Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon

Pérez‐Leroux, Ana Teresa; Pirvulescu, Mihaela; Roberge, Yves

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.07.002

Cited by 64 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If this is correct, we would expect a higher rate of clitic omission (in a broad sense) in French than in Italian or Catalan, where the equivalent of (30) is ill-formed. In fact, some results from French (for example those of Québec French in Pérez-Leroux et al 2008, with children who didn't produce clitics in 25% of cases at age 4 and 11% of cases at age 5) seem to support this analysis. In the earlier results from European French, however, there was no indication of a clitic drop option, and adults were reported to produce 100% of accusative clitics in all the experimental conditions (see Jakubowicz 2002).…”

Section: Downloaded By [Lakehead University] At 15:17 08 December 2014mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In this connection, the case of French deserves special mention, since Cummins & Roberge (2005) and Pérez-Leroux et al (2008) have pointed out that clitic drop is possible at least in some French varieties, as in (30) In these varieties, child clitic omission would result from a combination of factors: the UCC, plus the availability of clitic drop. If this is correct, we would expect a higher rate of clitic omission (in a broad sense) in French than in Italian or Catalan, where the equivalent of (30) is ill-formed.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Lakehead University] At 15:17 08 December 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Object Clitic Omission: Two Language Types

Gavarró

García

Wexler

2010

Language Acquisition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Downloaded By [Lakehead University] At 15:17 08 December 2014mentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Downloaded By [Lakehead University] At 15:17 08 December 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

Object Clitic Omission: Two Language Types

Gavarró

García

Wexler

2010

Language Acquisition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For French, including Québec French, recent results indicate clitic omission is an important characteristic of 2-and 3-year-old children (Jakubowicz et al, (1996), Hamann (2003, Schmitz, Cantone, Mueller, and Kupisch (2004), Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu, and Roberge (2008), Pirvulescu (2006a), among others). For Québec French, both spontaneous speech and experimental data show high rates of omissions.…”

Section: Previous Studies On Clitic Omission and On The Acquisition Omentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acquisition of Past Participle Agreement in Québec French L1

Pirvulescu

Belzil

2008

Language Acquisition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much developmental work has been devoted to the acquisition of object clitics in French. There is a consensus that in early grammar, children omit object clitics in contexts where an adult would not. Several analyses have been put forth, among which, one proposing a close link between the omission of object clitics and the presence of past participle agreement. In this short article we address this hypothesis by examining the acquisition of past participle agreement through two sentence-preference tasks administered to children (3-to 5-year-olds divided into three age groups) and adults from the Montréal area. The results of the experiments show that past participle agreement is a marginal feature in early grammar and therefore too weak to be considered as controlling the realization of the direct object clitics in child production. Children and adults display different behavior with respect to past participle agreement (weak and optional) versus subjectverb agreement (consistently strong and obligatory). This result points toward an analysis of past participle agreement in terms of language-specific optional verb movement.

show abstract

“…Several elicited production studies found a significantly high percentage of clitic omission in contexts where a clitic would normally be used-that is, in the clitic context (Jakubowicz et al 1996;Schaeffer 2000;Schmitz et al 2004;Wexler, Gavarró & Torrens 2003Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu & Roberge 2008). The experimenter introduces a specific, previously mentioned, referent for the clitic.…”

Section: Elicited Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%