2.1. Participants and data

In this study, we analysed narratives by 18 speakers evenly divided into three age groups: school age (8;7–9;7), adolescent (15;3–16;8), and adult (30–60). All of the participants were native speakers of Inuktitut living in Inuktitut-speaking homes in Nunavik. Half of the participants in each group came from two small communities (225–350 inhabitants) with daily social and business interactions conducted almost exclusively in Inuktitut. The other half of the participants came from a larger community (1100 inhabitants) with a substantial use of English or French in daily social and business interactions. The child and adolescent participants all received education solely in Inuktitut through grade 2 and then switched to receiving education in English or French for content subjects (courses such as culture, religion, and physical education were still taught in Inuktitut). The data were originally collected in 1995 for Allen et al.’s (Reference Allen, Crago and Pesco2006) study on the effect of majority language education on minority Inuktitut language.

The participants were asked to narrate a 24-page wordless picture book, Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, Reference Mayer1969), which has been widely used in studies of narrative development across languages. Each participant looked through the book and then told the story to a research assistant while still looking at the book. This type of elicitation task may favour proximal demonstratives and locative adverbs as all entities are near the speaker in the book. It is also possible that proximity is manipulated within the pictures themselves, meaning the origo is a character in the book rather than the reader/participant. In that case, Frog, Where Are You? has the potential to elicit elevation and enclosure demonstratives and locative adverbs in a way that more spontaneous speech may not. In the story, the boy is on/under his bed, a tree, a cliff, etc. He is in/out of his house, as well as looking into a variety of spaces, and the frog is in/out of a jar. The sessions were audiotaped and then transcribed and translated in CHAT (Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts) format according to the CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System) standards (MacWhinney, Reference MacWhinney2000). All participant utterances during the narration were annotated, including questions to the research assistant. Specifically, demonstratives and locative adverbs were coded for spatial position and number, and their inflections were coded for case and number. Demonstratives were additionally coded for dynamicity.

Table 3 includes the mean age and age range for the three groups. It additionally includes the participants’ mean length of utterance in words (MLUw) and MLUm and number of utterances as a mean and a range per group.

Table 3.

Participants

Table 3. Long description

The table consists of ten columns organized under four main categories: Age, M L U w, M L U m, and Utterances.

* Child Group: Mean age 9;1 (range 8;8 to 9;7). M L U w mean 3.06 (range 2.19 to 4.04). M L U m mean 7.68 (range 5.19 to 9.59). Utterances mean 31 (range 26 to 37) with a total of 186.

* Adolescent Group: Mean age 15;10 (range 15;3 to 16;8). M L U w mean 3.61 (range 2.42 to 4.67). M L U m mean 9.16 (range 6.42 to 12.22). Utterances mean 37 (range 22 to 55) with a total of 222.

* Adult Group: Mean age 41;8 (range 30 to 60). M L U w mean 4.60 (range 4.23 to 5.46). M L U m mean 14.91 (range 12.95 to 19.57). Utterances mean 62 (range 38 to 134) with a total of 372.

Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Crago and Pesco2006) examined the participants’ fluency, lexical diversity, grammatical complexity (mean length of word in morphemes [MLW]), and narrative structure. They found that MLW was essentially the same for the school-age children and adolescents, while adults used substantially longer words. In contrast, the adolescents showed more advanced language (relative to the child group) in terms of fluency, lexical diversity, and narrative structure. There was also evidence that, within age groups, language ability was stronger among participants from the smaller communities with less English/French exposure. This suggests that there is some amount of language stagnation or subtractive bilingualism, particularly among the adolescent speakers, which may be relevant to our results.

2.2. Demonstrative use

We determined the mean number of demonstrative roots (types and tokens) used by participants per group, and we calculated the frequency of demonstrative roots per 100 morphemes and per 100 utterances by group as shown in Table 4. On average, adults used more demonstratives (types and tokens) than the children and adolescents. Specifically, the average frequency of demonstrative root types ranged from 4.1 to 6.4 per 100 utterances with adults using slightly more than children and adolescents. The average frequency of demonstrative root tokens ranged from 11.8 to 32.9 per 100 utterances with adults again using more than children and adolescents. As relevant, tables include a caption with the mean number of morphemes (types and tokens) to provide context for the frequency of demonstratives and locative adverbs relative to the actual data.

Table 4.

Mean frequency (SD) of demonstrative roots by group

Table 4. Long description

The table is organized into seven columns. The first column identifies the Group (Children, Adolescents, and Adults). The remaining six columns are divided into two primary categories: Mean types and Mean tokens. Each category includes three sub-columns: Number, Per 100 morphemes, and Per 100 utterances. Values are presented as Mean (S D).

* Children: Mean types are 1.5 (1.4) for Number, 0.6 (2.9) per 100 morphemes, and 4.6 (3.9) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 4.2 (7.8) for Number, 1.6 (2.9) per 100 morphemes, and 11.8 (20.8) per 100 utterances.

* Adolescents: Mean types are 1.5 (1.0) for Number, 0.4 (1.5) per 100 morphemes, and 4.1 (2.7) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 5.5 (5.9) for Number, 1.5 (1.5) per 100 morphemes, and 13.7 (15.3) per 100 utterances.

* Adults: Mean types are 3.8 (2.0) for Number, 0.4 (0.2) per 100 morphemes, and 6.4 (2.5) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 26.7 (34.6) for Number, 2.2 (1.4) per 100 morphemes, and 32.9 (24.3) per 100 utterances.

Footnote data indicates total demonstrative tokens are 25 for children, 33 for adolescents, and 160 for adults.

Total demonstrative tokens by group: child = 25, adolescent = 33, adult = 160. Mean morpheme types by group (SD): child = 89.2 (24.0), adolescent = 118.8 (17.7), adult = 232.83 (75.0). Mean morpheme tokens by group (SD): child = 240.0 (60.4), adolescent = 316.8 (60.1), adult = 977.0 (784.0).

We also examined the frequency of tokens of the proximal static demonstrative roots u- “this one here” and uku- “these ones here” in comparison with tokens of all other roots as shown in Table 5. It is clear that all three groups used the two proximal static roots more frequently than all of the 18 other possible roots combined.

Table 5.

Mean number (SD) of proximal static root tokens and all other root tokens per 100 utterances by group

Table 5. Long description

The table consists of three columns: Group, Proximal static (u- and uku-), and Other.

* Child group: Proximal static mean is 10.9 with an S D of 18.6. Other mean is 0.9 with an S D of 2.2.

* Adolescent group: Proximal static mean is 13.2 with an S D of 14.3. Other mean is 0.5 with an S D of 1.1.

* Adult group: Proximal static mean is 20.5 with an S D of 13.9. Other mean is 12.4 with an S D of 13.5.

Next, we looked more closely at which demonstrative roots were used by each group, as shown in Table 6. For each demonstrative root, the total tokens and the percentage out of the total demonstratives in that group are included.

Table 6.

Demonstratives used by each group (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 6. Long description

The table consists of four columns: Root, Child, Adolescent, and Adult.

- u- (this one right here S T): Child 21 (84.0%), Adolescent 25 (75.8%), Adult 68 (42.5%).

- uku- (these ones right here S T): Child 2 (8.0%), Adolescent 7 (21.2%), Adult 24 (15.0%).

- matsu- (this one here D Y): Child 0, Adolescent 0, Adult 2 (1.3%).

- makku- (these ones here D Y): Child 0, Adolescent 0, Adult 10 (6.3%).

- itsu- (that one there S T): Child 1 (4.0%), Adolescent 0, Adult 19 (11.9%).

- ikku- (those ones there S T): Child 0, Adolescent 0, Adult 3 (1.9%).

- atsu- (that one there away D Y): Child 1 (4.0%), Adolescent 1 (3.0%), Adult 30 (18.8%).

- akku- (those ones there away D Y): Child 0, Adolescent 0, Adult 4 (12.5%).

As expected, the majority of demonstratives that occur in the data have the proximal static roots u- or uku-, and (3) shows the use of u- by a child. The adults use a wider range of demonstrative roots. (4) shows an adult’s use of atsu-, and (5) shows an adult’s use of itsu-. That being said, only eight of the 20 possible demonstrative roots occur in the data. The roots that occur only indicate spatial position based on distance, i.e. proximal or distal, not based on elevation or enclosure. All possible roots that indicate distance (proximal/distal, static/dynamic, singular/plural) do occur in the data. Overall, the majority of the roots used are static (78%), while many fewer are dynamic (22%). This pattern is similar across age groups: 96% of children’s demonstratives are static, 97% of adolescents’ demonstratives are static, and 71% of adults’ demonstratives are static. It is possible that the narrative does not create the context necessary to elicit the unused demonstratives. Alternatively, it is possible that the subset of distance-based demonstratives is used more frequently than the other demonstratives in the language generally. Interestingly, (4a) shows the utterance “he has this little frog inside a glass jar,” but instead of using an enclosure demonstrative, the speaker uses the locative adverb atsu- “that one there” and the locative noun root ilu- “inside” to represent this meaning. This contrasts with the expected use of atsu- in (4b) to refer to a distal entity that is moving.

The most frequently used demonstrative inflections were in the absolutive case, which made up 72.0% of the total demonstrative inflections. This was followed by inflections in the modalis case (19.7%). Adults additionally used inflections in the ergative, allative, and locative cases, but these each made up under 5.0% of the total demonstrative inflections. See Supplementary Materials, Appendix A for details on the frequency of demonstrative roots with their inflections by age group.

Lastly, we found that demonstratives with the prefix ta- “external reference” are more frequent in the data: 84.4% of the demonstratives in the data had the prefix, while only 15.6% did not. By group, the results differed. Only 36% of children’s demonstratives had ta-, while 78% and 88% of demonstratives in the adolescent and adult data, respectively, had ta-. All of the demonstratives with ta- were used within the narrative. However, the majority of demonstratives without ta- were used when asking the research assistant questions, not while actually telling the story (6). This explains the children’s different use of ta- for demonstratives compared to the other groups; they had more questions about what things were in the story than the adolescents and adults. This also possibly explains the unexpected frequent use of ta-. The prefix can be used to represent space that is difficult to perceive or is in relation to something other than the speaker (Dorais, Reference Dorais2010; Gagné, Reference Gagné, Valentine and Vallee1968). The elements in the story might not be in relation to the speaker because they are not physically in the same space or because a story character may be the origo.

2.3. Locative adverb use

We determined the average number of locative adverb roots (types and tokens) used by each participant per group and also calculated the frequency of locative adverb roots per 100 morphemes and per 100 utterances for each age group (Table 7). The average frequency of locative adverb root types ranged from 1.3 to 3.2 per 100 utterances, and the average frequency of locative adverb root tokens ranged from 1.8 to 8.0 per 100 utterances. The adults used more locative adverb roots (types and tokens) than the children and adolescents with adolescents using locative adverbs least. Further, locative adverbs occurred less frequently than demonstratives in the data.

Table 7.

Mean frequency (SD) of locative adverb roots by group

Table 7. Long description

The table is organized into seven columns. The first column identifies the Group. The next three columns fall under the header Mean types, and the final three columns fall under Mean tokens. Each sub-header includes Number, Per 100 morphemes, and Per 100 utterances.

* Child group: Mean types are 0.8 (0.8) for Number, 0.4 (0.4) per 100 morphemes, and 2.5 (2.2) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 1.5 (1.9) for Number, 0.6 (0.6) per 100 morphemes, and 4.4 (5.3) per 100 utterances.

* Adolescent group: Mean types are 0.5 (0.5) for Number, 0.2 (0.2) per 100 morphemes, and 1.3 (1.5) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 0.7 (0.8) for Number, 0.2 (0.2) per 100 morphemes, and 1.8 (2.3) per 100 utterances.

* Adult group: Mean types are 2.2 (2.2) for Number, 0.2 (0.2) per 100 morphemes, and 3.2 (2.5) per 100 utterances. Mean tokens are 7.8 (14.9) for Number, 0.5 (0.6) per 100 morphemes, and 8.0 (10.7) per 100 utterances.

Footnote data indicates total locative adverb tokens are 9 for children, 4 for adolescents, and 47 for adults.

Total locative adverb tokens by group: child = 9, adolescent = 4, adult = 47. Mean morpheme types by group (SD): child = 89.2 (24.0), adolescent = 118.8 (17.7), adult = 232.83 (75.0). Mean morpheme tokens by group (SD): child = 240.0 (60.4), adolescent = 316.8 (60.1), adult = 977.0 (784.0).

We also examined the frequency of the proximal roots uv- “right here” and ma- “here” compared to all other locative adverb roots (Table 8). The children and adults both used more proximal roots than all other roots, but the adolescents used more of the other roots than the proximal roots. For adults and children, the difference in frequency between proximal and other locative adverb roots is smaller than that for demonstratives. Adolescents’ reversal of the pattern is likely due to the limited amount of data; there are only four locative adverbs in the adolescents’ narratives.

Table 8.

Mean number (SD) of proximal static root tokens and all other root tokens per 100 utterances by group

Table 8. Long description

The table consists of three columns: Group, Proximal, and Other. The data is presented as Mean followed by S D in parentheses.

* Child group: Proximal tokens mean 3.9 with S D 4.3. Other tokens mean 0.5 with S D 1.2.

* Adolescent group: Proximal tokens mean 0.0 with S D 0.0. Other tokens mean 1.8 with S D 2.3.

* Adult group: Proximal tokens mean 4.6 with S D 8.2. Other tokens mean 3.4 with S D 3.0.

Next, we looked more closely at which locative adverb roots were used by each group, as shown in Table 9. For each root, the number of tokens and the percentage out of the total locative adverb root tokens in that group are included.

Table 9.

Locative adverbs used by each group (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 9. Long description

The table consists of four columns: Root, Child, Adolescent, and Adult.

* Root uv- (meaning right here): Child and Adolescent columns are empty. Adult shows 16/34.0%.

* Root ma- (meaning here): Child shows 8/88.9%. Adolescent column is empty. Adult shows 15/31.9%.

* Root ik- (meaning there): Child column is empty. Adolescent shows 2/50.0%. Adult shows 3/6.4%.

* Root kan- (meaning down here): Child and Adolescent columns are empty. Adult shows 2/4.3%.

* Root un- (meaning down there): Child shows 1/11.1%. Adolescent shows 2/50.0%. Adult shows 8/17.0%.

* Root pikk- (meaning up here): Child and Adolescent columns are empty. Adult shows 2/4.3%.

* Root qam- (meaning here inside): Child and Adolescent columns are empty. Adult shows 1/2.1%.

As expected, the majority of locative adverbs in the data have the proximal roots uv- “right here” and ma- “here” (7). Ma- is more frequent, making up 38.3% of the locative adverbs, while uv- makes up 26.7% of the locative adverbs. These are followed in frequency by un- “down there” (18.3%) and ik- “there” (8.3%). The other locative adverb roots that occur in the data each make up less than 5% of the total locative adverbs. The roots that occur in the data represent spatial position based on all three possible characteristics – distance, elevation, and enclosure. However, four locative adverb roots do not appear in the data: av- “there away,” pa- “up there,” qa- “outside,” ki- “there outside.”

All four of the possible cases used for nominal inflections on locative adverbs occur in the data. Inflections in the locative case were the most frequent, making up 53.3% of the total inflections. This was followed by inflections in the allative case (36.7%). Inflections in the ablative and vialis cases both made up only 5% of the total inflections. Supplementary Materials, Appendix A includes more details on the frequency of locative adverb roots with their inflections.

We found that locative adverbs with the prefix ta- “external reference” are more frequent in the data: 85% of the locative adverbs had the prefix, while only 15% of them did not. Unlike the demonstratives, all of the locative adverbs without ta- (9 total) were part of the narratives, not part of the conversation with the research assistant.

Lastly, for both locative adverbs and demonstratives the children and adolescents used the same three to four different root types in their narratives at a similar frequency, while adults used a wider range of root types at a higher frequency. This may be another example of language stagnation in the adolescent group as described by Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Crago and Pesco2006).

3.1. Participants and data

In this study, we analysed the speech of eight typically developing, Inuktitut-speaking, preschool-age children (aged 1;0 to 2;10 at the start of data collection) and their mothers. The families lived in small communities in Nunavik with populations of under 400 inhabitants. The adults spoke Inuktitut fluently, and the children learned Inuktitut from birth in their homes.

The data come from two sets of video recordings of spontaneous naturalistic interactions between the children and their families, collected in the late 1980s (Allen, Reference Allen1996; Crago, Reference Crago1988). The first set includes 80 hours of video recordings of four children (aged 0;11 to 1;8 at onset) collected four times during the year at three-and-a-half-month intervals. The second set includes 130 hours of video recordings of four children (aged 2;0 to 2;10 at onset) collected 9 times during 9 months at one-month intervals. Approximately half of the video for each child at each age was previously transcribed and translated into English in the CHAT format following the CHILDES initiative standards (MacWhinney, Reference MacWhinney2000). There were a total of 23,650 utterances by the children and 11,189 utterances by the mothers directed to the children. The morphemes were identified and glossed, and nonverbal information was included to contextualize utterances. Demonstratives and locative adverbs were coded for spatial position and number, and their inflections were coded for case and number. Demonstratives were additionally coded for dynamicity. The data collection took place primarily during indoor play, which may affect the range of demonstratives and locative adverbs that occur in the data.

The data files were grouped into data collection points (DCPs), which included all data from one child collected within one month (Johnson & Allen, Reference Johnson and Allen2022). Only data files with more than 15 child utterances or more than 15 child-directed utterances were included. Thus, the DCPs for the target child and for the corresponding mother could differ slightly; for example, if a child produced more than 15 utterances in a file but the mother produced under 15 utterances, the file would be included in the DCP for the child speech analysis but excluded from the DCP for the CDS analysis. Table 10 provides an overview of the DCPs; the details of each individual DCP are included in Supplementary Materials, Appendix B.

Table 10.

Summary of DCPs

Table 10. Long description

The table contains six columns and eight rows of data for specific children.

* Jini: 4 D C P s, age 1;0 to 2;0, M L U m 1.10 to 1.70, Child Utterances 228 to 303, Mother Utterances 38 to 335.

* Sarah: 4 D C P s, age 1;4 to 2;4, M L U m 1.15 to 1.59, Child Utterances 170 to 429, Mother Utterances 177 to 808.

* Lucasi: 4 D C P s, age 1;8 to 2;8, M L U m 1.43 to 1.60, Child Utterances 124 to 535, Mother Utterances 88 to 310.

* Tumasi: 4 D C P s, age 1;9 to 2;9, M L U m 1.20 to 2.68, Child Utterances 114 to 519, Mother Utterances 62 to 185.

* Elijah: 9 D C P s, age 2;0 to 2;9, M L U m 2.39 to 3.91, Child Utterances 368 to 913, Mother Utterances 314 to 777.

* Paul: 9 D C P s, age 2;6 to 3;3, M L U m 2.39 to 3.43, Child Utterances 191 to 601, Mother Utterances 25 to 160.

* Lizzie: 9 D C P s, age 2;6 to 3;2, M L U m 2.53 to 4.14, Child Utterances 307 to 850, Mother Utterances 18 to 546.

* Louisa: 9 D C P s, age 2;9 to 3;6, M L U m 2.05 to 3.16, Child Utterances 143 to 795, Mother Utterances 16 to 245.

We used the CLAN (Computerized Language Analysis) program to extract the demonstrative root types and tokens (and their inflections) used by the children. In Excel, we calculated the number of roots (types and tokens) per 100 utterances for each DCP. We also determined the proportion of proximal tokens (u-, uku-) and the proportion of non-proximal tokens out of the total demonstrative tokens for each DCP. We similarly determined the proportion of static vs. dynamic demonstratives for each DCP. To determine if the children’s demonstrative use changed with their MLUm (as a proxy for linguistic ability), we used the cor.test () function in R (R Core Team, 2023). Specifically, we used Pearson’s R to see if there was a correlation between demonstrative types/tokens per 100 utterances and MLUm. We also determined if there was a correlation between the proportion of proximal/distal and static/dynamic demonstrative tokens and MLUm. For this measure, we used Kendall’s tau because the data are bounded proportions, which are not appropriate for Pearson’s R. We completed this procedure for the mothers’ CDS, as well as for locative adverbs in both children’s speech and mothers’ CDS.

3.2. Demonstrative use

We calculated the number of demonstrative types and tokens used by each child. We found that children’s use of demonstrative types per 100 utterances increased significantly with MLUm (r(50) = 0.37, p = .006), and their use of demonstrative tokens per 100 utterances increased significantly with MLUm as well (r(50) = 0.57, p < .001). However, the use of demonstrative types and tokens in CDS did not change with the children’s MLUm (types: r(44) = 0.17, p = .266; tokens: r(44) = 0.24, p =.114). Figure 1 shows the children’s developmental trend for demonstrative types in the left panel and the developmental trend for demonstrative tokens in the right panel in purple; mothers’ results are included in green for comparison although they do not show a significant trend. All graphs (Figures 1 through 4) have different y-axis scales across panels for ease of readability within panels, so trend lines are not directly comparable across panels.

Figure 1.

The developmental trends (lines) show the correlation between child MLUm and the number of demonstrative types (Panel A) and demonstrative tokens (Panel B) per 100 utterances used in each DCP (dots and triangles). Children’s results are shown in purple. Mothers’ results are shown in green for comparison although they do not represent a significant trend. All figures were created with the ggplot2 package in R (Wickham, Reference Wickham2016).

Figure 1. Long description

A two-panel scatter plot with linear regression lines and shaded confidence intervals.

Common Axes:

The horizontal X-axis is labeled M L U m, ranging from 1.0 to 4.0.

The vertical Y-axis is shared and labeled Demonstratives per 100 utterances.

Panel A: Types

The Y-axis ranges from 0 to 15.

Purple dots representing children show a slight linear increase from near 0 to approximately 2.

Green triangles representing mothers are more dispersed, ranging from 0 to 17, with a regression line showing a gradual increase from 2 to 4.

Panel B: Tokens

The Y-axis ranges from 0 to 40.

Purple dots for children show a significant linear increase from approximately 10 to 23.

Green triangles for mothers show high variance, with a regression line indicating a shallower increase from 10 to 16.

Legend:

Located on the right, titled Speaker.

A purple line with a square dot represents Child.

A green line with a square dot represents Mother.

We also examined the frequency of tokens of the proximal static demonstrative roots u- “this one right here” and uku- “these ones right here” in comparison with tokens of all other demonstrative roots. We calculated the proportion of both categories out of the total demonstrative roots for each DCP. We found that although children’s overall use of u- and uku- increased, the proportion of proximal static roots out of the total roots decreased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = −0.47, p < .001). Given this, it is obvious that the proportion of all other roots out of the total roots increased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = 0.47, p < .001). However, u- and uku- remained more frequent than all other roots at every MLUm. Mothers’ use of u- and uku- was more frequent than that of all other demonstrative roots, but their use of each was consistent across children’s MLUm (proximal: 𝜏 = 0.02, p = .850; other: 𝜏 = −0.06, p = .589). Figure 2 shows the developmental trend in the proportions of proximal static and other demonstrative roots in children’s speech along with mothers’ results for comparison.

Figure 2.

The developmental trends (lines) show the correlation between child MLUm and the proportion of certain demonstratives out of the total demonstratives used in each DCP (dots and triangles). Panel A: proximal static demonstratives (u- and uku-). Panel B: all other demonstratives (i.e. not u- or uku-). Panel C: static demonstratives. Panel D: dynamic demonstratives. Children’s results are shown in purple. Mothers’ results are shown in green for comparison although they do not represent a significant trend.

Figure 2. Long description

A multi-panel scatter plot with four panels arranged in a two-by-two grid. The horizontal x-axis for all panels is labeled M L U m, ranging from 1.0 to 4.0. The vertical y-axis represents the proportion out of total demonstrative roots, with varying scales per panel. Purple dots and lines represent children, while green triangles and lines represent mothers. Shaded gray areas indicate confidence intervals.

* Panel A (Top-Left), Proximal: The y-axis ranges from 0.00 to 1.00. The child data shows a linear decrease from nearly 1.00 at 1.0 M L U m to approximately 0.75 at 4.0 M L U m. The mother data remains relatively flat near 0.75.

* Panel B (Top-Right), Other: The y-axis ranges from 0.0 to 0.6. The child data shows a linear increase from near 0.0 to approximately 0.2. The mother data is stable around 0.25.

* Panel C (Bottom-Left), Static: The y-axis ranges from 0.0 to 0.9. Both groups show high proportions above 0.8. The child trend is nearly horizontal at 0.9, while the mother trend shows a slight downward slope.

* Panel D (Bottom-Right), Dynamic: The y-axis ranges from 0.0 to 0.3. The child data shows a slight linear increase starting from 0.0. The mother data shows a slightly higher but also flat trend around 0.05.

A legend on the right identifies the purple line with a square as Child and the green line with a square as Mother.

Next, we looked more generally at the use of static demonstrative roots and dynamic demonstrative roots. Again, we calculated the proportion of both categories out of the total demonstrative roots for each DCP. We found that children’s use of static demonstrative roots decreased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = −0.44, p < .001), and children’s use of dynamic demonstrative roots increased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = 0.47, p < .001). However, the static demonstrative roots remained more frequent than the dynamic demonstrative roots at every MLUm. Further, mothers’ use of static and dynamic demonstrative roots was consistent across children’s MLUm (static: 𝜏 = −0.07, p = .526; dynamic: 𝜏 = 0.01, p = .911). Figure 2 shows the developmental trend in the proportions of static and dynamic demonstrative roots in children’s speech along with mothers’ results for comparison.

From this, it is clear that children’s use of demonstratives increases in frequency and variety as they develop linguistically, but mothers do not adjust their CDS in terms of demonstratives in accordance with children’s linguistic development. That being said, we would still expect CDS input to correspond with children’s use of demonstratives, so we correlated the frequency of demonstratives in the mother’s CDS and the children’s speech. There was a significant correlation between mothers’ and children’s number of demonstrative types per 100 utterances (r(43) = 0.34, p = .021). However, there was no correlation in their number of demonstrative tokens per 100 utterances (r(43) = 0.23, p = .125). This means that children use more demonstrative types when there are more demonstrative types in the input or vice versa. It is also possible that this is a result of context of the interaction, so when more demonstrative types are required for a particular topic both mothers and children use more.

3.3. Demonstrative roots

Children’s speech. Next, we looked more closely at which demonstrative roots were used in the children’s speech. Table 11 shows the demonstratives used by each group as both the number of tokens of each root and a percentage out of the total demonstrative tokens in the subset of data corresponding to the following MLUm ranges: 1–1.5, 1.5–2, 2–2.5, 2.5–3, 3–3.5, and >3.5.

Table 11.

Children’s demonstratives by MLUm (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 11. Long description

The table consists of seven columns. The first column lists the linguistic Root and its English gloss. The subsequent six columns represent M L U m ranges: 1 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2, 2 to 2.5, 2.5 to 3, 3 to 3.5, and greater than 3.5. Data is presented as total tokens forward slash percentage of total.

* u- (this one right here S T): 129/94.9%, 184/92.0%, 491/84.5%, 1136/83.0%, 711/70.6%, 560/71.5%.

* uku- (these ones right here S T): 2/1.5%, 2/1.0%, 39/6.7%, 108/7.9%, 123/12.2%, 84/10.7%.

* matsu- (this one here D Y): 0, 0, 3/0.5%, 7/0.5%, 3/0.3%, 8/1.0%.

* makku- (these ones here D Y): 0, 0, 0, 3/0.2%, 0, 0.

* itsu- (that one there S T): 5/3.7%, 14/7.0%, 35/6.0%, 69/5.0%, 76/7.5%, 51/6.5%.

* ikku- (those ones there S T): 0, 0, 3/0.5%, 8/0.6%, 8/0.8%, 9/1.1%.

* atsu- (that one there away D Y): 0, 0, 1/0.2%, 10/0.7%, 11/1.1%, 7/0.9%.

* akku- (those ones there away D Y): 0, 0, 0, 2/0.1%, 5/0.5%, 3/0.4%.

* pitsu- (this one up here S T): 0, 0, 2/0.3%, 1/0.1%, 0, 7/0.9%.

* pikku- (these ones up here S T): 0, 0, 1/0.2%, 2/0.1%, 0, 0.

* patsu- (that one up there D Y): 0, 0, 0, 1/0.1%, 1/0.1%, 1/0.1%.

* katsu- (this one down here S T): 0, 0, 5/0.9%, 18/1.3%, 64/6.4%, 42/5.4%.

* kakku- (these ones down here S T): 0, 0, 0, 2/0.1%, 3/0.3%, 3/0.4%.

* ukku- (those ones down there D Y): 0, 0, 1/0.2%, 2/0.1%, 2/0.2%, 8/1.0%.

Total demonstrative tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 136, 200, 581, 1369, 1007, 783. Total morpheme types by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 253, 373, 913, 1310, 1071, 1175. Total morpheme tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 2089, 2964, 11460, 22107, 17190, 15410.

The most frequently used demonstrative root is u- “this one right here” (8), which makes up 78.8% of the demonstrative roots in the child speech data. This is followed by uku- “these ones right here” (9), which makes up 8.8% of the data. These two roots are proximal static demonstratives, so it is expected that children would use them more frequently than other demonstrative roots. Also, in Study 1, we found that all age groups used the proximal static roots more frequently than other roots, which suggests that they are more frequent in Inuktitut in general. Itsu- “that one there” is the next most frequently used root (6.1%) followed by katsu- “this one down here” (3.2%). The other roots in the data make up less than 2% of the total roots used by the children. Example (10) shows one of the infrequently used roots, kakku- “these ones down here.” Children in the lowest MLUm ranges (1.0–2.0) only used the roots u-, uku-, and itsu-. All of the roots that occur in the data appear by the MLUm range 2.5–3.0.

All of the roots that indicate spatial position based on distance occurred in the children’s speech, and all but two of the roots that represent spatial position based on elevation (i.e. above/below speaker) occurred. However, none of the roots that represent spatial position based on enclosure (i.e. inside/outside a structure) occurred in the data. Specifically, the demonstrative roots that did not occur in the data are pakku- “those ones up there,” utsu- “that one down there,” qatsu-/qakku- “this/these one/s here inside,” and kitsu-/kikku- “that/those one/s there outside.” Of the roots that represent spatial position based on elevation, the two that did not occur are dynamic. In fact, 98.1% of the demonstrative roots used by children were static, and only 1.9% of the demonstrative roots used by children were dynamic.

Of the 4,084 total demonstrative roots in the data, all but eight were marked with an inflection. Only three of the inflections were used incorrectly, in that they did not match the number of the demonstrative root (11). The inflections were most frequently in the absolutive case; absolutive inflections made up 90.6% of the inflections on demonstratives in the data. This was followed by inflections in the modalis case (5.7%) and inflections in the allative case (2.7%). Inflections in the ergative, locative, and ablative cases each made up less than 1% of the total inflections on demonstratives. There were no occurrences of inflections in the vialis or equalis cases. See Supplementary Materials, Appendix B for details on the frequency of demonstrative roots with their inflections by MLUm. This is consistent with the findings of Study 1.

Lastly, the majority of demonstratives in the data did not include the prefix ta- “external reference.” Overall, 93.6% of the demonstratives did not include the prefix, and this pattern was similar across MLUm.

CDS. We also looked at the demonstrative roots used in CDS. Table 12 shows the demonstratives used by mothers directed to their children in each MLUm group. It includes the number of tokens of each root as well as the percentage out of the total demonstrative tokens in the subset of data corresponding to the children’s MLUm ranges (1–1.5, 1.5–2, 2–2.5, 2.5–3, 3–3.5, >3.5).

Table 12.

Mothers’ demonstratives by child MLUm (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 12. Long description

The table categorizes mothers’ demonstrative usage into 13 linguistic roots across six child M L U m (Mean Length of Utterance in morphemes) ranges: 1 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2, 2 to 2.5, 2.5 to 3, 3 to 3.5, and greater than 3.5.

* u- (this one right here S T): Consistently the most frequent root, ranging from 52.3% to 67.4% of total tokens across all stages.

* uku- (these ones right here S T): Usage fluctuates between 3.4% and 12.3%.

* matsu- (this one here D Y): Low frequency, peaking at 2.7% in the greater than 3.5 M L U m group.

* makku- (these ones here D Y): Minimal usage, absent in the 1 to 1.5 and 3 to 3.5 groups.

* itsu- (that one there S T): The second most frequent root, ranging from 10.5% to 14.7%.

* ikku- (those ones there S T): Increases from 0.3% in the earliest stage to 5.0% in the final stage.

* atsu- (that one there away D Y): Shows a peak of 6.5% in the 2.5 to 3 M L U m group.

* akku- (those ones there away D Y): Peaks at 5.0% in the greater than 3.5 M L U m group.

* pitsu- (this one up here S T): Highest at 3.1% in the 1 to 1.5 group, then declines.

* pikku- (these ones up here S T): Only recorded in the 2 to 2.5 group at 1.3%.

* katsu- (this one down here S T): Starts at 11.9% in the 1 to 1.5 group and decreases to 2.7% in the final group.

* kakku- (these ones down here S T): Low frequency, ranging from 0.5% to 2.2%.

* ukku- (those ones down there D Y): Only recorded in the 2 to 2.5 group at 1.3%.

Total demonstrative tokens per M L U m group are 256, 91, 158, 408, 187, and 258 respectively.

Total demonstrative tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 256, 91, 158, 408, 187, 258. Total morpheme types by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 675, 136, 361, 476, 179, 375. Total morpheme tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 7367, 225, 980, 1797, 457, 1143.

In the CDS data, 13 of the 20 possible demonstrative roots appear. The most frequent demonstrative root was u- “this one right here,” which makes up 63.0% of the total demonstrative roots. This is followed by itsu- “that one there” (12.2%), uku- “these ones right here” (8.7%), and katsu- “this one down here” (5.2%). The other demonstrative roots in the data each make up less than 4% of the total demonstratives. The demonstrative root patsu- “that one up there” is the only demonstrative root that does not appear in the mothers’ speech but does appear in the children’s speech; patsu- only occurred twice in the child data. Thus, mothers, like children, use demonstratives that represent the spatial position based on distance (i.e. proximal/distal) and on elevation (i.e. above/below the speaker; Example 12), but they do not use demonstratives that represent the spatial division of enclosure (i.e. inside/outside a structure). Further, of the roots representing spatial position based on elevation, the three that do not occur are dynamic. In fact, 93.1% of all demonstrative roots in CDS are static, while only 6.9% are dynamic.

The demonstrative inflections were most frequently in the absolutive case. Absolutive inflections made up 92.9% of the demonstrative inflections in the data, and this was followed by inflections in the modalis case (3.8%). Inflections in the allative case made up 1.7% of the total inflections, inflections in the ergative case made up 1.4% of the total inflections, and inflections in the ablative case made of 0.2% of the total inflections. There were no inflections in the locative case even though they occurred in the children’s speech. There were additionally no occurrences of demonstrative inflections in the vialis or equalis cases. Supplementary Materials, Appendix B provides details on the frequency of demonstrative roots with their inflections by MLUm.

Lastly, the majority of demonstratives in the data (84.0%) did not include the prefix ta- “external reference.” Example (13) shows one of the infrequent uses of ta- in the CDS, and the referent is a kayak on television (TV), not something physically in the space, and (14) demonstrates a child’s use of ta- when the origo is a different person.

3.4. Locative adverb use

We calculated the number of locative adverb types and tokens used by each child. We found that children’s use of locative adverb types per 100 utterances remained consistent across MLUm (r(50) = 0.16, p = .249), but their use of locative adverb tokens per 100 utterances increased significantly with MLUm (r(50) = 0.39, p = .004). The use of locative adverb types and tokens in CDS did not change significantly with the children’s MLUm (types: r(44) = −0.03, p = .817; tokens: r(44) = −0.19, p = .206). Figure 3 shows the children’s number of locative adverb types (left panel) and tokens (right panel) per 100 utterances by DCP in purple, and mothers’ results are included in green for comparison; the only significant trend is the children’s use of locative tokens per 100 utterances.

Figure 3.

The developmental trends (lines) show the correlation between child MLUm and the number of locative adverb types (Panel A) and locative adverb tokens (Panel B) per 100 utterances used in each DCP (dots and triangles). Children’s results are shown in purple. Mothers’ results are shown in green for comparison although they do not represent a significant trend.

Figure 3. Long description

A two-panel scatter plot with linear regression lines and shaded confidence intervals.

Common Axes and Legend:

* The horizontal x-axis is labeled M L U m, ranging from 1.0 to 4.0.

* The vertical y-axis is labeled Locatives per 100 utterances.

* Legend: Purple circles and lines represent Child. Green triangles and lines represent Mother.

Panel A: Types

* The y-axis ranges from 0 to 8.

* Child data (purple): Shows a slight linear increase starting near 1 on the y-axis at M L U m 1.0 and ending slightly above 1 at M L U m 4.0. Data points are clustered low.

* Mother data (green): Shows a nearly flat, slightly negative trend starting at 2.5 and ending just below 2.5. Data points are more widely dispersed vertically than the child's.

Panel B: Tokens

* The y-axis ranges from 0 to 15.

* Child data (purple): Shows a distinct linear increase, starting at approximately 3 on the y-axis at M L U m 1.0 and rising to nearly 9 at M L U m 4.0.

* Mother data (green): Shows a slight linear decrease, starting at approximately 7.5 and ending near 5 at M L U m 4.0.

We also examined the frequency of tokens of the proximal locative adverb roots ma- “here” and uv- “right here” in comparison with tokens of all other roots. We calculated the proportion of both categories out of the total locative adverb roots for each DCP. We found that although children’s overall use of proximal and other roots increased, the proportion of proximal roots out of the total roots decreased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = −0.24, p = .014)Footnote ⁶. Given this, it is obvious that the proportion of all other roots out of the total roots increased significantly with MLUm (𝜏 = 0.24, p = .014). On the other hand, mothers’ use of ma- and uv- and their use of all other locative adverb roots were consistent across children’s MLUm (proximal: 𝜏 = −0.05, p = .641; other: 𝜏 = 0.05, p = .641). Figure 4 shows the developmental trend in the proportions of proximal static and other locative adverb roots in children’s speech along with mothers’ results for comparison.

Figure 4.

The developmental trends (lines) show the correlation between child MLUm and the proportion of the proximal locative adverb roots (ma- and uv-) tokens out of the total locative adverbs (Panel A) and all other locative adverb root tokens out of the total locative adverbs (Panel B) used in each DCP (dots and triangles). Children’s results are shown in purple. Mothers’ results are shown in green for comparison although they do not represent a significant trend.

Figure 4. Long description

The figure consists of two side-by-side scatter plots, Panel A and Panel B, sharing a common x-axis and y-axis scale. The x-axis is labeled M L U m, ranging from 1.0 to 4.0. The y-axis is labeled Proportion out of total locative roots, ranging from 0.00 to 1.00. A legend on the right identifies purple circles and lines as Child and green triangles and lines as Mother.

* Panel A Proximal: Shows the proportion of proximal locative adverb roots. The purple child data points are concentrated in the upper half of the graph, with a regression line showing a linear decrease from approximately 0.85 at 1.0 M L U m to 0.65 at 4.0 M L U m. The green mother data points are more widely dispersed, with a nearly flat regression line remaining around 0.50.

* Panel B Other: Shows the proportion of all other locative adverb roots. The purple child data points show a linear increase, with the regression line starting near 0.15 at 1.0 M L U m and rising to approximately 0.35 at 4.0 M L U m. The green mother data points are scattered across the plot, with a regression line showing a very slight upward trend from 0.45 to 0.50.

Both panels include shaded gray areas around the regression lines representing confidence intervals.

From this, it is clear that children’s use of locative adverb tokens increases in frequency as they develop linguistically, but mothers’ use of locative adverbs stays consistent. That being said, we would still expect that the frequency of locative adverbs in the CDS input corresponds with that in children’s speech. However, we found no correlation between the frequency of locative adverbs in the mothers’ CDS and the children’s speech (types: r(43) = 0.27, p = .525; tokens: r(43) = −0.03, p = .869).

3.5. Locative adverb roots

Children’s speech. Next, we looked more closely at which locative adverb roots were used in the children’s speech. Table 13 shows the locative adverb roots used by each group, including the number of tokens of each root and the percentage out of the total locative adverb tokens in the subset of data corresponding to the following MLUm ranges: 1–1.5, 1.5–2, 2–2.5, 2.5–3, 3–3.5, >3.5.

Table 13.

Children’s locative adverbs by MLUm (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 13. Long description

The table consists of 7 columns and 10 rows. The columns represent the Root of the adverb and six M L U m ranges: 1 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2, 2 to 2.5, 2.5 to 3, 3 to 3.5, and greater than 3.5. Data is presented as total tokens forward slash percentage of total.

* uv- right here: 2 to 2.5 (5/1.5); 2.5 to 3 (13/2.7%); 3 to 3.5 (6/1.8%); >3.5 (6/2.3%).

* ma- here: 1 to 1.5 (20/95.2%); 1.5 to 2 (63/91.3%); 2 to 2.5 (219/67.8); 2.5 to 3 (379/78.6%); 3 to 3.5 (249/75.7%); >3.5 (172/66.9%).

* ik- there: 2 to 2.5 (1/0.3); 2.5 to 3 (4/0.8%); 3 to 3.5 (2/0.6%); >3.5 (1/0.4%).

* av- there away: 1 to 1.5 (1/4.8%); 1.5 to 2 (4/5.8%); 2 to 2.5 (56/17.3); 2.5 to 3 (55/11.4%); 3 to 3.5 (48/14.6%); >3.5 (52/20.2%).

* kan- down here: 2 to 2.5 (4/1.2); 2.5 to 3 (9/1.9%); 3 to 3.5 (3/0.9%); >3.5 (2/0.8%).

* un- down there: 2 to 2.5 (4/1.2); 2.5 to 3 (4/0.8%); 3 to 3.5 (7/2.1%); >3.5 (1/0.4%).

* pikk- up here: >3.5 (1/0.4%).

* pa- up there: 1.5 to 2 (2/2.9%); 2 to 2.5 (33/10.2); 2.5 to 3 (18/3.7%); 3 to 3.5 (13/4.0%); >3.5 (22/8.6%).

* qa- here outside: 2 to 2.5 (1/0.3); 3 to 3.5 (1/0.3%).

Total locative adverb tokens by group from lowest to highest M L U m: 21, 69, 323, 482, 329, 257.

Total locative adverb tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 21, 69, 323, 482, 329, 257.

The most frequently used locative adverb root is ma- “here” (15), which makes up 74.4% of the locative adverb roots in the child speech data. This is followed by av- “there away” (14.6%) and pa- “up there” (5.9%), while the other locative adverb roots in the data each make up under 5% of the total locative adverb roots. This does not align with the results of Study 1; in Study 1, ma- “here” was used most frequently, but it made up only 38.3% of the total locative roots compared to 74.4% in the child speech here. Further, av- and pa- did not appear in the data from Study 1 at all. This is likely because the context of the data differs, and a larger variety of locative adverbs may be needed in the context of indoor play than is needed to narrate Frog, Where Are You?. Children in the lowest MLUm ranges (1.0–2.0) only used the roots ma-, av- and pa-. All of the roots that occur in the data appear by MLUm range 3.0–3.5. The locative adverb roots that did not occur in the data are qam- “here inside” and ki- “there outside.” This means that all of the roots that indicate spatial position based on distance and elevation occur in the children’s speech, but only roots representing “outside,” not “inside,” appear for spatial position based on enclosure (16).

All four of the possible inflections used for locative adverbs appear in the data. The inflection -ani “loc” was most frequent and made up 70.4% of the total inflections used on locatives. This was followed by -unnga “all,” which made up 20.6% of the inflections. This is consistent with the findings of Study 1. There is one instance in which a child used two inflections on a locative adverb, which is not target-like (Example 17). See Supplementary Materials, Appendix B for details on the frequency of locative adverb roots with their inflections by MLUm.

Lastly, the majority of locative adverbs in the data did not include the prefix ta- “external reference.” Overall, 85.3% of the locative adverbs did not include the prefix. More specifically, for children with an MLUm of 1.0–3.0 over 87% of the locative adverbs did not include ta-, while for children with an MLUm of 3.0 or more 79.7% of the locative adverbs did not include ta-.

CDS. Next, we looked more closely at which locative adverb roots were used in the CDS. Table 14 shows the locative adverb roots used by mothers for each group of children, including the number of tokens of each root and the percentage out of the total locative adverb tokens in the subset of data corresponding to the following child MLUm ranges: 1–1.5, 1.5–2, 2–2.5, 2.5–3, 3–3.5, >3.5.

Table 14.

Mothers’ locative adverbs by child MLUm (total tokens/percentage of total)

Table 14. Long description

The table categorizes locative adverbs by their root and meaning across six M L U m stages: 1 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2, 2 to 2.5, 2.5 to 3, 3 to 3.5, and greater than 3.5.

* Root uv- meaning right here: 3/2.0%, 2/2.7%, 3/3.5%, 3/2.1%, 2/2.6%, and no data for the final stage.

* Root ma- meaning here: 93/63.3%, 34/45.3%, 38/44.7%, 82/56.2%, 40/52.6%, and 52/52.1%.

* Root ik- meaning there: 1/0.7%, 1/1.3%, no data, 2/1.4%, no data, and 1/1.0%.

* Root av- meaning there away: 36/24.5%, 27/36.0%, 18/21.2%, 43/29.5%, 22/28.9%, and 20/20.2%.

* Root kan- meaning down here: 3/2.0%, 1/1.3%, 8/9.4%, 3/2.1%, 2/2.6%, and 6/6.0%.

* Root un- meaning down there: 8/5.4%, 2/2.7%, 8/9.4%, 3/2.1%, 6/7.9%, and 11/11.0%.

* Root pa- meaning up there: 3/2.0%, 8/10.7%, 10/11.8%, 10/6.8%, 3/3.9%, and 10/10.0%.

* Root qa- meaning here outside: No data for the first four stages, 1/1.3% for 3 to 3.5, and no data for greater than 3.5.

Total locative adverb tokens by group from lowest to highest M L U m are 147, 75, 85, 146, 76, and 100.

Total locative adverb tokens by group from lowest to highest MLUm: 147, 75, 85, 146, 76, 100.

The most frequently used locative adverb root is ma- “here,” which makes up 53.9% of the locative adverb roots in the CDS data. This is followed by av- “there away” (26.4%), pa- “up there” (7.0%), and un- “down there” (6.0%; 18), while the other locative adverb roots in the data each make up under 4% of the total locative adverb roots. Again, this does not align with the results of Study 1, but the locative adverb roots used in CDS are relatively consistent with those used in the children’s speech overall. However, mothers addressing children in the lowest MLUm ranges (1.0–2.0) use all of the locative adverb roots that appear in the data except qa- “outside” which appears in the MLUm range 3.0–3.5, while the children did not use all of these locative adverb roots until the MLUm range 2.0–2.5. The locative adverb roots that did not occur in the CDS data are pikk- “up here,” qam- “here inside,” and ki- “there outside.” Note that qam- and ki- also did not occur in the child data, and pikk- occurred only once.

All four of the possible inflections that can occur with locative adverb roots appear in the data. The inflection -ani “loc” was most frequent and made up 63.3% of the total inflections used with locative adverb roots. This was followed by -unnga “all,” which made up 27.3% of the inflections. This is consistent with the children’s speech, as well as with the findings of Study 1. See Supplementary Materials, Appendix B for details on the frequency of locative adverb roots with their inflections by MLUm.

Lastly, the majority of locative adverbs in the data did not include the prefix ta- “external reference.” Overall, 70.7% of the locative adverbs did not include the prefix. When directed to children with an MLUm of 1.0–2.0, 86.5% of the locative adverbs did not include ta-, and when directed to children with an MLUm of 2.0–3.5, 67.4% of the locative adverbs did not include ta-. However, when directed to children with an MLUm of 3.5 or more, only 46% of the locative adverbs did not include ta-; this means that mother’s use of locative adverbs with ta- surpasses those without ta- when addressing the most linguistically advanced children.