Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:10:47.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les propositions infinitives indépendantes enfantines et la distribution des pronoms objets en français et en néerlandais

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Liliane Haegeman
Liliane Haegeman*
Affiliation:
UMR 8528 Silex du CNRS, Université Charles de Gaulle Lille III
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article concerns the distribution of clitics in the child root infinitives in French and in Dutch. In the material studied, subject clitics are absent both from French and Dutch root infinitives; object clitics are present in French root infinitives while remaining absent from Dutch root infinitives. It is proposed that this cross-linguistic difference is related to the difference in the licensing site of the object clitics, which is taken to be AgrO in French and AgrS in Dutch. The hypothesis thus casts doubt on proposals according to which clitics are universally base-generated in specialised functional positions in the structure (Sportiche 1996; Schaeffer 1997).

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article concerne la distribution des clitiques sujets et objets dans la proposition infinitive indépendante enfantine (IPE). Le problème est abordé dans une optique comparative, les langues comparées sont le néerlandais et le français. Dans le corpus étudié, les clitiques sujets sont absents des IPE dans les deux langues, tandis que les clitiques objets sont attestés dans les IPE françaises mais sont absents des IPE néerlandaises. Il est proposé que l’asymétrie dans la distribution des clitiques objets dans les IPE de ces deux langues est due à une différence dans le site de légitimation du clitique: en français, le clitique objet est légitimé dans AgrO tandis qu’en néerlandais, il est légitimé dans AgrS. L’hypothèse élaborée remet en question des propositions récentes selon lesquelles il existe un point unique de légitimation des clitiques dans les deux langues (Sportiche 1996; Scaeffer 1997).

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 45 , Special Issue 1-2: Syntaxe et acquisition du francais langue maternelle , June 2000 , pp. 63 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2000

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

Références

Bianchi, Valentina et Figueiredo-Silva, Christina. 1993. On some properties of agreement object in Italian and in Brazilian Portuguese. Ms., Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa et Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Boser, Kim, Lust, Barbara, Santelmann, Lynn et Whitman, John. 1992. The syntax of CP and V-2 in early child German. The strong continuity hypothesis. In NELS Proceedings 22, sous la dir. Broderick, de Kevin, 51–65. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna et Starke, Michal. 1995. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. GenGenP 3:22–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 1992. On the acquisition of Wh-questions in French. GenGenP 0:115–122.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah et Roberge, Yves. 1993. A morphosyntactic analysis of Romance clitic constructions. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance languages, sous la dir. Mazzola, de Michael, 239–257. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane et Pierce, Amy. 1993. Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24:25–67.Google Scholar
Friedemann, Marc-Ariel. 1992. The underlying position of external arguments in French: A study in adult and child Grammar. GenGenP 0:123–144.Google Scholar
Friedemann, Marc-Ariel et Suoni, Tal. 1993. AgrO is not AgrP. GenGenP 1:41–53.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs. Turin: Rosenberg et Sellier.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1993. The morphology and distribution of object clitics in West Flemish. Studia Linguistica n.s. 47:57–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. Root infinitives, tense, and truncated structures in Dutch. Language Acquisition 4:205–255.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996a. Root infinitives, clitics and truncated structures. In Generative approaches to first and second language acquisition, sous la dir. Clahsen, de Harald et Hawkins, Roger, 271–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996b. Object clitics in West Flemish. In Second position clitics and related phenomena, sous la dir. Halpern, de Aaron et Zwicky, Arnold, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Register variation, truncation and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 1:233–270.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In The acquisition of syntax, sous la dir. Friedemann, de Marc-Ariel et Rizzi, Luigi, 129–169. Londres: Addison, Wesley et Longman.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane et Ihsane, Tabea. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded sentences in English. English Language and Linguistics 3:117–145.Google Scholar
Hamann, Cornelia, Rizzi, Luigi et Frauenfelder, Uli. 1994. On the acquisition of the pronominal system in French. GenGenP 2:91–103.Google Scholar
Hamann, Cornelia, Rizzi, Luigi et Frauenfelder, Uli. 1996. On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In Generative approaches to first and second language acquisition, sous la dir. Clahsen, de Harald et Hawkins, Roger, 309–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haverkort, Marco et Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1991. Clitic and affix interactions in early Romance. Texte d’une communication presentee au 16th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul et Labelle, Marie. 1993. From ne V pas to ne pas V and the syntax of pas . Ms. Université d’Ottawa/Université de Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the role of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1996. The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Generative approaches to first and second language acquisition, sous la dir. Clahsen, de Harald et Hawkins, Roger, 91–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Georg A. 1994. More about INFL-ection and agreement. The acquisition of clitic pronouns in French. In Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development, sous la dir. Meisel, de Jürgen, 131–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1989. Null subject and clitic climbing. In The null subject parameter, sous la dir. Jaeggli, de Osvaldo et Safir, Kenneth, 239–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22:647–686.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krämer, Irene. 1994. The licensing of subjects in early child language. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19:197–212.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie et Valois, Daniel. 1996. The status of post-verbal subjects in French child language. Probus 8:53–80.Google Scholar
Levow, Gina-Anne. 1995. Tense and subject position in interrogatives and negatives in child French. Evidence for and against truncated structure. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: Papers on language processing and acquisition, sous la dir. Schütze, de Carson T., Ganger, Jennifer B. et Broihier, Kevin, 281–304.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian et Snow, Catherine. 1985. The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12:271–296.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian et Snow, Catherine. 1990. The CHILDES project: computational tools for analyzing talk. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Müller, Natascha, Crysmann, Berthold et Kaiser, Georg. 1996. Interactions between the acquisition of French object drop and the development of the C-system. Language Acquisition 5:35–63.Google Scholar
Nuckle, Lucie. 1981. Sur l’acquisition des pronoms clitiques objets chez des enfants francophones: la double et la simple cliticisation. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Pierce, Amy. 1989. On the emergence of syntax: A cross linguistic study. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pierce, Amy. 1992. Language acquisition and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1995. Syntax at two: Cross-linguistic differences. In MITworking papers in linguistics 26: Papers on language processing and acquisition, sous la dir. Schütze, de Carson T., Ganger, Jennifer B. et Broihier, Kevin, 325–382.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1990. A grammar without functional categories: A syntactic study of early Swedish child language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 13:107–126.Google Scholar
Poeppel, Daniel et Wexler, Kenneth. 1993. The Full Competence Hypothesis of clause structure in Early German. Language 69:1–33.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Rasetti, Lucienne. 1995. La distribution du sujet nul dans la grammaire enfantine du français. Mémoire de licence, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1993. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Language acquisition: Studies in Generative Grammar, sous la dir. Hoekstra, de Teun et Schwartz, Bonnie, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3:371–393.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, sous la dir. Haegeman, de Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberge, Yves. 1991. On the recoverability of null objects. In New analyses in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the XVIIIth Linguistics Symposium on Romance languages, sous la dir. Wanner, de D. et Kibbee, D.A., 299–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rowlett, Paul. 1998. Sentential negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Jeannette. 1993. Head movement in Dutch child language. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Jeannette. 1997. Direct object scrambling in Dutch and Italian child language. Thèse de doctorat, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Suppes, P., Smith, R. et Leveille, M.. 1973. The French syntax of a child’s noun phrases. Archives de Psychologie 42:207–279.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425–449.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, sous la dir. Rooryck, de Johan et Zaring, Laurie, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79–123.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen et Verrips, Monica. 1989. Negation as a window to the structure of early child language. Ms., Institut Max Planck, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations in child grammar. In Verb movement, sous la dir. Lightfoot, de David et Hornstein, Norbert, 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank. 1994. Incremental acquisition of phrase structure: A longitudinal analysis of verb placement in Dutch child language. Ms., Université de Groningen.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, 1997a. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997b. Negation and V-movement. In The new comparative syntax, sous la dir. Haegeman, de Liliane, 214–245. Londres: Addison, Longman, et Wesley.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 33:71–92.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter 1992. Notes on clitics in Dutch. Texte d’une communication presentee au European Science Foundation workshop, Lund.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1996. Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar