Cliticisation in the Acquisition of Child French L2: a Cross-Learner Comparison Jonas Granfeldt Lund University jonas.granfeldt@rom.lu.se

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: The properties of L2 grammars at the end stage (ultimate attainment) (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003) The properties of L2 grammatical development 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) of adult L2 wrst syntax: Rather long utterances Functional Categories are instantiated early (determiners,pronouns, auxiliaries, subjunctions…) Shows important and general influences from the other languages (L1 or other L2s) Initial stage(s) in (2)L1 wrst syntax: Short utterances Functional Categories are not instantiated (absence of determiners, pronouns, auxiliaries, lack of case marking etc.) 2L1 shows limited and specfic influence from the other language(s)

Initial Stage(s) and Development in (2)L1 and Adult L2 (II) Grammatical development in (2)L1 : Stages of development Uniform & Principled (route & rate & end) 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: Stages of development (but not necessarily the same as in (2)L1) Individual differences & variation (especially rate & end)  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: When does (2)L1 acquisition stop and (adult) L2 acquisition begin? Which linguistic areas are affected? 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 Questions We 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 Sw Fr Cardinaletti & Starke (1999)

The French Structures (syntactic cliticisation)

Cliticisation [Le chat [il monte Le bébé il peut pas Syntax [- VP at spell-out] *[IP Elle croit [VPla]] [IPElle lai croit [VPti]] Morpho-phonology Restructuration (elision) j’essaie vs *je (#) essaie l’école vs *le école Semantics / Referential properties Subject Clitic doubling [Le chat [il monte Le bébé il peut pas (2)L1 Sw./Fr Adult L2 L1 = Sw. > 3 years of immersion Important variation No real development Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004

METHOD Data 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

METHOD Object 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

METHOD Object Clitics Elicitation: Procedure *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 Lower Proficiency Group

RESULT (Detail) cL2: : Production in elicitation task 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 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) Adult L2: Developmental sequence of object clitics (Towell & Hawkins, 1994, Granfeldt & Schlyter, 2004, Hamann & Belletti, 2008..) 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

RESULT L1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

RESULT 2L1: Distribution of object pronouns (all data)

RESULT cL2: Distribution of object pronouns (all data) *J’ai le vu Je l’ai vu *Je vois le

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.

RESULT cL2: Elision of pronouns and determiners

RESULT cL2: Elision as a function of object clitic stages *J’ai le vu / Je veux le voir / Je le vois *Je vois le 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 Story Example: 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)

RESULT (preliminary) L1, 2L1 & cL2: Referential expressions cL2: Hardly any DP+Pro expressions in the functions of reference MAINTENANCE or REINTRODUCTION

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

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Cliticisation Prosody / Morpho-phonology Restructuration (elision) Syntax [- VP at spell-out] Semantics / Referential properties Clitic doubling Adult L2 > 3 years Important variation No real development cL2 A0 >4 y Very sharp increase preceeding stage 2 Intervening age factor Passed this stage? 1-2 years

DISCUSSION Tentative 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!

RESULT L1 vs. 2L1: Production in elicitation task L1 children 2L1 children Lower Proficiency Group