Publicação
Null Subjects in Monolingual and Bilingual, Typical and Atypical Development, an exploratory study
| Resumo: | In this paper, we investigate the production of Null Subjects by three groups of children: monolinguals acquiring Capeverdean; bilingual speakers of Capeverdean and European Portuguese, typical language development; bilingual speakers of Capeverdean and European Portuguese with SLI features. Capeverdean, a Portuguese-based Creole, does not allow null referential subjects in matrix clauses. European Portuguese, on the other hand, is a prototypical pro-drop language. The results obtained in an elicited production task involving a picture stimulus and the answer to a question of the type ‘What is X doing to Y?’ have revealed that the production of null subjects is not a feature that enables a distinction between bilingual children with and children without language impairment. As for the contrast between the early abandon of subject drop by Capeverdean monolinguals and the maintenance of Null Subjects among the bilinguals in both languages, the latter confirms that this is an area of interference. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Costa, João |
| Outros Autores: | Pratas, Fernanda |
| Ano: | 2015 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | capítulo de livro |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | In this paper, we investigate the production of Null Subjects by three groups of children: monolinguals acquiring Capeverdean; bilingual speakers of Capeverdean and European Portuguese, typical language development; bilingual speakers of Capeverdean and European Portuguese with SLI features. Capeverdean, a Portuguese-based Creole, does not allow null referential subjects in matrix clauses. European Portuguese, on the other hand, is a prototypical pro-drop language. The results obtained in an elicited production task involving a picture stimulus and the answer to a question of the type ‘What is X doing to Y?’ have revealed that the production of null subjects is not a feature that enables a distinction between bilingual children with and children without language impairment. As for the contrast between the early abandon of subject drop by Capeverdean monolinguals and the maintenance of Null Subjects among the bilinguals in both languages, the latter confirms that this is an area of interference. |
|---|