Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:35:26.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object pronouns, clitics, and omissions in child Polish and Ukrainian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2015

ROKSOLANA MYKHAYLYK  and
ALDONA SOPATA
ROKSOLANA MYKHAYLYK*
Affiliation:
Harvard University and Arctic University of Norway
ALDONA SOPATA
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Roksolana Mykhaylyk, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, 34 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Polish and Ukrainian pattern together syntactically in allowing various omissions in the same discourse settings, for example, when the referring element has been mentioned in a previous context. However, Ukrainian employs full object pronouns morphologically, whereas Polish uses clitics in the same environments. We exploit this contrast to compare the acquisition of clitics versus full pronouns, enriching previous accounts of omissions in child speech. The results of an elicited production experiment reveal that, in the two languages considered, 3- to 6-year-old children make no errors in direct object realization, but prefer to use null arguments up to the age of 5. It is crucial that there is no obvious difference between the acquisition patterns for clitics versus pronouns, which suggests that the morphophonological properties of direct objects are not primary predictors of object realization in languages that allow discourse-related omissions.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 1051 - 1082
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483–521.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bar Shalom, E., & Snyder, W. (1998). Root infinitives in child Russian: A comparison with Italian and Polish. In Shillcock, R., Sorace, A., & Heycock, C. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing. Proceedings of GALA ’97. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, H. (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Castilla, A., & Pérez-Leroux, A. (2010). Omissions and substitutions in Spanish object clitics: Developmental optionality as a property of the representational system. Language Acquisition, 17, 2–25.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1985). The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 687–782). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Costa, J., Lobo, M., & Silva, C. (2012). Which category replaces an omitted clitic? The case of European Portuguese. In Larranaga, P. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (Eds.), Pronouns and clitics in early language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1994). On the “underspecification” of functional categories in early grammars. In Lust, B., Suñer, M., & Whitman, J. (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 119–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (2007). Acquisition at the prosody–morphology interface. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 7 (GALANA) (pp. 84–91). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Długosz-Kurczabowa, K., & Dubisz, S. (2001). Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Franks, S., & Holloway King, T. (2000). A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frolova, A. (2014). Développement de la transitivité verbale en acquisition du russe langue maternelle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Fukumura, K., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2011). The effects of animacy in the choice of referring expressions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1472–1504.Google Scholar
Gavarró, A., Torrens, V., & Wexler, K. (2010). Object clitic omission: Two language types. Language Acquisition, 17, 192–219.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. (1994). A metrical template account of children's weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language, 21, 565–584.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Language, 72, 683–712.Google Scholar
Gordishevsky, G., & Avrutin, S. (2004). Optional omissions in an optionally null subject language. In Van Kampen, J. & Baauw, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003 (Vol. 1, pp. 187–198). Utrecht: Netherlands National Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2006). Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., & Crago, M. (2012). Object clitics and their omission in child L2 French: The contributions of processing limitations and L1 transfer. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 531–549.Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R., & Wróbel, H. (1998). Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Frauenfelder, U. (1996). On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative approaches to language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Les enclitics slaves. In R. Jakobson, Selected writings (Vol. 2, pp. 16–22). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. (Original work published 1935)Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Müller, N., Kang, O., Riemer, B., & Rigaut, C. (1996). On the acquisition of the pronominal system in French and German. In Springfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 373–385). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Müller, N., Riemer, B., & Rigaut, C. (1997). The case of subject and object omissions in French and German. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 331–342). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (2003). Why accusative clitics are avoided in normal and impaired language development. In Jakubowicz, C., Nash, L., & Wexler, K. (Eds.), Essays in syntax, morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., Nash, L., Rigaut, C., & Christophe-Loic, G. (1998). Determiners and clitic pronouns in French-speaking children with SLI. Language Acquisition, 7, 113–160.Google Scholar
Kayama, Y. (2003). L1 acquisition of Japanese zero pronouns: The effect of discourse factors. In Burelle, S. & Somesfalean, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/2003/ Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kowaluk, A. (1999). Null objects in Polish: Pronouns and determiners in second language acquisition. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics, 6, 135–152.Google Scholar
Lleó, C., & Demuth, K. (1999). Prosodic constraints on the emergence of grammatical morphemes: Crosslinguistic evidence from Germanic and Romance languages. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., & Tano, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 407–418). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Łuczyński, E. (2004). Kategoria przypadka w ontogenezie języka polskiego czyli o wchodzeniu dziecka w rzeczywistość gramatyczną;. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo UG.Google Scholar
Müller, N., & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1–21.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R. (2012a). Factors contributing to child scrambling: Evidence from Ukrainian. Journal of Child Language, 39, 553–579.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R. (2012b). Syntactic variability and selective spell-out. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB), September 5–8, Manchester.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R., Rodina, Y., & Anderssen, M. (2013). Ditransitive constructions in Russian and Ukrainian: Effect of givenness on word order. Lingua, 137, 271–289.Google Scholar
Nagórko, A. (1996). Zarys gramatyki polskiej. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Pirvulescu, M., & Roberge, Y. (2008). Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon. Lingua, 118, 370–398.Google Scholar
Saloni, Z., & Świdziński, M. (1985). Składnia współczesnego języka polskiego. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Schmitz, K., & Müller, N. (2008). Strong and clitic pronouns in monolingual and bilingual acquisition of French and Italian. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 19–41.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2008). The role of discourse and perceptual cues in the choice of referential expressions in English preschoolers, school-age children, and adults. Language Learning and Development, 4, 309–332.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2013). The role of number of referents and animacy in children's use of pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 31–42.Google Scholar
Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian . In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G. (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 947–998). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silva, C. (2010). Asymmetries in the acquisition of different types of clitics in European Portuguese. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., Gavarro, A., & Gutierrez, J. (Eds.), Movement and clitics: Adult and child grammar (pp. 361–388). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Skarabela, B. (2007). The role of social cognition in early syntax: The case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Skarabela, B., Allen, S., & Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2013). Joint attention helps explain why children omit new arguments. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 5–14.Google Scholar
Smoczyńska, M. (1985). The acquisition of Polish. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 595–686). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smoczyński, P. (1955). Przyswajanie przez dziecko podstaw systemu językowego. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Sopata, A. (2008). Funktionale Kategorien im Erwerb des Deutschen und des Polnischen als Erstsprache. Convivium, Germanistisches Jahrbuch Polen (pp. 405–432). Bonn: DAAD.Google Scholar
Sopata, A. (2010). The acquisition of negation in early child Polish. Linguistics Applied, 2/3, 153–173.Google Scholar
Szuman, S. (Ed.) (1968). O rozwoju języka i myślenia dziecka. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, R. (2009). Acquisition at the interfaces: A case study on object clitics in early Italian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Thrift, E. (2003). Object drop in the L1 acquisition of Dutch. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Tryzna, M. (2007). Root infinitives in early child Polish: The syntactic and interpretative properties. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I.-H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31tst Annual Boston University Conference of Language Development (pp. 632–643). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tryzna, M. (2009). Acquisition of object clitics in child Polish: A deficiency at the syntax–pragmatics interface or evidence for D-linking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Tsakali, V., & Wexler, K. (2004). Why children omit clitics in some languages but not in others: New evidence from Greek. In van Kampen, J. & Baauw, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003 (pp. 493–504). Utrecht: Netherlands National Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C. T., & Levitt, A. (1992). Null subject versus null object: Some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language Acquisition, 2, 221–254.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., Gavarro, A., & Torrens, V. (2004). Feature checking and clitic omission in child Catalan and Spanish. In Bok-Bennema, R., Hollebrandse, B., Kampers-Mahne, B., & Sleeman, P. (Eds.), Romance language and linguistic theories: Selected papers from Going Romance 2002 (pp. 253–269). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. (1998). The syntax of clitics: Steps towards a minimalist account. Poznań: Motivex.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, H. (2012). L'emploi des pronoms personnels en polonaise (par contraste avec le russe et le français. Revue des etudes slaves, 83, 617–648.Google Scholar
Zesiger, P., Zesiger, L., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Franck, J., et al. (2010). The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 571–603.Google Scholar