LINGUA1767 With Cover Page v2

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
Some properties of light verbs in

code-switching
Kay Gonzalez-Vilbazo
Lingua, Volume 121, Issue 5, Pages 832–850
Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
Bilingualism and int erfaces - t alk Madrid 11/17/2017

Luis Lopez
Lit t le v and Paramet ric Variat ion

Luis Lopez, Kay Gonzalez-Vilbazo
Cont act Phenomena: T he I-Language of a bilingual

Luis Lopez
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Lingua
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Some properties of light verbs in code-switching

Kay González-Vilbazo *, Luis López
University of Illinois at Chicago, Dept. Spanish, French, Italian & Portuguese, #1708 UH/MC 315, 601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7117, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This article addresses some puzzles regarding the properties of light verb constructions
Received 25 June 2010 that have been amply documented in many code-switching pairs, with particular focus on
Received in revised form 23 November 2010 some well[1_TD$IF]-known asymmetries. This article should be viewed as an argument that
Accepted 24 November 2010
generative analyses of code[2_TD$IF]-switching are conceptually and empirically superior to the
Available online 22 February 2011
mainstream approach, referred to as the Matrix Language Frame Model.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Code-switching
Light verb
Little v
Minimalist Program
Spanish
German
Matrix Language Frame Model
1. Code-switching and light verbs
1.1. Introduction
Many code-switching varieties include a light verb as part of their grammatical repertoire. Here we focus on a German/
Spanish code-switching pair in which a light verb taken from the Spanish lexicon hacer (‘do’) selects a German lexical verb in
the infinitive form.1
(1) Juan hace nähen das Hemd.2

Juan does sew the shirt
‘Juan sews the shirt.’
The hacer + V construction presents some interesting puzzles that appear in other code-switching pairs and at least one of
them also appears in monolingual light verb constructions. This pervasiveness suggests that they reflect properties of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 773 799 4966; fax: +1 312 413 1044.
E-mail addresses: kgv@uic.edu (K. González-Vilbazo), luislope@uic.edu (L. López).
1
Pfaff (1976[92_TD$IF]:254[93_TD$IF]-255) already describes this phenomenon in English/Spanish code-switching.
2
All code-switching examples are Spanish/German unless otherwise noted. Following standard conventions, lexical elements of one language (Spanish)
are italicized. Many of the examples in this article involve the Spanish verb hacer. Please note that hacer is an irregular verb with a stem hiz- for preterite
tenses and hech- for the past participle.
0024-3841/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.11.011
K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 833
human language rather than idiosyncratic features of a particular variety and therefore demand an account. The puzzles are
the following:
1. Asymmetry: the light verb can only be realized in one language (Spanish in our case) and not in the other (German in our
case). It is important to note that, as discussed in González-Vilbazo, 2005, no ‘‘dominant language’’ could be detected
among the speakers that uttered sentences of the type in (1), so this asymmetry cannot be attributed to language
dominance (a detailed description of the language consultants is in section 3). Asymmetric light verb constructions have
been described for the following code-switching pairs: Den Dikken and Rao (2003): Telugu/English, Joshi (1985): Marathi/
English, Ritchie and Bhatia (1996): Hindi/English[3_TD$IF] and Boeschoten and Verhoeven (1985): Turkish/Dutch. We are not
aware of any code-switching pair with light verbs and no asymmetry.
2. The light verb construction in German/Spanish code-switching cannot be used in passive voice. As described by Karimi-
Doostan (2005), this is also the case in light verb constructions in monolingual grammars. We do not know if it is possible
in other code-switching pairs.
3. Feature spreading: the (German) VP selected by the (Spanish) light verb has features typical of Spanish with regards to at
least three properties: word order, prosody and information structure. We refer to this phenomenon as Feature Spreading
as an impressionistic label that seeks to evoke the feeling that the features of the light verb ‘‘spread’’ to its complement.
Feature spreading for word order has been described by the following authors and code-switching pairs: Myers-Scotton
and Jake (2009): Swahili/English, Den Dikken and Rao (2003): Telugu/English, Joshi (1985): Marathi/English, Ritchie and
Bhatia (1996): Hindi/English, Boeschoten and Verhoeven (1985): Turkish/Dutch, Canfield (1980): Navajo/English, Bavin
and Schopen (1985): Warlpiri/English, Annamalai (1978): Tamil/English and Stanlaw (1982): Japanese/English.
4. Absence in the input grammars: hacer + V cannot be used as a light verb construction in monolingual Spanish. There is no
equivalent construction in monolingual German either.
We propose an account for all four puzzles using as tool-kit a set of assumptions that are standard in generative syntax as
developed in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995 et seq.). In particular, we do not use any special mechanisms that
regulate code-switching, as in, among others, Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame Model (Myers-Scotton, 1993, 2001,
2002; Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2009). In fact, we argue that the latter model is unable to make any predictions with respect to
the data at hand.
The article is organized as follows. In the remainder of section 1 we introduce the phenomenon of code-switching and the
light verb construction. In section 2 we present the four puzzling properties of light verbs in code-switching. Sections 3 and 4
describe our data and methodology as well as our theoretical assumptions. In sections 5–8 we discuss the puzzles and
propose an account for each of them. Section 9 presents the alternative Matrix Language Frame Model account of the puzzles
and compares it to our own account. Finally, section 10 summarizes our conclusions.
1.2. Code-switching
Code-switching is very common in bilingual communities. Code-switching may even take place within the boundaries of
a sentence, apparently without effort or any unusual pauses at the switching sites. The following example was uttered by a
Spanish/German bilingual code-switcher at the German school of Barcelona (González-Vilbazo, 2005):
(2) Wir utilisieren spanische Wörter, die dann alemanisiert werden y

We use Spanish words that then Germanized are and
hacen klingen un poco raro.3
do sound a bit strange
‘We use Spanish words, that are then Germanized and sound a bit strange.’
We take code-switching to be an I-language phenomenon, i.e. an expression of a type of linguistic competence. Code-
switchers are able to produce consistent grammaticality judgments on sentences such as (1), which reveal an underlying
linguistic system. Our language consultants are highly competent bilinguals, by which we mean that their grammaticality
judgments in each language do not differ from those of monolingual native speakers (for more details see [5_TD$IF]in section 3).
Our approach to code-switching can be aligned with other generative studies on the subject, such as Woolford (1983),
Di Sciullo et al. (1986), Belazi et al. (1994), Mahootian and Santorini (1996), MacSwan (1999) and González-Vilbazo, 2005.
Following the last two authors most closely, we assume that there are no specific rules, structures, mechanisms or operations
built into the language faculty in order to regulate code-switching. Unlike earlier authors, we do not believe that this
assumption necessarily entails that the I-language of code-switchers will be identical to the union of the two grammatical
systems: code-switchers may include features drawn directly from Universal Grammar which are absent in the component
grammars.
3
This example was provided by a student of the German School of Barcelona when asked to describe how his code-switching works.
834 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850
Within a minimalist framework, one is led to assume that the account of the I-language of a bilingual speaker should not
lie in the structure of the computational system, which is expected to be universal (see MacSwan, 1999 for a clear
argumentation). Instead, what is distinctive of bilingual speakers is that they have a ‘‘duplication’’ of functional and lexical
items. For instance, a German/Spanish bilingual will have a Spanish T with the [perfect] distinction as well as a German T
without this feature. To give another example, this same bilingual will have a verb meaning ‘follow’ that governs dative case on its
complement (German) and another one that does not (Spanish).
Code-switching is often regarded linearly, as a performance phenomenon. Thus, code-switching would be a literal back
and forth between two languages. This view is best represented by Poplack’s (1980) otherwise groundbreaking article
‘‘Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL’’ (sic).4
(3a) Linear representation: performance approach (‘>’ sequencing operator)

L1 > L1 > L1 > L1 > L1/ L1 > L1 > L1 > L1/
L2 > L2/ L2 > L2.
Our own view is best represented in (3[6_TD$IF]b) where we can see that items from the two languages contribute to the building of a
linguistic structure.
(3b) Structural representation: competence

CP
Spec C'
C° TP
L1
Spec T'
L2
T° vP
[TD$INLE]
L1
Spec v'
L2
v° VP
L1
Spec V'
DO L1
V° XP
L2 IO L2
A common problem when analyzing code-switching is the difficulty of distinguishing it from borrowing. Conceptually the
difference seems clear: the borrowed string is grammatically (phonologically, morphologically and syntactically at least)
integrated into the host language. In code-switching, on the contrary, all language strings remain unintegrated and retain
their original grammatical properties. Empirically, however, it is often very hard to tell the difference. Since this is a relevant
issue for our discussion of the asymmetry puzzle, we address it in detail in section 5.2.
4
The important point here is not whether Poplack sees her approach as a performance approach. Our point is that when code-switching is described as
going from one language to another and back one is implicitly describing it in performance terms, not as a form of linguistic knowledge.
1.3. Light verbs
The students of grammatical phenomena in contact situations have pointed out that code-switched utterances
oftentimes split the clausal predicate into two distinct verb complexes. The first one is a variant of ‘do’ and it appears fully
conjugated. The second one is a verbal infinitive or a bare root (Butt, 2003; González-Vilbazo, 2005). Following a long-
standing tradition, we refer to the conjugated word as light verb.5
Sentence (4) is an example of Spanish/German code-switching. The word hizo (from hacer ‘‘to do’’) is drawn from
the Spanish lexicon. In combination with a German infinitive verb as a complement hacer is re-lexified as a light verb
(González-Vilbazo and López, forthcoming).
(4) Juan hace nähen das Hemd

rd
Juan does.3 sew.inf the shirt
‘Juan sews the shirt.’
The following is a Turkish/Dutch example taken from Myers-Scotton and Jake (2009), who attribute it to Backus (1992):
(5) O diyor ben uitmaken yaptım diyordu kızınam.

he says 1st.sg finish.inf did.1st say.3rd.sg girl.with
He says ‘I broke up with a girl.’
Light verb constructions are not a prerogative of code switching varieties. Some monolingual grammars also have them in
their repertoire. The following is a Persian example taken from Karimi-Doostan (2005):
(6) John narmesh kard.

John exercise did
‘John exercised’.
Interestingly, we are going to see that the monolingual and the code-switched instances of light verbs have at least one
peculiar characteristic in common. We take this to mean that the ingredients that make up (4)–(6) are probably the same.
2. The puzzle
[9_TD$IF] These light verb constructions exhibit some puzzling properties that bear on current theoretical linguistic and bi-
linguistic debates.
2.1. Asymmetry
The construction is asymmetric. The light verb is taken from one language L(α) and the lexical verb from the other L(β)
(the object could come for either one). Take for instance our example (4). In this example, the light verb is Spanish while the
lexical verb phrase is German. Interestingly, the same community of bilingual Spanish/German speakers that create and
accept examples like (4) reject examples with a German light verb and a Spanish lexical verb:
(7) *Juan tut coser una camisa.

Juan did.3rd sew.inf a shirt
‘Juan sewed the shirt.’
This asymmetry has been noted often (see Den Dikken and Rao, to appear, and references therein). Additionally, there is a
mirror asymmetry. German/Spanish bilinguals accept (and produce) nonce words created by joining together a Spanish root
and a German verbal inflection. However, these same bilinguals reject a word made up of a German root and a Spanish verbal
inflection. In the following example, the Spanish roots utiliz- ‘‘use’’, cos- ‘‘sew’’ [10_TD$IF]etc. are attached to the German infinitive suffix
–ieren. The German roots benutz- ‘‘use’’, näh- ‘‘sew’’[1_TD$IF], [12_TD$IF]etc. are attached to the Spanish infinitive suffix -ear:6
(8) a. [w Rsp + Infldt] ! utilisieren ‘use’, cosieren ‘sew’, comprieren ‘understand’, jodieren ‘annoy’,
quedieren ‘make a date’, molieren ‘be interesting or appealing’. . .
b. [w Rdt + Inflsp] ! *benutzear ‘use’, *nähear ‘sew’, *verstehear ‘understand’, *ärgernear ‘annoy’,
*‘interessear’ ‘be interesting’. . .
5
The term light verb is often used as a more encompassing concept than the one used here. For instance, the English verb ‘take’ in ‘‘take a walk’’ or ‘‘take a
chance’’ is referred to as a light verb because it is bleached of most of its meaning. For analysis and references on this phenomenon, see Butt (2003). In this
article we focus on the canonical light verb ‘do’.
6
The subindices ‘‘sp’’ and ‘‘dt’’ stand for ‘‘Spanish’’ and ‘‘German’’ respectively.
Examples such as these impinge on the debate concerning the possibility of code-switching word-internally (for
argumentation that it is not possible see Poplack, 1980; MacSwan, 1999, among many others). In this article, we show that it
is possible, but it is sharply limited (see Den Dikken and Rao, to appear, for a similar conclusion). As we show below, the facts
surrounding these data are complex. In order to analyze them properly we will have to sort out instances of borrowing from
code-switching proper.
2.2. Passive voice
Passives cannot be used in the light verb construction. (9) is a German/Spanish example again:
(9) a. *El libro fue hecho lesen.

the book was done read
b. Juan ha hecho lesen el libro.
Juan has done read the book
c. Juan ha hecho ankommen.
Juan has done arrive.
(9a) shows the incompatibility of passives and the light verb. (9b) shows that periphrastic tenses are compatible with the
light verb. 9c shows that unaccusative verbs are also compatible with the light verb. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (9a) is
specific to some feature of the structure of the passive.
Interestingly, the light verbs of monolingual grammars obey the same restriction, as shown in Karimi-Doostan (2005).
This common restriction cannot be a coincidence – instead, it strongly suggests the working of Universal Grammar. Our
analysis does in fact invoke universal mechanisms of syntactic computation.
2.3. Feature spreading
Consider example (4) again, focusing on the structure of the verbal phrase. In (4), the verbal phrase exhibits a VO order.
Both the verb and the object are German and, appearing after an auxiliary or modal, one would expect an OV order. Thus, the
grammar of the lexical verb phrase is the grammar of the light verb, not the grammar of its constituent elements. We use the
descriptive term feature spreading to refer to this phenomenon.
In previous work (González-Vilbazo and López, forthcoming) we discuss the phenomenon of feature spreading in depth
and argue that Chomsky’s (2000 et seq) concept of phase provides an account rich in empirical predictions. On the other
hand, Myers-Scotton and Jake (2009) mention (5) and claim that it provides evidence for Myers-Scotton’s theory of code
switching called Matrix Language Frame Model (MLFM). A few years ago, the foremost minimalist and MLF Model proponent
engaged in a debate as to what is the best path to approach the study of code switching (Jake et al., 2002; MacSwan, 2005a,b).
We believe that the light verb construction provides a very concrete data-base to foreground the inadequacies of the MLF
Model approach.
2.4. Absence in the input grammars
Let’s consider example (4) once again. This sentence has been constructed with lexical elements taken from the Spanish
and German lexica. However, the output is a construction that does not exist in either Spanish or German. Spanish does allow
using the verb hacer ‘‘do’’ followed by an infinitive, but the end result is a causative construction, a complex predicate, not a
plain verbal phrase as in (4). Colloquial German allows for the usage of tun ‘‘do’’ followed by a verbal phrase, but tun is
demonstrably a pure inflectional element and not a light verb.7
Linguists working on code-switching are divided on its nature. There are numerous articles that argue for restrictions on
code switching that are specific of this modality and have no counterpart on monolingual grammars (Poplack, 1980; Joshi,
1985; Myers-Scotton, 1993, 2001; Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2009 among others). On the opposite side, there are those who
argue that code-switching is nothing more than the expression of a form of grammatical competence and therefore any
restrictions on code-switching must be derivable from the same principles that are active in monolingual grammars
(Woolford, 1983; Di Sciullo et al., 1986; Belazi et al., 1994; Mahootian and Santorini, 1996; MacSwan, 1999; González-
Vilbazo, 2005).
The fact that neither German nor Spanish has light verbs while German/Spanish code switching does would seem to
suggest that the first camp is right and code-switching incorporates sui generis ingredients. However, we argue below that
this conclusion is unwarranted and that a proper understanding of the mechanics of language acquisition suffices to provide
an account for this apparent puzzle.
7
For instance, tun cannot appear in a periphrastic tense form (cf 4b). For more details on the tun-periphrasis see Erb (1995, 2001).
3. Data and methodology
Most of our data are taken from students of the German School of Barcelona. The school’s student population ranges
between 1000 and 1400 students. Our informants belong to a socially homogeneous socio-economic class: their parents
are members of the middle class with college degrees. Most of the students are Spanish/German bilinguals, some of whom
are trilingual (Catalan). The typical student’s parents are either Spanish/German mixed couples or both are German. At the
time of the data collection, there was a small population (about 10%) of students whose parents are both Spanish. Thus,
the students have a high exposure to both languages from an early age. The consultants whose grammaticality judgments we
use spoke mainly German in class and at home and Spanish and/or Catalan in any other context. As a result of this
multilingual environment, the students of the school code-switch often when talking to one another. The students are proud
of their code-switching and have a positive attitude towards it as a badge of identity as many of them confirmed in individual
interviews. They even have given their code-switching pair a name, ‘‘Esplugish’’, because the school is located in Esplugues
del Llobregat, a suburb close to Barcelona.8
Some of the data presented in this article were gathered at the school in 1996 by Kay González-Vilbazo and in 2003 with
the collaboration of Susanne Müller. In 1996, 27 students of the school from 10th to 12th grade (16–18 years old) were our
language consultants. In 2003 Susanne Müller gathered additional data from another 55 students from 10th to 12th grade. In
both occasions the data collection consisted of four parts:
1. All subjects filled out a social background questionnaire to identify possible confounding variables. This questionnaire
allowed the researcher to identify speakers that were not bilingual (to the same highly proficient extent as the rest) or
were not usual code-switchers.
2. A natural conversation in Esplugish between two subjects was recorded. The researcher was present but did not participate
in the conversation, busying himself/herself in an ostensible manner with a different task. The subjects seemed to feel
comfortable as some actually asked to be able to finish the conversation after the recording time (about 15 min[)F]I$DT4_1 was over.
3. The subjects filled written grammaticality judgment questionnaires including German/Spanish code-switching stimuli
individually.
4. The researcher interviewed the subjects (individually) starting with a debriefing about the questionnaires and followed by
general questions about attitudes towards code-switching and language use.
Additional data were collected on an ongoing basis over the years by email. In order to contrast the results with other
code-switching data we collected random samples through short email questionnaires from the German schools of Madrid,
Bilbao, Málaga, Tenerife, Santiago de Chile and Buenos Aires. Where code-switching was in use, the collected data were
consistent with the data from the German School of Barcelona.
As we are only interested in competent bilinguals (rather than advanced second language speakers, which would be the
subject of another study entirely), we filtered out non-competent bilinguals by using two. First we checked the answers for each
token in the grammaticality judgment task and marked outlier answers (with respect to at least 90% of consistent answers from
the other subjects). Then, speakers that gave more than 5% of outlier answers were discarded. This percentage is stricter than
what is commonly used as a criterion in statistical analyses, but we preferred excluding too many subjects rather than including
potentially non competent bilinguals in the data used for the analysis. The second criterion to define a competent bilingual was
reciprocal identification. After the data were collected, the subjects were presented with anonymous recordings of other
speakers and were asked to rate the proficiency in Esplugish of the recorded speakers. The two criteria yielded solidly coherent
results (for a detailed explanation of methodological issues and statistical techniques, see González-Vilbazo, 2005).
The data base obtained in this manner yielded numerous examples of the hacer + V construction and an initial analysis of
its properties was sketched. These data were then complemented with additional questionnaires administered to 3
additional subjects (former students of the German school of Barcelona) via telephone, skype or email. These subjects were
presented with oral or written data and were asked for their grammaticality judgments on a [15_TD$IF]1–5 Likert scale. These language
consultants allowed us to probe the hacer + V structure in depth and are the source of the judgments in section 7. The
findings confirmed the intuitions of the Esplugish-speaking author.9
4. The light verb and the minimalist framework
The minimalist framework as pursued by Chomsky and his associates is a derivational approach to the study of syntax,
with an operation called Merge as the basic unit of syntax. Merge takes two terms x and y and combines them forming the set
{x,y}, which itself may be the input to another instance of Merge. This is the operation needed to build syntactic structures.
Following the tenets of Distributional Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993) we view the lexicon that feeds syntax as a set of
abstract features. Syntax manipulates these abstract features in various ways and they only become fleshed-out in a separate
Morphology module that takes syntactic structures as input.
8
Name withheld attended this school and speaks Esplugish.
9
As an anonymous reviewer points out, there is a wealth of child-language data that challenges some of the generalizations presented in this article. For
instance, young children seem to allow word-internal code-switching more freely than the adult speakers that are our object of study. For the purposes of
this article, we focus on adult speakers (see Cantone and Müller, 2009 for a survey of bilingual child language data).
Current theoretical investigations in the minimalist framework posit the following clause structure (see Chomsky, 1995,
2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008):
(10) [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V . . .]]]]
Starting from the bottom up, we have a lexical verb (or possibly a root without a specification for category, as in Marantz,
1997) that may take an internal argument and one or more adjuncts, forming the lexical verb phrase (VP). The VP is itself
selected by little v, a verbal category that additionally may introduce the external argument. The resulting projection is
referred to as a vP. vP is selected by T and TP selected by C, in the manner standard since Chomsky (1986).
In monolingual grammars, it is very common for V to incorporate into little v, forming one morphological word. We take it
that little v is the base for the verbal inflectional morphology (Oltra-Massuet and Arregi, 2005). This is visible in German: the
suffix –ier- attaches to a bare root and the verbal morphology attaches to the resulting base. Thus, -ier- can be taken to be a
spell-out of little v. In languages such as English, v has no phonological representation.
González-Vilbazo, 2005 argues that the light verb construction exemplified in (1) is an instance in which the lexical verb
does not incorporate into little v. Instead, hacer spells-out little v as an independent word. The infinitive morphology that
attaches to the German verb should be regarded as default morphology because German does not allow bare roots to spell-out:
(11) [CP C [TP Juan T [vP t(Juan) hizo [VP nähen das Hemd]]]]
did sew the shirt
‘Juan sewed the shirt.’
Notice that an alternative analysis in which hacer would be an instance of T is not available: as shown in example (9b), the light
verb can be selected by an auxiliary that bears the TAM morphology. Probably – ]FDI$T6_[1 although we do not try to make the case in these
F]I$DT7_[1 the light verb constructions in monolingual grammars should also be regarded as instances of unincorporated little v.10
pages –
Combinatorial systems as the one outlined in the Minimalist Program require inherent devices to prevent computational
explosion. One such device is the phase. A phase is a chunk of structure that forms a computational unit such that its
complement can be transferred to the interfaces and, so to speak, be forgotten, so that the computational system itself does
not have to carry too much working memory. Intensive research has provided empirical evidence that phases play a role in
natural language syntax, being the triggers of all syntactic dependencies within the clause. In every analysis, CP and
transitive vP have been taken to be phases:11
(12) [phase CP C [TP T [phase vP v [VP V . . .]]]]
Additionally, much current work has taken DPs – the structure formed by the noun and the functional categories associated
with it – to be a phase as well (see Svenonius, 2004).
Syntactic dependencies are set up by phase heads (see Chomsky, 2008) by means of a probe-goal mechanism that binds
the unvalued features of a term with the valued features of another. For instance, v has unvalued f-features that turn it into a
probe, which will look for valued f-features in its c-command domain. Typically, the internal argument provides a value for
the features of v. The operation in which the features of a probe are valued against those of a goal is called Agree:
(13) vP
[TD$INLE]v [u phi] VP
V DP[phi]
Agree
Two other principles that restrict the computational power of syntactic derivations are relevant in this article. One is
Relativized Minimality/Minimal Link Condition (RM/MLC) (Rizzi, 1990; Chomsky, 1995). RM/MLC claims that a dependency
between positions α and β cannot be established if there is another position γ that has the features relevant to establish a
dependency with α and γ c-commands β:
(14) * α i . . . γ . . . βi
10
Karimi-Doostan (2005) doubts that the light verbs in Korean, Kurdish and Persian can be regarded as little v. She notes that the light verb may appear
with unaccusative verbs and, under the assumption that the little v always introduces an external argument, it follows that the light verb could not be little
v. Recent work has argued that there is an instance of little v that does not introduce the external argument (Legate, 2003). Thus, there is no obstacle to
maintaining the assumption that light verbs in monolingual grammars spell out little v.
11
For more detailed introductions see Adger (2003) and Hornstein et al. (2005).
The second one is Last Resort, according to which operations only take place if they have to and the computational system
will always choose the least effort path at any point.
These – admittedly brief – words should suffice to introduce our framework of analysis. In the following sections we use
this framework to approach the puzzles presented in the introductory section.
5. Asymmetry
5.1. Three problems
In this section we address the problem we dubbed the asymmetry puzzle. As a matter of fact, this puzzle can be broken
down into three separate questions.
(i) Why is it the case, that hacer is the only light verb in Esplugish, while an equivalent German verb like tun or machen cannot
be a free-standing light verb?
(15) *Hans tut coser la camisa.

Hans does sew the shirt
‘Hans sews the shirt.’
(ii) Why is it possible for Esplugish speakers in full-fledged code-switch mode to deploy words that involve a Spanish root
with German inflection (utilisieren ‘use’, alemanisieren ‘germanize’) while rejecting verbs constructed from a German root
and Spanish inflection (*laufear ‘walk’, *anmeldear ‘register’)?
(16) a. Wir utilisieren palabras alemanas.

We use words German
‘We use German words.’
b. *Juan se ha anmeldeado.
Juan refl has registered
‘Juan has registered.’
The relevant facts in (i) and (ii) can be represented by means of a table. The German root benutz- and the Spanish one utiliz-
both mean ‘‘use’’:
(17) Light verb vsp [Vdt] * vdt [Vsp]

hacer benutzen * tun utilizar
v-to-V incorporation * vsp + Vdt vdt + Vsp

* benutzear utilisieren
[the symbol + indicates incorporation]
The table shows the complementary distribution of the synthetic and the analytical forms. It is this complementary
distribution that needs an account.
(iii) hacer is a light verb only when the lexical verb is German. If the lexical verb is Spanish, hacer must read as a causative
verb. Why can’t Esplugish speakers use hacer as a light verb when the lexical verb is Spanish?
(18) Juan hizo utilizar palabras alemanas.

Juan did use words German
=Juan had German words used.
6¼Juan used German words.
5.2. Code-switching vs. borrowing
Before we start addressing the puzzles in section 5.1 we need to approach another vexing problem in code-switching: the
distinction, if it is possible to draw, between code switching and borrowing. Consider again the table above. Although the
form *benutzear is starred, instances of borrowing in the languages of the world happen all the time and forms similar to
*benutzear pop up apparently without restriction:
(19) Tienes que cliquear en este sitio.

Have-to.(2nd.person.Sg.) click in this place
‘You have to click in this place.’
In this example, the Spanish word cliquear ‘‘click’’ is taken directly from English and fully adapted to Spanish morpho-
phonology (it is conjugated as an –ar class verb because this is the most productive class in Spanish). Cliquear is, in every
respect, a member of the lexicon of many Spanish speakers. This fact makes the problem raised by *benutzear more acute:
why isn’t it possible for an Esplugish speaker to simply say *benutzear? Is *benutzear built differently than cliquear?
A substantial portion of the code-switching literature denies that it is possible for code-switching to take place within the
word (from Poplack, 1980 to MacSwan, 1999). That is, according to the above references, a structure like the following is
impossible (where M is a morpheme and W is a morphological word):
(20) *[w ML1 + ML2]
In fact, grammaticality judgments like the following are widely attested:
(21) *Estoy eatiendo.

I’m eating.
Poplack, 1980:586
These authors suggest that borrowing can be distinguished from code-switching because a borrowed word is fully adapted to
the phonology of the host language while code-switched structures maintain features of the donor language. For MacSwan,
the impossibility of code-switching within the word is a corollary of his PF disjunction theorem (MacSwan, 2000:[18_TD$IF]45) or PF-
Interface Condition (MacSwan, 2009:[19_TD$IF]331). Let us summarize MacSwan’s argument. His idea is that two languages L(α) and L
(β) will have different rankings of at least some of the universal constraints that make up human language phonology. Let’s
say that L(α) has the ranking C1 C2 while L(β) has the ranking C2 C1. Code switching within a word leads to contradictory
rankings of C1 and C2 and therefore to an unpronounceable phonetic representation. Obviously, this problem does not arise if
a morpheme from L(α) has been borrowed by L(β). The process of borrowing entails full adaptation of the phonological
features of the borrowed morpheme – hence, cliquear.
We are not certain that MacSwan’s reasoning logically leads to the conclusion that code-switching within the word is
impossible. Incorporation of a root into a suffix gives rise to an endocentric structure in which all and only the features of the
head project to the newly created term. Take the unit of phonological rules/constraints to be the phonological word W. Take
M to be a morpheme. It is at least theoretically possible (and, we believe, empirically real) for MLβ to incorporate into MLα, the
output W subject only to the phonological rules of MLβ, the head of the word, while MLα fully adapts to the rules of L1.
When analyzing the mixing of languages within a word, at the current stage of understanding, we do not have a formal
means to tease borrowing from word-level code-switching apart. However, we believe that we can tell that cliquear in (19) is
an instance of borrowing while utilisieren is code-switching. But our evidence revolves around the context in which the data
is elicited rather than any formal properties. As mentioned, when our Esplugish consultants were interviewed and
purposefully placed in a code-switching mode, they readily accepted and produced forms like utilisieren and alemanisieren;
however, they never produced anything like *benutzear. When asked, they rejected such forms. Esplugish speakers only
borrow when talking monolingually to an outsider. The following sentence is attested:
(22) Mañana te tienes que anmeldear.

Tomorrow you.dat must.2sg that register
‘Tomorrow you have to register.’
This conversation took place in Germany. The Esplugish speaker was talking to a Spanish speaker with an intermediate
knowledge of German. The Esplugish speaker was referring to the peculiar German regulation that all foreign residents must
visit a police station and fill in a form that includes their address. The speaker could not find an appropriate word in Spanish
so he resorted to the word in German, knowing the other person would understand it.
Thus, although formally borrowing and word-internal code switching are very difficult to tease apart, they are different
linguistic phenomena. The sharpness of the grammaticality judgments provided by our Esplugish speakers and the contrast
in our data between the frequency of forms such as utilisieren and the total absence of forms like *benutzear tell us that the
difference between word-internal code-switching and borrowing is indeed part of the I-language of bilingual speakers.
Within the tradition of generative grammar it is possible to provide an elegant description of the difference between
word-internal code switching and borrowing. Borrowing is the copying of a lexical item from one lexicon to another. In the
case of bilinguals, they are in possession of two lexica and borrowing may take place between the two lexica. Therefore,
borrowing takes place with total independence of the computational system of human language:12
12
For a similar theory of borrowing, see MacSwan (1999[94_TD$IF]:235).
(23) {Lexicon 1 … w…} {Lexicon 2 …w…}

[TD$INLE]
The item copied from Lexicon 2 to Lexicon 1 will be completely adapted to the morphological and phonological properties of
Lexicon 1. Thus, anmeldear can exist as a borrowing phenomenon: the German root anmeld- is copied into the Spanish
lexicon. Notice that the new verb automatically becomes a member of a Spanish conjugation class (the –ar class).
In code switching, the item from Lexicon 2 is copied directly onto the computational system, together with other items
from Lexicon 1 and Lexicon 2. We can use the device of a lexical array (as in Chomsky, 1995, 2000) for ease of exposition. A
lexical array is the set of lexical items that have been selected to initiate a derivation. Monolingual speakers choose their
lexical array from their single lexicon. Bilingual speakers are able to choose lexical items from both lexica:
(24) {Lexical Array w1, w2, w3, w4,…}
[TD$INLE]
{ Lexicon 1 w1, w3 …} { Lexicon 2 w2, w4 …}
This simple model is going to prove useful, as will become clear very soon.
5.3. Explaining the asymmetry
Now we are ready to tackle questions (i)–(iii), rephrased here more concisely:
(i) Why is the light verb always hacer and not tun?
(ii) Why do we find in Esplugish verbs formed out of a Spanish root and German inflection but never a German root and
Spanish inflection?
(iii) Why is there no light verb hacer in Spanish as in Esplugish?
Our analysis starts with question (i), by noticing a morphological difference between Spanish and German verbs. Spanish
verbs belong to one of three conjugation classes (the –ar, –er and –ir classes). These conjugation classes are features of the
verbal root and determine the phonological form of the inflection in all tenses. Let us then take ‘‘conjugation class’’ to be a
property of Spanish verbal roots:
(25) a. cant-‘‘sing’’ -ar class ! cantar (ex: cantas = you sing)

b. beb- ‘‘drink’’ -er class ! beber (ex: bebes = you drink)
c. viv- ‘‘live’’ -ir class ! vivir (ex: vives = you live)
Additionally, we hypothesize that the Spanish little v has an unvalued feature for conjugation class:13
(26) vsp[uConj]
Satisfaction of this unvalued feature is carried out by the Spanish little v by establishing a syntactic dependency with a verbal
root with a specification for conjugation class. Technically, we adopt the assumptions in Chomsky (2000). The Spanish little v
probes and finds the verbal root, which qualifies as a goal with matching features. The verbal root values the [uConj] of the
little v and incorporates:14
(27) vP
v [uConj] VP
[TD$INLE]
cant-[-ar] …
Incorporation
13
Oltra-Massuet and Arregi (2005) also associate the conjugation class feature to little v.
14
An anonymous reviewer points out that conjugation classes are not interpretable by the C-I systems and therefore their presence in CHL is suspect. A
similar point is made by Alexiadou and Müller (2008) with reference to nominal class features. We are inclined to agree with a model such as Ackema and
Neeleman (2007) in which word-syntax is a computational sub-module distinct from phrase-syntax. For the purposes of this article, however, we do not
need to take a position one way or another.
As a result of incorporation, vsp acquires a conjugation class feature and becomes a morphological base to which the Tense,
Aspect and Mood morphology are attached.
The German verb is not classified into any conjugation class. Although German grammarians do discuss the verbal
Flexionsklassen, what is referred to with this word is the changes in the vowel of the root that some verbs undergo in some
tenses (i.e.[20_TD$IF] denken ‘‘think’’ becomes dachte ‘‘thought’’ instead of the regular *denkte). However, the actual suffixes attached to
the root do not change. This is shown in the following example, where the conjugation in the simple past of denken is
displayed next to that of the regular verb leben ‘‘live’’:
(28) singular plural singular plural

1st dach-te dach-ten leb-te leb-ten
2nd dach-test dach-tet leb-test leb-tet
3rd dach-te dach-ten leb-te leb-ten
We conclude that Flexionsklassen are not conjugation classes. We take it that the best approach to this class of verbal words is as
a form of suppletion, as English irregular verbs: certain verbal roots, in combination with inflectional features, are substituted
for a suppletive form in the module Morphology (see section 4 on Distributed Morphology). Thus, we conclude that German
verbal roots do not bear a conjugation class feature and consequently that vdt does not have an unvalued conjugation class
feature.
Further, we assimilate the merge of hacer as a light verb to other ‘‘last resort’’ insertions of lexical material such as the
famous ‘do’-insertion of English or –kuwa insertion in Kiswahili. Roughly put, ‘do’-insertion in English takes place when a
morpheme intervenes between the lexical verb (in v) and T, preventing the establishment of a dependency between them. As
a result of this intervention, the T morpheme ends up as an unattached suffix, a situation rescued by inserting the dummy
root ‘do’ (Chomsky, 1955). Similarly, -kuwa in Kiswahili provides support for tense or mood morphology and agreement
morphology that would otherwise be left hanging:
(29) Juma a-li-kuwa a-me-pika chakula cha asubuhi

Juma agr.past.kuwa agr.asp.cook food of morning
‘Juma makes breakfast.’
Likewise, the presence of light verb hacer in Esplugish responds to a similar last resort motivation. The Spanish little v requires
a valued conjugation class feature, which is absent from the German verbal root:
(30) *vP
[TD$INLE] sp[uConj]
v VP
lauf- …
In this example, the German root lauf-(‘run’) has been brought into the computational system as a German lexical item.
Crucially, it has not been borrowed, and therefore it has no conjugation class. Since it does not have a conjugation class, it
cannot satisfy the [uConj] feature of vsp. Hence the impossibility of being suffixed a Spanish verbal morphology in code
switching and the ungrammaticality of forms such as *benutzear. Only insertion of a light verb like hacer, bearing a
conjugation class feature, can make this configuration grammatical.
(31) vP
[[TD$INLE] hac- [-er] +vsp[uConj]] VP
lauf- …
Since a root like lauf- cannot spell out by itself in German, Morphology assigns it a default suffix, -en.
However a German little v would never have to be realized as last resort by a light verb (like tun). Such a German little v has no
unvalued [Conj] feature. Thus, both a German V and a Spanish V can incorporate into a German v. This answers question (i).15
Our answer to question (ii) follows from our answer to (i). The German root has no conjugation class and vdt has no [uConj]:
15
We gladly acknowledge that a Last Resort solution to the asymmetry of light verbs in code-switching is already sketched in Bhatia and Ritchie (1996) for
the Hindi/English pair and Den Dikken and Rao (to appear) for English/Telugu. The details of their analyses vary from ours, since the grammatical properties
of the languages involved are also different.
(32) vP
[TD$INLE] dt
v VP
utiliz-[-ar] …
There is nothing in the configuration in (32) that prevents incorporation of the verbal root into v. The conjugation feature in
the root is valued and therefore does not need checking or valuation. The Spanish root utiliz- can incorporate into German
little v, which is realized as the German stem affix –ier-. The complex head v + V merges with T forming [21_TD$IF]utilisieren, etc. Since
light verb insertion is a last resort, the incorporation strategy always wins and this rules out periphrastic forms like *tun
utilizar as we just saw.
Finally, we are left with question (iii): why can’t Esplugish speakers use hacer as a light verb with a Spanish lexical verb?
Again, we appeal to the last resort character of light verbs. Since incorporating a Spanish verbal root into vsp is always
possible, the periphrastic form is ruled out.
5.4. Conclusion to section 5
We have accounted for the asymmetry puzzles using only the different morphological features of vsp and vdt as well as the
principle of Last Resort. Along the way, we have introduced a discussion of the distinction between code-switching and
borrowing and have argued that, although the distinction is substantial from the point of view of the mental grammars of
bilingual speakers, on the surface the outcome of both processes can be similar enough that we need to take contextual
factors into consideration to tease them apart.
6. Light verbs and passive voice
In our data we have found that it is possible to have the light verb select for transitive (33), unergative (34) and
unaccusative (35) predicates:
(33) Juan hace lesen ein Buch.

Juan does read a book
‘Juan reads a book.’
(34) Juan hace schlafen.

Juan does sleep
‘Juan sleeps.’
(35) La Vase se hizo zerbrechen.

The vase CL. did broke
‘The vase broke.’
However, the light verb cannot be used in a passive construction:
(36) *Das Buch ha sido hecho verkaufen.

The book has been done sold
‘The book has been sold.’
Interestingly, it seems to be a more general phenomenon: Karimi-Doostan’s (2005) study of light verb constructions of the
monolingual varieties Kurdish, Persian and Korean yields the same restriction. This suggests a restriction imposed on the
computational system rather than a language-specific – or code-switching specific – type of restriction. In the following, we
suggest an account.
Following Legate (2003) it is commonly assumed that unaccusative and passive predicates are headed by a little v without
an external argument:
(37) [vP v [VP V DP]
It is well known that there is an important difference between passives and unaccusatives: in the former, the ‘‘absorbed’’
external argument makes its presence strong enough to control a PRO in an infinitival resultative clause (see Baker et al.,
1989, among many others). Unaccusatives, on the other hand, have no remnant of an external argument:
(38) a. The boat was sunk to collect the insurance.

b. *The boat sunk to collect the insurance.
We take it then that there is a remnant of an external argument in passive predicates, which we represent as PRO:16
(39) a. The boati was PRO sunk ti.

b. The boati sank ti.
For reasons that remain mysterious to us, this PRO seems to be unaffected by the Case filter, which allows, or forces, the
internal argument of a passive structure to establish a dependency with T. Hence the well-known morpho-syntactic
similarities between unaccusatives and passives (Burzio, 1986) that obscure the argument structure difference.
The next question is how the internal argument can jump over the external argument PRO in a passive structure. The
principle of Relativized Minimality (RM)/Minimal Link Condition (MLC) introduced in section 2 should ban the operation
represented in (40) (where IA = Internal Argument):
(40) 1. [vP PRO v [VP V IA]]] ! Move IA to Spec,v

2. [vP IA [v’ PRO v [VP V t(IA)]]]
However, the work of Holmberg (1986), Chomsky (1993) and, more recently, Gallego (2007) and Kucerova (2007a,b), has
made syntacticians aware of the role of verb movement in minimality effects. To put it in Chomsky’s terms, movement of a
head X into position p renders the positions α, β and γ equidistant from δ:
(41) [pP α [p’ β p [γ X [. . .δ]]]
We do not need to concern ourselves with position γ. Take X = V and p = v. For our purposes, what is crucial is that raising the
lexical verb to adjoin to the little v creates the space for a constituent in δ to move to a Spec,v position higher than β. As a
result, the internal argument (IA) of a passive predicate can move into a new Spec,v:
(42) [vP IA [v’ PRO v + V [VP t(V) t(IA)]]]
Now we are ready to account for the ungrammaticality of passives with overt light verbs. In this construction, the lexical verb
does not adjoin to the little v as little v is realized as hacer. As a result, the positions α and β are not equidistant from a lower
position. Raising of IA to Spec,v gives rise to a violation of RM/MLC.
This problem does not arise if the predicate is unaccusative. Since there is no trace of an external argument in Spec,v,
nothing prevents the internal argument to move to it, regardless of V-movement.
7. Feature spreading
Consider the patterns in (43)–(45):
(43) a. Hizo nähen das Hemd.

did sew the shirt
‘He/she sewed the shirt.’
b. *Hizo das Hemd nähen.
Did the shirt sew
‘He/she sewed the shirt.’
(44) a. Er soll das Hemd nähen.

he should the shirt sew
‘He should sew the shirt.’
b. *Er soll nähen das Hemd.
He should sew the shirt
‘He should sew the shirt.’
16
An anonymous reviewer wonders if this PRO is present only in passive clauses or whether all cases of implicit arguments should be analyzed in the same
manner. This is an interesting question that, unfortunately, goes beyond the limits of this article. However, we are inclined to agree with Bhatt and Pancheva
(2006) that syntactically active arguments should be syntactically projected. This desideratum includes the implicit arguments of passives, impersonal se,
adjectives and nouns[95_TD$IF], etc.
(45) a. Er hat das Hemd genäht.

he has the shirt sown
‘He has sown the shirt.’
b. *Er hat genäht das Hemd.
He has sewn the shirt
‘He has sewn the shirt.’
(43) repeats (4) above, and it shows that after the light verb the word order is VO even when the VP is realized with German
lexical material. (44) and (45) show that in a regular German VP the word order after a modal or auxiliary is OV. Why then
does the VP with German lexical material follow the Spanish word order pattern?
The analysis of feature spreading in the Esplugish light verb construction proposed in González-Vilbazo and López,
forthcoming 17 builds on two assumptions: (i) the head of a phase – little v or C – defines the grammatical properties of the
whole phase and (ii) the light verb is the head of the phase (see example (11)). Taken together, these two assumptions
provide an account of feature spreading. Let’s see how.
Since the head of the vP phase is drawn from the Spanish lexicon, its complement VP will have to have Spanish
grammatical characteristics, most notably word order. Thus, feature spreading takes place as predicted by phase theory: it
goes from the head of a phase to its complement.
The complement of a lexical verb does not show features of the lexical verb. In (47), the complement of the Spanish verb
dijo is a German sentence. In (48), the complement of the Spanish verb busca is a German DP:
(47) Sabine dijo, dass die Frau klug ist.

Sabine said that the woman smart is
Sabine said that the woman is smart.
(48) Sabine busca ein kluges Mädchen.

Sabine seeks a clever girl
This follows again from phase theory: lexical verbs are not phase heads. The CP complement of dijo in (47) is structured as a
regular German subordinate sentence with OV order. Likewise the complement of busca in (48) is organized as a regular
German DP, with adjective + noun order, as opposed to the regular noun + adjective order in Spanish. The suffix ‘-es’ in the
adjective kluges expresses concord with the noun that involves the neuter gender, absent in Spanish. This follows naturally
under the commonly accepted assumption that the DP is itself a phase and thus not accessible to the little v into which the
lexical verb busca incorporates.
But, as shown in González-Vilbazo and López, forthcoming the predictions of the phase theory with respect to word order
are even more wide-ranging. Consider the following two causative constructions in Esplugish:
(49) Juan hizo bauen ein Haus. / *Juan hizo ein Haus bauen.
Juan made build a house
Juan had a house built.
(50) Juan hizo a Pedro ein Haus bauen. / *Juan hizo a Pedro bauen ein Haus.
Juan made dat Pedro a house build
Juan made Pedro build a house.
Causative constructions in Esplugish are constructed around the Spanish verb hacer, itself a causative verb in Spanish (the fact
that hacer in Esplugish can be a causative or a light verb gives rise to a number of interesting structural ambiguities that we
explore in detail in González-Vilbazo and López, forthcoming).
Example (49) exhibits obligatory VO order (bauen ein Haus) while example (50) exhibits obligatory OV (ein Haus bauen).
Other than that, the only surface difference between the two causative sentences is that the latter includes a causee (a Pedro),
while the former does not.
The phase theory, coupled with independently motivated analyses of Romance causatives (Guasti, 1992; López, 2001;
Folli and Harley, 2007) provides a straightforward account of the difference between (49) and (50). Causative verbs may
17
In the present article we only present word order data to illustrate the puzzle of feature spreading. In González-Vilbazo and López, forthcoming we
expand the consequences of our analysis to prosody and information structure.
select for a VP or for a vP, which includes an external argument. This external argument is what surfaces as the causee (see
López, 2001):
(51) vsp hacer [VP V. . .]

(52) vsp hacer [vP EA/causee vdt [VP V. . .]]
Consider first the example without a causee. The complement of hacer includes no little v. The grammatical properties of the
VP are those of the closest phase head. The closest phase head happens to be the little v that selects for hacer. This little v is
Spanish: in the absence of an independent morpheme that lexicalizes v, hacer (causative) must incorporate into v. Since the
morphology exhibited by the verb is Spanish (hacer not *hasieren), we conclude that this v must be drawn from the Spanish
lexicon.
The example with the causee includes a little v. The same reasoning as in the previous paragraph leads us to conclude that
the little v that introduces the causee must be German. The properties of the VP are going to be those of vdt, hence the OV
order.18
8. Absence of light verbs in the input grammars
Recall that in the introduction we subscribed to the view, put forward by MacSwan (1999) and González-Vilbazo (2005)
that code switching should not be accounted for by using dedicated mechanisms, special features or restrictions. The
monolingual grammars of neither German nor Spanish include a free-standing light verb. Is the presence of such a light verb
in Esplugish an example of a ‘‘third grammar’’ dedicated to regulating code-switching?
Our approach to the third grammar issue is slightly different from our predecessors. Linguists who assume that there
should not be a third grammar usually propose that code-switching consists uniquely of features found in the input
languages (especially MacSwan, 1999). We think this view does not fully consider the role of UG in language acquisition.
Children construct their own I-languages as an outcome of the interaction of Universal Grammar with their input
(together with what Chomsky, 2005 calls ‘‘third factor conditions’’, which we can ignore here). There is no reason to suppose
that the resulting I-language will be exactly like the input. As a matter of fact, there is abundant evidence suggesting that
children resort to ingredients provided by Universal Grammar that are absent from the input. The famous case of Creole
languages immediately comes to mind (Bickerton, 1983). Likewise, the sign languages of the deaf often develop numerous
features absent from their input languages (see Newport, 1999; Goldin-Meadow, 2005, among many others). Even the
language of monolingual children who acquire their first language in normal circumstances also shows features that are both
rule-governed and absent from the input (Crain and Pietroski, 2001). In normal circumstances, these forms eventually
disappear due to the pressure from the input. In unusual circumstances – such as those surrounding the development of
creole and sign languages – forms absent from the input remain and become part of the mature I-language of a community of
speakers.
The I-language of Esplugish speakers is also the outcome of the interaction of Universal Grammar with their
environment. The resulting I-language may contain a feature – a free-standing light verb – that is not present in the input
grammars but is available in the universal pool. Unlike canonical monolingual learners, Esplugish speakers do not see any
reason to strip themselves of this option as they grow up because the input they receive exerts no pressure on the Esplugish
modality, which grows virtually unnoticed by adults and even by the speakers themselves. We conclude that the free
standing light verb remains in their grammar – as in the grammars of monolingual Persian, Hindi, Kurdish speakers, among
many others – subject to the same constraints (ungrammatical in passive voice) as in monolingual grammars. Thus, the
Esplugish light verb gives us no reason to adopt the view that there are features exclusive of code-switching. Instead, it
provides us with an example of the role that input-independent internal mechanisms – UG, if you will – play in child
language development.
9. The Matrix Language Frame Model
The changes in word order that take place after light verbs in code-switching contexts are sometimes used as evidence for
the Matrix Language Frame Model (MLFM) (see Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2009:[25_TD$IF]338[26_TD$IF]–339, among others): In this view, the
language L(α) of the light verb is the matrix language and therefore its complement has to adjust to the rules of L(α). In this
section, we present a brief summary of the MLFM and show that the design of this particular approach to code switching does
not give us any predictions for the structure at hand.
For our presentation, we use the most recent formulation of the MLFM (Myers-Scotton and Jake, 2009). The leading
idea of the MLFM is that the participating languages in a code-switching event are utilized asymmetrically. One language
18
As an anonymous reviewer points out, code-switching within the DP is left unresolved in this article. For instance, there is a wealth of literature
discussing the position of the adjective vis-à-vis the noun and the results are inconclusive (see Lipski, 1978; Mahootian, 1993 for the classic references and
opposing views). If D were the only phase head in the DP, we would predict the position of adjectives to depend on the type of D, but we do not know if there
are any phases within the DP. In order to have a clear picture of code-switching within the DP, we will need to figure out (i) if there are any phases within the
DP and, if so, how many and (ii) the c-command relations of adjectives with respect to the phase boundaries within the DP.
is the matrix language, providing the grammatical skeleton of the clause and determining restrictions on[27_TD$IF], e.g. word order,
[28_TD$IF]agreement, etc. The other language is the embedded language, which provides phrases whose insertion is acceptable
to the extent that it does not violate restrictions of the matrix language. A language is defined as matrix or embedded
for a certain corpus.19 That is, a bilingual speaker may choose L(α) as matrix and L(β) as embedded in some corpus while
the same speaker may be using L(β) as matrix and L(α) as embedded in another corpus. Myers-Scotton and Jake
(2009:337–338) even acknowledge that the matrix language may occasionally vary from clause to clause[29_TD$IF].
As Myers-Scotton and Jake (2009) assert, the MLFM is not a competence model. Instead it ‘‘provides a major linguistic
theory of language contact dedicated to bilingual speech and processing [. . .] [the theory] accounts for a variety of bilingual
behaviors[30_TD$IF]’’ (p[31_TD$IF]. 336). Thus, it is explicitly a theory concerned with the performance aspects of bilingualism and not with the
underlying knowledge (although in earlier statements, such as Myers-Scotton, 1993, she seems to claim that the MFLM is a
competence model). Correspondingly, the data base utilized to develop the MLFM theory is a form of E-language (corpora). It
is also worth pointing out that, since the notions of matrix and embedded language are not ingredients of monolingual
grammars (for obvious reasons!) it follows that the MLFM is the type of theory that argues that code-switching is ruled by
special mechanisms absent from monolingual grammars.
Let us see how the MLFM model fares with respect to our Esplugish data. Recall that after a Spanish light verb, the
complement appears in a VO order even though the components of the VP are German:
(53) Juan hizo flicken die Vespa.

Juan did repair the Vespa
‘Juan repaired the Vespa.’
One could claim that in sentences like (53) the matrix language is Spanish. It would follow that the rules and restrictions of
Spanish should apply, hence the VO order – we believe we follow the logic of Myers-Scotton and Jake’s (2001) analysis of the
Dutch/Turkish example (5). The asymmetry that makes *tut comprar ungrammatical – discussed in detail in section 5 [32_TD$IF]– could
be accounted for as an asymmetry in matrix language: Spanish is always the matrix language in Esplugish, German never is.
In the following we point out two major flaws in the MLFM account.
First, the MLFM model misses an important datum that we have pointed out in this article from the outset. This important
datum is precisely that this VO order happens only when the lexical VP is governed by a light verb. Code switching between a
Spanish lexical verb and a German complement clause, or between a Spanish lexical verb and a German complement DP does
not affect the internal structure of these constituents. In (54), the complement of the Spanish verb dijo has the verb final
syntax of German clauses. In (55), the complement of the Spanish verb vio has the adjective + noun order of German DPs, not
the noun + adje[3_TD$IF]ctive order of Spanish DPs:
(54) a. Juan dijo dass Johannes klug ist.

Juan said that Johannes clever is
‘Juan said that Johannes is clever.’
b. *Juan dijo dass Johannes ist klug.
Juan said that Johannes is clever
‘Juan said that Johannes is clever.’
(55) a. Juan vio die kluge Frau.

Juan saw the clever woman
‘Juan saw the clever woman.’
b. *Juan vio die Frau kluge.
Juan saw the woman clever
‘Juan saw the clever woman.’
In our framework, we have linked the difference to phase boundaries. The light verb is the head of its phase, so everything
within that phase has to obey its requirements. The lexical verb and its complement are in different phases and therefore the
lexical verb can exert no influence on its complement.
We do not think that the MLFM model can provide a non-stipulatory account of this difference. In particular, one
could plausibly argue that the matrix language in (54) and (55) is Spanish, since the matrix verb is Spanish. If the matrix
language in (54) and (55) is Spanish, one should expect the complement of the verb to follow a Spanish pattern. Since
this expectation is not fulfilled, one would have to claim that the matrix language necessarily changes at the CP and DP
borders [34_TD$IF]– but then we are left without a clear understanding of what a matrix language is. In fact, we are not aware of
any algorithmic way of choosing a matrix language that would yield the results that the empirical facts demand.
19
We understand a corpus to be any piece of linguistic realia gathered by a linguist[96_TD$IF] – it could be a text of several pages or just one sentence.
The empirical problem becomes even more pronounced in causative sentences. Recall that causative sentences with a
causee yield an OV order whereas causative sentences without a causee yield a VO order:
(56) Juan hizo bauen ein Haus.

Juan did build a house
‘Juan had a house built.’
(57) Juan hizo a Pedro ein Haus bauen.

Juan did dat Pedro a house build
‘Juan made Pedro build a house.’
In our approach, this is easily accounted for because the presence of the causee entails the presence of a lower vP phase
which, given the presence of a German lexical verb (and no light verb), should be German. The MLFM is completely unsuited
to account for this distinction. In effect, it would have to make Spanish the matrix language in (56) while (57) would have
German as matrix language, unaccountably.
Second, recall that a matrix language is defined with respect to a corpus. Thus, we would expect that in some Esplugish
corpora the matrix language would be German while in some other corpora the matrix language would be Spanish. Indeed,
the following two sentences are possible in Esplugish:
(58) a. Er hat muchos libros verkauft.

he has many books sold
‘He has sold many books.’
b. El ha vendido viele Bücher.
He has sold many books
‘He has sold many books.’
(58[35_TD$IF]a) would presumably have German as matrix language while (b) would have Spanish.
If German can be the matrix language in some corpora, the MLFM predicts that sentences like the following should be just
as common as the sentences we have been discussing in this paper:
(59) *Juan tut die Vespa reparar.

Juan does the Vespa repair
However, this sentence is unacceptable to Esplugish speakers. The only way that the MLFM could account for (59) is to claim
that in Esplugish Spanish is always the matrix language. But this would fly in the face of examples such as (58[36_TD$IF]a), in which the
matrix language has to be German. If German can be the matrix language some of the time, then the ungrammaticality of (59)
is unaccounted for. In fact, the entire paradigm shown in the table in (17) is outside the empirical scope of the MLFM.
We claim that the property of having hacer as a free-standing light verb is not a property of a corpus but a feature of the
I-language of Esplugish speakers.
10. Conclusions
We have explored the properties of light verbs in code-switching and shown that the puzzles that they present can be
satisfactorily accounted for using general principles of the faculty of language as laid out in recent minimalist work (most
especially Chomsky, 1995, 2000). These include the feature checking/valuation mechanism and the centrality of a phase
head in carrying it out as well as principles that derive from the computational nature of the faculty of language such as RM/
MLC and Last Resort. The asymmetry puzzle is accounted for by analyzing the light verb insertion as a last resort mechanism
to prevent feature mismatch in the feature valuation operation. The impossibility of passive voice in the light verb
construction can be accounted for by the absence of incorporation of V into v, which precludes the internal argument from
raising over PRO. The surprising fact of features spreading (word order) from the light verb to its complement can be
accounted for by assuming that the light verb is little v and as a phase head it controls the grammatical properties of its
phase. Finally, the problem of the absence of the hacer light verb construction in the input grammars (Spanish and German)
can be explained as being the result of regular language acquisition. The option of a light verb is provided by UG and only
disappears under external pressure from the input, but that is not the case with Esplugish. Hence, the light verb construction
remains available to competent Esplugish speakers.
The MLFM, on the other hand, consist of a series of stipulations meant to play a role only in code-switching situations. It
can only be said to account for data at the most superficial level – if the data are explored in depth and specific predictions are
formulated, the MFLM fails. Given the more principled grounding of our approach and the empirical advantages that it
provides, it should be preferred.
Acknowledgments
[37_TD$IF] This research project has been carried out under the auspices of the UIC Bilingualism Research Laboratory and we would
like to thank, first and foremost, the members of the laboratory for their feedback and support with this project. We would
also like to thank Karlos Arregi, Marcel den Dikken, Robert Kemp, Jürgen Lenerz, Jeff MacSwan, Pascual Masullo, Natascha
Müller, Carmen Parafita, Volker Struckmeier, Karen Zagona and three anonymous reviewers for Lingua for feedback on an
early version of this article. We would also like to thank the audiences that heard various incarnations of this project: In/
Between conference at UIC (Chicago, April 2009), Purdue University (April 2010), Languages in Contact conference
(Wuppertal, May 2010), University of Bangor (July 2010). Our gratitude goes as well to our language consultants and to
Susanne Müller for providing us with valuable code-switching data. All errors are ours.
References
Ackema, P., Neeleman, A., 2007. Morphology 6¼ syntax. In: Ramchand, G., Reiss, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University
Press.
Adger, D., 2003. Core Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Alexiadou, A., Müller, G., 2008. Class features as probes. In: Bachrach, A., Nevins, A. (Eds.), Inflectional Identity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 101–
155.
Annamalai, E., 1978. The anglacized Indian languages: a case of code-mixing. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 7, 239–247.
Backus, A., 1992. Patterns of Language Mixing: A Study of Turkish–Dutch Bilingualism. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Baker, M., Johnson, K., Roberts, I., 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219–251.
Bavin, E., Schopen, T., 1985. Warlpiri and English: Languages in contact. In: Clyne, M. (Ed.), Australia. Meeting Place of Languages. Department of Linguistics,
Australia National University, Canberra.
Belazi, H.M., Rubin, E.J., Toribio, A.J., 1994. Code switching and X-bar theory: the functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 221–237.
Bhatia, T.K., Ritchie, W.C., 1996. Bilingual language mixing, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W.C.,Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook
of second language acquisition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 627–688.
Bhatt, R., Pancheva, R., 2006. Implicit arguments. In: Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. II. Blackwell, pp. 554–
584.
Bickerton, D., 1983. The bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (2), 173–188.
Boeschoten, H.E., Verhoeven, L.T., 1985. Integration niederländisher lexikalischer Elemente ins Türkische: Sprachmischung bei Immigranten der ersten und
zweiten Generation. Linguistische Berichte 98, 347–364.
Burzio, L., 1986. Italian Syntax. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Butt, M., 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1–49.
Canfield, K., 1980. A note on Navajo - English code-mixing. Anthropological Linguistics 22, 218–220.
Cantone, K., Müller, N., 2009. Language mixing in bilingual children: code-switching? In: Bullock, B., Toribio, A.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Linguistic Code-Switching. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1955. Logical structure of linguistic theory. Thesis, Harvard/MIT (Published in part: New York/Plenum, 1975).
Chomsky, N., 1986. Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origins and Use. Praeger, New York.
Chomsky, N., 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The View from Building, vol. 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.
1–52.
Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist Program. Current Studies in Linguistics, vol. 28. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martins, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in
Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89–155.
Chomsky, N., 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–52.
Chomsky, N., 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.
Chomsky, N. 2006. Approaching UG from below. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Chomsky, N., 2008. On phases. In: Freidin, R., Otero, C.P., Zubizarreta, M.L. (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.
133–166.
Crain, S., Pietroski, P., 2001. Nature, nurture, and universal grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 139–186.
Den Dikken, M., Rao, S.B., 2003. Light switches. Ms., to appear in MIT Press volume ed. by Jeff MacSwan.
Di Sciullo, A.M., Muysken, P., Singh, R., 1986. Government and code-mixing. Journal of linguistics 22, 1–24.
Erb, M.C., 1995. Eine Theorie expletiver Verben: Die tun-Periphrase im Deutschen. MA Thesis, Universität Frankfurt am Main.
Erb, M.C., 2001. Finite auxiliaries in German. Ph.D. Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
Folli, R., Harley, H., 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: on the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 197–238.
Gallego, A., 2007. Phase theory and parametric variation. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Goldin-Meadow, S., 2005. What language creation in the manual modality tells us about the foundations of language. The Linguistic Review 22, 199–226.
González-Vilbazo, K., 2005. Die Syntax des Code-Switching. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cologne.
González-Vilbazo, K., López, L., forthcoming. Little v and parametric variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Guasti, M.-T., 1992. Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Rosenberg and Sollier, Torino, Italy.
Halle, M., Marantz, A., 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The View from Building, vol. 20. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 111–176.
Holmberg, A., 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stockholm.
Hornstein, N., Grohmann, K., Nunes, J., 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jake, J., Myers-Scotton, C., Gross, S., 2002. Making a minimalist approach to code-switching work: adding the matrix language. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 5 (1), 69–91.
Joshi, A.K., 1985. Processing of sentences with intrasentential code switching. In: Dowty, D., Kattunen, L., Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing.
Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. University Press, Cambridge.
Karimi-Doostan, G., 2005. Light verbs and structural case. Lingua 115, 1737–1756.
Kucerova, I., 2007a. Agreement in Icelandic: an argument for derivational theory of intervention effects. In: Erin Bainbridge,Brian Agbayani, (Eds.),Proceedings
of the 34th WECOL 2006. pp. 272–284.
Kucerova, I., 2007b. An anti-intervention effect in Czech splits: an argument for late merge. In: Goledzinowska, M., Compton, R., Savchenko, U. (Eds.),
Proceedings of Formal approaches to Slavic Languages, vol. 15. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, pp. 161–179.
Legate, J.A., 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506–516.
Lipski, J., 1978. Code switching and the problem of bilingual competence. In: Paradis, M. (Ed.), Aspects of Bilingualism. Hornbeam Press, Columbia, SC, pp.
250–264.
López, L., 2001. On the (non)complementarity of theta theory and checking theory. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (4), 694–716.
MacSwan, J., 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching. Garland/J. MacSwan, New York, 2000.
MacSwan, J., 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: evidence from codeswitching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (1), 37–54.
MacSwan, J., 2005a. Codeswitching and generative grammar: a critique of the MLFM model and some remarks on ‘‘modified minimalism’’. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 8 (1), 1–22.
MacSwan, J., 2005b. Comments on Jake, Myers-Scotton and Gross’s response: there is no ‘‘matrix language’’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (2),
277–284.
MacSwan, J., 2009. Generative approaches to code-switching. In: Bullock, B., Toribio, A.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Code-Switching. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 309–335.
Mahootian, S., 1993. A null theory of code-switching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Mahootian, S., Santorini, B., 1996. Code switching and the complement/adjunct distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 464–479.
Marantz, A., 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In: Dimitriadis, A., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4, 2nd ed. pp. 201–225.
Myers-Scotton, C., 1993. Dueling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code Switching. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Myers-Scotton, C., 2001. The matrix language frame model: developments and responses. In: Jacobson, R. (Ed.), Codeswitching Worldwide II. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 23–58.
Myers-Scotton, C., 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Myers-Scotton, C., Jake, J.L., 2001. Explaining aspects of code-switching and their implications. In: Nicol, J. (Ed.), One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual
Language Processing. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 84–116.
Myers-Scotton, C., Jake, J., 2009. A universal model of codeswitching and bilingual language processing and production. In: Bullock, B., Toribio, J.A.
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 336–357.
Newport, M., 1999. Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: contributions to the study of creolization. In: DeGraf, M. (Ed.), Language Creation
and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony and Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 161–178.
Oltra-Massuet, I., Arregi, K., 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1, 43–84.
Pfaff, C.W., 1976. Functional and structural constraints on syntactic variation in code-switching. In: Steever, B., et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Para Session on
Diachronic Syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 248–259.
Poplack, S., 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a conversation in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: toward a typology of code switching. Linguistics 18, 581–616.
Ritchie, W.C., Bhatia, T.K., 1996. Codeswitching, Grammar, and Sentence Production: The Problem of Dummy Verbs. , http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/
data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/e1/ba.pdf.
Rizzi, L., 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Stanlaw, J., 1982. English in Japanese communicative structures. In: Kachru, B. (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures. U of Illinois Press,
Champagne-Urbana.
Svenonius, P., 2004. In: Adger, D., de Cat, C., Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), On the Edge. Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 261–287.
Woolford, E., 1983. Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 520–535.

LINGUA1767 With Cover Page v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LINGUA1767 With Cover Page v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Some properties of light verbs in

Lingua, Volume 121, Issue 5, Pages 832–850

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Bilingualism and int erfaces - t alk Madrid 11/17/2017

Lit t le v and Paramet ric Variat ion

Cont act Phenomena: T he I-Language of a bilingual

Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Some properties of light verbs in code-switching

1. Code-switching and light verbs

(1) Juan hace nähen das Hemd.2

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 833

(2) Wir utilisieren spanische Wörter, die dann alemanisiert werden y

834 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

(3a) Linear representation: performance approach (‘>’ sequencing operator)

(3b) Structural representation: competence

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 835

1.3. Light verbs

(4) Juan hace nähen das Hemd

(5) O diyor ben uitmaken yaptım diyordu kızınam.

(6) John narmesh kard.

(7) *Juan tut coser una camisa.

836 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

2.2. Passive voice

(9) a. *El libro fue hecho lesen.

2.3. Feature spreading

2.4. Absence in the input grammars

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 837

3. Data and methodology

4. The light verb and the minimalist framework

838 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

(10) [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V . . .]]]]

(12) [phase CP C [TP T [phase vP v [VP V . . .]]]]

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 839

5.1. Three problems

(15) *Hans tut coser la camisa.

(16) a. Wir utilisieren palabras alemanas.

(17) Light verb vsp [Vdt] * vdt [Vsp]

v-to-V incorporation * vsp + Vdt vdt + Vsp

[the symbol + indicates incorporation]

(18) Juan hizo utilizar palabras alemanas.

5.2. Code-switching vs. borrowing

840 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

(19) Tienes que cliquear en este sitio.

(20) *[w ML1 + ML2]

In fact, grammaticality judgments like the following are widely attested:

(21) *Estoy eatiendo.

(22) Mañana te tienes que anmeldear.

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 841

(23) {Lexicon 1 … w…} {Lexicon 2 …w…}

(24) {Lexical Array w1, w2, w3, w4,…}

{ Lexicon 1 w1, w3 …} { Lexicon 2 w2, w4 …}

5.3. Explaining the asymmetry

(25) a. cant-‘‘sing’’ -ar class ! cantar (ex: cantas = you sing)

842 K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850

(28) singular plural singular plural

(29) Juma a-li-kuwa a-me-pika chakula cha asubuhi

[[TD$INLE] hac- [-er] +vsp[uConj]] VP

K. González-Vilbazo, L. López / Lingua 121 (2011) 832–850 843

5.4. Conclusion to section 5