Nominative-Genitive Conversion
and its Transitivity Restriction in Child Japanese*
Koji Sugisaki
Mie University

1. Introduction
Nominative-Genitive Conversion (NGC) in Japanese, which is also called Ga/No Conversion, is
one of the most well-studied phenomena in Japanese syntax (see Harada 1971, 1976, Bedell 1972,
Shibatani 1975, Nakai 1980, Saito 1983, 2004, Miyagawa 1993, to appear, Watanabe 1996, Hiraiwa
2001, 2005, and Ochi 2001, to appear, among many others). NGC is a Case alternation phenomenon inwhich the nominative Case marker ga on the subject DP is “converted” into the genitive Case marker
no within a prenominal sentential modifier, as illustrated in (1).
(1) a. [b.

Kinoo
John-ga
katta
hon
]-wa
yesterday
John-Nom bought book
-Top
[
Kinoo
John-no
katta
hon
]-wa
yesterday
John-Gen bought book
-Top
‘The book which John bought yesterday is interesting.’

omosiroi.
interesting.
omosiroi.
interesting.

Theoretical studies on NGC have revealed that there are several syntactic restrictions observed with the
distribution of genitive subjects. Most prominent is the generalization that accusative Case-marked
objects are prohibited when the subject is in the genitive Case (see Watanabe 1996, Hiraiwa 2001, 2005,
Saito 2004, Ochi, to appear, and Miyagawa, to appear). This property is known as the Transitivity
Restriction on NGC.
(2) a. [
b. *[

Kinoo
John-gaano hon-o
katta
mise
yesterday
John-Nom that book-Acc
bought store
Kinoo
John-noano hon-o
katta
mise
yesterday
John-Gen that book-Acc
bought store‘The store where John bought that book yesterday is here.’

]-wa
-Top
]-wa
-Top

koko
here
koko
here

da.
is
da.
is

This study conducts an experiment to address the question of whether this Transitivity Restriction
on NGC is in the grammar of Japanese-speaking preschool children. The results of my experimentsuggest that children around the age of four already have knowledge of this constraint, which isconsistent with the view that the Transitivity Restriction on NGC reflects properties of Universal
Grammar.

2. Nominative-Genitive Conversion and its Transitivity Restriction
As noted at the outset, NGC is a construction in which a nominative subject optionally alternateswith a genitive subject under certain syntactic conditions. One major property of NGC in Japanese is*

I would like to thank Erika Watanabe for her help in conducting the experiment reported in this study. I am
grateful to Cedric Boeckx, Takuya Goro, James Huang, Noriko Imanishi, Masatoshi Koizumi, Shigeru Miyagawa,
Keiko Murasugi, Yukio Otsu, Lisa Pearl, Tetsuya Sano, William Snyder, John Stephenson, Noriaki Yusa, and theaudience at GALANA 3 for valuable comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply. This research was
supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (#20320058, Project Leader: Seiki Ayano).
© 2009 Koji Sugisaki
Cascadilla Proceedings Project
Completed January 13, 2009that this alternation is permitted in relative clauses and in nominal complements, but not in matrix
clauses or in complement clauses of verbs.
(3) Relative clause:a. [ Kinoo
John-ga
katta
hon
]-wa
omosiroi.
yesterday
John-Nom bought book
-Top interesting.
b. [
Kinoo
John-no
katta
hon
]-wa
omosiroi.
yesterday
John-Gen bought book
-Top interesting.
‘The book which John bought yesterday is interesting.’(4) Nominal complement:
a. John-wa[
kinoo
Mary-ga
kita
koto
]-o
John-Nom
yesterday
Mary-Nom came
fact
-Acc
b. John-wa[
kinoo
Mary-no
kita
koto
]-o
John-Nom
yesterday
Mary-Gen came
fact
-Acc
‘John knows the fact that Mary came yesterday.’(5) Matrix clause:a. KinooJohn-gakita.
yesterday
John-Nom came.
b. * Kinoo
John-nokita.
yesterday
John-Gencame.
‘John came (here) yesterday.’(6) Complement clause of a verb:
a. John-wa [ kinoo
Mary-gakita
to ] shinjiteita.
John-Topyesterday
Mary-Nom cameCbelievedb. * John-wa [ kinoo
Mary-nokita
to ] shinjiteita.
John-Topyesterday
Mary-Gen cameCbelieved‘John believed that Mary came yesterday.’sitteiru.
knowsitteiru.
know

The second major property of NGC is that the accusative object can never be converted to thegenitive object.
(7) a. [

Ano
hon-o
katta
hito
]-wa
that
book-Accbought person -Top
b. *[
Ano
hon-no
katta
hito
]-wa
that
book-Genbought person -Top
‘The person who bought that book is John.’

John
John
John
John

da.
is
da.
is

The third major property of NGC, which we will focus on in this acquisitional study, is that NGC
obeys the Transitivity Restriction: A genitive subject is impossible when an accusative object is present.
(8) a. [Kinoo
John-gaano hon-o
katta
mise
yesterday
John-Nom that book-Acc
bought store
b. *[
Kinoo
John-noano hon-o
katta
mise
yesterday
John-Gen that book-Acc
bought store‘The store where John bought that book yesterday is here.’

]-wa
-Top
]-wa
-Top

koko
here
koko
here

da.
is
da.
is

In the syntactic literature, a variety of proposals have been made concerning the source of thegenitive Case and of the Transitivity Restriction in NGC. In the following, I will briefly review two
recent analyses: Ochi (to appear) and Hiraiwa (2001, 2005).
Adopting the approach to NGC proposed by Miyagawa (1993), Ochi (2001, to appear) argues that
D, a head external to the prenominal clause, is responsible for genitive Case of the subject. For example,
in an example like (9a), the genitive Case is licensed through AGREE relation between D and thesubject DP (before it moves to higher position), as shown in (9b).1(9) a.

b.

John-nonaita
riyuu
John-Gen criedreason‘the reason that John cried’[DP D [NP reason [TP T [vP SUBJv

[VP … ]]]]]

Ochi (to appear) further assumes that Japanese has obligatory object shift. Hence, when the prenominal
clause contains an overt accusative object as in (10a), at one point of the derivation the relevant
structure should look like (10b).
(10) a. * John-no
ano hon-o
katta
mise
John-Gen that book-Acc
bought store‘the store where John bought that book’
b. [DP D [NP store [TP T [vP OBJ[vP SUBJ

v

[VP…

]]]]]

In (10b), the shifted object intervenes between D and the subject, thereby making the subject
inaccessible to D. Therefore, under Ochi’s (to appear) analysis, the Transitivity Restriction on NGC
comes out as an instance of intervention effects.
In contrast to the analyses by Miyagawa (1993) and Ochi (to appear) that attribute the licensing of
the genitive subject to D, Hiraiwa (2001) claims that the genitive Case-marking on the subject in NGC
is licensed by verbs with a special verbal inflectional morphology called the predicate-adnominal form.
This analysis has its basis on the observation that NGC is possible even in structures that lack a D head,as in (11).
(11) a.
b.

[

Boku-gaomou-ni]
I-Nom
think-Prs.Adn-Dat[
Boku-noomou-ni]
I-Gen
think-Prs.Adn-Dat‘I think that John likes Mary.’

John-wa
John-Top
John-wa
John-Top

Mary-gaMary-Nom
Mary-gaMary-Nomsukini-tigaina-i
like-must-Prs
sukini-tigaina-i
like-must-Prs

Under Hiraiwa’s analysis, the syntactic C-T-V head amalgamate formed via AGREE corresponds to thepredicate-adnominal form, and hence the genitive subject in the NGC is licensed by this C-T-V
amalgam.2
According to Hiraiwa (2001, 2005), the Transitivity Restriction on NGC is a reflex of a larger
generalization that morphological accusative case and structural nominative Case are interdependent:3(12) ACC-NOM Generalization (Hiraiwa 2005:145):
Spell-Out of morphological Accusative case is contingent on structural Nominative Case.
Since the subject bears the genitive in NGC, an accusative object cannot be present, given (12). The
constraint in (12) is not specific to NGC but also applies widely to other constructions in Japanese, suchas the Dative Subject Construction. This construction allows only the Dat-Nom patterns, and resists
accusative Case-marking on the object.

1. Ochi (to appear) assumes, following Murasugi (1991), that prenominal clauses (relative clauses and nominal
complement clauses) in Japanese are TPs.
2. See also Watanabe (1996) for an approach that genitive subjects in NGC are licensed by the C head.
3. See also Miyagawa (to appear) for a related analysis of the Transitivity Restriction which builds on theassumption that the accusative case marker o is dependent on the occurrence of the nominative case marker ga.

(13) a.

John-ganihongo-ga
hanas-e-ru
John-Nom Japanese-Nom speak-can-Prs‘John can speak Japanese.’ [Nom-Nom]
b. John-ga
nihongo-ohanas-e-ru
John-Nom Japanese-Acc
speak-can-Prs‘John can speak Japanese.’ [Nom-Acc](14) a. John-ni
nihongo-ga
hanas-e-ru
John-Dat
Japanese-Nom speak-can-Prs‘John can speak Japanese.’ [Dat-Nom]b. * John-ni
nihongo-ohanas-e-ru
John-Dat
Japanese-Acc
speak-can-Prs‘John can speak Japanese.’ [Dat-Acc](koto)(fact)(koto)(fact)(koto)(fact)(koto)(fact)(Hiraiwa 2001:114-115)

To summarize this section, we have seen that NGC in Japanese is constrained by the restriction thatan accusative object cannot be present when the subject is genitive. We have also reviewed two recent
proposals concerning the source of this Transitivity Restriction: the intervention effect caused by theshifted object (Ochi, to appear), and an interdependence between morphological accusative case andstructural nominative Case (Hiraiwa 2001, 2005). Even though these two analyses significantly differ intheir details, they share the fundamental idea that the Transitivity Restriction directly reflects propertiesof UG. Then, an interesting question arises as to whether this syntactic constraint emerges early in theacquisition of Japanese, which is exactly the question that we will address experimentally in this study.
Before going into the details of the experiment, in the next section we review one previous study on theacquisition of NGC in Japanese by Nakajima & Sano (2004).

3. A Previous Study on the Acquisition of NGC in Japanese
In sharp contrast to an impressive number of syntactic studies that deal with NGC and its
constraints, very few studies have attempted to investigate the acquisition of this construction. One
exception is an experimental study by Nakajima & Sano (2004), which we briefly review in thissection.4
The experiment by Nakajima & Sano (2004) aimed at demonstrating that Japanese-speaking
preschool children can correctly interpret sentences with NGC. Nakajima & Sano focused on the
restriction (exemplified in (7)) that the accusative object can never alternate with the genitive object.
Using the Truth-Value Judgment Task (Crain & Thornton 1998), they examined children’sinterpretation of three types of sentences illustrated in (15).
(15) a.

Doubutuen-deA-gatatai-teruedayo.
zoo-inA-Nom
pat-Prog
picture be‘(This is) a picture that A is patting (someone) in the zoo.’b. Doubutuen-deA-otatai-teruedayo.
zoo-inA-Acc
pat-Prog
picture be‘(This is) a picture that (someone) is patting A in the zoo.’c. Doubutuen-de
A-notatai-teruedayo.
zoo-inA-Gen
pat-Prog
picture be‘(This is) a picture that A is patting (someone) in the zoo.’* ‘(This is) a picture that (someone) is patting A in the zoo.’

Eighteen children (five-years-old and younger) were tested, and among thirteen children who
correctly interpreted control sentences in (15a,b), the rate of correct responses for the target sentence in(15c) was 85.5%. These results indicate that Japanese-speaking preschool children interpret NGC
construction in an adult-like way in that they interpret genitive DPs as subjects but not as objects, which
4. See also Nakajima (2003), which constitutes the basis of Nakajima & Sano (2004).

in turn suggests that the knowledge of NGC is already in their grammar.

4. Experiment on the Transitivity Restriction in Child JapaneseIn the previous section, we have seen experimental evidence that Japanese-speaking preschool
children have knowledge of NGC. We have also seen in Section 2 that the Transitivity Restriction on
NGC directly reflects properties of UG. Therefore, we can expect that this syntactic constraint on NGC
also emerges early in the acquisition of Japanese.
In order to determine whether this expectation is in fact borne out, an experiment was conductedwith 32 Japanese-speaking children, ranging in age from 3;11 (years;months) to 6;07 (mean age: 5;06).
Our experiment consisted of two groups of test sentences. The sentences in the first group, illustrated in(16), were basically the same as those used in Nakajima & Sano (2004). These sentences wereincorporated into our experiment in order to make sure that the children who participated in our study
indeed have knowledge of the NGC itself, by verifying that they interpret genitive DPs as subjects, notas objects.
(16) a.

[Butasan-ga ositeiru ] syasin-wa kocchi dayo.
pig-Nompushingpicture-Top thisbe‘The picture in which a pig is pushing (someone) is this.’b. [ Butasan-o ositeiru ] syasin-wa kocchi dayo.
pig-Accpushingpicture-Top thisbe‘The picture in which (someone) is pushing a pig is this.’c. [ Butasan-no ositeiru ] syasin-wa kocchi dayo.
pig-Genpushingpicture-Top thisbe‘The picture in which a pig is pushing (someone) is this.’* ‘The picture in which (someone) is pushing a pig is this.’

The second group of sentences, exemplified in (17), was to investigate whether these children also
have knowledge of the Transitivity Restriction. If children are sensitive to this constraint, they should
never interpret the genitive DP in (17b) as the subject of the nominal complement clause: They shouldinterpret it only as the possessor of the accusative object.
(17) a.

[Hiyokochan-ga
e-outteiru ] omise-wa
koko dayo.
baby chick-Nom
picture-Acc sellingshop-Top
here be‘The shop in which a baby chick is selling pictures (of someone) is this.’b. [ Hiyokochan-noe-outteiru] omise-wa
koko dayo.
baby chick-Gen
picture-Acc sellingshop-Top
here be‘The shop in which (someone) is selling pictures of a baby chick is this.’* ‘The shop in which a baby chick is selling pictures (of someone) is this.’

The experiment contained four target trials for each of these two groups of sentences. The task forchildren was Truth Value Judgment. With respect to the first group of sentences illustrated in (16), eachsentence was presented with two pictures, and the task for the child was to judge whether the test
sentence uttered by a puppet matched the picture the puppet chose. Sample pictures that accompany(16) are shown in (18).
With respect to the second group of sentences, which investigates children’s knowledge of theTransitivity Restriction, each sentence was accompanied by a picture and its brief explanation, and thetask for the child was to determine whether the sentence uttered by the puppet matched the “shop” thepuppet pointed out. A sample story that goes with (17) is given in (19).

(18) Sample pictures:

Puppet: (Pointing at the picture on the left)[ Butasan-no ositeiru ] syasin-wa kocchi dayo.
pig-Genpushingpicture-Top thisbe‘The picture in which a pig is pushing (someone) is this.’ (FALSE)* ‘The picture in which (someone) is pushing a pig is this.’(19) A sample story:
There are three shops in this picture. In this shop, a rooster is selling a picture of a baby chick. In
this shop, a baby chick is selling pictures of a koala. And in this shop, another baby chick is selling
flowers.

Puppet: (Pointing at the shop in the middle)[ Hiyokochan-no e-outteiru ] omise-wa
koko dayo.
baby chick-Gen picture-Acc sellingshop-Top
here be‘The shop in which (someone) is selling pictures of a baby chick is this.’ (FALSE)* ‘The shop in which a baby chick is selling pictures (of someone) is this.’
The results are summarized in Table 1:
Group 1 Sentences: Ban on Accusative-Genitive Conversion
Sentences like (16a)96.10%
Sentences like (16b)90.60%
Sentences like (16c)86.70%
Group 2 Sentences: Transitivity Restriction on NGC
Sentences like (17a)86.70%
Sentences like (17b)83.60%
Table 1: Rate of Correct Responses(123/128)(116/128)(111/128)(111/128)(107/128)

When presented with sentences like (16c), the children we tested correctly interpreted thegenitive-marked DP as the subject of the prenominal clause 86.7% of the time, which confirms thefinding of Nakajima & Sano (2004) and indicates that Japanese-speaking preschool children haveadult-like knowledge of the NGC. More importantly, when presented with sentences like (17b) that
contain an accusative Case-marked object, the same group of children rejected the interpretation inwhich the prenominal clause contains a genitive subject 83.6% of the time. This finding suggests thatchildren exclude genitive subjects when accusative objects are present, and hence that the Transitivity
Restriction on NGC is already in the grammar of Japanese-speaking children around the age of four andfive.

5. Conclusion
In this study, I have demonstrated experimentally that Japanese-speaking preschool children
already have knowledge of the Transitivity Restriction on the NGC. A recent, detailed cross-linguistic
examination of NGC by Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) revealed that while Japanese exhibits this restriction,
NGC in languages like Turkish do not show such effects, which suggests that this constraint should be
associated with a parameter of UG.
(20) Turkish (Hiraiwa 2001:76, attributed to Meltem Kelepir):
Düm
John-unmektub-u
yolla-dig-i
yesterday
John-3.Gen letter-Acc
send-Nml-3.sg.Poss‘the man who John sent a letter yesterday’

adam
man

Since the exact nature of the relevant parameter remains mysterious at this point, the results of thisstudy would contribute to restricting its possible formulations, in that the relevant parameter must havea form which enables children to identify their target values at least by around the age of four.

References
Bedell, George. 1972. On no. In UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian Syntax, 1-20. Los Angeles, CA:
UCLA.
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.
Harada, S.-I. 1971. Ga-No conversion and idiolectal variation in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyuu 60:25-38.
Harada, S.-I. 1976. Ga-No conversion revisited. Gengo Kenkyuu 70:23-38.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. In MIT Working Papers 39: A Few From Building E-39,
eds. Ora Matushansky and Elena Guerzoni, 66-124. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF Case-checking and minimal link condition. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
19: Papers on Case and Agreement, ed. Colin Phillips, 213-254. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. To appear. Genitive subjects in Altaic. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics 4. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Nakai, Satoru. 1980. A reconsideration of Ga-No conversion in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics 13:279-320.
Nakajima, Motoki. 2003. The acquisition of nominative-genitive conversion in Japanese. In The Proceedings of the
Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 185-196. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nakajima, Motoki, and Tetsuya Sano. 2004. Early acquisition of nominative-genitive conversion in Japanese. In
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. Alejna Brugos,
Linnea Micciulla and Christine E. Smith, 390-401. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10:247-286.
Ochi, Masao. To appear. Overt object shift in Japanese. Syntax.
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. In Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics, 247-259. Stanford: CSLI.

Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Genitive subjects in Japanese: Implications for the theory of null objects. In Non-Nominative
Subjects, eds. Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, 103-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1975. Perceptual strategies and the phenomena of particle conversion in Japanese. In Papers
from the Parasession on Functionalism, 469-480: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5:373-410.