Prenominal Sentential Modifiers:
A Study in Acquisition Learnability and Syntax
Keiko Murasugi
The University of Connecticut
1.

Introduction

This paper deals with some acquisition data concerning the Japanese no, collected fromJapanese speaking children, and relevant learnability problems. I will discuss the implicationof the data for Japanese syntax, as well as for the general syntactic theory.
In Japanese, there are three kinds of no. One is the genitive Case marker. The others are of
the categories N and C. The genitive Case marker no appears after NP and PP prenominal
modifiers, but not after CPs (relative clauses), as shown in (1). In various syntactic analysesof these structures, a no-insertion operation is proposed to insert no in the appropriate
structural positions (Saito (1982), Fukui (1986)).
(1)a. [NP [NP Yamada] nohon]
Gen book(Yamada’s book)b. [NP [PP koko kara] no michi]
here from Gen road(the road from here)c. [NP [CP Yamada ga
kaita ] (*no) hon]
Nom wrote (*Gen) book(the book that Yamada wrote)

The no as N appears as the so-called pronoun no and nominalizer no. This no cannot
function as an NP by itself, but must be accompanied by some modifier. Examples of this typeof no are shown in (2). The no as C appears in cleft sentences, as in (3) (Murasugi (1991)).
(2)

a. akainored (+present) one(the red one)b. tabesugiru
no wa yokunai
eat too much
Top good not (+present)(It is not good to eat too much.)(3)

John gakaneonusunda no wa koko kara da
Nom money Acc stoleTop here from is(It is from here that John stole money.)In the acquisition study of Japanese, Harada (1980), Clancy (1985), and our experiments
found that some Japanese speaking children, at around 2-4 years old, overgenerate no after
relative clauses, as illustrated in (4).
1

(4)a. *aoino buubuu
blue (+present)car(the blue car)(Clancy, 1985: 459)

b. *usachan ga
tabeta no ninjin
rabbit
Nom atecarrot(the carrot that the rabbit ate)

(Harada, 1980)

Both Harada and Clancy suggest that the overgenerated no in (4) is the genitive Case marker.
If this is correct, then it appears that children at one point overgeneralize the application of the
no-insertion rule, and only later retreat from this overgeneralization.
The first half of this paper is devoted to the analysis of the categorial status of theovergenerated no in (4). In this discussion, I will show that the pattern of the acquisition ofgenitive Case marking is far more complex that it has been assumed so far. The discussion
begins with the plausible hypothesis that the no in question is the genitive Case marker. It will
be shown that this hypothesis receives support from the syntactic analysis of genitive Case
proposed by Kitagawa and Ross (1982). This hypothesis, however, is eventually rejected.
A piece of evidence against this hypothesis is collected from the acquisition data
indicating that those children who show the overgeneration in (4) fail to insert no after
pronominal modifier of the category PP. In Section 2, I suggest that this undergeneralizationof no-insertion rule reflects the tension between the language particular operation of
no-insertion and the Case Resistance Principle (Stowell (1981)), which states that projectionsof Case assigning categories, such as P and V, are not assigned Case. Presenting more data ofa similar kind, I argue that the acquisition data concerning the syntax of genitive Case provide
us with supporting evidence for the Case Resistance Principle and other principles of Casetheory. Then, on the basis of these acquisition facts, I argue that the overgenerated no in (4) is
not the genitive Case marker, but is of the category C.
Given the conclusion drawn from the acquisition study, I devote the rest of this paper todiscussion of the syntax and learnability of relative clauses in Japanese. The purpose here is toarrive at the adult grammar that meets the learnability criteria and explains the acquisition
data. The pursued hypothesis for the target grammar is that Japanese relative clauses are not
CPs but IPs, which I call IP hypothesis. Section 3 presents evidence form syntax for thishypothesis. I will show that given this IP hypothesis, a different between pre/post-nominal
sentential modifiers in Japanese and English directly follows from the Empty Category
Principle, as formulated in Lasnik and Saito (1990). Section 4 shows that this hypothesis is
supported in light of criteria of learnability.
The final section summarizes the discussion. In this section, data from Korean arepresented as additional evidence for the analysis proposed in this paper. The cross-linguistic
evidence will tell us that it is not merely an accidental phenomenon that the overgeneration in(4) takes place in the child grammar in Japanese, but rather, it is related to the core grammar.

2

2.
2.1.

Acquisition of ‘No’
Acquisition of Genitive Case Marking

It has been observed that in English, CPs and PPs cannot occur in Case marked positions.
For instance, CPs and PPs cannot occur as the object of Case-assigning preposition.
(5)

a. *We talked about [CP that John would be coming home]b. *We talked about [PP to John]

Nor can CPs and PPs occur in the subject position of a finite clause, to which nominative
Case is assigned.
(6)

a. *Although [CP that we leave] is a good idea, we refuse to do sob. *Although [PP about John] is my worry, we will leave

CP complements and PP complements to nouns and adjectives do not trigger of insertion.
(7)

a. John’s [N claim] (*of) [CP that we should leave]b. John was [A happy] (*of) [CP that you had left]
c. John’s [N claim] (*of) [PP about going to New York]d. John was [A happy] (*of) [PP about this marriage]

These syntactic tests suggest that there is some general principle or rule that governs the Case
marking system, predicting that CPs and PPs do not receive Case.
One of the most uniform syntactic explanations for the generalization is provided by theCase Resistance Principle (Stowell (1981)), which states that projections of Case assigningcategories such as P and V are not assigned Case. This principle predicts that phrases whose
head contains a Case-assigning feature cannot be marked for Case. Thus, although the [+N]categories NP and AP may bear Case, it follows that the [-N] categories VP and PP may not.
Stowell argues that clauses are like NPs in that they also contain the features [+N, -V] but
they differ from NPs in that they contain the feature [+tense]. As [+tense] is responsible forthe assignment of Nominative Case, clauses, unlike NPs, resist Case marking. 1
However, there are some piece of empirical evidence from both syntax and acquisition
that cast doubt on the validity of the Case Resistance Principle. In this section, first suchcounter-evidence will be discussed. Then, I will present some acquisition data that provide
supporting evidence for the principle. I conclude that despite the existence of apparent
counter-example, the acquisition data on Case marking support the Case Resistance Principle.
Cross-linguistic analysis has revealed that there are some languages which have different
Case-marking system from English, and in which clauses and/or PPs are in fact assigned Case.
1

Stowell (1981) argues that [+tense] moves to C and assigns nominative Case from this position.
Thus, the heads of the embedded CPs in (5)-(7) contain a Case-assigning feature.

3

For instance, it has been observed that Stowell’s Case Resistance Principle is in direct conflictwith some facts in Japanese. In this language, the genitive Case marker no appears after NP
and PP prenominal modifiers, as shown in (1), repeated below as (8).
(8)

a. [NP [NP Yamada] nohon]
Gen book(Yamada’s book)b. [NP [PP koko kara] no michi]
here from Gen road(the road from here)c. [NP [CP Yamada ga
kaita ] (*no) hon]
Nom wrote (*Gen) book(the book that Yamada wrote)(8b), in particular, shows that PPs trigger the genitive Case marker insertion operation. PPs in
Japanese not only appear with the genitive Case marker, but also occur in the subject positionof a finite clause, to which nominative Case is assigned.
(9)Tokyo kara ga
tooi
from Nom far (+present)(It is far from Tokyo.)

These examples clearly call the Case Resistance Principle into question.
There are also acquisition data that can be interpreted as counter-evidence to theinnateness of the Case Resistance Principle. As noted above, Japanese speaking children
produce ungrammatical relative clauses such as (4a-b). (4a-b) are repeated below as (10a-b).
(10) a. *aoi
no buubuu
blue (+present)car(the blue car)b. *usachan ga
tabeta no ninjin
rabbit
Nom atecarrot(the carrot that the rabbit ate)

(Clancy, 1985: 459)

(Harada, 1980)

As mentioned above, this kind of data suggests that children at one point overgeneralize theapplication of the no-insertion operation even to CP, apparently in violation of the Case
Resistance Principle.
Furthermore, there is a proposal on the syntactic analysis of no that readily accommodates
the acquisition data above, but is in opposition to the Case Resistance Principle. Kitagawa andRoss (1982) capture the difference between Japanese and Chinese prenominal modification
using a parametric approach. (In Chinese, prenominal modifiers of any category, including CP,
are followed by de.) Their analysis assumes the universal rule in (11) governing modifier
marker (MOD) insertion, and accounts for the linguistic variation by a language specific rulein Japanese (but not Chinese) that deletes MOD (i.e., no) under the condition in (12).
4(11) MOD-insertion rule: [NP X NP] → [NP X MOD NP](12) no-deletion rule: [NP X no NP] → [NP X NP]
where: (a) NP≠e, and X= […tense…]
This analysis accounts for the distribution of no, as illustrated in (8), and in addition, it
predicts the overgeneration pattern in (10). At the initial state, children have a grammar
including the MOD-insertion rule. Then, children leaning Japanese must acquire theno-deletion rule on the basis of positive evidence. Hence, at intermediate acquisition stage, nois inserted following the MOD-insertion rule without no-deletion rule. It is then predicted thatchildren produce examples that are ungrammatical in adult Japanese. Thus, the data in (10)may be interpreted as supporting empirical evidence for the analysis proposed by Kitagawa
and Ross (1982). And the analysis is in direct conflict with the Case Resistance Principle,
since it assumes a universal rule that inserts MOD after prenominal modifiers of any
category.2
2.2.

Undergeneration in PP Modifiers

In this subsection and the next, I show that the pattern of acquisition of the no-insertion
operation is far more complex than it has been assumed so far. I will argue that further
examination of the acquisition data provides evidence for the validity of a principle like theCase Resistance Principle, and that the overgenerated no illustrated in (10) is not the genitive
Case marker, but something else.
My experimental study found that just around the time when children overgenerate no in
relative clauses, they undergenerate no after PP modifiers. All of those who showed theovergeneration showed the undergeneration as well. And importantly, the undergeneration
was observed even with children in the same age group who did not show the overgeneration.
That is, all children who produced examples like (10), as well as many who did not,undergeneralized the genitive Case marker insertion operation, and failed to insert no after
prenominal modifiers of the category PP in examples like (13).
(13) Tokyo kara *(no) basu
from *(Gen) bus(the bus from Tokyo)
Furthermore, those children who showed the undergeneration of the genitive Case marker for
PP, inserted the genitive Case marker properly after NP, observing the Case Filter. Somerelevant examples are shown in (14).3
2

However, here, an intriguing learnability problem can be raised. How can there be an intermediateacquisition stage where children overgenerate no in accordance with a universal rule and only later
retreat from this overgeneration to arrive at the adult grammar? That is to say, how do children learn
that the no-deletion rule must apply in examples like (10), despite the absence of direct negative
evidence showing that those examples are ungrammatical with no? A parametric approach again may
provide an answer. Since the deletion rule in (12) is itself a parameterized option of Universal
Grammar, examples in the target language which are not available according to the initial analysis canbe used as positive triggering data for including (12) in the child’s grammar.
3

The genitive Case marker insertion operation on NPs generally seems to start at around the end of
the first year to the beginning of the second year (about 2month later than John no (John’s)). See, for5

(14) a. Emi nohon
Gen book(Emi’s book)b. megane noojichanglasses Gen man(the man with eye glasses)c. heya no
okatazuke
room Gen cleaning up(cleaning up of the room)
The undergeneration of the genitive no for the PP case (but not for the NP case) can beinterpreted to reflect the tension between the language-particular operation of genitive Case
marker insertion and some principle of U(niversal) G(rammar) specifying that PPs do notreceive Case. Children initially observe UG principles such as the Case Filter, which requiresthat a phonetically realized NP be Case-marked. The Case Filter is observed by children in thelate 1 year to early 2 years of age. However, at this stage and even later on, another UG
principle, such as the Case Resistance Principle, is at work to prevent PPs from being
Case-marked. Only later, the Japanese speaking children learn that the language-particular
genitive Case marker insertion rule applies to PP modifiers, on the basis of positive evidence
available. 4
From the learnability point of view, it is reasonable that children start from theundergeneration, strictly obeying UG, attaching the Case marker only on NPs, and only later
learn the language-specific Case marking system, such as Case marking of PPs in Japanese.
Thus, the acquisition data concerning PPs provide us with a piece of supporting evidence forthe validity of the Universal Principles, in particular, the Case Filter and the Case ResistancePrinciple. Note also that the undergeneration of no after PPs is not at all expected under
Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982) analysis, since they assume a universal rule that inserts no after
modifiers of any category.
2.3.

Overgeneration of ‘No’ in CP ModifiersHere, however, it cannot be hastily concluded, just on the basis of the undergeneration ofgenitive for PP, that the Case Resistance Principle provides a full explanation for theacquisition of genitive Case marking. Another problematic case remains, that is, the case of
the overgeneration of no in (10). In this subsection, I will show that the overgenerated no is
not the genitive Case marker, but is something else. It is then concluded that CP modifiers aswell as PP modifiers do not trigger genitive Case marker insertion at the initial stage.
As noted above, there are three kinds of no. One is the genitive Case marker, and theothers are of the categories N and C. The no associated with a nominal feature functions as apronoun (pro-form of N’) and as a nominalizer. No as a complementizer appears in cleft
sentences and interrogative sentences. Examples of no as N and no as C are shown inexample, Komura (1981) for relevant discussion.
4

In some cases, the undergeneration of no with PPs continues even after the age of 4.

6

(15)-(16) below.
(15) a. akainored (+present) one(the red one)b. hashitteiru no
running-is one(the one that is running)(16) a. John gakaneonusunda no wa koko kara da
Nom money Acc stoleTop here from is(It is from here that John stole money.)b. dare ga
hashitteiru no
who Nom running-is(Who is running?)
The crucial question to be asked here is which no, the genitive Case marker or the others, isovergenerated in the child grammar. In the Tokyo Dialect of Japanese, it is empirically
impossible to detect which one is overgenerated, as these different no’s are realized by thesame phonetic form. However, suppose there is some dialect or language in which thesedifferent types of no assume different phonetic forms. Then, by examining the acquisition
data of the dialect or language, we should be able to obtain a piece of empirical evidence todetermine what is overgenerated.
The crucial data were in fact found in a dialect in middle north Japan, called Toyama
Dialect. In this dialect, the genitive Case marker is realized as no as in Tokyo Dialect, while
the other two no’s (the N and the C) are realized as ga. Compare the Toyama Dialect
examples in (17)-(18) with (15)-(16), respectively.
(17) a. akaigared (+present) one(the red one)b. hashitteiru ga
running-is one(the one that is running)(18) a. John gakaneonusunda ga wa koko kara da
Nom money Acc stoleTop here from is(It is from here that John stole money.)b. dare ga
hashitteiru ga
who Nom running-is(Who is running?)
An experimental study in the Toyama region revealed that, at around the same age, theToyama dialect speaking children show the same type of overgeneration as the one in (10),which is observed with children speaking the Tokyo Dialect. And the Toyama Dialect7speaking children overgenerated the complementizer or nominal ga, and not the genitive Case
marker no, as the examples in (19) show.
(19) a. akai
ga booshi
red (+present)cap(the red cap)b. anpanman tsuitoru
ga koppu
a character attaching-is
cup(the cup which is pictured with Anpanman)
If the overgeneration of the genitive Case marker insertion rule is taking place at this stage,then no, and not ga, should be inserted after CP modifiers in this dialect. The acquisition datain (19) clearly show that CPs do not trigger genitive Case marker insertion.
This evidence clearly indicates that the overgenerated no in the Tokyo Dialect, illustratedin (10), is not the genitive Case marker, either. Recall that the overgeneration of the genitive
Case marker is predicted by Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982) analysis. This prediction was notborne out. The dialectal study showed that it is not the genitive Case marker that isovergenerated. This fact, together with the undergeneration of the genitive Case marker with
PPs, actually raises a problem for Kitagawa and Ross’s analysis.
To summarize, children undergenerate the genitive Case marker with PP modifiers. The
overgeneration of no observed at that stage for CP modifiers was not due to theovergeneration of genitive Case marking. Hence, I conclude that neither CP nor PP triggers
genitive Case marker insertion, but only NP does, at the initial stage. This fact clearly
indicates that children have an initial and default grammar in their mind that makes a clear-cut
distinction between categories that need Case and those that do not. Furthermore, this fact isin accord with Stowell’s (1981) Case Resistance Principle. Thus, the acquisition study
presented above provides supporting evidence for the validity of the Case ResistancePrinciple, and the Case theory in general.
2.4.

Acquisition of CP/IP Modifiers

The main conclusion in the previous subsection was that the Japanese speaking children
do not overgenerate the genitive Case marker. This conclusion, however, creates a new
problem. That is, it has to be determined what the overgenerated no is. It mist be of thecategory N or the category C. But which one is it?5 This subsection focuses on the analysis of
the overgeneration phenomenon in relative clauses in Japanese. I will argue that theovergenerated no is of the category C, and then, will start presenting my answers for thefollowing questions: why and how the Japanese speaking children overgenerate no in relative
clauses, and why and how they retreat from this overgeneration.
Suppose, for the purpose of argument, that the overgenerated no is of the category N.
Then, the structure that children conjecture at the stage in question will be as follows.
5

The three different no’s are acquired prior to the stage of the overgeneration in question. Therefore,
mere examination of longitudinal data does not yield any clue to favor either possibility about thecategorical status of the no in question.

8

(20)

NP
NP
CP

NP
N

N’

(no)

N

Thus, according to this hypothesis, the stage of the overgeneration can be interpreted as thestage when the Japanese speaking children lexically realize the head of N in a modifier NP.
However, this hypothesis immediately faces a problem.
As noted above, my experimental study found that the children who show theovergeneration properly apply no-insertion after NP modifiers. Some examples are shown in(21).
(21) a. megane noojichanglasses Gen man(the man with eye glasses)
b. oyamanoohana
mountain Gen flower(the flower of the mountain)
Therefore, we predict that those children (who already know the no-insertion operation)
should insert no between the NP modifier and the head N in (20), as illustrated in (22).
(22)

NP
NP
CP

NP
N ↑

N’

no

N

However, this prediction is not borne out. The Japanese speaking children, whether they
speak Tokyo Dialect or Toyama Dialect, do not insert no in the context illustrated in (22).
They do not produce such ill-formed examples as the following.
(23) Tokyo Dialect
a. *aoi( *noblue (+present) N(the blue car)no) buubuu
Gen carb. *usachan ga
tabeta ( *norabbit
Nom ateN(the carrot that the rabbit ate)no) ninjin
Gen carrot

9

Toyama Dialecta. akai( *ga no) booshi
red (+present)
N Gen cap(the red cap)b. anpanman tsuitoru( *ga no) koppu
a character attaching-is
N Gen cup(the cup which is pictured with Anpanman)
The absence of the no-insertion in (22) provides strong evidence against the hypothesis thatthe overgenerated no is of the category N.
This brings us to the alternative hypothesis that the overgenerated no is of the category C.
That is, at the stage of the overgeneration, the head C of a relative clause CP is phoneticallyrealized as no, although it is not in the adult grammar. If this is the case, the structure of
relative clauses conjectured by the children at this stage will be as follows.
(24)

NP
CP

NP
C’

N’

IP

C

……

no

N

Note that this structure is identical to the one assumed for English relative clauses (aside fromthe linear order of constituents). I hypothesize, then, that CP is the unmarked category for
relative clauses, and some children, on the basis of their structural knowledge of CP (e.g., thatthe position C exists as the head position of a CP), lexically realize the head C as no. If this is
the case, positive evidence, e.g., the evidence that C is realized as no in cleft sentences, can beassumed to trigger the overgeneration of no.6
If CP is the unmarked category for relative clauses and this is part of the reason for theovergeneration of no, then an explanation must be provided for the fact that C is notphonetically realized in relative clauses in the adult grammar of Japanese. Two reasons for theinvisibility of the C in the adult grammar can be conjectured. One possibility is that the C isnull. The other is that there is no structural position for the C. The former assumes thatJapanese relative clauses have a null complementizer. The latter assumes that relative clauses
are not CPs in Japanese. Rather, in Japanese, relative clauses are IPs, and the relative operator
is adjoined to IP. In the following section, I will present syntactic evidence for the second
hypothesis.

6

Further, no is the type of complementizer that appears in non-complement CPs. The othercomplementizer to appears typically when the CP subcategorizes the verb. This fact will make thechildren overgenerate no, and not to, in the position in question.

10

3.

Syntactic Analysis

In this section, I will argue for the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses are of thecategory IP. Observe first the following difference between English and Japanese.
(25) a. the reason [(whyi) [Mary thinks [that John left ti]]]b. *[Mary ga[John ga
ti kaetta to] omotteiru ] riyuu
Nom
Nom leftC thinkreason(the reason Mary thinks that John left)(26) a. the book [(whichi) [Mary thinks [that John bought ti]]]b. [Mary ga[John ga
ti kattato] omotteiru ] hon
Nom
Nom bought C thinkbook(the book Mary thinks that John bought)(27) [John ga
ti kaetta ] riyuu
Nom leftreason(the reason John left)
In Japanese relative clauses, movement from an argument position is unbounded as shown in(26b), but movement from an adjunct position is clause-bounded, as the contrast between(25b) and (27) shows.7 On the other hand, in English, movement from either type of positionis unbounded, as illustrated in (25a) and (27a). I will show that if we hypothesize thatJapanese relative clauses are IPs, then the difference between English and Japanese relative
clauses in (25) directly follows from the Empty Category Principle (ECP), as formulated in
Lasnik and Saito (1990).8
3.1.

The ECP

Before going into the main discussion, I will briefly illustrate the Empty Category
Principle (ECP). The ECP requires that certain empty categories be in a structural position
where they are governed by a proper governor. The principle is stated as follows.
(28) A nonpronominal empty category must be properly governed.
(Chomsky, 1981)
Traces of movement, being nonpronominal empty categories, are subject to this principle. The
relation of proper government itself is defined in Lasnik and Saito (1990) as follows.9
7

In the case of argument relativization, it is not clear that movement is necessarily involved. (Cf.
Kuno (1973), Saito (1985), S. Saito (1988), Kameshima (1989), Murasugi (1991) and Ishii (1991).)
But since this problem is not directly relevant to the discussion here, I will simply assume that allcases of relativization in Japanese involve movement.
8

I will crucially rely on their hypothesis that only X-zero categories can be proper governors. Thisparticular hypothesis is proposed also in Stowell (1981) and Rizzi (1986).
9

There is much controversy as to the precise definition of this relation. See, for example, Chomsky

11(29) α properly governs β=df α is an X-zero category c-commanding β and1. α θ-marks or Case marks β (lexical government), or
2. α is coindexed with β and β is subjacent to α (antecedent government)
The two types of proper government, lexical government and antecedent government, bothplay important roles. Let us first consider the case of lexical government. Both (30a) and(30b) violate the Subjacency Condition.
(30) a. *the reason (whyi) John wonders [who left ti]b.??the book (whichi) John wonders [who bought ti]
But (30a) is far worse than (30b). What distinguishes the ill-formedness of (30a) and themarginality of (30b) is the ECP. That is, (30a) violates the ECP, but (30b) does not. The trace
ti in (30b) is lexically governed by the verb bought. On the other hand, the trace ti in (30a),being an adjunct trace, is not lexically governed by the verb left. (Cf. Huang (1982), Lasnik
and Saito (1984), among others) Hence, lexical government successfully distinguishes (30a)and (30b).
However, there are cases which indicate that lexical government cannot be the only modeof proper government. Observe the following.
(31) the reason (whyi) John left ti
In this example, as in (30a), the trace is not lexically governed by left. Thus, if lexical
government were the only mode of proper government, the ECP should rule out this example.
But clearly, (31) is well-formed. Given antecedent government, this example is correctly
allowed. The structure of (31) is illustrated below in (32).10
(32)

NP
NP
the reason

CP
whyi
opi

C’
Ci

IP
John left ti

By SPEC-head agreement, C gets the index of the wh-phrase (or the empty operator). The(1981), Aoun and Sportiche (1981), Huang (1982), and Chomsky (1986) for alternative proposals.
(29) is a somewhat simplified version of the definition proposed by Lasnik and Saito. For thedefinition of subjacency they assume, see Lasnik and Saito (1990, Chapter 3). The following
definition from Chomsky (1973) suffices for the purpose here.
β is subjacent to α = df there is at most one bounding node (NP or IP) that dominates β but not α.
10

If why is not present in the CP SPEC position, an empty operator occupies this position.

12

trace is subjacent to the C, and hence is properly (antecedent) governed by it. Thus, (31)satisfies the ECP through antecedent government.
Let us finally go back to (30a). As we saw above, the trace ti is not lexically governed inthis example. If this trace violates the ECP, then it must not be antecedent governed, either.
And this is in fact the case. As illustrated in (33), the potential antecedent governor Ci is “toofar” from this trace.
(33)

CP
whyi
opi

C’
Ci

IP
CP
C’
Cj

IP
..tj..ti..

More specifically, ti is not subjacent to Ci. Hence, ti is not antecedent governed, and violates
the ECP.11
The definition of proper government stated above in (29) assumes that the following
holds.
(34) Only X-zero categories can be proper (antecedent) governors.
Since this condition on proper government (and hence on antecedent government) plays acrucial role in our account for the facts of Japanese relative clauses, I will briefly discuss one
piece of supporting evidence for it.
Rizzi (1986) argues that a restriction on heavy NP shift (henceforth HNPS) follows as an
immediate consequence of the condition in (34). Observe first the following example of
HNPS, in which the NP object the verb is moved rightward.
(35) I gave ti to John [NP all of my books on vowel harmony]iIn this example, the trace is lexically governed by the verb gave, and furthermore, the trace isbound by the shifted heavy NP. Observe next contrast between (36) and (37).12(36) I consider [IP ti to be desirable] [NP the perspective that S]i
11

The trace of who is antecedent governed by Cj, which gets the index j by SPEC-head agreementwith the wh-phrase.
12

The examples in (36)-(37) are from Rizzi (1986, Fn 30).

13

(37) *I consider that [IP ti is desirable] [NP the perspective that S]iThis pair illustrates the following generalization. In the exceptional Case marking (ECM)
construction, the subject of the IP complement can undergo HNPS. But the subject of a tensed
clause can never be moved rightward by HNPS. Rizzi (1986) shows that this generalization is
captured if antecedent government can take place only from a head position. According to thishypothesis, a C, being a head (X-zero), can antecedent govern a trace, but an NP
right-adjoined by HNPS, being an X-max, cannot.
Let us examine the contrast in (36)-(37) in more detail. In (36), the trace of the shifted NP,
which is in the SPEC of IP, is lexically governed by the matrix verb, consider. Thus, lexical
government obtains. Note here that HNPS in this example does not create a configuration of
antecedent government. The moved NP is adjoined to IP (or VP) as shown in (38).
(38)

VP
V

IP
IP
tj

NP
I’

to….
Since the adjoined NP is not an X-zero category, it is not eligible to antecedent govern the
trace. This fact is of no import in the case of (36), since lexical government obtains.
On the other hand, in (37), since the trace is in the subject position of a finite clause, it is
not lexically governed. Furthermore, antecedent government fails exactly as in the case of(36). The NP moved rightward is adjoined to IP, as shown in (39). It is a maxima; projection
and consequently, cannot be an antecedent governor.
(39)

VP
V

CP
C’
C

IP
IP

tj

NP
I’

I

VP

Thus, the ECP based on the condition in (34) correctly rules out the example (37). Note that if(34) did not hold, antecedent government would obtain in the configuration in (39). Lasnik
and Saito (1990), examining topicalization of subject NPs, also draw the conclusion that only
X-zero categories can be antecedent governors. (See Lasnik and Saito (1990, Chapter 4) for14

the details.)
3.2.

Antecedent Government in Relative Clauses

In the preceding subsection, the ECP and the condition on antecedent government in (34)were discussed. The present subsection focuses on the contrast between (25a) and (25b),
which are repeated below in (40).
(40) a. the reason [(whyi) [Mary thinks [that John left ti]]]b. *[Mary ga[John ga
ti kaetta to] omotteiru ] riyuu
Nom
Nom leftC thinkreason(the reason Mary thinks that John left)

I will show that this contrast is immediately accounted for, if we assume the condition (34) on
antecedent governors and my hypothesis on the structural difference between English andJapanese relative clauses.
First, consider the English relative clause in (40a). The movement of why (or the empty
operator) is possible, because, as shown in (41), the traces in this example can satisfy the
ECP.
(41)

NP
NP
the reason

CP
whyi
opi

C’
Ci

IP
I’
I

VP
V

CP
t’i

C’
Ci

IP
...ti...

The lower C receives the index I through SPEC-head agreement with the intermediate trace t’i,and antecedent governs the initial trace ti. 13 The intermediate trace is itself antecedent
13

As Huang (1982) observes, adjuncts do not display that-trace effects. For example, (i) and (ii) do
not contrast.

15

governed by the higher C, which receive s the index i through SPEC-head agreement withwhy (or the empty operator).
Although (40a) is well-formed in English, the parallel Japanese example in (40b) is
ill-formed. Suppose the structure of Japanese relative clauses is the identical to the one shouldbe allowed for the same reason that (40a) is. Hence, the ill-formedness of (40b) indicates that
there is a structural difference between relative clauses in Japanese and English.
Suppose then that Japanese relative clauses are not CPs. Rather, in Japanese, relative
clauses are IPs, and the relative operator is adjoined to IP. Then, the structure of (40b) will be
as follows.
(42)

NP
IP
Opi

NP
IP

riyuu (reason)
I’

VP
CP
t’i

I
V

C’
IP

Ci

...ti...
In (42), the initial trace ti is antecedent governed by C, which receives the index I throughSPEC-head agreement with the intermediate trace. However, the intermediate trace t’i is notproperly governed, and hence, is in violation of the ECP. The potential antecedent governor
for this trace is the empty operator adjoined to IP. But since it is not an X-zero category, it
does not qualify as an antecedent governor. Thus, given the condition on antecedent
government in (34), (40b) is correctly ruled out by the ECP.
The analysis of (40b) suggested above is somewhat similar to the ECP account of (43)proposed in Lasnik and Saito (1984, 1990).
(43) *the reason (whyi) Mary wonders [who thinks[ that John left ti]](i)

Whyi [do you think [t’i [he left early ti]]](ii) Whyi [do you think [that [he left early ti]]]See Huang (1982), and Lasnik and Saito (1984) for relevant discussion.

16

(44)

NP
NP
the reason

CP
whyi
opi

C’
Ci

IP
I’
I

VP
V

CP
whoj

C’
Cj

IP
tj

I’
I

VP
V

CP
t’i

C’
Ci

IP
John left ti

In (44), the initial trace ti is antecedent governed by the lowest C, which receive the index ithrough SPEC-head agreement with the intermediate trace t’i. However, the intermediate trace
t’i is not properly governed, and is in violation of ECP. The potential antecedent governor forthis trace is the highest C, which receive the index i from whyi/Opi. But t’i is not subjacent tothis C. Hence, this trace fails to be antecedent governed, and violates the ECP. The trace t’iwould have satisfied the ECP if the intermediate C had the index i. And this C could receive
the index I if whyi/Opi. could move successively-cyclically through the intermediate CP SPEC
position. But this cyclic movement is barred, since whoj is already in the intermediate CP
SPEC position.
Note finally that the analysis of Japanese relative clauses as IPs is quite consistent withthe grammaticality of (26b), which is repeated below as (45).
(45) [Mary ga[John ga
ti kattato] omotteiru ] hon
Nom
Nom bought C thinkbook(the book Mary thinks that John bought)

17

(46)

NP
IP
Opi

NP
IP

hon (book)
I’

VP
CP
t’i

I
V

C’
IP

Ci

...ti...
In (46), the initial trace ti is lexically governed by the verb katta. The intermediate trace t’i isnot properly governed, as in the case of (42).14 However, this intermediate trace can bedeleted. (And also it need not be produced to begin with.) According to Lasnik and Saito(1984, 1990), only in cases where lexical government does not obtain for the initial trace, theintermediate trace must be present to give its index to C and make the C antecedent govern
the initial trace.15 As noted above, in (46), the initial trace ti is lexically governed. Hence, thefact that the intermediate trace is not antecedent governed is of no import in this case. (45) isthus correctly allowed by the ECP.
(45), then is explained in exactly the same way that Lasnik and Saito (1984, 1990) explain(47).
(47) ??the book (whichi) John wonders who said that Mary bought ti

14This is because the potential antecedent governor for this trace is the empty operator adjoined to IP.
It is not an X-zero category, and hence, does not qualify as an antecedent governor.
15

See also Stowell (1981) for a similar proposal.

18

(48)

NP
NP
the book

CP
whyi
opi

C’
Ci

IP
I’
I

VP
V

CP
whoj

C’
Cj

IP
tj

I’
I

VP
V

CP
t’i

C’
Ci

IP
... ti...

In this example also, the intermediate trace t’i is not properly (antecedent) governed. But thisis irrelevant, since the initial trace ti is lexically governed by bought, and hence theintermediate trace need not be present in the structure.
3.3.

Pure Complex NPs

The analysis of relative clauses presented in the preceding subsection accounts for thecases of long distance movement. In this subsection, I deal with one last problem to be solved.
One should wonder why (27), which is repeated below as (49), is well-formed.
(49) [John ga
ti kaetta ] riyuu
Nom leftreason(the reason John left)
Given the IP hypothesis, the ECP, with antecedent government defined as in Lasnik and Saito(1990), incorrectly rules out this example. The structure of (49) is shown below.

19

(50)

NP
IP

NP

Opi

IP

riyuu (reason)…ti…
(50) is ruled out by the ECP for the same reason that (42) is. The potential antecedent
governor for the trace ti is the empty operator adjoined to IP. But since it is not an X-zero
category, it is not eligible to antecedent govern the trace. Thus, given the condition on
antecedent government in (34), the trace ti is not properly (antecedent) governed.
This indicates that if the analysis in the preceding subsection is correct, the example (49)cannot have the operator-trace relation as represented in (50). That is, (49) does not have astructure of relative clause as in (50), but has a structure of a pure complex NP. Clear cases ofJapanese pure complex NPs are given below.
(51) a. sakana gayakeru nioifish
Nom burn
smell(Lit. the smell that the fish burns)
b. doa ga
shimaru oto
door Nom shutsound
(Lit. the sound that the door shuts)
The structure of these examples is as follows.
(52)

NP
XP

N’

In (52), the sentential modifier, which I tentatively call XP, and the N’ are in a modifying
relation. The hypothesis we arrived at, then is that (49) also has this structure. This hypothesis,though it may look ad hoc, is actually supported by the existence of English examples such as
the following.
(53) the reason for John’s leaving(53) shows that Ns such as reason can take a “pure sentential modifier.” And exactly as in theJapanese case, the head reason cannot be understood with the most deeply embedded clausein examples such as (54).
(54) the reason for Mary’s saying that John left
Given the conclusion that (49) is a pure complex NP, there arises the possibility that all“relative clauses” in Japanese do not have the operator-trace relation, but are “pure sentential
modifiers.” If this hypothesis is correct, even examples like (55) would have the structure in
(52).
20

(55) John ga
katta
hon
Nom bought book(the book that John bought)
But this hypothesis seems implausible, since examples such as (56), in contrast to (53), areill-formed.
(56) *the book of John’s buying (it)I therefore conclude that (55) contains relative clause. And if Japanese has relative clauses,
the question why (40b) is ill-formed as a relative clause remains to be a real problem. The
proposed solution to this problem, as discussed in detail above, is that Japanese relative
clauses are IPs.
Having established that Japanese relative clauses are IPs, I will now briefly discuss thecategorical status of “pure sentential modifiers.” To begin with, observe the example ofEnglish pure complex NP in (57).
(57) the claim [CP *(that) [Bill had left the party]]
In English, the CP modifiers in pure complex NPs do not allow that-deletion. That is, thatmust be present in the head position of the CP in examples such as (57). As will be discussed
in detail below, Stowell (1981) proposes to account for this phenomenon in terms of the ECP.
The general distribution of empty Cs is explained as a consequence of the ECP by Kayne(1981) and Stowell (1981). Observe the contrast in (58), which shows the subject/object
asymmetry characteristic of the ECP.
(58) a. Ben knew [CP (that) [IP the teacher was lying]]b. [CP *(That) [IP the teacher was lying]] was hardly obvious
In (58a), the complementizer that need not be present, but in (58b), it is obligatory. One
differences between these example is that the embedded CP is in the object position and hence,is lexically governed by the verb knew in (58a), while it is in the subject position and hence, is
not lexically governed in (58b). Kayne and Stowell capitalize on this difference, and propose
to account for the contrast as follows. Suppose first that when the complementizer that is
missing, there is an empty category in the C position, which is subject to the ECP. Then, withthe reasonable assumption that lexical government “percolates down to head”,16 the empty C
will be lexically governed in the case of (58a), but not in the case of (58b). Thus, when that is
not present, (58a) satisfies the ECP, but (58b) violates this principle.
The ECP account of (58) outlined above is extended to examples like (57) in Stowell(1981). He assumes that in a pure complex NP, the N, even if it is a derived nominal, does not
assign a theta role to the CP, but is in apposition to it. 17 Given this assumption, theThat is, if α lexically govern β, then α lexically govern the head of β. See Stowell (1981), Bellettiand Rizzi (1981), and Lasnik and Saito (1984) for independent evidence for this assumption.
16

17

This assumption is controversial, especially for examples such as (i)21obligatoriness of that in (57) is accounted for by the ECP, exactly as that in (58b). When thatis not present, an empty category occupies the C position. It is not lexically governed by N,
and hence, is not properly governed at all. Thus, it follows from the ECP that the head C of apure sentential modifier must be lexically realized.18
Then, what about pure complex NPs in Japanese? In contrast to the case in English, C
never shows up in Japanese pure complex NPs.
(59) the fact *(that) John is smart(60) a. sakana gayakeru (*no/*to) nioifish
Nom burn
smell(Lit. the smell that the fish burns)
b. doa ga
shimaru (*no/*to) oto
door Nom shutsound
(Lit. the sound that the door shuts)
This brings us to the hypothesis that the sentential modifiers in Japanese pure complex NPs
are IPs. Suppose that the sentential modifiers are CPs. Then, the ECP requires that a lexical
complementizer be present in the head position of those CPs. As we saw in detail above, if alexical complementizer is not present, those CPs should be ruled out by the ECP. Hence, themere fact that a lexical complementizer is not present indicates that pure sentential modifiersin Japanese cannot be CPs. Thus, the IP hypothesis is drawn for Japanese pure complex NPs.
According to this hypothesis, the structure of pure complex NPs in Japanese is as follows.
(61)

NP
IP

(i)

N’

the proof *(that) John is qualified

See Anderson (1983) for relevant discussion. As an alternative, it may be stipulated as in Kayne(1981) that N, as opposed to V, does not “govern into” the head of CP.
18(i)

The C position may be empty in relative clauses, as shown in (i).
[NP the man [CP Opi [C’ (that) [IP John saw ti ]]]]

This seems to be related to the fact that an operator occupies the CP SPEC position and agrees withthe head C.
Lasnik and Saito (1990, Chapter 5) discuss examples such as the following, and conjecture thatthe empty C in this example is not subject to the ECP because of the presence of the feature [+WH].
(ii) [CP Whati [C’ +WH [IP John bought ti]]] is obvious
This hypothesis extends to relative clauses such as (iii) and also to the case of (i) where that is absent,
if an analogous feature [+R] is present in C in these cases.
(iii) [NP the man [CP whoi [C’ +R [IP John saw ti ]]]]

22

This hypothesis predicts correctly that the examples in (60) are not ECP violations,
Furthermore, it explains the fact that a lexical complementizer can never show up in Japanesepure complex NPs.
I conclude then that not only relative clauses but also pure sentential modifiers are Ips inJapanese. We thus arrive at the generalization that all prenominal sentential modifiers are IPs
in Japanese. I crucially rely on this result in the following section, where I discuss thequestion of how children retreat from the overgeneration of no.

4.

IP Hypothesis: Its Learnability

In the preceding section, I presented some syntactic evidence that Japanese relative
clauses are not CP modifiers, but IP modifiers. In this section, I will deal with a learnability
problem associated with this hypothesis.
According to the analysis presented above, those children who show the overgeneration of
no are those who entertain the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses are CPs. The precise
reason for the overgeneration can be stated as follows. Children initially assume that Japaneserelative clauses are CPs, because CP is the unmarked category for relative clauses. Then, they
overgenerate no in the head position of the CP, since they know on independent grounds thatno can be a C. The trigger for this is accessible from positive evidence. C is realized as no, forinstance, in Japanese cleft sentences, as illustrated in (62).
(62) John gaokashi otabeta no wa kooen (de) da
Nom sweets Acc ate
Top park
at is(It is at the park that John ate sweets.)
As those who overgenerate no do so quite consistently, they seem to assume that once C islexically realized somewhere (in the language), it must always be realized, even inpronominal sentential modifiers. This can be stated more generally as follows, as a universal
convention children adhere to (across languages).19(63) Lexically realize a functional category if it is possible to do so.
They retreat from the overgeneration as they realize that Japanese relative clauses are Ips andhence, that there is no structural position for C.
If this analysis is correct, then those children who do not show the overgeneration arethose who have found out the proper structure of Japanese relative clauses quickly, almost
instantaneously, on the basis of positive evidence available. And those who entertain the CP
hypothesis also eventually attain the target grammar on the basis of positive evidence. Then
what kind of evidence would make the children shift from the CP hypothesis to the IP
hypothesis? In particular, how do those children who overgenerate no discover that Japanese
19

Diane Lillo-Martin (p.c.) points out that if we take into consideration the Avoid Pronoun Principle,
a line can be drawn between functional and non-functional categories with respect to the strategy
children initially adhere to. Children do not lexically realize non-functional categories if it is possible
not to (depending on pragmatics and other factors), but they do realize functional categories if it ispossible to do so as stated in (63).

23relative clauses are IPs, and retreat from the overgeneration? At first sight, it appears that
simple example of relative clauses, such as (64) can serve the relevant positive evidence.
(64) John ga
mita (*no) hito
Nom saw
person(the person John saw)
In the adult grammar of Japanese, C never shows up in relative clauses. Hence, C is missingin the relative clauses children receive as input. This, it may be conjectured, leads the children
to infer that Japanese relative clauses are IPs.
However, this hypothesis faces a serious problem. As shown in (65), the head C is only
optionally realized in English relative clauses.
(65) the cookie (that) Mary ate
Hence, English speaking children will receive as input relative clauses with C phoneticallymissing. Yet, they do not conclude on the basis of such input that English relative clauses are
IPs. They conclude merely that it is not necessary to lexically realize the C in relative clauses.
Given this, it is quite unlikely that the absence of a lexical complementizer leads Japanese
speaking children to conclude that Japanese relative clauses are IPs.
Then, what is it that makes the Japanese speaking children attain the target grammar? The
key to solve this problem, I believe, can be found when we consider the syntax of purecomplex NPs in English and Japanese. Observe the following example of English purecomplex NP.
(66) the fact *(that) John is smart
In English, the head C of the modifying CP must be lexically realized. In Japanese, on theother hand, C does not show up, as in the case of relative clauses.
(67) John ga
kashikoi(*no) koto
Nom clever (+present)
fact(the fact that John is clever)
Here, recall the conclusion drawn above from examples such as (67). If Japanese puresentential modifiers are CPs, then Stowell’s (1981) ECP account for (66) predicts that the C
must be lexically realized in examples such as (67). However, C never shows up in thoseexamples. Hence, we concluded that pure sentential modifiers, like relative clauses are IPs in
Japanese.
If this analysis is correct, then Japanese speaking children should be able to infer from
simple examples of pure complex NP that pure sentential modifiers are IPs in Japanese. If the
ECP is in UG, then any example of pure complex NP will suffice as positive evidence to reachthis conclusion. As no lexical complementizer show up in a pure sentential modifier, neither
the node C nor the node CP should be present in the structure. Suppose now that the IP
hypothesis drawn from the pure complex NP data generalizes to all complex NPs. Or more
concretely, suppose that the category of all pre/post-nominal sentential modifiers isparameterized; it is CP or IP depending on the language. Then, Japanese speaking children
attain the knowledge that relative clauses are IPs on the basis of evidence from pure complex
24

NPs.
The learnability problem is now given a solution. Japanese children overgenerate no
because the unmarked setting for pre/post-nominal sentential modifiers is CP. But as theyknow the ECP, the absence of lexical complementizer in pure complex NP makes themchange the parameter value of CP modifier to that of IP modifier. Once the target structure is
fully attained, the overgenerated no, which was once realized in the C position, is not evenconsidered optional. Rather, it is concluded that no should not appear, because there is no C
position in which no can be realized in the attained grammar.

5.

Conclusion: Where Acquisition, Learnability and Syntax Meet

5.1.

Summary

The goal of this paper was to explain why some of the Japanese speaking children, at
about 2-4 years old, produce such NPs as (68).
(68) Tokyo Dialect
a. *aoi
blue (+present)(the blue car)nobuubuucarb. *usachan ga
tabeta no ninjin
rabbit
Nom atecarrot(the carrot that the rabbit ate)

(Clancy, 1985: 459)

(Harada, 1980)

Section 2 drew the conclusion that the Japanese speaking children do not overgeneralize
genitive Case marking, but rather, they start from the minimal application of the no-insertion
rule, and attach no only to prenominal NP modifiers. The argument against the hypothesis ofgenitive Case marking overgeneralization was based on the data indicating theundergeneration of no in PP modifiers, and the data concerning the acquisition of Toyama
Dialect.
(69) Toyama Dialecta. akai
ga booshi
red (+present)cap(the red cap)b. anpanman tsuitoru
ga koppu
a character attaching-is
cup(the cup which is pictured with Anpanman)
At first, the acquisition data in (68) seemed to provide evidence for the syntactic analysis of
Kitagawa and Ross (1982). But, the data in (69), I argued, show that this is not the case.
Instead, I analyzed the acquisition data as a piece of supporting evidence for the UG
principles such as the Case Resistance Principle and the Case Filter.
Given that the no in (68) is not the genitive Case marker, a question arose as to the25categorical status of this no. I discussed this question, examining two hypotheses: (i) it is N
and (ii) it is C. The absence of no-insertion in the overgeneration examples, but not with NP
modifiers, led us to conclude that the overgenerated no is not of the category N. Hereupon, I
reached the conclusion that the category of the no in question is C. Then, the focus moved to
the learnability questions: why and how the Japanese children overgenerate no of the category
C in relative clauses, and why and how they retreat from this overgeneration. This learnability
question was chained further to the following syntactic question: how can we describe thetarget grammar in a way consistent with the acquisition data and the learnability criteria?
More specifically, I pursued the question why C cannot be phonetically realized in the adultgrammar of Japanese.
In Section 3, I discussed the syntax of Japanese relative clauses. I proposed that Japaneserelative clauses are not CPs but IPs, and showed that given this IP hypothesis, a difference
between English and Japanese relative clauses directly follows from the ECP, as formulated in
Lasnik and Saito (1990). In Section 4, I showed that this hypothesis meets the learnability
criteria. One of the main conclusions of this paper is that Japanese relative clauses are IPs
modifiers. This conclusion was attained from studies in syntax, learnability and acquisition.
5.2.

Additional Evidence from KoreanThis paper was concerned with a specific overgeneration phenomenon in Japanese. Before
we conclude this paper, it should be questioned whether what happens in Japanese (in Toyama
Dialect as well as in Tokyo Dialect) is merely an accidental phenomenon or not. Does theovergeneration in question take place in other languages? We would predict that it takes placein languages whose syntax is similar to that of Japanese. This final subsection presents a pieceof additional evidence from Korean supporting the plausibility of the analysis proposed in thispaper.20
Recall first the paradigm of no in the Japanese adult grammar. In Tokyo Dialect, there arethree kinds of no. One is the genitive Case marker. The others are of the categories N and C.
Recall also that in Toyama Dialect, the first is realized as no as in Tokyo Dialect, but the latter
two are realized as ga. Korean shows the same paradigm as the one in Toyama Dialect. In thislanguage, the genitive Case marker is uy, but what corresponds to the latter two kinds of no(those of the categories N and C) is kes.
First, observe the following examples of genitive Case marking in Korean.
(70) a. Chelsu uy cha
Gen car(Chelsu’s car)b. Hartford roputeo uy ku kicha
fromGen the train(the train from Hartford)

20

I would like to thank Myungkwan Park for the Korean data discussed in this section.

26

c. Chomsky kasseoss deon (*uy) ku chaek
Nom wrote(*Gen) the book(the book that Chomsky wrote)
Compare (70) with the Japanese paradigm in (71).
(71) a. [NP [NP Yamada] nohon]
Gen book(Yamada’s book)b. [NP [PP koko kara] no michi]
here from Gen road(the road from here)c. [NP [IP Yamada ga
kaita ] (*no) hon]
Nom wrote (*Gen) book(the book that Yamada wrote)
These examples show that the genitive Case marker is attached to NPs and PPs, but not torelative clauses, in both Korean and Japanese.
The Korean kes corresponds to no of the category N.
(72) a. Chelsu uy kes
Gen one‘Chelsu’s one)b. nae ka
mekkoiss-nun kes
I
Nom eating-is
one(what I am eating)Kes also occurs as C in cleft sentences, as illustrated in (73).21(73) totuk itonul hunchin kes uneyki lopute ta
robber Nom money Acc stoleTop here fromis
(It is from here that the robber stole the money.)This kes corresponds to no of the category C, which is exemplified in (74).
(74) John gakaneonusunda no wa koko kara da
Nom money Acc stoleTop here from is(It is from here that John stole money.)
Finally, as in Japanese, a lexical complementizer cannot appear in a prenominal sentential
modifier in Korean. The Korean examples in (75) correspond to the Japanese ones in (76).

21

The other complementizer ko appears typically when the CP subcategories the verb. The Korean kocorresponds to the Japanese to.

27

(75) a. Chelsu ka
ilk-un (*kes/*ko) chaek
Nom readbook(the book that Chelsu read)b. Chelsu ka
tolaka-n (*kes/*ko) sasil
Nom returned
fact(the fact that Chelsu returned)(76) a. Taroo ga
yonda (*no/*to) hon
Nom readbook(the book that Taro read)b. Taroo ga
kaetta(*no/*to) jijitsu
Nom went backfact
(the fact that Taro went back)The parallel paradigms between Japanese and Korean suggest that the analysis given forJapanese in this paper may hold for Korean as well. If so, then it is predicted that Korean
speaking children show the same type of overgeneration. That is, it is predicted that Korean
speaking children show the overgeneration of kes, and not uy. And there is in fact anacquisition study reporting the overgeneration of kes. Kim (1987) notes that Korean speaking
children overgenerate kes between a prenominal sentential modifier and the head noun, as in(77).
(77) acessi otopai
tha-nun *kes soliyauncle motorcycle riding-is
sound is(Lit. (This) is the sound that a man is riding a motorcycle.)(Kim, 1987: 90)
Thus, the analysis proposed in this paper receives further support from Korean.

Acknowledgement
A shorter version of this paper was presented at the Boston University Conference on
Language Development held in October 1990. I am grateful to Mona Anderson, HowardLasnik, Diane Lillo-Martin and Mamoru Saito for their discussions and suggestions for thispaper. Special thanks go to Emi Okamoto’s family and Mari Kanazawa’s family for letting me
longitudinally observe Emi (from two to four) and Mari (from two to three). Finally, I would
like to thank the following Day Care Centers in Japan, which allowed me to hold experiments
for this study: Kurita Day Care Center (Nagano City), Hibari Day Care Center (Toyama City),
Sugihara Day Care Center (Sugihara Town, Toyama). The research presented here was
supported in part by the University of Connecticut Research Foundation Large Grant
No.35-116, “The Structure of Noun Phrases: Comparative Syntax of Chinese, Japanese andKorean” (Principle Investigator: Mamoru Saito).

28

References
Anderson, M. 1983. “Prenominal Genitive NP’s,” The Linguistic Review 3, 1-25.
Aoun, J. and D. Sportiche. 1981. “On the Formal Theory of Government,” paper presented at
the 1981 GLOW conference, Gottingen.
Belletti, A and L.Rizzi. 1981. “The Syntax of ‘Ne’: Some Theoretical Implications,” The
Linguistic Review 1, 117-154.
Chomsky, N. 1973. “Condition on Transformations,” in S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds.,
A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. 232-286.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Clancy, P. 1985. “The Acquisition of Japanese,” in D.I. Slobin, ed., The Crosslinguistic Studyof Language Acquisition (Vol. 1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New
Jersey. 373-524.
Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation,
MIT.
Harada, K. I. 1980. “Notes on the Acquisition of the Genitive Case Particle No,” ms.
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D.
Dissertation, MIT.
Ishii, Y. 1991. Operator and Empty Categories in Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Kameshima, N. 1989. The Syntax of Restrictive and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses inJapanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Kayne, R. 1981. “ECP Extensions,” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93-133.
Kim, Y. 1987. The Acquisition of Relative Clauses in English and Korean: Development in
Spontaneous Production. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.

29

Kitagawa, C. and C.N.G. Ross. 1982. “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,”
Linguistics Analysis 9, 19-53.
Komura, A. 1981. “Shoyuu-hyoogen no Hattatsu,” in M. Mori and F.C. Peng, eds., Aspects ofLanguage Acquisitioin. Bunka Hyooron Publishing Co., Hiroshima, Japan.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1984. “On the Nature of Proper Government,” Linguistics Inquiry 15,
235-289.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1990. Move α. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Murasugi, K. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability
and Acquisition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Rizzi, L. 1986. “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro,” Linguistic Inquiry 17,
501-557.
Saito, M. 1982. “Case Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” ms. MIT.
Saito, M. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Ph.D.
Dissertation, MIT.
Saito, S. et al. 1988. “Notes on Relativization in Japanese,” Tsukuba English Studies 7,281-282.
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

30