2.1. Recursivity and Complexity in Language Acquisition
When addressing the question of how children’s utterances increase in complexity with age, the issue of determining what is complex naturally arises. Although researchers do not all agree on its nature (
McWhorter 2011;
Culicover 2013;
Newmeyer and Preston 2014;
Roeper and Speas 2014;
Trotzke and Bayer 2015), they mostly agree that embedding, including self-embedding, increases complexity (
Culicover and Jackendoff 2006;
Givón 2009).
Watumull et al. (
2014) state that “the grammars of all natural languages are recursive” (p. 1) and that syntactic constituents are built recursively “in a stepwise strongly generative process creating increasing complexity” (p. 6). Recursive structures are the result of repeated applications of Merge operations and it follows that structures built through similar derivational steps should all be similarly complex. In other words, given the architectural and universal nature of recursion, any cap on recursion that might be observed in output structures whether in children or adults must be attributable to arbitrary external factors. We follow the general approach outlined in
Bejar et al. (
forthcoming) according to which “because recursive iterations of Merge can result in different varieties of recursively embedded output structures, some structural elaborations [may] turn out to be more complex than others.”
If the challenge of recursion lies in the narrow syntax operations involved in the derivation of phrases and sentences, i.e., with applications of Merge, then we expect recursive structures to be equally complex across languages with comparable constructions. Stated differently, given the universality of Merge, we do not expect to find cross-linguistic differences in how difficult recursion is for children. This is our Null Hypothesis, which predicts that there should be no relevant differences between languages in the L1 acquisition process.
If, on the other hand, the challenging nature of recursion stems from factors which might differ from language to language (e.g., properties of specific lexical items or differences in constructions), then we expect different developmental outcomes across languages. This Alternative Hypothesis makes the prediction that the observed difficulties will differ between languages. In the present study, this Alternative Hypothesis is explored in the context of two properties where English and French NPs differ: uniformity of branching directionality in nominal modification, and the kinds of strategies allowed to embed nominal modifiers (relativization, prepositional modification are present in both, but only English relies on case morphology for possession). We will return to this in our presentation of hypotheses.
2.2. French Determiner Phrases
Turning now to our empirical domain, there is essentially no published work dealing in any relevant detail with modification of N by PPs in French. Previous research is mainly concerned with the semantics of French prepositions ((
Vandeloise 1991) for instance) and complements in
à ‘to’ and
de ‘of’ ((
Godard 1988;
Abeillé et al. 2003) for instance). For this reason, we provide a basic description of the structures at stake.
Simple Determiner Phrases (DP) in French are structured as follows:
For our present purpose, the fine-grained functional architecture within and above NP does not matter; what is of interest is the potential expansion of the structure through embedding, typically used to restrict the description of the set denoted by the head Noun. Two possibilities arise: complementation as in (3), where the complement is semantically selected by N, or adjunction as in (4), where the added constituent simply modifies the head Noun.
3. | L’ | auteur | de | ce roman |
| the | author | of | this novel |
| [DP [D l’] | [NP [N auteur | [PP [P de] | [DP ce roman]]]] |
| ‘The author of this novel.’ |
4. | a. | L’ | auteur | dont | j’ | ai | lu | tous | les | romans |
| | the | author | of-whom | I | have | read | all | the | novels |
| | [DP [D l’] | [NP [N auteur] | [CP dont | j’ | ai | lu | tous | les | romans]]] |
| | ‘The author of-whom I have read all the novels.’ |
| | |
| b. | L’ | auteur | avec | plusieurs | titres | sur | la | 1ère |
| | the | author | with | several | titles | on | the | 1st |
| | [DP [D l’] | [NP [N auteur] | [PP [P avec] | [DP plusieurs | titres | [PP [P sur] | [DP la | 1ère |
| | guerre mondiale | | | | | |
| | world war | | | | | |
| | guerre mondiale]]]]]] | | | | | |
| | ‘The author with several titles on the 1st world war.’ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Crucially, the number of modifiers is potentially unlimited:
5. | Un auteur avec plusieurs titres sur les soldats qui ont combattu dans les tranchées près de Passendale vers la fin de la 1ère guerre mondiale … |
| An author with several titles on the soldiers who have fought in the trench near Passchendaele towards the end of the 1st world war … |
Our study is restricted to DPs that include PP modifiers (not complements). In terms of the internal structure of the expanded DP, we must distinguish between recursive multiple modification and sequential multiple modification. In the first case, each nominal added to the DP modifies the noun immediately dominating it (6), while in the other they all modify the head Noun (7).
6. | La | personne | avec | un | bébé | dans | une | poussette |
| the | person | with | a | baby | in | a | stroller |
| [DP [D la] | [NP [N personne] | [PP [P avec] | [DP un | bébé | [PP [P dans ] | [DP une | poussette ]]]]]] |
| ‘The person with a baby in a stroller’ |
7. | Le | vase | avec | des | fleurs | sur | le | coin | de | la |
| the | vase | with | some | flowers | on | the | corner | of | the |
| [DP [D le] | [NP [N vase] | [PP [P avec] | [DP des | fleurs]] | [PP [P sur] | [DP le | coin | de | la |
| cheminée | | | | | | | | |
| fireplace | | | | | | | | |
| cheminée ]]]] | | | | | | | | |
| ‘The vase with some flowers on the corner of the fireplace.’ |
Note that (6) and (7) are ambiguous when taken in isolation but a context would serve to disambiguate them. A variety of prepositions are allowed to embed DP internal modifiers (avec ‘with’, sur ‘on’, etc.), but the polysemous prepositions de ‘of’ and à ‘to’ are very common and srve to establish different semantic relations, including purpose (table à manger ‘dining table’), theme (peinture de fleurs ‘painting of flowers’), kinship (soeur d’Elmo ‘sister of Elmo’), ownership (le sac de la fille ‘the bag of the girl’), etc. Since the focus of this paper is on doubly modified DPs, we will use the terms sequential double modification (SDM) and recursive double modification (RDM).
2.3. The Acquisition of Determiner Phrase Structure in Child French
The acquisition of the DP in child French has been described as a gradual process (
Panneman 2007;
Bassano et al. 2008). According to
Pannemann (
2007), DP-internal elements emerge in the following order: bare nouns > determiner with nouns > pre-nominal adjectives > post-nominal adjectives. At the initial stage thus, nominal structures consist primarily of bare nouns; and article use is optional (
Prévost 2009). By two and a half years, determiners are systematically present. In the work presented in
Demuth and Tremblay (
2008), young French-speaking children employed determiners at one year and a half, and they produced more than 82% of determiners between the ages of 2;3 to 2;5. Errors in DP production are common and include determiner omission, gender and number agreement, and overuse of definite articles (
Clark 1986;
Frechette and Labelle 2007;
Pannemann 2007;
Bassano et al. 2008;
Demuth and Tremblay 2008;
Prévost 2009). These errors persist longer with more complex structures, according to
Royle and Valois (
2010).
By age three, children already employ a range of determiners regularly. In data from the spontaneous speech of 60 children aged from one year and six months (1;6) to 3;4,
Bassano et al. (
2008) identified many types of determiners, including indefinite (
un gâteau ‘a cake’) and definite articles (
le chat ‘the cat’), possessive (
mon, ma ‘my’,
leur ‘their’), demonstrative adjectives (
ce,
cette ‘this’;
ces ‘these’) and other types of determiners, such as numeral (
deux ‘two’,
trois ‘three’), interrogative (
quelle ‘which’), and indefinite (
plusieurs ‘many, several’,
autre ‘other’,
même ‘same’,
tout/toute/tous ‘whole, all’). However, possessives, demonstrative adjectives, and other determiners remained rare (approximately 10% for possessives, and less than one percent for other types). In addition,
Bassano et al. (
2008) reported an increase in contrastive uses of a given noun without determiner or with different determiners between ages 1;8 and 3;3.
The production of modified DP increases between ages three and five, but remains low in relation to the production of simple DPs.
Royle and Stine (
2012) compared SLI children to typically developing MLU-matched children (mean age 3;9; range 3;2–4;8) and age-matched children (mean age 5;6; range 4;10–5;11). They classified DPs as simple if they consisted of common noun and determiner (
un chien ‘a dog’) or proper nouns (
grandpapa Gilles ‘grandpa Gilles’), or N plus P (
d’place ‘of room’). Complex DPs included a noun with a determiner and an adjective (
un bouchon vert ‘a green plug’), a noun with a determiner and a prepositional phrase (
les arbres (dans les arbres) dans les branches ‘the trees (in the trees) in the branches’), and an adjective with an omitted noun (
la rouge ‘the red (one)’).
Royle and Stine (
2012) found that even within this age range, most production consisted of simple DPs (78% for the younger group, and 70% for the older children). Older children were fully productive with the various types of complex DPs, mostly with adjectives. PP modification made up 3% and 5% of the production of younger and older children, respectively.
According to
Pannemann (
2007), children start to use pre-nominal adjectives at 1;8 (mean age of first use = 23 months) but post-nominal adjectives emerge a few months later (mean age of first use = 25 months).
Valois and Royle (
2009) reported that DPs overtly containing a determiner, a noun, and an adjective appear in spontaneous production between ages 2;1–2;4 but are rare (less than 1% of all occurrences of DPs).
Royle and Valois (
2010) examined the acquisition of colour and size adjectives by francophone children from 3;1 to 4;11 years in a puzzle-based elicited production study. Even the youngest children used adjective-modified DPs, and they observed an increasing ability with age to produce appropriate adjectives. One of the elicitation conditions targeted combinations of size and colour adjectives (i.e.,
la grosse maison blanche ‘the big white house’). By 3;5 such doubly modified adjectival structures were used at 80%, and the rate increased to 90% at 3;6.
The first possessive constructions are attested around age two. Interestingly, these primarily take the form of non-target analytic structures that include a preposition (
à or
de) and a pronoun instead of the target possessive determiners, which appear at a later age (
Clark 1986;
Aimard 1996), as in (8):
8. | la | cuiller | de | moi | |
| the | spoon | of | me | (instead of ma cuiller ‘my spoon’) |
| ‘my spoon’ | (1;11) (Clark 1986, p. 730) |
| | | | | | |
Children also produce target-like instance of DPs with possession, such as (9) below, where the object of the preposition is lexical.
Relativization appears early in the spontaneous speech of two-year-old francophone children, initially in the form of cleft constructions:
After three-and-a-half, relative clauses (RC) are regularly used; however, the acquisition of RCs is a long process. Developmental patterns include incorrect choices of relative pronouns (11) and frequent use of resumptive elements (12), all of which continue to be attested after 6 years (
Clark 1986;
Labelle 1990;
Fragman 1998;
Belzil 2004):
12. | sur | la | balle | qu’ | il | lance | la | balle |
| on | the | ball | that | he | throws | the | ball |
| ‘On the ball that he throws the ball.’ | (5;0) (Labelle 1990, p. 100) |
| | | | | | | | | |
Furthermore, even the RCs of school-aged French children show less diversity of forms and uses (
Jisa and Kern 1998).
In sum, the various analyses show a consistent picture in French. DP structures develop in the following sequence:
13. | Developmental sequence for French DPs |
| bare nouns > det+nouns > Adj+N > N+Adj > N+PPs > N+RC modifiers |
DPs containing one level modification (both PPs and RCs) emerge in two-year-olds, and are already established in three-year-olds. However, as observed in other languages (
Eisenberg et al. 2008;
Pérez-Leroux et al., forthcoming), nominal modification is less productive and structurally more limited in children compared to adults, even across the school years. One noteworthy characteristic of French acquisition is that children start out with the more structurally elaborated expression of possession (as PPs) rather than the simple determiner option. Although we have seen that, by the age of four, children can productively modify a noun with two adjectives, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has examined RM in DPs in the acquisition of French.
2.4. Hypotheses
French and English DPs share many characteristics. The French structures above would work equally well to describe English DPs, with one exception: the existence of the left-branching possessor construction in English, the Saxon genitive ‘-‘s’ as in (1)—Mary’s mother’s friend’s dog ran away. In French, only a right-branching structure serves to embed possessor DPs, as shown in (14).
14. | Le | chien | de | l’ | ami | de | la | mère | de | Marie | s’ | est | sauvé |
| the | dog | of | the | friend | of | the | mother | of | Mary | REFL | is | saved |
| ‘Mary’s mother’s friend’s dog ran away.’ |
If we consider then that the French DP appears to be uniformly right-branching, whereas English includes a productive, and very common, left branching structure, it is clear the input in French is more consistent. As pointed out by a reviewer though, the presence of prenominal adjectives in the French input introduces the possibility of left-branching modification. However, recursivity is what is at stake in our study and although single adjectives can appear preverbally, descriptively speaking recursion is mostly found in postnominal adjectives in French (
Roeper and Snyder 2004). In addition, according to
Laenzlinger (
2005, p. 686) “all adjectives are postnominal at some step of the derivation. Prenominalization of adjectives is obtained through subsequent AdjP movement to a specific functional projection within the determiner domain.” Consequently, we maintain that French is uniformly right-branching in the nominal domain. Returning to our research questions and hypotheses, given the centrality of input in the language acquisition process, it could be assumed that the uniformity of the input might translate as an advantage for French children and that this would come up in our results as either: (i) an initial advantage; (ii) faster development, which can be attested globally (for all forms of recursive modification); or (iii) locally (i.e., limited to possession conditions). According to
Culicover (
2013, p. 328), “complexity of processing is correlated with memory load, and uniformity of branching reduces memory load […] uniformity is computationally less complex”. From the English perspective therefore, mixed directionality might introduce an early cost that becomes apparent only in the performance of younger children.
Another potentially relevant difference between English and French involves a contrast in the choice of linking strategies for modifiers within DPs. Again, although no systematic study has examined this in detail, previous works point to a preference in French for modification via relative clauses in contexts where English opts for PPs.
Vercollier et al. (
2004, p. 241) observe that, contrary to English, French generally requires different strategies to express various modification relations; so, for instance, ‘The animals in the zoo are sick’ would be said with a relative clause (‘that are in the zoo’), an adjective or participle (‘kept in the zoo’), or the preposition
de (‘of the zoo’).
Jisa and Kern (
1998) note that RCs in French are commonly used to introduce new referents. We return to this in
Section 4.2.3.