Chapter published in:
On the Acquisition of the Syntax of Romance
Edited by Anna Gavarró
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 62] 2018
► pp. 7–29

French experiencer verbs and the Universal Freezing Hypothesis

| McGill University
| University of Connecticut
The Universal Freezing Hypothesis (UFH) of Snyder and Hyams (2015) predicts that the developmental time course of English be-passives follows from younger children’s inability to make exceptions to the Freezing Principle, required for smuggling derivations, where mature speakers can. Recent research (Belletti & Rizzi, 2012) indicates that Object-Experiencer (OE) verbs, but not Subject-Experiencer (SE) verbs, require smuggling. We use French to test the resulting prediction of the UFH: mastery of French OE verbs should be late, after age 4, but SE verbs are mastered much earlier. Analysis of longitudinal spontaneous-speech data from 11 children acquiring French indicates that OE verbs are infrequent in children’s speech prior to age 4, while SE verbs are present earlier, usually by age 2.
Keywords: French, L1 acquisition, Relativized Minimality, experiencer verbs
Published online: 12 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.62.02bor
References

References

Alexiadou, A.
(2012) Noncanonical passives revisited: Parameters of nonactive Voice. Linguistics, 50, 1079–1110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
(1988) Incorporation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 73–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A.
(2016a) Labeling (Romance) causatives. Manuscript, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
(2016b) On the acquisition of complex derivations, with related considerations on poverty of the stimulus and frequency. Manuscript, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
(1988) Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Moving verbal chunks in the low functional field. In L. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, & C. Poletto (Eds.), Cartography of syntactic structures 7 (pp. 129–137). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bellucci, G.
(2015) Acquiring Romance causatives: Evidence from child Italian. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali, 1, 89–116.Google Scholar
Bencini, G., & Valian, V.
(2008) Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 97–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C.
(1998) A minimalist view on the passive. University of Connecticut Papers in Linguistics Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K.
(1987) The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 123–172). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borga, J., & Snyder, W.
(2018) Acquisition of French causatives: Parallels to English passives. Languages, 3, 18.Google Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1986) Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, C. C., & Larson, R. K.
(2015) Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 127–189.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C.
(2005a) A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax, 8, 81–120.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 289–298.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N.
(2006) Freezing effects. In M. Everaert, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax: Volume I (pp. 383–406). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Fodor, J. D.
(1993) Competence and performance in child language. In E. Dromi (Ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective (pp. 141–171). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Deen, K., Bondoc, I., Camp, A., Estioca, S., Hwang, H., Shin, G. -H., Takahashi, M., Zenker, F., Zhong, J. C.
(2017) Repetition brings success: Revealing knowledge of the passive voice Paper presented at BUCLD, Boston University, November 2017.Google Scholar
Demuth, K.
(1989) Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language, 65, 56–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K., & Tremblay, A.
(2008) Prosodically-conditioned variability in children’s production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language, 35, 99–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., & Harley, H.
(2007) Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v . Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 197–238 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., & Grodzinsky, Y.
(1998) Children’s passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 311–332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gehrke, B., & Grillo, N.
(2008) How to become passive. In K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features, arguments, and interpretation at the interfaces (pp. 231–268). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1990) Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T.
(1996) Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 294–313.Google Scholar
(2016) Voice alternations (active, passive, middle). In J. Lidz, W. Snyder, & J. Pater (Eds.), Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics (pp. 179–205). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Harris, F., & Flora, J.
(1982) Children’s use of get passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 297–311 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C., & Wexler, K.
(2004)  Who seems to rescue raising. Poster presented at GALANA, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, December 2004Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Martins, A. M., & Nunes, J.
(2008) Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese: Phi-feature agreement and the distribution of bare and prepositional infinitives. Syntax, 11, 198–222.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S.
(1975) French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lima Júnior, J. C., & Augusto, M. R. A.
(2015) Is ‘smuggling’ really necessary? The most recent analyses of passive sentences reconsidered in terms of phasehood and cyclic movement. ReVEL, special edition, n.9. http://​www​.revel​.inf​.br​/files​/81954df228d7a783f4f40bb33fca2a6c​.pdf
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Manetti, C.
(2013) On the production of passives in Italian: Evidence form an elicited production task and a syntactic priming study with preschool children. In S. Bainz, N. Goldman, & R. Hawkes (Eds.), BUCLD 37 Proceedings Online Supplement (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P., Fox, D., Becker, J., & Chalkley, M. A.
(1985) Semantic restrictions on children’s early passives. Cognition, 19, 167–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F.
(2011) Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children’s short and full passives. Cognition, 121(2), 268–274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, A., & Parisse, C.
(2007) Codage et interprétation du langage spontané d’enfants de 1 à 3 ans. Corpus n°6 Interprétation, contextes, codage (pp. 55–78).Google Scholar
Müller, G.
(1998) Incomplete category fronting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orfitelli, R. M.
(2012) Argument intervention in the acquisition of A-movement(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
(1995) Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D., & Frost, L.
(1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, B.
(2002) Null subjects in child French interrogatives: A view from the York Corpus. In C. D. Pusch, & W. Raible (Eds.), Romanistische Korpuslinguistik: Korpora und gesprochene Sprache Script Oralia 126 (pp. 441–452). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reed, L.
(2011)  Get-passives. The Linguistic Review, 28, 41–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(2001) Relativized minimality effects. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 89–110). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structure 3 (pp. 223–251). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R.
(1967) Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation ). MIT.Google Scholar
(1986) Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A., & Vergnaud, J. R.
(1980) Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 97–202.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1994) Passives and alternatives in children’s narratives in English, Spanish, German, and Turkish. In B. Fox, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp. 341–364). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Snyder, W.
(2007) Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Snyder, W., & Hyams, N.
(2015) Minimality effects in children’s passives. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 343–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
(2010) French reflexive se: Binding and merge locality. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001273
Turner, E. A., & Rommetveit, R.
(1967a) The acquisition of sentence voice and reversibility. Child Development, 38, 649–660.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1967b) Experimental manipulation of the production of active and passive voice in children. Language and Speech, 10, 169–180.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1999) Multiple spell-out. In S. D. Epstein, & N. Hornstein (Eds.) Working minimalism (pp. 251–282). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P.
(1980) Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L., Brown, C., Bruhn-Garavito, J., Chen, D., Hirakawa, M., & Montrul, S.
(1998) Psych verbs in second language acquisition. In E. Klein, & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 171–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar