This article offers a closer look at the relationship between object omission in child language and the acquisition of object clitics. The study isolates a context in French where the use of an object clitic is not only possible, or optimal, but mostly obligatory in the adult grammar, namely the clitic left-dislocation context. In addition, the article contrasts French with English, a language that requires a null element in a similar context, topicalization. By exploring the topicalization structures, the study separates the acquisition of object clitics from object omission phenomena. The results confirm those obtained from other experimental methods and from naturalistic observation: French children, in contrast to adults, uniformly prefer null objects across different domains; they continue to do so even in a syntactically triggered context such as clitic left-dislocation. Thus, the article provides evidence for a null object stage in child acquisition independent of the parametric settings of the target language.
AllenS. E. M. (2001). The importance of discourse-pragmatics in acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 23–25.
2.
BabyonyshevM.MarinS. (2005). The acquisition of object clitic constructions in Romanian. In GessR. S.RubinE. J. (Eds.), Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics (pp. 21–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
ChomskyN. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
CinqueG. (1990). Types of a’ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
CumminsS.RobergeY. (2004). Null objects in French and English. In AugerJ.ClementsC.VanceB. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6.
CumminsS.RobergeY. (2005). A modular account of null objects in French. Syntax, 8, 44–64.
7.
De CatC. (2003). Syntactic manifestation of very early pragmatic competence. In BeachleyB.. (Eds.), BUCLD Proceedings (pp. 209–219). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
8.
De CatC. (2008). Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of topics. In GavarróA.FreitasM. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 155–165). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
9.
De VilliersJ.RoeperT.VainikkaA. (1990). The acquisition of long distance rules. In FrazierL.de VilliersJ. (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257–298). Dortrecht: Kluwer.
10.
FonágyI. (1985). J’aime □. Je connais □. Verbes transitifs à objet latent [I love □. I know □. Transitive verbs with implicit objects]. Revue Romane, 20, 3–35.
11.
FujinoH.SanoT. (2002). Aspects of the null object phenomenon in child Spanish. In Pérez-LerouxA. T.LicerasJ. M. (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax (pp. 65–84). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
12.
GroefsemaM. (1995). Understood arguments: A semantic/pragmatic approach. Lingua, 96, 139–161.
13.
HaleK.KeyserS. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
InghamR. (1993/4). Input and learnability: Direct object omissibility in English. Language Acquisition, 3, 95–120.
15.
JakubowiczC.MüllerN.KangO.-K.RiemerB.RigautC. (1996). On the acquisition of the pronominal system in French and German. In SpringfellowA.Cahana-AmitayD.HughesE.ZukowskiA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th BUCLD (pp. 374–385). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
16.
JakubowiczC.MüllerN.RiemerB.RigautC. (1997). The case of subject and object omissions in French and German. In HughesE.HughesM.GreenhillA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st BUCLD (pp. 331–342). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
17.
JakubowiczC.NashL. (2006). Why accusative clitics are avoided in normal and impaired language development. In JakubowiczC.NashL.WexlerK. (Eds.), Essays in syntax, morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
JakubowiczC.RigautC. (2000). L’acquisition des clitiques nominatifs et des clitiques objets en français. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 119–157.
19.
LabelleM. (1990). Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language acquisition, 1, 95–119.
20.
LambrechtK.LemoineK. (1996). Vers une grammaire des compléments zéro en français parlé [Towards a null complements grammar in spoken French]. In ChuquetJ.FridM. (Eds.), Absence de marques et représentation de l’absence 1 (pp. 279–309). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
21.
LarjavaaraM. (2000). Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
LegateJ.YangC. (2005). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Ms. University of Delaware & Yale University.
24.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
McKeeC.McDanielD. (2001). Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 9, 113–156.
26.
MüllerN.HulkA. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 4, 1–21.
27.
NoaillyM. (1997). Les mystères de la transitivité invisible [Mysteries of invisible transitivity]. Langages, 127, 96–109.
28.
Pérez-LerouxA. (1995). Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language acquisition, 4, 105–138.
29.
Pérez-LerouxA.PirvulescuM.RobergeY. (2006). Early object omission in child French and English. In MontreuilJ.-P.NishidaC. (Eds.), New perspectives in Romance linguistics, vol. I (pp. 213–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
Pérez-LerouxA.PirvulescuM.RobergeY. (2008). Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon. Lingua, 118, 370–398.
31.
PesetskyD.FoxD. (2004). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics, special issue on object shift in Scandinavian, 31, 1–46.
32.
PirvulescuM. (2006). Theoretical implications of clitic omission in early French: Spontaneous vs. elicited production. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, special number on acquisition, 5, 221–236.
33.
RizziL. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In HaegemanL. (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34.
RoeperT. (2003). Multiple grammars, feature-attraction, Pied-Piping, and the question: Is Agr inside TP? In MullerN. (Ed.), (In)Vulnerable domains in multilingualism (pp. 335–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
SchaefferJ. (1997). Direct object scrambling and clitic placement in Dutch and Italian child language. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
36.
SchaefferJ. (2000). The acquisition of direct object scrambling and clitic placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
SchmitzK.CantoneK.MuellerN.KupischT. (2004). Clitic realizations and omissions in early child grammar: A comparison of Italian and French. Paper delivered at the Romance Turn, Workshop on the Acquisition of Romance Languages, Madrid.
38.
SerratriceL.SoraceA.PaoliS. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English–Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.
39.
SkarabelaB.AllenS. E. M. (2002). Joint attention and argument realization in child Inuktitut. In SkarabelaB.FishS.DoA.-H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 620–630). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
40.
Van der VeldeM.JakubowiczC.RigautC. (2002). The acquisition of determiner phrase and pronominal clitics by three French-speaking children. In LasserI. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 GALA conference (pp. 115–132). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
41.
WexlerK.GavarròA.TorrensV. (2003/4). Object clitic omission in child Catalan and child Spanish. Reports de recerca. Barcelona: Grup de Gramatica Teorica, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
42.
YangC. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
YangC. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both?Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 451–456.
