (p.296). While it has become clear that CS is indeed rule-governed, GB did not explicitly discuss where alternation can occur. MacSwan (2014, p.5) notes that researchers tended to split among a three-way division about how to investigate the systematicity of CS: argue for CS-specific devices, propose a CS-specific mechanism that applies vacuously to monolingual utterances, or provide a generally inexplicit framework which can account for greater variety of CS phenomena. Poplack’s (1981) complementary constraints are likely the best known of the CS- specific devices proposed:

21. The Equivalence Constraint: “Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structures of the languages map onto each other” (MacSwan, 2014, p.6[6]) 22. The Free Morpheme Constraint: “A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme” (MacSwan, 2014, p.6[7])

Drawing a relationship between sociolinguistics and formal linguistics, alternation may be stimulated from the social context but is syntactically permissible at sites where the surface structures of both languages being utilized. MacSwan provides counterevidence of (21) from Belazi et al. (1994) as follows:

12 23. a. The students habían visto la película italiana. “The students had seen the Italian movie.” b. *The students had visto la película italiana. “The students had seen the Italian movie.” (2014, p. 2[3])

Though the surface structures are the same in English and Spanish, alternation between an auxiliary verb and a main verb is considered ungrammatical as indicated in (23b).

The Functional Head Constraint

Belazi et al. (1994) discussed the shortcomings of several CS-specific constraints. While the Free Morpheme and Equivalence Constraints proposed by Poplack (1981) are not restrictive enough, Di Sciullo et al.’s (1986) Government Constraint is too restrictive, and Joshi’s (1985) Constraint on Closed-Class Items is not conducive to a theoretical framework to explain codeswitching behaviors. They instead propose a CS-specific mechanism that vacuously applies to monolingual utterances—the Functional Head Constraint (henceforth “FHC”):

24. The Functional Head Constraint: “The language feature of the complement f- selected by a functional head, like all other relevant features, must match the corresponding feature of that functional head.” (Belazi et al., 1994, p.228[16])

In other words, a function word belonging to a particular language can only select a complement that belongs to the same language. Abney’s (1987) DP Hypothesis is then realized as the vacuous application of (24) in monolingual utterances. This CS-specific mechanism does well to explain occurrences in English/Spanish CS but not so in English/Korean CS:

13 25. a. Pocos estudiantes finished the exam. few students finished the exam “Few students finished the exam.” b. *Pocos students finished the exam. few students finished the exam “Few students finished the exam.” (Belazi et al., 1994, p.229[18]) 26. (*Some) milk sa-reo kass-ta

(some) milk buy-PURP go.PST-DECL “[I] went to buy (some) milk.”

FHC accounts for the difference in acceptability between (25a) and (25b). Because “pocos” sits at the head D, which is considered a functional head, language feature alternation between “pocos” and “students” is not permitted. However, the nominal in the English/Korean CS data prevents grammatical acceptability of (26). The internal structure of the nominal “some milk” maintains the same language feature between the functional head “some” and its complement “milk.” Ultimately, the FHC alone does not adequately describe the asymmetry across language pairs like English/Spanish and English/Korean.

Woolford’s Model

Woolford (1983) created a shift in the CS literature by proposing a less-explicit model that accounted for many proposed, CS-specific constraints (though FHC was proposed afterwards). She suggested the bilingual speaker has two separate lexicons and two sets of phrase structure rules (one for each language), such that only the two sets of phrase structure rules overlap depending on what language-specific rules are shared by both languages. For example, an English/Spanish bilingual will then have developed an English lexicon with English grammar rules and a Spanish lexicon with Spanish grammar rules. Both lexicons then have access to terminal nodes where phrase structure rules overlap, but the lexicon and morphological components are absolutely kept separate.

14 This accounts for (21) and (22) but does not explain examples of ungrammaticality such as (23b), (25b), and (26). It seems that Woolford’s Model did not seek to explicitly describe the grammatically unacceptable instances because she states, “rules [of semantic interpretation] appear to be responsible for some constraints on code- switching beyond those resulting from differences in phrase structure rules alone” (p. 535). Despite this lack of precision, the following counterexample, which several English/Spanish bilinguals of varying degrees of dominance considered to be acceptable, weakens Woolford’s less-explicit model:

27. Erica lives in the casa blanca

Erica lives in the house.FEM white.FEM “Erica lives in the white house.”

Spanish has a different noun phrase structure rule than English such that adjectives must follow the noun which they modify. According to Woolford (1983), the dissimilarity between English and Spanish noun phrase rules, where adjective phrases precede nouns in English but follow nouns in Spanish, would prevent alternation within the noun phrase, though English/Spanish CS expressions like (27) are considered acceptable.

Mixed Language Frame Model

Myers-Scotton (1993) gives a thorough discussion about Mixed Language Frame Model (henceforth “MLFM”), another inexplicit CS framework similar to Woolford’s Model, from its motivations to its predictions as well as its implications in language change and language death. The model has four key motivations from psycholinguistic research, which are simplified in (28):

15

28. a. Predominance of one language over another occurs during language processing by bilinguals b. Content (or “lexical”) morphemes are retrieved in the mind differently from system (or “function”) morphemes c. Content (or “lexical”) morphemes and system (or “function”) morphemes are inserted and realized in the syntax at different stages of derivation d. Each language seems to have its own direct access to a common conceptual store

Motivations (28b) and (28c) lend to MLFM’s lexicalist approach to CS; and (28a) give reason to have a matrix language/embedded language distinction5. Note that (28d) links bilinguals and monolinguals with respect to how syntactic structure is motivated—there can only be one common area where conceptual form occurs6. This lends to the notion that a single theory of syntax should be able to adequately describe all structural phenomena, including CS, even though MLFM does not support any particular syntactic theory. The core components of this model, reflecting the motivations mentioned in (28), are as follows:

29. Matrix Language Assignment: “The ML [or “Matrix Language”] is the language of more morphemes in interaction types including intrasentential CS” (p. 68) 30. The ML Hypothesis: “As an early step in constructing ML+EL constituents, the ML provides the morphosyntactic frame of ML+EL constituents” (p. 82)

Where “EL” refers to an embedded language, (30) is an extension of (29) assuming that lexical items are encoded with syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information necessary

5 Where matrix language refers to the dominant language of an utterance, and embedded language is the alternate language which can be inserted into the dominant, or ‘matrix,’ language 6 This “common conceptual store” can be considered the source of semantic reference

16 for deriving syntactic structure. The ML Hypothesis as stated in (30) predicts that the matrix language, which is the language with the most identifiable morphemes within a given utterance, determines the overall structure of the given utterance. The inherent problem with MLFM is that it is not always clear which language is the ML, especially when the model recognizes that the ML can change at any given point during CS discourse:

31. Communication with Korean friend-ka more comfortable haejo

communication with Korean friend-NOM more comfortable do.DECL.POLITE “Communication with Korean friend(s) is more comfortable…” (Park, 1990, p. 75[57])

According to (29), the ML of (31) should be English as there are more identifiable morphemes from English than Korean; however, the surface realization of the sentential subject is organized like that of English (where Korean would have “with Korean friend” come before “communication” to modify “communication”) but the overall sentence is organized like that of Korean because of the overt nominative particle “ka” and realization of the predicate “more comfortable haejo.” At what point can ML turnover, as exhibited in (31), occur in the syntax? Much of the counterargument against MLFM rests on the model’s inability to precisely predict how and where ML turnover occurs.

Minimalist Program and Codeswitching

MacSwan (2014) explains that while many of the researchers who proposed approaches to CS (including the aforementioned) recognized a ‘constraint-free solution,’ none of them achieved this goal. He adopts the Minimalist Program (henceforth “MP”) to explain CS phenomena much like other syntacticians who adopted MP to explain monolingual utterances. His motivation for adopting MP, rather than develop a CS- specific approach that falls within MP, is because he assumes that bilinguals, like monolinguals, operationalize only one computational system that is universal to all human languages which builds syntactic structure, and language specific parameters are

17 posited in the lexicon. What then becomes more clearly observable in CS data compared to monolingual data is where universals emerge as language-specific parameters interact. Within MP, Chomsky (1995/2015) proposes a lexical array is composed of lexical items, and an operation called Select determines what items are selected into the array. An operation called Merge then arranges the items in the array into a hierarchical structure, and movement happens during the process of feature valuation (such as case and phi-features) through the structure. Monolinguals only have access to one lexicon, and the features marked on selected lexical items negotiate consistent transformations; whereas bilinguals have access to two lexicons and so CS exhibits the constraints of the syntax through the feature checking process when lexical array-pulled items from the two separate lexicons under valuation. MP simplifies Woolford’s Model by forgoing a separate set of phrase structure rules for each language acquired; and it avoids issues such as (29) in MLFM as highlighted seen in (31). Analyses of CS within the realm of MP also accounts for phenomena not previously discussed. One of which are CS asymmetries. Moro (2014) examines the following:

32. Con la washing machine “With the washing machine” (p. 220 [23]) 33. *I see the casa “I see the house” (p. 221 [24])

The point of grammatical acceptability rests on the determiners in examples (32) and (33). In (32), the determiner “la” possesses phi-features expressing person, number, and gender while the noun phrase which complements “la” expresses person and number only. Because “la” possesses the subset of features expressed by “washing machine,” English/Spanish bilinguals consider utterances like (32) as grammatically acceptable. The unacceptability in (33) arises from the phi-features expressed in “the” do not contain the subset of phi-features of “casa.” Because “the” does not express gender, the whole utterance gets rejected.

18 Recognizing the importance of features associated with determiners and learning how CS data operates within the bounds of syntactic theory and not requiring a CS- specific approach, the next chapter continues in light of Moro’s (2014) analysis exploring English/Korean CS. While it seems more accepted that the DP Hypothesis applies to both English and Spanish, Bošković (2008) gives reasoning to why a DP structure might not be cross-linguistically appropriate for what he considers articleless languages. There is evidence through some of the generalizations mentioned in (9), particularly about scrambling (9c) and radical pro-drop (9m), that Korean might not instantiate a DP structure for its nominals, but is not an entirely articleless language because of the observed anti-superiority effect, counterevidence for generalization (9d).

19 Data Analysis

Abney’s (1987) DP Hypothesis is noted for its capacity to account for a variety of syntactic phenomena, such that adopters of MP widely accept it. The FHC crucially accepts the DP Hypothesis to be true. As a result, languages like Korean have been analyzed with the understanding that they have DP structure for their nominals despite not having lexical articles as does English. Bošković (2008) counters this notion, correlating generalizations as mentioned in (9) to articleless languages which do not invoke a DP structure for its nominals. While Serbo-Croatian data seems to support a no- DP analysis where nominals are indeed NPs, evidence of Korean is not as consistent. Evidence of scrambling and pro-drop—should NPs and not null-Ds account for these generalizations—categorizes Korean as typologically similar to Serbo-Croatian; but the anti-superiority effect found in “wae” in multiple wh-fronting suggests that Korean does not neatly fit in Bošković’s (2008) categorization as articleless. Moro’s (2014) analysis of CS asymmetry in nominals from English/Spanish CS serves as a departure for this chapter, because it demonstrated an approach which falls within MP that is effective in understanding CS phenomena and nominal structure. If typological differences in both languages’ lexicons will either necessitate or forego DP- analysis, English nominals should maintain their DP-like structure, and Korean nominals should then maintain a traditional noun phrase (or “TNP”) structure. While Bošković (2008) briefly mentions English DPs behaving like NPs in English/Serbo-Croatian CS, he did not provide evidence nor was any found (though this is not to say it does not exist). Another indirect prediction is that alternation within words should not occur as morphological construction is argued to occur before lexical selection into the grammar. Should English/Korean CS data, reinterpreted within the bounds of MP, allow for Korean lexical items in a DP structure, one must consider the allowance of DPs in a seemingly articleless language like Korean. This may weaken a no-DP analysis empirically, but it is also reasonable to consider that the typological distinction holds though Korean may need to be reassigned to a kind of in-between status of articleness. Should English/Korean CS data allow any intraword CS, a more serious consequence emerges. Like subcategorization rules, morphological processes are designated in the

20 lexicon in GB and within MP. As such, an alternative approach should be explored such that it more adequately explains alternations on a morphological level as well as a syntactic level.

Evidence of “Missing” Articles in English/Korean CS

Alternations where an English noun phrase appears in a Korean matrix clause tend to be the most common form of alternation in English/Korean CS (Park 1990):

34. Malaysia-neun English-ka medium of instruction-i

Malaysia-TOP English-NOM medium of instruction-NOM

an-i-ko just foreign language i-aejo

NEG-be-COMP just foreign language be-DECL.POLITE “In Malaysia, English is not a medium of instruction but just a foreign language” (Park, 1990, p.115[97])

The external distributions of all four noun phrases in (34) are different. “Malaysia” sits in a focused construction outside of the external subject “English;” “medium of instruction” is an internal subject relevant to the negated copula within the embedded phrase; and “foreign language” is an internal object relevant to the non-negated copula of the matrix phrase. Both “Malaysia” and “English” are proper nouns in English and their realizations in the CS utterance are not unusual, assuming their subcategorization rules typically obviate an overt determiner. For “medium of instruction” and “foreign language,” the absence of overt articles in both constituents seems to provide for the allowance for English lexical insertion with Korean grammar rules. However, the internal structure of “medium of instruction” indicate greater similarity to English grammar rules. Korean nominals which denote possession will have the modifying noun sit before the modified noun and marked with genitive case:

21 35. kareuchim-eui pangpeop

teaching-GEN method “manner of instruction”

Despite the lack of overt articles, the internal structure of “medium of instruction” as found in (34) bares resemblance to English surface structure and not Korean surface structure as demonstrated in (35). It is important to note also that the lack of an overt pronunciation of a determiner does not necessarily equate to it being nonexistent:

36. Friend-eui culture language-na vocabulary-ka ce-pota nop-ajo

friend-GEN culture language-or vocabulary-NOM 1.SG-CM high-DECL.POLITE “[My] friend’s [command of] culture language or vocabulary are high compared to me” (Park, 1990, p. 115[99])

The absence of the possessive 1st person singular pronoun in (36) suggests that the disappearance of determiners does not mean its associated features are absent. Rather, the features are understood possibly through discourse as seen in Park’s (1990) adapted translation. The utterance recorded and glossed omits use of “my,” but one sees that it appears in the translation. The non-pronunciation of “my” or its Korean equivalent “na- eui” or “nae” does not affect the acceptability of (36), but it does challenge the notion of not having a realized D necessarily means that D is non-existent.

Evidence of Overt Articles in English/Korean CS

While some articles seem to go ‘missing’ as in (34) and (36), there are instances where articles are pronounced:

22

37. Community-eui the first person-eulo on salam-teul

community-GEN the first person-INS come person-PL i-can-ajo

be-IND-DECL.POLITE “(They) are the first person who came to [the] community.” (Park, 1990, p.120[112])

“Community” does not have a pronounced determiner though Park’s translation denotes that a specific community is referenced; but “the first person” maintains an English DP structure with a pronounced lexical article. Park (1990) argues that noun phrases with modifying adjuncts, particularly comparatives, superlatives, and ordinals, motivate the realization of English articles. The following evidence seems to support Park’s conclusion about the role of adjuncts and the realization of articles:

38. A little bit long story i-aejo

A little bit long story be-DECL.POLITE “It is a little bit [of a] long story.” (Park, 1990, p.75[58]) 39. Their American friend-aekae ilpuleo Korean language

Their American friend-DAT intentionally Korean language sseo-jo

use-DECL.POLITE “[They] intentionally use Korean to their American friend” (Park, 1990, p.75[59])

“A little bit long story” in (38) constitutes one whole noun phrase because of its distribution relative to the predicate and there is no intervening preposition to position “bit” as a head noun with “long story” as its complement. Where “little” modifies “bit” which modifies “long,” the noun phrase has several adjuncts embedded within the noun phrase constituent. To contrast with (36) where “my” is not overtly expressed in front of “friend”, “their American friend” in (39) has the possessive pronoun expressed. The use

23 of an attributive adjective likely contributes to the overt pronunciation of the English determiners. Though example (36) seems like a counterexample where “foreign language” has an attributive adjective but lacks an article, it is possible that “foreign language” is understood as a kind of compound noun rather than allocate “foreign” as the head of an adjective phrase which modifies “language” in the adjunct position of the NP. However, there is another example where a determiner is produced without an intervening modifier:

40. Keu university-eui faculty-ae oriental-kwa woman-i keoeui eops-eojo

the university-GEN faculty-in oriental-and woman-NOM

almost absent-DECL.POLITE “In the university faculty, oriental[s] and wom[a/e]n are almost absent.” (Park, 1990, p.116[100])

While “keu” is often translated as the demonstrative “that,” which would be relevant because Bošković (2008) dissociates demonstratives from articles, such a translation is not appropriate in (40). The interpretation of the produced utterance indicates that “university” does not necessarily refer to a specific school but rather the concept of “university” as an institution. In other words, Korean does have an article which is expressed in specific contexts.

The Semantic Argument for “keu” as the Korean Article

Hawkins (1978) presented two types of definite articles: anaphoric and situational. Anaphoric articles refer to a noun that has been previously introduced, where situational articles refer to a noun that which satisfies the condition framed by the utterance:

41. a. You can take a bus or a train to downtown. b. The train is faster than the bus.

24 42. The teacher works at school.

In (41b), “the” is anaphoric as it defines both “train” and “bus” in reference to (41a); and in (42), “the” is situational as it likely refers to a specific “teacher” which would be understood by all participants involved in the discourse. It is important to note that how “the” defines “teacher” in (42) can be interpreted in at least two different ways:

43. a. $!(x) (T(x) à W(x,s)) There exists only one x such that if x teaches then x must work at school. b. W(t,s) The teacher works at school.

Where T is “teach”, W is “work”, t is “teacher” and s is “school”, it is likely (43a) is the less-read interpretation by an English speaker of (42) in an environment where no additional context is provided. For (42) to be read as (43a), the immediate situation would need to provide some type of relationship where the interlocutor would understand there being one entity who teaches as a profession and thus necessarily works at school. The more read interpretation, (43b), emphasizes the function of work being a relationship between two constants, which are “teacher” and “school”. Therefore, “the” in (43b) is being used in a larger situational sense, where “the” defines the concept of “teacher” which is known to work in a specific location. Compared to English, Korean does not use “keu” anaphorically as is seen in (41b):

44. A. downtown-euro bus-hako kicha-leul tal-su-iss-ta

downtown-toward bus- CM train-ACC ride-able-exists-DECL “You can take a bus or a train to downtown.” B. bus-pota kica-neun teo ppaleu-ta

bus-CM train-TOP more fast-DECL “The train is faster than the bus.”

25 For a Korean speaker, it is simply understood through the discourse that the repetition of ‘bus’ and ‘train’ in (44b) is in reference to the same in (44a). This becomes clear with personal pronouns as 2nd person is used little and 3rd person is used even more rarely— especially in conversation—for it is more acceptable to refer any individual (with the exception of self) by that person’s name and/or title. However, the Korean interpretation of (42) is decisively split:

45. a. sunsaengnim-i hakkjo-ae keunmuha-ta

teacher-NOM school-LOC work-DECL “The teacher works at school.”

b. keu sunsaengnim-i hakkjo-ae keunmuha-ta

the teacher-NOM school-LOC work-DECL “The teacher works at school.”

In order to achieve the reading (43a) in Korean, the translation (45a) is contextually dependent on the situation in the discourse and thus will refer to a specific teacher unbounded anaphorically. Use of “keu” is considered unnecessary. However, “keu” appears in the reading of (43b) into the Korean translation of (45b) such that it defines “teacher” as being a singular concept, or constant. One could think of (45a) as completing some type of bridging (Clark 1975, Schwarz 2013) when situationally framed and (45b) be a free-floating utterance unbounded by space and time. Drawing a parallel between (45b) and (40), Korean/English CS supports the notion that Korean does have an article system (though comparably less lexically complex compared to English) and subsequently utilizes a DP structure. The previous sections demonstrate that the pronunciation of determiners may be syntactically- conditioned but are not always necessarily present. The realization of determiners may then be semantically dependent, though this possibility will not be explored here. Where (34) and (36) seemed to support Bošković’s (2008) notion about English DP-items behaving like Korean TNPs with an English predicate, (37)-(40) exhibit surface strings where English and Korean articles are pronounced. While there is evidence supporting

26 the DP Hypothesis through the existence of a Korean article and various alternations within English/Korean CS noun phrases, it is important to note another pattern that emerged in Park’s (1990) data.

The Pluralization Problem

Keeping within the bounds of MP, MacSwan (1997) argues against intraword alternation through his PF Disjunction Theorem:

46. PF Disjunction Theorem: a. “The PF component consists of rules which must be (partially) ordered with respect to each other, and these orders vary cross-linguistically.” b. “Code switching entails the union of at least two (lexically-encoded) grammars.” c. “Ordering relations are not preserved under union.” d. “Therefore, code switching within a PF component is not possible.” (p.230[78])

Within MP, Chomsky (2000, 2001) argues that Spell-Out, where the syntactic nodes become phonetically realized, interprets X0 as simple words through a single phonological system. This prevents two different phonological systems to operate on a single word that sits in X0 because the appropriate information encoded in each node only allows for one interpreting grammar to work at a time. To avoid violation of the uniform condition in CS utterances, MacSwan’s interpretation of Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) analysis which supports (46) alludes to the following conclusion made by Bandi-Rao & den Dikken (2014):

47. CS under X0 is not allowed. (p.167[14])

27 Because pluralization is realized in different surface orders cross-linguistically, we can associate plural markers as a juncture where CS cannot occur according to (46) and (47). In other words, pluralization, at least in English, is a process which occurs within an X0. Park’s (1990) data presents counterevidence to (46) as alternation between English nouns and the Korean plural marker is highly frequent:

48. American Friends-wa English-lo interaction-eul ha-ko

American Friends-with English- INS interaction-ACC do-COMP “[That I] interacted with my friends in English…” (Park, 1990, p. 121[116]) 49. Pattern-teul-eul euisikceok-eulo adopt-leul hae-seo

pattern-PL-ACC conscious- INS adopt-ACC do-as “As [people] adopt the pattern consciously…” (Park, 1990, p.121[114])

The use of the English plural marker on the English noun “friend” in (48) is expected, but the use of the Korean plural marker on the English noun “pattern” in (49) should be considered grammatically unacceptable. Park notes, the frequency of alternation between a bare English Noun and the Korean Plural marker “teul” in his conversational data suggests that such is highly acceptable (p.126). Park also conducted a grammaticality judgment task where Korean-English bilinguals were asked to score the acceptability of the following on a likert scale of one to seven where seven is highly acceptability and one is unacceptable:

50. Pencils-teul-i ppjocok-ha-ta

pencils-PL-NOM sharpness-DO-DECL “[The] pencis are sharp.” (p.125[121])

Participants rated (50) a mean score of 4.75 which Park indicates that the results suggest a high rate of acceptability (p.125-6), even with the double morphology where both English “s” and Korean “teul” are expressed. A small collection of informal judgments where English-Korean bilinguals were asked to respond Yes-No regarding the acceptability of (49) outside of Park’s dissertation also indicates a high rate of

28 acceptability between bare English nouns (i.e. those without the English plural “s”) and the Korean plural marker. It is also likely that pluralization is an asymmetry between English and Korean as the following informally tested utterance was generally considered unacceptable:

51. *I sharpened jeonpil-s before class.

I sharpened pencil-PL before class “I sharpened pencils before class.”

Where English/Korean CS supports the cross-linguistic application of Abney’s (1987) DP Hypothesis, the peculiar nature of pluralization in English/Korean CS challenges MacSwan’s (1997) PF Disjunction Theorem as noted in (46), consequently affecting the empirical effectiveness of MP by association. The next chapter discusses an analysis of English/Telugu CS, which presents a similar problem of evidence where intraword alternation occurs. The analysis presented for English/Telugu CS suggests an alternative theoretical model which posits a functionalist approach rather than a lexical one as understood in GB and which falls within MP as expressed by MacSwan (1997, 2014). The relevance of intraword CS in English/Telugu CS and English/Korean CS should provide grounds for proposing future research utilizing a non-lexicalist approach that allows for late Spell-Out, maintaining that such an approach can explain both the behavior of articles as well as plural markers in the aforementioned CS data.

29 An Alternative Theoretical Model for Codeswitching

The last chapter explored English/Korean CS in order to determine whether DP- structure can be applied cross-linguistically. Observing intraphrasal alternations in nominals between Korean and English, such that there is reason to believe that Korean indeed has an article, it is likely that the DP Hypothesis is at least appropriate for Korean. This exploration also presented additional evidence to suggest that current approaches to CS within MP are not yet descriptively adequate with respect to pluralization in English/Korean CS. A similar finding of counterevidence to MacSwan’s (1997) PF Disjunctive Theorem in English/Telugu CS may prove relevant to the internal structure of nominals.

“ify” versus “inc” in English/Telugu CS

Bandi-Rao & den Dikken (2014) discover that CS “below X0” can occur, as in the following English/Telugu CS data, countering the PF Disjunction Theorem:

52. a. My sister kal(i)p-ified the curry stir- b. You have to kar(i)g-ify the butter

meltTRANS- (p.163[7a,b]) 53. a. *vaaDu nanni love-inc-EEDu

he-NOM me-ACC love-do-PST-AGR b. vaaDu nanni love cees-EEDu

he-NOM me-ACC love do-PST-AGR “He loved me” (p.165[8a,b])

Where “inc” and “cees” are understood as Telugu inflectional markers, “cees” is understood to be more like a light verb similar to the English verbs “give,” “make,” or “do” whereas “inc” is understood to behave more like the English affix “ify” where both are little v light verbs. In examples (52a) and (52b), the English affix can readily attach to

30 Telugu verbs “kal(i)p” and “kal(i)g;” but its Telugu counterpart “inc” does not readily attach to the English verb and instead Telugu light verb “cees” incorporates with “love.” The asymmetry between “ify” and “inc” is understood to be a difference in the ability to incorporate with the head noun or not. The English affix in (52a) is argued to behave like a little v but does not incorporate with the Telugu verbal head. By comparison, the Telugu “inc” seems to behave similar to “ify” as a little v but is not able to incorporate with the English verbal head “love” in (53a). The authors conclude the following difference between “ify” and “inc”:

54. a. Telugu “inc” = v is an incorporator b. English “ify” = v is not an incorporator (p.167[15])

In other words, “ify” must occupy a separate morphosyntactic node such that (52) are considered acceptable and “inc” seeks to adjoin into a morphosyntactic node like in (53a) which is unacceptable. The evidence then does not completely reject the PF Disjunctive Theorem as stated in (46) but rather considers it a kind of constraint which emerges in CS. This suggests that X0 is not always a lexical item but rather a morphophonological unit that fulfills a morphosyntactic feature. Bandi-Rao & den Dikken (2014) reinterpret (46) and (47) into the following:

55. “Codeswitching within phonological words that are morphosyntactic heads (X0s) is illicit” (p.172[22])

This reinterpretation requires Spell-Out to occur later in the syntax process than what Chomsky (2000, 2001) prescribes. As such, the authors consider a non-lexicalist approach like Distributed Morphology (or “DM”) to be a plausible alternative to current approaches within MP as late Spell-Out is a distinguishing characteristic for the theoretical model7.

7 See Marantz 1997

31 Re-addressing the Pluralization Problem

Applying Bandi-Rao & den Dikken’s (2014) analysis to pluralization, the English plural form and the Korean plural form behave in a way that is parallel to “ify” and “inc” from English and Telugu respectively. This can be made clear in the re-statement of (48) and (49):

48. American Friends-wa English-lo interaction-eul ha-ko

American Friends-with English- INS interaction-ACC do-COMP

“[That I] interacted with my friends in English…” (Park, 1990, p. 121[116]) 49. Pattern-teul-eul euisikceok-eulo adopt-leul hae-seo

pattern-PL-ACC conscious- INS adopt-ACC do-as “As [people] adopt the pattern consciously…” (Park, 1990, p.121[114])

English pluralization is understood as a process that happens within an X0 as it is phonologically realized relative to its head noun, which can be best exemplified by the various ways plurality is expressed in English:

56. a. The girls walk across the stage. b. The alumni walk across the stage. c. The sheep walk across the stage.

Comparing (56a), where “s” is realized, to (56b) and (56c), the plural form is phonologically dependent on its head noun. However, Korean’s plural marker maintains its phonological shape regardless of the head noun that it marks for plurality. It becomes reasonable to consider that the Korean plural marker is under a separate morphosyntactic head whereas the English plural marker, in a way, incorporates into the noun head, parallel to the way in which “ify” constitutes a separate morphosyntactic head than “inc” which seeks to incorporate.

32 The Relevance of Pluralization and Articles

The realization of English articles “the” and “a(n)” draw another parallel, such that the English “the” is not phonologically dependent on its head noun compared to “a(n)”. This pattern is made clear in the English/Korean CS in that the use of “a(n)” emerges through conversational data in Park’s (1990) only once, which is (38) restated below:

38. A little bit long story i-aejo

A little bit long story be-DECL.POLITE “It is a little bit [of a] long story.” (p.75[58])

The following were tested for acceptability but scored low with a mean score of 3.16 out of seven:

57. a. A man-i keu jeoca-leul pon-ta

a man-NOM that girl-ACC see.PRS-DECL “A man is looking at the girl.” b. The husband-neun keu-eui anae-leul sarang-han-ta

The husband-TOP he-GEN wife-ACC love-do.PRS-DECL “The husband loves his wife.” (p.120-121[113a,b])

Because the acceptability judgements were statistically tested as one group, it is unclear whether (57a) and (57b) are both unacceptable or if ratings of (57a) affected the ratings of (57b). Informal judgments made separately from Park’s (1990) dissertation indicate that there is likely a real difference between the acceptability of (57a) and (57b). Further research needs to be explored, testing differences between “the,” “a(n),” and “keu” through English/Korean CS as it is possible that DP structure produces different generalizations as discussed in (9) but the realization of DP is different with respect to what occupies the head of the (morpho-)syntactic node D0.

33 Conclusion

Even though lexicons help to distinguish between languages, syntactic features do not seem to be as inherently attached to phonological strings as may have been considered before. The CS data demonstrates that the extension of the DP hypothesis to Korean provides a strong, empirical account for English/Korean CS. What remains is the open question about the precise nature of D0. Early models in theoretical syntax focused on English-specific behavior and developed English phrase structure rules. These rules contributed to the development of the DP hypothesis, which is why Lees (1960) and Chomsky (1970) are relevant for understanding Abney’s (1987) argument. Though Korean lacks an article system comparable to English’s, Bošković’s (2008) grouping of Korean into the articleless typology gave reason to investigate the role of articles further with respect to a language that seems to lack such lexical items. The result proposes that Korean does indeed have an article, realized as “keu,” and is semantically-licensed for a specific context, which is to indicate a subsequent noun as a constant concept rather than operating anaphorically as defined by Hawkins (1978). English seems to not make the same phonological distinction between anaphoric and situational in the realization of “the.” Recognizing a parallel between English/Korean articles and plural markers, Bandi-Rao & den Dikken’s (2014) analysis of an asymmetry between Telugu’s “inc” and English’s “ify” as v gives rise to an empirical problem in English/Telugu as well as English/Korean with MacSwan’s (1997) PF Disjunctive Theorem, a constraint derived from Chomsky’s (2000,2001) argument within MP that maps when syntactic nodes are Spelled-Out and its implications. Future research which tests the nature of English “the,” Korean “keu,” and English “a(n)” may provide greater insight on what is selected into D0 and how that relates to Bošković’s generalizations listed in (9). Additional research on English/Serbo-Croatian CS seems also necessary to draw greater syntactic awareness of the role of DP (or NP) across what seems to be an articleness spectrum, where English sits at one end, Serbo-Croatian at the other, and Korean somewhere in-between the two.

34 References

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bandi-Rao, Shoba and den Dikken, Marcel. 2014. “Light switches: On v as a pivot in codeswitching, and the nature of the ban on word-internal switches.” In MacSwan, J. (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching, 161-184, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Belazi, Hedi M., Rubin, Edward J., & Toribio, Almeida J. 1994. “Code Switching and X- Bar Theory: The Functional Head Constraint.” Linguistic Inquiry, 25(2), 221-237. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1986. “Linguistic constraints on intrasentential code-switching: A study of Spanish/Hebrew bilingualism.” Language in Society, 15(3), 313-348. Bošković, Željko. 2004. “Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling.” Linguistic Inquiry, 35(4), 613-638. Bošković, Željko. 2005. “On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica, 59, 1-45. Bošković, Željko. 2008. “What will you have, DP or NP?” In Proceedings of NELS 37: Volume 2, 101-114. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Chomsky, Noam. 1965(2015). Aspects on the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on nominalization.” In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184- 221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory.” In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995(2015). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step By Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

35 Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1-52, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clark, Herbert H. 1975. “Bridging.” In Schank, R. C. and Nash-Webber, B. L. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 169-174, New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language, 2E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie, Muysken, Pieter and Singh, Rajendra. 1986. “Government and code-mixing.” Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1-24. Gingrás, Rosario. 1974. “Problems in the description of Spanish/English intrasentential code-switching.” In Bills, Garland (ed.), Southwest Areal Linguistics, 167-174, San Diego, CA: University of California – San Diego, Institute for Cultural Pluralism. Grosjean, François. 2010. Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, John J. 1967. “On the linguistic markers of bilingual communication.” Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 48-57. Gumperz, John J. 1970. “Verbal strategies and multilingual communication.” In Alatis, J.E. (ed.), Georgetown Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 129-147, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm. Jeong, Yeongmi. 2003. “Deriving anti-superiority effects: Multiple wh-questions in Japanese and Korean.” In Grohman, K. K. & Boeckx, C. (eds.), Multiple Wh- Fronting, 131-140, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Joshi, Aravind. 1985. “Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching.” In Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives, 190-205, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Sun-Woong. 2011. “A Note on NP/DP Parameter: Left Branch Extraction in Korean.” Linguistic Research, 28(2), 257-269.

36 Lee, Eunsuk. 2007. Types of Scrambling in Korean Syntax. Dissertation, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Lees, Robert B. 1960. “The grammar of English nominalizations.” International Journal of American Linguistics, 26(3). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. MacSwan, Jeff. 1997. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching: Spanish-Nahuatl Bilingualism in Central Mexico. Dissertation, University of California – Los Angeles. MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. New York: Garland Publishing. MacSwan, Jeff. 2014. Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201-225. Moro Quintanilla, Monica. 2014. “The semantic interpretation and syntactic distribution of determiner phrases in Spanish-English codeswitching.” In MacSwan, J. (ed.), Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching, 213-226, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Duelling Languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nishimura, Miwa. 1985. Intrasentential Code-Switching in Japanese and English. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Park, Jun-Eon. 1990. Korean/English Intrasentential Code-Switching: Matrix language assignment and linguistic constraints. Dissertation, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign. Pfaff, Carol. 1979. “Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English.” Language, 55(2), 291-318. Poplack, Shana. 1981. “Syntactic structure and social function of codeswitching.” In Duran, Richard P. (ed.), Latino Language and Communicative Behavior, 169-184, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

37 Reyes, Rogelio. 1974. Studies in Chicano Spanish. Disseration, Harvard University. Savić, Jelena M. 1995. “Structural convergence and language change: Evidence from Serbian/English code-switching.” Language in Society, 24(4), 475-492. Timm, Lenora A. 1975. “Spanish-English code-switching: El porqué and how-not-to.” Romance Philology, 28, 473-482. Wentz, James P. 1977. Some Considerations in the Development of a Syntactic Description of Code-Switching. Dissertation, University of Illinois – Urbana- Champaign. Woolford, Ellen. 1983. “Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory.” Linguistic Inquiry, 14(3), 520-536.

38 Appendix A: Korean Transcription System

한글 English 한글 English Romanization Romanization

ㄱ k ㅏ a ㄴ n ㅑ ja ㄷ t ㅓ eo ㄹ l ㅕ jeo ㅁ m ㅗ o ㅂ p ㅛ jo ㅅ s ㅜ u 8 ㅇ ng ㅠ ju ㅈ c ㅡ eu ㅊ ch ㅣ i 9 ㅋ kh ㅐ/ㅔ ae 4 ㅌ th ㅒ/ㅖ jae ㅍ ph ㅎ h Note: Double consonants are patterned the same way in Hangeul and English

Romanization, such that “ㄲ” is transcribed as “kk”.

8 This only occurs in coda positions; when in syllable-initial position (as Korean is orthographically grouped by syllable), realized as a glottal stop or not realized at all. 9 Long short distinction is largely lost in oral production of Korean though maintained orthographically. Because the distinction is not important in the context of this thesis, transcription distinction was not made.

39 Appendix B: Leipzig Glossing Abbreviations

1 1st Person 2 2nd Person 3 3rd Person ACC Accusative CM Comparative COMP Complementizer DAT Dative DECL Declarative FEM Feminine GEN Genitive HON Honorific Form IND Indicative INS Instrumental INFORM Informal NEG Negation LOC Locative NOM Nominative PL Plural POLITE Polite Form POSS Possessive PRF Perfect PROG Progressive PRS Present PST Past PURP Purposive Q Question Marker SG Singular TOP Topic TRANS Transitive

40