Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 7–30 | Cite as

On the Asymmetrical Difficulty of Acquiring Person Reference in French: Production Versus Comprehension



Young French children freely produce subject pronouns by the age of 2. However, by age 2 and a half they fail to interpret 3rd person pronouns in an experimental setting designed to select a referent among three participants (speaker, hearer, and other). No such problems are found with 1st and 2nd person pronouns. We formalize our analysis of these empirical results in terms of direction-sensitive optimizations, showing that uni-directionality of optimization, when combined with non-adult-like constraint rankings, explains the general acquisition pattern of 3rd person pronouns. Building on a specific analysis of assigning 3rd person reference by computing over alternatives (Heim 1991), we show that adult interpretation does not require bidirectional OT although it is fully compatible with it. What matters for comprehension in the domain investigated here is constraint ranking.


Personal pronouns French Computing over alternatives Bidirectional OT Constraint ranking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blutner R. (2000) Some apects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brener R. (1983) Learning the deictic meaning of third person pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12(3): 235–262Google Scholar
  3. Chien Y.-C., Wexler K. (1990) Children’s knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 13: 225–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M-T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In BU proceedings (pp. 157–168).Google Scholar
  5. Clark, E. V. (1998). Lexique et syntaxe dans l’acquisition du français. In C. Martinot (Ed.), Special issue of Langue Française: l’acquisition du français langue maternelle (Vol. 118, pp. 49–60).Google Scholar
  6. Conroy A., Takahashi E., Lidz J., Phillips C. (2009) Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 446–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Culbertson J. (2010) Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86: 85–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Hoop, H. & Krämer, I. (2005/2006). Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects. Language Acquisition, 13, 103–123.Google Scholar
  9. Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S., & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur communicative development inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  10. Girouard P. C., Ricard M., Gouin Decarie T. (1997) The acquisition of personal pronouns in French-speaking and English-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 24: 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamann C., Rizzi L., Frauenfelder U. (1996) The acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In: Clahsen H. (eds) Generative perspectives on language acquisition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 309–334Google Scholar
  12. Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenoessischen Forschung. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 487–535Google Scholar
  13. Hendriks, P., de Hoop, H., & Lamers, M. (2005). Asymmetries in language use reveal asymmetries in the grammar. In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 113–118).Google Scholar
  14. Hendriks, P., Spenader, J. (2005/6). When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13, 319–348.Google Scholar
  15. Hendriks P., Hoop H., Krämer I., de Swart H., Swarts J. (2010) Conflicts in interpretation. Equinox Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Jäger G. (2002) Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional optimality theory. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 11(4): 427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakubowicz C., Rigaut C. (1997) L’acquisition des clitiques nominatifs en français. In: Zribi- Hertz A. (eds) Les pronoms: Morphologie, syntaxe, et typologie. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, Paris, pp 57–99Google Scholar
  18. Jespersen O. (1924) The philosophy of grammar. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiser G. (1994) More about INFL-ection and agreement: The acquisition of clitic pronouns in French. In: Meisel J. (eds) Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 131–159Google Scholar
  20. Kern S. (2003) Le compte-rendu parental au service de l’évaluation de la production lexicale des enfants français entre 16 et 30 mois. Glossa 85: 48–62Google Scholar
  21. Legendre G., Hagstrom P., Vainikka A., Todorova M. (2002) Partial constraint ordering in child French syntax. Language Acquisition 10: 189–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legendre G., Hagstrom P., Chen-Main J., Tao L., Smolensky P. (2004) Deriving output probabilities in child Mandarin from a Dual-Optimization grammar. Lingua 114/9-10: 1147–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legendre G., Barrière I., Goyet L., Nazzi T. (2010) Comprehension of infrequent subject–verb agreement forms: Evidence from French-learning children. Child Development 81(6): 1859–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Legendre, G., Barrière I., Goyet L., & Nazzi, T. (2011). On the acquisition of implicated presuppositions: Evidence from French personal pronouns. Selected papers from GALANA 2010 (in press).Google Scholar
  25. Legerstee M., Feider H. (1986) The acquisition of person pronouns in French-speaking children. International Journal of Psychology 21: 629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Noveck I. (2001) When children are more logical than adults. Cognition 78: 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papafragou A., Musolino J. (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the syntax-semantics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierce A. (1992) Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammars. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  30. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Technical report, Linguistics Department, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. Rutgers Optimality Archive 537.Google Scholar
  31. Sauerland U. (2008) On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Bejar S. (eds) Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57–82Google Scholar
  32. Schaeffer J., Matthewson L. (2005) Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 53–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smolensky P. (1996) On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 720–731Google Scholar
  34. Yatsushiro, K. (2008). German determiner presuppositions in first language acquisition. In H. Chan, H. Jacob & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings supplement of BUCLD (Vol. 32).Google Scholar
  35. Zeevat H. (2000) The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of Semantics 17: 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations