Development of Grammar in Spanish

The Development of Grammar in Spanish and the Romance Languages Eduardo D. Faingold The Development of Grammar in Span...

Author: Eduardo Faingold

65 downloads 2850 Views 399KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Development of Grammar in Spanish and the Romance Languages Eduardo D. Faingold

The Development of Grammar in Spanish and the Romance Languages

The Development of Grammar in Spanish and the Romance Languages Eduardo D. Faingold University of Tulsa

© Eduardo D. Faingold 2003 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2003 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 1–4039–0052–3 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Faingold, Eduardo D. The development of grammar in Spanish and the Romance languages / Eduardo D. Faingold. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–4039–0052–3 1. Language acquisition. 2. Creole dialects. 3. Historical linguistics. 4. Romance languages—Grammar, Historical. I. Title. P118.F354 2003 401′.93—dc21 2003040544 10 12

9 11

8 10

7 09

6 5 4 08 07 06

3 2 1 05 04 03

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Magistro meo Carolo Iacobo hunc librum dono

Contents List of Figure and Tables

ix

Acknowledgements 1

xii

Introduction 1.1 Theoretical background and assumptions 1.2 Aims of the book 1.3 Research procedures 1.4 A model of markedness 1.5 Outline for the book

2 Articles: A Result of Natural Morphological Processes in First Language Acquisition, Creolization, and Language History 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Sources of data 2.3 The acquisition, creolization, and history of the article system 2.4 The natural development of the article system 2.5 Summary and conclusions 3 Demonstrative Pronouns: A Source of Definite Articles in History 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The data: from classical Latin to the Romance languages 3.3 Demonstratives and indefinite articles in Latin and the Romance languages 3.4 The grammaticalization of the definite article from Latin 3.5 Summary and conclusions 4 Prepositions and Adverbs: Similar Development Patterns in First and Second Language Acquisition 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Applying a developmental model of markedness vii

1 1 2 3 3 8

10 10 16 18 31 37 39 39 40 41 48 52 54 54 54

viii Contents

4.3 Sources of data 4.4 Spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in first and second language acquisition 4.5 Spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in developmental morphology 4.6 Summary and conclusions 5 Subjunctive Verbs: A Result of Natural Grammatical Processes in First Language Acquisition, Second Language Learning, Language Variation, and Language History 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Applying the developmental model of markedness 5.3 Sources of data 5.4 The acquisition, learning, variation, and history of mood 5.5 The development of mood 5.6 Summary and conclusions

57 59 66 68

70 70 70 71 72 84 90

6 The Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness: Cognitive Aspects of the Spanish Subjunctive 6.1 Introduction 6.2 The Spanish present and past subjunctive: cognitive aspects of markedness 6.3 The future subjunctive in Spanish: cognitive aspects of markedness 6.4 Summary and conclusions

107 117

7

119

Summary and Conclusion

91 91 95

Appendices

125

References

138

Index

145

List of Figure and Tables Figure 6.1

The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code (before 1884) and its Appendix (after 1884)

116

Tables 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19

A developmental model of markedness English-based creoles: articles in Hawaiian creole English-based creoles: articles in Sranan A developmental typology of linguistic systems A revised developmental typology of linguistic systems Errors of segmentation by English-speaking children Errors of segmentation by Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking children Speaker-specific and listener-specific errors English-speaking children aged 3: speaker specific and listener non-specific French-speaking children aged 3 to 9: speaker specific and listener non-specific Romance-based creoles History: articles in the Romance languages Spanish/Portuguese-based koines: articles in Judeo-Ibero-Romance Spanish/Portuguese-based fusion: articles in Fronterizo Fusion in the article system of Fronterizo The article system in child language, creolization, and language history A typology of article systems Hierarchy of markedness for article systems A hierarchy of article systems Markedness criteria ix

5 14 15 18 18 20 20 21 22 22 24 29 30 32 32 33 34 34 35 35

x

List of Figure and Tables

3.1

Criteria for establishing correspondences between Latin demonstratives and Romance articles 3.2 Nominatives, accusatives, and innovations in Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (Vulgar Latin, 4th to 6th century) 3.3 Nominatives and accusatives in Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (Vulgar Latin, mid-8th century) 3.4 Demonstratives in Classical Latin 3.5 Demonstratives functioning as articles in Vulgar Latin 3.6 The definite article in Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian 3.7 The development of the definite article 3.8 The emergence of the definite article in Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa 3.9 The emergence of the definite article in Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum 3.10 The emergence of the definite article in a Spanish document (12th century): a real estate transaction 4.1 Spatial prepositions in child language 4.2 Spatial prepositions in second language acquisition 5.1 The subjunctive in modern Spanish 5.2 The subjunctive in modern French 5.3 Language acquisition: subjunctive in French-speaking children aged 3, 4 and 5 5.4 Language acquisition: subjunctive in Spanish-speaking children aged 4 to 12 5.5 Subjunctive neutralization in 2nd language learning: English speakers learning Spanish 5.6 Language variation: subjunctive neutralization in French 5.7 Language variation: subjunctive neutralization in modern Latin American and Iberian Spanish 5.8 Subjunctive neutralization in modern Latin American and Iberian Spanish 5.9 Subjunctive neutralization in Argentine Spanish 5.10 Language history: subjunctive neutralization in medieval Spanish

42

44

45 46 46 47 48 49 51

52 60 64 73 74 74 75 76 77 79 80 82 83

List of Figure and Tables xi

5.11 Language history: subjunctive neutralization in 17th century French 5.12 Markedness rules for mood in child language, second language learning, language variation, and language history 5.13 A hierarchy of markedness rules 5.14 Markedness criteria for ranking markedness rules of mood in Spanish and French 6.1 Present subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que 6.2 Present subjunctive after subordinators 6.3 Other uses of the present subjunctive 6.4 Past subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que 6.5 Past subjunctive after subordinators 6.6 Other uses of the past subjunctive 6.7 Future subjunctive in early modern Spanish 6.8 Future subjunctive in modern Spanish 6.9 The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code before 1884 6.10 The future subjunctive in the Appendix of the Argentine Civil Code after 1884 6.11 The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code (before 1884) and its Appendix (after 1884). Normalization of cases of the future subjunctive per one-hundred pages

84

85 86 86 96 99 100 102 104 106 108 109 111 115

117

Acknowledgements Much of this research was supported by five University of Tulsa Faculty Research Grants in 1999 (#13-2-1010115), 2000 (#20-2-1010124, #20-2-1010114) and 2001 (#20-2-101115). I am grateful to the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Oxford University, and the University of Paris, Sorbonne for appointing me as Visiting Professor in 1999, 2000, and 2001 respectively and for providing library services. I am grateful to the East–West Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa for offering very comfortable housing in paradise in the summers of 1999 and 2000. I am also grateful to Prof. C.-J. N. Bailey who welcomed me to his home in Hilo, Hawaii and offered invaluable advice and comments on all the chapters in this book in the summers of 1999 and 2000. I am grateful to Prof. Bernard Comrie and Prof. Michael Tomasello at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig for appointing me as Visiting Scientist in the summer of 2002. I am indebted to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdients (DAAD) for a Study Visit Grant (#A/02/15036) to visit the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig in the summer of 2002. Revisions of the chapters in this book have benefitted from comments by the audiences at the LSA conference in Los Angeles, January 1993, the WECOL conference at the University of Washington, Seattle, October 1993, the LSA conference in Boston, January 1994, the 1st Lisbon Meeting on Child Language at the University of Lisbon, Portugal, June 1994, the AATSP conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 1994, the ILA meeting at Georgetown University, Washington D.C., March 1995, the Second Language Research Forum at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, October 1997, the LASSO conference at the University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, October 1999, the Sociolinguistics Symposium at the University of West England, Bristol, UK, April 2000, the LASSO conference at the Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico, October 2000, and the conference Towards a Unified Framework in Developmental Linguistics at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 2001. All the chapters in this book have benefitted greatly from xii

Acknowledgements xiii

comments by Prof. C.-J. N. Bailey. Revisions of Chapter 6 has benefitted from comments by Prof. Almeida Jacqueline Toribio from PennState University, Prof. Michel DeGraff from MIT, and Dr. Sonia Hocherman. I am grateful for having studied and worked with Prof. Itzhak Schlesinger and Moshe Chayen at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Prof. Ruth Berman at Tel-Aviv University, Prof. C.-J. N. Bailey at the Technische Universitat Berlin, Prof. Roger W. Andersen at the University of California Los Angeles, Prof. Mark Aronoff and Prof. Robert Hoberman at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Prof. Lydie Meunier at the University of Tulsa.

1 Introduction

This study investigates possible correspondences in the grammatical development of first languages, adult second languages, creoles, and historical linguistics (Baron 1977; Bickerton 1981; DeGraff 1999; Faingold 1996b). I aim to shed light on the theoretical implications of the relationship among child language, diachronic linguistics, and creolization, with the goal of providing a unified means to account for biological, psychological, and social aspects of grammatical development in these domains. This study attempts to explain the direction of morphological acquisition and change (Bailey 1996; Dressler 1985; Mayerthaler 1988; Wurzel 1989).

1.1

Theoretical background and assumptions

By taking into account data from such varied linguistic areas as child language, adult language learning, language history, and creolization, the research adopts an integrative perspective to study biological, psychological, and social constraints on language development (Baron 1977; Faingold 1996b). The aim of this research is to reveal universals of language and stipulate constraints on variation and mechanisms of language change. This study assumes that there exists a range of permissible realizations of linguistic structures and that this range can be gradually extended. I further assume that such extensions are unidirectional and that they are natural in the following senses: they are resistant to change; they occur with high frequency in many languages and in language ontogeny; they tend to be the basis of neutralization and analogical change; they are 1

2

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

usually less subject to speech errors; and they are acquired early by children (Faingold 1996b). In early developmental stages, speakers are constrained to select the lowest common denominator or simplest forms approximating the structure of a universal base. Thus, this study’s approach assumes that child language, foreign language learning, and creoles are areas that most closely manifest language universals. Researchers have suggested that certain similarities in these areas, such as the preference for less-marked structures, can be explained by an innate program based on biological and cognitive capacities (Bickerton 1981). Others have concluded that some developments are explained better by hierarchies of complexity, which in turn depend on a dynamic theory of markedness (Bailey 1996; Edmondson 1985; Faingold 1996b; Mayerthaler 1988). This latter theory explains possible changes as reflections of natural language processes; and thus, the theory is relevant for constructing implicational hierarchies. Implicational hierarchies can be used to test the hypothesis that, all other things being equal, less-marked structures chronologically antecede, co-occur with (Hawkins 1987), and subsequently replace, more marked structures in child language, foreign language learning, language history, and creolization. In certain cases, the direction of change is reversed by quite general sociocommunicational processes or by a specific set of natural rules (e.g. constructional iconicity, markedness-reversal, fusion, decreolization, etc.).

1.2

Aims of the book

Many linguists have noted the closeness of historical change and creolization. This book broadens the study of processes of language contact and change by including not only historical linguistics and creolistics but also first and second language acquisition (see Faingold 1996b). This book does for grammar what a previous book (Faingold 1996b) did for phonology: it applies Bailey’s (1996) and Mayerthaler’s (1988) seminal work on linguistic naturalness and markedness (developmental linguistics) in English and German to the study of language development in children, foreign-language learners, creoles, and language history in Spanish and the Romance languages (Portuguese, French, Italian, Rumanian), including the so-called ‘daughter languages’ of Spanish, Papiamentu creole (spoken

Introduction 3

in the Dutch West Indies), and Palenquero creole (Colombia), JudeoSpanish (Romania, Greece, Macedonia, Turkey, and Chile); Fronterizo (Uruguay); and U.S. Spanish (Los Angeles, New York). Examples from other languages are considered as well when relevant. In addition, this work uncovers mechanisms of markedness, implicational universals, and linguistic variation across linguistic fields. The reader is given a substantial and original account of a unique corpus of data in a variety of settings. The study offers a systematic analysis of a wide range of grammatical structures, including articles, demonstrative pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and verbs.

1.3

Research procedures

The linguistic analysis proceeds in the following steps (Baron 1977: 5–13; Faingold 1996b): 1. Selection of child grammatical structures for which exist comparable structures in foreign language learners, language history, and creoles. 2. Description and evaluation of the relevant stages through which the grammatical structures under analysis might have passed, and of how the developments occurred. 3. Description and evaluation of the knowledge a child or an adult requires in order to use a certain grammatical construction is determined by reference to linguistic structures in the languages under study. The child and adult data are analyzed to explain the chronological order in which speakers might acquire particular grammatical structures and to reveal the constraints and strategies needed to master the grammatical systems.

1.4

A model of markedness

This study adopts Bailey’s (1982, 1996) formal characterization of markedness, as stated in (1) below: (1) a ⬎m : ⬍m (the more-marked changes to less-marked) b ⬎m 傻 ⬍m (the presence of the more-marked implicates the presence of the less-marked)

4


Principle (1)a states that if x changes to y, x is more-marked than y, and y is less-marked than x. Principle (1)b defines the natural implicational patterns of the system. These principles, however, can be overruled by the borrowing of prestige structures and other sociocommunicational developments, as well as by higher-level developments; for instance, reversals in marked categories or environments – fusion, violations to the principle of constructional iconicity, markednessreversal, and so forth (see, e.g. Faingold 1991, 1995b). This study adopts Faingold’s (e.g. 1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c) model of markedness, which is based on Bailey’s (1982, 1996) and Mayerthaler’s (1988) theory of dynamic-developmental linguistics (see also Dressler 1985; Wurzel 1989). The model of markedness reveals universal mechanisms of language development as well as biological, psychological, and sociocommunicational constraints on language change. The approach takes into account language acquisition and language learning, as well as pidgins, creoles, history, koinés, and so on the assumption that these are linguistic areas that reflect universals of markedness most closely. This version of markedness theory explains possible changes as reflections of natural processes and is relevant for constructing implicational hierarchies. These hierarchies are used to test the hypothesis that less-marked linguistic structures replace more-marked structures in the development of linguistic systems. In certain cases, the direction of change is reversed for sociocommunicational reasons (e.g. borrowing, decreolization, morphologization, markedness-reversal, etc.). In this framework, the assignment of markedness values is not arbitrary but the result of logicallyindependent, empirically-based tests that capture significant relationships between phenomena that would otherwise be unrelated. The model of markedness in Table 1.1 is adapted from Faingold (1996b) for the study of grammatical development, and displays relevant areas and mechanisms of syntactic markedness. Here is an explanation of the model. (1) Identification of marked structures (a) System-internal areas (i) Child language This measure concerns the early availability of linguistic forms to the child. Markedness theory

Introduction 5

Table 1.1 A developmental model of markedness (Faingold 1996: 23) 1. Identification of marked structures (a) System-internal areas (i) Child language (ii) Second language acquisition (iii) Second language learning (b) System-external areas (i) Language history (ii) Language variation (iii) Crossfield correspondences (iv) Crosslinguistic correspondences (v) Neutralization (vi) Frequency (vii) Constructional iconicity 2. Mechanisms of development (a) Biological mechanisms (i) Psycho-semantic constraints (ii) Child cognitive limitations (iii) Naturalness (b) Sociocommunicational mechanisms (i) Borrowing (ii) Access to variation principles (iii) Compartmentalization

states that children select less-marked forms and omit or replace more-marked with less-marked forms (see examples in Chapters 2, 4, 5). (ii) Second language acquisition Less-marked structures are learned before more-marked forms by adults in a natural environment (see examples in Chapters 4, 5). (iii) Second language learning Less-marked structures are learned before more-marked forms by adults in the classroom (see examples in Chapter 5). (b) System-external areas (i) Language history Less-marked structures substitute for more-marked structures and not vice-versa in the history of a language (see examples in Chapters 2, 3, 5). The directionality of change can be reversed by borrowing, fusion, markedness-reversal, and so on.

6


(ii) Language variation Less-marked structures usually substitute for more-marked structures here as well (see examples in Chapter 5). (iii) Crossfield correspondences The study of language in all its aspects yields useful insights for an empirical definition of markedness, as well as for the identification of markedness values. If correspondences are found between implicational relationships and linguistic areas, it makes sense to seek a common explanation to account for developments in all domains (see examples in Chapters 2, 4, 5). (iv) Crosslinguistic correspondences The study of crosslinguistic universals and variation yields useful insights for the identification of markedness values. If correspondences, as well as the widespread use of less-marked structures, are found across diverse languages and linguistic systems, it makes sense to seek common explanations to account for universal principles of development (see examples in Chapters 3–5). (v) Neutralization A distinction can be lost in a particular environment; the less-marked form survives. For example, as Chapter 5 will discuss, children fail to acquire, and adults neutralize, the distinction between the indicative and the subjunctive mood; the least-marked indicatives survive. (See further examples in Chapters 2–5.) (vi) Frequency Statistics are used as a discovery procedure, rather than as a conclusive test for marked values. Unmarked forms are usually more widely distributed or frequent than marked forms both within and across languages. However, because certain languages contain widely distributed marked forms, statistics can conflict with markedness values (see examples in Chapter 4). (vii) Constructional iconicity Marked structures are usually ‘markered’ by an overt additional form. The most natural of all linguistic structures are iconically markered; that is a linguistic complex showing degrees of structural complexity in markering (mark bearing) corresponds to the degree of markedness, for example ‘here’ vs ‘there by you’, singular ‘boy’ vs plural ‘boys’. Thus, following the

Introduction 7

principle of constructional iconicity, the words ‘here’ and ‘boy’ are both less marked and less markered than the complex ‘there by you’ and plural ‘boys’. This is because of the developmental criterion – more-marked forms occur later in language development – and the markeredness criteria – less markered forms are structurally simpler, that is they contain less ‘grammatical material’. Violations to the principle of constructional iconicity are few but not unknown (e.g. ‘foot’ vs ‘feet’, ‘mouse’ vs ‘mice’). (2) Mechanisms of development (a) Biological mechanisms (i) Psychological and semantic constraints These concern language-specific as well as cognitive difficulties in the acquisition and learning of structures, showing a strong bias toward less-marked forms (see examples in Chapter 5). (ii) Child cognitive limitations These concern Piagetian maturational limitations of cognitive development in the child (see examples in Chapters 2, 4). (iii) Naturalness The natural patterns of a system are characterized formally by Bailey (1982, 1996). Less-marked structures are more natural than more-marked structures (see constructional iconicity discussion above and examples in Chapter 4). Furthermore, the most natural of all linguistic structures are iconically markered, that is a linguistic complex showing degrees of complexity in markering (mark bearing) corresponds to the degree of markedness. Compare ‘here’ vs ‘there by you’, monophthongs vs diphthongs, and single consonants vs affricates; the word ‘here’, monophthongs, and single consonants are less marked and less markered than the expression ‘there by you’, diphthongs, and affricates. (b) Sociocommunicational mechanisms (i) Borrowing Prestigious elements are borrowed in language history and creolization. These can be either more marked or less marked (see examples in Chapter 2).

8


(ii) Access to variation principles Reduced access to more formal principles and varieties of a language can lead to variation and loss of more-marked structures (see examples in Chapter 5). (iii) Compartmentalization Compartmentalization yields more-marked linguistic systems because neutralization does not occur. More-marked structures derived from one lexifier language co-exist with forms derived from another language (see examples in Chapter 2).

1.5

Outline for the book

Chapter 1 introduces the topic and theoretical assumptions of the book and presents an articulated model of markedness. Chapter 2 demonstrates natural morphological processes in the emergence of the article system in first-language acquisition, creolization, and language history, and examines these developments in light of Bickerton’s bioprogram. The chapter reveals possible correspondences in the acquisition, creolization, and history of the definite as well as the (specific and non-specific) indefinite articles in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Rumanian, Spanish- and Portuguesebased creoles (e.g. Papiamentu, Palenquero), koines (e.g. Judeo-IberoRomance), and fusion (e.g. Fronterizo), with some references to other languages. These developments are explained by a universal hierarchy of markedness that reflects natural morphological processes. Chapter 3 examines the emergence of the definite article in language history from Classical Latin to Vulgar Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian. Definite articles are created anew from nominative and accusative demonstratives in the Romance languages. The use of demonstratives as a source for definite articles has been commonly characterized as a universal of language, since most languages seem to prefer this pathway of development. The development of the definite article is explained in terms of factors such as the function of demonstratives in discourse analysis and grammaticalization theory. Chapter 4 presents a study of the development of spatial prepositions (e.g. in, on, between, etc.) and temporal adverbs (e.g. yet, again, no longer, etc.) in first and second language acquisition. It reveals that these phenomena exhibit similar developmental patterns in English, French, German, and Spanish, as well as in a number of other

Introduction 9

languages. The developmental path of these phenomena are explained in terms of universals of markedness because in a natural environment, less-marked spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs are acquired earlier by both young children and adult immigrants. Chapter 5 studies natural morphological processes in the development of mood in child language, second language learning, language variation, and historical change. Correspondences are examined in the development of mood in Spanish (as spoken in Latin America, the United States, Spain) and French (Belgium, France). The moremarked subjunctive appears late in child language; similarly, the subjunctive is very difficult to learn in second language acquisition, and it tends to be the subject of neutralization. Chapter 6 studies cognitive aspects of the Spanish subjunctive. The uses of the present and past subjunctives are derived from a formula that captures the mental representation of these tenses. This chapter also develops a cognitive rule explaining the retention of frequently used irregular future subjunctives in Spanish legalese. The uses of the Spanish subjunctive are handled by such cognitive formula and linguistic mechanisms of language use in interaction with markedness principles. Chapter 7 summarizes and concludes the text with a review of each chapter.

2 Articles: A Result of Natural Morphological Processes in First Language Acquisition, Creolization, and Language History

2.1

Introduction

This chapter studies natural morphological processes in the emergence of the article system in first-language acquisition, creolization, and language history, and examines these developments in light of Bickerton’s (1981) predictions for specificity in his bioprogram. The present study reveals that these phenomena exhibit similar developmental patterns for both the definite and the (specific and non-specific) indefinite articles. The developmental paths of these phenomena are explained in terms of a universal hierarchy of markedness that reflects natural morphological processes: less-marked, that is more natural, structures are acquired earlier by children; they also result from creolization processes and tend to be the basis of neutralization and analogical change. The issues discussed in this chapter with reference to acquisition, creolization, and language history will be presented first. The article system will be investigated in various linguistic conditions, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, Rumanian, Spanish- and Portuguesebased creoles (e.g. Papiamentu, Palenquero), koines (e.g. Judeo-IberoRomance), and fusion (e.g. Fronterizo), and a number of other languages. This data is then used to provide evidence supporting 10

Articles 11

the model of markedness in Chapter 1 to account for the natural morphological developments discussed. 2.1.1

Markedness and the article system

The model of markedness employed here is based on the theory of markedness developed by Bailey (1996) and Mayerthaler (1988) (see also Dressler 1985; Faingold 1996b; Wurzel 1989). Below, the identification of marked structures and the mechanisms of morphological development in this chapter follow from Table 1.1 in Chapter 1: (1) Identification of marked structures (a) System-internal areas (i) Child language As noted in Chapter 1, markedness theory states that children select unmarked forms and omit or replace marked with unmarked structures. It assigns the feature marked to structures acquired later by children, for example indefinite articles corresponding to the first cardinal number in an earlier stage, while the forms acquired earlier are unmarked, for example definite articles corresponding to a demonstrative pronoun. (b) System-external areas (i) Language history As noted in Chapter 1, less-marked structures substitute for more-marked structures in language history. (ii) Crossfield correspondences As discussed in Chapter 1, crossfield correspondences are useful for the identification of markedness values. In fact, the search for crossfield correspondences often reveals general principles, such as that marked elements are less stable and usually change before unmarked ones, and that unmarked structures occur earlier in child language, creolization, and historical change. For example, to illustrate the latter principle, less-marked (0)indef (zero indefinite article) occurs earlier in child language Stage 1 and Rumanian than more-marked (card)indef (indefinite article corresponding to the first cardinal number in an earlier stage) in child language Stage 2 and Spanish, Portuguese, and French.

12 Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

(iii) Neutralization As noted in Chapter 1, given a particular environment, a distinction can be lost, and the unmarked form survives. For example, children neutralize the distinction between definite and indefinite article, and the less-marked definite article survives. (iv) Frequency Unmarked forms are in some instances more widely distributed or frequent than marked terms both within and across languages. Statistics can conflict with markedness values. Statistics are used as a discovery procedure, rather than as a conclusive test of markedness values. (v) Constructional iconicity These are instances of Mayerthaler’s (1988) principle of constructional iconicity – the addition of a mark-bearing element to the simpler form. The more-marked form bears the marker and is said to be markered. An overt additional form is present. The more-marked indefinite article is markered in English, Spanish, French, Child Language Stage 2, and so on by a form resembling the first cardinal number, while other less-marked systems, such as Rumanian and Child Language Stage 1, have zero forms. (2) Mechanisms of development (a) Biological mechanisms (i) Child cognitive limitations Young three- and four-yearolds fail to take into account the cognitive needs of the listener; they speak from their own point of view, showing a strong bias toward less-marked definite articles (Piaget 1953). (ii) Naturalness Structures are considered more natural if they are less marked, and conversely, less natural if they are more marked. (b) Sociocommunicational mechanisms (i) Borrowing As discussed in Chapter 1, borrowed elements can be either more or less marked. For instance, in decreolization, a creole borrows and integrates elements from its lexifier languages. For example, in Palenquero and Hawaiian, decreolization processes recently might have

Articles 13

changed from (0)nonsp (zero non-specific indefinite article) into more European-like (card)nonsp (nonspecific article corresponding to the first cardinal number). (ii) Compartmentalization As Chapter 1 notes, in compartmentalization, neutralization does not occur. Moremarked structures co-exist with less-marked forms derived from another language. 2.1.2

Definiteness and specificity

In his review of Brown’s (1973) and Maratsos’ (1976) earlier research on the acquisition of the article system, Bickerton (1981) concludes that English-speaking children acquire the definite/non-definite, as well as the specific/non-specific, distinction effortlessly, error-free, and at a very early age because they are preprogrammed by an innate bioprogram to do so (rather than learning by means of linguistic data or experience). Sentences (1)–(3) below illustrate these distinctions (So called generic NPs are beyond the scope of this study [e.g. ‘the/a car is a means of transportation’]). (1) I saw the car (definite/specific) (2) I saw a car (indefinite/specific) (3) I can’t buy a car (indefinite/non-specific) In sentence (1) the NP followed by the definite article the is presumably known to the listener; in (2) the indefinite article a marks an indefinite NP, presumably unknown to the listener. Yet in (2) and (3), because both NPs use the indefinite article a as a marker of specificity vs non-specificity, the distinction between specific and non-specific NPs is not systematically distinguished. A closer analysis of Brown’s (1973), Maratsos’ (1976), Bresson et al.’s (1970), and Karmiloff-Smith’s (1979) data on the acquisition of the article system in English and French reveals that children do make significant errors, and that these errors are systematic in the sense that they are the result of both natural morphological constraints affecting children’s grammars and other linguistic domains. Bickerton (1981) explains the development of the definite/ indefinite, as well as the specific/non-specific, distinction in terms of his bioprogram. Accordingly, the emergence of the article system in, for example, Hawaiian creole does not follow that of its lexifier


languages. This creole is an unusual combination of European (mainly English, but also Portuguese), Polynesian, Asian, and Pidgin languages, located on the tropical islands of Hawaii, 2000 miles west of California and 4000 miles east of Japan. Only one-third of its about one million speakers are of European descent (see further, Holm 1988). Table 2.1 displays the article system of Hawaiian creole; sentences (4)–(6) illustrate these distinctions (Bickerton 1981). Table 2.1 English-based creoles: articles in Hawaiian creole (Bickerton 1981) Definite

Indefinite

Specific sing. da pl. da

sing. wan pl. 0

Non-specific sing. 0 pl. 0

(4) aefta da boi, da wan jink, daet milk, awl da maut soa. ‘Afterward, the mouth of the boy who had drunk that milk was all sore’ (definite/specific) (5) hi get wan blak buk ‘he has a black book’ (indefinite/specific) (6) bat nobadi gon get ø jab ‘But nobody will get a job’ (indefinite/non-specific) In sentence (4) the definite article da marks all NPs presumably known to the listener; in (5) the indefinite article wan marks an NP presumably unknown to the listener. The specific/non-specific distinction is systematically marked by wan in (5), compared to a zero article in (6). A study of the article system in 18th century Sranan by Bruyn (1993) does not provide support for Bickerton’s bioprogram. Sranan is the English-based creole spoken in Surinam (South America, population 400,000), and the native language of a third of its inhabitants, the creoles, and a second language to the rest of the population (see further, Bruyn 1993; Holm 1988). Bruyn concludes that the primary function of determiners in early Sranan is to mark not

Articles 15

specificity but definiteness, since the indefinite marker wan is used as a marker for both specific as well as non-specific NPs. Table 2.2 displays the article system in 18th century Sranan; sentences (7)–(9) illustrate these distinctions (see Bruyn 1993 for more examples). Table 2.2 English-based creoles: articles in Sranan (Bruyn 1993; Holm 1988) Definite

Indefinite

Specific sing. da – a – 0 pl. den – dem – 0

sing. wan – 0 pl. 0

Non-specific sing. 0 pl. 0

(7) dem putti Jesus na inni da grebbi ‘They put Jesus in the grave’ (definite/specific) (8) gi mi wan pleti ‘Give me one plate’ (indefinite/specific) (9) no, mi no wanni wan bigi pleti, gi mi wan pikinwan ‘No I don’t want a big plate, give me a small one’ (indefinite/ non-specific) As with Hawaiian creole, in (7) the definite article da marks NPs presumably known to the listener; similarly, in (8) the indefinite article wan marks an NP presumably unknown to the listener. In contrast, however, the specific/non-specific distinction is not systematically marked in 18th century Sranan, since both (8) and (9) can use wan as a marker of specificity as well as non-specificity. It should be noted that under certain pragmatic conditions, zero article may serve as a marker of specificity in Sranan (see further, Bruyn 1993). In Section 2.3.2 of this chapter, I discuss further the definite/ non-definite as well as the specific/non-specific distinctions with special reference to the Romance languages; in Section 2.4.1, I show that the article system in a variety of creoles can be systematically derived from the theory of natural morphology adopted in this study.


In creolization (e.g. English that ⬎ Hawaiian, Sranan da ‘the’; English one ⬎ Hawaiian, Sranan wan ‘a’), as well as in language history (e.g. Old English se, seo, ðæt ‘that’ ⬎ English the), definite and indefinite articles are not derived from their lexifier languages. Rather, the demonstrative pronoun and the first cardinal number serve as the source of the definite and indefinite articles respectively (see Faingold 1996c). In other languages, while the definite article is markered by a definite structure, indefinite forms are markered by zero article. For example, (10) below (from Glinert 1989) illustrates this distinction between the definite and indefinite articles in Hebrew. (10) hasefer ‘the book’ (definite) sefer ‘a book’ (indefinite) Example (10) as well as those examples discussed later in Section 2.3.3.1 are cases of diffusion (Markey 1981). This term is roughly equivalent to Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) ‘normal transmission.’

2.2

Sources of data

The database for this paper covers five types of linguistic systems: early child language, creoles, koines, fusion, and diffusion. 2.2.1

Early child language

Data from child-language case studies are based on several sources reported in the literature, as follows: • Brown’s (1973) naturalistic study (spontaneous speech) of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes by three English-speaking children, Adam, Eve, and Sarah; • Maratsos’ (1976) experimental study of the use of definite and indefinite reference by 40 English-speaking children; • Karmiloff-Smith’s (1979) experimental study of the acquisition of articles by French-speaking children aged 3 to 9, living in Geneva, Switzerland; • Warden’s (1976) extensive developmental study of children aged 3 to 9 and adults using the indefinite article to introduce new referents in discourse and the definite article in already identified referents;

Articles 17

• Bresson et al.’s (1970) study of the ability of four- and five-year-old French-speaking children to use the definite and indefinite article; and • Faingold’s (1996b) naturalistic study of the phonological and lexical acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (see Appendix 3). 2.2.2

Creoles

Data regarding creoles are derived from published research, as follows: • Holm’s (1988) study of Atlantic creoles, including Portuguesebased Principe (spoken in West Africa) and French-based Haitian creoles; • Ellis’ (1985) study of referentiality and definiteness in Papiamentu; Faingold’s (1994) study of the article system in creoles and history, including Spanish/Portuguese-based Papiamentu (in Netherland Antilles) and Palenquero (in San Basilio, Colombia); Friedmann & Patino Rosselli’s (1983) and Megenney’s (1986) detailed studies of Palenquero; • Bickerton’s (1981) work on Hawaiian and other English-based creoles; and • Bruyn’s (1993) study on the article system in 18th century Sranan. 2.2.3

Koines

Faingold’s (1994) study of the article system in creoles and history, including Judeo-Ibero-Romance, the language of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the Turkish Empire (see further, Faingold 1989, 1996b), provides the data about koines in this study. 2.2.4

Fusion

Fusion data are taken from Faingold’s (1994) study of the article system in creoles and history, including Fronterizo, the Spanish/ Portuguese-based interlanguage spoken in the Brazilian/Uruguayan border (see further, Elizaincin et al. 1987; Faingold 1989, 1996b). 2.2.5

Diffusion

Data about diffusion are derived from published research and grammars of Spanish and Portuguese (Faingold 1994, 1996c), French (Harris & Vincent 1988), Rumanian (Harris & Vincent 1988), and English (Hawkins 1978).


2.3 The acquisition, creolization, and history of the article system This section discusses developments in the acquisition, creolization, and history of the article system to provide evidence for the hierarchy of natural morphological markedness presented later in this chapter. The extensive amount of data employed in the present study will be referred to in the discussion of the relevant phenomena. This chapter covers diffusion, fusion, and creoles (Markey 1981), as well as other developmental domains such as child language and koines. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 display the linguistic domains relevant for the study of natural morphological (as well as phonological, syntactic, and semantic) processes. Child language, diffusion, koine, fusion, and creole form a hierarchy of categories of change; salient properties of this hierarchy are the number of input languages, degrees of access to the language and culture of the lexifier languages, and degrees of relexification. Table 2.4 is an expansion of Markey’s developmental typology in Table 2.3 and displays linguistic domains relevant to the study of natural linguistic processes. As indicated in the table, (1) child language involves the acquisition of one (or more) language(s),

Table 2.3 A developmental typology of linguistic systems (Markey 1981)

(1) Diffusion (2) Fusion (3) Pidgins/creoles

Inputs

Continuity

Relexification

1L 2 ⫹ L’s 3 ⫹ L’s

⫹ continuity ␣ continuity ⫺ continuity

⫺ relexification ␤ relexification ⫹ relexification

Table 2.4 A revised developmental typology of linguistic systems

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Child language Diffusion Koines Fusion Creoles

Inputs

Continuity

Relexification

1 ⫹ L’s 1L 2 ⫹ D’s or L’s 2 L’s 3 ⫹ L’s

⫹ continuity ⫹ continuity ⫹ continuity ␣ continuity ⫺ continuity

⫺ relexification ⫺ relexification ⫺ relexification ␤ relexification ⫹ relexification

Articles 19

continuity in language transmission, and no relexification; (2) diffusion includes cases of normal transmission (Thomason & Kaufman 1988) involving one main lexifier language, and as with child language acquisition, continuity of transmission and no relexification. Items (3) koinization and (4) fusion involve two or more main lexifier languages or dialects, continuity in transmission and no relexification in the former language, and some (weak) continuity and relexification in the latter. Usually, (5) creolization involves three or more main lexifier languages, an abrupt breakdown in language transmission, and extensive relexification. 2.3.1

The article in child language

Although the main topic of this section is the errors children make in the acquisition of the definite/indefinite, the specific/non-specific distinction is touched upon as well (see Bresson et al. 1970; Brown 1973; Faingold 1996b; Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Maratsos 1976; Warden 1976). I discuss three types of errors: (1) errors of segmentation, (2) speaker non-specific and listener specific errors, and (3) speaker specific and listener non-specific errors. Types (1) and (2) occur sporadically in child language or are not as well documented in the literature as type (3), and are explained in terms of intralanguage constraints affecting the mapping of form and function in the acquisition of the article system. Type (3) proves to be crucial for my study because errors of this type are much more widespread and systematic across subjects as well as crosslinguistically, as a result of both intralanguage processes and natural morphological constraints explained in terms of Piaget’s (1953) ‘egocentrism.’ 2.3.1.1

Errors of segmentation

The gradual acquisition of the article system starts with errors of segmentation. For instance, in learning English, Spanish, and Portuguese, children add an article-like element to nouns. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 display errors of segmentation in English, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese (see Appendix 3). Data on the acquisition of the article system have been gleaned from Brown’s (1973) comprehensive study of the acquisition of fourteen grammatical morphemes by three English-speaking children (prepositions in and on, possessive s, plural s, articles a and the, irregular and regular past tense, irregular and regular third person


pronouns, present progressive, contractible and uncontractible be auxiliary, and contractible and uncontractible be copula). This is a longitudinal study of naturalistic (spontaneous) speech covering a period of years from the time the children were two years old. The children were tape-recorded every two weeks or less in interaction with their mothers. Data on the acquisition of the article system have also been gleaned from Maratsos’ (1976) experimental study of 40 children ranging in age from 32 to 60 months who were learning Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese. Each child was told several stories designed to elicit either definite or indefinite articles. In Table 2.5, items (1) and (2), the English-speaking children studied by Brown (1973) add the indefinite article a, sometimes uttered as schwa, to common names; similarly in (3), a child adds the indefinite article a to a proper name (Uncle Clyde). In (4), children add the definite article the to verbs ending with t or d. Similarly, in Table 2.6, items (5)–(10), the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking children add the Spanish-like forms la, e, l and Portuguese-like o, a to common nouns. Yet, in (11) and (12), the child adds the article-like forms to Portuguese proper names as well, reflecting the use of the definite article with proper names by Brazilian-Portuguese speakers Table 2.5 Errors of segmentation by English-speaking children (Brown 1973) (1) (2) (3) (4)

that a dog that a book that a Uncle Clyde the is inserted after verb ending in /t/ or /d/.

Table 2.6 Errors of segmentation by Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking children (Faingold 1996b) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

lalu ‘the light’ [Sp. la lus] ebabi ‘the bambi’ [Sp. el bambi] loso ‘the bear’ [Sp. el oso] okokolat ‘the chocolate’ [Port. o sokolat] apala ‘the ball’ [Port. a bola] adadis ‘the nose’ [Port. or Sp. a naris or la naris] akatia ‘the Katia’ [Port. a Katia] exuti ‘the Ruth’ [Port. a Ruti]

Articles 21

(see Faingold 1996b and Appendix 3). The addition of the article-like form solves an intralinguistic problem facing the child, the distinction of common and proper names in English and Spanish. In Brazilian Portuguese, however, the child faces a more difficult task, since the input to the child contains articles attached to both proper and common nouns. In Portuguese, the child must learn to distinguish between proper and common nouns. This distinction is transparent in Spanish and English, languages where only common names take articles. 2.3.1.2

Speaker non-specific and listener specific errors

In this section I discuss types of errors occurring when the adult’s and the child’s knowledge do not converge. The child substitutes the indefinite for the definite form. According to Maratsos (1976), this type of error occurs very infrequently. Table 2.7 displays some early substitutions in the acquisition of the article system. In items (13)–(17) in Table 2.7, children substitute the indefinite for the definite article in references already specified by previous utterances, where a definite article is required or obligatory. The reason, according to Maratsos, is that children occasionally fail to keep track of previous unspecified referents and is not that children are generally ignorant of the definite/indefinite and specific/nonspecific distinctions. Items (18) a heel (of a particular sock) and (19) a chin (in naming features of a face), rather than the required definite forms the heel and the chin, are errors of entailment, ascribed to the child’s lack of knowledge of part-whole assemblages (Maratsos 1976).

Table 2.7 Speaker-specific and listener-specific errors (Brown 1973; Maratsos 1976) (i) Errors of tracking Children aged 3 (Brown 1973) (13) I don’t like a crust (14) Let me see you ride a bike (15) We saw them in a zoo Children aged 3 (Maratsos 1976) (16) He’s a witch (17) It’s a gun (ii) Errors of entailment (18) Where’s a heel? (19) [That’s] a chin


2.3.1.3

Speaker specific and listener non-specific errors

As in 2.3.1.2, this is a type of error that occurs when the child’s and the adult’s knowledge do not converge. In 2.3.1.3, however, the child substitutes the definite for the indefinite article. As I show below, this type of error has been documented extensively and appears to be very widespread cross-linguistically. Tables 2.8 and 2.9 display some early substitutions in the acquisition of the article system.

Table 2.8 English-speaking children aged 3: speaker specific and listener non-specific (Brown 1973; Maratsos 1976) Children aged 3 (Brown 1973) (20) Child: The cat’s dead Mother: What cat? (21) Child: And the monkey hit the leopard And that the bowl Mother: What bowl? (22) Child: Where’s the stool? Mother: There’s one over there Children aged 3 (Maratsos 1976) (23) The monkey jumped into the car

Table 2.9 French-speaking children aged 3 to 9: speaker specific and listener non-specific (Bresson et al. 1970; Karmiloff-Smith 1979) Children aged 3 to 9 (Karmiloff-Smith 1979) (24) la fille a poussé X ‘the girl pushed X’ (25) la fille a poussé X aussi ‘the girl pushed the X also’ (26) la fille a poussé la même X ‘the girl pushed the same X’ Children aged 4 to 5 (Bresson et al. 1970) (27) Experimenter: Qui est parti? ‘Who went away?’ Child: les moutons ‘the sheep’ (28) Experimenter: Qui est restes? ‘Who stayed?’ Child: les cochons ‘the pigs’

Articles 23

Again, data include Brown’s (1973) and Maratsos’ (1976) studies of English-speaking children aged 3. Data were gleaned also from Karmiloff-Smith’s (1979) large cross-sectional experimental study of the functional acquisition of the article system by Swiss Frenchspeaking children aged 3 to 9, and from Bresson et al.’s study of 4- and 5-year-old French-speaking children’s ability to produce definite and indefinite articles in a limited set of contexts. In Tables 2.8 and 2.9, items (20)–(28), English- and French-speaking children substitute the definite (English the, and French la, les) for the indefinite (English a, and French une, des). These errors have been extensively documented by researchers who propose a less error-prone type of acquisition (e.g. Brown 1973; Maratsos 1976; see also, Bickerton 1981), as well as by those claiming that the article system is not fully acquired as late as age 9 (e.g. Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Warden 1976). In addition, Zur (1983) reports the tendency of Hebrew-speaking children to overuse the Hebrew definite article ha (see Berman 1985). Karmiloff-Smith (1979), Bresson et al. (1970), Brown (1973) and Maratsos (1976) suggest that the errors discussed in Section 3.1 of this chapter are a result of the child’s failure to take into account the cognitive needs of the listener; instead, children speak from their own point of view, what Piaget (1953) terms ‘egocentrism.’ Thus, a very substantial amount of evidence indicates inadequate learning of the article system in early child language, showing a strong bias toward definite references. The studies reviewed show that young children do not reliably map form and function in the acquisition of the article system. The errors of acquisition discussed in Section 2.3.1.3 substantiate a hierarchy of morphological markedness applying not only to child language but also to other linguistic domains; these errors reveal constraints on neutralization processes affecting the direction as well as the order of acquisition of less-marked and more-marked morphological structures. 2.3.2

The article in creolization

As with English-based Hawaiian and Sranan creole, the article systems of Romance-based creoles such as Haitian, Principe, Papiamentu, and Palenquero do not follow their lexifier languages. Table 2.10 displays the article systems of Haitian, Principe, Papiamentu, and Palenquero creoles.


Table 2.10 Romance-based creoles Specific

Non-specific

Definite article

Indefinite article

(a) French-based creoles: articles in Haitian creole (Holm 1988) sing. a – la pl. a – la

sing. pl.

0 0

sing. pl.

0 0

(b) Portuguese-based creoles: articles in Principe creole (Holm 1988) sing. se pl. se

sing. pl.

0 0

sing. pl.

0 0

(c) Spanish/Portuguese-based creoles: articles in Papiamentu (Faingold 1994) sing. e sing. pl. e pl.

un 0

sing. pl.

0 0

(d) Spanish/Portuguese-based creoles: articles in Palenquero (Faingold 1994) sing. 0 – e sing. pl. ma pl.

un – ma sing. un ma – um ma pl.

0 0

2.3.2.1

Haitian creole

French-based Haitian creole is spoken by more than five million people on the island of Hispaniola, which Haiti shares with the Dominican Republic. The island was first settled by a mixture of French, English, and African bucaneers (pirates). Over the next century, Haiti was settled by the French, who brought African slaves to grow indigo and sugar cane under the protection of the French West Indian Company and the French Crown (see further, Holm 1988). In Table 2.10(a) the definite article a – la in Haitian creole seems to correspond to French demonstrative la ‘there’. Note that the definite article is located after (rather than before) the NP, as illustrated in examples (14) and (15) below (from Holm 1988). (14a) istwa a ‘the story’ (14b) istwa la ‘the story’ (15) istwa ‘a story’

Articles 25

According to Holm (1988), this is the effect of the Yoruba (West Africa) substratum on Haitian creole, since the definite article in Yoruba is post-nominal as well. Similarly, in Table 2.10(a), zero is grammaticalized as a marker of the indefinite article (rather than the first cardinal number); according to Holm this is also a reflex of the Yoruba substratum. Recall that, in contrast, both English-based Hawaiian and Sranan grammaticalize the first cardinal number into the indefinite article; and, as I show below, both Spanish/Portuguesebased Papiamentu and Palenquero present an indefinite article based on the first cardinal number. Examples (16) and (17) (from Holm 1988) illustrate the definite article in Yoruba. (16) okunrin naa ‘the man’ (17) okunrin ‘a man’ 2.3.2.2

Principe creole

Principe is a Portuguese-based creole spoken in the island of the same name, 100 miles north of the island of Sao Tome (West Africa). Principe was settled in the 16th century by the Portuguese who brought slaves from Guinea, Gabon, and Angola, as well as Portuguese settlers (mostly peasants, Jews, and convicts) to grow sugar cane and, later in the 19th century, coffee and cacao (see further, Holm 1988). The article system in Principe closely parallels that of Haitian creole. As with Haitian, in Table 2.10(b) the definite article se in Principe seems to correspond to the Portuguese demonstrative esse ‘that’; the definite article is also post-nominal, and the indefinite article is zero. Examples (18) and (19) (from Holm 1988) illustrate the definite/non-definite distinction in Principe. (18) mi se ‘the man’ (19) mi ‘a man’ According to Holm (1988), post-nominal definite and zero indefinite articles are a reflex of the Yoruba substratum. In both Haitian and Principe creole, the input to the definite article is the demonstrative pronoun (rather than French or Portuguese definite articles); this is the result of presumably universal processes affecting the grammaticalization of articles in discourse (see further, Faingold 1994, 1996a).


Tables 2.10(a) and 2.10(b) do not lend support to Bickerton’s bioprogram because the specific/non-specific distinction is not systematically marked in Haitian and Principe creole: the indefinite article zero is used to mark both specific as well as non-specific NPs. Recall that, similarly, in English-based Sranan, the specific/nonspecific distinction is not systematically marked because Sranan uses the indefinite marker wan for both specific and non-specific NPs. 2.3.2.3

Papiamentu and Palenquero creoles

Papiamentu is a Spanish/Portuguese-based creole spoken by over 200,000 people in the islands of Curaçao, Aruba, and Bonaire (Netherland Antilles). The Dutch conquered and took over from Spain the islands in the 17th century and used Curaçao as a storehouse for the distribution of slaves to the American mainland. Over the next two centuries, a mixture of Iberian languages and other European and African languages arose as the result of contact between the Dutch, Portuguese-speaking Sephardic Jews, African slaves, and more recently, Spanish-speaking South Americans and English-speaking Americans (see Faingold 1996b). Palenquero is a Spanish/Portuguese-based creole spoken mostly by old people in the village of Palenque de San Basilio (in Colombia). Like other palenques, or fortified villages, in the area, San Basilio was built by fugitive slaves called maroons. In the 17th century, the Spanish gave the Palenqueros the right to self-government in exchange for an end to the raids on the colonists and giving shelter to other escaped slaves. Palenquero is thus the result of contact between speakers of African and Portuguese pidgin with speakers of South American Spanish (see Faingold 1996b; Schwegler 1998). In Tables 2.10(c) and 2.10(d), the definite article e in Papiamentu and Palenquero seems to correspond to Spanish and/or Portuguese demonstratives ese and esse ‘that’. In Palenquero, the definite singular e is in variation with zero and plural ma, from Spanish mas and/or Portuguese mais ‘more’. Sentences (20)–(24) illustrate the use of the definite article in Papiamentu and Palenquero (see Faingold 1994; Maduro 1987). Papiamentu (20) i e pasashi kuantu e ta? ‘. . . and how much does the ticket cost?’

Articles 27

(21) e hombernan ta bai hasi un desastre kune ‘The men make a disaster’ Palenquero (22) i pasaje kuanto jue? ‘How much does the ticket cost?’ (23) e dia y a ase ‘The day that I did . . .’ (24) ma ombre aselo desastre ‘The men make a disaster’ In Papiamentu and Palenquero, as predicted by Bickerton’s bioprogram, the specific/non-specific distinction is systematically markered by the use of zero specific marker for non-specific NPs, compared to the first cardinal number for specific NPs. Sentences (25)–(30) illustrate the use of the indefinite article as well as the specific/nonspecific distinction in Papiamentu and Palenquero (see Faingold 1994; Maduro 1987). Papiamentu (25) el a sali ku un pieda ‘He went with a stone’ (indefinite/specific) (26) mi tin kata ‘I have letters’ (non-markered/specific plural) (27) nabes ma kada preguntante tin chens ‘One more time each questioner has a chance’ (non-markered/ non-specific) Palenquero (28) el a se sali ku un piega ‘He went with a stone’ (indefinite/specific singular) (29) i a tene un ma kata ‘I had letters’ (indefinite/specific plural) (30) ni me a mandao kata ‘He did not send a letter’ (non-markered/non-specific) Certain studies on Palenquero (e.g. Megenney 1986) have found that the specific/non-specific distinction in this creole works as in standard Spanish; that is it is not systematically markered by zero


non-specific vs first cardinal specific. This is probably the result of decreolization processes, which might have recently changed nonspecific zero into a more Spanish-like structure for certain speakers of Palenquero. Similarly wan can now be non-specific for modern speakers of Hawaiian creole (Bailey personal communication). Other studies of Palenquero (e.g. Friedmann & Patino Rosselli 1983; Schwegler n.d.) seem to confirm the bioprogramatic distinction between specific and non-specific NPs. 2.3.2.4

Neutralization in creole article systems

Another feature of the bioprogram affecting the article system of all creole languages is neutralization of gender and number markers. Compare French definite articles le, la, les, Spanish el, la, los, las, and Portuguese o, a, os, as with Haitian a – la, Papiamentu e, Palenquero zero – e – ma, and Principe se; and French indefinite un, une, des, Spanish un, una, unos, unas, and Portuguese um, uma, uns, umas with Haitian zero, Papiamentu un, zero, Palenquero un, ma, un ma, and Principe zero (see Table 2.10). 2.3.3

The article in language history

This section details the developments in the history of the article system, including cases of diffusion, koinization, and fusion in languages such as French, Rumanian, Spanish, and Portuguese, as well as in more modern daughter languages of Spanish and Portuguese, such as Judeo-Ibero-Romance and Fronterizo. Judeo-Ibero-Romance and Fronterizo have been characterized as koines, which are the result of slow and gradual contact between mutually-intelligible varieties of closely-related languages or dialects of more or less equal prestige, and which show loss of marked and minority forms (Crews 1930; Sala 1971; Trudgill 1986; Wagner 1930). However, as I have shown in earlier work (Faingold 1989, 1996b), certain dialects of Judeo-Ibero-Romance from the Balkans and the Eastern Turkish Empire (Istanbul, Salonika, and Bitola) are characterized as examples of fusion phenomenon, which refers to a linguistic system that is derived from at least two source languages and that shows compartmentalization and retention of marked and minority forms. Yet the Bitola dialect of Judeo-Ibero-Romance, spoken in Macedonia, Yugoslavia, is better characterized as a case of

Articles 29

morphological koinization because more-marked and invariant structures do not occur in the development of its article system. In contrast, Fronterizo represents a case of morphological fusion because its article system shows compartmentalization, as well as retention of more-marked forms derived from its source languages, Spanish and Portuguese. 2.3.3.1

Diffusion

These are cases of normal transmission (see Thomason & Kaufman 1988). The bioprogram does not appear to be as active in language history as it is in creolization. In language history, there is less neutralization of gender and number, and non-specific zero markers do not emerge. Table 2.11 displays the article systems in Rumanian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Table 2.11 History: articles in the Romance languages Definite article

Indefinite article

(a) Articles in Rumanian (Harris & Vincent 1988) masc. sing. ul – le masc. pl. i

masc. sing. masc. pl.

0 0

fem. sing. fem. pl.

0 0


un des

fem. sing. fem. pl.

une des


un unos

la las

fem. sing. fem. pl.

una unas

(d) Articles in Portuguese (Faingold 1994) masc. sing. o masc. pl. os


um uns

fem. sing. fem. pl.

uma umas

fem. sing. fem. pl.

ua – a le

(b) Articles in French (Harris & Vincent 1988) masc. sing. le masc. pl. les fem. sing. fem. pl.

la les

(c) Articles in Spanish (Faingold 1994) masc. sing. el masc. pl. los fem. sing. fem. pl.

fem. sing. fem. pl.

a as


In contrast with the creole languages discussed in Section 2.3.2, in Table 2.11, the article systems of Rumanian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese are more marked because neutralization does not occur. Similarly, the specific/non-specific distinction in French, Spanish, and Portuguese is not markered with zero article but with a copy of the indefinite article (see further, Faingold 1994). 2.3.3.2

Koinization

Judeo-Ibero-Romance is the language spoken by Iberian Jews who settled in Europe (particularly in the Turkish Empire, the Balkans, Italy, and Holland), South and North America, North Africa, and the Middle East, after the expulsions from Spain in 1492 and Portugal in 1496. This section deals with the dialect of Judeo-Ibero-Romance spoken in Bitola (Macedonia, Yugoslavia), which is a mixture of Portuguese and Castilian Spanish as well as non-Castilian dialects of Spanish (see further, Faingold 1996b). This linguistic system represents a case of koinization, as defined above. Table 2.12 displays the article system of JudeoIbero-Romance. In Table 2.12, neutralization of gender and number fails to occur in Bitola Judeo-Ibero-Romance. Notice, however, that as a result of koinization processes, the article system of Judeo-Ibero-Romance suffers phonological neutralization: the more-marked Spanish midvowels [e], [o] change to less-marked [i], [u] in il, lus, unus (see further, Faingold 1996b). The non-specific article is a copy of the indefinite forms un, unus, une, unes.

Table 2.12 Spanish/Portuguese-based koines: articles in Judeo-Ibero-Romance (Faingold 1994) Definite article

Indefinite article


il lus

masc. sing. un masc. pl. unus

fem. sing. fem. pl.

la las

fem. sing. fem. pl.

une unes

Articles 31

2.3.3.3

Fusion

Fronterizo is a somewhat stable variety (or varieties) of Spanish in contact with Portuguese and is spoken in the Brazilian/Uruguayan border by people who tend to have some knowledge of both Spanish and Portuguese. In much of this area, the Spanish of the Portuguese-speaking Brazilians is weaker than the Portuguese of the Uruguayans (see further, Faingold 1996b; Elizaincin et al. 1987; Trudgill 1986). Fronterizo can be characterized as a case of fusion because its morphological system shows compartmentalization and retention of marked structures. Table 2.13 displays the article system, and Table 2.14 provides examples of fusion in Fronterizo. As with Bitola Judeo-Ibero-Romance, neutralization fails to take place in Fronterizo (see Table 2.13). Rather, as the examples in Tables 2.14(a) and 2.14(b) show, more-marked structures derived from both source languages are retained in Fronterizo. Portuguese definite (o, os, a, as) and indefinite articles (um, uma) mostly are used with Portuguese lexical items, while Spanish definite (el, los) and indefinite articles (unos, unas) are used almost exclusively for Spanish words (see Table 2.14). Finally, as with Judeo-Ibero-Romance, in Fronterizo the specific/ non-specific distinction is not systematically markered by the use of zero. Again, in this case, the non-specific article is a copy of the indefinite article.

2.4

The natural development of the article system

This section applies the model of natural morphological markedness presented above to account for the development of the article system in the languages and linguistic systems discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.3. 2.4.1

The article system in natural morphology

In this section I apply the model of morphological markedness presented in Chapter 1 to account for the development of the article system in child language, creolization, and language history. I reveal a hierarchy of markedness that explains the development of the definite/non-definite, as well as the specific/non-specific, distinctions


Table 2.13 Spanish/Portuguese-based fusion: articles in Fronterizo (Faingold 1994) Definite article

Indefinite article


u – o – el – e us – os – los – lus


um – un unos – uns

fem. sing. fem. pl.

a – la as – las

fem. sing. fem. pl.

uma – una – ua umas – unas

Table 2.14 Fusion in the article system of Fronterizo (Elizaincin et al. 1987; Faingold 1994) (a) Compartmentalization of the definite article masc. sing. o gol Port. ‘the goal’ masc. pl. os almnu Port. ‘the students’ fem. sing. a atividade Port. ‘the activity’ fem. pl. as pesoas Port. ‘the people’

el taier Sp. ‘the workshop’ los lunes Sp. ‘Mondays’ – –

(b) Compartmentalization of the indefinite article masc. sing um empleio Port. ‘a job’ – masc. pl. uns anus Port. ‘a [few] years’ unas hermanas Sp. ‘sisters’ fem. sing. uma tienda Port. ‘a store’ – fem. pl. – unos tios Sp. ‘uncles’

in terms of both morphological naturalness and biological and sociocommunicational mechanisms of development. Table 2.15 classifies the data investigated in terms of a typology of article systems. Table 2.15 displays sixteen article systems in children’s development, creolization, and language history. A close look at Table 2.15 further suggests a typology of article systems in terms of the presence or absence of grammatical features, such as (dem)def (definite article corresponding to a demonstrative pronoun), (0)indef (zero indefinite article), (card)indef (indefinite article corresponding to the first cardinal number), (0)nonsp (zero non-specific), (card)nonsp

Articles 33

Table 2.15 The article system in child language, creolization, and language history (dem) def

(0)indef

(card) indef

(0)nonsp

(card) nonsp

(0)def

(i) Child language (1) Stage 1 (2) Stage 2

⫹ ⫹

⫹ ⫺

⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫺

⫺ ⫹

⫺ ⫺

(ii) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

⫺ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

Creolization Haitian Palenquero Papiamentu Hawaiian Principe Sranan

(iii) Language history (9) English (10) French (11) Fronterizo (12) Hebrew (13) J-I-R (14) Portuguese (15) Rumanian (16) Spanish

(non-specific article corresponding to the first cardinal number), and (0)def (zero definite article). Table 2.16 classifies the data in Table 2.15 in terms of a typology of article systems. Table 2.16 displays eight article systems, including: (i) two stages in children’s development ((1) and (2)), (ii) four types of creole systems ((3)–(6)), and (iii) two stages of development in language history ((7) and (8)). The eight systems displayed in Table 2.16 can be further reduced into five linguistic systems, since (1) shares the features (dem)def, (0)indef, and (0)nonsp with (5) and (7), and (2) shares the features (dem)def, (card)indef, and (card)nonsp with (8). Table 2.17 displays a revised typology of article systems.


Table 2.16 A typology of article systems (dem) def

(0)indef

(card) indef

(0)nonsp

(card) nonsp

(0)def

(i) Child language (1) Stage 1 (2) Stage 2

⫹ ⫹

⫹ ⫺

⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫺

⫺ ⫹

⫺ ⫺

(ii) Creolization (3) Hawaiian Papiamentu (4) Sranan (5) Haitian Principe (6) Palenquero

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

⫺ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫹

⫹ ⫹

⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺

⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺

⫺ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺

(iii) Language history (7) Stage 1 Hebrew Rumanian (8) Stage 2 English French Fronterizo J-I-R Portuguese Spanish

Table 2.17 Hierarchy of markedness for article systems System

Features

Examples

System 1

(dem)def (0)indef (0)nonsp

System 2 System 3

(dem)def (card)indef (0)nonsp (dem)def/(0)def (card)indef (0)nonsp (dem)def/(0)def (card)indef/ (0)indef (0)nonsp (dem)def (card)indef (card)nonsp

(1) (5) (7) (3) (6)

System 4 System 5

Child language, Stage 1 Haitian, Principe Language history, Stage 1 Hawaiian, Papiamentu Palenquero

(4) Sranan (2) Child language, Stage 2 (8) Language history, Stage 2

Articles 35

Table 2.18 A hierarchy of article systems S5 傻 S4 傻 S3 傻 S2 傻 S1 S1 ⬍m S2 ⬍m S3 ⬍m S4 ⬍m S5 傻 ⫽ implies; ⬍m ⫽ less marked.

Table 2.19 Markedness criteria System 1 (i) Child language (ii) Frequency (iii) Crossfield correspondences (iv) Neutralization (v) Constructional iconicity Systems 2 to 4 (i) Constructional iconicity System 5 (i) First language acquisition (ii) Crossfield correspondences (iii) Neutralization (iv) Constructional iconicity

Table 2.18 presents a hierarchy of markedness to account for the development of the article systems listed in Table 2.17. The ranking in the hierarchy of markedness in Table 2.18 follows from the criteria for identifying marked structures and mechanisms of development, in Section 2.1.1. Table 2.19 displays the selected criteria for the ranking of the article systems. As noted in Tables 2.18 and 2.19, System 1 ((dem)def, (0)indef, (0)nonsp) is the least marked of all systems because it complies with five criteria in Table 2.19: (i) Child language System 1 is the first system acquired by children. (ii) Frequency This system contains the most intra- as well as inter- and cross-linguistic widespread structures ((dem)def, (0)indef). (iii) Crossfield correspondences The development of System 1 in history and creolization mirrors the early acquistion of the same system in child language.


(iv) Neutralization Children neutralize the indefinite (vs the definite) article; the least marked definite form ((dem)def) survives. (v) Constructional iconicity This system is the least marked as well as the least markered of all article systems because it bears fewer markers than any other system in this study. Systems 2 ((dem)def, (card)indef, (0)nonsp), 3 ((dem)def/(0)def, (card)indef, (0)nonsp), and 4 ((dem)def/(0)def, (card)indef/(0)indef, (0)nonsp), are ranked in this order according to the principle of constructional iconicity. System 2 is less markered than Systems 3 and 4, and System 3 is less markered than System 4: System 2 shows one more added marker than System 1 ((card)indef), System 3 shows yet one more added marker than System 2 ((0)def), and System 4 presents yet one more added marker than System 3 ((0)indef). System 5 ((dem)def, (card)indef, (card)nonsp) is the most marked of all systems because it complies with the four criteria in Table 2.19: (i) First language acquisition This is the last system acquired by children. (ii) Crossfield correspondences The development of System 5 in history mirrors the acquisition of this system by children. (iii) Neutralization Children neutralize the definite (vs the indefinite) article; the more-marked (card)indef dies out. (iv) Constructional iconicity System 5 is the most markered of all article systems because it bears more markers than all the other systems in this study. System 5, however, fails the frequency test, since it is crosslinguistically very widespead (particularly in Modern European languages). As noted earlier, frequency is not a crucial test of markedness values. 2.4.2

Explaining morphological development

As in Faingold (1996b), in this study, explanation is construed as nonautonomous (Bailey 1982, 1996). In explaining linguistic development, we take into account relevant evidence from linguistics as well as from other disciplines, such as biology, psychology, history, and sociology. In certain instances, non-autonomous explanations are

Articles 37

beyond our range, and more formal explanations (e.g. naturalness, implicational universals) as well as explanations in terms of innate knowledge and universals are the best we can attempt. These explanations may be given in terms of theoretical constructs, which in turn remain to be explained by some sort of biological or sociocommunicational reality (see further, Faingold 1996b).

2.5

Summary and conclusions

This chapter discussed natural morphological processes in the development of the article system in child language, creolization, and language history. Correspondences were examined in the development of the definite vs indefinite as well as the specific vs non-specific distinctions. The chapter presented a deliberately integrative perspective, taking into account seemingly disparate linguistic areas with the purpose of revealing universals of markedness. A model of morphological markedness has been proposed, one closely aligned with Bailey’s (1996) and Mayerthaler’s (1988) theoretical views, as well as with Faingold’s (1996a) study of emergent systems of phonology. This model relies on psycholinguistic studies of first language acquisition and on work on language typology, variation, and change in creolization and language history. I have attempted to explain complex phenomena resulting from biological (including cognitive and innate) as well as sociocommunicational mechanisms of language development. Biological mechanisms, such as children’s egocentrism, naturalness, and grammaticalization, support the hypothesis that less-marked forms occur early, are less markered, are more resistant to change (e.g. neutralization), and are more natural. In this sense, biological mechanisms are usually unidirectional. In contrast, in sociocommunicational mechanisms such as compartmentalization in fusion and borrowing in decreolization, unmarked patterns can be reversed to form a less natural system characterized by more marked linguistic structures. In certain cases, substratum and superstratum influences may tamper with the unidirectionality predicted by biological mechanisms of development; for example more-marked Spanish and English (card)nonsp is acquired by acrolectal forms of Hawaiian and Palenquero creole; Yoruba substratum post-nominal definite article appears in Haitian and Principe creole. In other instances, sociocommunicational mechanisms yield less marked


systems, for example Yoruba (0)indef, (0)nonsp in Haitian and Principe creole. More child-language research is needed to evaluate Bickerton’s bioprogram because the studies reviewed in this chapter do not directly investigate the specific/non-specific distinction but rather the acquisition of definite and indefinite articles. The evidence in this study, however, suggests that the specific/non-specific distinction is not as natural and universal as Bickerton leads us to believe because only three creoles (Hawaiian, Papiamentu, and Palenquero) lend support to the distinction as a function of the bioprogram. Haitian and Principe have both (0)indef and (0)nonsp markers, while Sranan has both (card)indef and (card)nonsp; the specific/non-specific distinction is lost in Haitian, Principe, and Sranan.

3 Demonstrative Pronouns: A Source of Definite Articles in History

3.1

Introduction

This chapter discusses the emergence of the definite article in the Romance languages, a topic focal to Romance linguistics for a long while (see, e.g. Bouvier 1972; Garrido 1988; Lapesa 1979; Renzi 1976; Trager 1932; Vaananen 1987). I offer an up-to-date explanation in terms of grammaticalization theory (Heine et al. 1991) and discourse analysis as well as other linguistic devices (statistical, structural, and functional analysis, iconicity, and naturalness). In both Romance and Germanic languages, definite articles are created anew from nominative, usually prenominal, demonstrative pronouns (Greenberg 1978, Lockwood 1968). Also, in emergent languages such as creoles (Holm 1988) as well as in language change in progress (Laury 1998), demonstratives are the source of definite articles. Thus, because many languages seem to prefer this pathway of development (e.g. Spanish), in this chapter, the use of prenominal nominative demonstratives as a source of definite articles is characterized as a universal of language. In certain cases, the Latin accusative and the nominative seem to converge as the source of the definite article (e.g. Portuguese). In Rumanian, the definite article is placed after, rather than before, the noun. Further, I show that the development of the definite article from Latin to Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian can be explained in terms of factors such as the function of demonstratives in discourse (Laury 1998; Meillet 1926). Using texts in Vulgar Latin from a period covering eight centuries, I trace the grammaticalization of demonstratives into definite articles in Vulgar 39


Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian (see further, Heine et al. 1991). Demonstratives are reanalyzed as markers of identifiability – definite articles – as a result of universal processes of language change.

3.2 The data: from classical Latin to the Romance languages Classical Latin was the Latin spoken and written by literate people throughout the Roman world and co-existed with a coloquial Latin spoken by those who did not know or chose to disregard the rules set by classical writers. Non-classical, or vulgar, forms appeared by the late 4th century in written documents. These presented at first slight deviations from the classical rules; by the 5th century non-classical forms increased drastically but not to the extent that Classical Latin was unintelligible to the masses (see Muller 1970; Muller & Taylor 1932). By the middle of the 6th century, as a result of religious changes and the barbarian invasions, a different form of Latin with a distinct orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax arose from Classical Latin – Vulgar Latin. In the late 8th century, as a result of the restoration of the classical rules following the Edicts of Charlemagne, texts written in Vulgar Latin were corrected according to the rules set by classical Roman writers. Vulgar Latin, the language written for the masses by men lacking classical training, disappeared or rather became Romance by the beginning of the 9th century. Medieval Latin, a new form of Latin modeled after the classical Roman and Christian writers, is now used for literary and religious writings. However, not all writers of Medieval Latin follow the grammatical rules set by the classical Roman model (see Muller 1970; Strecker 1957). Thus, before Charlemagne’s reform, Vulgar Latin was the spoken and written language of Christian Romans; after the restoration, literate writers wrote one language, Medieval Latin, and spoke another, Romance. This chapter analyzes six Vulgar Latin documents: (i) four in Vulgar Latin (4th or 6th century) from Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (compiled and translated by Bernard 1971: 11–136), as follows: (a) The Story of Abgar, (b) Epiphany,

Demonstrative Pronouns 41

(c) Thursday before Easter, and (d) Good Friday; (ii) one in Vulgar Latin (mid-8th century) – Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (compiled by Muller & Taylor 1932: 243–4); and (iii) a document in a crystalized form of Vulgar Latin and Romance written in Spain (12th century): El Abad de San Millan Cambia unas Haciendas con Lope Iñigue – A Transaction in Real Estate (compiled by Muller & Taylor 1932: 28). Documents (ii) and (iii) above were translated by the present writer.

3.3 Demonstratives and indefinite articles in Latin and the Romance languages As mentioned in Chapter 2, in language history, as well as in creolization and other emergent systems, definite articles are in many cases not borrowed from the superstrate languages (Faingold 1994, 1995a). Rather, these seem to have been created anew from demonstratives. This section describes the historical development of the definite article from Classical and Vulgar Latin to Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian. In Spanish, as in other Romance and Germanic languages, the article serves to distinguish between definite and indefinite noun phrases. Examples from Spanish are (1a) and (1b) respectively. (1a) Juan escribió la carta. ‘John wrote the letter’ (1b) Juan escribió una carta. ‘John wrote a letter’ The presence of the definite article la ‘the’ in (1a) makes it clear that the speaker assumes that the hearer knows which letter he is referring to, or that at least he or she can identify it. In (1b) this inference is not made. As is well known, Classical Latin does not have an article. An example is (2). (2) Amicus Catonis ‘the friend of Caton’ In itself, amicus can mean ‘a friend’ or ‘the friend’, but in this case the genitive case serves to mark definiteness.


Table 3.1 Criteria for establishing correspondences between Latin demonstratives and Romance articles (1) Statistical: increase in text frequency (2) Structural (i) Phonological weakening (a) phonetical shortening (b) loss of stress (ii) Location (a) prenominal (b) post-nominal (3) Functional (a) prominent (b) accessible (4) Naturalness (a) iconicity (b) markedness

3.3.1 Criteria for establishing correspondences between Latin demonstratives and Romance articles This section presents relevant criteria for identifying emergent Romance articles corresponding to Latin demonstratives. Assignment of correspondences is not arbitrary but the result of logically independent tests. Displayed in Table 3.1, criteria of four types apply: (1) statistical, (2) structural, (3) functional, and (4) naturalness. Note that in this work, phonological weakening is not the prime criterion for establishing historical correspondences, but it is a subcategory of one of four criteria established for identifying possible demonstratives functioning as definite articles. 3.3.1.1

Statistical criterion

This criterion is concerned with a synchronic increase in text frequency of the emergent article. For example, in paragraph (1) below (Egeria’s ‘The Story of Abgar’ – 4th to 6th century), I have counted eight Latin demonstratives corresponding to emergent articles from Vulgar Latin (Bernard 1971: 37, 102). (1) In ea ergo die et in ea hora, qua auertarent Persae aquam, On the day and the hour in which the Persians diverted the water


statim hii fontes, quos uides in eo loco, iusso Dei a semel the fountains which you see in this place at the command of God eruperunt ex ea die hi fontes usque in hodie permanent hic gratia burst forth all at once, and from that day to this they continue by Dei. Illa autem aqua, quam Persae auerteran, ita siecata est in ea the grace of God but the water which the Persian diverted was dried hora, ut nec ipsi haberent uel una die quod biberent (. . .) out in that hour, so that the besiegers had nothing to drink This criterion is further concerned with a diachronic increase in frequency of the emergent articles. By the 8th century, the use of Latin demonstratives as definite articles increases radically; for instance, in Chrodegangus’ ‘De Vestimenta Clericorum’, nearly every definite NP is preceded by an emergent article. Quite arbitrarily, I counted only those articles that appear at least twice in the text as cases of grammaticalization (see Muller & Taylor 1932: 243–4). 3.3.1.2

Structural criteria

The structural criteria concern (i) phonological weakening, including (a) phonetic shortening (e.g. Latin illa ⬎ Sp. la ‘the’), (b) loss of stress (e.g. Latin stressed demonstratives change to unstressed articles in Romance); and (ii) location, including most frequently (a) pronominal (e.g. VL illa acqua ‘the water’), and more rarely (b) post-nominal position (e.g. VL epistolam ipsam ‘the letter’). 3.3.1.3

Functional criteria

This criterion concerns types of NPs that are potential carriers of definite articles, including: (a) prominent NPs (i.e. central to the narrative), and (b) accessible NPs (by prior mention) (see further discussion in Section 3.4 of this chapter). 3.3.1.4

Naturalness

Naturalness is concerned with (i) Greenberg’s (1985) iconicity principle mapping perceptual space into discourse (i.e. Latin structures corresponding to emergent Romance articles are almost always distance


demonstratives); and (ii) following markedness principles, the leastmarked Latin demonstratives (i.e. monosyllabic nominatives) are the most likely to correspond to Romance definite articles (see further, Faingold 1994, 1995a; Keenan & Comrie 1987). In certain cases, moremarked accusatives can correspond to Romance structures because a misanalysis occurs due to the structural similarity between certain Latin nominatives and accusatives (e.g. nom. fem. sing. illa, ipsa vs acc. neut. pl. illa, ipsa). Less-marked structures usually are more widely distributed than more-marked structures (Faingold 1996b). To illustrate this point, Tables 3.2 and 3.3 present a statistical analysis of emergent articles from Vulgar Latin. In Table 3.2 Vulgar Latin demonstratives functioning as articles correspond to less marked Latin nominatives ipsa, illa, hii, ille in 24 cases (48 per cent), while more-marked Latin accusatives illa, ipsam, ipsas correspond to Vulgar Latin structures in only 12 cases (24 per cent). With the innovations ea, eo, in 14 cases (28 per cent), I cannot

Table 3.2 Nominatives, accusatives, and innovations in Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (Vulgar Latin, 4th to 6th century) Nominatives fem. sing./neut. pl. ipsa fem. sing./neut. pl. illa masc. pl. hi(i) masc. sing. ille Accusatives neut. pl. fem. sing. fem. pl.

9 7 5 3 24

% 38 29 21 12 100

illa ipsam ipsas

7 3 2 12

58 25 17 100

ea eo

8 6 14

57 43 100

24 12 14 50

48 24 28 100

Innovations

Breakdown Summary Nominatives Accusatives Innovations


Table 3.3 Nominatives and accusatives in Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (Vulgar Latin, mid-8th century) Nominatives fem. sing./neut. pl. masc. sing. masc. pl.

illa ille illi

4 3 5 12

% 33 25 42 100

Accusatives fem. pl. masc. pl.

illas illos

3 2 5

60 40 100

12 5 17

71 29 100

Breakdown Summary Nominatives Accusatives

tell whether the Latin source is the nominative or the accusative. Similarly, in Table 3.3, less-marked Latin nominatives correspond to Vulgar Latin emergent articles in 12 cases (71 per cent), while moremarked accusatives occur in only 5 cases (29 per cent). As noted in Chapter 1, statistics are used as a discovery procedure rather than as an absolute criterion because in certain cases markedness values conflict with statistical distributions (see, further, Faingold 1996b). 3.3.2

From Latin to Romance

Classical Latin nominative and accusative demonstratives appear to be the source of the definite article in Vulgar Latin and the Romance languages. Table 3.4 displays demonstrative forms in Classical Latin. The Classical Latin demonstratives listed in Table 3.4 are increasingly used as articles in Vulgar Latin from circa 380 to 1150. These changes indicate a change of function of demonstratives, both nominative and accusative (see Section 3.4 in this chapter). Table 3.5 displays demonstratives functioning as definite articles, as they occur in the writings of the three Vulgar Latin writers mentioned earlier, in Section 3.2. In Table 3.5(a), early (4th to 5th century) Vulgar Latin demonstratives functioning as definite articles ille, illa, hii, ipsa as well as ipsam, illa, ipsa correspond to Classical Latin nominatives ille, illa, hi, ipsa and accusatives ipsam, illa, ipsa, respectively. The forms ea, ipsam are


Table 3.4 Demonstratives in Classical Latin (Griffin 1992) Singular masc.

fem.

Plural

neut.

masc. fem.

neut.

Nominative hic haec ille illa iste ista ipse ipsa

hoc illud istud ipsum

hi illi isti ipsi

hae illae istae ipsae

haec illa ista ipsa

Accusative illum illam hunc hanc istum istam ipsum ipsam

illud hoc istud ipsum

illos hos istos ipsos

illas has istas ipsas

illa haec ista ipsa

Table 3.5 Demonstratives functioning as articles in Vulgar Latin Nominative

Accusative

Innovations

(a) The emergent article in Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (circa 380–540) hi(i) illa ea, eo ille, illa ipsa, ipsam ipsa (b) The emergent article in Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (circa 750) ille, illa, illi illos, illas (c) The emergent article in a real estate transaction – El Abad de San Millan (circa 1150) masc. sing. el ‘the’

used after, rather than before, the noun phrase (e.g. epistolas ipsas ‘the letters’, ecclesia ea ‘the church’, epistolam ipsam ‘the letter’). In Table 3.5(b), late (mid-8th century) Vulgar Latin emergent structures ille, illa, ille as well as illos, illas correspond to Classical nominatives ille, illa, illi and accusatives illos, illas, respectively. Vulgar Latin demonstratives functioning as definite articles in Table 3.5(b) are consistently used before, rather than after, the noun phrase. Finally, Table 3.5(c) shows in a fossilized form the Vulgar Latin and Romance


Table 3.6 The definite article in Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian Singular masc.

fem.

Plural masc. fem.

Spanish el la

los

las

Portuguese o a

os

as

Rumanian ul – le ua – a

i

le

used in Spain as late as the 12th century, the forms el, la, which correspond to Classical Latin nominatives ille, illa. As in Table 3.5(b), here articles are found only before, and not after, the noun phrase. The Latin demonstrative pronouns functioning as definite articles noted in the preceding paragraphs are extremely diverse; yet, they all seem to converge on the emergent Vulgar Latin article. The reason appears to be that, in spite of the structural diversity, they all seem to carry one value and one function – that of the definite article (see Section 3.4). In the Romance languages, the definite article corresponds to the Vulgar Latin forms in Table 3.5. Table 3.6 displays the definite articles in Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian. In Table 3.6 the Spanish forms el, la, los, las correspond to Vulgar and Classical Latin ille, illa; as with late varieties of Vulgar Latin (Tables 3.5(b), 3.5(c)), these forms are used consistently before the noun phrase. Quite speculatively, the Portuguese forms o, a seem to correspond to Vulgar Latin innovations ea, eo (see criterion (2) in Table 3.1). Notice that standard Portuguese grammars (e.g. Nuñes 1945, Williams 1962) trace the Portuguese articles to the Latin accusatives (illum, illam) exclusively. As with Spanish, however, the definite article in Portuguese is located before, rather than after, the noun phrase. The Rumanian articles le, ua, a, i correspond to Vulgar Latin ille, la, ea, hi, which in turn seem to correspond to Latin ille, illa, hi. In Vulgar Latin, the position of the demonstrative functioning as a


definite article, before or after the noun phrase, was a matter of style. Certain authors (e.g. Egeria) hesitate in placing the demonstrative before or after the noun phrase (see also Muller 1970: 83–4). At the time of branching out, Spanish and Portuguese chose to place the article before the noun phrase, while Rumanian adopted the opposite strategy – placing the article after the noun phrase.

3.4 The grammaticalization of the definite article from Latin The development of the definite article from Latin to the Romance languages in this work provides an example of what Givon (1992: 5) terms ‘secondary grammaticalization’ (see further, Heine et al. 1991). Secondary grammaticalization means that the functional range of a grammatical form extends to cover new contexts. The nature of these changes remains largely unknown. Although some authors (e.g. Harris 1977; Meillet 1926) explain the changes in general terms such as ‘weakening’, that is change of grammatical function, this is clearly a circular explanation. Greenberg (1978), Laury (1998), and Lockwood (1968) study the development of the definite article (see further, Kirsner’s [1979] and Mithun’s [1987] synchronic studies on the function of demonstratives in discourse). Laury (1998) explains the grammaticalization of demonstratives into definite articles in terms of discourse factors. The development of the definite article starts with the focusing function of demonstratives; then, speakers precede with a demonstrative those noun phrases whose referents have a prominent role in discourse, and those noun phrases that have become accessible by prior mention to the hearer. Thus, speakers preface with demonstratives, now functioning as articles, noun phrases identifiable to the hearer. The feature of identifiability is associated with the demonstrative that has undergone reanalysis and is grammaticalized as a definite article. The development of the definite article is summarized in Table 3.7. Table 3.7 The development of the definite article (Laury 1998) In focus ⬎ prominent ⬎ accessible ⬎ identifiable demonstrative ⬎⬎ definite article


Table 3.7 captures the development of the definite article from Latin to Romance. In Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (4th or 6th century), Latin demonstratives mark noun phrases when the speaker focuses on prominent (i.e. central to the narrative), in this case emotionally charged, and accessible (i.e. by prior mention) noun phrases. The number of demonstratives grows when Egeria describes holy places or critical points in time. Sentences (1)–(10) in Table 3.8 illustrate Egeria’s use of Latin demonstratives, focusing on prominent (holy) places and objects, crucial points in time, as well as accessible NPs. These can occur before and after the noun phrase. Table 3.8 The emergence of the definite article in Egeria’s Peregrinatio ad Loca Santa (Bernard 1971: 11–136) Prominent NPs (i) Places and objects (1) hii fontes, quos uide (. . .) (p. 102) The fontains which you see (. . .) (p. 37) (2) Illa autem aqua, quam persae auertarent (. . .) (p. 102) The water which the Persians diverted (. . .) (p. 37) (3) (. . .) item legitur ille locus de evangelio (. . .) (p. 123) then the passage from the Gospel is read (p. 62) (4) Sedens i eadem spelunca, quae in ipsa ecclesia est (p. 123) He sat in the very cave that is in the church (p. 61) (5) Illud etiam satis mihi grato fuit, ut epistolas ipsas (. . .) (p. 103) It also gave me the great pleasure (. . .) the letters of Abgar (p. 38) (6) Quod cum dixisset, tenens manibus levatis epistolam ipsam apertam rex (p. 102) And when the king had said this, holding up the open letter with uplifted hands (. . .) (p. 36) (ii) Points in time (7) In ea ergo die et in ea hora, qua auertarent persae aquam (. . .) (p. 102) On the day and hour in which the Persians diverted the water (. . .) (p. 37) (8) ac sic pervenitur Ierusolima ea hora, qua incipit homo hominem posse cognoscere, (. . .) (p. 114) they arrive in Jerusalem about the hour when one man begins to recognise another (. . .) (p. 50) Accessible NPs (9)a (. . .) et ibi erant fontes piscibus pleni (. . .) (pp. 101–102) and there were fountains full of fish (p. 37)


Table 3.8 (Continued) (9)b Illud etiam retulit sanctus episcopus eo quod hii fontes ubi erumperunt ante sic fuerit campus intra civitatem, subiacens palatio Aggari (p. 103, line 7) that place were the fountains burst forth was formerly a level space inside the city lying under the palace of King Abgar (p. 37) (9)c Sed postmodum quam hii fontes in eo loco eruperunt (p. 103, line 35) but after the fountains had bust forth in this place (p. 37) (10)a Hora prima noctis ommes in ecclesia quae est in Eleona, convenimus, quoniam maximus labor nobis instat hodie nocte ista (p. 122, line 32) At the first hour of the night let us all meet at the church in Olivet, for our greatest labour presses on us on the night of this day (p. 161) (10)b (. . .) quia statim, ut manducaverint, omnes vadent in Eleona in ecclesia ea, in qua (. . .) (p. 123, line 5) for as soon as they have eaten they all go up to Olivet to that church in which (. . .) (p. 161) (10)c Sedens in eadem spelunca, quae in ipsa ecclesia est (p. 123, line 11) He sat in the very cave which is in the church (p. 161)

Holy places in (i) sentences (1)–(4) in Vulgar Latin are preceded by ille, illa, ipsa, hii, and in (5)–(6) ipsas, ipsam follow the noun phrase; in (ii), sentences (7)–(8) certain crucial points in time are preceded by ea. In contrast, non-prominent noun phrases are not preceded by a Latin demonstrative functioning as an article, for example Persae ‘Persians’ and spelunca ‘cave’ in sentences (2) and (3), respectively. In sentences (9)b and (9)c in Table 3.8, the noun fontes (‘fountains’) is marked with hii because fontes is accessible from prior mention in sentence (9)a, where it is an unmarked noun. Similarly, in (10)b–c, the noun ecclesia (‘church’) is marked by ea and ipsa, respectively, because ecclesia is accessible from prior mention in sentence (10)a, where it is an unmarkered noun. In contrast, those noun phrases not previously mentioned are not identifiable, since they are not preceded by a demonstrative functioning as a definite article, for example piscibus ‘fishes’ and spelunca ‘cave’ in sentences (9)a and (10)c, respectively. In Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (mid-8th century), the Latin demonstrative is used as an article because as with Egeria’s


Table 3.9 The emergence of the definite article in Chrodegangus’ De Vestimenta Clericorum (Muller & Taylor 1932: 243–4) Prominent NPs (i) The hierarchy of the Church (1) (. . .) quod ille episcopus annis singulis ad illum clerum reddere consuevit (. . .) (p. 244) (. . .) the bishop in each year was accustomed to return the cleric (. . .) (2) (. . .) ille alius clerus unus quisque singulos camisiles autem illi presbytieri et diaconi annis singulis binos (p. 244) (. . .) let the other cleric, each one receive vestments that the priest and deacon have every two years. (3) illi diaconi VII qua in corum consistunt (. . .) (p. 244) The seven deacons who take their places sit together in the choir (. . .) (4) illi seniores annis singulis reddunt accipiant(. . .) (p. 243) the cloaks that the elders in every year receive (. . .) (ii) Clergy’s clothes (5) illos camisiles viginti dies post pascha accipiant (. . .) (p. 244) Let them receive the vestments twenty days after Easter (. . .) (6) (. . .) et illo calciatico, quod ille episcopus annis singulis ad illum clerum reddere consuevit (p. 244) (. . .) and the footwear which the bishop usually gives to the priest every year (. . .) (7) et illas cappas et illos sarciles, et illa calceamenta de illos teloneos superius nominatos (. . .) (p. 244) and the capes and the pieces of cloth, and the footwear from the toll-houses mentioned above (. . .) Accessible NPs (8)a (. . .) illa media pars cleri qui seniores fuerint annis singulis accipiant cappas novas (. . .) (p. 243, line 1) (. . .) Let the middle part of the clergy who are the elders receive the new cloaks every year (. . .) (8)b ille alius clerus unusquisque singulos camisiles autem illi presbytieri et diaconi annis binos (p. 244) (. . .) Let the other cleric, each one receive vestments that the priest and the deacon have every two years (8)c (. . .) et illi seniores illas cappas quas reddere debent non commutent (p. 243, line 5) (. . .) and the elders do not exchange the cloaks which they should return.


Table 3.10 The emergence of the definite article in a Spanish document (12th century): a real estate transaction (Muller & Taylor 1932: 258) (1) z ke nos aiudes fer el portal del palacio and you help us to make the gate of the palace (2) z nos damus tibi in nostro corral del palacio and we give you in our yard of the palace

texts, noun phrases can be prominent and accessible. For instance, certain prominent members of the Church hierarchy and the clothes assigned to them are preceded by a Latin demonstrative. Certain other noun phrases are accessible by prior mention. Sentences (1)–(8) in Table 3.9 illustrate Chrodegangus’ use of Latin demonstratives preceding prominent and accessible noun phrases. In sentences (1)–(7) in Table 3.9, noun phrases representing prominent members of the Church hierarchy and the clothes assigned to them are preceded by ille, illi, illa, illas, illos. The nouns clerus ‘clergy’, seniores ‘elders’, and cappas ‘cloaks’ are marked with ille, illi, and illas, respectively, in sentences (8)b–c because these noun phrases are accessible from prior mention as unmarked nouns cleri, seniores, and cappas in sentence (8)a. Similarly, in a real estate transaction described in Spanish (12th century), the definite article el precedes all accessible noun phrases, which can be identified by the speaker and hearer. Sentences (1) and (2) in Table 3.10 illustrate the use of these forms. In sentences (1) and (2) in Table 3.10, Spanish noun phrases el portal (‘the gate’) and del palacio ‘of the palace’ are accessible, since the piece of real estate being exchanged entails the noun phrases. Thus, in this 12th century text, el ‘the’ is well on its way to becoming a definite article in Spanish.

3.5


The development of the definite article from Latin to Romance languages can thus be explained in terms of discourse factors. Using texts in Vulgar Latin covering eight centuries, I have traced the grammaticalization of demonstratives into definite articles (both nominatives and accusatives, in both prenominal and post-nominal positions) from Latin to Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian. First, as


the documents of the 4th to 6th century show, speakers mark with Latin demonstratives those noun phrases whose referents have a prominent role in discourse or are accessible to the speaker and hearer, both before and after the noun phrase. Also, as shown in documents from the mid-8th century, noun phrases that are prominent or accessible to the speaker and hearer are preceded by Latin demonstratives. And finally, as shown by documents from the 12th century as well as in the modern Romance languages, the definite article precedes those noun phrases that can be identified by the speaker and/or hearer, regardless of whether the noun phrases play a prominent role in the discourse. The similarity between demonstratives and articles, both synchronically and diachronically, is not coincidental but due to grammaticalization processes whereby old forms acquire new functions. Thus, demonstrative pronouns also can be employed to mark more abstract functions, such as identifiability in articles. As a result, part of the system employed for mapping perceptual space in the real world (e.g. demonstratives in Latin and many other languages) also serves to map space in discourse – identifiability (e.g. articles in the Romance languages and many other European languages). As we have seen, part of the Latin system of demonstrative pronouns serves to encode Romance articles, like the Vulgar Latin structures hi, ille, illa, ipsa, ipsam, ea, eo, and Spanish el, la, los, las, Portuguese o, a, os, as, and Rumanian ul - le, ua - a, i, le. Finally, I have found no support to the claim made by most Portuguese grammarians (e.g. Nunez 1945, Williams 1962) that the sole source of the definite article in Portuguese is the accusative. Rather, the Portuguese definite articles o, a seem to correspond to Vulgar Latin innovations eo, ea.

4 Prepositions and Adverbs: Similar Development Patterns in First and Second Language Acquisition

4.1

Introduction

This chapter examines natural morphological processes of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in first and second language acquisition by children and adult immigrants. The constructions under consideration are such diverse grammatical structures as simple morphemes (e.g. in, between, yet, again) and complex structures (e.g. in front of, in between, no longer, not yet). This data is used to account for the natural morphological developments described in terms of markedness theory. The present study reveals that first and second language phenomena exhibit similar developmental patterns in French, Italian, Spanish, and a number of other languages. The developmental path of these phenomena can be explained in terms of universal hierachies of markedness that reflect natural morphological processes: in a natural environment (i.e. outside the classroom), less-marked structures are acquired earlier by both children and second language speakers. This chapter surveys numerous published papers and provides a summary of the literature compared with my own findings.

4.2

Applying a developmental model of markedness

As introduced in Chapter 1 and applied in Chapter 2, the model employed here is based on the theory of markedness elaborated by 54

Prepositions and Adverbs 55

Bailey (e.g. 1982, 1996) and Mayerthaler (1988) (see further, Dressler 1985; Faingold 1996b; Wurzel 1989). It aims to reveal universal mechanisms of language development and change and is therefore relevant for constructing implicational hierarchies because I assume that these closely reflect universals of markedness. The hierarchies that arise also are used to test the hypothesis that less-marked structures chronologically antecede or replace more-marked structures in the development of linguistic systems. In certain cases, the directionality of change is reversed (e.g. when the principle of markeredness and constructional iconicity is violated in the acquisition of morphologically-rich languages, such as Hebrew and Serbo-Croatian; see Section 4.4). In this framework, assignment of markedness values is not arbitrary but the result of logicallyindependent, empirically-based tests that capture significant relationships between phenomena that would be otherwise unrelated (see Faingold 1996b). Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 specify relevant factors for studying the development of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs, and display relevant areas and mechanisms of morphological markedness, which will be discussed below (see Faingold 1995a, 1996b). 4.2.1

Identification of marked structures

This section discusses relevant areas for the identification of marked structures, including system internal (first and second language acquisition) and system external areas (crossfield correspondences, frequency, neutralization, and constructional iconicity). (a) System-internal areas (i) Child language This measure concerns the early availability of linguistic forms to the child (e.g. see Jakobson 1968; Faingold 1996a). Children tend to select unmarked forms and omit or replace marked with unmarked structures. For example, spatial prepositions front, between and temporal adverbs yet, again are marked while the forms that are acquired earlier (e.g. spatial grams in, on and temporal grams now, before) are unmarked. (ii) Second language acquisition This measure concerns the availability of linguistic forms to adult immigrants in the early stages of second language acquisition in a natural environment


(Perdue 1993; Schumann 1986; see further, Faingold 1995c). As with child language acquisition, adult immigrants also select unmarked forms and omit or replace marked with unmarked structures. They also acquire less-marked spatial prepositions in, on and temporal adverbs now, before before more-marked spatial prepositions front, between and temporal adverbs yet, again. (b) System-external areas (iii) Crossfield correspondences Marked elements are less stable and usually change before unmarked ones. In contrast, as noted above, unmarked structures occur earlier not only in child language but also in second language acquisition. (iv) Frequency Unmarked forms are in some instances more widely distributed or more frequent than marked terms, both within and across languages and linguistic systems. For example, the unmarked forms in, on, now are some of the most frequently used forms – by both adults and children (Cazden 1971; González 1980; Grimm 1975). (v) Neutralization As discussed earlier, neutralization occurs when a distinction is lost in a particular environment, and the unmarked form survives. For example, children neutralize the distinction between in and in between, and the unmarked form, in, is retained. Similarly, adult immigrants in Great Britain neutralize the distinction between (not) now and no longer (Klein et al. 1993: 92), and the unmarked form now is retained. (vi) Constructional iconicity The more-marked spatial adverb in between is markered by an additional marker form between. This is an instance of Mayerthaler’s (1988) principle of constructional iconicity, that is, the addition of a mark-bearing element to the simpler form. The moremarked form bears the marker and is said to be markered. The principle of constructional iconicity is violated by children acquiring morphologically-rich languages; for example, Hebrew-speakers acquire mitaxat le ‘under’ after all other spatial adverbs because Hebrew mitaxat le is highly markered.


4.2.2

Biological mechanisms of morphological development

This section discusses markedness constraints in morphological development, including child cognitive limitations and naturalness. (i) Child cognitive limitations Some spatial and temporal structures are used and understood with greater ease than others by children (e.g. in, on, now), and these are the structures whose meaning is based on simple topological and temporal relations. In contrast, young children may have cognitive difficulties when they need to deal with more complex Euclidean spatial operations (e.g. 3 D space) as well as complex temporal relations (see Piaget 1969, Piaget and Inhelder 1956). As with child language, in the initial stages of second language acquisition in a natural environment (i.e. outside the classroom), adult immigrants appear to experience cognitive difficulties with similar spatial and temporal structures. The reason is that they, too, have a greater facility in learning simple topological and temporal operations, while they experience difficulties with complex spatial-geometrical and temporal operations (see Carroll et al. 1993; Klein et al. 1993; see further, Faingold 1995c; Perdue 1993). (ii) Naturalness As noted earlier, structures are considered more natural if they are less marked, and conversely, less natural if they are more marked. The concept of markedness is defined by Bailey (1982) as follows (see further, Greenberg 1966; Jakobson 1968): (a) ⬎m : ⬍m (the more marked changes to less marked) (b) ⬎m 傻 ⬍m (the more marked implicates the less marked) Principle (a) predicts that if x changes into y, x is more marked than y and y is less marked than x. Principle (b) defines the natural implicational patterns of the language.

4.3

Sources of data

The database in this study is drawn from a survey of published experimental and naturalistic works on first and second language acquisition in numerous languages. This study differs in significant ways from earlier research. First, most studies of the acquisition of spatial and time adverbs fall within one of two categories: they are


either longitudinal naturalistic studies of language production involving a small number of children, or they are cross-sectional experimental studies of language comprehension involving a large number of subjects. This study differs from previous studies in that it takes full advantage of both the methods. Second, this study uses a crossfield design to investigate language development in both children acquiring a first language and adults acquiring a second language. Last, this study draws together within one study a large number of spatial and time structures that in most previous studies have remained rather isolated. 4.3.1

Child language data

Child language data are based on naturalistic observations and experimental studies from a variety of languages, as follows: (i) experimental studies on the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English (e.g. E. V. Clark 1973, 1980; Cox 1979; Durkin 1981; Grieve et al. 1977; Johnston & Slobin 1979; Kuczaj & Maratsos 1975; Levine & Carey 1982; Washington & Naremore 1978), French (Piérart 1975), Italian ( Johnston & Slobin 1979; Parisi & Antinucci 1970), Serbo-Croatian ( Johnston & Slobin 1979), and Turkish ( Johnston & Slobin 1979); (ii) naturalistic (diary, and tape- and video-recorded) case studies of the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English (Brown 1973; Tomasello 1987), German (Grimm 1975), French (SabeauJouannet 1977), and Hebrew (Dromi 1979); (iii) an experimental study of the acquisition of temporal adverbs in Spanish (Galván 1980); and (iv) a naturalistic study of the acquisition of temporal adverbs in Spanish (González 1980). 4.3.2

Second language data

Second language data are based on naturalistic and experimental studies, as follows: (i) naturalistic and experimental studies of the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English, French, and German by adult immigrants in the U.S. and Europe (Carroll et al. 1993; Schumann 1986); and (ii) a naturalistic and experimental study of the acquisition of temporal adverbs in English and French by adult immigrants in Europe (Klein et al. 1993).


4.4 Spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in first and second language acquisition This section discusses developments in the acquisition of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs by young children and immigrant adults, to provide evidence for the hierarchies of natural morphological markedness presented later. The data employed in the present study will be referred to in the discussion of relevant phenomena. I draw together both spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs. The reason is that space expressions (e.g. long, short, far, near, front, back, etc.) and time expressions (e.g. long, short, near, before, after, ahead, behind, etc.) overlap considerably in the languages discussed in this paper because, as H. Clark (1973: 52) writes, ‘. . . descriptions of time appear to be based on a spatial metaphor in which time is viewed as a single dimensional, asymetric continuum, running horizontally from front to back through the speaker.’ First, we will examine the acquisition of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs by young children speaking various languages. 4.4.1

Spatial prepositions in child language

The survey of the literature regarding spatial prepositions in child language includes spatial prepositions in such diverse languages as English, French, Italian, German, Serbo-Croatian, Turkish, and Hebrew. Table 4.1 displays spatial prepositions considered in the literature on child language. 4.4.1.1

English

Brown (1973: 330) found that children put in cups, ashtrays, boxes, and the like even where the experimenter said put on. Similarly, Tomasello’s (1987: 85) naturalistic study of his daughter Travis aged 1;0–1;1, found ‘several instances where T used in where an adult would have used on. . . .’ E. V. Clark’s (1973) experimental study of 70 children aged 1;6–5;0 found that younger children always seem to understand in correctly, sometimes seem to understand on, and never seem to understand under. Similarly, Grieve et al.’s (1977) experimental study of 14 children aged 2;3 and 3;4 (mean ages) found that in and on are acquired together, while under is acquired after in and on.

in on –* – under top bottom back

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

beside between over – –

(10) BESIDE (11) BETWEEN

(12) OVER (13) ALONG (14) THROUGH

– – –

à coté (de) entre

–

dans sur – – sous – – –

French

– lungo attraverso

vicino (a) –

davanti (a)

in, nel, dentro su, sopra – – sotto – – dietro (a)

Italian

– – –

– –

–

im auf in bei, an – – – –

German

– – –

u, unutra na/nad – – pod, ispod – – iza, izada, natrag, otraga pred, ispred, spreda, osprijeda, napred blizu, kraj, kala, kod medu, iznedu

Serbo-Croatian

yaninda ortasinda, arasinda – – –

anünde

icinde üstünde – – altinda – – arkasinda

Turkish

– – –

al-yad –

–

be al – – mitaxat le – – meaxorei

Hebrew

* – means that I have no data on these prepositions. No research on these prepositions has been done to the best of my knowledge.

front

(9) FRONT

IN ON INTO AT UNDER TOP BOTTOM BACK

English

Type

Table 4.1 Spatial prepositions in child language

60


E. V. Clark’s (1980) study of 36 children aged 3;3 and 4;4 (mean ages) found that children seem to understand only top correct, then seem to understand both top and bottom correct, and finally seem to understand front and back as well. Cox’s (1979: 373) experimental study of 197 children aged 2;2–8;10 found that ‘. . . consensus about the meaning of behind is achieved earlier than agreement on the meaning of in front of ’; likewise, Durkin’s (1981: 49) experimental study of the acquisition of the front/behind contrast by more than 40 children aged 3;10–7;10 found that ‘. . . a subjectively oriented response for behind was the most common.’ Similarly, Levine & Carey’s (1982) experimental study of 36 children aged 2 to 3 years old found that back is comprehended before front. Washington & Naremore’s (1978) experimental study of 80 children aged 3;2–4;8 (mean age) found that children consistently acquire spatial prepositions in this order: in, on, under, behind, front, beside, between, over. Yet, Johnston & Slobin’s (1979) experimental study of 48 children aged 2;0–4;8 found that their subjects consistently acquired spatial prepositions in this order: in, on, under, beside, between, front, back. Note that in Johnston & Slobin’s study beside and between are acquired before front and back while in Washington & Naremore’s study the reverse is true. Washington & Naremore’s order of acquisition is supported by the literature. Although Johnston & Slobin are right in claiming that in, on, under are acquired in that order, their claim that English-speaking children always acquire beside before front and back seems unwarranted, since in Kuczaj & Maratsos’ (1975: 202) study of 45 children aged 4.6 (mean age), beside is acquired well after front/back.

4.4.1.2

French

Sabeau-Jouannet’s (1977) naturalistic study of 10 children aged 2- to 5-years old found that children understand and produce dans ‘in’ before they understand and produce the sur/sous ‘on’/‘under’ distinction. Piérart’s (1975) experimental study of 192 children aged 3;0–9;11 found that children substitute dans ‘in’ for entre ‘between’, and they also substitute à coté (de) ‘beside’ for entre ‘between’.


4.4.1.3

Italian

Parisi and Antinucci’s (1970) experimental study of 40 Italian children aged 5;8 and 7;6 (mean age) and 20 adults found that attraverso ‘through’ and lungo ‘along’ were acquired well after dietro ‘behind’, davanti ‘in front of’, sotto ‘below’, and sopra ‘above’, and the latter spatial prepositions were acquired well after in ‘in’ and su ‘on’. Similarly, Johnston & Slobin’s (1979) study of 48 Italian children aged 2;0–4;8 found that children consistently acquire space prepositions in this order: in/nel/dentro ‘in’, sopra/su ‘on’, sotto ‘under’, vicino (a) ‘beside’, dietro (a) ‘back’, davanti (a) ‘front’. 4.4.1.4

German

Grimm’s (1975) experimental and naturalistic study of 115 preschoolers aged 2;7–5;11 and 22 first-graders found that German children substitute im ‘in’ for auf ‘on’ and in ‘into’, bei ‘at’ for auf ‘on’ and in ‘into’, and an ‘at’ for auf ‘on’. 4.4.1.5

Turkish

Johnston & Slobin’s (1979) experimental study of 48 Turkish children aged 2;0–4;8 found that children consistently acquired spatial prepositions in this order: icinde ‘in’, üstünde ‘on’, altinda ‘under’, yaninda ‘beside’, arkasinda ‘back’, änünde ‘front’, ortasinda/arasinda ‘between’. 4.4.1.6

Serbo-Croatian

Johnston & Slobin’s (1979) experimental study of 48 Serbo-Croatian children found that they consistently acquired spatial prepositions in this order: na/nad ‘on’, u/unutra ‘in’, blizu/kraj/kala/kod ‘beside’, pod/ispod ‘under’, iza/izada/natrag/otraga ‘back’, medu/iznedu ‘between’, pred/ispred/spreda/osprijeda/napred ‘front’. 4.4.1.7

Hebrew

Dromi’s (1979) study of 30 Israeli children aged 2;0–3;0 found that children consistently acquire spatial prepositions in Hebrew in this order: be- ‘in’, al ‘on’, al-yad ‘beside’, meaxorei ‘behind’, mitaxat le ‘under’.


4.4.2

Temporal adverbs in child language

Below I discuss the development of temporal adverbs ya/horita ‘now’, antes ‘before’, and después ‘after’ in child language of Mexican Spanish. González’s (1980: 36) naturalistic study of four Mexican Spanishspeaking children aged 2;0–4;6 concludes that ya and horita ‘now’ are the most common temporal adverbs by far. Galván’s (1980: 223) experimental study of 66 Mexican children aged 5 to 16 years old found that young children initially acquire correctly only antes ‘before’, and then acquire correctly both antes ‘before’ and después ‘after’. In sum, the analysis of the experimental and naturalistic child language acquisition data reveals that spatial prepositions are usually acquired in this order: in, on, under, top, bottom, back, front, beside, between, over. However, a close look at the Serbo-Croatian-speaking and Hebrew-speaking children reveals that children do not always acquire spatial prepositions in that order. As we have seen, SerboCroatian children acquire ‘on’ (na/nad) before they acquire ‘in’ (u/unutra), and they acquire ‘front’ (pred/ispred/spreda/osprijeda/ napred) well after acquiring most other spatial prepositions. Similarly, Israeli children acquire ‘under’ (mitaxat le) only after acquiring all other space prepositions. The reason is that u/unutra, pred/ispred/ spreda/osprijeda/napred, and mitaxat le are highly markered, that is they bear additional markers (see Section 4.2). The analysis of experimental and naturalistic studies on the acquisition of temporal adverbs in Spanish reveals that young children consistently acquire temporal adverbs in this order: now, before, after. The data also reveals that young children do not produce complex temporal adverbs (e.g. already, not yet, etc.). The next two sections cover the acquisition of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs by second language learners, specifically by adult immigrants in Europe and the U.S. 4.4.3

Spatial prepositions in second language acquisition

Research on the acquisition of spatial prepositions by immigrants in Europe and the U.S. covers languages such as English, French, and German. Table 4.2 displays spatial prepositions in second language acquisition for these languages.


Table 4.2 Spatial prepositions in second language acquisition Type

English

French

German

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

in on at side under over in top in front in the back in the right – –

– – – – – – en haut en face de – à droite à coté (de) en bas

– auf – – unter uber – – – – Seite –

IN ON AT SIDE UNDER OVER IN TOP IN FRONT IN THE BACK IN THE RIGHT BESIDE BOTTOM

4.4.3.1

English

Schumann’s (1986: 280) naturalistic and experimental study of Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish basilang (i.e. foreigner talk) speakers of English in the U.S. found that initially all immigrants substitute zero for in and on (e.g. a Chinese speaker might say, you know Hiong Giong eveyting faydon, you understand! ‘in Hong Kong everyone has freedom’). Further, he found that Spanish speakers also substitute in for at and on, and they also substitute in(side) for under. The complexity of the English system is an adequate reason for these changes in interlanguage grammar; for instance, the Spanish speaker’s tendency to substitute prepositions can be seen as a natural move toward semantic transparency. Carroll et al.’s (1993: 129–33) naturalistic and experimental study of foreigner talk by Punjabi, Turkish, Arabic, and Spanish speakers acquiring English as adults in Great Britain found that they consistently acquired spatial relationships in this order: there, inside, in, in top/in front/in the back/in the right. Note that they all substitute in for on. 4.4.3.2

French

Carroll et al. (1993: 129–33) investigated foreigner talk in French as well (see above; see Faingold 1995c). They found that foreigners in France consistently acquired spatial relationships in this order:


là ‘there’, côté de ‘beside’, en haut/en bas/en face de/droite/gauche ‘in top’/‘bottom’/‘in front of’/‘right’/‘left’. 4.4.3.3

German

Carroll et al. (1993: 129–33) investigated foreigner talk in German as well. They found that foreigners consistently acquired German spatial prepositions in this order: da ‘there’, Seite ‘beside’, auf ‘on’, uber/unter ‘over’/‘under’. 4.4.4

Temporal adverbs in second language acquisition

Below I discuss the acquisition of temporal adverbs by adult immigrants in Great Britain (now, before, after, again, still, yet, already) and France (maintenant ‘now’, alors ‘then’, après ‘afterwards’, toujours ‘always’, jamais ‘never’, encore ‘again’, déjà ‘already’, pas encore ‘not yet’, ne plus ‘no longer’). 4.4.4.1

English

Klein et al.’s (1993) study of foreigner talk by native speakers of Punjabi, Turkish, and Italian learning English in Great Britain found that the foreigners first used deictic and anaphoric temporal adverbs now, before/after, and only later acquired more complex temporal adverbs, such as again, still, yet, already. 4.4.4.2

French

Klein et al. (1993) investigated foreigner talk in French as well. They found that foreigners in France first used deictic and anaphoric temporal adverbs maintenant ‘now’, alors ‘then’, après ‘afterwards’, and so on, and only later did they acquire more complex structures, such as encore ‘again’, déjà ‘already’, pas encore ‘not yet’, ne plus ‘no longer’. In sum, the analysis of the second language acquisition data reveals that adult immigrants learning a second language consistently acquire spatial relationships in this order: zero/there, in, at, on, under, top/back/front/right. The data reveals also that foreigners first acquire deictic and anaphoric temporal adverbs, such as now, then, after, and so on, and only later learn more complex time adverbs, such as already, not yet, no longer, and so on. In this sense, unlike children, adult foreigners follow the principle of markeredness and constructional iconicity


discussed in Section 4.2, because the least-markered structures are consistently acquired before the more markered by these learners.

4.5 Spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in developmental morphology In this section I account for the natural morphological developments described in Section 4.4. 4.5.1

Developing a hierarchy of markedness

In this section I apply the model of markedness discussed above to explain the development of prepositions and adverbs in first and second language acquisition. I reveal hierarchies of markedness that account for the development of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs. The hierarchy of markedness for the development of spatial prepositions is Hierarchy 1: Hierarchy 1 Spatial prepositions: ‘over’ 傻 ‘between’ 傻 ‘beside’ 傻 ‘front’/‘in front of’/‘back’/‘behind’ 傻 ‘top’/‘bottom’ 傻 ‘under’ 傻 ‘on’ 傻 ‘in’ (the more marked implies the less marked). The hierarchy of markedness to account for the development of temporal adverbs is Hierarchy 2: Hierarchy 2 Temporal adverbs: ‘again’/‘already’/‘yet’/‘no longer’ 傻 ‘after’ 傻 ‘before’ 傻 ‘now’ (the more marked implies the less marked). The ranking in the hierarchy follows from the criteria for identifying marked structures and mechanisms of development in Section 4.2 (see also, Chapter 1). The selected criteria follow. 4.5.1.1

Markedness criteria for Hierarchy 1 (spatial prepositions)

Markedness criteria in the construction of Hierarchy 1 includes: (i) Child language, (ii) Second language acquisition, (iii) Crossfield correspondences, (iv) Frequency, (v) Neutralization, and (vi) Markeredness and constructional iconicity. Hierarchy 1 complies with six criteria in Section 4.2: (i) Child language The elements in Hierarchy 1 are acquired by children in this order: in, on, under, top/bottom, back/behind/front/in front of, beside, between, over.


(ii) Second language acquisition The elements in Hierarchy 1 are acquired by adult immigrants learning a second language in this order: in, at, on, under, top/front/back/right. (iii) Crossfield correspondences The development of Hierarchy 1 in second language acquisition mirrors the early acquisition of the same structures in child language. (iv) Frequency In Hierarchy 1, the least-marked elements (in, on) are the most frequently used by children and adults alike. (v) Neutralization In Hierarchy 1, children neutralize in and at (vs on), in and at (vs between), at (vs into) in English, French, and German; the least-marked forms in and at are retained. (vi) Markeredness and constructional iconicity The unmarked elements in Hierarchy 1 are not highly markered in English, French, German, and Italian. However, this principle is violated in morphologically-rich languages such as Serbo-Croatian and Hebrew because the unmarked structures in, under are highly markered in these languages (Serbo-Croatian unutra ‘in’, Hebrew mitaxat le ‘under’); in these languages, the order of acquisition is reversed because children tend to show a strong bias toward unmarkered elements.

4.5.1.2

Markedness criteria for Hierarchy 2 (temporal adverbs)

Markedness criteria in the construction of Hierarchy 2 includes: (i) Child language, (ii) Second language acquisition, (iii) Crossfield correspondences, (iv) Frequency, and (v) Neutralization. Hierarchy 2 complies with five of the criteria in Section 4.2: (i) Child language The elements in Hierarchy 2 are acquired by children in this order: now, before, after and only much later do they produce complex adverbs, such as yet, no longer, and so on. (ii) Second language acquisition In Hierarchy 2, adult immigrants acquire first deictic and anaphoric adverbs now/then/after, and only later such complex adverbs as already/not yet/no longer. (iii) Crossfield correspondences The development of Hierarchy 2 in second language acquisition mirrors the early acquisition of the same hierarchy by children because deictic and anaphoric terms are acquired early and imply the presence of more complex temporal adverbs such as already, not yet, no longer.


(iv) Frequency In Hierarchy 2, the least-marked element (now) is the most frequently used time adverb by young children. (v) Neutralization In Hierarchy 2, adult immigrants in Great Britain neutralize [not] now (vs no longer); the less-marked form now is retained. 4.5.2


As in other chapters in this book (see also, Faingold 1996b), explanation is non-autonomous in this chapter. In explaining linguistic development, we bring into account evidence from other human and scientific disciplines (biology, psychology, history, etc.). In certain instances, more formal explanations are invoked as well in terms of innate knowledge. These explanations may be given in terms of theoretical constructs, which remain to be explained by biological or sociocommunicational reality.

4.6


In this chapter, I have studied correspondences in the development of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in first and second language acquisition, with the purpose of revealing universals of markedness. This study revealed a hierarchy of spatial prepositions in first and second language acquisition (from less to more marked): in, on, under, top/bottom, back/behind/front/in front of, beside, between, over; it also revealed a hierarchy of temporal adverbs in these domains (from less to more marked): now, before, after, again/already, yet, no longer. As noted in this chapter, adults experience the same cognitive difficulties as children in the acquisition of prepositions and adverbs. It is also possible, as my student Tracy Carlson noted at a seminar I taught at the University of Tulsa, that people would benefit from learning some words early because these words are used frequently and are more necessary for daily communication. For example, it may be the case that people talk more about the ‘here’ and ‘now’, or how things are found ‘on’, say, a table, than they talk about accomplished actions with ‘already’ or how things are found ‘beyond’ reach. I have discussed complex phenomena that support the hypothesis that least-marked forms occur early, are more resistant to


neutralization, and are more natural. In this sense, natural constraints tend to be unidirectional. In contrast, under certain linguistic conditions (e.g. violations of the principle of markeredness and constructional iconicity), children fail to acquire such unmarked grams as in front, under in the highly markered morphological systems found in Serbo-Croatian and Hebrew. Admittedly, for methodological reasons (see Section 4.3), the conclusions in this study must await further support from future studies covering languages other than those discussed in this Book.

5 Subjunctive Verbs: A Result of Natural Grammatical Processes in First Language Acquisition, Second Language Learning, Language Variation, and Language History

5.1

Introduction

This chapter shows that less-marked structures are acquired earlier by children and tend to be the basis of neutralization and analogical change in child language, as well as in second language learning, language variation, and historical change. I search for parallels in the acquisition, learning, variation, and history of mood in Spanish and French; I will construct a hierarchy of markedness explaining the development of mood in all these linguistic areas and language systems. The issues discussed in this chapter with reference to child language, second language learning, language variation, and language history will be presented first. These data are then used to provide evidence in support of the model of markedness presented in Chapter 1 to account for the natural development of mood.

5.2

Applying the developmental model of markedness

The model of markedness (Bailey 1996; Mayerthaler 1988) presented in Chapter 1 is employed in this chapter as we consider the develop70

Subjunctive Verbs 71

ment of mood. For instance, with regard to neutralization, where the less-marked form survives, children fail to acquire and adults neutralize the distinction between the indicative and subjunctive moods. The least-marked indicatives survive, as we will see in Section 5.4.

5.3

Sources of data

The database for this study includes: (i) experimental data collected from adult speakers of English who are learning Spanish, as well as from adult native-speakers of Spanish, including students and faculty at the State University of New York and students at the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina); (ii) data from child-language case studies reported in the literature; and (iii) historical and variation data derived from published grammars and research studies. 5.3.1 Experimental data from English speakers learning Spanish Native speakers of English taking beginning Spanish were taught the use of the Spanish subjunctive at the State University of New York. After a month and without the students reviewing the material, I gave 62 students an anonymous questionnaire containing sentences in which use of the present and past subjunctive is obligatory (see Appendices 1 and 2). 5.3.2

Experimental data from native speakers of Spanish

The same anonymous questionnaire employed to study the use of the present and past subjunctive by English speakers learning Spanish was given to 15 native speakers of Spanish (professors and doctoral students of Spanish language and literature at the State University of New York). The same questionnaire was also given to 30 adult native speakers of Spanish at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina. 5.3.3

Child language case studies

Data from child language case studies are based on sources reported in the literature, as follows: (i) Grégoire’s (1947) naturalistic study on the acquisition of French in Liège (Belgium) by his own children, aged four and five; (ii) Remacle’s (1966) naturalistic study of the acquisition of Belgian French by his own four daughters; and (iii) Blake’s (1980) experimental study on the acquisition of the


subjunctive mood by 184 Spanish-speaking Mexican children, aged 4 to 12. Blake showed his subjects a set of pictures with sentences that required a choice of either the indicative or the subjunctive mood verb; the sentences contained six categories: doubt, attitude, assertion, commands, adjectivals, and adverbials. 5.3.4

Published grammars and research studies

Data on historical change and language variation in Spanish and French are derived from sources reported in the literature: (i) present and past subjunctives of French dialects in France (Cohen 1965) and Belgium (Pohl 1962) as well as in the history of French (Haase 1965); and (ii) present and past subjunctives in modern Latin American Spanish (Argentina, Colombia, Mexico), North American Spanish (Los Angeles, New Mexico), and Iberian Spanish (Catinelli 1985; Donni de Mirande 1968; Farley 1960; Goldin 1974; Kempff 1993; Lope Blanch 1958; Salaun 1972; Silva-Corvalán 1993).

5.4 The acquisition, learning, variation, and history of mood Using data from Spanish and French, this section deals with the development of mood in first language acquisition, second language learning, language variation, and history. Table 5.1 displays Spanish subjunctives. Table 5.1 shows regular present and past, both perfect and imperfect, Spanish subjunctive forms of the verb trabajar ‘to work’ (Catinelli 1985; Donni de Mirande 1968; Farley 1970; Vidal de Battini 1949). Table 5.2 displays French subjunctives, specifically, regular present and past, both perfect and imperfect, French subjunctive forms of the verb aimer ‘to love’. 5.4.1

Mood in child language

This section shows errors children make in the acquisition of the subjunctive mood in Spanish and French. Young children always use the less-marked indicative instead of the more-marked subjunctive. In this section, data are derived from child language case studies reported in the literature in Spanish and French (see Section 5.3.3). Tables 5.3 and 5.4 display early developments in the acquisition of French and Spanish mood.


Table 5.1 The subjunctive in modern Spanish

1st person

2nd person

3rd person

a b

Tenses

Singular

Plural

Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (Imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (pluperfect)b

trabaje trabajara – trabajase

trabajemos trabajaramos – trabajasemos hayamos

Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (Imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (Pluperfect)b Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (Imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (Pluperfect)b

haya hubiera – hubiese

hubieramos – hubiesemos

trabajes trabajaras – trabajases

trabajeis trabajarais – trabajaseis hayais

hayas hubieras – hubieses

hubierais – hubieseis

trabaje trabajara – trabajase

trabajen trabajaran – trabajasen hayan

haya hubiera – hubiese

hubieran – hubiesen

⫹ past participle (e.g. trabajando, comido, vivido). ⫹ past participle (see ‘present perfect subjunctive’ above).

In Table 5.3, French-speaking children avoid the subjunctive (item (1)), exhibit the infinitive instead of the subjunctive (sentence (2)) and, more often, use the indicative in place of the present and past subjunctive (sentences (3)–(5)). The subjunctive is lost here. French-speaking children prefer the indicative or the infinitive to the subjunctive. Similarly, in items (1)–(4) in Table 5.4, Spanish-speaking children exhibit the less-marked indicative in place of the more-marked adult subjunctive in constructions indicating doubt (example (1)) and attitude (example (2)) as well as in adjectivals (example (3)) and commands (example (4)).


Table 5.2 The subjunctive in modern French

1st Person

2nd Person

3rd Person

a b

Tenses

Singular

Plural

Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (pluperfect)b

aime aimasse

aimions aimassions

aie

ayons

eusse

eussions

aimes aimasses

aimiez aimassiez

aies

ayez

eusses

eussiez

aime aimât

aiment aimassent

ait

aient

eût

eussent

Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (pluperfect)b Present subjunctive Past subjunctive (imperfect) Present perfect subjunctivea Past perfect subjunctive (pluperfect)b

⫹ past participle (e.g. aimé, dormi, conduit, etc.). ⫹ past participle (see ‘Present perfect subjunctive’ above).

Table 5.3 Language acquisition: subjunctive in French-speaking children aged 3, 4, and 5 (Grégoire 1947; Remacle 1966) Children aged 3 (Grégoire 1947: 117–18) (1) Avoidance of the subjunctive (2) Use of the infinitive, ‘pour’ ⫹ infinitive instead of ‘pour que’ ⫹ subjunctive pour zeter (‘pour jeter’) (⬍ pour qu’il jette) (3) Use of the indicative after ‘pour que’ Pour qu’il n’tombait pas (⬍ tombât) Children aged 4 and 5 (Remacle 1966: 303–4) The indicative (1) Je voudrais que vous portez la voiture. (⬍ portiez) (2) Je n’aime pas que tu vas à l’école. (⬍ ailles) (3) Voudrais bien que tu mets les pieds joints. (⬍ mettes) (4) Tu veux bien que je vais aller prendre quelque chose? (⬍ aille) (5) Faudrais qu’je défais 5. (⬍ défasse)


Table 5.4 Language acquisition: subjunctive in Spanish-speaking children aged 4 to 12 (Blake 1980: 75–148) Children aged 4 to 6 (1) Mamá duda que el niño . . . (doubt) (2) Mamá tiene miedo que papá . . . (attitude) (3) Para que . . . (adjectivals) (4) Quiero que tu . . . (command)

5.4.2

Mood in second language learning

Recent work by Pishwa (1989, 1991), as well as earlier work by Eckmann (1977) and his associates (Benson 1986; Fellbaum 1986), demonstrates the relevance of data from second language learning for the discovery of markedness values (see further, Andersen 1983; Wode 1983). In this section, I show errors that English-speaking adults make in learning the Spanish subjunctive. A questionnaire containing sentences in which the use of the subjunctive is obligatory was given to two groups of English-speaking students taking beginning Spanish at the State University of New York (Appendices 1 and 2). Table 5.5 displays substitutions in the Spanish classroom (see Section 5.3.1). As is detailed in Table 5.5, English speakers learning Spanish exhibit (i) the less-marked infinitive and, more often, the present indicative, as well as other structures, in place of the more-marked present subjunctive in 79.5 per cent (first group) and 60 per cent (second group) of the cases where the present subjunctive is obligatory, and in (ii) they show the less-marked present subjunctive, the infinitive, the present indicative, the future, and, more often, the past indicative, as well as other structures, for the more-marked past subjunctive in 94 per cent (first group) and 89 per cent (second group) of the cases where the more-marked past subjunctive is obligatory. 5.4.3

Mood in language variation

In this section I examine subjunctive neutralization in language variation in Belgian and Parisian French and in Latin American and Iberian dialects of Spanish. In this section, data are derived from sources in the literature (see Section 5.3.4) and from experimental data from native speakers of Spanish (see Section 5.3.2).


Table 5.5 Subjunctive neutralization in 2nd language learning: English speakers learning Spanish First group (Spring 1993) (i) Present subjunctivea Present subjunctive Present indicative Infinitive *Others

179 390 13 292

Total

874

(ii) Past subjunctiveb Past subjunctive Past indicative Present indicative Present subjunctive Infinitive Future Others

52 261 63 138 7 7 346

Total

874

Second group (Fall 1993) (i) Present subjunctivec Present subjunctive Present indicative Others

220 93 238

Total

551

(ii) Past subjunctived Past subjunctive Past indicative Present indicative Present subjunctive Infinitive Future Conditional Others

60 141 35 122 1 19 19 154

Total

551

Rate of errors – a 79.5 per cent; b 94 per cent; c 60 per cent; d 89 per cent. * Others refers to errors that could not be identified as any conjugation in Spanish.


5.4.3.1

Belgian and Parisian French

Tables 5.6(a) and (b) display substitutions in France and Belgium. In Tables 5.6(a) and (b), Belgian and Parisian French exhibit the lessmarked conditional (sentences (2)–(5)), futuritive (sentences (6)–(9)), and, most often, indicative (sentences (1), (10)–(28)) instead of the more-marked present and past subjunctive.

Table 5.6 Language variation: subjunctive neutralization in French (Cohen 1965; Pohl 1962) (a) Subjunctive neutralization in France (Cohen 1965: 190–1) (i) The indicative (1) . . . à moins qu’il vient. (⬍ vienne) (ii) The conditional (2) Je viendrai à moins qu’il pleuvrait. (⬍ pleuve) (3) Je lui aurais parlé, à moins qu’il n’aurait pas été là. (⬍ ait) (b) Subjunctive neutralization in Belgium (Pohl 1962) (i) The conditional (p. 87) (4) Il faudrait que tu regarderais s’ils sont faits. (⬍ regardes) (5) Je voudrais bien qu’il me donnerait du charbon. (⬍ donne) (ii) The simple future (p. 88, 100) (6) Nous sommes assez tard, pourvu qu’il sera patient. (⬍ soit) (7) Vous n’devez pas craindr’que ce schéma rest’ra tel. (⬍ reste) (iii) The periphrastic future (p. 88) (8) Tout le monde a peur qu’il va attraper une attaque. (⬍ attrape) (9) On avait commandé ça pour qu’il devait rentrer. (⬍ rentre) (iv) The indicative (a) Influence and obligation (pp. 91–2) (10) Je voudrais qu’elle prend une fois quinze jours. (⬍ prenne) (11) Il ne veut pas qu’on contredit ses ordres. (⬍ contredise) (12) Il ne voulait pas que maman sorte. (⬍ sort) (b) after ‘pour que’, ‘pourvu que’, ‘avant que’, ‘jusqu’a ce que’ (pp. 92–3) (13) qu’elle tâche de tirer son plan pour qu’on se remet. (⬍ remette) (14) pourvu qu’elle est chauffée, c’est le principal. (⬍ soit chauffée) (15) de manière à ce que je sais. (⬍ sache) (16) avant que tu pars, donne-moi de l’argent. (⬍ partes) (17) jusqu’à ce que tu verras. (⬍ voies) (c) expectation, wish, desire (p. 94) (18) j’attends que ça s’éclaircit. (⬍ éclaircisse) (19) Je souhaite de tout mon coeur, qu’elle est remise de ses émotions . . . (⬍ soit)


Table 5.6 (Continued) (d) impersonal expressions showing incertitude (20) C’est bizarre qu’on n’a toujours pas vu le journal. (⬍ ait vu) (21) il est bien regrettable que vous n’avez pas pu aboutir. (⬍ ayez pu) (e) after ‘à moins que’ (pp. 94–5) (22) à moins que le jeune homme sait le monter. (⬍ sache) (23) à moins qu’elle est ici. (⬍ soit) (f) after ‘non que’, ‘malgré que’, ‘quoique’, and so on (p. 95) (24) . . . quoique, elle m’a fait un petit mot. (⬍ ait fait) (25) non qu’elle avait des explications à me demander. (⬍ eût) (g) emotion (pp. 95–6) (27) Hé bien ! je suis content que ma pendule est faite. (⬍ soit faite) (28) je n’aime pas que ça va trop vite. (⬍ aille)

5.4.3.2

Latin American and Iberian dialects of Spanish

Table 5.7 presents cases of language variation and neutralization in Modern Spanish. The examples are taken from four different studies and show that Spanish speakers hypothesize, express desires and wishes, and so on, in the indicative instead of the subjunctive. In Table 5.7, Latin American and Iberian Spanish speakers show variation and substitute the less-marked future (sentences (11), (15)–(18)), present (sentences (1)–(3), (7), (9), (12), (19)–(23)), and present-perfect indicative (sentences (2)–(13)) for the more-marked present and present-perfect subjunctive; they also substitute the lessmarked past indicative for the more-marked past subjunctive (sentences (5)–(6), (8), (10), (14)). Table 5.8(a) shows data collected from native Spanish speakers from various countries who were faculty members and doctoral students in the Spanish department of SUNY-Stony Brook. Note that the speakers substitute the less-marked infinitive (sentences (1), (6)) and the indefinite (sentence (12)) for the more-marked present subjunctive in 2.6 per cent of the cases where the present subjunctive is obligatory (see Table 5.8(b)). As with child language and second language learning data, the speakers neutralize the past subjunctive: in 13.8 per cent of the cases where the past subjunctive is obligatory, they substitute the less-marked present-perfect subjunctive (sentences (4)–(5)), past-perfect subjunctive (sentences (2)–(3)), past indicative


Table 5.7 Language variation: subjunctive neutralization in modern Latin American and Iberian Spanish (Goldin 1974; Lope Blanch 1958; Salaun 1972; Silva-Corvalán 1993) Latin America and Spain (Goldin 1974: 300) (i) Present subjunctive – indicative (1)a Me alegro que esté aqui. (1)b Me alegro que está aqui. (ii) Present perfect subjunctive – indicative (2)a Es una lástima que haya ido. (2)b Es una lástima que ha ido. Madrid (Salaun 1972: 15) (iii) Present indicative (3) Si quisieran escucharme les digo la verdad. (⬍ diría?) (iv) Past indicative (4) canté replaces cantaran Mexico (Lope Blanch 1958) (a) Emotion (p. 383) (5) Estoy muy satisfecha de que supo terminarlo el solo. (⬍ supiera) (6) No lo puedo remediar: me da coraje que lo hizo sin mi permiso. (⬍ hiciera) (b) Possibility (p. 384) (7) Habiendo la posibilidad de que el producto protege al niño tocado por el virus. (⬍ proteja) (8) Es muy probable que el crimen fue cometido dos horas despues de que . . . (⬍ fuera) (c) Doubt and negation (p. 384) (9) No creo que lo saben. (⬍ sepan) (10) Niegan que se efectuó una violación de los derechos individuales. (⬍ efectuara) (d) Relative phrases (p. 384) (11) Los elementos del PRI se disciplinarán a los acuerdos que tomará la proxima convención. (⬍ tome) (12) Deberán presentar el visto bueno por medio del que se haga constar que el aparato de que se trata no ofrece ningún peligro. (⬍ trate?) Spain (Lope Blanch 1958: 384) (13) Mucho me alegra que no ha caido en el vacío mi escrito. (⬍ haya caido) (14) y aunque no hay noticias concretas, lo probable es que murió en Alcalá de Henares. (⬍ muriera) Spain and Mexico (Lope Blanch 1958: 385) (v) Present subjunctive – future indicative (15)a Es posible que llueva. (15)b Posiblemente lloverá.


Table 5.7 (Continued) (16)a (16)b (17)a (17)b (18)a (18)b

Es probable que haya terminado. Probablemente lo terminó. No creo que vuelva. No creo que volverá. El libro que proximamente escriba, sera mejor. El libro que proximamente escribiré, sera mejor.

Los Angeles (U.S.) (Silva-Corvalán 1993) (19) Lo voy a dejar hasta que se cae. (⬍ caiga) (20) Quiero viajar por muchas partes hasta que me caso. (⬍ case) New Mexico (U.S.) (de la Puente-Schubeck 1991) (21) Juan busca a alguien que pueden ayudarle. (⬍ pueda) (22) Luisa dice que va a ver a Carlos esta noche despues de que sus papas van a dormir (⬍ vayan) (23) Los padres quieren que sus hijos están alegres. (⬍ estén)

Table 5.8 Subjunctive neutralization in modern Latin American and Iberian Spanish (Faingold 1998b) (a) Subjunctive neutralization data from Spanish speakers in a Department of Spanish* (Faingold 1998b) Argentina (1 speaker) (i) Present subjunctive of ‘ir’ ⫹ infinitive, past perfect subjunctive – present, past subjunctive, after certain conjunctions Examples: (1) Que hacemos en caso de que no vaya a venir pedro? (cf. (19) Appendix 1) (⬍ venga) (2) No fui al partido de fútbol a menos que hubiera jugado Maradona. (cf. (17), Appendix 2) (⬍ jugara) (3) Que hicimos en caso de que no hubiera venido Pedro? (cf. (19) Appendix 2) (⬍ viniera) (ii) Present perfect subjunctive – past subjunctive with emotion Examples: (4) No fue posible que hayan pedido tanto dinero de alquiler. (cf. (1) Appendix 2) (⬍ pidieran) (5) Dudé que hayas tenido un buen automovil. (cf. (2) Appendix 2) (⬍ tuvieras) Spain (4 speakers) (i) Infinitive after certain conjunctions Examples: (6) Antes de comprar las entradas pregunta si juega Maradona. (cf. (18) Appendix 1) (⬍ compres) (7) No fue posible pedir tanto dinero de alquiler. (cf. (1) Appendix 2) (⬍ pidieran)


(ii) Ungrammatical with denial (cf. (11) Appendix 2) (iii) Past subjunctive – indicative with doubt Example: (8) No creí que el coche estaba en buenas condiciones. (cf. (3) Appendix 2) (⬍ estuviera) (iv) Ungrammatical after certain conjunctions Examples: (a) (9) ⫽ (17) Appendix 2 (2 speakers) (b) (10) ⫽ (19) Appendix 2 (3 speakers) (c) (11) ⫽ (18) Appendix 2 (all 4 speakers) Venezuela (1 speaker) (i) Indefinite construction after indefinite antecedent Example: (12) Busco un restaurante donde se sirva comida mexicana auténtica. (⬍ sirvan) (ii) Ungrammatical after certain conjunctions Example: (13) ⫽ (17) Appendix 1 Colombia (1 speaker) (i) Imperfect after indefinite antecedent Example: (14) Busqué un restaurante donde servían comida mexicana auténtica. (cf. (15) Appendix 2) (⬍ sirvieran) (ii) Infinitive after certain conjunctions Example: (15) Antes de comprar las entradas preguntó si jugaba Maradona. (cf. (18) Appendix 2) (iii) Ungrammatical after certain conjunctions Examples: (a) (16) ⫽ (17) Appendix 2 (b) (17) ⫽ (18) Appendix 2 USA (1 speaker) (i) Imperfect after emotion Example: (18) Temí que mi auto tenía algo serio. (cf. (4) Appendix 2) (⬍ tuviera) (ii) Preterite after certain conjunctions Example: (19) Que hicimos en caso que no vino Pedro? (⬍ viniera) Undeclared (1 speaker) This speaker refused to complete the questionnaire. Because the present writer left out a few accents, the interviewee declared ‘the investigator should study Spanish before he dares to study the subjunctive . . . ’, ‘I refuse to collaborate for this reason . . . ’, and so on.


Table 5.8 (Continued) (b) Subjunctive neutralization in a Spanish language department (i) Present subjunctivea Present subjunctive Infinitive Indefinite Total

148 3 1 152

subjunctiveb

(ii) Past Past subjunctive Present perfect subjunctive Past perfect subjunctive Past indicative Present indicative Infinitive Others Total

131 2 2 3 1 4 9 152

* See Appendices 1 and 2. Rate of errors – a 2.6 per cent; b 13.8 per cent.

Table 5.9 Subjunctive neutralization in Argentine Spanish (Faingold 1998b) (i) Present subjunctivea Present subjunctive Present indicative Present perfect subjunctive Infinitive Others Total

446 3 1 3 3 456

subjunctiveb

(ii) Past Past subjunctive Past indicative Past perfect subjunctive Present perfect subjunctive Present indicative Present subjunctive Conditional Infinitive Others Total Rate of errors – a 2 per cent; b 35 per cent.

296 16 20 66 1 7 5 1 44 456


(sentences (8), (14), (18)), present indicative (sentence (19)), and infinitive (sentences (7), (15)) for the more marked past subjunctive. In Table 5.9, I show results regarding the use of the subjunctive by Spanish-speaking Argentine students at the University of Buenos Aires. As with the Spanish professors and doctoral students at SUNY, as well as child language and second language speakers, native speakers of Argentine Spanish substitute the less-marked infinitive, indicative, and present-perfect subjunctive for the more-marked present subjunctive, in this case, in 2 per cent of the cases where the present subjunctive is obligatory; in addition, they neutralize the more-marked past subjunctive in 35 per cent of the cases where the past subjunctive is obligatory. 5.4.4

Mood in language history

As with child language, second language learning, and language variation, in the history of Spanish and French, we see the neutralization of the present and the past subjunctive. In this section, data are derived from sources reported in the literature (see Section 5.3.4). In the history of Spanish, the less-marked present indicative in Medieval Spanish replaces the more-marked present subjunctive (see Table 5.10, sentences (1)–(8)), and the less-marked past indicative replaces the more-marked past subjunctive (sentences (9)–(10)).

Table 5.10 Language history: subjunctive neutralization in medieval Spanish Present indicative (a) (Lope Blanch 1958: 384) (1) Plázeme que assí lo siente. (⬍ sienta) (2) . . . pero mucho plazer tengo que de tan fiel gente andas acompañado. (⬍ andes) (3) . . . y deseemos ir adonde naide nos menosprecia. (⬍ menosprecie) (4) No creo que hay caballero en el mundo tan . . . (⬍ haya) (b) Torreblanca (1994) (5) . . . quien quiere ir conmigo cercar a valencia. (⬍ quiera) (6) Me maravillo que agora ya lo usamos poco. (⬍ usemos) (7) No espero que lo has de hacer. (⬍ hayas) (8) Mas nos pienso que le da muchos gustos. (⬍ dé) Past indicative (Torreblanca 1994) (9) Temien que era muerto. (⬍ estuviera) (10) Recelava que avia perdido el seso. (⬍ hubiera)


Table 5.11 Language history: subjunctive neutralization in 17th century French (Haase 1965) (i) The indicative in concessive phrases with a ‘positive’ verb after ‘quelque . . . que’ (p. 177) Examples: (1) ce ne sera pas sans vous aller baiser la main, en quelque part que vous serez. (⬍ soyez) (2) Quelque plaisir que j’ai d’avoir de vos nouvelles, j’avoue, etc. (⬍ aie) (ii) The indicative in conjunctive phrases with ‘que’ after desire or wish (a) after ‘Dieu permet’, ‘le Ciel permet’ (p. 181) Example: (3) Le ciel permit q’une seule se trouva . . . (⬍ trouvât) (b) after ‘attendre’ (p. 181) Example: (4) J’attends de votre complaisance que désormais partout vous fuirez ma présence. (⬍ fuyiez) (iii) The indicative with concessive conjunctions ‘quoique’, ‘bien que’, ‘encore que’ (pp. 194–5). Examples: (5) Quoique j’ai joué fort étourdiment, je ne me suis pas pourtant si fort emporté. (⬍ aie joué) (6) Examinons la chose avec équité, bien qu’en matière de langage il suffit que plusieurs des meilleurs juges de la langue rejettent une façon de parler. (⬍ suffise) (7) Encore que cela est vrai en un sens pour quelques âmes . . . (⬍ soit)

Similarly, in 17th century French, the less-marked present indicative substitutes for the more-marked present subjunctive (see Table 5.11, sentences (1)–(2), (4)–(5), (7)), while the less-marked past indicative substitutes for the more-marked past subjunctive (sentences (3), (6)).

5.5

The development of mood

This section presents a model of syntactic markedness to account for the development of mood in the languages and linguistic systems discussed in Section 5.4. 5.5.1

Mood in natural morphology

In this section, I apply the model of markedness discussed earlier to explain the development of mood in child language, second language


learning, language variation, and language history. I reveal a hierarchy of markedness that explains the development of mood in Spanish and French in terms of naturalness as well as biological and sociocommunicational mechanisms of development. Table 5.12 classifies the data discussed in Section 5.4 in terms of thirteen markedness rules. Table 5.13 presents a hierarchy of these markedness rules. Table 5.12 Markedness rules for mood in child language, second language learning, language variation, and language history Markedness rule (1) ⬎m present subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m present indicative (2) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m past indicative (3) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m present subjunctive (4) ⬎m present subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m infinitive (5) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m infinitive (6) ⬎m present subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m future indicative (7) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m future indicative (8) ⬎m present subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m periphrastic future (9) ⬎m present perfect subjunctive ⬎ ⬍ m future indicative (10) ⬎m present perfect subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m present perfect indicative (11) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m present perfect subjunctive (12) ⬎m past subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m past perfect subjunctive (13) ⬎m present subjunctive ⬎ ⬍m conditional

Data Child language (French, Spanish), 2nd language learning (Spanish), language variation (French, Spanish), history (French) 2nd language learning (Spanish), language variation (French, Spanish), History (Spanish) 2nd language learning (Spanish), history (French) 2nd language learning (Spanish), language variation (Spanish) 2nd language learning (Spanish), language variation (Spanish) Language variation (French, Spanish) 2nd language learning (Spanish) Language variation (French) Language variation (Spanish)

Language variation (Spanish)



Language variation (French)


The ranking in the hierarchy of markedness in Table 5.13 follows from the criteria for identifying marked structures and mechanisms of development in Table 5.12. Table 5.14 lists the selected criteria for the ranking of markedness rules of mood in Spanish and French. Rule (1) is the least marked of all rules of mood in Spanish and French because it complies with seven criteria in the identification of marked structures, as presented in Chapter 1: (a)(i) child language, (ii) second language acquisition; (b)(i) language history, (ii) language

Table 5.13 A hierarchy of markedness rules (7) – (13) 傻 (6) 傻 (4) – (5) 傻 (3) 傻 (2) 傻 (1) (1) ⬍m (2) ⬍m (3) ⬍m (4) – (5) ⬍m (6) ⬍m (7) –(13) 傻 – implies; ⬍m – less-marked.

Table 5.14 Markedness criteria for ranking markedness rules of mood in Spanish and French Rule (1) (a)(i) child language; (a)(ii) 2nd language acquisition; (b)(i) history; (b)(ii) language variation; (b)(iii) crossfield correspondences; (b)(iv) crosslinguistics correspondences; (b)(v) neutralization Rule (2) (a)(ii) 2nd language acquisition; (b)(i) history; (b)(ii) language variation; (b)(iii) crossfield correspondences; (b)(iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (b)(v) neutralization Rule (3) (a)(ii) 2nd language acquisition; (b)(i) history; (b)(iii) crossfield correspondences; (b)(iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (b)(v) neutralization Rules (4) and (5) (a)(ii) 2nd language acquisition; (b)(ii) language variation; (b)(iii) crossfield correspondences; (b)(v) neutralization Rule (6) (b)(ii) language variation; (b)(iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (b)(v) neutralization Rule (7) (a)(ii) 2nd language acquisition; (b)(v) neutralization Rules (8)–(13) (b)(ii) language variation; (b)(v) neutralization


variation, (iii) crossfield correspondences, (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences, and (v) neutralization. Rule (2) is more marked than rule (1) because rule (1) is implied by rule (2). Rule (2) complies with six criteria ((a)(ii) second language acquisition; (b)(i) language history; (ii) language variation; (iii) crossfield correspondences; (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (v) neutralization), while rule (1), as we have seen, complies with seven criteria. Notice that rule (1) is also more statistically widespread than rule (2) because what is implied is, ceteris paribus, more often found crosslinguistically and intralinguistically. Rule (3) is more marked than rules (1) and (2) because rules (1) and (2) are implied by rule (3). Rule (3) complies with five criteria presented in Chapter 1 ((a)(ii) second language acquisition; (b)(i) language history; (iii) crossfield correspondences; (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (v) neutralization), while rules (1) and (2), as we have seen, comply with seven and six criteria respectively. Rules (4) and (5) are more marked than rules (1)–(3) because rules (1)–(3) are implied by rules (4) and (5). Rules (4) and (5) comply with four criteria ((a)(ii) second language acquisition; (b)(ii) language variation, (iii) crossfield correspondences, (v) neutralization), while rules (1), (2), and (3), as we have seen, comply with seven, six, and five criteria, respectively. Rule (6) is more marked than rules (1)–(5) because rules (1)–(5) are implied by rule (6). Rule (6) complies with three criteria ((b)(ii) language variation; (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (v) neutralization), while rules (1), (2), (3), and (4)–(5), as we have seen, comply with seven, six, five, and four criteria, respectively. Rules (7)–(13) are more marked than rules (1)–(6) because rules (1)–(6) are implied by rules (7)–(13). Rule (7) complies with only two criteria ((b)(ii) language variation; (iii) crossfield correspondences); similarly, rules (8)–(13) comply with two criteria, as noted in Table 5.14 ((b)(ii) language variation; (v) neutralization), while rules (1), (2), (3), (4)–(5), and (6), as we have seen, comply with seven, six, five, four, and three criteria, respectively. 5.5.2


In explaining linguistic development, I take into account relevant evidence from other disciplines, such as biology, psychology, sociology, as well as linguistics. In certain instances, non-autonomous


explanations are unavailable; in such cases, more formal explanations in terms of innate knowledge, as well as statistics, are the best we can attempt. What is more widespread offers a clue – not a true definition or 100 per cent sure criterion – of what is less marked. Explanations may be given in terms of theoretical constructs, which in turn remain to be explained by some sort of biological, psychological, or sociocommunicational reality. In this sense, the hierarchy of syntactic rules developed in Section 5.5.1 is explained in terms of biological (innate ‘naturalness’), psychological, and sociocommunicational mechanisms of development in Chapter 1. 5.5.2.1

Psychological and semantic constraints on mood development

The choice or neutralization of mood distinctions in languages such as Spanish and French is not so much related to surface syntax as to truth values and the speaker’s belief or attitude about the world. The constraints involved in mood development cannot be stated without reference to semantics and psychological (but see Lleó’s [1979] study of the Spanish subjunctive in terms of optional syntactic rules on mood insertion). Below I discuss a few psychological and semantic constraints leading to variation or neutralization of the Spanish subjunctive (see Bull 1965; Goldin 1974; Lakoff 1971; McCawley 1968). 1. Syntactic principles: Very little syntactic knowledge appears to be needed to use the Spanish subjunctive: (a) The subjunctive occurs in complex sentences, which contain two or more verbs with a connector linking the two or more clauses (usually que ‘that’, but also si ‘if, cuando ‘when’, and a few others); (b) the subjunctive verb is located in the subordinate clause – the one following the connector (i.e. on the right of the written form). 2. Psychological and semantic constraints: The choice to use the subjunctive and the neutralization of the Spanish subjunctive are constrained by (a) the speaker’s psychological reactions (e.g. dislike, surprise, fright, etc.) and (b) semantic presuppositions. (a) Psychological reactions: The main verb can determine that the verb be in the subjunctive; this is the case when the main verb is a reaction verb (e.g. lastima ‘pity’, alegrarse ‘happy’, sentir ‘sorry’, etc.). A reaction is defined as the speaker’s emotional evaluation of a real or imaginary object or situation. Thus, if


the main verb indicates a reaction, the subordinate verb is subjunctive (see e.g., sentence (1)a, in Table 5.7, Me alegro que esté aqui. ‘I am happy that he is here.’). (b) Semantic presupposition: Semantic presupposition is concerned with a subordinate verb connected to a main verb that does not indicate a reaction (e.g. creer ‘believe’, saber ‘know’, dudar ‘doubt’, etc.). It involves the speaker’s belief, logical presupposition, about a certain event or state. A speaker, thus, can have a positive, indefinite, or negative presupposition about an event or state. The speaker has a positive presupposition if he or she knows or thinks that the event or state under discussion is true. When speakers have a positive presupposition about a state or event, they use the indicative (e.g. Creo que el es un buen alumno. ‘I think he is a good student.’). In contrast, speakers will use the subjunctive if they have an indefinite presupposition (see e.g. sentence (15), in Appendix 1, Busco un restaurante donde sirvan comida mexicana auténtica. ‘I am looking for a restaurant that (would) serve authentic Mexican food.’) or a negative presupposition (see e.g. sentence (3), in Appendix 1, No creo que el coche esté en buenas condiciones. ‘I do not think the car is in good condition.’). In sentence (15) the speaker is looking for a restaurant that serves authentic Mexican food, but he or she is not sure whether one such restaurant exists, while in (3) he or she believes the subordinate proposition not to be the case (of the car being in good shape). 5.5.2.2 change

Sociocommunicational constraints on mood variation and

Certain facts of syntactic development, such as the loss and variation of the more-marked subjunctive vs the less-marked indicative in language acquisition, second language learning, language variation, and history, can be explained in sociocommunicational terms, for example reduced access to more formal principles and varieties of the language, combined with psychological and semantic constraints such as those discussed in Section 5.5.2.1 (see further, Ocampo 1990; Silva-Corvalán 1993). For example, mood variation in Modern Latin American and Iberian Spanish can be explained in terms of


psychological reactions because certain speakers of Latin American and Iberian Spanish, for example (1)a Me alegro que esté (subjunctive) aquí. ‘I am happy for her to be here.’ vs (1)b Me alegro que está (indicative) aquí. ‘I am happy that he is here.’ in Table 5.7, who use the indicative in sentences such as (1)b, do not seem to have access to the psychological reaction principle affecting speakers of more literate, less colloquial, dialects of Spanish.

5.6


In studying natural processes in the development of mood, I have found strong parallels in first and second language acquisition, language variation, and language history. This chapter examined correspondences in the development of the subjunctive vs the indicative mood. The chapter presented a deliberately integrative perspective, taking into account seemingly disparate linguistic areas with the purpose of revealing universals of markedness. As with previous chapters, a model of syntactic markedness has been adopted, one closely aligned with Bailey’s (1996) and Mayerthaler’s (1988) developmental framework as well as with Faingold’s studies of language development. This work relies on psycholinguistic studies of first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistic variation and change, and language history. The rules and constraints on the development of mood revealed in this study are explained with reference to semantic factors; however, the development of mood cannot be explained without reference to non-linguistic (psychological, sociocommunicational) factors. In this sense, this chapter argues against the compartmentalization of linguistic domains (e.g. phonology vs morphology, syntax vs semantics, semantics vs pragmatics, etc.) and the autonomy of syntax, as well as the autonomy of linguistics from other human sciences, such as psychology, sociology, and history.

6 The Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness: Cognitive Aspects of the Spanish Subjunctive

6.1

Introduction

This chapter studies cognitive aspects of the Spanish subjunctive. Rather than the loosely connected list of structures usually found in Spanish grammars (e.g. Alarcos Llorach 1994; Butt & Benjamin 1996), the uses of the present and past subjunctives in Spanish can be derived from a formula that captures the mental representation of these tenses. Also, in this chapter, I develop a cognitive rule explaining the retention of frequently used irregular future subjunctives in Spanish legalese. Apparently, diverse patterns in the uses of the Spanish subjunctive can be handled by such cognitive formula and functional mechanisms of language use, in interaction with markedness principles, whereby systematic developments occur in marked and unmarked categories and environments. The indicative mood is used to express those statements that are not irrealis; these are statements that are either neutral (i.e. make no assumptions) or that one assumes to be facts. In contrast, the subjunctive is used in irrealis constructions; these are statements denoting an attitude toward an act or a state understood not as neutral or factual but as reflecting will, desire, doubt, non-expectativity, denial, counterfactuality, possibility, attitude, or emotion (Bailey 1996). In Chapter 5, I study the development of mood in Spanish in first language acquisition, second language learning, language change in 91


progress, and language history. As Chapter 5 discusses, indicatives are independently characterized as unmarked, and subjunctives as marked, because indicatives are acquired before subjunctives by children and second language learners alike; and because indicatives tend to be the basis of neutralization and analogical change in language change in progress and history. The unmarked status of the indicative (vs the marked status of the subjunctive) has been determined with Faingold’s (1996b) method for the reconstruction of linguistic systems. The method relies on a study of parallel developments in child language, creolization, and historical data, along with Bailey’s (1982, 1996) principles of markedness (see Chapter 1). In this chapter, I present a formula that captures the cognitive reality of the present and past subjunctive in Spanish and I provide extensive evidence that the more- marked irrealis statements take the subjunctive, while less-marked non-irrealis (neutral or factual) structures take the indicative. Although Modern Spanish makes use of present and past subjunctive forms, no future subjunctive exists in Modern Spanish, except for some fossil forms. However, a future subjunctive existed until quite recently in Spanish legalese. This chapter traces this usage in Spanish legalese and shows how the loss and retention of marked future subjunctive irregular verbs in Argentine Spanish legalese is determined by the frequency of usage of such forms (Bybee 1985, 2001; Zipf & Rogers 1939). 6.1.1 The mental representation and psychological reality of implicational rules Much is already known about the mental representation and psychological reality of linguistic formulae, and much remains to be learned. In this chapter, I share with Chomsky some basic concepts about the mental representation of linguistic formulae – whether implicational, transformational, or minimalist – as stated in (i)–(iii) below (e.g. 1965, 1975, 1995; see, especially, Chomsky 1993): (i) Linguistic formulae and their mental representations are ‘real’ objects in the brain. As Chomsky (1993) puts it: I intend [linguistic rules] to refer to something real – typically, some state or property of the brain, ultimately. I presume that in the more central parts of the natural sciences, intentions

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness 93

are similar; when Robert Penrose, say, writes that such mathematical objects as electric and magnetic fields must be understood to be ‘real physical “stuff” ’ because of the way they ‘push each other about’, he means what he writes, and uses the term ‘field’ to refer (28). (ii) Linguistic formulae provide instructions for the production of human language in language performance. As Chomsky (1993) puts it: We are studying a real object, the language faculty of the brain, which has assumed a particular state that provides instructions to performance systems that play a role in articulation, interpretation, expression of beliefs and desires, referring, telling stories, and so on (48). (iii) Linguistic formulae describe complex linguistic phenomena in terms of abstract principles of linguistic simplicity or economy, including linguistic rules, formulae, and learning algorithms, and the like. I agree with Chomsky (1993) about the need to reduce the descriptive technology to the level of virtual conceptual necessity, sharply reducing the devices available for description, which means that the complex phenomena of widely varied languages must be explained in terms of abstract principles of economy of derivation and representation (51). 6.1.2 How frequency of usage affects the mental representation of implicational rules Much is also known about the effects of linguistic frequency and language use on the mental representation of linguistics structures, for example, Zipf’s Law: Linguistic structures with the widest usage can be retained in linguistic systems (Zipf & Rogers 1939). More recently, Bybee (1985, 2001) has contributed significant insights into the effects of linguistic frequency on the mental representation of morphological and phonological structures, as stated in (i)–(iii) below (see Chapter 3): (i) Frequently used linguistic patterns have stronger mental representations. As Bybee (2001) puts it:


The use of forms and patterns both in production and perception affects their representations in memory. Highfrequency words and phrases have stronger representations in the sense that they are more easily accessed and less likely to undergo analogical change. Low frequency words are more difficult to access and may even become so weak as to be forgotten (6). In other words, frequency is both the cause and the result of mental representations. (ii) During the acquisition and use of linguistic structures, speakers repeat structures; this repetition yields strong mental representations. As Bybee (2001) argues: Through repetition we get lexical strength – strong, easily accessible representations, such as greetings when you see someone you know or responses such as ‘thank you’ and ‘you’re welcome’, that is, any kind of learned automatic response. It is repetition that ritualizes these responses and makes them readily available. These are just extreme examples of a general phenomenon that pervades linguistic representation – repetition leads to strength of representation (8). It is hypothesized by Bybee (2001) and others, including myself, that frequency is a necessary condition for repetition to occur. (iii) High-frequency irregular forms maintain their irregularities because of their high frequency. As Bybee (2001) argues (see Bybee 1985; see, especially, Zipf & Rogers 1939): [H]igh-frequency forms with alternations resist analogical leveling: while English weep/wept, creep/crept, and leap/lept have a tendency to regularize to weeped, creeped, and leaped, respectively, the-high frequency verbs with the same pattern, keep/kept, sleep/slept show no such tendency. As a result, morphological irregularity is always centered on the highfrequency items of the language . . . [R]epresentations are strengthened whenever they are accessed. This strengthening makes them subsequently easier to access and also more resistant to some forms of change (12).


6.2 The Spanish present and past subjunctive: cognitive aspects of markedness This section considers cognitive aspects of the development of the present and past subjunctives in Spanish. I offer a systematic analysis of all the uses of the present and past subjunctives in Spanish. The uses of the Spanish subjunctive are derived from a formula that captures the mental representation of these verbs. The formula follows Chomsky’s (1965, 1975, 1993, 1995) basic concepts about the validity of linguistic formulae and the mental representation of linguistic structures (i.e.: (i) linguistic formulae are real objects in the brain; (ii) they provide instructions to performance systems for language production; and (iii) complex linguistic phenomena are stored in terms of simple abstract principles, learning algorithms, formulae, and the like in the brain) (see Section 6.1.2). 6.2.1

The indicative vs the subjunctive in Spanish

As noted above, all indicatives – both present, past, and future – are characterized as unmarked (u) in non-irrealis (neutral or factual) environments. For example: (1) Present indicative (u) (a) Hoy hace frio. (neutral) ‘Today it’s cold.’ (b) Llueve ahora. (factual) ‘It’s raining now.’ (2) Past indicative (u) (a) Ayer hacía frio. (neutral) ‘Yesterday it was cold.’ (b) Llovía ayer. (factual) ‘It was raining yesterday.’ (3) Future indicative (u) (a) Mañana hará frio. (neutral) ‘Tomorrow it will be cold.’ (b) Lloverá mañana. (factual) ‘It will rain tomorrow.’


Table 6.1 Present subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que Meaning of main clause

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m m m m m

(1) (2) (3), (4) (5) (6) (7) (8), (9), (10)

⫹

m

(11), (12), (13)

⫹/⫺

m/u

(14), (15)

⫹/⫺

m/u

(16)

⫹/⫺ ⫹/⫺ ⫹/⫺

m/u m/u m/u

(17) (18) (19)

(h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Possibility, probability Contingency Desiderativity Causation Avoidance Doubt, not-expectativity Believing, stating, declaring, understanding ⫹ neg. Ordering, requesting, allowing, forbidding Emotional reactions, Value judgements Denial, counterfactuality Fear Suspecting Hoping

In contrast, as shown in Tables 6.1–6.6, subjunctives – both present and past – are characterized as marked (m) in irrealis environments (see items (a)–(h) in Table 6.1; items (a)–(i) in Table 6.4; and all items in Tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6). In addition, the choice of the subjunctive vs indicative verbs denoting emotional reactions, value judgments, denial, fear, suspicion, and hope is predicated on the speaker’s beliefs about the expectativity of the subordinate clause (see items (i)–(m) in Table 6.1 and items (j)–(m) in Table 6.4). Examples illustrating the present subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que (1) Possibility, probability (m) Es posible que haya tormenta. ‘There may be a storm.’ (2) Contingency (m) Depende de Juan que se coma a tiempo. ‘Whether we eat on time depends on John.’


(3) Desiderativity (want) (m) Quiero que estudie más. ‘I want him to study more.’ (4) Desiderativity (need) (m) Necesito que me den ese libro. ‘I need them to give me that book.’ (5) Causing (m) Estoy organizando que todos vengan a las ocho. ‘I am arranging it so that everybody will come at eight.’ (6) Avoidance (m) Hay que evitar que ellos se enteren. ‘We have to prevent them from finding out.’ (7) Doubt (m) Dudo que sea verdad. ‘I doubt whether it might be true.’ (8) Believe ⫹ neg. (m) No creo que Dios exista. ‘I don’t believe God exists.’ (9) Stating, declaring ⫹ neg. (m) No digo que sea así. ‘I don’t say it is so.’ (10) Understanding ⫹ neg. (m) No entiendo que quieran tanto poder. ‘I don’t understand their wanting so much power.’ (11) Ordering (m) Me mandan a que busque el correo. ‘They send me to collect the post.’ (12) Requesting (m) Nos propone que trabajemos con él. ‘He is proposing that we work with him.’ (13) Allowing, forbidding (m) Te prohibo que cantes. ‘I forbid you to sing.’ (14) Emotional reactions (a) Not-expectative (m) Me molesta que quiera tanto dinero. (present subjunctive) ‘It annoys me that he would want so much money’


(b) Expectative (u) Me molesta que quiere tanto dinero. (present indicative) ‘It annoys me that he wants so much money.’ (15) Value judgements (a) Not-expectative (m) Es lógico que tenga hambre. (present subjunctive) ‘It’s logical that he would be hungry.’ (b) Expectative (u) Es lógico que tiene hambre. (present indicative) ‘It’s logical that he’s hungry.’ (16) Denial (a) Not-expectative (m) Niega que haya problemas con nosotros. (present subjunctive) ‘He denies that there may be problems with us.’ (b) Expectative (u) Niega que hay problemas con nosotros. (present indicative) ‘He denies that there are problems with us.’ (17) Fear (a) Not-expectative (m) Temo que le moleste. (present subjunctive) ‘I’m afraid it may upset him.’ (b) Expectative (u) Temo que le va a molestar. (future indicative) ‘I’m afraid it will upset him.’ (18) Suspecting (a) Not-expectative (m) Sospecho que sea mentira. (present subjunctive) ‘I suspect it may be a lie.’ (b) Expectative (u) Sospecho que es mentira. (present indicative) ‘I suspect it’s a lie.’ (19) Hoping (a) Not-expectative (m) Espero que todo acabe bien. (present subjunctive) ‘I hope that everything would end well.’ (b) Expectative (u) Espero que todo va a acabar bien bien. (future indicative) ‘I hope that everything will end well.’


Table 6.2 Present subjunctive after subordinators Meaning of subordinator

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) (b) (c) (d)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m m

(1) (2) (3) (4)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m m

(5) (6) (7) (8)

⫹

m

(9)

⫹ ⫹

m m

(10) (11)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

In order that . . . In order that not . . ./lest Because . . ., since (cause) In such a way that . . . (intention) Como (⫽ ‘as’) (future action) Without . . . In case . . . Time subordinators (future action) Provided that/on condition that Except . . . , unless Although . . . , in spite of (future action)

Examples illustrating the present subjunctive after subordinators (1) In order that . . . (m) Vengo para que me des pan. ‘I’ve come so that you would give bread to me.’ (2) In order that not . . . /lest (m) Vengo para que no me acusen the ladrón. ‘I‘ve come so that they wouldn’t accuse me of being a thief.’ (3) Because . . . , since (cause) (m) No lo hago por que tú lo digas. ‘I’m not doing it just because you say so.’ (4) In such a way that . . . (intention) (m) Sale de modo que nadie vea. ‘He leaves so that no one notices.’ (5) Como (⫽ ‘as’) (future action) (m) Hazlo como quieras. ‘Do it however you like.’ (6) Without . . . (m) Debes hacerlo sin que tenga que decírtelo. ‘You should do it without my having to tell you.’


(7) In case . . . (m) Lo pongo en la maleta en caso de que lo necesites. ‘I put it in the suitcase in case you need it.’ (8) Time subordinators (future action) (m) (a) Me saludará cuando llegue. ‘He’ll greet me when I/he arrive(s).’ (b) Me saludará después que llegue. ‘He’ll greet me after I/he arrive(s).’ (9) Provided that/on condition that (m) Estoy dispuesto a negociar siempre que sean razonables. I’m ready to negotiate provided they are reasonable.’ (10) Except . . . , unless (m) Vamos de vacaciones a menos que esté ocupado. ‘We are going on vacation unless I’m busy.’ (11) Although . . . , in spite of (future action) (m) Venderán la finca aunque me oponga. ‘They’ll sell the estate although/despite the fact that I oppose it.’

Table 6.3 Other uses of the present subjunctive Situation

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) To translate when the event is not a reality: whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever, the more (b) In relative clauses with non-identified or denied antecedent (c) After donde and cuanto introducing clauses with reference to an unknown or non-existent entity (d) After ‘super-superlatives’ (e) For affirmative imperatives with usted/ustedes (f) Negative imperative (g) After words expressing wishes

⫹

m

(1)

⫹

m

(2)

⫹

m

(3)

⫹ ⫹

m m

(4) (5)

⫹ ⫹

m m

(6) (7)


Examples illustrating other uses of the present subjunctive (1) To translate when the event is not a reality: whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever, the more (m) (a) Digan lo que digan/hagan lo que hagan/pase lo que pase, no iré a la reunión. ‘Whatever they say or do/whatever happens, I will not go to the meeting.’ (b) Vayas a donde vayas, te lo encontrarás. ‘Wherever you go, you’ll find him.’ (c) Cuanto más coma más querrá. ‘The more he eats, the more he’ll want.’ (2) In relative clauses with non-identified or denied antecedent (m) (a) Prefiero un coche que tenga cuatro puertas. ‘I prefer a car (any car) with four doors.’ (b) No hay nadie que sepa inglés. ‘There’s no one who knows English.’ (3) After donde and cuanto introducing clauses with reference to an unknown or non-existent entity (m) Le daré cuanto me pida. ‘I’ll give him anything he asks.’ (4) After ‘super-superlatives’ (m) Era la persona mas inteligente que haya existido jamás. ‘He was the most intelligent person who ever existed.’ (5) For affirmative imperatives with usted/ustedes (m) Guarde/n silencio. ‘Keep quiet.’ (6) Negative imperative (m) No me hables. ‘Don’t talk to me.’ (7) After words expressing wishes (m) ¡Ojalá que ganemos la lotería! ‘I hope we win the lottery.’


Table 6.4 Past subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que Meaning of main clause

Subjunctive Markedness Examples

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m m m m m

(1) (2) (3), (4) (5) (6) (7) (8), (9), (10)

⫹

m

(11), (12), (13)

⫹ ⫹/⫺

m m/u

(14) (15), (16)

⫹/⫺ ⫹/⫺ ⫹/⫺

m/u m/u m/u

(17) (18) (19)

(h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Possibility, probability Contingency Desiderativity Causation Avoidance Doubt, not-expectativity Believing, stating, declaring, understanding ⫹ neg. Ordering, requesting, allowing, forbidding Hoping Emotional reactions, value judgements Denial, counterfactuality Fear Suspecting

Examples illustrating the past subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que (1) Possibility, probability (m) Era probable que sucediera así. ‘It was likely to happen that way.’ (2) Contingency (m) Miguel contaba que lo llamaran a tiempo. ‘Miguel was counting on them ringing on time.’ (3) Desiderativity (want) (m) Quería que estudiara más. ‘I wanted him to study more.’ (4) Desiderativity (need) (m) Necesité que me dieran el libro. ‘I needed them to give me the book.’ (5) Causation (m) Organicé que todos vinieran a las ocho. ‘I arranged it so that they would all come at eight.’ (6) Avoidance (m) Evité que se enteraran. ‘I stopped them from finding out.’


(7) Doubt (m) Dudé que fuera verdad. ‘I doubted whether it was true.’ (8) Believing ⫹ neg. (m) No creí que Dios existiera. ‘I didn’t believe God existed.’ (9) Stating ⫹ neg. (m) No dije que fuera así. ‘I didn’t say that it was so.’ (10) Understanding ⫹ neg. (m) No entendí que quisieran tanto poder. ‘I didn’t understand that they wanted so much power.’ (11) Ordering (m) Me mandaron a que buscara el correo. ‘They sent me to collect the post.’ (12) Requesting (m) Nos propuso que trabajáramos con él. ‘He proposed that we should work with him.’ (13) Allowing, forbidding (m) Te prohibí que cantaras. ‘I forbade you to sing.’ (14) Hoping (m) Esperaba que todo acabara bien. ‘I expected that everything would end well.’ (15) Emotional reactions (a) Not-expectative (m) Me molestó que quisiera tanto dinero. (past subjunctive) ‘It annoyed me that he should want to so much money.’ (b) Expectative (u) Me molestó que quería tanto dinero. (past indicative) ‘It annoyed me that he wanted so much money.’ (16) Value judgements (a) Non-expectative (m) Era lógico que tuviera hambre. (past subjunctive) ‘It was logical that he should be hungry.’ (b) Expectative (u) Era lógico que tenía hambre. (past indicative) ‘It was logical that he was hungry.’


(17) Denial (a) Not-expectative (m) Negó que hubiera problemas entre nosotros. (past subjunctive) ‘He denied that there could be problems with us.’ (b) Expectative (u) Negó que había problemas entre nosotros. (past indicative) ‘He denied that there were problems with us.’ (18) Fear (a) Not-expectative (m) Temíamos que le molestara. (past subjunctive) ‘We were afraid it would upset him.’ (b) Expectative (u) Temíamos que le iba a molestar. (past indicative) ‘We were afraid it was going to upset him.’ (19) Suspecting (a) Not-expectative (m) Sospeché que fuera mentira. (past subjunctive) ‘I suspected that it might be a lie.’ (b) Expectative (u) Sospeché que era mentira. (past indicative) ‘I suspected that it was a lie.’

Table 6.5 Past subjunctive after subordinators Meaning of subordinator

Subjunctive

Markedness Examples

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m m m m m m

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

⫹ ⫹ ⫹

m m m

(9) (10) (11)

In order that . . . In order that not . . . /lest Because . . . , since (cause) In such a way that . . . (intention) Como (⫽ ‘as’) (future action) Without . . . In case . . . Time subordinators (future action) (i) Provided that/on condition that (j) Except . . . , unless. . . (k) Although . . . , in spite of (future action)


Examples illustrating the past subjunctive after subordinators (1) In order that . . . (m) Vine para que me dieras pan. ‘I came so that you would give me bread.’ (2) In order that not . . . /lest (m) Vine para que no me acusaran de ladrón. ‘I came so they wouldn’t accuse me of being a thief.’ (3) Because . . . , since (cause) (m) No lo hice por que tú lo dijeras. ‘I didn’t do it because you said so.’ (4) In such a way that . . . (intention) (m) Salió de modo que nadie lo viera. ‘He left in such a way that no one saw him.’ (5) Como (⫽ ‘as’) (future action) (m) Le dije que lo haga como quisiera. ‘I told him to do it in any way he liked it.’ (6) Without . . . (m) Debiste hacerlo sin que tuviera que decírtelo. ‘You should have done it without my having to tell you.’ (7) In case . . . (m) Lo puse en la maleta en caso de que/por si lo necesitaras. ‘I’ve put it in the suitcase in case you needed it.’ (8) Time subordinators (future action) (m) Llegamos antes que empezara la clase. ‘We arrived before class started.’ (9) Provided that/on condition that (m) Estaba dispuesto a negociar siempre que fueran razonables. ‘I was ready to negotiate provided they were reasonable.’ (10) Except . . . , unless . . . (m) Íbamos de vacaciones salvo que estuviera muy ocupado. ‘We went on vacation unless I was very busy.’ (11) Although . . . , in spite of . . . (future action) (m) Dijeron que iban a vender la finca aunque yo me opusiera. ‘They said they would sell the estate although/despite the fact that I might oppose it.’


Table 6.6 Other uses of the past subjunctive Situation

Subjunctive Markedness Examples

(a) To translate when the event is not a reality: whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever, the more (b) In relative clauses with non-identified or denied antecedent (c) After donde and cuanto introducing clauses with reference to an unknown or non-existent entity (d) After words expressing wishes (e) In conditional sentences (remote, unfulfilled)

⫹

m

(1)

⫹

m

(2)

⫹

m

(3)

⫹ ⫹

m m

(4) (5)

Examples illustrating other uses of the past subjunctive (1) To translate when the event is not a reality: whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever, the more (m) Dijeran lo que dijeran/hicieran lo que hicieran/pasara lo que pasara, no iría a la reunion. ‘Whatever they said/did/happened, I’d not go to the meeting.’ (2) In relative clauses with non-identified or denied antecedent (m) (a) Prefería un coche que tuviera cuatro puertas. ‘I preferred a car (any car) with four doors.’ (b) No había nadie que supiera inglés. ‘There was no one who spoke English.’ (3) After donde and cuanto introducing clauses with reference to an unknown or non-existent entity (m) Buscó un bar donde sirvieran cerveza china. ‘He searched for a bar where they served Chinese beer.’ (4) After words expressing wishes (m) ¡Quién fuera millonario! ‘If only I were a millionaire!’ (5) In conditional sentences (remote, unfulfilled) (m) (a) Si pudiera viajar a Nueva York con sólo 50 dólares . . . ‘If I could travel to New York with only 50 dollars . . . ’


(b) Si él hubiera tenido dinero hubiera pagado la cuenta. ‘If he’d had the money he’d have settled the bill.’ 6.2.2

Formula for the Spanish subjunctive

The formula that captures the use of the Spanish subjunctive in marked/unmarked environments is given in (4): (4) ⬎m S 傻 ⬍m I/[⬎m IR 傻 ⬍m non-IR] [⬎m non-E 傻 ⬍m E] The more-marked S (subjunctive) in an IR (irrealis) environment implies the less-marked I (indicative) in a non-IR (non-irrealis) environment; and the more-marked S (subjunctive) in a non-E (non-expectative) environment implies the less-marked I (indicative) in a E (expectative) environment. In short, in this section, I systematically analyzed the uses of the present and past subjunctives in Spanish and presented a simple formula capturing, in implicational terms, all the complex uses of the present and past Spanish subjunctives. This formula complies with abstract principles of economy employed by Chomsky (1965, 1975, 1993, 1995).

6.3 The future subjunctive in Spanish: cognitive aspects of markedness This section studies cognitive aspects of the development of the future subjunctive in Spanish. I describe the recent loss of most regular future subjunctives as well as the maintenance of irregular forms in Argentine Spanish legalese in the Argentine Civil Code of Justice (1952). The loss and maintenance of the Spanish future subjunctives is explained by the effects of linguistic frequency on the mental representation of linguistic structures. As discussed in Section 6.1.2, linguistic structures that have a high frequency of usage have stronger mental representations (through repetition), and, more importantly, are maintained in language history (see Bybee 1985, 2001; Zipf and Rogers 1939; see Section 6.1.2). In Old Spanish, the future subjunctive, a grammaticized form of the Latin future perfect indicative, was a very much live form; in the 14th century, for example, the future subjunctive was found in


Table 6.7 Future subjunctive in early modern Spanish 16th century (García Carrillo 1988: 63) (1) . . . de manera de que si de la dicha Santa Yiglesia saliere el dicho Benjto Guillén, lo prendan, y que, a las personas que rondaren e velaren, se les pagará . . . ’. . . in a way that if Benito Guillen exits the aforementioned church, they arrest him and that the people who are making rounds be payed . . . ’ (2) . . . y dixeron a este testigo: ‘i tenéos allá, porque boto a tal que a de costar caro al que llegare.’ ‘. . . and they said to this witness: “and keep yourselves there because I swear that he who arrives will pay a high price.” ’ (3) . . . y prendan y castiguen a todos los demás que resultaren culpados. ‘. . . and that they arrest and punish everyone who turns out to be guilty.’ (4) . . . den razón desta Real Avdiençia de lo que en ello hizieren. ‘. . . give a reason for whatever they do in this Royal Audience.’ 17th century Argentina (Buenos Aires) (Fontanella de Weinberg 1982: 33–4) (5) . . . y que los demas que estuuieren por edifficar. . . ‘. . . and whatever the others are about to build . . . ’ (6) y aunque en mi no puede faltar desseo deponer en execucion todo aquello que VM, se me mandare y entendiere puede resultar en Vro real Servicio . . . ‘And although in me there cannot lack the desire to execute all that your Excellency would command and understand to be in your Royal service.’ (7) assi sera seruido de ordenar loq fuere de su maior agrado. ‘Thus he was pleased to order that which he thought was most to his liking.’ (8) yo señor debo informar a VMgd de todo lo que alcancare ser de mi obligacion. ‘I, Sir, must inform your Excellency about all things that I am obliged to do.’ (9) Vuestra Magestad mandara lo que fuere de su Real agrado. ‘Let your Excellency order that which is most to your Royal will.’ 16th and 19th century Argentina (Tucumán) (Rojas 1985: 260) (10) y teniendo consideración a que los dichos corrales han estado ocupados, por la Patria cuatro meses acordo su Señoría se le satisficieren treinta pesos por seis meses. ‘And taking into consideration that said ‘corrales’ have been occupied by the state for four months, his Excellency agreed that he would give them satisfaction with 30 pesos for six months.’


a large number and variety of verbs and grammatical environments (e.g. darte [he] todas las cosas que quisieres. ‘I have given you everything you could want.’; Sy te picare el abrojo escarmienta. ‘If the thistle pricks you it teaches you a lesson.’ [Gminder 1959: 135ff].) The future subjunctive appears to have been widespread (at least in written Spanish) in Mexico and Argentina (Buenos Aires and Tucumán) in the 16th and 17th centuries and as late as the 19th century, as shown in Table 6.7, items (1)–(10)

Table 6.8 Future subjunctive in modern Spanish (i) Fossils (Zuluaga 1982:1075–6) (1) Me la robaré tope en lo que topare. ‘I will steal it/her no matter what.’ (2) Costare lo que costare. ‘Whatever the cost.’ (3) Estuviera donde estuviere. ‘Wherever he/she/one may be.’ (4) Adonde fueres, haz lo que vieres. ‘Wherever you go, do as you see.’ (5) En nombre de la República de México y como juez del Estado civil de este lugar, hago saber a los que la presente vieren y certifico . . . ‘In the name of the Republic of Mexico and as judge of the ‘Civil State’ of this jurisdiction, I declare to those who would witness these proceedings . . .’ (6) . . . para que . . . se presente en su trabajo . . . , si no lo hiciere, de ser considerado infractor a la ley. ‘. . . that he appear at his place of work, and if he does not do this, that he be considered in violation of the law.’ (7) . . .cuando al fin del renglón no cupiere un vocablo entero, se escribirá sólo una parte. ‘. . . and if, at the end of the line, a whole word does not fit, then only a part of it will be written.’ (ii) Archaisms (Lapesa 1980: 559) Puerto Rico (8) hypothetical cantare, pudiere ‘he/she may sing, do.’ Santo Domingo, North of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Canarias (9) hypothetical cantare, viniere ‘he/she may sing, come.’


(see Fontanella de Weinberg 1982; García Carrillo 1988; Luquet 1988; Rojas 1985). Although Modern Spanish makes use of present and past subjunctive forms, no future subjunctive exists, except for some fossil forms. Table 6.8 presents subjunctive forms retained in (i) fossils, mostly in old sayings, (items (1)–(7)) and (ii) archaisms (items (8)–(9)) in modern Mexican and Caribbean Spanish. The Argentine Civil Code of Justice (1952), a fundamental work of Argentine law, serves as a data source for further examining the use of the future subjunctive in Spanish. After locating and quantifying all cases of future subjunctive forms in the complete and exact text of the Argentine Civil Code of Justice (1952), I aim to describe and explain the loss of most regular future subjunctives as well as the maintenance of certain irregular forms from the end of the 19th to the middle of the 20th centuries. The loss and maintenance of future subjunctive forms is explained in terms of the effect of language use – linguistic frequency – on the mental representation of linguistic structures (Bybee 1985, 2001; Zipf & Rogers 1939). 6.3.1

The future subjunctive in Spanish before 1884

Before 1884, the future subjunctive was in common use in Argentine Spanish legalese. Table 6.9 displays all the cases of the future subjunctive found in the Argentine Civil Code before 1884. Based on an analysis of this legal treatise, we can glean that a large number and variety of future subjunctive verbs – 526 cases of 110 different verbs in this case – were in use in Spanish legalese before 1884. 6.3.2

The future subjunctive in Spanish after 1884

After 1884, the future subjunctive is almost lost in Argentine Spanish legalese. Table 6.10 displays all the cases of the future subjunctive found in the Appendix of the Argentine Civil Code of Justice (1884–1952). In Table 6.10, items (i)–(x), only a few irregular future subjunctive forms (e.g. haber ‘to have’, ser, estar ‘to be’, and hacer ‘to do’) are retained in Argentine Spanish legalese after 1884. This is similar to early Modern English, in which the irregular subjunctive form ‘to be’ continued to be used, while most other subjunctive forms disappeared (Peters 1968). As with the English verb ‘to be’, Spanish haber


Table 6.9 The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code before 1884 Verb

Total occurrences

Page where verb occurs

(1) hubiere(n)

144

8, 15 [2 times], 25, 27, 31, 32, 35 [2 times], 39 [2 times], 49, 55, 56, 58, 81, 84 [2 times], 86, 95, 99, 101, 102 [2 times], 115, 116, 120, 121 [6 times], 122, 123, 131, 133, 134, 137, 140, 141, 146 [2 times], 150, 152, 153, 162, 167, 169 [3 times], 175, 180 [3 times], 188, 193 [2 times], 197 [2 times], 199, 200, 206 [2 times], 211, 216, 217, 223, 224 [2 times], 225, 227 [2 times], 228, 229 [4 times], 230, 231 [2 times], 232, 244 [2 times], 245, 246 [2 times], 248 [2 times], 253, 254, 255, 265, 268, 280, 290, 292, 293, 303, 305 [5 times], 308, 309, 316, 335, 353 [2 times], 355 [2 times], 356 [2 times], 357, 359, 363, 368 [2 times], 369 [3 times], 370, 371, 374, 376, 378, 399, 406, 416, 420, 436, 437 [2 times]

(2) fuere(n)

103

31, 81 [5 times], 82 [2 times], 85 [4 times], 86, 89 [2 times], 94, 96, 101, 114 [2 times], 123, 124, 127 [2 times], 130, 133 [10 times], 134 [4 times], 142, 143, 146, 147 [3 times], 149, 152, 155, 157, 164, 165, 167, 169 [3 times], 173, 187, 188, 194, 200 [2 times], 205, 209, 211, 212, 217, 228, 230 [2 times], 235 [2 times], 243 [2 times], 246 [2 times], 248, 253 [4 times], 254, 268 [2 times], 290, 293, 294 [2 times], 301, 309, 313, 336, 338 [2 times], 339 [2 times], 351 [ 2 times], 357, 360 [2 times], 377, 382, 394, 402

42

8, 23, 30, 57, 81, 84, 112, 140 [2 times], 143, 152 [2 times], 153, 175, 180 [3 times], 182, 194, 197, 231 [2 times], 231 [2 times], 236 [2 times], 290, 292, 301, 323, 324, 350, 351, 357, 360, 363, 364 [2 times], 375, 378, 379, 399

(3) hiciere(n)


Table 6.9 (Continued) (4) estuviere(n)

17

9, 58, 83 [2 times], 84 [2 times], 94 [2 times], 102 [2 times], 145, 245, 321, 351, 353 [3 times]

(5) tuviere(n)

19

29, 39, 62 [2 times], 81, 82 [2 times], 143 [2 times], 183, 198, 241 [4 times], 278, 282, 305

(6) supiere(n)

5

27 [2 times], 29, 31, 224

(7) pudiere(n)

9

27 [2 times], 29, 31, 85 [2 times], 152, 318, 406

(8) tratare(n) (9) resultare(n)

3 12

1, 24, 129 38, 84, 85, 132, 142, 149, 174, 233, 363, 390, 419, 425

(10) cansare(n)

3

(11) causare(n)

11

192, 310, 311

(12) asistiere(n)

1

16

(13) presentare(n)

2

18, 315

(14) cumpliere(n)

1

22, 146 [2 times]

(15) careciere(n)

1

27

(16) pasare(n)

5

150, 168, 338 [2 times], 340

(17) hallare(n)

10

115, 131, 140, 142, 224, 232, 255, 280, 297, 298, 379

33, 83, 111, 171, 290 [2 times], 291, 292, 327, 409

(18) retardare(n)

1

182

(19) quisiere(n)

7

92 [2 times],142, 155, 207, 183, 325

(20) resolviere(n)

1

184

(21) dejare(n)

6

152, 191, 294, 379, 399, 411

(22) sembrare(n)

1

295

(23) plantare(n)

1

295

(24) edificare(n)

1

295

(25) emigrare(n)

1

295

(26) conviniere(n)

1

296

(27) atravesare(n)

1

300

(28) saliere(n)

1

301

(29) prohibiere(n)

2

307

(30) poseyere(n)

2

282, 310

(31) bastare(n)

1

431


(32) alcanzare(n)

2

62, 432

(33) faltare(n)

4

32, 83 [3 times]

(34) entrare(n)

1

200

(35) fundare(n)

1

39

(36) casare(n)

2

40, 55

(37) contrajere(n)

6

41, 48, 142, 205, 207, 233, 364

(38) creyere(n)

1

42

(39) admitiere(n)

1

49

(40) arrojare(n)

1

55

(41) justificare(n)

1

55

(42) perdiere(n)

4

33, 58, 140, 285

(43) impugnare(n)

1

98

(44) pagare(n)

4

102, 200, 325, 363

(45) versare(n)

5

107, 116, 135 [2 times]

(46) constare(n)

4

111, 145, 200, 216

(47) alcanzare(n)

2

120, 191

(48) conociere(n)

1

125

(49) decretare(n)

1

126

(50) negare(n)

1

128

(51) firmare(n)

1

128

(52) obrare(n)

1

129

(53) impusiere(n)

2

132, 154

(54) probare(n)

5

133, 136 [2 times], 137, 312

(55) dispusiere(n)

1

139

(56) retractare(n)

1

140

(57) estipulare(n)

1

141

(58) llegare(n)

2

142, 153

(59) reservare(n)

2

146, 203

(60) mudare(n)

1

147

(61) dejare(n)

2

147, 292

(62) constituyere(n)

1

150

(63) quedare(n)

1

152

(64) cambiare(n)

1

154

(65) diere(n)

2

157, 320

(66) gastare(n)

1

157

(67) encargare(n)

1

158


Table 6.9 (Continued) (68) optare(n)

2

(69) consistiere(n)

2

160, 247 165, 338

(70) intimare(n)

1

189

(71) restituyere(n)

1

193

(72) depositare(n)

1

194

(73) afiansare(n)

1

194

(74) contratare(n)

1

194

(75) prestare(n)

1

195

(76) cobrare(n)

3

24 [2 times], 326

(77) debiere(n)

2

204, 361

(78) aceptare(n)

1

200

(79) compusiere(n)

1

203

(80) ganare(n)

1

207

(81) renunciare(n)

1

207

(82) juzgare(n)

2

98, 208

(83) expresare(n)

1

214

(84) conociere(n)

1

217

(85) ocasionare(n)

1

225

(86) ratificare(n)

1

227

(87) ejerciere(n)

2

227, 239

(88) sirviere(n)

1

240

(89) muriere(n)

1

242

(90) naciere(n)

4

41 [2 times], 235, 363

(91) venciere(n)

1

245

(92) apareciere(n)

1

246

(93) concediere(n)

1

253

(94) abandonare(n)

2

282, 355

(95) sufriere(n)

1

285

(96) tomare(n)

1

290

(97) apropiare(n)

1

291

(98) gozare(n)

1

322

(99) llenare(n)

1

324

(100) restare(n)

1

329

(101) formare(n)

1

329

(102) cesare(n)

1

341


(103) registrare(n)

1

351

(104) existiere(n)

1

360

(105) solicitare(n)

1

363

(106) abusare(n)

1

364

(107) sucediere(n)

1

15

(108) perjudicare(n)

1

377

(109) viviere(n)

1

398

Total

526

Table 6.10 The future subjunctive in the Appendix of the Argentine Civil Code after 1884 Year of amendment

(i) 1884 (ii) 1898 (iii) 1919 (iv) 1920 (v) 1926 (vi) 1943 (vii) 1946 (viii) 1948 (ix) 1950 (x) 1952 Total

Verb

hubiere(n) none (1) hubiere(n) (2) fuere(n) none (1) hubiere(n) (2) fuere(n) none hubiere(n) (1) estuviere(n) (2) fuere(n) hubiere(n) (1) hiciere(n) (2) hubiere(n)

Total occurrences

Page where verb occurs

3

451, 452, 453

1 1

458 458

1 1

467 468

1 1 1 1 1 1

469 519 519 499 464 465

13

‘to have’ and ser, estar ‘to be’ are retained because these verbs are subject to Zipf’s Law: linguistic structures with the widest usage are retained in linguistic systems (Zipf & Rogers 1939; also see Bybee 1985, 2001). 6.3.3

Loss of the future subjunctive in Spanish

In quantitative terms, by the end of the 19th century, the use of the future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code of Justice


decreases drastically. Figure 6.1 presents the loss of the future subjunctive at a glance. Table 6.11 normalizes the number of verbs in the future subjunctive shown in Figure 6.1 per one-hundred pages. The Argentine Civil Code before 1884 contains 439 pages and, as shown in Figure 6.1, 522 cases of the future subjunctive; the Appendix to the Argentine Civil Code contains 74 pages and 15 cases of the future subjunctive. The normalization yields 119 cases of the future subjunctive before 1884,

522

5

2

2

1 0 Before 1884

0

2

2 1

0

1884 1898 1919 1920 1926 1943 1946 1948 1950 1952

Figure 6.1 The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code (before 1884) and its Appendix (after 1884)


Table 6.11 The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code (before 1884) and its Appendix (after 1884). Normalization of cases of the future subjunctive per one-hundred pages The Argentine Civil Code

Future subjunctives per one-hundred pages

Before 1884 After 1884

119 20

and 20 cases of the latter after 1884, per one-hundred pages. That is, almost six times more cases of the future subjunctive in Spanish legalese occur before 1884 than after 1884. In short, in this section, I have described and explained the loss and maintenance of future subjunctive forms in Argentine Spanish legalese. By the middle of the twentieth century, most regular future subjunctives in Spanish have disappeared from the Argentine Civil Code of Justice. I have explained the maintenance of irregular future subjunctive forms in terms of Zipf’s Law. Also, I have offered further proof about the validity of Bybee’s (1985, 2001) cognitive and functional argument that linguistic structures that have a high frequency of usage have stronger mental representations, and are maintained in language history. In this sense, mental representations and cognitive structures are not impervious to language use.

6.4


This chapter presented a systematic analysis of the use of the Spanish subjunctive in a wide range of grammatical environments. This analysis stems from explicit mechanisms of markedness whereby systematic linguistic patterns are revealed in marked and unmarked environments. The use of the Spanish subjunctive/indicative distinction is derived from a linguistic formula: irrealis statements are marked and take subjunctive verbs, while non-irrealis statements are unmarked and take indicatives; speaker’s beliefs about the expectativity of the subordinate sentence affect the choice of mood as well in verbs denoting emotional reactions, value judgments, denial, fear, suspicion, and hope. This formula complies with abstract principles of linguistic simplicity and economy (e.g. Chomsky 1993, 1995).


I have traced the death of the future subjunctive in Spanish legalese. A large number and variety of future subjunctive verbs occur in Argentine Spanish legalese before 1884. After 1884, however, the future subjunctive is almost lost in Argentine Spanish legalese: only a few irregular verbs with the widest usage are retained in modern Argentine Spanish legalese because they are all subject to Zipf’s law (see, also, Bybee 1985, 2001). Quantitatively, there are almost six cases of the future subjunctive before 1884 for every case found after 1884.

7 Summary and Conclusion

In Chapter 1, I discussed the background assumptions and research procedures for the study of developmental grammar, including an integrative approach for the study of child linguistics, adult language learning, language history, and creolization. I presented an explicit model of markedness that follows Bailey’s (e.g. 1982, 1996) and Mayerthaler’s (1988) theoretical views on naturalness and Faingold’s (1996b) work on developmental phonology. The purpose of the model is to account for linguistic developments, including unidirectional developments and reversals in seemingly disparate linguistic areas such as those mentioned, with the purpose of revealing universals of markedness. The model of markedness aims to explain linguistic developments in biological, psychological, and sociocommunicational terms. Finally, Chapter 1 mentions one of the main purposes of this book – broadening the study of language development by including not just the fields of language contact and change (historical linguistics and creolization) but also first and second language acquisition (see Faingold 1996b). In Chapter 2, I was concerned with natural morphological processes in the development of the article system in child language, creolization, and historical linguistics. I examined correspondences between Bickerton’s (1981) definite/non-definite and the specific/ non-specific distinctions. I dealt with complex phenomena resulting from biological and sociocommunicational mechanisms of language development. I support the hypothesis that less-marked forms occur early, tend to be less markered, are more resistant to change, and are more natural. In this sense, biological mechanisms are usually 119


unidirectional. In contrast, sociocommunicational mechanisms such as compartmentalization (fusion), borrowing, and decreolization can reverse unmarked patterns to form a more marked (less natural) system. Thus, in certain cases, substratum and superstratum influences may tamper with the unidirectionality predicted by biological mechanisms of development; for example more-marked Spanish and English (card)nonsp (non-specific article corresponding to the first cardinal number) emerge in acrolectal forms of Hawaiian and Palenquero creole. Similarly, a Yoruba substratum post-nominal definite article appears in Haitian and Principe creole. In other instances, sociocommunicational mechanisms yield less-marked systems, for example Yoruba (0)indef (zero indefinite article), (0)nonsp (zero non-specific) in Haitian and Principe creole. Further, in Chapter 2, I suggested that in creolization, the specific/ non-specific distinction is not as natural and universal as Bickerton leads us to believe. The reason is that this distinction emerges in three creoles only: Hawaiian, Papiamentu, and Palenquero. In contrast, Haitian and Principe have both (0)indef (zero indefinite article) and (0)nonsp (zero non-specific) markers, while Sranan has both (card)indef (indefinite article corresponding to the first cardinal number) and (card)nonsp: the specific/non-specific distinction is lost in Haitian, Principe, and Sranan. In terms of discourse factors, Chapter 3 explains the development of the definite article in the Romance languages from demonstrative pronouns in Latin. Using texts in Vulgar Latin covering eight centuries, I traced the grammaticalization of demonstratives into definite articles (both nominatives and accusatives, in prenominal and postnominal position). First, in the 4th century to 6th century, speakers mark with Latin demonstratives those noun phrases whose referents have a prominent role in discourse and are accessible to the speaker and hearer, both before and after the noun phrase. Later, in the 8th century, noun phrases that are prominent or accessible to the speaker and hearer are preceded by Latin demonstratives. Finally, from the 12th century onward, in Vulgar Latin and the Romance languages, the definite article precedes those noun phrases that can be identified by the speaker and/or hearer, regardless of whether the noun phrase plays a prominent role in the discourse. The similarity between demonstratives and articles (synchronically and diachronically) is due to grammaticalization processes whereby old forms acquire

Summary and Conclusion 121

new functions. Thus, demonstrative pronouns also can mark more abstract functions, such as identifiability in articles. As a result, part of the system employed for mapping perceptual space in the real world (demonstratives) also serves to map space in discourse – identifiability (articles). As we have seen, part of the Latin system of demonstrative pronouns serves to encode Romance articles, such as the Vulgar Latin structures hi, ille, illa, ipsa, ipsam, ea, eo, and Spanish el, la, los, las, Portuguese o, a, os, as, and Rumanian ul-le, ua-a, i, le. In Chapter 4, I showed correspondences in the development of spatial prepositions and temporal adverbs in first and second language acquisition. I presented a hierarchy of spatial prepositions in first and second language acquisition, from less to more marked: in, on, under, top/bottom, back/behind/front/in front of, beside, between, over. I also showed a hierarchy of temporal adverbs in these domains, from less to more marked: now, before, after, again/already, yet, no longer. In this chapter, adults appear to be experiencing the same cognitive difficulties as children in the acquisition of prepositions and adverbs. It is also possible that adults learning a foreign language, as children acquiring a first language, benefit from learning some words early because these words are used frequently and are more necessary for daily communication. For example, it may be the case that both children and adults talk more often about the ‘here’ and ‘now’, or how things are found ‘in’, say, a box, than they talk about accomplished actions with ‘already’ or how things are found ‘underneath’ a chair. As with Chapters 2 and 5, this chapter presents evidence in support of the hypothesis that less-marked structures occur early, are more resistant to neutralization and analogical change, and are more natural. Natural constraints tend to be unidirectional. In contrast, under certain linguistic conditions (e.g. violations of the principle of markeredness and constructional iconicity), children fail to acquire such unmarked prepositions as in front, under in the highly markered morphological systems found in Serbo-Croatian and Hebrew. Chapter 4 demonstrates the importance of making a clear theoretical distinction between markedness and markeredness (mark-bearing). Making this distinction is crucial for understanding the application of and violations to the principle of constructional iconicity (e.g., the late acquisition of unmarked yet highly markered prepositions in Hebrew and Serbo-Croatian). Given that many morphologists are


not aware of the importance of making this distinction, one cannot stress it often enough. The plural for boys (vs singular boy) is more markered or mark-bearing than feet (vs foot) or mouse (vs mice). The last two examples are unnatural, since they violate the principle of constructional iconicity (Bailey 1982; Mayerthaler 1988). To be sure, all plurals boys, feet, mice are more marked than singulars boy, foot, mouse. As I have strongly argued in this work and in Faingold (1996b) and other publications, degrees of markedness are determined by analyzing data from language development and change. For example, by observing the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes by children, one can show that plurals are more marked than singulars, for example in English, the plural morpheme s is acquired after children acquire the ability to name objects (see Brown 1973). Moreover, boys is more markered than boy, since a mark-bearing element (plural s) is added to a simpler form (a noun). The pairs feet/foot, mouse/mice are all equally markered, since there is no addition of a mark-bearing formative element to a simpler form. Chapter 5 focuses on natural processes in the development of mood. Here as well, I found strong parallels in first and second language acquisition, language variation, and language history. Correspondences were examined in the development among child language, second language learning, language variation, and language history, of the subjunctive vs the indicative mood in Spanish and French. The indicative is always acquired before the subjunctive in both first and second language acquisition; the indicative is the basis of neutralization and analogical change (and always ‘wins’ against the subjunctive) in language variation and historical change. The results revealed thirteen rules of markedness, which showed that the subjunctive (present, past) is more marked than the indicative (present, past, future), the infinitive, the present perfect (indicative, subjunctive), the past perfect (subjunctive), and the conditional. Further, markedness rules were ranked following the criteria for identifying marked structures and mechanisms of development in Chapter 1. For example, (1) the rule that replaces the present subjunctive with the present indicative is less marked than (2) the rule that replaces the past subjunctive with the past indicative. The reason is that (1) is more widespread than (2), since the former applies to environments child language (French, Spanish), second language learning (Spanish), language variation (Spanish, French),

Summary and Conclusion 123

and language history (French) – a total of four grammatical environments and six language environments, while the latter applies to second language learning (Spanish), language variation (French, Spanish), and language history (French) – a total of three grammatical environments and four language environments. Similarly, to give another example, the rule that replaces the present subjunctive with the conditional is more marked than both rules (1) and (2) because this rule is much less widespread than either rule (1) or (2), as it applies to language variation (French) only – a total of one grammatical environment and one language. In Chapter 5, the results demonstrate the relevance of markedness theory for language acquisition and second language learning. My own fieldwork results in first language acquisition (native speakers of Argentine Spanish living in Buenos Aires, Spanish-speaking professors living in the U.S.) and second language learning (native English speakers learning Spanish while living in the U.S.) suggests that, to some extent, the indicative appears to be gaining ground over the subjunctive in colloquial as well as in more educated varieties of Spanish. Further, Chapter 5 demonstrates the relevance of markedness theory for the teaching of foreign languages. For example, the rules for the use of the subjunctive are acquired or learned in a natural order that cannot be hurried by the instructor or the parent (see Krashen & Terrell 1983). Second language learners and children, as we have seen, substitute the less-marked (more natural) indicative for the more-marked (less natural) subjunctive consistently. As Spanish and French language teachers have known for a long time, students learning Spanish and French face great difficulties in the study of the subjunctive mood in the classroom, while the indicative mood is learned with much more ease in both languages. The natural order of acquisition of mood distinctions (e.g. the indicative is acquired before the subjunctive) is the basis for my recommendation that the use of the subjunctive be taught by the language instructor only after the student acquires a certain degree of mastery and confidence in the use of the present, past, and future indicative structures. Rather than teaching the subjunctive, in detail, in beginning Spanish and French classes, perhaps it makes more sense to wait and teach the use of the subjunctive in depth in more advanced classes. In Chapter 6, I present a systematic analysis of the use of the Spanish subjunctive in a wide range of environments. The analysis


stems from explicit mechanisms of markedness whereby linguistic patterns are revealed in marked and unmarked environments. The use of the Spanish subjunctive/indicative distinction is derived from a linguistic formula: irrealis statements are marked and take subjunctive verbs, while non-irrealis statements are unmarked and take indicatives. The results also demonstrate that a speaker’s beliefs about the expectativity of the subordinate clause affects the choice of mood in verbs denoting emotional reactions, value judgements, denial, fear, suspicion, and hope. This formula complies with Chomsky’s (1993, 1995) principles of economy. In Chapter 6, I also trace the death of the future subjunctive in Spanish legalese. A large number and variety of future subjunctive verbs occur in Argentine Spanish legalese before 1884. After 1884, the future subjunctive is almost lost: only a few irregular verbs with the widest usage are retained in modern Argentine Spanish legalese because they are all subject to Zipf’s law (see also, Bybee 2001). The results show that there are almost six cases of the future subjunctive before 1884 for every case found after 1884.

Appendix 1 Complete los verbos en tiempo presente (1) No es posible que —————— (pedir) tanto dinero de alquiler. EMOTION (2) Dudo que —————— (tener) un buen automovil. DOUBT (3) No creo que el coche —————— (estar) en buenas condiciones. DOUBT (4) Temo que mi auto —————— (tener) algo serio. EMOTION (5) Me sorprende que —————— (ser) la batería. DOUBT (6) Quiero que Ud. —————— (arreglar) el automovil hoy. INFLUENCE (7) Le recomiendo que lo —————— (dejar) en el garaje. INFLUENCE (8) No creo que —————— (ser) nada serio. DOUBT (9) No estoy seguro que —————— (ser) estudiantes. DOUBT (10) Es imposible que —————— (estar) en el bar. DENIAL (11) No es probable que —————— (comprar) una casa. DENIAL (12) No hay nadie que te —————— (escuchar) en este mundo. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (13) No hay padres que —————— (tener) dinero para comprar todo lo que los niños quieren. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (14) No hay ninguna comida que me —————— (gustar) en este restaurante. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (15) Busco un restaurante donde —————— (servir) comida mexicana autentica. INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT (16) Quiero un profesor particular que —————— (enseñar) francés. INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT (17) No voy al partido de futbol a menos que —————— (jugar) Maradona. AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS (18) Antes de que —————— (comprar) las entradas pregunta si juega Maradona. AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS (19) Que hacemos en caso que no —————— (venir) Pedro? AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS

125

Appendix 2 Complete los verbos en tiempo pasado (1) No fue posible que —————— (pedir) tanto dinero de alquiler. EMOTION (2) Dudé que —————— (tener) un buen automovil. DOUBT (3) No creí que el coche —————— (estar) en buenas condiciones. DOUBT (4) Temí que mi auto —————— (tener) algo serio. EMOTION (5) Me sorprendí que —————— (ser) la bateria. DOUBT (6) Quise que Ud. —————— (arreglar) el automovil hoy. INFLUENCE (7) Le recomendé que lo —————— (dejar) en el garaje. INFLUENCE (8) No creí que —————— (ser) nada serio. DOUBT (9) No estuve seguro que —————— (ser) estudiantes. DOUBT (10) Fue imposible que —————— (estar) en el bar. DENIAL (11) No fue probable que —————— (comprar) una casa. DENIAL (12) No hubo nadie que te —————— (escuchar) en este lugar. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (13) No hubo padres que —————— (tener) dinero para comprar todo lo que los niños querian. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (14) No hubo ninguna comida que me —————— (gustar) en este restaurante. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT (15) Busqué un restaurante donde —————— (servir) comida mexicana autentica. INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT (16) Quise un profesor particular que —————— (enseñar) francés. INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT (17) No fuí al partido de fútbol a menos que —————— (jugar) Maradona. AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS (18) Antes de que —————— (compres) las entradas preguntó si jugaba Maradona. AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS (19) Que hicimos en caso que no —————— (venir) Pedro? AFTER CERTAIN CONJUNCTIONS

126

Appendix 3

The acquisition of Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew lexicon (Noam aged 1;1.22 – 2;0) Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

Session 1. Noam aged 1;1.22 (1) [au:] (2) [deti] – [dedeti]

H [alo] ?*

‘hello’ ‘object’

Session 2. Noam aged 1;2.9 (1) [se] (2) [asi] (3) [ze] (4) [ese] (5) [ai]

S [si] S [asi] H [ze] S [ese] S [ai]

‘yes’ ‘in this manner’ ‘this’ ‘that’ ‘there’

Session 3. Noam aged 1;3.0 (1) [dai] (2) [ke] (3) [e:e:e] (4) [ti] (5) [kaka] (6) [papa] (7) [papi] (8) [ete] (9) [si] (10) [kaki] (11) [tsi] (12) [esze] (13) [na] – [nana] – [nani]

H [dai] P [ke] ?* P [kenti] S [kaka] S [papa] S [lapis] S [ese] S [si] H [kaki] P [kenti] S [ese] H [ze] ?*

‘enough’ ‘I want’ ‘I want that’ ‘hot’ ‘feces’ ‘father’ ‘pencil’ ‘that’ ‘yes’ ‘feces’ ‘hot’ ‘that’ ‘food’

Session 4. Noam aged 1;4.4 (1) [te] (2) [nan] (3) [kako]

S [te] ?* P [koko]

‘tea’ ‘food’ ‘feces’

Session 5. Noam aged 1;4.13 [to]

S [torre]

‘tower, cubes’

Session 6. Noam aged 1;4.22 (1) [mama] (2) [mami]

S [mama] S [mami]

‘mother’ ‘mother’

127

128 Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

Session 7. Noam aged 1;5.8 (1) [pe] (2) [kax]

P [p␧] H [kax]

‘foot’ ‘take this’

Session 8. Noam aged 1;5.24 (1) [tita] (2) [mai] (3) [ai]

S [gaietita] P [mai] S [ai]

‘cookie’ ‘mother’ ‘ouch’

Session 9. Noam aged 1;6.5 (1) [da] (2) [tatu] (3) [pape] (4) [pupa] (5) [papai] (6) [pai] (7) [koko] (8) [la] (9) [lo] (10) [titita] (11) [ali] (12) [alu] – [alo]

P [da] ?* S [papel] S [pelota] P [papai] P [pai] P [koko] P [la] H [lo] S [gaietita] P [ali] H [alo]

‘give’ ‘pen’ ‘paper’ ‘ball’ ‘father’ ‘father’ ‘feces’ ‘there’ ‘no’ ‘biscuit’ ‘there’ ‘hello’

Session 10. Noam aged 1;6.23 (1) [lelo] (2) [dida] (3) [tatu] (4) [pipi] (5) [lalu] (6) [nene] (7) [le] (8) [lalala] (9) [fu::] (10) [tatate] (11) [lali] (12) [ama] – [ima] (13) [kuku] (14) [tutu] (15) [pei] (16) [kei] (17) [tei] (18) [toi:] (19) [aba]

S [rrelox] H [linda] P [gatu] P [pipi] S [lalus] S [nene] P [le] S [banana] ?* S [sentate] S [dani] H [ima] H [kuku] H [tutim] S [pie] P [ke] H [tei] S [torre] H [aba]

‘watch, clock’ ‘name of dog’ ‘cat’ ‘bird’ ‘the light’ ‘child’ ‘read’ ‘banana’ ‘lights off’ ‘sit’ ‘name of father’ ‘mother’ ‘peek-a-boo’ ‘strawberries’ ‘foot’ ‘I want this’ ‘tea’ ‘tower, cubes’ ‘father’

Session 11. Noam aged 1;7.1 (1) [u:u:] (2) [dadu]

?* H [kaduR]

‘dog’ ‘ball’

Appendix 3 129

(3) [ke::] (4) [u:] (5) [tau] (6) [f:of:o] (7) [papalu] (8) [lola] (9) [upa] (10) [oso] (11) [kaxa] (12) [susio] (13) [amina] (14) [papatu] (15) [dida] (16) [piso] (17) [pititu] (18) [apasea] (19) [bebe] (20) [kasa] (21) [akika] (22) [kaxu] (23) [tui:] (24) [bala] (25) [pala] (26) [papei] (27) [anana] (28) [ima]

H [ken] S [ue␤o] S [tosta␦o] P [vovo] P [kavalu] S [sonia] S [upa] S [oso] S [kaxa] S [susio] P [minina] P [sapatu] H [adidas] S [keso] S [bitito] S [apasear] P [bebe] S [kasa] S [aki] [aka] P [kaqu] S [torre] P [bola] S [pelota] S [papel] S [banana] H [ima]

Session 12. Noam aged 1;7.9 (1) [toui:] S [torre] (2) [tau] S [tosta␦o] (3) [nanana] S, P, H [banana] (4) [f:of:o] P [vovc] [vovo] (5) [papalu] P [kavalu] (6) [papalo] S [ka␤a3o] (7) [lolãlula] S, P, H [sonia] (8) [tatu] H [xatul] (9) [papel] S [papel] Session 13. Noam aged (1) [upa] (2) [oso] (3) [usu] (4) [kaxa] (5) [susio] (6) [auau] (7) [amina] – [imina] (8) [papatu] – [apatu] (9) [kaxa]

‘yes, come in’ ‘egg’ ‘toast’ ‘granfather’ ‘horse’ ‘name of mother’ ‘lift me’ ‘bear’ ‘box’ ‘dirty’ ‘girl’ ‘shoe’ ‘Adidas’ ‘cheese’ ‘insect’ ‘to go for a walk’ ‘drink’ ‘house’ ‘here’ ‘car’ ‘tower, cubes’ ‘ball’ ‘ball’ ‘paper’ ‘banana’ ‘mother’ ‘tower, cubes’ ‘toast’ ‘banana’ ‘grandmother and grandfather’ ‘horse’ ‘horse’ ‘Sonia’ ‘cat’ ‘paper’

1;7.21 S [upa] ‘take me in your arms’ S [oso] ‘bear’ P [uqsu] ‘bear’ S [kaxa] ‘box’ S [susio] ‘dirty’ S [uauau] ‘dog’ P [minina] ‘girl’ P [sapatu] S [sapato] ‘shoe’ H [kaxa] ‘in this manner’

130 Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

S, P, H [dani] H [po] S [tosta␦o] P [kenti] P [su3u] S, P, H [adidas] S [keso] S [bitiito] S [apasear] P [pasea] S [tiastias] P [bebe] S [kasa]

‘Danny’ ‘here’ ‘toast’ ‘hot’ ‘dirty’ ‘Adidas’ ‘cheese’ ‘insect’ ‘go for a walk’ ‘spank’ ‘drink’ ‘house’

Session 14. Noam aged 1;8.1 (1) [olu] – [ulu] (2) [auau] (3) [susiu] (4) [apasu] (5) [alo] (6) [apis] (7) [iko] (8) [tota] (9) [bati] (10) [pako] (11) [mia]

P [oliu] S [uauau] P [su3u] ?* S, P, H [alo] S, P [lapis] S [nenenko] H [toda] P [bati] S [pako] S [mira]

‘eye’ ‘dog’ ‘dirty’ ‘clock, watch’ ‘hello’ ‘pencil’ ‘Noam’s nick name’ ‘thank you’ ‘hit’ ‘name of singer’ ‘look’

Session 15. Noam aged 1;8.7 (1) [xose] – [oxose] (2) [bamo] (3) [isiza] – [esiza]

H [loRotse] P [bamo] H [televizia]

‘I don’t want’ ‘let’s go’ ‘TV’

Session 16. Noam aged 1;8.20 (1) [lalus] (2) [papale] – [palale] (3) [didia] (4) [ati] (5) [tatate] (6) [dodoi] – [doi] (7) [kau] (8) [bãba] (9) [pio] (10) [ina] (11) [toto] (12) [tutu] (13) [kai] (14) [asu]

S [lalus] S [pañales] S [buen␦ia] S [atiis] S [akostate] P [dodoi] P [kaiu] H [bamba] S [frio] S [arena] S [to␦o] P [tudu] P [kai] H [asur]

‘the light’ ‘diapers’ ‘good morning’ ‘sneeze’ ‘lie down’ ‘it hurts’ ‘falling object’ ‘snack’ ‘cold’ ‘sand’ ‘all’ ‘all’ ‘falling person’ ‘forbidden’

[nani] [po] [taio] [titi] [susu] [dida] [piso] – [pisu] [pititu] [apasea] – [pasea] [tastas] [bebe] [kasa]

Appendix 3 131

(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50)

[liso] [uti] [bibu] [pito] [koti] [tatus] [puta] [atu] [isu] [oto] [aut] – [iauti] [fef] [bibo] [pia] [tia] [li] [masa] [paxa] [aku] [piso] [mamo] [nena] [ma] [pesa] [tito] [fio] [vivo] [izia] [xoxe] [amanu] [dele] [loto] [popota] [ali] [vabis] [zuzuzi]

P [liio] H [oti] P [livru] S [bitio] S [kotie] ?* S [puerta] P [gatu] P [isu] S [otro] H [iarut] S [flor] S [libro] S [pie] S [tira] H [li] P [masã] S [baxa] S [barko] P [baqku] S [piso] S [bamos] P [bamo] S [nena] S [mas] P [mais] S [piesa] S [tetio] S [frio] P [livro] H [televizia] H [oxel] H [gamaRnu] H [delet] H [lotov] S, P [kompota] S [salir] P [3abis] S [3a␤es] H [zuzu] – [zuzi] S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::]

Session 17. Noam aged 1;9.0 (1) [eme] P [kome], S [komer] (2) [pita] H [pita] (3) [oxote] H [loRotse] (4) [aba] S [a␥ua] (5) [paki] P [paqki] (6) [pati] P [bati] (7) [tatos] ?* (8) [tatul] H [xatul]

‘garbage’ ‘to me’ ‘book’ ‘insect’ ‘car’ ‘pen’ ‘door’ ‘cat’ ‘that’ ‘another’ ‘name of baby-sitter’ ‘flower’ ‘book’ ‘foot’ ‘throw’ ‘me’ ‘apple’ ‘get down’ ‘ship’ ‘floor’ ‘let’s go’ ‘girl’ ‘more’ ‘room’ ‘roof’ ‘cold’ ‘book’ ‘TV’ ‘food’ ‘finish’ ‘door’ ‘bad’ ‘fruit dessert’ ‘out’ ‘keys’ ‘I want to jump’

‘to eat’ ‘pita bread’ ‘I don’t want’ ‘water’ ‘park’ ‘hit’ ‘pen’ ‘cat’

132 Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(9) [apalu] (10) [tetelo] (11) [ovu] (12) [pie] (13) [katu] (14) [avalu] (15) [bãbi] (16) [oxe] (17) [a:ze] (18) [lola] – [lolola] (19) [xuti] – [xuxuti] (20) [kakau] (21) [bamos] – [bamo] (22) [ine] (23) [avi] (24) [gatu] (25) [lo:xose] (26) [toie] – [tole] (27) [toda] (28) [kana]

P [kavalu] P [maqtelo] P [ovu] S [pie] P [gatu] S [gato] P [kavalu] S, P, H [bambi] H [oxel] H [maze] S, P, H [lola] H [Ruti] P [kakau] S [kakao] S [bamos] P [bamo] H [ine] H [tavi] P [gatu], S [gato] H [loRotse] S [torre] H [toda] S, P [kama]

‘horse’ ‘hammer’ ‘egg’ ‘foot’ ‘cat’ ‘horse’ ‘Bambi’ ‘to eat’ ‘what’s that’ ‘Lola’ ‘Ruth’ ‘cocoa’ ‘let’s go ‘here it is’ ‘gimme’ ‘cat’ ‘I don’t want’ ‘tower’ ‘thank you’ ‘bed’

Session 18. Noam aged 1;9.11 (1) [leti] P [leiti] (2) [keti] P [kentii] (3) [kane] – [kalne] S [karne] (4) [pititito] S [bitiito] (5) [kokola] S, P [kokakola] (6) [kuku] P [suku] (7) [keie] S [keres] (8) [uduzi] H [zuzu] – [zuzi] S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::] (9) [lalata] S [lalata] (10) [eko] S [neneko] (11) [sisi] P [iiii] (12) [fio] – [fifio] P [navio] (13) [tutua] S, P [flauta] (14) [oxel] H [oxel] (15) [apati] S [tomate] P [tomati] (16) [ake] S [rrakel] P [qakel] (17) [pea] S [pera] (18) [pato] S [plato] (19) [pratu] P [pratu] Session 19. Noam aged 1;9.21 (1) [afafu] P [garfu] (2) [vovo] P [vovo]

‘milk’ ‘hot’ ‘meat’ ‘insect’ ‘Coke’ ‘juice’ ‘you want’ ‘I want to jump’ ‘the tin’ ‘Noam’s nick name’ ‘urine’ ‘ship’ ‘flute’ ‘eat’ ‘tomato’ ‘Rachel’ ‘pear’ ‘plate’ ‘plate’ ‘fork’ ‘grandfather’

Appendix 3 133

(3) [enene] (4) [exuti] – [exuxuxuti] (5) [evizia] (6) [pitsio] – [pitio] (7) [ebãbi] (8) [mãmãi] (9) [dona] – [edodona] (10) [u:u:zi] (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31)

[eueveio] [aso] [kokolat] [iiii] [buba] [papalet] [akatia] [avalu] [apala] [puta] [apasiu] – [apasu] [avis] [vili] [katiu] [sala] [papone] [ava] [abada] [a] [xunu] – [uxunu] [mai]

P [nene] H [Ruti] H [televizia] S [bitio] S, P, H [bambi] P [mãmãi] S, P [dona] H [zuzu] – [zuzi] S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::] S [ue␤o] P [aio] S, P [kokakola] P [iiii] H [buba] S [pañales] S, P [katia] P [kavalu] S [pelota] S [puta] ?* P [3abis] S [3a␤es] H [tavili] P [gatu], S [gato] P [sala] S [tapon] S [a␥ua] H [avoda] S, P [a] H [xumus] H [maim]

Session 20. Noam aged 1;10.0 (1) [osiu] S [oso] (2) [gadu] – [gadud] H [kadur] (3) [aua] S [a␥ua] (4) [oliu] P [oliu] (5) [s::] H [s::] (6) [patu] P [patu] (7) [axa] H [oxel] (8) [atsu] P [atius] (9) [tata] ?* (10) [ham] – [xam] H [xam] (11) [pota] P [poqta] (12) [pãu] P [pãu] (13) [aka] S [aka] (14) [kotse] S [kotie] (15) [kaio] S [karro] (16) [peia] S [pera]

‘child’ ‘Ruth’ ‘TV’ ‘insect’ ‘Bambi’ ‘mother’ ‘name of song’ ‘I want to jump’ ‘egg’ ‘find’ ‘Coke’ ‘urine’ ‘doll’ ‘diapers’ ‘Katia’ ‘horse’ ‘ball’ ‘curse’ ‘clock, watch’ ‘keys’ ‘bring’ ‘cat’ ‘living-room’ ‘plug’ ‘water’ ‘work’ ‘to’ ‘hoummous’ ‘water’ ‘bear’ ‘ball’ ‘water’ ‘eye’ ‘sleep’ ‘duck’ ‘eat’ ‘sneeze’ ‘grandfather’ ‘hot’ ‘door’ ‘bread’ ‘here’ ‘car’ ‘car’ ‘pear’

134 Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

H [kelev] S, P [sandalia] S [duele] P [akabo] S [a␤ion] P [kome], S [komer] S [senar] S [rrelox]

‘dog’ ‘sandal’ ‘pain’ ‘all gone’ ‘airplane’ ‘to eat’ ‘dinner’ ‘watch, clock’

[kele] [salia] [ele] [babosi] [aiana] [oome] [sena] [eelox] – [lelox]

Session 21. Noam aged 1;10.9 (1) [lex] H [lex] (2) [afo] P [gaqfu] (3) [i::] H [i::] (4) [uvu] P [ovu] (5) [adãdis] S, P [naris] (6) [dedo] – [dedu] S [de␦o] P [dedu] (7) [aalil] H [xalil] (8) [lusa] P [blusa] (9) [loxo] S [eloxo] (10) [main] H [maim] (11) [pano] S, P [piano] (12) [pupapaio] S [putakelopario] (13) [asin] P [asim] (14) [aagina] S, P [makina] (15) [sonia] S, P, H [sonia] (16) [ida] P [ida] (17) [uafa] S [rrafa] P [qafa] (18) [pane] S [pan] (19) [gidada] S [kui␦a␦o] P [kuidadu] (20) [abala] P [abola] (21) [kala] – [kele] H [kelev] (22) [kasa] S [ka␤esa] P [kabesa] (23) [epele] – [pepelet] Y [tepele] (24) [moko] S [moko] (25) [baño] S [baño] (26) [aione] S [a␤ion] (27) [loso] S [eloso] (28) [dõde] S [donde] (29) [seli] H [ieli] (30) [lus] S [lus]

‘go’ ‘fork’ ‘sleep’ ‘egg’ ‘nose’ ‘finger’ ‘flute’ ‘shirt’ ‘the eye’ ‘water’ ‘piano’ ‘curse’ ‘thus’ ‘machine’ ‘Sonia’ ‘Ida’ ‘Rafa’ ‘bread’ ‘careful’ ‘the ball’ ‘dog’ ‘head’ ‘basin’ ‘mucous’ ‘bathroom’ ‘airplane’ ‘the bear’ ‘where’ ‘mine’ ‘light’

Session 22. Noam aged 1;10.21 (1) [iaze] H [maze] (2) [apapel] S [papel] (3) [nadis] S [naris]

‘what’s that’ ‘paper’ ‘nose’

Appendix 3 135

(4) [pesi] (5) [basu] (6) [uva] (7) [losa] (8) [fote] (9) [desi] (10) [pepele] (11) [seta] (12) [põba] (13) [aion] (14) [pake] (15) [udit] (16) [biso] (17) [dãda] (18) [babo] (19) [emino] (20) [abãu] (21) [kade] (22) [usuda] (23) [xuo] (24) [xuku] (25) [on] (26) [mãie]

P [peii] S [baso] S [u␤a] P [uva] P [losa] S [fuerte] P [desi] Y [tepele] P [senta] P [pomba] S [a␤ion] S [parke] H [oRit] P [biiu] S [na␦a] P [nada] P [akabo] S [setermino] P [sabãu] P [kade] S [basura] S [xu␥o] P [suku] P [leon] P [mãie]

‘fish’ ‘glass’ ‘grape’ ‘plates’ ‘strong’ ‘down’ ‘basin’ ‘sit’ ‘dove’ ‘airplane’ ‘park’ ‘Orit’ ‘insect’ ‘swim’ ‘all gone’ ‘all gone’ ‘soap’ ‘where is it’ ‘dirt’ ‘juice’ ‘juice’ ‘Leon’ ‘mother’

Session 23. Noam aged 1;10.29 (1) [eon] P [leon] (2) [nonon] H [alon] (3) [gadio] S [rradio] P [qadio] (4) [salil] S [salir] (5) [pupuax] H [tapuax] (6) [sana] S [mansana] (7) [mano] S [mano] (8) [abol] S [arbol] (9) [peda] S [pie␦ra] P [peda] (10) [vido] S [bi␦rio] (11) [vidu] P [vidriu] (12) [gala] – [agala] H [agala] (13) [amania] H [agvania] (14) [nãu] P [nãu] (15) [bola] P [bola] (16) [maña] S [bañar] (17) [sit] E [iit] (18) [agia] H [magia] (19) [akun] H [lakum]

‘Leon’ ‘Alon’ ‘radio’ ‘out’ ‘apple’ ‘apple’ ‘hand’ ‘tree’ ‘stone’ ‘glass’ ‘glass’ ‘cart’ ‘tomato’ ‘no’ ‘ball ‘bath’ ‘shit’ ‘reach’ ‘get up’

Session 24. Noam aged 1;11.6 (1) [ekuta] P [eskuta] S [eskutia] (2) [zeu] H [zeu]

‘listen’ ‘that’s it’

136 Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(3) [lelia] (4) [dod] (5) [egadio] (6) [kalol] (7) [mesa] (8) [i:i:bus] (9) [peda] (10) [dita] (11) [no] (12) [kepasa] (13) [gego] (14) [dele] (15) [eso] (16) [qua] (17) [mio] (18) [pedo] (19) [baxa] (20) [minão] (21) [kedo]

P [orelia] H [dod] S [rradio] H [Radio] S [kalor] S [mesa] S [omni␤us] P [onibus] S [pera] P [deita] S [no] S [kepasa] S, P [lego] S [duele] S [eso] P [qua] S [mio] S [perro] S [baxa] P [kamião] S [kiero]

‘ear’ ‘uncle’ ‘radio’ ‘hot’ ‘table’ ‘bus’ ‘pear’ ‘lie down’ ‘no’ ‘what’s happening’ ‘Lego’ ‘pain’ ‘that’ ‘street’ ‘mine’ ‘dog’ ‘get down’ ‘truck’ ‘I want’

Session 25. Noam aged 1;11.18 (1) [ieli] H [ieli] (2) [iso] S [eso] (3) [ikok] – [ekok] S, P [neneko] (4) [dusi] S [dulse] (5) [letse] – [leletie] S [letie] (6) [exa] S [a␤exa] (7) [tuio] S [tu3o] (8) [mananina] – [nanina] S [plastilina] (9) [zus] H [zuz] (10) [ken] H [ken] (11) [leloi] P [leloi] (12) [pepelo] S [elikoptero] (13) [abelia] P [abelia] (14) [ase] S [ase] (15) [ivo] P [livro] (16) [kato] S [kuatro] (17) [dos] S [dos] (18) [texa] P [inglateqa] (19) [liio] P [liio] (20) [bo] H [bo] (21) [tona] S [toma] (22) [man] S [mar] P [maq] (23) [pis] S [pis] (24) [pii] S [pii]

‘mine’ ‘that’ ‘Noam’s nick name’ ‘jam’ ‘milk’ ‘bee’ ‘yours’ ‘paste’ ‘move’ ‘yes’ ‘Leon’s nick name’ ‘helicopter’ ‘bee’ ‘is’ ‘book’ ‘four’ ‘two’ ‘England’ ‘garbage’ ‘come’ ‘take’ ‘sea’ ‘urine’ ‘urine’

Appendix 3 137

(25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

[kena] [gia] [eteio] [fabãu] [pabo] [xega] [busa] – [lusa] [olia] [balia] [ezaza]

S [kema] P [keima] H [magia] S [esterio] P [sabãu] P [akabo] P [iega] H [Rega] P [blusa] P [olia] P [travalia] P [laran3a]

‘burn’ ‘reach’ ‘stereo’ ‘soap’ ‘all gone’ ‘wait’ ‘shirt’ ‘look’ ‘work’ ‘orange’

Session 26. Noam aged 1;11.29 (1) [bade] (2) [badi] (3) [qoda] (4) [tudu] – [tutu] (5) [azu] (6) [qiku] (7) [ensina] (8) [auãa] – [avão] (9) [elo] (10) [pama] (11) [malãu] – [malão] (12) [koles] (13) [mais] (14) [mas] (15) [lisu] (16) [abi] (17) [futa] – [suta] (18) [dado] (19) [amino] (20) [todo] (21) [tana] (22) [tetela]

S [balde] P [baldi] P [qoda] P [tudu] P [azu] P [disku] S [disko] S [ensima] P [avião] P [amarelo] P [palma] P [balão] P [kulieq] P [mais] S [mas] P [liiu] P [abri] S [fruta] S [la␦o] P [lado] S [setermino] S [to␦o] S [bentana] P [estrela]

‘bucket’ ‘bucket’ ‘wheel’ ‘all’ ‘blue’ ‘record’ ‘on top’ ‘airplane’ ‘yellow’ ‘palm’ ‘balloon’ ‘spoon’ ‘more’ ‘more’ ‘dirt’ ‘open up’ ‘fruit’ ‘side’ ‘all gone’ ‘all’ ‘window’ ‘star’

Session 27. Noam aged 2;0 (1) [moka] (2) [o:i:bus] (3) [ola] (4) [gatu] (5) [aki]

S, P [moska] S [omni␤us] P [onibus] S [ola] P [gatu], S [gato] S [aki]

‘fly’ ‘bus’ ‘hello’ ‘cat’ ‘here’

(Faingold 1996b) * Quasi-word H ⫽ Hebrew P ⫽ Portuguese S ⫽ Spanish Y ⫽ Yiddish

References

Alarcos Llorach, E. (1994) Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Argentine Civil Code of Justice (1952) Buenos Aires: Editorial Claridad. Andersen, R. W. (1983) Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bailey, C.-J. N. (1982) On the Yin and Yang Nature of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. —— (1996) Essays on Time-Based Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: University Press. Baron, N. (1977) Language Acquisition and Historical Change. Amsterdam: North Holland. Benson, B. (1986) The markedness differential hypothesis: Implications for Vietnamese speakers of English. Markedness. F. Eckman & E. Moravcsik (eds). New York: Plenum Press. Berman, R. A. (1985) The acquisition of Hebrew. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data. D. Slobin (ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bernard, J. H. (1971) The Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem: Translations from Eusebius and the Early Pilgrims. New York: AMS Press. Bickerton, D. (1981) Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Blake, R. J. (1980) The Acquisition of Mood Selection among Spanish-speaking Children: Ages 4 to 12. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Bouvier, E. (1972) Le démonstratif latin ‘ille’ et la formation de l’article défini des langues romanes. Cahiers de Lexicologie 21: 75–86. Bresson, F., Bouvier, N., Danneguin, C., Depreux, J., Hardy, M. & Platone, F. (1970) Quelques aspects du système des déterminants chez les enfants de l’ecole maternelle: Utilisation des articles défini et indéfini. Centre de Recherche de l’Education Spécialisée et de l’Adaptation Scolaire 2: 3–40. Brown, R. (1973) A First Language. The Early Stages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bruyn, A. (1993) The determiner system in 18th-century Sranan. Paper presented at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Society of Pidgin & Creole Linguistics. Los Angeles, California. January 7–11, 1993. Bull, W. E. (1965) Spanish for Teachers: Applied Linguistics. New York: Ronald Press. Butt, J. & Benjamin, C. (1996) A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Publishing. Bybee, J. (1985) Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Philadelphia: Benjamins. 138

References 139

Bybee, J. (2001) Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, M., Becker, A., Bhardwaj, M., Kelly, A., Porquier, R. & Daniel, V. (1993) Reference to space in learner varieties. Adult Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives. Vol. 2. C. Perdue (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Catinelli, A. (1985) El Habla de la Provincia de Cordoba. Cordoba: Centro de Estudios de la Lengua. Cazden, C. B. (1971) The hunt for the independent variables. Language Acquisition. Models and Methods. R. Huxley & E. Ingram (eds). London & New York. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. —— (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. —— (1993) Language and Thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell. —— (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 137–56. Clark, E. V. (1973) Nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of word meanings. Cognition 2: 161–82. —— (1980) Here’s the ‘top’: Non-linguistic strategies in the acquisition of orientational terms. Child Development 51: 329–38. Clark, H. H. (1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. T. E. Moore (ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cohen, M. (1965) Le Subjonctif en Français Contemporain. Paris: Société d’Edition d’Enseignement Supérieur. Cox, M. V. (1979) Young children’s understanding of ‘in front of’ and ‘behind’ in the placement of objects. Journal of Child Language 6: 371–4. Crews, C. (1930) Recherches sur le Judéo-Espagnol dans les Pays Balkaniques. Paris: Librarie E. Droz. DeGraff, M. (1999) Language Creation and Language Change. Creolization, Diachrony, and Development. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. De la Puente-Schubeck, M. (1991) The Loss of the Subjunctive in the Chicano Spanish of New Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico. Donni de Mirande, N. E. (1968) El Español Hablado en Rosario. Rosario: Instituto de Linguistica y Filologia, facultad de Filosofia, Rosario. Dressler, W. (1985) Morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Dromi, E. (1979) More on the acquisition of locative prepositions: An analysis of Hebrew data. Journal of Child Language 6: 547–62. Durkin, K. (1981) Aspects of late language acquisition: School children’s use and comprehension of prepositions. First Language 2: 47–59. Eckmann, F. (1977) Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27: 315–30. Edmondson, J. (1985) Biological foundations of language universals. Developmental Mechanisms of Language. C.-J. N. Bailey & R. Harris (eds). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Elizaincin, A., Behares, L. & Barrios, G. (1987) Nos Falemos Brasilero. Montevideo: Amesur.

140 References

Ellis, T. L. (1985) Referentiality and Definiteness in Two Speech Samples of Papiamentu. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California-Los Angeles. Faingold, E. D. (1989) The case for fusion: ( Jewish) Ladino in the Balkans and the Eastern Turkish Empire. Arbeiten zur Mersprachigkeit 36. —— (1991) Evidence of 17th century uses of shall and will compatible with markedness-reversal. Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45: 7–63. —— (1994) The genesis of the article system in creolization and historical change. Papiere zur Linguistik 50: 51–63. —— (1995a) The emergence of the article system in language acquisition, creolization, and history: A universal hierarchy of natural morphological markedness. The Development of Morphological Systematicity: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. H. Pishwa & K. Maroldt (eds). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. pp. 135–61. —— (1995b) A systematic analysis of was and were in English. Papiere zur Linguistik 52: 67–73. —— (1995c) Review of Adult Language Acquisition. Crosslinguistic Perspectives, edited by Clive Perdue. Lingua 96: 67–74. —— (1996a) Demonstrative pronouns and the definite article in Latin and the Romance Languages. Papiere zur Linguistik 54: 67–82. —— (1996b) Child Language, Creolization, and Historical Change. Spanish in Contact with Portuguese. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag. —— (1996c) Variation in the application of natural processes: Language dependent constraints in the phonological acquisition of bilingual children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 515–26. —— (1998a) The development of spatial and temporal grams. Papiere zur Linguistik 58: 69–85. —— (1998b) The acquisition, learning, change, and history of Spanish mood in Mexico and the U.S. (with reference to South America and Spain). Papiere zur Linguistik 58: 137–56. Farley, R. (1970) Time and the subjunctive in contemporary Spanish. Hispania 53: 466–75. Fellbaum, M. L. (1986) Markedness and alophonic rules. Markedness. F. Eckman & E. Moravcsik (eds). New York: Plenum Press. Fontanella de Weinberg, M. A. (1982) Aspectos del Español Hablado en el Rio de la Plata durante los siglos XVI y XVII Bahia Blanca: Universidad Nacional del Sur. Friedmann, N. S. & Patino Rosselli, C. (1983) Lengua y Sociedad en el Palenque de San Basilio. Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Galván, José L. (1980) The Development of Aspectual Relations in Spanishspeaking Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. García Carrillo, A. (1988) El Español en México en el Siglo XVI. Sevilla: Ediciones Alfar. Garrido, J. (1988) Sobre la evolución hasta el artículo actual en Español. Actas del 3er Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española. M. Ariza, A. Salvador, A. Viudas (eds). Madrid: Arco.

References 141

Givon, T. (1992) Functionalism and grammar: A prospectus. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the International Linguistic Association. Georgetown University, Washington D. C., April 24–26, 1992. Glinert, L. (1989) The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gminder, R. A. (1959) A Study of 14th-century Spanish Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina. Goldin, M. G. (1974) A psychological perspective of the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania 7: 295–302. Gonzalez, G. (1980) The Acquisition of Spanish Grammar by Native Speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas as Austin. González, G. (1980) The acquisition of verb tenses and temporal expressions in Spanish: Age 2.0–4.6. Bilingual Education Series Paper #4. Los Angeles: California State University. Grégoire, A. (1947) L’Apprentissage du Langage. Vol. 2. Liège. Greenberg, J. H. (1966) Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. —— (1978) How does a language acquire gender markers? Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3. J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. —— (1985) Some iconic relationships among place, time, and discourse deixis. Iconicity in Syntax. J. Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grieve, R., Hoogenraad, R. & Murray, D. (1977) On the young child use of lexis and syntax in understanding locative instructions. Cognition 5: 235–50. Griffin, R. M. (1992) A Student’s Latin Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimm, H. (1975) On the child’s acquisition of semantic structure underlying the wordfield of prepositions. Language and Speech 18: 97–119. Haase, A. (1965) Syntaxe Française du XVIIe Siècle. Paris: Librarie Delagrave. Harris, M. (1977) ‘Demonstratives’, ‘articles’, and ‘third person pronouns’ in French: Changes in progress. Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie 93: 249–61. —— & Vincent, N. (1988) The Romance Languages. Oxford: University Press. Hawkins, J. A. (1978) Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm. —— (1987) Implicational universals as predicators of languages acquisition. Linguistics 25: 453–73. Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991) Grammaticalization. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Holm, J. (1988) Pidgins and Creoles. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge University Press. Jakobson, R. (1968) Child language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton. Johnston, J. R. & Slobin, D. (1979) The development of lexical expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 6: 529–45. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979) A Functional Approach to Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1987) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Universals of Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm.

142 References

Kempff, J. (1993) Defining reality: Mood and modo in Spanish. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference on Romance Languages & Literatures. University of Cincinnati, Ohio. May 13–15, 1993. Kirsner, R. S. (1979) Deixis in discourse: An explorative quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax. T. Givon (ed.). New York: Academic Press. pp. 355–74. Klein, W., Dietrich, R. & Noyau, C. (1993) The acquisition of temporality. Adult Language Acquisition. Crosslinguistic Perspectives: Vol. 2. C. Perdue (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. D. & Terrel, T. D. (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kuczaj, S. A. & Maratsos, M. P. (1975) On the acquisition of ‘front’, ‘back’, and ‘side’. Child Development 46: 202–10. Lakoff, G. (1971) Presupposition and relative well-formedness. Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader. D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovitz (eds). Cambridge: University Press. Lapesa, R. (1979) Nominativo o caso obliquo latino como orígen de demostrativos y artículos castellanos. Festschrift Kurt Baldinger zum 60 Geburstag. Vol. 1. H. Vernay & L. Wolf (eds). Tubingen: Niemeyer. —— (1980) Historia de la Lengua Espanola. Madrid: Gredos. Laury, R. (1998) Demonstratives in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Levine, S. C. & Carey, S. (1982) Up front: The acquisition of a concept and a word. Journal of Child Language 9: 645–57. Lleó, C. (1979) Some Optional Rules in Spanish Complementation. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Lockwood, W. B. (1968) Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon. Lope Blanch, J. M. (1958) Algunos usos del indicativo por el subjuntivo en oraciones subordinadas. Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica 12: 383–5. Luquet, G. (1988) Sobre la desaparición de futuro del subjuntivo en la lengua hablada de principios del siglo XVI. Actas del I Congreso de Historia de la Lengua Española. M. Ariza, A. Salvador & A. Viudas (eds). Madrid: Arco. Maduro, E. J. (1987) Palenkero i Papiamentu. Korsou. Maratsos, M. (1976) The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Markey, T. L. (1981) Diffusion, fusion, and creolization: A field guide to developmental linguistics. Papiere zur Linguistik 24: 5–37. Mayerthaler, W. (1988) Natural Morphology. Ann Arbor: Karoma. McCawley, J. D. (1968) The role of semantics in grammar. Universals in Linguistic Theory. E. & R. Harms (eds). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Megenney, W. (1986) El Palenquero. Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Meillet, A. (1926) Linguistique Historique and Linguistique Générale. Paris: Librairie Ancienne. Mithun, M. (1987) The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 184–93. Muller, H. F. (1970) A Chronology of Vulgar Latin. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

References 143

—— & Taylor, P. (1932) A Chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co. Nuñes, J. J. (1945) Comprendio de Gramatica Historica Portuguesa. 3rd Edition. Lisbon: Livraria Classica Editora. Ocampo, F. (1990) El subjuntivo en tres generaciones de hablantes bilingües. Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Issues. J. Bergen (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Parisi, D. & Antinucci, F. (1970) Lexical competence. Advances in Psycholinguistics. G. B. Flores D’arcais & W. J. M. Levelt (eds). Amsterdam: North Holland. Perdue, C. (ed.) (1993) Adult Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistics Perspectives. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, R. A. (1968) A Linguistic History of English. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Piaget, J. (1953) The Origins of Intelligence in Children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. —— (1969) The Child’s Conception of Time. New York: Basic Books. —— & Inhelder, B. (1956) The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piérart, B. (1975) La genèse de entre: Intuition primitive ou coordination des voisinages. Archives Psychologiques 43: 75–109. Pishwa, H. (1989) Erwerb der deutschen kongruenzregel. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Technische Universitat Berlin. —— (1991) Variability in the acquisition of the German agreement rule in syntactic contexts. Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45: 29–47. Pohl, J. (1962) Témoignages sur la Syntaxe du Verbe dans quelques Parlers Francais de Belgique. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies. Remacle, L. (1966) Remarques sur l’apprentissage du subjonctif. Mélanges de Grammaire Française Offerts à M. Maurice Grevisse. F. Desonay (ed.). Gembloux: Editions J. Duculot. Renzi, L. (1976) Grammatica e storica dell’articolo italiano. Studi de Grammatica Italiana 5: 5–42. Rojas, E. M. (1985) Evolución Histórica del Español de Tucumán, entre los Siglos XVI y XIX. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Sabeau-Jouannet, E. (1977) La Syntaxe de l’Enfant Avant 5 Ans. Paris: Larousse. Sala, M. (1971) Phonétique et Phonologie du Judéo-Espagnol de Bucarest. The Hague: Mouton. Salaun, C. (1972) Estudio sincronico ´ de las formas en -ra, -se, y -re. Español Actual 23: 14–17. Schumann, J. H. (1986) Locative and directional expressions in basilang speech. Language Learning 36: 277–94. Schwegler, A. (1998) ‘Chi ma nKongo’: Lengua y Rito Ancestrales en el Palenque de San Basilio (Colombia). Frankfurt: Iberoamericana. —— (n.d.) Palenquero (transcription of text ‘Dos Mujeres’). Ms, University of California–Irvine. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1993) The gradual loss of mood distinctions in Los Angeles Spanish. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation. University of Ottawa. October 1993.

144 References

Strecker, K. (1957) Introduction to Medieval Latin. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tomasello, M. (1987) Learning to use prepositions: A case study. Journal of Child Language 4: 79–98. Torreblanca, M. (1994) El español hablado en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos y las normas linguísticas españolas. Paper presented at the 1st Conference on Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers in the U.S.: Praxis and Theory. University of California at Davis. May 19–21, 1994. Trager, G. (1932) The Use of Latin Demonstratives. New York: The Institute of French Studies. Trudgill, P. (1986) Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Vaananen, V. (1987) Le Journal-Êpitre d’Egérie. Etude Linguistique. Helsinki: Suomolainen Tiedeakiatemia. Vidal de Battini, B. A. (1949) El habla Rural de San Luis. Parte 1. Fonética, Morfologia, Sintaxis. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. Warden, D. A. (1976) The influence of context on children’s use of identifying expressions and references. British Journal of Psychology 67: 101–12. Wagner, M. L. (1930) Caracteres Generales del Judeo-Español de Oriente. Madrid: Editorial Hernando. Washington, D. S. & Naremore, R. (1978) Children’s use of spatial prepositions in two- and three-dimensional tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 21: 151–65. Williams, E. B. (1962) From Latin to Portuguese. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wode, H. (1983) Papers on Language Acquisition, Language Learning, and Language Teaching. Heidelberg: J. Groos Verlag. Wurzel, W. U. (1989) Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zipf, G. K. & Rogers, F. M. (1939) Phonemes and varyphones in four present day Romance languages and Classical Latin from the viewpoint of dynamic philology. Archives Neerlandaises de Phonetique Experimentale 15: 111–47. Zuluaga, A. (1982) El futuro del subjuntivo: Observaciones sobre la distinción lengua hablada/lengua escrita. Actas del VII Congreso de la Asociación Internacional de Hispanistas, Roma. Vol. 2. Zur, B. (1983) [al rexishat hayidua bekerev yladim dovrei ivrit] On the acquisition of definiteness by Hebrew-speaking children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Index Note: Page numbers in italics refer to tables accusative 45, 52 adverbs 54, 55, 121 acquisition 59, 63 child language 63, 67 cognitive difficulties 57, 68 crossfield correspondences 67 frequency 68 hierarchy of markedness 66, 67–8 neutralization 68 second language acquisition 65–6, 67 sources of data 57–8 Antinucci, F. 62 article system 10–11, 119–20 acquisition 18–19 child language 19–23 creolization 23–8 definiteness/specificity 13–16, 119 hierarchy 34–5 indefinite 8, 41 language history 28–31 main points 37–8 and markedness 11–13 natural development 31–7 sources of data 16–17 see also demonstrative/article correspondence criteria Bailey, C.-J. N. 2, 3, 4, 37, 55, 90, 92, 119 basilang speakers 64 Belgian, mood 77–8 Bickerton, 10, 13, 14, 17 biological mechanisms 119–20 article system 37 child cognitive limitations 7, 12, 57

naturalness 7, 12, 57 psychological/semantic constraints 7 Bitola, article system 28–9, 30, 31 Blake, R. J. 71–2 Bresson, F. et al. 13, 17, 23 Brown, R. 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 59 Bruyn, A. 14, 17 Bybee, J. 93–4, 117 Carroll, M. et al. 64, 65 Castilian 30 child language 1, 2, 4–5, 9, 11, 55, 119 acquisition of (non)definite/(non)specific article 13 article system 19–23, 33, 38 data 16–17, 58 egocentric 19, 23 errors of segmentation 19–21 indicative 72–3 mood 72–5, 85, 122 sources of data 71–2 spatial prepositions in 59–62, 66 speaker non-specific/listener specific errors 21 speaker specific/listener non-specific errors 22–3 temporal adverbs 63, 67 Chomsky, N. 92, 93, 95, 107, 124 Clark, E. V. 59, 61 Clark, H. 59 Classical Latin 40, 45–6 Cox, M. V. 61 145

146 Index

creole 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, 119 article system 13–16, 23–8, 33, 120 data 17 neutralization 28 definite article 8, 16, 33 creation/development 39–40, 41, 45–8, 120–1 emergence 39 grammaticalization 48–52, 53 purpose 41 demonstrative 8, 39–40, 41, 120–1 criteria for identifying emergent articles 42–5 move from Latin to Romance 45–8 demonstrative/article correspondence criteria, functional 43 naturalness 43–5 statistical 42–3 structural 43 see also article system development mechanisms, biological 7, 12 sociocommunicational 7–8 diffusion, article system 29–30 data 17 Dromi, E. 62 Durkin, K. 61

Fronterizo 3, 8 article system 28, 29, 31, 32 fusion 8 article system 31 data 17 future subjunctive, in Argentine Civil Code after 1884 110, 115 in Argentine Civil Code before 1884 110, 111–15 cognitive aspectives 107–17 demise 115–17, 118, 124 in early modern Spanish 108 irregular 9 in modern Spanish 109 as unmarked in non-irrealis environments 95–6 see also past subjunctive; present subjunctive; subjunctive Galván, J. L. 63 German 58, 59, 62, 65 Givon, T. 48 González, G. 63 Greenberg, J. H. 43, 48 Grégoire, A. 71 Grieve, R. et al. 59 Grimm, H. 62

Eckmann, F. 75 Ellis, T. L. 17 English, adverbs 65 article system 12, 13, 19, 120 spatial prepositions 59, 64

Haitian, article system 23, 24–5, 37, 38, 120 Hawaiian, article system 12, 13–14, 15, 16, 23, 37, 120 Hebrew, adverbs 56 article system 23 spatial prepositions 59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 121 Holm, J. 17, 25

Faingold, E. D. 4, 17, 36, 37, 90, 119 French, adverbs 65–6 article system 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, 29, 30 Parisian/mood 77–8 spatial prepositions 61, 64–5 subjunctive verb 73, 74, 84–5 Friedman, N. S. 17

Iberian, mood 78–83, 89 implicational rules, effect of frequency of usage 93–4 mental representation/ psychological reality 92–3 indicative 91, 92, 122 child language 72–3 language history 83–4 native speakers 83, 123

Index 147

indicative – continued second language 75, 77, 78, 123 vs subjunctive 95–107, 124 Italian 58, 59, 62, 67 Johnston, J. R. 61, 62 Judeo-Spanish 3 Karmiloff-Smith, A. 13, 16, 23 Kaufman, T. 16 Klein, W. et al. 65 koines 8, 28 article system 30 data 17 Kuczaj, S. A. 61 language, acquisition 8, 10 adult 1, 2, 119 analysis 3 daughter 2–3 development 2 formulae 92–3 mood 75–83, 123 theoretical background/ assumptions 1–2 variation 6 see also second language language history 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 119 article system 28–31, 33 diffusion 29–30 fusion 31 koinization 30 mood 83–4 neutralization 29–30 Latin, move from classical to Romance 40–1, 44–8, 50, 52, 120 Latin American, mood 78–83, 89–90 Laury, R. 48 Lockwood, W. B. 48 Maratsos, M. 13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 61 marked see model of markedness marked/markered distinction 12, 55, 56, 65–6, 67, 69, 121–2

Markey, T. L. 18 Mayerthaler, W. 2, 4, 37, 56, 90, 119 Medieval Latin 40 Megenney, W. 17 Mithun, M. 48 model of markedness, article system 34–5 characterization 3, 119 developmental 7–8, 12–13, 54–7, 70–1 explanation 4–8 framework of 4 identification of structures 4–7, 11–12, 55 principles 4 spatial prepositions/temporal adverbs 66–8 universals 4 mood 9, 122–3 acquisition, learning, variation, history 72–84 child language 72–5, 123 development 70–1, 84–90 explanation 87–90 language history 83–4 language variation 75–83 natural morphology/ markedness rules 84–7 psychological/semantic constraints 88–9 second language 75 semantic presupposition 89 sociocommunicational constraints 89–90 sources of data 71–2 syntactic principles 88 see also subjunctive morphemes 54 morphology, article system 31–6 explanation of development 36–7, 68, 87–90 mood 84–7 spatial prepositions/temporal adverbs 66–8

148 Index

Naremore, R. 61 nominative 45, 52 Palenquero 3, 8 article system 23, 25, 26, 27–8, 37, 38, 120 Papiamentu 2–3, 8 article system 23, 25, 26–7, 38, 120 Parisi, D. 62 past subjunctive 9, 122 after subordination 104, 105 examples of uses 106–7 in subordinate clauses introduced by que 102–4 as unmarked in non-irrealis environments 95–6 see also future subjunctive; present subjunctive; subjunctive Patino Rosselli, C. 17 Penrose, R. 93 Piaget, J. 19, 23 Pidgin 14 Piérart, B. 61 Pishwa, H. 75 Portuguese, article system 11, 19, 20, 21, 29 demonstrative pronouns 39, 47, 52, 53 prepositions 8–9, 54, 55, 121 acquisition 59, 63–6 child language 59–62, 66 cognitive difficulties 57, 68 crossfield correspondences 67 frequency 67 hierarchy 66–7, 68 markeredness/constructional iconicity 67 neutralization 67 second language 63–5, 67 sources of data 57–8 present subjunctive 9, 122–3 after subordination 99–100 examples of uses 101 in subordinate clauses introduced by que 96–8

as unmarked in non-irrealis environments 95–6 see also future subjunctive; past subjunctive; subjunctive Principe, article system 23, 25–6, 37, 38, 120 Remacle, L. 71 Romance, move from classical Latin to 40–1, 45–8, 49, 52, 120 Rumanian, article system 11, 12, 29, 30 demonstrative pronouns 39, 47, 48, 52 Sabeau-Jouannet, E. 61 Schumann, J. H. 64 second language, acquisition/ learning 5, 55–6 adverbs 65–6, 67 data 58 indicative 75, 77, 78 mood 75, 122, 123 prepositions 63–5, 67 subjunctive neutralization 76 see also language secondary grammaticalization 48 Serbo-Croat, spatial prepositions 59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 121 Slobin, D. 61, 62 sociocommunication 119, 120 access to variation principles 8 article system 37–8 borrowing 7, 12–13 compartmentalization 8, 13, 37 constraints on mood 89–90 Spanish, article system 11, 12, 19, 29, 30, 31 demonstrative pronoun 39, 47, 52 prepositions/adverbs 58, 64 subjunctive verb 71, 72–3, 75, 78, 79–82, 83, 91–118 Sranan, article system 14–15, 16, 23, 26, 38

Index 149

subjunctive, cognitive aspects 91–118 formula 107 future: cognitive aspects 107–17 natural grammatical processes 70–90 neutralization 79–82, 83, 84 present/past: cognitive aspects 95–107 vs indicative 95–107, 122, 123 see also future subjunctive; mood; past subjunctive; present subjunctive system-external areas, constructional iconicity 6–7, 12, 56 crossfield correspondences 6, 11, 56, 67 crosslinguistic correspondences 6 frequency 6, 12, 56, 67, 68 language history 5, 11

language variation 56 neutralization 6, 12, 56, 67, 68 system-internal areas, child language 4–5, 11, 55 second language acquisition/learning 5, 55–6 Thomason, S. G. 16 Tomasello, M. 59 universal 4, 9, 54, 55 U.S. Spanish 3 Vulgar Latin 39–40, 45, 46, 47–8, 50, 52, 120 Warden, D. A. 16 Washington, D. S. 61 Yoruba

25, 38, 120

Zipf’s Law

93, 124

Development of Grammar in Spanish

A Student Grammar of Spanish

Schaum's Outline of Spanish Grammar

Spanish An essential grammar

Pitman's Commercial Spanish Grammar

Spanish Grammar (SparkCharts)

The Grammar of Technology Development

The Grammar of Technology Development

Just Enough Spanish Grammar Illustrated

Spanish Grammar Drills (Drills Series)

Intermediate Spanish: A Grammar and Workbook (Grammar Workbooks)

English Grammar 2 New Edition (Spanish Edition)

Webster's New World Spanish Grammar Handbook

English Grammar - New Edition (Spanish Edition)

English grammar 4: (Spanish 3rd Edition)

Basic Spanish: A Grammar and Workbook (Grammar Workbooks) (English and Spanish Edition)

Conversational Spanish Grammar for the Hospitality Classroom

Practice Makes Perfect: Complete Spanish Grammar

Practice Makes Perfect: Spanish Grammar Advanced

Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish: A Contrastive Study with English

A comparative practical grammar of French, Spanish and Italian

Schaum's Outline of Spanish Grammar, 5ed (Schaum's Outline Series)

English grammar in use. Grammar reference

Grammar in Plain English

Grammar in Many Voices

Grammar in Plain English

Investigations in Cognitive Grammar

English Grammar in Use

A Grammar of Teiwa (Mouton Grammar Library)

Spanish in Your Face!

A Grammar of Limbu (Mouton Grammar Library)

Development of Grammar in Spanish

A Student Grammar of Spanish

Schaum's Outline of Spanish Grammar

Spanish An essential grammar

Pitman's Commercial Spanish Grammar

Spanish Grammar (SparkCharts)

The Grammar of Technology Development

The Grammar of Technology Development

Just Enough Spanish Grammar Illustrated

Spanish Grammar Drills (Drills Series)

Intermediate Spanish: A Grammar and Workbook (Grammar Workbooks)

English Grammar 2 New Edition (Spanish Edition)

Webster's New World Spanish Grammar Handbook

English Grammar - New Edition (Spanish Edition)

English grammar 4: (Spanish 3rd Edition)

Basic Spanish: A Grammar and Workbook (Grammar Workbooks) (English and Spanish Edition)

Conversational Spanish Grammar for the Hospitality Classroom

Practice Makes Perfect: Complete Spanish Grammar

Practice Makes Perfect: Spanish Grammar Advanced

Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish: A Contrastive Study with English

A comparative practical grammar of French, Spanish and Italian

Schaum's Outline of Spanish Grammar, 5ed (Schaum's Outline Series)

English grammar in use. Grammar reference

Grammar in Plain English

Grammar in Many Voices

Grammar in Plain English

Investigations in Cognitive Grammar

English Grammar in Use

A Grammar of Teiwa (Mouton Grammar Library)

Spanish in Your Face!

A Grammar of Limbu (Mouton Grammar Library)

Recommend Documents