The Categorial Status of Body Part Prepositions in Valley Zapotec ...

Table 19. Comparison of Acquisition of Prepositions
Vanesa 1;6 Andrea 2;3 Prepositions not acquired by either child
'in' 'in' 'on top of'
'on' 'on' 'at the edge of'
'under' 'under'
'in front of' 'in front of'
'behind'
'beside'
'behind'
4.4.1 Dissociation Between Acquisition of Body Parts and BP Locatives
These data show a dissociation between the acquisition of the body parts and the
corresponding BP locatives. That is to say, a child could acquire the body part and not
have acquired the BP locative or vice versa: the child could have acquired the locative
but not have acquired the corresponding body part term. Table 20 below summarizes the
data for Vanesa and Andrea; the cells that show a dissociation between the acquisition of
the body parts and BP locatives have been shaded gray.
Both of these children had acquired some BP locatives for which they had also
acquired the corresponding body part (lohoh 'face' and ni'ih 'foot'). If the BP locative
meanings are derived through metaphor, then the fact that the children showed adult
comprehension for some pairs, might suggest that they have also acquired the metaphor
“tools” they need.
The following BP terms were acquired without the corresponding preposition:
cwe'eh 'side' (Andrea), gue'ehcy 'head' (Vanesa, Andrea), and ru'uh 'mouth' (Andrea). A
convincing analysis of the BP locative terms as nouns with extended meanings would
have to specifically address the challenges presented by this acquisition data.
60