Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:00:39.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L’ellipse du nom en français : le rôle des données de l’acquisition pour la théorie linguistique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Daniel Valois ,
Phaedra Royle ,
Ann Sutton  and
Evelyne Bourdua-Roy
Daniel Valois
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Phaedra Royle
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine et Centre for Research on Language, Mind and Brain
Ann Sutton
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal, Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine
Evelyne Bourdua-Roy
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We pursue two goals in this article. The first is to examine morphosyntactic factors that promote noun ellipsis in French. The second is to show that acquisition data can help us evaluate different proposals for a given syntactic phenomenon. Using a transversal corpus of 15 French-speaking children aged 1;8 to 2; 12 years, we conclude that a cause-effect relationship between the acquisition of nominal agreement and noun-drop is difficult to establish. We propose rather that it is the presence of a determiner and its properties that license noun-drop. Our analysis rests on the concepts of partitivity and atomisation and thus supports Bouchard’s (2002) semantic analysis of noun drop while rejecting the notion that noun-drop is linked to pro drop.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous poursuivons deux objectifs. Le premier est d’examiner les facteurs morphosyntaxiques qui sont responsables des constructions à ellipse du nom en français. Le second est de montrer que les données de l’acquisition peuvent servir de baromètre aux différentes analyses proposées pour un même phénomène syntaxique. Sur la base d’un corpus transversal de 15 enfants francophones âgés de 1;8 à 2; 12 ans, nous concluons qu’il est difficile d’établir une relation de cause à effet entre l’acquisition des marques d’accord intra-nominal et l’ellipse du nom. Nous proposons plutôt que la présence et la nature du déterminant sont les facteurs qui en sont responsables. Notre analyse repose sur les notions de partitivité et d’atomisation. Ce faisant, nous appuyons l’analyse sémantique de Bouchard (2002) et non une analyse qui associerait l’ellipse du nom au phénomène de pro drop.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 339 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2009 

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

Barbaud, Philippe. 1976. Constructions superlatives et structures apparentées. Linguistic Analysis 2:125–174.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 1991. Telwoorden, Adjectieven en Lege NP’s [Numbers, adjectives, and empty NPs]. Communication présentée lors de la réunion annuelle de la Dutch General Linguistics Association, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Thèse de doctorat, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1970. Language development : Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number, and interfaces. Amsterdam : Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2006. Pronouns, determiners, and N-ellipsis in Spanish, French, and German. Dans Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 36, dir. Davis, Christopher, Deal, Amy Rose, et Zabbal, Youri, 167–178. Amherst : Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. Dans The view from Building 20 : Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, dir. Hale, Kenneth et Keyser, Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1985. The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert et Koppen, Marjo van. 2006. Let’s focus on noun ellipsis. Communication présentée au 29e colloque de Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW), Barcelone, Espagne.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistics Inquiry 22:27–62.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht : Reidel.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo et Hyams, Nina. 1988. Morphological uniformity and the setting of the null subject parameter. Dans Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 18, dir. Blevins, James and Carter, Julie, 238–253. Amherst : Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Rester, Ellen-Petra. 1996. Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. Journal of Linguistics 32:57–78.Google Scholar
Kester, Ellen-Petra et Sleeman, Petra. 2002. N-ellipsis in Spanish. Linguistics in the Netherlands 19:107–116.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalina. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
Liceras, Juana M., Rosado, Elisa et Díaz, Lourdes. 2000. On the differences and similarities between primary and non-primary language acquisition : Evidence from Spanish null nouns. Communication présentée au congrès de la European Second Language Association (EUROSLA) ‘98, The British Institute, Paris.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Ann. 1995. Ellipsis : Functional head, licensing and identification. Oxford : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luján, Marta. 2002. Determiners as modified pronouns. Dans Proceedings from the Chicago Linguistic Society 36, dir. Okrent, Akira et Boyle, John P., 259–273. Chicago, IL : Chicago Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian et Snow, Catherine. 1990. The child language data exchange systems : An update. Journal of Child Language 17:457–472.Google Scholar
Miller, John F. et Chapman, Robin S.. 1984–2002. Systematic analysis of language transcripts. University of Wisconsin Language Sample Analysis Laboratory.Google Scholar
Montes, Rosa. 1987. Secuencias de clarificación en conversaciones con niños. Morphé 3-4:167–184e.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 1983. Parasitic trees. Dans Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), dir. Sells, Peter et Jones, Charles, 199–209. Amherst : Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter et Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1986. Features and projections. Dordrecht : Foris.Google Scholar
Ntelitheos, Dimitris et Christodoulou, Eleni. 2005. The acquisition of nominal ellipsis in Greek. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13:14–33.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases : Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Dans Syntax and semantics, vol. 25 : Perspectives on phrase structure : Heads and licensing, dir. Rothstein, Susan, 37–62. San Diego : Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ronat, Mitsou. 1977. Une contrainte sur l’effacement du nom. Dans Langue : Théorie generative étendue, dir. Ronat, Mitsou, 153–169. Paris : Hermann.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 1993. Noun ellipsis in French. Probus 5:271–295.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 1996. Licensing empty nouns in French. Thèse de doctorat, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Snyder, William, Senghas, Ann et Inman, Kelly. 2001. Agreement morphology and the acquisition of noun-drop in Spanish. Language Acquisition 9:157–173.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, Elin. 2005. Early lexical and syntactic development in Quebec French and English : Implications for cross-linguistic and bilingual assessment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 40:243–278.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Annie. 2006. Prosodic constraints on the production of grammatical morphemes in French : The case of determiners. Dans Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition—North America, dir. Deen, Kamil Ud, Noumura, Jun, Schulz, Barbara et Schwartz, Bonnie D., 377–388. Cambridge, MA : MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia, Hoeffner, James et Aubry, Stephanie. 1996. Young children’s imitation of sentence subjects : Evidence of processing limitations. Developmental Psychology 32:153–164.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. Thèse de doctorat, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel. 1996. On the structure of the French DP. Revue canadienne de linguistique 41:349–375.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Shalom et Hulk, Aafke. 2002. Acquiring optionality in French Wh-questions : An experimental study. Revue québécoise de linguistique 30(2):71–97.Google Scholar