Structure Dependence in the Acquisition of Japanese*Koji Sugisaki

1. Introduction
It has been observed at least since Otsu (1981) that the course of child language
acquisition is constrained by genetically endowed Universal Grammar (UG) fromvirtually the very beginning of life (see Crain and Thornton 1998 for a detailed
summary). One of the clearest examples of this acquisitional observation is theseminal work by Crain and Nakayama (1987), which revealed that young
English-speaking children adhere to structure-dependent linguistic principles
when forming complex yes/no-questions. Recently, however, the relevance ofCrain and Nakayama’s findings to innate, structure-dependent principles of UG
has been challenged in several studies (e.g. Lewis and Elman 2002, Pullum andScholz 2002). To overcome these critiques, new experimental investigations havealready been started that attempt to demonstrate children’s adherence tostructure-dependent constraints in other linguistic phenomena (e.g. Gualmini
2005, Gualmini and Crain 2005).
In light of this background, this study attempts to demonstrate thatJapanese-speaking children rely on the structure-dependent notion of c-command
when interpreting complex wh-questions. The results of our experiment add a newpiece of evidence that children conform to structure-dependent principles acrossdifferent linguistic phenomena in a variety of languages, thereby expanding ourunderstanding of children’s knowledge of linguistic structures.
2. Structure Dependence in Japanese Wh-Questions
In Japanese, a sentence is interpreted as a question when the sentence isaccompanied with a question-marker (QM) at its final position.1 Following Harada1

(1972:187), let us refer to this sentence-final occurrence of QM as the “defining”
QM. As is widely known, Japanese is a wh-in-situ language. When a sentence
contains a wh-phrase that is associated with the defining QM, the sentence isinterpreted as a wh-question. Otherwise, a sentence with a defining QM isinterpreted as a yes/no-question. The simple sentences in (1) illustrate thisinterpretive rule in Japanese.
(1) a. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

kono hon-oyomi-mashi-taka?

this book-ACC

read-POL-PAST

QMnani-oyomi-mashi-taka?

what-ACCread-POL-PAST

QM‘Did Ken read this book?’b. Ken-ga
Ken- NOM‘What did Ken read?’c. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

dokodekono hon-oyomi-mashi-taka?

wherethis book-ACC

read-POL-PAST

QM‘Where did Ken read this book?’
Let us now turn to a more complex example given in (2).
(2) Eri-wa
Eri-TOP

Ken-nikaigi-ga

dokode aru

Ken-DAT

meeting-NOM

wherekiki-mashi-taka?

ask- POL-PAST

QM2kabe-held QM1‘Did Eri ask Ken where the meeting would be held?’
As the translation shows, the Japanese example in (2) is a yes/no-question, whichsuggests that the in-situ wh-phrase dokode ‘where’ is not associated with thedefining QM (QM2) in the matrix clause but with the QM in the embedded clause(QM1). There are at least two possible analyses for the association between theQM and the wh-phrase in this sentence.
(3) Hypothesis A (Structure-Independent Hypothesis):a. A wh-phrase is associated with the QM that is “linearly closest” to it.
2b. QM1 is linearly closest to a wh-phrase when(i) QM1 follows the wh-phrase, and(ii) there is no other QM that follows the wh-phrase but still precedes
QM1.
(4) Hypothesis B (Structure-Dependent Hypothesis):2
a. A wh-phrase is associated with the QM that is “structurally closest” to it.
b. QM1 is structurally closest to a wh-phrase when(i) QM1 c-commands the wh-phrase, and(ii) there is no other QM that c-commands the wh-phrase but isc-commanded by QM1.
Hypothesis A is structure-independent in that it is solely based on linear
notions such as “follow”/“precede”. In contrast, Hypothesis B is based on thestructural notion of “c-command” and hence is structure-dependent. Both of theseanalyses can successfully account for the interpretation of (2) as ayes/no-question. Under Hypothesis A in (3), the wh-phrase dare-ga associateswith QM1, since this is the QM that is “linearly closest” to it, as shown in (5). On
the other hand, under Hypothesis B in (4), the wh-phrase dare-ga associates withQM1 since this is the QM that is “structurally closest” to it, as the structure in (6)shows. Either way, the sentence in (2) contains no wh-phrase that is associatedwith the defining QM (QM2), and hence is interpreted as a yes/no-question.
linearly closest QM(5) Under Hypothesis A:
Eri-waKen-nikaigi-ga

dokode aru

Eri-TOP

Ken-DAT

meeting-NOM

wherekiki-mashi-ta

ka?

ask- POL-PAST

QM2

3ka

be-held QM1

(6) Under Hypothesis B:
CPwoeika
Eri-waei
Ken-niCP eieikiki-mashi-ta
eika
kaigi-ga dokode aru
structurally closest QM

Yet, a sentence like (7) argues against the structure-independent analysis in(4).
(7) Eri-wa
Eri-TOP

dokode Ken-ni

kaigi-gaaru

wheremeeting-NOM

be-held QM1Ken-DAT

kiki-mashi-taka?

ask- POL-PASTQM2ka‘Where did Eri ask Ken whether the meeting would be held?’
Under the analysis in (3), the wh-phrase dokode should associate with QM1 since
this is the QM that is “linearly closest” to it, as shown in (8). Then, thisstructure-independent hypothesis makes the prediction that the sentence in (7) is ayes/no-question, which is flatly false as the translation indicates. In contrast,
under the hypothesis in (4), the wh-phrase dokode should associate with QM2,
since this is the only QM that c-commands this wh-phrase, as shown by thestructure in (9). Thus, only the structure-dependent analysis in (4) correctly
accounts for the interpretation of (7) as a wh-question.
(8) Under Hypothesis A:
Eri-wadokode Ken-ni

linearly closest QM
kaigi-gaaruka

Eri-TOP

wheremeeting-NOM

Ken-DATkiki-mashi-taka?

ask- POL-PAST

QM2
4be-held QM1

(9) Under Hypothesis B:
CPqpeika structurally closest QM
Eri-waei
dokodeei
Ken-ni CPei
ru kiki-mashi-ta
ruka
kaigi-ga aru

In light of the above discussion, our experiment reported in the next section
examines Japanese-speaking children’s adherence to structure-dependence bymaking use of the interpretive contrast between (10) and (11). The onlydifference between these two sentences is the case-marker attached to the noun
Ken. In (10), that noun is accompanied by a nominative case-marker and hence isthe subject of the embedded clause, and the adjunct wh-phrase dokode precedingthat NP can be either an element of the matrix clause or an element of theembedded clause. Thus, the sentence is structurally ambiguous and has both aninterpretation as a yes/no-question and an interpretation as a wh-question. Incontrast, the noun Ken in (11) is accompanied by a dative case-marker, and hence
is an argument of the matrix verb ‘ask’. Thus, the adjunct wh-phrase precedingthat NP is unambiguously located in the matrix clause, and the sentence can only
be interpreted as a wh-question.3(10) Eri-wa
Eri-TOP

dokode Ken-ga

oyoida ka

kiki-mashi-taka?

whereswam

ask-POL-PAST

QM2

Ken-NOM

QM1‘Did Eri ask where Ken swam?’ or ‘Where did Eri ask whether Ken swam?’(11) Eri-wa
Eri-TOP

dokode Ken-ni
whereoyoida ka

Ken- DAT swam

QM1kiki-mashi-taka?

ask-POL-PASTQM2‘Where did Eri ask Ken whether (he) swam?’
If innate principles of UG in fact constrain children to formulate only the5

structure-dependent hypotheses such as (4) and to exclude structure-independent
ones as in (3), then children should be able to distinguish (11) from (10), andshould never interpret (11) as a yes/no-question. On the other hand, if children
were to formulate the structure-independent hypothesis in (3), they would
incorrectly interpret (11) as a yes/no-question. The experiment reported in thenext section investigates which of these two possibilities is the correct one.
3. Experiment
An experiment was designed to determine whether the structural notion ofc-command plays a role in Japanese-speaking children’s interpretation of complex
questions. The subjects were 18 monolingual Japanese-speaking children,
ranging in age from 3;10 (three years; ten months) to 6;0 (mean age, 5;0). Eachsubject was presented with two target trials, one warm-up, and one filler trial. Ineach trial, a child was told a story, which was accompanied by a series of pictures
presented on a laptop computer. At the end of each story, a puppet posed twoquestions about the story to the child. The task for the child was to answer thesequestions.
One of the target trials is presented in (12). After the story, the puppet asked
the questions given in (14) and (13).
(12) Sample Story:“This is a story about a penguin and his father. When the father came backhome, he found a soccer ball in his son’s room, but his son was not there.
The father found his son in the bath, where the little penguin was washing hislegs. The father asked the penguin in the bathroom, “Did you play soccertoday?” The penguin replied, “Yes, I enjoyed playing soccer with myfriends.” The father continued, “Where did you play soccer with yourfriends?” The penguin answered, “We played it in the park!” The father said
to his son, “Let’s have dinner when you finish washing your legs in thebath.”6

(13) Otousan-wa dokode
father-TOP

wherekiki-mashi-taka?

ask-POL-PASTQM2

penginsan-ga

sakkaa-oshitekita ka

penguin-NOM

soccer-ACC

playedQM1‘Did the father ask where the penguin played soccer?’(Expected Answer: Yes.)or‘Where did the father ask whether the penguin played soccer?’(Expected Answer: In the bath.)(14) Otousan-wa dokode
father-TOP

wherekiki-mashi-taka?

ask-POL-PAST

QM2penginsan-ni

sakkaa-oshitekita ka

penguin-DAT

soccer-ACC

playedQM1‘Where did the father ask the penguin whether (he) played soccer?’(Expected Answer: In the bath.)
The question in (13) is of the type given in (10) and can be interpreted as a
yes/no-question, while the question in (14) is of the type given in (11) and must
be interpreted as a wh-question. If Japanese-speaking children rely on linear
proximity in establishing the wh-QM association along the lines of thestructure-independent hypothesis in (3), they would misanalyze (14), and provide
a yes/no answer. On the other hand, if the structural notion of c-command plays acrucial role in establishing the wh-QM association along the lines of thestructure-dependent hypothesis in (4), children should not interpret sentences like(14) as a yes/no-question.
The results are summarized in (15). Even though children had a strong
tendency to interpret examples like (13) as a yes/no-question, they correctly
assigned wh-question interpretation to sentences like (14) about 90% of the time.4
These results suggest that the proximity between a wh-phrase and a QM is not
relevant for Japanese-speaking children’s interpretation of questions: Theirinterpretation is constrained by the structural notion of c-command.
7(15) Results:
Questions as in (13): Correct Answers

91.7% (33/36)‘yes’-answers

83.3% (30/36)‘In the bath’-answers

8.3%

Questions as in (14): Correct Answers(3/36)

88.9% (32/36)

4. Conclusion
This study explored structure dependence in child Japanese, by examining
children’s interpretation of complex wh-questions. The results of our experiment
have

demonstrated

thatJapanese-speakingchildren

relyonthestructure-dependent notion of c-command when they establish the association
between a wh-phrase and a QM. These results corroborate the findings from theprevious research on child English (e.g. Crain and Nakayama 1987, Gualmini andCrain 2005), by adding a new piece of evidence from a different language forchildren’s sensitivity to abstract structural properties. Our findings are consistentwiththeview

thatchildlanguage

acquisition

isconstrainedbybiologically-determined UG, and place a further explanatory burden on theaccounts that do not postulate innate, structure-dependent principles (e.g. Lewisand Elman 2002, Pullum and Scholz 2002).
Endnotes*I would like to take this occasion to express my deep gratitude to Yukio Otsu, who
introduced me to the fascinating field of child language acquisition and keeps on providing
intellectual guidance and moral support at every stage of my life as a professional linguist.
I thank Hiroko Takagaki for her help in conducting the experiment. I am also grateful toYasuaki Abe, Tomohiro Fujii, Takuya Goro, Andrea Gualmini, Miwa Isobe, KeikoMurasugi, Tetsuya Sano, Kensuke Takita, and especially to Takaomi Kato, Mamoru Saito,
and William Snyder for their valuable suggestions. All the remaining errors are of course
my own. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#17320062, Project Leader: SeikiAyano).

1. The sentence-final QM can be omitted when the sentence is pronounced with an8

appropriate question intonation. See Yoshida and Yoshida (1997) and Ko (2005) for adetailed discussion of QM-drop.
2. This hypothesis corresponds to Harada’s (1972:186) WH-Q Binding Rule. In later studies,(e.g. Nishigauchi 1990, Watanabe 1992), Harada’s rule is reduced to the Wh-island
Condition.
3. The embedded clause in (11) contains a null pronoun referring to Ken.
4. We found that about 28% of these answers (10/36) were “In the park”. We included thisanswer in the number of “correct” answers, in that this is not a yes/no-answer. I speculatethat this is due to the fact that the location where the soccer-playing occurred was too
salient for children. I believe that if we modify the experiment and increase the salience ofthe location where the father asked the question, this “error” would go away. Yet, at thismoment I do not have a good idea how to achieve it. I thank William Snyder for discussion
on this point.
References
Crain, Stephen, and Mineharu Nakayama. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation.
Language 63:522-543.
Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide
to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Gualmini, Andrea. 2005. The ups and downs of child language. New York: Routledge.
Gualmini, Andrea, and Stephen Crain. 2005. The structure of children's linguistic knowledge.
Linguistic Inquiry 36:463-474.
Harada, Kazuko I. 1972. Constraints on WH-Q binding. Studies in Descriptive and Applied
Linguistics 5:180-206.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the overt syntax. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory 23:867-916.
Lewis, John D., and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2002. Learnability and the statistical structure oflanguage: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Barbora
Skarabela, Sarah Fish and Anna H.-J. Do, 359-370. Somerville, Massachusetts:
Cascadilla Press.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer
9

Academic Publishers.
Otsu, Yukio. 1981. Universal Grammar and Syntactic Development in Children: Toward a
Theory of Syntactic Development. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Barbara C. Scholz. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty
arguments. The Linguistic Review 19:9-50.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 1:255-291.
Yoshida, Keiko, and Tomoyuki Yoshida. 1997. Question marker drop in Japanese.
International Christian University Language Research Bulletin 11:37-54.

10