THE ACQUISITION OF JAMAICAN CREOLE:

A RESEARCH PROJECT

Tamirand De Lisser
University of Geneva
Stephanie Durrleman
University of Geneva
Luigi Rizzi
University of Geneva
University of Siena
Ur Shlonsky
University of Geneva

Abstract: This article describes a research project aimed at filling the gap in syntactic
research on language acquisition, in the area of creole languages. For too long
acquisitionists have ignored the domain of creole languages, and as such the time is ripe
for the present research. The purpose of this paper is to present an outline of the research
project entitled ‘The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole Syntax: A corpus-based study of early
parameter setting’, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant
100015_131793/1. The goal of this project is to provide an extensive descriptive analysis of
early production in the development of grammatical representations of children acquiring
Jamaican Creole (JC). In addition, not only will this project contribute to scientific
knowledge, but it may be applicable to well needed developments in early childhood
education and language remediation in Jamaica and its diaspora. Additionally, the present
project will provide an accessible database for further study of the Jamaican language.

Keywords: Jamaican Creole, language acquisition, research methods, syntax

1. Introduction
Over the last 40 years, there has been increasing research in the domain of language
acquisition; but this has been predominantly on European Languages and only more
recently has the sphere been opened to non-Indo-European languages. Still, the acquisition
of other types of languages, such as creoles, has remained largely unexplored. In this paper,
we introduce a new research project entitled ‘The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole Syntax:
A corpus-based study of early parameter setting’, funded by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (100015_131793/1) from 2011 until 2015. It represents the first longitudinal
exploration of the acquisition of Jamaican Creole syntax and the only longitudinal study of
Creole syntactic development. The focus of the research project was to explore the
emergence and transformation of both target-consistent and target-inconsistent syntactic

RGG (2014) 36: 29-46

Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

developments in children acquiring JC, and to offer a theory-driven analysis on phrase-

structure building.
The paper is divided into four sections. The first section situates the research project in
the field of language acquisition and articulates the main research questions. Section two
describes the language situation in Jamaica and its impact on the study. Section three
outlines the research methodology, the selection of participants and the general analysis
methods which were employed. The paper ends with a brief summary and outlook.

1.1. Background
This project focuses on properties of syntactic systems of early JC and investigates the
development of grammatical properties in the course of the first years of life. Most research
on first language acquisition, despite differences in methodologies, converges on the fact
that developing children acquire the language of their linguistic community effortlessly,
under varying circumstances, in a limited amount of time. This process is normally
achieved uniformly, notwithstanding cross-linguistic variations. In addition, certain
developmental patterns have emerged that are cross-linguistically uniform. There is an on-
going debate in the literature as to whether target-inconsistent production in early child
language is a result of parameter (mis)-setting, immaturity of computational or memory
capacities or other aspects of cognitive development (see Hyams 1986, 1992; Valian 1990;
Guilfoyle 1984; P. Bloom 1990; L. Bloom 1970; Greenfield and Smith 1976; among
others). Additionally, there is the controversial view that the parametric choices in creole
languages may directly express default settings, as a consequence of the special conditions
holding during the process of creolization (Bickerton, 1984, 1999; Degraff, 1999). Various
authors have argued against the proposal that Creoles constitute exceptional languages (e.g.
Degraff 2003, 2004; Mufwene 2000, 2001; among others), but little research has explored
these predictions in terms of acquisition: Are creoles more like themselves and less like
other languages, more directly mirroring properties of Universal Grammar and as such
containing little or no target-inconsistency in L1 development? Our current understanding
of the grammatical development of creole children is still extremely limited. While the
acquisition of syntax is a vastly studied area, the acquisition of creole syntax remains a
largely unexplored domain (with the exception of work on Mauritian Creole by Adone
1994 & 2012 and Adone & Vainikka 1999 and on Capeverdean by Pratas & Hyams 2009).

1.2. Significance and Aims

Against this background, the research project contributes to these discussions by
focusing on the acquisition of JC. JC being an analytic language, the overt realization of
various syntactic elements is particularly suited for mapping incremental syntactic
development of child grammar. The study sheds light of a number of controversial topics
related to the nature of target-inconsistent phenomena in early languages and fixation of
parameters. In particular, it examines word order patterns, null subjects, root infinitives,
topicalization, focalization, interrogation, tense, mood and aspect, double negation, verb
serialization, among other phenomena. We seek to address the following questions:
1. Is there a developmental order in the acquisition of lexical and functional
structures, with the latter globally delayed with respect to the former (Radford 1990)? Or do
lexical and functional structures co-occur at all levels of acquisition?
2. Does structure emerge incrementally in line with the incremental structure
building approach to development (Radford 1990, and subsequent works) or are all

30
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

structures available when significant production starts in line with the full competence
approach (Poeppel & Wexler 1993)?
3. Does the grammar of children acquiring JC replicate the highly structured
cartographically-coherent pattern of the target language?
4. Is the acquisition of JC exceptional or is it acquired just like other well-studied
languages? Do learners of JC go through a root null subject phase? Does their grammar
reflect Root Infinitives?
5. More generally, do maturation factors affect the linguistic development (e.g. as in
Borer and Wexler, 1987), or are target-inconsistencies in early productions fully reducible
to the mechanism of parameter setting, and /or to an incomplete lexical acquisition?
6. Is the gradual character of the changes in early grammatical systems consistent
with a parameteric approach, or does it favor item-based approaches (Tomasello 2003) or
approaches based on grammar competition (Yang 2002; Roeper 2007).
Moreover, the current research provides an accessible and usable corpus of natural
production of Jamaican Creole. This corpus will be archived in the CHILDES (Child
Language Data Exchange System) repository. In order to provide a precise and systematic
description of the acquisition of JC, the study is couched in the Principles and Parameters /
minimalist framework of Generative Grammar. Nonetheless, alternative views of the
construction of grammatical knowledge were considered whenever relevant.

2. Language Situation
Jamaica has a population of 2.7 million inhabitants, making it the largest English-
speaking Island of the Caribbean. Standard Jamaican English (English) is the official
language, i.e. the language used is schools, parliament and the media. JC is the national
language, and is spoken by the majority of the population. JC is, for the most part, the
ambient language used in the home and is the first language of most Jamaicans. JC is
acquired mainly through parent, sibling and extended family interaction while English
appears to be primarily acquired from school interactions in the classroom (Carpenter,
2009). The Ministry of Education has however adopted an approach in which teachers
“promote basic communication through the oral use of the home language in the early years
(e.g. K-3) while facilitating the development of literacy in English” (Bryan 2001, 23 in
Lewis 2010, 13).
The Jamaican language situation is described as a Creole Continuum (Decamp 1971)
with speakers varying across the continuum from basilect to acrolect. The basilectal end is
also referred to as the ‘deep creole’. Speakers of this variety tend to be located in the more
rural areas and manifest the highest degree of substratum influence (i.e. influence from
West African languages as transmitted during slavery). This variety is farthest from the
‘local standard’. Speakers at the other end of the continuum (the acrolect) are mainly
associated with the urban areas and generally speak the ‘local standard’, which is the
prestigious variety, containing the most ‘superstrate’ (British English) influences. Situated
in between the two extremes are the mesolectal varieties, which share features of both
extremes to varying degrees. Speakers of the basilect and the acrolect varieties may be
mutually unintelligible; however this is very rare as most people can adjust their production
upward or downward on the continuum (Durrleman-Tame 2008). The distinction between
mesolect and basilect is not quite clear-cut as due to the relatively fluid social structure,
rural varieties are becoming more and more urbanized, making more overlap between the

31
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

two varieties (Winford 1993). There are however, speakers who command only one of the
varieties (monolinguals) and others who command both varieties (bilinguals). The
Language Competence Survey of Jamaica (2007) reports that 46.4% of its sample
demonstrated bilingualism; however while only 17.1% were monolingual English speakers,
36.5% were monolingual JC speakers. The majority of the monolingual English speakers
was located in the eastern and urban areas and was concentrated in the highly skilled and
professional groups.
The project concentrates primarily on the variety found at the basilectal extreme of the
continuum (which we have been referring to as JC). The choice for this selection is based
on the fact that it is the variety with the least influence from Standard English, and therefore
offering the most syntactic novelty (in line with Durrleman-Tame 2008 and Bailey 1966).
JC has been considered a canonical example of an Atlantic Creole (Patrick 2004), since it is
characterized by a cluster of grammatical properties typically found in such creoles.
Features that are characteristic of JC, which make it quite distinct from English, include
serial verb constructions, double negation, lack of subject-auxiliary inversion, lack of case
morphology or gender distinction on pronouns. To find monolingual speakers whose
linguistic repertoire contains only these features and absolutely no English influence is
however challenging due to the continuum situation. In the next section, we detail the
procedures in ensuring the selection of the most appropriate informants for inclusion in the
research project.

3. Research Methodology
In order to investigate the emergence of the early syntactic systems of JC, six children,
age ranging from 18 to 23 months at the beginning of recordings, were recorded for a
period of 18 months. This age-range corresponds to the period in which syntax typically
emerges in children and during which target-inconsistent productions have been
documented in other languages. In addition, it is the period in which the methodology we
have adopted can be most fruitfully utilized. The linguistic production of children younger
than 18 months is often too poor and too dispersed to provide coherent data. Above 36
months, children are ‘talking machines’ and data collection based on longitudinal
recordings is generally much less informative than research employing experimental
methods. As the acquisition of JC is an understudied domain, a longitudinal corpus study is
an excellent starting point to provide a general overview of the relevant phenomena.

3.1. Participants
For the research project, informants were strategically selected from households where
JC was the primary language spoken, and as such the interference from English in the
child’s linguistic environment was minimal. Given the existence of the creole continuum,
various factors were considered in identifying and selecting the participants for inclusion in
the study. Primary consideration was given to the area of residence and the level of
education of the primary care-giver. More specifically, speakers from rural communities
with less education were ranked closer to the basilectal end of the continuum (Meade
2001). In light of this observation, in the search for children to be included in our study, we
targeted Southfield and neighboring communities, located in the parish of St. Elizabeth.

32
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

This area was selected based on the socio-demographic profile of the residents (Francis
2012) and general opinions on where the most conservative JC could be found.
In order to find participants in the desired age group, we consulted the local Health
Centre, where all children of the community and surrounding areas are expected to be
registered. A letter was sent to the Head Nurse, explaining the research objectives and the
rationale behind seeking participants. A list of prospective participants and their contact
details was received.
Preliminary interviews, guided by ethical principles, were conducted with care-givers of
the prospective participants. We were mindful of the observers’ paradox (Labov 1972).
This is where a researcher tries to observe naturalistic speech, however his/her presence as
an observer creates a situation in which speakers are highly conscious of their speech and
will therefore modify it. In order to minimize this, the interviews were informal and took
place in the homes of the prospective participants. The language used by the interviewer
was JC. These initial interviews allowed us to analyze the language used by the caregivers
and members of the household for typical creole features (as described in Bailey 1966;
Patrick 2004; Durrleman-Tame 2008). If these features were sufficiently present, then
children in such households would be eligible subjects for participation in the research
project. Notwithstanding this, further selection criteria were applied, involving the
willingness and availability of the informants and the level of speech production by the
children.
One participant was immediately ruled out, as despite their overwhelming interest in the
research, the language of the household contained many mesolectal and acrolectal features,
and as such did not conform to the basilectal criteria necessary for participation. After 3
sessions of recording, another informant was not producing any words in contrast to what
his mother had reported. To continue recording him was not profitable for the research
project, and as such he was subsequently replaced by another informant. A third informant
was clearly not interested in participating in the research project and was also removed.
Additional informants were included in the study based on references received from
participants. At the end of the selection process the following table represents the
participants included in the study (participants are referred to via pseudonyms).

Name Age 1 at 1st recording Gender Location

COL 1;6,11 Male Back Flagaman
ALA 1;7,19 Female Southfield
RJU 1;7,28 Male Back Flagaman
TYA 1;9,18 Female Round Hill
KEM 1;11,3 Male Round Hill
SHU 1;11,25 Female Back Flagaman
Table 1: Research Participants

We present in the next section individual profiles of each participant.

3.1.1. Participants’ Individual Profiles

COL (age range: 1;6,11 – 2;11,7): COL was the youngest informant in the study. He
had a Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) of 1.6 at 20 months and 3.81 at 35 months. He was

1
Age is presented in Year; Month, Day format.

33
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

a single child living with both parents in the community of Back Flagaman. They lived in a
‘nestled’ area where five other houses were a stone's throw away. These houses had other
children, one of whom was also a participant of this study. In addition, his paternal
grandmother and cousins were immediate neighbors, and as such the yard was normally
active. His maternal grandmother lived in the same community, before migrating abroad, 9
months into the study. Some of his recordings were conducted at her house; however the
majority was done in his home. His father was a farmer, who habitually fished, while his
mother was a housewife. After starting kindergarten at 28 months old, his parents
constructed a small shop in their yard, where the mother worked as a shopkeeper.
ALA (age range: 1;7,19 – 3;0,15): At 21 months, with an MLU value at 1.48 and 5.66 at
36 months, she was one of the most vocal participants in the study. She lived in the
community of Southfield with her parents in a family house where they occupied a room at
the back. She was a single child for her parents but had cousins, aunts, uncles and
grandparents in the extended household. Her mother held a clerical/administrative position
in a governmental agency in the parish, while her father was a driver distributing goods for
a furniture company. As such, when both parents were at work, the child would stay with
relatives in the neighboring community of Seaview. Recordings were therefore conducted
at Seaview and at the child’s home. ALA started attending school at 33 months old.
RJU (age range: 1;7,28 – 3;0,25): RJU lived in an extended family household with his
parents, paternal grandmother, aunts, uncles, and cousin. His cousin, a girl aged 6 years,
appeared to be his best friend with whom he interacted the most. His mother was
unemployed while his father worked as a farmer. Throughout the 18 month period, RJU
visited his paternal grandfather in a district located about 10 miles away from his home
community; where some of his recordings were conducted. During the last four months of
the recording sessions, RJU and his mother relocated to the neighboring community of
Crossroads, where they lived with other relatives. RJU later returned home under the care
of his paternal grandmother and aunt. The majority of his recordings were conducted in his
home in the presence of his cousin. At 22 months, he had an MLU of 1.39 and ending with
an MLU of 4.86 at 36 months.
TYA (age range: 1;9,18 – 3;2,15): TYA lived in the community of Roundhill with her
parents and two siblings. Her mother was a housewife while her father was a taxi-driver.
Her immediate neighbors were her grandmother, aunts and cousins. She had an MLU of
1.22 at 23 month and 4.86 at 38 months. She started school at 35 months; at this point we
saw a very rapid development in her speech, moving from an MLU of 2.16 at 34 months of
age to a high of 5.38 at 37 months. Her recordings were conducted mainly in the comfort of
her home.
KEM (age range: 1;11,3 – 3;3,11): KEM’s MLU was 2.1 and 5.47 at 24 and 39 months
respectively, peaking at 6.46 at 37 months. He started school at 32 months. He lived with
his mother, maternal grandparents, aunt and uncle in the community of Roundhill. His
mother was unemployed, his grandfather was a farmer and his grandmother operated a shop
in the yard. KEM sometimes had playmates with whom he ran about freely in his large yard
space and neighboring taverns. All of his recordings were conducted at his home.
SHU (age range: 1;11,25 – 3;4,13): SHU was the eldest participant in the research
project. She had an MLU of 2.88 at 25 months and 5.02 at 40 months. She lived in the
community of Back Flagaman with her mother and her brother and enjoyed a visiting
relationship with her father and his family who lived just a few meters away. She was the
only child for her father. Upon the passing of her father at 28 months, she lived with her
paternal grandparents, aunt and uncle, and then had a visiting relationship with her mother.

34
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

Her mother was generally unemployed but worked occasionally as a store clerk. Her
grandfather operated a shop and her grandmother was a housewife. She started school at 33
months of age. Recordings were conducted mainly at the home of her mother or paternal
grandparents, and on a few occasions at the home of her maternal grandmother.
MLU values are plotted in Figures 1 – 6 showing a steady increase of utterance length
against age for all participants in the study. On the x-axis we present the MLU values and
on the y-axis the informants’ age in year; months, days format. The complete list of MLU
values are given in Appendix 1, Tables (1) – (6). Note that this does not include the 2 initial
months of data collection and only two recordings per month are represented. Justification
for this is presented in section 3.4. The MLUs were calculated automatically with the help
of CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis). They are all word based, as opposed to
morpheme based. Being an isolating language, all lexical and functional elements are
counted as independent words. The MLU presented for JC may therefore not be
immediately comparable to that in languages with morphologically complex words for
which a morpheme-based count is adopted.

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5

1
1;11,12
1;8,17
1;9,28

2;0,28
2;2,16
2;3,30
2;5,14
2;6,25

2;9,24
2;11,7
2;8,6

Fig. 1: COL’s MLU

35
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
1;9,25
1;11,5
2;0,20

2;3,24

2;6,22

2;9,14
2;11,1
3;0,15
2;2,6

2;5,7

2;8,2

Fig. 2: ALA’s MLU

5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
1;11,15

2;11,11
1;10,4

2;0,30
2;2,16

2;5,17

2;8,12
2;9,24

3;0,25
2;4,4

2;7,5

Fig. 3: RJU’s MLU

36
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6

1,5
2,5
3,5
4,5
5,5

2;0,21
1;11,25
2;2,1
2;1,5
2;3,16
2;2,20
2;5,2
2;4,6
2;6,20 2;5,24

37
2;8,3 2;7,7
2;9,18 2;8,22

Fig. 4: TYA’s MLU

Fig. 5: KEM’s MLU

2;10,29 2;10,2
3;0,10 2;11,14
3;1,28 3;1,1
3;3,11 3;2,15
The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
2;10,20
2;1,23

2;4,18

2;7,22

3;1,12
3;2,30
3;4,13
2;3,3

2;6,4

2;9,5

3;0,0

Fig. 6: SHU’s MLU

3.2. Recordings
Preliminary interviews and recordings were conducted by Tamirand De Lisser, the main
researcher, at the end of October 2011 and recording sessions began in November 2011.
Nickesha Dawkins, a graduate student from the University of the West Indies, was
employed as a Research Assistant to the project in December 2011. Along with the main
researcher, she carried out the recordings and transcription of the data.
Each participant was recorded every 10 days in separate 60 minutes sessions, for the
initial five months, and subsequently every 15 days for the remaining duration of the data
collection phase of the project. Not accounting for the first two months when selection
process was still underway, we ended-up with a database of 204 hours of recordings.
Recordings were conducted in JC, in the presence of the interviewers, care-providers and in
some instance other relatives and friends. The format of the recording sessions was quite
informal and participants, becoming close friends with the researchers, spoke freely on
various subject matters. The sessions were usually interactively built upon games and story
books. The researchers would take a gift for each child at every recording session.
Based on the close proximities of the communities in which the children reside,
recording sessions were usually all conducted in one day. The researchers would get in the
field around 9 a.m. (sometimes earlier depending on the availability of the participants) and
recordings would begin immediately. Both researches would interview ALA, as she was the
only participant of her community, located approximately 15 minutes by car from the
community where the other informants reside. TYA and KEM lived in the same community
and as such the researchers conducted parallel recording sessions. Parallel recording
sessions were usually conducted with SHU and COL, and a joint session for RJU. This
schedule was not always maintained as the sessions were flexible depending on the
availability of the participants. On occasions, where informants were unavailable on the

38
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

scheduled recording day, another visit would be arranged where the recording session
would be conducted. As some participants started school during the course of the research
project, recordings were subsequently scheduled to take place on the weekends, and in
some instances after-school.
Hand-held digital voice recorders were used as the main tool for data collection. Initial
recordings were conducted with the recorder attached to the child bearing a mike, however
this proved to be problematic as, not only was it a major distraction for the child, but the
use of a single input mike allowed only for the audible processing of the child’s data and
not the surrounding interlocutors. For subsequent recordings, the recorder’s built-in
microphone was used, with the recording device strategically positioned or held by the
researcher, so as to effectively capture the required data. Where necessary, notes were
recorded after the sessions.

3.3. Transcription and Orthography

JC is mainly an oral language. Many of the lexemes are English-based but their
phonology is quite different. We have adopted the JLU (Jamaica Language Unit) modified
Cassidy-LePage orthography for all transcriptions.
All data was transcribed in CHAT (Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts)
format, following the standard guidelines of the CHILDES Database. The transcription
procedure proved to be very time consuming as it took approximately 10 hours to transcribe
one hour of data. For transcribing the data, the recordings were transferred from the
recording device to the computer. High quality earphones were used and the researcher
transcribes the exact production as uttered. In some instances, due to surrounding noise
including overlapping speech, recordings had to be listened repeatedly in order to ensure
accurate transcription. Inaudible speech was transcribed as xxx. A backed-up copy of all
recordings and transcriptions is stored on the University of Geneva Database for safe
keeping.

3.4. Coding
Based on the time-frame for the completion of the research project, a decision was taken
to initially code only the utterances of the child. The approximate time to code one
transcription was 6 hours. This time however could not be fixed as it depended largely on
the number and length of child utterances in the transcription. Tahirah Charles, Patrice
Clarke, Sheneil Ellis and Danielle Smith, all final-year students from the University of the
West Indies, were employed to carry out the coding of the data, under the supervision of the
main researcher.
Based on the non-standard conventions in transcribing JC, coding of the data had to be
done manually. A list of codes was developed for conveying the morpho-syntactic relations
of the data. Despite this comprehensive list, coding of the data did not prove to be
unproblematic as there are some instances where a particular lexical item could lead to
different interpretations or yield different codings in the same context. To deal with these
occurrences, native speakers’ judgments were employed where applicable, or the word in
question coded as unknown.
In dealing with issues regarding the coding of single word utterances, we adopted the
method employed in comparative syntax, assuming on grounds of continuity and
uniformity, that child language approximates adult grammar (in line with Bates et.al. 1994;

39
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

Gillette et.al. 1999, among others). We acknowledge that this is not necessarily true in
general but it is the necessary initial assumption for comparative research.
Several meetings were conducted with the coding team to ‘iron out’ all issues. Two
recordings were coded per child for the period starting January 2012 to March 2013 and
one coding done for each child in April 2013. The decision to start coding the data for
analysis as of January 2012 was based on:

i. the maximal use of funds available

ii. the final confirmation date of all the research participants
iii. the initial two months involved familiarization of the participants with the
researchers thereby maximizing their language production levels

All completed codings, amounting to a total of 186 files, were duly checked for
verification of accuracy, and for inclusion of additional details as required for the analysis.

3.5. Analysis
The analysis of the production data was based mainly on age and developmental stages
in line with Radford (1990). Nonetheless, where necessary the participants’ production was
classified and compared by their MLU (see Brown 1973; Miller 1981; Miller and Chapman
1981).
Some utterances were excluded from the data analysis, these include:
-utterances in which any unintelligible portions (coded an UNK) could be critical for the
analysis
- utterances where the meaning was unclear based on the context of the discourse
- the child’s stuttering or self-repetitions without the production of contentful utterances
in-between
- repetitions of memorized materials, e.g. songs and nursery rhymes
- immediate repetitions of adult’s exact utterance
The analysis was based on automatic computing of the morpho-syntactic coding using
CLAN, NotePad++ and other software where necessary. Nonetheless, manual analysis was
inevitable for certain computations.

3.6. Limitations
Manual transcription and coding are extremely time consuming. Our initial choice was
to code only the child speech; this made the project feasible within the assigned temporal
and financial constraints, but also limited the possible comparison between child production
and child-directed adult speech. It would be desirable to also code adult utterances in a
future development of the project.

4. Summary and Outlook

This research project contributes to filling gaps that exist in acquisition research in the
area of creole linguistics. The data on both target-consistencies and target-inconsistencies in
the acquisition of JC offers a basis for studying the acquisition of JC against the
background of the established results in comparative acquisition studies. This rich empirical
data has in fact already given rise to the fine-tuning of existing theoretical analyses of

40
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

language acquisition, such as truncation theory (Rizzi 1993) (see De Lisser et al. 2015). By
providing the only longitudinal corpus of Creole acquisition, we further facilitate future
studies concerning grammatical development in Creoles. Finally, the impact goes beyond
the realm of linguistics: by indicating, for the first time, syntactic milestones in the early
speech of typically developing Creole children, our work should be useful for detecting
atypical Creole development and thus lead to earlier implementation of language
remediation. Indeed assessments will no longer need to be based on the acquisition of
English, which is likely not to be the child’s target language, but rather on the language
most frequently targeted, namely creole, a medium also now encouraged in the classroom
since 2001 (as advised by the Ministry of Education). In addition, the project could help
writers of books for children to be informed of what grammatical level a Creole-speaking
child is expected to master at a certain age, which would in turn contribute to advancing
literacy in Creole. In sum, findings from the current research project should be of interest to
acquisitionists, creolists, teachers, speech and language therapists, developmental
psychologists and writers of children’s books. We hope that our research will set the stage
for more comparable research into the acquisition of other creole languages.

41
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

Appendix: Participants’ MLU

COL ALA
RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU
16.01.2012 1;8,17 160 256 1.6 16.01.2012 1;9,25 271 401 1.48
26.01.2012 1;8,27 181 325 1.796 26.01.2012 1;10,4 208 254 1.221
16.02.2012 1;9,17 219 392 1.79 16.02.2012 1;10,25 385 634 1.647
27.02.2012 1;9,28 191 287 1.503 27.02.2012 1;11,5 349 551 1.579
09.03.2012 1;10,8 261 401 1.536 09.03.2012 1;11,16 341 632 1.853
31.03.2012 1;11,1 251 449 1.789 31.03.2012 2;0,9 381 856 2.247
11.04.2012 1;11,12 194 389 2.005 11.04.2012 2;0,20 254 458 1.803
27.04.2012 1;11,28 230 421 1.83 27.04.2012 2;1,5 395 794 2.01
12.05.2012 2;0,12 138 343 2.486 12.05.2012 2;1,20 353 852 2.414
28.05.2012 2;0,28 162 410 2.531 28.05.2012 2;2,6 377 1012 2.684
13.06.2012 2;1,14 240 497 2.071 13.06.2012 2;2,22 370 1140 3.081
30.06.2012 2;2,0 127 279 2.197 30.06.2012 2;3,8 117 291 2.487
16.07.2012 2;2,16 354 813 2.297 16.07.2012 2;3,24 397 1266 3.189
31.07.2012 2;3,1 196 503 2.566 31.07.2012 2;4,9 283 933 3.297
15.08.2012 2;3,16 215 615 2.86 15.08.2012 2;4,24 388 1237 3.188
29.08.2012 2;3,30 239 678 2.837 29.08.2012 2;5,7 294 1025 3.486
14.09.2012 2;4,15 238 679 2.853 14.09.2012 2;5,23 493 2111 4.282
30.09.2012 2;5,0 200 551 2.755 04.10.2012 2;6,12 193 623 3.228
14.10.2012 2;5,14 193 606 3.14 14.10.2012 2;6,22 227 937 4.128
27.10.2012 2;5,27 401 1110 2.768 27.10.2012 2;7,5 336 1382 4.113
09.11.2012 2;6,10 218 555 2.546 09.11.2012 2;7,18 361 1448 4.011
24.11.2012 2;6,25 413 1407 3.407 24.11.2012 2;8,2 467 2547 5.454
08.12.2012 2;7,8 341 1190 3.49 08.12.2012 2;8,16 313 1729 5.524
22.12.2012 2;7,22 266 866 3.256 22.12.2012 2;9,0 294 1251 4.255
05.01.2013 2;8,6 339 1235 3.643 05.01.2013 2;9,14 285 1336 4.688
19.01.2013 2;8,20 343 1429 4.166 19.01.2013 2;9,28 249 1259 5.056
10.02.2013 2;9,11 163 611 3.748 16.02.2013 2;10,25 297 1351 4.549
23.02.2013 2;9,24 271 907 3.347 23.02.2013 2;11,1 246 1078 4.382
12.03.2013 2;10,10 275 1042 3.789 12.03.2013 2;11,18 264 1292 4.894
23.03.2013 2;10,21 271 933 3.443 23.03.2013 3;0,1 277 1353 4.884
06.04.2013 2;11,7 267 1019 3.816 06.04.2013 3;0,15 341 1930 5.66

Table 1: COL’s MLU Table 2: ALA’s MLU

42
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

RJU TYA
RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU
16.01.2012 1;10,4 51 71 1.392 16.01.2012 1;11,25 126 154 1.222
26.01.2012 1;10,14 80 137 1.712 26.01.2012 2;0,4 130 157 1.208
16.02.2012 1;11,4 198 440 2.222 16.02.2012 2;0,25 113 153 1.354
27.02.2012 1;11,15 39 65 1.667 27.02.2012 2;1,5 257 324 1.261
09.03.2012 1;11,26 66 105 1.591 09.03.2012 2;1,16 108 152 1.407
31.03.2012 2;0,19 135 268 1.985 31.03.2012 2;2,9 121 162 1.339
11.04.2012 2;0,30 147 332 2.259 11.04.2012 2;2,20 174 246 1.414
27.04.2012 2;1,15 207 692 3.343 27.04.2012 2;3,5 101 149 1.475
12.05.2012 2;2,0 202 528 2.614 12.05.2012 2;3,20 218 334 1.532
28.05.2012 2;2,16 173 361 2.087 28.05.2012 2;4,6 162 235 1.451
13.06.2012 2;3,1 315 950 3.016 13.06.2012 2;4,22 128 169 1.32
30.06.2012 2;3,18 206 604 2.932 30.06.2012 2;5,8 62 99 1.597
16.07.2012 2;4,4 207 605 2.923 16.07.2012 2;5,24 103 152 1.476
31.07.2012 2;4,19 212 674 3.179 31.07.2012 2;6,9 58 111 1.914
15.08.2012 2;5,3 136 435 3.199 15.08.2012 2;6,24 205 411 2.005
29.08.2012 2;5,17 220 570 2.591 29.08.2012 2;7,7 22 52 2.364
14.09.2012 2;6,2 206 720 3.495 14.09.2012 2;7,23 240 467 1.946
30.09.2012 2;6,18 268 762 2.843 30.09.2012 2;8,8 302 926 3.066
17.10.2012 2;7,5 249 1071 4.301 14.10.2012 2;8,22 143 401 2.804
27.10.2012 2;7,15 257 1031 4.012 27.10.2012 2;9,5 233 696 2.987
09.11.2012 2;7,28 209 919 4.397 09.11.2012 2;9,18 53 99 1.868
24.11.2012 2;8,12 276 1040 3.768 24.11.2012 2;10,2 260 635 2.442
08.12.2012 2;8,26 233 859 3.687 08.12.2012 2;10,16 178 385 2.163
22.12.2012 2;9,10 236 773 3.275 22.12.2012 2;11,0 137 510 3.723
05.01.2013 2;9,24 226 780 3.451 05.01.2013 2;11,14 271 914 3.373
19.01.2013 2;10,7 187 730 3.904 19.01.2013 2;11,28 261 1168 4.475
10.02.2013 2;10,29 142 452 3.183 10.02.2013 3;0,19 42 194 4.619
23.02.2013 2;11,11 173 626 3.618 23.02.2013 3;1,1 268 1442 5.381
09.03.2013 2;11,25 328 1662 5.067 09.03.2013 3;1,15 325 1722 5.298
23.03.2013 3;0,11 206 1079 5.238 23.03.2013 3;2,1 177 923 5.215
06.04.2013 3;0,25 277 1346 4.859 06.04.2013 3;2,15 175 851 4.863
Table 3: RJU’s MLU Table 4: TYA’s MLU

43
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

KEM SHU
RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU RECDATE AGE(Y;M,D) UTT WORDS MLU
16.01.2012 2;0,21 280 589 2.104 16.01.2012 2;1,23 177 511 2.887
26.01.2012 2;1,0 348 654 1.879 26.01.2012 2;2,2 233 705 3.026
16.02.2012 2;1,21 309 552 1.786 04.02.2012 2;2,11 191 517 2.707
27.02.2012 2;2,1 297 574 1.933 27.02.2012 2;3,3 307 1059 3.45
09.03.2012 2;2,12 423 821 1.941 09.03.2012 2;3,14 287 1147 3.997
31.03.2012 2;3,5 305 600 1.967 31.03.2012 2;4,7 91 287 3.154
11.04.2012 2;3,16 347 725 2.089 11.04.2012 2;4,18 133 368 2.767
27.04.2012 2;4,1 392 933 2.38 27.04.2012 2;5,3 175 604 3.451
12.05.2012 2;4,16 337 767 2.276 12.05.2012 2;5,18 372 1084 2.914
28.05.2012 2;5,2 279 753 2.699 28.05.2012 2;6,4 239 893 3.736
13.06.2012 2;5,18 386 929 2.407 13.06.2012 2;6,20 234 755 3.226
30.06.2012 2;6,4 303 882 2.911 10.07.2012 2;7,16 332 1157 3.485
16.07.2012 2;6,20 376 1148 3.053 16.07.2012 2;7,22 244 894 3.664
31.07.2012 2;7,5 373 1513 4.056 31.07.2012 2;8,7 244 1080 4.426
15.08.2012 2;7,20 311 1322 4.251 15.08.2012 2;8,22 171 663 3.877
29.08.2012 2;8,3 258 1103 4.275 29.08.2012 2;9,5 281 921 3.278
14.09.2012 2;8,19 276 1287 4.663 14.09.2012 2;9,21 333 1387 4.165
30.09.2012 2;9,4 341 1607 4.713 30.09.2012 2;10,6 195 695 3.564
14.10.2012 2;9,18 261 1170 4.483 14.10.2012 2;10,20 58 198 3.414
27.10.2012 2;10,1 159 683 4.296 27.10.2012 2;11,3 284 1001 3.525
09.11.2012 2;10,14 254 1141 4.492 09.11.2012 2;11,16 156 524 3.359
24.11.2012 2;10,29 404 1884 4.663 24.11.2012 3;0,0 299 1340 4.482
08.12.2012 2;11,12 265 1160 4.377 13.12.2012 3;0,19 283 1440 5.088
22.12.2012 2;11,26 355 2203 6.206 22.12.2012 3;0,28 375 1900 5.067
05.01.2013 3;0,10 285 1606 5.635 05.01.2013 3;1,12 285 1366 4.793
19.01.2013 3;0,24 333 2151 6.459 19.01.2013 3;1,26 509 2883 5.664
10.02.2013 3;1,15 261 1640 6.284 10.02.2013 3;2,17 193 942 4.881
23.02.2013 3;1,28 339 1937 5.714 23.02.2013 3;2,30 226 1122 4.965
09.03.2013 3;2,11 384 2397 6.242 09.03.2013 3;3,13 191 623 3.262
23.03.2013 3;2,25 384 2278 5.932 23.03.2013 3;3,27 306 1626 5.314
06.04.2013 3;3,11 295 1614 5.471 06.04.2013 3;4,13 331 1661 5.018

Table 5: KEM’s MLU Table 6: SHU’s MLU

References
Adone, Dany. 1994. The Acquisition of Mauritian Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Adone, Dany. 2012. The Acquisition of Creole Languages: How Children Surpass their
Input. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

44
 The Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: A Research Project

Adone, Dany, and Anne Vainikka. 1999. “Long distance Wh-movement in Child Mauritian
Creole”. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony,
and Development, ed. by Michel Degraff, 75-94. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Bailey, Beryl. 1966. Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Transformational Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bates, Elizabeth, Virginia Marchman, Donna Thal, Lary Fenson, Philip Dale, Steven
Reznick, Judy Reilly, and Jeff Hartung. 1994. “Developmental and stylistic
variation in the composition of early vocabulary”. Journal of Child Language
21(1): 85-124.
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. “The language bioprogram hypothesis”. Behavioural and Brain
Sciences 7: 173–188.
Bickerton, Derek. 1999. “How to acquire language without positive evidence: What
Acquisitionists can learn from Creoles”. In Language Creation and Language
Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Developmen, ed. by Michel Degraff, 49-74.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Bloom Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloom, Paul. 1990. “Subjectless Sentences in Child Language”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 491-
504.
Borer, Hagit, and Kenneth Wexler. 1987. “The Maturation of Syntax”. In Parameter
Setting, ed. by Thomas Roeper and Edwin Williams, 123-172. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Carpenter, Karen. 2009. “Ow wi laan fi taak a yaad: Jamaican parent-child interaction in
home language development”. Final report prepared for Caribbean Child Support
Initiative.
De Lisser, Tamirand, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi, and Ur Shlonsky. 2015. “The
Acquisition of Jamaican Creole: Null Subject Phenomenon”. Language
Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics.
DOI:10.1080/10489223.2015.1115049
DeCamp, David. 1971. “Towards a generative analysis of post-creole continuum”. In
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, ed. by Dell Hymes, 349-370.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Degraff, Michel. 1999. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization,
diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Degraff, Michel. 2003. “Against Creole Exceptionalism”. Language 79.2: 391-410.
Degraff, Michel. 2004. “Against Creole Exceptionalism (redux)”. Language 80.4: 834-839.
Durrleman-Tame, Stephanie. 2008. The Syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Francis, Christina. 2012. Greater Treasure Beach Sustainable Development Plan: 2030 &
Beyond Community Profiles. St. Elizabeth Parish Development Committee, St.
Elizabeth Parish Council, Canadian Urban Institute & National Housing Trust.
Gillette, Jane, Henry Gleitman, Lila Gleitman, and Anne Lederer. 1999. “Human
simulations of vocabulary learning”. Cognition 73(2): 135-176.
Greenfield Patricia, and Joshua Smith. 1976. The structure of communication in early
language development. New York: Academic Press.
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1984. “The acquisition of tense and the emergence of lexical subjects in
child grammars”. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 20-30.

45
Tamirand De Lisser, Stephanie Durrleman, Luigi Rizzi & Ur Shlonsky

Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Hyams, Nina. 1992. “A Reanalysis of Null Subjects”. In Theoretical Issues in Language
Acquisition, ed. by Juergen Weissenborn, Helen Goodluck, and Thoms Roeper,
249-267. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Labov, William. 1972. “Some principles of linguistic methodology”. Language in Society
1(1): 97–120.
Lewis, Yewande Eleene. 2010. “Literacy in Elementary School in Jamaica: the case of the
grade four literacy test”. Phd dissertation, University of Iowa.
Meade, Rocky. 2001. Acquisition of Jamaican Phonology. Dordrecht: Holland Institute of
Linguistics.
Miller, Jon. 1981. “Eliciting procedures for language”. In Assessing language production in
children, ed. by Jon Miller, 137-160. London: Edward Arnold.
Miller, Jon, and Robin Chapmann. 1981. “The relation between age and mean length of
utterance in morphemes”. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24 (2): 154-
161.
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2000. “Creolization is a social, not a structural, process”. In Degrees
of restructuring in creole languages, ed. by Ingrid Neumann-Holzchuh, and Edgar
Schneider, 65-84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The Ecology of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Patrick, Peter. 2004. “Jamaican Creole Morphology and Syntax”. In A Handbook of
Varieties of English, Vol 2: Morphology and Syntax, ed. by Bernd Kortmann, and
Kerstin Lunkenheimer, 407-438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Poeppel, David, and Kennrth Wexler. 1993. “The full competence hypothesis of clause
structure in Early German”. Language 69.1: 1-33.
Pratas, Fernanda, and Nina Hyams. 2009. “Introduction to the Acquisition of Finiteness in
Capeverdean”. In Language Acquisition and Development - Proceedings of
GALANA 2009, ed. by Jaoa Costa, Ana Castro, Maria Lobo, and Fernanda Pratas,
378-390. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Roeper, Thomas. 2007. The Prism of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JLU. 2007. “The Language Competence Survey of Jamaica. Data Analysis”. Mona:
Jamaican Language Unit, Department of Language, Linguistics & Philosophy,
Faculty of Humanities & Education, University of the West Indies.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Valian, Virginia. 1990. “Null Subjects: a problem for parameter-setting models of language
acquisition”. Cognition 35: 105-122.
Winford, Donald. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. (Creole Language
Library 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in natural language. New York: Oxford
University Press.

46