The acquisition of partitive clitics in Romance five‐year‐olds
Abstract
In this paper we look at a previously unexplored empirical domain: the acquisition of partitive clitics in Catalan, French, and Italian. The course of acquisition of third person object clitics is well known and clitic omission is limited to a first stage in the languages in which it is found, so that at age five children do not omit clitics any more, unless they suffer from Specific Language Impairment. Partitive clitics share many properties with third person object clitics and here we develop two experiments, an elicitation and a repetition experiment, of partitive clitics in transitive sentences, and report results for 60 children. Of the two experiments, repetition shows to be the more reliable method, while elicitation gives rise to more pragmatically adequate answers which nevertheless do not present a clitic. The results from both experiments show that partitive clitic omission is not found for any of the languages tested at age five, just like third person object clitics.
Full text
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2010,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 Theacquisitionofpartitiveclitics inRomancefive‐year‐olds1 AnnaGavarróa,MariaTeresaGuastib,LauriceTullerc,PhilippePrévostc, AdrianaBellettid,LucaCilibrasid,HélèneDelagee,MirtaVerniceb [email protected],[email protected],tuller@univ‐tours.fr, philippe.prevost@univ‐tours.fr,[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected] aUniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona,bUniversitàdiMilano‐Bicocca,cUniversité FrançoisRabelais–Tours,dUniversitàdegliStudidiSiena,eUniversitédeGénève D.O.I.:tobeassigned Abstract:Inthispaperwelookatapreviouslyunexploredempirical domain:theacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinCatalan,French,andItalian. Thecourseofacquisitionofthirdpersonobjectcliticsiswellknownand cliticomissionislimitedtoafirststageinthelanguagesinwhichitis found,sothatatagefivechildrendonotomitcliticsanymore,unless theysufferfromSpecificLanguageImpairment.Partitivecliticsshare manypropertieswiththirdpersonobjectcliticsandherewedeveloptwo experiments,anelicitationandarepetitionexperiment,ofpartitiveclitics intransitivesentences,andreportresultsfor60children.Ofthetwo experiments,repetitionshowstobethemorereliablemethod,while elicitationgivesrisetomorepragmaticallyadequateanswerswhich neverthelessdonotpresentaclitic.Theresultsfrombothexperiments showthatpartitivecliticomissionisnotfoundforanyofthelanguages testedatagefive,justlikethirdpersonobjectclitics. Keywords:Acquisition,partitiveclitics,cliticomission,childlanguage, Catalan,French,Italian. Resumen:Esteartículoabordauncampodeestudiosempíricos previamenteinexplorados:laadquisicióndeclíticospartitivosencatalán, francéseitaliano.Elcursodeadquisicióndeclíticosdetercerapersona deobjetoesbiensabido:laomisióndeclíticosselimitaalaprimeraetapa enlaslenguasdondeocurreyalaedaddecincoañoslosniñosyano omitenlosclíticosamenosquesufranDeficienciasLingüísticas Específicas.Losclíticospartitivoscompartenmuchaspropiedadesconlos 1TheresearchreportedherewasconductedwithinthecontextofCOST(European CooperationinScienceandTechnology)ActionA33,‘CrosslinguisticallyRobust StagesofChildren’sLinguisticPerformance’(2006–2010).Wearegratefultothe childrenwhotookpartintheexperimentinManlleu,Milan,andBlois,andtothe studentsoftheUniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona,UniversitéFrançoisRabelais, Tours,andMilano‐Bicoccaforactingasadultcontrols.Wealsowishtoacknowldege thesuggestionsoftwoanonymousreviewersofIberia.
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 2 TheacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinRomancefive‐year‐olds clíticosdetercerapersonadeobjeto.Aquísedesarrollandos experimentos,unaelicitaciónyunexperimentoderepeticióndeclíticos partitivosenoracionestransitivas,contandoconresultadosobtenidosa partirde60niños.Delosdosexperimentos,larepeticióndemuestraser elmétodomásfiable,mientrasquelaelicitacióndalugararespuestas pragmáticamentemásadecuadasquesinembargonopresentanclíticos. Losresultadosdelosdosexperimentosmuestranquelaomisiónde clíticospartitivosnoseencuentraenningunadelaslenguasexaminadas alaedaddecincoaños,talycomoocurreenelcasodelosclíticosde tercerapersonadeobjeto. Palabrasclave:Adquisición,clíticospartitivos,omisióndeclíticos, lenguainfantil,catalán,francés,italiano. Resumo:Nesteartigoinvestigamosumdomínioempíricoaindanão explorado:aaquisiçãodeclíticospartitivosemCatalão,FrancêseItaliano. Oprocessodeaquisiçãodeclíticosdeobjectodaterceirapessoaébem conhecidoeaomissãodeclíticosestálimitadaaumprimeiroestádiodas línguasemqueseverifica,sendoqueaoscincoanosdeidadeascrianças jánãoomitemclíticos,excetoquandosofremdePerturbaçãoEspecífica deLinguagem.Osclíticospartitivospartilhamváriaspropriedadescom osclíticosdeobjectodaterceirapessoa.Desenvolvemosaquidois experimentos,umexperimentodeelicitaçãoeumexperimentode repetição,declíticospartitivosemfrasestransitivas,apresentandoos resultadosde60crianças.Deentreosdoisexperimentos,arepetição mostraserométodomaisfiável,enquantoaelicitaçãodálugara respostaspragmaticamentemaisadequadas,que,noentanto,não apresentamumclítico.Osresultadosdeambososexperimentosmostram queaomissãodeclíticospartitivosnãoseverificaemnenhumadas línguastestadasaoscincoanosdeidade,talcomoacontececomos clíticosdeobjectodeterceirapessoa. Palavras‐chave:Aquisição,clíticospartitivos,omissãodeclítico, linguageminfantil,Catalão,Francês,Italiano. 1.Introduction Manystudieshaveshownthattheacquisitionofdirectobjectcliticsis characterizedbyaninitialperiodofoptionalomission(aroundagethree),a gradualimprovementandfinallytheattainmentofanadult‐like performanceattheageoffive(seetheresultsofJakubowiczetal.1996for French,Schaeffer2000forItalian,Wexler,GavarróandTorrens2004for Catalan,and,forageneralreview,Varlokostaetal.inpreparation).Even thoughsomestudieshavealsopointedoutthatnotallcliticsareacquiredat thesamepace,2verylittleisknownabouttheacquisitionofpartitiveclitics. 2Othercliticpronounshavebeenshowntobemuchmoretarget‐likefrom earlyon:seeCosta,Lobo,CarmonaandSilva(2008)forreflexivecliticsin
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 3 AnnaGavarróetal Herewereportthefirstexperimentalresultsontheproductionofthe partitivepronounne/en(1)inearlyfirstlanguageacquisitionofthree Romancelanguages,Catalan,French,andItalian. (1) Entédos/molts(,dellibresdelingüística). (Catalan) CLhastwo/many(,ofbooksoflinguistics) ‘Hehastwo/many.’ (2)Ilenadeux/beaucoup(delivresdelinguistique) (French) heCLhastwomanyofbooksoflinguistics ‘Hehastwo/many.’ (3) Giannihacompratomoltemelemanehavendutepoche/tre.(Italian) GiannihasboughtmanyapplesbutCLhassoldfew/three ‘Giannihasboughtmanyapplesbuthassoldfew/threeofthem.’ Thisconstruction,notpreviouslytestedinL1acquisition,consistsofa transitiveverbwithapartitivepronoun(asin(1)to(3)).IntheRomance languages,thepartitivepronounisacliticandisfoundinCatalan,French, Italian(alltestedinthispaper),andotherlanguages,suchasOccitan.The partitivemaybefollowedbyaquantifieroranumeral,asin(1),(2),and(3) ornot,asin(4a),butineithercaseitisobligatory,asshownin(4b‐c)3: (4)a.Enté(,dellibresdelingüística).(Catalan) CLhasofbooksoflinguistics b.*Tétres/molts. hasthree/many c.*Té. has Thepartitivecliticmayalsobefoundwithunaccusativeverbs, cliticizingtheonlyargumentoftheverb,asin(5).However,theacquisition ofthisconstructionwillnotbeexaminedinthispaper. (5) a.Arribendostrens.N’arribendos. (Catalan) arrive‐3pltwotrainsCLarrive‐3pltwo ‘Twotrainsarrive.Twoarrive.’ b.Ilesttombébeaucoupdeneige.Ilenesttombébeaucoup.(French) itisfallenmuchofsnowitCLisfallenmuch ‘Alotofsnowfell.Alotfell.’ Thequestionofthe(partial)similaritybetweendirectobjectcliticsand thepartitivecliticstemsfromthefactthattheyarebothrelatedtothedirect Portuguese–alanguagewithnullobjects–andGavarróandMosella(2009)for indirectobjectcliticsinCatalan. 3OtherRomancelanguages,e.g.Spanish,allowforanullcounterpartofthe partitiveclitic,sothattheanaloguesof(4b,c)arewell‐formed,justasotherRomance languages,e.g.EuropeanPortuguese,allowfornullobjects.Sobothoptionsare madeavailablebyUG.
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 4 TheacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinRomancefive‐year‐olds objectposition:objectcliticsbecausetheyrealizethedirectobjectintheform ofacliticpronoun,thepartitivecliticasitrealizespartofanindefinitedirect object,againintheformofacliticpronoun.Thecomputationassociatedwith thecliticizationofthepartitivecliticmaycountasevenmorecomplexthan thatofdirectobjectsastheformer,butnotthelatteralsoinvolvesextraction (outoftheindefinitecomplemente.g.[trelibri]>>ne...[tre–]).Circumstantial evidencethatthecomputationassociatedtothepartitivecliticismore complexthantheoneassociatedtosimple(definite)directobjectcliticsmay comefromthefactthatthepartitivecliticseemstoappearlaterinchildrenʹs productionsthandirectobjectclitics(seee.g.thediscussioninHamann& Belletti2006)).Ofcourse,onewouldnotexpectproductionswithcomplete omissionofthedirectobjectcontaininganindefinitepartitiveclitic,asthe omissioninthiscasewouldalsoimplyunrecoverableinformation, correspondingtotheindefinitequantifier(Q=treintheexampleabove). Hence,fordirectobjectsthereisoftenadevelopmentalomissionstage yieldingtoungrammaticalproductionsinwhichthepronominaldirectobject isnotpresentinanobligatorycontext;forthepartitivecliticonemaywantto checkwhethertherealsoisacomparableomissionstage,whichwouldlead totheproductionofasentenceinwhichthedirectobjectisonlypartially realizedbutnotaltogetherabsent,asin(6). (6)*Hamangiatotre. Target: Nehamangiatitre–. haseatenthreeCLhaseatenthree Giventhedocumentedomissionperiodofthepartitivecliticin development,whichwedetailinthenextsection,itseemedappropriateto checkforthepotentialomissionofthepartitivecliticatarelativelyadvanced stageindevelopment;inourresearchweselectedage5. 2.Background:Spontaneousproductionstudies Althoughtherearenoexperimentalstudiesofpartitiveclitic productioninchildRomance,thereareafewstudieslookingatspontaneous production.Hamann,RizziandFrauenfelder(1994)analyzedthecorpusofa French‐speakingchild,Augustin,fortheperiod2;0,2to2;9,3.Accordingto them,Augustinproducedthefirstpartitivecliticeninthefilerecordedatage 2;9,2;inthenextfile,atage2;9,30,heproducedfour.Thisistobecompared withthefirstproductionofadirectobjectcliticle,whichwasreportedatage 2;2,13,althoughnootherdirectobjectcliticwasrecordeduntiltheageof2;6. ForItalian,Bottariandcollaboratorsstudiedtheemergenceofdirectobject clitics(Bottarietal.1998,Bottarietal.2001)butBottarietal.’s(2004)workon partitivecliticsremainsunpublished.
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 5 AnnaGavarróetal ForCatalan,Gavarró,MataandRibera(2006)analyzedthe spontaneousproductionsofthreechildrenintheCHILDESdatabase,both fordirectobjectandpartitiveclitics.Thechildrenandperiodsconsidered were:Gisela(age1;10,7–4;2,3,M(ean)L(ength)U(tterance):1.18–3.53),Guillem (age1;1,29–4;0,MLU:1.07–2.5)andPep(age1;1.28–4;0,MLU:1.46–4.1).The firstoccurrenceofenwasat1;8,3forGisela,2;6,10forGuillem,and1;10,6for Pep(laterthanthedirectobjectcliticforGuillemonly).Theresultsofthat studyonpartitivecliticproductionappearinTable1–notethattherearefew datapointsinthefirstfiles,butthisiscommonwhenthespontaneous productionsofchildrenundertheageoftwoareexamined. MLUCliticOmissionTotal <1.53(50%)3(50%)6 <25(71.4%)2(28.6%)7 <2.542(87.5%)6(12.5%)48 <361(83.3%)14(18.6%)75 <3.549(79%)13(21%)62 >3.551(83.6%)10(16.4%)61 Total211(81.5%)48(18.5%)259 Table1:Spontaneousproduction,Catalan Gavarróetal.(2006)concludedthatenproductionwassubjectto optionalomission,i.e.childrenalternativelyproducethecliticoromitit,and thatperiodappearedtolastslightlylongerthandirectobjectcliticomission. Allthesestudiesbearontheearlydevelopmentofthepartitiveclitic; hereweexaminethedevelopmentofthepartitivecliticatagefive,anage criticalfortheassessmentoflinguisticdevelopmentinchildren.Indeed, directobjectcliticproductionhasbeenclaimedtobeaclinicalmarkerfor SpecificLanguageImpairmentinsomeofthelanguagesunderinvestigation here(andspecificallyatagefive,inBortolinietal.2006forItalian),since typicallydevelopingchildrenceasetoomitdirectobjectcliticslongbefore theageof5.Shouldomissionofpartitivecliticsbefoundatagefive,that wouldconstituteadifferencewithaccusativeclitics. 3.Anelicitationandarepetitiontask 3.1.Experimentaldesign Elicitation–Ourexperimentwasconstruedasaguessinggamein whichthechildhadtoanswerquestionsaskedbytheexperimenter,whichin somecasesrequiredsomecorrectionsforcingtheuseofapartitiveclitic.The materialsconsistedofpicturesprintedforthechildrentohold,ofwhichthe experimentercouldonlyseeapartialversion.Inordertoguesswhatwas
6 T h d e y e o b w e x q u s e i m ( 7 i n p i (6 ( 7 g u p l e q i n (8 is w ©Iberia http: / h eacquisit i e pictedin e s/noque s b ject.Test w hichwer e x pectedv e u antified e ntences g m mediatel y 7 ):theex p n volvedin i ctureand ) Unam a ‘Amot h 7 ) EXPEC T Fille r u essesby t l us10fi l q uivalents n (8).Alist )Experi m a. Cat a b. Fre n c. Itali a Give n quitediff i Repe t w hichcruci :AnInterna t / /www.siff.u i onofparti t thepictur s tions.All questions e meantt e rbalcorr e object,p l g iventhat y precedi n p erimente r thepictur e cancorre c a reambgalli n h erwithhen s T EDANSW E r question s t heexperi m l lers.The of‘have’ ( ofallexp e m entalitems : a lan:tenir,po r n ch:avoir,pre n a n:avere,por t n that,as w i cult,are p t ition–Th allyinclu d t ionalJourn a s.es/iberia/i n t ivecliticsi n e,visible o question s correspon d otrigger e ctionw o l usthe p theNP n glinguis t r seesa p e ,andma k c ttheexpe r n es.Quecu i s .Doesshet a E R:No,enc u s wereal s m enter.T h verbsu s ( 3),‘take’ ( e rimentali : verbs r tar,passejar, n dre,promen e t are,tirare,c u w eshalls e p etitiontas k emethod d edapart i a lofTheoret n dex.php/ij/i n n Romance o nlytoth e s included d edtoinc o acorrecti o uldinvol v p artitivec l waskno w t iccontext . p artialpi c k esagues s r imenteri f i datresgalli n a kecareo f t h u idauna(‘ N s oinclud e h etotalnu m s edfort h ( 3),‘walk’ temsapp e cuidar e r,garder u rare e eindetai l k wasalso involved i tiveclitic i icalLinguis t n dex five‐year‐ o e child,the atransiti v o rrectgue s ononth e v eagain l iticrequ i w ninfor m . Theme t c tureindi s asin(6); f required n es? h reehens?’ N o,shetakes e d,which m berofe x h eexperi m (3),and‘t a e arsinthe a l below,el i designed. readinga i nthelast t ics o lds experime n v everba n s sesbyth e e partof atransiti v i redint h m ationap p t hodisill u cativeof thechild c asin(7). careofone.’ ) correspo n x periment a m entalit e a kecareo f a ppendix. i citingpar t shortsto r sentence. A vol3.2, 2 ISSN 1 n terhadt o n daquan t e experim e thechild. v everba n h esetran s p earingi n u stratedi n thechar a c anseea w ) n dedtoc o a litemsw a e mswer e f ’(3),ass h t itivepro n r ytothe c A sample s 2 011,1‐19 1 989‐8525 o ask t ified e nter, The n da s itive n the n (6)– a cters w hole o rrect a s12, e the h own n ouns c hild, s tory,
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 7 AnnaGavarróetal inCatalan,appearsin(9).Theexperimenteraskedthechildtolistentothe storyandthentorepeatwhat(s)helastheardsothattheexperimentercould besurethechildhadbeenpayingattention.Norequestwasmadetodelay therepetitionbythechild. (9)Aquestaéslahistòriad’unósquetrobaunapomera.L’ósagafaunesquantespomes del’arbreilesposaalcistell.Desprésarribaunmicoiagafaduespomesilescarrega alseucistell.Idesprésl’ósdiu:–Quinmald’esquena!Sapsperquètémald’esquena, l’ós?Perquècarregamoltespomes.Elmiconotémald’esquenaperquènoenporta gaires. ‘Thisisthestoryofabearwhofindsanappletree.Thebeartakesseveralapplesfromthetree andputstheminhisbasket.Thenamonkeyarrivesandpickstwoapplesandputstheminhis basket.Lateronthebearsays:WhatabackacheIhave!Doyouknowwhythebearhasaback ache?Becausehe’scarryinglotsofapples.Andthemonkeyhasnobackachebecausehe’snot carryingverymany.’ Thenumberofexperimentalitemswas12,andtherewere5 distractorswithdirectobjectcliticsinsteadofpartitiveclitics.Theverbsused weretheequivalentsof‘carry’,‘eat’,‘steal’,‘buy’,‘hide’,‘drink’,‘take’,‘find’, ‘wash’,‘have’,‘sell’and‘see’.Giventhehighproductionofpartitivecliticsin children,histaskwasnotrunwithadults,asitwasassumedtheywould performatceiling. 3.2.Subjects Wetestedatotalof60five‐year‐oldchildren,nativespeakersof Catalan,French,andItalian,aswellasadultcontrols.TheCatalan‐speaking childrenwererecruitedintheCEIPPompeuFabrainManlleu,Osona;the French‐speakingchildreninapublicschoolinthecityofBlois;theItalian‐ speakingchildrenintheScuoladell’InfanziaSantoStefanodiLeccoin NorthernItaly.TheCatalanadultswerestudentsattheUniversitat AutònomadeBarcelona,theFrench‐speakingadultswerestudentsatthe UniversitéFrançois‐Rabelais,ToursandtheItalian‐speakingadultswere studentsattheUniversitàdiMilano‐Bicocca.Detailsofallthesubjectstested appearinTable2. NMeanage Five‐year‐oldChildren Catalan205;4 French205;7 Italian205;4 AdultsCatalan23 French12 Italian18 Table2:Participants AnANOVAontheageofthethreegroupsofchildrenrevealeda significanteffectofage,withItalianandCatalanchildrenbeingyoungerthan Frenchchildren,asestablishedbyaposthocScheffétest(p<.05).Aswewill
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 8 TheacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinRomancefive‐year‐olds see,however,thisdifferenceinagedidnotaffecttheoverallperformance. 3.3.Procedure Thechildrenweretestedindividuallyinaquietroomintheirschools, insessionsthatlastedaround20minutes.First,ashorttrainingsessionfor theelicitationtasktookplace,thentheelicitationtaskwasadministered,and, finally,therepetitiontaskwasrun.Childrenwereallowedtoaskforitemsto berepeatedinbothtasks.FrenchandItalianadultsweretestedforthe elicitationtaskinthesamefashion;Catalanadultsweretestedalltogetherin aclassroomandwereaskedtowritedowntheanswersonananswersheet, asitwasassumedthattheelicitationwouldnotbeproblematicwithadults. Thissmalldifferenceintheprocedurefollowedwithadultsdoesnotseemto havehadaneffectontheirperformance. 4.Results 4.1.Elicitedproduction Intheelicitedproductiontask,childrendidnotproducehighnumbers ofpartitiveclitics,ascanbeenseeninFigure4,whichshowsthemean numberofresponsescontainingapartitiveclitic(/12)thatwereproducedby childrenineachofthethreelanguages. Figure4.MeanNumberofResponses(/12)withaPartitiveClitic:5‐year‐olds Examplesoftheresponsesaregivenin(10) (10) a.Enportados.(Catalan) CLcarriestwo ‘(S)hecarryingtwo(ofthem).’ b.Non,elleengardedeux. (French) No,sheCLtakes‐care‐oftwo ‘No,she’stakingcareoftwo(ofthem)’ 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 Catalan French Italian Catalan French Italian
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 9 AnnaGavarróetal c.Nestatirandodue.(Italian) CLispullingtwo ‘(S)heispullingtwo(ofthem).’ AnANOVAwithlanguageasindependentvariableandpercentages ofcliticsasdependentvariablerevealedasignificanteffectoflanguage (F(2.57)=4.3605).AposthocScheffétestrevealedthatthatCatalan‐speaking childrenusedsignificantlymorepartitivecliticsthanItalian‐speaking children(p<0.05). Despitethelownumbersforpartitivecliticproduction,andtheinter‐ languagevariability(towhichwereturnbelow),amajorresultemerged fromthisexperiment.Nostatisticallysignificantdifferencewasfoundacross thelanguagestestedforpartitivecliticomission(F(2.52)=22.519,p=.237),and, moreover,ascanbeseeninFigure5below,suchomissionwasverylowin eachofthethreelanguages(2.5%forCatalan,4.2%forFrench,and2.9%for Italian).FiveItalianchildrenandsevenFrenchchildrenomittedpartitive clitics,thoughusuallyonlyonceeach(andnevermorethanthreetimes). Examplesoftheserareomissionsappearin(11). (11)a.Notécap.(Catalan) Nohasnone b.Ilpromènepas.(French) hewalksnot c.Statirandodue.(Italian) ispullingtwo Figure5alsoshowsthatchildrengavemanynon‐omissionanswers whichneverthelessdidnotincludeapartitiveclitic.Theseweregenerally pragmaticallyadequate,butdidnotservethepurposeofourexperiment.So childrenproducedellipticalanswers(withanumeraloraquantifier),in whichnoverbwasproducedand,therefore,nopronominalclitic,asin(12). Theyalsogaveanswerswhich,whilecontainingaverb,alsohadafullDP complement,asin(13).Thestatisticalanalysisindicatesthatthereisa significanteffectoflanguageintheproductionofDPs(F(2.52)=22.519)and aposthocScheffétestrevealedthatFrench‐speakingchildrenproduced moreDPanswersthantheotherchildren(p<0.05).
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 16 TheacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinRomancefive‐year‐olds REFERENCES Babyonyshev,Maria,JenniferGanger,DavidPesetskyandKennethWexler. 2001.Thematurationofgrammaticalprinciples:evidencefrom Russianunaccusatives,LinguisticInquiry32,1–44. Bortolini,Umberta,BarbaraArfé,M.CristinaCaselli,LuisaDegasperi, PatriciaDeevyandLaurenceB.Leonard.2006.Clinicalmarkersfor specificlanguageimpairmentinItalian:thecontributionofcliticsand non‐wordrepetition,InternationalJournalofLanguageand CommunicationDisorders41,695–712. Bottari,Piero,PaolaCipriani,LuciaPfannerandAnnaMariaChilosi.2004. TheacquisitionofcliticpronounsanddeterminersbyItaliannormal andSLIchildren:amaturationalaccount.Workshop‘Generative ApproachestotheAcquisitionofMorphology,11thInternational MorphologyMeeting,Vienna. Bottari,Piero,AnnaMariaChilosiandLuciaPfanner.1998.Thedeterminer systeminagroupofItalianchildrenwithSLI,LanguageAcquisition7: 285–315. Bottari,Piero,PaolaCripriani,AnnaMariaChilosiandLuciaPfanner.2001. TheItaliandeterminersysteminnormalacquisition,Specific LanguageImpairment,andchildhoodaphasia,BrainandLanguage77, 283–293. Costa,João,MariaLobo,JaquelineCarmonaandCarolinaSilva.2008.Clitic omissioninEuropeanPortuguese:Correlationwithnullobjects?In AnnaGavarróandM.JoãoFreitas(eds.)LanguageAcquisitionand Development.ProceedingsofGALA2007.133–143.Newcastle: CambridgeScholarsPublishing. Gavarró,Anna,MeritxellMataandEulàliaRibera.2006.L’omissiódelsclítics d’objecteipartitiusenelcatalàinfantil:dadesespontànies.InPusch, Claus(ed.)Lagramàticapronominaldelcatalà:variació–evolució– funció/TheGrammarofCatalanPronouns:variation–evolution–function. 27–46.Aachen:Shaker. Gavarró,Anna&MartaMosella.2009.Testingsyntacticandpragmatic accountsofcliticomission.InJeanCrawford,KoichiOtaki,Masahiko Takahashi(eds.)Proceedingsofthe3rdGenerativeApproachestoLanguage AcquisitioninNorthAmerica(GALANA2008).25–35.Somerville,MA: CascadillaPress. Gavarró,Anna,VicençTorrensandKenWexler.2010.Objectcliticomission: twolanguagetypes,LanguageAcquisition17,192–219. Hamann,Cornelia,andAdrianaBelletti.2006.Developmentalpatternsinthe acquisitionofcomplementcliticpronouns.Comparingdifferent
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 17 AnnaGavarróetal acquisitionmodeswithanemphasisonFrench,RivistadiGrammatica Generativa31,39–78. Hamann,Cornelia,LuigiRizziandUlrichFrauenfelder.1994.Onthe acquisitionofthepronominalsysteminFrench,GenevaGenerative Papers,91–103. Jakubowicz,Celia,NataschaMüller,Ok‐KyungKang,BeateBiemerand CatherineRigaut.1996.Ontheacquisitionofthepronominalsystem inFrenchandGerman.BostonUniversityChildLanguageDevelopment Proceedings20,374–385. Jakubowicz,Celia,Nash,Lea,Rigaut,Catherine,andGérardandChristophe‐ Loïc.1998.DeterminersandcliticpronounsinFrench‐speaking childrenwithSLI,LanguageAcquisition7,113‐160. Jakubowicz,CeliaandLeaNash.Toappear.Whyaccusativecliticsare avoidedinnormalandimpairedlanguagedevelopment.InCelia Jakubowicz,LeaNashandKennethWexler(eds.)EssaysinSyntax, MorphologyandPhonologyofSLI,Cambridge,MA:MITPress Schaeffer,Jeannette.2000.TheAcquisitionofDirectObjectScramblingandClitic Placement.Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Tuller,Laurice,HélèneDelage,CécileMonjauze,Anne‐GaëllePiller,and Marie‐AnneBarthez.2011.Cliticpronounproductionasameasureof atypicallanguagedevelopmentinFrench:AcomparativestudyofSLI, mild‐to‐moderatedeafnessandbenignepilepsyofchildhoodwith centrotemporalSpikes.Lingua121(3),423–441. Varlokosta,Spyridoulaetal.Inprep.Across‐linguisticstudyofthe acquisitionofcliticandpronounproduction. Wexler,Ken,AnnaGavarróandVicençTorrens.2004.Featurecheckingand objectcliticomissioninchildCatalanandSpanish.InBok‐Bennema, Reineke,BartHollebrandse,BrigitteKampers‐ManheandPetra Sleeman(eds.)RomanceLanguageandLinguisticTheory2002.253–268. Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Appendix:Experimentalitems,Catalan 1. Unnenindiqueportacavalls.Queportatrescavalls? AnIndianwalkinghorses.Ishewalkingthreehorses? 2. Hihaunafamília.Quetenenungos?Filler Thereisafamily.Dotheyhaveadog? 3. Elnenacasaseva,alasevahabitació.Elnentédosossets? Aboyathome,inhisroom.Doeshehavetwoteddy‐bears? 4. samepictureQuetéunapilota? Doeshehaveafootball?
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 18 TheacquisitionofpartitivecliticsinRomancefive‐year‐olds 5. Unaàviaquevadeviatge.Queportatresmaletes? Agrandmothertakingatrip.Isshetakingthreesuitcases? 6. LafamíliaambunarbredeNadal.Quehihaposatdecoracions?Filler AfamilywithaChristmastree.Aretheredecorationsonit? 7. Unbomberambgossos.Elbomber,quepassejatresgossos? Afiremanwithdogs.Ishewalkingthreedogs? 8. L’àviaambelcotxet.Queportaunnenapassejar? Filler Agrandmotherwithapram.Isshetakingachildforawalk? 9. samepictureQueportaunamaleta? Isshetakingasuitcase? 10. Lamareacasa.Quetéunramdeflors?Filler Amotherathome.Doesshehaveabunchofflowers 11. L’àviaielnen.L’àvia,queempenyelcotxet? Filler Agrandmotherandachild.Doesshepushthepram? 12. Elpareindi.Queportadoscavalls? TheIndianfather.Ishewalkingtwohorses? 13. samepicture:iquepassejadosbúfals? Ishewalkingtwobuffalos? 14. Elparequefaelsopar.Queaguantaunacassola? Filler Afathermakingdinner.Isheholdingasaucepan? 15. Lafamíliaíndia.Queviuenenunatenda? Filler TheIndianfamily.Dotheyliveinatent? 16. Lamareíndia.Quecuidaduesgallines? TheIndianmother.Isshetakingcareoftwohens? 17. samepictureQueportadosconills? Andisshetakingcareoftworabbits? 18. L’ósmarró.Quetéunosset?Filler Thebrownbear.Doesshehaveababybear? 19. Elnenquevaadormiril’àvia.Quetenenunconte? Filler Theboywhogoestobedandthegrandmother.Willtheyreadastory? 20. Lamareíndiaambelsnens.Quetétresnens? TheIndianmotherwithsomechildren.Isshetakingcareofthreechildren? 21. Elnenilamareindisambllenya.Quefanunfoc? Filler AnIndianboyandhismotherwithsomewood.Aretheylightingafire? 22. Elpareindiquevaapescar.Queportatrespeixosacasa? TheIndianfatherinhiscanoe.Ishetakingthreefishhome? Receptiondate/Fechaderecepción/Dataderecepção:2011/10/31 Revisiondate/Fechaderevisión/Dataderevisão:2011/12/16 Acceptationdate/Fechadeaceptación/Datadeaceitação:2011/12/23 AnnaGavarró [email protected] UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona
©Iberia:AnInternationalJournalofTheoreticalLinguisticsvol3.2,2011,1‐19 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/indexISSN1989‐8525 19 AnnaGavarróetal MariaTeresaGuasti [email protected] UniversitàdiMilano‐Bicocca LauriceTuller tuller@univ‐tours.fr UniversitéFrançoisRabelais–Tours PhilippePrévost philippe.prevost@univ‐tours.fr UniversitéFrançoisRabelais–Tours AdrianaBelletti [email protected] UniversitàdegliStudidiSiena LucaCilibrasi [email protected] UniversitàdegliStudidiSiena HélèneDelage [email protected] UniversitédeGénève MirtaVernice [email protected] UniversitàdiMilano‐Bicocca