Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:39:05.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Omission des déterminants : Contraintes d’alternancesrythmiques ou contraintes liées aux niveaux supérieurs de lastructure prosodique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Roseline Fréchette  and
Marie Labelle
Roseline Fréchette
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Marie Labelle
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on whether determiner omission by two-year-old children isconstrained at the level of the prosodic foot or whether it is a function of thedifferent levels of the prosodic hierarchy. Nine French-speaking children aged2;0 to 2;7 were asked to repeat 54 four- or five-word sentences of the form“Pronoun V NP” with three conditions: a) det + monosyllabicnoun; b) det + bisyllabic noun; c) det + monosyllabic adjective+ monosyllabic noun. The results show 1) more determiner omission incondition b than in a; 2) more determiner omission in c than in b. It is shownthat determiner omission is not accounted for by a low-level stress-alternationconstraint and that the level of prosodic structure to which the determiner isattached plays a role in determiner omission.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article vise à déterminer si l’omission desdéterminants chez des enfants de deux ans est contrainte au niveau dupied ou si elle est contrainte par les différents niveaux de lahiérarchie prosodique. Neuf enfants francophones âgés de 24à 31 mois ont participé à une tâche derépétition de 54 phrases de quatre ou cinq mots de la formesuivante «Pronom V SN» réparties en trois conditions : a)dét + nom monosyllabique; b) dét + nom bisyllabique;c) dét + adjectif monosyllabique + nom monosyllabique. Lesrésultats démontrent 1) plus d’omission dudéterminant dans la condition b que dans la condition a; 2) plusd’omission du déterminant en c qu’en b. Il estdémontré que l’omission du déterminant nes’explique pas par une contrainte d’alternance rythmique de basniveau et que le niveau de la structure prosodique auquel doit s’attacherle déterminant joue un rôle dans l’omission desdéterminants.

Keywords

Frenchprosodydeterminersfirst language acquisitionstressfrançaisprosodiedéterminantsacquisition du langageaccentuation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 303 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 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

Références

Allen, George D. et Hawkins, Sarah. 1979. Trochaic rhythm in children’s speech. Dans Current issues in the phonetic sciences; Proceedings of the IPS-77 Congress, sous la dir. Hollien, de Harry Francis et Hollien, Patricia, 927–933. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Allen, George D. et Hawkins, Sarah. 1980. Phonological rhythm : Definition and development. Dans Child phonology, sous la dir. Yeni-Komshian, de Grace H., Kavanagh, James F. et Ferguson, Charles A., 227–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Archibald, John et Carson, Jana. 2000. Children’s acquisition of stress. Communication présentée lors du congrès de VAssociation canadienne de linguistique, University of Alberta. Disponible à www.ss.ucalcary.ca/JArchibald/CLA2000.pdf.Google Scholar
Bassano, Dominique et Maillochon, Isabelle. (2005). Noun grammaticization in French: Prosodic and lexical factors on determiner use in children’s speech. Paper presented at the 10th Meeting of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), Berlin.Google Scholar
Braud, Virginie et Wauquier-Gravelines, Sophie. 2004. Approche gabaritique des phénomènes de troncation du français. Dans Actes des XXVejournées d’études sur la parole (JEP), Fez, les 19-22 avril.Google Scholar
Carter, Allyson et Gerken, Lou Ann. 2004. Do children’s omissions leave traces? Journal of Child Language 31:561–586.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 1995. Pour une approche parallèle de la structure prosodique: étude de l’organisation prosodique et rythmique de la phrase française. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Toulouse-Le-Mirail.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 1999. Accentuation et réalisation des clitiques en français. Dans Phonologie: Théorie et Variation, numéro spécial de la revue Cahiers de Grammaire, N°24, sous la dir. Durand, de Jacques et Lyche, Chantal, 17–37.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 2000. Vers une nouvelle approche de la structure prosodique. Langue Française 126:92–112.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1994. On the “underspecification” of functional categories in early grammars. Dans Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, sous la dir. Lust, de B., Suner, M. et Witman, J., 119–134. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. Dans Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, sous la dir. Beckman, de J., 13–25. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1996. Stages in the development of prosodic words. Dans Proceedings of the 27th Child Language Research Forum, sous la dir. Clark, de E., 39–48. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2003. The status of feet in early acquisition. Dans Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, sous la dir. Racasens, de Daniel, Solé, Maria-Josep et Romero, Joaquin, 151–154. Barcelone: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2006. Crosslinguistic perspectives on the development of prosodic words. Language and Speech 49:129–135.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine et Johnson, Mark. 2003. Truncation to subminimal words in early French. Revue canadienne de linguistique 48:211–241.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, McCullough, Elizabeth et Adamo, Matthew. 2007. The prosodic (reorganization of determiners. Dans Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Caunt-Nulton, de Heather, Kulatilake, Samantha et Woo, I-hao, 196–205. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine et Tremblay, Annie. 2008. Prosodically-conditionned variability in children’s production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language 35:99–127.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1998. Intonation in French. Dans Intonations systems: A survey of twenty languages, sous la dir. Di Cristo, de Albert et Hirst, Daniel J., 195–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 2000. Vers une modélisation de l’accentuation du français: seconde partie. Journal of French Language Studies 10:27–44.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 2003. De la métrique et du rythme de la parole ordinaire: l’exemple du français. Semen, 16, Rythme de la prose, 2003, [En ligne], misen ligne le 6 mai 2007. URL: semen.revues.org/document2944.html. Consulté le 21 janvier 2010.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan et Kaye, Jonathan D.. 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34:137–195.Google Scholar
Fréchette, Roseline. 2008. L’influence de la prosodic sur la production des déterminants chez des enfants francophones de deux ans. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Fréchette, Roseline et Labelle, Marie. 2008. Influence of prosody on the production of determiners and adjectives in two-year-old children’s sentences. Dans Proceedings of the 32th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Chan, de Harvey, Jacob, Heather et Kapia, Enkeleida, 132–142. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 1991. The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 30:431–451.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 1994. A metrical account of children’s weak syllable omission from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language 21:565–583.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 1996. Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language 72:683–712.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 2000. Examining young children’s morphosyntactic development through elicited production. Dans Methods for studying language production, sous la dir. Menn, de Lise et Ratner, Nan Berstein, 45–52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather et Buckley, Meaghen. 2006. Prosodic structure in child French: Evidence for the foot. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 5:109–142.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah et Fougeron, Cécile. 2000. A phonological model of French intonation. Dans Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology, sous la dir. Botinis, de A., 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah et Fougeron, Cécile. 2002. The realizations of the accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14:147–172.Google Scholar
Kirk, Cecilia et Seidl, Amanda. 2004. Production and perception of unstressed initial syllables: Implications for lexical representations. Dans Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Brugos, de Alejna, Micciulla, Linnea et Smith, Christine E., 318–327. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lamarche, Jacques. 1991. Problems for NO-movement to NumP. Probus 3:215–236.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John et Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Report no. RuCCS-TR-32. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Mertens, Piet. 1992. L’accentuation de syllabes contiguës. ITL—Review of. Applied Linguistics 95-96:145–165.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina et Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paradis, Johanne. 2001. Do bilingual two-year-olds have separate phonological systems? International Journal of Bilingualism 5:19–38.Google Scholar
Paradis, Johanne, Petitclerc, Sophie et Genesee, Fred. 1997. Word truncation in French-speaking two-year-olds. Dans Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, sous la dir. Hughes, de Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary et Greenhill, Annabel, 441–452. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1997. Metrical parameter missetting in second language acquisition. Dans Focus on phonological acquisition, sous la dir. Hannahs, de S.J. et Young-Scholten, M., 234–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peters, Ann M. 1986. Early syntax. Dans Language acquisition, sous la dir. Fletcher, de Paul et Garman, Michael, 307–325. vNew York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Post, Brechtje. 2000. Tonal and phrasal structures in French intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1995. Phrase structure and functional categories. Dans The handbook of child language, sous la dir. Fletcher, de P. et MacWhinney, B., 483–507. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan et Champdoizeau, Christine. Sous presse. Debunking the trochaic bias myth: Evidence from phonological development. Dans Proceedings of the 33rd Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Rossi, Mario. 1999. L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Orphys.Google Scholar
Scullen, Mary Ellen. 1997. French prosodic morphology: A unified account. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. Dans Signal to syntaxe: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, sous la dir. Morgan, de James et Demuth, Katherine, 187–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Annie. 2006. Prosodic constraints on the production of grammatical morphemes in French: The case of determiners. Dans University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4:377–388. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition—North America (GALANA), sous la dir. Deen, de Kamil, Nomura, Jun, Schulz, Barbaral et Schwartz, Bonnie D..Google Scholar
Tremblay, Annie. 2008. Prosodic constraints in the acquisition of English primary stress by French Canadian L2 learners. Dans Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second language research forum, sous la dir. Bowles, de Melissa, Foote, Rebecca, Perpiñan, Silvia et Bhatt, Rakesh, 158–170. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Annie et Demuth, Katherine. 2007. Prosodic licensing of determiners in children’s early French. Dans Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition—North America (GALANA), la dir. Belikova, de Alyona, Meroni, Luisa et Umeda, Mari, 426–436. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Veneziano, Edy et Sinclair, Hermine. 2000. The changing status of “filler syllables” on the way to grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 27:461–500.Google Scholar
Vihman, Marilyn May, DePaolis, Rory A. et Davis, Barbara L.. 1998. Is there a “trochaic bias” in early word learning? Evidence from infant production in English and French. Child Development 69:935–949.Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline Susan. 2003. The slaying of Lady Mondegreen, being a study of French tonal association and alignment and their role in speech segmentation. Thèse de doctorat, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank, Krikhaar, Evelien et Os, Els Den. 1994. The (non)realization of unstressed elements in children’s utterances: Evidence for a rhythmic constraint. Journal of Child Language 21:59–83.Google Scholar