BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Null objects and markedness in L1 acquisition - Ianthi Tsimpli (Ar
 istotle University Thessaloniki/University of Reading)
DTSTART:20130124T170000Z
DTEND:20130124T183000Z
UID:TALK41202@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Alison Biggs
DESCRIPTION:Null objects have been attested in early language production c
 ross-linguistically\, with differences in the frequency but also in the le
 ngth of the period of target-deviant object drop (Costa and Lobo 2006\, 20
 10\; Perez-Leroux\, Pirvulescu and Roberge 2011\; Wexler\, Gavarro and Tor
 rens 2003). One of the questions arising from this phenomenon is how to di
 stinguish between null objects and clitic drop: are there different constr
 aints regulating each phenomenon (discourse-related factors\, input proper
 ties\, markedness issues\; Schaeffer 1997\; Perez-Leroux et al 2008) or is
  clitic drop a subset case of null objects in developing grammars? A relat
 ed issue concerns the verbs which appear to allow for null objects in chil
 d and adult grammars. I will argue that children make a distinction betwee
 n verbs in the type of complements they produce (bare nouns\, clitics\, DP
 s\, null) and to some extent in the frequency of null objects they allow t
 hem to show. The relation between null objects and clitic drop will be que
 stioned by reference to a comparison between Greek typical L1 acquisition 
 (spontaneous vs. elicited production) data and a set of data from Dutch L1
  acquisition (spontaneous production only\; Thrift 2003). The aim of the c
 omparison is to discuss the availability of null objects cross-linguistica
 lly and the question of whether they constitute a linguistic and/or a prag
 matic default.
LOCATION:Bowett Room\, Queens' College
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR