5.2 Grammatical acquisition in isiXhosa-speaking toddlers
5.2.9 Demonstratives
Demonstratives denote ‘this/these’ (1DEM) ‘that/those’ (2DEM), and ‘over there’ (3DEM). They are asked in the ‘Words’ section of the CDI. Table 5-27 below shows the number of children in the toddler cohort who could produce the first, second and third position of the demonstratives respectively, with first positions produced most frequently and third position the least. Table 5-28 provides a more nuanced analysis by frequency of the type of demonstrative produced. Note that the frequencies in Table 5-28 will not add up to the figures presented in Table 5-27 since children can know more than one class’s form.
Table 5-27 Production of demonstratives per position, CDI data
1DEM 2DEM 3DEM
14 7 5
126
Table 5-28 Production of demonstratives by class and position, CDI data
le ezi eli lo loo ezo laa ezaa
1DEM9
1DEM4 1DEM10
1DEM8 1DEM5 1DEM1
1 DEM1a 2DEM for all classes with a nasal in the NPx (except Cl. 10)
2DEM10
2DEM8 3DEM for all classes with a nasal in the NPx (except Cl. 10)
3DEM10 3DEM8
9 9 3 10 4 3 5 5
Table 5-28 shows that within first position demonstratives, the demonstrative for Cls 1 and 1a are most well-known, followed closely by those for singular-plural pair Cls 9 and 10. This corresponds to Suzman’s (1991, 1996) suggestion that children favour these classes. Alternatively, all three of these forms are demonstratives for more than one class, whereas the Cl. 5 demonstrative does not agree with any other class, perhaps signifying that children are exposed to demonstratives in this class less.
Results on the second position demonstrative suggest a weak favouring of loo, probably due to its widespread use across classes which are classified as ‘weak’ (classes having a nasal in their prefix, with the exception of Cl.10). The figures for these forms add up to the total second position demonstrative known (see Table 5-27), implying that the children in this sample produce only loo or ezo, and not both.
On the other hand, children who produce third position demonstratives produced both forms. Five out of the seven children who produce the second position demonstrative, also produced the third position. It is interesting to observe that they thus knew both forms in the third position, but only one in the second. Despite the lower frequency of the third position overall, this suggests that children may favour the third position for reasons which are not clear.
When the distribution is considered by age, seven of the reported 14 first position demonstratives (not divided by noun class) are produced by the lower half of the age cohort (younger than 23.5 months), and the remaining seven are produced by the elder half. Closer inspection shows that they are likely to first be acquired around the age of 1;5. This is significantly younger than reported in the existing literature. However, the next child who can produce a fist position demonstrative is 4 months older than this. The eldest three children of 2;5 and 2;6 (the upper limit of the toddler cohort) are all producing the first position demonstrative, but a larger sample size would be needed to see if this is indicative that they are consistently produced by children after the age of 2;4. It is important that this, however, does not imply that children can produce the first position demonstrative for all classes, and in fact the eldest two children are not able to produce the le, ezi or eli.
127 Of the seven children who could produce the second position demonstrative, three fall into the younger half of the age cohort and four in the elder half. Again, one of the youngest three children is able to produce this at 1;5 indicating the acquisition occurs at or before this age. This is the same child who produces the first position, and who can, in fact, also produce the third position. It remains unclear to what extent this child is an outlier, especially since the next child who can produce this form is 5 months older at age 1;10. Interestingly, there are no children who produce the second position demonstrative without producing the first position. The eldest three once again also produce the second position, but are not able to produce both forms (loo and ezo). Whilst this might suggest that second position demonstratives are operational in children’s speech by this age, they are not productively used for all classes.
The third position demonstrative is produced, as mentioned, by one of the youngest three children aged 1;5, but once more the next child to produce it is aged 1;10. The eldest two in the age cohort are not reported to produce this position, pointing towards variability in the production of this position in the toddler cohort.
Table 5.29 below depicts the frequency of demonstrative forms in the spontaneous speech samples.
The frequencies do not dispel the evidence in Table 5-28 above, since it may be that the children simply did not refer to something in the third or second position for the hour that they were recorded, but it does not mean that their caregivers have not heard them produce it. It does corroborate the strong presence of the first position demonstrative, Cl. 9 agreement le, however, which is to be expected based on the results of prior literature.
Table 5-29 Production of demonstratives by class and position, spontaneous speech data
le ezi eli lo loo ezo laa ezaa
1DEM9/
1DEM4 1DEM10/
1DEM8 1DEM5 1DEM1
1DEM1a 2DEM for all classes with a nasal in the NPx (except Cl. 10)
2DEM10
2DEM8 3DEM for all classes with a nasal in the NPx (except Cl. 10)
3DEM10 3DEM8
13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
There is one demonstrative agreement error observed in the spontaneous speech. A boy aged 2;10 (the same one who made the agreement error in adjective marking) produces ziitships zam le instead of ziitships zam ezi ‘There are my chips’. The construction is advanced with regard to his use of the
128 correct Cl. 10 copulative agreement, suggesting Cl. 10 copulative agreement, as well as the use of the correct Cl. 10 possessive marker, is manifesting around this age. He uses the Cl. 9 first position demonstrative instead of the Cl. 10, however. This mistake is consistent with findings that the eldest two children in the CDI cohort also cannot yet produce ezi.