Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University [email protected]

Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison

Jonas GranfeldtLund University

[email protected]

Hamburg June 4-5 2009 Workshop on Critical Period(s) and successive acquisition in childhood

Outline• INTRODUCTION

– The project– Hypothesis & Approaches to the Critical Period Hypothesis– L1 & L2 acquisition– Rationale and research questions– Clitics in French: Framework & previous research

• METHOD– Children, Data & Procedures– Object Clitic elicitation task

• RESULTS– Pronoun use in elicitation task– Evaluating cliticisation in production data:

• Syntactic properties • Prosodic / morpho-phonological properties• Semantic / referential properties

• SUMMARY & DISCUSSION


Approaching the Critical Period(s) Hypothesis in Language Acquisition

• “The hypothesis is that the human Language Making Capacity (LMC) is subject to maturation, i.e. neural maturation opens a window of opportunity for multiple L1 acquisition”. (Meisel, 2008)

• The Critical Period(s) Hypothesis wrst the acquisition of grammar (wide sens) has been approached in at least three ways. In a comparison with (2)L1, the dependent variable has been:1. The properties of L2 grammars at the end stage (ultimate

attainment) (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003)2. The properties of L2 grammatical development3. The properties of L2 grammars at the initial stage(s)


Initial Stage(s) and Development in (2)L1 and Adult L2 (I)

Initial stage(s) in (2)L1 wrst syntax:

1. Short utterances

2. Functional Categories are not instantiated (absence of determiners, pronouns, auxiliaries, lack of case marking etc.)

3. 2L1 shows limited and specfic influence from the other language(s)

• Initial stage(s) of adult L2 wrst syntax:

1. Rather long utterances

2. Functional Categories are instantiated early (determiners,pronouns, auxiliaries, subjunctions…)

3. Shows important and general influences from the other languages (L1 or other L2s)


Initial Stage(s) and Development in (2)L1 and Adult L2 (II)

Grammatical development in (2)L1 : 1. Stages of development2. Uniform & Principled (route

& rate & end)3. Changes are typically swift

and can effect more than one area at the time (clustering)

Syntax and morphology develop together

• Grammatical development in adult L2:1. Stages of development (but

not necessarily the same as in (2)L1)

2. Individual differences & variation (especially rate & end)

3. Changes are typically slow and typically affect one area at the time (or even a lexical domain) at the time.

Syntax and morphology develop separately (dissociation)


Questions for cL2 Acquisition

• Compared to the findings in L1 and and adult L2, the question wrst cL2 acquisition is at least threefold:

A. When does (2)L1 acquisition stop and (adult) L2 acquisition begin?

B. Which linguistic areas are affected?

C. What does linguistic development in cL2 look like? Closer to aL2 or to (2)L1?


Some Answers…

• Wrst A: Meisel (2008) suggests that the relevant AOs are:– (2)L1 < 4 years– Child L2 ≥ 4 and 8 years– Adult L2 ≥ 8 years

• Wrst B: Considerable debate:– Schwartz (2003) « Domain-by-age »

• [cL2 = aL2] ≠ L1 wrst development of syntax

• [cL2 = L1] ≠ aL2 wrst development of inflectional morphology

– Meisel (2008): The other way around! – Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihstedt (2007) – Inflectional

morphology in cL2 is more similar to aL2 in early stages.


Rationale & Research QuestionsWe need to include also the third question (C) – linguistic development in

cL2

« A major task for future research is, I believe,….. to find out whether cL2…shares qualitative commonalities with (2)L1 development » (Meisel, 2008)

• Clitics and cliticisation is a good candidate since it involves clustering effects (expected in (2)L1 acquisition):

– Syntactic properties– Prosodic / morpho-phonological properties– Semantic / referential properties

• Research questions:– What are the properties of cL2 grammars wrst cliticisation in the Initial

stage?– Is there a development of cliticisation over time in cL2 grammars and

how does this development proceed?


Properties of Pronouns - Overview Syntax Semantics Prosody Strong [+isolation] [+inherently referential] [- restructuration] XP [+coordination] [optional antecedent in discourse] [+ word accent] [+modification] [+animate] [+VP at spell-out] Weak [-isolation] [-Inherently referential] [+ restructuration] XP [-coordination] [obligatory antecedent in discourse] [+ word accent] [-modification] [±animate] [-VP at spell-out] Clitic [-isolation] [-Inherently referential] [+ restructuration] X0 [-coordination] [obligatory antecedent in discourse] [- word accent] [-modification] [± animate] [-VP at spell-out]

Cardinaletti & Starke (1999)

Sw

Fr


The French Structures (syntactic cliticisation)


Syntax[- VP at spell-out]

*[IP Elle croit [VPla]]

[IPElle lai croit [VPti]]

Cliticisation

Semantics /

Referential properties

Subject Clitic doubling

[Le chat [il monte

Le bébé il peut pas

Morpho-phonology

Restructuration(elision)

j’essaie vs *je (#) essaie

l’école vs *le école

Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004

(2)L1

Sw./Fr

Adult L2

L1 = Sw. > 3 years of immersion

Important variation No real development


METHODData and Procedures

• Children from the French school Lycée Français St Louis de Stockholm– Instruction in French (except for some hours of Swedish)– Maternelle: Petite section (3ys) / Moyenne section (4ys) / Grande section (5ys)

• Data (present study)– L1 children (N=6)– 2L1 children (N=3)– cL2 children (N=6)– Longitudinal study over 3 years (so far)

• Learner matching– 2L1 and cL2s are proficiency Matched on the basis of MLU and Vocabulary

Diversity (D) (Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihstedt, 2007)• Lower Proficiency Group (Range: MLU 2,3 – 4,7; D 22 – 32)• Higher Proficiency Group (Range: MLU 4,0 – 8,6; D 30 – 49)

• Procedures:– Picture elicitation tasks: object clitics, narratives, tense– Structured conversation: past, present, future events– Free conversation

p>0.05


METHODObject clitics Elicitation: Children and Data

• cL2 children, recordings– Rachel 4,6 (AO = 3;5)– Patrick 1, 3 (AO = 4;8)– Viola 1,3 (AO = 6;4)– Hannes 1, 7 (AO = 6;6)– Valentine 1,3,7 (AO = 6;5)

• 2L1 children, recordings– Lars 1,3– Louise 1,3– Linnea 1,3

• L1 children– Gaspard, Chloé, Noa, Felicie,

• For information on ages, time of exposure etc. see separate sheet


METHODObject Clitics Elicitation: Procedure

B. • *INV: regarde, qu’est-ce qu’il a dans la main

Pierre?• *CHI: une carrotte• *INV: oui et qu’est-ce qu’il pense/va faire

avec la carrotte– *CHI: il va LA manger > Pronoun– *CHI: manger > Omission– *CHI: (il) (va) manger la carrotte > DP

C. • *INV: regarde, qu’est-ce qu’il a devant lui

Pierre?• *CHI: des oeufs• *INV: oui et regarde ici maintenant qu’est-ce

qu’il a fait avec les oeufs• *CHI: il LES a cassés > Pronoun etc.


RESULT (Overview)L1 vs 2L1 vs cL2 : Production in elicitation task

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

L1 2L1 cL2

% o

ut

of

all r

esp

on

ses

Pronoun

DP+ca

Omission

No resp.

Lower Proficiency Group


RESULT (Detail)cL2: : Production in elicitation task

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Raw

No

of

Occ

s.

Pronoun

DP+ca

Omission

No resp.

AO 3;5 AO 4;8 AO 6;5


Examples – cL2 children

cL2 Valentine 1 (7;4 Exposure: 0;7)

*INV: et [/] et [/] et c ' est quoi qu ' il a devant lui ?

*CHI: c ' est le café .

*INV: d ' accord .

*INV: et qu+est+ce+qu ' il va faire avec le café ?

*CHI: boire [= brar] le [/] le café . [DP]

cL2 Valentine 1 (8;4 Exposure: 1;7)

*ASS: et qu+est+ce+que tu penses qu ' il a dans sa tasse ?

*CHI: du café .

*ASS: du café oui .

*ASS: et qu+est+ce+qu ' il va faire avec le café ?

*CHI: il va LE boire .


Examples – cL2 children

cL2 Patrick 1 (6;5, Exposure: 1;7)

*INV: revoilà Maxelme .

*INV: tu vois Maxelme c' est un bon garçon .

*INV: il passe l' aspirateur chez lui .

*INV: il fait le ménage , tu vois ?

*INV: et qu+est+ce+qu' il a fait avec les chaises ?

*CHI: il poser [= posE ] sur le table . [Omission]

*INV: oui il LES a posées sur la table .

cL2 Patrick 3 (7;5, Exposure: 2;7)*INV: alors voilà Philip qui fait le

ménage chez lui . *CHI: oui avec l ' aspirateur . *INV: avec l ' aspirateur oui . *INV: mais qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait

avec les chaises ? *CHI: il s [/] il LES [/] LES s met

sur la table . *INV: oui .*INV: c ' était avant donc . *INV: avant de passer l '

aspirateur . *INV: qu+est+ce+qu ' il a fait avec

les chaises ? *CHI: il [/] il LE monté sur la

table .


Summary: Production in Elicitation Task

• L1– L1 almost completely on target (1 omission)– Also the youngest child Chloé – 4 year old– Easy task for L1

• cL2– First recordings lacking responses with pronouns (1 occ.)– Parallel use of DP and Omission strategy– Clear, successive and stable development in cL2 learners over 2-3 years– cL2 reaches L1-level < 3 years (Valentine and Hannes)

• cL2 with different AOs – no clear differences– But Rachel (with A0 3;5) highest rate of omissions

• 2L1 – Often not on target (in Lower Proficiency Group)– Surprisingly similar to cL2 (use of DP-strategy)– Development over 1 year (not shown here)


Syntactic Properties (Distribution of Object clitics)

Clitics can not appear in VP at spell-out *[IPElle croit [VPla]]

L1 – never left in VP – no placement errors (Hamann et al., 1996, Rasetti, 2003, Hamann & Belletti, 2008)

Uses all positions correctly from the time of emergence (Jakubowicz et al., 1996)

2L1 – never left in VP (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004, Hamann & Belletti, 2008, Granfeldt, Schlyter & Kihlstedt, 2007) (one possible exception the child Anouk, Hulk, 2000)


Syntactic Properties (Distribution of Object Clitics)

1 2 3*V(erb) CL AUX CL V [-FIN]

CL V [+FIN]

CL TempAux V [+ptc]

*Je vois la Je le vois

Je veux le voir

*J’ai le vu

Je l’ai vu

Adult L2: Developmental sequence of object clitics (Towell & Hawkins, 1994, Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004, Hamann & Belletti, 2008..)


RESULTL1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data) Child Age Mode Distribution of object pronouns

1 2 3

*V CL *Aux Temp

CL V ModV CL Vinf

CL Vfin CL Aux Temp Vptc

Chloé 4 ;x L1 - - 3/3 5/5 4/4 Gaspard 5 ;x L1 - - 3/3 8/8 7/7 Noa 5 ;5 L1 - - 7/7 8/8 5/5 Lucie 5 ;5 L1 - - 5/5 8/8 2/2 André 6 ;5 L1 - - 1/1 6/6 - Antoine 6 ;5 L1 - - 5/5 14/14 8/8 TOT - - 24/24 49/49 26/26


RESULT2L1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

Child Age Mode Distribution of object pronouns

1 2 3

*V CL *Aux Temp CL V

ModV CL V[+inf]

CL V CL TempAux V[+ptc]

Lars 1 5 ;9 2L1 - 2 1/1 2/2 0/2 Lars 2-3 6 ;2-7 ;6 - 1 4/4 10/10 2/3 Lars 4 7 ;9 - - - 7/7 4/4 Linnea 1 5 ;9 2L1 - 3 3/3 9/9 0/3 Linnea 2 6 ;9 - - 6/6 10/10 5/5 Louise 1 5 ;9 2L1 - - 4/4 2/2 - Louise 2-4 6 ;9-7 ;6 - - 17/17 12/12 5/5


RESULT cL2: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

Child AO Expos. Distribution of object pronouns

1 2 3

*V CL *Temp Aux CL V

ModAuxV CL V

CL V[+FIN] CL TempAux V[+ptc]

Rachel 1-2 3;5 0 ;4-0 ;9 - - - - - Rachel 3-6 1 ;0-1 ;7 - - 1/1 (1)/1 4/4 Tony 4 ;5 2 - 0/2 1/1 - Patrick 1-2 4;8 1 ;7-2 ;4 - - 3/3 - - Patrick 3-4 2 ;7-3 ;0 - 3 5/5 2/2 0/3 Viola 1 6;4 0 ;7 1 - - 0/1 - Viola 2-5 1 ;4-2 ;3 - - - 6/6 - Viola 6 2 ;4 1 1/1 2/2 0/1 Hannes 1-2 6;6 0 ;7-1 ;4 - 2 3/3 1/1 0/2 Hannes 4-5 2 ;0-2 ;3 - 3 - 7 3/6 Hannes 6-7 2 ;4-2 ;7 - - 9/9 3 10/10 Valentine 1-3 6;7 0 ;7-1 ;7 3 3 6/6 8/8 3/6 Valentine 4-6 2 ;3 - 4 5/5 3/4 3/6 Valentine 7 2 ;4 - - 4/4 5/5 4/4

*Je vois le

*J’ai le vu Je l’ai vu


Summary: Distribution of Object Pronouns

• L1– Frequent use of positions from all three stages– Also in the youngest child Chloé (4;x)– Corroborating findings in the literature

• 2L1– In between aL2 and cL2– Occurrences of incorrect intermediate position (*J’ai le vu)– Development over the data collection period

• cL2– Exclusive initial use of the *V CL (*je vois le) position (5/6 children)– Development following the aL2 developmental sequence– Reaches Stage 3 in 2-3 years

• cL2 with different AOs – Rachel (AO 3;4) does, at least not so far, display evidence of the aL2

developmental sequence– Rachel uses Stage 3 structure (je l’ai vu) in conversation but not in the test

(cf. above)


Prosodic / Morpho-phonological Properties

• Clitics are [- word accent] and [+ restructuration]• Elision of pronouns and determiners might be considered a

specific case of restructuration.– Je # essaie > J’essaie / le # école > l’école

• Elision is ”a good diagnostic of clitic status” (Herschensohn, 2001: 292)

• In adult L2 G&S found an initial correlation between the syntactic non-clitic properties of object and subject pronouns and the absence of elision.


RESULTcL2: Elision of pronouns and determiners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Rachel 1

-2

Rachel 3

-6Ton

y

Patric

k 1-2

Patric

k 3-4

Viola

1

Viola

2-5

Viola

6

Hannes

1-2

Hannes

4-5

Hannes

6-7

Valent

ine 1

-3

Valent

ine 4

Valent

ine 7

Raw

No

of

Occ

s.

Elided

Not elided


RESULTcL2: Elision as a function of object clitic stages

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

% i

n o

bli

gat

ory

co

nte

xts

Not elided

Elided

*Je vois le *J’ai le vu / Je veux le voir / Je le vois

Je l’ai vu


Summary: Prosodic/Morpho-phonological properties (elision)

• cL2• There seems to be a strong and systematic correlation between

the object clitic stages and and the development of elision • Possible interpretation: The restructuration property preceeds

and might act as trigger for syntactic cliticisation.• cL2 with different AOs:

– Rachel is again different in not displaying any clear occurrences of non-elided subject pronouns and determiners.


Semantic / Referential properties

• Clitic doubling (Le chat il monte)

• Young (2)L1 children almost obligatory double lexical DP subjects (Meisel, 1990, Pierce, 1992, Kaiser, 1994, Ferdinand, 1996, Hamann et al. 1996, Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004 among others)

• Adult L2 learners do not double lexical DP subjects to any great extent (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004)

• BUT: In somewhat older L1 French children subject clitic doubling tend to disappear and become more restricted to certain referential functions (Hickmann & Hendriks, 1999, Jisa, 2000)

• Consequences: important to take into consideration– Relevant L1 baseline data at the age of 5-7 years– The referential functions of clitic doubling at the relevant ages


The Cat StoryExample: L1 Félicie (5;5)

• *CHI: il y a une maman # oiseau .• *AS2: mhm .• *CHI: qui a fait naître ses ## bébés .• *CHI: et après elle [MA] s ' envole .• *CHI: et puis il y a un chat qui vient .• *CHI: et puis le chat il [MA] regarde en l ' air .• *CHI: et puis il [MA] grimpe .• *CHI: et puis le chien il [INTR] voit sa queue .• *CHI: et puis le chien il attrappe [MA] la queue du chat .• *CHI: et puis sa [//] la maman [oie] oiseau elle [REIN] revient• avec un ver de terre pour nourrir euh ses [//] les [//] ses enfants .• *CHI: et puis après elle [MA]LE donne pour l ' en [//] à ses enfants .• *CHI: et puis le chat et le chien il [REIN] part .

MA = Referent MAintenance

REIN = Referent REINtroduction


”This confirms the suggestion of Hickmann & Hendriks (1999) that NOUN+PRO becomes specialized to REIN contexts for the five- and seven-year olds” (Jisa, 2000: 611)

Referential expressions: Reference MAINTENANCE (Jisa, 2000)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

5-year olds 7-year olds 10-year olds

% o

f d

iffe

ren

t ca

teg

ori

es

Other

Noun

DP+Pro

Pro

Referential expressions: Reference REINTRODUCTION (Jisa, 2000)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

5-year olds 7-year olds 10-year olds

% o

f d

iffe

ren

t ca

teg

ori

es

Other

Noun

DP+Pro

Pro


RESULT (preliminary)L1, 2L1 & cL2: Referential expressions

Referential expressions: Reference MAINTENANCE

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

L1 - Felicie 2L1 -Louise

cL2 -Patrick 1

cL2 -Patrick 4

cL2 -Hannes 1

cL2 -Hannes 4

% o

f d

iffe

ren

t ca

teg

ori

es

Other

DP

DP+Pro

Pro

Referential expressions: Reference REINTRODUCTION

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

L1 - Felicie 2L1 -Louise

cL2 -Phillipe 1

cL2 -Phillipe 4

cL2 -Hannes 1

cL2 -Hannes 4

% o

f d

iffe

ren

t ca

teg

ori

es

Other

DP

DP+Pro

Pro

cL2: Hardly any DP+Pro expressions in the functions of reference MAINTENANCE or REINTRODUCTION


Is Rachel Different (again)? (AO 3;5)

a. *INV: où est ce qu ' ils sont les petits oiseaux ?*INV: là .*CHI: il chat il [REIN] mange ça .*INV: oui le chat il voudrait bien manger les oiseaux . b.*INV: et après qu+est+ce+qui se passe là ?*CHI: maman il [REIN] arrive .*INV: la maman arrive . c.*INV: pourquoi ils courent ?*CHI: il [//] la chien il [REIN] veut prendre la chat dans la +...*INV: dans la queue . d.*ASS: et là le chat grimpe .*CHI: mais le chien il [REIN] prend le chat dans la +// .*ASS: oui il prend dans la queue . *ASS: il prend le chat dans la queue .


Summary: Semantic / Referential properties (clitic doubling)

• cL2– The children practically never use clitic doubling in REIN

function– Instead they use DPs and pronouns

• cL2 with different AOs– Rachel might again be different in using clitic doubling but

further analysis is needed


Syntax[- VP at spell-out]

Cliticisation

Semantics /

Referential properties

Clitic doubling

Prosody / Morpho-phonology

Restructuration(elision)

cL2

A0 >4 y

Adult L2

> 3 years Important variation No real development

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Very sharp increase preceeding stage 2

1-2 yearsIntervening age factor

Passed this stage?


DISCUSSIONTentative conclusions (I)• Initial stage:• cL2 (with AO above 4) = aL2

– cL2 is the only group with post-verbal clitics– Systematic absence of elision in the initial stage– Interpretation: no cliticisation and a transfer effect (Swedish

has strong/weak pronouns)• Development:• cL2 (with AO above 4) shows some ressemblance to (2)L1

– cL2 shows clustering effects (morpho-phonology & syntax)– cL2 seems to develop faster than aL2– BUT: cL2 still follow the adult developmental sequence (object

clitics) – presumably as an effect of the initial stage.


Tentative conclusions (II)

Furthermore:– cL2 with AO below 4 years might, in fact, be different both

wrst the initial stage and to development thus confirming Meisel’s age ranges (2008) (cf. Rachel). More children are with AO below 4 need to be investigated.

– BUT: The 2L1 children in this study are qualitatively different from the ones previously studied (Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004) and in some areas they look more like the cL2 children. Further research is needed here.


• Thank You!


RESULTL1 vs. 2L1: Production in elicitation task

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Chloé

1 (4

;x)

Gas

pard

1 (5

;x)

Lucie

1 (5

;5)

Noa 1

(5;5

)

Lars

1 (5

;9)

Lars

3 (7

;0)

Loui

se 1

(5;9

)

Loui

se 3

(7;0

)

Linn

ea 1

(5;9

)

Linn

ea 3

(7;0

)

Raw

No

of

Occ

s.

Pronoun

DP+ca

Omission

No resp.

L1 children 2L1 children

Lower Proficiency Group

Documents

Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University [email protected]