The Acquisition of Inflection in Q'anjob'al Maya (Trends in Language Acquisition Research) 9027244030, 9789027244031

Citation preview

The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Trends in Language Acquisition Research issn 1569-0644

TiLAR publishes monographs, edited volumes and text books on theoretical and methodological issues in the field of child language research. The focus of the series is on original research on all aspects of the scientific study of language behavior in children, linking different areas of research including linguistics, psychology & cognitive science. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/tilar

Series Editors Shanley E.M. Allen

University of Kaiserslautern [email protected]

Caroline F. Rowland

University of Liverpool [email protected]

Editorial Board Ruth A. Berman

Paul Fletcher

Morten H. Christiansen

Steven Gillis

Jean Berko Gleason

Annick De Houwer

Nancy Budwig

Elena Lieven

Tel Aviv University Cornell University Boston University Clark University

Ewa Dąbrowska

University of Sheffield

Philip S. Dale

University of New Mexico

University College Cork University of Antwerp University of Erfurt

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig

Brian MacWhinney

Carnegie Mellon University

Marilyn Vihman

University of York

Volume 14 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya by Pedro Mateo Pedro

The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya Pedro Mateo Pedro

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/tilar.14 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2015016587 (print) / 2015020712 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 4403 1 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6830 3 (e-book) © 2015 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

B’ay Kamnaq hinchikay Matal Xhimon, kamnaq hinmamin Lwin Mat, heb’ unin chi el sti’ yin Q’anjob’al heb’ naq hink’ajol Lwin, Yaxun k’al ix wetb’i Ana López Sipac

Table of contents Acknowledgements Abbreviations

xi xiii

chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Sociolinguistic context of Mayan languages, in particular Q’anjob’al  4 1.2 Grammatical background of Q’anjob’al  6 1.2.1 Verb inflection in imperative clauses  6 1.2.2 Verb inflection in indicative clauses  6 1.2.2.1 Aspect  7 1.2.2.2 Ergative and absolutive morphemes  7 1.2.2.3 Status suffixes  9 1.2.3 Verb morphology in aspectless complement clauses  12 1.2.4 Split ergativity in Q’anjob’al  13 1.2.5 Summary  15 1.3 Previous studies on the acquisition of Mayan languages  15 1.4 Previous studies on the acquisition of inflection in Mayan languages  18 1.4.1 K’iche’  19 1.4.2 Yucatec  21 1.4.3 Tzotzil  22 1.4.4 Tzeltal  23 1.5 The present study  24 1.6 Conclusion  28 1.7 An overview of the book  28 chapter 2 Theoretical background 2.1 Introduction  31 2.2 Theories of the acquisition of inflectional morphemes  33 2.2.1 Agreement or Tense Omission Model  34 2.2.2 The Truncation Hypothesis  36 2.2.3 The Modal Hypothesis  38 2.2.4 The Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis  39 2.2.5 Imperative Analogue Hypothesis  40

31

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

2.3 2.4

2.2.6 Minimal Word Constraint  41 2.2.7 Summary  42 Research questions  43 Conclusion  44

chapter 3 Methodology 3.1 Introduction  47 3.2 Subjects  47 3.3 Data collection  49 3.3.1 Transcriptions  50 3.3.2 Coding  50 3.3.2.1 Qanform  50 3.3.2.2 Qanverb  51 3.3.2.3 Qancord  51 3.4 Criteria for identifying verbs and clauses  51 3.5 Analyses  53 3.5.1 Verb form analysis  53 3.5.2 Frequency analysis  54 3.5.3 Productivity analysis  54 3.5.4 Error analysis  55 3.5.5 Syllable structures and word order effects in inflectional morphemes  56 chapter 4 Acquisition of intransitive verbs 4.1 Introduction  57 4.2 Intransitive verb forms  58 4.2.1 Xhuw’s intransitive verb forms  58 4.2.2 Xhim’s intransitive verb forms  61 4.2.3 Tum’s intransitive verb forms  63 4.2.4 Summary  65 4.3 Frequency of intransitive inflections  65 4.3.1 Frequency of Xhuw’s intransitive inflections  66 4.3.2 Frequency of Xhim’s intransitive inflections  68 4.3.3 Frequency of Tum’s intransitive inflections  69 4.3.4 Summary  71 4.4 Productivity of intransitive inflections  71 4.4.1 Xhuw’s productivity of intransitive inflections  72 4.4.2 Xhim’s productivity of intransitive inflections  72

47

57



4.5

4.6 4.7

Table of contents 

4.4.3 Tum’s productivity of intransitive inflections  73 4.4.4 Summary  74 Errors  76 4.5.1 Overextension and omission of status suffixes  76 4.5.2 Status suffixes with incorrect aspect or incorrect clause  78 4.5.3 Independent pronouns  78 4.5.4 Intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses  79 4.5.5 Summary  80 Conclusion  80 Relationship of data and theories  81

chapter 5 Acquisition of transitive verbs 5.1 Introduction  83 5.2 Transitive verb forms  85 5.2.1 Xhuw’s transitive verb forms  85 5.2.2 Xhim’s transitive verb forms  86 5.2.3 Tum’s transitive verb forms  89 5.2.4 Summary  92 5.3 Frequency of transitive inflection  92 5.3.1 Xhuw’s frequency of transitive inflections  93 5.3.2 Xhim’s frequency of transitive inflections  94 5.3.3 Tum’s frequency of transitive inflections  96 5.3.4 Summary  97 5.4 Productivity  98 5.4.1 Xhuw’s productivity of transitive inflections  98 5.4.2 Xhim’s productivity of transitive inflections  99 5.4.3 Tum’s productivity of transitive inflections  100 5.4.4 Vowel change with second person singular  100 5.4.5 Summary  102 5.5 Suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses  103 5.5.1 Ergative morphemes with intransitive verbs and suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses  106 5.5.2 Summary  108 5.6 Errors  108 5.6.1 Overextension and omission of status suffixes  108 5.6.2 Unexpected ergative morphemes  109 5.7 Conclusion  110 5.8 Relationship between data and theories  111

83



The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

chapter 6 Phonological effects and word order 6.1 Introduction  113 6.2 Phonological effects  113 6.2.1 Initial sounds  113 6.2.2 Syllable structures  116 6.3 Word order  118 6.4 Conclusion  120 6.5 Relationship between data and theories  120

113

chapter 7 General conclusions

123

References

133

Index

143

Acknowledgements For the completion of this work I owe special thanks to many people and institutions. Clifton Pye’s motivation and constant questions about different aspects of Q’anjob’al heped me to look at the child data impartially and increase my understanding of the acquisition of Q’anjob’al. Masha Polinsky provided me a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University to continue working on Mayan languages and encouraged me to submit this manuscript for consideration. I thank Shanley Allen and Caroline Rowland, editors of this series, for reading the entire manuscript and for providing me helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Special thanks to the group of Q’anjob’al children of Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango, Guatemala, whom I worked with for child data collection. Thanks to the Q’anjob’al team of the Mayan Language Acquisition Project for their tireless work on transcription, translation, and coding of the Q’anjob’al child data discussed in this work. I am grateful to the National Science Foundation, the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, the Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Scholarship, the Tinker Field Research Grant, the Latin American ­Studies Fieldwork Grant, and the Schiefelbusch Child Language Scholarship for supporting my work on the acquisition of Mayan languages, especially Q’anjob’al. I thank my friends of the University of Kansas, Lanny Maddux, Melissa Stamer, Mircea Sauciuc, Kelly Berkson, Khady Tamba, Emily Tummons, Anne E. Kraemer Diaz, and Maria C. Parafita, and Brian and Darin White’s family for their support. My friends and colleagues of the Polinsky laboratory and the Mayan meeting group at Harvard University, Jessica Coon, Adam Morgan, Lauren Eby Clemens, Kirill Shklovsky, Ava Berinstein, Valentina Vapnarsky, and Annie Gagliardi supported me in this project. My special thanks to my parents, Anixh Lwin and Matin Lwin; my siblings Malin, Katal, Luic, Humberto, Chico, Ernesto, Matal, and Mario; my in-laws ­Wiliam, Jorge, Diego, Dina, Isabel, and Johana. My wife Ana López Sipac and my sons Lwin and Yaxun deserve special thanks for being part of this work. Yuj wal tyoxh ayex yuj hekolwal yin jun mulnajil ti.

Abbreviations 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person abs absolutive morpheme acc accusative adv adverb af agent focus agr agreement ap antipassive voice asp aspectless complement clauses c consonant caus causative clf noun classifier com completive aspect comp complementizer cond conditional dem demonstrative der derivation dir directional ds dependent suffix encl enclitic erg ergative morpheme fin finite foc focus imp imperative inc incompletive aspect ind indicative inf infinitive infl inflection intr intransitive iv status suffix for intransitive verb

neg negation nmlz nominalizer/nominalization nom nominative np noun phrase pl plural pos positional pot potential aspect pp past participle prep preposition pro pronoun prog progressive prs present pst past q question particle/marker refl reflexive rn relational noun sbj subject sg singular suf suffix tns tense tr transitive tv status suffix of transitive verb v vowel/verb v: vowel lengthening vv diphthongs Symbols: ( ) optional production of sounds/ morphemes

chapter 1

Introduction First language acquisition studies have shown that children omit inflectional morphemes at early stages – see for example Brown (1973) for English; Pye (1983) for K’iche’; de León (1999a, b) for Tzotzil; Ud Deen (2002) for Swahili; Pfeiler (2003) for Yucatec; Demuth (2007) for Sesotho. Brown (1973) notes that English-speaking children begin using inflectional morphemes after establishing basic rules of word combination. He identifies this period as the ‘telegraphic stage’ of language acquisition. Brown’s findings for English have been interpreted as evidence for the Root Infinitive Hypothesis (RI). The Root Infinitive Hypothesis holds that even after children understand the contexts in which finite verbs should be used, they will continue to optionally use non-finite verbs in finite contexts (Schütze & W ­ exler 1996). Given that in many languages young children systematically omit inflectional morphemes and produce non-finite verb forms, many researchers have focused their attention on asking the question of why young children do not produce finite verbs (e.g. Blom 2008). Various theories have been proposed to account for this problem, including for example the Small Clause Hypothesis (Radford 1988), the Agreement or Tense Omission Model (Schütze & Wexler 1996), the ­Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/1994), the Modal Auxiliary Hypothesis (Ingram & ­Thompson 1996), and the Complementation Hypothesis (Pinker 1984). Other scholars, such as Salustri and Hyams (2003), have argued that although the application of Root Infinitives is not universal (i.e. not all children in all languages undergo the Root Infinitive stage), children that do not have Root Infinitives undergo an Imperative stage. The Imperative Analogues Hypothesis suggests that children produce imperative forms, which is an analog of the Root Infinitive stage. According to Salustri and Hyams, imperatives in non-RI languages occur at the same age as the RI stage in the RI languages (roughly between the ages of 2;0 and 2;6). However, a significant weakness of the foregoing accounts has been the lack of acquisition data from languages with rich inflectional systems. Most European languages have simplified inflection systems that limit verbs to a single fused morpheme representing tense and agreement. Acquisition studies from non-European languages with agglutinative morphology such as K’iche’ (Pye 1983) and I­ nuktitut (Allen 1996) have shown that Brown’s telegraphic stage does not extend to languages with rich inflection systems. Thus, researchers like Hamann (2002) and



The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Guasti (2002) argue that English is a poor language to rely on when developing theories of the acquisition of inflectional morphemes, given that it itself has such an impoverished inflectional system. Other scholars, such as Ud Deen (2002), have stated that little is known about children acquiring non-European languages. In particular, theories of first language acquisition have been based mainly on accusative languages rather than ergative languages (Carrillo Carreón 2005). Unsurprisingly, this near-exclusive focus on the acquisition of well-known ­European languages has lead to conclusions that do not capture universal constraints of child grammar (Ud Deen 2002). Exploring the acquisition of inflection in a language with a rich inflectional system such as Q’anjob’al – a Mayan language of Guatemala – will allow us to test whether or not children acquiring this language undergo the Root Infinitive stage or the Imperative stage. The present book evaluates the acquisition of inflections corresponding to aspect, ergative/absolutive agreement, and status suffixes marked on the verb in Q’anjob’al. Three types of clauses are explored in detail: imperative (1), indicative (2), and aspectless complement clauses (3). (1) a. way-an. Imperative clause sleep-imp ‘Sleep.’ b. kol-o’. help-imp ‘Help!’ c. tay-ne-j. root-der-imp ‘Look after it!’ (2) a. max-ach way-i. Indicative clause com-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You slept.’ b. max-ach w-il-a’. com-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I saw you.’ (3) a. lanan-ø ha-way-i. prog-abs3 erg2-sleep-nmlz ‘You are sleeping.’

Aspectless complement clause

b. lanan hon ha‑kol‑on‑i.1 prog abs1 erg2‑help‑af‑nmlz ‘You are helping us.’ .  Throughout the book, the suffix -on sometimes will appear also as -n and -hon. The form -on appears with root transitive verbs, while the form -n appears with derived transitive verbs. In



Chapter 1.  Introduction

One central feature of Q’anjob’al, and of major importance for this book, is its split ergative pattern of cross-reference marking. Clemens et  al. (2014) state that the division between ergative and accusative patterns of cross-reference marking is based on the alignment between the two arguments of a transitive clause and the single argument of an intransitive clause in terms of their overt marking. In an ergative pattern, intransitive subjects and transitive objects fall together and are cross-referenced with absolutive morphemes, while transitive subjects are cross-referenced with ergative morphemes. In contrast, in an accusative pattern, intransitive and transitive subjects fall together and are cross-referenced with nominative morphemes, while transitive objects are cross-referenced with accusative morphemes. The distinction between the alignment in accusative and ergative patterns is shown in (4) (Clemens et al. 2014). In (4), A stands for a transitive subject, O stands for a transitive object, and S stands for an intransitive subject.

(4) Alignment in accusative vs. ergative systems

Accusative Ergative S A

S O

A

O



A split between these two patterns is clearly shown for Q’anjob’al in the data in (2) and (3). In (2), we find an ergative pattern: intransitive subjects (2a) and transitive objects (2b) fall together in taking one type of cross-referencing (absolutive), but transitive subjects take a different type (ergative) (2b). In contrast, in (3) we find an accusative pattern; intransitive and transitive subjects fall together in taking one type of cross-referencing (ergative), but transitive objects take a different type (absolutive). Additionally, transitive verbs in the accusative pattern undergo morphological changes; they take the agent focus suffix -on and the nominal suffix -i, as shown in (3b). We do not see this morphological change on intransitive verbs, as shown in (3a). In Q’anjob’al, these relationships are marked via agreement on the verb rather than case on the noun. The split ergative pattern in Q’anjob’al will be described in more detail in Section 1.2.4. The data presented in (1), (2), and (3) above show that in each type of clause the verb morphology varies depending on the transitivity of the verb. Therefore, each verb form may represent a challenge to children acquiring Q’anjob’al. These

contrast, the form -hon consists of an attachment of h to -on to avoid diphthong between the transitive verb and the suffix -on. See for example the data in (127).





The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

children may acquire the transitivity of the verb in each type of clause or they may ­simply choose a verb form as a default form. By exploring these three types of clauses we will be able to evaluate how Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquire the contrast between finite and non-finite verb forms, especially between indicative and aspectless complement clauses. Additionally, an analysis of the acquisition of imperatives will allow us to test whether or not Q’anjob’al-speaking children undergo the Imperative stage. As illustrated in (1) above, imperatives show a simple form. The results presented in this book are based entirely on novel spontaneous child language data collected in the field in Guatemala. The data come from three monolingual Q’anjob’al-speaking children from Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango, Guatemala, ranging in age from 1;8 to 3;5. The study contributes not only to studies on Mayan languages but also to other Mayan acquisition studies. Q’anjob’al adds a crucial link to Mayan acquisition studies since Q’anjob’al belongs to a central branch of the Mayan language family. Thus, the results of the present study contribute to our understanding of the acquisition of Mayan languages and to the field of first language acquisition in general. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 1.1 discusses the sociolinguistic context of Q’anjob’al. Section 1.2 presents grammatical information about Q’anjob’al relevant to the present study: verb morphology in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses, as well as information about the split ergative pattern. Section 1.3 discusses previous studies on the acquisition of Mayan languages. Section 1.4 provides discussion on previous studies on the acquisition of inflection in Mayan languages. Section 1.5 briefly previews the results of the study reported in the later chapters. Section 1.6 concludes the chapter and Section 1.7 provides an overview of the book. 1.1  Sociolinguistic context of Mayan languages, in particular Q’anjob’al Q’anjob’al is an ergative, agglutinative, VSO language of the Mayan language family (Kaufman 1974) spoken in San Juan Ixcoy, San Pedro Soloma, Santa Cruz Barillas, and Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango in the northwestern region of ­Guatemala. Q’anjob’al is surrounded by the Mayan languages Chuj, Akateko, Ixil, and Mam (Richards 2003). Although reports on the number of speakers of Q’anjob’al vary (Mateo Toledo 2008), Richards (2003) reports that approximately 99,211 speakers speak Q’anjob’al. Peñalosa (1992) reports that thousands of Q’anjob’al speakers have immigrated to the southern parts of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The map below shows the g­ eographical location of Q’anjob’al (Richards 2003).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

BELICE

MEXICO

Chuj Popti’ Akateko

HONDURAS Ixil

Awakateko Sakapulteko

EL SALVADOR

Q’anjob’al is considered to be at minimal risk of loss (Richards 2003). However, social, economic, and political changes such as improvements in ­transportation, establishment of a regional court, establishment of health centers, and the reactivation of the coffee plantations in Barillas threaten the language (Mateo Toledo 2008). As Mateo Toledo clearly states, Q’anjob’al is used primarily in family contexts, ceremonial activities, traditional medical practices, and occasionally in formal community meetings. Given that Q’anjob’al is used in specific contexts, it may be considered an unsafe language (UNESCO 2009), even though most children in the region acquire it. The media also affects the status of Q’anjob’al. Spanish-language television and radio are destructive to the cultural values in Q’anjob’al families. Instead of spending most of the time in the home speaking in Q’anjob’al with children, ­Spanish-language television programs are played regularly, thus promoting the use of Spanish. Before television, Q’anjob’al parents and children would spend time together in storytelling, which promoted the use of the language with children. Radio sometimes broadcasts in Q’anjob’al. For example, the Radio Comunitaria Snuq’ Jolom Konob’ provides some of its programming in Q’anjob’al. Although these programs were not deliberately established in order to strengthen





The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

the use of the language, Q’anjob’al is used to broadcast information that is of interest of the Q’anjob’al community and thus it serves to strengthen language use. The Comunidad Lingüística Q’anjob’al of the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de ­Guatemala (ALMG) has produced programs in Q’anjob’al at the Radio Comunitaria Snuq’ Jolom Konob’. 1.2  Grammatical background of Q’anjob’al The section on grammatical background of Q’anjob’al is concerned with the verb morphology of three types of clauses: imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Verb morphology varies in each clause type depending upon the transitivity of the verb. As mentioned above, Q’anjob’al displays a split ergative pattern. The ergative pattern is found in indicative clauses (2), while the accusative pattern is found in aspectless complement clauses (3). Since imperatives do not take cross-reference marking in Q’anjob’al, they exhibit neither an ergative nor an accusative pattern. 1.2.1  Verb inflection in imperative clauses In Q’anjob’al, neither transitive nor intransitive imperatives take either aspect or agreement, as shown in (5) (Mateo Toledo 2008). However, imperatives take a suffix to mark their imperative mood. Intransitive verbs take the suffix -an (5a), while transitive verbs take the suffix -V’ (5b) or the suffix -j (5c). The suffix -V’ appears with root transitive verbs and the suffix -j appears with derived transitive verbs. Note that V stands for a vowel whose identity is determined according to the other vowels present in the word, as described in Section 1.2.2.3. (5) a. way-an. sleep-imp ‘Sleep!’ b. kol-o’. help-imp ‘Help!’ c. tay-ne-j root-der-imp ‘Look after it!’

1.2.2  Verb inflection in indicative clauses In indicative clauses, verbs inflect for aspect, absolutive/ergative agreement, and status suffixes.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

1.2.2.1  Aspect Three aspect markers are found in Q’anjob’al: incompletive ch- (6a), completive max- (6b), and potential hoq- (6c). The incompletive aspect marks a generic, habitual, or ongoing event; the completive aspect marks a completed event; and the potential aspect marks an unrealized event (Mateo Toledo 2008). According to Mateo Toledo, these markers were originally clitics, but became part of the inflection of the verb. As (6) shows, the absolutive usually occurs as a prefix, but some speakers of the Q’anjob’al of Santa Eulalia use it as a suffix. In some cases, but not all, Q’anjob’al-speaking children use an absolutive morpheme as a suffix. (6) a. ch-ach w-il-a’. inc-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I see you.’ b. max-ach w-il-a’. com-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I saw you.’ c. hoq-ach w-il-a’. pot-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I will see you.’

The progressive lanan is not included here as one of the aspect markers in Q’anjob’al. Rather, following Mateo Pedro (2009), it is analyzed as a main clause that takes an aspectless clause as its complement, as discussed in Section 1.2.3. This aspectless complement clause is the context of the nominative-accusative pattern in the language. 1.2.2.2  Ergative and absolutive morphemes Person is marked via ergative and absolutive morphemes. Table 1 lists the ergative and absolutive morphemes found in Q’anjob’al. Ergative morphemes have two sets of allomorphs conditioned by the initial sound of the verb, vowel-initial and consonant-initial. Ergative morphemes mark transitive subjects (7a), possession (7b), and complements of relational nouns (7c) (Mateo Toledo 2008). Relational nouns indicate the relation of an oblique noun phrase or location of a noun, where location is a metaphorical extension of a part of the human body (Pye 1991). (7) a. max‑ach y‑il‑a’. com‑abs2 erg3‑see‑tv ‘She saw you.’

Transitive subject

b. an y-is ix ix. clf erg3-potato clf woman ‘The woman’s potato.’

Possessor





The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

c. y-ib’an te’ na. erg3-rn clf house ‘On the top of the house.’

Complement of Relational Noun

Table 1.  Ergative and absolutive morphemes in Q’anjob’al Ergative

Absolutive

Person/number

V-initial

C-initial

w-

hin-

-in

1person singular

h-

ha-

-ach

2person singular

y-

s-

-ø

3person singular

j-

ko-

-on

1person plural (dual)

j-… hon

ko-… hon

-on… hon

1person plural (excl)

j-… heq

ko-… heq

-on… heq

1person plural (incl)

hey-

he-

-ex

2person plural

y-… heb’

s-… heb’

-ø… heb’

3person plural

Some ergative morphemes have gone through morpho-phonological changes (Raymundo Gonz­­alez et al. 2000). The ergative morpheme for second person singular, *aaw- (Kaufman 1974), has changed to /h/ in Q’anjob’al in general and is slightly audible. In the Q’anjob’al of Santa Eulalia (the dialect that is the source of the child data in this volume), the ergative morpheme h- creates vowel change. The initial vowel (of a verb or noun) changes from [+high] to [-high]. In other dialects of Q’anjob’al, vowel change does not occur. The data in (8) illustrate the changes the ergative morpheme for second person before a vowel. In (8a), the morpheme in Popti’, another Mayan language, is marked overtly; in (8b) the ergative morpheme in the Q’anjob’al of San Pedro Soloma and San Juan Ixcoy is marked as /h/, but without vowel change on the verb. However, in (8c), the ergative morpheme in Santa Eulalia is marked with /h/ and with a corresponding vowel change. The vowel of the transitive verb il ‘to see’ changes to [e]. (8) a. ma in aw-il an. com abs1 erg2-see encl ‘You saw me.’

Popti’ (Ross Montejo 2000)

b. x-in h-il-a’. com-abs1 erg2-see-tv ‘You saw me.’

Soloma/Ixcoy (Mateo Toledo 1999)

c. x-in h-el-a’ com-abs1 erg2-see-tv ‘You saw me.’

Santa Eulalia (Mateo Toledo 1999)



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Absolutive morphemes mark transitive objects (9a), intransitive subjects (9b), and subjects of non-verbal predicates (NVP) (9c). (9) a. max-ach w-il-a’. com-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I saw you.’ b. max-ach way-i. com-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You slept.’ c. winaq hach. man abs2 ‘You are a man.’

1.2.2.3  Status suffixes As in other Mayan languages, status suffixes appear on verbs (Kaufman 1990) and are peculiar to Mayan languages (Pye 1990). These suffixes mark transitivity, they vary depending on the phonological shape of the verb (root or derived), and their use in non-final position varies depending also on the phonological shape of the verb. Root transitive verbs usually show the phonological pattern consonantvowel-consonant (CVC), while derived transitive verbs do not follow the CVC pattern. In (10a), the transitive verb kol ‘to help’ shows the CVC pattern, while in (11), the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ becomes a derived transitive verb by adding the causative suffix tzene-. Root transitive verbs take the status suffix -V’ (10), while derived transitive verbs take the suffix -j (11). The status suffix -V’ occurs in final position only, as illustrated in (10a). In contrast, the status suffix -j occurs in both final (11a), and non-final positions (11b); a transitive indicative sentence is considered ungrammatical if the status suffix is absent in non-final position (11c). (10) a. max-in ha-kol-o’. com-abs1 erg2-help-tv ‘You helped me.’ b. max-in ha-kol ewi. com-abs1 erg2-help yesterday ‘You helped me yesterday.’ c. *max-in ha-kol-o’ ewi. com-abs1 erg2-help-tv yesterday Intended: ‘She saw you yesterday.’ (11) a. ch‑ach hin-way‑tzene-j. inc-abs2 erg1-sleep-caus-tv ‘I make you sleep.’



 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. ch‑ach hin-way‑tzene-j yekal. inc-abs2 erg1-sleep-caus-tv tomorrow ‘I will make you sleep tomorrow.’ c. *ch‑ach hin-way‑tzene yekal.    inc-abs2 erg1-sleep-caus tomorrow Intended: ‘I will make you sleep tomorrow.’

According to Mateo Toledo (2008) the status suffixes play a fundamental role in defining the phrase boundary in Q’anjob’al; their presence correlates with final syllable stress. For example, as just noted, the suffix -V’ appears in final position only (10a). The status suffix -V’ obeys the morpho-phonological rule illustrated in the short list of root transitive verbs in (12) (Mateo Toledo 1999). These verbs show vowel harmony in the status suffix when one of the back vowels /a, o, u/ is included in the verb root. The vowel of the root transitive verb is copied as the status suffix with an added glottal stop. Root transitive verbs containing the front vowels /i, e/ do not show vowel harmony; they always take the suffix -a’. (12) Root transitive verbs and status suffix maq’-a’ ‘hit’ t’un-u’ ‘carry’ aq’-a’ ‘give’ sik’-a’ ‘pick’ man-a’ ‘buy’ xiq-a’ ‘cut’ jaq-a’ ‘open’ il-a’ ‘see’ kol-o’ ‘help’ ten-a’ ‘touch’ txon-o’ ‘sell’ b’eq-a’ ‘let’ muq-u’ ‘bury’ k’ex-a’ ‘change’

The status suffixes -i and -oq are used with intransitive verbs. In previous analysis, these suffixes can never appear in non-final position, as illustrated in (13a&b) (e.g. Raymundo González, et al. 2000). If either suffixes surfaces in non-final position, the sentence is ungrammatical (13c). (13) a. max-ach way-i. com-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You slept.’ b. max-ach way b’ay tx’at. com-abs2 sleep prep bed ‘You slept on the bed.’ c. *max-ach way-i b’ay tx’at.    com-abs2 sleep-iv prep bed Intended: ‘You slept on the bed.’

In my current work on the acquisition of status suffixes in Q’anjob’al, I demonstrate that the omission of the status suffixes -i and -oq in non-final position is



Chapter 1.  Introduction

due to a distinction between root and derived intransitive verbs. My analysis suggests that only root intransitive verbs drop the suffixes -i/-oq in non-final position, while derived intransitive verbs retain both suffixes in final and non-final positions. This contrast is illustrated in (14) where the status suffix appears in non-final position with a derived intransitive and (15) where the status suffix is omitted in non-final position with a root intransitive verb. The non-omission of the status suffixes -i/-oq with intransitive verbs in Q’anjob’al has also been reported in other studies (Francisco Pascual 2005). If the root and derived intransitive verb distinction for the distribution of Q’anjob’al status suffixes is on the right track, then we can account for children’s use of the suffixes -i/-oq in non-final position as something other than an accidental overextension. (14) a. ch-in kanal-w-i. inc-abs1 dance-der-iv ‘I am dancing.’

Derived intransitive verb

b. ch-in kanal-w-i kayti. inc-abs1 dance-der-iv here ‘I am dancing here.’ (15) a. ch-in way-i. inc-abs1 sleep-iv ‘I am sleeping.’

Root intransitive verb

b. ch-in way kayti. inc-abs1 sleep here ‘I am sleeping here.’

The distribution of status suffixes in Q’anjob’al is shown in Table 2. These status suffixes crucially mark transitivity of the verb – i.e. they are grammatical reflex of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. The status suffixes for transitive verbs take a different form depending on whether the verb is root or derived. All the status suffixes are obligatory when the verb is in clause-final position, obligatory for derived verbs also in non-clause-final position, and ungrammatical for root forms in non-clause-final position. Table 2.  Distribution of status suffixes in Q’anjob’al Verb type

Suffix

Non-final position

Final position

Root transitive verbs

-V’

*

✓

Derived transitive verbs

-j

✓

✓

Root intransitive verbs

-i/-oq

*

✓

Derived intransitive verbs

-i/-oq

✓

✓



 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

1.2.3  Verb morphology in aspectless complement clauses In Q’anjob’al four types of complement clauses have been suggested (e.g. Francisco Pascual 2007): (a) complement clauses that take a verb with all the inflectional morphemes and headed by the complementizer tol, (b) complement clauses that share all the features of (a), except the complementizer tol, (c) complement clauses that lack an aspect marker, and (d) complement clauses that lack both aspect and person markers. Verbs in aspectless complement clauses lack aspect, but take agreement and undergo other morphological changes. Intransitive verbs like way ‘to sleep’ in (16) mark the subject with an ergative morpheme (16a) instead of an absolutive morpheme. The uses of aspect morphemes, as well as of absolutive morphemes to agree with subjects, are both ungrammatical in aspectless complement clauses as shown in (16b). The intransitive verb takes the nominal suffix -i when the verb is in final position in the sentence; this suffix is ungrammatical if the verb appears in non-final position (Mateo Pedro 2009). (16) a. max-ø uj he-way-i. com-abs3 able erg2-sleep-nmlz ‘You were able to sleep.’ b. *max-ø uj ch-ex way-i. com-abs3 able inc-abs2 sleep-nmlz Intended: ‘You were able to sleep.’

As in indicative clauses, transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses mark subjects with ergative morphemes and objects with absolutive morphemes. However, unlike in indicative clauses, transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses obligatorily take the agent focus suffix -on and the nominal suffix -­i, as shown in (17a). If -on and -i are omitted from the transitive verb, the aspectless complement clause becomes ungrammatical, as illustrated in (17b). It is worth noting that the suffix -on is required only with transitive verbs and not with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. Compare for example (18a) and (18b); (18b) is ungrammatical when taking the suffix -on. (17) a. max-ø uj hach w‑il‑on‑i. com-abs3 able abs2 erg1‑see‑af‑nmlz ‘I was able to see you.’ b. *max-ø uj hach w‑il‑a’. com-abs3 able abs2 erg1‑see‑tv Intended: ‘I was able to see you.’ (18) a. max-ø uj he-way-i. com-abs3 able erg2-sleep-nmlz ‘You all were able to sleep.’



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

b. *max-ø uj he-way-on-i. com-abs3 can erg2-sleep-af-nmlz Intended: ‘You all were able to sleep.’

1.2.4  Split ergativity in Q’anjob’al As mentioned earlier, Q’anjob’al is a split ergative language: an ergative pattern of cross-reference marking is used in indicative clauses, while an accusative pattern is used in aspectless complement clauses. The data in (19) and (20) illustrate the split ergative pattern with the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ and the transitive verb tek’ ‘to kick’, respectively. In (19a), the intransitive verb way is crossreferenced by the absolutive morpheme -on for the first person plural subject (i.e. ergative cross-­referencing pattern). However, when the same verb (way) appears as a complement of lanan and still takes inflection of the incompletive aspect ch- and the absolutive -on as in (19b) following the ergative cross-referencing pattern, the sentence is ungrammatical. Therefore, the incompletive aspect chmust be deleted and the absolutive morpheme must be replaced by an ergative morpheme, as illustrated in (19c) – in other words, it must follow the accusative cross-referencing pattern. A similar pattern is found with transitive verbs. For example, when the transitive verb tek’ ‘to kick’ appears as complement of lanan, one finds the following changes: the incompletive aspect ch- gets deleted, the transitive verb still takes an ergative morpheme, but it takes the suffixes -on and -i. This is illustrated in (20b). (19) a. ch-on way-i. inc-abs1 sleep-iv ‘We sleep.’ b. *lanan-ø [ch-on way-i]. prog-abs3 inc-abs1 sleep-iv Intended: ‘We are sleeping.’ c. lanan-ø [ko-way-i]. prog-abs3 erg1-sleep-nmlz ‘We are sleeping.’ (20) a. ch-ach ko-tek’-a’. inc-abs2 erg1-kick-tv ‘We kick you.’ b. lanan hach [ko-tek’-on-i]. prog abs2 erg1-kick-af-nmlz ‘We are kicking you.’

Although we have presented this pattern so far as one of split ergativity, there is not yet a consensus in the literature about the correct analysis of these data.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

In fact, data like those in (3), (19) and (20) have received much attention in ­studies on Q’anjob’al. For intransitive verbs, a split ergative analysis has often been proposed (Kaufman 1990; Raymundo González, et al. 2000; Mateo Toledo 2003; Francisco Pascual 2007). Zavala Maldonado (1992), Mateo Toledo (1999), and Raymundo González, et al. (2000) argue that the split found in Q’anjob’al is conditioned by various factors related to aspect. The examples in (21) show the accusative pattern in aspectless clauses that are the complements of a main verb clause containing the progressive aspect lanan (21a), an aspectual verb (21b), or an aspectual adverb (21c). (21) a. lanan-ø [ko-way-i]. prog-abs3 erg1-sleep-nmlz ‘We are sleeping.’ b. x-ø-laj-w-i [he-txon-j-i]. com-abs3-finish-der-iv erg2-sell-der-nmlz ‘You (all) finished selling (something).’ c. amank’wan [ha-lo-w-i]. adv erg2-eat-der-nmlz ‘You eat fast.’

In contrast, Mateo Toledo (2003) unifies this in claiming that the split in Q’anjob’al is conditioned by one aspect-related factor only. Specifically, he states that the accusative pattern is found only in the context of a subordinate clause that lacks an aspect marker (aspectless complement clause). Under his analysis, this one factor accounts for the data in (21). For transitive verbs, other analyses of this ergative vs. accusative cross-­ referencing pattern have been proposed, among which are crazy antipassive (Kaufman 1990) and syntactic dependency (Francisco Pascual 2007; Mateo Toledo 2008). Finally, some authors have proposed that both intransitive and transitive verbs follow the same pattern: nominalization (Mateo Pedro 2009), split ergativity (Mateo Pedro 2013a), and/or extended ergativity (Pye, et al. 2013). The nominalization analysis has been proposed for other Mayan languages, e.g. Bricker (1981) for Yucatec and Coon (2010) for Chol. For the purpose of the present volume, I follow the nominalization analysis given that it provides a unified account of both intransitive and transitive verbs. The basic idea of the nominalization analysis is that the complement clauses in sentences such as those in (21) are no longer verbal but rather are nominalized. The clause takes a morpheme to reflect this nominalization and, at least in Q’anjob’al, the cross-referencing pattern is different than in verbal (indicative) clauses.



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

In contrast to other Mayan languages, e.g. Chol (Coon, et al. 2015), Q’anjob’al also displays a pattern of syntactic ergativity, in which some syntactic operations such as A-bar extraction, are sensitive to the distinction between ergative and ­absolutive arguments. In Q’anjob’al, extraction of a transitive subject is restricted as shown in (22b). In order to extract the transitive subject, a special construction called Agent Focus (AF) must be applied, as illustrated in (22c). (22) a. max-ach y-il ix ix.  com-abs2 erg3-see clf woman ‘The woman saw you.’

(Mateo Pedro, et al. 2014)

b. *ix ixi [max-ach y-il-a’ ___i]. clf womani com-abs2 erg3-see-tv ___i Intended: ‘The woman who saw you.’ c. ix ixi [max-ach il-on-i ___i]. clf womani com-abs2 see-af-iv ___i ‘The woman who saw you.’

However, the extraction of a transitive object or an intransitive subject is not restricted. This is illustrated in (23b) for the extraction of a transitive object, (24b) for the extraction of an intransitive subject. (23) a. max-ø h-el ix ix.  com-abs3 erg2-see clf woman ‘You saw the woman.’

(Mateo Pedro et al. 2014)

b. ix ixi [max-ø h-el-a’ ___i]. clf womani com-abs3 erg2-see-tv ___i ‘The woman that you saw.’ (24) a. chi-ø way naq unin. inc-abs3 sleep clf child ‘The boy sleeps.’ b. naq unin chi-ø way-i. clf child inc-abs3 sleep-iv ‘The boy that sleeps.’

1.2.5  Summary To summarize, in this section we have seen that the verb morphology does not only vary in each type of clause (imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses) but also varies depending on the transitivity of the verb. Table  3 provides a summary of the morpho-syntactic properties of each type of clause discussed in this section.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 3.  Verb inflections of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al Imperative

Indicative

Aspectless

Properties

intr

tr

intr

tr

intr

tr

Aspect

–

–

+

+

–

–

Absolutive

–

–

+ (subj)

+ (obj)

–

+ (obj)

Ergative

–

–

–

+ (subj)

+ (subj)

+ (subj)

Suffix -i

–

–

+

–

+

+

Suffixes -V’/-j

–

+

–

+

–

–

Suffix -on

–

–

–

–

–

+

Suffix -an

+

–

–

–

–

–

1.3  Previous studies on the acquisition of Mayan languages Research on the acquisition of Mayan languages has a 45-year history (Pye et al. to appear), which began with Stross’s (1969) study of Tzeltal child language, Straight’s (1976) study of Yucatec children’s phonology, and Pye’s (1979) study of K’iche’ children’s inflectional morphology. In the nineties, Brown (1993, 1998a, b), de León (1999a, b) and Pfeiler and Martín Briceño (1997, 1998) began longitudinal studies documenting the acquisition of Tzeltal, Tzotzil and Yucatec respectively. Pye initiated new longitudinal studies documenting the acquisition of Ch’ol, Mam and Q’anjob’al in 2005, Pfeiler began a longitudinal study of Wastek in 2010, and Mateo Pedro started a longitudinal study of Chuj in 2011. Here, I briefly discuss the findings of studies in other Mayan languages (Pye et  al. to appear). Research on child-directed speech suggests major differences between Mayan and European languages. Bernstein Ratner and Pye (1984) found that K’iche’ mothers used a lower pitch when speaking to children than to adults, whereas child-directed speech in European languages tends to use a higher pitch. Brown (1998a) and de León (2000, 2007) report that Tzeltal, Tzotzil and Ch’ol parents use more verbs than nouns in their speech to children, and that children acquiring these languages consequently produce more verbs than nouns. In contrast, parents speaking European languages typically produce more nouns than verbs in child-directed speech, and nouns are also more frequent than verbs in the early productions of their young children. Research on the acquisition of phonology shows that Mayan children produce ejective consonants after they produce plain consonants (Straight 1976; Pye et al. 1987; Espantzay Serech 2006). Children acquiring Mayan languages produce the affricate /tʃ/ and the liquid /l/ much earlier than children acquiring English (Pye et al. 1987).



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

Most of the research on the acquisition of Mayan languages has focused on the children’s verb morphology. Pye et al. (2007) showed that Mayan children begin producing the right edge of the verb plus status suffixes and gradually add aspect and agreement. Children acquiring Mayan languages produce without error the ergative and absolutive affixes that cross-reference the subject and object (Pye 1990). As discussed in Section 1.4 below, children acquiring Mayan languages commonly produce agreement markers without aspect marking (Brown, et al. 2013). The position of the absolutive morpheme varies across Mayan languages: in some languages it is a prefix and in some a suffix. Children acquire the absolutive morpheme earlier in languages in which it appears as a suffix, e.g. Tzotzil, Tzeltal, and later in languages in which it appears as a prefix, e.g. K’iche’, Q’anjob’al (Brown et al. 2013). Mayan children produce the pre-vocalic allomorphs of the ergative prefixes before the pre-consonantal allomorphs (e.g. Brown et al. 2013). Finally, Mayan children observe the language-specific constraints on extended ergative marking (e.g. Pye et al. 2013). That is, these children replace absolutive morphemes by ergative morphemes in aspectless clauses only and not in other types of clauses. Studies of semantic development in Mayan languages also demonstrate significant differences with respect to the acquisition of English. Children acquiring Tzotzil (de León 1994) display an early and productive use of the absolute frame of reference that is basic to spatial reference in these languages. Stross (1975) found that children acquiring Tzeltal could manipulate Tzeltal metaphor in a productive fashion. Mayan children also show an early knowledge of narratives. De León (2013) reports that Tzotzil-speaking children start producing narratives around the age of two years. These children’s narratives are connected to the evidential xhi or la; xhi (2;0) appears first followed by la (2;4). According to de León, in their narratives, children show what is known as tellability and tellership. In addition, the expression position and motion/path concept plays an important role in Tzeltal narratives. Based on Frog stories, Brown (2004) reports that Tzeltal-speaking children start to acquire the position and motion/path concept in their narratives around the age of 3 years. A discussion of specific topics covered in each Mayan language is also crucial to understand the stage of acquisition studies in Mayan languages. In K’iche’, we find a study on phonology (Pye et al. 1987), a few studies on the input (Pye 1986a, 1986b, 2012), an extensive number of studies on morpho-syntax (Pye 1980, 1983, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1996, 1998, 2001a&b, 2007; Pye & Quixtan Poz 1988, 1989), and a description of the child grammar of K’iche’ (Pye 1979, 1990, 1991a). In Yucatec, we also find a study on the acquisition of phonology (Straight 1976); studies on the input (Pfeiler 2002, 2006, 2007, 2012; Shneidman 2010; Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow 2012); and an extensive number of studies on m ­ orpho-syntax covering a diversity of topics like number, numeral classifiers, verbs, and nouns (Pfeiler 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009; Pfeiler & Carrillo Carreón 2013; Blaha

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Pfeiler  & Carrillo Carreón 2001; Carrillo Carreón 2005, 2007; Pfeiler & Briceño 1997, 1998; Martín Briceño 1998; Espinosa Ochoa 2010; Flores Vera 1998). Acquisition studies in Tzeltal also include studies on the input (Brown 2013), morpho-syntax (Brown 1993, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 2007, 2008), and semantics (Brown, 2007). In Tzotzil, we find fewer studies in four main domains: input (de León Pasquel 2000, 2005; Martínez Pérez 2013), morpho-syntax (de León 1999a, 1999b), semantics (de León 1994, 2001), and narratives (de León Pasquel 2013). In Q’anjob’al there is a growing body of studies on morpho-syntax (Mateo Pedro 2005, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2013a). Also, there is a study on the acquisition of noun classifiers in Q’anjob’al (Mateo Pedro 2013b). Comparative work on the acquisition of Mayan languages also exists, which has become a comparative framework for Mayan acquisition studies (Pye & Pfeiler 2013, 2014). The comparative work includes studies on phonology (Pye et  al., 2008) and morpho-syntax (Pye & Mateo Pedro 2006; Pye, et al. 2007; Brown, et al., 2013; Pye, et al. 2013; Pye & Pfeiler 2014). One article is devoted to the comparative method applied to Mayan acquisition studies (Pfeiler & Pye 2014). Experimental work on the acquisition of relative clauses is also emerging for Q’anjob’al (Gagliardi et al. 2013, 2014; Mateo Pedro et al. 2014). With the exception of K’iche’ (Pye 1991), a child grammar is missing in these studies for each language. I am currently working on a child grammar of Chuj, a Mayan language also of Guatemala. In the other Mayan languages, very few acquisition studies exist. Pye (2013) explores the Mam child data from the perspective of language change. Ch’ol has been explored at the following levels: lexicon (de León Pasquel 2007), morphosyntax (Mateo Pedro et  al. 2012), and narrative (Vásquez Sánchez & de León Pasquel 2013). The only study on the acquisition of Chuj comes from Mateo Pedro et al. (2012) on morpho-syntax; and the only study on phonology in Kaqchikel comes from Espantzay Serech (2006). 1.4  Previous studies on the acquisition of inflection in Mayan languages Most studies on the acquisition of inflectional morphemes in Mayan languages have focused on the verb found in indicative clauses, illustrated in (25) (Pye et al. 2007). Robertson (1992) considers (25) being a Mayan complex verb given that all inflectional information of aspect, absolutive/ergative agreement, and status suffixes are marked on the verb. Therefore Mayan speakers can use just the Mayan complex verb to express an idea (de León 2005). As (25) shows, in some Mayan languages like Yucatec or Tzeltal the absolutive morpheme is suffixed to the verb, while in other Mayan languages like Q’anjob’al or K’iche’ the absolutive morpheme is prefixed to the verb. Tzotzil uses the absolutive morphemes either as prefixes or suffixes.



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

(25) Mayan Verb Complex aspect+absolutive1+ergative+[verb]_stem+status+absolutive2   | | left edge right edge acquisition

These studies have shown that children start producing inflectional morphemes at the right edge of the verb and later produce the left-edge material. In K’iche’ (Pye 1993) and Q’anjob’al (Mateo Pedro 2005), children produce either a CVC verb root or part of a CVC verb root, plus also always a status suffix, regardless of whether they produce all or part of the CVC root. K’iche’- and Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce few errors in the marking of transitivity with status suffixes; most of their errors derive from overextending the status suffix from final position to non-final position. In contrast, in Tzotzil (de León 1999a, 1999b) and Tzeltal (Brown 1998a), children produce CVC verb roots, and only later produce status suffixes to mark transitivity. Children acquiring Yucatec produce a full CVC verb root with no status suffix or a CVC verb root plus a status suffix (Pfeiler 2003). Although aspect and agreement at the left edge of the verb appear late, Mayan children produce them correctly when these morphemes appear. In K’iche, children do not overextend ergative morphemes to absolutive morpheme uses or vice versa (Pye 1990). Similar results are found in Yucatec (Pfeiler 2003), Tzotzil (de León 1999b), Tzeltal (Brown 1998a), and Q’anjob’al (Mateo Pedro 2005). However, these studies have primarily explored the acquisition of verb inflections in indicative clauses. With the exception of Yucatec, the Mayan languages explored so far do not show a split ergative pattern. Thus, Q’anjob’al child data allows us to evaluate the acquisition of the split ergative pattern, as well as the acquisition of inflection in other clause types (i.e. imperative and aspectless complement clauses). Other studies concern the acquisition of the antipassive in K’iche’ (Pye 1990), the acquisition of split ergativity in Yucatec (Carillo Carreón 2007), the acquisition of split ergativity in Q’anjob’al (Mateo Pedro 2013), and the acquisition of extended ergativity in Mam, Q’anjob’al, and Yucatec (Pye et al. 2013). Findings on the acquisition of verb inflection in other Mayan languages provide a solid background for the acquisition of verb inflection in Q’anjob’al. I aim here to briefly discuss the main findings of the acquisition of inflection in other Mayan languages (K’iche’, Yucatec, Tzotzil, and Tzeltal). 1.4.1  K’iche’ Pye (1991a, 1993) reports that K’iche’-speaking children first produce part of the verb root plus the status suffix, as shown in (26). The child form ek represents

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

the intransitive verb b’e: ‘to go’ and the intransitive status suffix -ik of the target form x-ø-b’e: Compare for example the same form (ek) in (27a). The suffix -ik in ­non-final position is not allowed in the target form, however the child is extending it to this position. K’iche’-speaking children’s earliest productions are limited to one CVC form. Thus, they only start using prefixes that mark aspect and agreement on the verb once their production ability grows beyond this initial CVC restriction (Pye 1993). Through this book, the child data, especially the Q’anjob’al child data, will appear in the format shown in (26). The child utterance appears in the first line, while the target form appears in the second line identified as ‘target form’, with glossing and translation to English. (26) ek eyub’. Al Tiya:n (2;7.28)  (Pye 2002) Target form: x-ø-b’e: pa juyub’   com-abs3-go prep mountain ‘He went to the mountain.’

Pye’s (1991a, 2002) work on the acquisition of status suffixes in K’iche’ shows that children acquire the status suffix first, and omit prefixes of agreement and aspect at early stages, as illustrated in (27). These children did not produce aspect and agreement morphemes until after the age of 3;0 (Pye 1990, 1998, 2002). (27) a. ay, ay, ek. Target form: x-ø-b’e-ik.   com-abs3-go-iv   ‘Oh, oh, it went.’

Al Tiya:n (2;1.7)  (Pye 2002)

b. tijo cha’. Al Cha:y (2;9.3) Target form: k-ø-u-tij-oh cha’.   com-abs3-erg3-eat-tv say   ‘He eats it, he says.’ c. kub’ij. A Carlos (3;0.14) Target form: k-ø-u-b’i’-j.   com-abs3-erg3-name-tv   ‘He says it.’

Pye (2002) also shows that K’iche’-speaking children make a few errors in overextending the status suffix from final to non-final position, as shown in (28). In (28a), the child produces ek instead of b’e: The form e is part of b’e: ‘to go’ and -k comes from the status suffix -ik that the child extends to non-final position. We find a similar process in (28b), where the child produces ch’ob’oh instead of ch’ob’ ‘to know’. In both cases, the child extends to non-final position the status suffix -ik for intransitive verbs and the status suffix -oh for transitive verbs. Despite these errors, Pye (1991b, 2002) shows that K’iche’-speaking children produce status suffixes to mark transitivity as illustrated in the contrast between (28a) and (28b).



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

(28) a. ek eyub’. Al Tiya:n (2;7.28)  (Pye 2002) Target form: x-ø-b’e: pa juyub’.   com-abs3-go prep mountain   ‘He went to the mountain.’ b. inch’ob’oh taj. A Carlos (3;1.5) Target form: k-ø-in-ch’ob’ taj.   inc-abs3-erg1-know neg   ‘I do not know it.’

In his study on the acquisition of ergativity in K’iche’, Pye (1990) found that children made few errors in the acquisition of ergative and absolutive morphemes at the morphological level. Due to the homophonous forms of absolutive morphemes with independent pronouns, these children in some cases used independent pronouns instead of ergative morphemes around the age of 3;0. Also, due to the flexible word order in K’iche’, these children used subject pronouns in preverbal position. Since these children did not use aspect and agreement morphemes on the verb, their constructions look like an overgeneralization of absolutive morphemes to cross-reference transitive verbs (Pye 1990). At the syntactic level, Pye found that K’iche’-speaking children have difficulties in acquiring the ergative system. These children had more difficulties using focus antipassive constructions than antipassive constructions as in (29b). In response to the adult interlocutor, the child A Carlos produced (29b). In this case, the child used an ergative morpheme instead of an absolutive morpheme in focus antipassive. (29) a. jawi x-ø-a-k’am wi la where com-abs3-erg2-get loc the awiyon e.   Interlocutor (Pye 1990) airplane there

‘Where did you get the airplane?

b. ut, at a’aya’-ow-ik.    A Carlos (3;4.2) Target form: at ya x-at-ya’-ow-ik   you already com-abs2-give-fa-iv   ‘You already gave it to me.’

1.4.2  Yucatec Yucatec shows a split ergative pattern. The ergative pattern is found in the context of completive aspect: ergative morphemes cross-reference transitive subjects (30a), while absolutive morphemes cross-reference intransitive subjects (30b). In contrast, the accusative pattern is found in contexts like incompletive aspect (31a), progressive (31b), and desiderative (31c).

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(30) a. k-inw-il-ik-ech.  inc-erg1-see-tv-abs2 ‘I see you.’

Completive  (Carrillo Carreón 2007)

b. h-lúub-ø-ech. com-fall-iv-abs2 ‘You fell.’ (31) a. k–u p’éech-el.   Incompletive  (Pye et al. 2013) inc-erg3 chip-pass-nmlz ‘It gets chiped.’ b. táan u k’uch-ul.   Progressive prog erg3 arrive-nomlz ‘She is arriving.’ c. táak in han-al.    Desiderative want erg1 eat-nmlz ‘I want to eat.’

In her study on the acquisition of Yucatec, Pfeiler (2003) found that Sandi (1;9.27 and 2;4.4) used two groups of status suffixes based on verb types. With transitive verbs, she used the imperative/subjunctive -eh, the incompletive -ik, and the completive -ah. With intransitive verbs, the child used the subjunctive -Vk, incompletive -Vl, and the completive ø-ih. The later suffix (ø-ih) is used with third person only. Pfeiler concludes that Sandi had acquired status suffixes before prefixes marked on the verb. She also argued that Sandi relied on memorization when using morphological inflection around the age of 1;9, but after this age, the memorization process disappears and Sandi started using morphological rules with verbs. In his work on the acquisition of split ergativity in Yucatec, Carrillo Carreón (2007) found that absolutive morphemes were always present on the children’s verb, while ergative morphemes were not. He also found that there is a delay in the acquisition of the nominative-accusative pattern in Yucatec. The child he studied did not acquire the nominative-accusative pattern before the age of 3;0. 1.4.3  Tzotzil De León (1999a) studied the acquisition of Tzotzil in data from two children aged 1;6–2;0 and 1;7–2;1. Tzotzil uses the absolutive morphemes either as prefixes or suffixes. De León found that Tzotzil-speaking children produced CVC bare verb forms similar to Tzeltal (Brown 1998a), but different from K’iche’ (Pye 1983) and Yucatec (Pfeiler 2003). In Tzeltal, children produced CVC verb forms; in K’iche’, children produced part of the verb plus the status suffix; while in Yucatec, children produced both root verbs plus status suffix and bare verb forms. In her study on



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

the early syntactic development in Tzotzil, de León (1999b) found that children start combining the CVC verb forms with aspectual adverbs for completive aspect (xa) as in (32). (32) a. bat xa. ‘gone’ (lit=go already) b. laj xa. ‘finished’ (lit=finished already)

In addition, Tzotzil-speaking children started using status suffixes to mark transitivity as in K’iche’ (Pye 1983). They did not make errors, except with suffixes and combinations that show irregular morphology in the adult grammar (de León 1999b). Once children start combining verbs and suffixes, they start using derivational suffixes such as the causative -es (33a) or the benefactive -be (33b). (33) a. lom-es. (de León 1999b) ‘cause to fall.’ b. poj-be. ‘to steal X from someone.’

1.4.4  Tzeltal Brown (1998a) studied the acquisition of verb phrases in Tzeltal by looking at data from two children aged 1;3–2;3 and 1;5–2;5. She found that children produced only CVC bare verb forms as in Tzotzil (de León 1999a, 1999b). When these children started combining their verbs with inflection, Brown found that the ergative morphemes before vowel-initial transitive verbs appeared earlier than the ergative morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs. Based on this finding, she argues that the ergative morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs appear late because they are harder to identify in the input than the vowel-initial ergative morphemes. Brown also found that children showed productive use of absolutive morphemes cross-referencing intransitive verbs and positionals. They also showed productive use of independent pronouns, even though they sometimes extended these morphemes to possessors and to cross-reference transitive verbs. Brown assumes that independent pronouns replacing ergative morphemes are to clarify the subject of a verb since the ergative morphemes, especially the ones before consonants, appear late. In Tzeltal, aspect markers are also acquired late (Brown 1998a), even though the incompletive aspect ya appears first (though not productively). After the age of 3;0 the incompletive ya and the completive la are productive.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

1.5  The present study The present study focuses on the acquisition of inflection in Q’anjob’al. The primary data source is longitudinal spontaneous speech recordings from three ­children – Xhuw, Xhim and Tum – aged 1;8–3;5. Data were collected by audiotape in naturalistic communication situations with family and friends, and were transcribed by native speakers of Q’anjob’al. The analysis highlights children’s acquisition of ergative and absolutive inflections, aspect markers and status suffixes in three clause types: imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. The study on the acquisition of inflection of Q’anjob’al reported in the present book is unique for several reasons. First, the study evaluated the acquisition of verb inflections in Q’anjob’al by exploring three types of clauses and four types of analyses, which provides a general picture of how children acquire the language. Recall that the verb inflections vary in each type of clause. Furthermore, the verb inflections do not vary in each clause type only, but those changes depend on the transitivity of the verb as we saw in (1), (2), and (3) above. Previous studies have focused in detail on only one clause type or one type of analysis, while this book provides an overview of the acquisition trajectory as a whole. Second, with the exception of Carrillo Carreón’s (2005) work on the acquisition of the nominative-accusative pattern in Yucatec, most Mayan acquisition studies have looked at languages that have only an ergative pattern. Q’anjob’al shows a split ergative pattern. Comparative work exists on the acquisition of split ergativity or extended ergativity in Mayan languages like Mam, Q’anjob’al, and Yucatec (Pye et al. 2013). Funding from the International Fellowship Program (IFP) and the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica (CIRMA) has supported my research on the documentation of the acquisition of Q’anjob’al at the cross-sectional level. From the cross-sectional child data I have accumulated approximately 30 hours of recordings from 8 children in the age range 2;6–3;6 [years; months] acquiring Q’anjob’al. My longitudinal work on the acquisition of Q’anjob’al in Guatemala has been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and by the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS). From the project ‘Documenting Mayan Language Acquisition’, funded by the NSF and with Professor Clifton Pye as the Principal Investigator, I have approximately 150 hours of recordings and transcriptions from 5 children. A good portion of the Q’anjob’al child data is found at 〈www.almaya.org〉. In 2011 and 2013 I was awarded two NEH-NSF Documenting Endangered Languages Fellowships to document the acquisition of Chuj. Additional funding for this project comes from the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies from Harvard University to start working on a child



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

Frequency

grammar of Chuj, another Mayan ­language of Guatemala. With the assistance of the Polinsky Lab, on July 2nd of 2012, we launched our child data at 〈http://dvn. iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/polinsky〉. The transcriptions are available to the public, while the video and audio recordings remain restricted. The results of the present study reveal that Q’anjob’al-speaking children show an early knowledge of the morpho-syntactic features of the three types of clauses illustrated in (1), (2), and (3). More specifically, the children are able to distinguish verb inflections of the split ergative pattern found in the language. I consider this finding crucial to our understanding of the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, a language with a split ergative pattern. I briefly preview the results in the following paragraphs. First, the children produced verb inflections in all three types of clauses, as shown in Figure 1 for intransitive verbs and Figure 2 for transitive verbs. Both figures show that the three children produced more indicative clauses than imperative clauses, and very few aspectless complement clauses, although the relative proportions of each clause type differ slightly from child to child. 100 %

Imperative

80 %

Indicative

60 %

Aspectless

40 % 20 % 0%

Xhuw Xhim Tum (1;9–2;4) (2;3–2;9) (2;7–3;1) Q’anjob’al-speaking children

Frequency

Figure 1.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses with intransitive verbs 100 %

Imperative

80 %

Indicative

60 %

Aspectless

40 % 20 % 0%

Xhuw Xhim Tum (1;9–2;4) (2;3–2;9) (2;7–3;1) Q’anjob’al-speaking children

Figure 2.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses with transitive verbs

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Second, these children often omitted aspect and agreement in indicative clauses, as shown in Figure 3 for intransitive verbs and Figure 4 for transitive verbs. The different verb forms illustrated in both figures are understood as follows. A complete form means that a child produced all the inflectional morphemes required on a verb; omission of aspect means that a child produces all inflectional morphemes with the exception of aspect; omission of aspect and absolutive means that both aspect and absolutive inflection are missing; omission of ergative means that the ergative inflection is missing; bare stem means that a child produces the verb root plus the status suffix; and bare root means that a child produces the verb root only. Some of these verb forms are shown in (34). Complete form

b. ntohi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-in-toj-i.   inc-abs1-go-iv   ‘I go.’

Omission of aspect

c. ok’i. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: ch-ø-oq’-i.   inc-abs3-cry-iv   ‘She cries.’

Bare stem

d. way. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-ø-way-i.   inc-a3s-sleep-iv   ‘She sleeps.’

Bare root

Frequency

(34) a. choki. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: ch-ø-oq’-i.   inc-abs3-cry-iv   ‘She cries.’

60 %

Xhuw (1;9–2;4)

50 %

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

40 %

Tum (2;7–3;1)

30 % 20 % 10 % ot ro

em st

ive -a bs

ol

ut

t ec -a sp

co

m

pl e

te

0%

Intransitive verb forms

Figure 3.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of intransitive verb forms in indicative clauses

.



Chapter 1.  Introduction  80 %

Xhuw (1;9–2;4) Xhim (2;3–2;9)

Frequency

60 %

Tum (2;7–3;1)

40 % 20 %

-a

st

ro o

t

em

rg -e

s sp

/a b

bs -a

co m

pl

-a

et

sp

e

0%

Transitive verb forms

Figure 4.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of transitive verb forms in indicative clauses

Third, the children did acquire adult-like inflection in the three types of clauses. I show data from one of the children as evidence of the pattern of inflection production in the other clause types, as illustrated by data from Xhuw in Figure 5 (for intransitive verbs) and Figure 6 (for transitive verbs). For example, even though Xhuw omitted aspect and agreement, she produced the verb root plus a status suffix. Further, the omission of aspect and agreement in indicative clauses did not prevent Xhuw from producing inflection in the other type of clauses, i.e. imperative and aspectless complement clauses. For instance, Xhuw correctly did not produce aspect in aspectless complement clauses as expected in the target form.

Imperative

80 %

Indicative

Frequency

100 %

Aspectless

60 % 40 % 20 % ro ot

em st

ive -a

bs ol

ut

t sp ec -a

co

m

pl e

te

0%

Xhuw’s intransitive verb forms

Figure 5.  Xhuw’s frequency of intransitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya 100 %

Imperative

Frequency

80 %

Indicative

Aspectless

60 % 40 % 20 % t ro o

em st

rg

-a

-e

s /a b

-a

sp

bs

sp -a

co m

pl

et

e

0%

Xhuw’s transitive verb forms

Figure 6.  Xhuw’s frequency of transitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses

1.6  Conclusion In this chapter we have seen that most studies on Mayan languages have focused on adult grammars, although there is a growing body of work on child language acquisition. I have also noted that most studies on the acquisition of inflectional morphemes, the topic of the present study, have focused on Indo-European languages. Few studies have been done on languages with a rich morphology. Q’anjob’al is a language with rich morphology that enables us to evaluate the acquisition of inflectional morphemes. Furthermore, with the exception of Yucatec, the few Mayan languages thus far studied in terms of acquisition do not show a split ergative pattern. I have also presented general information on the grammar of Q’anjob’al as spoken in Santa Eulalia. This grammatical information is relevant to the study reported in the book, which focuses mainly on verb morphology in indicative, aspectless, and imperative clauses. I also reported that Q’anjob’al is considered to be at minimal risk for loss (UNESCO 2009). However, due to its restricted contexts of use in contrast to Spanish, it can be considered an endangered language. Therefore it is crucial to document and describe how children acquire Q’anjob’al. 1.7  An overview of the book This book is divided into 7 chapters. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical background for the study, focusing on six influential theories in the field of first language acquisition: the Agreement or Tense Omission Model, the Truncation Hypothesis, the Modal Hypothesis, the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis, the Minimal Word



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

Constraint, and the Imperative Analogue Hypothesis. Each theory makes different predictions for the acquisition of inflections in Q’anjob’al. Chapter 3 describes the methodology applied in the present study, including the procedures in data collection and the types of analyses conducted in the study. Chapters 4 and 5 describe the acquisition of verb inflections and demonstrate how acquisition differs between intransitive and transitive verbs. Chapter 6 evaluates some phonological and word order effects in the acquisition of verb inflections in Q’anjob’al. Chapter 7 concludes the book by highlighting the main findings on the acquisition of the verb inflections in Q’anjob’al. The chapter includes a comparison of the acquisition of verb inflections in Q’anjob’al and the acquisition of verb inflections in other Mayan languages, an assessment of the predictions based on the theories discussed in the study, and a discussion of future directions of research on the acquisition of Q’anjob’al and other Mayan languages in general.

chapter 2

Theoretical background 2.1  Introduction The omission of inflectional morphemes (e.g. tense and agreement), known as the telegraphic stage (Brown 1973), has been reported in a variety of child languages. Different approaches have been taken to account for the omission of these morphemes in child grammar. One influential approach is the Root Infinitive ­Hypothesis (e.g. Wexler 1994) – the idea that children at early ages use non-finite verbs in matrix (i.e. root) clauses where adults would use the finite (i.e. correctly inflected) form. According to Guasti (2002), Root Infinitives are (a) morpho-­ syntactically non-finite, and (b) found in a limited distribution in child grammar (e.g. in declarative clauses but not in wh-questions, although Hamann (2002) has found that Root Infinitives do occur in wh-questions in English). The Root Infinitive stage has been reported in several different languages (Hamann 2002). In this stage, children use both finite verbs ((a) examples) and non-finite verbs ((b) examples) at an early age, as shown in (35) for German, (36) for Danish, and (37) for French. The “root infinitives” are the non-target-like nonfinite forms in the (b) examples. (35) a. da guckt er raus there looks he out ‘there he peeps out.’

(German: Andreas 2;1)

b. Thorstn das hab-n. T. that have ‘Thorsten has that.’ (36) a. kører bil drive (fin) car ‘(I/he) drive the car.’

(Danish: Jens 1;10,14)

b. kør-e bil. drive (inf) car ‘drive the car.’ (37) a. on joue ballon one plays ball ‘We play ball.’

(French: Aug 2;0;02)

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. ot-er tout ta. take (inf) off all that ‘take (inf) off all that’

However, although children optionally use non-finite verbs in matrix clauses, they treat these non-finite verbs differently than the non-finite verbs that appear correctly in other syntactic constructions such as subordinate clauses. We can see this, for example, in the placement of the verbs with respect to negation. In languages like German and French, for example, the finite verb comes before negation (38a, 39a), while the non-finite verb comes after it (38b, 39b) (Guasti 2002). (38) a. Johann isst nicht. Johann eats neg ‘Johann does not eat.’

Finite

b. um nicht zu essen. in order to neg to eat-inf ‘In order to not to eat.’

Non-finite

(39) a. Marie ne mange pas. Marie neg eats neg ‘Marie does not eat.’

Finite

b. pour ne pas manger. in order to neg neg eat-inf ‘In order to not to eat.’

Non-finite

German

French

In fact, children acquiring languages like German and French correctly acquire the placement of verbs in relation to negation. They produce finite verbs before negation and non-finite verbs after negation. The acquisition of the placement of verbs in relation to negation is illustrated in (40) for German and (41) for French (Guasti, 2002). Thus, the distributional properties of negation in finite verbs in simple clauses vs. non-finite verbs in subordinate clauses in languages like ­German and French show that children produce the lexical projection of the Verb Phrase (VP) as well as the Inflectional Phrase (IP), or at least the Negative Phrase (NegP). (40) a. Das macht der Maxe nicht. this makes the Maxe neg ‘This, Maxe does not make.’

Finite

(Simone, 2;1)

b. Kann ma[n] nich[t] essen. can one neg eat-inf ‘One cannot eat (this).’

Non-finite

(Simone, 2;1)

(41) a. Elle roule pas. it rolls neg ‘It does not roll.’

Finite

(Grégoire, 1;11)



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

b. Pas manger la poupée. neg eat-inf the doll ‘The doll does not eat.’

Non-finite

(Nathalie, 1;9)

Based on how verbal inflection is used in non-finite forms by children, Ud Deen (2002) argues that languages fall into three classes: Root Infinitive (RI) languages in which the non-finite form is an infinitive form, Non-RI languages in which no non-finite forms are produced by children (early inflection errors are rather substitutions of inflections with another person or number than the intended inflection), and bare verb languages in which the non-finite form has no finite or infinitive marking. This is illustrated in Table 4 (Ud Deen 2002). Table 4.  Summary of languages that allow RIs, disallow RIs, and allow bare verbs RI languages

Non-RI languages

Bare verb languages

German

Italian

English

Dutch

Spanish

French

Catalan Japanese

According to Guasti (2002), the fact that children have an early knowledge of the syntactic features of finite and non-finite verbs implies that they know that non-finite verbs are not allowed in simple clauses. Furthermore, she states that if children possess this syntactic knowledge, it becomes necessary to explain why they optionally produce finite verbs in simple clauses.

2.2  Theories of the acquisition of inflectional morphemes Many theories have been proposed to explain the acquisition of inflectional morphemes cross-linguistically (see Bloom 2008 for a general review). In this book, I describe six of these theories, drawn from different types of data, which have had an important impact on studies of first language acquisition more broadly: the Agreement or Tense Omission Model (Schütze & Wexler 1996); the Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/94); the Modal Hypothesis (Ingram & Thompson 1996); the Complementation Hypothesis (Pinker 1984); the Minimal Word Constraint (Demuth 2001); and the Imperative Analogue Hypothesis (Salustri & Hyams 2003). After discussing each theory, I present their predictions for the acquisition of inflection in Q’anjob’al.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

2.2.1  Agreement or Tense Omission Model The Agreement or Tense Omission Model (ATOM) makes predictions about the omission of agreement and tense in the speech of typically-developing children (Schütze & Wexler 1996) and children with Specific Language Impairment (Rice, Wexler, & Cleave 1995). Originally, Wexler (1994) proposed the Missing Tense Hypothesis, which postulated that tense is optional in children’s speech. Given that nominative case is assigned by tense, the Missing Tense Hypothesis predicts that overt subjects should not occur in Root Infinitives. However, child data from other languages, e.g. French, German, Dutch, show that this prediction is incorrect, as illustrated in (42) (Hamann 2002: 199). (42) a. Michel dormir. Michel sleep

French

(Pierce 1989)

b. Thorstn das habn. Thorsten that have ‘Thorsten has that.’

German

(Poeppel & Wexler 1993)

c. ik ook lezen. I too read ‘I read too.’

Dutch

(Weverink 1989; Powers 1995)

Given that data like those in (42) are problematic for the Missing Tense Hypothesis because overt subjects co-occur with non-finite verbs that are not predicted by the hypothesis, Schütze and Wexler (1996) propose the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. These authors note that two-year-old English-speaking children: (a) show an optional omission of Tense or Agreement in early stages; (b) produce a higher proportion of non-nominative (non-NOM) subjects than nominative (NOM) subjects in non-finite clauses (43); and (c) produce genitive subject forms (43b). They argue that the high proportion of non-NOM subjects is due to the fact that the accusative case is the default form in English. This default form surfaces in the Optional Infinitive stage. (43) a. Him fall down. b. Her smoking. c. Her said no.

(Nina, 2;3.14, File 17) (Sarah, File 27) (Sara, File 26)

(Schütze & Wexler 1996)

In contrast, children acquiring Russian, Dutch, German, and Faroese do not show non-NOM subject errors in the Optional Infinitive stage because nominative is the default case in these languages. A default case may explain why English-speaking children do not make errors of object case-marking. In English, the object ACC form is the default case (Radford 1990), while in Russian (Babyonyshev 1993) and German (Schütze 1995), children do not make errors of subject case-marking because the subject NOM form is the default case. Although English-speaking



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

children produce non-NOM subjects as in (43), they know that accusative is the default form and that the presence of agreement in the Inflectional Phrase requires nominative case to be assigned to the subject (Schütze & Wexler 1996). The Agreement or Tense Omission Model is based on three theoretical assumptions: (i) the Tense and Agreement Phrases are separate projections; (ii) no relationship exists between morphological case marking and structural licensing; (iii) the ability to assign/check nominative case is possessed by agreement but not tense. Thus, the model argues for the three possible combinations shown in (44) (Schütze & Wexler 1996: 678). Infl

Description

Examples

(44) a. [+tns, +agr] nom assigned He cries b. [+tns, -agr] nom unassigned, default acc surfaces Him cry, him cried c. [-tns, +agr] nom assigned, agreement invisible He cry

The range of possibilities outlined in (44) demonstrates that the Agreement or Tense Omission Model argues only for the optional omission of agreement or tense. The model does not predict forms like *him cries because the suffix -s marks agreement, and agreement checks nominative case. In contrast, the model predicts the presence of the past tense -ed, as in (44b). This is because -ed overtly marks tense, but not agreement. The separation of tense and agreement in the model suggests that the presence of the past tense form does not imply the presence of agreement (Schütze & Wexler 1996: 678). The Agreement or Tense Omission Model does not predict that agreement and tense will be omitted at the same time, as Hamann (2002) suggests. Schütze and Wexler argue that the absence of agreement or tense in English adult grammar yields gerund forms. This absence may license genitive subjects in Optional Infinitives as shown in (43b). Languages that mark tense and agreement separately may show independent omission of each morpheme in this stage. This model suggests that the omission of grammatical morphemes in the Optional Infinitive stage is a syntactic problem and is not a simple deletion of a grammatical morpheme (e.g. -s). For the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, the Agreement or Tense Omission Model predicts that children may optionally omit aspect (45b) or agreement (45c). The model does not make a distinction between absolutive and ergative agreement; we thus do not know whether Q’anjob’al-speaking children would omit absolutive or ergative agreement. Alternatively, these children may assume either the absolutive or the ergative case as the default agreement form. (45) a. max-ach y-il naq unin. com-abs2 erg3-see clf child ‘The boy saw you.’

Adult form

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. ø-ach y-il naq unin. com-abs2 erg3-see clf child ‘The boy saw you (some time ago).’

Omission of aspect

c. *max-ach ø-il naq unin.   com-abs2 erg1-see clf child Intended: ‘The boy saw you.’

Omission of ergative

2.2.2  The Truncation Hypothesis Rizzi (1993/94) states that in adult grammar, non-finite verbs are found exclusively in subordinate clauses, while finite verbs are found in both main and subordinate clauses. The temporal orientation of a non-finite clause is governed by the tense of the main clause. The complementizer phrase (CP) forms the root of both finite and non-finite clauses in the adult grammar. In child grammar, the lack of CP found in subordinate clauses overgeneralizes to main clauses due to the lack of functional projections. The CP-Root principle occurs optionally in child grammar, and therefore children may truncate any functional projection. If a functional projection is truncated, then all functional projections above it are truncated, but functional projections below that node are preserved. For example, if children truncate the Tense Phrase (TP), then they will produce only the Verbal Phrase (VP), the context of Root Infinitives. Any of the functional categories in (46) can be truncated (Guasti 2002). Rizzi (1993/94) argues that the CP principle matures between the second and third year after birth. (46)

CP C′

Spec C

AgrP Agr′

Spec Agr

TP Spec

T′ VP

T V

DP

However, the presence of fronted wh-operators forces the presence of CP. So, in fronted wh-phrases, all projections below CP must also be present. Root Infinitives and null subjects should therefore fail to occur in wh-questions. This prediction holds true for German and Dutch, where children rarely produce Root Infinitives



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

in wh-questions (Phillips 2010). However, English-speaking children do produce Root Infinitives in wh-questions (Bromberg & Wexler 1995; Hamann 2002). Guasti (2002) and Hamann (2002) argue that the Truncation Hypothesis is precise and radical in accounting for Root Infinitives. Root Infinitives are found only in VP; they are absent in auxiliary constructions because auxiliaries are licensed by tense. Although the Truncation Hypothesis makes precise predictions, questions still remain about the type of material that can activate a functional projection and why a child will eventually stop truncating functional projections. One possibility is that when children begin using embedded clauses, Root Infinitives decrease, so children stop truncating functional categories (Hamann 2002). The Truncation Hypothesis predicts the omission of any and all inflectional morphemes above the point where the tree is truncated, rather than specifically predicting the omission of agreement or tense as the Agreement or Tense Omission Model would predict. A tree structure for Q’anjob’al is shown in (47), following Coon and Mateo Pedro (2011) and Clemens et al. (2014). According to Coon and Mateo Pedro (2011: 96–97), transitive subjects are merged in the specifier of a VP-external projection (VoiceP) and receive ergative Case in situ from transitive v0. Status suffixes of transitive verbs assign Case to external arguments, while status suffixes of intransitive verbs do not. The verb undergoes head movement through Voice0 and v0 heads to get ergative morphology and status suffixes. The head of a finite clause (Infl0) assigns the absolutive. Based on (47), one may expect Q’anjob’al-speaking children to omit all inflectional morphemes above the truncation point. For example, if the truncation point is vtv’ then aspect, absolutive and ergative agreement would be omitted but the verb root and the status suffix would be produced. (47)

InflP vPTV

Infl[Case] max

vTV′

DP

ASP

-ach 2PRON

VTV

VoiceP

STATUS SUFFIX

(-a′)

ix CLF

DP

Voice′

Maria Voice Maria

VP V il see

t

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

2.2.3  The Modal Hypothesis The Modal Hypothesis (Ingram & Thompson 1996) argues that, in children’s speech, non-finite verbs occur in modal contexts while finite verbs occur in nonmodal contexts. The data in (48) illustrate the occurrence of non-finite verbs in modal contexts where the modal verb is missing in the child data (Ingram  & Thompson 1996: 109). These verb forms do not occur randomly in the child data (e.g. Poeppel & Wexler 1993; Wexler 1998); rather, their occurrence is motivated by semantic and syntactic factors (Ingram & Thompson 1996). Ingram and ­Thompson examined the contexts of finite verbs and found that some of these verbs occur in modal contexts. For example, the child Andreas produced 41 instances of non-finite verbs in modal contexts, but only 5 instances of finite verb forms in the same context. (48) a. grandfather: Ich glaub(e) der will mit dem Auto   I think he wants with the car        fahren wohl? drive right         ‘I think he wants to drive the car, right?’ andreas:    Auto fahren [fahrn] Nikolaus.   car drive Nikolaus.          ‘Nicholas wants to drive the car.’ b. father:      Was machen?   what do?             ‘What must we do?’ katrin:       Da daraus [daus] machen [maren].   there out make             ‘There we must take it out.’

If we apply the Modal Hypothesis to the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, but instead of a modal verb taking a subordinate clause we suggest an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb taking an aspectless complement clause, we may expect the following. Q’anjob’al-speaking children may produce the verb morphology correctly in aspectless complement clauses, but the aspectual adverb is missing, as illustrated in (49). In (49a), the intransitive verb ay ‘to go_down’ takes an ergative subject marker; while in (49b) the transitive verb xiq ‘to cut’ takes the morpheme -on and the suffix -i. However, in both examples the aspectual adverb is missing. Francisco Pascual et al. (2007) argue that aspectual verbs and aspectual adverbs appearing in main clauses causes the nominative-accusative pattern in aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al. I use the phrase ‘missing aspectual verb/adverb’ to identify the children’s missing aspectual verbs or aspectual adverbs like those in (49) throughout the book.



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

(49) a. yaytok. Xhim (2;8) (Mateo Pedro 2010a) Target form: xewtu y-ay-toq   then erg3-go_down-dir       ‘Then she went down.’ b. ø-xhik-on-i. Xhuw (2;1) Target form: xewtu x-ø-ø-xiq-on-i.   then com-abs3-erg3-cut-af-iv       ‘Then she cut it.’

However, it does not mean that all aspectual verbs or adverbs are missing in the child data. These children produced aspectual verbs and aspectual adverbs as d ­ iscussed in Section 4.5.4 for intransitive verbs and Section 5.5 for transitive verbs. Note that the absence of an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb does not cause the accusative pattern found in Q’anjob’al. In data like (49), I assume these children are treating the clauses as aspectless complement clauses with a missing aspectual adverb or aspectual verb, and thus accusative patterning is expected. 2.2.4  The Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis Pinker (1984) proposes the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis, which argues that an auxiliary verb conditions the morphology of its verbal complement, e.g. finite, non-finite, participial, etc. Pinker argues that children analyze auxiliaries as complement-taking verbs. However, since children must acquire the constraints on complements on a case-by-case basis, they do not immediately learn the constraints on complement verbs. When children fail to apply the appropriate constraints, they produce errors such as ‘I can let it spilled’ or ‘I gonna saw it’. Pinker suggests three reasons why English-speaking children would show errors in combining verbs and their complements: (a) the morphology of the particular verb complement is not identified correctly as signifying an infinitive, participle, etc.; (b) the constraint on the main verb or auxiliary fails to be applied in the production of the sentence due to performance reasons; or (c) the constraint of the verb on its complement has not been learned yet. We can apply the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis to the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, following the same logic as we did with the Modal Hypothesis. However, instead of an auxiliary verb conditioning the morphology of its verbal complement as in English, we suggest an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb conditioning the verb morphology of an aspectless complement clause in Q’anjob’al. With this in mind, we may expect the following. Although Q’anjob’al-speaking children may have difficulties with the constraints on verbs in aspectless complement clauses, they would not have problems producing aspectual verbs or aspectual adverbs. Under such a hypothesis, children may

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

produce intransitive and transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, but with the incorrect morphology. Q’anjob’al-speaking children may extend the morphology of transitive verbs to intransitive verbs by employing -on with the intransitive verb to produce forms like in (50a). In fact, however, Q’anjob’alspeaking children do not produce constructions like (50a) as Mateo Pedro (2011) demonstrates in (50b). (50) a. *watx’ ko-way-on-i. Unattested good erg1-sleep-af-nmlz Intended: ‘It is good for us to sleep.’ b. wak ko-kuy-i. Child N (2;3) Target form: watx’ ko-kuy-on-i   good erg1-study-af-nmlz        ‘It is good for us to study (it).’

(Mateo Pedro 2011)

Pye (1990) reports that K’iche’-speaking children do not have problems acquiring the ergative system at the morphological level, but they do at the syntactic level. In Mayan languages, an ergative system at the syntactic level is found in wh-questions, relative clauses, and focus constructions. Intransitive subjects and transitive objects can be questioned, relativized, and focused without changing the morphology of the verb, while for a transitive subject, the verb must undergo morphological changes (e.g. Mondloch 1981; Pye 1990). Pye’s finding suggests that Q’anjob’al-speaking children may have difficulty producing verbs found in aspectless complement clauses. Furthermore, Q’anjob’al-speaking children may acquire verbs found in aspectless complement clauses relatively late (around the age of 3;0) as Carrillo Carreón (2007) shows for the acquisition of split ergativity in Yucatec. Additionally, Q’anjob’al-speaking children may be more likely to omit inflectional morphemes in aspectless complement clauses than in indicative clauses. 2.2.5  Imperative Analogue Hypothesis Salustri and Hyams (2003) state that the Root Infinitive stage (RI) is not universal. That is, not all children in all languages undergo the Root Infinitive stage. However, they claim that children that do not have Root Infinitive undergo an Imperative stage, e.g. Romance languages. This argument is crucial for the acquisition of the verb types in Q’anjob’al. It implies that Q’anjob’al children may start with imperative forms and then extend them to indicative and aspectless complement clauses. Because the imperative form has only a single inflection, which is the simplest form, then it is an ideal candidate for early acquisition and subsequent overextension to indicative and aspectless complement clauses.



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

2.2.6  Minimal Word Constraint The Minimal Word Constraint argues that children produce words with a default syllable structure (Demuth 2001). Therefore, Q’anjob’al-speaking children may produce only CVC verb roots. If Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce only verbs with CVC structure, this may explain the late acquisition of aspect and agreement in Q’anjob’al. The logic is that children at an early age can only produce a CVC form. If the verb itself already has a CVC form (e.g. way ‘sleep’), then the child does not produce inflections before the verb. However, if the verb has a VC form (e.g. il ‘see’), then the child is more likely to produce an inflection before the verb, and thus end up with a CVC form. The CVC verb root constraint may account for the late acquisition of all aspect markers in Q’anjob’al rather than the late acquisition of just one particular aspect marking, as has been suggested for Mayan languages (Pye 1990; Brown 1998a; Mateo Pedro 2005). The late acquisition of consonant-initial ergative morphemes in contrast to vowel-initial ergative morphemes may be due to the difficulty in production of inflections with CVC verb roots rather than to the child’s difficulty in identifying ergative morphemes on consonant-initial verbs in the input, as Brown (1998a) has suggested for the acquisition of Tzeltal. Brown, et al. (2013) report that at the age of 2;6, children in K’iche’, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Yucatec produce allomorphs of ergative morphemes correctly 90% of the time when the allomorphs appear on vowel-initial verbs, but perform at a lower success rate when the allomorphs appear on consonant-initial verbs. This occurs despite the fact that, as reported by Pye and Mateo Pedro (2006) and illustrated in Table 5, K’iche’- and Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce a higher number of consonant-initial verbs than vowel-initial verbs. The K’iche’ and Q’anjob’al child data were taken from samples of three children in each language. One sample was taken from each of the following ages: 2;0, 2;6, and 3;0. Table 5.  K’iche’ and Q’anjob’al children’s number of consonant-initial and vowel-initial transitive verbs Transitive verbs Vowel-initial verbs

K’iche’ (2;0, 2;6, 3;0)

Q’anjob’al (2;0, 2;6, 3;0)

6

8

Consonant-initial verbs

29

16

Total

35

24

Mateo Pedro et al. (2012) and Pérez Vail (2012) have reported for Chuj and Mam respectively, that children acquire allomorphs of ergative morphemes with vowel-initial verbs before acquiring allomorphs for consonant-initial verbs. This

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

is illustrated in (51) for Chuj and (52) for Mam. In (51a), the ergative morpheme w- for first person singular appears with the vowel-initial transitive verb al ‘to say’, while in (51b), the ergative morpheme hin- for first person singular is missing because of the consonant-initial transitive verb tek’ ‘to kick’. Similarly, in (52a) the ergative morpheme t- for second person singular appears with the vowel-initial transitive verb aj ‘to want’, but in (52b) the ergative morpheme n- for first person singular is missing given that the transitive verb is consonant-initial. (51) a. wala’. Chuj (Xep 1;8) Target form: ol-ø w-al-a’   pot-abs3 erg1-say-tv        ‘I am going to say it.’ b. olix te’a, atoti’a. Chuj (Mat 2;2) Target form: ol-ach hin-tek’-a, ak oti’-a   pot-abs2 erg1-kick-tv give to me        ‘I will kick you, give it to me.’ (52) a. taja. Mam (Wel 2;6) Target form: t-aj=a   erg2-want-2       ‘You want it.’ b. txi’ q’o-ne’. Mam (Wel 2;6) Target form: ma txi’ n–q’o-n=e’   com dir erg1-give-ds-1  ‘I gave it.’

2.2.7  Summary In this section we have seen that there are many theories that may account for why certain inflections are not acquired early. Some of these morphemes may be omitted due to under-specification, truncation or modal omission. Other than the Modal Hypothesis and the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis, these theories have focused their argumentation only on main clauses, since it is main clauses that are produced most frequently by young children and show telegraphic characteristics (Brown 1973). Few researchers have explored what happens with inflectional morphemes in other types of clauses, given that their theories do not make predictions about these clauses. Based on their predictions, these theories can be grouped into three classes. The first class considers the omission of grammatical morphemes as a phonological problem (Minimal Word Constraint). The second class considers the omission of grammatical morphemes as a deficit of verbal inflection (Agreement or Tense ­Omission Model and Truncation Hypothesis). The third class considers



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

the ­omission of grammatical morphemes as due to the complexity of clauses that children are exposed to. Generally, children either omit modals (Missing Modal Hypothesis) or do not follow verb complement constraints (Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis). The logic for both theories is essentially that children have not figured out the difference between a main clause and a complement clause; the complement clause is conditioned either by a modal or an auxiliary. In the modal case, children do not actually produce the modal verb but produce the rest of the sentence as though the modal is present. In the second case, children may produce the auxiliary verb, but they do not realize that the auxiliary requires a non-finite complement verb and thus produce agreement and/or tense on the complement verb. 2.3  Research questions In this book I am interested in the following research questions: a. Do children omit inflectional morphemes in early Q’anjob’al? b. Are the patterns of inflection omission different in contexts requiring the ergative pattern vs. in contexts requiring the nominative-accusative pattern? c. Is the pattern of omission of inflectional morphology the same across the three clause types investigated in Q’anjob’al: imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses? To answer these questions I explore the verb morphology found in the three types of clauses presented in (1), (2), and (3), repeated below as (53), (54), and  (55), respectively. (53) a. way-an. Imperative clause sleep-imp ‘Sleep.’ b. kol-o’. help-imp ‘Help!’ c. tay-ne-j. root-der-imp ‘Look after it!’ (54) a. max-ach way-i. Indicative clause com-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You slept.’ b. max-ach w-il-a’. com-abs2 erg1-see-tv ‘I saw you.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(55) a. lanan-ø ha-way-i. prog-abs3 erg2-sleep-nmlz ‘You are sleeping.’

Aspectless complement clause

b. lanan hon ha‑kol‑on‑i. prog abs1 erg2‑help‑af‑nmlz ‘You are helping us.’

I also evaluate the predictions of the theories discussed in Section 2.2 above. To answer the question Do children omit inflectional morphemes in early Q’anjob’al? I  explore the predictions of the Truncation Hypothesis and the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. To answer the question Are the patterns of inflection omission different in contexts requiring the ergative pattern vs. in contexts requiring the nominative-accusative pattern? I evaluate the verb morphology found in indicative (54) and aspectless complement (55) clauses. For this purpose, I pay special attention to the predictions of the Modal Hypothesis and the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis. To answer the question Is the pattern of omission of inflectional morphology the same across imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al? I evaluate how children acquire imperative verbs in Q’anjob’al, like those found in (53) in contrast to indicative and aspectless complement clauses. I also investigate the shape of the verbs that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce to see if the Minimal Word Constraint predicts why in Q’anjob’al children omit inflections found on the verb. 2.4  Conclusion In this chapter we have seen that, cross-linguistically, children omit inflectional morphemes between the age of 2;0 and 3;0 (e.g. Brown 1973 for English). Mayan acquisition studies have also shown that children omit inflectional morphemes. However, the main focus of these studies has been on verbal morphology found in indicative clauses. A few studies have been done on the acquisition of verb morphology in antipassive constructions as in K’iche’ (Pye 1990), split ergativity in Yucatec (Carrillo Carreón 2007), split ergativity in Q’anjob’al (Mateo Pedro 2013a), and extended ergativity in Yucatec, Mam, and Q’anjob’al (Pye et al. 2013). With the exception of the Minimal Word Constraint Model, most acquisition theories do not provide a phonological explanation of the omission of grammatical morphemes. A few researchers have tried to explain the omission of inflectional morphemes in child grammar at the phonological level (Song et al. 2009). Song et al. show that English-speaking children accurately produce the morpheme -s as an agreement marker in simple codas, but not in complex codas.



Chapter 2.  Theoretical background 

Studies in Mayan languages have shown that children exhibit early acquisition of status suffixes, because stress is found word-finally where status suffixes are located (Pye 1983 for K’iche’; Mateo Pedro 2010a for Q’anjob’al). We still do not fully understand why children overextend status suffixes to non-final position. In my own work on the acquisition of intransitive verbs in Q’anjob’al, I have found that the extension of status suffixes to non-final position in intransitive verbs is linked to the distinction between root and derived intransitive verbs in Q’anjob’al. Derived intransitive verbs always retain their status suffixes either in final or nonfinal position, while root intransitive verbs retain their status suffixes in final position only. This idea is similar to the acquisition of status suffixes for root and derived transitive verbs. If Q’anjob’al-speaking children frequently omit inflectional morphemes, we want to know if the Root Infinitive Hypothesis helps us understand the pattern of omissions, or if the Q’anjob’al data can help us understand the Root Infinitive Hypothesis better. Q’anjob’al has two important features that are not commonly evidenced in studies relating to root infinitive: it displays a split ergative pattern, and it is inflectionally very rich. Both of these properties can help distinguish between various candidate explanations for root infinitive (and early inflectional omission in general) that have been proposed in the literature. Further, the variety of explanations (phonological, structural, tense/aspect) proposed for root infinitive can help us come to a deeper understanding of what exactly is motivating the observed patterns of inflection omission in early Q’anjob’al.

chapter 3

Methodology 3.1  Introduction This chapter describes the methodology applied in the present study and also the analyses conducted to evaluate the acquisition of inflections in Q’anjob’al. The chapter is organized in four sections. Section 3.2 provides general information about the subjects of the study, e.g. age, number of sessions, etc. Section 3.3 presents information about how the Q’anjob’al child data was collected and analyzed. Section 3.4 describes criteria used to identify verbs and clause types. Section 3.5 provides a description of the different types of analyses applied to evaluate the acquisition of inflections in Q’anjob’al. 3.2  Subjects I explore Q’anjob’al child data previously collected and transcribed in the project Documenting Mayan Language Acquisition. The data come from three monolingual Q’anjob’al-speaking children: Xhuw (1;9–2;4), Xhim (2;3–2;9), and Tum (2;7–3;1). Xhuw (girl) was the only child in her family when the recordings started. She lived with her parents, who speak Spanish fluently. Xhuw spent most of her time with her female cousin, who was twenty years old. In the recordings, Xhuw interacted with her father and cousin the most, and had a few interactions with her mother. Due to their formal education, Xhuw’s parents sometimes code-switched between Q’anjob’al and Spanish. Xhim (boy) lived with his grandparents, aunts, and uncles. He spent time with his grandmother and with his aunts after they would come home from school. Xhim sometimes spent time at his grandparents’ local business at the communal market of Santa Eulalia. During the recordings, he rarely interacted with his uncles or grandfather. Xhim’s grandparents are monolingual in Q’anjob’al but can use basic Spanish. Even though Xhim’s aunts and uncles go to school, they do not use Spanish at home with him. Therefore Xhim had little exposure to Spanish from his relatives.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Tum (girl) was the first child in her family, but had a younger sister who was 1;7 years old when the recordings started. Tum spent most of her time with her mother and younger sister. Her parents are not fully fluent in Spanish. Both children were mainly exposed to Q’anjob’al, although they would sometimes use a few Spanish words due to their exposure to children’s television programs. Table 6 provides the number of transitive and intransitive verb types each child produced at each age. The numbers of verb types at each age are the total for that age and not cumulative across ages. Both intransitive and transitive verbs are presented based on their initial sounds: consonant initial and vowel initial. As Table 6 shows, the three children produced more verbs with consonant-initial sounds than verbs with vowel-initial sounds. The table further shows that the three children produced more intransitive than transitive verbs. The table also shows the children’s verb types and not tokens. Therefore, in the upcoming tables in the book there will be a mismatch of the data reported there with the data reported in Table 6. Table 6.  Number of different types of verbs produced by the three Q’anjob’al-speaking children Intransitive verbs Child

Ages

Xhuw

Xhim

Transitive verbs

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

1;9

1

–

–

–

1;11

5

4

10

6

2;0

11

4

5

4

2;1

9

7

12

6

2;2

7

4

6

8

2;3

14

6

8

7

2;4

13

3

6

5

Total

60

28

47

36

2;3

3

3

9

4

2;4

15

5

13

7

2;5

11

4

6

5

2;6

6

4

7

5

2;7

3

7

6

5

2;8

21

6

21

10

2;9

15

7

12

10

Total

74

36

62

46 (Continued)



Chapter 3.  Methodology 

Table 6.  (Continued) Intransitive verbs Child

Ages

Tum

Transitive verbs

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

2;7

11

7

15

7

2;8

11

7

19

9

2;9

15

3

9

7

2;10

17

8

13

9

2;11

18

8

16

6

3;0

1

4

4

3

3;1

17

6

18

9

Total

90

43

94

50

No complete analysis of the number of consonant-initial versus vowel-­initial verbs neither the frequency of intransitive and transitive verbs is available for adult Q’anjob’al. However, a preliminary analysis of one file of Xhuw’s father shows that the data in Table 6 above reflects in part what is available in the input. Table  7 shows that in the input there are more consonant-initial than vowel-initial verbs. However, there is a mismatch in the frequency of transitive and intransitive verbs between the input and the child data. Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce more intransitive verbs than transitive verbs, in contrast to at least this one adult speaker of Q’anjob’al, who produces more transitive verbs than intransitive verbs. Table 7.  Number of different types of verbs produced by Xhuw’s father Intransitive verbs Adult

C-initial

Father

11

Transitive verbs

V-initial 7

C-initial 16

V-initial 8

Data from each child was collected and analyzed across a period of seven months. Two sessions were analyzed per month for each child. Each recorded session was approximately an hour long; however, some sessions did not last for the full hour. 3.3  Data collection For data collection each Q’anjob’al-speaking child was visited every two weeks for a period of 7 months. The child output is production data based on ­spontaneous

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

conversations between the child and his/her relatives, neighbors, and/or occasionally with a native speaker Q’anjob’al investigator. Each session consisted of audio and video recordings from two digital recorders: Edirol-R1 and Olympus. A Panasonic PV-GS150 video camera with a Sony microphone was used to record the videos. All the audio and video files were digitized for transcription. The audio files were recorded in 16-bit WAV format, while the videos were recorded first in mini-DV and then converted to MPEG format for transcription using the program Adobe Premiere Elements. Most of the transcriptions were based on the video files in MPEG format, since the high quality of sound and the images from the video allowed for accurate transcriptions. We used the SoundScriber program to transcribe the data, and followed the Q’anjob’al alphabet created by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG) (Acuerdo Gubernativo 1046–87). 3.3.1  Transcriptions As the Primary investigator for the documentation of the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, I did most of the transcriptions myself as a native speaker of Santa Eulalia Q’anjob’al and with the assistance of native speakers of Santa Eulalia Q’anjob’al. I trained seven native speakers of Q’anjob’al on child data collection, particularly the making of video/audio recordings, and on the use of SoundScriber for transcriptions. In the training it was emphasized that these speakers of Q’anjob’al must transcribe and give accurate adult interpretations of the child data. 3.3.2  Coding For the coding of the child data I used Pye’s Minimal Coding Procedures: qanform, qanverb, and qancord, which are available at 〈http://pyersqr.org/minimal/〉. Although Pye’s Minimal Coding Procedures programs are very helpful when counting the frequency of use of any item, they are sometimes unclear when it comes to establishing contexts of use. For this reason, I checked the original transcriptions and coding when knowledge of the context was needed to make an interpretation. 3.3.2.1  Qanform This program produces a transcript with four tiers: (i) the child’s production identified by his/her initial, (ii) adult equivalences of the child’s production, (iii) a tier for morphological glossing of the child data, and (iv) a tier for a Spanish translation of the Q’anjob’al data. This is illustrated in (56). (56) Qanform output T kach’aj mano. = qatx’aj hamano.



Chapter 3.  Methodology 

%mor q-ø-a/tx’aj ha-mano. %eng you will wash your hands. %spa lavarás tus manos.

3.3.2.2  Qanverb This program extracts verb roots from the qanform files, which were originally marked with a slash (/). This program transfers all the verbs to Excel spreadsheets. 3.3.2.3  Qancord This program groups each lexical item and all its contexts of use. This is illustrated in (57) for the negation marker k’am. (57) k’am Adult forms k’am naq. k’am. k’am teyo s-karo. k’am tzet.

Child forms [k’am naχ.] [’am.] [kam teyo kalo.] [’am chet.]

3.4  Criteria for identifying verbs and clauses Interpretation of the intended verb morphology in each type of clause in the child data was based on situational contexts and the interpretation of an adult form. The data in (58a) illustrates an adult form while the data in (58b) illustrates a child form. In (58a) because of pum, an onomatopoeic term for falling objects, is fronted, the intransitive verb aj ‘go up’ loses its aspect and takes an ergative morpheme instead of an absolutive morpheme. Thus, (58b) is ungrammatical because the verb takes aspect and absolutive markings. (58) a. pum y-aj ch’en. pum erg3-go.up pro ‘Pum, the metal fell down.’

Target form

b. *pum ch-ø-’aj ch’en. pum inc-abs3-go.up pro Intended: ‘Pum, the metal fell down.’

Tum (2;8)

However, in the child data we find some cases like (58b). In (58b) Tum does not produce the correct verb morphology for the intransitive verb aj ‘go up’ when following pum. Instead of omitting the incompletive aspect ch- and using the ergative morpheme y-, as illustrated in the target form in (58a), Tum used the incompletive aspect and the third person absolutive morpheme. Omissions of inflectional morphemes were frequent in the child data. Before presenting child data, we first

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

look at the target forms, like the ones in (59). In (59a), the transitive verb lo’ ‘to eat’ takes aspect and agreement. However, when the same transitive verb follows the progressive lanan, morphological changes must take place. The verb loses its aspect and takes the morphemes -on and -i, as illustrated in (59b). (59) a. pan ch-ø-ø-lo’. bread inc-abs3-erg3-eat ‘She eats bread.’ b. pan lanan-ø ø-lo-on-i. bread prog-abs3 erg3-eat-af-nmlz ‘She is eating bread.’

As mentioned above, in the child data we find omission of inflectional morphemes, as illustrated in (60). (60) pan lan lo’. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: pan lanan-ø ø-lo-on-i   bread prog-abs3 erg3-eat-af-nmlz        ‘Bread, it is what she is eating.’

It is also worth noting that some of the children’s verbs were not straightforward. For example, Xhuw occasionally used the ergative morpheme instead of the absolutive morpheme, as in (61a). However, it was not clear what made Xhuw use an ergative instead of an absolutive morpheme. One may think of different possible interpretations for (61a). It might be that Xhuw did not produce the aspect, part of the absolutive morpheme for second person, and the status suffix -i. Compare (61a) with (61b). So this omission would make the absolutive morpheme look like an ergative morpheme. Or, Xhuw might be generally overextending ergative morphemes into absolutive contexts in indicative intransitive clauses, as shown in the target form in (61b). (61) a. ha-way. Xhuw (2;0)   Missing aspectual verb Target form: lanan ha-way-i.   prog erg2-sleep-nmlz   ‘You are sleeping.’ b. ch-ach way-i. inc-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You sleep.’

In some cases, these children used the expected aspectual verb or aspectual adverb to condition the verb morphology in aspectless complement clauses, as in (60). Since the child produced the intransitive verb as a bare root form, however, it is difficult to assess the acquisition of the verb morphology in aspectless complement clauses. It was particularly difficult to assess the acquisition of absolutive



Chapter 3.  Methodology 

morphemes, given that the children most often used absolutive morphemes in the third person singular, which is a zero morpheme as in the target form. In the present study, I included the frequency of use of the third person singular absolutive, but without further analysis. 3.5  Analyses To evaluate the acquisition of verb morphology in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al, I conducted four types of analyses: verb forms, frequency, productivity, and errors. I also conducted an analysis of the phonological and word order effects in the acquisition of inflectional morphemes in Q’anjob’al. 3.5.1  Verb form analysis The verb form analysis helps us to assess the types of verb forms that the children produced in each type of clause. It also helps us to determine whether Q’anjob’alspeaking children use a particular verb form as a default in the three types of clauses. For this analysis I used the forms in (62) (Pye et al. 2008). (62) Verb forms

a. b. c. d. e.

Complete form Omission of aspect Omission of absolutive and/or ergative Bare stem (i.e. verb root plus status suffix) Bare root

To illustrate the forms in (62), I present data from Xhuw in which certain of these verb forms apply (63). A child was credited for producing a complete form if she produced all the inflectional morphemes required on the verb (63a). The omission of aspect was reported if the child produced the other inflectional morphemes, but not aspect (63b). In a bare stem form, only the root verb and the status suffix were produced (63c), while a bare root form omits even the status suffix, so that only the verb root is produced (63d). ’ (63) a. choki. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: ch-ø-�oq’-i.   inc-abs3-cry-iv       ‘She cries.’

Complete form

b. ntohi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-in toj-i.   inc-abs1 go-iv   ‘I go.’

Omission of aspect

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

c. ka hep owal junelxha. Xhim (2;9) Omission of ergative Target form: q-ø-y-aq’ heb’ owal junelxa   pot-abs3-erg3-give they fight again    ‘They will fight again.’ d. ok’i. Xhuw (2;0) Bare stem Target form: ch-ø-�oq’-i.   inc-abs3-cry-iv   ‘She cries.’ e. way. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-ø-way-i.   inc-abs3-sleep-iv   ‘She sleeps.’

Bare root

3.5.2  Frequency analysis Frequency refers to the number of times a child produces a given morpheme in obligatory contexts, according to the constraints of the adult grammar – i.e. the percentage of presence of a morpheme in obligatory contexts. The frequency analysis is commonly applied in first language acquisition studies. In the frequency analysis of inflectional morphemes in Q’anjob’al I applied the 75% criterion instead of the 90% (Brown 1973), as Stromswold (1996) suggests. A morpheme was considered as acquired if it was present in 75% or more of obligatory contexts. 3.5.3  Productivity analysis Given that a frequency analysis has limitations in accounting for the acquisition of inflectional morphemes, I also conducted a productivity analysis, e.g. Mueller Gathercole et  al. (1999), to assess the acquisition of inflectional morphemes in Q’anjob’al. The definition of productivity differs from author to author. Radford (1990) makes a distinction between acquisition and mastery. His mastery criterion is similar to Brown’s (1973) frequency criterion. Both assume that a child has ‘acquired’ an inflectional morpheme if she uses it correctly in a 90% in obligatory contexts. In their study on the acquisition of verbal morphology in Romance languages, Pizzuto and Caselli (1994), Fernández Martínez (1994), and Mueller Gathercole et al. (1999) define productivity based on the combined use of a verb root plus inflectional morphology. There is productivity if an inflectional morpheme is used with two different verb roots or a verb root is used with two different inflectional morphemes. To evaluate the productivity of inflectional morphemes in Q’anjob’al, I followed the productivity criteria proposed by Mueller Gathercole et al. (1999). As the children’s ages increased, I progressively evaluated the appearance of the i­nflectional



Chapter 3.  Methodology 

morphemes in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. The richness of Q’anjob’al morphology helps in evaluating the dimensions of productivity of inflectional morphemes for the three Q’anjob’al-speaking children. An inflection is considered productive if the child used it with two different verb roots in the same session or separate sessions, as illustrated in (64) for the use of the incompletive aspect ch-. In (64a), the aspect ch- is prefixed to the intransitive verb el ‘to exit’; in (64b) it is prefixed to the intransitive verb b’il ‘to move’. (64) a. chel wich. Xhim (2;3) Target form: ch-ø-’el witz   inc-abs3-fall hill    ‘She falls on the hill.’ b. chpil nani. Xhim (2;5) Target form: ch-ø-b’il nani   inc-abs3-move now    ‘She moves now.’

Conversely, a verb is considered productive if it is used with two inflectional morphemes. This is illustrated in (65) with the intransitive verb el ‘to exit’. In (65a), the verb el is prefixed with the incompletive aspect ch- in an indicative clause. In (65b), the same intransitive verb appears as a complement of the transitive verb k’ub’ej ‘to hide, keep’. In (65c), the same intransitive verb takes the suffix -an in an imperative clause. (65) a. chel kachan. Target form: ch-ø-’el k’atxan.   inc-abs3-exit sunny   ‘It is sunny.’

Xhim (2;8)  Indicative clause

b. hal kupej el pa. Xhim (2;8)   Dependent clause Target form: mayal-ø s–k’ub’e–j el s–b’a   adv-abs3 erg3-hide-tv dir erg3-refl   ‘She hid herself already.’ c. elan lus. Target form: el-an lus.   exit-imp Lucy   ‘Lucy, get out!’

Xhim (2;8)  Imperative clause

3.5.4  Error analysis I also conducted an error analysis, which provides further evidence of the productivity of the children’s verb morphology in Q’anjob’al. As we will see in the following chapters, the children produced most of their errors in the use of status suffixes.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

3.5.5  Syllable structures and word order effects in inflectional morphemes The fact that Q’anjob’al-speaking children omit inflectional morphemes in obligatory contexts constitutes motivation to conduct an analysis of the syllable structure of the children’s verbs as well as an analysis of their word order. The syllable structure analysis helps to evaluate the children’s abilities in the production of the verb morphology. If the Minimal Word Constraint is true cross-linguistically, then we may expect Q’anjob’al-speaking children to produce verbs with the phonological structure consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) only. The CVC root is prominent across Mayan languages (Mora-Marín 2010). If children prefer a minimal CVC structure in their early productions, then it may help us to understand why these children omit inflectional morphemes with CVC roots. The analysis of word order helps us to evaluate whether or not children acquire Q’anjob’al as a verb-initial language. Q’anjob’al being a verb-initial language may have an effect in the early acquisition of inflectional morphemes in the language.

chapter 4

Acquisition of intransitive verbs 4.1  Introduction This chapter evaluates how Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquire inflections of intransitive verbs (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes) in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Four elements of production were analyzed: verb form, frequency, productivity, and errors. I include a brief summary of the results here, each of which is presented in detail in the remainder of the chapter. The verb form analysis indicates that Q’anjob’al-speaking children first produce status suffixes with verb roots, and then gradually increase their production of the inflectional morphology pertaining to person and aspect. The initial production of the verb root plus the suffix does not prevent Q’anjob’al-speaking children from acquiring the morphological features of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. The frequency analysis shows that Q’anjob’alspeaking children do not meet the 75% criterion in their production of all the intransitive inflections (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes); in particular, they produce aspectual prefixes sporadically. The productivity analysis shows that not all of the children’s verb inflections are used productively. Their first contrast occurs between the incompletive and potential aspects. They begin making person contrasts before they produce intransitive verbs with contrasting aspect prefixes. However, they produced intransitive verbs with contrasting status suffixes, as well as producing a greater variety of status suffixes. Finally, the error analysis shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce two types of errors: omission and overextension, especially overextension of status suffixes from final to non-final position. All three children used intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses, although they employed them primarily in indicative clauses. Xhuw and Xhim’s intransitive verb use in imperative clauses is a little higher than Tum’s. The children’s frequency of use of intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses appear in Table 8. This table shows the tokens (i.e. not types) of intransitive verbs in each clause type.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 8.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of use of intransitive verbs in ­imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative Child

Age range

Xhuw

Indicative

Aspectless

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

1;9–2;4

120

101

170

246

9

34

Xhim

2;3–2;9

64

24

347

150

5

2

Tum

2;7–3;1

43

22

389

109

14

7

This chapter is divided into the following sections. Section 4.2 describes verb forms that the three Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced in each type of clause. Section 4.3 discusses the frequency with which aspect, absolutive and status suffixes were marked on intransitive verbs. Section 4.4 evaluates the productivity of intransitive verbs in each clause type. Section 4.5 discusses the types of errors the children produced. Section 4.6 concludes the chapter by comparing the results discussed here with results from previous Mayan studies. Finally, Section 4.7 discusses the relationship of the Q’anjob’al child data with the theories presented in Chapter 2. 4.2  Intransitive verb forms In this section, I evaluate the acquisition of the verb forms that each Q’anjob’al child produced in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Due to variations in their ages and in the stage of development of their syllable structure, the degree of development each child has attained in their use of verbal inflection varies somewhat. Nevertheless, all three children share something in common: the production of bare stems and bare roots. However, although all three children produced bare stems (verb root plus status suffix) most frequently, they nevertheless followed the morphological constraints on intransitive verbal complements expected in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al. 4.2.1  Xhuw’s intransitive verb forms Xhuw’s verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses are shown in Table 9. She produced intransitive verbs as bare stems and bare roots in these types of clauses both in non-final and final positions. Although she frequently produced bare stems in these types of clauses, she nevertheless demonstrates some command of the morphology of each clause type. For example, in indicative clauses she occasionally produced aspect and agreement, but in



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

a­spectless complement clauses her intransitive verbs consistently lack aspect marking. This pattern parallels the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al, where aspect is marked on intransitive verbs in indicative clauses, but is omitted in intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. In imperative clauses, Xhuw did not produce aspect or absolutive morphemes at all, as expected in the adult grammar. Table 9.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of intransitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative

Indicative

Aspectless

Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Complete

–

–

  12 (7%)

  7 (3%)

–

–

-Asp

–

–

  8 (5%)

  18 (8%)

1 (20%)

29 (85%)

-Abs

–

–

  0 (0%)

  1 (0.42%)

–

–

Stem

22 (22%)

61 (62%)

  33 (19%)

159 (67%)

2 (40%)

  1 (3%)

Root

78 (78%)

37 (38%)

119 (69%)

  54 (23%)

2 (40%)

  4 (12%)

Total

100

98

172

239

5

34

Xhuw’s verb forms are illustrated below. The examples in (66) illustrate intransitive imperative verb forms in non-final position, while the examples in (67) illustrate intransitive imperative verb forms in final position. A bare stem shows the use of the verb root plus the imperative suffix, although in some cases like (66b) the imperative form -an changes to -a. In bare roots, only the verb is produced, as illustrated in (66b) and (67b). Although there are omissions, the child followed the constraints of the target forms. She did not produce aspect or person marking in imperative clauses. Recall that the child data follows the following format: the first line indicates the child’s production, while the second line is the target form. (66) a. sacha lonal. Xhuw (2;4) Target form: saqch-an Ronald   play-imp Ronald   ‘Play, Ronald.’

Bare stem

b. a pixh. Xhuw (2;1) Target form: ay-an pis-an-oq   down-imp sit-pos-suf   ‘Sit down.’

Bare root

(67) a. ton. Xhuw (1;11) Bare stem Target form: to-n   go-imp   ‘Let’s go.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. pixh. Xhuw (2;2) Target form: ay-an pis-an-oq   go-imp sit-pos-suf   ‘Sit down’.

Bare root

The data in (68) and (69) illustrate Xhuw’s intransitive verb forms in indicative clauses in non-final and final positions, respectively. In (68a) all inflectional morphemes are produced, even though the initial consonant of the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ gets deleted. In (69a), the incompletive aspect ch- is omitted. The data in (68b) and (69b) illustrate bare stems. In (68b) the status suffix -i gets extended to non-final position, which is not expected in the target form. In contrast, in (69b) the same status suffix -i appears in final position, as expected in the target form. The intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ in (68c) and the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ in (69c) were produced as bare roots, which are not expected in the adult grammar. (68) a. choj no mi chapapo. Xhuw (2;1) Target form: ch-ø-toj no mi sapato   inc-abs3-go clf my shoe   ‘My shoe leaves.’

Complete

b. tohi ewi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ø-toj ewi   abs3-go yesterday   ‘She went yesterday.’

Bare stem

c. ay toh talo! Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ay ch-ø-toj ch’en karro   ay inc-abs3-go clf car   ‘Ah, the car is leaving!’

Bare root

(69) a. ntohi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-in toj-i   inc-abs1 go-iv   ‘I leave.’

Omission of aspect

b. tohi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-ø-toj-i   inc-abs3-go-iv   ‘She leaves.’

Bare stem

c. way. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-ø-way-i   inc-abs3-sleep-iv   ‘She sleeps.’

Bare root

The data in (70) in non-final position and the data in (71) in final position illustrate Xhuw’s intransitive verb forms in aspectless complement clauses. In (70a),



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

the ergative morpheme cross-referencing the intransitive verb low ‘to eat’ occurres after the verb, making it an independent pronoun. In (70b), the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ appears as a bare root, but after the progressive lanan. In (71), the intransitive verb way taking an ergative morpheme instead of an absolutive morpheme appears without an aspectual verb. It is not clear what provoked the change from an absolutive morpheme to an ergative morpheme. (70) a. la low hin. Xhuw (2;4) Bare stem Target form: lanan hin-lo-w-i.   prog erg1-eat-ap-nmlz   ‘I am eating.’ b. a way lah. Xhuw (2;0) Bare root Target form: lanan ø-way-i la.   prog erg3-sleep-nmlz dem   ‘Look, she is sleeping.’ (71) haway. Xhuw (2;0) Missing aspectual verb Target form: lanan ha-way-i.   prog erg2-sleep-nmlz    ‘You are sleeping’.

4.2.2  Xhim’s intransitive verb forms Xhim produced intransitive verbs as bare stems and bare roots in non-final and final positions in imperative and indicative clauses, as shown in Table 10. He also produced intransitive verbs as complete forms and without aspect in indicative clauses in both non-final and final positions. He produced two instances of a nominalized intransitive verb. Table 10.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of intransitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative

Indicative

Aspectless

Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Complete

–

–

  44 (13%)

14 (6%)

–

–

-Asp

–

–

  37 (11%)

14 (6%)

1 (100%)

1 (0%)

  3 (1%)

-Abs

–

–

  2 (1%)

–

–

Stem

64 (96%)

16 (100%)

  64 (19%)

97 (43%)

–

–

Root

  3 (4%)

  0 (0%)

186 (56%)

99 (44%)

–

–

Total

67

16

333

227

1

1

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Xhim’s examples of imperative verb forms are given in (72). His imperative forms are similar to the adult form. (72) a. elan chi’. Target form: el-an tx’i’   exit-imp dog   ‘Dog, get out.’

Xhim (2;5)

Bare stem

b. okanteχ. Xhim (2;4) Bare stem Target form: ok-an-teq   enter-imp-dir   ‘Come on in.’ c. ayan pixh wetoχ pap. Xhim (2;9) Target form: ay-an pis-an w-etoq pap   go-imp sit-pos erg1-rn dad   ‘Sit down with me, Dad.’

Bare root

Xhim produced different verb forms in indicative clauses. The data in (73) illustrate Xhim’s indicative verb forms in non-final position: complete form (73a), omission of aspect (73b), bare stem (73c), and bare root (73d). The data in (74) also illustrate Xhim’s indicative verb forms, but in final position. (73) a. chel wich. Target form: ch-ø-el witz   inc-abs3-fall hill   ‘She falls on the hill.’

Xhim (2;3)  Complete form

b. hinwachi. Target form: ch-in watx’-j-i   inc-abs1 good-der-iv   ‘I am being cured.’

Xhim (2;5)  Omission of aspect

c. komi wich. Xhim (2;4)  Bare stem Target form: x-ø-kam b’ay witz.   com-abs3-die prep hill   ‘She died at the hill.’ d. pil nan… Xhim (2;4)  Bare root Target form: ch-ø-b’il nani…   inc-abs3-move now   ‘She moves now.’ (74) a. hin ayteq. Target form: ch-in ay-teq.   inc-abs1 down-dir   ‘I get down.’

Xhim (2;8)  Omission of aspect



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

b. kaji. Xhim (2;4)  Bare stem Target form: ch-ø-q’aj-i   inc-abs3-break-iv   ‘It breaks.’ c. toj. Xhim (2;6)  Bare root Target form: ch-ø-toj-i.   inc-abs3-go-iv   ‘She leaves.’

Xhim produced two instances of intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses as shown in (75). He showed a clear shift from absolutive to ergative morpheme, as illustrated in (75a). The intransitive verb mulnaj ‘to work’ is preceded by the progressive lanan. Also, Xhim correctly produced an ergative prefix to crossreference the intransitive verb ay ‘to go down’ in aspectless complement clauses, but missed the required aspectual adverb, as illustrated in (75b). (75) a. lan hamulnajil tom. Xhim (2;9) Absolutive > ergative Target form: lanan ha-mulnaj-i dom   prog erg2-work-nmlz Dominga   ‘Dominga you are working.’ b. yaytok. Xhim (2;8) Target form: xewtu y-ay-toq   then erg3-go down-dir   ‘Then she got down.’

Missing aspectual adverb

4.2.3  Tum’s intransitive verb forms Tum produced intransitive verbs as bare stems and bare roots in imperative and indicative clauses in non-final and final positions, as shown in Table 11. Although Tum occasionally used aspect and agreement, she used bare stems and bare roots in both non-final and final positions in indicative clauses. This is parallel to the patterns seen in Xhuw and Xhim’s data. Her intransitive verb forms in aspectless complement clauses appeared with a missing aspectual verb or aspectual adverb and with a bare stem, as expected in the target form. Tum’s imperative verb forms in non-final position are shown in (76a), while her imperatives in final position are shown in (76b). (76) a. wayan hinchi’… Tum (2;8) Target form: way-an kin-chi…   sleep-imp erg1-say.   ‘Sleep, I said.’

Bare stem

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 11.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of intransitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative

Indicative

Aspectless

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Complete

–

–

  83 (22%)

27 (24%)

–

–

-Asp

–

–

  76 (20%)

39 (35%)

13 (100%)

3 (50%)

-Abs

–

–

–

–

–

–

Stem

34 (83%)

22 (100%)

  82 (21%)

40 (35%)

–

3 (50%)

Root

  7 (17%)

–

143 (37%)

  7 (6%)

–

–

Total

41

22

384

113

13

6

b. ok’an. Target form: oq’-an   cry-imp   ‘Cry!’

Tum (2;8)

Bare stem

In non-final and final positions, in indicative clauses Tum produced many intransitive verbs as complete forms (77a), although she occasionally omitted aspect (77b) and produced bare stems (77c) and bare roots (77d). The data in (78) also shows Tum’s intransitive verb forms in indicative clauses in final position. (77) a. ch’ok oloχ. Tum (2;7) Target form: ch-ø-’ok ol-oq   inc-abs3-enter dir-suf   ‘She is coming inside.’

Complete form

b. hinawj way. Tum (2;7) Target form: ch-in aw-j-i b’ay   inc-abs1 scream-der-iv pre   ‘I yell for her.’

Omission of aspect

c. k’aji chi ka la. Tum (2;7) Bare stem Target form: ch-ø-q’aj-i xhi kaq la   inc-abs3-break-iv said like that   ‘It breaks, she said like this.’ d. oq ka la. Tum (2;7) Target form: ch-ø-oq’ kaq la   inc-abs3-cry like that   ‘She cries like that.’

Bare root

(78) a. hinchiwi. Tum (2;7) Target form: ch-in xiw-i   inc-abs1 scare-iv   ‘I get scared.’

Omission of aspect



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

b. ok’i.    Tum (2;7) Bare stem Target form: ch-ø-�oq’-i.   inc-abs3-cry-iv   ‘She cries.’

In aspectless complement clauses, in non-final (79a) and final (80a) positions, Tum correctly produced ergative morphemes, replacing absolutive morphemes to cross-reference intransitive verbs. She also produced intransitive verbs with a missing aspectual adverb, as shown in (79b). (79) a. axh yok chaj b’ay heb’ telexh tu. Tum (3;1)  Absolutive > ergative Target form: ax y-ok txaj b’ay heb’ telexh tu   then erg3-enter pray prep they Teresa dem   ‘Then, a prayer is going to happen at Teresa’s place.’ b. yo’ icha.  Tum (2;8) Missing aspectual adverb Target form: xewtu y-oq’ jun icham   then erg3-cry one old man   ‘Then an old man cried.’ (80) a. lanan hink’ajab’i.  Tum (2;11)  Absolutive > ergative Target form: lanan hin-q’anjab’-i   prog erg1-talk-nmlz   ‘I am talking.’ b. wa’ kani.      Tum (2;11) Target form: watx’ ø-kan-i.   good erg3-stay-nmlz   ‘It is good for her to stay.’

4.2.4  Summary The three Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced different verb forms, but followed the morphological constraints dictated by the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al for intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Most of Xhuw’s intransitive verbs appeared as bare stems and root stems. Xhim and Tum are more advanced in age than Xhuw, but they produced bare stems and bare roots as well.

4.3  Frequency of intransitive inflections This section applies the frequency analysis to evaluate the children’s acquisition of aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes. In this analysis, frequency means the percentage of use of an inflectional morpheme in obligatory contexts. The analysis was run only with indicative clauses. The analysis shows that Q’anjob’al-speak-

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

ing children initially acquire the verb root plus the status suffix. The analysis also shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children first acquire status suffixes then absolutive morphemes and aspect. The children produced ergative prefixes consistently in aspectless complement clauses. 4.3.1  Frequency of Xhuw’s intransitive inflections Table 12 shows Xhuw’s percentage use of each morpheme type in obligatory contexts with intransitive inflection in indicative clauses. The data in the final column in Table 12 (Average %) should be read as follows, using the first row as an example. The figure given for the first row is 20/239 (8%). Here, 20 is the total number of Xhuw’s correct productions of the given morpheme, 239 indicates the total number contexts in which Xhuw had the chance to produce that morpheme, and 8% is the percentage of correct forms that the child produced out of the available contexts (i.e. 20/239). The data in subsequent tables are formatted as in Table 12. Table 12.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of intransitive inflections (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes) in indicative clauses infl\ages

1;9

1;11

2;0

2;1

2;2

2;3

2;4

Average %

asp

inc

0/3

0/31

3/59

1/32

1/25

15/72

0/17

20/239 (8%)

com

0/0

0/17

0/27

0/26

0/12

0/46

0/33

0/161 (0%)

pot

0/0

0/1

0/2

0/6

0/2

0/3

0/7

0/20 (0%)

1sg

1/1

1/4

4/9

2/6

1/1

0/1

0/13

9/25 (36%)

2sg

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/1

0/2

0/0

0/0

0/3 (0%)

3sg

0/2

0/44

0/67

0/58

0/35

0/118

0/52

0/376 (0%)

1pl

0/0

0/0

11/23

0/1

0/2

0/1

0/3

11/30 (36%)

imp -an

1/4

9/10

15/21

18/29

17/41

16/84

7/9

83/198 (42%)

ind -i

0/1

22/45

51/66

33/60

18/36

52/102

16/54

192/364 (52%)

nmlz -i

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/2

1/2

1/2

1/2

3/8 (38%)

abs

suf

Xhuw sporadically used the incompletive aspect, as illustrated in (81). She produced the first person absolutive morpheme -in (82a) in 9 obligatory contexts out of 25. She also produced the absolutive morpheme -on for first person plural (82b) in 11 obligatory contexts out of 30, but only with the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep.’ In both (82a) and (82b), the incompletive aspect ch- is missing in Xhuw’s data. Additionally, Xhuw did not produce the second person morpheme in obligatory contexts. Xhuw produced most of her intransitive verbs with third person singular. As mentioned earlier, in this study I counted the frequency of use



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

of the absolutive morpheme for third person singular given that it is adult-like performance. (81) chawi. Xhuw (2;3) Incompletive aspect Target form: ch-ø-laj-w-i   inc-abs3-finish-ap-iv    ‘It gets finished.’ (82) a. ntohi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-in toj-i   inc-abs1 go-iv   ‘I go’.

1sg absolutive

b. hon way. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: ch-on way-i   inc-abs1 sleep-iv   ‘We sleep.’

1pl absolutive

A comparison of Xhuw’s perecentage of use of absolutive morphemes in obligatory contexts in indicative clauses and percentage of use of ergative morphemes in obligatory contexts in aspectless complement clauses is shown in Table 13. In contrast to indicative clauses, in aspectless complement clauses Xhuw correctly produced ergative morphemes to cross-reference intransitive verbs. Recall from Chapter 1, example (3a), that in aspectless complement clauses, an intransitive verb takes an ergative morpheme instead of taking an absolutive. Table 13.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses in contrast to ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses Indicative (absolutive)

Aspectless (absolutive>ergative)

1singular

9/25 (36%)

10/10 (100%)

2singular

0/3 (0%)

8/8 (100%)

3singular

0/376 (0%)

2/2 (100%)

1plural

11/30 (36%)

7/7 (100%)

Xhuw produced more indicative status suffixes than imperative suffixes; she produced few contexts for the nominal suffix. The occurrence of the status suffixes in final position was much higher than their occurrence in non-final position, which obeys the constraint on the use of status suffixes in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al. An exception is the use of the imperative suffix, which is obligatory in both non-final and final positions in the adult grammar. A comparison of Xhuw’s use of status suffixes in non-final and final positions in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses are given in Table 14.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 14.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes

Non-final position

  Final position

Imperative -an

22/100 (22%)

61/98 (62%)

Indicative -i

33/151 (22%)

159/213 (75%)

2/3 (66%)

1/5 (20%)

Nominal -i

4.3.2  Frequency of Xhim’s intransitive inflections Xhim’s frequency of use of intransitive verb inflections is illustrated in Table 15. He produced both incompletive and potential aspects with about the same frequency (12% and 14% respectively). Aspect prefixes occurred with low frequency, suggesting that Xhim did not yet command the use of these markers during the period of the study. The data in (83) illustrate the incompletive aspect ch-. As Table 15 shows, Xhim produced the third person singular absolutive at a relatively high frequency as compared to the other absolutive person morphemes. (83) chpil nani. Xhim (2;5) Target form: ch-ø-b’il nani   inc-abs3-move now    ‘She moves now.’ Table 15.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of intransitive inflections (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes) in indicative clauses infl\ages

2;3

2;4

2;5

2;6

2;7

2;8

2;9

Average %

asp

inc

1/10

13/93

5/49

1/10

2/19

8/76

11/66

41/323 (12%)

com

0/3

0/10

2/8

0/1

0/6

1/9

2/29

5/66 (8%)

pot

0/12

2/35

1/22

0/1

0/3

5/21

8/15

16/109 (14%)

1sg

0/1

5/10

8/10

1/1

1/1

19/21

9/15

43/59 (73%)

2sg

0/2

0/1

1/7

0/0

0/1

0/0

2/5

3/16 (19%)

3sg

0/13

0/15

0/61

0/11

0/24

0/81

0/74

0/379 (0%)

1pl

0/9

2/2

1/1

0/0

2/2

4/4

8/9

17/27 (63%)

2pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0 (0%)

3pl

0/0

5/11

0/1

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/7

5/19 (26%)

imp -an

9/9

15/15

4/4

2/2

3/3

27/28

22/24

82/85 (96%)

ind -i

23/23

64/102

27/61

1/8

8/24

33/73

7/69

163/360 (45%)

nmlz -i

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0 (0%)

abs

suf



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

The data in Table 16 shows a comparison of Xhim’s frequency of absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses and frequency of absolutive morphemes shifting to ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses. Xhim produced few examples of aspectless complement clauses, but when he used ergative morphemes instead of absolutive morphemes he got them right, as is expected from the adult form. Table 16.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses in contrast to ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses Indicative (absolutive)

Aspectless (absolutive>ergative)

1singular

43/59 (73%)

1/1 (100%)

2singular

3/16 (19%)

1/1 (100%)

3singular

0/379 (0%)

0 (0%)

1plural

17/27 (63%)

0 (0%)

2plural 3plural

0 (0%)

0 (0%) 5/19 (26%)

0 (0%)

As for status suffixes, Xhim produced more indicative suffixes than imperative suffixes; he produced no suffixes in aspectless complement clauses. A comparison of his suffixes in non-final and final positions is shown in Table 17. Table 17.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of status suffixes in intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions

Imperative -an Indicative -i Nominal -i

Non-final

Final

61/64 (95%)

21/21 (100%)

64/260 (25%) 0/0 (0%)

99/120 (82%) 0 (0%)

4.3.3  Frequency of Tum’s intransitive inflections Tum’s frequency of use of intransitive inflections is shown in Table 18. She used the potential aspect more frequently than the incompletive aspect. Use of the completive prefix remained marginal during the study period, indicating that Tum was still acquiring aspect prefixes. The data in (84) illustrate her use of the potential aspect.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(84) kin ajteχ pelo. Tum (2:11) Target form: q-in aj-teq1 Pedro.   pot-abs1 go.up-dir Pedro    ‘I will go up, Pedro.’ Table 18.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of intransitive inflections (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes) in indicative clauses infl\ages

2;7

2;8

2;9

2;10

2;11

3;0

3;1

Average %

asp

inc

3/33

6/67

2/30

11/33

8/43

1/7

7/36

38/249 (15%)

com

0/3

1/2

0/0

0/19

0/31

0/0

6/57

7/112 (6%)

pot

0/8

6/20

1/4

1/17

26/33

0/0

25/54

59/137 (43%)

1sg

22/24

27/27

5/5

4/9

35/41

0/0

34/38

127/144 (88%)

2sg

0/0

2/3

0/2

0/0

4/4

0/0

0/0

6/9 (67%)

3sg

0/18

0/59

0/27

0/55

0/57

0/7

0/90

0/313 (0%)

1pl

1/1

0/0

0/0

1/1

4/4

0/0

12/15

18/21 (86%)

2pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0 (0%)

3pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/4

0/1

0/0

0/4

1/9 (11%)

imp -an

13/15

21/25

4/4

2/2

8/8

3/3

5/6

56/63 (89%)

ind -i

3/7

17/40

10/24

31/47

7/53

1/6

53/94

122/271 (45%)

nmlz -i

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0 (0%)

abs

suf

Tum frequently produced first and third person singular absolutive morphemes, but produced fewer contexts for the other absolutive person markers. She produced ergative prefixes more consistently in aspectless complement clauses than elsewhere, but with fewer tokens. This pattern of use suggests that Tum acquired ergative morphemes with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses before she acquired absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses. This parallels with what we have seen in Xhuw and Xhim’s data. A comparison of Tum’s use of absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses and absolutive morphemes shifting to ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses is shown in Table 19. The frequency analysis shows that Tum used the imperative suffix more frequently than the indicative suffix. A comparison of the distribution of her status suffixes is shown in Table 20.

.  The uvular stop /q/ some times is realized as [χ] in the Q’anjob’al child data.



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

Table 19.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses in contrast to ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses Indicative (absolutive) 1singular

127/144 (88%)

2singular

6/9 (67%)

Aspectless (absolutive > ergative) 7/8 (88%) 0/2 (0%)

3singular

0/313 (0%)

6/9 (67%)

1plural

18/21 (86%)

2/2 (100%)

2plural

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3plural

1/9 (11%)

0 (0%)

Table 20.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes Imperative -an Indicative -i Nominal -i

Non-final

Final

34/41 (83%)

22/22 (100%)

82/225 (36%)

40/46 (87%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4.3.4  Summary According to the frequency analysis, the three Q’anjob’al-speaking children met the 75% criterion in their production of status suffixes, absolutive morphemes with first person singular and plural, but not with aspect. These children produced aspectual prefixes sporadically. Tum, the most advanced of the children, produced more overt absolutive forms than Xhuw and Xhim. All three children shifted absolutive morphemes to ergative morphemes more consistently in aspectless complement clauses than using absolutive morphemes with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses. 4.4  Productivity of intransitive inflections This section presents an analysis of the productivity of the children’s intransitive inflection. Not all of the children’s verb inflections showed productivity. In particular, the children produced more productivity for status suffixes than for person and aspect. They produced intransitive verbs primarily with first and third person singular absolutive. The initial contrasts occurred between the incompletive and potential aspects.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

4.4.1  Xhuw’s productivity of intransitive inflections Xhuw produced many different verbs between the ages of 2;0 and 2;4 (e.g. oq’ ‘to cry’, toj ‘to go’, ul ‘to come’, ay ‘to get down’, chel-lay ‘to be held on lap’, el ‘to exit’, jay ‘to come’, lajw- ‘to be finished’, ok ‘to enter’), but each of these verbs was only used with the incompletive aspect ch-. These verbs all appeared with the third person; the lack of variation for aspect and person suggests that Xhuw may produce these as frozen forms. Xhuw’s intransitive verbs were marked with either first or third person singular. Between the age of 2;0 and 2;1, she produced the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ with contrastive marking for first and third persons. Shortly thereafter, she produced a contrast for person with the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ as well. At 2;0, she produced way with a first person plural absolutive marker, and at 2;3 she produced the same verb with second and third person ergative prefixes. Overall, Xhuw produced more contrasts for person than for aspect. Xhuw mainly produced intransitive verbs with the status suffix -i and the imperative suffix -an; relatively few verbs in the data set were produced with contrasting suffixes, as shown in Table 21. At age 2;0, she produced the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ with the indicative (-i) and nominal (-i) suffixes; between the ages of 2;1 and 2;4, she produced the intransitive verbs toj ‘to go’, way ‘to sleep’, and ay pis ‘sit down’ with contrasting status suffixes. Table 21.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) productivity of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Status suffixes\ages

2;0

2;1

2;2

2;3

ind/pot

–

toj

–

toj

ind/imp

–

–

toj

–

ind/nom

way

–

–

–

ind/nom/imp

–

–

–

toj

nom/imp

–

–

–

way

pot/imp

–

ay pis

–

–

4.4.2  Xhim’s productivity of intransitive inflections Compared to Xhuw, Xhim showed more productivity for aspect. This is illustrated in Table 22. Xhim’s intransitive verbs appeared with first and third person singular and first person plural. At the age of 2;4, he produced the intransitive verb ok ul ‘to come in’ with contrastive marking for third person singular and third person ­plural. He



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

also produced other intransitive verbs, such as toj ‘to go’, which appeared at different ages with various person markings. Table 22.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of aspect with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

2;4

2;5

2;8

2;9

inc/com

–

el

–

el

inc/pot

ok ul, el ul

–

el ul

el ul, ok ul, ay pis

Table 23.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of person with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses Absolutives\ages

2;4

abs1sg/abs2sg

2;5

2;8

2;9

toj

abs1sg/abs3sg

toj, mulnaj, way

abs1sg/abs3sg/abs2sg

el

abs3sg/abs3pl

ok ul

abs1sg/abs1pl

toj

Xhim’s intransitive verbs appeared with the indicative suffix -i and the suffix -oq in the context of potential aspect, as shown in Table 24. At 2;4, he produced the intransitive verb ok ‘to enter’ with indicative (-i) and imperative (-an) suffixes. Between the ages of 2;4 and 2;8, Xhim produced the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ with the indicative (-i), potential (-oq), and imperative (-n) suffixes. Table 24.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Status suffixes\ages

2;4

2;5

2;8

2;9

ind/imp

ok

–

el

–

ind/pot/imp

toj

–

toj

–

ind/pot

el

el

laj-w

–

imp/pot

–

–

–

ay

4.4.3  Tum’s productivity of intransitive inflections Tum displays more productive aspect marking than either Xhuw or Xhim. She produced different aspect prefixes than the other two children, and produced

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

more verbs with aspectual contrasts, especially the incompletive and potential aspects, as shown in Table 25. Between the ages of 2;8 and 3;1, she produced the intransitive verbs ay ul ‘to go_down’ b’et ‘to go’ and q’anjab’ ‘to talk’ with incompletive and potential contrasts. At the age of 3;1, she showed a contrast between the incompletive and completive aspects with the intransitive verb b’et. Table 25.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) productivity of aspect with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

2;7

2;8

2;11

3;1

inc/pot

ok ul

ay ul

ay

toj, q’anjab’

inc/com

–

–

–

b’et

Most of Tum’s intransitive verbs appeared with first and third person singular absolutive. Her advanced state in comparison to Xhuw and Xhim is demonstrated by the contrasts in person marking she exhibits on her intransitive verbs starting at age 2;7. Further contrasts of person marking are illustrated in Table 26 below. Table 26.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) productivity of person with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses Absolutives\ages

2;7

2;8

2;9

2;10

2;11

3;1

abs1sg/abs3sg

aj, ay, kam

b’et, kan, oq’, q’aj

tx’aj-w

b’et, q’anjab’

–

b’et

abs1sg/abs1pl

–

–

–

–

toj

aj, toj

abs2sg/abs3sg

–

ante-

–

–

–

–

abs1sg/abs2sg/abs3sg

–

toj

toj

–

ay

–

abs1sg/abs3sg

–

–

–

–

oq’

–

abs1sg/abs2sg/abs1sg

–

–

–

–

q’anjab’

–

Tum used intransitive verbs with the indicative suffix -i, as shown in Table 27. She produced more intransitive verbs than Xhim, but employed fewer contrasting suffixes. At the age of 2;7, Tum produced the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ with the indicative (-i) and imperative (-n) suffixes. At the age of 3;1, she used the intransitive verb ok ‘to enter’ with the nominal suffix -i. 4.4.4  Summary The Q’anjob’al-speaking children did not show productivity in all of their verb inflections during the time of the study. The children’s initial contrasts of aspect



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

Table 27.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) productivity of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses Status suffixes\ages

2;7

2;8

ind/imp

toj

–

ind/imp/pot

toj

–

ind/imp

–

oq’

occurred between the incompletive and potential aspects. Xhuw produced only the incompletive aspect, and did so on a limited number of intransitive verbs. These may be considered to be frozen forms. Xhim and Tum produced intransitive verbs mainly in the incompletive aspect; they employed the completive and potential aspects occasionally. All three children produced intransitive verbs primarily with the first and third person singular absolutive. Xhuw produced only two verbs with person contrast by the age of 2;4. Xhim also produced relatively few cases of contrast between first and third person singular absolutive, but employed those absolutives with a number of aspects and with different clause types. Tum produced more first/ third singular absolutive contrasts than the other children, and also produced a few second singular/first plural absolutive contrasts in incompletive and potential aspects. Altogether, she produced substantially more person-marking contrasts than Xhuw and Xhim. Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced intransitive verbs with contrasting status suffixes, as well as a great variety of status suffixes. Thus, we can conclude from the productivity analysis that these children produced more contrasts for status suffixes with intransitive verbs than for person and aspect. Table 28 shows a summary of the productivity of the children’s intransitive verb inflections. Table 28.  Summary of Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s productivity of intransitive inflections (aspect, absolutive, and status suffixes) in indicative clauses2 Xhuw (1;9–2;4) Aspect

Absolutive morpheme

Status suffix

–

–

ind -i & pot -oq (2;1)

–

–

ind -i & nmlz -i (2;0)

–

–

ind -i, nmlz -i & imp -n (2;3) (Continued)

.  The status suffix in potential aspect is realized as -oq.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 28.  (Continued) Xhim (2;3–2;9) Aspect

Absolutive morpheme

Status suffix

inc/com (2;5)

abs3sg/abs3pl (2;4)

ind -i/imp -an/pot -oq (2;4)

–

abs1sg/abs2sg (2;5)

ind -i/pot -oq/imp -n (2;4)

–

abs1sg/abs2sg/abs3sg (2;9)

–

Aspect

Absolutive morpheme

Status suffix

inc/pot (2;11)

abs1sg/abs3sg (2;7)

–

inc/com (3;1)

abs1sg/abs2sg/abs3sg (2;8)

ind -i/imp -n (2;7)

–

–

ind -i/imp -an (2;8)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

4.5  Errors Another way to evaluate the productivity of the children’s use of intransitive inflections is to explore the types of errors they made. This section evaluates the following types of errors: (i) overextension and omission of status suffixes in final position, (ii) use of status suffixes in inappropriate aspect, (iii) use of independent pronouns instead of absolutive morphemes, and (iv) intransitive verbs that take ergative morphemes without an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb. 4.5.1  Overextension and omission of status suffixes The indicative (-i) and nominal (-i) suffixes are restricted to final position in the target language as shown in (13) above and repeated in (85) below. Q’anjob’alspeaking children often overextended the suffix -i by using it in non-final position as illustrated in (86). (85) max-ach way-i. Target form com-abs2 sleep-iv ‘You slept.’ (86) a. tohi ewi. Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ø-toj ewi.   abs3-go yesterday   ‘She went yesterday.’ b. komi wich. Xhim (2;4) Target form: x-ø-kam b’ay witz.   com-abs3-die prep hill   ‘She died at the hill.’



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

Even though the imperative, indicative, and nominal suffixes in final position are all obligatory in final position in the target language (87), the children also omitted them in final position, as shown in (88). (87) ch-in way-i. Target form inc-abs1 sleep-iv ‘I am sleeping.’ (88) a. way. Xhuw (1;11) Bare root Target form: ch-ø-way-i   inc-abs3-sleep-iv   ‘She sleeps.’ b. toj. Xhim (2;6) Bare root Target form: ch-ø-toj-i.   inc-abs3-go-iv   ‘She leaves.’

Xhuw produced root intransitive verbs in indicative, imperative, and aspectless complement clauses. In contrast, Xhim and Tum produced more root intransitive verbs in indicative clauses, but they did not drop the imperative suffix -an in final position. All three Q’anjob’al-speaking children overextended the non-final position constraint to final position, but the extension occurs at a lower frequency. The overextension of suffixes to non-final position decreased, as the children got older. This pattern is seen in Xhim and Tum’s data in Table 29, although Tum Table 29.  Children’s percentage use of status suffixes with intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Suffixes

Non-final position

Final position

Xhuw (1;9–2;4) Imperative -an

22/100 (22%)

61/98 (62%)

Indicative -i

33/151 (22%)

159/213 (75%)

Aspectless -i

2/3 (66%)

1/5 (20%)

Xhim (2;3–2;9) Imperative -an Indicative -i Aspectless -i

61/64 (95%) 64/250 (26%) 0 (0%)

21/21 (100%) 99/120 (82%) 0 (0%)

Tum (2;7–3;1) Imperative -an Indicative -i Aspectless -i

34/41 (83%)

22/22 (100%)

82/225 (36%)

40/46 (87%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

­ verextended suffixes to non-final position more than Xhim. The children coro rectly applied the constraint to the imperative suffix -an, which appears in nonfinal and final positions as expected in the adult grammar (c.f. Xhuw’s data). 4.5.2  Status suffixes with incorrect aspect or incorrect clause The three children rarely produced status suffixes with incorrect aspect or in an incorrect clause. The only errors found are shown in (89). Tum produced status suffixes with incorrect aspect. In (89a), instead of using the suffix -oq to indicate the potential aspect of the intransitive verb saqch ‘to play’, she used the indicative suffix -i. In (89b) she used the suffix -oq instead of the suffix -i. Compared to the target form, these two forms are ungrammatical. (89) a. ja to qin saqchi. Tum (2;11) Target form: ja tol q-in saqch-oq   yes comp pot-abs1 play-iv   ‘Yes, I will play.’

-oq > -i

b. chin q’anjab’oq. Target form: ch-in q’anjab’-i.   inc-abs1 talk-iv   ‘I talk.’

-i > -oq

Tum (3;1)

4.5.3  Independent pronouns Xhuw and Xhim did not produce independent pronouns to replace absolutive morphemes, instead they used some absolutive morphemes of first person absolutive morphemes as the way they appear in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al, as shown in (90a). In (90b), Xhuw used the progressive lanan ‘in progress’ where the intransitive verb low ‘to eat’ should take an ergative morpheme hin- for first person singular. However, she used this morpheme after the intransitive verb, which makes it look like an independent pronoun. (90) a. toyin talo. Xhuw (1;11)  First person absolutive Target form: toy-in b’ay karro   go-abs1 prep car   ‘I go to the car.’ b. la low hin. Xhuw (2;4)  Independent pronoun Target form: lanan hin-lo-w-i   prog erg1-eat-ap-nmlz   ‘I am eating.’

Xhim also used the independent pronoun ayin after the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’ instead of fronting it as it is expected in the target form (91).



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

(91) toχ ayin a wewe. Xhim (2;4) Target form: ayin q-in toq b’ay wewe.   pro pot-abs1 go.pot prep Huehuetenango    ‘I am the one who will go to Huehuetenango.’

In contrast to Xhuw and Xhim, Tum produced more cases of independent pronouns replacing absolutive morphemes, as illustrated in (92). In (92a), she fronted the absolutive morpheme hin for first person singular, while in (92b) she used the same absolutive morpheme (hin) after the intransitive verb toj ‘to go’. In (92c), she used the absolutive morpheme -in, which is common in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al. (92) a. hin ch’okoloχ. Tum (2;7) Target form: ch-in ok ol-oq   inc-abs1 enter dir-suf   ‘I enter’ b. icham toj hin b’ey. Target form: ch-in toj b’ay icham   inc-abs1 go prep old man   ‘I go where the old man is.’

Tum (2;8)

c. toyin xhi ka la. Target form: toy-in xhi kaq la.   go-abs1 said like that   ‘I go, she said it like that.

Tum (2;7)

4.5.4  Intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses The Q’anjob’al-speaking children also produced some errors with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. Xhim correctly used an ergative prefix with the intransitive verb mulnaj ‘to work’, but he added the suffix -il, which is not expected in the adult grammar. In the adult form, the suffix -il derives nouns from verbs. Xhim produced only two intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. In both cases, he clearly replaced an absolutive morpheme with an ergative morpheme, but did not produce an aspectual adverb, as shown in the contrast between (93a) and (93b). (93) a. lan hamulnajil tom. Xhim (2;9)  Absolutive > ergative Target form: lan ha-mulnaj dom   prog erg2-work Dominga   ‘Dominga, you are working.’ b. yaytok. Xhim (2;8)  Missing aspectual adverb Target form: xewtu y-ay-toq   then erg3-go-dir   ‘Then she went down.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Tum produced more cases of intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses than Xhim, but also omitted an aspectual verb, as shown in (94). (94) yo’ icha. Tum (2;8)  Missing aspectual verb Target form: lanan y-oq’ jun icham   prog erg3-cry one old man    ‘An old man is crying.’

Tum also did not use the correct morphology with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. The presence of pum as an onomatopoeic form of ‘falling’ in the target form, as in (95a), causes the aspect marker to be dropped and the absolutive morpheme to be replaced by the ergative morpheme y-. Tum, however, produced the aspect marking and absolutive morpheme. She used ow ‘to be angry’, which also conditions the intransitive verb ay ‘to fall’, but again she omitted the ergative morpheme, as illustrated in (95b). (95) a. pum ch’aj ch’en.  Tum (2;8)  Aspectless > Indicative Target form: pum y-aj ch’en   pum erg3-go.up pro (metal)   ‘Pum, the metal fell down.’ b. ow ay hinchik’il yoj ab’ chikay. Tum (2;11)  Omission of ergative Target form: ow y-ay hin-chik’-il y-uj   tough erg3-fall erg1-blood-suf erg3-rn           jab’ chikay   little grandma   ‘I am bleeding a lot by little grandmother.’

4.5.5  Summary The Q’anjob’al-speaking children mainly produced two types of errors: omission and overextension, especially overextension of status suffixes from final to nonfinal position. In addition to omitting aspect and absolutive marking, the children omitted status suffixes of intransitive verbs in final position. They also overextended the status suffixes to non-final position. Thus, we can conclude that these children are still acquiring the constraint governing the use of status suffixes in non-final and final positions. 4.6  Conclusion In this chapter we have seen how Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquire inflections of intransitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses based on four types of analyses: verb forms, frequency, productivity, and



Chapter 4.  Acquisition of intransitive verbs 

errors. The frequency analysis showed that the children had not fully acquired the intransitive verb inflection by the end of the data collection period. These children showed a higher frequency of correct use of status suffixes as compared to morphemes that mark person (absolutive) and aspect. In contrast, the productivity analysis showed that these children showed more productivity with status suffixes than with absolutive morphemes and aspect. The verb form analysis showed that although these children produced mostly bare stems, they distinguished the status suffixes of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. The analysis also showed an overextension of status suffixes occurring in non-final position in indicative intransitive clauses, which suggests that these children were still acquiring the constraint on the status suffix. One possible explanation for this overgeneralization is that Q’anjob’al-speaking children assume that all suffixes are used in final as well as in non-final positions. A comparison of the results of the acquisition of intransitive inflections in Q’anjob’al with previous Mayan acquisition studies reveals certain important similarities. First, as reported for other Mayan languages, Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquire status suffixes before they acquire the other inflection markers. Second, the extension of status suffixes to non-final position, found in the speech of the Q’anjob’al children, is also reported to occur during the acquisition of status suffixes in K’iche’ (Pye 1990). Tum’s use of independent pronouns instead of absolutive morphemes recalls Pye’s (1990) and Brown’s (1998a) finding for K’iche’ and Tzeltal. These researchers found that children in these languages replace absolutive morphemes with independent pronouns in indicative clauses. 4.7  Relationship of data and theories In this chapter we have seen that Q’anjob’al-speaking children omit aspect and agreement. However, we do not find an optional omission of aspect and agreement (in contrast with the predictions of the Agreement or Tense Omission Model). In fact, these children omit both aspect and agreement at the same time, including status suffixes found in phrase-final position. As a result, these children produced bare stems and root intransitive verbs, in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. However, these children omit aspect and switched from absolutives to ergatives with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses following the adult grammar. Thus, these children show an early knowledge of the split ergative pattern found in Q’anjob’al. Most errors found in the three children’s intransitive inflections are instances of omission. They produced absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses only and not in aspectless complement clauses. In aspectless complement clauses, they

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

showed a correct shift of absolutive agreement to ergative agreement with intransitive verbs, as is expected in the adult grammar. Therefore, there is no evidence that these children considered either the absolutive or the ergative agreement as a default form, as would be predicted by the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. The Truncation hypothesis does not predict the omission of status suffixes in final position when the three children produced other intransitive inflections. This hypothesis does not explain why Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce inflected main clauses, but intransitive stems or roots in aspectless complement clauses. As mentioned above, these children produced errors of omission of intransitive inflections, but not necessarily the incorrect morphology, especially in aspectless complement clauses (in contrast with the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis). In the child data, we did not find absolutive morphemes instead of ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses. Additionally, after evaluating the acquisition of the intransitive inflections in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses, we can conclude that Q’anjob’al-speaking children do not acquire imperatives as a default form as ­Salustri and Hyams (2003)’s theory predicts.

chapter 5

Acquisition of transitive verbs 5.1  Introduction This chapter evaluates the acquisition of transitive verb inflection in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al. As in the previous chapter, four types of analyses were conducted. The verb form analysis shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquire the inflection of transitive verbs of each clause, but still produce bare stems and bare roots. The frequency analysis shows that the children do not meet the 75% criterion for all inflections of transitive verbs. However, they meet this criterion with status suffixes. The productivity analysis shows that the children are productive with the inflection of transitive verbs, which develops in the following order: status suffixes > ergative > absolutive > aspect. The acquisition of the suffixes -on and -i in aspectless complement clauses and the acquisition of the second person singular ergative morpheme with vowelinitial transitive verbs show further evidence of the children’s productivity. The suffixes -on and -i are obligatorily marked on transitive verbs in aspectless complement clause as illustrated in (3b) above and repeated as (96) below. (96) lanan hach w‑il‑on‑i. prog abs2 erg1‑see‑af‑nmlz ‘I am seeing you.’

These children optionally used the suffix -on with verbs in aspectless complement clauses, but they rarely omitted the nominalizing suffix -i, as illustrated in (97). Compare the child form in the first line with the target form in the second line. In the target form, both -on and -i are obligatory. (97) tay teni Xhim (2;3) Target form: tay s-ten-on-i   then erg3-push/touch-af-nmlz    ‘Then she pushed/touched it.’

(Mateo Pedro 2011)

A vowel change occurs only with the ergative morpheme for second person singular in vowel-initial position (98a), and does not occur with other ergative morphemes (98b).

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(98) a. max-in h-el-a’. com-abs1 erg2-see-tv ‘You saw me.’ b. max-in y-il-a’. com-abs1 erg3-see-tv ‘She saw me.’

The children exhibited vowel change with the second person singular ergative morpheme only when it appeared with vowel-initial transitive verbs. This is illustrated in (99a) from Xhuw’s data. (99) Xhuw’s vowel change a. xhel amama. Xhuw (2;3)  Second person singular Target form: ch-ø-ø-el ha-mama   inc-abs3-erg2-see erg2-mother   ‘You see your mother.’ b. ja wil lolexh. Xhuw (2;3)  Non-second person singular Target form: ja’ q-ø-w-il flores   yes pot-abs3-erg1-see flowers   ‘Yes, I will see the flowers.’

The children’s transitive verbs occurred in three types of clauses: imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses, as shown in Table 30. This table shows that all three children produced more indicative clauses than imperative clauses, and very few aspectless complement clauses. Table 30.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of use of transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative Child

Age range

Xhuw Xhim Tum

Indicative

Non-final

Final

Non-final

1;9–2;4

42

77

2;3–2;9

23

78

2;7–3;1

16

15

274

Aspectless

Final

Non-final

Final

82

97

0

5

245

113

7

6

86

8

12

This chapter is divided into the following sections. Section 5.2 discusses verb forms that the children produced. Section 5.3 presents the frequencies of use of the aspect, ergative morphemes, and status suffixes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses. Section 5.4 evaluates the productivity of the children’s transitive inflection. Section 5.5 discusses the acquisition of the suffix -on in aspectless complement clauses and provides a comparison of this development with the children’s use of ergative morphemes with intransitive verbs in indicative clauses. Section 5.6



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

evaluates the types of errors the children produced; and Section 5.7 concludes the chapter, and Section 5.8 discusses how the Q’anjob’al child data bears on the theories presented in Chapter 2. 5.2  Transitive verb forms This section evaluates the acquisition of transitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Although Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced bare stems and bare roots, they nevertheless followed the morphological restrictions of use of transitive verbs in the three types of clauses. 5.2.1  Xhuw’s transitive verb forms Xhuw’s transitive verb forms are shown in Table 31. In both non-final and final positions she produced imperative transitive verbs primarily as bare stems and occasionally as bare roots. She dropped the imperative suffix in both positions. Xhuw sometimes produced transitive verbs with the appropriate inflectional morphemes in indicative clauses, but she also produced transitive verbs that lacked aspect and absolutive prefixes, as well as some bare root forms. She produced relatively a few transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, and when she did produce them, she did so in final position only. Table 31.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of transitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Indicative

Aspectless

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

24 (26%)

–

–

Complete

–

–

12 (14%)

-Asp

–

–

1 (1%)

–

–

–

-Abs

–

–

–

–

–

–

-Asp/abs

–

–

48 (57%)

53 (58%)

–

–

-Erg

–

–

–

1 (1%)

–

–

Stem

30 (71%)

74 (96%)

1 (1%)

4 (4%)

–

4 (100%)

Root

12 (29%)

  3 (4%)

23 (27%)

9 (10%)

–

–

Total

42

77

 85

–

4

 91

Xhuw’s imperative transitive verb forms are shown in (100) for non-final position and in (101) for final position. Given that root transitive verbs take the imperative suffix only in final position, one would expect Xhuw to produce the same

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

pattern. However, she extended the imperative suffix with transitive verbs into nonfinal position (100a) and deleted the same suffix three times as (Table 31) shows. (100) a. aka’ pelta. Target form: jaq te’ puerta   open clf door   ‘Open the door!’

Xhuw (2;2)

Bare stem

b. a peta. Target form: jaq te’ puerta   open clf door   ‘Open the door!’

Xhuw (2;2)

Bare root

(101) ay teka’. Xhuw (1;11) Bare stem Target form: ay tek-a’   ay kick-imp    ‘Ah kick it.’

Xhuw’s indicative transitive verb forms are shown in (102). In (102a), she produced all inflectional morphemes, resulting in the form expected in the adult grammar (with the exception of some phonological changes). In (102b), she omitted the incompletive aspect, which is not the target form. The stem (102c) and root (102d) verb forms that Xhuw produced are not expected in the adult form in indicative clauses. (102) a. axh gla xhee’. Xhuw (1;11)  Complete form Target form: ax kay la x-ø-ø-e’   here prep dem com-abs3-erg3-get   ‘You got it here.’ b. ataneh. Xhuw (1;11)  Omission of aspect Target form: ch-ø-a-tayne-j   inc-abs3-erg2-take care-tv   ‘You take care of it.’ c. pulu.    Xhuw (2;1) Bare stem Target form: x-ø-in-pul-u’   com-abs3-erg1-pour-tv   ‘I poured it.’ d. lo’.    Xhuw (2;1) Bare root Target form: ch-ø-ø-lo’   inc-abs3-erg3-eat   ‘She eats it.’

5.2.2  Xhim’s transitive verb forms Xhim’s production of transitive verb forms is shown in Table 32.



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Table 32.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of transitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative

Indicative

Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Complete

–

–

-Asp

–

–

-Abs

–

–

1 (0.40)

-Asp/-abs

–

–

142 (57%)

-Erg

–

–

4 (1.6)

0 (0%)

Stem

46 (65%)

59 (94%)

12 (4.8)

14 (11.7%)

Root

25 (35%)

  4 (6%)

Total

71

63

Aspectless

Final

Non-final

Final

45 (18%)

24 (20%)

–

–

1 (0.40)

0 (0%)

4 (57%)

2 (25%)

0 (0%)

–

–

78 (65%)

–

–

–

–

3 (43%)

6 (75%)

–

–

7

8

43 (17%) 248

4 (3.3%) 120

Xhim produced imperative transitive verb forms as bare stems and bare roots, as illustrated in (103) for non-final position and in (104) for final position. Xhim’s transitive imperative forms, as in (103), show that the imperative suffix can be used in non-final position. In (103a), Xhim uses the imperative suffix as expected in the adult form; he extended it to non-final position. In final position he dropped the imperative suffix (104b). In the target form the imperative suffix in final position is obligatory. (103) Transitive imperatives in non-final position a. jila’ lim. Xhim (2;4) Target form: j-il-a’ lim   erg1-see-imp hurry up   ‘Let’s see it, hurry up!’

Bare stem

b. ten chin. Target form: ten xin   push then   ‘Push it then!’

Verb root

Xhim (2;3)

(104) Transitive imperatives in final position a. k’olo’. Xhim (2;3) Bare stem Target form: q’ol-o’   peel-imp   ‘Peel it off!’ b. pixh. Xhim (2;3) Bare root Target form: pix-a’   tie-imp   ‘Tie it!’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Xhim produced a range of different verb forms in indicative clauses. In non-final position, he produced complete forms (105a) as expected in the adult grammar. He also produced other transitive verb forms that are not adult-like. In (105b) he did not produce the incompletive aspect; in (105c) he did not produce all inflections, but produced the status suffix, which is not expected in the target form. In (105c) he did not produce any inflectional morpheme at all. In final position, he also produced different transitive verb forms, as Table 32 shows. The data in (106) illustrate transitive verbs with all the inflectional morphemes, as found in the target form. (105) Indicative transitive verbs in non-final position a. chela’ un tu la. Xhim (2;4)  Complete form Target form: ch-ø-ø-el jun tu la   inc-abs3-erg2-see one dem dem   ‘You see that.’ b. pip wila’. Xhim (2;3)  Omission of aspect Target form: pip ch-ø-w-il-a’   car inc-abs3-erg1-see-tv   ‘I see a car.’ c. mana’ hinlolo’. Xhim (2;3)  Bare stem Target form: ch-ø-ø-man hin-lolo’   inc-abs3-erg3-buy erg1-candy   ‘She buys my candy.’ d. man un pampam. Xhim (2;3)  Bare root Target form: x-ø-ø-man jun bombon   com-abs3-erg3-buy one lollipop   ‘She bought a lollipop.’ (106) Indicative transitive in final position chalo’. Target form: ch-ø-a-lo’   inc-abs3-erg2-eat    ‘You eat it.’

Xhim (2;3)  Complete form

In aspectless complement clauses, Xhim produced transitive verbs without aspect as expected in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al. This is shown in (107) for non-final position and (108) for final position. In (107b), the intransitive verb ul ‘to come’ requires inflectional morphemes. However, because the intransitive verb ul embeds the transitive verb il ‘to see’, il takes the suffix -on, as expected in the target form. The suffix -i is not expected here, because the transitive verb appears in non-final position. Xhim also produced transitive verbs with the suffix -on as in (108c). However, it is hard to predict unclear what conditioned the use of this in this context.



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

(107) Transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in non-final position a. wal yahon b’ay naq lucho. Xhim (2;8) Target form: wal y-aq’-on b’ay naq L.   adv erg3-give-af prep clf L.   ‘She is giving it to L.’ b. aam jun winam ch’ul ilon naχ. Xhim (2;8) Target form: k’am jun winaq ch-ø-’ul il-on naq neg one man inc-abs3-come see-af pro ‘There was no man who could come to see him.’ c. manon tx’at jun dominga. Xhim (2;7)  Agent focus Target form: jun dominga man-on tx’at   one Dominga buy-af bed   ‘Dominga bought a bed.’ (108) Transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in final position a. tay teni. Xhim (2;3)  Bare root Target form: tay ø-ten-on-i   then erg3-push-af-nmlz   ‘Then, she pushed it.’ b. a minga manoni. Xhim (2;9)  Bare stem Target form: a minga man-on-i   foc Dominga buy-af-iv   ‘It was Dominga who bought it.’ c. hatononi. Xhim (2;9)  Omission of aspect Target form: xewtu ha-ten-on-i   then erg2-push-af-nmlz   ‘Then, you pushed it.’

5.2.3  Tum’s transitive verb forms Tum produced distinct verb forms in the three types of clauses, as shown in Table 33. Table 33.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of transitive verb forms in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Imperative Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Complete

–

–

-Asp

–

-Abs

–

Indicative Non-final

Aspectless

Final

Non-final

Final

46 (16%)

21 (23%)

–

–

–

0 (0%)

2 (2%)

4 (50%)

6 (54%)

–

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

–

– (Continued)

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 33.  (Continued) Imperative

Indicative

Aspectless

Verb forms

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

-Asp/-abs

–

–

175 (62%)

59 (66%)

–

–

-Erg

–

–

8 (3%)

1 (1%)

–

–

Stem

  8 (17%)

10 (71%)

6 (2%)

3 (3%)

3 (38%)

5 (46%)

Root

39 (83%)

  4 (29%)

4 (4%)

1 (12%)

–

Total

47

14

8

11

46 (16%) 281

90

Most of Tum’s imperative transitive verb forms appeared as bare roots in nonfinal position (109), while in final position a majority of her imperative transitives appeared as bare stems (110). In contrast to Xhuw and Xhim, Tum’s transitive imperatives are more adult-like. (109) Imperative transitives in non-final position a. aktoj ol kalo. Tum (2;7) Target form: aq’.aj-toq y-ul karo   give.dir-dir erg3-rn car   ‘Put it in the car.’

Bare stem

b. il tomi. Target form: il tomi   look Domi   ‘Look at it, Dominga.’

Tum (2;7)

Bare root

Tum (2;8)

Bare stem

(110) Imperatives in final position ’e ta nine makchej. Target form: el ta nena maqche-j   fall cond baby close-imp    ‘Baby, it may fall, close it.’

In indicative clauses, Tum produced a variety of verb forms, including complete forms (111a). Forms lacking aspect and absolutive marking were the most frequent in non-final and final positions as illustrated in (111b) and (112b). Although at a lower frequency, Tum also produced transitive verbs as roots, as shown in (112c). In the adult form, transitive verbs must take all inflections in indicative clauses. Therefore, transitive verbs missing aspect, absolutive, and/or ergative morphemes are not adult-like.



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

(111) Transitive verbs in indicative clauses in non-final position a. chal b’ay naχ tit naχ.     Tum (3;1)  Complete form Target form: ch-ø-ø-al b’ay naq ch-ø-tit naq   inc-abs3-erg2-say prep pro inc-abs3-come pro   ‘Tell him to come.’ b. himich hink’axh.     Tum (2;7)  Omission of aspect Target form: ch-ø-in-mitx’ hin-k’ax   inc-abs3-erg1-hold erg1-stick   ‘I hold my stick.’ c. himame minka xi wexh.     Tum (2;7)  Omission of ergative Target form: hin-mama minga x-ø-y-i wex   erg1-mother minga com-abs3-erg3-get pants   ‘My mother Dominga got pants.’ (112) Transitive verbs in indicative clauses in final position a. mampel chonej.     Tum (2;7)  Complete form Target form: maribel tzet ch-ø-ø-one-j   Maribel what inc-abs3-erg2-do-tv   ‘Maribel, what are you doing?’ b. hinte’ej hinmaq’a’.     Tum (2;7)  Omission of aspect Target form: hin-te’ ch-ø-in-maq’-a’   erg1-stick inc-abs3-erg1-hit-tv   ‘It was my stick that I hit.’ c. lo’.    Tum (2;9) Bare root Target form: ch-ø-ø-lo’   inc-abs3-erg3-eat   ‘She eats it.’

In aspectless complement clauses, Tum produced transitive verbs as bare stems and bare root forms, as seen in non-final (113) and final (114) positions. Some of the transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses appeared without an aspectual adverb, as shown in (113b) and (114). Transitive verbs as bare root forms in aspectless complement clauses in the adult form are not allowed. Transitive verbs taking the suffixes -on and -i missing an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb are also not allowed in the adult grammar. (113) Aspectless transitive verbs in non-final position a. lan ch’ich’on xhil.     Tum (3;0) Target form: lanan s-ch’ich-on s-xil   prog erg3-comb-af erg3-hair   ‘She is combing her hair.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. hintenoni xhi ka la. Tum (2;8)  Missing aspectual adverb Target form: xewtu hin-ten-on-i xhi kaq la   then erg1-touch-af-nmlz say like that    ‘Then, I touched it like that, she said.’ (114) Aspectless transitive verbs in final position a. um papa hinmanoni. Tum (2;9) Target form: jun papa man-on-i   one father buy-af-iv   ‘My father bought it.’ b. ch’a’ni. Tum (2;8)  Missing fronted noun phrase Target form: a’ ch-ø-ø-’aq’-on-i   foc inc-abs3-erg3-give-af-nmlz   ‘It is the one, who gives it.’

5.2.4  Summary We have seen that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced a variety of verb forms, but persisted in following the constraints of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. The distinction between bare stems and bare roots in nonfinal position is due to syntactic constraints in the language and also due to the children’s own rule formation. Status suffixes are deleted in non-final position; this explains why the children produced bare root verbs in this position. However, they also extended the use of status suffixes in non-final position. In contrast to Xhuw and Xhim, Tum produced fewer bare stems, but she still produced bare roots in non-final position. The absence of bare stems in non-final position suggests that Tum did not overextend the status suffix to non-final position. In aspectless complement clauses the children produced transitive verbs as bare stems lacking aspect. Transitive verbs without aspect are expected in the adult grammar, but not bare stems. The bare stem forms included the use of the suffix -on, although this was optionally produced. In Agent Focus constructions like in (115), we do not see -on, which suggests that the use of the suffix -on for focus in Q’anjob’al may not have been fully acquired yet by the children (Mateo Pedro 2011). (115) wana a’ man ’atliya. Tum (2;11) Target form: a wana man-on atliya   foc Juana buy-af atliya    ‘It is Juana who bought atliya.’

5.3  Frequency of transitive inflection This section considers the state of the children’s transitive inflections in terms of the frequency of use of these morphemes (aspect, absolutive, ergative, and status



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

suffixes) on transitive verbs. The three children produced transitive verbs more often with incompletive aspect than with completive or potential aspect. The children showed a preference for producing ergative morphemes with vowel-initial rather than with consonant-initial verbs. They also optionally omitted these ergative morphemes. Frequency of use of the absolutive morpheme for third person singular was not considered in this analysis, since it is a zero morpheme; in fact, the majority of the transitive objects employed by the children were third person singular absolutive. Xhuw and Xhim produced a range of different status suffixes, but they occasionally omitted them in final position or overextended them from final to nonfinal position. These patterns are not found in the adult grammar of Q’anjob’al. Tum’s production was more advanced, but even she omitted and overextended status suffixes, although at a lower frequency. 5.3.1  Xhuw’s frequency of transitive inflections Xhuw did not consistently produce aspect on transitive verbs, as shown in Table 34. She produced a higher frequency of transitive verbs in incompletive contexts than in completive and potential contexts. However, she did not show morphological realization even of incompletive aspect in every context that required aspect. In fact, she continued to mark aspect inconsistently even at the age of 2;4. Table 34.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of aspect with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

1;9

1;11

2;0

2;1

2;2

2;3

2;4

Average %

Incompletive ch-

0/0

14/29

8/28

7/51

3/11

2/34

3/8

37/161 (23%)

Completive max-

0/0

0/2

0/0

0/6

0/1

0/0

0/4

0/13 (0%)

Potential hoq-

0/0

1/3

0/0

0/1

0/0

0/7

0/1

1/12 (8%)

With the exception of the pre-consonantal third person singular that occurred in 29 contexts, Xhuw produced more ergative morphemes with vowel-initial than consonant-initial transitive verbs. This is shown in Table 35. She began to produce first and second person ergative markers around the age of 1;11. Thus, at age 2;0 she could produce ergative prefixes, but not aspect markers. In aspectless complement clauses, Xhuw produced third person singular ergative morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs only 2 out of 7 times. Xhuw’s status suffixes are shown in Table 36. She extended the suffix -V’ to non-final position in the imperative form. In final position, she omitted the suffix -V’ in both imperative and indicative clauses. In aspectless complement clauses, she also omitted the suffix -j as an imperative and indicative suffix in non-final position. She correctly produced the suffix -i in final position only.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 35.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses V-initial

1;9

1;11

2;0

2;1

2;2

2;3

3;4

Average %

1sg

0/0

4/5

2/2

7/7

2/2

12/12

4/5

31/33 (94%)

2sg

0/0

15/15

7/7

6/6

3/3

14/15

3/4

48/50 (96%)

3sg

0/0

1/1

0/0

1/1

0/1

0/0

1/1

4/4 (100%)

1pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1 (100%)

1sg

0/0

5/6

6/6

1/1

1/2

1/1

2/2

16/18 (89%)

2sg

0/0

3/5

7/7

23/23

2/2

4/5

2/2

41/44 (93%)

3sg

0/0

1/3

0/4

0/12

0/2

2/8

0/0

3/29 (10%)

1pl

0/0

0/0

1/2

3/7

0/0

0/0

0/0

4/9 (44%)

C-initial

Table 36.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) frequency of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes

Non-final position

Final position

20/20 (100%)

30/42 (71%)

Indicative -V’

0/0 (0%)

23/51 (45%)

Imperative -j

30/42 (71%)

0/0 (0%)

Indicative -j

13/65 (21%)

23/23 (100%)

Aspectless -i

0/0 (0%)

Imperative -V’

7/7 (100%)

5.3.2  Xhim’s frequency of transitive inflections Xhim’s aspect frequencies are shown in Table 37. He produced many more instances of incompletive aspect than completive or potential aspect. However, he did not produce even this aspect marker very frequently with transitive verbs. Table 37.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of aspect with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

2;3

2;4

2;5

2;6

2;7

2;8

2;9

Average %

Incompletive ch-

5/19

11/59

5/30

6/24

7/36

17/96

16/56

67/320 (21%)

Completive max-

0/0

2/4

0/0

0/0

1/8

1/7

2/7

6/26 (23%)

Potential hoq-

0/0

0/9

0/0

1/1

0/1

0/9

0/2

1/22 (4%)



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Xhim’s ergative morphemes are shown in Table 38. Even when both aspect and absolutive morphemes were absent on the verb, Xhim produced ergative morphemes as overt forms on vowel-initial and consonant-initial transitive verbs. He produced more vowel-initial ergative morphemes than consonant-initial ergative morphemes. Additionally, he produced ergative prefixes at high rates in their obligatory contexts. Table 38.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses V-initial

2;3

2;4

2;5

2;6

2;7

2;8

2;9

Average %

1sg

3/4

20/23

15/16

10/10

10/10

45/47

11/11

114/121 (94%)

2sg

2/2

11/12

7/7

5/5

6/6

6/6

17/17

55/55 (100%)

3sg

1/1

6/11

4/4

1/1

6/6

14/14

12/12

44/49 (90%)

1pl

0/0

5/5

0/0

1/1

0/0

9/9

2/2

17/17 (100%)

3pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

3/3

0/0

2/3

5/6 (83%)

1sg

4/5

0/6

2/2

3/5

5/5

8/15

9/9

31/47 (66%)

2sg

1/1

0/2

0/0

0/0

1/1

3/3

0/0

5/7 (71%)

3sg

0/6

0/11

0/1

0/2

2/6

1/11

0/7

3/44 (7%)

1pl

0/0

2/2

0/0

1/1

4/4

6/6

1/2

12/15 (80%)

3pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/4

0/0

0/1

0/5 (0%)

C-initial

In aspectless complement clauses, he produced very few ergative morphemes on transitive verbs, but he produced them correctly. The ergative morphemes appeared with vowel initial tansitive verbs only. This is shown in Table 39. Table 39.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of ergative morphemes in indicative and aspectless complement clauses Person & number

1singular

Indicative clause

Aspectless clause

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

114/121 (94%)

31/47 (66%)

4/4 (100%)

5/7 (71%)

3/3 (100%)

2singular

55/55 (100%)

3singular

44/49 (90%)

3/44 (7%)

1plural

17/17 (100%)

12/15 (80%)

3plural

5/6 (83%)

0/5 (0%)

0/9 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 0/0 (0%)

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Xhim’s status suffixes for transitive verbs are shown in Table 40. He omitted status suffixes in final position at a relatively low frequency, but he extended the same suffixes, e.g. -V’, to non-final position. Table 40.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) frequency of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes

Non-final position

Final position

Imperative -V’

43/65 (66%)

28/32 (88%)

Indicative -V’

9/51 (18%)

7/8 (88%)

Imperative -j

0/0 (0%)

0/0 (0%)

Indicative -j

17/17 (100%)

6/6 (100%)

Aspectless -i

6/6 (100%)

7/7 (100%)

5.3.3  Tum’s frequency of transitive inflections Tum’s use of aspect markers on transitive verbs is shown in Table 41. She produced transitive verbs more often with incompletive aspect than with completive or potential aspects. These results are similar to those of Xhuw and Xhim. Tum’s overall rate of use of aspect markers is still fairly low. She produced some overt forms of the potential aspect and a few overt forms of the completive aspect. Table 41.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of aspect with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

2;7

2;8

2;9

2;10

2;11

3;0

3;1

Average %

Incompletive ch-

4/54

2/53

1/27

6/37

7/46

0/8

12/55

32/280 (11%)

Completive max-

0/1

1/8

0/2

0/1

0/2

0/0

7/23

8/44 (18%)

Potential hoq-

2/7

10/14

0/3

3/5

12/12

0/0

0/13

27/54 (50%)

Tum’s ergative morphemes are shown in Table 42. She produced ergative morphemes overtly in the majority of first and second person singular and some first person plural contexts. She produced a higher frequency of obligatory contexts for use with C-initial verbs than with V-initial verbs. The actual use of the morphemes (i.e. percentages) is about the same for V-initial and C-initial. As Table 43 shows, Tum produced a few ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses, but produced them correctly with the exception of the third person singular with vowel- and consonant-initial verbs. Tum’s use of status suffixes with transitive verbs is shown in Table 44. She produced the suffixes correctly. Compared to Xhuw and Xhim, Tum shows few



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Table 42.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses V-initial

2;7

2;8

2;9

2;10

2;11

3;0

3;1

Average %

1sg

9/9

9/9

8/8

8/8

5/5

3/3

20/20

62/62 (100%)

2sg

6/7

12/13

2/2

1/1

3/3

0/0

2/2

26/28 (93%)

3sg

0/1

6/8

4/6

6/8

3/6

0/0

9/10

11/39 (28%)

1pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

2/2

0/0

2/2

4/4 (100%)

2pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/1

0/1 (0%)

3pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1

1/1 (100%)

1sg

31/31

26/26

5/5

16/17

24/24

2/2

15/16

119/121 (98%)

2sg

0/3

6/7

0/0

0/0

12/12

0/0

0/0

18/22 (82%)

3sg

8/9

2/18

7/11

1/9

1/5

0/2

2/23

21/77 (27%)

1pl

1/1

0/1

0/0

0/0

2/2

0/0

12/12

15/16 (94%)

2pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0 (0%)

3pl

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/1

0/1

0/2 (0%)

C-initial

Table 43.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) frequency of ergative morphemes in indicative and aspectless complement clauses Person/number

Indicative clause

Aspectless clause

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

1singular

119/121 (98%)

31/47 (66%)

5/5 (100%)

2/2 (100%)

2singular

18/22 (82%)

5/7 (71%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3singular

21/77 (27%)

3/44 (7%)

3/5 (60%)

3/8 (38%)

1plural

15/16 (94%)

12/15 (80%)

2plural

0 (0%)

3plural

0/2 (0%)

– 0/5 (0%)

–

1/1 (100%)

–

–

–

–

cases of extension of status suffixes to non-final position, e.g. 6% production for the status suffix -V’ in imperative contexts. 5.3.4  Summary In this section we have observed the frequency of use of the inflectional morphemes for the Q’anjob’al children. The children did not reach the 75% criterion in all inflectional morphemes within the period of data collection. They reached

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 44.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes

Non-final position

Final position

Imperative -V’

2/41 (6%)

6/6 (100%)

Indicative -V’

0/46 (0%)

0/5 (0%)

Imperative -j

6/6 (100%)

9/9 (100%)

Indicative -j

19/19 (100%)

10/10 (100%)

Aspectless -i

5/5 (100%)

12/12 (100%)

this percentage sporadically with first and second person ergative morphemes. In the use of status suffixes, with the exception of Xhuw (e.g. Table 36), they clearly surpassed 75% accuracy with some of the status suffixes. The three children generally lacked aspect on their transitive verbs, although they produced transitive verbs with incompletive aspect more often than with completive and potential aspects. With the exception of Xhuw, they produced ergative morphemes more often with vowel-initial transitive verbs than with ­consonant-initial transitive verbs. In aspectless complement clauses, they produced transitive verbs that lack aspect and produced the ergative morphemes correctly. The children omitted status suffixes in final position and overextended them from final to non-final position. 5.4  Productivity This section discusses the productivity of the Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s transitive inflections. Although these children showed an earlier acquisition of status suffixes than of aspect and ergative morphemes, they showed little evidence of productivity in their use of status suffixes. However, recall that status suffixes in Q’anjob’al surface primarily in final position. In non-final position these suffixes get deleted for syntactic reasons, which could explain the lack of productivity seen in the status suffixes. 5.4.1  Xhuw’s productivity of transitive inflections Xhuw’s transitive verbs occurred most frequently in the incompletive aspect, but she does not appear to have used this incompletive aspect contrastively with either the completive or potential aspects. Similarly, her transitive verbs appeared most



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

often with first person singular ergative marking, but she produced few contrasts with other ergative morphemes. This is shown in Table 45. Table 45.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) productivity of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Ergative morphemes\ages

1;11

2;0

2;1

2;3

2;4

erg1sg/erg3sg

i’

lo’

–

–

–

erg1sg/erg2sg

–

chi’, oche-

pul, but

–

–

erg1sg/erg1pl

–

maq’

–

–

–

erg2sg/erg3sg

–

pul

i’

–

–

erg2sg/erg1pl

–

–

lo’

–

–

erg1sg/erg3sg/erg1pl

–

–

–

il

aq’

Xhuw showed productive use of the status suffix -V’ in imperative and indicative contexts starting from age 1;11. At the age of 2;3, in aspectless complement clauses, she showed a contrast of use of the suffix -V’ and the suffix -i. This is illustrated in Table 46. Table 46.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) productivity of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Status suffixes\ages

1;11

2;1

2;2

2;3

ind -V’/imp -V’

i’

pul

iq

i’, il

ind -V’/imp -V’/ nmlz -i

–

–

–

lak

5.4.2  Xhim’s productivity of transitive inflections Xhim made a few appropriate contrasts conditioned by aspect, as shown in Table 47. Table 47.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of aspect with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Aspect\ages

2;4

2;7

2;8

2;9

inc/com

il

–

–

–

inc/pot

–

aq’

il

–

com/pot

–

–

–

i’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

As for ergative morphemes, he produced mainly first person singular marking on transitive verbs, but he nevertheless showed more contrasts than Xhuw. These contrasts are given in Table 48. Table 48.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Ergative morphemes\ages

2;2

2;4

2;5

2;6

2;7

2;8

erg1sg/erg2s

il

aq’

il

aq’

il

aq’, lo’

erg1sg/erg3sg

–

–

–

–

al, i el

erg1sg/erg1pl

–

–

il

toq’

–

erg2sg/erg3sg

–

–

unej

–

–

erg3sg/erg1pl

–

–

–

ten

–

Xhim’s productive use of status suffixes is seen primarily with indicative and imperative suffixes. Very few contrasts are seen between the suffixes -V’ and -i. This is illustrated in Table 49. Table 49.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) productivity of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Status suffixes\ages

2;3

2;4

2;6

2;8

2;9

ind -V’/imp -V’

–

ab’, man

man

aq’, il

il

ind -V’/nmlz -i

ten

–

–

–

man

ind -V’/nmlz -i

–

–

–

–

il

5.4.3  Tum’s productivity of transitive inflections Tum produced a variety of transitive verbs with incompletive and potential aspects, but she did not show contrast between these aspects. Only at age 3;1, she showed a contrast between incompletive and completive aspects with the transitive verb chi’ ‘to bite’. As for ergative morphemes, she showed contrasts between the first, second, and third person singular and the first person plural, as illustrated in Table 50. Tum produced verbs that show contrast between the status suffix -V’ in imperative and indicative clauses and the suffix -i with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. This is illustrated in Table 51. 5.4.4  Vowel change with second person singular Recall that the verb morphology in Q’anjob’al is not straightforward. One complicating factor is that the ergative morpheme for second person singular before



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Table 50.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) productivity of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses Ergative morphemes\ages

2;7

2;7/2;8

2;8

2;9

2;11

3;1

erg1sg/erg2sg

chi’, tx’aj

uk’ej

i’, il

–

–

–

erg1sg/erg3sg

man, maq’

–

–

lo’

il

i’, i-hon, q’an

erg1sg/erg1pl

–

lo’

–

–

–

chi’, il

erg2sg/erg3sg

–

–

al, iq

–

–

–

erg1sg/erg2sg

–

–

man, aq’

–

–

–

erg1sg/3rg1pl

–

–

–

i-teq

chi’, lo’

–

Table 51.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) productivity of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses Status suffixes\ages

2;8

2;9

2;11

3;0

3;1

imp -v’/ind -V’

–

–

ab’

–

–

ind -v’/nmlz -i

man

–

–

il, lo’

q’an

vowel-initial transitive verbs is h-. Its presence changes the quality of the initial vowel whenever it attaches to a vowel-initial transitive verb as shown in (116). The underlying form of the transitive verb il ‘to see’ becomes el because of the presence of the ergative morpheme. (116) max-in h-el-a’. com-abs1 erg2-see-tv ‘You saw me.’

In assessing the acquisition of Q’anjob’al, it is useful to know whether (and when) Q’anjob’al-speaking children show vowel change on the verb. The data in (117a) from Xhuw, (118a) from Xhim, and (119a) from Tum show that these children produced vowel changes when the second person singular ergative morpheme (h-) is attached to a vowel-initial transitive verb. Further evidence of the acquisition of the second person singular ergative in this environment comes from the fact that these children did not show vowel changes with non-second person ergative morphemes. This is illustrated in (117b) for Xhuw, in (118b) for Xhim, and (119b) for Tum. (117) Xhuw’s vowel change a. xhel amama. Xhuw (2;3)  Second person singular Target form: ch-ø-ø-el ha-mama   inc-abs3-erg2-see erg2-mother   ‘You see your mother.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

b. ja wil lolexh.  Xhuw (2;3)  Non-second person singular Target form: ja’ q-ø-w-il flores   yes pot-abs3-erg1-see flowers   ‘Yes, I will see the flowers.’ (118) Xhim’s vowel change a. chela’? Xhim (2;3)  Second person singular Target form: ch-ø-ø-el-a’?   inc-abs3-erg2-see-tv   ‘Do you see it?’ b. pip wila’. Xhim (2;3)  Non-second person singular Target form: pip ch-ø-w-il-a’   car inc-abs3-erg1-see-tv   ‘The car I see.’ (119) Tum’s vowel change a. icham etoq un tu. Tum (2;8)  Second person singular Target form: icham ch-ø-ø-e-toq jun tu   old man inc-abs3-erg2-take-dir one dem   ‘Old man, you take that one.’ b. ja witoj b’a la. Tum (2;8) Non-second person singular Target form: ja ch-ø-w-i-toq b’ay la   yes inc-abs3-erg1-take-dir pre dem   ‘Yes, I take it over there.’

5.4.5  Summary According to the productivity analysis, the children in this study rarely used aspect morphemes contrastively; they showed more contrastive use with ergative morphemes, and even more with status suffixes. In the use of ergative morphemes, Xhim was more advanced than Xhuw, and Tum more advanced than Xhim. Xhuw and Xhim produced transitive verbs only with first person singular ergative morphemes, while Tum produced transitive verbs with other ergative morphemes as well. All three children showed vowel change only with the second person singular ergative in vowel-initial transitive verbs (h-), which suggests that their use of transitive verb inflections had already achieved a level of productivity during this study. Although the children frequently produced many different status suffixes with transitive verbs, they did not tend to use the suffixes contrastively with one another within a specific age. They do, however, use the suffixes contrastively across ages. They produced the indicative suffix -V’ in contrast to the imperative (e.g. Xhuw and Xhim’s data), and they produced some contrasts with the suffix -i. A summary of the productivity of these children’s transitive inflections is shown in Table 52.



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Table 52.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s productivity of transitive inflections (aspect, ergative, and status suffixes) in indicative clauses Child

Aspect

Ergative

Status suffix

Xhuw

–

erg1sg/erg2sg/erg3sg (2;0) a few plurals

ind -V’/imp -V’ (1;11) ind -V’/imp -V’/nmlz -i (2;3)

Xhim

inc/com (2;4) inc/pot (2;7) com/pot (2;9)

erg1sg/erg2sg/erg3sg (2;4) a few plurals

ind -V’/nmlz -i (2;3)

Tum

inc/com (3;1)

erg1sg/erg2/erg3sg (2;7) a few plurals

ind -V’/nmlz -i (2;8)

5.5  Suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses The acquisition of the suffix -on in aspectless complement clauses can tell us more about how productive the children are with their transitive inflections. Recall that whenever a transitive verb appears in an aspectless complement clause, it undergoes morphological changes. It takes the suffixes -on and -i as shown in (17a) above and repeated in (120a) below. (120) a. lanan hach w‑il‑on‑i. prog abs2 erg1‑see‑af‑nmlz ‘I am seeing you.’ b. *lanan hach w‑il‑a’.    prog abs2 erg1‑see‑tv Intended: ‘I am seeing you.’

The children began producing the suffix -on around the age of 1;1, as illustrated in Xhuw’s data. However, at this stage its use is still optional, as we will see shortly. Although Xhuw sometimes produced -on, even if without an aspectual adverb, as shown in (121a), she also omitted it in obligatory contexts, as shown in (121b) and (121c). Table 53 shows Xhuw’s suffix -on marked on transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses (Mateo Pedro 2011). In Table 53 for Xhuw’s data as in Table 54 and Table 55 for the other two children, person and number of subject are provided after each utterance; numbers in parenthesis represent the number of times the child produced the utterance. These tables represent a complete list of all the children’s transitive verbs with or without the suffix -on in aspectless complement clauses. When it is absent, the morpheme -on appears between brackets, e.g. [on]. Recall that Q’anjob’al-speaking children extended status suffixes to non-final position. This is reflected in the suffix -i in non-final position as in Table 54 for Xhim and Table 55 for Tum.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(121) a. xhikoni. Xhuw (2;1) Target form: xewtu x-ø-ø-xiq-on-i.   then com-abs3-erg3-cut-af-nmlz   ‘Then she cut it.’ b. pan lan lo’. Xhuw (2;0) Target form: pan lanan-ø s-lo-hon-i   bread prog-abs3 erg3-eat-af-nmlz   ‘It is bread that she is eating.’ c. axh ma? Xhuw (2;2) Target form: mak x-ø-maq’-on-i?   who com-abs3-hit-af-iv   ‘Who hit him/her?’ Table 53.  Xhuw’s (1;9–2;4) use of suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Aspectless clauses Age

Aspectual verb/adverb

Non-final

Final

1;11

uj

–

ten-[on]-i 1pl (1)

2;0

lanan

–

lo-[hon]-i 3sg (1)

2;1

missing aspectual verb/adverb

–

xiq-on-i 3sg (1)

2;2

wh-question

–

maq’-[on]-i 3sg (1)

2;3

lanan

–

lak-on-i 3sg (1)

2;4

lanan

–

aq’-on-i 1pl (1)

In aspectless complement clauses, Xhim showed optional use of -on in both non-final and final positions, as illustrated in (122a). However, although he optionally omitted -on, he always produced the suffix -i. This suggests that Xhim treated the suffixes -on and -i as two separate forms and not as one unit. This is summarized in Table 54 (Mateo Pedro 2011). (122) a. tay teni. Xhim (2;3) Target form: tay s-ten-on-i   then erg3-push-af-nmlz   ‘Then she pushed it.’ b. manoni tx’at jun dominga. Xhim (2;7) Target form: a jun dominga x-ø-man-on tx’at   foc one Dominga com-abs3-buy-af-iv bed   ‘It was Dominga who bought the bed.’

Tum also produced -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in both non-final and final positions, but omitted the same suffix in agent focus



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

Table 54.  Xhim’s (2;3–2;9) use of suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Aspectless clauses Age

Aspectual verb/adverb

Non-final

Final

2;3

tay

–

ten-[on]-i 3sg (1)

2;6

agent focus

–

man-[on]-i 3sg (2)

2;7

agent focus

man-on-i 3sg (1)

–

2;8

missing aspectual verb/adverb

al-on-i 1sg (1)

nul-on-i 3sg (1)

 

missing aspectual verb/adverb

ten-on 3sg (2)

–

 

wal

aq’-on 3sg (1)

–

 

ul

il-on 3sg (1)

–

2;9

missing aspectual verb/adverb

jo-hon 3sg (1)

man-on-i 3sg (1)

 

missing aspectual verb/adverb

–

ten-on-i 2sg (1)/1pl (1)

 

kaq la

–

ten-on-i 2sg (1)

­ osition, as shown in (123a) and (123b). Tum’s use of the suffix -on is grouped in p Table 55 (Mateo Pedro 2011). (123) a. un tiha ahoni. Tum (2;10) Target form: a jun tiya x-ø-aq’-on-i   foc one aunt com-abs3-buy-af-iv   ‘It was an aunt who bought it.’ b. wana a’ man atliya. Tum (2;11) Target form: Jwana a’ x-ø-man-on atliya   Juana foc com-abs3-buy-af atliya   ‘It was Juana who bought something.’

Recall that the children also produced aspectless complement clauses with -on, but sometimes failed to include an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb. The optional omission of -on from Xhuw’s data is seen with lanan and in wh-questions, while Xhim and Tum’s omission of the same suffix is seen in agent focus constructions. Therefore, I suggest that these children acquired the use of the suffix -on in constructions like wh-questions and agent focus relatively late. This coincides with similar findings in other Mayan languages – see for example Pye’s (1993) discussion of K’iche’-speaking children’s acquisition of the focus antipassive. The data suggest two patterns of omission of the suffix -on (Mateo Pedro 2011). The first pattern is seen with Xhuw, who omitted both the suffixes -on and -i together. This pattern suggests that Xhuw may treat the two suffixes as a single unit. However, the second pattern, exhibited by Xhim and Tum’s data, shows the

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

Table 55.  Tum’s (2;7–3;1) suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Aspectless clauses Age

Aspectual verb/adverb

Non-final

Final

2;7

missing aspectual verb/adverb

q’anle-n-i 1sg (1)

aq’-on-i 3sg (1)

 

agent focus

–

aq’-on-i 3sg (1)

2;8

missing aspectual verb/adverb

ten-on-i 1sg (2)

man-on-i 3sg (1)

 

agent focus

– 

man-on-i 3sg (1)

2;9

agent focus

aq’-on 3sg (1)

maq’-on-i 3sg (1)

2;10

agent focus

–

aq’-on-i 3sg (1)

2;11

agent focus

man-[on] 3sg (1)

–

 

ax

–

il-on-i 1sg (1)

 

missing aspectual verb/adverb

–

lo-hon-i 3sg (1)

3;0

lanan

ch’ich-on 3sg (1)

–

 

uj

–

al-on-i 1sg (1)

3;1

xew tu

aq’-on-i 1sg (1)

–

 

kax

i-on 1sg (1)

–

 

missing aspectual verb/adverb

i-on 3sg (1)

–

 

kax

man-on 1sg (1)

–

 

agent focus

–

q’an-on-i 3sg (1)

opposite effect. Both children omitted the suffix -on only with agent focus. Furthermore, when Xhim and Tum omit the suffix -on in transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, they do not omit the suffix -i. This suggests that the children treat the two suffixes as separate forms rather than a single unit. Finally, it should be noted in passing that none of these three children produced the suffix -on with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses; use of this suffix is limited to transitive clauses. 5.5.1  E  rgative morphemes with intransitive verbs and suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses Intransitive and transitive verbs undergo morphological changes when they appear in aspectless complement clauses. Intransitive verbs take ergative morphemes instead of absolutive morphemes. In contrast, transitive verbs take the suffixes -on and -i. This morphological change was shown in (3) above and repeated below as (124). In (124a) the intransitive verb way ‘to sleep’ takes an ergative morpheme



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

instead of an absolutive morpheme, while in (124b) the transitive verb il ‘to see’ takes both -on and -i. (124) a. lanan-ø ha-way-i. prog-abs3 erg2-sleep-nmlz ‘You are sleeping.’ b. lanan hach w‑il‑on‑i. prog abs2 erg1‑see‑af‑nmlz ‘I am seeing you.’

The first use of the suffix -on with transitive verbs and the switch from absolutive to ergative subject marking in aspectless complement clauses appeared at around the same age for the three children in this study. See for example Xhuw’s data at 2;0–2;1, illustrated in Table 56 (Mateo Pedro 2011). Table 56.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s use of ergative morphemes with intransitive verbs and use of suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses Child

Age

Suffix -on

Abs > erg

Xhuw

1;11

–

–

2;0

–

way (1sg, 2sg, 1pl)

2;1

xiq (3sg)

ay (3sg)

2;2

–

–

2;3

lak (3sg)

toj (1pl)/way (2sg)

2;4

aq’ (1pl)

el-teq (2pl)

2;3

–

–

2;4

–

–

2;5

–

–

2;6

–

–

2;7

man (3sg)

–

2;8

al (1sg)

–

2;9

jo’ (3sg)

mulnaj (2sg)

2;7

q’anle- (1s)

–

2;8

ten (1sg)

oq’ (3sg)

2;9

aq’ (3sg)

–

2;10

aq’ (3sg)

b’is-l (1sg)

2;11

il (1sg)

ok (3sg)

3;0

ch’ich (3sg)

–

3;1

aq’ (1sg)

lo-w (1pl)

Xhim

Tum

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

5.5.2  Summary The pattern of acquisition of -on provides evidence that the Q’anjob’al-speaking children in this study began to distinguish main and aspectless complement clauses around the age of 2;0. In aspectless complement clauses these children optionally produced the suffix -on, but at least Xhim and Tum did not delete the suffix -i. Furthermore, the children used the suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses only. They did not extend the use of -on to intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. As illustrated in (124b) above, only transitive verbs take the suffixes -on and -i in aspectless complement clauses. 5.6  Errors Further evidence of productivity can be gleaned by examining the types of errors that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced. In this section, I discuss two main types of errors: (i) overextension and omission of status suffixes; and (ii) unexpected ergative morphemes. 5.6.1  Overextension and omission of status suffixes Recall that in the adult grammar the status suffix -V’ with root transitive verbs appears in final position only, as illustrated in (125a). In contrast, the status suffix -j with derived transitive verbs appears in both final (126a) and non-final positions (126b). (125) a. max-ach y-il-a’. com-abs2 erg3-see-tv ‘She saw you.’

Root transitive verbs

b. max-ach y-il ewi. com-abs2 erg3-see yesterday ‘She saw you yesterday.’ (126) a. ch‑ach hin-way‑tzene-j. inc-abs2 erg1-sleep-caus-tv ‘I make you sleep.’

Derived transitive verbs

b. ch‑ach hin-way‑tzene-j nani. inc-abs2 erg1-sleep-caus-tv now ‘I make you sleep now.’

All three children both overextended status suffixes from final to non-final position and optionally omitted them in final position. Xhuw and Xhim overextended the imperative and indicative suffix -V’ to non-final position, but Tum



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

did not. Xhim and Tum overextended the suffix -i in aspectless complement clauses in non-final position. Xhuw and Xhim also omitted status suffixes in final position more often than Tum did. Surprisingly, however, Tum omitted the indicative status suffix -V’ in final position. All of these facts are summarized in Table 57. Table 57.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of status suffixes with transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in non-final and final positions Suffixes

Non-final position

Final position

Imperative -V’

20/20 (100%)

30/42 (71%)

Indicative -V’

0/0 (0%)

23/51 (45%)

Imperative -j

30/42 (71%)

0/0 (0%)

Indicative -j

13/65 (21%)

23/23 (100%)

Aspectless -i

0/0 (0%)

Xhuw (1;9–2;4)

7/7 (100%)

Xhim (2;3–2;9) Imperative -V’

43/65 (66%)

28/32 (88%)

Indicative -V’

9/51 (18%)

7/8 (88%)

Imperative -j

0/0 (0%)

0/0 (0%)

Indicative -j

17/17 (100%)

6/6 (100%)

Aspectless -i

6/6 (100%)

7/7 (100%)

Tum (2;7–3;1) Imperative -V’

2/41 (6%)

6/6 (100%)

Indicative -V’

0/46 (0%)

0/5 (0%)

Imperative -j

6/6 (100%)

9/9 (100%)

Indicative -j

19/19 (100%)

10/10 (100%)

Aspectless -i

5/5 (100%)

12/12 (100%)

5.6.2  Unexpected ergative morphemes In at least one instance, Tum produced a transitive verb with the suffix -on, which was conditioned by the focused argument jun winaq ‘a man’. However, she used the ergative morpheme w-, which is ungrammatical in the target form, as shown in (127). This type of error rarely occurred in the other files of Tum and of the other two children.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

(127) uun winak wihon ayin. Target form: jun winaq i-hon ayin   one man take-af me    ‘A man got it from me.’

Tum (2;8)

5.7  Conclusion In this chapter, I presented data on the acquisition of transitive inflections in Q’anjob’al imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses, according to four types of analyses. The verb form analysis showed that Q’anjob’alspeaking children regularly omitted both aspect and absolutive morphemes, resulting in the production of bare transitive stems and roots. Although they omitted aspect and absolutive morphemes, they always produced ergative morphemes on transitive verbs in indicative clauses and aspectless complement clauses. Additionally, even though these children produced bare stems, they distinguished the morphology of transitive verbs in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Thus, there is no single default form that the children produced for all the three types of clauses explored in the present study. The frequency analysis showed that Q’anjob’al-speaking children did not produce aspect prefixes before the age of 3;0, but they acquire ergative morphemes around 1;11. Their ergative morphemes appeared with singular persons and occasionally with plurals. However, the productivity analysis indicated that the children used status suffixes contrastively before they were able to do so with ergative and aspect morphemes. The productivity analysis also demonstrated that the children have knowledge of transitivity. This is evident from their use of the suffix -on, which these children optionally use with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, but not with intransitive verbs in the same type of clauses. The error analysis also demonstrated the productivity of the transitive verb inflections in Q’anjob’al. This analysis showed two main types of errors: omission of aspect and absolutive morphemes with transitive verbs, and overextension and omission of status suffixes. The differences between the children’s production of the status suffixes in non-final position and final position showed that they were still acquiring the constraints on status suffixes in Q’anjob’al. Overall, as has been reported for other Mayan languages, Q’anjob’al-speaking children showed a late acquisition of aspect and absolutive morphemes, but an early acquisition of status suffixes.



Chapter 5.  Acquisition of transitive verbs 

5.8  Relationship between data and theories In this chapter I have evaluated the acquisition of transitive inflection using four types of analysis: verb forms, frequency, productivity, and errors. The results show that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced a variety of verb forms, but correctly followed the constraints of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Thus, these children did not use imperative forms as a default form, as Salusti and Hyams’ (2003) theory would predict. The findings confirm that Q’anjob’al-speaking children omit transitive inflections, especially aspect and agreement. The Q’anjob’al child data follows the right edge pattern found in other Mayan languages (Pye et al. 2007), but not the predictions from the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. These children omitted both aspect and agreement at the same time. As a result, they sometimes produced transitive bare stems or transitive roots. However, the distinction between bare stems and bare roots in non-final position is due to syntactic constraints in the language. In the adult grammar, status suffixes of root transitive verbs (c.f. 10a) are deleted in non-final position; it probably explains why the children produced bare root verbs in this position. The Truncation Hypothesis rightly predicts the optional omission of transitive inflections in Q’anjob’al, but it does not predict why Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce transitive stems or transitive roots in aspectless complement clauses when they produce a main clause. The error analysis showed two main types of errors: omission of aspect and agreement and overextension of status suffixes from final to non-final position. The differences between the children’s production of the status suffixes in nonfinal position and final position showed that they were still acquiring the constraints on status suffixes in Q’anjob’al. However, these children did not produce the incorrect morphology as the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis predicted. The acquisition of -on with transitive verbs provides evidence that Q’anjob’alspeaking children began to distinguish main and aspectless complement clauses around the age of 2;0. In aspectless complement clauses these children optionally produced the suffix -on, but they did not delete the suffix -i (at least for Xhim and Tum). Furthermore, these children used the suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses only; they did not use it on intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. In contrast, the Modal Hypothesis predicts that Q’anjob’al-speaking children would omit the main clause and produce the correct transitive inflection in aspectless complement clauses. This is true in the Q’anjob’al child data, but it is not clear why the aspectual verb or aspectual adverb is missing. Thus, the missing main clause is not due to modality as the Modal Hypothesis suggests.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

The children showed a preference for producing ergative morphemes with vowel-initial rather than with consonant-initial verbs, as reported in other Mayan languages (e.g. Brown et al. 2013: Mateo Pedro et al. 2012). Additionally, all three children showed vowel change only with the second person singular ergative in vowel-initial transitive verbs (h-), which suggests that their use of transitive verb inflections had already achieved a level of productivity during this study (Mateo Pedro 2013a).

chapter 6

Phonological effects and word order 6.1  Introduction This chapter aims to explore the Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s initial sounds, syllable structures, and word orders in order to evaluate the effect of these elements on the acquisition of verbal inflections in Q’anjob’al. In Chapters 4 and 5, we saw that while Q’anjob’al-speaking children omitted aspect and person prefixes, they produced a variety of status suffixes linked to aspect, transitivity, and clause type. In this chapter I attempt to explain why Q’anjob’al-speaking children omit inflectional morphemes. I demonstrate that the type of initial sound (consonantal and vocalic) and the syllable structure of the verb in use have an effect on the inflectional morphemes produced by the children. I further show that children acquire Q’anjob’al as a verb-initial language. 6.2  Phonological effects This section discusses the importance of the initial sounds and syllable structures of the different verbs that the children produced. Q’anjob’al-speaking children exhibited earlier mastery of inflectional morphemes that attach to vowel-initial verbs than of inflectional morphemes that attach to consonant-initial verbs. The section also shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquired the CVC root before they acquired other structures. 6.2.1  Initial sounds The frequency with which Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce different verbs varies depending on the initial sound of each verb. In general, these children produced more consonant-initial verbs than vowel-initial verbs, as shown in Table 58. While in Q’anjob’al no work exists on the frequency of consonant-initial verbs in contrast to vowel-initial transitive verbs, Mora-Marín (2010) states that in most Mayan languages, the basic root shape is consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC). Thus, Q’anjob’al-speaking children producing more consonant-initial transitive

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

verbs than vowel-initial transitive verbs may resemble the distribution of verbs in the language. Table 58.  Number and percentage of consonant-initial and vowel-initial intransitive and transitive verbs in Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s speech: types Intransitive verbs

Transitive verbs

Children

C-initial

V-initial

Total

C-initial

V-initial

Total

Xhuw (1;9–2;4)

27 (75%)

   9 (25%)

36

21 (68%)

10 (32%)

31

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

38 (78%)

11 (22%)

49

35 (76%)

11 (24%)

46

Tum (2;7–3;1)

44 (78%)

12 (22%)

56

49 (80%)

12 (20%)

61

The asymmetry between consonant-initial verbs and vowel-initial verbs means that Q’anjob’al-speaking children have more opportunities to produce inflectional morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs than with vowel-initial transitive verbs. Thus, according to a frequency-based account of acquisition, these children should acquire inflectional morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs first, and then they should acquire them with vowel-initial transitive verbs. However, this prediction does not hold. A comparison of the acquisition of inflectional morphemes in consonant and vowel-initial verbs in Q’anjob’al for intransitive verbs (Table 59) and transitive verbs (Table 60) shows that the children omitted fewer inflectional morphemes with vowel-initial verbs than with consonant-initial verbs. The percentage of complete forms with consonant-initial and vowel-initial verbs, given in the last row of Table 59, clearly shows this asymmetry. These children also produced a higher number of different verb forms that begin with consonants than with vowels. Table 59.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s intransitive verb forms in indicative clauses Xhuw (1;11–2;3) Forms

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

Complete

13

10

16

40

55

48

-Aspect

23

2

36

10

94

30

–

–

–

–

–

–

Stem

181

12

118

33

89

39

Root

148

16

202

39

101

52

-Absolutive

Total

365

40

373

% complete forms

3.56%

25%

4.28%

122 32.79%

339

169

16.22%

28.4%



Chapter 6.  Phonological effects and word order 

The asymmetry of this pattern is more apparent with transitive verbs than with intransitive verbs. Table 60 shows that cases where all transitive inflections were produced (e.g. complete forms) appeared more with vowel-initial transitive verbs than with consonant-initial transitive verbs. In Table 60, Xhuw produces complete transitive verb forms with vowel-initial transitive verbs, but not with consonant-initial transitive verbs. We find similar patterns in Xhim’s data, but not in Tum’s. Tum produced about the same percentage of complete transitive verb forms with consonant and vowel-initial transitive verbs. Table 60.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s transitive verb forms in indicative clauses Xhuw (1;11–2;3) Forms

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

C-initial

V-initial

Complete

–

38

6

63

37

26

-Aspect

–

1

–

4

2

1

-Absolutive

–

1

–

–

–

–

-Asp/abs

61

46

45

161

130

88

-Ergative

–

2

–

1

3

7

Stem

9

1

16

5

4

3

Root

25

1

41

4

54

1

Total

95

90

108

238

230

126

% complete forms

0%

42.22%

5.55%

26.47%

16.09%

20.63%

Based on the data in Table 59 and Table 60, Q’anjob’al-speaking children showed an earlier acquisition of inflectional morphemes with vowel-initial verbs than with consonant-initial verbs. Pye and Mateo Pedro (2006) report that K’iche’and Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce a higher number of consonant-initial transitive verbs than vowel-initial transitive verbs. When comparing the acquisition of ergative morphemes in the Mayan languages K’iche’, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Yucatec, Brown et al. (2013) found that at the age of 2;6, children produced the ergative morphemes with vowel-initial transitive verbs in over 90% of obligatory contexts, but this was not the case for ergative morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs. According to these authors, children in the four Mayan languages show more productive use of ergative morphemes with vowel-initial transitive verbs by the age of 2;6 than with consonant-initial transitive verbs. The lack of production of inflectional morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs cannot be because these children have no access to these inflections. The problem is more phonological in nature; in this case, there is an i­nteraction

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

between the morphology and consonant-initial transitive verbs. The patterns in the acquisition of Q’anjob’al inflectional morphemes suggest that the phonology of the verbs should be taken into account. For example, Song et al. (2009) have shown that English-speaking children produce the morpheme -s more accurately in verbs when it results in simple codas, e.g. sees, than they do in verbs for which the suffix would result in complex codas, e.g. needs. The asymmetry of the acquisition of ergative morphemes in relation to ­consonant-initial transitive verbs and vowel-initial transitive verbs has been shown in other Mayan languages. Mateo Pedro, et al. (2012), Pérez Vail (2012), Brown, et  al. (2013) have reported that Mayan-speaking children acquire allomorphs of ergative morphemes with vowel-initial verbs first before acquiring allomorphs for consonant-initial transitive verbs. This was illustrated in (51) for Chuj and (52) for Mam above and repeated below as (128) and (129) respectively. For example in (128a), the ergative morpheme w- cross-references the transitive verb al ‘to say’; but in (128b), the ergative morpheme hin- is missing in the transitive verb tek’ ‘to kick’. (128) a. wala’. Chuj (Xep 1;8) Target form: ol-ø w-al-a’   pot-abs3 erg1-say-tv   ‘I will say it.’ b. olix te’a, atoti’a. Chuj (Mat 2;2) Target form: ol-ach hin-tek’-a, ak oti’-a   pot-abs2 erg1-kick-tv give to me   ‘I will kick you, give it to me.’ (129) a. taja. Mam (Wel 2;6) Target form: t-aj=a   erg2-want-2   ‘You want it.’ b. txi’ q’o-ne’. Mam (Wel 2;6) Target form: ma txi’ n–q’o-n=e’   com dir erg1-give-ds-1   ‘I gave it.’

6.2.2  Syllable structures In this section, I show that the syllable structure of Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s verbs has an effect on the acquisition of inflectional morphemes. A comparison of the children’s syllable structures and adults’ syllable structures shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produce simplified versions of the adult syllable structures that obey particular constraints. This is illustrated in Table 61 for intransitive



Chapter 6.  Phonological effects and word order 

syllable structures and Table 62 for transitive syllable structures. I provide syllable reductions found in the data of the three children, as shown in column two. Table 61.  Q’anjob’al children’s number of syllable reductions for intransitive verbs compared to the target syllables for intransitive verbs Adult syllables

Child syllables

Xhuw (1;11–2;4)

Xhim (2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

C-CVC

CVC

47

118

62

CVC

CVC

26

–

5

C-VC

C-VC

–

6

18

C-CVC-C-V

CVC-V

13

–

5

C-CVC-V

CVC-V

80

15

9

C-VC-CVC

VC-CVC

–

5

2

CVC-CVC

VC-CVC

–

12

28

CVC-CVC-V

VC-CVC-V

4

2

7

Table 62.  Q’anjob’al children’s number of syllable reductions for transitive verbs compared to the target syllables for transitive verbs Adult forms

Child forms

Xhuw (1;11–2;4)

Xhim (2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

C-CV

CV

16

5

8

C-CVC

CVC

–

15

19

C-CVC-V

CVC-V

–

5

6

C-VC-V

C-VC-V

CC-VC

C-VC

CC-VC

C-VC-!V

CC-VC-V CC-VCV-C

–

12

3

12

28

23

4

4

–

C-VC-V

7

3

–

C-VCV-C

–

7

4

CVC-CVC

VC-CVC

–

4

46

CVC-CVC-V

VC-CVC-V

8

8

6

The data in Table 61 and Table 62 show that the syllable structure CVC predominates in the children’s speech, which resembles the basic CVC root found in Q’anjob’al as well as in other Mayan languages. Q’anjob’al-speaking children reduced consonant clusters (CC) to C, as illustrated in (130). In (130a), Xhuw produced the transitive verb root toj ‘to go’ with the syllable structure CVC plus the status suffix -i and did produce the incompletive aspect ch-. In (130b), Xhuw omitted the completive aspect x- and the derivational morpheme -w. The syllable

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

structure CVC-V is also found in the children’s speech (130c); the final vowel is the status suffix attached to the verb root. (130) a. tohi. (CVC-V) Xhuw (1;11) Target form: ch-ø-toj-i. (C-CVC-V)   inc-abs3-go-iv   ‘She goes.’ b. lawi. (CVC-V) Xhuw (2;1) Target form: x-ø-laj-w-i. (C-CVC-C-V)   com-abs3-finish-der-iv   ‘It finished.’ c. pulu. (CVC-VC) Xhuw (2;2) Target form: x-ø-in-pul-u’. (CVC-CVC-VC)   com-abs3-erg1-spill-tv   ‘I spilled it.’

Xhim and Tum both produced CVC-CVC syllable structures as VC-CVC, which is the result of the production of the verb root with person marking included, but aspect omitted. This is shown in (131). (131) hinwayi. (VC-CVC-VC) Xhim (2;4) Target form: ch-in way-i (CVC CVC-VC)   inc-abs1-sleep-iv   ‘I sleep.’

6.3  Word order In addition to being an ergative and agglutinative language, Q’anjob’al is also a verb-initial language. This section shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children are sensitive to the fact that Q’anjob’al is verb-initial and tend to mostly produce verbinitial utterances. The children produced other word orders, but retained the verb in initial position. In most cases, the children produced only the verb with its inflections. The children’s word orders are summarized in Table 63 for intransitive word order and Table 64 for transitive word order. Xhim and Tum produced a few instances of VSO and other orders, like VS, and VO for transitive clauses. Examples for the acquisition of word order in Q’anjob’al are shown in (132) from Xhim. Xhim’s word orders resemble the adult word orders as illustrated by the second line of the target form. In these word orders we see once again omission of inflections. For example in (132a), Xhim produced a root transitive verb that lacks aspect and agreement.



Chapter 6.  Phonological effects and word order 

Table 63.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of word order with intransitive verbs Word order

Xhuw (1;11–2;4)

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

v

86

72

72

v+s

62

71

54

v+prep

15

34

50

v+s+prep

1

33

16

v+dem

4

3

12

v+adv

2

7

4

10

1

18

adv+v

9

5

9

s+v

6

7

12

neg+v

1

8

6

adv+v+s

Table 64.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s frequency of word order with transitive verbs Word order

Xhuw (1;11–2;4)

Xhim (2;3–2;9)

Tum (2;7–3;1)

v

56

46

58

v+o

40

45

65

v+s

12

29

11

v+s+o

–

5

12

v+o+prep

–

2

7

adv+v

–

7

4

adv+v+o

–

4

1

neg+v

–

9

2

o+v

2

4

14

(132) a. man ixh. VS Xhim (2;3) Target form: ch-ø-ø-man ix.   inc-abs3-erg3-buy pro   ‘She buys it.’ b. lo no lopej. VSO Target form: ch-ø-ø-lo no’ lob’ej.   inc-abs3-erg-3-eat pro food   ‘The animal eats food.’

Xhim (2;8)

c. chela’ un tu la. VO Xhim (2;4) Target form: ch-ø-ø-el jun tu la   inc-abs3-erg2-see one dem dem   ‘You see that.’

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

6.4  Conclusion In this chapter we have seen that Q’anjob’al-speaking children show early acquisition of inflectional morphemes that coincide with vowel-initial verbs as well as with the syllable structure CVC. In addition, children acquired Q’anjob’al as a verb-initial language. The finding presented here concerning the relevance of the initial sound of the verb and CVC syllable structure to the acquisition of Q’anjob’al is compatible with previous findings from other Mayan acquisition studies. Mayan children generally produce consonant-initial verbs more often than vowel-initial verbs and favor the syllable structure CVC (Pye (1983) for K’iche’, Brown (1997) for Tzeltal, and de León (2005) for Tzotzil). Pye (1983) has shown for K’iche’ that once children’s command of syllable structures grows more sophisticated, more inflectional morphemes appear on the verb. The findings presented here are also compatible with findings from non-Mayan languages, as for example English. Song et  al. (2009) have shown that the optional morphological production of the third person singular morpheme -s is due to children’s avoidance of complex codas. Finally, the findings on the acquisition of word order in Q’anjob’al are compatible with findings on the acquisition of word order in K’iche’ (Pye 1991a). Pye found that K’iche’-speaking children acquire the canonical VOS word order at an early age even though the children produced sentences with flexible word orders around the same age. Some examples of flexible word order are given in (133) from the child Al Tiya:n (Pye 1991a). According to the target form of K’iche’ shown in the second line, Al Tiya:n’s word order resembles the adult word orders. (133) a. axej wi:b’ at. VOS (Pye 1991a) Target form: x-ø-a#xe’j aw-i:b’ at.   scared yourself you   ‘You scared yourself.’ b. yakom ate le: q’ab’e. Target form: ø-a#ya-om at le: q’ab’-e.   have got you that hand there  ‘You have got that hand there.’

VSO

c. lah ti tu wakax. Target form: alah k-ø-u#tij ta u-wakax.   boy eats not his cow   ‘The boy is not eating his cow.’

SVO



Chapter 6.  Phonological effects and word order 

6.5  Relationship between data and theories The three children produced more of the most frequent syllable structure found in Q’anjob’al, e.g. CVC. In attempt to produce other syllable structures, these children underwent reduction of syllable structures. As a result, they reduced consonant clusters (CC) to a single consonant (C), as illustrated in (130) and (131). However, these children retained the syllable structure CVC after reducing syllable structures. Thus, these findings go along with the arguments discussed from the Minimal Word Constraint hypothesis, which says that children may start acquiring words with syllables of the structure CVC.

chapter 7

General conclusions I started this book stating that studies on first language acquisition have shown that children omit inflectional morphemes at early stages, e.g. Brown (1973). Brown (1973) identifies this period of omission of inflections as the ‘telegraphic stage’ of language acquisition, which others consider as the Root Infinitive Stage, e.g. Schütze and Wexler (1996). Various theories have been proposed to explain this problem, e.g. the Small Clause Hypothesis (Radford 1988), the Agreement or Tense Omission Model (Schütze & Wexler 1996), the Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/1994), the Modal Auxiliary Hypothesis (Ingram & Thompson 1996), the Complementation Hypothesis (Pinker 1984), and the Imperative Analogue Hypothesis (Salustri & Hyams 2003). However, acquisition studies from nonEuropean languages with agglutinative morphology, such as K’iche’ (Pye 1983), Turkish (Aksu-Koç & Slobin 1985), and Inuktitut (Allen 1996), have shown that Brown’s telegraphic stage does not extend to languages with rich inflection systems. In this book I have evaluated the acquisition of aspect, ergative/absolutive agreement, and status suffix morphology marked on the verb in Q’anjob’al by exploring three types of clauses. In exploring the three types of clauses I presented three specific questions: (i) Do children omit inflectional morphemes in early Q’anjob’al? (ii) Are the patterns of inflection omission different in situations of ergative pattern in contrast to situations of nominative-accusative pattern? and (iii) Is the pattern of omission of inflectional morphology the same across three clause types in Q’anjob’al: imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses? To answer the first question, I explored what the Truncation Hypothesis and the Agreement or Tense Omission Model predict. For the second question I evaluated the predictions of the Modal Hypothesis and the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis with regard to verb morphology found in indicative clauses in contrast to the verb morphology found in aspectless complement clauses. For the last question, I evaluated Salustri and Hyams’s (2003) argument that non-finite verb forms found in child data resemble imperatives. This approach predicts that Q’anjob’alspeaking children would first acquire imperative forms and then extend these forms to the verb forms found in indicative and aspectless complement clauses.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

The imperative form has only a single inflection, making it the simplest form and thus an ideal candidate for early acquisition and subsequent overextension to indicative and aspectless complement clauses. I conducted four types of analyses: verb forms, frequency, productivity, and errors. I also conducted an analysis of the phonological and word order effects in the acquisition of inflections in Q’anjob’al. The results show that Q’anjob’al-speaking children first acquire status suffixes and gradually acquire prefixes of agreement and aspect. As a result, they start by producing bare stems. The findings of the present study follow the Right Edge Principle reported for the acquisition of other Mayan languages (Pye et al. 2007), presented in (25) above, and repeated below in (134). (134) Mayan Verb Complex aspect+absolutive1+ergative+[verb]_stem+status+absolutive2   | | left edge right edge acquisition

The Right Edge Principle is reflected in the three types of analyses conducted in the present study: verb form, frequency, and productivity. The verb form analysis shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced status suffixes with verb roots, and gradually increased their production of the inflectional morphology pertaining to person and aspect. The frequency analysis shows that Q’anjob’al-speaking children do not meet the 75% criterion in their production of all inflections (aspect, absolutive, ergative, and status suffixes); they produced aspectual prefixes sporadically. The productivity analysis shows that not all of the children’s verb inflections are used productively. They began making person contrasts before they produce verbs with contrasting aspect prefixes. However, they produced verbs with contrasting status suffixes, as well as producing a greater variety of status suffixes. Studies on the acquisition of verb inflections in Mayan languages have shown that children omit aspect and agreement in indicative clauses. Q’anjob’al-speaking children follow this general pattern. However, while these children omitted aspect and absolutive morphemes in indicative clauses, they followed the constraints pertaining to the inflections of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. They showed variation in the verb inflections in these three types of clauses. In other words, the production of the verb root plus the suffix did not prevent Q’anjob’al-speaking children from acquiring the morphological features of imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses. Xhuw, for example, produced more imperative and indicative clauses than aspectless complement clauses. In contrast, Xhim and Tum produced more indicative clauses than aspectless complement and imperative clauses. In general, these children produced fewer aspectless complement clauses.



Chapter 7.  General conclusions 

The Q’anjob’al-speaking children did not produce aspect prefixes before the age of 2;9 in indicative clauses. However, their rate of aspect production was not influenced by the frequency of the verb contexts. While the children produced many sentences in incompletive contexts, they did not produce the incompletive aspect prefix earlier than the completive and potential aspect prefixes. This finding is different from K’iche’ and Tzeltal in that children in these two Mayan languages acquire the incompletive aspect first. The children showed a distinction between the use of absolutive and ergative cross-reference markers. While they frequently omitted absolutive morphemes as transitive objects, they seldom omitted ergative markers as transitive subjects. We saw this pattern when we compared the production of ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses in contrast to the production of ergative morphemes with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, although these children produced a few cases of ergative morphemes with intransitive and transitive verbs in this type of clause. Tum produced more overt absolutive morphemes than Xhuw and Xhim. Tum produced overt forms of the first person singular absolutive and started producing plural absolutive morphemes. Tum’s development mirrors that of Xhim’s, just at a higher rate. The three children all acquired ergative morphemes at 1;11, before aspect prefixes. These children did not use many instances of independent pronouns to replace the ergative prefixes compared to K’iche’ (Pye 1990) and Tzeltal (Brown 1998a). Q’anjob’al-speaking children started making inflectional contrasts on their verbs with status suffixes, then with person prefixes, and finally with aspect prefixes. In other words, these children acquired aspect later than person and status suffixes following the Right Edge Principle. They began to mark aspect contrastively at the age of 2;9. They made an initial contrast between the incompletive and potential aspects. Although the children produced the person markers with a high frequency, they did not display many contrasts for person before the age of 2;9. The children showed a high frequency and productivity of status suffixes, but they had not yet fully acquired the constraints on the use of status suffixes in non-final and final positions. For example, Xhuw frequently dropped the imperative suffix in non-final positions, suggesting that she assumed the indicative suffix pattern applied to both imperative and indicative suffixes. The children also frequently produced bare roots in non-final positions due to a syntactic rule in the language. To understand why Q’anjob’al-speaking children omit inflectional morphemes, I conducted an analysis of the initial sound and the syllable structure of the verbs they produced. The results of this examination were described in C ­ hapter 6. The main finding was that both the initial sound and the syllable structure of a given verb conditioned the inflectional morphemes that the children p ­ roduced. This

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

chapter also showed that children acquired Q’anjob’al as a verb-initial language. They produced some other word orders, but consistently positioned the verb complex in the initial position in a clause. Based on the findings of the present study we can say that Q’anjob’al-speaking children acquired the split ergative pattern found in the language around the age of 2;0. These children produced both absolutive and ergative morphemes with transitive verbs in indicative clauses and produced ergative morphemes in place of absolutive morphemes with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. Interestingly, although they occasionally produced aspect and agreement markers in indicative clauses, they did not produce aspect in aspectless complement clauses, nor did they produce aspect and agreement in imperative clauses. Thus, the Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s acquisition of the split ergative pattern is conditioned by the structure of the language that they are exposed to. Furthermore, from these findings we can tell that Q’anjob’al-speaking children have knowledge of transitivity. If they did not, then we would not see them using the suffix -on optionally with transitive verbs only, in aspectless complement clauses. Or, producing correct person marking on intransitive or transitive verbs in the three types of clauses explored in the study. As mentioned in the introductory chapter of this book, Mayan acquisition studies have shown that children start producing inflectional morphemes at the right edge of the verb and only later come to produce the left-edge material (Pye et al. 2007). Although aspect and agreement at the left edge of the verb appear late, Mayan children produce them correctly when these morphemes do appear (Pye 1990; Pfeiler 2003; Brown 1998a; de León 1999b; Mateo Pedro 2005). However, most of these studies in Mayan languages have focused on verb inflections found in indicative clauses, as illustrated in (134) (Pye et al. 2007). Furthermore, most of the languages studied so far show an ergative pattern only, with the exception of Yucatec, which shows a split ergative pattern. Thus, Q’anjob’al allows us to evaluate the acquisition of the split ergative pattern. Q’anjob’al-speaking children showed late acquisition of aspect and absolutive morphemes, but early acquisition of status suffixes as reported in other Mayan languages (Pye et  al. 2007). The children in the present study showed a preference for producing ergative morphemes with vowel-initial verbs rather than with consonant-initial verbs (Brown et al. 2013). The children extended status suffixes to non-final position. In the adult grammar, status suffixes appear in non-final position, but with derived verbs: intransitive or transitive verbs. Thus, these children do not have adult-like patterns. A comparison of the acquisition of verb inflections found in other Mayan languages compared to Q’anjob’al is shown in Table 65. In Table 65, plus (+) indicates that Mayan-speaking children showed more prefence for the verb inflection



Chapter 7.  General conclusions 

listed in the first column, while minus (-) indicates that Mayan-speaking children showed less prefence for the verb inflection also listed in the first column. For example, the row verb root + status suffix means that children acquiring K’iche’, Yucatec, and Q’anjob’al showed more preference for a verb root plus a status suffix, but not children acquiring Tzotzil and Tzeltal. Table 65.  Acquisition of inflections in Mayan languages compared to Q’anjob’al Verb inflections\Mayan languages

K’iche’

Yucatec

Verb root +status suffix

+

+

Verb root

–

–

Status suffix in non-final position

+

–

Late acquisition of ASP and AGR

+

Adverbs before aspect

Tzotzil

Tzeltal

Q’anjob’al

–

–

+

+

+

–

–

–

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

+

–

–

Distinction of ERG and ABS

+

+

+

+

+

Vowel ERG > Consonant ERG

+

+

+

+

+

Use of pronouns instead of ERG

+

-

–

+

–

In addition to following a Mayan pattern, Q’anjob’al shows ­particularities that expand our understanding of the acquisition of inflection in Mayan ­languages, e.g. vowel change of the ergative morpheme h- before vowel and the use of the suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. Vowel change of the ergative morpheme h- before a vowel is another piece of evidence of the children’s productivity. All three children showed vowel change only with the second person singular ergative in vowel-initial transitive verbs (h-), which suggests that their use of transitive verb inflections had already achieved a level of productivity during this study. The other Mayan languages studied do not  show vowel change due to historical changes in the ergative morpheme before vowel for second person singular. Thus, this finding provides further evidence for the acquisition of a distinction between ergative and absolutive morphemes. Furthermore, the pattern of acquisition of -on provides evidence that Q’anjob’al-speaking children began to distinguish main and aspectless complement clauses around the age of 2;0. In aspectless complement clauses these children optionally produced the suffix -on, but they did not delete the suffix -i (at least for Xhim and Tum). These children used the suffix -on with transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses only; they did not extend the use of -on to intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses. As illustrated in (124b) above, only transitive verbs take the suffixes -on and -i in aspectless complement clauses.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

This provides further evidence of a distinction between ergative and absolutive morphemes and also the use of intransitive and transitive inflections in aspectless complement clauses. As mentioned earlier, most of the Mayan languages studied do not show split ergative pattern, with the exception of Yucatec. Thus, the Q’anjob’al child data presented in this book extend our understanding not only of the acquisition of inflections in general but also of the acquisition of the split ergative pattern found in other Mayan languages. The Q’anjob’al child data presented in this book is relevant to first language acquisition theories. To answer three research questions (Do children omit inflectional morphemes in early Q’anjob’al?, Are the patterns of inflection omission different in situations of ergative pattern vs. in situations of nominative-accusative pattern?, Is the pattern of omission of inflectional morphology the same across imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al?), I explored predictions made by six theories of first language acquisition: (i) the Truncation Hypothesis, (ii) the Agreement or Tense Omission Model, (iii) the Modal Hypothesis, (iv) the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis, (v) the Imperative Analogue Hypothesis, and (vi) the Minimal Word Constraint. Each theory makes different predictions for the acquisition of inflections in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al. The Truncation Hypothesis predicts the omission of any inflectional morpheme, rather than specifically predicting the omission of agreement or tense. Q’anjob’al-speaking children may omit all inflectional morphemes and produce only verb roots. In contrast, the Agreement or Tense Omission Model is radical in predicting the optional omission of tense and/or agreement only. Thus, this model predicts that Q’anjob’al-speaking children may optionally omit aspect or agreement. The model does not make a distinction between absolutive and ergative agreement; we thus do not have any predictions about whether Q’anjob’al-speaking children would omit absolutive or ergative agreement. The Modal Hypothesis predicts that Q’anjob’al-speaking children may produce the verb morphology correctly in aspectless complement clauses, but missing the aspectual verb or aspectual adverb. In contrast, the Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis predicts that, although Q’anjob’al-speaking children may have difficulties with the constraints on verb complements, they will not have problems producing an aspectual verb or adverb. Thus, children may produce intransitive and transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, but with the incorrect morphology. For example, Q’anjob’al-speaking children may extend the morphology of intransitive verbs to transitive verbs by producing the ergative morpheme and the suffix -i. Alternatively, they may extend the morphology of transitive verbs to intransitive verbs by employing -on with the intransitive verb. The Imperative Analogue Hypothesis predicts that Q’anjob’al-speaking children may first acquire imperative forms and then extend these forms to the verb



Chapter 7.  General conclusions 

forms found in indicative and aspectless complement clauses. The Minimal Word Constraint predicts that Q’anjob’al-speaking children may produce only CVC verb roots. The results of the present study compared to the predictions made from the six theories show the following. Q’anjob’al-speaking children optionally omitted not only aspect and agreement, but also status suffixes, which is contrary to the predictions of the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. These children did not consider either ergative or absolutive as a default form to mark subjects of intransitive or transitive verbs. The children omitted both aspect and absolutive morphemes on transitive verbs, but they almost never omitted ergative morphemes. Most errors found in the three children’s intransitive inflections are instances of omission. In aspectless complement clauses, for example, they showed a correct shift of absolutive agreement to ergative agreement with intransitive verbs, as it is expected in the adult grammar. In other words, we did not find absolutive morphemes instead of ergative morphemes in aspectless complement clauses in the Q’anjob’al child data. Thus, these children did not consider the absolutive or the ergative agreement as a default form as predicted by the Agreement or Tense Omission Model. Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced different types of verb forms, as predicted by the Truncation Hypothesis. What is problematic for the hypothesis, though, is the optional omission of the suffix -on in aspectless complement clauses. Although these children produced main clauses, they optionally produced this suffix in aspectless complement clauses. The Truncation Hypothesis does not predict this pattern. The Q’anjob’al-speaking children optionally produced main clauses, as the Modal Hypothesis predicts, but in aspectless complement clauses they produced the correct verb morphology. With transitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses, the children optionally omit the suffix -on, but the suffix -i is consistently produced, as is expected in the adult grammar. However, the children’s aspectless complement clauses were not all missing an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb. Based on the data presented in Table 53, Table 54, and Table 55, the percentage of a missing aspectual verb or aspectual adverb is lower than percentage of the presence of an aspectual verb or aspectual adverb. This is illustrated in Table 66. Table 66.  Q’anjob’al-speaking children’s presence and absence of aspectual verb/adverb in aspectless complement clauses Child

Ages

+ aspectual verb/adverb

- aspectual verb/adverb

Xhuw Xhim

1;11–2;4

5 (83%)

1 (17%)

2;3–2;9

6 (75%)

2 (25%)

Tum

2;7–3;1

12 (80%)

3 (20%)

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya

The Auxiliary Complement Hypothesis predicts that Q’anjob’al children would produce aspectual verbs/adverbs and their complements, but the children may have problems producing the correct morphology of each complement type. We found that these children did not produce errors of their verb inflections in aspectless complement clauses. They showed omission errors instead, for example the optional omission of the suffix -on in aspectless complement clauses. Furthermore, these children used the suffix -on with transitive verbs only and did not extend the same suffix to intransitive verbs. Thus, potential extension of -on to intransitive verbs, as predicted in (50b) and repeated below in (135), is ruled out. (135) *watx’ ko-way-on-i.  good erg1-sleep-af-nml Intended: ‘It is good for us to sleep.’

Q’anjob’al-speaking children did not use imperatives as a default form, as S­ alustri and Hyams (2003) would predict. These children produced bare stems, but their use of different status suffixes shows that they distinguished imperatives from other types of clauses. Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced mostly CVC verb roots as the Minimal Word Constraint predicts. However, the CVC root is prominent in all Mayan languages, including Q’anjob’al. So, these children are exposed to this root form in their daily life. These children simplified consonant clusters, and also often omit word-initial consonants. Thus, simplified syllable structure is influencing part of the inflection omission pattern. Q’anjob’al-speaking children produced more consonant-initial verbs than vowel-initial verbs, thus giving them more opportunities to produce ergative morphemes with consonant-initial transitive verbs. Similar results have been shown in other Mayan languages, for example Chuj (Mateo Pedro et al. 2012) and Mam (Pérez Vail 2012). Additionally, the error analysis showed two main types of errors: omission of aspect and agreement and overextension of status suffixes from final to non-final position. The differences between the children’s production of the status suffixes in non-final position and final position showed that they were still acquiring the constraints on status suffixes in Q’anjob’al. Based on the results of the present study I argue that Q’anjob’al-speaking children do not undergo a Root Infinitive stage following the argument for the acquisition of verb inflections of other ergative languages, e.g. K’iche’ (Pye 1983), Turkish (Aksu-Koç & Slobin 1985), Inuktitut (Allen 1996). These children showed omission errors, but not commission errors. While the findings of the present study are informative regarding the acquisition of verb inflections in imperative, indicative, and aspectless complement clauses in Q’anjob’al and its theoretical implications for first language acquisition studies in general, further studies are needed to advance our knowledge



Chapter 7.  General conclusions 

c­ oncerning the acquisition of verb inflections in Q’anjob’al. As discussed in the ­following ­paragraphs, some potential areas for further investigation are initial sound of the verbs in the input, ergative morphemes and the suffix -on with transitive verbs found in other syntactic constructions such as relative clauses, negation, wh-questions, and adverbs. A study that evaluates the effect of the frequency of consonant- and vowelinitial verbs that Q’anjob’al-speaking children are exposed to will be crucial to understanding the acquisition of ergative morphemes in Q’anjob’al. In Mayan acquisition studies, initial sounds of verbs that Mayan children are exposed to, have not yet been studied in detail. Ergative morphemes not only mark agreement relationships, but also mark possession of nouns and the complement of relational nouns, as illustrated in (7) above and repeated below in (136). Studying patterns in the acquisition of ergative morphemes in these other contexts will advance our understanding of the acquisition of ergative morphemes not only with transitive verbs in indicative clauses or with intransitive verbs in aspectless complement clauses as discussed in this book but also the acquisition of ergative morphemes in other contexts. (136) a. an y-is. clf erg3-potato ‘Her potato.’

Possessor

b. y-ib’an te’ na. erg3-rn clf house ‘On the top of the house.’

Complement of Relational Noun

In relative clauses, negation, and wh-questions, the suffixes -on and -i are mandatory with transitive verbs. Thus, a study of both suffixes in these syntactic constructions will be informative about whether or not Q’anjob’al-speaking children optionally produce these suffixes with transitive verbs. Or perhaps they do not produce either suffix. A study on the acquisition of adverbs in Q’anjob’al will be crucial to understanding the acquisition of aspect and also the relation that exists between adverbs and aspect in Q’anjob’al. As de León (1999b) shows, Tzotzil-speaking children acquire adverbs before aspect. The verb phrase in Q’anjob’al is very sensitive to adverbs. Therefore, a study of adverbs will be informative not only for Mayan language acquisition studies but also for Mayan language studies in general. Adverbs have also not yet been explored in detail. Additionally, further documentation projects on the acquisition of Mayan languages will extend our understanding of the acquisition of ergativity in general, and split ergative pattern in particular. Within Mayan languages whose ­acquisition has been formally studied, only Yucatec and Q’anjob’al show a split ergative pattern.

References Acuerdo Gubernativo 1046–87, Guatemalan Law. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Dan Slobin (ed.), 1. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Allen, Shanley. 1996. Aspects of Argument Structure Acquisition in Inuktitut [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lald.13 Babyonyshev, Maria. 1993. Acquisition of the Russian case system. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers on Case & Agreement, Vol 2, Colin Phillips (ed.), 1–43. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Bernstein Ratner, N. & Pye, Clifton. 1984. Higher pitch in BT is not universal: Acoustic evidence from Quiché Mayan. The Journal of Child Language 11: 515–522. Blaha Pfeiler, Barbara & Carrillo Carreón, Carlos. 2001. La adquisición del maya yucateco: El número. In La adquisición de la lengua materna. Español, Lenguas Mayas, Euskera, Cecilia Rojas & Lourdes de León Pasquel (eds), 75–97. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Blom, Elma. 2008.  The Acquisition of Finiteness [Studies in Generative Grammar 94]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110211436 Bricker, Victoria. 1981. The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(2): 83–127. Bromberg, Hilary Sara & Wexler, Kenneth. 1995. Null subjects in child WH-questions. In Papers in language processing and acquisition [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26], Carson T. Shutze, Jennifer B. Ganger & Kevin Broihier (eds). Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Brown, Penelope. 2013. La estructura conversacional y la adquisición del lenguaje: El papel de la repetición en el habla de los adultos y niños tzeltales. In Nuevos senderos en el studio de la adquisición de lenguas mesoamericanas: Estructura, narrativa y socialización, Lourdes de León Pasquel (ed.), 35–82. Mexico: CIESAS. Brown, Penelope. 2008. Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability, Melissa Bowerman & Penelope Brown (eds.), 167–189. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, Penelope. 2007. Culture-specific influences on semantic development: Learning the Tzeltal ‘benefactive’ construction. In Learning Indigenous Languages: Child Language Acquisition in Mesoamerica, Barbara Pfeiler (ed.), 119–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923148.119 Brown, Penelope. 2004. Position and motion in Tzeltal frog stories: The acquisition of narrative style. In Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds), 37–57. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, Penelope. 1998a. Children’s first verbs in Tzeltal: Evidence for an early verb category. Linguistics 36(4): 713–753. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.713 Brown, Penelope. 1998b. Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(2): 197–221. DOI: 10.1525/jlin.1998.8.2.197

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya Brown, Penelope. 1998c. Early Tzeltal verbs: Argument structure and argument representation. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Eve V. Clark (ed.), 129–140. Stanford CA: CSLI. Brown, Penelope. 1997. Isolating the CVC root in Tzeltal Mayan: A study of children’s first verbs. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Child Language Research Forum, Eve V. Clark (ed.), 41–52. Stanford CA: CSLI/University of Chicago Press. Brown, Penelope. 1993. The role of shape in the acquisition of Tzeltal Mayan locatives. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Child Language Research Forum, Eve V. Clark (ed.), 211–220. Stanford CA: CSLI/University of Chicago Press. Brown, Penelope, Pfeiler, Bárbara, de León, Lourdes & Pye, Clifton. 2013. The acquisition of agreement in four Mayan languages. In The Acquisition of Ergativity [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 9], Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds), 271–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tilar.9.10bro Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early States. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Carrillo Carreón, Carlos. 2007. Early acquisition of the split intransitive system in Yukatek. In Learning Indigenous Languages. Child Language Acquisition in Mesoamerica, Barbara Pfeiler (ed.), 69–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923148.69 Carrillo Carreón, Carlos. 2005. La adquisición de los pronombres de referencia cruzada en el maya yacateco: Estudio de caso. MA thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Clemens L.E., Coon, Jessica, Mateo Pedro, Pedro, Morgan, Adám, Polinsky, María, Tandet, Gabrielle & Wagers, Matt. 2014. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(3). Coon, Jessica. 2010. Rethinking split ergativity in Chol. International Journal of American ­Linguistics 76(2): 207–53. DOI: 10.1086/652266 Coon, Jessica, Mateo Pedro & Pedro. 2011. Extraction and embedding in two Mayan languages. In Proceedings of FAMLi 1: Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics, Vol. 63, Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Jessica Coon (eds.), 93–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Coon, Jessica, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Preminger, Omer. 2015. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation 14(2): 179–242. DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.01coo De León Pasquel, Lourdes. 2013. Negritos, ánimas y tapacaminos: La emergencia de la narrativa y la socialización del narrador en la infancia tsotsil zinacanteca. In Nuevos senderos en el estudio de la adquisición de lenguas mesoamericanas, Lourdes de León Pasquel (ed.), 121–164. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. De León Pasquel, Lourdes. 2007. A preliminary view at Ch’ol Mayan early lexicon: The role of language and cultural context. In Learning Indigenous Languages: Child Language Acquisition in Mesoamerica, Barbara Pfeiler (ed.), 85–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923148.85 De León Pasquel, Lourdes. 2005. La llegada del alma: Lenguaje, infancia y socialización entre los mayas de Zinacantán. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. De Leon, Lourdes. 2001. Why Tzotzil (Mayan) children prefer verbs: The role of linguistic and cultural factors over cognitive determinants. In Research on Child Language Acquisition. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Margareta Almgren, Adoni Barrena, Maria-Jose Ezeizabarrena, Itziar Idiazabal & Brian MacWhinney (eds), 947–969. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.

References  De León, Lourdes. 2000. The emergent participant: Interactive patterns of socialization of Tzotzil Mayan children. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(2): 131–161. DOI: 10.1525/jlin.1998.8.2.131 De León, Lourdes. 1999a. Verb roots and caregiver speech in early Tzotzil Mayan acquisition. In Cognition, Discourse, and Function, Barbara Box, Dan Juravsky & Laura Michaelis (eds), 99–119 Standford CA: CSLI/University of Chicago Press. De León, Lourdes. 1999b. Verbs in Tzotzil early syntactic development. International Journal of Bilingualism 3(2–3): 219–240. DOI: 10.1177/13670069990030020601 De León, Lourdes. 1994. Exploration in the acquisition of geocentric location by Tzotzil children. Linguistics 32: 857–884. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.857 Ud Deen, Kamil. 2002. The Acquisition of Swahili [Language Acquisition and Language ­Disorders 40]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lald.40 Demuth, Katherine. 2007. Acquisition at the prosody-morphology interface. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America GALANA), Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni & Mari Umeda (eds). Somerville MA: ­Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Demuth, Katherine. 2001. Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders Series 24], Jürgen ­Weissenborn & Barbara Höhle (eds), 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lald.24.02dem Espantzay Serech, Carmelina. 2006. Proceso de adquisición del Kaqchikel: Un caso de estudio. Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Rafael Landívar. Espinosa Ochoa, Mary Rosa. 2010. Locative Deictics in the Early Acquisition of Yucatec Mayan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg. Fernández Martínez, A. 1994. El aprendizaje de los morfemas verbales: Datos de un estudio longitudinal. In La adquisición de la lengua española, Susana López Ornat, Almudena Fernández, Pilar Gallo & Sonia Mariscal (eds), 29–46. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores. Flores Vera, M.A. 1998. La adquisición temprana del maya yucateco. Undergraduate thesis, ­Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Francisco Pascual, Adán. 2005. Yaq’b’anil stxolilal ti’ Q’anjob’al, Gramática Descriptiva Q’anjob’al. Guatemala: K’ulb’il Yol Twitz Paxil, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Francisco Pascual, Adán. 2007. Transitividad y dependencia sintáctica y discursiva en Q’anjob’al. MA thesis, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Francisco Pascual, Adán, Toledo, B’alam Mateo & Zavala, Roberto. 2007. Complementos en Q’anjob’al y la Unión de Cláusulas. Paper presented at the Taller de Complementación II, Guatemala, July-August 2007. Gagliardi, Annie, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Polinsky, Maria. 2014. The acquisition of relative clauses in Q’anjob’al. Paper presented at the Third Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics (FAMLi3), Mexico, December 2014. Gagliardi, Annie, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Polinsky, Maria. 2013. The acquisition of relative clauses in Q’anjob’al Mayan. Paper presented at the 38th Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, November 2013. Mueller Gathercole, Virginia C., Sebastián, Eugenia & Soto, Pilar. 1999. The early acquisition of Spanish verbal morphology: Across-the-board or piecemeal knowledge? International Journal of Bilingualism 3: 133–182. DOI: 10.1177/13670069990030020401 Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2002. Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya Hamann, Cornelia. 2002. From Syntax to Discourse: Pronominal Clitics, Null Subjects and Infinitives in Child Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ingram, David & Thompson, William. 1996. Early syntactic acquisition in German: Evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language 72: 97–120. DOI: 10.2307/416795 Kaufman, Terrence. 1974. Idiomas de Mesoamerica. Seminario de Ingracion Social Guatemalteca 33. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion. Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas Mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’. In Lecturas sobre la Lingüística Maya, Nora C. England & Stephen R. Elliot (eds), 59–114. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica. Martín Briceño, E. 1998. Jugar y conjugar. La flexión verbal temprana en la adquisición del maya yucateco. Un estudio de caso. Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Martínez Pérez, Margarita. 2013. Los rasgos del habla dirigida a niños en el tsotsil huixteco. In Nuevos senderos en el estudio de la adquisición de lenguas mesoamericanas, Lourdes de León Pasquel (ed.), 83–120. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2011. Chuj Child Language Acquisition, 〈http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18482〉 V4 [Version] Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2013a. Adquisición de la ergatividad mixta en q’anjob’al. In Nuevos ­Senderos en la Adquisición de Lenguas Mesoamericanas: Estructura, narrativa y socialización, Lourdes de León Pasquel (ed.), 233–256. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2013b. Adquisición del clasificador nominal ix en Q’anjob’al. In Voces Revista, Ana María Palma (ed.), Instituto de Lingüística e Interculturalidad, 8/2, 5–28. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2011. The Acquisition of -on in Q’anjob’al Maya. In K. Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro, and Jessica Coon (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 63], Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Jessica Coon (eds),179–190. Cambridge MA: MITWPL Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2010a. Acquisition of verb inflection in Q’anjob’al: A longitudinal study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2010b. Adquisición de la negación en Q’anjob’al. In Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-IV. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2009. Nominalization in Q’anjob’al. In Working Papers in Linguistics 31, Stephanie Lux & Pedro Mateo (eds), 46–63. Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2005. The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al. MA thesis, University of Kansas. Mateo Pedro, Pedro, Pye, Clifton & Arcos López, Nicolás. 2012. Adquiriendo verbos inergativos e inacusativos en Chol. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 74], Robert Henderson, Lauren Eby Rice & Pedro Mateo Pedro (eds), 95–107. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Mateo Pedro, Pedro, Pérez Jorge, Gaspar & Alonzo Gómez, Nicolás. 2012. Adquisición del Juego A en el verbo en Chuj Maya. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 74], Robert Henderson, Lauren Eby Rice & Pedro Mateo Pedro (eds), 83–94. Cambridge MA: MITWPL. Mateo Pedro, Pedro, Gagliardi, Annie & Polinsky, Maria. 2014. La adquisición de cláusulas relativas en Q’anjob’al. Paper presented at Form and Analysis in Mayan Linguistics (FAMLi 3), Mexico, December 2014.

References  Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2008. The Family of Complex Predicates in Q’anjob’al Maya: Their Syntax and Meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2003. Ergatividad mixta en Q’anjob’al Maya: Un reanálisis. 〈http://www. utexas.edu/cola/llilas/centers/cilla/qanjobal/kona.htm〉 Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 1999. La cuestión Akateko-Q’anjob’al, una comparación gramatical. Undergraduate thesis, Unversidad Mariano Gálvez de Guatemala. Mondloch, J.L. 1981. Disambiguating subjects and objects in Quiche. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 1(1): 3–19. Mora-Marín, David F.   2010. Consonant deletion, obligatory synharmony, typical suffixing: An explanation of spelling practices in Mayan writing.  Written Language and Literacy 13: 118–179. DOI: 10.1075/wll.13.1.05mor Peñalosa, Fernando. 1992. ¿Cuántos idiomas Q’anjob’al existen? Boletín de Lingüística 5:1–15. Pérez Vail, José Reginaldo. 2012. Adquisición de los morfemas ergativos y absolutivos en Mam. Ms, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Pfeiler, Barbara. 2012. Creencias parentales y la interacción verbal en el desarrollo de niños mayas de yucatán. Ketzalcalli 2: 3–19. Pfeiler, Barbara. 2009. The acquisition of numeral classifiers and the optional plural marking in Yucatec Maya. In The Acquisition of Number and Case from a Typological Perspective [Studies on Language Acquisition], Ursula Stephany & Maria Voiekova (eds), 91–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pfeiler, Barbara. 2007. Lo oye, lo repite y lo piensa. The contribution of prompting to the socialization and language acquisition in Yukatek Maya toddlers. In Learning Indigenous ­Languages: Child Language Acquisition in Mesoamerica, Barbara Pfeiler (ed.), 183–202. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923148.183 Pfeiler, Barbara. 2006. Polyvalence in the acquisition of early lexicon in Yucatec Maya. In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerinidian languages, Ximena Lois & Valentina Vapnarsky (eds), 319–341. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pfeiler, Barbara. 2003. Early acquisition of the verbal complex in Yucatec Maya. In Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition, A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Dagmar Bittner, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Marianne Kilani-Schoch (eds), 379–399. Berlin: Mount de Gruyter. Pfeiler, Barbara. 2002. Noun and verb acquisition in Yucatec Maya. In Pre- and Protomorphology: Early Phases of Morphological Development in Nouns and Verbs, Maria D. Voiekova& Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), 75–82. Munich: Lincom. Pfeiler, Barbara. 1998. Acquisition of number in Yucatec Maya. In Studies in the Acquisition of Number and Diminutive Marking [Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95], Steven Gillis (ed.), 77–95. Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen. Pfeiler, Barbara & Carrillo Carreón, Carlos 2013. La adquisición de la categoría de sujeto en el maya yucateco: Producciones e input. In Adquisición de lenguas mesoamericanas. Estructuras, narrativa y socialización, Lourdes de León Paquel (ed.), 215–232, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Pfeiler, Barbara & Pye, Clifton. 2013. El método comparativo: una propuesta para la investigación de la adquisición del lenguaje. In Planteamientos metodológicos interdisciplinarios, Andreas Koechert, Barbara Pfeiler, Alexander W. Voss (eds), 23–45. Graz & Chetumal D.F., Mexico: ACPUB Academic Publishers/Universidad de Quintana Roo. Pfeiler, Barbara & Briceño, Martín. 1998. La adquisición de la transitividad en el maya yucateco. FUNCION 18: 97–120.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya Pfeiler, Barbara & Briceño, Martín. 1997. Early verb inflection in Yucatec Maya. Poznán Studies in Contemporary Linguistics PSiCL 33: 117–125. Phillips, Colin. 2010. Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. Language Acquisition 17: 70–120. DOI: 10.1080/10489221003621167 Pierce, Amy 1989. On the Emergence of Syntax: A Cross Linguistic Study. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge MA: ­Harvard University Press. Pizzuto, Elena & Chaselli, Maria. 1994. The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a crosslinguistic perspective. In Other Children, Other Languages: Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition, Yonata Levy (ed.), 137–187. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Poeppel, David & Wexler, Kenneth. 1983. The Full Competence Hypothesis of clause structure in Early German. Language 69(1): 1–33. DOI: 10.2307/416414 Powers, Susan M. 1995. The acquisition of pronouns in Dutch and English: The case for continuity. In Proceedings of BUCLD 19, Dawn MacLaughlin & Susan McEwen (eds), 439–450. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Pye, Clifton. 2013. A tale of two mam children: Contact induced language change in Mayan child language. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(4): 555–575. DOI: 10.1086/671775 Pye, Clifton. 2012. The poverty of the Mayan stimulus. Journal of Child Language 39: 611–636. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000911000183 Pye, Clifton. 2007. The genetic matrix of Mayan three-place predicates and their acquisition in K’iche’ Mayan. Linguistics 45(3): 653–682. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.020 Pye, Clifton. 2001a. La adquisición de la morfología verbal en el maya k’iche’. In Proceedings of IV Encuentro sobre Adquisición del Lenguaje, Cecilia Rojas & Lourdes de León (eds). Mexico. Pye, Clifton. 2002. The acquisition of Mayan morphosyntax. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 19–38. Pye, Clifton. 2001b. The acquisition of finiteness in K’iche’ Maya. BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Dominquez & Aimee Johansen (eds), 645–656. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Pye, Clifton. 1998. Setting the ergative parameter. In 1987 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, Michael M.T. Henderson (ed.), 239–251. Kansas City KS: University of Kansas. Pye, Clifton. 1996. K’iche’ Maya verbs of breaking and cutting.  Kansas Working Papers in ­Linguistics 21: 87–98. Pye, Clifton. 1993. A cross-linguistic approach to the causative alternation. In Other Children, Other Languages, Yonata Levy (ed.), 243–263. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pye, C. 1991. The Acquisition of K’iche’ (Maya), (1991). In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), Vol. 3, 221–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pye, Clifton. 1991a.  Acquiring lexical constraints on causatives in K’iche’ Maya.  Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 30: 96–103. Pye, Clifton. 1991b.  Learning to constrain verb transitivity. In 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, Frances Ingemann (ed.), 294–304. Kansas City KS: University of Kansas. Pye, Clifton. 1990. The acquisition of ergative languages. Linguistics 28:1291–1330. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1990.28.6.1291 Pye, Clifton. 1989. The focus antipassive in Quiché Mayan. Kansas University Working Papers in Linguistics. Kansas City KS: University of Kansas. Pye, Clifton. 1986a.  An ethnography of Mayan speech to children.  Working Papers in Child Language 1: 30–58.

References  Pye, Clifton. 1986b. Quiché Mayan speech to children. The Journal of Child Language 13: 85–100. Pye, Clifton. 1985. The acquisition of transitivity in Quiché Mayan. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24: 115–22. Pye, Clifton. 1983. Mayan telegraphese: Intonational determinants of inflectional development in Quiché Mayan. Language 59: 583–604. DOI: 10.2307/413905 Pye, Clifton. 1980. Person marker acquisition in Quiché Mayan, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 19: 53–9. Pye, Clifton. 1979. The acquisition of Quiché Mayan. Current Anthropology 20: 459–60. DOI: 10.1086/202312 Pye, Clifton, Pfeiler, Barbara & Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2013. The acquisition of extended ergativity in Mam, Q’anjob’al and Yucatec. In The Acquisition of Ergativity [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 9], Edith Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds.), 307–335.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tilar.9.11pye Pye, Clifton, Pfeiler, Barbara, Mateo Pedro, Pedro & Stengel, Donald. To appear. Mayan ­Language Acquisition. In The Mayan Languages, Judith Aissen, Norca C. England, Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds). Pye, Clifton & Pfeiler, Barbara. 2014. The Comparative Method of Language Acquisition Research: A Mayan Case Study. Journal of Child Language 41: 382–415. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000912000748 Pye, Clifton, Barbara Pfeiler, & Pedro Mateo Pedro. 2008. The acquisition of status suffixes in three Mayan languages. Paper presented at The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, January 2008. Pye, Clifton, Pfeiler, Barbara, de León, Lourdes, Brown, Penelope & Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2007. Roots or edges?: A comparative study of Mayan children’s early verb forms. In Learning Indigenous Languages: Child Language Acquisition in Mesoamerica, Barbara Pfeiler (ed.), 15–46. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923148.15 Pye, Clifton, Ingram, David & List, Helen. 1987. A comparison of initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiché. In Children’s Language, Vol. 6, Keith Nelson & Anne van Kleeck (eds), 175–190. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pye, Clifton, Mateo Pedro, Pedro, Pfeiler, Barbara, López Ramírez, Ana, Gutiérrez Sánchez, Pedro, Stengel, Donald & Pye, Charles. 2008. Adquisición de consonantes iniciales en cinco lenguas mayas: Un análisis fonológico. In Proceedings of the IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Hermosillo, Mexico. Pye, Clifton & Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2006.  Estudio comparativo de la adquisición del sistema ergativo en dos lenguas mayas. Proceedings of the II Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica. Pye, Clifton & Quixtan Poz, Pedro. 1989. Why functionalism won’t function: The acquisition of passives and antipassives in K’iche’ Mayan. Working Papers in Language Development 4: 39–53. Pye, Clifton & Quixtan Poz, Pedro. 1988.  Precocious passives and antipassives in Quiché Mayan. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 27: 71–80. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840425 Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars of English. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.

 The Acquisition of Inflection in Q’anjob’al Maya Raymundo González, S., Francisco, Adán, Mateo Toledo, B’alam & Mateo Pedro, Pedro. 2000. Sk’exkixhtaqil yallay koq’anej: Variación dialectal en Q’anjob’al. Guatemala: Editorial Cholsamaj. Rice, Mabel L., Wexler, Kenneth & Cleave, Patricia L. 1995. Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38: 850–863. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3804.850 Richards, Michael. 2003. Atlas Lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar. Rizzi, Luigi. 1993/1994. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acqusition 3(4): 371–393. DOI: 10.1207/s15327817la0304_2 Robertson, John S. 1992. The History of Tense/Aspect/Mood/Voice in the Mayan Verbal Complex. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Ross Montejo, Benicio, Antonio & Delgado Rojas, Edna Patricia. 2000. Slahb’ab’anil Kotzotelb’al yul Popti’/Variation Dialectal en Popti’. Guatemala: Cholsamaj. Salustri, Manola & Hyams, Nina. 2003. Is there an analogue to the RI stage in the null subject languages? In BUCLD 27: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Lanuage Development, Barbara Beachley, Amanda Brown & Frances Conlin (eds), 692–703. Cambridge MA: Cascadilla. Schütze, Carson T. 1995. Children’s subject case errors: Evidence for case-related functional projections. In FLSM VI: Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, Vol. 1, Leslie Gabriele, Debra Hardison & Robert Westmoreland (eds), 155–166. Bloomington IN: IULC. Schütze, Carson T. & Wexler, Kenneth 1996. Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In BUCLD 20: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Andy Stringfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes & Andrea Zukowski (eds), 670–681. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Shneidman, Laura Ann. 2010. Language Input and Acquisition in a Mayan Village. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago. Shneidman, Laura Ann & Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2012. Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech? Developmental Science 15(5): 659–673. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01168.x Song, Jae Yung, Sundara, Megha, & Demuth, Katherine. 2009. Phonological constraints on children’s production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52: 623–642. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0258) Straight, Stephen H. 1976. The Acquisition of Maya Phonology: Variation in Yucatec Child ­Language. New York NY: Garland. Stromswold, Karin. 1996. Analyzing children’s spontaneous speech. In Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax, Dana McDaniel, Cecile McKee & Helen Smith Cairns (eds.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Stross, Brian. 1975. Metaphor in the speech play of Tzeltal children. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 305–323. Stross, Brian. 1969. Language acquisition by Tenejapa Tzeltal children. Working Paper No. 20. Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. UNESCO. 2009. Atlas of the World’s Language in Danger. 〈http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/ index.php?pg=00139〉 24 February 2009.

References  Vázquez Sánchez, Bernabé & de León Pasquel, Lourdes. 2013. La amenza: Análisis de una práctica discursive de socialización infantile en una comunidad maya ch’ol de Tumbalá, ­Chiapas. In Nuevos senderos en el estudio de la adquisición de lenguas mesoamericanas, Lourdes de León Pasquel (ed.), 165–211.  Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Weverink, Meike. 1989. The subject in relation to Inflection in Child Language. MA thesis, University of Utrecht. Wexler, Kenneth. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23–79. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Optional infinitives, head movement and economy of derivation. In Verb Movement, Norbert Hornstein & David Lightfoot (eds), 301–350. Cambridge: CUP. Zavala, Roberto. 1992. El Kanjobal de San Miguel Acatán. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Index A Absolutive  xiii, 2–3, 6–8, 12–14, 16–19, 21–24, 26, 35, 37, 51–53, 57–59, 61, 63, 65–72, 74–76, 78–83, 85, 90, 92–93, 95, 106–107, 110, 114–115, 123–129 Accusative pattern see also accusative case see also accusative language see also accusative morphemes Agent focus  xiii, 3, 12, 15, 89, 92, 104–106 Agglutinative  1, 4, 118, 123 Agreement  xiii, 1–3, 6, 12, 16–21, 26–28, 31, 33–35, 37, 41–44, 52, 58, 63, 81–82, 111, 118, 123–124, 126, 128–131 Aspect  xiii, 2, 6–7, 12–14, 16–21, 23–24, 26–27, 35–37, 41, 45, 51–53, 55, 57–76, 78, 80–81, 83–86, 88–96, 98–99, 102–103, 110–111, 113–115, 117–118, 123–131 Aspectless complement clause  2, 7, 12, 14, 38–39, 44, 83, 103 Aspectual adverb  14, 38–39, 52, 63, 65, 76, 79, 91–92, 103, 105, 111, 128–129 Aspectual verb  14, 38–39, 52, 61, 63, 76, 80, 91, 104–106, 111, 128–129

E Ergative  xiii, 2–4, 6–8, 12–14, 16–19, 21–26, 28, 35–38, 40–45, 51–54, 61, 63, 65–67, 69–72, 76, 78–84, 90–103, 106–110, 112, 115–116, 118, 123–131 see also ergative languages  2, 130 see also ergative pattern  3–4, 6, 13, 19, 21, 24–25, 28, 43–45, 81, 123, 126–128, 131 Errors  19–21, 23, 33–34, 39, 53, 55, 57–58, 76, 78–82, 85, 108, 110–111, 124, 129–130 Extraction  14–15

C Ch’ol  16, 18 Chuj  4, 16, 18, 24, 41–42, 116, 130–131

K K’iche’  1, 16–23, 40–41, 44–45, 81, 105, 115, 120, 123, 125, 127, 130

D Default form  4, 34–35, 82, 110–111, 129–130 Derived verbs  11, 126

L Language acquisition  xi, 1–2, 4, 24, 28, 33, 47, 54, 123, 128, 130–131

F Final position  9–12, 19–20, 45, 57, 59–60, 62–64, 67–68, 76–78, 80–82, 85–94, 96–98, 103, 108–111, 126–127, 130 Finite verbs  1, 31–34, 36, 38 I Imperative clause  2, 43, 55 Independent pronoun  61, 78 Indicative clause  2, 43, 55, 95, 97 Inflectional morphemes  1–2, 12, 18–19, 26, 28, 31, 33, 37, 40, 42–45, 47, 51–56, 60, 85–86, 88, 97, 113–116, 120, 123, 125–126, 128 Input  17–18, 23, 41, 49, 131

Left edge  19, 124, 126 M Mam  4, 16, 18–19, 24, 41–42, 44, 116, 130 Mayan languages  xi, 4, 9, 14–19, 24, 28–29, 40–41, 44, 56, 81, 105, 110–113, 115–117, 120, 124–128, 130–131 Missing aspectual adverb  39, 63, 65, 79, 92 Missing aspectual verb  38, 52, 61, 63, 80, 104–106, 129 N Nominalization  xiii, 14 Non-final position  9–12, 19–20, 45, 57, 59–60, 62–63, 67–68, 76–78, 80–81, 85–94, 96–98, 103, 108–111, 126–127, 130 Non-finite verbs  1, 31–34, 36, 38 P Progressive  xiii, 7, 14, 21–22, 52, 61, 63, 78 Q Q’anjob’al  xi, 2–8, 10–14, 16–20, 24–29, 33, 35, 37–41, 43–45, 47–50, 53–59, 65–67, 70–71, 74–85, 88, 92–93, 97–98, 100–101, 103, 105, 107–111, 113–120, 123–131 R Relational noun  xiii, 8, 131 Right edge  16, 19, 111, 124–126 Root  1–2, 6, 9–11, 19, 22, 26–27, 31, 33–34, 36–37, 40–41, 43, 45, 52–54, 56–66, 77, 81, 85–92, 108, 111, 113–115, 117–118, 123–124, 127, 130 Root verbs  22, 92, 111

 Index S Split ergative pattern  3–4, 6, 13, 19, 21, 24–25, 28, 45, 81, 126–128, 131 Status suffix  xiii, 9–11, 19–20, 22, 26–27, 37, 52–53, 58, 60, 66, 72, 75–76, 81, 88, 92, 97, 99–100, 103, 108–109, 117–118, 123, 127 T Telegraphic stage  1, 31, 123 Transitivity  3–4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 19–20, 23–24, 110, 113, 126 Tum  24, 47–49, 51, 57–58, 63–65, 69–71, 73–81, 84,

V Vowel change  8, 83–84, 100–102, 112, 127

X Xhim  24, 39, 47–48, 54–55, 57–58, 61–63, 65, 68–80, 83–84, 86–90, 92–96, 99–109, 111, 114–115, 117–119, 124–125, 127, 129 Xhuw  24, 26–28, 39, 47–49, 52–54, 57–61, 63, 65–68, 70–79, 84–86, 90, 92–94, 96, 98–105, 107–109, 114–115, 117–119, 124–125, 129

W Word order  21, 29, 53, 56, 113, 118–120, 124

Y Yucatec  1, 14, 16–19, 21–22, 24, 28, 40–41, 44, 115, 126–128, 131

89–93, 96–98, 100–111, 114–115, 117–119, 124–125, 127, 129 Tzeltal  15–19, 22–23, 41, 81, 115, 120, 125, 127 Tzotzil  1, 16–19, 22–23, 41, 115, 120, 127, 131