Grammaticalization of the French and Bulgarian Causative Constructions. Some Diachronic and Developmental Aspects
Résumé
The present article deals with the processes of grammaticalization from a diachronic and developmental point of view. To compare grammatical changes in history and acquisition, we focus on the French and Bulgarian causative constructions (e.g. Fr. faire travailler qn vs. Blg. karam njakogo da raboti – ‘to make someone work’). A total of 113 French speakers (71 children and 42 adults) and 96 Bulgarian speakers (56 children and 40 adults) took part in this cross-linguistic study. Children were aged 3 to 6 years at the time of the study. Results show that historically, the French causative construction evolves from analytic devices to synthetic forms. As a compact structure, the faire + Vinf complex predicate requires argument rearrangement and clitic raising. These specificities explain why its acquisition is difficult and occurs at a late stage in French-speaking children. The Bulgarian causative construction evolves in the opposite direction, from synthetic devices to less grammaticalized structures. As an analytic form including two predicates followed by their own arguments, the karam NP da + Vpres periphrastic causative seems easier to acquire and its full command by children is achieved earlier. Finally, we suggest that there are some similarities between language history and language acquisition with regard to the stages of competition between two causative mechanisms and the stabilization of the new construction.
Mots-clés
Texte intégral :
PDF (English)Références
Albright, A. & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.
Bybee, J. L. & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982a). Why small children cannot change language on their own: Suggestions from the English past tense. In: A. Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Galway, April 6–10 (pp. 29–37). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982b). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289.
Chamberlain, J. T. (1986). Latin Antecedents of French Causative Faire. New York/Bern/Frankfurt: Lang.
Clark, E. V. & Carpenter, K. L. (1989). The notion of source in language acquisition. Language, 65, 1–30.
Diessel, H. (2012). Diachronic change and language acquisition. In: A. Bergs & L. J. Brinton (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2 (pp. 1599–1612). Boston/ Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gaatone, D. (1976). Les pronoms conjoints dans la construction factitive. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 40, 165–182.
Givón, T. (2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haralampiev, I. (2001). Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Language Change, Vol. II: Social Factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In: T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (pp. 13–59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchman, V. A. (1997). Children’s productivity in the English past tense: The role of frequency, phonology and neighborhood structure. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 283–304.
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4), 1-182.
Novakova, I. (2010). Quels enjeux pour la linguistique contrastive? Sur l’exemple des constructions causatives en français et en bulgare. In: I. Novakova & E. Dontchenko (éds.), Grammaire et lexique: regards croisés (pp. 37–56). Astrakhan (Russie) & Grenoble (France): Maison d’édition de l’Universitéd’Etat d’Astrakhan; ELLUG, UniversitéGrenoble Alpes.
Peyraube, A. (2002). L’évolution des structures grammaticales. Langages, 146, 46–58.
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition, 48, 21–69.
Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1–56.
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs. In: J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition, vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sarkar, M. (2002). Saute ça / “Jump this!”: The acquisition of the faire faire causative by first and second language learners of French. Annual Review of Language Acquisition, 2, 157–201.
Simone, R. & Cerbasi, D. (2001). Types and diachronic evolution of Romance causative constructions. Romanische Forschungen, 113, 441–473.
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Language evolution, acquisition and diachrony: probing the parallels. In: T. Givón & B. F. Malle (eds.), The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language (pp. 375–392). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vaillant, A. (1966). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III : Le verbe. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
Ziegeler, D. (1997). Retention in ontogenetic and diachronic grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 207–241.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/ff.2018.36.1.29-42
Date of publication: 2018-11-05 11:24:32
Date of submission: 2018-02-10 08:52:17
Statistiques
Indicateurs
Renvois
- Il n'y a présentement aucun renvoi.
Droit d'auteur (c) 2018,
Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.