Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:21:31.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The case for diglossia: Describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of metropolitan French*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2013

KATERINA PALASIS
KATERINA PALASIS*
Affiliation:
BCL UMR 7320 CNRS-Université Nice de Sophia Antipolis
*
Address for correspondence: Katerina Palasis, Laboratoire Bases, Corpus, Langage - (BCL) UMR 7320, Campus Saint Jean d'Angely - SJA3/MSH, 24 avenue des Diables Bleus, F-06357 Nice Cedex 4France email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article supports the diglossic approach to variation in metropolitan French by delving into the subject from the point of view of acquisition. Drawing on naturalistic data from 37 native French children between the ages of 2;3 and 4;0, the investigation exemplifies the existence of two cognate, but distinct grammars in the mind/brain of these children. The distinction between Spontaneous French (G1, all children) and Normed French (G2, 4 children by age 4) hinges upon two crucial characteristics, i.e. the morpho-syntactic status of nominative clitics and the emergence of the negative particle ne. Accusative clitics with imperatives and past-participle agreement are also examined in order to gain a comprehensive picture of the two grammars. Finally, the emergence of ne is interpreted as a trigger forcing a speaker to move from G1 to G2 due to the total unavailability of ne in G1.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 23 , Special Issue 1: L'hypothèse d'une diglossie en France , March 2013 , pp. 17 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Benjamin Massot, Paul Rowlett and two anonymous reviewers for their very constructive comments on earlier versions of this article. This research was supported by the French-German ANR-DFG grant awarded to the project ‘Dialectal, acquisitional, and diachronic data and investigations on subject pronouns in Gallo-Romance’ (DADDIPRO, 2012-2015, no. ANR 11 FRAL 007 01) led by Michèle Oliviéri (BCL UMR 7320 CNRS – Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis) and Georg Kaiser (University of Konstanz).

References

REFERENCES

Adli, A. (2006). French wh-in-situ Questions and syntactic optionality: evidence from three data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25: 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1981). The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language, 57: 647–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (2001). Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: s'agit-il d'un changement en cours? Journal of French Language Studies, 11.1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitics in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In: Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barra-Jover, M. (2004). Interrogatives, négatives et évolution des traits formels du verbe en français parlé. Langue française, 141: 110–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barra-Jover, M. (2010). ‘Le’ français ou ce qui arrive lorsqu'un état de choses est observé comme une entité. Langue française, 168.4: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barra-Jover, M. (This volume). Le français à l'école primaire: pourquoi l'approche diglossique est la meilleure façon d'apprendre le français académique.Google Scholar
Bernini, G. and Ramat, P. (1996). Negative Sentences in the Languages of Europe: A Typological Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1994). Quelques caractéristiques grammaticales des ‘sujets’ employés dans le français parlé des conversations. In: Yaguello, M. (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity. Proceedings of the Colloquium ‘The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory’. London: Editions Ophrys, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2000). Approches de la langue parlée en français, Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2003). Les formes grammaticales de réalisation des sujets et leur inégale représentation en français contemporain. In: Merle, J.-M. (ed.), Le sujet. Paris: Ophrys, pp. 73–90.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In: Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C. (eds), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Z. (1998). LF Movement and the Minimalist Program. In: Boskovic, Z. and Lasnik, H. (eds), Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. (2007). Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 243–57.Google Scholar
Buson, L. and Billiez, J. (This volume). Perspectives diglossique et variationnelle – Complémentarité ou incompatibilité?Google Scholar
Chang, L. (1997). Wh-in-situ Phenomena in French. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. and Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax, 3.1: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In: Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. (eds), Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 32–75.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2002). Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation. Bristol: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2011). A language divided against itself? Diglossia, code-switching and variation in French. In: Martineau, F. and Nadasdi, T. (eds), Le français en contact: Hommages à Raymond Mougeon. Québec: Presses de l'Université de Laval, pp. 51–85.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86.1: 85–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boysson-Bardies, B. (1996). Comment la parole vient aux enfants. De la naissance jusqu'à deux ans. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 115.9: 1195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. (2007). French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V. and Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24.1: 25–67.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15.1: 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedemann, M.-A. (1993). The underlying position of external arguments in French: a study in adult and child grammar. Language Acquisition, 3.3: 209–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (2003). La Variation sociale en français, Paris: Editions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, C.-h. (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in Universal Grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Haverkort, M. and Weissenborn, J. (1991). Clitic and affix interactions in early Romance. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Heap, D. and Roberge, Y. (2001). Cliticisation et théorie syntaxique, 1971–2001. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 30.1: 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. (1994). More about INFL-ection and Agreement: The Acquisition of Clitic Pronouns in French. In: Meisel, J. M. (ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French and German Grammatical Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 131–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1975). French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2000). Past-participle agreement in French and Italian. In: Kayne, R. S. (ed.), Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khamis-Dakwar, R. and Froud, K. (2007). Lexical processing in two language varieties: an event-related brain potential study of Arabic native speakers. In: Mughazy, M. A. (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khamis-Dakwar, R., Froud, K. and Gordon, P. (2011). Acquiring diglossia: mutual influences of formal and colloquial Arabic on children's grammaticality judgments. Journal of Child Language, FirstView Article: 1–29, DOI:10.1017/S0305000910000784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1981). Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000a). The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk: Transcription Format and Programs, 3rd edn, vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000b). The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk: The Database, 3rd edn, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2008). Français et diglossie. Décrire la situation linguistique française contemporaine comme une diglossie: arguments morphosyntaxiques. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2010). Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français. Langue française, 168.4: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2001). The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In: Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (eds), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palasis, K. (2005). Problèmes d'acquisition et le Paramètre du Sujet Nul. MA Thesis, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis.Google Scholar
Palasis, K. (2009). On the variable morpho-syntactic status of the French subject clitics. In: Kaiser, G. A. and Remberger, E.-M. (eds), Null-subjects, Expletives and Locatives in Romance. Konstanz: Konstanz Working Papers of the Department of Linguistics, pp. 47–62, http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/publ/PDF/ap123.pdf.Google Scholar
Palasis, K. (2010a). Introducing new French child data: thoughts on their gathering and coding. La syntaxe de corpus. = Corpus 9: 33–51, http://corpus.revues.org/index1801.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palasis, K. (2010b). Syntaxe générative et acquisition: le sujet dans le développement du système linguistique du jeune enfant, Villeneuve d'Ascq: ANRT Diffusion.Google Scholar
Palasis, K. (2011). Français spontané et français normé: bien plus que deux variétés d'un même français. Implications acquisitionnelles et didactiques. In: Bertrand, O. and Schaffner, I. (eds), Variétés, variations et formes du français. Palaiseau: Les Editions de l'Ecole Polytechnique, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
Palasis, K. (2012). Economy principles within child speech: when the nominative clitic does not surface. In: Ferré, S., Prévost, P., Tuller, L. and Zebib, R. (eds), Selected Proceedings of the Romance Turn IV Workshop on the Acquisition of Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 261–83.Google Scholar
Péters, H. M. (1999). An alternative proposal for French negation. Linguistica Atlantica, 21: 107–36.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20.3: 365–424.Google Scholar
Prévost, P. (2009). The Acquisition of French: The Development of Inflectional Morphology and Syntax in L1 Acquisition, Bilingualism, and L2 Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). On the Status of Subject Clitics in Romance. In: Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh Criterion. In: Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds), Parameters and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2000). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Rizzi, L. (ed.), Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 241–95.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1993). On the syntactic derivation of negative sentence adverbials. Journal of French Language Studies, 3.1: 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2007). The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2011). Syntactic variation and diglossia in French. Salford Working Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 1: 13–26.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (This volume). Do French speakers really have two grammars?Google Scholar
Schapansky, N. (2002). The syntax of negation in French: contrariety versus contradiction. Lingua, 112: 793–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsakali, V. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (2008). Rethinking the clitic doubling parameter: the inverse correlation between clitic doubling and participle agreement. In: Kallulli, D. and Tasmowski, L. (eds), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 321–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. and Roeper, T. (2011). Minimalism and language acquisition. In: Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 551–73.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1997). Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1994). La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie, 32: 131–48.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2011). Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques. Journal of French Language Studies, 21.2: 231–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. and Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English N'T. Language, 59.3: 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar