Eduardo D. Faingold

The Development of

Grammar in Spanish and

the Romance Languages

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

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.

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

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

Magistro meo Carolo Iacobo hunc librum dono

vii

Contents

List of Figure and Tables

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

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

4.1

Introduction

4.2

Applying a developmental model of markedness

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

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

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

107

6.4

Summary and conclusions

117

Summary and Conclusion

119

Appendices

125

References

138

Index

145

viii

Contents

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

A developmental model of markedness

2.1

English-based creoles: articles in Hawaiian creole

2.2

English-based creoles: articles in Sranan

2.3

A developmental typology of linguistic systems

2.4

A revised developmental typology of
linguistic systems

2.5

Errors of segmentation by English-speaking children

2.6

Errors of segmentation by Spanish- and
Portuguese-speaking children

2.7

Speaker-specific and listener-specific errors

2.8

English-speaking children aged 3: speaker
specific and listener non-specific

2.9

French-speaking children aged 3 to 9:
speaker specific and listener non-specific

2.10

Romance-based creoles

2.11

History: articles in the Romance languages

2.12

Spanish/Portuguese-based koines: articles in
Judeo-Ibero-Romance

2.13

Spanish/Portuguese-based fusion: articles
in Fronterizo

2.14

Fusion in the article system of Fronterizo

2.15

The article system in child language, creolization,
and language history

2.16

A typology of article systems

2.17

Hierarchy of markedness for article systems

2.18

A hierarchy of article systems

2.19

Markedness criteria

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

List of Figure and Tables

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

100

6.4

Past subjunctive in subordinate clauses
introduced by que

102

6.5

Past subjunctive after subordinators

104

6.6

Other uses of the past subjunctive

106

6.7

Future subjunctive in early modern Spanish

108

6.8

Future subjunctive in modern Spanish

109

6.9

The future subjunctive in the Argentine
Civil Code before 1884

111

6.10

The future subjunctive in the Appendix
of the Argentine Civil Code after 1884

115

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

117

List of Figure and Tables

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 com-

ments 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 Develop-
mental Linguistics at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April
2001. All the chapters in this book have benefitted greatly from

xii

comments by Prof. C.-J. N. Bailey. Revisions of Chapter 6 has bene-
fitted 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.

Acknowledgements

xiii

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

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 struc-
tures 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

in the Dutch West Indies), and Palenquero creole (Colombia), Judeo-
Spanish (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 uni-
versals, 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, demon-
strative 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 compar-

able 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)

⬎m 傻 ⬍m (the presence of the more-marked implicates the

presence of the less-marked)

Introduction

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 implica-
tional patterns of the system. These principles, however, can be
overruled by the borrowing of prestige structures and other sociocom-
municational developments, as well as by higher-level developments;
for instance, reversals in marked categories or environments – fusion,
violations to the principle of constructional iconicity, markedness-
reversal, 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 socio-
communicational 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 sociocommuni-
cational reasons (e.g. borrowing, decreolization, morphologization,
markedness-reversal, etc.). In this framework, the assignment of
markedness values is not arbitrary but the result of logically-
independent, empirically-based tests that capture significant relation-
ships 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 avail-

ability of linguistic forms to the child. Markedness theory

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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.

Introduction

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

(ii) Language variation

Less-marked structures usually sub-

stitute 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 identifica-
tion 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 crosslinguis-

tic 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 com-
plexity 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 struc-
turally 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 char-

acterized 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’, monoph-
thongs 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 lan-

guage history and creolization. These can be either more
marked or less marked (see examples in Chapter 2).

Introduction

(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, cre-
olization, 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 Portuguese-
based creoles (e.g. Papiamentu, Palenquero), koines (e.g. Judeo-Ibero-
Romance), 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 def-
inite 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 prepos-

itions (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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 develop-

ment 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 more-
marked 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 lin-
guistic mechanisms of language use in interaction with markedness
principles.

Chapter 7 summarizes and concludes the text with a review of

each chapter.

Introduction

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 develop-
mental 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 Portuguese-
based creoles (e.g. Papiamentu, Palenquero), koines (e.g. Judeo-Ibero-
Romance), and fusion (e.g. Fronterizo), and a number of other
languages. This data is then used to provide evidence supporting

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 identi-
fication 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 chil-
dren, 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 lan-
guage history.

(ii) Crossfield correspondences

As discussed in Chapter 1,

crossfield correspondences are useful for the identifica-
tion of markedness values. In fact, the search for cross-
field 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 corres-
ponding to the first cardinal number in an earlier stage)
in child language Stage 2 and Spanish, Portuguese, and
French.

Articles

(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 dis-
tinction 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 pro-
cedure, rather than as a conclusive test of markedness
values.

(v) Constructional iconicity

These are instances of Mayer-

thaler’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-year-

olds 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 decre-
olization, a creole borrows and integrates elements from
its lexifier languages. For example, in Palenquero and
Hawaiian, decreolization processes recently might have

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 compart-

mentalization, neutralization does not occur. More-
marked 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 signifi-
cant 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

Articles

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).

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.1

English-based creoles: articles

in Hawaiian creole (Bickerton 1981)

Definite

Indefinite

Specific
sing.

sing.

wan

pl.

Non-specific
sing.

pl.

(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 inhab-
itants, the creoles, and a second language to the rest of the popula-
tion (see further, Bruyn 1993; Holm 1988). Bruyn concludes that
the primary function of determiners in early Sranan is to mark not

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).

Articles

Table 2.2

English-based creoles: articles in Sranan

(Bruyn 1993; Holm 1988)

Definite

Indefinite

Specific
sing.

da – a – 0

sing.

wan – 0

pl.

den – dem – 0

pl.

Non-specific
sing.

pl.

(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 pre-
sumably 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;

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

• 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 Portuguese-

based 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).

Articles

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 hier-
archy 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),

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.3

A developmental typology of linguistic systems (Markey 1981)

Inputs

Continuity

Relexification

(1) Diffusion

1 L

⫹ continuity

⫺ relexification

(2) Fusion

⫹ L’s

␣ continuity

␤ relexification

(3) Pidgins/creoles

⫹ L’s

⫺ continuity

⫹ relexification

Table 2.4

A revised developmental typology of linguistic systems

Inputs

Continuity

Relexification

(1) Child language

⫹ L’s

⫹ continuity

⫺ relexification

(2) Diffusion

1 L

⫹ continuity

⫺ relexification

(3) Koines

⫹ D’s or L’s

⫹ continuity

⫺ relexification

(4) Fusion

2 L’s

␣ continuity

␤ relexification

(5) Creoles

⫹ L’s

⫺ continuity

⫹ relexification

continuity in language transmission, and no relexification; (2) dif-
fusion 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 transmis-
sion 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 break-
down 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 spe-
cific and listener non-specific errors. Types (1) and (2) occur sporadic-
ally 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 chil-
dren (prepositions in and on, possessive s, plural s, articles a and the,
irregular and regular past tense, irregular and regular third person

Articles

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.5 Errors of segmentation by English-speaking children (Brown 1973)

(1) that a dog
(2) that a book
(3) that a Uncle Clyde
(4) 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) lalu ‘the light’ [Sp. la lus]
(6) ebabi ‘the bambi’ [Sp. el bambi]
(7) loso ‘the bear’ [Sp. el oso]
(8) okokolat ‘the chocolate’ [Port. o sokolat]
(9) apala ‘the ball’ [Port. a bola]

(10) adadis ‘the nose’ [Port. or Sp. a naris or la naris]
(11) akatia ‘the Katia’ [Port. a Katia]
(12) exuti ‘the Ruth’ [Port. a Ruti]

(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 com-
mon 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/non-
specific 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).

Articles

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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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’

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 French-
speaking 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 defin-
ite 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 dis-
cussed 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.

Articles

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’

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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

sing.

pl.

a – la

pl.

(b) Portuguese-based creoles: articles

in Principe creole (Holm 1988)
sing.

sing.

pl.

articles in Papiamentu
(Faingold 1994)

sing.

pl.

(d) Spanish/Portuguese-based creoles:

articles in Palenquero
(Faingold 1994)

sing.

0 – e

sing.

un – ma

sing.

pl.

un ma – um ma pl.

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/Portuguese-
based 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 indefin-

ite 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).

Articles

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/non-
specific 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 (Nether-
land 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?’

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

(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 biopro-

gram, 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/non-
specific 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

Articles

non-specific vs first cardinal specific. This is probably the result of
decreolization processes, which might have recently changed non-
specific 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 lan-
guages 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 charac-
terized 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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.

Articles

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. sing.

masc. pl.

fem. sing.

ua – a

fem. sing.

fem. pl.

(b) Articles in French (Harris & Vincent 1988)

masc. sing.

masc. pl.

les

masc. pl.

des

fem. sing.

une

fem. pl.

les

fem. pl.

des

masc. sing.

masc. pl.

los

masc. pl.

unos

fem. sing.

una

fem. pl.

las

fem. pl.

unas

(d) Articles in Portuguese (Faingold 1994)

masc. sing.

masc. pl.

uns

fem. sing.

uma

fem. pl.

umas

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 Judeo-
Ibero-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 mid-
vowels [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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.12

Spanish/Portuguese-based koines: articles in

Judeo-Ibero-Romance (Faingold 1994)

Definite article

Indefinite article

masc. sing.

masc. pl.

lus

masc. pl.

unus

fem. sing.

une

fem. pl.

las

fem. pl.

unes

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

Articles

in terms of both morphological naturalness and biological and socio-
communicational 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 develop-

ment, creolization, and language history. A close look at Table 2.15
further suggests a typology of article systems in terms of the pres-
ence 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.13

Spanish/Portuguese-based fusion: articles in Fronterizo (Faingold

1994)

Definite article

Indefinite article

masc. sing.

u – o – el – e

masc. sing.

um – un

masc. pl.

us – os – los – lus

masc. pl.

unos – uns

fem. sing.

a – la

fem. sing.

uma – una – ua

fem. pl.

as – las

fem. pl.

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’

el taier Sp. ‘the workshop’

masc. pl.

os almnu Port. ‘the students’

los lunes Sp. ‘Mondays’

fem. sing.

a atividade Port. ‘the activity’

–

fem. pl.

as pesoas Port. ‘the people’

–

(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’

(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.

Articles

Table 2.15

The article system in child language, creolization, and language

history

(dem)

(0)indef

(card)

(0)nonsp

(card)

(0)def

def

indef

nonsp

(i) Child

language

(1) Stage 1

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(2) Stage 2

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(ii) Creolization
(3) Haitian

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(4) Palenquero

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

(5) Papiamentu

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(6) Hawaiian

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(7) Principe

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(8) Sranan

⫹

⫺

⫹

(iii) Language

history

(9) English

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(10) French

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(11) Fronterizo

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(12) Hebrew

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(13) J-I-R

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(14) Portuguese

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(15) Rumanian

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

(16) Spanish

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

⫹

⫺

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 2.16

A typology of article systems

(dem)

(0)indef

(card)

(0)nonsp

(card)

(0)def

def

indef

nonsp

(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

(1) Child language, Stage 1
(5) Haitian, Principe
(7) Language history, Stage 1

System 2

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

(3) Hawaiian, Papiamentu

System 3

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

(6) Palenquero

(0)nonsp

System 4

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

(4) Sranan

(0)indef (0)nonsp

System 5

(dem)def (card)indef (card)nonsp

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

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.

Articles

Table 2.18

A hierarchy of article systems

傻 S4 傻 S3 傻 S2 傻 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

(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 indefin-

ite) 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 crosslinguis-

tically 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 non-
autonomous (Bailey 1982, 1996). In explaining linguistic develop-
ment, 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 devel-
opment of the article system in child language, creolization, and
language history. Correspondences were examined in the develop-
ment of the definite vs indefinite as well as the specific vs non-specific
distinctions. The chapter presented a deliberately integrative per-
spective, 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 phon-
ology. 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 sociocommunica-
tional 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 unidir-
ectional. 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 char-
acterized by more marked linguistic structures. In certain cases,
substratum and superstratum influences may tamper with the unidir-
ectionality 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

Articles

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 distinc-
tion 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 charac-
terized 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 develop-
ment 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

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 devi-
ations 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 restor-
ation 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 restor-
ation, 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,

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

(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.

Demonstrative Pronouns

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 inde-
pendent 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 demonstra-
tives functioning as definite articles.

3.3.1.1

Statistical criterion

This criterion is concerned with a synchronic increase in text fre-
quency 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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

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 gram-
maticalization (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) pronom-
inal (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 dis-
cussion 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 corres-
ponding to emergent Romance articles are almost always distance

Demonstrative Pronouns

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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

100

Accusatives
neut. pl.

illa

fem. sing.

ipsam

fem. pl.

ipsas

100

Innovations

100

Breakdown Summary
Nominatives

Accusatives

Innovations

100

demonstratives); and (ii) following markedness principles, the least-
marked 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, more-
marked 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

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 more-
marked 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 increas-

ingly 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 demonstra-

tives 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

Demonstrative Pronouns

Table 3.3

Nominatives and accusatives in Chrodegangus’

De Vestimenta Clericorum (Vulgar Latin, mid-8th century)

Nominatives

fem. sing./neut. pl.

illa

masc. sing.

ille

masc. pl.

illi

100

Accusatives
fem. pl.

illas

masc. pl.

illos

100

Breakdown Summary
Nominatives

Accusatives

100

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 3.4

Demonstratives in Classical Latin (Griffin 1992)

Singular

Plural

masc.

fem.

neut.

masc. fem.

neut.

Nominative
hic

haec

hoc

hae

haec

ille

illa

illud

illi

illae

illa

iste

ista

istud

isti

istae

ista

ipse

ipsa

ipsum

ipsi

ipsae

ipsa

Accusative
illum

illam

illud

illos

illas

illa

hunc

hanc

hoc

hos

has

haec

istum

istam

istud

istos

istas

ista

ipsum

ipsam

ipsum

ipsos

ipsas

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

(circa 1150)

masc. sing.

el ‘the’

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

Demonstrative Pronouns

Table 3.6

The definite article in

Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian

Singular

Plural

masc.

fem.

masc.

fem.

Spanish
el

los

las

Portuguese
o

Rumanian
ul – le ua – 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 demonstra-
tives 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 func-
tion of demonstratives; then, speakers precede with a demonstrative
those noun phrases whose referents have a prominent role in dis-
course, 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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.

Demonstrative Pronouns

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)

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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)

Demonstrative Pronouns

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.

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 pro-

minent 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

Summary and conclusions

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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

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 promi-
nent 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 synchron-

ically and diachronically, is not coincidental but due to grammati-
calization 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.

Demonstrative Pronouns

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 sim-
ple 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 morpholo-
gical 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

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 struc-
tures 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 logically-
independent, empirically-based tests that capture significant rela-
tionships 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 dis-
play 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 avail-

ability of linguistic forms to adult immigrants in the early
stages of second language acquisition in a natural environment

Prepositions and Adverbs

(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) princi-
ple of constructional iconicity, that is, the addition of a
mark-bearing element to the simpler form. The more-
marked 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

4.2.2

Biological mechanisms of morphological development

This section discusses markedness constraints in morphological devel-
opment, 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 com-
plex 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 nat-

ural 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

Prepositions and Adverbs

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 experi-
mental 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 (Sabeau-
Jouannet 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).

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 immi-
grant 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 tem-
poral 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 chil-
dren aged 2;3 and 3;4 (mean ages) found that in and on are acquired
together, while under is acquired after in and on.

Prepositions and Adverbs

able 4.1

Spatial prepositions in child language

ype

English

French

Italian

Ger

man

Serbo-Croatian

urkish

Hebrew

(1)

dans

in, nel, dentro

u, unutra

icinde

(2)

sur

su, sopra

auf

na/nad

üstünde

(3)

INTO

–*

–

(4)

–

bei, an

–

(5)

UNDER

under

sous

sotto

–

pod, ispod

altinda

mitaxat le

(6)

TOP

top

–

(7)

BOTTOM

bottom

–

(8)

BACK

back

–

dietro (a)

–

iza, izada,

arkasinda

meaxorei

natrag, otraga

(9)

FRONT

front

–

davanti (a)

–

red, ispred, spreda,

anünde

–

osprijeda, napred

(10)

BESIDE

beside

à coté (de)

vicino (a)

–

blizu, kraj, kala, kod

yaninda

al-yad

(11)

BETWEEN

between

entre

–

medu, iznedu

ortasinda,

–

arasinda

(12)

OVER

over

–

(13)

ALONG

–

lungo

–

(14)

THROUGH

–

attraverso

–

* – means that I have no data on these prepositions. No resear

ch on these prepositions has been done to the best of my knowledg

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 com-
mon.’ 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 chil-

dren 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’.

Prepositions and Adverbs

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 pre-
schoolers 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 chil-
dren 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’.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 Spanish-

speaking 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, Serbo-
Croatian 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 acqui-

sition 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.

Prepositions and Adverbs

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 con-
sistently 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:

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 4.2

Spatial prepositions in second language acquisition

Type

English

French

German

(1) IN

–

(2) ON

–

auf

(3) AT

–

(4) SIDE

side

–

(5) UNDER

under

–

unter

(6) OVER

over

–

uber

(7) IN TOP

in top

en haut

–

(8) IN FRONT

in front

en face de

–

(9) IN THE BACK

in the back

–

(10) IN THE RIGHT

in the right

à droite

–

(11) BESIDE

–

à coté (de)

Seite

(12) BOTTOM

–

en bas

–

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 immi-
grants 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

Prepositions and Adverbs

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 prep-

ositions 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 identi-

fying 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) Mark-
eredness 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

(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 elem-

ents 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 com-
plex temporal adverbs such as already, not yet, no longer.

Prepositions and Adverbs

(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

Explaining morphological development

As in other chapters in this book (see also, Faingold 1996b), explan-
ation 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

Summary and conclusions

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 accom-
plished actions with ‘already’ or how things are found ‘beyond’
reach.

I have discussed complex phenomena that support the hypoth-

esis that least-marked forms occur early, are more resistant to

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

neutralization, and are more natural. In this sense, natural constraints
tend to be unidirectional. In contrast, under certain linguistic condi-
tions (e.g. violations of the principle of markeredness and construc-
tional 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.

Prepositions and Adverbs

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 lan-

guage, 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 develop-

ment of mood. For instance, with regard to neutralization, where the
less-marked form survives, children fail to acquire and adults neu-
tralize 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 sen-
tences 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 chil-
dren, 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 Verbs

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 imper-

fect, 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

In Table 5.3, French-speaking children avoid the subjunctive

(item (1)), exhibit the infinitive instead of the subjunctive (sen-
tence (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)).

Subjunctive Verbs

Table 5.1

The subjunctive in modern Spanish

Tenses

Singular

Plural

1st person

Present subjunctive

trabaje

trabajemos

Past subjunctive

trabajara – trabajase

trabajaramos –

(Imperfect)

trabajasemos

Present perfect

haya

hayamos

subjunctive

Past perfect

hubiera – hubiese

hubieramos –

subjunctive hubiesemos
(pluperfect)

2nd person

Present subjunctive

trabajes

trabajeis

Past subjunctive

trabajaras – trabajases

trabajarais –

(Imperfect)

trabajaseis

Present perfect

hayas

hayais

subjunctive

Past perfect

hubieras – hubieses

hubierais –

subjunctive hubieseis
(Pluperfect)

3rd person

Present subjunctive

trabaje

trabajen

Past subjunctive

trabajara – trabajase

trabajaran –

(Imperfect)

trabajasen

Present perfect

haya

hayan

subjunctive

Past perfect

hubiera – hubiese

hubieran –

subjunctive hubiesen
(Pluperfect)

⫹ past participle (e.g. trabajando, comido, vivido).

⫹ past participle (see ‘present perfect subjunctive’ above).

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 5.2

The subjunctive in modern French

Tenses

Singular

Plural

1st Person

Present subjunctive

aime

aimions

Past subjunctive

aimasse

aimassions

(imperfect)
Present perfect

aie

ayons

subjunctive

Past perfect subjunctive

eusse

eussions

(pluperfect)

2nd Person

Present subjunctive

aimes

aimiez

Past subjunctive

aimasses

aimassiez

(imperfect)
Present perfect

aies

ayez

subjunctive

Past perfect subjunctive

eusses

eussiez

(pluperfect)

3rd Person

Present subjunctive

aime

aiment

Past subjunctive

aimât

aimassent

(imperfect)
Present perfect

ait

aient

subjunctive

Past perfect subjunctive

eût

eussent

(pluperfect)

⫹ 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)

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 obliga-
tory 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 obli-
gatory, 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 (sec-
ond 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).

Subjunctive Verbs

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)

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 5.5

Subjunctive neutralization in 2nd language

learning: English speakers learning Spanish

First group (Spring 1993)
(i) Present subjunctive

Present subjunctive

179

Present indicative

390

Infinitive

*Others

292

Total

874

(ii) Past subjunctive

Past subjunctive

Past indicative

261

Present indicative

Present subjunctive

138

Infinitive

Future

Others

346

Total

874

Second group (Fall 1993)
(i) Present subjunctive

Present subjunctive

220

Present indicative

Others

238

Total

551

(ii) Past subjunctive

Past subjunctive

Past indicative

141

Present indicative

Present subjunctive

122

Infinitive

Future

Conditional

Others

154

Total

551

Rate of errors –

79.5 per cent;

94 per cent;

60 per cent;

89 per cent.

* Others refers to errors that could not be identified as any

conjugation in Spanish.

Subjunctive Verbs

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)

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 less-
marked 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.

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 vari-
ation 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 less-
marked past indicative for the more-marked past subjunctive (sen-
tences (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 sub-
junctive 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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)

Subjunctive Verbs

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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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)

Table 5.7

(Continued)

(16)a Es probable que haya terminado.
(16)b Probablemente lo terminó.
(17)a No creo que vuelva.
(17)b No creo que volverá.
(18)a El libro que proximamente escriba, sera mejor.
(18)b 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)

Subjunctive Verbs

(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)

⫽ (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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 5.8

(Continued)

(b) Subjunctive neutralization in a Spanish language department

(i) Present subjunctive

Present subjunctive

148

Infinitive

Indefinite

Total

152

(ii) Past subjunctive

Past subjunctive

131

Present perfect subjunctive

Past perfect subjunctive

Past indicative

Present indicative

Infinitive

Others

Total

152

* See Appendices 1 and 2.
Rate of errors –

2.6 per cent;

13.8 per cent.

Table 5.9

Subjunctive neutralization in Argentine Spanish

(Faingold 1998b)

(i) Present subjunctive

Present subjunctive

446

Present indicative

Present perfect subjunctive

Infinitive

Others

Total

456

(ii) Past subjunctive

Past subjunctive

296

Past indicative

Past perfect subjunctive

Present perfect subjunctive

Present indicative

Present subjunctive

Conditional

Infinitive

Others

Total

456

Rate of errors –

2 per cent;

35 per cent.

(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 neutral-
ization 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)).

Subjunctive Verbs

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)

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 pour-

tant 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)

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 socio-
communicational 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.

Subjunctive Verbs

Table 5.12

Markedness rules for mood in child language, second language

learning, language variation, and language history

Markedness rule

Data

(1)

⬎m present subjunctive ⬎

Child language (French, Spanish), 2nd

⬍m present indicative

language learning (Spanish), language
variation (French, Spanish), history
(French)

(2)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

2nd language learning (Spanish),

⬍m past indicative

language variation (French, Spanish),
History (Spanish)

(3)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

2nd language learning (Spanish),

⬍m present subjunctive

history (French)

(4)

⬎m present subjunctive ⬎

2nd language learning (Spanish),

⬍m infinitive

language variation (Spanish)

(5)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

2nd language learning (Spanish),

⬍m infinitive

language variation (Spanish)

(6)

⬎m present subjunctive ⬎

Language variation (French, Spanish)

⬍m future indicative

(7)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

2nd language learning (Spanish)

⬍m future indicative

(8)

⬎m present subjunctive ⬎

Language variation (French)

⬍m periphrastic future

(9)

⬎m present perfect

Language variation (Spanish)

subjunctive

⬎ ⬍ m future

indicative

(10)

⬎m present perfect

Language variation (Spanish)

subjunctive

⬎ ⬍m present

perfect indicative

(11)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

Language variation (Spanish)

⬍m present perfect
subjunctive

(12)

⬎m past subjunctive ⬎

Language variation (Spanish)

⬍m past perfect
subjunctive

(13)

⬎m present subjunctive ⬎

Language variation (French)

⬍m conditional

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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 correspon-
dences; (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 corres-
pondences, 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) cross-
field correspondences; (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (v) neu-
tralization), 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 his-
tory; (iii) crossfield correspondences; (iv) crosslinguistic correspond-
ences; (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) lan-
guage variation; (iv) crosslinguistic correspondences; (v) neutraliza-
tion), 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

Explaining morphological development

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

Subjunctive Verbs

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 socio-
communicational 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. dis-
like, 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 con-

cerned 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 indef-

inite 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 nega-
tive 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 sub-
ordinate proposition not to be the case (of the car being in good
shape).

5.5.2.2

Sociocommunicational constraints on mood variation and

change

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

Subjunctive Verbs

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

Summary and conclusions

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 lin-
guistic 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.

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 explain-
ing 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 marked-
ness 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 sub-
junctive is used in irrealis constructions; these are statements denot-
ing 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

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 sys-
tems. 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

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 repre-

sentations. As Bybee (2001) puts it:

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

The use of forms and patterns both in production and
perception affects their representations in memory. High-
frequency 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 represen-
tations. 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 lin-
guistic 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 high-
frequency 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).

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 prin-
ciples, 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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.1

Present subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que

Meaning of main clause

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) Possibility, probability

⫹

(1)

(b) Contingency

⫹

(2)

⫹

(3), (4)

(d) Causation

⫹

(5)

(e) Avoidance

⫹

(6)

(f) Doubt, not-expectativity

⫹

(7)

(g) Believing, stating,

⫹

(8), (9), (10)

declaring, understanding
⫹ neg.

(h) Ordering, requesting,

⫹

(11), (12), (13)

allowing, forbidding

(i) Emotional reactions,

⫹/⫺

m/u

(14), (15)

Value judgements

(j) Denial,

⫹/⫺

m/u

(16)

counterfactuality

(k) Fear

⫹/⫺

m/u

(17)

(l) Suspecting

⫹/⫺

m/u

(18)

(m) Hoping

⫹/⫺

m/u

(19)

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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

(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’

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

(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.’

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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

Table 6.2

Present subjunctive after subordinators

Meaning of subordinator

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) In order that . . .

⫹

(1)

(b) In order that not . . ./lest

⫹

(2)

⫹

(3)

(d) In such a way that . . .

⫹

(4)

(intention)

(e) Como (

⫽ ‘as’) (future action)

⫹

(5)

(f) Without . . .

⫹

(6)

(g) In case . . .

⫹

(7)

(h) Time subordinators

⫹

(8)

(future action)

(i) Provided that/on condition

⫹

(9)

that

(j) Except . . . , unless

⫹

(10)

(k) Although . . . , in spite of

⫹

(11)

(future action)

(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.’

100

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.3

Other uses of the present subjunctive

Situation

Subjunctive

Markedness

Examples

(a) To translate when the

⫹

(1)

event is not a reality:
whoever, whatever,
whenever, wherever,
the more

(b) In relative clauses with

⫹

(2)

non-identified or denied
antecedent

⫹

(3)

introducing clauses with
reference to an unknown
or non-existent entity

(d) After ‘super-superlatives’

⫹

(4)

(e) For affirmative imperatives

⫹

(5)

with usted/ustedes

(f) Negative imperative

⫹

(6)

(g) After words expressing wishes

⫹

(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.’

‘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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

101

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.’

102

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.4

Past subjunctive in subordinate clauses introduced by que

Meaning of main clause

Subjunctive Markedness Examples

(a) Possibility, probability

⫹

(1)

(b) Contingency

⫹

(2)

⫹

(3), (4)

(d) Causation

⫹

(5)

(e) Avoidance

⫹

(6)

(f) Doubt, not-expectativity

⫹

(7)

(g) Believing, stating, declaring,

⫹

(8), (9), (10)

understanding

⫹ neg.

(h) Ordering, requesting,

⫹

(11), (12), (13)

allowing, forbidding

(i) Hoping

⫹

(14)

(j) Emotional reactions,

⫹/⫺

m/u

(15), (16)

value judgements

(k) Denial, counterfactuality

⫹/⫺

m/u

(17)

(l) Fear

⫹/⫺

m/u

(18)

(m) Suspecting

⫹/⫺

m/u

(19)

(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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

103

(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.’

104

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.5

Past subjunctive after subordinators

Meaning of subordinator

Subjunctive

Markedness Examples

(a) In order that . . .

⫹

(1)

(b) In order that not . . . /lest

⫹

(2)

⫹

(3)

(d) In such a way that . . . (intention)

⫹

(4)

(e) Como (

⫽ ‘as’) (future action)

⫹

(5)

(f) Without . . .

⫹

(6)

(g) In case . . .

⫹

(7)

(h) Time subordinators

⫹

(8)

(future action)

(i) Provided that/on condition that

⫹

(9)

(j) Except . . . , unless. . .

⫹

(10)

(k) Although . . . , in spite of

⫹

(11)

(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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

105

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 . . . ’

106

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.6

Other uses of the past subjunctive

Situation

Subjunctive Markedness Examples

(a) To translate when the event is

⫹

(1)

not a reality: whoever, whatever,
whenever, wherever, the more

(b) In relative clauses with

⫹

(2)

non-identified or denied
antecedent

⫹

(3)

introducing clauses with
reference to an unknown
or non-existent entity

(d) After words expressing wishes

⫹

(4)

(e) In conditional sentences

⫹

(5)

(remote, unfulfilled)

(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 sub-
junctives 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

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

107

108

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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.’

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

109

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 mainten-
ance 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 sub-
junctive 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 sub-
junctive 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 disap-
peared (Peters 1968). As with the English verb ‘to be’, Spanish haber

110

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

111

Table 6.9

The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code before 1884

Verb

Total

Page where verb occurs

occurrences

(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

(3) hiciere(n)

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

112

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.9

(Continued)

(4) estuviere(n)

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

(5) tuviere(n)

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

(6) supiere(n)

27 [2 times], 29, 31, 224

(7) pudiere(n)

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

(8) tratare(n)

1, 24, 129

(9) resultare(n)

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

(10) cansare(n)

192, 310, 311

(11) causare(n)

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

(12) asistiere(n)

(13) presentare(n)

18, 315

(14) cumpliere(n)

22, 146 [2 times]

(15) careciere(n)

(16) pasare(n)

150, 168, 338 [2 times], 340

(17) hallare(n)

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

(18) retardare(n)

182

(19) quisiere(n)

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

(20) resolviere(n)

184

(21) dejare(n)

152, 191, 294, 379, 399, 411

(22) sembrare(n)

295

(23) plantare(n)

295

(24) edificare(n)

295

(25) emigrare(n)

295

(26) conviniere(n)

296

(27) atravesare(n)

300

(28) saliere(n)

301

(29) prohibiere(n)

307

(30) poseyere(n)

282, 310

(31) bastare(n)

431

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

113

(32) alcanzare(n)

62, 432

(33) faltare(n)

32, 83 [3 times]

(34) entrare(n)

200

(35) fundare(n)

(36) casare(n)

40, 55

(37) contrajere(n)

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

(38) creyere(n)

(39) admitiere(n)

(40) arrojare(n)

(41) justificare(n)

(42) perdiere(n)

33, 58, 140, 285

(43) impugnare(n)

(44) pagare(n)

102, 200, 325, 363

(45) versare(n)

107, 116, 135 [2 times]

(46) constare(n)

111, 145, 200, 216

(47) alcanzare(n)

120, 191

(48) conociere(n)

125

(49) decretare(n)

126

(50) negare(n)

128

(51) firmare(n)

128

(52) obrare(n)

129

(53) impusiere(n)

132, 154

(54) probare(n)

133, 136 [2 times], 137, 312

(55) dispusiere(n)

139

(56) retractare(n)

140

(57) estipulare(n)

141

(58) llegare(n)

142, 153

(59) reservare(n)

146, 203

(60) mudare(n)

147

(61) dejare(n)

147, 292

(62) constituyere(n)

150

(63) quedare(n)

152

(64) cambiare(n)

154

(65) diere(n)

157, 320

(66) gastare(n)

157

(67) encargare(n)

158

114

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

Table 6.9

(Continued)

(68) optare(n)

160, 247

(69) consistiere(n)

165, 338

(70) intimare(n)

189

(71) restituyere(n)

193

(72) depositare(n)

194

(73) afiansare(n)

194

(74) contratare(n)

194

(75) prestare(n)

195

(76) cobrare(n)

24 [2 times], 326

(77) debiere(n)

204, 361

(78) aceptare(n)

200

(79) compusiere(n)

203

(80) ganare(n)

207

(81) renunciare(n)

207

(82) juzgare(n)

98, 208

(83) expresare(n)

214

(84) conociere(n)

217

(85) ocasionare(n)

225

(86) ratificare(n)

227

(87) ejerciere(n)

227, 239

(88) sirviere(n)

240

(89) muriere(n)

242

(90) naciere(n)

41 [2 times], 235, 363

(91) venciere(n)

245

(92) apareciere(n)

246

(93) concediere(n)

253

(94) abandonare(n)

282, 355

(95) sufriere(n)

285

(96) tomare(n)

290

(97) apropiare(n)

291

(98) gozare(n)

322

(99) llenare(n)

324

(100) restare(n)

329

(101) formare(n)

329

(102) cesare(n)

341

‘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

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

115

(103) registrare(n)

351

(104) existiere(n)

360

(105) solicitare(n)

363

(106) abusare(n)

364

(107) sucediere(n)

(108) perjudicare(n)

377

(109) viviere(n)

398

Total

526

Table 6.10

The future subjunctive in the Appendix of the Argentine Civil

Code after 1884

Year of amendment

Verb

Total

Page where

occurrences

verb occurs

(i) 1884

hubiere(n)

451, 452, 453

(ii) 1898

none

(iii) 1919

(1) hubiere(n)

458

(2) fuere(n)

458

(iv) 1920

none

(v) 1926

(1) hubiere(n)

467

(2) fuere(n)

468

(vi) 1943

none

(vii) 1946

hubiere(n)

469

(viii) 1948

(1) estuviere(n)

519

(2) fuere(n)

519

(ix) 1950

hubiere(n)

499

(x) 1952

(1) hiciere(n)

464

(2) hubiere(n)

465

Total

decreases drastically. Figure 6.1 presents the loss of the future sub-
junctive at a glance.

Table 6.11 normalizes the number of verbs in the future subjunct-

ive 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,

116

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

522

Before 1884

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)

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 func-
tional 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

Summary and conclusions

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 dis-
tinction 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).

Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness

117

Table 6.11

The future subjunctive in the Argentine Civil Code (before 1884)

and its Appendix (after 1884). Normalization of cases of the future subjunc-
tive per one-hundred pages

The Argentine Civil Code

Future subjunctives per one-hundred pages

Before 1884

119

After 1884

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.

118

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 linguis-
tics and creolization) but also first and second language acquisition
(see Faingold 1996b).

In Chapter 2, I was concerned with natural morphological pro-

cesses 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 influ-
ences 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 def-
inite 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 con-
trast, 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 cen-
turies, I traced the grammaticalization of demonstratives into definite
articles (both nominatives and accusatives, in prenominal and post-
nominal 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 identi-
fied 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

120

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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 lan-
guage 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 accom-
plished 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 theoret-

ical 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

Summary and Conclusion

121

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 chil-
dren 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 lan-
guage 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),

122

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

and language history (French) – a total of four grammatical envir-
onments 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 gram-
matical 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 gram-
matical 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 marked-
ness 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 struc-
tures. 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

Summary and Conclusion

123

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.

124

Grammar in Spanish and Romance Languages

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. NONEXIS-

TENT 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 restau-

rante. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT

(15) Busco un restaurante donde —————— (servir) comida mexicana aut-

entica. 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 CER-

TAIN CONJUNCTIONS

125

126

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. NONEXIS-

TENT 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 restau-

rante. NONEXISTENT ANTECEDENT

(15) Busqué un restaurante donde —————— (servir) comida mexicana

autentica. INDEFINITE ANTECEDENT

(16) Quise un profesor particular que —————— (enseñar) francés. INDEF-

INITE 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 CER-

TAIN CONJUNCTIONS

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:]

H [alo]

‘hello’

(2) [de

ti] – [dedeti]

‘object’

Session 2. Noam aged 1;2.9

(1) [s

S [si]

‘yes’

(2) [asi]

S [asi]

‘in this manner’

(3) [ze]

H [ze]

‘this’

(4) [ese]

S [ese]

‘that’

(5) [ai]

S [ai]

‘there’

Session 3. Noam aged 1;3.0

(1) [dai]

H [dai]

‘enough’

(2) [ke]

P [ke]

‘I want’

(3) [e:e:e]

‘I want that’

(4) [

ti]

P [ken

ti]

‘hot’

(5) [kaka]

S [kaka]

‘feces’

(6) [papa]

S [papa]

‘father’

(7) [papi]

S [lapis]

‘pencil’

(8) [ete]

S [ese]

‘that’

(9) [si]

S [si]

‘yes’

(10) [kaki]

H [kaki]

‘feces’

(11) [tsi]

P [ken

ti]

‘hot’

(12) [esze]

S [ese] H [ze]

‘that’

(13) [na] – [nana] – [nani]

‘food’

Session 4. Noam aged 1;4.4

(1) [te]

S [te]

‘tea’

(2) [nan]

‘food’

(3) [kako]

P [koko]

‘feces’

Session 5. Noam aged 1;4.13
[to]

S [torre]

‘tower, cubes’

Session 6. Noam aged 1;4.22

(1) [mama]

S [mama]

‘mother’

(2) [mami]

S [mami]

‘mother’

127

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

Session 7. Noam aged 1;5.8

(1) [pe]

P [p

␧]

‘foot’

(2) [kax]

H [kax]

‘take this’

Session 8. Noam aged 1;5.24

(1) [tita]

S [ga

ietita]

‘cookie’

(2) [mai]

P [mai]

‘mother’

(3) [ai]

S [ai]

‘ouch’

Session 9. Noam aged 1;6.5

(1) [da]

P [da]

‘give’

(2) [tatu]

‘pen’

(3) [pape]

S [papel]

‘paper’

(4) [pupa]

S [pelota]

‘ball’

(5) [papai]

P [papai]

‘father’

(6) [pai]

P [pai]

‘father’

(7) [koko]

P [koko]

‘feces’

(8) [la]

P [la]

‘there’

(9) [lo]

H [lo]

‘no’

(10) [titita]

S [ga

ietita]

‘biscuit’

(11) [ali]

P [ali]

‘there’

(12) [alu] – [alo]

H [alo]

‘hello’

Session 10. Noam aged 1;6.23

(1) [lelo]

S [rrelox]

‘watch, clock’

(2) [dida]

H [linda]

‘name of dog’

(3) [tatu]

P [gatu]

‘cat’

(4) [pipi]

P [pipi]

‘bird’

(5) [lalu]

S [lalus]

‘the light’

(6) [nene]

S [nene]

‘child’

(7) [le]

P [le]

‘read’

(8) [lalala]

S [banana]

‘banana’

(9) [fu::]

‘lights off’

(10) [tatate]

S [sentate]

‘sit’

(11) [lali]

S [dani]

‘name of father’

(12) [ama] – [ima]

H [ima]

‘mother’

(13) [kuku]

H [kuku]

‘peek-a-boo’

(14) [tutu]

H [tutim]

‘strawberries’

(15) [pei]

S [pie]

‘foot’

(16) [kei]

P [ke]

‘I want this’

(17) [tei]

H [tei]

‘tea’

(18) [toi:]

S [torre]

‘tower, cubes’

(19) [aba]

H [aba]

‘father’

Session 11. Noam aged 1;7.1

(1) [u:u:]

‘dog’

(2) [dadu]

H [kaduR]

‘ball’

128

Appendix 3

(3) [ke::]

H [ken]

‘yes, come in’

(4) [u:]

S [ue

␤o]

‘egg’

(5) [tau]

S [tosta

␦o]

‘toast’

(6) [f:of:o]

P [vovo]

‘granfather’

(7) [papalu]

P [kavalu]

‘horse’

(8) [lola]

S [sonia]

‘name of mother’

(9) [upa]

S [upa]

‘lift me’

(10) [oso]

S [oso]

‘bear’

(11) [kaxa]

S [kaxa]

‘box’

(12) [susio]

S [susio]

‘dirty’

(13) [amina]

P [minina]

‘girl’

(14) [papatu]

P [sapatu]

‘shoe’

(15) [dida]

H [adidas]

‘Adidas’

(16) [piso]

S [keso]

‘cheese’

(17) [pititu]

S [bi

tito]

‘insect’

(18) [apasea]

S [apasear]

‘to go for a walk’

(19) [bebe]

P [bebe]

‘drink’

(20) [kasa]

S [kasa]

‘house’

(21) [akika]

S [aki] [aka]

‘here’

(22) [kaxu]

P [ka

qu]

‘car’

(23) [tui:]

S [torre]

‘tower, cubes’

(24) [bala]

P [bola]

‘ball’

(25) [pala]

S [pelota]

‘ball’

(26) [papei]

S [papel]

‘paper’

(27) [anana]

S [banana]

‘banana’

(28) [ima]

H [ima]

‘mother’

Session 12. Noam aged 1;7.9

(1) [toui:]

S [torre]

‘tower, cubes’

(2) [tau]

S [tosta

␦o]

‘toast’

(3) [nanana]

S, P, H [banana]

‘banana’

(4) [f:of:o]

P [vov

c] [vovo]

‘grandmother and grandfather’

(5) [papalu]

P [kavalu]

‘horse’

(6) [papalo]

S [ka

␤a3o]

‘horse’

(7) [lolãlula]

S, P, H [sonia]

‘Sonia’

(8) [tatu]

H [xatul]

‘cat’

(9) [papel]

S [papel]

‘paper’

Session 13. Noam aged 1;7.21

(1) [upa]

S [upa]

‘take me in your arms’

(2) [oso]

S [oso]

‘bear’

(3) [usu]

P [u

qsu]

‘bear’

(4) [kaxa]

S [kaxa]

‘box’

(5) [susio]

S [susio]

‘dirty’

(6) [auau]

S [uauau]

‘dog’

(7) [amina] – [imina] P [minina]

‘girl’

(8) [papatu] – [apatu] P [sapatu] S [sapato] ‘shoe’
(9) [kaxa]

H [kaxa]

‘in this manner’

Appendix 3

129

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(10) [nani]

S, P, H [dani]

‘Danny’

(11) [po]

H [po]

‘here’

(12) [taio]

S [tosta

␦o]

‘toast’

(13) [titi]

P [ken

ti]

‘hot’

(14) [susu]

P [su

3u]

‘dirty’

(15) [dida]

S, P, H [adidas]

‘Adidas’

(16) [piso] – [pisu]

S [keso]

‘cheese’

(17) [pititu]

S [bit

iito]

‘insect’

(18) [apasea] – [pasea]

S [apasear] P [pasea]

‘go for a walk’

(19) [tastas]

S [t

iastias]

‘spank’

(20) [bebe]

P [bebe]

‘drink’

(21) [kasa]

S [kasa]

‘house’

Session 14. Noam aged 1;8.1

(1) [olu] – [ulu]

P [oliu]

‘eye’

(2) [auau]

S [uauau]

‘dog’

(3) [susiu]

P [su

3u]

‘dirty’

(4) [apasu]

‘clock, watch’

(5) [alo]

S, P, H [alo]

‘hello’

(6) [apis]

S, P [lapis]

‘pencil’

(7) [iko]

S [nenenko]

‘Noam’s nick name’

(8) [tota]

H [toda]

‘thank you’

(9) [bati]

P [bati]

‘hit’

(10) [pako]

S [pako]

‘name of singer’

(11) [mia]

S [mira]

‘look’

Session 15. Noam aged 1;8.7

(1) [xose] – [oxose]

H [loRotse]

‘I don’t want’

(2) [bamo]

P [bamo]

‘let’s go’

(3) [isiza] – [esiza]

H [televizia]

‘TV’

Session 16. Noam aged 1;8.20

(1) [lalus]

S [lalus]

‘the light’

(2) [papale] – [palale]

S [pañales]

‘diapers’

(3) [didia]

S [buen

␦ia]

‘good morning’

(4) [ati]

S [at

iis]

‘sneeze’

(5) [tatate]

S [akostate]

‘lie down’

(6) [dodoi] – [doi]

P [dodoi]

‘it hurts’

(7) [kau]

P [kaiu]

‘falling object’

(8) [bãba]

H [bamba]

‘snack’

(9) [pio]

S [frio]

‘cold’

(10) [ina]

S [arena]

‘sand’

(11) [toto]

S [to

␦o]

‘all’

(12) [tutu]

P [tudu]

‘all’

(13) [kai]

P [kai]

‘falling person’

(14) [asu]

H [asur]

‘forbidden’

130

Appendix 3

(15) [liso]

P [li

io]

‘garbage’

(16) [uti]

H [oti]

‘to me’

(17) [bibu]

P [livru]

‘book’

(18) [pito]

S [bit

io]

‘insect’

(19) [koti]

S [kot

ie]

‘car’

(20) [tatus]

‘pen’

(21) [puta]

S [puerta]

‘door’

(22) [atu]

P [gatu]

‘cat’

(23) [isu]

P [isu]

‘that’

(24) [oto]

S [otro]

‘another’

(25) [aut] – [iauti]

H [

iarut]

‘name of baby-sitter’

(26) [f

ef]

S [flor]

‘flower’

(27) [bibo]

S [libro]

‘book’

(28) [pia]

S [pie]

‘foot’

(29) [tia]

S [tira]

‘throw’

(30) [li]

H [li]

‘me’

(31) [masa]

P [masã]

‘apple’

(32) [paxa]

S [baxa]

‘get down’

(33) [aku]

S [barko] P [ba

qku]

‘ship’

(34) [piso]

S [piso]

‘floor’

(35) [mamo]

S [bamos] P [bamo]

‘let’s go’

(36) [nena]

S [nena]

‘girl’

(37) [ma]

S [mas] P [mais]

‘more’

(38) [pesa]

S [piesa]

‘room’

(39) [tito]

S [tet

io]

‘roof’

(40) [fio]

S [frio]

‘cold’

(41) [vivo]

P [livro]

‘book’

(42) [izia]

H [televizia]

‘TV’

(43) [xoxe]

H [oxel]

‘food’

(44) [amanu]

H [gamaRnu]

‘finish’

(45) [dele]

H [delet]

‘door’

(46) [loto]

H [lotov]

‘bad’

(47) [popota]

S, P [kompota]

‘fruit dessert’

(48) [ali]

S [salir]

‘out’

(49) [vabis]

P [

3abis] S [3a␤es]

‘keys’

(50) [zuzuzi]

H [zuzu] – [zuzi]

‘I want to jump’

S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::]

Session 17. Noam aged 1;9.0

(1) [eme]

P [kome], S [komer]

‘to eat’

(2) [pita]

H [pita]

‘pita bread’

(3) [oxote]

H [loRotse]

‘I don’t want’

(4) [aba]

S [a

␥ua]

‘water’

(5) [paki]

P [pa

qki]

‘park’

(6) [pati]

P [bati]

‘hit’

(7) [tatos]

‘pen’

(8) [tatul]

H [xatul]

‘cat’

Appendix 3

131

132

Appendix 3

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(9) [apalu]

P [kavalu]

‘horse’

(10) [tetelo]

P [ma

qtelo]

‘hammer’

(11) [ovu]

P [ovu]

‘egg’

(12) [pie]

S [pie]

‘foot’

(13) [katu]

P [gatu] S [gato]

‘cat’

(14) [avalu]

P [kavalu]

‘horse’

(15) [bãbi]

S, P, H [bambi]

‘Bambi’

(16) [oxe]

H [oxel]

‘to eat’

(17) [a:ze]

H [maze]

‘what’s that’

(18) [lola] – [lolola]

S, P, H [lola]

‘Lola’

(19) [xuti] – [xuxuti]

H [Ruti]

‘Ruth’

(20) [kakau]

P [kakau] S [kakao]

‘cocoa’

(21) [bamos] – [bamo]

S [bamos] P [bamo]

‘let’s go

(22) [ine]

H [ine]

‘here it is’

(23) [avi]

H [tavi]

‘gimme’

(24) [gatu]

P [gatu], S [gato]

‘cat’

(25) [lo:xose]

H [loRotse]

‘I don’t want’

(26) [toie] – [tole]

S [torre]

‘tower’

(27) [toda]

H [toda]

‘thank you’

(28) [kana]

S, P [kama]

‘bed’

Session 18. Noam aged 1;9.11

(1) [leti]

P [leiti]

‘milk’

(2) [keti]

P [kent

ii]

‘hot’

(3) [kane] – [kalne]

S [karne]

‘meat’

(4) [pititito]

S [bit

iito]

‘insect’

(5) [kokola]

S, P [kokakola]

‘Coke’

(6) [kuku]

P [suku]

‘juice’

(7) [keie]

S [keres]

‘you want’

(8) [uduzi]

H [zuzu] – [zuzi]

‘I want to jump’

S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::]

(9) [lalata]

S [lalata]

‘the tin’

(10) [eko]

S [neneko]

‘Noam’s nick name’

(11) [sisi]

P [

iiii]

‘urine’

(12) [fio] – [fifio]

P [navio]

‘ship’

(13) [tutua]

S, P [flauta]

‘flute’

(14) [oxel]

H [oxel]

‘eat’

(15) [apati]

S [tomate] P [tomati]

‘tomato’

(16) [ake]

S [rrakel] P [

qakel]

‘Rachel’

(17) [pea]

S [pera]

‘pear’

(18) [pato]

S [plato]

‘plate’

(19) [pratu]

P [pratu]

‘plate’

Session 19. Noam aged 1;9.21

(1) [afafu]

P [garfu]

‘fork’

(2) [vovo]

P [vovo]

‘grandfather’

(3) [enene]

P [nene]

‘child’

(4) [exuti] – [exuxuxuti]

H [Ruti]

‘Ruth’

(5) [evizia]

H [televizia]

‘TV’

(6) [pitsio] – [pitio]

S [bit

io]

‘insect’

(7) [ebãbi]

S, P, H [bambi]

‘Bambi’

(8) [mãmãi]

P [mãmãi]

‘mother’

(9) [dona] – [edodona]

S, P [dona]

‘name of song’

(10) [u:u:zi]

H [zuzu] – [zuzi]

‘I want to jump’

S [unodosi:] P [umdoizi::]

(11) [eueveio]

S [ue

␤o]

‘egg’

(12) [aso]

P [a

io]

‘find’

(13) [kokolat]

S, P [kokakola]

‘Coke’

(14) [

iiii]

P [

iiii]

‘urine’

(15) [buba]

H [buba]

‘doll’

(16) [papalet]

S [pañales]

‘diapers’

(17) [akatia]

S, P [katia]

‘Katia’

(18) [avalu]

P [kavalu]

‘horse’

(19) [apala]

S [pelota]

‘ball’

(20) [puta]

S [puta]

‘curse’

(21) [apasiu] – [apasu]

‘clock, watch’

(22) [avis]

P [

3abis] S [3a␤es]

‘keys’

(23) [vili]

H [tavili]

‘bring’

(24) [katiu]

P [gatu], S [gato]

‘cat’

(25) [sala]

P [sala]

‘living-room’

(26) [papone]

S [tapon]

‘plug’

(27) [ava]

S [a

␥ua]

‘water’

(28) [abada]

H [avoda]

‘work’

(29) [a]

S, P [a]

‘to’

(30) [xunu] – [uxunu]

H [xumus]

‘hoummous’

(31) [mai]

H [maim]

‘water’

Session 20. Noam aged 1;10.0

(1) [osiu]

S [oso]

‘bear’

(2) [gadu] – [gadud]

H [kadur]

‘ball’

(3) [aua]

S [a

␥ua]

‘water’

(4) [oliu]

P [oliu]

‘eye’

(5) [s::]

H [s::]

‘sleep’

(6) [patu]

P [patu]

‘duck’

(7) [axa]

H [oxel]

‘eat’

(8) [atsu]

P [at

ius]

‘sneeze’

(9) [tata]

‘grandfather’

(10) [ham] – [xam]

H [xam]

‘hot’

(11) [pota]

P [po

qta]

‘door’

(12) [pãu]

P [pãu]

‘bread’

(13) [aka]

S [aka]

‘here’

(14) [kotse]

S [kot

ie]

‘car’

(15) [kaio]

S [karro]

‘car’

(16) [peia]

S [pera]

‘pear’

Appendix 3

133

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(17) [kele]

H [kelev]

‘dog’

(18) [salia]

S, P [sandalia]

‘sandal’

(19) [ele]

S [duele]

‘pain’

(20) [babosi]

P [akabo]

‘all gone’

(21) [aiana]

S [a

␤ion]

‘airplane’

(22) [oome]

P [kome], S [komer]

‘to eat’

(23) [sena]

S [senar]

‘dinner’

(24) [eelox] – [lelox]

S [rrelox]

‘watch, clock’

Session 21. Noam aged 1;10.9

(1) [lex]

H [lex]

‘go’

(2) [afo]

P [ga

qfu]

‘fork’

(3) [

i::]

H [

i::]

‘sleep’

(4) [uvu]

P [ovu]

‘egg’

(5) [adãdis]

S, P [naris]

‘nose’

(6) [dedo] – [dedu]

S [de

␦o] P [dedu]

‘finger’

(7) [aalil]

H [xalil]

‘flute’

(8) [lusa]

P [blusa]

‘shirt’

(9) [loxo]

S [eloxo]

‘the eye’

(10) [main]

H [maim]

‘water’

(11) [pano]

S, P [piano]

‘piano’

(12) [pupapaio]

S [putakelopario]

‘curse’

(13) [asin]

P [asim]

‘thus’

(14) [aagina]

S, P [makina]

‘machine’

(15) [sonia]

S, P, H [sonia]

‘Sonia’

(16) [ida]

P [ida]

‘Ida’

(17) [uafa]

S [rrafa] P [

qafa]

‘Rafa’

(18) [pane]

S [pan]

‘bread’

(19) [gidada]

S [kui

␦a␦o] P [kuidadu]

‘careful’

(20) [abala]

P [abola]

‘the ball’

(21) [kala] – [kele]

H [kelev]

‘dog’

(22) [kasa]

S [ka

␤esa] P [kabesa]

‘head’

(23) [epele] – [pepelet]

Y [tepele]

‘basin’

(24) [moko]

S [moko]

‘mucous’

(25) [baño]

S [baño]

‘bathroom’

(26) [aione]

S [a

␤ion]

‘airplane’

(27) [loso]

S [eloso]

‘the bear’

(28) [dõde]

S [donde]

‘where’

(29) [seli]

H [

ieli]

‘mine’

(30) [lus]

S [lus]

‘light’

Session 22. Noam aged 1;10.21

(1) [iaze]

H [maze]

‘what’s that’

(2) [apapel]

S [papel]

‘paper’

(3) [nadis]

S [naris]

‘nose’

134

Appendix 3

(4) [pesi]

P [pe

ii]

‘fish’

(5) [basu]

S [baso]

‘glass’

(6) [uva]

S [u

␤a] P [uva]

‘grape’

(7) [losa]

P [losa]

‘plates’

(8) [fote]

S [fuerte]

‘strong’

(9) [desi]

P [desi]

‘down’

(10) [pepele]

Y [tepele]

‘basin’

(11) [seta]

P [senta]

‘sit’

(12) [põba]

P [pomba]

‘dove’

(13) [aion]

S [a

␤ion]

‘airplane’

(14) [pake]

S [parke]

‘park’

(15) [udit]

H [oRit]

‘Orit’

(16) [biso]

P [bi

iu]

‘insect’

(17) [dãda]

S [na

␦a] P [nada]

‘swim’

(18) [babo]

P [akabo]

‘all gone’

(19) [emino]

S [setermino]

‘all gone’

(20) [abãu]

P [sabãu]

‘soap’

(21) [kade]

P [kade]

‘where is it’

(22) [usuda]

S [basura]

‘dirt’

(23) [xuo]

S [xu

␥o]

‘juice’

(24) [xuku]

P [suku]

‘juice’

(25) [on]

P [leon]

‘Leon’

(26) [mãie]

P [mãie]

‘mother’

Session 23. Noam aged 1;10.29

(1) [eon]

P [leon]

‘Leon’

(2) [nonon]

H [alon]

‘Alon’

(3) [gadio]

S [rradio] P [

qadio]

‘radio’

(4) [salil]

S [salir]

‘out’

(5) [pupuax]

H [tapuax]

‘apple’

(6) [sana]

S [mansana]

‘apple’

(7) [mano]

S [mano]

‘hand’

(8) [abol]

S [arbol]

‘tree’

(9) [peda]

S [pie

␦ra] P [peda]

‘stone’

(10) [vido]

S [bi

␦rio]

‘glass’

(11) [vidu]

P [vidriu]

‘glass’

(12) [gala] – [agala]

H [agala]

‘cart’

(13) [amania]

H [agvania]

‘tomato’

(14) [nãu]

P [nãu]

‘no’

(15) [bola]

P [bola]

‘ball

(16) [maña]

S [bañar]

‘bath’

(17) [sit]

E [

iit]

‘shit’

(18) [agia]

H [magia]

‘reach’

(19) [akun]

H [lakum]

‘get up’

Session 24. Noam aged 1;11.6

(1) [ekuta]

P [eskuta] S [eskut

ia]

‘listen’

(2) [zeu]

H [zeu]

‘that’s it’

Appendix 3

135

Child’s output

Adult’s input

Gloss

(3) [lelia]

P [orelia]

‘ear’

(4) [dod]

H [dod]

‘uncle’

(5) [egadio]

S [rradio] H [Radio]

‘radio’

(6) [kalol]

S [kalor]

‘hot’

(7) [mesa]

S [mesa]

‘table’

(8) [i:i:bus]

S [omni

␤us] P [onibus]

‘bus’

(9) [peda]

S [pera]

‘pear’

(10) [dita]

P [deita]

‘lie down’

(11) [no]

S [no]

‘no’

(12) [kepasa]

S [kepasa]

‘what’s happening’

(13) [gego]

S, P [lego]

‘Lego’

(14) [dele]

S [duele]

‘pain’

(15) [eso]

S [eso]

‘that’

(16) [

qua]

P [

qua]

‘street’

(17) [mio]

S [mio]

‘mine’

(18) [pedo]

S [perro]

‘dog’

(19) [baxa]

S [baxa]

‘get down’

(20) [minão]

P [kamião]

‘truck’

(21) [kedo]

S [kiero]

‘I want’

Session 25. Noam aged 1;11.18

(1) [

ieli]

H [

ieli]

‘mine’

(2) [iso]

S [eso]

‘that’

(3) [ikok] – [ekok]

S, P [neneko]

‘Noam’s nick name’

(4) [dusi]

S [dulse]

‘jam’

(5) [letse] – [lelet

ie]

S [let

ie]

‘milk’

(6) [exa]

S [a

␤exa]

‘bee’

(7) [tu

io]

S [tu

3o]

‘yours’

(8) [mananina] – [nanina]

S [plastilina]

‘paste’

(9) [zus]

H [zuz]

‘move’

(10) [ken]

H [ken]

‘yes’

(11) [lelo

P [lelo

‘Leon’s nick name’

(12) [pepelo]

S [elikoptero]

‘helicopter’

(13) [abelia]

P [abelia]

‘bee’

(14) [ase]

S [ase]

‘is’

(15) [ivo]

P [livro]

‘book’

(16) [kato]

S [kuatro]

‘four’

(17) [dos]

S [dos]

‘two’

(18) [texa]

P [i

nglateqa]

‘England’

(19) [li

io]

P [li

io]

‘garbage’

(20) [bo]

H [bo]

‘come’

(21) [tona]

S [toma]

‘take’

(22) [man]

S [mar] P [ma

‘sea’

(23) [pis]

S [pis]

‘urine’

(24) [pi

S [pi

‘urine’

136

Appendix 3

(25) [kena]

S [kema] P [keima]

‘burn’

(26) [gia]

H [magia]

‘reach’

(27) [eteio]

S [esterio]

‘stereo’

(28) [fabãu]

P [sabãu]

‘soap’

(29) [pabo]

P [akabo]

‘all gone’

(30) [xega]

P [

iega] H [Rega]

‘wait’

(31) [busa] – [lusa]

P [blusa]

‘shirt’

(32) [olia]

P [olia]

‘look’

(33) [balia]

P [travalia]

‘work’

(34) [ezaza]

P [laran

3a]

‘orange’

Session 26. Noam aged 1;11.29

(1) [bade]

S [balde]

‘bucket’

(2) [badi]

P [baldi]

‘bucket’

(3) [

qoda]

P [

qoda]

‘wheel’

(4) [tudu] – [tutu]

P [tudu]

‘all’

(5) [azu]

P [azu]

‘blue’

(6) [

qiku]

P [disku] S [disko]

‘record’

(7) [ensina]

S [ensima]

‘on top’

(8) [auãa] – [avão]

P [avião]

‘airplane’

(9) [elo]

P [amarelo]

‘yellow’

(10) [pama]

P [palma]

‘palm’

(11) [malãu] – [malão]

P [balão]

‘balloon’

(12) [koles]

P [kulie

‘spoon’

(13) [mais]

P [mais]

‘more’

(14) [mas]

S [mas]

‘more’

(15) [lisu]

P [li

iu]

‘dirt’

(16) [abi]

P [abri]

‘open up’

(17) [futa] – [suta]

S [fruta]

‘fruit’

(18) [dado]

S [la

␦o] P [lado]

‘side’

(19) [amino]

S [setermino]

‘all gone’

(20) [todo]

S [to

␦o]

‘all’

(21) [tana]

S [bentana]

‘window’

(22) [tetela]

P [estrela]

‘star’

Session 27. Noam aged 2;0

(1) [moka]

S, P [moska]

‘fly’

(2) [o:i:bus]

S [omni

␤us] P [onibus]

‘bus’

(3) [ola]

S [ola]

‘hello’

(4) [gatu]

P [gatu], S [gato]

‘cat’

(5) [aki]

S [aki]

‘here’

(Faingold 1996b)
* Quasi-word
H

⫽ Hebrew

⫽ Portuguese

⫽ Spanish

⫽ Yiddish

Appendix 3

137

138

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 pre-

sented 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.

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.

References

139

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 Spanish-

speaking 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.

140

References

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 disser-

tation, 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.

References

141

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 demostra-

tivos 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 devel-

opmental 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 demon-

stratives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 184–93.

Muller, H. F. (1970) A Chronology of Vulgar Latin. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer

Verlag.

142

References

—— & 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 Psycho-

linguistics. 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 sincr ´

onico 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.

References

143

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 identify-

ing 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 prepos-

itions 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 acqui-

sition of definiteness by Hebrew-speaking children. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

144

References

145

Index

accusative

45, 52

adverbs

54, 55, 121

acquisition

59, 63

child language

63, 67

cognitive difficulties

57, 68

crossfield correspondences

frequency

hierarchy of markedness 66,

67–8

neutralization

second language acquisition

65–6, 67

sources of data

57–8

Antinucci, F.

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

Belgian, mood

77–8

Bickerton, 10, 13, 14, 17
biological mechanisms

119–20

article system

child cognitive limitations

12, 57

naturalness

7, 12, 57

psychological/semantic

constraints

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

child language

1, 2, 4–5, 9,

11, 55, 119

acquisition of

(non)definite/(non)specific
article

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

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.

Classical Latin

40, 45–6

Cox, M. V.

Note: Page numbers in italics refer to tables

Fronterizo

3, 8

article system

28, 29, 31, 32

fusion

article system

data

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

in modern Spanish

109

as unmarked in non-irrealis

environments

95–6

see also past subjunctive; present

subjunctive; subjunctive

Galván, J. L.

German

58, 59, 62, 65

Givon, T.

González, G.

Greenberg, J. H.

43, 48

Grégoire, A.

Grieve, R. et al.

Grimm, H.

Haitian, article system

23, 24–5,

37, 38, 120

Hawaiian, article system

12,

13–14, 15, 16, 23, 37, 120

Hebrew, adverbs

article system

spatial prepositions

59, 62, 63,

67, 69, 121

Holm, J.

17, 25

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

146

Index

creole

1, 2, 8, 10, 12, 119

article system

13–16, 23–8,

33, 120

data

neutralization

definite article

8, 16, 33

creation/development

39–40, 41,

45–8, 120–1

emergence

grammaticalization

48–52, 53

purpose

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

naturalness

43–5

statistical

42–3

structural

see also article system

development mechanisms,

biological

7, 12

sociocommunicational

7–8

diffusion, article system

29–30

data

Dromi, E.

Durkin, K.

Eckmann, F.

Ellis, T. L.

English, adverbs

article system

12, 13, 19, 120

spatial prepositions

59, 64

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.

Markey, T. L.

Mayerthaler, W.

2, 4, 37, 56,

90, 119

Medieval Latin

Megenney, W.

Mithun, M.

model of markedness, article

system

34–5

characterization

3, 119

developmental

7–8, 12–13,

54–7, 70–1

explanation

4–8

framework of

identification of structures

4–7,

11–12, 55

principles

spatial prepositions/temporal

adverbs

66–8

universals

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

semantic presupposition

sociocommunicational

constraints

89–90

sources of data

71–2

syntactic principles

see also subjunctive

morphemes

morphology, article system

31–6

explanation of development

36–7, 68, 87–90

mood

84–7

spatial prepositions/temporal

adverbs

66–8

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

Karmiloff-Smith, A.

13, 16, 23

Kaufman, T.

Klein, W. et al.

koines

8, 28

article system

data

Kuczaj, S. A.

language, acquisition

8, 10

adult

1, 2, 119

analysis

daughter

2–3

development

formulae

92–3

mood

75–83, 123

theoretical background/

assumptions

1–2

variation

see also second language

language history

1, 2, 5, 10,

11, 119

article system

28–31, 33

diffusion

29–30

fusion

koinization

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.

Lockwood, W. B.

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

148

Index

Naremore, R.

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.

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.

Penrose, R.

Piaget, J.

19, 23

Pidgin

Piérart, B.

Pishwa, H.

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

frequency

hierarchy

66–7, 68

markeredness/constructional

iconicity

neutralization

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.

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.

Schumann, J. H.

second language, acquisition/

learning

5, 55–6

adverbs

65–6, 67

data

indicative

75, 77, 78

mood

75, 122, 123

prepositions

63–5, 67

subjunctive neutralization

see also language

secondary grammaticalization

Serbo-Croat, spatial prepositions

59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 121

Slobin, D.

61, 62

sociocommunication

119, 120

access to variation principles

article system

37–8

borrowing

7, 12–13

compartmentalization

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

frequency

6, 12, 56, 67, 68

language history

5, 11

language variation

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.

Tomasello, M.

universal

4, 9, 54, 55

U.S. Spanish

Vulgar Latin

39–40, 45, 46,

47–8, 50, 52, 120

Warden, D. A.

Washington, D. S.

Yoruba

25, 38, 120

Zipf’s Law

93, 124

Document Outline

Cover
Contents
List of Figure and Tables
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
2 Articles: A Result of Natural Morphological Processes in First Language Acquisition, Creolization, and Language History
3 Demonstrative Pronouns: A Source of Definite Articles in History
4 Prepositions and Adverbs: Similar Development Patterns in First and Second Language Acquisition
5 Subjunctive Verbs: A Result of Natural Grammatical Processes in First Language Acquisition, Second Language Learning, Language Variation, and Language History
6 The Mental Representation of Linguistic Markedness: Cognitive Aspects of the Spanish Subjunctive
7 Summary and Conclusion
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
References
Index

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
Balme; Development of biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus theory of spontaneous generation
Development of metallurgy in Eurasia
Development of financial markets in poland 1999
01 [ABSTRACT] Development of poplar coppices in Central and Eastern Europe
Development of organic agriculture in Poland, Technologie
DEVELOPMENT OF FACTORING MARKET IN TURKEY
Theory of Mind in normal development and autism
The Development of the Case System in French
The development of the English novel in the 18th century
9 The development of the English novel in the 18th century
FIDE Trainers Surveys 2012 08 31 Uwe Bönsch The recognition, fostering and development of chess tale
Brzechczyn, Krzysztof In the Trap of Post Socialist Stagnation On Political Development of the Bela
Joyce T A Polychrome Textiles from the Pre Spanish Cementeries of Nasca in Peru
19 Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization The Role of Frequency

więcej podobnych podstron

Faingold Development of Grammar in Spanish

Document Outline