Cover not available
Part of
Language Acquisition in Romance Languages
Edited by Vicenç Torrens
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 18] 2024
► pp. 232–252

Chapter 10
On the production and omission of dative and accusative clitics in Italian children with learning difficulties

| Ca' Foscari University of Venice
| Ca' Foscari University of Venice
| Ca' Foscari University of Venice
This paper investigates the production of third person singular dative (3DAT) and accusative clitic pronouns (3ACC) in Italian children diagnosed with Learning Difficulties (LD), compared to a group of typically developing (TD) age peers (mean age 9;1). Results show that 3DAT clitics are produced in significantly higher percentages than 3ACC clitics by both children with LD and TD children. We claim that for children with LD, the invariable dative clitic gli is easier to retrieve than 3ACC clitics, as suggested for TD school-age children by Cardinaletti et al. (2021) and replicated here. With 3ACC clitics, feature sharing with the extra-clausal antecedent contributes to complexity in addition to the derivation by syntactic movement (Tuller et al., 2011). The two groups also did not differ in the production of DPs and PPs instead of 3ACC and 3DAT clitics, respectively, but children with LD omitted more clitics (both 3ACC and 3DAT) than TD age peers. After removing from the analysis the children who scored more than 1.5 SD below the mean of age-matched controls, as was done in the study by Vender et al. (2018), the performance of the group with LD no longer differed from that of controls. Results suggest that at school age, omission of both 3ACC and 3DAT clitics differentiate typical development from children with LD and oral language difficulties, presumably due to an unrecognized Developmental Language Disorder (Guasti, 2013; Arosio et al., 2016).
Keywords: clitic pronouns, omission, learning difficulties, Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and procedure
    • 2.3Response coding
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Statistical analysis
    • 3.2Individual analysis within the LD group
    • 3.3Testing Arosio et al.’s (2016) hypothesis
    • 3.4Tense analysis
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 July 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.18.10cer
References (48)
References
Arosio, F., & Giustolisi, B. (2019). Agreement and interference in direct object clitic production in Italian monolingual children, Frontiers in Communication, 3, 66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arosio, F., Branchini, C., Forgiarini, M., Roncaglione, E., Carravieri, E., Tenca, E., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). SLI children’s weakness in morphosyntax and pragmatics. In O. Yukio (Ed.), The proceedings of the Tenth Tokyo Conference of Psycholinguistic. Hituzi Syobo Press.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Branchini, C., Barbieri, L., & Guasti, M. T. (2014). Failure to produce direct object clitic pronouns as a clinical marker of SLI in school-aged Italian speaking children, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 28(9), 639–663.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Pagliarini, E., Perugini, M., Barbieri, L., & Guasti, M. T. (2016). Morphosyntax and logical abilities in Italian poor readers: The problem of SLI under-identification. First Language, 36, 295–315.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Panzeri, F., Molteni, B., Magazù, S., & Guasti, M. T. (2017). The comprehension of Italian relative clauses in poor readers and in children with specific language impairment. Glossa, 2(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Avram, L., Coene, M., & Sevcenco, A. (2015). Theoretical implications of children’s early production of Romanian Accusative clitics. Lingua, 161, 48–66.Google Scholar
Avram, L., Sevcenco, A., & Stoicescu, I. (2013). Clinical markers of specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia in Romanian: The case of accusative clitics. In L. Avram & A. Sevcenco (Eds.), Topics in language acquisition and language learning in a Romanian context. Selected papers from Bucharest Colloquium of Language Acquisition (BUCLA) (pp. 129–159). Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.Google Scholar
Bar-Shalom, E. G., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1993). Comparison of comprehension and production in good and poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(2), 197–227.Google Scholar
Bedore L. M., & Leonard L. B. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 905–924.Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., Arfé, B., Caselli, M. C., Degasperi L., Deevy P., & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Clinical markers for specific language impairment in Italian: The contribution of clitics and non-word repetition. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 695–712.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (1991). On pronoun movement: The Italian dative loro. Probus, 3, 127–154.Google Scholar
(2008). On different types of clitic clusters. In C. De Cat & K. Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection (pp. 41–82). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2010). Morphologically complex clitic pronouns and spurious se once again. In V. Torrens, L. Escobar, A. Gavarró, & J. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Movement and clitics: Adult and child grammar (pp. 238–259). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Casani, E. (2019). Pragmatica nell’uso dei pronomi clitici diretti di terza persona singolare in bambini dislessici con e senza disturbo specifico del linguaggio. In E. Nuzzo & I. Vedder (Eds.), Lingua in contesto. La prospettiva pragmatica (pp. 9–27). AItLA – Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., Cerutti, S., & Volpato, F. (2021). On the acquisition of third person dative clitic pronouns in Italian, Lingue e Linguaggio, XX(2), 311–341.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti A., & Volpato, F. (2015). On the comprehension and production of passive sentences and relative clauses by Italian university students with dyslexia. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 223–279). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Casani, E., & Cardinaletti, A. (2019). Soggetto espresso e discordanza di genere soggetto-oggetto, Poster presented at the AIRIPA Workshop, Bologna, 8–9 March.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1378–1396.Google Scholar
Coene, M., & Avram, L. (2012). (A)symmetries in the production of object clitics by Romanian children. In P. Larrañaga & P. Guijarro-Fuentes (Eds.), Pronouns and clitics in early language (pp. 131–174). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Delage, H., & Durrleman, S. (2018) Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Distinct syntactic profiles? Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 32(8), 758–785.Google Scholar
Delage, H., Durrleman, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2016). Disentangling sources of difficulty associated with the acquisition of accusative clitics in French. Lingua, 180, 1–24.Google Scholar
Gavarró A. (2012). Third person clitic production and omission in Romance SLI. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes & P. Larrañaga (Eds.), Pronouns and clitics in early language (pp. 79–104). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Guasti M. T. (2013). Oral skills deficit in children with developmental dyslexia. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti, & P. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 416–424). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Guasti M. T., Branchini, C., Vernice, M., Barbieri, L., & Arosio, F. (2015). Language disorders in children with developmental dyslexia. In S. Stavrakaki (Ed.), Specific language impairment. Current trends in research (pp. 35–56). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Ohayon, S., Dubé, S., Frauenfelder, U. H., Rizzi, L., & Starke, M. (2003). Aspects of grammatical development in young French children with SLI. Developmental Science, 6, 151–158.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Nash, L. Rigaut, C., & Gérard, C.- L. (1998). Determiners and clitic pronouns in French-speaking children with SLI. Language Acquisition, 7, 113–160.Google Scholar
Kayne R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., & Bortolini, U. (1998). Grammatical morphology and the role of weak syllables in the speech of Italian speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1363–1374.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., McGregor, K., & Sabbadini, L. (1992). Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: The status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition, 2, 151–179.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2003). Object clitics as a clinical marker of SLI in French: Evidence from French-English bilingual children. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), BUCLD 27, Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 638–649). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2004). Développement morphosyntaxique des enfants ayant des troubles de développement du langage: Des données francophones. Enfance, 56, 21–36.Google Scholar
Pivi, M., & Del Puppo, G. (2015). L’acquisizione delle frasi relative restrittive in bambini italiani con sviluppo tipico e con dislessia evolutiva. In M. E. Favilla & E. Nuzzo (Eds.), Grammatica applicata: Apprendimento, patologie, insegnamento (pp. 59–73). Officinaventuno.Google Scholar
Pivi, M., Del Puppo, G., & Cardinaletti, A. (2016). The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive relative clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, M. Juan-Garau, & P. Larrañaga (Eds.), Acquisition of Romance languages (pp. 231–262). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pozzan, L. (2007). A dissociation between clitics and determiners in a group of Italian SLI children. In Proceedings of the 8th CUNY-SUNY-NYU Mini-conference. CUNY/NYU Working Papers in Linguistics.
Serianni, L. (2006), Grammatica italiana. UTET Libreria.Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A., Avram, L., & Stoicescu, I. (2014). Relative clauses: A linguistic marker of developmental dyslexia in Romanian? In J. Costa, A. Fiéis, M. J. Freitas, M. Lobo, & A. L. Santos (eds.), New directions in the acquisition of romance languages: Selected proceedings of the romance Turn V (pp. 285–301). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Stanford, E., & Delage, H. (2019). Complex syntax and working memory in children with specific learning difficulties. First Language, 40(4), 411–436.Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, S., & van der Lely, H. (2010). [URL]. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 189–216.Google Scholar
Stein, C. L., Cairns, H. S., & Zurif, E. B. (1984). Sentence comprehension limitations related to syntactic deficits in reading disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5(4), 305–321.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1995). On the nature of clitic doubling. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 399–418). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli I. M., & Stavrakaki, S. (1999). The effects of a morphosyntactic deficit in the determiner system: The case of a Greek SLI child. Lingua, 108, 31–85.Google Scholar
Tuller L., Delage H., Monjauze C., Piller A. G., Barthez M. A. (2011). Clitic pronoun production as a measure of atypical language development in French. Lingua, 121(3): 423–441.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79–124.Google Scholar
(2005). On the syntax of doubling. In L. Heggie & F. Ordóñez (Eds.), Clitic and affix combinations (pp. 343–374). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Varlokosta S., Belletti A., Costa J., Friedmann N., Gavarró A., Grohmann K. K., Guasti M. T., Tuller L., Lobo M., Andelkovic D., Argemi N., Avram L., Berends S., Brunetto V., Delage H., Ezeizabarrena M. J., Fattal I., Haman E., van Hout A., de Lopez K. J., Katsos N., Kologranic L., Krstic N., Kraljevic, J. K., Miekisz, A., Nerantzini M., Queralto C., Radic Z., Ruiz S., Sauerland, U., Sevcenco, A., Smoczynska, M., Theodorou, E., van der Lely, H., Veenstra A., Weston, J., Yachini, M., & Yatsushiro, K. (2016). A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of clitic and pronoun production, Language Acquisition, 23(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Vender, M., Hu, S., Mantione, F., Delfitto, D., & Melloni, C. (2018). The production of clitic pronouns: A study on bilingual and monolingual dyslexic children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zachou A., Partesana, E., Tenca, E., & Guasti, M. T. (2013). Production and comprehension of direct object clitics and definite articles by Italian children with developmental dyslexia. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti, & P. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 464–471). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Zesiger, P., Chillier-Zesiger, L., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., & Franck, J. (2010). The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 571–603.Google Scholar