629577

research-article2016
IJB0010.1177/1367006916629577International Journal of Bi-lingualismCho

Article

International Journal of Bilingualism

2017, Vol. 21(3) 367–382
The acquisition of different © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
types of definite noun phrases sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916629577
DOI: 10.1177/1367006916629577
in L2-English journals.sagepub.com/home/ijb

Jacee Cho
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Abstract
Aims and research questions: This study aims to investigate second language (L2) learnability
in article acquisition from a feature-based contrastive approach by examining L1-Korean speakers’
comprehension of different types of definites in L2-English: anaphoric and non-anaphoric definites.
English does not morphologically distinguish different kinds of definites but some languages do
(e.g., Fering) (Schwarz, 2013). Korean, an article-less language, differentiates between the two
types of definites by marking only one type (i.e., anaphoric) with the demonstrative ku ‘that’
(Chang, 2009). That is, the English definite article ‘the’ encodes [+definite, ±anaphoric] and the
Korean demonstrative ‘ku’ encodes [+definite, +anaphoric]. Within the feature reassembly model
(Lardiere, 2009), this difference in feature combinations between Korean and English is expected
to influence L1-Korean learners’ interpretation of English articles.
Methodology: An acceptability judgment task was used to assess L1-Korean L2-English learners
(22 intermediate and 15 advanced) and 26 English native-speaker controls’ comprehension of
different types of definites.
Data: The intermediate group rated definites significantly higher than indefinites in anaphoric definite
contexts but not in non-anaphoric definite contexts, indicating L1 influence. The advanced group rated
definites higher than indefinites in non-bridging anaphoric contexts but not in bridging (anaphoric and
non-anaphoric) contexts. This suggests that they have re-assembled the features associated with the
definite article but have difficulty in accommodating unmentioned propositions for bridging definites.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that presupposition accommodation for bridging definites
may be another hurdle in article acquisition beyond feature reassembly.
Originality/Significance: By focusing on the acquisition of the semantics of definites, exclusively,
this study provides new data and information which enable us to come to a more precise and
fine-grained understanding of learnability in article acquisition. Thus, the results of the study bring
out new and insightful conceptual issues that open up new directions for future research on the
acquisition of definiteness.

Keywords
Korean, English, articles, definiteness, feature re-assembly, bridging definites, presupposition
accommodation

Corresponding author:
Jacee Cho, Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 N. Park Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Email: [email protected]
368 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

Introduction
In recent years, there has been much research and discussion on syntax-semantics mismatches in
second language (L2) acquisition (Dekydtspotter & Sprouse, 2001; Hawkins & Hattori, 2006;
Marsden, 2009; Slabakova, 2003). A syntax-semantics mismatch refers to the situation when some
universal meaning (e.g., definiteness, plurality, past event) is expressed differently in the native
language (L1) and L2. Learners arguably have access to the whole arsenal of universal conceptual
meanings (Jackendoff, 2002), but they have to learn how to express the meaning in the new lan-
guage. This is a non-trivial task since these meanings often appear in different feature combina-
tions (to be elaborated on below). Acknowledging this significant acquisition challenge, Lardiere
(2008, 2009) proposes the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis which views L2 acquisition as involv-
ing the (re)assembly of the formal feature matrices of functional categories and their mapping onto
new morphological exponents. The process consists of two steps: first, an initial mapping of the
complete feature set of the L1 morpheme onto the target morpheme based on perceived similarities
between the functional meanings of the L1 and L2 morphemes and second, ‘feature reassembly,’
where features can be added or deleted, progressively adjusting the target feature set according to
input and usage. Such feature reassembly may be slow to occur or may not occur at all if the rele-
vant evidence for the formal or semantic feature is rare or contradictory in the linguistic input.
Likewise, the L1 can either facilitate or hinder feature reassembly. A number of recent studies have
explored this approach to investigate learning problems related to syntax-semantics mismatches
(Cho, 2012; Cho & Slabakova, 2014, 2015; Gil & Marsden, 2013; Hwang & Lardiere, 2013;
Spinner, 2013; Yuan & Zhao, 2011). The present study continues to examine L2 learnability from
this perspective by investigating the acquisition of the English definite article (the) by L1-Korean
speakers. The goal of the present study is to investigate how L1-Korean speakers (re)assemble
the appropriate values of two semantic features (definiteness and anaphoricity) that are bundled
onto the definite article in English.

Second language acquisition of English articles

Recent years have seen a lot of interest and much research in the L2 acquisition of English articles
by speakers whose L1s lack articles such as Russian, Korean, Japanese, or Chinese (e.g., Huebner,
1983; Ionin et al., 2004, 2012; Snape, 2008; Thomas, 1989; Trenkic, 2008). Previous research on
the L2 acquisition of English articles has established that article-less L1 learners persistently omit
or misuse articles even at an advanced level. A number of proposals have been made to account for
such error patterns. For example, Trenkic (2008) claims that languages without overt articles lack
the functional category Determiner, which licenses definiteness, thus leading speakers of article-
less L1s to misanalyze English articles as adjectives. Goad and White (2004, 2008) propose that
article-less L1 speakers’ errors in article production (omission, in particular) can be explained by
L1 prosodic transfer. Ionin et al. (2004) propose the Article Choice Parameter with two settings
(definiteness vs specificity settings) in languages with overt articles and argue that article-less L1
learners fluctuate between the two settings, that is, L2 learners’ article choice is influenced by
specificity. Ionin, Baek, Kim, Ko, and Wexler (2012) argue that L1 transfer from the semantics of
demonstratives prompts Korean speakers’ misinterpretation of definite descriptions as demonstra-
tive descriptions. The present study contributes to this growing area of research in article acquisi-
tion by investigating L1-Korean learners’ interpretation of L2-English articles from another
perspective, namely, the feature reassembly approach.
English overtly expresses definiteness through articles but does not distinguish different types
of definite NPs. The definite article is used to indicate [+definite] in both anaphoric and
Cho 369

non-anaphoric definite contexts which means that there are two possible feature combinations:
[+definite, +anaphoric] and [+definite, −anaphoric]. However, cross-linguistic data show that
some languages differentiate between the two different kinds of feature combinations: anaphoric
([+definite, +anaphoric]) and non-anaphoric ([+definite, −anaphoric]) (strong-article definites and
weak-article definites, respectively in Schwarz’s terms) by marking them with two different defi-
nite articles (e.g., Fering) or encoding only one type of definite NP while leaving the other type in
bare form (e.g., Akan) (Schwarz, 2009, 2013; see also Lyons, 1999). As for languages without
articles, demonstratives perform some or all of the functions of the definite article. As discussed in
Chang (2009), Korean uses the demonstrative ku ‘that’ only for anaphoric definite NPs. That is,
Korean differentiates between two types of definite NPs (two feature combinations) by morpho-
logically marking only [+definite, +anaphoric], while English does not distinguish between them
and marks both with the same morpheme the. This cross-linguistic variation, combined with
Lardiere’s feature-based process of L2 acquisition, allows us to identify the learning task for
Korean-speaking learners of English and formulate concrete predictions for Korean-speaking
learners’ developmental patterns in the acquisition of L2-English articles.
As described in the previous section, the feature-based L2 acquisition process predicts that
learners will do an initial mapping of the L1 morpheme’s features onto the L2 morpheme based on
perceived similarities between functional meanings of the L1 and L2 morphemes. For L1-Korean
speakers, the features of the demonstrative ku, [+definite, +anaphoric], are predicted to be initially
mapped to the. Once some initial mapping is established, the next step involves feature re-assem-
bly, in which the target feature set is adjusted by adding or deleting appropriate features based on
evidence from the input. In the case of L1-Korean speakers learning English, this involves adding
the [+definite, –anaphoric] feature setting. This study investigates L1-Korean speakers’ interpreta-
tion of different types of L2-English definite NPs that appear in the same morphological form (the
+ NP) by measuring learners’ interpretation of different types of definite NPs (anaphoric and non-
anaphoric definite NPs). In the next section I will provide a descriptive overview of different types
of definite NPs cross-linguistically, that is, types of definite NPs that carry different features that
co-occur with the feature [definite].

Different types of definites

Two theories of definiteness
The concept of definiteness consists of a number of semantic components such as familiarity (or
anaphoricity), uniqueness, and presupposition of existence. Consequently, there are different views
of definiteness in the semantic literature, the two most prominent being the familiarity approach
and the uniqueness approach.
The familiarity approach analyzes definite descriptions1 (Heim, 1982; Kamp, 1981) based on
the idea that they are associated with referents that are familiar and identifiable to the speaker and
hearer(s) via previous mention as in (1).

(1) I bought a car and a bicycle. The bicycle was more expensive than the car.

The bicycle and the car are definite since they have been mentioned in the previous utterance and are
thus familiar and identifiable to the discourse participants. One of the critical notions that characterizes
the familiarity account is anaphoricity, as seen in (1). A definite NP (e.g., the bicycle) is familiar to the
hearer since it refers to a preceding NP (e.g., a bicycle). Within this approach, an indefinite introduces
a referent and a definite encodes the relationship between an anaphora and its antecedent.
370 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

The anaphoric definite NP and the antecedent NP may also be in a close lexical relation, such as
synonymy, hypernymy, and meronymy, which allows the hearer to make the link that these NPs
refer to the same entity, as shown in (2).

(2) Kerry broke a seat in her dining room. She repaired the chair with some tape.

The antecedent a seat and the anaphoric NP the chair are not the same noun but it is understood
that they refer to the same entity on the basis of the lexical relation that these two NPs have.
An anaphoric relationship can also be indirectly established (Clark, 1977; Lyons, 1999; Roberts,
2003):

(3) They just flew from Chicago. The flight was long.

The definite NP the flight in (3) is successful without an explicit antecedent introduced by an
indefinite (e.g., a flight) because it can be anaphoric to the event described by the verb flew which
functions as a verbal antecedent.
According to the uniqueness approach (Hawkins, 1978, 1991; Heim, 1991), however, definite
descriptions denote things that have a unique role or property relative to a particular context and do
not need to be in an anaphoric relation. Consider the following examples (Lyons, 1999, pp. 3, 9):

(4) The moon was very bright last night.

(5) The winner of this competition will get a week in the Bahamas for two.

The referents the moon and the winner in (4) and (5) are not anaphoric. There are no preceding
expressions (explicit or implicit) which the moon or the winner can refer back to. These NPs are
definite because they have unique properties in given situations. There is only one moon (in this
world) and one winner of the competition under discussion. Of course, the definite NP the winner
would be infelicitous if the competition under discussion picks more than one winner, which would
fail to establish the uniqueness presupposition.

Bridging definite descriptions

Bridging definite descriptions are a special type of definites in that they require hearers’ accom-
modation of the implied link between the bridging description and its anchor (the element that the
bridging description is related to), which may be established in an arbitrary, indirect, and complex
way (Charolles, 1999; Clark, 1977). Accommodating the relation between the bridging definite
description and its anchor requires semantic and pragmatic information as well as various strate-
gies (see Vieira & Poesio, 2001 for a discussion on bridging strategies). Since this relation can be
implemented in an arbitrarily complicated way, there are numerous kinds of bridging. In this article
we will focus on two types of bridging descriptions: 1) bridging via thematic relation between the
verb in the previous sentence and the bridging NP, and 2) bridging via situational uniqueness.
The first type of bridging refers to a definite description that refers to a previously mentioned
verb’s direct object. Consider the example in (6):

(6) Jonathan read for three hours last night. He found the novel very interesting.

The definite NP the novel refers back to the unmentioned or implicit antecedent (the implied direct
object of the verb read in the first sentence). This type of bridging (which I label anaphoric
Cho 371

bridging) can be explained by the familiarity/anaphoricity approach discussed above since the
definite NP (i.e., the novel) and the implicit antecedent are in an anaphoric relation.
The second type of bridging definite NP has no potential antecedent. Its definite interpretation
is established largely through pragmatic information and world knowledge. Consider the following
example from Lyons (1999, p. 7):

(7) I’ve just been to a wedding. The bride wore blue.

The definite NP the bride is not anaphoric since there is no preceding expression that can serve as
an antecedent. The definite noun phrase the bride in (7) is, however, still felicitous because the
hearer knows that the speaker is talking about the bride of the wedding mentioned in the first sen-
tence and, more importantly, we take it for granted that there is only one bride at a wedding.
This subtype of bridging NPs is referred to as non-anaphoric bridging in this article.

Different types of definite NPs

Based on the two theoretical accounts of definiteness (familiarity and uniqueness), Schwarz (2009,
2013) argues that there are two kinds of definites: anaphoric and unique definites. This distinction
is not obvious in English since there is only one form of the definite article. However, there are
many languages that morphologically distinguish these two types of definites. For example, as
discussed in Ebert (1971), Fering has two forms of the definite article: D-form and A-form. As
shown in the examples in (8–9), the D-form article (i.e., di hingst ‘the-D-form horse’) signals that
the referent is anaphoric and its interpretation depends on the preceding expression (antecedent)
and the A-form article (i.e., A könig ‘the-A-form king’) refers to the individual that has a relevant
unique property in a given situation and thus can be identified by the hearer, as in (9).

(8) Oki hee an hingst keeft. Di hingst heeltet.

Oki has a horse bought. the-D-form horse limps.
‘Oki has bought a horse. The horse limps.’ (Ebert, 1971, p. 161).

(9) A könig kaam to bischük.

the-A-form king came to visit

Schwarz (2009, 2013) uses the terms strong-article definites for anaphoric definites (D-form)
and weak-article definites for unique non-anaphoric definites (A-form). In this article, I refer to
them as anaphoric definite NPs and non-anaphoric definite NPs, respectively.
Schwarz’s (2009, 2013) analyses on different kinds of definite descriptions are based on lan-
guages with articles. However, Schwarz (2013) argues that languages without overt articles such
as Korean, Russian, or Chinese might also differentiate between types of definite descriptions with
demonstratives. The next section provides a brief overview of how definite NPs are expressed in
Korean, an article-less language, in comparison with English.

Expressions of different types of definite NPs in Korean

As illustrated in the examples (1–7), English does not distinguish between different types of definites,
that is, both anaphoric and non-anaphoric definite NPs are marked with the morpheme the. In contrast,
Korean is one of many languages that lack articles. However, demonstratives in article-less languages
tend to take over some or all functions of the definite article (Chang, 2009; Cho, 1999; Mendoza, 2005,
2011). In Korean, ku ‘that’ signals anaphoric definiteness (Chang, 2009).
372 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

Table 1. Definiteness marking in English and Korean (adapted from Chang, 2009, p. 48).

English Korean
Anaphoric definite NPs [+definite, +anaphoric] the/that ?bare NP/ku
Non-anaphoric definite NPs [+definite, −anaphoric] the/#that bare NP/# ku

As shown in Table 1, the distribution of the demonstrative ku in Korean is similar to the English
demonstrative that. Both that and ku can appear in anaphoric contexts, as in (10) and neither can
appear in non-anaphoric contexts, as in (11).

(10) Tom-I nay-key chayk-ul sa-cwu ess-ta. Ku chayk-un caymi iss-ess-ta.

Tom-NOM I-to book-ACC bought. that book-TOP interesting was.
‘Tom bought a book for me. The book/that book was interesting.’ (Cho, 1999)

(11) Gyeolhonski-e gatda. Sinbu-ga/#ku sinbu-ga paransek-ul ipeotda.

Wedding-to went bride-NOM/that bride-NOM blue-ACC wore
‘(I) went to a wedding. The bride/#that bride wore blue.’

In (10), ku is used anaphorically to refer to the book mentioned in the first sentence. Note that both
the and that sound natural in English. In (11), the demonstrative NP (that bride) does not sound natu-
ral since the definite NP the bride is not anaphoric. There is no preceding linguistic expression
(either explicit or implicit) that the definite NP can refer to but the bride is still more appropriate
than a bride or that bride since our general understanding is that there is a unique bride at a wedding.
This non-anaphroic bridging definite NP, as in (11), cannot take the demonstrative ku in Korean.
Before I further analyze whether ku is an anaphoric definite determiner (like the) or a demon-
strative determiner (like that), it is crucial to first discuss whether the use of ku is obligatory or
optional with anaphoric definite NPs in Korean. Article use in English often determines the gram-
maticality of a sentence. For instance, sentences with countable singular nouns in bare form are
ungrammatical (e.g., * I bought book). However, a bare NP is the default form in Korean. Any type
of noun can appear in bare form and can be interpreted as either definite or indefinite. In other
words, the use of ku with anaphoric definite NPs is not necessary, nor does it affect grammaticality.
However, it determines the naturalness of sentences and affects the coherence of the discourse as
English articles often do.2 Bare NPs in Korean are ambiguous between definite and indefinite as
well as between generic and non-generic, while ku+NP overtly signals a definite interpretation.
Thus, the use of ku with anaphoric definite NPs is strongly preferred since ku unambiguously
establishes a co-referential interpretation.
As exemplified in (10–11), ku seems to behave like that. If we want to argue for Chang’s (2009)
claim that ku behaves like an anaphoric definite determiner which differs from the English demon-
strative that, we need to find anaphoric contexts where the and ku are felicitous but that is infelici-
tous. The previously discussed example in (5), repeated here as (12a), represents the type of
anaphoric definite context where the and ku are appropriate but that is not.

(12) a. Jonathan read for three hours last night. He found the novel/#that novel interesting.
b. Jonathan-un eojebam-e sesigan dokseorul haetda. ku soseolchayk-i/#soseolchayk-i jaemi-itdago
saengakhaetda.
Jonathan-TOP yesterday night-at three hours reading did. that novel-NOM /#novel-NOM
interesting thought.
‘Jonathan read for three hours last night. (He) found the novel interesting’
Cho 373

Table 2. Distribution of English the and Korean ku.

Anaphoric definite NPs [+definite, +anaphoric] Non-anaphoric definite

[+definite, −anaphoric]

Explicit antecedent Implicit antecedent No antecedent

Example (10) Example (12) Example (11)
English the/that the/#that the/#that
Korean #?bare NP/ku #bare NP/ku bare NP/#ku

The definite NP the novel has no explicit antecedent; however, it functions as the direct
object of read, which establishes an anaphoric relation between the novel and the unmen-
tioned indefinite NP antecedent (a novel). A demonstrative description (that novel) is inap-
propriate in this context in English since that requires an explicit antecedent. In Korean, as
illustrated in (12b), ku soseolchayk ‘that novel’ sounds more natural than the bare NP soseol-
chayk ‘novel’ which is ambiguous between a definite and indefinite interpretation. In fact, the
bare NP gives a strong generic interpretation in this context (as in ‘Jonathan found novels
interesting but not short stories, non-fictions, etc.’).3 This example illustrates that ku, unlike
that which cannot appear in anaphoric contexts without explicit antecedents, appears in such
contexts to signal definiteness like the in English. At the same time, as seen in (11), ku differs
from the in that it cannot appear with non-anaphoric definite NPs, while the appears with
both anaphoric and non-anaphoric definite NPs. Table 2 shows the distributions of the, that
and ku, where the encodes [+definite, ±anaphoric] and ku [+definite, +anaphoric].
This section has compared how different types of definite NPs are expressed in Korean
and English. The next section describes how these cross-linguistic differences are employed
to examine L1-Korean learners’ semantic judgments on different types of definite NPs in
L2-English.

The study
Predictions
This study uses the feature-reassembly framework to examine L1 Korean-speaking learners’
comprehension of definite NPs in L2-English. As discussed in the previous section and shown
in Table 2, both anaphoric and non-anaphoric definite NPs are marked with the morpheme the
in English, that is, the expresses the feature combination of [+definite, ±anaphoric]. In Korean,
only anaphoric definite NPs are overtly marked with the morpheme ku which carries the feature
set of [+definite, +anaphoric]. This cross-linguistic variation, combined with Lardiere’s fea-
ture-based process of L2 acquisition (described above), allows me to formulate concrete pre-
dictions for Korean-speaking learners’ developmental patterns in the acquisition of L2-English
articles.
According to the feature-based L2 acquisition process, Korean-speaking learners of English are
predicted to map their L1 item ku ‘that’ and its feature set [+definite, +anaphoric] onto the definite
article the in L2 English which carries one additional feature value, [−anaphoric]. At this early
stage, L1-Korean learners are expected to interpret anaphoric definite NPs more accurately than
non-anaphoric definite NPs. With increased input, learners will adjust the feature set by adding the
feature value [−anaphoric]. Thus, advanced-level learners are expected to accurately interpret both
types of definite NPs.
374 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

Table 3. The encoding of different types of definite NPs in English and Korean.

Anaphoric definite [+definite, +anaphoric] Non-anaphoric definite

[+definite, −anaphoric]

Direct anaphoric Taxonomic anaphoric Anaphoric bridging Non-anaphoric

with explicit same with explicit lexically with implicit bridging with no
NP antecedent associated antecedent antecedent antecedent
English the the the the
Korean ku ku ku bare NP

Test design
In order to test my prediction, I categorized definite NPs into four types. First, direct anaphoric
definites occur in a typical anaphoric context where new referents are introduced in the form of
indefinite NPs (e.g., a microwave) and take the form of definite NPs in the second mention (e.g.,
the microwave), as in (13). The second type, dubbed taxonomic anaphoric definites, is similar to
the first one in that the definite NP has an explicit antecedent in the text but is not identified as the
same NP. The anaphoric NP and the antecedent are not identical but in a close lexical relation
(synonyms, hypernym-hyponym, etc.), as illustrated in (14). The knowledge that book is a hyper-
nym of novel leads to interpreting these two NPs as referring to the same entity. Anaphoric bridg-
ing definites represent a special type of anaphoric definite whose antecedents are implicit. In (15),
the play was not mentioned previously and has no explicit antecedent. However, the play refers
back to the unmentioned direct object (i.e., a play) of the verb (performing) in the previous
sentence.

(13) Anaphoric definite NPs (same head noun antecedent)

Harold got a microwave for Christmas. He put the microwave next to his new toaster.

(14) Taxonomic anaphoric definite NPs (lexically associated antecedents)

Howard wrote a book. He sent the novel to three publishers already.

(15) Anaphoric bridging NPs (implicit antecedents)

Hillary was performing for the first time. So, her parents attended the play.

(16) Non-anaphoric bridging definite NP (situational uniqueness)

Brad just proposed. His fiancée accepted the ring happily.

Unlike the definite NPs in (13–15), the definite reference the ring in (16) does not have either
an explicit or an implicit antecedent. Its definite interpretation is established by the fact that there
is one unique ring associated with the situation mentioned. Based on general knowledge, we pre-
sume Brad gave only one ring to his fiancée when he proposed to her, thus the ring, not a ring. This
type of definite NP is referred to as non-anaphoric bridging definites in this paper. Table 3 sum-
marizes the four types of definite NPs examined in this study.

Methodology
Participants (n = 63). Twenty-six native speakers of English and 37 Korean-speaking learners of
English participated in the experiment. All participants were students at a large Midwestern
Cho 375

Table 4. Information on participants language background and proficiency test scores.

Proficiency Test Score Years studying Age at Testing (years)

(max = 40) English

Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range

L2-English learners 29.72 (2.21) 26–33 7.57 (5.2) 1–20 25.09 (3.91) 19–33
Intermediate (n = 22)
L2-English learners 35.46 (1.64) 34–39 9.53 (4.96) 3–20 23.73 (5.6) 19–32
Advanced (n = 15)
Native English 38.7 (1.18) 37–40 N/S N/S 21.04 (3.94) 18–35
Controls (n = 26)

university in the United States at the time of testing. All participants including the native speaker
controls completed a paper-based acceptability judgment task (45–60 minutes) and proficiency test
(20 minutes) during a single session. The L2 participants (n = 37) were divided into two sub-
groups based on their proficiency test scores (Table 4).

Test instruments and procedure. All participants completed a proficiency test, an acceptability judg-
ment test, and a language background questionnaire. The proficiency test used in this study
included 40 items and was based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-
guages (CEFR). The acceptability judgment task (AJT) was roughly based on the task used by
Evans (2005) with L1-English speakers. The AJT included 170 test items (56 target items, 18
control items, and 96 filler items) targeting four categories: 1) direct anaphoric (n = 18), 2) taxo-
nomic anaphoric (n = 18), 3) anaphoric bridging (n = 8), and 4) non-anaphoric bridging (n = 12).
Half of the items in each category were definite NPs the+NP (acceptable) and the other half were
indefinite NPs a+NP (unacceptable). The control items included acceptable indefinite NPs (n = 9)
and unacceptable definite NPs (n = 9) using the same target item NPs in order to balance the
acceptability of the and a in target items.
As highlighted earlier, ku affects interpretation, not grammaticality, like English articles often
do. This study examines L1-Korean learners’ interpretation of definite NPs in different definite
contexts by measuring the learners’ felicity (acceptability) judgments rather than grammaticality
judgments. Thus, all test items are grammatical. In order to maximally control for variables, the
same lexical items are used in all categories, all target items are singular, specific, and referential,
and all target NPs appear in the direct object position.
Participants were asked to read pairs of sentences and rate whether or not the second sentence
was an acceptable continuation of the first sentence on a 4-point scale with an option for “I don’t
know” (1 = unacceptable, 2 = somewhat unacceptable, 3 = somewhat acceptable, and 4 = accept-
able). They were also asked to underline or circle the problem and optionally provide a correction
if they selected 2 or 1. Participants who judged the target sentences based on criteria other than
articles were excluded from the analyses.4
Below are sample test items for each type of definite context. In the direct anaphoric context,
the second-mention referent cake should be in the definite NP form (the cake). Thus, (17) should
be rated higher than (18). Similarly, in the taxonomic anaphoric context, the antecedent (a dessert)
is mentioned in the second sentence with a different noun (the cake); thus, (19) sounds more natu-
ral than (20). The definite NP (the cake) in the anaphoric bridging context can refer back to the
unmentioned/implicit antecedent (a cake) which is direct object of the verb baked. Thus, the indefi-
nite NP (a cake) in the second sentence, as in (22), sounds unnatural. In the non-anaphoric bridging
376 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

context, the referent cake has no antecedent; however, its definite interpretation can be established
through the mention of birthday in the first sentence. That is, the first sentence restricts the context
to (someone’s) birthday which conjures up for the hearer many things associated with a birthday,
including the general knowledge that there is usually one unique cake. This situational uniqueness
makes the definite NP the cake in (23) more acceptable than the indefinite NP a cake in (24).
Direct anaphoric definite context (same head noun antecedents)

(17) Jackie made a cake for the party. She served the cake with coffee and tea.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

(18) Kevin ordered a cake from the grocery store. #He went to pick up a cake but it was not ready.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

Taxonomic anaphoric definite context (different head noun antecedents)

(19) Lydia’s family purchased a dessert. They ate the cake after dinner.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

(20) Marianne and her daughters shared a dessert. #They enjoyed a cake.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

Anaphoric bridging definite context (implicit antecedents)

(21) Tori baked for her office this morning. Her co-workers enjoyed the cake.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

(22) Rachel baked for her husband. #He enjoyed a cake.

[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

Non-anaphoric bridging definite context (no antecedent)

(23) It was Sophie’s first birthday. She smashed the cake with her hands.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

(24) Patrick celebrated his birthday with his friends. #They enjoyed a cake.
[ 1 2 3 4 I don’t know ]

Experimental results
The present study examines whether L1-Korean L2-English learners’ semantic judgments on defi-
nite and indefinite NPs across the four different types of definite contexts. As earlier, preferences
between definite and indefinite NPs in test items in this study are based on acceptability (felicity),
not grammaticality; thus, the mean rate-differences between acceptable and unacceptable sen-
tences are not large even among native speakers (see Figures 1–3 for the mean ratings for accept-
able definite NPs and unacceptable indefinite NPs in the four definite contexts).
This study does not aim to compare L2 learners’ performance to that of native speakers’ in the
degree of acceptance or rejection (reflected in numerical values) for the same target items, that is,
whether they rate the same sentence by 3 or 4. Moreover, this study did not set out to compare
whether learners prefer certain types of definite NPs over others (e.g., rating direct anaphoric def-
inites higher than taxonomic anaphoric definites). My a priori assumption was that definite NPs
Cho 377

Figure 1. Native speaker controls’ mean acceptability ratings for definite and indefinite NPs in four
definite contexts.

Figure 2. Intermediate L2 learners’ mean acceptability ratings for definite and indefinite NPs in four
definite contexts.

Figure 3. Advanced L2 learners’ mean acceptability ratings for definite and indefinite NPs in four contexts.

(acceptable) should be rated higher than indefinite NPs (unacceptable) in each definite context.
Thus, I conducted a series of paired samples t-tests (pairwise comparisons) on the mean rate-dif-
ferences for each group and for each definite context independently to detect whether learners
established a contrast between acceptable definite NPs and unacceptable indefinite NPs in each
definite context. Results are shown in Table 5.5
378 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

Table 5. Acceptability contrasts (pairwise comparisons) in four types of definite contexts.

Direct Anaphoric Taxonomic Anaphoric Non-anaphoric

Anaphoric bridging bridging

t p t p t p t p
NS (n = 26) 10.706 < .0001* 11.557 < .0001* 7.437 < .0001* 10.822 < .0001*
Adv L2 (n = 15) 3.205 .006* 2.906 .012* 1.562 .14 1.942 .072
Intm L2 (n = 22) 2.745 .012* 2.769 .012* 2.905 .008* .156 .877

As expected, the L1-English speakers rated definite NPs significantly higher than indefinite
NPs in all definite contexts (p < .0001*). Confirming my prediction, the intermediate L2 group
showed a statistically significant contrast between definite and indefinite NPs in the three ana-
phoric definite contexts but not in the non-anaphoric/unique context, as seen in Table 5. Unexpected
patterns of contrast were found among the advanced L2 learners. They differentiated between defi-
nite and indefinite NPs in their acceptability ratings in two anaphoric definite contexts (direct
anaphoric and taxonomic anaphoric) but not in the anaphoric bridging context (p = .14) or the
non-anaphoric bridging context (p = .072), suggesting that anaphoricity may not be a main factor
in their semantic judgments about definite NPs. I will return to this issue in the discussion
section.
Finally, I report learners’ judgments on the control items where indefinite NPs are acceptable.
Control items include nine indefinite NPs and nine definite NPs in indefinite contexts, as in (25).
Acceptable indefinite NP/unacceptable definite NP

(25) Caroline had a day off yesterday. She went to see a play/# the play.

Both intermediate and advanced learners correctly rated indefinite NPs significantly higher than
definite NPs in indefinite contexts (p = .04). In the next section I discuss what these findings, that
is, the accurate ratings in indefinite contexts (which is always non-anaphoric since anaphoric con-
texts are necessarily definite) indicate with respect to the learners’ judgments in the two definite
contexts (anaphoric and non-anaphoric definite).

Discussion and conclusions

This study explores L1-Korean L2-English learners’ acceptability judgments for definite and
indefinite NPs in four definite contexts: 1) direct anaphoric, 2) taxonomic anaphoric, 3) ana-
phoric bridging, and 4) non-anaphoric bridging. The definite article the in English marks defi-
niteness in both anaphoric and non-anaphoric contexts (i.e., in all four contexts), while the
demonstrative ku in Korean encodes definiteness only in anaphoric contexts, that is, the first
three contexts, as shown in Table 3. In other words, the feature configuration for the is [+defi-
nite, ±anaphoric] and for ku it is [+definite, +anaphoric]. Under the feature re-assembly model,
Korean-speaking learners of English are predicted to initially map the onto ku and correctly rate
the acceptability of definite NPs higher than that of indefinite NPs in anaphoric definite contexts
but not in non-anaphoric definite contexts. This prediction was confirmed by the intermediate-
level L2 learners. The intermediate group demonstrated a contrast between acceptable (def-
inites) and unacceptable (indefinites) sentences in all three types of anaphoric contexts (direct,
taxonomic, and anaphoric bridging) but not in non-anaphoric contexts. The advanced L2
Cho 379

learners showed significant distinctions between acceptable definite NPs and unacceptable
indefinite NPs in two anaphoric contexts (direct and taxonomic) but they did not exhibit such
contrasts in anaphoric bridging (with implicit antecedents) or in non-anaphoric bridging con-
texts (with no antecedents). In both the anaphoric and the non-anaphoric bridging contexts, the
advanced L2 group rated the acceptability of unacceptable indefinite NPs as high as that of
acceptable definite NPs, as seen in Table 5 and Figure 3. It is premature to draw any affirmative
conclusion at this point about the advanced learners’ judgment patterns without a further inves-
tigation; however, I would like to consider one possibility.6 Although anaphoric bridging NPs are
considered anaphoric and non-anaphoric bridging NPs are considered non-anaphoric, they both
represent the same special category of definite NPs, so-called bridging definites. Unlike definite
NPs with explicit antecedents such as direct and taxonomic anaphoric definite NPs whose values
are largely (if not entirely) determined in the domain of semantics, interpretations of bridging
definite NPs (with implicit or no antecedents) require additional pragmatic accommodation,
referred to as presupposition accommodation. As discussed earlier, licensing bridging definite
NPs require hearers’ accommodation of the implied (and potentially arbitrarily complex) link
between the bridging description and its anchor (the element that the bridging description is
related to). Let us compare two types of bridging definites examined in this study: anaphoric
bridging definites, as in (26), and non-anaphoric bridging definites, as in (27).

(26) Tori baked for her office this morning. Her co-workers enjoyed the cake/#a cake
(√ ku keik).

(27) It was Sophie’s first birthday. She smashed the cake/#a cake with her hands.
(# ku keik)

In (26), the cake is anaphoric to the (unmentioned) entity that Tori baked and would be translated
into Korean as ku keik ‘that cake,’ not the bare NP keik ‘cake.’ In (27), the cake is not anaphoric as
it has no element (either explicit or implicit) to which it refers. Using ku keik ‘that cake’ in this
context is inappropriate. If L1-Korean learners are influenced by L1 knowledge, they will be more
accurate in interpreting the definite NP the cake in (26) than the cake in (27). However, licensing
definite NPs in both (26) and (27) requires pragmatic accommodation. That is, hearing the cake in
the second sentence in (26), the hearer should be willing to accommodate the implied presupposi-
tion that Tori baked a cake, not cookies and she baked only one cake. In (27), the hearer should also
be willing to presuppose that there was only one cake at Sophie’s birthday although it is possible
that there was more than one (or none at all) at her birthday party. I further examined advanced L2
learners’ judgment patterns (incorrect acceptance or incorrect rejection) in bridging contexts.
Advanced learners rated both definite (acceptable) and indefinite NPs (unacceptable) high in both
anaphoric and non-anaphoric bridging contexts, that is, they accepted unacceptable indefinite NPs
(incorrect acceptance). This suggests that advanced learners were not only able to accommodate
unmentioned propositions to license bridging definite NPs (e.g., birthday – the cake) but also able
to accommodate to license indefinite NPs (e.g., birthday – a cake) in bridging definite contexts by
coming up with situations where indefinite NPs would sound natural. For example, in (27), the
indefinite NP (a cake) is acceptable if one assumes there was more than one cake at Sophie’s birth-
day. Advanced learners might have been ‘overcompensating’ based on their ability and confidence
and tried hard to come up with alternative interpretations that might make unacceptable sentences
acceptable,7 while intermediate learners were probably unable to do so since their understanding of
the contrast between the vs a is anaphoric vs non-anaphoric at their proficiency level (assuming
they have mapped the onto ku [+definite, +anaphoric], as I predicted).
380 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

To sum up, the intermediate group’s judgments between definite and indefinite NPs were more
accurate in anaphoric contexts than non-anaphoric contexts, indicating that learners made use of
their L1 knowledge and associated the with [+anaphoric, +definite]. This was also supported by the
intermediate (as well as advanced) learners’ accurate judgments on definite vs indefinite NPs in
indefinite (always non-anaphoric) contexts (control test items). Since indefinite NPs are always
non-anaphoric, learners correctly rejected definite NPs and accepted indefinite NPs in [−definite,
−anaphoric] contexts. As for the advanced learners, their judgments did not correlate with anapho-
ricity, suggesting the absence of L1 transfer. However, they still differed from the native control
group in their preference between definite and indefinite NPs in bridging definite contexts but the
overall patterns suggest that they have successfully re-assembled the feature bundle by adding
[−anaphoric] and have acquired that the may appear either in anaphoric or in non-anaphoric con-
texts. That is, the advanced learners did not rely on anaphoricity to interpret definite NPs, suggest-
ing that they have overcome L1 transfer and re-assembled features associated with the: [+definite,
±anaphoric]. What they have not yet acquired may be the full understanding of ‘definiteness’
which involves various types of presupposition accommodation (e.g., presupposition of familiar-
ity, presupposition of uniqueness, presupposition of inclusiveness, presupposition of existence)
and types of information (both mentioned or unmentioned) in discourse that can accommodate
presupposition related to definiteness. Learnability issues related to presupposition accommoda-
tion in article acquisition certainly warrant further investigation.
The findings of this study as well as the cross-linguistic data (discussed in Schwarz, 2009, 2013)
have shown that the feature [definite] co-occurs with different features cross-linguistically; thus,
feature-reassembly is a necessary process in the L2 acquisition of articles. The advanced learners,
however, showed non-target-like presupposition accommodation strategies which result in com-
prehension of articles that differed from that of native speakers. These findings imply that there is
another hurdle in the article acquisition process beyond feature re-assembly – presupposition
accommodation.
By focusing on the acquisition of the semantics of definite NPs, exclusively, this study provides
new data and information which enable us to come to a more precise and fine-grained understand-
ing of learnability in article acquisition. Thus, the results of the present study bring out new and
insightful conceptual issues that open up new directions for future research on article acquisition
and the acquisition of definiteness.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Following the tradition in the semantic and philosophical literature, the terms definite description and
definite noun phrase in this article are used synonymously to refer to ‘an expression which ascribes a
property or properties to a particular entity’ (Lyons, 1999, p. 7).
2. The difference between I bought a car and I bought the car is not in grammaticality but in felicity/inter-
pretation in a given context.
3. Interpretations of the Korean examples in this article are based on six native Korean speaker informants’
judgments.
Cho 381

4. Forty-six Korean speakers participated in the experiment but nine of them were excluded from the data
analysis because their responses (acceptability judgments) were based on other lexical items in target
sentences, not article choice.
5. In order to avoid Type I error when conducting multiple t-tests, each t-test was conducted independently.
6. As a reviewer pointed out, it is possible that the lack of a fully significant contrast between definites and
indefinites among the advanced learners may be due to issues of statistical power since the sample size
of the advanced group is small (n = 15).
7. I would like to thank a reviewer for this suggestion. The reviewer also suggested it is possible that
advanced learners assigned a generic interpretation to the indefinite NPs in sentences like the example in
(26) (as in ‘Her co-workers enjoyed a good cake’).

References
Chang, S. J. (2009). Nominal structure and interpretation: On the syntax of the Korean Determiner Phrase.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia.
Charolles, M. (1999). Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(3), 311–326.
Cho, H. (1999). Interpretation and function of the Korean demonstrative ku. Studies in Modern Grammar,
18, 71–90.
Cho, J. (2012). Remapping Nominal Features in the Second Language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Iowa.
Cho, J., & Slabakova, R. (2014). Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: The case of
L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30(2), 159–190.
Cho, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 Acquisition of Specificity.
Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amv029
Clark, H. H. (1977). Inferences in comprehension. In D. Laberge, & S. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in
reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 243–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. (2001). Mental design and (second) language epistemology: Adjectival
restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English-French interlanguage. Second Language Research,
17(1), 1–35.
Ebert, K. (1971). Zwei formen des bestimmten artikels. In D. Wunderlich (Ed.), Probleme and fortsschritte
der transformationsgrammatik (pp. 159–74). Munich: Max Hueber.
Evans, W. (2005). Small worlds of discourse and the spectrum of accommodation. Honors Thesis, University
of Massachusetts.
Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H. (2013). Existential quantifiers in second language acquisition: A feature reassem-
bly account. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(2), 117–149.
Goad, H., & White, L. (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. Eurosla
Yearbook, 4(1), 119–145.
Goad, H., & White, L. (2008). Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A
nativist approach. Lingua, 118(4), 577–594.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness. London, UK: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in) definite articles: Implicatures and (un) grammaticality prediction. Journal of
Linguistics, 27(02), 405–442.
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing
uninterpretable account. Second Language Research, 22(3), 269–301.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral Thesis, University of
Massachusetts.
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und definitheit. In A. von Stechow, & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: ein interna-
tionales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen forschung (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Hwang, S. H., & Lardiere, D. (2013). Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second
Language Research, 29(1), 57–86.
382 International Journal of Bilingualism 21(3)

Ionin, T., Baek, S., Kim, E., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2012). That’s not so different from the: Definite and
demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 28(1), 69–101.
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language
Acquisition, 12(1), 3–69.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In P. Porter, & B. Partee (Eds.), Formal
semantics: The essential readings (pp. 189–222). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lardiere, D. (2008). Feature-assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Goodluck, & H. Zobl (Eds.),
The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 107–140). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition.
Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese interlanguage.
Language Acquisition, 16(3), 135–177.
Mendoza, I. (2005). Polish demonstrative pronouns as ‘markers of value’. Glossos, 6, 1–20.
Mendoza, I. (2011). On demonstrative pronouns and the question of the article in 17th century Russian.
Russian Linguistics, 35(2), 245–265.
Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(3), 287–350.
Schwarz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusettes,
Amherst, MA.
Schwarz, F. (2013). Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(10),
534–559.
Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second
Language Research, 19(1), 42–75.
Snape, N. (2008). The acquisition of the English determiner phrase by L2 learners: Japanese and Spanish.
Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM, Verlag.
Spinner, P. (2013). The second language acquisition of number and gender in Swahili: A Feature Reassembly
approach. Second Language Research, 29(4), 455–79.
Thomas, M. (1989). The acquisition of English articles by first-and second-language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 10(3), 335–355.
Trenkic, D. (2008). The representation of English articles in second language grammars: Determiners or
adjectives? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 1–18.
Vieira, R., & Poesio, M. (2001). An empirically based system for processing definite descriptions.
Computational Linguistics, 26(4), 539–593.
Yuan, B., & Zhao, Y. (2011). Asymmetric syntactic and thematic reconfigurations in English speakers’ L2
Chinese resultative compound constructions. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(1), 38–55.

Author biography
Jacee Cho is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English and the Director of the Second Language
Acquisition Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she teaches courses in generative linguistics,
second language acquisition, and first language acquisition. Her research centers on the second language
acquisition of morphosyntax and syntax-semantics. Her current work focuses on the acquisition of nominal
features (definiteness, specificity, referentiality) in English, Russian, and Korean.