A Late-insertion-based Exoskeletal Approach to Creoles
Keio Linguistic Colloquium

Yushi Sugimoto (University of Tokyo, yushis@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
October 1, 2022

1

Introduction: The goal/summary of this presentation• The goal of this presentation: To show that functional features in Creole Grammars are recombined (feature recombination, cf. Aboh 2015).
• In order to show this, I adopt a late-insertion-based exoskeletal model to Creole Grammars, basedon language mixing literature (Grimstad et al. 2018, Riksem et al. 2019).
Lexicon: Features
Underspecification

Feature Recombination

Combination of Functional Heads
Narrow Syntax

Late-Insertion (Subset Principle)(Im)Possible Derivations

Spell-out
Semantic Component

Phonological Component

Figure 1: A proposed grammatical model in Sugimoto (2022)• This model captures some types of linguistic variation as well as language mixing, and Creole
grammars.1
The flow of this presentation
1. A framework
2. Linguistic Variation
3. Creole Genesis
6. A late-insertion-based exoskeletal model

4. Competition and Selection Model
5. Feature Recombination(a) Novel Features in Creoles
i. Anterior marker -ba in CVC
ii. Nominal Structures in Scramaccan
iii. A complementizer ki in CVC

1(b) Theoretical Implications
i. Feature Recombination
ii. Underspecification and Linguistic
Variationiii. A Null Theory Approach/ Against
Exceptionalism

Part of this presentation is based on Sugimoto (2022). See also Sugimoto and Baptista (2022).

1

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

2

A Framework

2.1

Genuine Explanation: A FRamewoRK (CHomsKy 2021)• The depth of explanation drives from simplicity of assumptions
Explanation for language
1. For individual languages
Explanation provided by a generative grammar
2. For faculty of language (FL)
Explanation provided by Universal Grammar (UG)
3. Simplicity of UG
UG has to satisfy crucial empirical conditions
4. Clarifying Merge(Chomsky 2021)• UG must satisfy the following conditions
Three Conditions on UG
1. Learnability: Structure Dependency suggests that there is no learning.
→ The hierarchical structure formed by Merge is not learnable.
2. Evolvability: “. . . the basic structure of language should be quite simple. The result ofsome small rewiring of the brain that took place once and has not changed in the brief
since.”(Chomsky 2021)→ UG includes a structure building operation (i.e., Merge).
3. Universality: “The variety of languages might be localized in peripheral aspects of lexicon
and in externalization; perhaps completely, we might someday learn.”(Chomsky 2021:11-12)aa

There is also another condition on UG, namely neural codability. See (Chomsky 2021:8, fn.8) for details.

(1) Uniformity Thesis (Chomsky 2001:2,(1))
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages to be uniform, withvariety restricted to easily detectable properties of utterances.

2.2

THe SouRce of Linguistic VaRiation

The locus of linguistic variation
1. Chomsky-Borer Conjuncture: “All parameters of variation are attributable to differencesin the features of particular items (e.g., the functional heads) in the lexicon.” (Baker 2008)
2. Berwick-Chomsky Conjecture: Linguistic variation comes from sources after the narrowsyntax (i.e., externalization)(Berwick and Chomsky 2011, 2016)

2

2.3

Third Factor Principle Approaches to Parametric Variation

2.3

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

THiRd FactoR PRinciple AppRoacHes to PaRametRic VaRiation• Three factors for language design(2)a. Genetic endowment
b. Experiencec. Principles not specific to the faculty of language(Chomsky 2005:6)• Biberauer (2017), Biberauer and Roberts (2015), Roberts (2019)(3)

Parameters are emergent properties of the interaction of the three factors.
(Roberts 2019:7, (8))(4)

The third factor effect/learning process (Biberauer and Roberts 2015:7,(6))
a. Feature Economy (FE): Postulate as few formal features as possible to account for the
input
b. Input Generalisation (IG): If a functional head F sets parameter Pj to value vi thenthere is a preference for all functional heads to set Pj to value vi (cf. Boeckx’s (2011)
Superset bias)(5)

UG + input + Maximise Minimal Means (MMM) → Adult Grammar(Biberauer 2019:213, (3))

No (macro-)parameter approaches (Richards 2008, Boeckx 2011, 2014, 2016, Obata et al. 2015,
Epstein et al. 2018)
1. Underspecification of rule ordering in narrow syntax (Obata et al. 2015, Epstein et al. 2018)
Agree-Move, Move-Agree order (e.g., T-subject agreement vs. T-object agreement)
2. Merge of Heads (Blümel et al. 2022)
3. Combining formal features → this presentation

3

Issues of Creole Genesis

3.1

CReole Genesis• “Creole languages are natural languages that typically emerge in a multilingual setting in which
speakers of distinct native languages come into contact with each other, ultimately contributing
to the formation of a new language.”(Baptista 2020:160)
Languages that contribute to creole languages



1. Superstrate/lexifier: Dominant language (Adstrates: Coexisting languages)
2. Substrate: The language comparatively less dominant• “While the general consensus is that the lexicon of a given Creole mostly originates from its
superstrate (typically a European language), there is much debate regarding the source of its
grammatical features.”(Baptista 2020:160)→ Where do Creoles come from?
3

3.2

Various Approaches to Creole Genesis

3.2

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

VaRious AppRoacHes to CReole Genesis

1. The language bioprogram“[Creoles were produced] by the operation of innate faculties genetically programmed
to provide at least the basis for an adequate human language”(Bickerton 1984:41)
2. The Creole Prototype theory (McWhorter 2002, 2011)(a) phonological: little or no use of tone to distinguish monosyllables or grammatical categories(b) morphosyntactic: little or no inflectional morphology(c) semantic: little or no noncompositional combinations of derivational markers and roots(McWhorter 2011:6)
3. Relexification (Lefebvre 1998, Muysken 1981)“Given the concept of lexical entry, relexification can be defined as the process of vocabulary substitution in which the only information adopted from the target languagein the lexical entry is the phonological representation (Muysken 1981:61).”
4. The founder principle (Mufwene 1996)“[t]he vernaculars spoken by the settlers of the new colony would establish themselves
as the targeted norm (Velupillai 2015:181),”
5. Conflation/convergence (Kihm 1990, Baptista 2006)“Given that a fortuitous formal similarity of really or apparently comparable elementsfrom possibly very different languages is an attested and, after all, inevitable fact, one
may expect spontaneous learners of a second language to grab at such elements andconflate them in their minds, by virtue of this principle […] that you more easily learn
what you think you already know (Kihm 1990:113).”

Principles/Approaches

Main influences

References

The language bioprogram
Relexification
The founder principle
Conflation/convergence
Creativity
Second Language Acquisition
Competition and selection

biologically universal properties
Substrate
Superstrate
Substrate/superstrate
Innovation
SLA process
Substrate/superstrate

Bickerton (1981)
Lefebvre (1998)
Mufwene (1996)
Kihm (1990), Baptista (2020)
Baker (1994)
Kouwenberg (2006), Siegel (2006)
Mufwene (2001), Aboh (2009, 2015)

Table 1: Various Approaches to Creole Genesis

4

3.3

Competition and Selection Model

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

3.3

Competition and Selection Model(6)

a. “what makes the new varieties restructured is not only the particular combinations of features selected, often from different sources, into the new language varieties, but also theway in which the features themselves have been modified, ‘exapted’, to fit into the new
systems.” (Mufwene 2001:5)
i. Feature pool: features from competing languages (e.g., substrate, superstrate, other contributing languages)
ii. How the linguistic system picks up only one linguistic feature, not the others from thefeature pool?
b. “The ‘contact’ happens in the mind of the speakers via the feature pool which presents thelearner with the input on which learning hypotheses are made.” (Aboh 2015:116)
c. “The recombination of (morpho)-syntactic features is free (i.e. not subject to external ecological factors).”(Aboh 2015:136, (14))
Source Language A

Source Language B

Source Language C

Feature pool

Creole 1

Creole 2

Creole 3…

Feature recombination

Creole 4

Creole 5…

Figure 2: A competition and selection model
3.3.1 Feature Recombination in Saramaccan (Aboh 2009, 2015)• Saramaccan
1. Subsrtate: Gunbge
2. Superstrate: English• Inherent complement verb (ICV) in Gungbe “requires an object in their citation form” (Aboh2009:328).
(7)

a. Kòfí ãó gbàdó
Kofi plant cornb. *Kòfí ãó …
Kofi plant‘Kofi planted corn’(Aboh 2009:328-329, (8b)-(8c))‘Kofi planted corn.’• “ICV’s mainly consist of light verbs whose semantics also depends on that of the noun phrasethat they select for.”(Aboh 2009:329)• The meaning of the verb ãù ‘eat’ depends on the meaning of the object as well as the basic
meaning of ingest or consume.
5

3.3

Competition and Selection Model(8)

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

Gungbea. Tà ãù mì
Head eat 1sg

b. Kòfí ãù kwέ cè
Kofi eat my money‘Kofi spent my money’(Aboh 2009:329)‘I have a headache’• The verb njan ‘eat’ in Saramaccan has inherited hybrid features from both Gungbe and English.
(9)

Saramaccan
Amato njan di bakuba
Amato eat det banana‘Amato ate banana.’(10)(Aboh 2009:332, (13))

Saramaccan
a. I njan kaa
no?
2sg eat already Q‘Have you already eaten?’b. Ai mi njan (kaa)
yes I eat already‘Yes, I have eaten (already).’c. Ai mi njan soni
yes, 1sg eat something‘*Yes, I ate (something [non-specific]).’‘Yes, I ate something [specific]’(Aboh 2009:332, (13)-(14))
d. Hédi tá njan míhead Prog eat 1sg‘I’m having a headache.’(Aboh 2009:333, (15a))– Notice that in Gungbe, “example (11a) only denotes the semantics of ‘to eat’ not ‘to eat
thing’ while (9b) can only mean ‘to eat meat’.”(Aboh 2009:329)(11)

Gungbea. Kòfí ãù nú
Kofi eat thing‘Kofi ate’b. Kòfí ãù làn
Kofi eat thing‘Kofi ate meat’c. *Kòfí ãù…
Kofi eat‘Kofi eat’

(Aboh 2009:329, (9))• “Saramaccan njan maps the semantic properties of English and Gbe ‘eat’ onto the syntax of English.” (Aboh 2009:334)
Lexical features of ‘eat’ in Saramaccan
phonological featuresnjan
syntactic features
Englishsemantic features
English + Gungbe
Table 2: The ‘hybrid’ grammar in Saramaccan

6

3.3

Competition and Selection Model

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

3.3.2 Aboh (2020)
1. S-learners:• Aboh (2020) adopts the generative approach as a formal linguistic theory, which assumes
that the knowledge of language is in our mind/brain and the internal system in our mind/brain
is called I-language (Chomsky 1986).
• He extends this notion to the speakers/signers who have multilingual background (i.e., Slearner).
“every S-learner is formally multilingual because s/he entertains several mental
grammars ranging from registers, dialects of the same language to typologicallyand genetically different languages.”“. . . the languages of multilinguals affect each other, and a prevalent practice inmultilingual communities is code-mixing: a behavior which does not match with
the ideal of a ‘perfect’ S-learner assumed in traditional approaches.” (p2)2. Recombination:• Aboh (2020) argues that when code-mixing happens, the process of “recombination” takes
place in S-learner’s language faculty, which allows the input from more than one languages(hybrid grammar, Aboh 2015).
• Aboh (2020) argues that the process of recombination is an innate capacity.
“. . . the Human Language Capacity in which recombination is fully automated,while selection of vocabulary items for spell-out purpose is mediated through executive functions.” (p4)
3. The executive functions:• The executive functions is “a cover term for various cognitive processes involving attention
control, behavioral inhibition and working memory, all necessary for the deliberate control
of goal orientated actions.” (p6)Linguistic features (determined by UG)
Recombination (code-mixing)
Syntactic objects/phrase marker
Spell-Out

Executive Functions

Phonological Form

Logical Form

Figure 3: Aboh’s (2020) model

7

3.3

Competition and Selection Model

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• Aboh’s (2020) proopsal“During the language acquisition, recombination allows S-learners to select relevant
linguistic features from the heterogenerous inputs they are exposed to, and recombine them into pieces of mental grammars whose extensions represent individual
idiolects. . . ”“This model is compatible with the view that some surface phenomena (e.g., affix reordering) are post-syntactic (as commonly assumed in Distributed Morphology”“If code-mixing is innate and drives acquisition but is subject to the executive functions
for vocabulary insertion, then the cognitive process which produces code-mixing, thatis, recombination, must precede vocabulary selection. Executive functions are necessary for selection/learning of a specific lexicon or vocabulary, but they must be deployed after syntactic computation.” (p6)Questions• It seems that the executive functions can insert the vocabulary later in the derivation after
narrow syntax (i.e., Spell-out), which does not seem to follow the subset principle (see moredetails in §5).
• Are the feature recombination and the executive functions compatible?


3.3.3 Feature Recombination in CVC• Cabo Verdean Creole
1. Substrates: Manjako, etc
2. Superstrates: Portuguese• Verbal Domain (Tense-Aspect-Mood (TAM) domain)(12)-ba in CVC
a. Paulo kumeba katxupa.
Paulo eat+ba katxupa‘Paulo had eaten katxupa.’b. Paulo staba duenti.
Paulo was sick‘Paulo was sick.’c. Paulo stabatakume katxupa to ki bu txiga
Paulo pRog+ant mood eat katxupa when you arrive‘Paulo was eating katxupa when you arrived’ (Baptista 2020:171,(13))
d. N kanta
I sing‘I sang’(13)

e. N staba ta kanta
I sta-ba ta sing
‘I was singing’-va in Portuguese
a. Eu cantava
I sing-va‘I would sing, I used to sing’b. Eu estava a cantar.
‘I was singing.’

8

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)(14)ba in Manjako
a-reala ba‘He finished eating’(Kihm 1994:103)-va in Portuguese

simple past
past habitualimperfective with an auxiliarycompletion
pluperfectba in Manjako -ba in CVC
✓

✓
✓

✓

✓
✓
✓

Table 3: Summary of relevant items

Summary of CVC -ba

The traditional feature recombination analysis (cf. Aboh 2015) does not account for the pluperfectreading of -ba when modifying the non-stative verb like kume, ‘to eat’ , a reading that is genuinely
innovative in that it does not obtain in its source languages.
4

Language Mixing and the Minimalist Program• In this section, an issue of language mixing is introduced.

(15)

Language mixing
a. “to describe a situation where a speaker produces linguistic outcomes constituted by a mixture of elements from two or more languages.“(Lohndal 2013:216, fn1)
b. “we use the general (and neutral) term language mixing, whereas a lot of the literature wewill rely on uses code-switching. Code-switching is typically understood in a narrow sense
as bilingual ‘online’ mixing…”(Riksem et al. 2019:192)

4.1

Lexicalist Minimalist Syntax and Language Mixing

4.1.1 English-Spanish• According to Moro (2014), when a determiner is employed from Spanish it is grammatical, whereas
when the determiner is from English, it is ungrammatical.2(16)

Spanish-English mixing
a. el employer
the employer‘the employer’

2b. *the casa
the house‘the house’

But, see Liceras et al. (2008) regarding the grammatical judgment of this expression.

9(cf. Moro 2014)

4.1

Lexicalist Minimalist Syntax and Language Mixing

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• In (17a), the gender-feature remains unvalaud, whereas there is no valuation problem in (17b) if
we assume Agree-system (e.g., Chomsky 2000). This wrongly predicts that (17a) is ungrammaticaland (17b) is grammatical.
(17)

Spanish-English Mixing
a.

b.

DP

DP

D[num:sg, *gen:u]NP

D[num:sg]NPelN[num:sg]theN[num:sg, gen:m]

Agree*Agree• (17a): Moro (2014) claims that “. . . the unvalued features number and gender in the Spanish
determiner can be valued via Agree with the English noun because the former bears the full setof these features (number and gender) (Moro 2014:223).”• (17b): Moro (2014) claims that “[o]n the contrary, the derivation crashes in the case of the English
determiner and the Spanish noun because the feature set of the English determiner is incomplete(it lacks the gender feature) (Moro 2014:223).”
4.1.2 American Norwegian• In similar vein, Moro’s (2014) approach cannot explain American-Norwegian mixing.
• Norwegian has number-gender agreement.
(18)

Norwegian: grammatical gender language
a. dette
hus-etthis.sg.n house-sg.def.n‘this house’(19)b. *denne
hus-etc. *dette hus-athis.sg.m/f house-sg.def.n
this.sg.n house-pl.def.n‘this house’

American-Norwegiana. en blanket
a.M blanket‘a blanket’(20)‘this houses’

a.

b. the by
the city.sg‘the city’b.

DPD[num:sg, *gen:u]DPD[num:sg]

NP

NP
N[num:sg, gen:m]N[num:sg]
Agree*Agree• In (20a), the unvalued gender feature is unvalued, though the sentence is grammatical.
10

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

5

A late-insertion-based Exoskeletal Model

5.1

Assumptions• It is important to note that although the model I assume here is a combination of Borer’s (2003,
2005a, 2005b, 2013, 2017) exoskeletal model and of tenets from Distributed Morphology (Halleand Marantz 1993, among others), I do not necessarily adopt all assumptions underlying these
two approaches.
1. A exoskeletal approach (Borer 2003, 2005a,b, 2013, 2017):(a) “all aspects of the computation emerge from properties of structure, rather than propertiesof (substantive) listemes” (Borer 2005a:21)(b) “The burden of the computation is shouldered by the properties of functional items” (Borer
2005a:21)
2. Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994)3
Syntactic Derivation

List1: Insertion of syntactic terminal

Spell-out

List 2: Vocabulary Insertion
Subset Principle
List 3: Encyclopedia

Semantic component

Phonological component

Figure 4: The grammatical model in Distributed Morphology (Embick and Noyer 2007)(a) Abstract morphemes (functional features), Roots and categorization
i. “Abstract morphemes: These are composed exclusively of non-phonetic features, suchas [Past] or [pl], or features that make up the determiner node D of the English definite
article eventuating as the.”√√√ii. “Roots: These include items such as CAT , OX, or SIT , which are sequencesof complexes of phonological features, along with, in some cases, non-phonologicaldiacritic features. As a working hypothesis, we assume that the Roots do not containor possess grammatical (syntactico-semantic) features.” (Embick and Noyer 2007:295)
iii. Categorization Assumption (Embick and Noyer 2007: 296, cf. Marantz 1997; Arad
2005;Embick and Marantz 2008 among others)“Roots cannot appear without being categorized; Roots are categorized by combining
with category-defining functional heads.”(b) Late Insertion“The terminal nodes that are organized into the familiar hierarchical structures by the principles and operations of the syntax proper are complexes of semantic and syntactic features
but systematically lack all phonological features. The phonological features are supplied –3

See Oseki (2022) for a comprehensive view of the DM framework.

11

5.2

American NorwegianYushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

after the syntax – by the insertion of Vocabulary Items into the terminal nodes. Vocabulary
Insertion (VI) adds phonological features to the terminal nodes, but it does not add to thesemantic/syntactic features making up the terminal nodes.” (Halle and Marantz 1994:275276)(21) The subset principle“The phonological exponent of a Vocabulary Item is inserted into a position if theitem matches all or a subset of the features specified in that position. Insertion does
not take place if the Vocabulary item contains features not present in the morpheme.
Where several Vocabulary Items meet the conditions of insertion, the item matching
the greatest number of features specified in the terminal morpheme must be chosen.”(Halle 1997:428)(c) Underspecification“In order for a Vocabulary Item to be inserted in a terminal node, the identifying features of
the Vocabulary Item must be a subset of the features at the terminal node. Insertion may nottake place if the Item has identifying features that do not appear at the node. The Item neednot match every feature specified in the node; rather Vocabulary Items are characteristicallyunderspecified with respect to the features of the nodes into which they are inserted.”(Halleand Marantz 1994:276)(d) Syntactic Hierarchical Structure All the Way Down, cf., Single Engine Hypothesis (Marantz
1997, Arad 2003)“. . . all computation, whether of small (words) or large elements (phrases and sentences), is
syntactic, performed by the computational system.” (Arad 2003:738)

5.2

AmeRican NoRwegian

5.2.1 Nominal Domains• Norwegian has double definiteness.
(22)

Norwegian: double definiteness (Julien 2003, 2005)
a. dengaml-emaskin-athe.df.sg.f old-df.sg.f machine-df.sg.f‘the old machine’b. [DP D [ α P α [F P F [N P N . . . ] ] ] ](23)Nominals in American Norwegiandenne heritage tour-en
this-m heritage tour-sc.def.m‘This heritage tour’(Grimstad et al. 2018:200,(13b))

12

5.2

American NorwegianYushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• In (24a) and (25a), the functional projection comes from Norwegian.
(24)

a. road-en
road-def.sg.m‘the road’b.

(Riksem 2018:505,(19))

DP

D[DF :S G:M ]

FP
F′

_
F[DF :S G:M ] -en

nP

Agree

√

n

(25)

ROAD

a. denfield-athat.df.sg.f field-def.sg.f‘that field’b.
DP
D[DF :S G:F ](Riksem 2018:508,(22a))
FP
F′_
F[DF :S G:F ] -a

nP

Agree
n

√

F IELDDP in American Norwegian in (24a) and (25a)FP
Functional Exponent
Functional Feature
Phonological Exponent

stem

Norwegian
NorwegianEnglishTable 4: A summary of the DP structures of American-Norwegian 1

13

5.2

American NorwegianYushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• Another pattern shows that the functional projection comes from English.
(26)a. the by
the city‘the city’b.

DP

D[N U M :S G]

FP
F′

_
F[N U M :S G]

nP

Agree

√

n

CIT Y
(Grimstad et al. 2018:206,(17))

DP in American Norwegian in (26a)FP
Functional Exponent
Functional Feature
Phonological Exponent

stem

EnglishEnglishNorwegian

Table 5: A summary of the DP structure of American-Norwegian 2
5.2.2 Verbal Domains(27)

American-Norwegiana. rent-er
rent-pRes‘rent(s)’
b.
TP

DPi

T′
renter ←T[P RE S ]VoiceP
DPi

Voice′
Voice

v
v

√

REN T

(Riksem et al. 2019:201,(8))
14

5.3

Dakkhini

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)
TP in American Norwegian in (27a)FP
Functional Exponent
Functional Feature
Phonological Exponent

stem

Norwegian
NorwegianEnglishTable 6: A summary of the vP-TP structure of American Norwegian• If the functional features are from English, T has valued tense, unvalued number, and unvalued
person features.
(28)

Englisha. she rents
b.

TP
T′

DPi[S G,3P E RS ]rent-s←T[S G,P RE S ,3P E RS ]AgreeVoiceP
DPi

Voice′
Voice

v
v

5.3

√

REN T

DaKKHini• Dakkhini: a language that is the outcome of long-term contact between Hindi/Urdu and Telugu(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019)(29)

Hindi/Urdu: ki as Initial complementizer (IC)Mujhe kyā patā [S ki rām kab āyega]?
I+dat what known [S ic Ram when will-come](Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:32,(3))‘How do I know when Ram will come’(30)

Dakkhini: ki as Final Complementizer (FC)[S rām kab ātāē ki] mere ku kyā mālum?
[S ram when comes fc] I+dat what known‘How do I know when Ram will come’(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:32,(4))

15

5.3

Dakkhini(31)

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

Telugu: o: as FC[S rāmuDu yeppuDu ostāD -o:] nā.ku yēmi telusu?
[S Ramwhencomes fc] +dat what known(32)‘How do I know when Ram will come?’(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:32,(5))

Hindi/Urdu

(34)

(33)

DakkhiniclauseC[F : . . . ] kiclauseC[F : . . . ] ki

TeluguclauseC[F : . . . ] −o :• Åfarli and Subbarao (2019) suggest that in embedded questions, the complementizer ki in Dakkhini
is reconstituted to become a head-final complementizer and to match the functional feature of
the complementizer -o: in Telugu.
Dakkhini complementizer ki
Functional Exponent
Functional Featuresfrom Hindi/Urdu ki (reconstitution)from Telugu (final complementizer)

Table 7: The complementizer ki in Dakkhini• Another pattern: a new functional exponent is inserted with new insertion criteria of the Subset
Principle.
(35)

Hindi/Urdu: ki as IC
Mujhe nahi: patā [S ki si:tā gã:v cali: gayi: hai].
I+dat neg known [S ic Sita village has gone is]‘I did not know that Sita has gone to the village’(36)(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:32,(6))

Dakkhini: bol ke as FC[S si:tā g=a gã:v ku cale gayi: bol ke] mere ku mãlum nai:
[S sita village dat went awayfc]
I+dat known not‘I didn’t know that Sita had gone to the village’(37)(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:32,(7))

Telugu: ani as FC[S sīta u:riki wellindi -ani] nāku teliyadu.
[S Sita village dat wentfc] I+dat not known(38)‘I did not know that Sita had gone to the village’(Åfarli and Subbarao 2019:33,(8))

Hindi/Urdu(40)

C[F : . . . ] ki clause(39)

Dakkhiniclause C[F : . . . ] bol ke
16

Teluguclause C[F : . . . ] −ani

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• In that-clauses, the functional exponent for the Dakkhini complementizer bol ke in (36) is neither
from the functional exponent of the complementizer of Hindi/Urdu (ki in (35) nor Telugu (ani in(37)). Thus, the functional exponent is novel.4
bol ke in Dakkhini
Functional Exponent
bol ke (a novel exponent)
Functional Features from Telugu (final complementizer)
Table 8: The complementizer bol ke in Dakkhini
Summary
1. Pattern 1: FP comes from L1 and the stem comes from L2 (e.g., American Norwegian)
2. Pattern 2: FP comes from L1 and its functional exponent comes from L2 where the functional exponent is reconstituted due to a long-term language contact (e.g., the complementizer ki in Dakkhini)
3. Pattern 3: FP comes from L1 and its functional exponent is novel, which has new insertion
criteria (e.g., the complementizer bol ke in Dakkhini)An unexplored pattern• Pattern 4: functional features of FP is novel (due to feature recombination), therefore, theirfunctional exponent is also novel.
→ I will propose that this is the case in Creoles.

6

A Proposal(41)

A claim/proposal:
In Creole languages, functional categories can be but need not be directly inherited from source
languages. When such features are not directly inherited from source languages, they are decomposed into features and are re-combined as “hybrid functional categories.”(42)

Schema of the syntactic structurea. [F P F[x] [cat root ] ] ] (where cat is a categorizer)
b.
FP
F[x]

cat
cat

4

root

Åfarli and Subbarao (2019:44) point out that bol ke is a calque from Telugu.

17

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)
Functional Features
phonological featureslate insertionfunctional features(i) substrate, (ii) superstrate, (iii) recombination
semantic featureslate insertion
Table 9: Functional features under the proposed model

7

Analysis

7.1

AnteRioR MaRKeR -ba in CVC(43)(=(12a))Paulo kumeba katxupa.
Paulo eat+ba katxupa‘Paulo had eaten katxupa.’-va in Portuguese

ba in Manjako -ba in CVC

simple past
past habitual✓imperfective with an auxiliary✓completion✓
pluperfect
Summary of relevant items (=Table 3)(44)

The structure for -ba in CVC
FP
F[pluperf ect] -ba✓✓✓

The structure for -va in Portuguese
FP
F[past habitual] -va

v
v

(46)

(45)

✓

root

v
v

root

The structure for ba in Manjako
ba
v

root

• As a result of feature recombination of functional features, -ba in CVC has a novel functional
projection.
• I assume here that a new exponent could be inserted here since the insertion restriction (i.e., theSubset Principle) becomes new due to the recombined functional feature of -ba (pluperfect).

18

7.2

Nominal Structures in Saramaccan

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)-ba in CVC

Functional Exponent-ba (a novel exponent)
Functional Features pluperfect (a novel feature)
Table 10: The anterior marker -ba in CVC

7.2

Nominal StRuctuRes in SaRamaccan• Saramaccan’s lexifiers are English and Portuguese, and one of the substrates is Fongbe.
• Lefebvre (2013, 2015) argue that the Fongbe nominal structure and that of Saramaccan display
similar properties except for word order.
(47)

(48)
(49)

(50)

a. FongbeàsÓn [nyὲ tÒn] élÓ Ó lέcrab [me gen] dem def plb. Saramaccan
déé/dí físi [umí] akípl/def fish [case me] dem‘these/those crabs of mine’(Lefebvre 2015:19,(2))‘these/this fish(es) of mine’(Lefebvre 2015:19,(3))

English*the my these crabs(Lefebvre 2015:19,(4))

word order in nominal structures
a. Fongbe: PossP noun PossP dem def plb. Saramaccan: pl def PossP noun PossP dem
c. English: {def, Poss, dem} noun(.pl) PossP(Lefebvre 2015:61,(81))

a. FongbeàsÓn Ó lέcrab def plb. Saramaccan
déé / dí físi
pl / def fish‘the crabs’‘the fish(es)’(Lefebvre 2013:45,(31)-(32))• In Saramaccan, the morpheme déé is a plural definite determiner (McWhorter and Good 2012).
(51)

a. Dí
dí mέsíte tá léi,hέ déé míi tá woóko gó dóu
when def teacher imf reading, then def.pl child imf work go arrive‘While the teacher was reading, the children continued working’(McWhorter and Good 2012:77,(11))
b. A léi mi déé fóótóo.
3s show 1s def.pl photo‘He showed me the photographs.’(McWhorter and Good 2012:77,(14))

19

7.3

A complementizer ki in CVC

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)
FongbeEnglishSaramaccan

✓

✓

✓
✓

✓

✓
✓

Definite determiner
Plural determiner
Separate projections (determiner and plural)
Free morpheme (pl)def >noun (word order)✓✓✓

Table 11: A summary of the properties of nominal structures in Fongbe, English, and Saramaccan(52)

a. Fongbe (cf. Aboh 2019)DPb. English
DP
D[DE F ] thenP...

D[DE F ] ÓFP
F[P L] lέ

FP
nP
...

nP

F[P L] -s

...

(53)

...

a. Saramaccan: definite + plural
DP
D[DE F :P L] déénPb. Saramaccan: definite + singular
DP
D[DE F :S G] dí

nP
...

nP
...

• In Saramaccan, the definite determiner (sg) is realized as dí, while the definite determiner (pl) is
realized as déé. Accordingly, the functional exponents of these functional features become novel.

7.3

A complementizeR Ki in CVC• In this subsection, I explore the complementizer ki in CVC, its substrate Wolof, and its superstrate
European Portuguese.
7.3.1 Wolof• In Wolof, there are no complementizer markers that are exclusively used in declarative sentences.
In embedded, non-interrogative sentences, ne is realized as a force complementizer.
(54)

Defe-na-a
ne macc-na-ñu màngo b-i.
think-fin-1sc that suck-fin-3sg mango cl-def.pRox‘I think that they sucked the mango’

20(Torrence 2013:77,(43))

7.3

A complementizer ki in CVC

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• According to Torrence (2013), ne is homophonous with the verb say or tell.
(55)

Ma ne Ayda (*ne) macc-na-a màngo b-i.
1sg say ayda that suck-fin-1sg mango cl-def.pRox‘I told Ayda that I sucked the mango.’(Torrence 2013:78,(44))• In Wolof, wh-expressions consist of a noun class consonant (a class marker, cl will be used forthis marker in glosses) and the wh-element -an (Torrence 2013).
(56)

wh-forms in Wolofa. k-an ‘who’
b. f-an ‘where’
c. l-an ‘what’
d. . . .

(Torrence 2013:90,(85))• Wolof has wh-movement with an optional Q-particle.
(57)

An interrogative sentence in Wolof(An-a/i) l-an l-a
Isaa lekk?
Qwh -det cl-an xpl-cop isaa eat‘What is it that Isaa ate?’(Torrence 2013:91,(87a))• Torrence (2013) also proposes the existence of a null wh-expression that agrees with the complementizer k-u in (58).
(58)

K-u ñu gis?
cl-u 3pl see‘who did they see’(Torrence 2013:164,(2a))• The u-form of the complementizer depends on what it agrees with. In (58), it is realized as k-u;
in this case, the question is asking about a single person. When the question is asking about athing, the complementizer becomes l-u.
(59)

(60)

L-u ñu gis?
cl-u 3pl they see‘What did they see’a.

(Torrence 2013:164,(2b))
b.

CP
C′

whki
C

CP
C′

whli
C

TP

k-u ñu gis tki

TPl-u ñu gis tli(Torrence 2013:165,(4))
21

7.3

A complementizer ki in CVC

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)• The distribution of the -u form (complementizer) depends on what kind of wh-phrase it agrees
with and where the wh-phrase comes from.
(61)

a. subject
k-u togg ceeb bi ak jën wi
cl-u cook rice the and fish the‘who cooked the rice and the fish?’b. direct object
y-u jieéén ji togg
cl-u woman the cook‘what(pl) did the woman cook?’
c. locative adjunctf-u jieéén ji togg-e ceeb bi ak jën wi
cl-u woman the cook-loc rice the and fish the‘where did the woman cook the fish and the rice?’
d. applied object
ñ-u negeen ubbéél bunt bi
cl-u 2pl
open-ben door the‘who(pl) did y’all open the door for?’e. instrumental object
l-u Isaa ubbéébunt yicl-u isaa open-instr door the.pl‘what did Isaa open the doors with’(Torrence 2005:80,(4))• In the null wh-movement pattern, complementizer agreement is obligatory for the highest CP
clause, while agreement in the lower CPs is optional. Recall that u-form agrees with the null
wh-element (which is represented as whki in the examples below), whereas l-a does not.
(62)

Optional complementizer agreement in Wolofa. [ whki k-u Kumba wax [ne k-u Isaa defe [ne k-u Maryam dóór tki ]]]?
[ wh cl-u kumba say [that cl-u isaa think [that cl-u Maryam dóór tki ]]]‘Who did Kumba say that Isaa thought that Maryam hit?’b. [ whki k-u Kumba wax [ne l-a
Isaa defe [ne l-a
Maryam dóór tki ]]]?
[ wh cl-u kumba say [that xpl-cop isaa think [that xpl-cop Maryam dóór tki ]]]‘Who did Kumba say that Isaa thought that Maryam hit?’c. [ whki k-u Kumba wax [ne l-a
Isaa defe [ne k-u Maryam dóór tki ]]]?
[ wh cl-u kumba say [that xpl-cop isaa think [that cl-u Maryam dóór tki ]]]‘Who did Kumba say that Isaa thought that Maryam hit?’d. [ whki k-u Kumba wax [ne k-u Isaa defe [ne l-a
Maryam dóór tki ]]]?
[ wh cl-u kumba say [that cl-u isaa think [that xpl-cop Maryam dóór tki ]]]‘Who did Kumba say that Isaa thought that Maryam hit?’(Torrence 2013:258,(66))

22

7.3

A complementizer ki in CVC

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

7.3.2 CVC
• In CVC, the complementizer ma ‘that’ introduces an embedded declarative clause when illocutionary verbs are involved.
(63)

a declarative complementizer in CVC
a. Maria fla[C P ma ses
fidju ta bai skola]
Maria say(pfv) [C P that poss.3pl son ipvf go school]‘Maria said that her sons go to school.’b. Nu atxa
[C P ma mininu ka djuga
bola n’es kau]
1pl think(pfv) [C P that boy
neg play(pfv) ball in-dem place]‘We think that the boys didn’t play ball in this place’c. Djon odja
[C P ma Maria kunpra sukrinha]
Djon see(pfv) [C P that Mari buy(pfv) sweet]‘John saw that Mary bought sweets’d. Ta parse-m[C P ma bu sta mariadu]
ipfv parecer-1sg [C P that 2sg be bored]‘It seems to me that you are bored.’(Alexandre 2012:64)• Ma obligatorily appears after illocutionary verbs, while the other CVC complementizer, ki cannot.
(64)João fra-m ma/*ki/*∅ Maria kupra libru.
John told+me C
Maria bought book‘John told me Mary bought the book’(Baptista and Obata 2015:171,(32))• However, when the wh-phrase is fronted, the complementizer is realized as ki, not as ma.
(65)

Kenhi ki fra-m kuze ki/*ma/*∅ Maria kunpra?
who C told+me what C
Maria bought‘Who told me what Mary bought?’(Baptista and Obata 2015:171,(33))• “The complementizer ma changes to ki iff a wh-phrase is interpreted at its Spec position; in otherwords, if a wh-phrase is interpreted in the embedded Spec-CP, then ki must appear” (Baptista
and Obata 2015:172).
• When an overt wh-movement takes places, the embedded complementizer also has to be realized
as ki.
(66)

Kenhi *(ki) odja *(ki) João kai di bisikleta?
who C saw C João fall from bicycle‘Who saw that João fell from the bicycle?’(67)

Kenhi *(ki) bu ubi *(ki) João konbida onti?
who C you hear C João invite yesterday‘Who(m) did you hear that João invited yesterday?’(Obata et al. 2015:6,(8)-(9))

23

7.3

A complementizer ki in CVC

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

7.3.3 European Portuguese• In the case of a wh-object sentence (see (68a)), a wh-phrase is fronted with a cleft form and thecomplementizer is realized as que. I assume here with Kato (2013) that the wh-formation involvesa cleft formation, as in (68a).
(68)

a. O que é que ele disse?
def that is that he said
‘What did he say?’b. Quem viu Joãowho saw John
‘Who saw John?’

7.3.4 Summary

Wh-fronting with a cleft form
overt Wh-movement andcomplementizer agreement
An agreed complementizer form
Agreement optionality

Wolof

CVC European Portuguese

yes

no

yes

no

yes

only for wh-object

k-u/l-u, etc.
yes (for embedded clauses)

ki
no

que
no

Table 12: The summary of the complementizer agreement system in Wolof, CVC, and European Portuguese
(69)

Wolof
CP
C′

null whC[Q:num:animate: …] →X-u
Agree

(70)

...

CVC
CP
WH

C′
C[Q:uphi] →ki

Agree

TP

TP
...

24

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)(71)

European Portuguese
ForcePQTP
éi (‘is’)FocP
o quej

VP
ti

CP
Cque

TP
. . . tj . . .

• The syntactic structures proposed above clearly suggest that the CVC complementizer systemdoes not come from Wolof or European Portuguese.
• I argue that feature recombination takes place on the C head, and CVC develops its own uniquecomplementizer agreement system.

8

Theoretical Implications

8.1

On FeatuRe Recombination(72)

Feature-recombination
The recombination of (morpho)-syntactic features is free (i.e., not subject to external ecologicalfactors). (Aboh 2015:136, (14))(73)

Feature recombination and creolizationa. During acquisition, learners are exposed to heterogeneous inputs from which they learn tomaster multiple linguistic sub-systems allowing communication in the community.
b. Learning partly results from a basic cognitive process: recombination, which enables
learners to merge linguistic features selected from the inputs new variants.
c. Recombination feeds on heterogeneous inputs, its outputs are hybrid constructs, hence theemergence of hybrid grammars.
(Aboh 2019:294)(74)

AlgoRithmic pRinciple undeRlying the emeRgence of congRuent featuRes (Baptista 2020:183)
Algorithm L on a feature and its variants: Given multiple competing tokens to express feature
x in the linguistic ecology π, the learner selects the variant y with increasing input p, when yis instantiated in multiple external grammars α, β, and γ via similar form/function mapping
and/or syntactic alignment across α, β, and γ.
25

8.2

Underspecification and Linguistic Variation

8.2

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

UndeRspecification and Linguistic VaRiation


The Universal Feature Inventory (Embick 2015)

• UG provides a complete set of functional features• A specific language is identified based on its selection of features and how these are grouped
together in various feature bundles.
• “. . . even though scholar commonly assume that a universal selection of features is available,
there is not yet a comprehensive theory about possible and impossible features. On the one
hand, one can argue that this is an empirical question, and that the selection of features is a wide
as the attested features found in the languages of the world (Riksem 2018).”(75)

The third factor effect/learning process (Biberauer and Roberts 2015:7,(6))
a. Feature Economy (FE): Postulate as few formal features as possible to account for the input
b. Input Generalisation (IG): If a functional head F sets parameter Pj to value vi then there isa preference for all functional heads to set Pj to value vi(76)

UG + input + Maximise Minimal Means (MMM) → Adult Grammar(Biberauer 2019:213, (3))

• I stipulate here that the feature recombination takes place from the universal feature inventory,
interacting with AlgoRithmic pRinciple undeRlying the emeRgence of congRuent featuRes(Baptista 2020).
1. the universal feature inventory ← the input of feature recombination
2. Is a feature F realized?
3. Bundling multiple features?

8.3

A null tHeoRy appRoacH(77)

Creole exceptionalism“the postulation of exceptional and abnormal characteristics in the diachrony and/or synchronyof Creole languages as a class.”(DeGraff 2005:534)5(78)

A null theory approach“an approach that claims that the same theory that accounts for monolingual data should account for language mixing as well. An advantage of this perspective is that language mixing is
not something peripheral to the study of the language faculty, but rather, data from language
mixing can inform the study of this faculty”(Riksem et al. 2019:194)(79)

A null theory of Creole Formation“Our null theory does away with any sui generis stipulation that applies to Creole languages
only. Instead it is rooted in basic assumptions and findings about UG, that is, assumptions andfindings that apply to all languages and to how learners acquire these languages” (Aboh anddeGraff 2015)5

See also Aboh and deGraff (2015), McWhorter (2018), Baptista et al. (2020) for relevant discussion.

26

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

9Conclusions• Functional features are recombined in some Creole Languages.
• These recombined functional features are one of the sources of the ‘hybrid’ nature of Creole
grammars• Creole Grammar can be captured by the proposed model, which is a null theory approach.
→ Creoles are natural languages, not “simplified languages”
Featuresphonological featureslate insertionfunctional features
recombination
semantic featureslate insertion (Encyclopedia)
Table 14: Features under the proposed model

Lexicon: Features
Underspecification

Feature Recombination

Combination of Functional Heads
Narrow Syntax

Late-Insertion (Subset Principle)(Im)Possible Derivations

Spell-out
Semantic Component

Phonological Component

Figure 5: A proposed grammatical model in Sugimoto (2022)* See Sugimoto (2022) for more details on the discussion of (im)possible derivations and combination of functional heads.

9

References

Aboh, E. O. (2009). Competition and selection. In Complex Processes in new languages, pp. 113–170.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Aboh, E. O. (2015). The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars: Language Contact and Change. Cambridge
University Press.
Aboh, E. O. (2019). Our creolized tongues. In E. Doron, M. R. Hovav, Y. Reshef, and M. Taube (Eds.),
Language Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew, pp. 287–320. John
Benjamins.
Aboh, E. O. (2020). Lessons from neuro-(a)-typical brains: Universal multilingualism, code-mixing,
recombination, and executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 488.
27

REFERENCES

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

Aboh, E. O. and M. deGraff (2015). A null theory of creole formation based on universal grammar. In
I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of University Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexandre, N. (2012). The Defective Copy Theory of Movement. John Benjamins.
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of hebrew denominal verbs.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778.
Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameters in a microparamatric world. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits ofsyntactic variation, pp. 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, P. (1994). Creativity in creole genesis. In D. Adone and I. Plag (Eds.), Creolization and Language
Change. De Gruyter.
Baptista, M. (2006). When substrates meet superstrate: The case of Cape Verdean Creole. In Cabo Verde- Origens dasua Sociedade e do seu Criouls, pp. 91–116.
Baptista, M. (2020). Competition, selection, and the role of congruence in creole genesis and development. Language 96(1), 160–199.
Baptista, M., D. Burgess, and J. P. Peltier (2020). Pidgins and creoles and the language faculty. In The
Routledge Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Languages, pp. 434–450. London: Routledge.
Baptista, M. and M. Obata (2015). Complementizer-alternation in Creole Languages: New evidence for
spec-head agreement. PAPIA, São Paulo 25(2), 155–176.
Berwick, R. and N. Chomsky (2011). The biolinguistic program: the current stat of its evolution anddevelopment. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives.
Berwick, R. C. and N. Chomsky (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Biberauer, T. (2017). Factor 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge occasional papers inlinguistics 10, 38–65.
Biberauer, T. (2019). Children always go beyond the input: The maximise minimal means perspective.
Theoretical Linguistics 45(3-4), 211–224.
Biberauer, T. and I. Roberts (2015). Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. COPiL 7,
1–31.
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and brain sciences 7, 173–221.
Blümel, A., N. Goto, and Y. Sugimoto (2022). Privileges of the rich. paper presented at PLC45.
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In C. Boeckx and A.-M. D. Sciullo (Eds.), The
Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language
Faculty, pp. 205–221. Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2014). What principles and parameters got wrong. In Linguistic Variation in the minimalist
Framework, pp. 155–178. Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2016). Considering pertaining to the nature of logodiversity. In Rethinking Parameters, pp.
64–104. Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (2003). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexcion. In
The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, pp. 31–67. CSLI Publications.
Borer, H. (2005a). Structuring sense: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (2005b). Structuring sense: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (2013). Structuring sense: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (2017). The generative word. In The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, pp. 110–133. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28

REFERENCES

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In D. M. R. Martin and J. Uriagereka (Eds.),
Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Chapter 3, pp. 89–156. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in Language,
Chapter 1, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1), 1–22.
Chomsky, N. (2021). Minimalism: Where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160,
1–41.
DeGraff, M. (2005). Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of creole exceptionalism. Languagein Society 34, 533–591.
Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. De Gruyter Mouton.
Embick, D. and A. Marantz (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1–53.
Embick, D. and R. Noyer (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In
G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pp. 289–324. Oxford
University Press.
Epstein, S. D., M. Obata, and T. D. Seely (2018). Is linguistic variation entirely linguistic? Linguistic
Analysis 41(3-4), 481–516.
Grimstad, M. B., B. R. Riksem, T. Lohndal, and T. A. Åfrli (2018). Lexicalist vs. exoskeletal approaches
to language mixing. The Linguistic Review 35(2), 187–218.
Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In PF: Papers at the interfaces,
pp. 425–449. MIT Working papers in Linguistics 30.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of Inflection, Chapter 3, pp.
111–176. The MIT Press.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. pp. 275–288.
Julien, M. (2003). Double definiteness in scandinavian. Nordlyd 31(1), 230–244.
Julien, M. (2005). Noun Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kato, M. A. (2013). Deriving “wh-in-siut” through movement in Brazilian Portuguese. In V. CamachoTaboada, Á. L. Jiménez-Fernández, J. Martín-González, and M. Reyes-Tejedor (Eds.), Information
structure and Agreement, pp. 175–192. John Benjamins.
Kihm, A. (1990). Conflation as a directive process in creolization. In Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium,
pp. 111–137. Brockmeyer.
Kihm, A. (1994). Kriyol syntax: The Portuguese-based Creole language of Guinea-Bisau. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kouwenberg, S. (2006). L1 transfer and the cut-off point for L2 acquisition processes in creole formation.
In C. Lefebvre, L. White, and C. Jourdan (Eds.), L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues, pp.
205–219. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lefebvre, C. (1998). Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian creole. Camrbidge: Cambridge University Press.
Lefebvre, C. (2013). A comparison of the nominal structures of Saramaccan,Fongbe and English with reference to Haitian Creole: Implications for a relabelling-based account of creole genesis. Lingua 129,
32–66.
Lefebvre, C. (2015). The nominal structures of Saramaccan, Fongbe and English with reference toHaitian Creole. In C. Lefebvre (Ed.), Functional categories in Three Atlantic Creoles: Saramaccan,
Haitian, and Papiametu, pp. 17–68. John Benjamins.
Liceras, J. M., R. F. Fuertes, S. Perales, R. Pérez-Tattam, and K. T. Spradlin (2008). Gender and genderagreement in bilingual native and non-native grammars: A view from child and adult functional29

REFERENCES

Yushi Sugimoto (U of Tokyo)

lexical mixings. Lingua 118(6), 827 – 851.
Lohndal, T. (2013). Generative grammar and language mixing. Theoretical Linguistics 39(3-4), 215–224.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of yourown lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, Volume 4, pp. 201–225.
McWhorter, J. and J. Good (2012). A Grammar of Saramaccan Creole. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter
Mounton.
McWhorter, J. H. (2002). The rest of the story: restoring pidginization to creole genesis theory. Journalof Pidgin and Creole Languages 17(1), 1–48.
McWhorter, J. H. (2011). Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
McWhorter, J. H. (2018). The Creole Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moro, M. Q. (2014). The semantics interpretation and syntactic distribution of determiner phrases in
Spanish-English codeswitching. In Grammatical Theory and bilingual codeswitching, pp. 213–226.
Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Mufwene, S. S. (1996). The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13(1), 83–134.
Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Muysken, P. (1981). Halfway between quechua and spanish: the case for relexification. In A. Highfield(Ed.), Historicity and variation in creole studies, pp. 52–78. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publisher.
Obata, M., S. Epstein, and M. Baptista (2015). Can crosslinguistically variant grammars be formally identical? third factor underspecification and the possible elimination of parameters of ug. Lingua 156,
1 – 16.
Oseki, Y. (2022). Introduction to generative morphology. unpublished manuscript presented at LSJ
summer institute.
Åfarli, T. A. and K. V. Subbarao (2019). Models of grammar and the outcomes of long-term language contact: Language mixing in dakkhini. In A. Alvarez-Gonzalez, Z. Estrada-Fernández, and C. Chamoreau(Eds.), Diverse scenarios of syntactic complexity, pp. 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Richards, M. (2008). Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system. In F. Heck, G. Müller, and J. Trommer(Eds.), Varieties of Competition. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, vol. 87, pp. 133–162.
Riksem, B. R. (2018). Language mixing in American Norwegian noun phrases: An exoskeletal analysis ofsynchronic and diachronic patterns. Ph. D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Riksem, B. R., M. Grimstad, T. Lohndal, and T. A. Åfarli (2019). Language mixing within verbs andnouns in American Norwegian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22, 189–209.
Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter Hierarchies & Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, J. (2006). Links between SLA and creole studies: Past and present. In C. Lefebvre, L. White, and
C. Jordan (Eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis, pp. 15–46. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sugimoto, Y. (2022). Underspecification and (Im)possible Derivations: Toward a Restrictive Theory ofGrammar. Ph. D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Sugimoto, Y. and M. Baptista (2022). A late-insertion-based exoskeletal approach to the hybrid natureof functional features in creole languages. Languages 7(2).
Torrence, H. (2005). On the Distribution of Complementizer in Wolof. Ph. D. thesis, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.
Torrence, H. (2013). Clause Structure of Wolof: Insights into the Left Periphery. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Velupillai, V. (2015). Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages: An Introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

30