Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 13:1 (2022) ► pp.63–92

L’acquisition des objets directs et indirects en français L1

 | University of Toronto
 | University of Toronto Mississauga
Cet article compare la production des clitiques objets directs (OD) et indirects (OI) chez les enfants francophones. L’analyse s’appuie, d’une part, sur des données spontanées du corpus York de la base de données CHILDES, et d’autre part, sur des données induites récoltées auprès de 48 enfants francophones âgés de 3;03 à 5;02 ans. Les résultats montrent que les enfants préfèrent l’omission des clitiques OD et OI à toute autre possibilité, et maintiennent l’omission des clitiques OI pendant plus longtemps que celle des clitiques OD. Nous concluons qu’il existe une asymétrie dans l’acquisition des clitiques objets. Nous proposons que cette asymétrie provient d’une asymétrie structurelle dans la grammaire cible en ce que les enfants possèdent la configuration computationnelle, mais doivent toujours apprendre le contenu lexical de chaque verbe afin de restreindre la portée des omissions.
Keywords: acquisition de la langue maternelle, clitique objet, français, morphosyntaxe
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Études antérieures traitant de l’acquisition des clitiques objets directs et indirects
    • 2.1L’acquisition des clitiques objets directs
    • 2.2L’acquisition des clitiques objets indirects
    • 2.3La comparaison de l’acquisition des clitiques OD et OI
  • 3.La grammaire cible
    • 3.1L’omission de l’objet direct
    • 3.2L’omission de l’objet indirect
    • 3.3Les représentations syntaxiques des constructions à clitiques dans la grammaire cible
  • 4.Nos études
    • 4.1Étude 1 : Parole spontanée
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Les verbes transitifs et ditransitifs
      • 4.1.3Les objets directs et indirects
    • 4.2Étude 2 : Parole induite
      • 4.2.1Participants
      • 4.2.2Tâches de production induite
        • 4.2.2.1La tâche d’élicitation des objets directs
        • 4.2.2.2La tâche d’élicitation des objets indirects
      • 4.2.3Résultats
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Remarques
  • References

Article language: French

Published online: 24 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.21003.bel
References (39)
References
Babyonyshev, M., & Marin, S. (2006). Acquisition of pronominal clitics in Romanian. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 5 1, 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bello, S. (2012). Identifying indirect objects in L1 French: An elicitation task. In P. Caxaj (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2012 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference. [URL]
(2017). Prolegomenon to the study of indirect objects in French L1 Acquisition [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
Castilla, A. P. (2008). Developmental measures of morphosyntactic acquisition in monolingual 3-, 4-, 5-year-old Spanish-speaking children [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
Costa, J., Lobo, M., Carmona, J., & Silva, C. (2008). Clitic omission in European Portuguese: Correlation with null objects? In A. Gavarró & M. João Freitas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 133–143). Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, S., & Roberge, Y. (2005). A modular account of null objects in French. Syntax, 8 (1), 44–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, S., Roberge, Y., & Troberg, M. (2010). L’objet indirect en français : Sens, représentations et évolution. In C. Leblanc, F. Martineau, & Y. Frenette (Eds.), Vues sur le Français du Canada (pp. 77–112). Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
De Cat, C., & Plunkett, B. (2002). Qu’est-ce qu’i(l) dit, celui+là?: Notes méthodologiques sur la transcription d’un corpus francophone. Romanistische Korpuslinguistik: Korpora und gesprochene Sprache / Romance Corpus Linguistics: Corpora and Spoken Language. Narr Verlag. CD-rom.Google Scholar
Delage, H., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2019). Syntax and working memory in typically-developing children. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 10 (2), 141–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavarró, A., & Mosella, M. (2009). Testing syntactic and pragmatic accounts of clitic omission. In J. Crawford, K. Otaki, & M. Takahashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (25–35). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2006). Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. McGill University, Canada.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, M. E., & Allen, S. (2013). The effect of individual discourse-pragmatic features on referential choice in child English. Journal of Pragmatics, 56 (1), 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Müller, N., Riemer, B., & Rigaut, C. (1997). The case of subject and object omission in French and German. BUCLD 21 1 (pp. 331–342). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, M. (2000). Présence ou absence de l’objet. Limites du possible en français contemporain. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Lyczkowski, D. (1999). Adquieretelo: On the acquisition of pronominal object clitics in Spanish [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Harvard University.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Müller, N., Schmitz, K., Cantone, K., & Kupisch, T. (2006). Null arguments in monolingual children: A comparison of Italian and French. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 69–95). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noailly, M. (1997). Les mystères de la transitivité invisible. Langages, 127 1, 96–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M., & Roberge, Y. (2008). Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon. Lingua, 118 1, 370–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Direct objects and language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pirvulescu, M. (2006). Implications of clitic omission in early French: Spontaneous vs. elicited production. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 5 1, 221–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pirvulescu, M., & Hill, V. (2011). Object clitic omission in French-speaking children: Effects of the elicitation task. Language Acquisition 19 (1): 73–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pirvulescu, M., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Roberge, Y., & Strik, N. (2012). Clitic production across tasks in young French-speaking children. In A. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung, & A. E. Kimball (Eds.), BUCLD 36: Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 461–473). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pirvulescu, M., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Roberge, Y., Strik, N., & Thomas, D. (2014). Bilingual effects: Exploring object omission in pronominal languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (3), 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y., & Troberg, M. (2007). Thematic indirect objects in French. Journal of French Language Studies, 17 (3), 297–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, K. (2012). Clitics in the acquisition of inalienable possession in French. In P. Larranaga, & P. Guijarro-Fuentes (Eds.), Pronouns and clitics in early language (pp. 175–208). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, K., Cantone, K., Müller, N., & Kupisch, T. (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.
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Cross-linguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 1, 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. A. (2011). Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 42 (2), 267–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, C. (2010). Asymmetries in the acquisition of different types of clitics in European Portuguese. In V. Torrens, L. Escobar, A. Gavarró, & J. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Movement and clitics: Adult and child grammar (pp. 361–388). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Skarabela, B., Allen, S., & Scott-Phillips, T. (2013). Joint attention helps explain why children omit new referents. Journals of Pragmatics, 56 1, 5–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck, & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 213–276). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Partitions and atoms of clause structure: Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. Routledge.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weissenborn, J., Kail, M., & Friederici, A. (1990). Language-particular or language-independent factors in acquisition? Children’s comprehension of object pronouns in Dutch, French and German. First Language, 10 (29), 141–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., Gavarró, A., & Torrens, V. (2003). Feature checking and object clitic omission in child Catalan and Spanish. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, & B. Kampers-Manhe (Eds.), Going Romance 2002 (pp. 253–268). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zesiger, P., Zesiger, L. C., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Franck, J., Frauenfelder, U. H., Hamann, C., & Rizzi, L. (2010). The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31 (4), 571–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar