Résumés
Abstract
Children across a variety of languages omit direct objects at higher rates that adults. It has been argued that these omissions arise from children’s performance or pragmatic limitations. The null object approach holds that children start by allowing a broader set of mechanisms for the recoverability of null objects than those possible in the adult grammar, which becomes more restricted with experience. Comprehension data is considered key evidence for evaluating representational approaches, but the interpretation of previous comprehension results is obscured by methodological issues. This article presents new data contrasting the interpretation of various types of direct objects in negative sentences, including null objects (Johnny is not eating) and anaphoric and negative polarity items (not eating it/not eating anything). English-speaking children aged 4–5 (n = 75) participated in three separate comprehension studies contrasting the interpretation of null objects to overt objects. Children consistently accepted sentences with overt anaphoric objects and rejected sentences with negative polarity objects, and treated sentences with null objects as fully ambiguous.
Keywords:
- null objects,
- acquisition,
- developmental omissions,
- recoverability,
- negation,
- English,
- corpus study
Résumé
Cet article se base sur les phrases négatives avec un objet nul pour montrer que les enfants anglophones monolingues de quatre à cinq ans (n=75) acceptent voire préfèrent l’interprétation anaphorique de l’objet nul (Johnny’s mom made him a sandwich, but he is not eating Ø) mais rejettent presque catégoriquement le même sens lorsque la phrase contient un item de polarité négatif (… but he is not eating anything). Ces résultats écartent la question méthodologique des inférences involontaires, présentent un argument incontournable pour l’approche représentationnelle, et remettent ainsi en question l’idée que l’omission de l’objet en langage enfantin découle d’un déficit acquisitionnel lié à l’habileté langagière limitée de jeunes enfants.
Mots-clés :
- objets nuls,
- acquisition,
- anglais,
- négation,
- omissions en cours de développement,
- étude de corpus
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Allen, S. 2000. “A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in Child Inuktitut”. Linguistics 383: 483–521.
- Ariel, M. 1991. “The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar”. Journal of Pragmatics 16 (5): 443–463. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-L
- Biberauer, T. 2018. “Less is more: On the tolerance principle as a manifestation of maximize minimal means”. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8: 707–711. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18080.bib.
- Bloom, P. 1990. “Subjectless sentences in child language”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 491–504.
- Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- Castilla, A. P. and A. T. Pérez-Leroux. 2010. “Omissions and substitutions in Spanish object clitics: Developmental optionality as a property of the representational system”. LanguageAcquisition 17: 2–25.
- Clancy, P. 1997. “Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition”. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 6, edited by H.–M. Sohn and J. Haig. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications: 639–659.
- Costa, J. and M. Lobo. 2010. “Clitic omission is null object: Evidence from comprehension”. In Language acquisition and development, edited by J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobo, and F. Pratas. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press: 96–106.
- Cummins, S. and Y. Roberge. 2005. “A modular account of null objects in French”. Syntax 81: 44–64.
- Flores, C., E. Rinke and A. Sopata. 2020. “Acquiring the distribution of null and overt direct objects in European Portuguese”. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 19: 1–20.
- Gathercole, S. and A. Baddeley. 1993. Working Memory and Language. New York: Psychology Press.
- Grüter, T. 2006. Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French. Doctoral disseration, McGill University.
- Grüter, T. and M. Crago. 2012. “Object clitics and their omission in child L2 French: The contributions of processing limitations and l1 transfer”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 153: 531–549.
- Hughes, M. and S. Allen. 2013. “The effect of individual discourse-pragmatic features on referential choice in child English”. Journal of Pragmatics 56: 15–30.
- Hyams, N. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dortrecht: Reidel.
- Jakubowicz, C. and L. Nash. Forthcoming. “Why accusative clitics are avoided in normal and impaired language development”. In Essays in Syntax, Morphology and Phonology in SLI, edited by C. Jakubowicz, L. Nash and K. Wexler. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Jakubowicz, C., L. Nash, C. Rigaut and C.-L. Gérard. 1998. “Determiners and clitic pronouns in French-speaking children with SLI”. Language Acquisition 7: 113–160.
- Mateu, V. 2015. Object clitic omission in child Spanish: Evaluating representational and processing accounts. Language Acquisition 22: 240–284.
- Musolino, J., S. Crain and R. Thornton. 2000. “Navigating negative quantificational space”. Linguistics 38: 1–32.
- Mykhaylyk, R. and A. Sopata. 2016. “Object pronouns, clitics and omissions in child Polish and Ukranian”. Applied Psycholinguistics 37: 1051–1082.
- Pérez-Leroux, A.T, M. Pirvulescu, Y. Roberge, L. Tieu and D. Thomas. 2006. “Variable input and object drop in child language”. In Proceedings of the 2006 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, edited by C. Gurski and M. Radisic. https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2006/Perez-Leroux_etal.pdf.
- Pérez-Leroux, A. T., M. Pirvulescu and Y. Roberge. 2008a. “Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon”. Lingua 1183: 370–398.
- Pérez-Leroux, A. T., M. Pirvulescu and Y. Roberge. 2008b. “Children’s Interpretation of null objects under the scope of negation”. In Proceedings of the 2008 Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, edited by S. Jones. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2008/CLA2008_Perez-Leroux_Pirvulescu_Roberge.pdf.
- Pérez-Leroux, A. T., M. Pirvulescu and Y. Roberge. 2018. Direct objects and language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Prévost, P. 2006. “The phenomenon of object omission in child L2 French”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9: 263– 280.
- R Core Team 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/
- Roeper, T. 2018. “Grammar acquisition and grammar choice in the variationist model”. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8: 758–763.
- Ruda, M. 2014. “Missing objects in special registers: The syntax of null objects in English”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 59: 339–372.
- Schaeffer, J. 1997. Direct object scrambling and clitic placement in Dutch and Italian child language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.
- Serratrice, L. 2005. “The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian”. Applied Psycholinguistics 26: 437–462.
- Sopata, A. 2016. “Null objects in adult and child Polish: Syntax, discourse and pragmatics”. Lingua 183: 86–106.
- Tedeschi, R. 2009. Acquisition at the interfaces: A case study on object clitics in early Italian. Utrecht: LOT.
- Tryzna, M. 2015. “Acquisition of object clitics in child Polish”. Lingua 161: 67–81.
- Valian, V. 1991. “Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children”. Cognition 40: 21–81.
- Wexler, K., A. Gavarrò and V. Torrens. 2004. “Feature checking and object clitic omission in Child Catalan”. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002, edited by R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers- Manhe, and P. Sleeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing: 253–268.
- Wojtecka, M., C. Koch, A. Grimm and P. Schulz. 2011. “Production and comprehension of sentence negation in child German”. In Production-Comprehension Asymmetries in Child Language, edited by A. Grimm, A. Müller, C. Hamann and E. Ruigendijk. Berlin: De Gruyter: 217–246.