Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 1:4 (2011) ► pp.347–390

Delayed grammatical acquisition in first language development

Subject-verb inversion and subject clitics in French interrogatives

| Department of Linguistics2500 University Drive N.W.Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
| Institute for Romance Languages and LiteraturesGrueneburgplatz 1D-60323 Frankfurt (Main), Germany
| Centre for Lifelong LearningVogt-Kölln-Straße 30, Haus ED-22527 Hamburg, Germany
Recent research comparing simultaneous and successive acquisition of bilingualism suggests that successive acquisition is affected by age-related changes possibly as early as age (of onset of acquisition) 3–4. Since children are typically exposed to colloquial varieties, the primary linguistic data can lack properties of formal varieties during early years. If, however, the acquisition of a given property is delayed until age 5 or later, the acquired knowledge may rather resemble that of L2 learners.
This happens in the acquisition of French interrogatives where certain inversion constructions do not occur in Colloquial French. Native speakers acquire them after the age of 5, and they behave like L2 learners in using or judging them. A grammaticality judgment test reveals a broad range of variability in their ratings of constructions which are ungrammatical in Standard French. Their grammar is afflicted by the kind of persistent optionality familiar from L2 acquisition.
Keywords: age of onset of acquisition, child L2 acquisition, delayed acquisition, French, optionality, grammaticality judgment, subject-verb inversion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.French interrogatives in colloquial language and in child language
    • 2.1Inversion in colloquial French
    • 2.2Child-directed speech
    • 2.3Child language
    • 2.4Characteristics of colloquial French and of early child language
  • 3.Two (or more) distinct grammars of French: Colloquial and standard French
  • 3.Acquiring more than one grammar of French
  • 4.Second language features of a native language knowledge system?
    • 4.1Methods
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.4.01mei
References (71)
References
Adli, A. (2006). French wh-in-situ questions and syntactic optionality: Evidence from three data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 251, 163–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001). The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry, 321, 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). The subject-in-situ generalization revisited. In H.M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (Eds.), Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics (pp. 107–148). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ambar, M. (2008). On some special adverbs, word order, and CP: variation vs. micro-variation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 531, 143–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and stylistic variation in spoken French: A comparative approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. (1990). Colloquial French argument-markers: Independent words, clitics, or prefixes? Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
. (1996). Subject-clitic inversion in Romance: A morphological analysis. In C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli & M.L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV (March 10–13, 1994) (pp. 23–40). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. (2004). Sociolinguistic variation in seventeenth-century France: Methodology and case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behnstedt, P. (1973). Viens-tu? Est-ce que tu viens? Tu viens? Formen und Strukturen des direkten Fragesatzes im Französischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Blinkenberg, A. (1928). L’ordre des mots en français moderne. Première partie. Copenhague: Host & Son.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2001). French complex inversion in the light of a minimalist program. In J. Camps & C.R. Wiltshire (Eds.), Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition (2161) (pp. 43–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonnesen, M. (2005). Der Erwerb der linken Satzperipherie bei Französisch/Deutsch bilingual aufwachsenden Kindern. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hamburg.
Bonnesen, M., & Meisel, J. M. (2005). Die ‘Subjekt-Verb Inversion’ in Interrogativkonstruktionen des gesprochenen Französischen: Zum Problem der syntaktischen Variation. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Deutsche Romanistik — generativ (pp. 31–48). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. A Government-Binding approach. Kluwer: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, L. (1997). Wh-in-situ phenomena in French. MA dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Confais, J. P. (1980). Grammaire explicative. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Cornulier, B. (1974). ‘Pourquoi’ et l’inversion du sujet non clitique. In C. Rohrer & N. Ruwet (Eds.), Actes du colloque franco-allemand de grammaire transformationnelle 1 (pp. 139–164). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (1990). Variation of interrogatives in spoken French: a preliminary report. In J.N. Green & W. Ayres-Bennet (Eds.), Variation and Change in French: Essays Presented to Rebecca Posner on the Occasion of her Sixtieth Birthday (pp. 116–133). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2002). Variability in spoken French. A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Bristol: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Déprez, V. (1988). Stylistic inversion and verb movement. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 51 (pp. 71–82). The Ohio State University: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Diez, F. (1882 5 ). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Drei Theile in einem Bande. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. (2000). Étude comparative des recherches sur l’inversion stylistique. Unpublished term paper, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Elsig, M., & Poplack, S. (2006). Transplanted dialects and language change: Question formation in Québec. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 121, 77–90.Google Scholar
Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 369–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedemann, M. A. (1997a). Inversion stylistique et position de base du sujet. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 421, 379–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997b). Sujets syntaxiques. Positions, inversions et pro. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (1997). La variation, plus qu’une écume. Langue Française, 1151, 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M., & Goosse, A. (2008)14. Le bon usage. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. (1996). Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. (1992). Die klitischen Personalpronomina im Französischen und Portugiesischen. Eine synchronische und diachronische Analyse. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1994). More about INFL-ection and agreement: The acquisition of clitic pronouns in French. In J.M. Meisel (Ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French and German Grammatical Development (pp. 131–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G., & Meisel, J. M. (1991). Subjekte und Null-Subjekte im Französischen. In G. Fanselow & S. Olsen (Eds.), Det, Comp und Infl: Zur Syntax funktionaler Kategorien und grammatischer Funktionen (pp. 110–136). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, M., Cyrino, S., & Corrêa, V. R. (2009). Brazilian Portuguese and the recovery of lost clitics through schooling. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist Inquiries into Child and Adult Language Acquisition (pp. 245–271). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1972). Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In J. Casagrande & B. Saciuk (Eds.), Generative Studies in Romance Languages (pp. 70–126). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S ., & Pollock, J. Y. (1978). Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and Move-NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 91, 595–621.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S., & Pollock, J. Y. (2001). New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In A. Hulk & J.-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar (pp. 107–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (1990). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köppe, R. (1994). The DUFDE Project. In J.M. Meisel (Ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French and German Grammatical Development (pp. 15–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korzen, H. (1985). Pourquoi et l’inversion finale en français. Étude sur le statut de l’adverbial de cause et l’anatomie de la construction tripartite. Copenhague: Études romanes de l’Université de Copenhague (Revue romane, numéro supplémentaire 30).Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. (2006). NP subject inversion in French: Two types, two configurations. Lingua, 1161, 424–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Querler, N. (1997). La place du sujet nominal dans les subordonées percontatives. In C. Fuchs (Ed.), La place du sujet en français contemporain (pp. 179–203). Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. P. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu, E. (2004). The mapping of form and interpretation: the case of optional WH-movement in French. Lingua, 1141, 1090–1132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point-Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language (pp. 231–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). The bilingual child. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 91–113). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2010). Age of onset in successive acquisition of bilingualism: Effects on grammatical development. In M. Kail & M. Hickman (Eds.), Language Acquisition across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 281, 5–34.Google Scholar
. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 109–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1894). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Band 2: Formenlehre. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. (1989). Operator licencing and the case of French interrogatives. In J. Fee & K. Hunt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 315–330). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In J.J. Jaeger, A.C. Woodbury, F. Ackerman, C. Chiarello, O.D. Gensler, J. Kingston, E.E. Sweetser, H. Thompson & K.W. Whitler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 157–189). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pires, A., & Rothman, J. (2009). Acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese in late childhood: Implications for syntactic theory and language change. In A. Pires & J. Rothman (Eds.), Minimalist Inquiries into Child and Adult Language Acquisition (pp. 129–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (2001). On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi (North Holland Linguistic Series. Linguistic Variations 59) (pp. 287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L., & Roberts, I. (1989). Complex Inversion in French. Probus, 11, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1986a). On doubling and null argument languages. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 161, 388–402.Google Scholar
. (1986b). Subject doubling, free inversion, and null argument languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 311, 55–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax. A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. A. Under revision. The significance of word order in the early absence of the French negative marker ne: a reply to Martineau. In R. Ingham & P. Larrivée (Eds.), Cycles of Grammaticalization. Under consideration by Mouton de Gruyter (New York, Berlin).
Sorace, A. (2000). Syntactic optionality in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 61, 93–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. A. (1978). What was there before there was there. In D. Farkas, W.M. Jacobsen & K.W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 458–471). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Suppes, P., Smith, R., & Leveillé, M. (1973). The French syntax of a child’s noun phrases. Archives de Psychologie, 421, 207–269.Google Scholar
Valois, D., & Dupuis, F. (1992). The status of verbal traces: The case of French stylistic inversion. In P. Hirschbühler & K. Koerner (Eds.), The Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory: Papers from the 20th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 325–338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vecchiato, S. (2000). The TI/TU interrogative morpheme in Québec French. Generative Grammar in Geneva, 11, 141–163.Google Scholar
Vinet, M. T. (2000). Feature representation and -tu(pas) in Québec French. Studia Linguistica, 541, 381–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Wind, J. M. (1995). Inversion in French. Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 15.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2011). Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: Quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques. Journal of French Language Studies, 211, 231–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Wang, Jia
2023. Discussion. In Interfaces and Features in Second Language Acquisition, ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Hermas, Abdelkader
2022. D-linked and non-d-linkedwh-questions in L2 French and L3 English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:3 ► pp. 723 ff. DOI logo
Chilla, Solveig, Cornelia Hamann, Philippe Prévost, Lina Abed Ibrahim, Sandrine Ferré, Christophe dos Santos, Racha Zebib & Laurice Tuller
2021. The influence of different first languages on LITMUS nonword-repetition and sentence repetition in second language French and second language German. In Language Impairment in Multilingual Settings [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 29], ► pp. 228 ff. DOI logo
De Houwer, Annick
2021. Bilingual Development in Childhood, DOI logo
Dudley, Amber & Roumyana Slabakova
2021. L2 Knowledge of the Obligatory French Subjunctive: Offline Measures and Eye Tracking Compared. Languages 6:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Rothman, Jason & Roumyana Slabakova
2018. THE GENERATIVE APPROACH TO SLA AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN SECOND LANGUAGE STUDIES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:2 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Adli, Aria
2017. Variation in style. In Language Variation - European Perspectives VI [Studies in Language Variation, 19], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
FLORES, CRISTINA, ANA LÚCIA SANTOS, ALICE JESUS & RUI MARQUES
2017. Age and input effects in the acquisition of mood in Heritage Portuguese. Journal of Child Language 44:4 ► pp. 795 ff. DOI logo
BALON, LAURENT & PIERRE LARRIVÉE
2016. L’ancien français n’est déjà plus une langue à sujet nul–nouveau témoignage des textes légaux. Journal of French Language Studies 26:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts
2016. Parameter typology from a diachronic perspective. In Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 234], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Larrivée, Pierre, Marie Skrovec, F. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M.-H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2016. Les relatives en français vernaculaire. SHS Web of Conferences 27 ► pp. 14008 ff. DOI logo
Larrivée, Pierre
2014. The continuity of the vernacular. In The Diachrony of Negation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 160], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Slabakova, R., T. L. Leal & J. Liskin-Gasparro
2014. We Have Moved On: Current Concepts and Positions in Generative SLA. Applied Linguistics 35:5 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo
Slabakova, Roumyana
2013. Adult second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3:1 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
KUPISCH, TANJA
2012. Specific and generic subjects in the Italian of German–Italian simultaneous bilinguals and L2 learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15:4 ► pp. 736 ff. DOI logo
MEISEL, JÜRGEN M.
2011. Parametric variation in acquisition and diachronic change: A response to the commentaries. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Meisel, Jürgen M.
2014.  On timing in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4:3 ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo
Meisel, Jürgen M.
2017. Bilingual Acquisition. In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.