languages
Article
Mixed Verbs in Code-Switching: The Syntax of
Light Verbs
Ji Young Shim
Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva, Geneva 1211, Switzerland; [email protected];
Tel.: +41-22-379-7236
Academic Editors: Usha Lakshmanan, Osmer Balam and Tej K. Bhatia
Received: 5 October 2015; Accepted: 13 May 2016; Published: 17 June 2016
Abstract: This study investigates word order variation in Korean-English and Japanese-English
code-switching, with specific focus on the relative placement of the object and the verb in two
contrasting word orders, Object-Verb (OV) vs. Verb-Object (VO). The results of an experiment eliciting
code-switching judgment data provides strong evidence indicating that the distinction between
heavy vs. light verbs plays a major role in deriving different word orders in mixed verb constructions
in Korean-English and Japanese-English code-switching. In particular, an explanation pursued in this
research supports the hypothesis that parametric variation is attributed to differences in the features
of a functional category in the lexicon, as assumed in Minimalist Syntax.
Keywords: code-switching; light verbs; light verb constructions; word order; feature inheritance;
idioms
1. Introduction
The present study investigates code-switching (CS), the concurrent use of more than one language
in a conversation, commonly observed in bilingual speech. Under the assumption that CS is not
random but subject to universal principles [1–9], just like monolingual grammars, this study provides
a grammatical account of CS, with particular emphasis on OV~VO variation in two typologically
similar language pairs, Korean-English (KE) and Japanese-English (JE), which exhibit a number
of interesting features that need to be explained. Due to their canonical word order difference,
Korean and Japanese being SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) and English SVO (Subject-Verb-Object),
a code-switched sentence can take, in principle, either OV or VO order, both of which are attested in
the KE and JE CS literature [10–17]. One immediate question that arises is how these two orders, OV
and VO, are distributed in code-switched utterances. To account for OV~VO variation in CS, several
researchers have proposed similar structural analyses based on the head parameter, whose main claim
is summarized in (1).
1.
The language of the verb determines the position of the object in both monolingual and
bilingual contexts [5–7].
Under this view, it is predicted that when the verb comes from an OV language, such as Korean
or Japanese, the order would be OV. On the other hand, if the verb were provided from a VO language
like English, VO order would be obtained. The KE and JE CS examples in (2) and (3) seem to confirm
this prediction.
Languages 2016, 1, 8; doi:10.3390/languages1010008
www.mdpi.com/journal/languages
Languages 2016, 1, 8
2.
3.
2 of 31
a.
Wonderful ideas-lul
manhi
naynoh-un
-ACC
a lot
present-REL
‘(They) seem to present many wonderful ideas’
b.
Only small prizes moratta-ne
get.PAST
‘(We) got only small prizes’
[14] (p. 128)
I like koki. Koki’s good
meat
‘I like meat. Meat’s good’
[10] (p. 886)
We never knew anna koto nanka
such thing sarcasm
‘We never knew such a thing as sarcasm’
[13] (p. 76)
a.
b.
kes
thing
kath-ayo
seem-DECL
[17] (p. 121)
In (2), the verb comes from either Korean (naynoh ‘present’ in (2a)) or Japanese (moratta ‘got’ in
(2b)), and the word order is OV, as predicted by (1). In contrast, in the examples in (3) where the verb
is from English (like in (3a) and knew in (3b)), the resulting word order is VO. However, the proposal in
(1) fails to account for the word order in (4), where the verb comes from English (apply in (4a) and mark
in (4b)). According to (1), VO order is predicted, but the surface order is OV.
4.
a.
assistantship apply hay
DO . LNK
‘(I) applied for an assistantship’
b.
one algebra question-o mark-shite
-ACC
- DO
‘(You) mark one algebra question’
noh-ass-eyo
put-PAST- DECL
[17] (p. 189)
[15] (p. 135)
The limitations of the head parameter approach to CS were noticed by Chan [1,2], who proposes
an alternative account to capture a broader range of cross-linguistic CS data. Chan notes that the
problematic cases that do not seem to be justified by (1) involve light verbs. He calls constructions of
the type in (4) ‘mixed compound verbs’, where the complex verb consists of a host verb (apply and
mark) and a light verb (ha and su), coming from different languages. Based on his observations, Chan
proposes the following:
5.
The complex verb of the light verb constructions behaves the same way as a simplex or a
compound verb from the language of the light verb.
Chan’s hypothesis correctly predicts the OV order of the code-switched utterances in (4): the light
verb comes from either Korean or Japanese, which are OV languages, and the complex verbs, apply-ha
in (4a) and mark-su in (4b), follow the grammar of the light verb, resulting in OV order. However, as
Chan has himself acknowledged, whether these complex verbs are genuine compounds is controversial.
For example, (sentential) negation, an ‘not’, can intervene between the lexical verb, apply, and the
Korean light verb, ha, as shown in (6a). In fact, the only possible position of the negation marker, an,
is between the two verbs, apply and ha: it cannot precede the verb, apply, as in (6b).
6.
a.
assistantship apply an
hay
DO . LNK
‘(I) did not apply for an assistantship’
noh-ass-eyo
put-PAST- DECL
* assistantship an apply hay
NEG
DO . LNK
noh-ass-eyo
put-PAST- DECL
NEG
b.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
3 of 31
The placement of an with respect to the lexical verb, apply, in KE CS in (6) contrasts with that in (7),
where two verbs, ssip ‘chew’ and mek ‘eat’, form a compound and the negation marker, an, cannot
appear between them. The example in (7) from Korean is called a serial verb construction, in which
two verbs form a single predicate and share the argument structure. This disproves Chan’s claim that
the complex verb of the light verb constructions functions similar to a compound verb in the language
of the light verb.
7.
a.
Kibo-ka
kimchi-lul
an
ssip-e
-NOM kimchi-ACC NEG
chew-LNK
‘Kibo did not chew-and-eat kimchi’
b.
* Kibo-ka
-NOM
kimchi-lul
kimchi-ACC
ssip-e
chew-LNK
an
NEG
mek-ess-ta
eat-PAST- DECL
mek-ess-ta
eat-PAST- DECL
Additionally, Chan’s prediction that the verbal complex in light verb constructions obeys the
grammar of the language of the light verb is not always borne out. In (8), the verb comes from English,
catch in (8a) and keep in (8b), and the light verb is selected from either Korean, ha in (8a), or Japanese,
su in (8b). Yet, the sentences exhibit the English-style VO order, not the grammar of the language of
the light verb.
8.
a.
b.
catch up cold ha-myen
DO -if
‘If (you) catch a cold . . . ’
[17] (p. 136)
yooshi
keep an eye suru-zo
well I’m going to
DO - PRT
‘Well, I’m really going to keep an eye on you’
[12] (p. 24)
Chan treats examples such as (8) as exceptions whose word order is not predicted by (5).
He reasons that corpus data for CS between OV and VO languages show that the VO sequence
in light verb constructions in CS is rarer than the OV pattern in a similar environment, and does
not offer an account of the unexpected VO pattern. However, the less frequent occurrence of VO
order per se does not justify his decision to consider them as not being subject to universal principles.
The CS literature clearly shows that both OV and VO patterns exist in various OV-VO language pairs
(e.g., Hindi-English, Punjabi-English, Tamil-English, and so on) and OV~VO variation in CS should be
accounted for. Although Chan’s analysis fails to correctly account for OV~VO variation documented
in the CS corpus data, he rightly points out that the code-switched sentences varying between OV and
VO order involve a light verb in diverse language pairs, which was not noticed in previous research.
Shim [8] analyzes KE and JE CS corpus data and suggests that the OV and VO contrast is closely
related to the heavy vs. light distinction of the verb within the code-switched constituent: while the
verbs in (4), apply and mark, are heavy in the sense that they deliver full semantic information to their
clausal structure, those in (8), catch and keep, are light and have little semantic content of their own but
only deliver aspectual information. In addition, Shim also postulates that OV~VO variation in CS
could also be related to the compositionality of the code-switched phrase: the verb and the internal
argument are code-switched into English separately in (4), without changing the OV order of Korean
or Japanese. On the other hand, idioms such as catch a cold or keep an eye (on) in (8) may be listed in the
lexicon and switched as a chunk, maintaining the VO order of English. The two hypotheses, namely,
selection of light verbs and idiomaticity, were tested against the judgments solicited from a small
number of KE and JE bilingual speakers, and the following conclusions were made in Shim.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
9.
a.
b.
c.
4 of 31
Selection of light verbs results in OV~VO variation in both non-idiomatic (literal)
phrases and compositional idioms. More specifically, when light verbs are selected from
Korean or Japanese, OV is generated, following the grammar of Korean or Japanese.
On the contrary, selection of English light verbs results in the English-style VO order in
the derivation.
Compositional idioms undergo aspectual composition, similar to non-idiomatic phrases,
while non-compositional idioms do not undergo aspectual composition in the
syntactic derivation.
Non-compositional idioms undergo code-switching as a unit, and the internal order of
the code-switched phrase is maintained throughout the derivation.
Although (9) seems to correctly describe OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS, several questions
arise regarding the design of the study and the analyses provided. First, the distinction between
heavy and light verbs and also between light verbs and light verb constructions needs to be clarified.
Failure to provide a clear distinction between light verbs and light verb constructions resulted in
the mis-categorization of the verb in a few instances in the study. For instance, the verb catch in the
phrase catch a cold was analyzed as a light verb, based on the assumption that the verb does not have
its manner component, and thus conveys less idiosyncratic lexical meaning of its own. However,
the verb catch clearly plays a role in determining the aspect of the phrase catch a cold, along with the
object, which is distinguished from keep an eye, for instance, in which the aspectual properties of the
verb phrase are not decided by the verb keep and its complement combined. Instead the aspectual
constitution of keep an eye is the same as that of the corresponding ‘simple’ verb construction, in which
the light verb’s complement is used as the verb, (to) eye.
Also, the notion of compositionality of idioms, which Shim adopts, has been contested by a
number of researchers despite the fact that it is widely cited for studies on idioms. According to
Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow [18], idioms are divided into two groups based on their semantic
compositionality. Most idioms (e.g., take advantage of, pull strings) are in fact relatively ‘compositional’
in the sense that the idiomatic reading is composed fairly transparently from the sub-parts of the
idiom. ‘Non-compositional’ idioms (e.g., kick the bucket, shoot the breeze), on the other hand, do not
compose their meanings from those of their components, but the idiomatic meaning is assigned to
the whole phrase. Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow propose that, while compositional idioms have the
syntax of non-idiomatic expressions, non-compositional idioms are stored in the lexicon as complete
phrases [18] (p. 497, 515). Following their proposal, Shim [8] argues that compositional idioms and
non-compositional idioms are predicted to behave differently in CS and derive different word orders:
while compositional idioms are not frozen as a chunk and their internal arguments are subject to CS,
just like non-idiomatic/literal phrases, non-compositional idioms are listed in the lexicon and undergo
CS as a whole.
However, the distinction between compositional and non-compositional (or similarly,
decomposable vs. non-decomposable) idioms does not hold uniformly among researchers [19–22].
While the view on the semantic properties of idioms varies to a large extent from researcher to
researcher, it seems that the syntactic behavior of idioms is less of a contentious issue. Researchers
converge on the view that idiomatic expressions can be categorized into three groups based on their
syntactic behavior: syntactically fully flexible, less flexible, and frozen, as shown by the examples
in (10)–(12), taken from Horn [22] and Schenk [23]. The symbol # indicates the sentence is grammatical,
but the idiomatic reading is unavailable.
10.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Care was taken care of all of the orphans
Great care seemed to be taken of the refugees by the government
The care that they took of the infants was more than adequate
How much care did they take of the infants?
Languages 2016, 1, 8
11.
a.
b.
c.
d.
The beans were spilled (by Stefanie)
The beans appeared to be spilled when he opened his mouth
# The beans that Joe spilled caused us a lot of trouble
# Which beans did Joe spill?
12.
a.
b.
c.
d.
# The bucket was kicked by all of the bad guys
# The bucket seems to be kicked by John
# The bucket John kicked was astonishing
# Which bucket did John kick?
5 of 31
In (10), the idiom take care of undergoes various syntactic operations such as passivization (10a),
raising (10b), relativization (10c), and wh-question formation (10d). On the other hand, spill the beans
may partake only in a limited number of syntactic operations such as passivization (11a) and raising
(11b), and the idiomatic interpretation is no longer available in (11c) and (11d). In contrast, the degree
of syntactic flexibility of kick the bucket is heavily restricted, thus none of the sentences in (12) delivers its
figurative reading ‘die’. Although speakers may vary in the extent to which they accept each sentence
in (10) through (12) under an idiomatic reading, it is clear that the degree of syntactic flexibility varies
from idiom to idiom, which in turn suggests that, while some idioms may be derived in the syntax,
others may not. In light of these considerations, new working definitions of light verbs and light verb
constructions, and VP (Verb Phrase) idioms are provided below (For a detailed description of LVs and
LVCs, see Section 2).
13.
14.
a.
A Light Verb (LV) never has idiosyncratic lexical meaning of its own, but only
lexicalizes an abstract functional head.
b.
In a Light Verb Construction (LVC), the verb itself does not contribute any lexical
semantic information and the semantic meaning of the verbal phrase comes from its
complement. Both heavy and light verbs may participate in LVCs.
The term VP idiom refers to a VP in which the verb takes an object and the two together
deliver a non-literal, idiosyncratic reading.
Departing from the assumption that linguistic parameterization is attributed to the
morpho-syntactic contents of functional categories, not those of lexical roots [24,25], the role of
functional or light verbs in mixed verb constructions in KE and JE CS was investigated in the present
study. In comparison with that of lexical or heavy verbs, the role of functional or light verbs was tested
against 28 KE and 8 JE bilingual speakers’ introspective judgments of the CS patterns, which were
presented to them in the form of a questionnaire. In addition, this study also investigates various
idiomatic expressions in English and how they contribute to word order variation in KE and JE CS.
The two research questions addressed in the study are provided below.
15.
a.
b.
What is a role of light verbs in CS? How is OV~VO variation in CS related to the choice
between light verbs and heavy or lexical verbs?
Does syntactic flexibility play a role in deriving word order in CS? Are both
syntactically flexible and less flexible phrases subject to CS?
These two research questions were explored in an experimental study on KE and JE CS, and the
following hypotheses were formulated based on the results from a pilot study conducted by Shim [8].
Languages 2016, 1, 8
16.
a.
b.
6 of 31
Assuming that word order is determined by feature specifications on a functional
category, not a lexical category, feature specifications on an LV in Korean, Japanese, and
English and how these features are valued in syntactic derivations may determine word
order in CS. More specifically, the choice between functional or light verbs and lexical or
heavy verbs is expected to result in different word order.
Syntactically flexible phrases and inflexible phrases will behave differently with respect
to word order derivation in CS. More specifically, while the internal argument of the
syntactically flexible phrase can be switched, the syntactically inflexible phrase is frozen
and undergoes CS as a unit. Hence, the internal order of the phrase is maintained
throughout the derivation.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 examines LVs and LVCs in the
languages of investigation, English, Korean, and Japanese, based on which the new definitions of LVs
and LVCs in (13) were proposed. In addition, a syntactic analysis of LVs in these three languages
is proposed. Section 3 presents an experimental study consisting of three interrelated tasks that
elicited judgment data from Korean-English and Japanese-English bilingual speakers to explore the
two research questions listed in (15). Task 1 was a code-switching judgment task that focused on
word order distinctions (i.e., OV versus VO) in code-switched utterances. Task 2 and Task 3 tested
the participants’ judgments on syntactic flexibility and meanings of idioms, respectively. The v-Asp
structure for English, Korean, and Japanese proposed in Section 2 is further developed under the
FEATURE INHERITANCE system in the framework of the Minimalist Program in Section 4, based on
which the OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS is accounted for. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Light Verbs and Light Verb Constructions
2.1. English
The term L IGHT V ERB was first introduced by Jespersen [26], to refer to the verbs in English
V + NP constructions such as have a look, take a walk, make a plunge, give a sigh, get a move on, do a
bunk ‘run away’, etc. Since Jespersen’s original coinage, the terms LIGHT VERBS and LIGHT VERB
CONSTRUCTIONS have been adopted by a number of researchers to analyze various forms of complex
predicates in many languages (e.g., see [27–29] for English; [30,31] for Korean; [32,33] for Japanese;
Urdu [34] and Persian [35]).
In addition to those verbs identified as LVs by Jespersen, other verbs such as pay, offer, and put
may also participate in LVCs, such as in offer an apology, pay attention, and put the blame (on), according
to Huddleston and Pullum [36] (p. 296 and p. 1093). Huddleston and Pullum refer to LVs as ‘light uses
of verbs’, differing from their heavy uses (p. 290). To put it differently, a verb may be used either as a
heavy verb (HV) or as a light verb (LV), participating in LVCs. In recent years, however, a subset of
verbs forming LVCs has been reanalyzed as true LVs, which represent one or more abstract functional
heads in all of their uses. Examples are provided in (17) [37–44].
17.
a.
have = BE + TO
have = P HAVE
have = v BE + APPL ( CATIVE )
[37–39]
[40]
[41]
b.
get = BECOME
get = INCH ( OATIVE )
[42]
[43]
c.
give = CAUSE (v CAUSE ) + P HAVE
[44]
All of the syntactic analyses given in (17) and other similar accounts adopt the so-called lexical
decompositional theory in generative semantics, championed by Dowty [45], and assume that the
abstract operators such as CAUS ( E ), DO, and BECOME, which do not directly correspond to the English
verbs, cause, do, and become but represent abstract semantic units, also characterize abstract elements in
Languages 2016, 1, 8
7 of 31
the syntax as well. Thus, while verbs like cause, do, and become are categorized as V, a lexical category,
abstract elements such as CAUS ( E ), DO, and BECOME represent a functional category, and are variants
of v in the structure.
Assuming that the analyses in (17) successfully capture the core properties of these verbs as
true LVs, we now face the task of distinguishing verbs like these, which are inherently LVs, from the
verbs that are normally HVs but have additional light uses. As Butt [46] points out, there exists a
great diversity of analyses and terminology on LVs and their complex predicate formation in the vast
literature on this topic. In this regard, we need to clarify the terms Light Verbs, Light uses of Verbs, and
Light Verb Constructions, which have been used interchangeably in the literature. Thus, new working
definitions of LVs and LVCs are provided in (18), repeated from (13).
18.
a.
A Light Verb (LV) never has idiosyncratic lexical meaning of its own, but only
lexicalizes an abstract functional head.
b.
In a Light Verb Construction (LVC), the verb may not contribute any lexical semantic
information but only its complement does. Both heavy and light verbs may participate
in LVCs.
Based on the definitions given in (18), the eight English verbs listed in (19) were considered as
LVs in order to investigate the contribution of LVs vis-à-vis HVs for determining word order in CS in
the present study. However, the list is not intended to be exhaustive.
19.
have = BE + TO
give = CAUS [ BE + TO ]
get = BECOME or INCH
take = BECOME or INCH
make = CAUS + exist
keep = CAUS + BE
hold = CAUS + BE
raise = CAUS + GO (up)
2.2. Korean and Japanese
In languages with LVCs, one of the most productive forms involves the verb meaning ‘do’. Korean
and Japanese also have LVCs with ha ‘do’ and su ‘do’, as shown by the sentences in (20), in which ha
and su attach to the Chinese-origin verbal noun (VN), aiseki and hapsek ‘table-sharing’, respectively.
20.
a.
Kibo-nun Dana-wa
-TOP
-with
hapsek-hayss-ta
table-sharing-DO . PAST- DECL
Korean
b.
Kibo-wa Dana-to
aiseki-shita
Japanese
-TOP
-with
table-sharing-DO . PAST
‘Kibo shared a table with Dana’
Adapted from Grimshaw & Mester [33] (p. 206)
The Korean and Japanese LVCs have been extensively discussed in the literature, and a large body
of the literature on this topic discusses the argument structure of the LV, focusing on the fact that the
verbal noun that the LV attaches to may be marked with the accusative marker -(l)ul in Korean or -o in
Japanese [30,32,33,47–54].
Languages 2016, 1, 8
21.
8 of 31
a.
Kibo-nun
-TOP
Dana-wa
-with
hapsek-ul
table-sharing-ACC
b.
Kibo-wa
Dana-to aiseki-o
-TOP
-with table-sharing-ACC
‘Kibo shared a table with Dana’
hayss-ta
DO . PAST- DECL
shita
DO . PAST
Researchers differ on how to analyze the contrast between (20), (bare VN + ha/su), and (21),
(accusative marked VN + ha/su). As extensively discussed in Shim [9], researchers have continued to
debate as to whether ha/su is an LV or a HV in the [accusative-marked VN + ha/su] form in (21). This is
in contrast to the converging view that ha/su is used as an LV in the [bare VN + ha/su] construction in
(20). To conclude, ha in Korean and su in Japanese of the type in (20) are LVs, which were included in
the CS judgment tasks of the present study.
2.3. The Syntax of Light Verbs
Researchers have argued that LVs must be acknowledged as a separate syntactic category
cross-linguistically, such as v, and the precise syntax of LVs varies across languages [46,55]. In the
Minimalist Program, v has a hybrid status: on the one hand, v replaces the functional category AgrO.
On the other hand, v takes a thematic argument as its external argument in its specifier position, which
shows its lexical status. In light of its striking resemblance to an LV, which is neither fully a lexical
verb nor completely devoid of semantics, v is in fact a good candidate to represent LVs in the syntax.
However, there is no clear consensus of the content and properties of v.
Some researchers consider the syntactic category v as a purely abstract term, and do not assume
that the projection of v is an instantiation of a particular LV [56]. Others, such as Folli and Harley [57]
have proposed different types of v, such as vDO , vCAUS , vBE , vBECOME , which may or may not be
lexicalized across languages. In the framework of Distributed Morphology, where word formation
occurs at the level of syntax, v functions as a verbalizer, taking a category-neutral root and transforming
‘
it to a verb (e.g., v + walk Ñ /walk/ (V)) [58]. v has been also exploited in event semantics, with vP
corresponding to various projections such as VoiceP [59–64].
I adopt the original proposal on v by Chomsky in the Minimalist Program [25], viewing v as
a Case-checking/assigning LV. Assuming that v is one of the possible heads of LVs, which can be
projected as other verbal functional categories, I propose that the syntax of Korean and Japanese LVs
differs from the syntax of English LVs in the following manner (Detailed proposals and supporting
arguments of the syntactic structure of LVs in these languages are provided by Shim [9]).
22.
a.
b.
The Korean and Japanese LVs ha and su in the [bare VN + ha/su] construction lexicalize
the functional category v.
In English, v is never overtly lexicalized (cf. Chomsky [25] (p. 351)). Instead, English
LVs merge under ASP ( ECT ).
I further assume that LVs in English, a VO language, do not have the EPP (Extended Projection
Principle) feature, whereas LVs in Korean and Japanese, which are OV languages, are specified for the
EPP, triggering overt movement of the object to the left of the verb from its underlying VO order [65].
Based on these assumptions, I propose the underlying vP structures for Korean/Japanese and English
in (23).
Languages 2016, 1, 8
9 of 31
Languages 2016, 1, 8
9 of 30
Languages 2016, 1, 8
9 of 30
The structures in (23) assume that (a) VO is universally the underlying structure for both VO
The structures in (23) assume that (a) VO is universally the underlying structure for both VO
and OV
as argued
byassume
Kayne [66];
in Korean
and Japanese,
OV languages,
is specified
for
Theorder,
structures
(23)
that (b)
(a) vVO
is universally
the underlying
structure
for both VO
and
OV
order,requires
as in
argued
by
Kayne
[66];
(b)
vbeinfilled
Korean
and Japanese,
OV
languages,
is specified
the
EPP,
which
that
its
specifier
position
by
raising
an
element
with
a
matching
and OV order, as argued by Kayne [66]; (b) v in Korean and Japanese, OV languages, is specified for
for
the
EPP,
which
requires
that
its
specifier
position
be
filled
by
raising
an
element
with
feature;
(c) requires
Korean and
LVsposition
merge under
v, whereas
LVs lexicalize
Aspecta matching
the EPP,and
which
thatJapanese
its specifier
be filled
by raisingEnglish
an element
with a matching
feature; and
andon
(c)Korean
Korean
and Japanese
LVs
merge under
v, whereas
English
LVs
lexicalize
(ASP).
(ASP).
I propose
(24) as the
underlying
structure
for deriving
OVLVs
and
VO
orderAspect
in Aspect
KE
feature;Based
(c) (23),
and Japanese
LVs
merge under
v, whereas
English
lexicalize
Based
on
(23),
I
propose
(24)
as
the
underlying
structure
for
deriving
OV
and
VO
order
in
KE
and
and
JE
CS.
(ASP). Based on (23), I propose (24) as the underlying structure for deriving OV and VO order in KE
JE CS.
and
JE CS.
The OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS is explained as a result of object raising to Spec, ASPP;
whenThe
object
shift occurs,
OVinorder
is derived
ASPP.
object
stays in
situ, VO
is derived.
OV~VO
variation
KE and
JE CS iswithin
explained
asIfa the
result
of object
raising
to Spec,
ASPP;
The OV~VO
variation
in KESPand
JE CSraises
is explained
a result vofis object
raising to Spec, ASPP;
Regardless
object
shift,
the
P always
vPaswhenever
when objectofshift
occurs,
OV entire
order A
is derived
within Ato
SPSpec,
P. If the
object stays
inKorean
situ, VOorisJapanese,
derived.
when
shift
occurs,
order
derived
within
SP
If the
stays
in
VO is derived.
and
theobject
surface
word
order
would
bePiseither
OV-ha/su
orAVO-ha/su
in object
KEv is
and
JE CS.
All
these
Regardless
of object
shift,
theOV
entire
ASP
always
raises
to Spec,
vPP.whenever
Korean
orsitu,
Japanese,
movements
are
a
consequence
of
feature
checking
and
EPP
specifications
on
a
functional
head,
as
Regardless
of
object
shift,
the
entire
A
SP
P
always
raises
to
Spec,
vP
whenever
v
is
Korean
or Japanese,
and the surface word order would be either OV-ha/su or VO-ha/su in KE and JE CS. All these
assumed
in
the
Minimalist
Program.
and
the
surface
word
order
would
be
either
OV-ha/su
or
VO-ha/su
in
KE
and
JE
CS.
All
these
movements
movements are a consequence of feature checking and EPP specifications on a functional head, as
assumed
in the Minimalist
Program.
are a consequence
of feature
checking and EPP specifications on a functional head, as assumed in the
3. Experimental Section
Minimalist Program.
3. Experimental
Data for theSection
quantitative analyses were obtained via (a) a CS judgment task, (b) a syntactic
3. Experimental
Section
flexibility
judgment
task, and (c)analyses
an idiomwere
familiarity
task.
to elicit
evidence
to shed
Data for the quantitative
obtained
viaThe
(a)study
a CS aimed
judgment
task,
(b) a syntactic
light
on
the
role
of
LVs
and
compositionality
in
determining
OV~VO
variation
in
CS
where
an
English
flexibility
and (c) ananalyses
idiom familiarity
task. The study
elicit evidence
to (b)
sheda syntactic
Datajudgment
for the task,
quantitative
were obtained
via (a)aimed
a CStojudgment
task,
VP
incorporated
into
utterances
in Korean
or Japanese.OV~VO
The evidence
acceptability
lightison
the role of LVs
and
compositionality
in determining
variationcomprises
in CS where
an English
flexibility judgment
task,
and (c) an appropriate
idiom familiarity
task.
TheKE
study
aimed
to elicit
evidence to shed
judgments
elicited using
contextually
materials
from
andcomprises
JE bilingual
speakers,
VP is incorporated
into utterances
in Korean or Japanese.
The
evidence
acceptability
light
on
the
role
of
LVs
and
compositionality
in
determining
OV~VO
variation
in
CS
where
whose
competence
experience
in their
two languages
madefrom
themKE
familiar
with
CS behavior.
Thean English
judgments
elicited and
using
contextually
appropriate
materials
and JE
bilingual
speakers,
VP is competence
incorporated
utterances
intwo
Korean
orthe
Japanese.
evidence
acceptability
participant
populations
of interest
aretheir
exemplified
by
bilingual
communities
the
New York
whose
andinto
experience
in
languages
made
themThe
familiar
with of
CScomprises
behavior.
The
City
area,
where
daily
use
of
each
of
the
speakers’
languages
is
common,
as
is
switching
between
judgments
elicited
using
contextually
appropriate
materials
from
KE
and
JE
bilingual
participant populations of interest are exemplified by the bilingual communities of the New York speakers,
languages
within
a conversation
(cf.of
thethe
work
of Chung
[67]). The
study,
made crucial
use
whose
competence
and
experience
inspeakers’
their
two
languages
madetherefore,
them
familiar
with
CS behavior.
City
area,
where daily
use of
each
languages
is common,
as is switching
between
of
a
language-history
questionnaire
and
an
exit
interview
probing
experience
in
CS,
to
screen
The participant
interest
areofexemplified
the
bilingual
communities
of the
languages
within populations
a conversationof(cf.
the work
Chung [67]).by
The
study,
therefore,
made crucial
use New York
participants
recruited
from
communities.
Allinterview
participants
gaveisexperience
their
informed
for between
of
a language-history
questionnaire
and
an exit
probing
inasCS,
to screen
City
area, where
daily
usethese
of each
of the
speakers’
languages
common,
isconsent
switching
inclusion
before
they
participated
in
the
study.
participants recruited from these communities. All participants gave their informed consent for
languages within a conversation (cf. the work of Chung [67]). The study, therefore, made crucial use of
inclusion
before theyquestionnaire
participated in and
the study.
a language-history
an exit interview probing experience in CS, to screen participants
recruited from these communities. All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before
they participated in the study.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
10 of 31
3.1. Code-Switching Judgment Task
Languages 2016,
8
For 1,each
10 of 30between two
of a series of items, the code-switching task asked participants to select
utterances considered as a (near-)minimal pair. Both utterances included an English-sourced VP, which
3.1. Code-Switching Judgment Task
took OV order in one utterance and VO order in the other. The participants were asked to choose the
For each
of a sounding
series of items,
code-switching
task asked participants
select between
two many of the
more
natural
one the
in the
pair of code-switched
utterancesto
presented.
Because
utterances
considered
as a (near-)minimal
Both the
utterances
an English-sourced
VP, contextual
critical items
incorporated
VP idioms pair.
or LVCs,
protocolincluded
was designed
to provide strong
which took OV order in one utterance and VO order in the other. The participants were asked to
support of the intended interpretation. Each item presentation therefore had three parts:
choose the more natural sounding one in the pair of code-switched utterances presented. Because
many
thebrief
critical
items that
incorporated
VP two
idioms
or LVCs,(Kibo
the protocol
was designed
to provide
(a) of A
scenario
introduced
characters
and Donna)
to establish
a discourse context.
strong contextual
support of material
the intended
Each item
presentation
hadand
threealways ended
This introductory
wasinterpretation.
always presented,
in written
form,therefore
in English,
parts: by asking what the character named Donna would say in the situation just presented.
(a) (b)
A brief
scenario depicting
that introduced
two characters
(Kibo and
Donna) to
establish
a discourse
context.immediately
A cartoon
the content
of Donna’s
statement.
The
cartoon
was presented
Thisprior
introductory
material
was
always
presented,
in
written
form,
in
English,
and
always
ended
to Donna’s statement, and remained visible on the computer screen while
the participants
by asking
what
the
character
named
Donna
would
say
in
the
situation
just
presented.
listened to two versions of her statement.
(b) A cartoon depicting the content of Donna’s statement. The cartoon was presented immediately
(c) The code-switched pair of utterances, presented in spoken form.
prior to Donna’s statement, and remained visible on the computer screen while the participants
listened
to two versions
her statement. sentence not only in an appropriate context but also with a
By presenting
eachofcode-switched
(c) The code-switched pair of utterances, presented in spoken form.
matching cartoon, the intended meaning of the code-switched phrase in the sentence, whether literal
presentingwas
eachdelivered
code-switched
sentence
not only
in an appropriate
contextthat
but also
with a
orBynon-literal,
without
ambiguity.
Instructions
emphasized
the participants
should
matching
the intended
meaning
of thelistening
code-switched
in the sentence,
whether literal
attendcartoon,
to the cartoon
while
they were
to thephrase
sentences.
As an illustration
of this protocol,
or (25a)
non-literal,
delivered
without
Instructions emphasized
that(25b)
the participants
belowwas
offers
an example
of ambiguity.
the brief introductory
scenario, and
and (25c) show in turn
should attend to the cartoon while they were listening to the sentences. As an illustration of this
the accompanying cartoon and the pair of KE-CS sentences which the participants were asked to
protocol, (25a) below offers an example of the brief introductory scenario, and (25b) and (25c) show
choose from.
in turn the accompanying cartoon and the pair of KE-CS sentences which the participants were asked
25. from.
a.
Kibo told Donna that his roommate had an extra iPod to give away, and later
to choose
25.
a.
asked Donna
Kibo told Donna that his roommate had an extra iPod to give away, and later asked
whether she called and got it. What does Donna say?
Donna
whether she called and got it. What does Donna say?
b.
b.
(i) nwu-ka mence mence
cenhawhayse,
boat-lul
miss hayss-e
c. c.(i) nwu-ka
cenhawhayse,
boat-lul miss
hayss-e
someoneNOM
before
call.because
DO . PAST- DECL
someone-NOM before call.because
DO.PAST-DECL
(ii) nwu-ka
mence cenhawhayse, miss the boat
hayss-e
(ii) nwu-ka
mence cenhawhayse, miss the boat hayss-e
someone-NOM
before call.because
DO . PAST- DECL
someone-NOM before call.because
DO.PAST-DECL
“Someone
else
called
first,
so
(I)
missed
the
boat.”
“Someone else called first, so (I) missed the boat.”
3.1.1.
Materials
and Methods
3.1.1.
Materials
and Methods
To assess the role of heavy vs. light verb status in CS in both literal and non-literal/idiomatic
To assess the role of heavy vs. light verb status in CS in both literal and non-literal/idiomatic
phrases, materials were constructed in accordance with a 2 × 2 factorial design, combining Verb Type
phrases, materials were constructed in accordance with a 2 ˆ 2 factorial design, combining Verb Type
(heavy vs. light) and Interpretation (literal vs. non-literal).
(heavy vs. light) and Interpretation (literal vs. non-literal).
Languages 2016, 1, 8
11 of 31
literal interpretation
e.g., miss the bus, lend some money, play basketball
11 of 30
HV, non-literal interpretation
e.g., miss the boat, lend an ear, play hooky
HV,
e.g., miss
bus,the
lend
some
money,
playhead,
basketball
LV, literal
literalinterpretation
interpretation
e.g.,thegive
job,
have
a small
get cold sores
HV, non-literal interpretation e.g., miss the boat, lend an ear, play hooky
LV, non-literal interpretation
e.g., give the axe, have a big mouth, get cold feet
26. a.2016, 1,HV,
Languages
8
26.
b.
a.
c.
b.
d.
c.
LV, literal interpretation
e.g., give the job, have a small head, get cold sores
For
within
a given type,
items
instantiating
non-literal
interpretations
d. each
LV,verb
non-literal
interpretation
e.g.,
give the
axe, have a bigliteral
mouth,vs.
get cold
feet
were constructed as a closely matched pair, with appropriate and relevant modifications to the
For each verb within a given type, items instantiating literal vs. non-literal interpretations were
introductory
thematched
interpretation-supporting
cartoon,
the code-switched
which
constructed asscenario,
a closely
pair, with appropriate
and and
relevant
modifications sentences
to the
the
participants
werethe
asked
to choose from.
introductory
scenario,
interpretation-supporting
cartoon, and the code-switched sentences which
There werewere
16 such
the participants
askedmatched
to chooseitems
from.constructed for each verb type, which were distributed to form
There were
matched with
itemseach
constructed
for each
verb type,
which wereThe
distributed
to
two versions
of 16
thesuch
experiment,
consisting
of 8 items
per condition.
counterbalancing
of
form across
two versions
the experiment,
with each saw
consisting
of of
8 each
itemsofper
condition. Theconditions,
items
versionsofmeant
that every participant
examples
the experimental
counterbalancing
of of
items
across
versions meant
thatThe
every
participant
saw
examples
of each
of the matched
without
repetition
lexical
or discourse
context.
item
shown in
(27)
exemplifies
a closely
experimental conditions, without repetition of lexical or discourse context. The item shown in (27)
pair to (25); both (27) and (25) include the same HV miss in a non-literal and a literal phrase (miss the
exemplifies a closely matched pair to (25); both (27) and (25) include the same HV miss in a non-literal
boat and miss the bus), respectively.
and a literal phrase (miss the boat and miss the bus), respectively.
27.
27.
a.
a.
Kibo was disappointed that Donna didn’t show up at the party he had told her about,
Kibo was disappointed that Donna didn’t show up at the party he had told her
and asked
her what
happened.
What
does
about,
and asked
her what
happened.
What
doesDonna
Donna say?
say?
b.
b.
c.
c.
(i)
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
cengmal ka-ko
siph-ess-nuntey, bus-lul miss hayss-e
cengmal ka-ko
siph-ess-nuntey, miss the bus hayss-e
cengmal ka-ko
siph-ess-nuntey, bus-lul miss hayss-e
really go-goCOMP
PAST-but
DO . PAST- DECL
really
COMP
wish-wishPAST-but
DO.PAST-DECL
cengmal ka-ko
siph-ess-nuntey, miss the bus hayss-e
really
go-COMP
wish-PAST-but
DO . PAST- DECL
really
go-COMP
wish-PAST-but
DO.PAST-DECL
“(I) really wanted to go, but (I) missed the bus”
“(I) really wanted to go, but (I) missed the bus”
The function of heavy vs. light verbs in CS was also evaluated in LVCs, and materials were
The function of heavy vs. light verbs in CS was also evaluated in LVCs, and materials were
constructed
accordance
with
1 factorial
design,
combining
Verb
Typevs.
(heavy
constructed ininaccordance
with
a 2 a× 21 ˆ
factorial
design,
combining
Verb Type
(heavy
light) vs.
andlight) and
Construction
(light
verb
construction).
Construction (light
verb
construction).
28.
28.
a.
b.
b.
HV,
HV, LVC
LVC
LV,LVC
LVC
LV,
e.g.,
payaavisit,
visit,cast
cast
blame
e.g., pay
blame
e.g., have
track
e.g.,
haveaalook,
look,keep
keep
track
For
construction,
16 items
consisting
of 8 verbs
designed.
each verb, For
two similar
Foreach
each
construction,
16 items
consisting
ofwere
8 verbs
wereFor
designed.
each verb, two
items
were
constructed
as
a
closely
matched
pair,
limiting
any
necessary
changes
to
the
introductory
similar items were constructed as a closely matched pair, limiting any necessary changes to the
scenario, the interpretation-supporting cartoon, and the ensuing code-switched sentences. Those
introductory
scenario, the interpretation-supporting cartoon, and the ensuing code-switched sentences.
matched items in each construction were distributed to form two versions of the experiment, each
Those matched items in each construction were distributed to form two versions of the experiment,
with 8 items per condition. This allowed the participant taking either version of the experiment to
each
with 8 items per condition. This allowed the participant taking either version of the experiment
view the same set of verbs for each of the experimental conditions, in closely matching content.
to view
set of and
verbs
for each
of the of
experimental
conditions,
closely
matching
For the
bothsame
the Korean
Japanese
versions
the experiment,
materials in
were
constructed
so ascontent.
For both
Korean
Japanese
versions
of theitems
experiment,
materials
were
constructed
to produce
twothe
subsets,
eachand
of which
included
48 critical
and 24 filler
items. An
additional
set so as to
produce
two
subsets,
each
of types,
whichserved
included
48 critical
items and 24 filler items. An additional set of
of 10 items,
ranging
across
item
as practice
trials.
10 items, ranging across item types, served as practice trials.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
12 of 31
3.1.2. Item Implementation
As illustrated in (26) and (28), the object within the code-switched phrase included various types
of nouns, such as an indefinite noun (e.g., some money, an ear), a definite noun (e.g., the boat, the stairs),
and a bare noun (e.g., basketball, cold feet). The definiteness and length of the objects were controlled
for in all the closely matched items throughout the conditions, to prevent various linguistic and
non-linguistic factors, such as definiteness, from influencing the selection of a particular order, either
OV or VO.
All code-switched VPs of English were constructed in two orders, OV and VO, and followed by
either the Korean LV, ha, or the Japanese LV, su, and the final form of the code-switched sentence in OV
order was slightly different from the one in VO order.
First, various function words preceding the object, such as articles (a(n), the), possessors (my, your,
his, he r, etc.), were omitted from the OV order sentences, based on the results of a pilot study that
revealed that many KE and JE bilingual speakers judged the code-switched sentences as sounding more
natural without the article in the OV order but not the VO order. Though the exact reason still needs
to be investigated, it is speculated that since both Korean and Japanese lack articles, article omission
also seems to be preferred (following the grammar of Korean or Japanese) when the code-switched
sentence preserves the structure of Korean or Japanese, exhibiting their canonical OV order.
Besides determiners, English-type pronominal possessors also do not exist in either Korean or
Japanese. Instead, a possessive pronoun is expressed as a phrasal form in which a personal pronoun
or a noun takes a genitive suffix realized as -uy in Korean and -no in Japanese, respectively. Thus,
English-type pronominal possessors were also omitted when the code-switched phrase was constructed
in OV order. On the other hand, all other noun-modifying elements such as lexical adjectives (i.e., big
in a big present) and quantifiers (i.e., a few in a few brow s) were kept intact in both OV and VO orders of
the code-switched sentences.
Additionally, when a code-switched phase was constructed in OV order, the accusative Case
marker, -(l)ul in Korean and -o in Japanese, was inserted after the object, following the grammar of
Korean and Japanese, as exemplified in (25c) and (27c). As a reviewer points out, it has been noted that
overt morphological accusative markers, such as Korean -(l)ul and Japanese -o, may be used as focus
particles, hence the presence of the overt accusative marker on the object in OV order, but not in VO
order, may cause the participants to choose the focused element in OV order in their CS judgment task.
However, the results showed that VO order was strongly preferred over OV order in certain contexts,
despite the systematic presence of the accusative marker. This suggests that the presence of the overt
accusative marker in the code-switched phrase in OV order does not seem to lead to a word order
bias towards OV in KE and JE CS. Other detailed procedures of how CS items were implemented are
provided in Shim [9].
3.1.3. Procedure
The experiment was conducted via a Power Point slide show. At the beginning of the experiment,
participants received instructions about the task procedures before the trial began. The trial session
included 6 practice questions (out of a total of 10) in order for the participants to familiarize themselves
with the task. After half of the test items were presented, the participants were encouraged to take a
five-minute break. The experiment either continued or resumed, depending on the need of each participant.
After the break, 4 additional practice items were covertly presented prior to the rest of the test
materials, allowing the participants to recover their own pace in performance after taking a short break.
As described earlier, each question consisted of three subparts framed in two frames; the brief
introductory scenario (Frame1) and the interpretation-supporting cartoon and the code-switched
pair of utterances (Frame 2). The participants heard each utterance only once, and the pace of the
experiment was pre-programmed by the investigator. The duration of each and every frame was
preset, and the transition from Frame 1 to 2 was automatic. However, the transition from one question
to another (Frame 2 to next Frame 1) was fully controlled by the participants, allowing them to take as
Languages 2016, 1, 8
13 of 31
much time as they needed to answer each question. The next question began only when the participant
clicked the mouse.
A separate answer sheet was provided, consisting of an abbreviated version of the scenario,
a reduced size of the cartoon, and two checkboxes numbered 1 and 2 corresponding to each
code-switched sentence the participant heard. No time limit was imposed on the task, and the
participants, on average, took 30 min to complete the experiment.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
13 of 30
3.1.4. Participants
as much time as they needed to answer each question. The next question began only when the
A total
of 28 KE
bilingual
speakers (age range 18-27; mean age 21.1; 19 females) and 8 JE bilingual
participant
clicked
the mouse.
speakers (age A
range
25–38;
mean
7 females)
successfully
completed
experiment.
separate
answer
sheetage
was31.9;
provided,
consisting
of an abbreviated
version the
of the
scenario, a The age
sizeKorean
of the cartoon,
and twowas
checkboxes
1 and
corresponding
to each
codeat onset ofreduced
learning
and English
0.9 andnumbered
4.6 years
for 2the
KE bilinguals,
respectively,
and
switched sentence the participant heard. No time limit was imposed on the task, and the participants,
the age at onset of learning Japanese and English was 0 and 5.3 years for the JE bilinguals, respectively.
on average, took 30 minutes to complete the experiment.
Initially 34 KE and 12 JE bilingual speakers in total participated in the experiment, but 6 KE and
3.1.4. Participants
4 JE participants
were excluded from the data analysis after three screening procedures. First, 4 KE and
2 JE bilingual Aparticipants
were excluded
because
the information
provided
in the
language history
total of 28 KE bilingual
speakers (age
range 18-27;
mean age 21.1; 19
females) and
8 JE bilingual
speakers
(age range
25-38;
mean
agebegun
31.9; 7 females)
successfully
completed
experiment.either
The ageEnglish or
questionnaire
revealed
that
they
had
learning
one of their
twothe
languages,
at onset of learning Korean and English was 0.9 and 4.6 years for the KE bilinguals, respectively, and
Korean/Japanese, after the age of 12, suggesting they were not early bilinguals, the target population
the age at onset of learning Japanese and English was 0 and 5.3 years for the JE bilinguals, respectively.
that is the focus
of this
study.
The
rationale
for including
only early
bilingual
speakers
Initially
34 KE
and 12
JE bilingual
speakers
in total participated
in the
experiment,
but 6 KE was
and based on
the fact that
is a property
of highly
proficient
bilinguals,
and the
delayed
acquisition
one of their
4 JECS
participants
were excluded
from
the data analysis
after three
screening
procedures.
First, 4ofKE
and
2
JE
bilingual
participants
were
excluded
because
the
information
provided
in
the
language
languages indicates that the speaker may have not reached native or near-native proficiency for one of
history questionnaire revealed that they had begun learning one of their two languages, either
the languages
they speak.
English or Korean/Japanese, after the age of 12, suggesting they were not early bilinguals, the target
Second,
1
KE bilingual
was
excluded
due toforthe
high error
rate bilingual
in her performance
(25%)
population
that is the speaker
focus of this
study.
The rationale
including
only early
speakers
in filler type
where
she
rather of
than
VO
as the bilinguals,
natural order
a fullacquisition
English sentence,
was I,
based
on the
factchose
that CSOV
is a property
highly
proficient
and theof
delayed
of their
languages
the speakeralso
mayfailed
have not
reached
or near-native
in 4 out ofof16one
trials.
It turned
outindicates
that thisthat
participant
to meet
thenative
criteria
for inclusion based
proficiency for one of the languages they speak.
on the information
given in the language history questionnaire. In addition, 2 KE and 2 JE bilingual
Second, 1 KE bilingual speaker was excluded due to the high error rate in her performance (25%)
participants
were
excluded,
because
exhibited
strongly
biased
ordersentence,
preference
for the
in filler type I, where she
chose OVthey
rather
than VO asathe
natural order
of aword
full English
in
code-switched
eitherout
OV
VO,
regardless
of item
types.
Except
1 KEbased
bilingual who
4 out ofsentences,
16 trials. It turned
thatorthis
participant
also failed
to meet
the criteria
forfor
inclusion
the information
in the language
historyparticipants
questionnaire. who
In addition,
KE and 2 JEselected
bilingual VO order
chose OV on
order
in 77% ofgiven
his trials,
the 3 other
were 2excluded
participants were excluded, because they exhibited a strongly biased word order preference for the
predominantly, in 79%–95% of their responses. Excluding these 4 participants, the average distribution
code-switched sentences, either OV or VO, regardless of item types. Except for 1 KE bilingual who
of VO vs. OV
word
order
of the
KE and
8 JE bilingual
speakers
the study
was 47.4% vs.
chose
OV order
in preference
77% of his trials,
the28
3 other
participants
who were
excluded in
selected
VO order
52.6% andpredominantly,
56.7% vs. 43.3%,
respectively.
in 79%–95%
of their responses. Excluding these 4 participants, the average
distribution
of VO vs. OVand
word2order
preference ofwho
the 28took
KE and
8 JE bilingual
in the study and 3 KE
In sum,
3 KE bilinguals
JE bilinguals
Version
A ofspeakers
the experiment,
was 47.4% vs. 52.6% and 56.7% vs. 43.3%, respectively.
bilinguals and 2 JE bilinguals who took Version B of the experiment were excluded from subsequent
In sum, 3 KE bilinguals and 2 JE bilinguals who took Version A of the experiment, and 3 KE
data analysis.
bilinguals and 2 JE bilinguals who took Version B of the experiment were excluded from subsequent
data analysis.
3.1.5. Results and Discussion
3.1.5. Results and Discussion
Korean-English CS
Korean-English CS
Figure 1 Figure
shows1 shows
the percentage
of VO order preference by Verb Type (heavy vs. light) and
the percentage of VO order preference by Verb Type (heavy vs. light) and
Interpretation
(literal (literal
vs. non-literal)
in KE
CS.
Interpretation
vs. non-literal)
in KE
CS.
Figure 1. %VO preference by Verb Type and Interpretation in KE CS.
Figure 1. %VO preference by Verb Type and Interpretation in KE CS.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
Languages 2016, 1, 8
14 of 31
14 of 30
All
In the
),
All analyses
analyses were
were conducted
conducted both
both by-participants
by-participants (F
(F11)) and
and by-items
by-items (F
(F22).). In
the former
former (F
(F11),
ANOVAs
ANOVAswere
wereconducted
conducted with
with Verb
VerbType
Type(heavy
(heavyvs.
vs.light)
light) and
and Interpretation
Interpretation (literal
(literal vs.
vs. non-literal)
non-literal)
as
as within-subjects
within-subjects variables.
variables. In
In the
the latter
latter (F
(F22),
), Interpretation
Interpretation (literal
(literal vs.
vs. non-literal)
non-literal) was
was treated
treated as
as
within-items
within-items variables
variables and
and Verb
VerbType
Type(heavy
(heavyvs.
vs.light)
light)as
asbetween-items
between-itemsvariables.
variables.
In
Verb Type
In the
the overall
overall analysis,
analysis, aa main
main effect
effect of
of Verb
Type was
was found.
found. The
The effect
effect was
was significant,
significant, although
although
only
0.075.
only when
when considering
consideringsubjects
subjectsas
asaarandom
randomfactor,
factor,FF
1(1,26)==25.49,
25.49,pp<<0.001;
0.001;FF22(1,28)
(1,28) == 3.07,
3.07, pp =
= 0.075.
1 (1,26)
The
The preference
preference for
for VO
VO order
order in
in aa code-switched
code-switched phrase
phrase involving
involving aa HV
HV and
and aa LV
LV was
was 44.0%
44.0% and
and
57.4%,
57.4%, respectively.
respectively. A
A main
main effect
effect of
of Interpretation
Interpretation was
was also
also found.
found. The
The preference
preference for
for VO
VO order
order in
in aa
code-switched
code-switchedphrase
phrasewith
withaaliteral
literalvs.
vs.non-literal
non-literalinterpretation
interpretationwas
was33.9%
33.9%and
and67.4%
67.4%(F(F1 (1,26)
1(1,26)== 25.49,
25.49,
pp << 0.001;
0.001; F
(1,28) == 52.35,
52.35, pp <<0.001).
0.001).These
Theseresults
results replicate
replicate the
the previous
previous findings
findings of
F22(1,28)
of Shim
Shim [8]
[8] that
that both
both
verb
verb type
type and
and interpretation
interpretation play
playaarole
rolein
inword
wordorder
ordervariation
variationin
inCS.
CS.
In
an interaction
interactionbetween
betweenVerb
VerbType
Typeand
andInterpretation
Interpretationwas
was
found
= 8.95,
In addition,
addition, an
found
(F1(F
(1,26)
= 8.95,
p<
1 (1,26)
p0.01;
< 0.01;
F
(1,28)
=
5.36,
p
<
0.05).
The
source
of
the
interaction
between
Verb
Type
and
Interpretation
F2(1,28)
= 5.36, p < 0.05). The source of the interaction between Verb Type and Interpretation is
2
is
not
clear.It Itcould
couldbebea aceiling
ceilingeffect
effectofofthe
thetest
testfor
forboth
bothHVs
HVs and
and LVs.
LVs. Alternatively,
Alternatively, the
not
clear.
the interaction
interaction
could
not
allall
verbs
in (19),
which
were
initially
categorized
as English
LVs
could be
beexplained
explainedby
bythe
thefact
factthat
that
not
verbs
in (19),
which
were
initially
categorized
as English
in
this
behave
in a uniform
way. The
of individual
items items
revealreveal
that a that
subset
of these
LVs
instudy,
this study,
behave
in a uniform
way.analyses
The analyses
of individual
a subset
of
verbs
their
the pattern
of HVsofwith
to word
in the
these (e.g.,
verbshold)
(e.g.,or
hold)
oruses
theirfollow
uses follow
the pattern
HVsrespect
with respect
to order
word preference
order preference
KE
andKE
JE CS
showing
that OV was
Thus, an inclusion
HVs or heavy
uses
in the
anddata,
JE CS
data, showing
that strongly
OV waspreferred.
strongly preferred.
Thus, anofinclusion
of HVs
or
of
LVs in
theofgroup
ofthe
LVsgroup
may have
resulted
in aresulted
lower percentage
VO preference,
observed in
heavy
uses
LVs in
of LVs
may have
in a lowerofpercentage
of VOas
preference,
as
the
interaction
between
HVs between
and LVs in
the and
non-literal
item-based
analyses
of
observed
in the
interaction
HVs
LVs ininterpretation.
the non-literalDetailed
interpretation.
Detailed
itemindividual
LVs listed
in (19) are
provided
Section
4.7.
based analyses
of individual
LVs
listed inin(19)
are provided
in Section 4.7.
The
thatthat
withwith
HVs, HVs,
the percentage
of VO order
preference
significantly
The sub-analyses
sub-analysesrevealed
revealed
the percentage
of VO
order was
preference
was
lower
in relation
interpretation
than in relation
to relation
non-literal
interpretation,
21.9% vs.
significantly
lowertoinliteral
relation
to literal interpretation
than in
to non-literal
interpretation,
66.1%
(F1 (1,26)
= 186.73,
< 0.001;
F2 (1,14)
= 41.88,
p < p0.001).
A Asimilar
21.9% vs.
66.1% (F
(1,26) =p 86.73,
p < 0.001;
F2(1,14)
= 41.88,
< 0.001).
similarpattern
patternhas
has emerged
emerged
with
with LVs;
LVs; the
the percentage
percentage of
of VO
VO order
order preference
preference was
was significantly
significantly lower
lower in
in the
the case
case of
of the
the literal
literal
interpretation
than in
in the
the case
case of
ofthe
thenon-literal
non-literalinterpretation,
interpretation,46.0%
46.0%vs.vs.68.8%
68.8%
(1,26)
=
25.21,
interpretation than
(F1(F
(1,26)
=
25.21,
p<
1
p0.001;
< 0.001;
F2 (1,14)
= 13.29,
< 0.005).
difference
between
HVs
andLVs
LVswas
wasalso
alsofound
found in
in LVCs,
LVCs, as
F2(1,14)
= 13.29,
p < p0.005).
TheThe
difference
between
HVs
and
as
shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 2.
2.
Figure 2.
2. %VO
Construction
in KE
(Korean-English)
CS
Figure
%VO(Verb-Object)
(Verb-Object)preference
preferencebybyVerb
VerbType
Typeand
and
Construction
in KE
(Korean-English)
(code-switching).
CS (code-switching).
A one-way ANOVA comparing heavy vs. light verbs in LVCs showed that while the preference
A one-way ANOVA comparing heavy vs. light verbs in LVCs showed that while the preference
of VO order was 40.6% with HVs, it was 63.8% with LVs (F1(1,26) = 29.10, p<0.001; F2(1,14) = 6.51,
of VO order was 40.6% with HVs, it was 63.8% with LVs (F1 (1,26) = 29.10, p < 0.001; F2 (1,14) = 6.51,
p<0.025), which indicates that HVs and LVs behave differently in LVCs.
p < 0.025), which indicates that HVs and LVs behave differently in LVCs.
Japanese-English CS
In general, the JE CS data did not yield statistically significant results due to the small number
of participants. Nonetheless, there was a clearly emerging pattern found in both KE and JE CS, as
shown in Figure 3.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
15 of 31
Japanese-English CS
In general, the JE CS data did not yield statistically significant results due to the small number of
participants. Nonetheless, there was a clearly emerging pattern found in both KE and JE CS, as shown
in Figure 3.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
15 of 30
Figure 3. %VO preference, overall, as a function of Phrase Type and Speaker Group.
Figure 3. %VO preference, overall, as a function of Phrase Type and Speaker Group.
Similar to the results based on the KE CS data, the overall results revealed that the preference of
VO order was higher with LVs than HVs in the case of the literal interpretation and LVCs, while this
Similar to the
results
based in
onthe
the
KE
data, the
overall results
revealed
the preference
difference
disappeared
case
of CS
a non-literal
interpretation,
where VO
order was that
strongly
preferred
regardless
of verb
type.HVs in the case of the literal interpretation and LVCs, while
of VO order was
higher
with LVs
than
In sum, the overall pattern of results found in the CS judgment task provides evidence to support
this difference disappeared
inthe
the
case of
ofana English
non-literal
interpretation,
where
VO
order
the hypothesis that
selection
LV or HV
within a code-switched
phrase
would
leadwas strongly
to wordof
order
variation
preferred regardless
verb
type.in CS; while LVs lead to VO order, HVs derive OV order. Yet, this difference
only observed in the VPs with literal interpretations and LVCs, but not in non-literal or idiomatic
In sum, thewas
overall
pattern of results found in the CS judgment task provides evidence to support
interpretations.
the hypothesis that the selection of an English LV or HV within a code-switched phrase would
3.2. Syntactic
Flexibility
Task LVs lead to VO order, HVs derive OV order. Yet, this
lead to word order
variation
inJudgment
CS; while
results from
judgment
showed
that the distinction
between
HVsbut
andnot
LVs in
didnon-literal or
difference was onlyThe
observed
in the
theCSVPs
withtask
literal
interpretations
and
LVCs,
not make a difference in relation to the non-literal interpretation; regardless of verb type there was a
idiomatic interpretations.
strong preference for VO order. Yet, a microscopic analysis of each code-switched phrase with a nonliteral or idiomatic interpretation revealed some variations, suggesting that not all idioms behave in
the same way.
Under the
assumption that the internal argument of the syntactically flexible phrase
3.2. Syntactic Flexibility
Judgment
Task
is subject to CS, while the internal argument of the less flexible or inflexible phrase may not undergo
the syntactic
flexibility
judgment
taskshowed
was designed
to examine
whether word
order variation
The resultsCS,
from
the CS
judgment
task
that
the distinction
between
HVsin and LVs did
CS is related to the syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrase, especially in the case of nonnot make a difference in relation to the non-literal interpretation; regardless of verb type there was
literal interpretations.
a strong preference for VO order. Yet, a microscopic analysis of each code-switched phrase with
Materials and
Methods
a non-literal or3.2.1.
idiomatic
interpretation
revealed some variations, suggesting that not all idioms
To
determine
whether
different degreesthat
of syntactic
flexibilityargument
of idiomatic of
expressions
would
behave in the same way. Under the assumption
the internal
the syntactically
flexible
play a role in deriving different word orders in CS, VP idioms that were included in the CS judgment
phrase is subject
to
CS,
while
the
internal
argument
of
the
less
flexible
or
inflexible
phrase
may
not
task were selected as critical material. The items were inserted in an appropriate sentential context
and
syntacticallyflexibility
manipulatedjudgment
with three different
operations:
(a) passivization;
(b) relative
clause word order
undergo CS, the
syntactic
task was
designed
to examine
whether
formation; and (c) wh-question formation, as shown in (29).
variation in CS is
related to the syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrase, especially in the case
29.
At a conference participants can rub shoulders with many leading figures in the field.
of non-literal interpretations.
a.
3.2.1. Materials and
At a conference shoulders can be rubbed with many leading figures in the field.
Naïve participants are only interested in the shoulders that they rub with famous
b.
Methods
people at a conference.
c. How many shoulders did you rub with famous people at the conference?
To determine whether different degrees of syntactic flexibility of idiomatic expressions would
play a role in deriving different word orders in CS, VP idioms that were included in the CS judgment
task were selected as critical material. The items were inserted in an appropriate sentential context
and syntactically manipulated with three different operations: (a) passivization; (b) relative clause
formation; and (c) wh-question formation, as shown in (29).
29.
At a conference participants can rub shoulders with many leading figures in the field.
a. At a conference shoulders can be rubbed with many leading figures in the field.
b. Naïve participants are only interested in the shoulders that they rub with famous people
at a conference.
c. How many shoulders did you rub with famous people at the conference?
Languages 2016, 1, 8
16 of 31
In addition, 32 filler items were added, which consisted of LVCs with 16 HVs and 16 LVs
from the CS judgment task. The filler items were also inserted in an appropriate context and were
syntactically manipulated using passivization, relativization, and wh-movement, similar to critical
materials. However, there were also several items involving verb-object combinations that generally
are not subject to passivization, including 1 critical item (have a big mouth) and 4 filler items (have a
look, have a try, get a suntan, and get a sense). Thus, these items were only provided in relative clause
formation and wh-question formation only.
3.2.2. Procedure
The experiment was a self-paced pencil-and-paper task. On the first page of the questionnaire,
given in (30), participants were instructed to read each sentence and judge to what extent the meaning
associated with the underscored phrase is available in the two or three sentences that followed the
target sentence, using a 4-point Likert scale, as follows (30).
30.
In this task, sentences are presented in groups. Within each group, the first sentence is the
“standard”, and it contains an underscored expression. Two or three further sentences in the
group use something similar to that expression, but in slightly varied forms. Your task is to
decide whether the meaning of the underscored expression in the standard sentence remains
available in the sentences that follow.
To give your opinion, please choose the best-fitting value on the scale below. Value 1 is used to say
that the expression’s meaning is no longer available at all, and Value 4 to say that exactly the original
meaning remains available. Values 2 and 3 are used for intermediate judgments.
Meaning not available
1
2
Let’s practice a few questions first.
3
Same meaning, exactly
4
1.
Can you get a suntan through a glass window?
1
2
3
4
a.
That’s a great suntan that you’ve got through a glass window!
˝
˝
˝
˝
b.
How much of a suntan can you get through a glass window?
˝
˝
˝
˝
2.
The company made a request for the workers to return to their
jobs immediately.
1
2
3
4
a.
A request was made for the workers to return to their jobs immediately.
˝
˝
˝
˝
b.
The request the company made to the workers is their immediate
return to their jobs.
˝
˝
˝
˝
c.
What request did the company make of the workers?
˝
˝
˝
˝
After the participants read the written instructions and completed the first 2 practice items,
the participants were offered a verbal clarification of the instructions by the investigator before the
experiment began. The participants were allowed to take a break whenever needed. However, every
participant chose to complete the task without taking a break.
3.2.3. Participants
28 KE and 8 JE bilinguals whose data were analyzed for the CS judgment task were also included
for the data analysis of this task. In addition, 7 monolingual English speakers (age range 23–57;
mean age 32.6; 3 female) participated as a control group. The results from the bilingual speakers
were compared to those obtained from the monolingual native speakers of English. The time the
participants spent to finish the experiment varied from less than an hour to 90 min, but on average,
they took approximately 60 min.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
Languages 2016,
2016, 1,
1, 88
Languages
17 of 31
17 of
of 30
30
17
3.2.4. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
3.2.4.
Figure 44 below
below shows
shows the
the mean
mean syntactic
syntactic flexibility
flexibility scores
scores for
for different
different types
types of
of code-switched
code-switched
Figure
phrases by
by Speaker
Speaker Group.
Group.
phrases
Figure
4. Mean
Mean
syntactic
flexibility
ratingrating
as aa function
function
of Phrase
Phrase
TypeType
and Speaker
Speaker
Group.
Figure
4.
syntactic
flexibility
rating
as
of
Type
and
Group.
Figure
4. Mean
syntactic
flexibility
as a function
of Phrase
and Speaker
Group.
The results showed
showed that idioms
idioms (HV, Non-Lit
Non-Lit and LV,
LV, Non-Lit)
Non-Lit) were
were judged
judged by
by all three
three speaker
The
The results
results showed that
that idioms (HV,
(HV, Non-Lit and
and LV, Non-Lit)
were judged
by all
all three speaker
speaker
groups as being
being less syntactically
syntactically flexible than
than the non-idiomatic
non-idiomatic expressions (HV,
(HV, LVC and
and LV, LVC),
LVC),
groups
groups as
as being less
less syntactically flexible
flexible thanthe
the non-idiomaticexpressions
expressions (HV, LVC
LVC and LV,
LV, LVC),
as predicted.
predicted. A
A minor
minor difference
difference between
between the
the English
English monolingual
monolingual group
group and
and the
the KE
KE and
and JE
JE bilingual
bilingual
as
as predicted. A minor difference between the English monolingual group and the KE and JE bilingual
groups was that,
that, regardless of
of phrase
phrase type,
type, the scores
scores for
for flexibility
flexibility assigned
assigned by
by the
the two
two bilingual
bilingual
groups
groups was
was that, regardless
regardless of phrase
type, the
the scores for
flexibility assigned
by the
two bilingual
groups were
were slightly
slightly higher
higher than
than those
those assigned
assigned by
by the
the monolingual
monolingual group.
group.
groups
groups were
slightly higher
than those
assigned by
the monolingual
group.
To
examine
whether
syntactic
flexibility
plays
a
role
in
deriving
word order in
in CS, the
the results
results
To
examine whether
whether syntactic
syntactic flexibility
To examine
flexibility plays
plays aa role
role in
in deriving
deriving word
word order
order in CS,
CS, the results
obtained
from
the
KE/JE
bilingual
speakers
in
the
syntactic
flexibility
judgment
task
was
compared
obtained
from the
theKE/JE
KE/JE bilingual
bilingual speakers
speakersin
inthe
thesyntactic
syntacticflexibility
flexibilityjudgment
judgment
task
was
compared
obtained from
task
was
compared
to
to the
the results
results from
from the
the CS
CS judgment
judgment task,
task, as
as illustrated
illustrated in
in Figure
Figure 55 below.
below.
to
the results from the CS judgment task, as illustrated in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5. Cont.
Languages
Languages 2016,
2016, 1,
1, 88
18
18 of
of 31
30
Figure 5.
5. Percentages
Percentages of
of VO
VO order
order preference
preference predicted
predicted by
by syntactic
syntactic flexibility
flexibility scores
scores assigned
assigned by
by KE
KE
Figure
(Korean-English)
and
JE
(Japanese-English)
bilingual
speakers.
(Korean-English) and JE (Japanese-English) bilingual speakers.
Figure 5 shows that the more flexible a phrase was judged as being, the less likely it was to be
Figure 5 shows that the more flexible a phrase was judged as being, the less likely it was to be
favored in VO order in CS by both KE and JE bilingual groups. For instance, the syntactic flexibility
favored in VO order in CS by both KE and JE bilingual groups. For instance, the syntactic flexibility
score for the idiom take a hike, meaning ‘leave’, was 1.44, which was much lower than the overall
score for the idiom take a hike, meaning ‘leave’, was 1.44, which was much lower than the overall
mean syntactic flexibility score of 2.75, indicating that the phrase was judged much less flexible than
mean syntactic flexibility score of 2.75, indicating that the phrase was judged much less flexible than
most phrases included. In addition, it was preferred in VO order in 100% of the instances in the CS
most phrases included. In addition, it was preferred in VO order in 100% of the instances in the CS
judgment task by KE bilinguals. On the other hand, when the same phrase take a hike was interpreted
judgment task by KE bilinguals. On the other hand, when the same phrase take a hike was interpreted
literally, it was judged as being much more flexible and scored 3.32 in the syntactic flexibility
literally, it was judged as being much more flexible and scored 3.32 in the syntactic flexibility judgment
judgment task. Also, the VO preference of the literal phrase take a hike was 64% by the same group of
task. Also, the VO preference of the literal phrase take a hike was 64% by the same group of bilinguals.
bilinguals. In other words, the more syntactically flexible code-switched phrase was preferred in OV
In other words, the more syntactically flexible code-switched phrase was preferred in OV order in CS.
order in CS.
The overall pattern of results supports the hypothesis that syntactically flexible and less flexible
The overall pattern of results supports the hypothesis that syntactically flexible and less flexible
phrases behave differently with respect to word order derivation in CS, leading to OV and VO order,
phrases behave differently with respect to word order derivation in CS, leading to OV and VO order,
respectively. This can be further corroborated by the argument that, while the internal argument of
respectively. This can be further corroborated by the argument that, while the internal argument of
the syntactically flexible phrase is subject to CS, the syntactically less flexible or inflexible phrase is
the syntactically flexible phrase is subject to CS, the syntactically less flexible or inflexible phrase is
frozen and undergoes CS as a unit. Hence, the internal order of the phrase is maintained throughout
frozen and undergoes CS as a unit. Hence, the internal order of the phrase is maintained throughout
the derivation.
the derivation.
However, the correlation between the preferred word order and the syntactic flexibility of a
However, the correlation between the preferred word order and the syntactic flexibility of a
code-switched phrase was found to be rather weak in both groups (r = ´0.033 for KE and r = ´0.38
code-switched phrase was found to be rather weak in both groups (r = −0.033 for KE and r = −0.38 for
for JE), revealing that there are variations found among the idiomatic phrases. The weak correlation
JE), revealing that there are variations found among the idiomatic phrases. The weak correlation
between the syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrase and word order variation found in KE
between the syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrase and word order variation found in KE
and JE CS may be accounted for by the fact that the three syntactic operations (i.e., passivization,
and JE CS may be accounted for by the fact that the three syntactic operations (i.e., passivization,
relative clause formation, and wh-question formation) that were experimentally investigated in the
relative clause formation, and wh-question formation) that were experimentally investigated in the
syntactic flexibility judgment task, may not be directly related to the syntactic phenomenon of OV~VO
syntactic flexibility judgment task, may not be directly related to the syntactic phenomenon of
word order variation, under the assumption that OV is derived from VO via object shift. Although it is
OV~VO word order variation, under the assumption that OV is derived from VO via object shift.
true that the results from passivization, relative clause formation, and wh-question formation revealed
Although it is true that the results from passivization, relative clause formation, and wh-question
different degrees of syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrases, the nature of these three syntactic
formation revealed different degrees of syntactic flexibility of the code-switched phrases, the nature
operations is different from that of object shift leading to OV~VO variation in CS, summarized in (31).
of these three syntactic operations is different from that of object shift leading to OV~VO variation in
CS, summarized in (31).
Languages 2016, 1, 8
31.
a.
19 of 31
Object shift is object movement caused by the EPP property on v
[vP OBJi v [VP V ti ]]
b. Passivization is motivated by the Case requirement: the underlying object is assigned
nominative Case from T, which is specified for EPP
[TP OBJi T [vP v [VP V ti ]]]
c.
(Object) Relativization is a syntactic dependency between the head noun in the matrix
clause and the gap in the embedded clause (no movement involved)
. . . head nouni . . . [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V gapi ]]]]
d. (Object) Wh-question is movement caused by Wh-feature on C, which is specified for EPP
[CP OBJi C [TP T [vP v [VP V ti ]]]]
We see in (31) that neither relativization nor wh-movement have the same driving force as object
shift, whereas syntactic procedures for object shift and passivization appear to be similar; the object
raises to a specifier of a functional head, such as v and T, due to the EPP specification on it. Yet, there are
additional properties found in passive constructions cross-linguistically that serve to distinguish them
from object shift. The grammatical subject of a passive sentence is the internal argument of the verb,
which gets nominative case, and the external argument of the verb is not projected as an argument
but may be realized as an adjunct phrase (the by-phrase in English and the dative phrase in Korean
and Japanese, for instance). Most importantly, the demotion of the external argument coupled with
the accusative case absorption brings about a decrease in valency, which is reflected through a change
in the morphological form of the verb. In this regard, the passive construction differs from object
shift, for it involves a valency-reducing operation on the verb in addition to object raising. It is likely
that the valency-changing morphological operation involved in passivization is subject to restrictions
that constrain the applicability of the passive beyond the restrictions imposed by object raising per se.
For that reason, it is to be expected that object shift and passives will not have an identical distribution.
None of the three syntactic procedures included in the syntactic flexibility task (i.e., passivization,
relativization, and wh-questions), involve the same syntactic process, namely, object shift, which is a
source of OV~VO variation in CS.
3.3. Idiom Familiarity Task
The test items of the CS judgment task included a number of idiomatic expressions; thus an idiom
familiarity task was designed to measure the bilingual participants’ familiarity with the English idioms
included in the CS judgment task and the syntactic flexibility judgment task.
3.3.1. Materials and Methods
A total of 32 VP idioms tested in the CS judgment task and the syntactic flexibility judgment task
were included in the idiom familiarity task. In the syntactic flexibility task, each idiom was inserted in
an appropriate sentential context and used as an input sentence. These sentences continued to serve as
the test items of the present task. Since the idiom familiarity task was originally designed to be used as
a screening tool, no additional filler materials were added.
The experiment was a self-paced pencil-and-paper task. Each idiom was incorporated in a
sentence and underscored. Participants were asked to read each sentence and write down the meaning
of the underscored phrase of the sentence in their own words. To prevent the two judgment tasks
(i.e., CS and syntactic flexibility) from being affected by lexical and contextual redundancy, the idiom
familiarity task was administered after the participants completed the two judgment tasks.
The same group of 28 KE and 8 JE bilinguals, and 7 native speakers of English that participated in
the syntactic flexibility task continued to participate in the idiomatic familiarity task. No time limit
was imposed on the task, and the participants, on average, took 30 min or less to finish it.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
20 of 30
The same group of 28 KE and 8 JE bilinguals, and 7 native speakers of English that participated
in the syntactic flexibility task continued to participate in the idiomatic familiarity task. No time limit
Languages 2016, 1, 8
20 of 31
was imposed on the task, and the participants, on average, took 30 minutes or less to finish it.
3.3.2.
3.3.2. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
All
analyzed into
into 55 categories:
categories: (a)
All responses
responses provided
provided by
by the
the participants
participants were
were analyzed
(a) aa correct
correct
description
(b)(b)
nono
response;
(c) (c)
wrong
interpretation
of the
phrase;
(d)
descriptionor
orinterpretation
interpretationofofthe
thephrase;
phrase;
response;
wrong
interpretation
of the
phrase;
a(d)
literal
interpretation
of
the
phrase;
and
(e)
an
approximate
description
of
the
phrase,
yet
not
correct.
a literal interpretation of the phrase; and (e) an approximate description of the phrase, yet not
For
each For
speaker
correct aanswer
rate was calculated
based only
on (a),
a correct
correct.
each group,
speakera group,
correctresponse
answer response
rate was calculated
based
only
on (a),
description/interpretation
of the phrase,
among
theamong
answer
types.
a correct description/interpretation
of the
phrase,
the
answer types.
Overall,
the percentage
percentageof
ofcorrect
correctanswers
answersprovided
provided
English
monolingual,
KE bilingual
Overall, the
byby
thethe
English
monolingual,
KE bilingual
and
and
JE bilingual
groups
were84%,
95%,
84%,
85%, respectively,
the two
bilingual
JE bilingual
groups
were 95%,
and
85%,and
respectively,
indicatingindicating
that the twothat
bilingual
groups
were
groups
slightlywith
lessEnglish
familiaridioms
with English
than the
monolingual
speakers
of
slightly were
less familiar
than the idioms
monolingual
native
speakers ofnative
English.
However,
English.
However,
this
difference
between
the
monolingual
and
the
bilingual
speakers’
performance
this difference between the monolingual and the bilingual speakers’ performance was limited to the
was
limited
to theHVs,
idioms
involving
HVs,
especially
thosemeaning
in which
usualverb
meaning
a lexical
idioms
involving
especially
those
in which
the usual
of the
a lexical
is not of
available
at
verb
is
not
available
at
all
in
the
idiomatic
phrase.
Figure
6
lists
5
idiomatic
phrases
that
were
most
all in the idiomatic phrase. Figure 6 lists 5 idiomatic phrases that were most frequently interpreted
frequently
incorrectly
by the
KE and JE bilingual speakers.
incorrectlyinterpreted
by the KE and
JE bilingual
speakers.
100
Korean-Englsih
Japanese-English
% Error Rate
75
50
25
0
shoot the breeze
climb the walls
pound the pavement
feel the pinch
kick the bucket
Figure 6. Idioms of the highest error rates obtained from the bilingual speakers.
Figure 6. Idioms of the highest error rates obtained from the bilingual speakers.
Among the 5 idioms listed in Figure 6 above, shoot the breeze ‘to talk aimlessly’ and climb the walls
idiomswere
listedinterpreted
in Figure 6close
above,
the breeze
‘to by
talksome
aimlessly’
andsuch
climbasthe‘towalls
‘to beAmong
anxiousthe
or5frantic’
to shoot
their literal
sense
speakers,
feel
‘to
be
anxious
or
frantic’
were
interpreted
close
to
their
literal
sense
by
some
speakers,
such
as
‘to
feel
the breeze’ and ‘to promote’, respectively. While either the object or the verb seemed to be literally
the
breeze’ and
‘toidioms
promote’,
thethe
object
or pound
the verb
literally
interpreted
in the
shootrespectively.
the breeze andWhile
climb either
the walls,
idiom
the seemed
pavementto‘tobelook
for a
interpreted
in
the
idioms
shoot
the
breeze
and
climb
the
walls,
the
idiom
pound
the
pavement
‘to
look
fora
job’ was interpreted literally in its iterative aspectual sense (i.e., ‘to do something repeatedly’) by
amajority
job’ wasofinterpreted
in itsspeakers.
iterative aspectual sense (i.e., ‘to do something repeatedly’) by a
the KE andliterally
JE bilingual
majority
of
the
KE
and
JE
bilingual
speakers.
Interestingly, pound the pavement was strongly preferred in OV order in the CS judgment task,
Interestingly,
pound thethat
pavement
was strongly
in OV
order
in the CS
judgment
task,
suggesting
the possibility
the emergence
of anpreferred
aspectually
literal
meaning
leads
to OV order,
suggesting
the
possibility
that
the
emergence
of
an
aspectually
literal
meaning
leads
to
OV
order,
parallel to the predominant OV order with a HV associated with a literal interpretation. However,
parallel
to theinterpreted
predominant
OVtoorder
HV associated
with the
a literal
However,
other idioms
close
their with
literala sense,
such as shoot
breezeinterpretation.
and climb the walls,
were
other
idioms
interpreted
close
to
their
literal
sense,
such
as
shoot
the
breeze
and
climb
the
walls,
were
both favored in VO order in both KE and JE CS. Thus, it seems that the unexpected order of the idiom,
both
in VO order
both idioms,
KE and was
JE CS.
Thus,
it seems
the unexpected
order
of the idiom,
poundfavored
the pavement,
unlikeinother
not
related
to thethat
failure
of its idiomatic
reading.
poundThe
the findings
pavement,ofunlike
other
idioms,
was
not
related
to
the
failure
of
its
idiomatic
reading.
this task suggest that, despite the fact that bilinguals may not be familiar with the
The
findings
of
this
task suggest
that, despite
the fact
that bilinguals
may not
with
figurative readings of
idiomatic
expressions,
they seem
to create
new meanings
forbe
thefamiliar
expressions,
the
figurative
readings
of
idiomatic
expressions,
they
seem
to
create
new
meanings
for
the
based on the semantic or syntactic nature of the lexicon involved and the contexts in which these
expressions,
based
onAnd
the semantic
or syntactic
nature
of the
involved and the contexts in
expressions are
used.
this may also
be reflected
in their
CSlexicon
grammar.
which these expressions are used. And this may also be reflected in their CS grammar.
3.4. Section Summary and Conclusion
The results of the CS judgment task and the syntactic flexibility judgment task completed by the
28 KE and 8 JE bilingual speakers confirm the two research hypotheses that (i) the selection of an
Languages 2016, 1, 8
21 of 30
3.4. Section Summary and Conclusion
Languages 2016, 1, 8
21 of 31
The results of the CS judgment task and the syntactic flexibility judgment task completed by the
28 KE and 8 JE bilingual speakers confirm the two research hypotheses that (i) the selection of an
English HV
HV or
or LV
LV within
within aa code-switched
code-switched constituent
constituent leads
leads to
to OV~VO
OV~VO variation,
variation, and
and (ii)
(ii) syntactically
syntactically
English
flexible and
and inflexible
inflexible phrases
phrases also
also lead
leadto
toOV~VO
OV~VO variation
variation in
in CS.
CS.
flexible
Based on
on the
the results
results obtained
obtained in
in the
the CS
CS judgment
judgment task,
task, Section
Section 44 provides
provides aa syntactic
syntactic account
account of
of
Based
deriving OV
OV and
and VO
VO order
order in
in KE
KE and
and JE
JE CS
CS within
withinthe
theframework
frameworkof
ofthe
theMinimalist
MinimalistProgram.
Program.
deriving
4.
MixedVerb
Verb Constructions
Constructions in
in Code-Switching
Code-Switching
4. Mixed
The
The overall
overall outcome
outcome of
of the
the experimental
experimental study
study on
on KE
KE and
and JE
JE CS
CS supports
supports the
the hypothesis
hypothesis that
that
the
selection
between
English
HVs
and
LVs
within
a
code-switched
phrase
would
lead
to
OV~VO
the selection between English HVs and LVs within a code-switched phrase would lead to OV~VO
variation.
only
observed
in phrases
involving
a literal
interpretation
and
variation. However,
However,this
thisdifference
differencewas
was
only
observed
in phrases
involving
a literal
interpretation
in
LVCs,
but notbut
in phrases
with non-literal/idiomatic
interpretations.
Given these
results,
I propose
and
in LVCs,
not in phrases
with non-literal/idiomatic
interpretations.
Given
these
results, aI
grammatical
account of account
OV~VO of
variations
KE and JE
of the Minimalist
propose a grammatical
OV~VO in
variations
in CS
KEwithin
and JEthe
CS framework
within the framework
of the
Program,
especially
upon based
the feature
developed
Shim [9]. by Shim [9].
Minimalist
Program,based
especially
uponinheritance
the feature system
inheritance
systemby
developed
In
In Section
Section 2.3.,
2.3., II proposed
proposed the
the underlying
underlying structure
structure for
for deriving
deriving OV
OV and
and VO
VO order
order in
in KE
KE and
and JE
JE
CS,
shown
in
(24),
where
the
respective
LVs
(Korean
ha
and
Japanese
su)
lexicalize
v
with
the
EPP
CS, shown in (24), where the respective LVs (Korean ha and Japanese su) lexicalize v with the EPP
feature,
merge
under
Asp.
Prior
to discussing
how
(24)(24)
accounts
for
feature, in
incontrast
contrasttotoEnglish
EnglishLVs,
LVs,which
which
merge
under
Asp.
Prior
to discussing
how
accounts
the
results
from
the
CS
judgment
task,
I
begin
with
a
consideration
of
key
theoretical
assumptions.
for the results from the CS judgment task, I begin with a consideration of key theoretical assumptions.
One
(FI henceforth),
henceforth), primarily
primarily proposed for the
One of
of the
thekey
keyconcepts
conceptsisisFEATURE
FEATUREIINHERITANCE
NHERITANCE (FI
the
C(omp)-T(ense)
by Chomsky
Chomsky [68,69].
[68,69].In
InShim
Shim[9],
[9],I Ifurther
furtherextended
extendedand
and
applied
C(omp)-T(ense) domain by
applied
FIFI
to to
thethe
vv-Asp
domain,
parallel
to
C-T,
and
developed
it
into
a
fully-fledged
mechanism
that
accounts
for
Asp domain, parallel to C-T, and developed it into a fully-fledged
for
various
various theoretical
theoreticalissues
issuessuch
suchas
asword
wordorder
orderand
andCase/case.
Case/case. I argue that, how the EPP properties
properties are
are
encoded
encoded in the feature
feature geometry on C and v,
v, and how these features, including the EPP,
EPP, are
are valued
valued
in
C-T
and
v-Asp
domains,
are
the
source
for
parametric
variations,
including
word
order
in
in C-T and v-Asp domains,
the source for parametric variations,
in both
both
monolingual
monolingual and
and bilingual
bilingual grammars.
grammars.
Chomsky
considers C,
C,T,
T,and
andvvtotobebecore
corefunctional
functional
categories,
probing
features
Chomsky [70] considers
categories,
butbut
thethe
probing
features
(or
(or
Agree
or edge
features
in Chomsky’s
term)
and
EPP
feature
belong
phase
heads
only,CCand
andv
Agree
or edge
features
in Chomsky’s
term)
and
thethe
EPP
feature
belong
toto
phase
heads
only,
v(p.
(p.102).
102).T Tinherently
inherentlylacks
lacksthese
thesefeatures
featuresand
andits
itsprobing
probingand
and EPP
EPP features
features are inherited from C, the
the
phase
head,
via
FI.
As
a
result,
T
serves
as
a
probe
at
the
phase
level
CP.
Analogous
to
the
C-T
relation,
phase head, via FI. As
probe the phase level CP.
relation,
II propose
propose that
that v selects
selects a functional category, Asp, and transmits its probing features to Asp via FI.
Thus,
Thus, all
all probing
probing features
features on
on Asp
Asp are
are inherited
inherited from
from its
its selecting
selecting phase
phase head, v. The structure in (32)
illustrates
FI
from
v
to
Asp
in
Korean
and
Japanese,
proposed
in
Shim
illustrates FI from v to Asp in Korean and Japanese, proposed in Shim[9].
[9].
feature matching between Asp and OBJ: [uϕ, uCaseEPP] are valued
feature matching between Asp and OBJ: [uφ, uCaseEPP ] are valued
feature matching between v and V: [uAspEPP] is valued
feature matching between v and V: [uAspEPP ] is valued
EPP] from v, after which it enters into a probe-goal relationship
In (32), Asp inherits [uϕ, uCaseEPP
In (32), Asp inherits [uφ, uCase
] from v, after which it enters into a probe-goal relationship
EPP
with the object. The feature [uCase ] on Asp triggers movement of the maximal projection of a goal
with the object. The feature [uCaseEPP ] on Asp triggers movement of the maximal projection of a
with the corresponding feature, and the object raises to Spec, ASPP, delivering OV order within ASPP.
goal with the corresponding feature, and the object raises to Spec, ASPP, delivering OV order within
Then, the entire ASPP raises to Spec, vP, resulting in OV-ha order in Korean and OV-su order in
ASPP. Then, the entire ASPP raises to Spec, vP, resulting in OV-ha order in Korean and OV-su order
Japanese.
in Japanese.
The structure in (32) will also be used as a basic templet for OV-ha/su order in KE and JE CS.
Yet, we will see that there are cases in which FI from v = haKR /suJP to Asp is blocked, and the object
(i)
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
Languages 2016, 1, 8
22 of 30
of 31
The structure in (32) will also be used as a basic templet for OV-ha/su order in KE and JE CS.22Yet,
we will see that there are cases in which FI from v = haKR/suJP to Asp is blocked, and the object fails to
undergo
movement
to Spec,toASpec,
SPP when
lexicala category
is inserted
in Asp,inpreventing
Asp from
fails to undergo
movement
ASPPawhen
lexical category
is inserted
Asp, preventing
Asp
being
beneficiary
of FI. This
is This
precisely
when English
LVs areLVs
merged
directlydirectly
under Asp
as lexical
from abeing
a beneficiary
of FI.
is precisely
when English
are merged
under
Asp as
roots.
a result,
object object
raising
does does
not occur
whenever
an English
LVLV
is is
merged
lexicalAs
roots.
As a result,
raising
not occur
whenever
an English
mergedunder
underAsp,
Asp,
deriving
VO-ha/su
order
in
KE
and
JE
CS.
Thus,
OV~VO
variation
in
KE
and
JE
CS
is
explained
as as
a
deriving VO-ha/su order in KE and JE CS. Thus, OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS is explained
result
of of
object
raising
to to
Spec,
ASP
object
shift
occurs,
OVOV
order
is derived
within
ASPA
P.SPIfP.
a result
object
raising
Spec,
AP;
SPwhen
P; when
object
shift
occurs,
order
is derived
within
the
object
stays
in
situ,
VO
is
derived.
Regardless
of
object
shift,
the
entire
A
SP
P
always
raises
to
Spec,
If the object stays in situ, VO is derived. Regardless of object shift, the entire ASPP always raises to
vP
whenever
v is Korean
or Japanese,
and theand
surface
word order
eitherbeOV-ha/su
or VOSpec,
vP whenever
v is Korean
or Japanese,
the surface
wordwould
orderbe
would
either OV-ha/su
ha/su
in KE in
and
CS.JEAll
movements
are are
a consequence
of of
feature
or VO-ha/su
KEJEand
CS.these
All these
movements
a consequence
featurechecking
checkingand
andEPP
EPP
specification
on
a
functional
head,
as
assumed
in
the
Minimalist
Program.
specification on a functional head, as assumed in the Minimalist Program.
In
Inthe
thefollowing
followingsub-sections
sub-sections(Sections
(Sections4.1–4.6),
4.1–4.6),IIwill
willprovide
provideaaFI-based
FI-basedaccount
accountof
ofOV
OVand
andVO
VO
order
in
ha/su
LVCs
in
KE
and
JE
CS,
a
finding
based
on
the
CS
judgment
task
reported
in
Section
3.1.
order in ha/su LVCs in KE and JE CS, a finding based on the CS judgment task reported in Section 3.1.
Sections
to 4.6provide
provideaadescriptive
descriptiveanalysis
analysisof
of OV~VO
OV~VO variation
variation in
Sections4.1
4.1–4.6
in KE
KE and
and JE
JE CS.
CS. For
For aadetailed
detailed
discussion
discussionof
ofthe
themechanisms
mechanismsand
andoperations
operationsof
ofFI
FIand
andderivational
derivationalaccounts
accountsof
ofOV
OVand
andVO
VOword
word
order
variation,
readers
are
asked
to
refer
to
previous
work
by
Shim
[9].
order variation, readers are asked to refer to previous work by Shim [9].
Languages 2016, 1, 8
4.1.
4.1.OV
OVwith
withan
anEnglish
EnglishHeavy
HeavyVerb
Verbin
inLiteral
LiteralInterpretation
Interpretation
In
Inthe
thecode-switched
code-switchedphrase
phrasein
inwhich
whichan
anEnglish
EnglishHV
HVtakes
takesan
anobject
objectwith
withaaliteral
literalinterpretation,
interpretation,
such
suchas
asmiss
missthe
thebus,
bus,OV
OVorder
orderwas
wasstrongly
stronglypreferred
preferred(the
(thepercentage
percentageof
ofVO
VOoccurrence
occurrencewas
was22%
22%for
for
KE
for JE
JE CS).
CS).The
Thestructure
structureinin(33)
(33)
represents
underlying
structure
phrase
KE CS
CS and
and 19%
19% for
represents
thethe
underlying
structure
for for
the the
phrase
miss
miss
the bus,
for instance,
which
favored
in order
OV order
inand
KE and
JE CS.
the bus,
for instance,
which
was was
favored
in OV
in KE
JE CS.
KR
JP
The
of its
its own,
own, and
and is
is selected
selected by
by vv == ha
Thenull-headed
null-headed Asp
Asp does
does not
not bear
bear any
any formal
formal features
features of
haKR/su
/suJP, ,
aaCase-checking
in in
Korean/Japanese.
Via FI,
is endowed
with [uϕ,
Case-checkingLV
LVwith
withEPP
EPPspecifications
specifications
Korean/Japanese.
ViaAsp
FI, Asp
is endowed
with
EPP
KR
JP
EPP
KR
JP
uCase
]
from
v
=
ha
/su
and
agrees
with
the
object
bearing
the
matching
features.
The
object
raises
[uφ, uCase ] from v = ha /su and agrees with the object bearing the matching features. The object
to
Spec,toASpec,
SPP caused
by the EPP
property
of [uCase]
on Asp,on
delivering
OV order
ASPP. A
raises
ASPP caused
by the
EPP property
of [uCase]
Asp, delivering
OVwithin
order within
ASP
SPPP.
further
raises
to
Spec,
vP,
as
a
result
of
which
OV-ha
and
OV-su
orders
are
derived
in
KE
and
JE
CS,
ASPP further raises to Spec, vP, as a result of which OV-ha and OV-su orders are derived in KE and JE
respectively.
CS, respectively.
4.2.
4.2.VO
VOwith
withan
anEnglish
EnglishHeavy
HeavyVerb
Verbin
inNon-Literal
Non-LiteralInterpretation
Interpretation
While
WhileOV
OVorder
orderwas
wasstrongly
stronglypreferred
preferredwhen
whenan
anEnglish
EnglishHV
HVwas
wasincluded
includedin
inaaphrase
phrasewith
withaa
literal
interpretation,
VO
order
was
favored
when
an
English
HV
takes
an
object
in
non-literal
literal interpretation, VO order was favored when an English HV takes an object in non-literalor
or
idiomatic
idiomaticinterpretations
interpretations(i.e.,
(i.e.,miss
missthe
theboat
boatmeaning
meaning‘miss
‘missthe
theopportunity’)
opportunity’)in
inKE
KEand
andJE
JECS
CS(66%
(66%and
and
63%,
63%,respectively).
respectively).Since
Sincethe
thesame
sameset
setof
ofEnglish
Englishverbs
verbswere
wereincluded
includedin
inboth
bothliteral
literaland
and non-literal
non-literal
interpretations,
interpretations,the
theOV~VO
OV~VOcontrast
contrastbetween
betweenthem
themcan
canbe
beonly
onlyexplained
explainedby
bythe
thefact
factthat
thatobject
objectshift
shift
occurs
occursin
inliteral
literalinterpretations,
interpretations,while
whileititfails
failsto
tooccur
occurin
innon-literal
non-literalinterpretations.
interpretations.What
Whatprevents
preventsthe
the
object
from
raising
to
Spec,
A
SP
P
in
non-literal
interpretations?
object from raising to Spec, ASPP in non-literal interpretations?
EPP] from v = haKR
Similar
may inherit
inherit [uφ,
[uϕ, uCase
uCaseEPP
Similar to
to (33),
(33), the
the null
null Asp
Asp head
head may
] from v = haKR/su
/suJPJPvia
viaFIFIand
andtrigger
trigger
object
object
may
resist
being
extracted
outout
of the
VP VP
duedue
to the
fact fact
that that
the VP
objectshift
shiftinin(34).
(34).Yet,
Yet,the
the
object
may
resist
being
extracted
of the
to the
the
of
a
non-literal
interpretation
(or
the
VP
idiom)
is
not
as
flexible
as
that
of
a
VP
with
a
literal
VP of a non-literal interpretation (or the VP idiom) is not as flexible as that of a VP with a literal
interpretation,
interpretation,as
asconfirmed
confirmedin
inthe
theresults
resultsfrom
from the
the syntactic
syntactic flexibility
flexibility judgment
judgmenttask:
task: as
asshown
shownin
in
Figure
Figure4,4,the
theidioms
idioms(HV,
(HV,Non-Lit
Non-Litand
andLV,
LV, Non-Lit)
Non-Lit) were
were judged
judged by
by all
allthree
threespeaker
speakergroups
groupsas
asbeing
being
syntactically
and LV,
LV,LVC).
LVC).
syntacticallyless
lessflexible
flexiblethan
thanthe
the non-idiomatic
non-idiomatic expressions
expressions (HV,
(HV, LVC
LVC and
Languages 2016, 1, 8
Languages 2016, 1, 8
23 of 31
23 of 30
Suppose that the object cannot be extracted out of the VP due to the syntactic inflexibility of the
Suppose that the object cannot be extracted out of the VP due to the syntactic inflexibility of the
VP. The EPP property on Asp still needs to be satisfied; otherwise, the derivation crashes in (34). FI
VP. The EPP property on Asp still needs to be satisfied; otherwise, the derivation crashes in (34). FI is
is designed to value uninterpretable features on a phase head (C, v) in a more efficient and economical
designed to value uninterpretable features on a phase head (C, v) in a more efficient and economical
way, and it happens automatically as long as a derivation converges. To put it another way, while FI
way, and it happens automatically as long as a derivation converges. To put it another way, while
from v to Asp is otherwise spontaneous, it is blocked in (34), for it leads to a derivational crash. Instead,
FI from v to Asp is otherwise spontaneous, it is blocked in (34), for it leads to a derivational crash.
v = haKR/suJP may
not transmit any of its features to Asp and v itself enters into a probe-goal
Instead, v = haKR /suJP may not transmit any of its features to Asp and v itself enters into a probe-goal
relationship, so all of its features can be valued.
relationship, so all of its features can be valued.
In summary, when an English HV takes an object in non-literal or idiomatic interpretations, FI
In summary,
when an English HV takes an object in non-literal or idiomatic interpretations,
JP to Asp may not occur. As a result, the English VO order is maintained in KE and JE
from v = haKR/su
FI from v = haKR /suJP to Asp may not occur. As a result, the English VO order is maintained in KE and
CS.
JE CS.
4.3. VO with an English Light Verb in Literal Interpretation
4.3. VO with an English Light Verb in Literal Interpretation
The results from the CS judgment task (Figure 3) shows that the occurrence of VO order with an
The results from the CS judgment task (Figure 3) shows that the occurrence of VO order with
English LV in literal interpretation (i.e., have a small head) is 46% for KE CS (and 36% for JE CS). At
an English LV in literal interpretation (i.e., have a small head) is 46% for KE CS (and 36% for JE CS).
first glance, this seems to suggest that OV and VO orders are more or less equally distributed in KE
At first glance, this seems to suggest that OV and VO orders are more or less equally distributed in
CS. However, as reported in Section 3.1.2, a main effect of verb type (heavy vs. light verbs) was found,
KE CS. However, as reported in Section 3.1.2, a main effect of verb type (heavy vs. light verbs) was
revealing a higher preference of VO order with LVs than HVs in literal interpretations, which should
found, revealing a higher preference of VO order with LVs than HVs in literal interpretations, which
be accounted for. In addition, an item-based analysis suggests that, with a subset of the LVs included
should be accounted for. In addition, an item-based analysis suggests that, with a subset of the LVs
in (19), such as have, get, and keep, the preference for VO order was exceptionally high in relation to
included in (19), such as have, get, and keep, the preference for VO order was exceptionally high in
literal
interpretations, around 80% or above, exhibiting a stark contrast with HVs in literal
relation to literal interpretations, around 80% or above, exhibiting a stark contrast with HVs in literal
interpretations,
interpretations, most
most of
of which
which were
were strongly
strongly preferred
preferred (more
(more than
than 90%)
90%) in
in the
the OV
OV order.
order. Thus,
Thus, LVs
LVs
seem
to
behave
very
differently
from
HVs.
On
the
other
hand,
some
of
the
LVs
in
(19),
such
as
hold,
seem to behave very differently from HVs. On the other hand, some of the LVs in (19), such as hold,
instead
exhibitedpatterns
patternsthat
thatwere
weresimilar
similartoto
HVs,
where
was
preferred
word
order
inand
KE
instead exhibited
HVs,
where
OVOV
was
thethe
preferred
word
order
in KE
and JE CS, suggesting that they are close to HVs, and not LVs, and are base-generated as V in such
JE CS, suggesting that they are close to HVs, and not LVs, and are base-generated as V in such cases.
cases.
Based on the above patterns, I conclude that true LVs, such as have, get, and keep are distinguished
Based on the above patterns, I conclude that true LVs, such as have, get, and keep are
from HVs, and VO order is derived with LVs in literal interpretations. In the following, I will discuss
distinguished from HVs, and VO order is derived with LVs in literal interpretations. In the following,
how VO order is derived with English LVs in KE and JE CS. In Section 4.7, item-based analyses of LVs
I will discuss how VO order is derived with English LVs in KE and JE CS. In Section 4.7, item-based
in (19) are provided.
analyses of LVs in (19) are provided.
With the assumption that the English LV lexicalizes Asp in place, the fact that preverbal object
With the assumption that the English LV lexicalizes Asp in place, the fact that preverbal object
placement does not happen when an English LV is code-switched can be explained. In (34), for example,
placement does not happen when an English LV is code-switched can be explained. In (34),
for
have, qua, LV lexicalizes Asp, and it prevents Asp from inheriting probing features from v = haKR /suJP .
example, have, qua, LV lexicalizes Asp, and it prevents Asp from inheriting probing features from v
FI will take place successfully if and only if the functional head of the complement of the phase head is
= haKR/suJP. FI will take place successfully if and only if the functional head of the complement of the
empty (cf. Richards 2007) [71]. If the functional head is already equipped with idiosyncratic lexical
phase head is empty (cf. Richards 2007) [71]. If the functional head is already equipped with
properties, such as being filled by a lexical item such as an English LV, for instance, FI does not occur.
idiosyncratic lexical properties, such as being filled by a lexical item such as an English LV, for
As a consequence, none of v’s features are discharged to Asp, lexicalized by an English LV.
instance, FI does not occur. As a consequence, none of v’s features are discharged to Asp, lexicalized
by an English LV.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
Languages 2016, 1, 8
Languages 2016, 1, 8
24 of 31
24 of 30
24 of 30
When English LVs lexicalize Asp, the V head remains empty in (35), whose status may be
When English
English LVs
LVs lexicalize
lexicalize Asp,
Asp, the
the V
V head
head remains
remains empty
empty in
in (35),
(35), whose
whose status
status may
may be
be
When
questioned. The existence of null lexical verbs has been argued in many languages (e.g., in Slovenian
questioned. The
Theexistence
existence of
ofnull
nulllexical
lexicalverbs
verbshas
hasbeen
beenargued
argued in
inmany
manylanguages
languages (e.g.,
(e.g., in
in Slovenian
Slovenian
questioned.
and in various Germanic languages, such as Dutch, German, West Flemish, Luxemburgish, Afrikaans,
andin
invarious
variousGermanic
Germaniclanguages,
languages,such
suchas
asDutch,
Dutch,German,
German,West
WestFlemish,
Flemish, Luxemburgish,
Luxemburgish, Afrikaans,
Afrikaans,
and
Swedish, Swiss German [72,73]. This supports the validity of the null V in (35). It is not clear whether
Swedish, Swiss
Swiss German
German [72,73].
[72,73]. This
This supports
supports the
the validity
validity of
of the
the null
null V
V in
in (35).
(35). ItItisisnot
notclear
clearwhether
whether
Swedish,
empty verbs need formal licensing, as argued by van Riemsdijk [73], or whether they do not need
empty verbs
verbs need
need formal
formal licensing,
licensing, as
as argued
argued by
by van
van Riemsdijk
Riemsdijk [73],
[73], or
or whether
whether they
they do
do not
not need
need
empty
formal licensing, as claimed by Marušič and Žaucer [72]; more research is needed to understand the
formal licensing,
licensing,as
as claimed
claimedby
by Marušič
Marušičand
and Žaucer
Žaucer[72];
[72]; more
more research
research is
is needed
needed to
to understand
understand the
the
formal
nature of empty verbs. I will leave the topic for future research.
nature
of
empty
verbs.
I
will
leave
the
topic
for
future
research.
nature of empty verbs. I will leave the topic for future research.
4.4. VO
VO with
an
English
Light
Verb
in Non-Literal
Non-Literal Interpretation
Interpretation
4.4.
withan
anEnglish
EnglishLight
LightVerb
Verbin
in
4.4.
VO with
Non-Literal Interpretation
When an
an English
English LV
LV takes
takes an
an object
object in
in a non-literal
non-literal or
or idiomatic
idiomatic interpretation
interpretation (e.g.,
(e.g., have
have a big
big
When
When
an English
LV takes
an object
in aa non-literal
or idiomatic
interpretation (e.g.,
have aa big
mouth),
VO
order
was
preferred
both
in
KE
and
JE
CS
(69%
and
72%,
respectively),
similar
to
nonmouth), VO
VO order
KEKE
and
JE JE
CSCS
(69%
andand
72%,72%,
respectively),
similar
to non-literal
mouth),
order was
waspreferred
preferredboth
bothinin
and
(69%
respectively),
similar
to nonliteral
phrases
with
an
English
HV.
As
shown
in
Figure
4,
VP
idioms
with
both
HVs
and
LVs
were
phrases
with
an
English
HV.
As
shown
in
Figure
4,
VP
idioms
with
both
HVs
and
LVs
were
literal phrases with an English HV. As shown in Figure 4, VP idioms with both HVs and LVsjudged
were
judged
less
flexible
than
non-idiomatic
phrases,
thus
the
A
SPP headed by the LV have in (35), for
less flexible
than non-idiomatic
phrases,phrases,
thus thethus
ASPthe
P headed
by the LV
in (35),
judged
less flexible
than non-idiomatic
ASPP headed
by have
the LV
havefor
in instance,
(35), for
instance,
is
inflexible,
making
object
extraction
difficult.
In
(36),
the
Asp
head
filled
by
an
English
LV
is
inflexible,
making
object
extraction
difficult.
In
(36),
the
Asp
head
filled
by
an
English
LV
does
not
instance, is inflexible, making object extraction
difficult.
In (36), the Asp head filled by an English LV
KR
JP
does not
inherit probingfrom
features
from
v =JPha /su .
KR /su
inherit
v = from
ha
does
notprobing
inherit features
probing features
v = ha. KR/suJP.
Both English idioms with a HV and a LV in KE and JE CS were preferred in VO order alike, yet
Both English idioms with a HV and a LV in KE and JE CS were preferred in VO order alike, yet
the syntactic
derivations
deriving
VOaorder
a HV
an LVpreferred
slightly differ
other
Both English
idioms for
with
a HV and
LV inwith
KE and
JEand
CS were
in VOfrom
ordereach
alike,
yet
the syntactic derivations for deriving VO order with a HV and an LV slightly differ from each other
under
the current
proposal
English
HVs
merge
andan
LVs
asdiffer
Asp. With
VP idiom
the
syntactic
derivations
forthat
deriving
VO
order
withunder
a HVVand
LVmerge
slightly
from aeach
other
under the current proposal that English HVs merge under V and LVs merge as Asp. With a VP idiom
including
a HV, Asp
can inthat
principle
v’s features
value
features
as soon
possible.
under
the current
proposal
Englishinherit
HVs merge
under and
V and
LVs v’s
merge
as Asp.
With as
a VP
idiom
including a HV, Asp can in principle inherit v’s features and value v’s features as soon as possible.
However, aFIHV,
is blocked
because
of the failure
shiftand
caused
byv’s
thefeatures
inflexibility
of the
idiom
including
Asp can
in principle
inherit of
v’sobject
features
value
as soon
asVP
possible.
However, FI is blocked because of the failure of object shift caused by the inflexibility of the VP idiom
(Section 4.2).
the idiom
with
on the
other hand,
FI cannot
from v to
filled
However,
FI isWith
blocked
because
of an
theLV,
failure
of object
shift caused
by happen
the inflexibility
oflexically
the VP idiom
(Section 4.2). With the idiom with an LV, on the other hand, FI cannot happen from v to lexically filled
Asp
by
an
English
LV.
What
is
common
between
VP
idioms
with
a
HV
and
an
LV
is
that
VO
order
(Section 4.2). With the idiom with an LV, on the other hand, FI cannot happen from v to lexically filled
Asp by an English LV. What is common between VP idioms with a HVKRandJPan LV is that VO order
is derived
in KE and
CS, which
is accounted
no FI from
ha and
/suantoLV
Asp,
resulting
in the
Asp
by an English
LV.JEWhat
is common
betweenfor
VPbyidioms
with va =HV
is that
VO order
is
KR/suJP to Asp, resulting in the
is derived in KE and JE CS, which is accounted for by no FI from v = ha
KR
JP
failure
of
object
shift.
derived in KE and JE CS, which is accounted for by no FI from v = ha /su to Asp, resulting in the
failure of object shift.
failure of object shift.
4.5. Either OV or VO with an English Light Verb in a Light Verb Construction
4.5.
4.5. Either
EitherOV
OVor
orVO
VOwith
withan
anEnglish
EnglishLight
LightVerb
Verbin
inaaLight
LightVerb
VerbConstruction
Construction
In an LVC in which an English HV takes an object (e.g., play a trick), the average percentage of
In
an
LVC
in
which
an
English
HV
takes
an
object
(e.g.,
play
a trick),
the
average
percentage
of
In an LVC
in which
an41%
English
HV
object
(e.g.,
play
a trick),
average
percentage
of VO
VO order
preference
was
in KE
CStakes
(andan47%
in JE
CS).
While
OVthe
order
was slightly
preferred
VO
order
preference
was
41%
in CS
KE CS (and
47%
JE CS).
While
OV order
was slightly
preferred
order
preference
was
41%
in KE
47%
in JEinCS).
While
OV order
wassentence,
slightly
preferred
with several
items
(i.e.,
deliver
a talk,(and
deliver
a speech,
reach
an agreement,
pass
play
a joke,with
and
with
several
items
(i.e.,
deliver
a
talk,
deliver
a
speech,
reach
an
agreement,
pass
sentence,
play
a
joke,pay
anda
several
items (i.e., the
deliver
a talk, of
deliver
a speech,
reach
agreement,
pass
sentence,
play
a joke, from
and
pay a compliment),
majority
the items
were
not an
biased
towards
either
order,
ranging
36%
pay
a compliment),
the majority
ofitems
the items
were
not biased
towards either
order,
ranging
from
compliment),
the majority
were
not
biased
towards
ranging
fromare
36%
to36%
64%
to 64% VO preference,
inof
KEthe
CS.
I now
proceed
to explain
whyeither
both order,
OV and
VO orders
possible
to 64% VO preference, in KE CS. I now proceed to explain why both OV and VO orders are possible
with a LVC with a HV.
with a LVC with a HV.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
25 of 31
VO preference, in KE CS. I now proceed to explain why both OV and VO orders are possible with a
Languages 2016, 1, 8
25 of 30
LVC with a HV.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
25 of 30
Languages
2016,
1, 8 with a HV, the verb may have a choice between merging as V, following its lexical
of
30
In an
root,
In
an LVC
LVC
with a HV, the verb may have a choice between merging as V, following its 25
lexical
and
merging
as
Asp,
based
on
its
“light”
use
in
an
LVC.
If
the
verb
maintains
its
identity
as
a
lexical
an merging
LVC with
HV, based
the verb
have ause
choice
merging
as V, following
its lexical
root,In
and
asaAsp,
on may
its “light”
in anbetween
LVC. If the
verb maintains
its identity
as a
In
an merging
LVC with
HV,
the verb
have in
a choice
between
merging
as V, the
following
its lexical
verb
and
merges
under
V despite
itsmay
light
aninLVC,
OV order
is
derived;
Asp
root,
and
asaAsp,
based
on
its
“light”
IfOV
theorder
verb
maintains
its identity
as
a
lexical
verb
and merges
under
V despite
itsuse
lightuse
use
inan
anLVC.
LVC,
is
derived;null-headed
the
null-headed
KR
JP and
root,
and
merging
asEPP
Asp,
based
on
its/su
“light”
use
ininan
LVC.
IfOV
theorder
verb
maintains
its
identity
as a
inherits
[uφ,
uCase
]
from
v
=
ha
triggers
the
object
to
move
to
its
specifier
position,
EPP
KR
JP
lexical
verb
and
merges
under
V
despite
its
light
use
an
LVC,
is
derived;
the
null-headed
Asp inherits [uϕ, uCase ] from v = ha /su and triggers the object to move to its specifier position,
lexical
verb
and
merges
V despite
use
in an LVC,
OV order
is derived;
the null-headed
EPP] from
JP and
resulting
in
order.
Asp
inherits
[uϕ,
uCaseunder
v = haKRits
/sulight
triggers
the object
to move
to its specifier
position,
resulting
in OV
OV
order.
EPP] from v = haKR/suJP and triggers the object to move to its specifier position,
Asp
inherits
[uϕ,
uCase
resulting in OV order.
resulting in OV order.
Alternatively, the verb may merge as Asp, following its function similar to the LV in an LVC,
Alternatively, the
the verb may
may merge as
as Asp,
Asp, following
following itsfunction
functionsimilar
similartotothe
the LVKRin
inan
an
LVC,
JP to
Alternatively,
LVC,
despite
the fact that it isverb
originallymerge
a lexical verb.
If the verb its
merges as Asp,
FI from v =LV
ha /su
the
KR
JP to
Alternatively,
the
verb
may
merge
as
Asp,
following
its
function
similar
to
the
LV
in
an
LVC,
despite
the
fact
that
it
is
originally
a
lexical
verb.
If
the
verb
merges
as
Asp,
FI
from
v
=
ha
/su
KR/suJP to the
despite
the
fact
that
it
is
originally
a
lexical
verb.
If
the
verb
merges
as
Asp,
FI
from
v
=
ha
lexically filled Asp does not take place, and the underlying VO order maintains.
despite
the
fact
thatAsp
it is does
originally
a lexical
If the
verb merges
as
Asp,
FI from v = haKR/suJP to the
the lexically
filled
not take
place,
and
the
underlying
order
maintains.
lexically
filled
Asp
does
not take
place,
andverb.
the underlying
VO VO
order
maintains.
lexically filled Asp does not take place, and the underlying VO order maintains.
Thus, the proposal that the English HV in an LVC may merge either as V or as Asp accounts for
Thus,
proposal
HV in task,
an LVC
may merge
either
as V or word
as Asporder
accounts
for
the resultsthe
from
the KEthat
andthe
JE English
CS judgment
showing
that the
preferred
of most
Thus,the
theproposal
proposalthat
thatthe
theEnglish
English
HV
in
an
LVC
may
merge
either
asorVas
orAsp
as Asp
accounts
Thus,
HV
in
an
LVC
may
merge
either
as
V
accounts
for
the
resultswas
from
the
KE and
JE CSeither
judgment
showing
preferred
word order
of most
examples
not
biased
towards
OV ortask,
VO order
andthat
boththe
orders
are possible
derivations
in
for results
the results
from
the
and
JE CS
judgment
task,
showing
that
thepreferred
preferredword
wordorder
orderofofmost
most
the
from
the
KE KE
and
JE CS
judgment
task,
showing
that
the
examples
was
not
biased
towards
either
OV
or
VO
order
and
both
orders
are
possible
derivations
in
an LVC with a HV.
exampleswas
wasnot
notbiased
biasedtowards
towardseither
eitherOV
OVor
orVO
VOorder
orderand
andboth
bothorders
ordersare
arepossible
possiblederivations
derivationsin
in
examples
an LVC with
a HV.
an
LVC
with
a
HV.
an
a HV.
4.6.LVC
VO with
with an
English Light Verb in a Light Verb Construction
4.6.
VO
with
an
English
Light
Verb
in
a Light
Verb
Construction
4.6.VO
VO
with
anEnglish
English
Light
Verbin
in
Light
Verb
Construction
In with
an
LVC
where Light
an
English
LV
takesVerb
an object
(e.g., have a look), the average percentage of VO
4.6.
an
Verb
aaLight
Construction
an
LVC
where
an
English
LV
takes
an
object
(e.g.,
have
aa look),
the
average
percentage
VO
orderIn
preference
was
69%
in
KE
CS
and
71%
in
JE
CS. The
that
an English
LV isof
baseInan
anLVC
LVCwhere
wherean
anEnglish
EnglishLV
LV takes
takes an
an object
object(e.g.,
(e.g.,
haveaproposal
look),the
the
average
percentage
of
VO
In
have
look),
average
percentage
of
VO
KR
JP
order
preference
was
69%
in
KE
CS
and
71%
in
JE
CS.
The
proposal
that
an
English
LV
is
basegenerated
as Aspwas
correctly
accounts
for71%
the surface
VO-ha/su
order;that
FI from
v = ha LV
/suis base-generated
to the lexically
order
preference
69%
in
KE
CS
and
in
JE
CS.
The
proposal
an
English
order
preference
was
69% accounts
in KE CSfor
and
71%
in JE
CS. The
proposal
that
English
is baseJP to LV
generated
as
Asp accounts
correctly
theVO-ha/su
surface
VO-ha/su
order;
FI
from
=an
ha
/su
the lexically
KRv/su
JP KR
filled
Asp
is blocked,
and the
object
remains
in situ,
as illustrated
in
(39).
as
Asp
correctly
for
the
surface
order;
FI
from
v
=
ha
to
the
lexically
filled
KR
JP
generated
as
correctly
accounts
for
the surface
VO-ha/su
order;in
FI(39).
from v = ha /su to the lexically
filled
Asp
is Asp
blocked,
and
the
object
remains
inassitu,
as illustrated
Asp
is
blocked,
and
the
object
remains
in
situ,
illustrated
in
(39).
filled Asp is blocked, and the object remains in situ, as illustrated in (39).
4.7. Reanalyzing English Light Verbs
4.7. Reanalyzing English Light Verbs
Overall, the
studyLight
found
LVs and HVs behave differently in CS. Except for idiomatic phrases, a
4.7. Reanalyzing
English
Verbs
Overall,
the
study
found
LVs
and HV
HVswas
behave
differently
CS. Except
forwith
idiomatic
phrases,
code-switched phrase with an English
preferred
in OVinorder,
whereas
an English
LV ait
Overall,
the
study
found
LVs
and
HVs
behave
differently
in
CS.
Except
for
idiomatic
phrases,
code-switched
withinanVO
English
preferred
in OV
order, whereas
with an
English
LV ait
was generally phrase
preferred
orderHV
in was
all phrase
types,
including
in an LVC
and
in a literal
code-switched
phrase
with
an
English
HV
was
preferred
in
OV
order,
whereas
with
an
English
LV
it
was
generally Under
preferred
VO order
all phrase
types,
in an
LVC
in a literal
interpretation.
the in
proposal
that in
English
LVs and
HVsincluding
merge under
Asp
andand
V, respectively,
was
generally
preferred
in
VO
order
in
all
phrase
types,
including
in
an
LVC
and
in
a
literal
interpretation. Under the proposal that English LVs and HVs merge under Asp and V, respectively,
interpretation. Under the proposal that English LVs and HVs merge under Asp and V, respectively,
Languages 2016, 1, 8
26 of 31
4.7. Reanalyzing English Light Verbs
Overall, the study found LVs and HVs behave differently in CS. Except for idiomatic phrases,
a code-switched phrase with an English HV was preferred in OV order, whereas with an English
Languages 2016, 1, 8
26 of 30
LV it was generally preferred in VO order in all phrase types, including in an LVC and in a literal
interpretation. Under the proposal that English LVs and HVs merge under Asp and V, respectively,
this is a welcome result. However, there were instances in which OV order was preferred with an LV.
this is a welcome result. However, there were instances in which OV order was preferred with an
Assuming that LVs lexicalize the Asp head, this is unexpected. Especially, the strong OV order
LV. Assuming that LVs lexicalize the Asp head, this is unexpected. Especially, the strong OV order
preference for some code-switched phrases with an LV suggests that the verb is instead used as a HV
preference for some code-switched phrases with an LV suggests that the verb is instead used as a HV
and base-generated as V in those cases. In what follows, detailed analyses of the verbs keep and hold
and base-generated as V in those cases. In what follows, detailed analyses of the verbs keep and hold
are provided based on the results from the KE CS judgment task. For other LVs investigated in this
are provided based on the results from the KE CS judgment task. For other LVs investigated in this
study, readers are asked to refer to previous work by Shim ([9]).
study, readers are asked to refer to previous work by Shim ([9]).
4.7.1. Keep
4.7.1. Keep
Similar to have and get, a phrase with the verb keep was also mostly preferred in VO order in KE
Similar to have and get, a phrase with the verb keep was also mostly preferred in VO order in KE
CS 5 out of 6 times, suggesting that keep is also an LV (see Table 1). However, there was one instance
CS 5 out of 6 times, suggesting that keep is also an LV (see Table 1). However, there was one instance
that had a noticeably different pattern.
that had a noticeably different pattern.
Table
Table 1.
1. Item-based
Item-based analysis
analysis for
for KEEP
KEEP in
in KE
KE CS.
CS.
Code-Switched Phrase
Phrase Type
Phrase Type
keep close watch
LVC
keepkeep
closetrack
watch
LVC
LVC
keep track
LVC
keep your cool
Non-Lit
keep your cool
Non-Lit
keep
respectful
manner
Lit
keep aarespectful
manner
Lit
keepaacivil
civiltongue
tongue
Non-Lit
keep
Non-Lit
keep
Lit
keepyour
yourreceipt
receipt
Lit
Code-Switched Phrase
Preferred Word Order
Preferred Word Order
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
VO
OV
OV
% VO
% VO
93
93
93
93
79
79
71
71
71
71
00
# of Occurrences
# of Occurrences
13
1313
13
11
11
1010
1010
00
Not
onlywas
wasthethe
phrase
your receipt
preferred
inorder,
the OV
order, to
inthe
contrast
to the
Not only
phrase
keep keep
your receipt
preferred
in the OV
in contrast
predominance
predominance
VO
order
in the
case
of but
the OV
verborder
keep, was
but OV
was also favored
unanimously
of VO order inof
the
case
of the
verb
keep,
alsoorder
unanimously
by allfavored
KE and
by
all KE and
JE bilingual
both and
keepkeep
youra respectful
receipt and
keep aare
respectful
manner
are
JE bilingual
speakers.
Whilespeakers.
both keep While
your receipt
manner
interpreted
literally,
interpreted
literally,
it
is
only
the
former
that
was
preferred
in
OV
order.
What
makes
the
verb
keep
it is only the former that was preferred in OV order. What makes the verb keep in keep your receipt very
in
keep your
receipt
different
from and
keep other
a respectful
manner and other instances?
different
from
keepvery
a respectful
manner
instances?
In
(19),
the
verb
keep
was
proposed
to
be
an
LV,
representing
keep==CAUS
CAUS +
In (19), the verb keep was proposed to be an LV, representing keep
+ BE
BE..While
Whilethis
thisanalysis
analysis
can
represent
the
meaning
of
the
verb
keep
in
most
phrases,
including
keep
a
respectful
manner,
can represent the meaning of the verb keep in most phrases, including keep a respectful manner, itit does
does
not
not seem
seem to
to convey
convey the
the meaning
meaning of
of the
the verb
verb in
inkeep
keepyour
yourreceipt,
receipt, in
inwhich
which the
the verb
verbisisinterpreted
interpreted as
as ‘to
‘to
retain
or
to
save’,
suggesting
keep
in
keep
your
receipt
is
not
as
light
as
keep
in
other
examples.
And
this
retain or to save’, suggesting keep in keep your receipt is not as light as keep in other examples. And this
contrast
contrast is
is reflected
reflected in
in OV
OV and
and VO
VO order
order preference
preference in
in CS,
CS, respectively.
respectively.
The
The difference
difference in
in relation
relation to
to keep
keep in
in keep
keep your
your receipt
receipt compared
compared to
to other
other uses
uses of
of the
the verb
verb is
is not
not just
just
limited
to
its
semantics.
The
verb
keep
in
keep
your
receipt
arguably
selects
a
secondary
predicate,
as
limited to its semantics. The verb keep in keep your receipt arguably selects a secondary predicate, as in
in
keep
with you.
you. II propose
proposethat
thatthe
theverb
verbkeep
keepininkeep
keepyour
yourreceipt
receipttakes
takes
a small
clause
headed
keep your
your receipt
receipt with
a small
clause
headed
by
by
a null
preposition
as its
complement,
shown
in (40).
a null
preposition
as its
complement,
shown
in (40).
In (40) the verb keep merges under V rather than Asp, and takes a null-headed small-clause
In (40) the verb keep merges under V rather than Asp, and takes a null-headed small-clause
complement, in which your receipt is the subject of the null predicate. What is crucial is that keep basecomplement, in which your receipt is the subject of the null predicate. What is crucial is that keep
generates as V, not Asp, based on the fact that a small clause is selected only by V, but nothing else
(cf. Kayne [74]). Thus, the verb keep here is not an LV but a HV taking a small-clause complement and
OV order is derived in KE and JE CS.
4.7.2. Hold
Languages 2016, 1, 8
27 of 31
base-generates as V, not Asp, based on the fact that a small clause is selected only by V, but nothing
else (cf. Kayne [74]). Thus, the verb keep here is not an LV but a HV taking a small-clause complement
and OV order is derived in KE and JE CS.
4.7.2. Hold
In (19), the verb hold was included as an English LV, decomposed into CAUS + BE, which is also
proposed as the structure for a synonymous verb, keep. However, the results from the CS judgment test
revealed a big contrast between these two verbs. While keep behaved as an LV in most cases, exhibiting
the verb phrase with the inclusion of keep was preferred in VO order in CS, except when it was used as
a HV meaning ‘to retain’, OV order prevailed with hold in both KE and JE CS, shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Item-based analysis for HOLD in KE CS.
Code-Switched Phrase
Phrase Type
Preferred Word Order
% VO
# of Occurrences
hold water
hold water
hold the bowl
hold the fort
hold a conversation
hold a debate
Non-Lit
Lit
Lit
Non-Lit
LVC
LVC
VO
neither OV or VO
OV
OV
OV
OV
71
43
29
29
29
21
10
6
4
4
4
3
The contrast between hold and the rest of the verbs classified as LVs in the study highlights the
word order contrast in an LVC; none of the LVCs with other LVs were favored in OV order, whereas
the two hold LVCs (hold a conversation, hold a debate) were preferred in OV order, similar to the patterns
observed in a number of LVCs with various HVs. This suggests that hold is not an LV but a HV.
While hold and keep are usually considered to be synonyms, Levin [75] makes a subtle distinction
between hold verbs (e.g., clasp, clutch, grasp, handle, hold, wield) and keep verbs (e.g., hoard, keep, leave,
store); while the former describes “prolonged contact with an entity”, the latter relates to “maintaining
something at some location” (pp. 145–146). Along these lines, while the decomposed structure,
CAUS + BE , can represent the meaning of the light verb keep, maintaining something, it may not reflect
the extra semantic information contributed by hold.
Although I have no further insights to offer as to how such subtle differences among diverse
near-synonymous verbs are encoded in the argument structure, the heavy vs. light distinction of verbs
is not only a matter of lexical semantics, but is reflected in the syntactic structure, as evidenced by
word order variation in CS. This is certainly a very interesting finding presented by the present CS
research, one that would not perhaps have emerged from the study of monolingual data alone.
5. Conclusions
The main purpose of this study was to investigate mixed verb constructions in CS in two
typologically similar language pairs, Korean-English and Japanese-English. Especially, the role of light
verbs, in comparison with heavy verbs, was explored as to its contribution to OV~VO variation in KE
and JE CS. In addition, the role of syntactic flexibility of a code-switched phrase was also investigated,
assuming that while the internal argument of a syntactically flexible VP is subject to CS, a less flexible
phrase undergoes CS as a unit.
The pattern of the results found in the CS judgment task and the syntactic flexibility judgment task
from 28 KE and 8 JE bilingual speakers confirms the two research hypotheses that (i) the selection of an
English HV or an LV within a code-switched constituent leads to OV~VO variation, and (ii) syntactically
flexible and less flexible phrases also result in OV~VO variation in CS.
To conclude, there are several implications of the findings of the present study for an
understanding of bilingual LVCs and their linguistic creativity as well as human language forms in
general. As argued in this study, LVs may not represent the same syntactic category across languages;
Languages 2016, 1, 8
28 of 31
for instance, Korean- and Japanese-type LVs lexicalize the functional category v, whereas English-type
LVs realize Asp. With access to a larger set of functional categories drawn from different languages,
which may vary in their morphological forms, bilingual speakers are able to construct a wider range of
LVCs, whose patterns may not be found in monolingual grammar. Otherwise, bilinguals are just like
monolinguals in the sense that their grammars also reflect Universal Grammar, which is claimed to
govern monolingual grammars in generative linguistics. Thus, CS provides us with richer data to test
with stronger confidence the validity of various linguistic theories and proposals primarily intended to
account for the grammatical patterns of monolingual grammar. By studying the diverse and creative
patterns of CS, we are at a better disposal to understand how languages are parameterized similarly or
differently in a given domain, the very topic that generative linguists have pursued for a long time.
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the editors, Usha Lakshmanan, Osmer Balam and Tej K. Bhatia, and
other anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions at various stages of revising the paper. This study
was funded by three different grants, a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science
Foundation (BCS-1023709), a Sponsored Dissertation Fellowship and a Doctoral Research Grant from the CUNY
Graduate Center, which are also gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Chan, B. H.-S. Aspects of the Syntax, the Pragmatics, and the Production of Code-switching, 1st ed.; Peter Lang:
New York, NY, USA, 2003.
Chan, B.H.-S. Code-switching, word order and the lexical/functional category distinction. Lingua 2008, 118,
777–809. [CrossRef]
González-Vilbazo, K.; López, L. Some properties of light verbs in code-switching. Lingua 2011, 121, 832–850.
[CrossRef]
González-Vilbazo, K.; López, L. Little v and parametric variation. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 2012, 30, 33–77.
[CrossRef]
MacSwan, J. A Mimimalist Approach to Intrasentential Codeswitching, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1999.
Mahootian, S. A Null Theory of Code-Switching. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL,
USA, 1993.
Nishimura, S. Lexical categories and code-switching: A study of Japanese/English code-switching in Japan.
J. Assoc. Teach. Jpn. 1997, 31, 1–21.
Shim, J.Y. Light switches between Japanese/Korean and English. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 1st ed.;
den Dikken, M., McClure, M., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; Volume 18,
pp. 345–355.
Shim, J.Y. Deriving Word Order in Code-switching: Feature Inheritance and Light Verbs. Ph.D. Thesis,
CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY, USA, 2013.
Choi, J.O. Korean-English code switching: Switch-alpha and linguistic constraints. Linguistics 1991, 29,
877–902. [CrossRef]
Lee, M.-H. A Parametric Approach to Code-Mixing. Ph.D. Thesis, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY, USA, 1991.
Namba, K. Japanese-English Children’s Code-Switching: Applying the MLF Model to Two Siblings’ Data.
Available online: http://yayoi.senri.ed.jp/research/re11/KNamba.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2016).
Nishimura, M. Intrasentential code-switching in Japanese and English. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1985.
Nishimura, M. Intersentential code-switching: The case of language assignment. In Language Processing in
Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Europsychological Perspectives; Vaid, J., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, MI,
USA, 1986; pp. 123–144.
Nishimura, M. Varietal conditioning in Japanese/English code-switching. Lang. Sci. 1995, 17, 123–145.
[CrossRef]
Nishimura, M.; Yoon, K.K. Head directionality and intrasentential code-switching: A study of Japanese
Canadians and Korean Americans’ bilingual speech. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 1st ed.; Silva, D.J., Ed.;
University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998; Volume 8, pp. 121–130.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
29 of 31
Park, J. Korean/English intrasentential code-switching: Matrix language assignment and linguistic
constraints. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, 1990.
Nunberg, G.; Sag, I.A.; Wasow, T. Idioms. Language 1994, 70, 491–538. [CrossRef]
Gibbs, R.; Nayak, N. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cogn. Psychol. 1989, 21,
100–138. [CrossRef]
Abeillé, A. The flexibility of French idioms: A representation with lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar.
In Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives; Everaert, M., van der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R.,
Schreuder, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 15–42.
Cacciari, C.; Glucksberg, S. Imaging idiomatic expressions: Literal or figurative meanings? In Idioms:
Structural and Psychological Perspectives; Everaert, M., van der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R.,
Schreuder, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 43–56.
Horn, G. Idioms, metaphors and syntactic mobility. J. Linguist. 2003, 39, 245–273. [CrossRef]
Schenk, A. The syntactic behavior of idioms. In Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives; Everaert, M.,
van der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R., Schreuder, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah,
NJ, USA, 1995; pp. 253–272.
Borer, H. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, 1st ed.; Foris Publications:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984.
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program, 1st ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
Jespersen, O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI, Morphology; George Allen & Unwin
Ltd: London, UK, 1965.
Cattell, R. Composite Predicates in English, 1st ed.; Academic Press: Sydney, Australia, 1989.
Campbell, R.G. The Grammatical Structure of Verbal Predicates. Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA,
USA, 1989.
Kearns, K. Predicate nominals in complex predicates. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics; Laka, I.,
Mahajan, A., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1989; Volume 10, pp. 123–134.
Ahn, H.-D. Light Verbs, VP-Movement, Negation and Clausal Architecture in Korean and English. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA, 1991.
Park, K. Light Verb Constructions in Korean and Japanese. Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1992.
Dubinsky, S. Syntactic underspecification and light-verb phenomena in Japanese. Linguistics 1997, 35,
627–672. [CrossRef]
Grimshaw, J.; Mester, A. Light verbs and q-marking. Linguist. Inq. 1988, 19, 205–232.
Butt, M. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu, 1st ed.; CSLI Publications: Stanford, CA, USA, 1995.
Karimi-Doostan, M.-R. Light Verb Constructions in Persian. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Essex, Colchester,
UK, 1997.
Huddleston, R.; Pullum, G. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1st ed.; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
Benveniste, D. Problemes de Linguistique Generate; Gallimard: Paris, France, 1966.
Kayne, R. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Stud. Linguist. 1993, 47, 3–31. [CrossRef]
Den Dikken, M. Particles, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA; Oxford, UK, 1995.
Harley, H. If you have, you can give. In Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
Irvine, CA, USA, 1996; Agabayani, B., Tang, S.-W., Eds.; CSLI Publications: Stanford, CA, USA, 1997.
Kim, K. Argument structure licensing and English have. J. Linguist. 2012, 48, 71–105. [CrossRef]
McIntyre, A. The semantic and syntactic decomposition of get. J. Semant. 2005, 22, 401–438. [CrossRef]
Shim, J.Y. Get it? Got it! Unpublished, Manuscript in Preparation.
Harley, H. Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook; Pica, P., Rooryck, J.,
Eds.; John Benjamins: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 31–70.
Dowty, D. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar; D. Reidel: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1979.
The Light Verb Jungle. Available online: http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/jimmylin/papers/Butt03.pdf
(accessed on 15 April 2011).
Bak, J. The Light Verb Constructions in Korean. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada, 2011.
Languages 2016, 1, 8
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
30 of 31
Chae, H.-R. Light verb constructions and structural ambiguity. In Proceedings of PACLIC 11: Language,
Information and Computation, Seoul, Korea, 20–22 December 1996; pp. 99–107.
Choi, I.C.; Weschler, S. Mixed categories and argument transfer in the Korean light verb construction.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Trondehim,
Norway, 3–5 August 2011; pp. 103–210.
Dubinsky, S. Syntactic underspecification: A minimalist approach. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics;
Koizume, M., Ura, H., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994; Volume 24, pp. 61–81.
Jun, J.-S. Syntactic and Semantic Bases of Case Assignment: A Study of Verbal Nouns, Light Verbs, and
Dative. Ph.D. Thesis, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA, 2003.
Kim, J.R. A Lexical Functional Grammar Account of Light Verbs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1991.
Saito, M.; Hoshi, H. The Japanese light verb construction and the minimalist program. In Step by Step: Essays
on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik; Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., Eds.; MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 261–295.
Shimada, A.; Kordoni, V. Japanese Verbal Noun and suru constructions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on
Multi-Verb Constructions, Trondheim Summer School in Linguistics, Norway, 23–27 June 2003.
Adger, D. Core Syntax, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.
Hale, K.; Keyser, S.J. On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from
Building 20; Hale, K., Keyser, S., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 53–109.
Folli, R.; Harley, H. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Inquiries; Slabakova, R.,
Kempchinsky, P., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 95–120.
Halle, M.; Marantz, A. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20;
Hale, K., Keyser, S., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993; pp. 111–176.
Kratzer, A. Serving the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon; Rooryk, J.,
Zaring, L., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 109–137.
Borer, H. Deriving passive without theta roles. In Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax;
Laponte, S., Brentari, D., Farell, P., Eds.; CSLI Publications: Stanford, CA, USA, 1998; pp. 60–99.
Embick, D. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics;
Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect; Harley, H., Ed.; MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998; Volume 32, pp. 154–196.
Van Hout, A.; Roeper, T. Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. In MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics; Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect; Harley, H., Ed.;
MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998; Volume 32, pp. 175–200.
Travis, L. Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics:
Proceedings of Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association; Koskinen, P., Ed.; Canadian Linguistics
Association: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1994; pp. 559–570.
Harley, H. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1995.
Jung, D. Ha as v of vP-EPP featured Phrase. In Proceedings from the Annual Meetings of the Chicago Linguistics
Society; Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; pp. 423–440.
Kayne, R. The Antisymmetry of Syntax, 1st ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994.
Chung, J. Hidden efforts, visible challenges: Promoting bilingualism in Korean-America. In Bilingual
Community Education and Multilingualism: Beyond Heritage Languages in a Global City; García, O., Zakhria, Z.,
Octu, B., Eds.; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2012; pp. 87–98.
Chomsky, N. Derivation by phase. In Kale Hale: A Life in Language; Kenstowicz, M., Ed.; MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–50.
Chomsky, N. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory; Robert, F., Otero, P., Zubizarreta, M., Eds.;
MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 133–166.
Chomsky, N. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor
of Howard Lasnik; Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000;
pp. 89–155.
Richards, M. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguist. Inq.
2007, 38, 563–572. [CrossRef]
Languages 2016, 1, 8
72.
73.
74.
75.
31 of 31
Marušič, F.; Žaucer, R. On phonologically null verbs: GO and beyond. In Proceedings of the ConSOLE XIII,
Tromsø, Norway, 2–4 December 2004; pp. 231–248.
Van Riemsdijk, H. The unbearable lightness of GOing. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 2002, 5, 143–196. [CrossRef]
Kayne, R. Connectedness and Binary Branching, 1st ed.; Forist: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984.
Levin, B. English Verb Classes and Alternations; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993.
© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).