Salazar Orvig

FIRST
LANGUAGE
Article
Dialogical factors in toddlers

use of clitic pronouns
First Language
30(3-4) 375402
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142723710379957
http://fla.sagepub.com
Anne Salazar Orvig
Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Sorbonne Paris Cit
Hayde Marcos
CNRS, France
Aliyah Morgenstern
Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Sorbonne Paris Cit
Rouba Hassan
Universit de Lille 3, France
Jocelyne Leber-Marin and Jacques Pars

EA 1483 - RFC
Abstract
Young (1;92;4) childrens use of third person clitic subject pronouns in natural dialogues
was examined in both longitudinal and cross-sectional data. Considering that young
children mainly use pronouns in the context of referential continuity, this study aims
at identifying some of the factors that affect this use. Two possible dialogical factors
are examined: (1) the use of clitic pronouns can be interpreted as a reproduction of
the adults discourse, either by taking up whole utterances containing a pronoun or by
taking up only the clitic pronouns without reproducing the adults utterance. (2) The
use of pronouns could be driven by pragmatic-discursive factors. In order to assess
this hypothesis the use of clitic pronouns was observed in the context of dialogical
continuity. Three kinds of links were considered: children repeat or reformulate the
adults utterances, add a new predication on the same topic, or establish a contrast.
The results suggest that the reproduction of the adults utterance does not significantly
Corresponding author:
Anne Salazar Orvig, Institut de Linguistique et Phontique Gnrales et Appliques, Universit Sorbonne
Nouvelle Paris 3, 19 rue des Bernardins, 75005 Paris, France.
Email: anne.salazar-orvig@univ-paris3.fr
Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 24, 2016
376
First Language 30(3-4)
influence childrens use of pronouns, whereas pragmatic-discursive factors are found to

affect their choice of referential expressions.
Keywords
anaphora, clitic pronouns, dialogue, pragmatic-discursive factors, toddlers language,
topic maintenance
The study of childrens early uses of third person clitic pronouns is a domain in which the
morpho-syntactic and pragmatic-discursive levels are closely intertwined. Various studies
on the use of referential expressions highlight the sensitivity of young children to
pragmatic features such as referent accessibility and its mention in previous discourse,
showing that the pragmatic-discursive level is constitutive of emergent grammar.
The purpose of the present research is to examine two competing factors that can be
proposed to explain the use of third person clitic pronouns by French-speaking children
in a dialogical context. Two main questions are addressed: (1) is the adults discourse the
model for the childs utterance and/or (2) does the use of pronouns respond to a pragmaticdiscursive choice by the child?
The acquisition of clitic pronouns

French presents a double series of personal pronouns: clitic pronouns and tonic pronouns. Clitic pronouns, which are characterized by their prefixal and unstressed position,
are used as subjects (je, tu, il, elle, on, nous, vous, ils, elles), or direct and indirect objects
(me, te, le, lui, nous, vous, les, leur). Tonic pronouns (moi, toi, lui, elle, nous, vous, eux,
elles) are characterized by an autonomous and stressed position. They can reduplicate the
subject pronoun (lui, il court, as for him, he runs) and are used for all other functions.
Since it presents almost no personal verbal inflexion, spoken French is a non null subject
language. In spoken French, the subject position is preferentially filled by a clitic pronoun (Jeanjean, 1980) which can coexist with a noun (Blanche-Benveniste, Bilger,
Rouget, & Van den Eyden, 1990; Franois, 1981). This characteristic leads some authors
to consider clitic pronouns as flexional morphemes (Jakubowicz & Rigaut, 1997; but see
De Cat, 2005 for a discussion).
Previous research on French shows that clitic pronouns are acquired quite early.
Parisse and Le Normand (2000), for example, note that at around 2 years old, pronouns
already represent 8% of the linguistic units used by children (the average is about 18%
for adults). The sequences pronoun + verb are among the most frequent sequences of
syntactic categories in Parisse and Le Normands data. In a more specific study on the
acquisition of nominative clitics, Jakubowicz and Rigaut (1997) note that, in children
aged from 2;0 to 2;7, a majority of utterances include a nominative clitic with a preference for third person pronouns. However, they identify an important rate of omissions:
younger childrens use of clitic pronouns seems to be optional. Authors also stress
(Hamann, Rizzi, & Frauenfelder, 1996; Jakubowicz & Rigaut, 2000) the asymmetry
between the earlier acquisition of subject clitics and the later acquisition of object clitics.
377
Salazar et al.
Pronouns in discourse and dialogue

Studies of the acquisition of referential expressions such as determiners or pronouns
have concentrated predominantly on their use in monologue (Bennett-Kastor, 1983;
Hickmann, 2002; Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; Peterson & Dodsworth, 1991), emphasizing
both their precocious acquisition and the errors children make, especially in using pronouns to introduce new referents. In this perspective, for young children, reference might
be a deictic bottom-up process that does not suppose a discursive construction or representation independent of the situational context.
But long before children can master monological discursive genres, they experience
adults use of pronouns and determiners in various dialogic contexts. In particular, involvement in dialogue supposes the sharing of an intersubjective representation of discourse
(Salazar Orvig, 2002), which is constitutive of the anaphoric relation (Cornish, 1999;
Givn, 1995). The possibility for children to share such an intersubjective representation
has been prepared by their participation in joint attention episodes (Tomasello, 1999).
Attentional continuity which according to Bruner (1978) is at the root of the topiccomment structure is constructed through joint action and non-verbal communication.
On the other hand, studies of childrens very first utterances, during the one word stage,
show that the first verbal exchanges correspond to the beginning of shared linguistic
meaning (Veneziano, 2000, p. 239, our translation) and that children can chain two or
more turns within the same communicative intent and, most often, in continuity with the
adults discourse (Scollon, 1979). More generally, dialogue can be considered as the
framework within which children experience, acquire and use linguistic units. The first
values of referential expressions might therefore be constructed in this type of context.
Various studies, based on experimental or natural data, have explored the use of
referential expressions in dialogue. Experimental studies (Campbell, Brooks, &
Tomasello, 2000; Wittek & Tomasello, 2005) on children between 2;6 and 3;6 show that
the type of question asked by the interlocutor determines which referring expression is
used by the child: when the question mentions the discourse object (What did X do?),
English-speaking children from both age groups tend to respond with a null reference,
whereas nouns and pronouns tend to be used more frequently when preceded by open
questions (What happened?). In German, children mostly use a pronoun or a null form
when the question specifically bears on the referent (Where is the broom?) and more
general questions (What do we need?) elicit nominal responses.
Studies on non Indo-European languages such as Inuktitut (Allen, 2000; Allen &
Schder, 2003) and Korean (Clancy, 2003) show the impact of the discursive and pragmatic dimensions on childrens use of referential expressions. In Inuktitut, in which
arguments are either made explicit by using nouns or are omitted, children produce
overt arguments significantly more often if the argument they wish to represent is
informative than if it is not (Allen, 2000, p. 511). Moreover, Clancy considers that the
clusters of semantic, discourse-pragmatic and formal properties of referents organized
into A, S and O roles are available to young children as a source of hypotheses about the
functional foundations of the morphosyntactically marked categories in the language
being acquired (Clancy, 2003, p. 104). The results have been confirmed for null subject
Indo-European languages such as Italian (Serratice, 2005) and for non null subject
378
languages such as English (Hughes & Allen, 2006). In this last case, whereas null
arguments appear in the context of great accessibility, it is not the case for overt arguments
(which include pronouns) for which the distribution is more variable. However, factors
such as newness and absence of the referent induce the coding of overt arguments. These
studies confirm the fact that the acquisition of grammar is intertwined with pragmatic and
discursive aspects of language.
Studies by Salazar Orvig et al. (2004, 2006, 2010) lead to similar conclusions. The
authors analyse spontaneous dialogues with children between 1;9 and 3;0 in various situations. Their results show that the children are sensitive to the discursive and attentional
context of verbal exchanges : in the majority of cases, predications about an implicit
referent concern a referent that has is fact been previously mentioned in the dialogue.
Children also use third person clitic pronouns in the context of shared attention and as
second or subsequent mentions in the dialogue in the context of discursive continuity. An
experimental study also supports this interpretation: 2-year-old children respond to prior
mention as an indicator of referent accessibility before they do to perceptual availability
(Matthews, Lieven, Theakston, & Tomasello, 2006, p. 408).
What do these performances correspond to? Several possibilities can be considered.
The first, proposed by Levy (1989, 1999), suggests that the relation between the pronoun and its antecedent corresponds to the repetition of nounpronoun strings produced by adults. In this case, since the child does not establish the co-referential
relation existing in his or her discourse autonomously, the pronoun does not have an
anaphoric value. The second possibility presented by Matthews et al. (2006) drawing
on Pickering and Garrods (2004) model suggests that there is a dissociation between
the co-referential links with the interlocutors discourse, which would be of a mechanical nature, and the childs representation of the interlocutors informational needs. Thus,
it could be considered that the co-referential links are not anaphoric (see also KarmiloffSmith, 1985). Finally, a third alternative (De Cat, 2004a; Salazar Orvig et al., 2010)
differentiates the values of referential expressions from the difficulties children may
have in the management of discursive sequences, joint attention and common ground.
In this case, we can consider that children acquire pronouns with a proto-anaphoric
value (maintaining continuity in the context of a shared discursive representation),
while they present performance errors, in particular when they have to manage complex interlocutive situations.
Aim of this study

The present research studies aspects of the dialogical context of the use of third person
clitic pronouns. In view of the questions raised above, two possibilities are considered:
(1) young childrens use of pronouns is prompted by the form of the adults utterances;
(2) childrens choice of a pronoun as a referential expression could be explained by
pragmatic-discursive factors. To address the first option, we analyse how the form of
adults utterances influences childrens use of referential expressions. The second possibility will be tackled through the analysis of the ways in which childrens utterances are
anchored in the dynamics of dialogue and, more specifically, the type of continuity
between the childs utterance and the previous utterance of the adult.
379
Salazar et al.
The analysis of these factors will allow us to evaluate the type of relation existing
between the pronoun and its antecedent. If the children reproduce the whole utterance
(utterance reproduction), we may consider that the coreferential relation is only a side
effect of repetition. If the children reproduce only the referential expression (item reproduction), we may think they take up a model from the adult and establish a basic type of
discursive relation, as the reference of the expression they use is grounded in the dialogical context. Finally, only if the use of pronouns can be related to other pragmaticdiscursive factors, we may conclude that these early uses are anaphoric.
We concentrate on the subject function, since, on one side, it is the privileged slot to
express topics and, on the other, in French, subject clitic pronouns are acquired long before
object clitic pronouns. To determine whether our results are specific to this grammatical
category, pronouns are compared to other referential expressions in subject position.
Method
Participants
The data presented here are part of a larger corpus (Salazar Orvig et al., 2004, 2006). For
the purpose of the present study we considered only the children (in the cross-sectional
corpora) or the sessions (for the longitudinal follow-up) for which there was at least one
clitic pronoun in subject position in the data. Three videotaped corpora were used (Table 1):
Corpus 1: A longitudinal corpus of two boys (Daniel and Lonard). For six sessions
per child about one session per month between 1;9 (for Daniel) or 1;11 (for Lonard)
and 2;4 were analysed. The children were observed in different situations at home
(play, snack time, picture book reading, bath).
Corpus 2: A cross-sectional corpus at 1;11 based on five dialogues of five children
(four girls, Alice1, Ccile, Lisa, Pauline1 and one boy, Thibault) with their father or
mother during a standardized play session at home.
Corpus 3: A cross-sectional corpus at 2;3 based on 10 other children (six girls, Alice2,
Chlo, Elodie, La, Margaux, Pauline2 and four boys, Arnaud, Maxime, Rmi, Tho)
with their mother in various activities (play, snack). For five of those children (Chlo,
Table 1. Population: number of children, age, MLU, number of sessions, number of turns
Corpus
Cross-sectional
1;11
2;3
Longitudinal
(home)
Daniel
Lonard
Age
MLU
MLU
level
mean: 1;11
(1;11.31;11.26)
mean: 2;3.5
(2;2.52;3.29)
1.562.83 1, 2, 3 5
mean: 1.98
1.323.01 1, 2, 3 10
mean: 2.07
2
1;92;4
1;112;4
1.362.50
2.042.85
1, 2, 3
2, 3
No. of
children
No. of
Total no.
sessions of turns
Mean no.
of turns
Per child
1
306
Per child
61.20
24
262
2620
Per child
6
6
Per session
1603
384
229
647
380
Elodie, Margaux, Rmi and Tho), play and snack sessions were also recorded at their
nursery school.
The utterances of all participants were transcribed and contextual information necessary
for the interpretation of the verbal production was noted.
At each step, we first present the results from the longitudinal data and then from the
cross-sectional data. The longitudinal data are divided into two-months periods 1;91;10,
1;112;0, 2;12;2 and 2;32;4.
In the cross-sectional data, the two corpora present a similar range of mean length of
utterance (MLU) (computed in number of words out of 100 utterances per child). In order
to draw a developmental trend, it is thus better to contrast childrens productions according to their MLU rather than their age. Even though there is not necessarily a direct link
between MLU and pragmatic development, this method is also appropriate because childrens use of referential expressions cannot be considered independently of morphological
development. The cross-sectional data have thus been divided according to three groups
of children, roughly corresponding to Browns I, II and III stages (Brown, 1973):
Level 1: Five children whose MLU is between 1.32 and 1.73. Fewer than 17% of their
utterances include a verb, with or without arguments; the utterances are either bare
nouns (mean 34%), or one- to two-word pre-syntactic predications (mean 14%).
Level 2: Five children whose MLU is between 2.04 and 2.44. 30% of their utterances
have a verbal predicate (with or without arguments). Nominal utterances are less
prevalent (19%) but 15% of their utterances can still be described as pre-syntactic
predications.
Level 3: Five children whose MLU is between 2.50 and 3.01. The mean number of
verbal predicate utterances corresponds to 40%, nominal utterances to 22% and presyntactic predications to 9% of their utterances.
The two children from the longitudinal corpus follow a similar trend: at 1;10 they
mostly produce non-verbal utterances and a very low percentage of utterances with verbal predicates. This proportion is inverted at the end of the recordings: there are between
40% and 50% utterances with verbal predicates.
All children belong to French-speaking middle-class families.
Data analysis
In this section we first present the types of referential expressions and the criteria used to
categorize referential continuity between the childrens utterances and their interlocutors
utterances. Then, we turn to the categories concerning the influence (of the form) of the
adults discourse and the type of continuity between the speech turns of the adults and of
the children.
Referential expressions. Considering any linguistic unit that can refer to an entity or to
events processed as entities as a referential expression,1 we contrast clitic pronouns with
other referential expressions.
381
Salazar et al.
Clitic pronouns: For this study we have considered all adult-like forms as clitic
pronouns ([il], [l]). Some authors (Jakubowicz & Rigaut, 1997; Veneziano, 2003) consider that the forms [i] and [] (e.g., [tb] e(lle) tombe shes falling) do not clearly
correspond to pronouns. However, in oral French, adults frequently omit the lateral [l] in
front of a consonant; we have thus included these forms in the pronominal category.
Forms in [l] (e.g., [leasi] (i)l est assis hes sitting) frequently used by children, were
also included.
Other referential expressions:
Nouns: Both proper names and nouns are included in this category.
Demonstrative pronouns: a ([savala] a va l it goes there) is the most frequent form of demonstrative pronoun in our data. Other forms such as celui-ci
(this one) and celui-l (that one) are occasionally used.
Cest is considered separately from other demonstratives because it can correspond
either to the association of the demonstrative and the copula or to a presentative
(Martinet, 1979) and because it is difficult to determine whether children are producing a creative combination or a frozen expression for a given utterance. Besides,
cest is used very often (e.g., [seamwa?] cest moi? is it mine?] by young
children.
Dislocation constructions: In oral French, pronouns are often used in co-occurrence
with a noun (e.g., [analepati] Anna elle est partie Anna shes gone or [ifedodola],
il fait dodo le chat it is sleeping, the cat). Dislocations also involve demonstratives
(e.g., [sepabsa] cest pas bon a its not good, that).2
Other pronouns: There also are a few occurrences of indefinite and interrogative
pronouns.
This study is focused on referential expressions in subject function. As the period
under study covers the emergence of syntax, position was not the sole criterion to identify subjects; semantic criteria have also been used as in (1) where [lapupe], the agent,
has been considered as the subject:
(1) Alice 1;11 MLU 2.2

Alice: bwa atas lapupe3

boit F 4 tasse la poupe drinks F cup the doll
We also include the category of unmarked reference: during the period under study,
the subject can be absent.5 This can be the case in pre-syntactic productions, such
as (2):
(2) Daniel 1;9 MLU 1.59

Daniel has just put a piece of something in his shirt. He is looking for it.
Mother: o il est? where is it?
Daniel takes out the object and looks at it.
Mother: le voil! here it is!
Daniel: a!6 kae

ah! cass oh! broken!
382
It can also be the case in utterances that are already syntactically fairly advanced, such
as (3):
(3) Arnaud 2;3 MLU 3.01
Mother: quest ce quelle fait la camra? what does the camera do?

Arnaud: feptipobwi

fait un petit peu F bruit
makes a little bit F noise
During this period, (proto)verbs can be associated to proto-forms ([atu]: F tou(rne)
F turn{/s}) called fillers (Peters, 2000; Veneziano & Sinclair, 2000). The morphological
status of these units is uncertain: it is particularly difficult to differentiate a proto-pronoun
and a proto-auxiliary in preverbal position which implies that it would also be difficult
to specify whether these items are referential. We thus include them in the unmarked
reference category.
Relation to the interlocutors discourse. This analysis7 concerns the referential continuity
between the children and their interlocutors previous utterances. We consider as interlocutors not only the mother, the father, or the caretaker but also other children (siblings
in home recordings, other children in the nursery) and the observer who is recording.8
The referential expression used by the child can be linked to these previous utterances in
four different ways:
Immediate explicit mention (IM): the interlocutor has mentioned the referent (with any
referential expression, including pronouns) in the immediately preceding utterances:
(4) Lonard 2;4 MLU 2.45
Mother and child are looking at a book.
Mother: Et oui, et Adle?
yes, and Adle?

Lonard: [letobela gad]

elle est tombe l regarde she fell over there look
Non-immediate explicit mention (NIM): this groups three different categories:
Distant explicit mention: the interlocutor has mentioned the referent in another
topical sequence, which means that there are at least two shifts in the discourse
topic (Dik, 1997) between the target utterance and the one produced by the interlocutor:
(5) La 2;2 MLU 2.4
La and her mother are playing in the room. They are looking for stuffed
animals.

La:
ijeu

il est o
where is it?
Mother: je sais pas. tu sais o il est? hum? I dont know. do you know

where it is? hum?
. . . eight turns involving Las name and age.
383
Salazar et al.
La points to something behind her mothers back.
La: ejeja . wimbmatata.

elle est l. Simba Matata. (c)ochon its here. Simba Matata. piggy
In this case, La reintroduces the reference to an object that both interlocutors were
looking for previously.
Inferable reference: the referent has not been explicitly mentioned by the interlocutor but can be inferred from her/his utterance:
(6) Daniel 2;4 MLU 2.39

Daniel sits on his train.

Daniel:
vvwa m {} tuu {bi bije}. vwj

vwa {} va vjva

veux voir mon F tchou tchou {???}.

{veux} voi(r) F {vache/va}. veux

vache{vache/va}

Observer: tu ten vas?

Daniel: wi oui

<20 seconds>

Daniel:
ksa isava

comme a i(l) sen va
want to see my F tchu

tchu. {want} see
F {cow/go}, want {cow/go}
are you leaving?
yes
like that its leaving
The attention of both participants (the observer and the child) is focused on the
little train, which has been mentioned only by the child. Even though we can consider
that the observers utterance tu ten vas is alluding to the train it does not explicitly
mention it.
Absent referent: the referent mentioned by the child is absent from the previous
interlocutors discourse:
(7) Arnaud 2;3 MLU 3.01

Arnaud is having his snack with his mother.

Mother: tu vas manger une tarte you are going to eat an apple pie

aux pommes

Arnaud: w

ouais
yeah

Mother: ouais
yeah

Arnaud: {uwe} klmari?

{ou est} Claire-Marie? where is Claire-Marie?
Influence of the adults utterance. In the cases of immediate referential continuity, childrens use of referential expressions can be influenced by the form of the interlocutors
utterance. Four cases are considered:
384
Utterance reproduction: Children reproduce the lexical and syntactic form of the adults
utterance:
(8) Margaux 2;3 MLU 2.62
Margaux is having her afternoon snack at the nursery school.
Adult:
non elle est pas l
no shes not here
Margaux: {selasepala{xx}la++ palasalt}

cest l cest pas l {xx} ++
shes not here, not here.

pas l Cha(r)lotte
Adult:
Charlotte?
Charlotte?
Margaux: lepala

elle est pas l
shes not here
The reproduction may not immediately follow the interlocutors utterance, Margaux
replicates the adults utterance word for word in her second turn.
Item reproduction: The child takes up the referential expression used by the adult
but constructs a different utterance. The childs utterance shares with his or her
interlocutors utterance the referential expression (e.g., the noun, the pronoun)
for the same referent, without it being a replication of the whole interlocutors
utterance:
(9) Arnaud 2;3 MLU 3.01
Arnaud and his mother are talking about the observer.
Mother: elle va revenir dans un petit shes coming back soon,

moment, tu finis ta tarte
finish your apple pie

aux pommes
Arnaud: lepati

(e)lle est partie
shes gone
The cases when the verb is also taken up are included in this category:
(10) Pauline2 2;3 MLU 2.52
Mother: elle est o la brioche?
Pauline: ledda)

elle est dedans
where is the cake?

its inside
As illustrated in this example, cases where a clitic pronoun follows an adults dislocation are also included in this category: the child is taking up a form available in the
adults discourse.
Elicited: A question by the adult can elicit the form used by the child:
(11) Alice 2;3 MLU 2.44
Mother: quest ce que tu veux maintenant? what do you want now?
Max:
s

(de)ssert
desert
385
Salazar et al.
Absence of direct influence: The form of the adults utterance is not directly reflected in
the referential expression used by the child:
(12) La 2;2 MLU 2.4
Mother: tu veux quon fasse une you want us to build a house with lego?

maison avec les legos?
La:
wi {isdda}

oui {i(ls) sont dedans} yes theyre inside
Unmarked references are, by definition, not taken up from the interlocutors utterances.
Nevertheless we have considered the cases where a filler follows a clitic pronoun (alone
or in a dislocation construction) produced by the adult, and cases where they appear after
an adults question.
Types of dialogical continuity. This analysis deals with a pragmatic-discursive factor that
can account for the use of referring expressions in the dynamics of dialogue. In narratives, the choice of a referential expression depends on the dynamics of the topics. In
dialogue, it can also correspond to the maintenance or the change of perspective towards
the discourse of the interlocutor. Three categories can be distinguished:
Repetitions and reformulations of a preceding utterance without adding any new predication to the topic:
(13) Arnaud 2;3 MLU 3.01
Mother: ben cest Nanaud qui
well. Its Nanaud who is hitting

tape sur les boutons
the buttons.
Arnaud: nanoitaibut ?

Nanaud i(l) ta(pe) F boutons? Nanaud is hitting F buttons?
Contrastive sequences: despite referential continuity there is a shift in the way the topic
is tackled with opposition, a change of thematic focusing (14), perspective shifting,
explanations, clarifications or requests for clarification:
(14) Chlo 2;3 MLU 2.71
Adult: cest Morgane qui la
Is it Morgane who has the giraffe?

la + girafe?
Chlo: morgannenosapl +

morgannenosapl <fort>

Morgane [neno] sappelle Morgane [neno] is called <loud>

Morgane [neno] sappelle. Morgane [neno] is called
Plain continuity: only a new predication is added on the same topic without any change
of perspective or genre shifting:
(15) Daniel 2;0 MLU 2.02
Daniel: pupa
(noise for fire men trucks)
386

Observer:
Daniel:

Observer:
ah papoupa oui! oh! pa pou pa, yes.

a ka katje pupa
{arte} poupa
{stopped} pupa
a sest arrt oui it stopped, yes
This category also includes answers to questions about the same discourse object, as
in (10).
Reliability
Intercoder agreement for each of the categories under study was tested for 10% of the
data from children randomly selected. The rates of agreement were 98% for grammatical
categories and 87% for the presence of the discourse object in the interlocutors discourse. The coding of the two last sets of categories was done separately by different
coders (the co-authors) and afterwards discussed by the whole group of coders in order
to resolve divergences.
A descriptive approach was adopted for the data analysis. This approach seemed
preferable for two main reasons: the first is that children strongly differ as to the amount
of occurrences in each category; the second is that, even for adults, the use of a given
referential expression depends on various factors, and there are no sharp contrasts for
the use of referential expressions for each functional category. We present the total in
absolute values and the percentages for each group, as well as the mean and standard
deviation for each functional category. Tables A1A6 in the Appendix9 give the data for
each child.
Results
Referential expressions
Table 2 presents the distribution of referential expressions and unmarked reference in
subject position.
Our data relate to the acquisition process of pronouns in its very beginning. The longitudinal data enable us to observe how clitic pronouns in subject position emerge. Even
though the two children under study very quickly use more than two words per utterance
on average, the proportion of clitic pronouns does not grow at the same pace (with the
exception of Lonard at 2;32;4). Nouns and dislocations are (together) the most frequent subjects. Unmarked reference, which appears to be prevalent at 1;91;10 in
Daniels corpus, corresponds to a third of both childrens utterances at 1;112;0 but still
around 1115% at 2;12;2 and 2;32;4. The cross-sectional data present a slightly different
distribution as there is no predominant category for the subject position: neither clitic
pronouns nor nouns (with dislocations), which are more frequent than clitic pronouns for
subject function at any stage. Unmarked reference diminishes with the MLU level, from
39% of the utterances at level 1 to 10% at level 3.
Longitudinal
Daniel
1;91;10
1;112;0
2;12;2
2;32;4
Lonard
1;112;0
2;12;2
2;32;4
Cross-sectional
1;11/2;3
1;11/2;3
1;11/2;3
Age
Corpus
5 (11)
5 (6)
4 (11)
14 (11)
2 (13)
4 (11)
15 (30)
15 (20)
32 (16)
45 (15)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
MLU level
Clitic
pronouns
No. (%)
5 (7)
21 (11)
36 (12)
5 (31)
6 (16)
2 (4)
0
26 (31)
6 (17)
17 (13)
Nouns
No. (%)
12 (16)
32 (16)
52 (18)
2 (13)
9 (24)
17 (34)
2 (4)
16 (19)
12 (33)
33 (25)
Dislocations
No. (%)
8 (11)
56 (29)
113 (38)
0
9 (24)
8 (16)
1 (2)
8 (10)
5 (14)
28 (22)
Cest
No. (%)
5 (7)
9 (5)
16 (5)
1 (6)
1 (3)
0
0
5 (6)
5 (14)
18 (14)
Dem.
pronouns
No. (%)
Table 2. Referential expressions and unmarked reference in subject position: number and (percentage)
0
3 (2)
4 (1)
0
4 (11)
1 (2)
0
0
0
1 (1)
Other
pronouns
No. (%)
29 (39)
41 (21)
29 (10)
6 (38)
4 (11)
7 (14)
37 (82)
24 (29)
4 (11)
37 (15)
Unmarked
reference
No. (%)
74 (100)
194 (100)
295 (100)
16 (100)
37 (100)
50 (100)
45 (100)
84 (100)
36 (100)
130 (100)
Total
No. (%)
Salazar et al.
387
388
Presence of the referent in the interlocutors discourse

Tables 3a and 3b present the distribution of the referential expressions used by the children
in subject position according to the previous mention of the referent by their interlocutor.
In order to simplify the tables, immediate explicit mention (IM) is contrasted with all other
categories (NIM), on the one hand, and clitic pronouns (CP) with other referential expressions (ORE) and unmarked reference (UR), on the other hand. The last column indicates
the distribution of IM and NIM for each age or MLU level. Tables A1 and A2 in the
Appendix9 present, in raw numbers (and percentages), the detail for each child and for
each referential expression.
The size of the standard deviations indicates that there are considerable individual differences. However, (see table A2 in the Appendix9 for full data) for the majority of children,
the proportion of occurrences in each category follows the same trend as mean percentages.
This is also the case for the results we present in Tables 4a and 4b and 5a and 5b. Given that
we deal with dialogic data and that we have focused the analyses on the subject position,
topical continuity is predominant for all referential expressions and unmarked reference,
even if the distribution is less contrasted for the longitudinal data. Tables 3a and 3b also
show that clitic pronouns are not used in the same way as the other referential expressions.
Longitudinal data show that, even when clitic pronouns are not very frequent in the corpus
(before 2;3), children use them more often in immediate continuity with a referent explicitly
mentioned by the interlocutor than when the referent has not been immediately mentioned
by the interlocutor (with the exception of Daniel at 2;32;4, for whom there is just a slight
tendency). The opposite is true for the other referential expressions, especially for dislocations, nouns and demonstratives. With the same exception of Daniel at 2;32;4, they appear
fairly less often in the context of immediate explicit mention than in the context of no
immediate mention. On the contrary, unmarked reference follows the same trend as clitic
pronouns, being more frequent in the IM than in the NIM condition.
In the cross-sectional data the effect of the dialogical context is clear: for all three levels, clitic pronouns are more frequently used when the discourse object is immediately
present in the interlocutors utterance than when this is not the case, the other referential
expressions, and more specifically nouns, dislocation constructions and demonstratives,
appear more often in the non-immediate explicit mention condition. The examination of
individual data (see also Table A2) shows that nearly all the children at the three levels
present this pattern. The exceptions are: Lisa (whose referential expressions other than
pronouns are very scarce) and Alice2 (who, on the contrary presents a much higher proportion of ORE in subject function). Unmarked reference does not present the same configuration as clitic pronouns; it appears in level 2 and level 3 as often in IM condition as
in NIM condition. Individual data show that for the majority of children unmarked references are more frequent in the NIM context than in the IM context.
Influence of the adults utterance

Tables 4a (longitudinal corpus) and 4b (cross-sectional corpus) present the distribution of
formal links with the preceding adult utterance for each type of referential expression
produced by the children. In order to grasp the prevalence of the direct influence of the
Total 2;32;4
Total 2;12;2
2;32;4
Total 1;112;0
2;12;2
Total 2;32;4
1;112;0
Total 2;12;2
2;32;4
Total 1;112;0
2;12;2
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
IM
NIM
Mention
Other
referential
expressions
1
2
3
22
32
54
13
15
28
59
38
97
2
6
8
14
15
29
13
15
28
% CP
16
5
11
11
0
6
20
0
11
11
10
11
22
0
13
17
5
11
39
12
30
Clitic pronouns
4
1
5
5
0
5
4
0
4
9
5
14
2
0
2
3
1
4
13
2
15
IM: explicit immediately mentioned; NIM: non-immediately mentioned (distant, inferable, or absent).
Lonard
1;91;10
Daniel
Total 1;91;10
1;112;0
Age
Child
4
10
7
50
82
65
65
94
78
73
78
74
22
86
50
78
79
78
40
88
56
%
ORE
20
17
37
17
7
24
3
1
4
13
6
19
5
1
6
1
3
4
7
0
7
Unmarked
reference
80
85
82
39
18
29
15
6
11
16
12
15
56
14
37
5
16
11
21
0
14
% UR
25
20
45
44
39
83
20
16
36
81
49
130
9
7
16
18
19
37
33
17
50
Total
Table 3a. Distribution of referential expressions according to the mention of the referent in the interlocutors discourse longitudinal data
(number and percentage)
56
44
100
53
47
100
56
44
100
62
38
100
56
44
100
48
51
100
66
34
100
% Total
Salazar et al.
389
IM
NIM
Total L1
IM
NIM
Total L2
IM
NIM
Total L3
Level 1
12
3
15
28
4
32
38
7
45
23
14
20
22
6
16
20
7
15
29
15
22
19
4
15
24
12
21
15.1
33.5
21.1
21.6
8.1
16.9
24.4
17.6
23.5
SD
16
14
30
76
45
121
136
85
221
31
63
41
58
70
62
70
83
75
%
35
65
46
59
73
64
66
75
69
Mean %
14.1
38.7
22.8
27.9
16.9
15.9
22.9
18.8
22.8
SD
No.
Mean %
No.
Other referential expressions
Clitic pronouns
IM: explicit immediately mentioned; NIM: non-immediately mentioned (distant, inferable, or absent).
Level 3
Level 2
Mention
MLU group
24
5
29
26
15
41
19
10
29
No.
46
23
39
20
24
21
10
10
10
35
20
32
22
22
21
10
12
10
Mean %
Unmarked reference
19
12.8
17.7
24.1
18.5
15.8
2.5
6.3
2.2
SD
52 (70)
22 (30)
74 (100)
130 (67)
64 (33)
194 (100)
193 (65)
102 (35)
295 (100)
Total (%)
Table 3b. Distribution of referential expressions according to the mention of the referent in the interlocutors discourse cross-sectional data
(number and percentage)
390
Lonard
Daniel
Child
Total 2;32;4
Total 2;12;2
2;32;4
Total 1;112;0
2;12;2
Total 2;32;4
1;112;0
Total 2;12;2
2;32;4
Total 1;112;0
2;12;2
Total 1;91;10
1;112;0
1;91;10
Age
Utterance
reproduction
Item reproduction
No influence
Utterance
reproduction
Item reproduction
No influence
Item reproduction
No influence
Utterance
reproduction
Item reproduction
Elicited
No influence
Utterance
reproduction
Item reproduction
No influence
Utterance
reproduction
Item reproduction
No influence
Item reproduction
No influence
Influence
Other
referential
expressions
0
1
1
2
2
18
22
3
3
7
13
8
0
20
21
31
0
2
2
1
1
12
14
1
1
10
12
100
9
16
33
33
3
11
0
40
17
20
0
0
17
10
11
0
33
22
50
50
0
17
0
83
17
42
2
2
4
1
3
1
5
0
2
2
4
0
4
0
5
9
0
2
2
1
2
0
3
0
10
3
13
Clitic
pronouns
% CP
100
8
56
39
50
25
100
78
100
0
83
65
72
0
33
22
100
60
58
65
67
22
56
50
0
4
4
%
ORE
0
1
5
6
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
12
13
3
2
5
0
0
3
3
0
4
13
17
0
20
20
Unmarked
reference
0
8
28
19
0
25
0
6
0
100
0
25
16
100
33
56
0
0
25
15
0
45
41
39
0
87
80
% UR
1
12
18
31
2
4
12
18
8
24
1
48
81
3
6
9
3
5
12
20
3
9
32
44
2
23
25
Total
Table 4a. Influence of the interlocutors utterance on childrens use of referential expressions longitudinal data (number and percentage)
3
39
58
100
11
22
67
100
9
30
1
59
100
33
67
100
15
25
60
100
7
20
73
100
8
92
100
% Total
Salazar et al.
391
Elicited
Item reproduction
Utterance
reproduction
No influence
Total L1
Elicited
Item reproduction
Utterance
reproduction
No influence
Total L2
Elicited
Item reproduction
Utterance
reproduction
No influence
Total L3
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Influence
MLU
group
0
57
0
19.5
23
0
50
19
13
22
0
49
5
10
20
0
4
0
8
12
0
14
3
11
28
0
26
1
11
38
25
10.3
24
25
13.5
19
0
45.1
0
29.3
29
0
39
0
41.7
50
7.3
24.5
32.3
36.3
13.5
21.6
37.1
16.9
15.1
50
SD %
21
88
136
13
49
76
3
24
1
9
16
1
13
3
3
95
77
70
81
58
58
100
45
100
22
31
100
46
100
43
75
75.1
66
75
58.9
59
60
49.8
20
24.3
35
20
58.5
40
46.7
Mean %
50
7.4
22.9
36.3
24.3
26.9
54.8
29
44.7
20.3
14.1
44.7
34.1
54.8
50.6
SD %
No.
Mean %
No.
Clitic pronouns
0
16
19
0
25
26
0
3
0
24
24
0
1
0
0
No.
0
13.9
10
0
29.4
20
0
0
0
58.5
46
0
0
0
0
0
14.7
9.9
0
27.6
22
0
0.1
0
46.3
35
0
0
0
0
Mean %
Unmarked reference
13.5
2.49
0.1
27.2
24.1
0.1
17.9
18.9
SD %
22 (11)
115 (60)
100
16 (12)
85 (65)
130 (100)
3 (2)
53 (27)
1 (2)
41 (79)
52 (100)
1 (1)
28 (22)
3 (6)
7 (13)
Total (%)
Table 4b. Influence of the interlocutors utterance on childrens choice of referential expression cross-sectional data (number and percentage)
392
393
Salazar et al.
interlocutors utterance form in the childrens use of referential expressions, the last column
presents the global percentage of each functional category for each age or MLU level.
Tables 4a and 4b show that direct influence of the interlocutors utterance is not a homogeneous phenomenon across children and ages or MLU levels. For both the longitudinal and
cross-sectional data, direct influence of the form of the interlocutors discourse ranges from 0%
to 60% (see also and Tables A3 and A4 in the Appendix9 for full data). In the longitudinal data,
item reproduction ranges from 8% to 40% of the childrens utterances, utterance reproduction
from 0% to 15% and elicitation is a marginal phenomenon present only in Daniels data. These
data show that the two children therefore do not behave in the same way as far as this direct
influence is concerned. Daniel tends to produce clitic pronouns after the adult has also produced one (item reproduction) in the first months and then use them autonomously, whereas
Lonard presents the opposite pattern with item reproduction for clitic pronouns only after 2;1.
But for both children, utterance reproduction does not seem to be a privileged context for the
production of clitic pronouns. It therefore seems difficult to consider that there is a systematic
trend for the influence of the form of the interlocutors utterance on childrens utterances.
The cross-sectional data show that utterance reproduction grows from 2% to 12% and
that item reproduction grows from 13% at level 1 to 27% of the childrens utterances at
level 3. Elicitation by questions appears as a minor process in any case and, as it could be
expected, unmarked references are more often associated with an absence of influence. In
item reproduction contexts, clitic pronouns seem to be as frequent as the other referential
expressions. Individual data confirm that children behave differently with respect to the
way they anchor their productions in their interlocutors utterance. At each MLU level,
some children (two at level 1, two at level 2 and four at level 3) proportionally take up
clitic pronouns more often than other referential expressions from their interlocutors
utterances. The other children either behave equally for clitic pronouns and other referential expressions, or take up the other referential expressions more often.
Types of dialogical continuity

Tables 5a (longitudinal) and 5b (cross-sectional) present the type of dialogical continuity
existing between the childrens utterances and their interlocutors immediately preceding
utterance (see also Tables A5 and A6 in the Appendix9).
Globally, plain continuity is the most frequent link between the childrens utterances
and their interlocutors turns. The longitudinal data show that pronouns appear more often,
at each age period, in this context whereas the other referential expressions tend to be activated more frequently when there is a contrast, a repetition or a reformulation. With the
exception of Daniel at 1;91;10 and Lonard at 2;12;2, unmarked reference appears more
frequently in the context of plain continuity than in the context of contrast sequencing. But
it does not show the same pattern as clitic pronouns for repetition reformulation.
As for the cross-sectional corpus, the data show an evolution between level 1 and level 3.
At level 1, there are no differences between plain continuity and contrast for clitic pronouns,
but the other referential expressions appear slightly more frequently in the context of contrast and repetition or reformulation. Two types of profile can be set on the basis of the
individual data (Table A6 in the Appendix9): at level 1, three children use clitic pronouns
more often in the context of plain continuity and other referential expressions in the context
Lonard
Daniel
Child
2;32;4
2;12;2
1;112;0
2;3 2;4
2;12;2
1;112;0
1;91;10
Age
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Plain cont.
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total
Dialogical
continuity
3
0
1
4
2
2
1
5
3
1
0
4
5
3
1
9
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
3
10
0
3
13
Clitic
pronouns
27
0
17
16
20
12
7
12
50
17
0
20
24
12
3
11
50
0
0
22
50
25
0
17
55
0
38
39
% CP
0
1
0
1
4
9
6
19
3
5
5
13
9
22
26
57
1
1
0
2
2
3
9
14
5
5
3
13
Other referential
expressions
0
13
0
4
40
53
43
46
50
83
63
65
43
85
81
72
25
50
0
22
50
75
90
78
28
71
38
39
% ORE
8
7
5
20
4
6
7
17
0
0
3
3
7
1
5
13
1
1
3
5
0
0
1
1
3
2
2
7
Unmarked
reference
73
87
83
80
40
35
50
41
0
0
37
15
33
4
16
16
25
50
100
56
0
0
10
5
17
29
25
21
% UR
11
8
6
25
10
17
14
41
6
6
8
20
21
26
32
79
4
2
3
9
4
4
10
18
18
7
8
33
Total
Table 5a. Distribution of referential expressions according to the type of dialogical continuity longitudinal data (number and percentage)
44
32
24
100
24
42
34
100
30
30
40
100
27
33
40
100
44
22
33
100
22
22
56
100
55
21
24
100
% Total
394
Plain
continuity
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total L1
Plain
continuity
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total L2
Plain
continuity
Contrast
Rep./ref.
Total L3
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Dialogical
continuity
MLU group
28
27
9
23
33
8
24
22
41
3
6
20
8
3
1
12
18
4
6
28
33
2
3
38
38
2.9
5.1
24
24
6
38
19
24
19
11
29
27.3
6.4
7.0
24.5
33
8.1
46.5
21.6
26.8
37.5
19.2
15.1
SD %
36
52
48
136
23
36
17
76
7
4
4
16
44
88
91
70
42
72
68
58
24
36
36
31
44
88
93
66
49
76
52
59
38
41
54
35
Mean %
24.3
14.7
7.9
22.9
30.3
16.4
41.5
26.9
41.5
42.5
39.9
14.1
SD %
No.
Mean %
No.
Clitic pronouns
12
5
2
19
14
10
2
26
14
4
6
24
No.
15
8
4
10
25
20
8
20
48
36
55
46
18
9
2
9.9
27
18
10
22
37
40
35
35
Mean %
Unmarked reference
13.7
9.3
2.9
2.5
29.1
14.4
22.4
24.1
28.3
49.0
35.7
18.9
SD %
81 (42)
59 (31)
53 (27)
193 (100)
55 (42)
50 (38)
25 (19)
130 (100)
29 (57)
11 (22)
11 (22)
51 (100)
Total (%)
Table 5b. Distribution of referential expressions according to the type of dialogical continuity cross-sectional data (number and percentage)
Salazar et al.
395
396
of contrasts or reformulations, whereas two other children invert this pattern. At level 2,
clitic pronouns are clearly more frequent for plain continuity than for contrast and this difference increases at level 3. The pattern is inverted for the other referential expressions. At
level 2, one child does not reproduce this pattern and two of them also present pronouns more
often in the context of repetition or reformulation. A level 3, there is only one child for whom
there is no real contrast between the use of clitic pronouns and other referential expressions.
Unmarked reference is, at each level, more frequent in the context of plain continuity
than in the context of contrast sequencing. At level 1 it is a prevalent feature of utterances
in repetition or reformulation; this characteristic diminishes dramatically at levels 2 and 3.
For these two levels, the unmarked reference pattern is similar to that of the clitic pronouns.
Discussion
The data presented in the Results section concern the very first periods in the acquisition
of clitic pronouns. In this research, several issues related to childrens use of clitic pronouns as opposed to other referential expressions were explored. The analysis was
restricted to the subject position. In the first place, the results confirm that most referential expressions tend to code a referent previously mentioned by the interlocutor, which
is natural in dialogue. It can be assumed from previous studies (Matthews et al., 2006;
Salazar Orvig et al., 2010) that children draw on intersubjective sharing and dialogue to
construct their discourse rather than relying on their sole apprehension of the world.
On these bases, two main issues were investigated. The first concerns the links
between the childs production of a clitic pronoun and the forms used by his or her interlocutor in the immediate context. Four possibilities were considered: the childs utterance is merely a repetition, the child takes up the referential expression (clitic pronoun or
other) used by the adult in the immediate context, the referential expression (clitic pronoun
or other) is elicited by a question, or the referential expression (clitic pronoun or other)
mainly stands for a co-referential relation without directly depending on the form used
by the interlocutor. The second main issue concerns the role of a pragmatic-discursive
factor in the use of pronouns in contrast to the use of other referential expressions.
The results for the first issue show that this relation does not always correspond to the
mere uptake of the interlocutors construction. This is true for elicitation by a question,
as well as for the exact reproduction of the interlocutors utterances. Concerning the use
of pronouns by the children just after the adults have used one themselves, our definition
of the category item reproduction includes several cases of possible direct influence by
the form of the adults utterance, including when a subjectverb construction produced
by the adult (be it assertive or interrogative) shapes the childs response (example 10).
The results form a complex picture. The item reproduction phenomenon is not pervasive throughout the whole corpus and there are considerable differences among the children in the use of clitic pronouns in this context. The hypothesis of a mere reproduction
of an anaphoric link established by the adult (Levy, 1989, 1999) should thus be dismissed. Even if children anchor their production in the adults utterances, they do not
always preferentially take up the referential expression used by their interlocutor.
On the other hand, if we go back to the results in Tables 4a and 4b, we can observe that
the more linguistically advanced children take up the interlocutor referential expression,
397
Salazar et al.
without reproducing his/her utterance, more often than the less advanced children. Thus,
the reproduction of the form does not necessarily correspond to an acquisitional move. It
can depend on the dynamics of the dialogue. Therefore factors other than the influence of
the form used by the interlocutor might play a part in the use of pronouns in continuity with
the interlocutors discourse. For instance, the shared construction of a topical sequence
could partly explain the use of pronouns. As a matter of fact, fewer children in level 1 take
up the clitic pronouns from the interlocutors utterances. This could be due to the fact that
during the first stages of language acquisition, dialogical exchanges are short (McTear,
1985; Ninio & Snow, 1996; Salazar Orvig, 2003). On the contrary, four of the five children
in level 3 show a preference for clitic pronoun continuity. This suggests a correlation
between pronoun use and childrens ability to maintain a conversation topic in dialogue.
This leads us to consider pragmatic-discursive factors. The analysis presented here concerns the types of continuity between the childs productions and the previous adult utterances in the dynamics of the dialogue. In adult language, the use of pronouns in contrast
with other referential expressions depends on referent accessibility (Ariel, 1988; Givn,
1995; Prince, 1981). Similarly, studies on narratives in children (Bamberg, 1986; Hickmann,
2002) show that the use of nouns or dislocations mostly corresponds to shifts and reintroductions of topics. However, according to Apothloz (1995) the choice of referential
expressions does not only depend on this factor, it can also be linked to modifications of
the discourse genre (for example shifting from description to argumentation). According to
our results on dialogical continuity, childrens discourse presents similar phenomena.
In the case of plain continuity, the childrens discourse might be in line with a discursive representation (Cornish, 1999) that was previously elaborated and shared. In the case
of repetitions and reformulations children do not add anything to the discursive representation, they simply reiterate it. Finally, when children need to express a contrast, they tend
to use nouns or dislocations. Their verbal production functions as a new utterance act,
either because children change the discourse focus (request for clarification) or because
they change perspective, or finally because they need to assert their own positioning as
speaker. Level 2 and 3 children (four out of five, each time) favour the use of clitic pronouns when a topic is continued and new predications are added in linear progression.
They use nouns and dislocations when there is a contrast with the interlocutors utterance.
This preference seems to be initiated while the children are in the process of mastering the
use of pronouns as it appears if we consider cases where there are five or more pronouns
in subject position: Lisa (level 1), La (level 2), Ccile, Margaux and Pauline2 (level 3) in
the cross-sectional data and Daniel at 1;112;0 and 2;32;4 and Lonard at 2;32;4 in the
longitudinal data; only Chlo (level 3) presents an undifferentiated pattern.
But the data also show that plain continuity can be expressed as well through forms
other than pronouns. This might indicate that the use of a particular referential device
follows a more complex pattern. Let us consider the case of nouns (alone or in dislocations), on the one hand, and the case of unmarked references, on the other hand.
As far as nouns or dislocations are concerned, they are mostly used in the context of
a contrast (shifting topics or points of view) with the preceding discourse. Nevertheless,
this can interact with the fact that, in certain cases, children do take up forms previously
used by adults (17 out of 29 cases). The following example suggests how these two factors seem to combine:
398
(16) La 2;2 MLU 2.4

a and her mother are talking about a fictional character, a little princess
L
named Poucelina.
Mother 180: Et le prince il est beau le prince? and the prince, he is

handsome, the prince?
La 157:
wi oui
yes
Mother 181: cest vrai? <laughs>
its true?
La 158:
pijepaati lps dpuselina

Fp(r)in(ce) il est pas gentil
F prince, he is not nice,

le p(r)ince de Poucelina
Poucelinas prince
Mother 182: pourquoi il est pas gentil?
why isnt he nice?
La 159:
pask ijemea

pa(r)ce que il est mchant
because he is mean
. . . talking about other topics
La 176:
jp dpuselina ijemea

le p(r)in(ce) de poucelina
Poucelinas prince, he is

il est mchant
mean.
Mother 205: oh bien a! on na pas russi
well we havent found out

savoir pourquoi il tait
why he was mean. well,

mchant mais bon! pourquoi il
why is he mean the prince?

est mchant le prince?
La looks up at the camera and then looks at a toy.
La 177:
pask iiijedijebo meijepabo

pa(r)ce que {i i} {il est dit/il
because {? ?} {its said/he

dit/jai dit} il est beau mais il
says/ I said} he is handsome,

est pas beau
but he isnt handsome
In turn Mother 180, the mother refers to Poucelinas prince using a double dislocated
construction, in turn La 158, the child reproduces the double dislocation used by her mother.
In the next turns (Mother 182 and La 159) referential continuity is marked by the exclusive
use of a pronoun, again both by the mother and the child. This could lead us to the conclusion
that the child is simply adopting the adults model. However, this is not the case in La 177
where La continues with a pronoun even though her mother did not use it in her question.
Returning to the first part of the excerpt, note that in turn La 158, there is a slight shift in
perspectives. The child adds a predication about the prince, but this predication is in contrast
with the one proposed by the mother: as French children usually do, La uses here pas beau
(not beautiful, not handsome) as a synonym of pas gentil (not nice). Therefore it can also
be considered as being in opposition with the representation the mother was giving of the
character. In the third part of the dialogue the referent le prince is reintroduced with a dislocation (a typical form for reintroductions) by the child and then continued with pronouns
both by the child and the mother. The mothers speech turn (Mother 205) illustrates the difference between plain continuity (we havent found out why he was mean) and contrast
marked by a new question to the child (why is the prince mean?). The childs utterance is in
continuity with this discursive representation and only the pronoun is used after that turn.
399
Salazar et al.
The results concerning unmarked reference deserve a specific discussion. As far as types
of continuity are concerned, unmarked reference is as frequent as clitic pronouns in the different contexts, especially in the less advanced children in the cross-sectional data. Therefore
before pronouns are mastered, topical continuity seems to be maintained by predications on
referents that are implicit in the childrens productions (Tables 5a and 5b) but have been
previously mentioned in the discourse, and particularly by the interlocutor. This corroborates the results of the study on English by Hughes and Allen (2006), who consider that
pragmatic discursive features of null arguments foreshadow the adult use of pronouns. In a
similar vein, De Cat (2004b) suggests that subject omission does not correspond to a lack of
pragmatic competence in young children. As a matter of fact, this type of utterance is set in
the framework of joint attention episodes, which for Bruner (1978) are the prerequisite for
the referential function. When pronouns emerge, children might already master two functions: (1) the deictic function, which corresponds in the gestural modality to pointing and in
the linguistic modality to devices such as demonstratives; and (2) the topical continuity
function, for which children produce predications about unmarked referents (with or without fillers) in joint attention episodes. The emergence of clitic pronouns can thus be considered in terms of the well-described process by Slobin: New forms first express old functions,
and new functions are first expressed by old forms (Slobin, 1973, p. 184). Third person
clitic pronouns might not initiate the anaphoric function but actually become the privileged
tool to convey a function that was already present in the childrens language uses.
Overall, these findings suggest that childrens uses of pronouns reflect early pragmatic skills, which seem to be acquired during the period under study. Children seem to
be able to differentiate moves in dialogue and to choose the adequate linguistic devices
to express them. Even though differentiation with the use of other referential expressions
does not seem to be established for every child at levels 1 or 2 , there are no cases where
a greater number of pronouns are used for other types of continuity.
The relation between the discourse of the child and the discourse of the interlocutor is
not confined to a mere referential coincidence. On the one hand, children master topical
continuity before the use of pronouns (Bruner, 1978; Ochs, Schieffelin, & Platt, 1979;
Veneziano, 2000) and, on the other hand, the present findings show that when they start
to use pronouns, they tend to contrast them with other referential expressions. Hence, we
can consider that third person clitic pronouns have the value of marking topical continuity in a shared discursive representation. At a more general level, the results suggest that
in the process of acquiring morphological devices, children do not first acquire their
strict grammatical values and add their discursive value later on. On the contrary, the
discursive values are associated with the grammatical level from the onset.
These findings confirm the relevance of a pragmatic study of the emergence of pronouns that takes the dialogical conditions of their acquisition into account. Nevertheless,
dialogical conditions must not be understood as mere copying of adult productions on
the part of the child. Our data suggest that childrens productions are predominantly
anchored in an intersubjective space shared in dialogue. Indeed, most referents mentioned
by the children were first mentioned by the adult. In a Bakhtinian approach to language
(Bakhtin, 1986), this means that children use the interlocutors discourse in order to elaborate their own. This could be the framework for two types of concurrent phenomena that
could be explored in further research. First, mediation: adults mediate the construction of
400
longer and more continuous sequences in their dialogues with children; and second, an
integration of interactional episodes (Veneziano, 2000, p. 254, our translation). Children,
in their communicative experience, grasp the contrasts marked by adults in their choice of
referential expressions and in particular the fact that adults use pronouns in the context
of plain continuity, and nouns and dislocations for contrastive sequences.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Edy Veneziano, Kevin Durkin and the three anonymous reviewers for their
thorough reading of a first version of this article and their stimulating comments. We would also
like to thank Cristina Corlateanu and Gwendoline Fox for their collaboration.
Notes
1 We have excluded all first and second person reference as well as metalinguistic utterances.
2 The only three cases of tonic third person pronouns appear in dislocations.
3 We present an interpretation of the examples in French and a translation in English along
with the phonetic transcription. Braces indicate ambiguities and uncertain transcriptions,
translations or interpretations. A slash separates alternative interpretations.
4 We use F to indicate the probable presence of a filler syllable.
5 Contrary to English, German or other languages (Allen, 2000; Givn, 1995; Hickmann,
2002), in French null forms are not a syntactic choice for subject function (except when two
predications are coordinated).
6 The intonation is clearly exclamatory here, which leads us to interpret this [a] as an interjection
and not as a filler.
7 This issue has been treated for all functions in Salazar Orvig et al. (2010).
8 Note that in cross-sectional observations, the observer left the room during the recording.
9 Appendix available at http://fla.sagepub.com/content/30/3-4/375/suppl/DC1
References
Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child
Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483521.
Allen, S. E. M., & Schder, H. (2003). Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf, & W. J. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument
structure: Grammar as architecture for function (pp. 301338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Apothloz, D. (1995). Rle et fonctionnement de lanaphore dans la dynamique textuelle. Genve:
Droz.
Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 6587.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bamberg, M. (1986). A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships.
Linguistics, 24, 227284.
Bennett-Kastor, T. (1983). Noun phrases and coherence in child narratives. Journal of Child
Language, 10, 135149.
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., & Van den Eyden, K. (1990). Le franais parl.
Etudes grammaticales. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
401
Salazar et al.
Bruner, J. S. (1978). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. In I. Markov

(Ed.), The social context of language (pp. 1748). Chichester: John Wiley.
Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Factors affecting young childrens use of pronouns
as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 13371349.
Clancy, P. (2003). The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of preferred argument structure.
In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf, & W. J. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as
architecture for function (pp. 81108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, discourse and understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Cat, C. (2004a). A fresh look at how young children encode new referents. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 42, 111127.
De Cat, C. (2004b). Early pragmatic competence and the null subject phenomenon. In R. Bok-Bennema,
B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance language and linguistic theory
2002. Selected papers from Going Romance 2002 (pp. 1732). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
De Cat, C. (2005). French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 115, 11951219.
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Franois, D. (1981). Syntaxe du franais et pdagogie. Rapport de synthse du groupe de recherche sur la syntaxe de loral. Paris: Universit Ren Descartes.
Givn, T. (1995). Functionnalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (1996). On the acquisition of subjects and object clitics
in French. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 309334).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hickmann, M. (2002). Childrens discourse: Person, time and space across languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hugues, M., & Allen, S. (2006). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of subject omission in child
English. In D. Bamman, D. T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual
Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 293304). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Jakubowicz, C., & Rigaut, C. (1997). Lacquisition des clitiques nominatifs en franais. In
A. Zribi-Hertz (Ed.), Les pronoms. Morphologie, syntaxe et typologie (pp. 5799). Saint-Denis:
Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Jakubowicz, C., & Rigaut, C. (2000). Lacquisition des clitiques nominatifs et des clitiques objets
en franais. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 119157.
Jeanjean, C. (1980). Lorganisation des formes sujet en franais de conversation: Etude quantitative et grammaticale de deux corpus. Recherches sur le franais parl, 3, 99134.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 6185.
Levy, E. T. (1989). Monologue as development of the text-forming function of language. In K. Nelson
(Ed.), Narratives from the crib (pp. 123161). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Levy, E. T. (1999). A social-pragmatic account of the development of planned discourse. Human
Development, 42, 225246.
McTear, M. (1985). Childrens conversation. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.
Martinet, A. (1979). Grammaire fonctionnelle du franais. Paris: Didier.
Matthews, D., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young childrens use of referring expressions. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 403422.
402
Ninio, A., & Snow, C. (1996). Pragmatic development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ochs, E., Schieffelin, B. B., & Platt, M. L. (1979). Propositions across utterances and speakers.
In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 251268). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Parisse, C., & Le Normand, M.-T. (2000). How children build their morphosyntax: The case of
French. Journal of Child Language, 27, 267292.
Peters, A. M. (2000). Filler syllables: What is their status in emerging grammar? Journal of Child
Language, 28, 229242.
Peterson, C., & Dodsworth, P. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of young childrens cohesion and
noun specification in narratives. Journal of Child Language, 18, 397415.
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural
and Brain Sciences, 27, 169190.
Prince, E. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223255). New York: Academic Press.
Salazar Orvig, A. (2002). Remarques sur la continuit et lengagement dialogique chez le jeune
enfant. In L. Danon-Boileau, C. Hudelot, & A. Salazar Orvig (Eds.), Usages du langage chez
lenfant (pp. 6181). Paris: Ophrys.
Salazar Orvig, A. (2003). Linscription dialogique du jeune enfant: Evolution, diversit et
htrognit. Tranel, 3839, 724.
Salazar Orvig, A., Fayolle, V., Hasan, R., Leber-Marin, J., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., et al.
(2004). Emergence des marqueurs anaphoriques avant 3 ans: Le cas des pronoms de troisime
personne. Calap. La Cohsion Chez Lenfant, 24, 5782.
Salazar Orvig, A., Hasan, R., Leber-Marin, J., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., & Pares, J. (2006).
Peut-on parler danaphore chez le jeune enfant? Langages, 163, 1024.
Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J., & Pars, J. (2010).
Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: The use of third person pronouns before the age of 3.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 18421865.
Scollon, R. (1979). A real early stage: An unzippered condensation of a dissertation on child
language. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 215227).
New York: Academic Press.
Serratice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437462.
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson
& D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175209). New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press.
Veneziano, E. (2000). Interaction, conversation et acquisition du langage dans les trois premires
annes. In M. Kail & M. Fayol (Eds.), Lacquisition du langage. Vol. I. Le langage en mergence.
De la naissance trois ans (pp. 231265). Paris: PUF.
Veneziano, E. (2003). The emergence of noun and verb categories in the acquisition of French.
Psychology of Language and Communication, 7, 2336.
Veneziano, E., & Sinclair, H. (2000). The changing status of filler syllables on the way to
grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 27, 461500.
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Young childrens sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 541558.

Salazar Orvig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salazar Orvig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST

Dialogical factors in toddlers

Anne Salazar Orvig

Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Sorbonne Paris Cit

Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Sorbonne Paris Cit

Universit de Lille 3, France

Jocelyne Leber-Marin and Jacques Pars

First Language 30(3-4)

influence childrens use of pronouns, whereas pragmatic-discursive factors are found to

The acquisition of clitic pronouns

Pronouns in discourse and dialogue

First Language 30(3-4)

Aim of this study

First Language 30(3-4)

First Language 30(3-4)

want to see my F tchu

First Language 30(3-4)

where is the cake?

(noise for fire men trucks)

First Language 30(3-4)

ah papoupa oui! oh! pa pou pa, yes.

First Language 30(3-4)

Presence of the referent in the interlocutors discourse

Influence of the adults utterance

Other referential expressions

Other referential expressions

Types of dialogical continuity

Other referential expressions

First Language 30(3-4)

First Language 30(3-4)

(16) La 2;2 MLU 2.4

First Language 30(3-4)

Bruner, J. S. (1978). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. In I. Markov

First Language 30(3-4)

You might also like