Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:32:07.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The poverty of the Mayan stimulus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2011

CLIFTON PYE
CLIFTON PYE*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas – Department of Linguistics
*
Address for correspondence: University of Kansas – Department of Linguistics, 1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, United States. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Poverty of the stimulus (POS) arguments have instigated considerable debate in the recent linguistics literature. This article uses the comparative method to challenge the logic of POS arguments. Rather than question the premises of POS arguments, the article demonstrates how POS arguments for individual languages lead to a reductio ad absurdum as POS arguments from genetically related languages are compared. Comparison leads to different contradictions for poverty of the negative stimulus (PONS) and poverty of the positive stimulus (POPS) arguments. Comparing PONS arguments leads to the conclusion that Universal Grammar contains language-specific versions of linguistic rules. Comparing POPS arguments leads to the conclusion that Universal Grammar may supply knowledge that is ungrammatical in the target language. The reductio shows that universal principles of grammar cannot be established on the basis of POS arguments from a single language.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 611 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

I would like to thank all of my Mayan teachers, students and collaborators who have generously shared their knowledge of the Mayan languages and cultures with me. I owe a special debt to Terrence Kaufman, who first introduced me to the world of Mayan linguistics. I have discussed many of the Mayan details cited in this article with Louanna Furbee, Barbara Pfeiler, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Gilles Polian, Ana Elizabeth Lopez Ramirez, Asunción Lopez Perez and Roberto Zavala. David Ingram, William O'Grady and Geoffry Pullum provided comments on earlier versions of this article. I also thank the two anonymous reviewers and especially the Associate Editor for helping me to clarify the Mayan arguments. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors. This research was funded in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0613120 and BCS-0515120) and the University of Kansas.

References

REFERENCES

Bowerman, M. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Croft, W. (2008). The acquisition of the English causative alternation. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, 279–307. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium, 153–86. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bricker, V., Po'ot Yah, E. & Dzul de Po'ot, O. (1998). A dictionary of the Maya language as spoken in Hocabá Yucatán, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language, 11–53. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Clark, A. & Lappin, S. (2011). Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Pietroski, P. (2002). Why language acquisition is a snap. Linguistic Review 19(1–2), 163–83.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (2004). The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayley, J. (1985). Tzutujil grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Dative ‘movement’ and Thomason's extensions of Montague Grammar. In Davis, S. and Mithun, M. (eds), Linguistics, philosophy, and Montague grammar, 153–222. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, N. C. (1983). A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
England, N. C. (1994). Autonomia de los idiomas Mayas: Historia e identidad. Guatemala City: Editorial Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Furbee-Losee, L. (1976). The correct language: Tojolabal. A grammar with ethnographic notes. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Crowther, C. (2002). Understanding stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review 19(1–2), 105–145.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Sánchez, P. (2004). Las clases de verbos intransitivos y el alineamiento agentivo en el Chol de Tila, Chiapas. Unpublished master's thesis. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd edn.Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R. & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mother's sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2), 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. (1989). First language acquisition: Method, description and explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, T. (1974). Idiomas de Mesoamérica. Seminario de integración social Guatemalteca 33. Guatemala: José de Pineda Ibarra.Google Scholar
Kaufman, T. (1976). Proyecto de alfabetos y ortografias para escribir las lenguas Mayances. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
Kaufman, T. (1990). Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas Mayances. In England, N. C. & Elliott, S. R. (eds), Lecturas sobre la lingüística Maya, 59–114. Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2000). Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, J. P. (1973). The formal theory of grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. D. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19(1–2), 151–62.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31(4), 883–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo Pedro, P. (2010). The acquisition of verb inflection in Q'anjob'al Maya: A longitudinal study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Mondloch, J. L. (1978). Basic Quiche grammar. Albany, NY: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Mondloch, J. L. (1981). Voice in Quiche-Maya. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. (1985). Complementation. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol II: Complex constructions, 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norman, W. (1976). Quiché Text. In Furbee-Losee, L. (ed.), Mayan texts I, Vol. 1, No. 1, 40–60. International Journal of American Linguistics Native American Texts Series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Par Sapón, M. B. (2007). Cláusulas de complemento en k'iche'. Taller de complementación 2007, La Antigua, Guatemala.Google Scholar
Pérez Vail, J. R. & Simón Morales, E. (2007). Tipos de cláusulas de complemento en Tektiteko (B'a'aj). Taller de complementación 2007, La Antigua, Guatemala.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Scholz, B. C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review 19(1–2), 9–50.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (1992). The Acquisition of K'iche' (Maya). In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 3, 221–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (1993). A cross-linguistic approach to the causative alternation. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other children, other languages, 243–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (1996). K'iche' Maya verbs of breaking and cutting. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 87–98.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (2007). The genetic matrix of Mayan three-place predicates and their acquisition in K'iche' Mayan. Linguistics 45(3), 653–81.Google Scholar
Pye, C., Pfeiler, B., de León, L., Brown, P. & Mateo, P. (2007). Roots or edges?: A comparative study of Mayan children's early verb forms. In Pfeiler, B. (ed.), Learning indigenous languages: Child language acquisition in Mesoamerica, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. (2003). Atlas lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landivar.Google Scholar
Sántiz, R. & Polian, G. (2007). Complementación en Tseltal. Taller de complementación 2007, La Antigua, Guatemala.Google Scholar
Sis Iboy, N. M. J. (1997). Formación del progresivo. In Cultura de Guatemala. Primer Congreso de Estudios Mayas (II), 7–9 August 1996, 115–25. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2002). Development of the concept of ‘the poverty of the stimulus’. Linguistic Review 19(1–2), 51–71.Google Scholar
Vázquez Alvarez, J. J. (2002). Morfología del verbo de la lengua chol de Tila, Chiapas. Unpublished master's thesis, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2009). Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: The acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. Journal of Child Language 36(5), 1023–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed