Tohoku Psychologica Folia
2016, 75, 22−34

Inter ference of context and bilinguality with the word order
preference in Kaqchikel reversible sentences
SACHIKO KIYAMA（木山幸子）1, MENG SUN（孫猛）2, JUNGHO KIM（金情浩）3
KATSUO TAMAOKA（玉岡賀津雄）4 AND MASATOSHI KOIZUMI（小泉政利）5

Some inconsistent findings have been provided for word order preference in Kaqchikel, alanguage with the syntactically determined canonical word order of verb-object-subject (VOS):
the canonical VOS is efficiently processed in sentence comprehension whereas the most frequent
order is SVO in sentence production. In order to elucidate the nature of the discrepancy between
comprehension and production in Kaqchikel, the present study utilized a sentence-picture
matching task to compare the processing load for reversible transitive sentences with multiple
animate entities (i.e., an animate subject and an animate object) among four possible word orders(VOS, VSO, SVO, and OVS). Results revealed that when an appropriate context was given, SVO
was the most accurately and quickly processed order in Kaqchikel sentence comprehension,
which does not agree with the results from existing research on sentence comprehension, where
no context was provided. We further examined the influence of the individual native speakers’
bilinguality in Spanish on the SVO preference in sentences with a context, indicating that thosewith a higher ratio of daily Spanish use quickly processed word orders in which the subject
precedes the object (i.e., SVO and VSO). The native speakers’ preference for VOS due to thesyntactic canonicity seems to be overshadowed by the contextual factor and the bilinguality ofthe participants.
Key words: Picture-sentence matching, word order preference, Kaqchikel, animacy,bilinguality

Introduction
Verbalization of thought requires us to put words in a straight line. Word order is realized
primarily based on the syntax of the particular language, but also to some degree by how
individuals perceive the scene they are going to describe. Across the languages in the world,
there exist many different realizations of syntactically determined canonical word order.
Psycholinguists have provided abundant evidence that the word orders in which subject (S)precedes object (O) induce lower processing load than the opposite order of OS (e.g., Bader &Meng, 1999; Kaiser & Trueswell, 2004; Mazuka, Ito, & Kondoh, 2002; Sekerina, 1997; Tamaoka
1.	College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Mie University
2.	School of Asian Languages and Cultures, Zhejiang International Studies University
3.	Faculty of Arts, Kyoto Women’s University
4.	Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University
5.	Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University

Context and bilinguality in Kaqchikel23

et al., 2005), which has led to what may be called the universal cognition theory (UCT): SO
word orders are more efficient than OS word orders for sentence processing regardless of thebasic word order of any individual languages (e.g., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky,
2009a, 2009b; Kemmerer, 2012; Tanaka, Branigan, McLean, & Pickering, 2011). However,those experimental studies supporting UCT have only focused on languages which have been
assumed to have syntactically determined word order of SO, not OS. Recently, some attempts
focusing on the Kaqchikel Maya language, whose syntactically determined basic word orderis VOS (Kiyama, Tamaoka, Kim, & Koizumi, 2013; Koizumi et al., 2014), have added new
evidence that VOS word order is processed faster and more accurately than SVO, supporting
the individual grammar theory (IGT), rather than the UCT, that a language’s syntacticallydetermined basic word order has the lowest processing load among the grammatically possible
word orders in that language (e.g., Gibson, 2000; Hawkins, 2004; Marantz, 2005; O’Grady,
1997; Pritchett & Whitman, 1995).
Kaqchikel is a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala. Like many other Mayan languages,
Kaqchikel has a flexible word order. According to García Matzar and Rodríguez Guaján(1997) and others, Kaqchikel grammatically allows all the logically possible six word orders ofsubject, object, and verb. Among them, VOS is the syntactically basic word order, and SVO
is also commonly used. SOV and OSV are rarely employed (Ajsivinac Sian, García Mátzar,
Cutzal, & Alonzo Guaján, 2004; García Matzar & Rodríguez Guaján, 1997; Rodríguez Guaján,
1994; Tichoc Cumes et al., 2000). Although precise syntactic structures of Mayan languages
are still under debate, for the purpose of the present study, it is sufficient to assume that for
Kaqchikel transitive sentences with different word orders, the schematic syntactic structures
are as shown in (1), in which VOS is structurally simpler than the other orders (cf. England,
1991; Tada, 1993; Koizumi et al., 2014; Yasunaga, Yano, Yasugi, & Koizumi, 2015).
(1) Order
VOS
VSO
SVO
OVS

Schematic syntactic structure[VOS][[V gapi S] Oi][Si [VO gapi]][Oi [V gapi S]]

Since the word order alternation in modern Kaqchikel does not require any morphologicaltransformation, animacy of noun phrases can yield reversible sentences (i.e., it makes sensewhen the semantic roles of the subject and the object are reversed if both the noun phrases
are animate). Indeed, the effect of animacy seems to confound the word order preferencein Kaqchikel. Although the VOS has been assumed to be the syntactically determinedcanonical word order in Kaqchikel and some psycholinguistic experiments utilizing sentencecomprehension tasks have supported this assumption (Kiyama et al., 2013; Koizumi et al.,2014), a finding in terms of sentence production frequency (Kubo, Ono, Tanaka, Koizumi, &Sakai, 2015) provides counterevidence, i.e., that SVO is much frequently produced than VOS.

24

Kiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

Further, it has also been noted that the SVO preference is more salient in reversible sentenceswith an animate subject and an animate object than in non-reversible ones with an animate
subject and an inanimate object. Nevertheless, the VOS preference in comprehension has beenfound to be robust throughout reversible (Kiyama et al., 2013) and non-reversible (Koizumi etal., 2014) sentences.
The inconsistent findings of word order preference in reversible sentences between
comprehension and production might come from a qualitative difference in their experimental
procedures. During the sentence comprehension task employed by Kiyama et al. (2013)
and Koizumi et al. (2014), participants listened to stimulus sentences with no prior context
provided, so they did not have the entire picture of the given sentence’s content until theylistened to the last phrase. In the sentence production experiment by Kubo et al. (2015), on
the other hand, participants were presented with a picture depicting either a transitive or
intransitive event, and were asked to describe it with a Kaqchikel sentence. In other words,
the sentence production task allowed the participants to use context, which might leadto topicalization, i.e., a preposing of the agent/subject of the sentence (García Matzar &Rodríguez Guaján, 1997; Tichoc Cums et al., 2000; Ajsivinac Sian et al., 2004). This might
affect Kubo et al.’s (2015) result that SVO was much more frequent than VOS. As has beenargued in the literature, syntactically determined canonical word order should be distinguishedfrom “pragmatically determined word order” when considering Mayan languages (Brody, 1984;
England, 1991).
A possible way to elucidate the nature of the discrepancy between comprehension andproduction in Kaqchikel is to use a task administering simultaneous presentation of visualand auditory stimuli, so that participants can listen to sentences with the entire picture of all
the elements from the onset. Employing this procedure, the context provided might reduce theprocessing load of SVO sentences during comprehension.
Another confounding factor is in relation to bilinguality. Nowadays, most of the native
Kaqchikel speakers are bilingual in Spanish, as this is inevitable in order for them to study at
school or to engage in economic activities. As they get accustomed to speaking Spanish whose
canonical word order is SVO, the preference for SVO in Spanish may affect the VOS preferencein Kaqchikel (cf. England, 1991: 475).
Taken together, the present study compared the processing load for Kaqchikel reversible
transitive sentences including multiple animate entities (i.e., an animate subject and an
animate object) among four possible word orders of VOS, VSO, SVO, and OVS, with the effectof individual speaker’s bilinguality as a covariate-of-interest. In order to elucidate the effect of
the contextual factor, we employed a picture-sentence matching task where participants were
simultaneously presented with auditory Kaqchikel reversible sentences and a picture denoting
the scene of the given sentence.

Context and bilinguality in Kaqchikel

25

MethodParticipants
Sixty healthy native Kaqchikel speakers (37 females; age range: 18-60, M = 33.7, SD= 10.9) who lived in Guatemala participated in this experiment after giving their written
informed consent. In order to assess individual degree of Kaqchikel-Spanish bilinguality,
participants completed a questionnaire concerning their use of the two languages in daily
life, which was originally created for this study. All of them were given remuneration for their
participation. This experiment was approved by the ethical committee of the Graduate Schoolof Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Japan.

Materials
Materials for our picture-sentence matching task consisted of pictures depicting atransitive action with the agent(s) and patient(s), and the corresponding auditorily presented
Kaqchikel transitive sentences, all of which were identical with the stimuli used by Yasunaga
et al. (2015). In each picture, the agent(s) and patient(s) were painted in different colors,
namely, käq “red,” xar “blue,” säq “white,” and q’ëq “black.” The transitive actions weredepicted on the agent(s) and patient(s) to refer to one of the following six common transitive
verbs in Kaqchikel: jïk’ “pull,” xib’ij “surprise,” nïm “push,” pixab’aj “bless,” oyoj “call,” andch’äy “hit,” as shown in Figure 1. In the present task, we set either the agent side or the patientside as plural, and the other as singular in order to identify the agent-patient relationship.
Consequently, we prepared a total of 96 target stimulus pictures (i.e., 6 verbs × 4 colors × 2
agent/patient × 2 singular/plural). The assignment of left-right position of the agent(s) andpatient(s) were counterbalanced across all the stimulus pictures.

Figure 1. Examples of the stimulus pictures depicting a transitive action with the agent(s) andpatient(s) used in the picture-sentence matching task. The pictures were shown in color in the actual
experiment.

Kiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

26

A total of 192 auditorily presented target sentences corresponding to the stimulus pictures
were arranged into each of the four word orders of VOS, VSO, SVO, and OVS, as exemplified
in (2). (The following abbreviations were used in this article: ABS [absolutive], CL [classifier],
CP [completive], DET [determiner], ERG [ergative], pl [plural], sg [singular], 1 [first person],3 [third person], PM [plural marker].)(2) a.
		
		
b.
c.
d.

Xkoyoj/ri xar/ri taq käq. [VOS]
CP-ABS3sg-ERG3pl-call/ DET blue/ DET PM red“The reds called the blue.”
Xkoyoj/ri taq käq/ri xar. [VSO]
Ri taq käq/xkoyoj/ri xar. [SVO]
Ri xar/xkoyoj/ri taq käq. [OVS]

All the target sentences included a definite animate subject, a definite animate object, andan action verb in past tense. In order to morpho-syntactically differentiate the agent-patient
relationship, half of the sentences contained a singular subject and plural object, and the otherhalf contained a plural subject and singular object. In addition, 96 filler sentences were preparedto allow participants to make judgments of the mismatch with the given pictures. Mismatch trials
were created by reversing agent-patient relationship, changing color assignment, or indicating
incorrect action. The sentences were recorded by a male native Kaqchikel speaker. The length ofthe duration of each sentence was trimmed such that differences were not induced across the four
word orders. The details for the editing procedure are described in Yasunaga et al. (2015).

Procedure
Participants were seated in front of a monitor, and asked to look at a fixation mark(+++) presented in the center of the monitor for 1000 ms before they were presented withthe auditory transitive sentences through a headphone and the picture in the monitor
simultaneously. They were instructed to indicate via button press whether the picture wascongruent with the content of the given sentence, as quickly and accurately as possible. Before
the experiment proper started, they were given 24 practice trials to learn the task. The volume
was adjusted if needed. The experiment consisted of two blocks with a small break between
them. At the beginning of each block, two warm-up trials were included. On an average,
the whole procedure took approximately one hour. E-prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools,
Pittsburgh, PA) was used for the stimulus presentation and behavioral data acquisition.

Analysis
The present study aimed to compare processing load for four possible word orders of
Kaqchikel reversible sentences, correlated with individuals’ bilinguality in Spanish. For thispurpose, we performed a linear mixed effects (LME) analysis (e.g., Baayen, 2008) with the
maximum-likelihood method. This method estimates the effects of fixed variables (either

Context and bilinguality in Kaqchikel27

continuous or categorical) that are of interest in the study over random effects that can beassumed to be sampled at random from the population. To analyze the data of accuracy
rate (ACC) and reaction time (RT), factors of Word Order (VOS, VSO, SVO, and OVS) andparticipants’ self-evaluated Ratio of Spanish Use in daily life, which were collected fromthe questionnaire survey prior to the picture-sentence matching task, were entered as fixedvariables. Among the four word orders, OVS was set as the reference condition in order
to examine facilitation effects of other word orders in comparison with the least common
order. Item and Participant were set as random variables. The RT data was trimmed at 2.5
standard deviations above the mean of each condition for each participant, and 1.7 % of all
the data were changed. The model estimation was conducted using lme4 (Bates, Maechler,
Bolker, & Walker, 2014) and lmerTest (Kuznetsova, Brockhoff, & Christensen, 2014) packages
implemented in R version 3.3.0. The specified model was [ACC/RT ~ Word Order * Spanish
Ratio + (1|Item) + (1|Participant)]. Multiple comparisons for subsets among the four
conditions of the Word Order factor were performed with the step() function from the lmerTest
package. The alpha level was set at .05 for all the statistical tests. All continuous variables (i.e.,
fixed variable of Spanish Ratio and dependent measures of ACC and RT) were centered andscaled before analysis to obtain standardized fixed-effect parameters (β).
Results
On average, ACC of the picture-sentence matching task (Figure 2) was the highest for SVO(M = .967, SD = .180), and the lowest for OVS (M = .758, SD = .428). Other orders of VSO (M= .929, SD = .257) and VOS (M = .931, SD = .254) were between the two. Mean RT of the task
(Figure 3) were 3270 ms (SD = 947) for SVO, 3334 ms (SD = 605) for VOS, 3371 ms (SD = 701)
for VSO, and 3590 ms (SD = 550) for OVS. In comparison with the most inaccurate and slowest
OVS, other three word orders were processed more accurately (all p < .001 for ACC in Table 1)
and faster (all p < .001 for RT in Table 2). The difference between SVO and VOS (p < .01 for
ACC, p < .05 for RT) and that between SVO and VSO (p < .01 for ACC, p < .001 for RT) werealso significant, whereas the difference between VSO and VOS did not reach the alpha level.

Figure 2. Accuracy rate of the picture-sentence matching task of Kaqchikel reversible sentences.
Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. O: object; V: verb; S: subject.

Kiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

28

Figure 3. Reaction time of the picture-sentence matching task of Kaqchikel reversible sentences.
Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. O: object; V: verb; S: subject.
Table 1. Fixed effects of LME analysis on accuracy rate of the sentence-picture matching task in
Kaqchikel reversible sentences

Contrast

Partial regression coefficient: β(intercept)tp.759 [.728, .789]

48.989< .000Word Order: VSO > OVS.170 [.141, .199]

11.518< .000Word Order: VOS > OVS.172 [.143, .201]

11.633< .000Word Order: SVO > OVS.208 [.179, .237]

14.076< .000Spanish use.027 [-.002, .056]

1.828

.070

Spanish use * VSO > OVS-.002 [-.032, .027]-0.159.874

Spanish use * VOS > OVS-.018 [-.048, .011]-1.239.216

Spanish use * SVO > OVS-.025 [-.054, .005]-1.658.097

Note: Values in brackets denote 95% confidence intervals.

Table 2. Fixed effects of LME analysis on reaction time of the picture-matching task in Kaqchikel
reversible sentences

Contrast

Partial regression coefficient: β(intercept)
Word Order: VSO > OVStp.307 [.149, .466]

3.835< .000-.325 [-.417, -.233]-6.941< .000Word Order: VOS > OVS-.373 [-.465, -.281]-7.975< .000Word Order: SVO > OVS-.465 [-.556, -.374]-10.017< .000Spanish use.217 [.064, .370]

2.814

.006

Spanish use * VSO > OVS-.106 [-.201, -.012]-2.200.028

Spanish use * VOS > OVS-.077 [-.170, -.016]-1.632.103

Spanish use * SVO > OVS-.139 [-.231, -.047]-2.958.003

Note: Values in brackets denote 95% confidence intervals.

Analysis with the LME modeling revealed the significant interaction between Word Orderand Spanish Ratio on RT data. In comparison with the slowest OVS, participants with aContext and bilinguality in Kaqchikel29

higher ratio of Spanish use in daily life processed faster for SVO (β = -.139, p < .05) and VSO(β = -.106, p < .01), but no significance was found for VOS (β = -.077, ns.) as shown in Table
2. The facilitation effect for SVO processing by Spanish-dominant participants is as plotted in
Figure 4.

Figure 4. Plot between percentage of Spanish use and SVO preference in terms of the reaction timeof a picture matching task in Kaqchikel sentences with animate objects (average among OVS, VOS,
VSO minus SVO). O: object; V: verb; S: subject.

Discussion
Some inconsistent findings for word-order preference in the Kaqchikel language have beenfound, that is, the syntactically determined canonical order VOS is the most efficient order insentence comprehension, whereas SVO is the most frequently used order in sentence production.
In order to investigate the nature of this discrepancy, the present study re-examined word order
preference in Kaqchikel reversible sentences with multiple animate entities, utilizing a picturesentence matching task wherein participants listened to sentences with the picture depicting
the scene presented at the onset. The findings obtained from the present study elucidate hownative Kaqchikel speakers comprehend reversible sentences when they are given a context atthe beginning of sentence processing, and to what extent those speakers’ bilinguality in Spanish
is correlated with the word order preference in their native language.
Results revealed that when a context was given with a picture denoting the scene of
the sentence at the onset, SVO was the most accurate and quickly processed order in thecomprehension of Kaqchikel reversible sentences. The finding is different from the previous
findings of sentence comprehension tasks without any substantial context where the VOS
order was preferred to SVO both in terms of behavior (Kiyama et al., 2013; Koizumi et al.,2014) and neural activity (Koizumi & Kim, 2016), but consistent with the result of a sentence
production task, which provided a context by picture presentation in advance (Kubo et al.,2015), indicating that SVO was the most frequent order. An effect of context on word order

30

Kiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

preference in Kaqchikel is now clearly demonstrated in sentence comprehension as a result ofour picture-sentence matching task, which administered simultaneous presentation of auditory
stimulus sentences and the corresponding pictures that showed all the elements which needed to
be described in the sentence at the onset. Context seems to matter for determining the cognitive
load for sentence processing, regardless of whether it is through comprehension or production.
The contextual factor is known to play a greater role in sentence processing of languages
that allow flexible word orders to induce a particular motivation for the use of non-canonicalorders (e.g., Kaiser & Trueswell, 2004, Koizumi & Imamura, 2016). Especially in Kaqchikel,
SVO is frequently observed when the subject is topicalized, whereas VOS is assumed to bea syntactically canonical word order and can be used in a pragmatically neutral context(Ajsivinac Cian et al., 2004; García Matzar & Rodríguez Guaján, 1997; Tichoc Cumes et al.,2000). It has been universally demonstrated that subjects tend to have the property of saliencefor being easily topicalized in conversations and to appear at the beginning of sentences (e.g.,
Bornkesell, Schlesewsky, & Friederici, 2002). This is also the case for Kaqchikel, since the space
for a topic is syntactically secure before verbs (Aissen, 1992; England, 1991; García Matzar &Rodríguez Guaján, 1997). Given the present finding of sentence comprehension with a context
that the syntactically non-canonical SVO was processed more accurately and quickly than
the syntactically canonical VOS, the “saliency of subject” effect has been demonstrated to be
applied not just for sentence production, but also for sentence comprehension.
It should also be noted that the present study utilized reversible sentences with animate
entities for the stimuli of the auditory presentation, that is, both the subject (i.e., agent)and the object (i.e., patient) were animate. This yielded a syntactic ambiguity in Kaqchikel
sentence processing that the verb-initial orders of VOS and VSO cannot be distinguishedwithout semantic clues, since no morphological transformations are required for word orderalternation. Here is an interesting conflict between syntactic word order canonicity andconceptual accessibility. In Kaqchikel, the syntactically determined canonical word order is
VOS, in which the subject comes at the end. In terms of conceptual accessibility, however, thesubject should come earlier if it denotes the animate agent, because this idea assumes thatthe more easily accessible entity is the agent rather than the patient, and that the agent istypically animate while the patient is not necessarily the case (Bock & Warren, 1985). Further,
if the subject (agent) and the object (patient) are reversible (e.g., both are animate entities),
the motivation for the subject to precede the object should be facilitated so that the agentpatient relationship is clarified earlier than otherwise.
Kubo et al. (2015) examined the similarity-based competition in Kaqchikel sentence
production, supporting the assumption that the easily accessible animate agent comes earlier
particularly in reversible sentences: The production frequency of the syntactically canonical
VOS was lower in reversible sentences (i.e., both of the subject/agent and the object/patientwere animate; 8.3%) than in non-reversible sentences (i.e., the subject/agent was animate andthe object/patient was inanimate; 28.5%), while SVO was the most frequent order throughout
all the sentence types (always more than 70%). The present study of sentence comprehension

Context and bilinguality in Kaqchikel

31with a context replicated Kubo et al.’s (2015) finding, that in reversible sentences with animate
entities, the subject-initial order (SVO) was the most accurate and fastest, and the noncanonical order of VSO in which the subject precedes the object was facilitated enough to beprocessed as accurately and as quickly as the syntactically canonical order of VOS, in which
the subject comes at the end.
The preference for the subject denoting animate agent to precede the object of animate
patient in Kaqchikel sentence processing seems to interfere with individual native speakers’
bilinguality in Spanish. The analysis with LME modeling indicated that in comparison withthe least common order of OVS, the reaction time of word orders in which the subject precedes
the object (i.e., SVO and VSO) was shorter for participants with a higher ratio of daily
Spanish use. However, the effect was not found in the comparison between the orders of VOS
and OVS in which the object precedes the subject. Given that prolonged exposure to the second
language has influences on information processing in the first language (e.g., Marian & Spivey,2003), our Kaqchikel speaking participants’ familiarity with the canonical order of SVO in
Spanish may partially underlie the causes for their processing of the syntactically canonical
VOS being inhibited in the present picture-sentence matching task. The finding that individual
native Kaqchikel speakers’ bilinguality in Spanish facilitates the SVO preference even in
sentence comprehension (not just in production) implies that the syntactically assumed VOS
canonicity could possibly be replaced by the frequently used SVO diachronically, as the use of
Spanish is overwhelming among the current Kaqchikel speaking society. It should be noted at
this point, however, that this does not mean that the grammatical system of Kaqchikel has
shifted completely so that the syntactically determined basic word order of the present day
Kaqchikel is SVO rather than VOS. As convincingly demonstrated in Yasunaga et al. (2015)
and Yano, Yasunaga, and Koizumi (in press), the word order associated with the simplest
syntactic structure in Kaqchikel is still VOS, and the other word orders are syntactically more
complex involving a filler-gap dependency, as schematically shown in (1) above. Thus, theresults of the experiment reported here should be interpreted in such a way that the effect ofcontext and bilinguality on sentence processing load was larger than the effect of syntactic
factors.
Although our picture-sentence matching task has provided an insight into the word
order preference in sentence processing of languages with object-preceding word orders, thepresent study has certain limitations, some of which may be inevitable especially when dealing
with an endangered language. The index of daily Spanish use utilized as a covariate for ouranalysis was not standardized, but based on the participants’ own subjective evaluations.
The reported percentage of daily Spanish use varied limitedly between .25, .50, .75, and 1,
which might somewhat obscure the plotted individual difference of bilinguality. We had torely on this weak index due to the fact that evaluation guidelines of linguistic ability havenot been established in Kaqchikel, although it is available in Spanish. Difficulties are inherent
in the standardization of assessment of bilinguality between an endangered language andits dominant counterpart because endangered languages are typically only spoken, and haveKiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

32

small vocabularies (because of loanwords) and no (widely used well standardized) orthography.
Future research should address the need for the development of a validated evaluation method
for endangered languages to better understand the bilingual language interactions in word
order preference.
Conclusion
The current study utilizing a sentence-picture matching task concludes that context
facilitates Kaqchikel native speakers’ processing of reversible SVO sentences, and that thefacilitation effect is enhanced in those with a higher ratio of daily Spanish use. The prolonged
exposure to the canonical order of SVO in Spanish may interfere with the syntactic canonicityof VOS inherent in native Kaqchikel speakers.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Yoshiho Yasugi, Juan Esteban Ajsivinac Sian, Lolmay Pedro Oscar
García Mátzar, and Rinus Verdonschot for their invaluable support for conducting research in
Guatemala. We would also like to thank all the participants of the experiment. This work was
supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15H02603 (PI: Masatoshi Koizumi).

References
Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., García Mátzar, L. P. O., Cutzal, M. C., & Alonzo Guaján, I. E. (2004). Gramática descriptiva delidioma maya Kaqchikel: Rutzijoxik rucholik ri Kaqchikel ch’ab’äl [Descriptive Grammar of the Kaqchikel
Maya Language]. Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala, Comunidad Lingüística Kaqchikel.
Aissen, J. L. (1992). Topic and focus in Mayan. Language, 68, 43–80.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board
comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R
package version 1.1–6. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Kuznetsova, Brockhoff,& Christensen, 2014.
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation.
Cognition, 21, 47–67.
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online
processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21–B30.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009a). The role of prominence information in the real-timecomprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass,3, 19–58.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009b). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brody, J. (1984). Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics, 22, 711–736.

Context and bilinguality in Kaqchikel



33

England, N. C. (1991). Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American
Linguistics, 57, 446–486.
García Matzar, L. P., & Rodríguez Guaján, P. B’. J. O. (1997). Rukemik ri Kaqchikel chi’: Gramática kaqchikel [Kaqchikel
Grammar]. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj.
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. A. Marantz,
Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project
Symposium (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language.
Cognition, 94, 113–147.
Kemmerer, D. (2012). The Cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential andhierarchical representation of action in Broca’s Area. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 50–66.
Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K., Kim, J., & Koizumi, M. (2013). Effect of animacy on word order processing in Kaqchikel
Maya. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3, 203–207.
Koizumi, M., & Imamura, S. (2017). Interaction between syntactic structure and information structure in theprocessing of a head-final language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 247–260: doi:10.1007/s10936016-9433-3.
Koizumi, M., & Kim, J. (2016). Greater left inferior frontal activation for SVO than VOS during sentencecomprehension in Kaqchikel. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1541. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01541.
Koizumi, M., Yasugi, Y., Tamaoka, K., Kiyama, S., Kim, J., & Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., & García Matzar, L. P. O. (2014).
On the (non-)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: A
sentence processing study in Kaqchikel Maya, Language, 90, 722–736.
Kubo, T., Ono, H., Tanaka, M., Koizumi, M., & Sakai, H. (2015). Kakuchikerugo VOS-gojyun no sanshutsu
mekanizumu: yuuseisei ga gojyun no sentaku ni ataeru kooka o tooshite [Mechanisms for VOS sentence
production in Kaqchikel: Evidence from animacy effects on choice of word order]. Cognitive Studies,22(4), 591–603.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects forlinear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–6. Retrieved from http://
CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22,429–445.
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and betweenlanguage competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. (2002). Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. M. Nakayama (Ed.),
Sentence Processing in East Asian languages (pp. 131–166). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. University of Chicago Press.
Pritchett, B., & Whitman, J. (1995). Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai(Eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing (pp. 65–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rodríguez Guaján, J. O. (1994). Rutz’ib’axik ri Kaqchikel: Manual de redacción Kaqchikel [Editorial Manual of
Kaqchikel]. Guatemala City: Editorial Cholsamaj.
Sekerina, I. A. (1997). The syntax and processing of Russian scrambled constructions in Russian. (Doctoral dissertation,
City University of New York). Retrieved from http://csivc.csi.cuny.edu/Irina.Sekerina/files/publications/
SEKERINA%20dissertation%201997.pdf.
Tada, H. (1993). A/A-bar partition in derivation. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Retrieved from http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/tada93.pdf.
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used forKiyama, S., Sun, M., Kim, J., Tamaoka, K., and Koizumi, M.

34

the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 281–332.
Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order andvoice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 318–330.
Tichoc Cumes, R., Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., García, L. P. O., Espantzay, I. C., Cutzal, C. M., & Alosno Guajan, E. (2000).
Runuk’ul pa rub’eyal rutz’ib’axik ri Kaqchikel ch’ab’ äl: Gramática normativa del idioma Maya Kaqchikel[Normative Grammar of Kaqchikel]. Chimaltenango, Guatemala: Comunidad Lingüística Kaqchikel de la
Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.
Yano, M., Yasunaga, D., & Koizumi, M. (in press). Event-related brain indices of gap-filling processing in Kaqchikel.
In S. R. Harris (Ed.) Event-Related Potential (ERP): Methods, Outcomes and Research Insights. NOVA.
Yasunaga, D., Yano, M., Yasugi, Y., & Koizumi, M. (2015). Is the subject-before-object preference universal? An
event-related potential study in the Kaqchikel Mayan language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30,
1209–1229.
(Received December 26, 2016)



(Accepted January 6, 2017)