Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:07:31.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2010

PASCAL ZESIGER ,
LAURENCE CHILLIER ZESIGER ,
MARINA ARABATZI ,
LARA BARANZINI ,
STÉPHANY CRONEL-OHAYON ,
JULIE FRANCK ,
ULRICH HANS FRAUENFELDER ,
CORNELIA HAMANN  and
LUIGI RIZZI
PASCAL ZESIGER*
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
LAURENCE CHILLIER ZESIGER
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
MARINA ARABATZI
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
LARA BARANZINI
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
STÉPHANY CRONEL-OHAYON
Affiliation:
University Hospital of Lausanne
JULIE FRANCK
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
ULRICH HANS FRAUENFELDER
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
CORNELIA HAMANN
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
LUIGI RIZZI
Affiliation:
University of Geneva and University of Siena
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Pascal Zesiger, Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education, Université de Genève, 40 Boulevard du Pont d'Arve, Geneva 1205, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines syntactic and morphological aspects of the production and comprehension of pronouns by 99 typically developing French-speaking children aged 3 years, 5 months to 6 years, 5 months. A fine structural analysis of subject, object, and reflexive clitics suggests that whereas the object clitic chain crosses the subject chain, the reflexive clitic chain is nested within it. We argue that this structural difference introduces differences in processing complexity, chain crossing being more complex than nesting. In support of this analysis, both production and comprehension experiments show that children have more difficulty with object than with reflexive clitics (with more omissions in production and more erroneous judgments in sentences involving Principle B in comprehension). Concerning the morphological aspect, French subject and object pronouns agree in gender with their referent. We report serious difficulties with pronoun gender both in production and comprehension in children around the age of 4 (with nearly 30% errors in production and chance level judgments in comprehension), which tend to disappear by age 6. The distribution of errors further suggests that the masculine gender is processed as the default value. These findings provide further insights into the relationship between comprehension and production in the acquisition process.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 571 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Avrutin, S., & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baauw, S., & Cuetos, F. (2003). The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and breakdown: Evidence for the “Principle B Delay” as a non-unitary phenomenon. Language Acquisition, 11, 219–275.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & Devescovi, A. (1989). Cross-linguistic studies of sentence production. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 225–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (1983). The Test for Reception of Grammar. Manchester: University of Manchester, Age and Cognitive Performance Research Centre.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bloom, P., Baars, A., Conway, L., & Nicol, J. (1994). Children's knowledge of binding and coreference. Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language, 70, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottari, P., Cipriani, P., & Chilosi, A. M. (1997). Dissociations in the acquisition of clitic pronouns in dysphasic children: A case study from Italian. Paper presented at the Conference on Syntax, Morphology and Phonology in Specific Language Impairment, Paris.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reiledd.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Riemsdijk, H. v. (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.Google Scholar
Chillier, L., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Deonna, T., Dubé, S., et al. (2001). The acquisition of French pronouns in normal children and in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Paper presented at Early Lexicon Acquisition (ELA), Lyon [CD].Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1991). Constraints on parameter setting. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. (1985). The acquisition of Romance with special reference to French. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cocchi, G. (1995). La selezione dell'ausiliare. Padua, Italy: Unipress.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2010). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Coopmans, P., & Philip, W. (1995, April). The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development of pronominal anaphora. Paper presented at the Child Language Seminar, Bristol.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronel-Ohayon, S., Chillier, L., Arabatzi, M., Frauenfelder, U. H., Hamann, C., Zesiger, P., et al. (2010). Production and comprehension of pronominal clitics in French SLI. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B., & Müller, N. (2000). On the non-parallelism in the acquisition of reflexive and non-reflexive object clitics. In Powers, S. & Hamann, C. (Eds.), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 108, 1195–1219.Google Scholar
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (1998). Children's passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 311–332.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Chillier, L., Frauenfelder, U. H., Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., et al. (2004). Normal and pathological development of subject–verb agreement in speech production: A study on French children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 147–180.Google Scholar
Friedemann, M. A. (1992). The underlying position of external arguments in French. Geneva Generative Papers, 2, 123–144.Google Scholar
Gruter, T. (2006). Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Hamann, C. (2002). From syntax to discourse: Pronominal clitics, null subjects and infinitives in child language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Dubé, S., Frauenfelder, U., Rizzi, L., Starke, M., et al. (2003). Aspects of grammatical development in young French children with SLI. Developmental Science, 6, 153–160.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Kowalski, O., & Philip, W. (1997). The French “delay of Principle B” effect. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 21, pp. 205–219). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (1996). On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haverkort, M., & Weissenborn, J. (1991). Clitic and affix interaction in early Romance. Paper presented at the 16th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), Boston.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Tellier, C. (1999). Conflictual agreement in Romance nominals. In Authier, J. M., Bullock, B., & Reed, L. (Eds.), Formal perspectives in Romance clitics (pp. 179–195). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyams, N., & Wexler, K. (1993). On the grammatical basis for null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 421–459.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1989). Maturation or invariance of universal grammar principles in language acquisition. Probus, 3, 283–340.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Müller, N., Riemer, B., & Rigaut, C. (1997). The case of subject and object omission in French and German. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 21, pp. 331–342). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (in press). Why accusative clitics are avoided in normal and impaired language development. In Jakubowicz, C., Nash, L., & Wexler, K. (Eds.), Essays in syntax, morpholoy and phonology in SLI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Nash, L., Rigaut, C., & Gérard, C.-L. (1998). Determiners and clitic pronouns in French-speaking children with SLI. Language Acquisition, 7, 113–160.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Rigaut, C. (2000). L'acquisition des clitiques nominatifs et des clitiques objets en Français. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 119–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, D., & Bobalijk, J. (1993). Specs for subjects: The role of TP in Icelandic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 18, 59–98.Google Scholar
Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 77–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kail, M., & Léveillé, M. (1977). Compréhension de la coréférence des pronoms personnels chez l'enfant et chez l'adulte. L'Année Psychologique, 77, 79–94.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1993). Towards a new theory of anaphoric binding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., Müller, N., & Cantone, K. (2002). Gender in French and Italian. Lingue e Linguaggio, 1, 107–149.Google Scholar
Lapointe, S. G. (1986). Markedness, the organisation of linguistic information in speech production, and language acquisition. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A., & Wirth, J. R. (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 219–239). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Lecocq, P. (1996). L'E.CO.S.SE: Une épreuve de compréhension syntaxico-sémantique. Villeneuve d'Ascq, France: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. (1988). On the early learning of formal grammatical systems: Evidence from studies of the acquisition of gender and countability. Journal of Child Language, 15, 179–187.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., & Maxfield, T.-L. (1992). Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition, 2, 337–358.Google Scholar
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 2, 21–54.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1992). The acquisition of verb placement. Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du Français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2003). Object clitics as a clinical marker of SLI children in French: Evidence from French–English bilingual children. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 27, pp. 638–649). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Piérart, B., Comblain, A., Gregoire, J., Mousty, P., & Noël, M.-P. (2010). Isadyle: A battery of language tests. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rasetti, L. (2003). Optional categories in early French syntax: A developmental study of root infinitives and null arguments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2004). Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In Gibson, T. & Perlmutter, N. (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rondal, J.-A., Espéret, E., Gombert, J. E., Thibaut, J.-P., & Comblain, A. (1999). Développement du langage oral. In Rondal, J.-A. & Seron, X. (Eds.), Troubles du langage: Bases théoriques, diagnostic et rééducation. Liège, Belgium: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Schall, R. (1991). Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrika, 78, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurjónsdóttir, S., & Hyams, N. (1992). Reflexivization and logophoricity: Evidence from the acquisition of Icelandic. Language Acquisition, 2, 359–413.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and atoms of clause structure. subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verrips, M., & Weissenborn, J. (1992). Routes to verb placement in German and French. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement. Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Franck, J. (1999). When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 455–478.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J. (1988). The acquisition of clitic object pronouns and word order in French: Syntax or morphology? Paper presented at the 3rd International Morphology Meeting, Krems, Austria.Google Scholar
White, L. (1996). Clitics in L2-French. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). Les clitiques nominatifs en Français: Syntaxe, pédagogie et variation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris.Google Scholar