Descriptive Semantics of 7zeltaZ Numeral Classifiers1

BRENT BERLIN AND A. KIMBALL ROMNEY Stanford University

N MANY languages, counting “something” is associated with “classifying” I or “modifying” indicators about the thing being counted. In Tenejapa TzeltaP such classification or modification is indicated by the presence of expressions referred to here as numeral c l a ~ s i j e r s . ~ The purpose of this paper is to explore some semantic implications of this series of numeral classifiers.

The numeral classifiers of Tenejapa Tzeltal are a series of predominantly monosyllabic, bi-morphemic stems of the canonical shape CV(h) C. They normally occur as the second member of a numeral phrase where the first member is a numeral, i.e., in the form:

numeral + numeral classifier k noun.

Numeral phrases are typically followed by a noun (the noun is implied when not explicitly stated), and some semantic features of the noun are invariably indicated by the numeral classifiers. (See Appendix A for a sketch of the lin- guistic features of numeral classifiers in this dialect of Tzeltal.)

Semantically, these forms function very much as adjectivals in English, specifying certain qualitative features of the referents of nouns. If it were not for the long precedent in linguistic circles to refer to such forms as “numeral classifiers,” a more functionally and descriptively appropriate term would be “nominal qualifiers.” Their occurrence in numeral phrases is relatively unim- portant in considering their broad semantic features.

The major concern here is with denotative meaning as defined by Osgood (1961: 102), namely, “as a conventional, habitual correlation between a non- linguistic perceptual pattern, ( S ) , and some particular linguistic response, (R).” Connotative meaning is discussed briefly in the latter part of the paper.

Before turning to the more technical aspects of the subject, it may be use- ful to attempt to communicate an intuitive understanding of the role of numeral classifiers in Tenejapa Tzeltal (referred to as TTzel in the remainder of the paper). Consider the following phrases in English:

‘three square blocks’ ‘three round blocks’

The words ‘square’ and ‘round’ in these phrases occur after a numeral, they are followed by a noun, and they indicate something about the noun, i.e., its shape. In TTzel, numeral classifiers have these same characteristics as well as numerous additional ones. For example, in English, it is possible to omit the modifying words without altering the grammatical appropriateness of the phrase. However, unlike English adjectivals, TTzel numeral classifiers are analogous to Navaho verbal categories (Hoijer, 1951 ; Carroll and Casagrande, 1958) in that their occurrence in specific numeral phrases is obligatory. Thus,

79

80 Transcultural Studies in Cognition

in instances of enumeration of objects, events, or actions, a TTzel speaker must make a decision as to which of a number of alternative classifiers to employ in terms of some qualitative feature of the object, action, or event. As we shall see later, shapes, positions of objects, certain actions performed on objects, etc., are domains of meaning indicated by classifiers. On the other hand, colors of objects are never indicated by numeral classifiers.

In this paper we first present the procedures used for eliciting an extensive list of classifiers. Then a preliminary taxonomy of classifiers into gross semantic categories is given, followed by a detailed examination of selected categories of classifiers covering narrow semantic domains. Finally, the general results are discussed and placed in the context of broader studies of semantics and meaning.

Elicitation of the list of numeral classiJers Knowledge of the highly regular canonical shapes of numeral classifiers

(i.e., CV(h)C), the position of their occurrence, and the segmental phonemic inventory of TTzel allowed us to elicit most, if not all, of the classifiers in the dialect. Prior to working with informants, we generated a list of all the phonemically permissible CV(h)C forms (a finite list of 4,410 forms). We then devised an eliciting frame that would enable a native speaker to report which of the generated forms actually functioned as a numeral classifier in TTzel.

The generated list was presented independently to two informants who had been trained to read and write phonemically. These informants were instructed to work through the generated list, asking themselves the following question :

/ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik / “Is it possible for us to count things, one by one, with the form ?”

All generated CV(h)C forms were tested in reduplicated form to indicate con- tinuous enumeration; e.g., beginning a t the head of a list of possible CV(h)C forms, for example:

/ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-pipip-e/ /ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-pihpipihp-e/ /ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-pepepep-e/ /ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-pehpepehp-e/ /ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-papapap-e/ /ya b’al stak’ kahtahtik te b’itik s-pahpapahp-e/

etc. etc.

Forms with which ‘things’ could be counted were then further checked by determining a partial list of what ‘things’ could be enumerated (i.e., a list of the nouns occurring with such classifiers). This check was accomplished by employing the question:

/b’itik hehEuk ya stak’ 7ahtael te “What things can one count with the form

-4 -e?”

Descriptive Semantics of Tzeltal Numeral Classi$ers 81

substituting the previously isolated CV(h)C forms in the blank. If the forms were classifiers, the informants were able to list a series of nominals which in turn could be placed in the sequence mentioned earlier, i.e., numeral+numeral classifier & noun.

Thus far, some 557 numeral classifiers have been isolated along with lists of representative nominals occurring with each classifier. This number is con- siderably greater than any other inventory thus far published. Without the systematic eliciting procedures described above, less than a tenth of the classi- fiers in TTzel would have been discovered, for their actual occurrence in tex- tual material is infrequent. The list may not be complete, but i t approaches the full inventory.

Simple taxonomy of total list of numeral classifiers Preliminary analysis suggested that the classifiers fall into a small number

of gross semantic domains. For example, description of the “state” of certain items enumerated by specific numeral classifiers was facilitated for the in- formant by the manipulation of material objects, i.e., one could demonstrate the difference in /hlihk laso/ ‘one piece of lazo in its natural state’ and /hb’ehE’ laso/ ‘one piece of lazo wrapped in single wraps around long, sticklike objects’ by pointing and manipulating the lazo into its various states. A whole series of items could be arranged in the appropriate manner to their respective numeral classifiers and talked about afterwards.

Other classifiers, however, could be demonstrated only as the action was in progress; e.g., if enumeration were to occur, i t must be done during the process of the action.

Still other numeral classifiers seemed to refer to the “sounds” of a particular action, while others referred to items which had not received any human ac- tion, i.e., were ‘natural’ in the world, as i t were.

The observations led to the formulation of a series of questions that allow the classification of numeral classifiers into a simple taxonomy. The three main questions are:

I. /b’itik hehtuk te k’alal ya kiltik ya stak’ eahtael ta b’avil sb’il ta ?alel/ “What things have names (classifiers) which are readily known on observing the objects?”

11. /b’itik hehEuk te ya stak’ eahtael te k’alal ya stak’ pasele, sok ian ta patil, ya stak’ San ?ahtael sb’il t a me ya B hi1 te b’itike/ “What things have names (classifiers) which are employed for the enumeration of some action, as well as the objects which are the result of some action?”

111. /b’itik hehtuk te ya stak’ ?ahtael te k’alal ya stak’ pasel, h ha? te ta patil, ma 5 Eikna sb’il ta ?ahtad/ “What things have names (classifiers) which are the enumeration of some action, but after (the action) enumeration is not possible?”

Informants were asked these questions about all classifiers. Classifiers fitting question one were further distinguished in terms of whether or not enumera- tion referred to objects which were the result of human action. Classifiers fitting question three were subdivided in terms of whether or not the enumera- tion referred to the acoustic result of a particular action. This procedure re- sulted in the following taxonomic classification:

82 Transcultural Studies in Cognition I. Numeral classifiers of states (no action during enumeration).

A. Referring to items made by man. B. Referring to items not made by man.

completion of artion).

A. Referring to actions of living beings. I). Referring to acoustic results of actions of living beings.

11. Numeral classifiers of states and/or actions (enumeration during process and/or after

111. Numeral classifiers of actions (enumeration imperative during action).

Attempts to further partition this taxonomy “from the top” have been unproductive. However, the classifiers do fall into a large number of semantic domains or categories. These subgroupings are discussed in the following sections.

Classification of numeral classijers into seinaiilic domains In this section we discuss, in some detail, the analysis of small sets of nu-

meral classifiers that are interrelated by virtue of common membership in a semantic domain or category.

An example of a semantic domain in English is “shape.” Thus, words such as “round,” “square,” “rectangular,” etc., may each be thought of as sharing the feature of “saying” something about shape. They signal the hearer that the aspect being talked about is shape. In addition, each word in the domain “says” something different, e.g., round is different than square. “Shape” is the gloss for a semantic domain or category. “Round,” “square,” etc., are mem- bers of the category.

As Hymes has observed, “All utterances occur contrastively in contexts,” (1962:19). When a TTzel speaker is selecting a numeral classifier to character- ize the particular shape or state of an object in his physical environment, he first must select a context which allows for some limited range of meanings, e.g., he decides to talk in the context of ‘(shape” rather than “color.” This con- text includes presumably the range of meanings of the specific numeral classi- fier arid the ranges of meanings of all other semantically appropriate classifiers which could conceivably be alternatives. For example, a classifier occurring in a context dealing with the enumeration of objects in terms of some Components of shape would presumably not be an appropriate alternative for the context of “kinds of actions of eating.” One may view classifiers as linguistic units that indicate certain semantic components of objects in some specified contexts. The goal of explicating the semantic features of classifiers is thus seen as two- fold. The first step is to discover the context(s) indicated by each classifier. Secondly, one must determine the criteria1 attributes of each classifier within each context. The context and the classifiers occurring in it are defined here as a semantic domain or category.

We have isolated over one hundred semantic categories on the basis of similarity judged by native informants. By the application of a simple TTzel question, /7ay yic’oh shoy/ ‘does it (any particular numeral classifier under consideration) have a close companion?’ informants were able to sort numeral classifiers into semantic categories. These domains range in membership from

Descriplive Semantics of Teellal Numeral Classijers 83

two to as many as 20 classifiers per set. Some of the classifiers were not placed by our informants into any category, i.e., were considered as ‘isolated,’ and have not been examined in detail. All numeral classifiers were independently grouped into semantic categories by two informants. There was agreement between them in placing classifiers into semantic categories.

Analysis o j itilerizal slruclure of semaialic calegories I n this section we examine differences in the internal structure of various

categories of numeral classifiers. Two basically distinct types of distributional and semantic characteristics of these categories have been isolated. I n the first type, the numeral classifiers are in contrast, both in distribution and in denota- tive meaning. In the second type, the numeral classifiers are in complementary distribution (or free variation) and are denotatively synonymous.

Before presenting TTzel data, a sketch of the method used and an illustra- tion from English are given.

Assume a set of “related” modifiers (M) (i.e., modifiers in a single semantic domain), together with a list of nouns (N) typically occurring as objects of each of the modifiers. The problem is how to find whether any two modifiers have the same or different denotative meaning.

Our assumptions are as follows: (1) If two modifiers, MI and Mz, occur with the same noun, N1, and if the two resulting phrases, MINI and MzN1, can be shown to differ in denotative meaning, tlaerc the modifiers, M1 and Mz, differ in denotative meaning. (2) If two modifiers, MI and MP, never occur with the same noun, N1, except in free variation), and i j in two phrases, MINI and M2N2, they have equiavalent denotative meaning, then they are allosemes, i.e., they are equivalent in denotative meaning.

These assumptions may be illustrated by considering the following cate- gories in English:

(1) cup of sugar cube of sugar

and (2) school of fish

herd of cattle

In the first case, we have ‘cup’ (MI) and ‘cube’ (M2) occurring with ‘sugar’ (N1). They differ in denoting different iamounts’ and ‘states’ of the modified object, ‘sugar.’ Thus, ‘cup’ and ‘cube’ contrast in denotative meaning in this context. In the second case, we have ‘school’ (MI) and ‘herd’ (Mz) occurring with different nouns. Both indicate something like ‘a natural group of’ some animal. Knowledge of the noun is sufficient to predict which modifier is appropriate. The two modifiers never occur with the same noun (in this con- text) with contrastive denotative meaning. We call them allosemes. Examples of these two types in TTzel are given below.

Type I. Semaiitic categories with numeral classifiers ita contrast. For each category of numeral classifiers, we constructed a table showing occurrence of each classifier with a representative list of nouns. The nouns were elicited

84 Transcultural Studies i n Cognition

independently from two informants and rechecked in questions requiring the joint occurrence of the classifier and noun in the same numeral phrase.

Table I presents the data for a pair of numeral classifiers which form a semantic category that may be glossed as ‘aggregation of globular objects.’

The classifiers /b’uhs/ and /t’ol/ are said to be in contrastive distribution, i.e., they occur in identical linguistic environments with a difference in niean- ing (‘meaning’ is here used identically to Hjelmslev’s use of content). To demon- strate contrast between any two classifiers, we are primarily concerned with establishing, by informant response, same or different. Just what the differences may consist of is a related, but quite distinct, question of the delineation of criterial attributes.

The denotata of the nouns / W m / ‘corn,’ /kahpe/ ‘coffee,’ /kaSlan Eenek’/

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS IN ‘AGGREGATION OF GLOBULAR OBJECTS’ CATEGORY

(+ indicates permissible occurrence, - indicates that occurrence is not permissible.)

Classifiers Nouns

/b’uhs/ /t’ol/

+ + /?iSm/ ‘corn’ + + /kahpe/ ‘coffee beans’ + + /kaglan Eenek’/ ‘peanut’ + + /W/ ‘chili pepper’ + + /ton/ ‘stone’ + + /ma#’/ ‘corn dough’ + + /tornut/ ‘egg’ etc.

‘peanut’ are such that (1) they occur in at least two distinct natural states that permit their classification with the two classifiers /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/ in this context and/or (2) said denotata can undergo certain actions or manipula- tions such that they acquire the requisite criterial attributes indicated by the two classifiers.

One might state the semantic relationship as follows: /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/ are labels that indicate separate or distinct bundles of criterial attributes.The denotata of the nouns of the set are such that when they occur with /t’ol/ they manifest the criterial attributes indicated by that classifier, as these contrast with the criterial attributes indicated by the classifier /b’uhs/. Conversely, when the denotata of the nouns of the set occur with /b’uhs/, they manifest the attributes indicated by that classifier as they contrast with those indicated by /t’ol/.

Assuming that contrast has been established between /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/, it yet remains to describe the dimension(s) af contrast between the two forms, that is, to delineate their distinctive criterial attributes.

Descriptive Semantics of Teeltal Numeral Classifiers 85

The procedure utilized here is to instruct informants to produce and/or manipulate objects into states appropriate to the contrasting classifiers. Such observation was made feasible in TTzel due to the linguistic feature (see Ap- pendix A) that most classifiers are derived from transitive verb or positional verb roots, the direct objects of which are identical to the nouns occurring with the respective numeral classifiers. Therefore, informants could be in- structed to ‘perform’ the action of the particular verb (from which the classifier was derived) on a particular object.

I n the set given above, knowledge of the derivational structure of the two classifiers indicated that they are derived from the positional verb roots /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/. By inflecting the derived positional verb root in the imperative mode and providing a nominal occurring in the list of nouns in the set, /ma#’/ ‘corn dough,’ the following request is constructed:

/t’olana ma#’/ ‘perform the action indicated by the derived positional verb root /t’ol/ on the object designated by the noun /ma#/’

The informant then performs the action on the object /ma#’/ ‘corn dough’ placing i t in a state appropriate for enumeration by the classifier /t’ol/.

One then proceeds with such a frame until the denotata of all the nouns occurring with both /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/ manifest the criterial attributes, or are in the appropriate ‘state,’ of those classifiers. E.g.,

/t’olana ?iSim/ /t’olana kahpe/ /t’olana Eenek’/

etc.

/b’uhsana ?iHim/ /b’uhsana kahpe/ /b’uhsana fenek’/

etc.

Such a procedure was followed independently with two TTzel informants’ providing each of them with a quantity of ‘beans,’ ‘peanuts,’ ‘corn dough,’ etc., to be ‘manipulated.’ The results of the actions performed on each of the objects facilitated the definition of the criterial attributes of the classifiers. Table I1 gives the definitions for the semantic domain under consideration.

It may be noted that no ‘etic’ grid is available to descriptive semantic

TABLE 11. DISTINCTIVE MEANING OF CLASSIFIERS IN DOMAIN O F ‘AGGREGATION OF GLOBULAR OBJECTS’

Category Numeral Classifiers Criteria1 Attributes

‘aggregations of globular-shaped aggregated in a manner such that maximal horizontal extention of items is achieved with minimal spac- ing between items

objects, as corn kernels, coffee beans, peanuts, chili peppers, stones, pieces of corn dough, eggs, etc.

/b’uhs/

aggregated in a manner such /t’ol/ that maximal vertical piling is

achieved

86 Transcullural Studies in Cognition

analysis of the kind undertaken here. The resulting emic analysis must per- force be stated in ‘everyday’ language until descriptive semantics devises a metalanguage in which the data may be discussed. However, given the verbal glosses and some visual aid in the form of drawings or photographs, a non- native TTzel speaker can manipulate groups of objects in such a way so as to elicit predictable responses of numeral classifiers from native speakers. As such, he can fulfill, partially a t least, Goodenough’s rather stringent requirements of behaving ‘‘ . . . in ways which lead to the kind of responses from the com- munity’s members which our theory would lead us to expect” (1957: 168).

A variation of the distribution of perfectly contrasting classifiers (as in the category including /b’uhs/ and /t’ol/) is one where the distribution of nouns with classifiers is defective, that is, where some but not all classifiers occur with

TABLE 111. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS I N ‘QUALITY OF BREAKAGE’ CATEGORY

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ____ - -. - ~____._ .

Numeral classifiers

b y / / P W / / P W /k’ahs/ - Nouns

+ + -

+ +

+ + + + -

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + +

/E’ahan tak’in/ ‘wire’ /te7/ ‘tree’ /te?el ‘k!,im/ ‘stem of corn’ /wale? (sugar cane’ /lapis/ ‘pencil’ /b’ak/ ‘bone’ /si?/ ‘fire wood’ /matit/ ‘machete’ /kuEiyo/ ‘knife’

etc.

lists of nonoverlapping nouns and where some but not all classifiers occur with lists of identical nouns. This is the most common distribution observed in our data. An example of such a semantic category is given in Table 111.

Following procedures identical to those given for the preceding semantic category, the criteria1 attributes have been isolated and defined in Table IV.

Summary observation of the distribution of nouns and classifiers in Table I11 indicates that /huy/, /pub#'/, /p’ih/, and /k’ahs/ appear to contrast by virtue of their occurrence in the same environment with the nouns /E’ahan tak’in/ ‘wire’ and /te?/ ‘tree.’ The denotata of all nouns in the group, however, do not have this freedom of distribution. /wale?/ ‘sugar cane,’ for example, may occur with each classifier in the category other than /huy/. The denotata of the nouns /lapis/ ‘pencil’, /b’ak/ ‘bone’, and /si7/ ‘firewood’ may fulfill the criteria1 attributes indicated by the classifiers /p’ih/ ‘partial breakage’ and /k’ahs/ ‘complete breakage,’ but not of the classifiers /huy/ ‘bend and return’ and /pub$'/ ‘bend and return with indication of bend.’

Descriptive Semanlics of Tzellal Numeral Classijers 87

TABLE IV. DISTINCTIVE MEANING OF CLASSIFIERS IN DOMAIN OF ‘QUALITY OF BREAKAGE.’

-- ~ ~.

Category Numeral Classifiers

Criterial Attributes

‘degree of breakage or bending in /huy/ ‘bends in flexible materials such thin, oblong objects, as pieces of wire, that no actual ‘breakage’ is ob- trees, stems of plants, bones, etc.’ served, that is, the object returns

to its original position after bending’

/puhb’/ ‘bends in certain materials such that breakage is observed, but not through surface of object, such as the ‘bends’ in a wax match’

/p’ih/ ‘partial breakage such that the sur- face is actually broken, as cracked pencil’

/k’ahs/ ‘complete breakage’

Another paradigm exhibiting defective distribution of nouns in reference to the classifiers with which they occur is seen in Table V.

The criteria1 attributes of classifiers in this category were studied by instructing informants to form /ma#’/ ‘corn dough’ into each ‘shape.’ Photo- graphs were taken of forms produced independently by different informants. Our best description of each of these ‘shapes’ is as follows:

1) round, disklike forms a) well-formed, perfect disklike, /sehp/ h) not well-formed, pressed disklike, /len/ c) watery, lacking body, /lehs/

TABLE v. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS I N ‘SHAPE’ CATEGORY ~-

Numeral Classifiers

tuhl’ k’aht tel sehp len lehs kuh kul t’el wol-no1 hen Yo1 Nouns

/ton/’stone’ /ma#’/‘corn dough’ /7a#‘a~/’salt (block)’ /7askal/’sugar (block)’ /kJa /‘box’ /%?/‘chili pepper’ /?al~d/’oranpe’ /‘?on/’avocado’ /holol/’head’ /?ah0’al/‘mud’ /wit/‘mountain’ /&7/‘defecation’ /i!umante7/’tree trunk’ etc.

88 Transcultural Studies in Cognition 2) round, spherelike forms

a) small sphere, /wol-nol/ b) large sphere, /k’ol/ c) large sphere, flattened bottom, /hen/

a) thick-bodied, nonpointed head, /kuh/ b) thick-bodied, pointed head, /kul/ c) thin-bodied, nonpointed head, /tel/

4) oblong, nonstanding, wedgelike forms a) wedgelike, symmetrical ends, /t’el/ b) wedgelike, nonsymmetrical ends, /tub$'/ c) cylindrical ends, /k’aht/

3) oblong, standing, moundlike forms

‘Corn dough’ is an object that may be manipulated in such a manner as to acquire the attributes of the twelve classifiers in the domain. /ton/ ‘stone,’ however, is not “malleable.” For a stone to take any or all of the classifiers, it must occur in a “natural state” with the criteria1 attributes of each classifier inherently present. Two informants were instructed to search independently for stones which inherently were of the shapes indicated by the classifiers in the domain. Stone shapes were compared with the idealized shapes produced in corn dough. There was a degree of similarity of the forms arrived a t inde- pendently by each informant and in each medium, i.e., corn dough and rocks.

In reference to the ‘breakage’ domain and the ‘shape’ domain, an important question arises as to whether the defective distribution of nouns with classifiers affects our earlier statement that each of the classifiers contrast. We would say it does not on the following grounds:

In phonemic analysis, for contrast to be established, two distinct phones must occur in identical phonetic environments with a response from the informant that the two utterances are ‘different.’ I n English, for example, the phonetic segments [n] and [a] are classed as phonemically different by virtue of their occurrence in two identical phonetic environments with a response of ‘different’ from English informants, e.g.,

[ Ibiyn.] ‘bean’ [IbiYU.] ‘bing’

This contrast is sufficient to establish a phonemic difference for [IJ]. It is not required that the contrast be manifest in all possible environments. For English, it would be impossible to demonstrate such a contrast as that given above in the environment #-V . , , # in some such sequence as:

[#.nat.#] /nat/ ‘knot’ [#.nat.#l* /gat/* ?

due to the defective distribution of the phonetic type [IJ]: it does not occur initially after open juncture.

Thus, to return to our classifier examples, contrast in a t least one identical environment is sufficient, and we may state confidently that /huy/, /pub#'/, /p’ih/, and /k’ahs/ contrast, as well as /sehp/, /len/, /lehs/, /tub'#/, /k’aht/, /tel/, /wol/, /k’ol/, /hen/, /kuh/, /kul/, and /t’el/.

What explanation, if any, is available for the defective distribution? In linguistics, such a feature is assumed to be an arbitrary characteristic of the

Descriptive Semantics of Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers 89

system. An examination of our tentative criterial attributes, however, in reference to the denotata of each noun, allows for certain speculations to be made for numeral classifiers.

We suggest that the denotata of some nouns in each set are such (by some inherent characteristics) that they would not normally manifest the semantic features of the classifiers with which they do not occur. Thus, while /b’ak/ ’bone’ can be broken parlially (placing it in a state appropriate to the criterial attributes of /p’ih/) or broken completely (placing it in a state appropriate to the criterial attributes of /k’ahs/), in n o uncortirised context would /b’ak/ normally be manipulated in a manner appropriate to the so-called ‘bending’ classifiers /pub#'/ and /huy/. Similarly, the blade of a /matit/ ‘machete’ may be manipulated in a manner appropriate to the ‘bending’ classifier /huy/ or it may be snapped in two, placing i t in an appropriate condition for the attributes indicated by /k’ahs/. The inherent physical features of machete blades, how- ever, would not normally allow them to manifest the ‘bending’ attributes of /pub$'/ or the ‘broken’ attributes of /p’ih/.

A similar argument can be made for the classifiers in the ‘shape’ domain. Thus, while /kaSa/ ‘box’ may exhibit on some occasions the criterial attributes indicated by the classifier /k’aht/, i t would not normally occur with the classi- fiers /wol-nol/, /k’ol/, etc., which indicate formal features (i.e., spherical) in- appropriate to ‘boxes.’

Type I I . Semaiatic categories with numeral classijers in complementary distribution. A second basic distribution of classifiers and nouns and one that has quite distinct semantic implications is one in which each classifier in a category may occur with lists of unique, non-overlapping nouns. That is, no noun occurs with more than one classifier, the classifiers being in complemen- tary distribution. An example of such a set is seen in Table VI.

Following the procedures for the delineation of criterial attributes, the

TABLE VI. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS IN ‘VERTICAL POSITION’ CATEGORY

Numeral classifiers

/tuhf/ /t’uhE/ Nouns

- + + + + + +

+ + + + -

/p’in/ ‘earthen jar’ /p’is/ ‘small glass’ /limete/ ‘liter bottle’ /k’ib’/ ‘large pitcher’ /turnantel/ ‘tree trunk’ /te?/ ‘tree’ /wale?/ ‘sugar cane’ /te?el 107b’al/ ‘stem of banana tree’ /te?el ?alZa:/ ‘stem of orange tree’ /matit/ ‘machete’

etc.

90 Transcultural Siudies in Cognilion

following glosses can be given: /tuhE/ : maintenance of vertical position of certain cylindrical objects such as jugs, glasses, bottles, pitchers, etc., by means of their own support. Base of the object must sit directly on surface of table, ground, etc. /t’uhE/: maintenance of vertical position of certain objects such as tree trunks, tree stems, sugar cane stems, etc., by being inserted in ground or being held in hand or other outside support. Base of object must be submerged.

Another example of a semantic category in which the classifiers are in complementary distribution is given in Table VII .

This domain is comprised of classifiers utilized in the enumeration of cer- tain actions performed on specific objects. I n this instance, the actions enu- merated all refer to ‘plucking,’ ‘picking,’ or ‘digging’; the objects are parts of plants, generally fruit, but including as well leaves and tubers. The set as a whole may be glossed as the semantic domain of haruesl.

These tentative attributes are offered as criterial: /tul/ ‘harvesting’ of small ‘beanlike,’ ‘leaf-like’ portions of plants by plucking /E’uy/ ‘harvesting’ of bananas (by cut of stalk) /k’ah/ ‘harvesting’ of sugar cane and mature corn /ka?/ ‘harvesting’ of immature corn /k’ohk/ ‘harvesting’ of predominantly tree fruit /hohk’/ ‘harvesting’ of underground tubers

The classifiers in the two domains presented above cannot be said to con- trast in reference to the nouns with which they occur. We suggest tha t they be

TABLE VII. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS I N ‘HARVEST’ C4TEGORY

Numeral Classifiers

tul E’uy k’ah ka7 k’ohk hohk’ Nouns

+ + + + + + -

+ + + + - -

- + + +

/b’a#’il ?it/ ‘chili pepper’ /wamal/ ‘leafy plant’ /niEim/ ‘flower’ /Eenek’/ ‘bean’ /b’ok/ ‘leafy vegetable’ /kahpe,l koffee (bean)’

/lo?b’al/ ‘banana (stalk)’ ,/wale?/ ‘sugar cane’ /?iSim/ ‘corn’ /?ahan/ ‘young corn’ /7alEag/ ‘orange’ /lima/ ‘lemon’ /ha?as/ ‘zapote’ /tawtaw?iE/ ‘sweet green pepper’ /EPin/ ‘potato’ /kaSlan Eenek’/ ‘peanut’ /#aha1 tPin/ ‘sweet potato’

etc.

Descriptive Semantics of Tzeltal Numeral ClassiJiers 91

considered as allosemes of some higher order sememe. This conclusion is based on the evidence that (1) the classifiers’ occurrences can be predicted by refer- ence to the nouns in these particular domains (Leal they are in complementary distribution) and (2) their occurrences in the same semantic category allow for the inference of their semantic similarity.

The features of complementarity and semantic similarity can be made clearer by reference again to linguistics. One goal of phonemics is to classify distinguishable phones into larger-order units, or phonemes. Two principal criteria are employed: Complementary distribution and phonetic similarity. (The following discussion has been aided greatly by reference to an analogous outline used by Roger Brown [1956: 252-541.) Complementary distribution can be established for two distinct phones when there are no environments in which they both occur. In such cases, the “ . . . class [or phone] can be pre- dicted from the phonetic context” (Brown 1956: 252-5.3).

But complementary distribution in itself will not allow the grouping of two phones into a single phoneme. The second criterion of phonetic similarity (usu- ally judged in terms of place and manner of articulation) of the phones must be satisfied as well. To use a well-worn linguistic example from English, one notes that the segments [h] and [ g ] are in complementary distribution, but that their lack of phonetic similarity prohibits their inclusion in a single pho- neme.

The two domains given above are quite analogous. Each classifier is seen to be in complementary distribution in that each occurs in environments in which the others do not occur. This feature of distribution allows for the prediction of the classifier when given the noun in the domain’s ‘maintenance of vertical- ity’ or ‘harvest.’ Thus, the classifier /t’uhE/ is semantically redundant in the domain of verticality in that it carries no additional semantic load other than that already indicated by the nouns with which i t occurs. The same is to be said, of course, for /tuhC/, and for the classifiers /tul/, /E’uy/, /k’ah/, /ka?/, /k’ohk/, and /hohk’/ in the ‘harvest’ set.

The classifier-like lexemes herd, covey, school, in English, are similar. Given the domain ‘groups of animals’ each classifier can be predicted from the noun with which it normally occurs. The classifiers which occur in the frames ‘-of cattle, -of quail, and ;of bass’ can be predicted with essentially the same degree of accuracy as can some phones of English vowels.

Note that such predictability due to environmental features is impossible in cases of contrast. Given a noun /ma#’/ ‘corn dough’ in the domain of ‘piles of granular items,’ i t is impossible to predict the classifier /t’ol/ or b’uhs/. On the contrary, /t’ol/ and /b’uhs/ focus on nonredundant semantic features of /ma$’/ in two distinct physical states, as do the ‘shape’ classifiers in the ‘shape’ domain. Likewise, in English, given the domain ‘shaped object’ and the noun ‘modeling clay,’ it would be impossible to predict the occurrence of a host of ‘shape attributes’ such as ‘square,’ ‘round,’ ‘oblong,’ etc. In this context, the attributives specify some features of the object not indicated by the noun itself.

92 Transcultural Studies in Cognition

We have yet to focus on the second criteria of determining the allosemic states of the classifiers in the above domains; that is, their semantic similarity. From our phonemic example from English, [IJ] and [h], although in comple- mentary distribution, must be phonemically distinct due to their lack of phonetic similarity-a similarity that can be determined by reference to lin- guistics’ arbitrary phonetic grid arrived a t by decades of cross-cultural sophis- tication and familiarity with numerous languages. No such ‘etic’ grid com- prised of some arbitrary grouping of semantic ‘components’ or ‘critierial attributes’ is available for our work with classifiers. Semantic similarity must be determined by more indirect methods, i.e., informants’ responses. Our principal means of determining what classifiers participate in the same seman- tic domains have been given above, i.e., the judgments of informants when instructed to classify the randomized list of classifiers into semantically re- lated categories.

We are suggesting, then, that certain classifiers, while standing in com- plementary distribution, are nevertheless semantically related, and might be heuristically designated as allosemes of some more inclusive sememic unit. The fact that such a unit may lack a single linguistic designator, such as a unit lexeme, need not hinder such an analysis. The allosemes herd, flock, school, etc., might be operational in members of the higher level seme ‘groups of animate beings,’ although there would indeed be exceptions to such a gloss. The important feature to note is that such classifiers as herd, flock, etc., are semantically redundant (in reference to the nouns with which they occur, given the context of ‘groups of animals’) whereas such contrasting attributes as ‘square,’ ‘round,’ etc., in our ‘clay’ examples, are not. That such a semantic principle holds identically in other languages as well is of no mean significance.

A third distribution of classifiers plus nouns is what, for lack of a better term, we label ‘mixed semantic domains.’ Such categories include classifiers ex- hibiting contrastive as well as complementary distributional features. One such domain is given in Table VIII.

This domain, like the ‘harvest’ domain, is comprised of classifiers utilized in the enumeration of actions performed on certain objects, The actions all in- volve ‘cleansing with water’; the objects are items that can be washed. Some criteria1 attributes appear as follows:

/Ha?/ enumeration of times washing of head hair /sukh’/ enumeration of times washing ‘interior’ of certain objects, e.g., mouth, bowls,

plates, etc. /pohk/ enumeration of times washing surface of certain objects (not including hair, cloth-

ing, or plants), but not interior /sahk’/ enumeration of times washing clothing /sahp/ enumeration of times washing beanlike items, leafy vegetables, etc., by immersion

in water, accompanied by vigorous movement of item in water

In this distribution, /3a?/, /sahk’/, and /sahp/, due to their complemen- tary distribution, are allosemes. What of their relationship to the contrasting classifiers /sukh’/ and /pohk/? The latter two classifiers function as a unit in reference to the former three and may be called an alloseme indicating ‘cleansing of all items other than hair, clothing, or small, bean like items and

Descriplive Semantics of Tseltal Numeral Classi’ers 93

TABLE VIII. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS IN ‘WASHING’ CATEGQRY _______

Numeral Classifiers Nouns

I . I I

‘cleansing domain’ I I I I

Sa? suhk’ pohk sahk’

I ‘hair’ /Sa?/ I

I ‘clothing’ /sahk’/ I

I I

‘vegetables, etc.’ /sahp/ 1

sahp

/#obi1 holj ‘hair’ /?eil/ ‘mouth’ /limete/ ‘bottle’ /p’is/ ‘small glass’ /k’ib’/ ‘pitcher’ /b’ohE/ ‘gourd bowl’ /p’in/ ‘earthen jar’ /seC’/ ‘plate’ /pulata/ ‘plate’ /k’ab’al/ ‘hand’ /E’uhte3/ ‘plank’ /sit/ ‘face’ /b’ak’etal/ ‘body’ /mega/ ‘table’ /manbana/ ‘apple’ /k’u?il/ ‘clothes’ /Cob/ ‘blanket’ /pak’/ ‘material’ /weSil/ ‘pants’ /#ek/ ‘skirt’ /b’ok/ ‘leaf vegetable’ /kahpe/ ‘coffee beans’ /?iiim/ ‘corn’

etc.

94 Transcdlural Studies in Cognition

cedures employed in eliciting 557 distinct forms. Preliminary subdivision of the whole set into gross semantic taxonomic classes on the basis of systematic use of questions was presented. Then, a series of semantic categories was de- fined on the basis of similarities judged by native informants. Examples of categories selected for discussion in this paper included those of ‘shape,’ ‘verti- cal position,’ ‘washing,’ ‘harvesting,’ and others. These categories were sub- jected to descriptive semantic analysis; and two basically distinct types were isolated, primarily in terms of the distributional faetures of the classifiers.

Among the many problems left untouched in this paper are those of meta- phorical extension and a phenomena of regular variation in meaning related to presence or absence of infixed -h-. Examples of these two problems are pre- sented below and conclude the paper.

I n regard to metaphorical extension, one would like to inquire into the semantic extension of the attributes indicated by certain classifiers to objects which normally would not be expected to exhibit such attributes. An example would be /koht/, the classifier occurring primarily with animal (i.e., non- human) beings, but which also may occur, for some speakers, with /mega/ ‘table,’ /gila/ ‘chair,’ and /b’a#’il ?iE/ ‘small red chili pepper.’ The folk ety- mology for the use of /koht/ in this metaphorical extension may serve as clues to understanding the normative semantic range of the classifier. Two informants indicate that ‘tables’ and ‘chairs’ occur with /koht/ due to the fact that each has ‘four legs,’ one feature common to numerous animals. The occur- rence of ‘chili pepper’ with the classifier is said to be due to the ‘birdlike’ resemblances of the chili when dried.

Another phenomena is the semantic relationship between two classifiers derived from the same verb. One form occurs with the infixed -h- and the other with no change in phonemic shape, e.g., /sut’, suht’/ < tv /-sut’/

/sut’/:

/suht’/:

/Hut’, Huht’/<tv /-gut’/ /&ut’/:

/la#/:

/iuht’/: /lad, lah#/<tv /-la$/

/lah #/ ;

‘to tie knots in ropelike materials’ ‘knots in ropelike materials, normally each knot tied one on top of the other’ ‘knots tied around some item in ropelike materials, but each knot separated linearly along the material’ ‘to pinch with fingernails’ ‘pinches with fingernails of person, hands, etc.’ ‘pinches with fingernails, taking off small pieces of tortillas, meat, etc.’ ‘to stack it in neat fashion’ each individual item in a neatly stacked pile, e.g., baskets, earthen jars, pots, bricks, etc. each stack of neatly stacked items, baskets, bricks, etc.

APPENDIX A

A linguistic sketch o j Tenejapa Taeltal numeral classijiers Earlier works dealing with numeral classifiers in other Mayan languages

are few. Tozzer (1921), drawing heavily on lists collected by Zavala and Bel- tran, cites several for Yucatec Maya. Harris (1947) includes thirteen classifiers with minimal glosses for Chontal, but Keller (1955) offers a much more

Descriptive Semalzlics of TseZtaE Numeral Classijiers 95

comprehensive list (78 forms) and analysis for the same language. Castillo (1961) published a list of 33 forms with approximate glosses for modern Yucatec. For Tzeltal proper, Kaufman (1961), in discussing numerals in general, lists 48 common classifiers from Tenejapa, Oxchuc, and Aguacatenan- go. Sarles presents 51 for Oxchuc, and Slocum (1948) presents a much shorter list for the same dialect.

Keller’s (1955) article on Chontal is perhaps the niost relevant as far as outlining the general semantic features of classifiers which appear, superficially a t least, to function similarly in TTzel.

The numeral classifiers of TTzel are a series of predominantly monosyl- labic, bi-morphemic stems of the canonical shape CV(h)C. The majority of classifiers are derived by an infixed -h- morpheme (which occurs between V1 and CI of the stem) from transitive and positional verb roots.4 A small number of classifiers are derived from noun roots. Some transitive roots function as classifiers with no change in phonemic shape. I n addition, there are a number of classifiers whose derivation is uncertain. Infix (-h-) has two allomorphs, /-h-/ and -p-. /-h-/ is present when Cz is voiceless, but not /?/ or /h/, When CZ is voiced or is /?/or /h/, -@- occurs. Examples of CV(h)C classifiers derived from transitive and positional verb roots are:

‘enumeration of objects in the class of nonhuman animals’<positional verb/kot/* e.g., /kotol/ ‘on all fours’ ‘enumeration of near-circular rolls or coils of roplike materials < transitive verb /bt / ‘to form into near circular coils’ ‘enumeration of actions of stretching elastic materials< transitive verb /be’/ ‘to stretch it’

Examples of CVC classifiers derived from transitive and positional verb roots are :

‘enumeration of pricks, short stabswith pointed objects, as in bloodletting’< transi- tive verb /hul/ ‘to prick, stab, let blood’ ‘enumeration of vertical, oblong mound shaped objects’ <positional verb /kuh/* e.g., /kuhan/ ‘to form into vertical, oblong, mound-shaped object’ ‘enumeration of pieces of ropelike material tied in a specified manner’< transitive verb /k’am/ ‘to tie it in specified manner’

Examples of transitive roots which function as classifiers but which exhibit no change in phonemic shape are:

‘enumeration of blows with open hand’<transitive verb /t’aH/* e.g., /t’aitu/ ‘to strike with open hand’ ‘enumeration of snaps of fingers’<transitive verb /t’os/ ‘to snap fingers’ ‘enumeration of action of drawing bow across strings of violin, stringed instru- ments’<transitive verb /k’ie/ ‘to draw bow across string’

/koht/

/Hoht/

/HahE’/

/hul/

/kuh/

/k’am/

/t’aH/

/t’os/ /ki#’/

Examples of monosyllabic classifiers derived from nouns are: ‘enumeration of potfuls of certain objects’ <noun /p’in/ ’pot’ ‘enumeration of marks, written letters’ <noun /#lib’/ ‘letter’ ‘enumeration of pointed objects’ <noun /E%/ ‘spiney object’

/p’in/ /fib’/ / E W /

Examples of polysyllabic classifiers are few. Those that have been observed thus far are given below.

96 Transcultural Sludies in Cognifion /E’utub’/ ‘enumeration of length of measure between index fingertip and tip of thumb in

maximum extended position <noun /E’utub’/ ‘index finger’ /k’aHel/ ‘all a t once’ (occurs only with numeral ‘one’) <? /?ihka$/ ‘enumeration of individual loads’ < transitive verb stem /?ihka$/ ‘to carry loads’ /yalel/ ‘enumeration of momentary occurrences’ (occurs only with numeral ‘one’) < ?

The distribution of numeral classifiers is limited to quantifying expressions6 where they occur as second members of endocentric compounds (specific nuineralfnumeral classifier). Generally, a noun whose referent is the object or event being quantified accompanies the quantifying expression. E.g.,

‘two (persons of the class human) men’ /Ea?tul winik/ /ho%oht E’ahan/

The noun may be absent, but the referent of the numeral expression is clearly understood, either by contextual features or the highly specific nature of the classifiers. E.g.,

‘five (pieces of ropelike material in circular coils) cords’

/Eankoht/ ‘four (beings of the class of nonhuman animals)’ /hukpehE’/ ‘seven (braided pieces of ropelike material)’

The compound, numeral+nunieral classifier, may be possessed (after der- ivation by the nominal suffix -al) and may be considered morphologically to be a noun. E.g.

/yoHkohtal/ ‘the third animal-like being’ (y-third-person possessive prefi+?oH numeral ‘three’ fkoht numeral classifier with class of non-human animals+-a1 nominal suffix)

/swaklihkal/ ‘its six, hanging, ropelike objects’ (s-third person possessive prefixSwak nu- meral ‘seven’+lihk numeral classifier with ropelike objects in natural state+ -a1 nominalsuffix)

As a substitution class, numeral classifiers may be divided into two general

A. Classifiers restricted in occurrence with the numerals (-hun-) ‘one’. (The numeral ‘one’

B. Classifiers which may occur with any numeral.

Classifiers of subclass A are of two types. One group, of which there are three examples, is made up of ‘quantifying classifiers’ which function analo- gously to what Silverman calls ‘numericals’ in Gilbertese. “Numericals are used to handle forms which occurred in the position of numeral classifiers but are not so” (1962:SS). They appear to mark off units, or groups of numerals, as ZO’s, 400’s, 8,000’s. The quantifying classifiers are /tab’/ ‘twenties,’ /b’ahk’/ ‘four hundreds,’ and /pik/ ‘eight thousands.’ E.g.,

sub-classes:

has three allomorphs, /h-hu-hun/.

/htab’ p e h / ‘20 pesos (a group of 20)’ /hb’ahk’ peHu/ ‘400 pesos (a group of 400)’ /hpik peg,/ ‘8,000 pesos (a group of 8,000)’

A second group of classifiers of subclass A function syntactically as time or extent phrases. Three have been isolated and are /?ahk’/ ‘momentarily,’ /yalel/ ‘all a t once,’ and /teb’/ ‘a little.’ E.g.,

/. . . t e k’alal ?ay h?ahk’ #’in ya yutyut sb’aik , . . / ‘. . . when momentarily they begin to argue among themselves . . .’

Descriplive Semantics of Tzeltal Numeral Classijers /. . . helaw naH lah b’el ta hyalel . . . / /. . . ?ay hteb’ . . . /

‘. . . it happened, or occurred, all at once . . .’ ‘. , . there is a little. . .’

97

NOTES

f This paper represents the results of research conducted in the field during the months of June-December, 1962. Supporting funds have been made available by a National Science Foun- dation Grant, #G22152, A. K. Romney, Principal Investigator. We are especially indebted to Itoy D’Andrade, Charles Frake, Terrence Kaufman, Paul Kay, Duane Metzger, and Gerald Williams for their critical comments and readings of earlier drafts. This final version has gained much from the kind help of Sydney Lamb, who agreed to serve as discussant of the paper a t the Merida Con- ference. Of his numerous suggestions, both written and verbal, we have incorporated many. The responsibility for the paper in its present form, however, is solely ours.

a Tzeltal is a Mayan language spoken by approximately 45,000 to 70,000 persons in the cen- tral highland region of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. The dialect of Tzeltal from which the data for this paper are drawn is that spoken in the mlsnicipio (‘county’ or ‘township’) of Tenejapa. We offer our thanks to our two principal informants, /h?alus mentes ton/ of the paraje (‘dispersed-hamlet- l i e unit within the municipio’) of /kul?ak’tik/ and /hpetul peres konte/ of the paraje of /PO- kolum/.

* The term, numeral classifier, was used by Mary Haas (1942) in her discussion of their occur- rence in Thai. Bloomfield (1933:237) notes the Hindu designation of numeratives (dvigu) for forms with similar grammatical features. The term ‘auxiliary noun’ has been used in reference to numeral classifiers in Chinese. (For the reference to Chinese, we are indebted to Sydney Lamb, personal communication.)

4 Positional verb roots-as opposed to transitive verb roots-are recognized formally by two principal derivational features: (1) they rarely occur as simple CVC inflected stems and (2) upon derivation with the transitive stem-formative, -an, or the intransitive stem-formative, -ah, they exhibit an infixed -h-. Transitive verb roots, on the other hand, occur most frequently as simple in- flected stems and, upon derivation with the above mentioned suffixes, do not exhibit infixed -h-. The term ‘positional verb root’ has been used by Slocum (1948) and Berlin (1962, 1963) in agree- ment with certain obvious semantic similarities of glosses referring broadly to position or shape.

6 There are two parallel series of quantifying expressions in Tenejapa Tzeltal, a general series and a specific series. In general numeral expressions, numeral roots are derived by the general numeral derivational sufh -eb’. Numeral classifiers occur only in spec& numeral expressions, and the numeral roots in these expressions do not take the suffix eb’. The general numeral series in Tenejapa is coming into greater use by bilingual speakers with a knowledge of Spanish, the nu- meral phrase structure of which is analogous. The exact conditions which predispose a speaker to use specific numeral expressions in which a numeral classifier is obligatory and which specify some semantic feature of the thing being counted are not as yet determined. There is indication, how- ever, that monolingual speakers prefer the specific series over the general.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BERLIN, BRENT 1962 An outline of Tenejapa Tzeltal morphology. Anthropology Research Papers. Stan-

ford University. Unpublished. 1963 Some semantic features of reduplication in a dialect of Tzeltal. International Journal

of American Linguistics 29: 211-218.

1933 Language. New York, Henry Holt.

1956 Language and Categories, Appendix to Bruner, J. S., J. Goodnow, and G. A. Austin, A Study of Thinking. New York, John Wiley.

BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD

BROWN, ROGER

98 Transcultural S td ies in Cognition

CARROLL, JOHN B. and JOSEPH H. CASAGRANDE 1958 The function of language classification in behavior. In Readings in social psychol-

ogy, Maccoby, Eleanor, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, eds. New York, Henry Holt.

Morfemas clasificadores del Maya Yucateco. In A William Cameron Townsend. Mexico, D. F., Instituto Linguistico.

1957 Anthropology and linguistics. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Lan- guage and Linguistics 9: 167-173.

HAAS, MARY R. 1942 The use of numeral classifiers in Thai. Language 18:201-205.

HARRIS, MARGARET 1947 Nombres clasificadores chontales. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologla e

Historia 2:303-306.

1951 Some Navaho linguistic categories. Language 27: 11 1-120.

1962 The ethnography of speaking. In The Anthropological Society of Washington, Anthropology and Human Behavior.

1961 Tzeltal numerals. Anthropology Research Papers. Unpublished manuscript. Stan- ford University.

KELLER, KATHRYN 1955 The Chontal (Mayan) numeral system. International Journal of American Linguis-

tics 21:258-275. OSGOOD, CHARLES

1961 Comments on Professor Bousfield’s paper. I n Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Coter, ed. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Office of Naval Research and New York University. New York, McGraw-Hill.

SILVERMAN, MARTIN 1962 Numeral classifiers in the Gilbertese language. Anthropology Tomorrow 8:41-58.

SLOCVM, MWANA 1948 Tzeltal (Mayan) noun and verb morphology. International Journal of American

Linguistics 14: 77-86. 1951 Vocabdario Tsdtac. Mexico, D. F., Instituto Linguistico de Verano.

TOZZER, ALFRED M. 1921 A Maya grammar. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and

Ethnology. Harvard University. Vol. 9.

CASTILLO, MoxsPs ROMERO 1961

GOODENOUGH, WARD

HOIJER, HARRY

HYMES, DELL

KAULFMAN, TERRENCE