Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:27:45.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammaire et pouvoir global de computation: deux sources de difficultés possibles dans la production des relatives chez les enfants francophones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Cathy Fragman
Cathy Fragman*
Affiliation:
Université d’Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study compares relative clause production in French learners and in mature speakers. Previous studies on French postulate deficiencies in children’s grammar of relatives in order to explain their defective production (Labelle 1990; Guasti and Shlonsky 1995). However, these studies do not strictly compare child and adult data. A new production task was administered to 25 French learners ages 4 to 7, and to 25 adults. Three types of stimuli were presented in order to elicit subject, direct object and indirect object relatives. Results show that children’s performance varies according to the type of stimuli presented, and that the performance of adults is qualitatively similar. These patterns undermine the notion that a given component of UG is either inoperative or unspecified in the developing grammar. Such unsteady lacunae point more naturally to peripheral processing limitations in learners rather than core deficiencies within their grammar proper (cf. Goodluck and Tavakolian 1982).

Résumé

Résumé

La présente étude propose une comparaison détaillée de la production des relatives chez l’enfant francophone et chez l’adulte. Les études antérieures imputent aux enfants un manque dans leur grammaire des relatives afin d’expliquer leurs productions erronées (Labelle 1990; Guasti et Shlonsky 1995). Or, ces études ne comparent pas étroitement les productions d’enfants et d’adultes. Des nouvelles données ont été obtenues chez 25 apprentis francophones (4 à 7 ans) et chez 25 adultes. Trois types de stimuli ont été présentés aux sujets afin d’inciter chez eux la production de relatives sujet, COD et COI. Nos résultats révèlent que la performance des enfants varie selon le type de stimuli présenté, et que celle des adultes se manifeste d’une façon qualitativement analogue. Ces tendances s’expliquent en attribuant au jeune locuteur une grammaire des relatives essentiellement équivalente à celle de l’adulte, mais un pouvoir global de computation plus limité (cf. Goodluck et Tavakolian 1982).

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. 7 - 48
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

Bernstein, Judy B., McDaniel, Dana et McKee, Cecile. 1998. Resumptive pronoun strategies in English-speaking children. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Greenhill, de Annabel, Hughes, Mary, Littlefield, Heather et Walsh, Hugh, 56–68. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Bouvier, N. et Platone, F.. 1976. Étude génétique de la construction d’une détermination linguistique complexe: l’expression d’ un même contenu par des enfants d’ âges différents. In Études sur le développement du langage de l’enfant, tome 1, rapport 16a, 25–165. Paris: Centre de recherche de l’éducation spécialisée et de l’adaptation scolaire, Institut national de recherche pédagogique.Google Scholar
Braine, Martin D.S. 1988. Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Categories and processes in language acquisition, sous la dir. Levy, de Yonata, Schlesinger, Izchak M. et Braine, Martin D.S., 217–259. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory, sous la dir. Webelhuth, de Gert, 383–440. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1985. The acquisition of Romance. In The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition 1: The data, sous la dir. Slobin, de Dan I., 687–782. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, Mckee, Cecile et Emiliani, Maria. 1990. Visiting relatives in Italy. In Language processing and language acquisition, sous la dir. Frazier, de Lyn et de Villiers, Jill, 335–356. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, Marica. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The Minimal Chain Principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, Marica. 1996. Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25:117–133.Google Scholar
Fragman, Cathy. 1997. On assessing the distinctive properties of developing grammars: The case of relative clause production in French. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 170–181.Google Scholar
Fragman, Cathy. 1998. Les propriétés distinctives de la syntaxe enfantine et le développement des relatives en français. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward et Pearlmutter, Neal J.. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on prepositional-phrase attachment. In Perspectives on sentence processing, sous la dir. Clifton, de Charles, Frazier, Lyn et Rayner, Keith, 181–198. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1990. Knowledge integration in processing and language acquisition: Comments on Grimshaw and Rosen. In Language processing and language acquisition, sous la dir. Frazier, de Lyn et de Villier, Jill, 369–382. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen et Stojanović, Daniela. 1996. The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5:285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen et Tavakolian, Susan. 1982. Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 11:1–27.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa et Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition 4:257–276.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Nancy, Caplan, David et Evans, Karen. 1987. The mani left ti without a trace: A case study of aphasic processing of empty categories. Cognitive Neuropsychology 4:257–302.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard et Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9:595–621.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1988. Prédication et mouvement: le développement de la relative chez les enfants francophones. Thèse de doctorat, Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1990. Predication, Wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1(1):95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1996. The acquisition of relative clauses: movement or no movement? Language Acquisition 5(2):65–82.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire et Fournier, Robert. 1978. Les relatives en français de Montréal. In Cahier de linguistique 8: Syntaxe et sémantique du français, sous la dir. McA’Nulty, de Judith, 273–294. Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.T. 1995. Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 4(1): 105–138.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1981. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition. The Linguistic Review 1:297–343.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1995. Right association in parsing and grammar. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26:37–93.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., dir. 1985. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition I: The data. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Rosemary J. 1992. Maturation and learning: Linguistic knowledge and performance: A commentary on Clashen and Felix. In Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, sous la dir. Weissenborn, de Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen et Roeper, Tom, 77–92. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tellier, Christine. 1991. Licensing theory and French parasitic gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tellier, Christine. 1993. Que en français populaire: distribution et contraintes. In Actes du XVe congrès international des linguistes, vol. 2, 377–380. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula et Armon-Lortem, Sharon. 1998. Resumptives and Wh-movement in the acquisition of relative clauses in Modem Greek and Hebrew. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Greenhill, de Annabel, Hughes, Mary, Littlefield, Heather et Walsh, Hugh, 737–746. Somerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen et Roeper, Tom. 1992. Old and new problems in the study of language acquisition. In Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development, sous la dir. Weissenborn, de Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen et Roeper, Tom, 1–23. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zurif, Edgar, Swinney, David, Prather, Penny, Wingfield, Arthur et Brownell, Hiram. 1995. The allocation of memory ressources during sentence comprehension: Evidence from the elderly. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24:165–182.Google Scholar