A Cross-lLQJXLVWLF$SSURDFKWRWKHµ(UURQHRXV¶Genitive Subjects: Underspecification of Tense inChild Grammar Revisited
Naoko Sawada1 and Keiko Murasugi1, 2
1

Nanzan University and 2University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
It is cross-linguistically observed that children at around the age of two erroneously produce
genitive subjects in matrix clauses where nominative subjects must be used in adult grammar. Selected
examples of child Japanese and child English are shown in (1) and (2), respectively. 1(1) a. A-tyan-*no tukat-te-ru no (A 2;1)
-Gen use-Prog-Pres Particleµ$-W\DQLVXVLQJ LW ¶

b. Taisyoo-kun-*no tukut-ta (Tai 1;10)-Gen make-Pastµ0U7DLV\RRPDGH WKLV ¶(2) a. My turn, turn around (Nina 2;11)b. Her sleeping (Nina 2;5)The subject NPs in (1) must be marked with the nominative Case -ga. The subjects must be I in(2a) and she in (2b). However, the genitive Case is assigned on the subject NP in each case.
Genitive subjects are allowed in prenominal sentential modifiers of relative clauses in Japanese, as
given in (3), and in gerundive constructions in English, as given in (4).
(3) [Taroo-ga/-no (gapi) yon-da]-Nom/-Gen
read-Pastµthe book that TaroRUHDG¶

honi
book

(4) I remember [-RKQ¶V/my eating an apple]
As in (3), the subject NP Taroo can be marked with genitive Case as well as nominative Case.
Likewise, the genitive subjects, John¶s and my, are possible in the English gerundive construction, as
shown in (4).
What causes Case errors in child grammar? In this paper, providing new descriptive findings fromthe CHILDES corpora and the data reported in the previous studies, we argue that the Case errors thatyoung children make are related to the underspecification of the features in Tense. We will show that in*

We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the organizers of GALANA 4 (University of Toronto),
Mihaela Pirvulescu, and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and support. The authors would also liketo express their deep gratitude to Chisato Fuji, Tomomi Nakatani, Keiko Ogawa, Mamoru Saito, Koji Sugisaki,
Kensuke Takita, Eriko Watanabe and the members of the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University for theirhelpful discussions. The research was supported in part by the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition (Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University), Pache Research
Grant I-A in 2010 and 2011 (Nanzan University) and by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid (#20520397, Principal
Investigator: Keiko Murasugi).
1
The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: Acc=accusative, Ad=adnominal, Dec=declarative,
Dat=dative, Gen=genitive, Nom=nominative, Past=past, Pres=present, Prog=progressive, Top=topic© 2011 Naoko Sawada and Keiko Murasugi. Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), ed. Mihaela Pirvulescu et al., 209-226.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

210
the stages of Very Early Root Infinitive, one-year-old children use non-finite verbs in root contexts(Murasugi & Fuji, 2008, 2009; Nakatani & Murasugi, 2009; among others) and the erroneous
non-nominative subjects in Japanese observed after the age of two correspond to the stage of RootInfinitives (RIs) in European languages (Murasugi & Watanabe, 2009; Murasugi, 2008, 2009). We
argue that the Japanese- and English-speaking children producing erroneous genitive subjects know
the structure of TP headed by T, which checks genitive Case on a subject of prenominal sentential
modifiers in Japanese and gerunds in English, but they still have not acquired that the T must becompatible with D only, and hence, produce genitive subjects in matrix clauses.
We further argue that the concretization of the immature Tense system is also found in theomission of copulative elements. 2-year-old English-speaking children tend to omit finite be insentences of Stage-level predicates (e.g., I tired/I in the kitchen) (Becker, 2000, 2001). Presenting our
finding that Japanese-speaking children also optionally drop copulas at around the same age as they
produce erroneous genitive subjects, we aim to describe the stage where children underspecify featuresin Tense.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we show our descriptive findings oferroneous genitive subjects. In section 3, we overview the previous analyses of children¶s erroneous
genitive subjects and point out that these analyses cannot fully provide explanation for the stage. In
section 4, we provide our analysis of erroneous genitive subjects in child Japanese, and in section 5,
we argue that the analysis given in section 4 applies to the erroneous genitive subjects in child English,
based on our corpus analysis of the CHILDES database. Section 6 further confirms the hypothesis byexamining the copula drop phenomena. We go over Becker¶s (2000, 2001) analysis of copula drops inEnglish, and we argue that the copulative elements are also dropped in child Japanese, thereby
supporting our hypothesis that the genitive Case errors are attributed to the underspecification of thefeatures in Tense. Section 7 concludes this paper.

2. µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects in Child Languages
2.1. The Data of µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects Found in Child Japanese
We first show the data of erroneous genitive subjects in child Japanese and their properties. We
examine Japanese-speaNLQJFKLOGUHQ¶VORQJLWXGLQDOGDWDEDVHVDYDLODEOHRQ&+,/'(6 (Tai age 1;5-3;1,
Miyata, 2004a; Ryo age 1;4-3;0, Miyata, 2004b; Aki age 1;5-3;0, Miyata, 2004c; Jun age 0;6-3;8, Ishii,
2004; and Moko age 1;8-3;2, University of Connecticut and Nanzan University) FRUSXVDQG&KLOG$¶V
GDWDUHSRUWHGLQ6X]XNL¶V  Vtudies. We found 103 erroneous genitive subjects out of 2,246
utterances containing subject NPs marked with nominative, dative or genitive Case. As shown in (5)through (8), these children produce erroneous genitive subjects with various types of predicates.
(5) a. A-tyan-*no tukat-te-ru no (A 2;1)
-Gen use-Prog-Pres Particleµ$-W\DQLVXVLQJ LW ¶

b. Taisyoo-kun-*no tukut-ta (Tai 1;10)-Gen make-Pastµ0U7DLV\RRPDGH WKLV ¶(6) a. Mama-*no odot-teyo (A 2;1)
Mother-Gen dance-Request Particleµ3OHDVHGDQFH0RWKHU¶b. Kore masukuman-*no
this mask man-Genµ+HUH0DVNPDQJRHV¶(7) a. Tane-*no hait-te-nno (A 2;5)
seed-Gen enter-Prog-Pres Particleµ7KHVHHGVDUHLQ DJUDSH ¶

b. Ti-*noar-u (Moko 2;0)(letter of) Ti-Gen exist-Presµ7KHUHLVDEORFN WKDWKDVWKHOHWWer of Ti ¶(8) a. Taisyoo-kun-*no sugo-i (Tai 1;10)-Gen great-Presµ0U7DLV\RRLVJUHDW¶b. Moko-mo se-*noooki-i (Moko 1;11)-also height-Gen tall-Presµ0RNRLVDOVRWDOO to catch the cord to turn
RQWKHOLJKW ¶

ik-u (Ryo 2;11)
go-Pres

211
The subjects of the transitive verbs in (5), the unergative verbs in (6), the unaccusative verbs in(7), and the adjectives in (8), are all erroneously marked with the genitive Case -no instead of thenominative Case -ga. Table 1 gives the age range for which the children produce the erroneous
genitive subjects.
Table 1The Age Span of Children Producing the µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects
Child
A
Tai
Ryo
Aki

Jun

Moko

Age Span2;2-2;91;10-3;1

2;1-2;8

1;10-3;1

2;9-2;112;8As Murasugi and Watanabe (2009) point out, Case errors in Japanese are optional, just like RootInfinitives in European languages. Children at around the age of two produce erroneous genitive
subjects, but they also produce nominative subjects (just like adults do) as given in (9).
(9) a. Boosi-ga
ton-da (A 2;1)
hat-Nom
fly-Pastµ 7KH KDWIOHZDZD\¶c. Jun-ga
kowasi-ta (Jun 2;3)
-Nom
break-Pastµ-XQEURNH LW ¶

b. Mikkii-tyan-ga ato
huk-u (Tai 1;9)Mickey-Nom rest wipe-Presµ0LFNH\0RXVHZLOOZLSHWKHUHVW¶d. Moko-ga sagasi-ta (Moko 1;9)
-Nom search-Pastµ0RNRVHDUFKHG IRULW ¶

The subject NPs in (9) are correctly marked with the nominative Case -ga. There is anintermediate acquisition stage where subjects are sometimes marked with nominative Case, butsometimes with genitive Case.

2.2. 7KH'DWDRIµ(UURQHRXV¶*HQLWLYH6XEMHFWVLQ&KLOG(QJOLVK
Case errors are widely observed in child English as well (Rispoli, 1994, 1995; Budwig, 1989;
Pensalfini, 1995; Vainikka, 1993/1994; among others). Our examination of the CHILDES database offour English-speaking children, Nina (1;11-2;9), Adam (2;3-3;5), Eve (1;6-2;3) and Sarah (2;3-3;5),
found 477 out of 13,562 utterances with erroneous genitive subjects. Selected examples are shown in(10) through (12).
(10)

a. My turn, turn around (Nina 1;11)c. Her make pancakes (Sarah 2;9)e. Her sing it (Adam 2;10)b. My see that (Adam 2;3)d. Her have a hat on (Nina 2;4)

(11)

a. My cut it. My caught it (Nina 2;1)
b. My got that (Nina 2;2)c. My broke it (Sarah 2;6)
d. Her said no (Sarah 2;8)e. Her got on, in baby carriage (Adam 3;0)(12)a. My going in (Nina 2;3)c. My going? (Eve 1;10)
e. Her getting mad (Nina 2;4)b. What my doing? (Sarah 2;10)d. My writing I writing (Adam 2;7)f. Her sleeping (Nina 2;5)

As in (10), the erroneous genitive subjects mostly occur with non-inflected verbs such as make,have and sing. However, some errors are found with a verb in past tense as in (11), and/or a verb in
progressive form as in (12). Table 2 gives the age range of the erroneous genitive subjects.
Table 2The Age Range of Children Producing the µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects in English
Child
Nina
Adam
Eve
Sarah
Age Span
1;11-2;5
2;3-3;01;10-2;0
2;6-3;0212
English-speaking children also produce nominative subjects while they produce genitive subjects
as shown in (13).
(13)

a. I GRQ¶WEUHDNµHP 1LQD 2;1)
c. I tie other one (Eve 1;11)b. I talk phone (Sarah 2;6)d. I change diaper (Adam 2;3)

Thus, cross-linguistic similarities are found in the very young child production. At around age oftwo, both Japanese- and English-speaking children Case-mark the subject NPs, in a root clause, with
optional nominative or genitive.

33UHYLRXV6WXGLHVRQµ(UURQHRXV¶*HQLWLYH6XEMHFWVFor the children¶s Case errors, various analyses have been proposed. In what follows, we discuss
four previous approaches; Paradigm Building of Pronouns, Functional Analysis, Nominal Analysis,
and Clausal Analysis, and we will point out that none of those previous analyses can fully account for
the intermediate stage of language acquisition in question. Then, we argue that the insight of
AGR/TNS Omission Model (ATOM) originally proposed by Schütze and Wexler (1996), which links
the early erroneous subjects to the underspecification of some features in Tense and Agreement, to the
Root Infinitive stage, and to the copula omission Root Infinitives in European child languages, would
also extend to the analysis of the erroneous subjects in Japanese-speaking children.
Rispoli (1994, 1995) argues that Case errors are due to the lack of lexical knowledge of theparadigm of pronouns in the target languages, and that erroneous non-nominative subjects areproduced when children fail to access to the appropriate pronoun form, thereby having problems withthe paradigm building of pronouns. However, as in (5) through (8), genitive subjects in Japanese are
frequently found with various Referential NPs (e.g., A-tyan-*no (A-tyan-Gen) and Taisyoo-kun-*no(Taisyoo-kun-Gen)). This suggests that Paradigm Building of Pronouns has nothing to do with Caseerrors.
Functional Analysis (Budwig, 1989) for child English and Suzuki (2007) for child Japanese statesthat genitive subjects are erroneously used instead of nominative subjects, when the subjects areagentive and occur with event-denoting predicates. Given the Functional Analysis, it is expected thatgenitive Case errors tend to occur with transitive or unergative verbs.
Contrary to the expectation, however, erroneous genitive subjects in child Japanese are produced
not only with transitive or unergative verbs, but also with stative predicates as given in (14a) and(14b).
(14)

a. Ti-*noar-u (Moko 2;0)(Adult form: Ti-ga)[Unaccusative verb](letter) Ti-Gen exist-Presµ7KHUHLVDEORFN WKDWKDVWKHOHWWHUTi ¶
b. Taisyoo-kun-*no sugo-i (Tai 1;0) (Adult form: Taisyoo-kun-ga) [Adjective]-Gen great-Presµ0U7DLV\RRLVJUHDW¶

Nominal Analysis (Pensalfini, 1995) for child English and Suzuki (2001) for child Japanese argues
that the structure of clauses containing erroneous genitive subjects is nominal rather than a sentence. It
is expected that genitive Case errors are produced only in declarative clauses, but never in clauses
containing wh-phrases. However, our corpus analysis found a counterexample as shown in (15).
(15)

Dotti-*no ooki-i? (Moko 2;5)
which-Gen big-Presµ:KLFK QXPEHU LVELJJHU"¶(Adult form: Dotti-ga)(Sawada, Murasugi, & Fuji, 2009)

In (15), the wh-phrase, dotti (which), is marked with the genitive Case ±no. Thus, Nominal
Analysis also fails to account for the erroneous genitive subjects.

213
Vainikka (1993/1994) proposes Clausal Analysis, following Radford (1998). This analysis argues
that the structures of clauses with erroneous genitive subjects are simple VPs headed by a non-finite
verb with a subject occupying the Spec of VP. TP or CP is initially not projected. Subject NPs areplaced in the Spec VP and get the genitive Case by V by virtue of being in the Spec position. Given
Clausal Analysis, it is expected that verbs are always uninflected in a clause with an erroneous genitive
subject because of the lack of TP. However, counterexamples to this analysis are found. We observedthat all the verbs in (11), repeated in (16), are overtly inflected for past tense.
(16)

a. My cut it. My caught it (Nina 2;1)
b. My got that (Nina 2;2)c. My broke it (Sarah 2;6)
d. Her said no (Sarah 2;8)e. Her got on, in baby carriage (Adam 3;0)Thus, children¶s genitive Case errors are not fully explained by the previous studies shown above.
In what follows, we present a hypothesis that child Case errors are due to the underspecification ofTense and show the intermediate stage in the acquisition of the features in Tense.

4. An Analysis of µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects in Child Japanese
According to ATOM originally proposed by Schütze and Wexler (1996), non-nominative subjects
alternate with nominative subjects in English-speaking children during the Root Infinitive stage, but
only when the (main) verb is an infinitive. That is, when the verbs show agreement, only nominative
subjects occur. In this section, we present the analyses that Case errors in Japanese are due to theunderspecification of some features in Tense, and propose that the stage of Case errors corresponds tothe stage of RIs in European child languages, where children at around two years of age use non-finite
verbs in matrix clauses.2
First, we review the Case system in Japanese. Then, we show our descriptive findings with respect
to the properties that clauses with erroneous genitive subjects have, and discuss our analysis.

4.1. Japanese Adult Grammar
In adult Japanese, a subject in a matrix clause is typically assigned nominative Case -ga as shownin (17).
(17)

a. Taroo-ga hon-oyon-da-Nom book-Acc read-Pastµ7DUoRUHDGDERRN¶c. Booto-ga sizun-daboat-Nom sink-Pastµ$ERDWVDQN¶b. Taroo-ga
arui-ta-Nom walk-Pastµ7DUoRZDONHG¶d. Ringo-ga aka-i
apple-Nom red-Presµ7KHDSSOHLVUHG¶The subject of a transitive verb yon-da (read) in (17a), an unergative verb arui-ta (walked) in(17b), an unaccusative verb sizun-da (sank) in (17c) and an adjective aka-i (red) in (17d) are marked
with the nominative Case. As mentioned in the introduction, genitive subjects are not allowed insentences, but they are possible in noun phrases as shown in (18).

2

See Murasugi (2008, 2009), Murasugi and Watanabe (2009), Sawada, Murasugi, and Fuji (2009), and Sawada
and Murasugi (2010), for the relevant proposals. See also Murasugi, Fuji, and Hashimoto (2007), Murasugi andFuji (2008, 2009), and Murasugi and Nakatani (2009), among others, for the detailed analyses of Root Infinitive
Analogues observed at around the age of one in child Japanese.

214
(18)

a. Sentence: [S Taroo-ga/-*no hon-oyon-da]-Nom/-Gen book-Acc read-Pastµ7DUoRUHDGDERRN¶b. NP: [Sentential Modifier Taroo-ga/-no (gapi) yon-da] honi
-Nom/-Gen
read-Past bookµthe book that TaroRUHDG¶

The subject Taroo in both (18a) and (18b) can be marked with the nominative Case. The Case
marker on a subject can be converted to genitive only in prenominal sentential modifiers in relative
clauses and complex NPs as in (18b). This is called nominative/genitive (or Ga/No) conversion. It
must be pointed out that sentences and noun phrases show some parallel properties. The
sentence-ending (declarative) form in (18a) and prenominal verb form in (18b) appear in the same
form (i.e., yon-da ³UHDG´ . Hence, the prenominal form and sentence-ending form of verbs andadjectives are basically homophonous.
There are other important properties found in nominative/genitive conversion. For example,
genitive subjects cannot be present with accusative objects (Harada, 1971) as given in (19).
(19)[Taroo-ga/-*nohon-o
kat-ta]mise-Nom/-Gen book-Acc buy-Past shop
µthe shop where TaroRERXJKWDERRN¶

The accusative object, hon-o (book-Acc) can occur with the nominative subject, whereas it isprohibited when the subject is marked with the genitive Case. This is known as the Transitivity
Restriction.
The noun phrases containing nominative and genitive subjects show a difference in interpretation.
Miyagawa (2008, 2009) suggests that genitive subject constructions are aspectually limited to stativeinterpretation and genitive subjects tend to occur with stative predicates such as adjectives andaspectual forms. The examples with aspectual predicates are shown in (20).
(20)

a. [simi-ga
tui-ta syatu]-o kiteiru[eventive reading][stain-Nom had shirt-Acc is wearingµ+H¶VZHDULQJDVKLUWWKDWVXVWDLQHGDVWDLQ¶b. [simi-no tui-ta syatu]-o kiteiru[result of eventuality reading][stain-Gen had shirt-Acc is wearingµ+H¶VZHDULQJDVKLUWWKDWKDVDVWDLQ¶(Miyagawa, 2009)

In (20a), the aspectual morpheme µ(-te) iru¶ is attached to the verb wear. Following Teramura¶s(1982) and Abe¶s (1993) insights that µverb-ta¶IRUPGRHVQRWKDYHDIXOOWHQVHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQLQFHUWDLQ
relative clauses, Miyagawa (2009) argues that the clause containing a genitive subject tends to refer tothe result of eventuality. The sentence with the nominative subject as in (20a) indicates that there wasan event of the shirt getting stained while the most natural interpretation of the genitive subject
construction in (20b) is that the shirt being worn has a stain at the time of the utterance. Due to theresult of eventuality reading, for instance, the genitive subject is at odds with the adverb that refers to a
VSHFLILFWLPHVXFKDV³totuzen VXGGHQO\ ´ as shown in (21).
(21)[totuzen simi-ga/-*notui-tasyatu][suddenly stain-Nom/-Gen have-Past shirtµWKH VKLUWWKDWZDVVXGGHQO\VWDLQHG¶(Miyagawa, 2009)

The nominative subject, but not the genitive subject, is accepted in (21).
For the structure of the genitive subject construction, Hiraiwa (2001) proposes that the genitive
subject is licensed sentence-internally by the adnominal verbal inflection. Saito (2004), adopting
Hiraiwa (2001), argues that the verbal inflection lies in T. While as in (22a), an Adnominal T checks
either genitive or nominative in prenominal sentential modifiers, as in (22b), a Declarative T checks

215
nominative in declarative sentences. Moreover, the Adnominal T must be compatible with N (D), but
not with C, while the Declarative T must be compatible with C.
(22)

a.

NP (DP)

TP [Adnominal]

b.

N (D)

NPi [Gen/Nom] 7¶
vP
ti

CP
TP [Declarative]
NPi [Nom] 7¶

T [Gen/Nom]v¶ Absorption of [Acc]

VPCv [*Acc/Acc]*NP/NP [Acc] VvPti

T [Nom]v¶VPv [Acc]NP [Acc] V(Sawada, Murasugi, & Fuji, 2009)

In both structures in (22a) and (22b), subject NPs are base-generated in the Spec of small vP, andmove to TP Spec. Assuming that small v checks accusative Case, Saito (2004) argues that when an
Adnominal T checks genitive, it absorbs the accusative Case feature on small v. That is, when thesubject is marked with the genitive Case as in (22a), Case checking of the accusative Case is prevented
because of the Case feature absorption. Hence, the genitive-accusative pattern, such as (19), is
H[FOXGHG 'LVFXVVLQJ $EH¶V   DUJXPHQW WKDW WKH H[WHUQDO DUJXPHQW LV RSWLRQDO LQ SUHQRPLQDO
sentential modifiers, Saito proposes that the Adnominal T can absorb not only v¶V &DVH EXW DOVR its
ș-role. In contrast, as in (22b), a subject gets nominative Case by the Declarative T in sentences.
In what follows, we present an analysis of the erroneous genitive subjects in child Japanese basedon Hiraiwa¶s (2001) and 6DLWR¶V  syntactic analyses of nominative-genitive conversion in
Japanese.

4.2. What Children Know/Do Not Know at the Stage of Case µErrors¶ in Child Japanese
As shown in the section 2.1., Japanese-speaking children optionally produce correct nominative
subjects at the stage where they produce erroneous genitive subjects. Because the Japanese-speaking
children (optionally) produce the matrix clause with the nominative subject at the stage in question, we
assume that children certainly know the inside of the TP structure.
What children do not know at the stage in question is that genitive subjects are not allowed in
non-NP-contexts. We may restate this problem in the framework of Hiraiwa (2001) and Saito (2004):
children¶s genitive Case errors are found at the stage where they have not acquired the relation of
Adnominal T and N (D), and they ³mis-assume´ that Adnominal T can be compatible with C. Children
do not know the external relation of T with N (D), and have not acquired the fact that Adnominal T can
only be compatible with N or D. Just like Adnominal T in the prenominal sentential modifiers insideNPs (DPs) in adult grammar, Declarative T can also check genitive and nominative Case in root
clauses in child grammar.
This hypothesis is supported by the curious facts that children¶s erroneous genitive subjects haveparallel properties with correct genitive subjects in the adult sentential modifiers in relative clauses.
First, the sentences with erroneous genitive subjects obey the Transitivity Restriction. In Sawada,
Murasugi, and Fuji (2009) (henceforth S, M&F (2009)), it is reported that 17% of the sentences haveovert object NPs. The rest of the utterances do not contain overt object NPs. In case the context
requires an object, it appears in the topic or the right-dislocated position, but never in the canonical(base) position, thereby following the Transitivity Restriction as given in (23).
(23)

a. Kore, A-tyan-*no tukut-ta
no (A 2;3)
this-Gen make-Past Particleµ7KLVRQH$-tyan maGH LW ¶(Adult form: A-tyan-ga)

216
b. A-tyan-*no but-tyat-ta
titi (A 2;4)-Gen hit-Perfect-Past fatherµ$-W\DQKLWP\IDWKHU¶(Adult form: A-tyan-ga)(S, M&F, 2009)

In (23a), for example, the accusative object kore (this) appears in the topic position. This indicatesthat child erroneous genitive subjects may not violate the Transitivity Restriction, just like adultgenitive subjects in sentential modifiers in NPs.
Second, the child erroneous genitive subjects, in fact, often appear with certain types of predicates.
As shown in (5) through (8), they are the unaccusative verbs, adjectives, and aspectual forms (e.g.,
tukat-te-ru (use-Prog-Pres)). Therefore, the predicates with erroneous genitive subjects show parallel
properties with adult genitive subjects, as being discussed in Miyagawa (2008, 2009).
Third, 96% of the child matrix clauses with erroneous genitive subjects contain the verbs andadjectives with the prenominal form, which is homophonous with the sentence-ending declarative
form. In fact, it is also true for adult grammar. For example, a verb ³tonda (flew)´ in a sentence,³boosi-ga tonda (The hat flew away)´ DQGLQDVHQWHQWLDO PRGLILHU ³tonda boosi (the hat which flewaway)´ have the homophonous form. Hence, it is natural for the children to regard the prenominal
sentential modifiers as the matrix clauses, based on the input available.
The three pieces of evidence shown above indicate that Japanese-speaking children know theinternal properties of TP headed by the Adnominal T, and they, unlike adults, treat the clauses
containing an erroneous genitive subject as sentences, not as sentential modifiers in NP-contexts.
Then, how do erroneous genitive subjects disappear in child Japanese? In S, M&F (2009), thelearnability problem is explained by HPSOR\LQJ0XUDVXJL¶V  5HODWLYH&ODXVH3DUDPHWHU
According to Murasugi (1991), the structure of sentential modifiers is parameterized; either CP or
TP (IP) depending on languages. Sentential modifiers in adult Japanese (and Korean) are TPs (IPs)whereas they are CPs in adult English. Some children acquiring Japanese hypothesize the CP relatives
at one point of language acquisition.
(24)

Nimotu nose-te-n*noload
carry-Prog-Pres Complementizerµ7KLVLVWKHWUXFNWKDWLVFDUU\LQJDORDG¶torakkutruckya
Copulakore (Jun 2;9)
this(S, M&F, 2009)

In (24), the complementizer no is overgenerated between the sentential modifier and the headnominal.
Adopting Hiraiwa (2001), Saito (2004) and the Relative Clause Parameter, the stages of erroneous
genitive subjects can be classified into three stages.
Basically, the genitive Case errors occur because Adnominal T is considered to be compatible with
C unlike in DGXOW-DSDQHVHVLQFH³DGHfault root clause is CP (Rizzi,  ´Stage I is the stage where
only erroneous genitive subjects are produced which some researchers have observed, and no correct
nominative subjects are found. Children then would assume that Adnominal T is compatible with C.
At Stage II, children mark subjects with both nominative and genitive Case. At this stage,
Adnominal T and Declarative T are compatible with C. Stage II is subcategorized into two stages withrespect to the acquisition of the complex structure of relative clauses. At Stage IIa, relative clauses are
not yet produced; at Stage IIb, the embedded sentences are produced. When children start producing
relative clauses at Stage IIb, overgeneration of complementizer (no) is found in those who set the valueof the Relative Clause Parameter as CP, but not TP, as in (24).
Stage III is the stage where children set the value of the Relative Clause Parameter (from CP) to
TP, and retreat from the overgeneration of complementizer. The erroneous genitive subjects insentences disappear, since children find out that relative clauses cannot be CP in adult Japanese andthat Adnominal T is compatible only with N (D), but not C, by fully specifying the features in T that
determine the external relation of the Adnominal T with N (D).
For this hypothesis, S, M&F (2009) provide the further supportive evidence based on the corpus
analysis of Jun. Jun¶s erroneous genitive subjects are attested from the age of 2;2 to 2;9 and hefrequently overgenerates CP relative clauses from 2;8 to 2;10. In contrast, as shown in (25), TP relative
clauses start to appear productively at 2;10 when his genitive Case errors completely disappear.

217
(25)

Kore na
Jun-gageemu su-ru
toko (Jun 2;10)
this Particle-Nom game do-Pres placeµThis is the place where Jun plays the game.¶(S, M&F, 2009)Jun¶s data shows that he reset the value of the Relative Clause Parameter to TP at around 2;10 andthis is consistent with the analysis given above.
To summarize, 2-year-old Japanese-speaking children who optionally produce correct nominative
subjects erroneously assign genitive Case -no to subject NPs after Root Infinitive Analogues. The
properties of child clauses with an erroneous genitive subject are parallel with those with a genitive
subject in adult sentential modifiers within complex NPs. What children do not know is the propertiesof Tense (i.e., the property of [+Adnominal] T being compatible only with D in adult grammar). Sincea root clause is CP as discussed by Rizzi (1994), and because of the underspecification of Tense,children mistakenly assume that the Adnominal T can be compatible with C. It is only after children
acquire that structure of TP relative clauses in Japanese that they retreat from the genitive Case errors.

5µ(UURQHRXV¶*HQLWLYH6XEMHFWVLQ&KLOG(QJOLVKThe analysis given in Section 4 can elegantly explain the erroneous genitive subjects in child
English; English-speaking children also go though three stages to attain adult grammar. We will argue
that the erroneous genitive subjects, which are found during the Root Infinitive stage (Schütze &Wexler, 1996), are due to the underspecification of the features in Tense and will present the empiricalevidence.

5.1. English Adult Grammar
Before we discuss the mechanism of how English-speaking children make genitive Case errors,
we briefly explain English adult grammar. The subject NPs are typically Case-marked with thenominative in simple sentences as shown in (26). Genitive subjects, but not nominative subjects, arepossible in gerund constructions as shown in (27).
(26)

a. John eats/I eat an apple.

b. *John's eats/My eat an apple.

(27)

a. I remember [-RKQ¶V/my eating an apple] b. *I remember [he/I eating an apple]

As per the data, genitive subjects are allowed in gerund constructions, but not in matrix clauses. It
must be pointed out that there is a parallelism between gerund constructions (DPs) and progressive
sentences (CPs) with respect to the verb forms as shown in (28).
(28)

a. I remember [JohQ¶VP\eating an apple]
b. John is/I am eating an apple[Gerund Construction][Progressive Sentence]

The affix which nominalizes the clauses in (28a) and the affix used in sentences to express
progressive aspect in (28b) are the same (V-ing).
For the structure of the gerund construction, we adopt Suzuki (1988). According to Suzuki (1988),
the suffix -ing is inflectional and it can appear on T (I) where only inflectional affixes can occur. The
gerundive -ing, which originally had [-Infl], had the feature [+N] on T (I), but it later acquired thepositive value of [+Infl] from the homophonous participial suffix -ing. Hence, the gerundive -ing canoccur in T (I). On the other hand, subject NPs in progressive sentences cannot get the genitive Case by
T. When the value of [±N] is negative, the construction becomes sentential. Given Suzuki¶s (1988)
analysis, the structures of gerund constructions and progressive sentences are as given in (29) and (30),respectively.

218
(29)

Gerund
DP
Spec
D
DP

(30) Progressive
CP
Spec
C
TP
NPi
T

TP
7¶
T

vP
Y¶

-ing
[+N]

v

VP
V

NP

be-ing
[-N]

7¶
vP
ti

v¶
v

VP
V

NP

The gerund construction has DP structure as in (29). As shown in (30), T [-N] must be compatible
with the C-head, but not with the D-head in progressive sentences.
Employing the structures shown above, we argue that the mechanism by which English-speaking
children erroneously produce genitive subjects is the same as child Japanese in the next section.

5.2. Children¶s Knowledge DWWKH6WDJHRIWKHµ(UURQHRXV¶*HQLWLYe Subjects in English
In this subsection, we will show that the erroneous genitive subjects in child English are well
explained by adopting the analysis for child Japanese as shown in section 4. We will give thesupportive evidence for the hypothesis that 2-year-old English-speaking children know the internal
properties of TP headed by Gerundive T, but not the external properties of TP. They mistakenly assume
that Gerundive T can be compatible with C.
Unlike Japanese, the structure of relative clauses in English is CP, not TP. Hence, unlike the caseof Japanese, to set the value of the Relative Clause Parameter cannot be the trigger to retreat from thegenitive Case errors for English-speaking children. What can be the trigger of the retreat in child
English? We conjecture that children need to learn the structural difference between gerundive
constructions and progressive sentences. When the features in T that determine the external relation of
T with D/C are fully specified, children stop producing genitive Case errors. The evidence based on
our corpus analysis for our hypothesis is shown as follows.
At Stage I, only erroneous genitive subjects are produced in a matrix sentence. This stage is, in
IDFW IRXQG RQO\ IURP 1LQD¶V FRUSXV3 Most of the erroneous genitive subjects at Stage I occur withverbs without overt inflections such as ³My turn, turn around (Nina, 1;11).´ Children seldom produce
utterances which express progressive events with overt copulas (e.g., I am singing). In child grammar,
T selects CP VWUXFWXUH DV D URRW FODXVH VLQFH ³D GHIDXOW URRW FODXVH LV &3 5L]]L,  ´ 7KHQ 7 LV
associated with the feature [+N (Gerundive)] which assigns the genitive Case to a subject NP.
At Stage II, both correct nominative and erroneous genitive subjects are produced in the matrix
clauses. The crucial difference found in Stage IIb, but not found in Stage IIa, is the existence oferroneous genitive subjects that co-occur with a verb in progressive form. The erroneous genitive
subjects sometimes occur with V-ing that has the interpretation of progressive. Some examples are
DWWHVWHGIURP1LQD¶VFRUpus, such as ³ 'R\RX NQRZZKDWP\making? (Nina, 2;4),´ ³/RRNP\doing,
Mommy (Nina, 2;4)´ DQG³+HUgetting dry (Nina, 2;5).´ Interestingly, all erroneous genitive subjects
with V-ing occur without overt copulative elements. We also need to point out that children at Stage
IIa and IIb frequently drop be in progressive sentences. Children have not acquired the difference
between gerund constructions and progressive sentences.
At Stage III, genitive Case errors disappear. Children start producing the correct nominative
subjects when the T-related elements such as copulative elements start to appear in the adult way.
Progressive sentences start to be produced with overt finite declarative be. Children know that
Gerundive T cannot be compatible with C in adult grammar.
The analysis discussed above is consistent with the acquisition of the progressive form of the3

Sawada, Murasugi, and Fuji (2009) report that among six children, only one Japanese-speaking child (ChildA) exhibits Stage I. Hence, we employ the same classification of the stages to English data.

219
verbs. As discussed by Becker (2000, 2001), copulative elements are frequently dropped in 2-year-old
children’s production. In our corpus analysis, the age span of frequent copula omission corresponds tothe time of the erroneous genitive subjects at Stage I and II. As in (31), be drops in progressive
sentences.
(31)

a. I painting (Adam, 2;5)c. I brushing (Eve, 1;9)b. I popping balloons (Nina, 2;0)d. I singing (Sarah, 2;8)

Corpus analysis of Sarah’s data is summarized in Figure 1. The correlation of the erroneous
genitive subjects, and the progressive sentences with omitted be is found as given in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Correlation of ‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects, Finite Be Drop and Progressive Sentences(Sarah)Figure 1 shows that Sarah’s erroneous genitive subjects are produced from 2;6 to 3;0. While Sarah
is in the stage of genitive Case errors, the rate of progressive sentences with overt be is practically zero
except the occasional production at 2;3 and 2;8. At the age of 3;1, the erroneous genitive subjects ceaseand the correct progressive sentences (with overt finite be) start to appear productively, though gerund
constructions are not found even after 3;0 in Sarah’s corpus. The results in Figure 1 show that an
English-speaking child learns that T [-N] must be compatible with C. Sarah learns that T with thefeature [-N (e.g., Progressive)] does not assign genitive Case to a subject NP in a sentence (CP) and Twith the feature [+N (Gerundive)] must be compatible with D (DP).
To summarize, just like Japanese-speaking children, 2-year-old English-speaking children also
produce erroneous genitive subjects while correct nominative subjects optionally appear. The age spanof Case errors falls on RIs. Child clauses containing erroneous genitive subjects have parallel
properties with adult gerunds. As for the learnability issue, we argued that the trigger to retreat fromgenitive Case errors would be the acquisition of progressive sentences in child English. It is probably
when children realize that T [+N (Gerundive)] cannot be compatible with C, but with D, by learning
the full Tense system that they retreat from the erroneous genitive Case-marking of the subject NPs.4

6. Omission of the Copulative Elements in Child Languages
If we are on the right track, and the Case errors are due to the underspecification of Tense, then it
is conjectured that the analysis given in this paper can account for other phenomenon related toT-elements or copula omission. In this section, we will first go over Becker (2000, 2001) which argues
for copula omission in child English. Then, we will give the supportive evidence for Becker (2000,
2001), based on the corpus analysis of child Japanese.


4

The analysis presented here shares in spirit with Hamburger’s (1980) insight which analyzes sentences withgenitive subjects as precursors of relative clauses, and also with the insight of Schütze and Wexler (1996) whichassociates genitive subjects in child English to genitive subjects in gerundive constructions (e.g., his playing
football [upset me]) in adult grammar.

2206.1. Becker (2000, 2001)
In adult English grammar, predicative expressions can be classified as Stage-level (=S-l) or
Individual-level (=I-l) as exemplified in (32a) and (32b), respectively.
(32)

a. Rodney is in the kitchen/tired.
b. Rodney is a cat/fat.

[Stage-level][Individual-level](Becker, 2001)

S-l predicates (locative expressions µLQ WKH NLWFKHQ¶ and adjectives µWLUHG¶) as in (32a) denote a
temporary property, while I-l predicates (µFDW¶and µIDW¶) as in (32b) denote a permanent property. One
difference between S-l and I-l predicates is that only S-l predicates can be modified by a spatial or
temporal modifier (Becker, 2001, p. 27). See (33).
(33)

a. Rodney is in the kitchen all the time.

b. ??Rodney is a cat all the time.
(Becker, 2001)

As in (33), the temporal modifier all the time can be compatible with the S-l predicate as in (33a),but it is odd with the I-l predicate as in (33b).
Becker (2000, 2001) finds that 2-year-old children acquiring English tend to omit be in S-l
predicates as shown in (34), but be is rarely omitted in I-l predicates as in (35).
(34)

a. ,ĳLQWKHNLWFKHQ 1LQD 2;1)
c. +HUĳWKLUVW\ 1LQD 2;1)

b. +HĳZD\ up dere (=there) (Adam 3;0)
(Becker, 2001)(35)

a. +H¶VDGRJ 1LQD 2;0)c. And this is yellow (Naomi 2;5)b. ,¶PELJER\ $GDP 2;7)
(Becker, 2001)

Be is omitted in locative predicates in (34a) and (34b), in S-l adjectives in (34c). In contrast, be isovert in I-l predicates such as nominals as in (35a) and (35b), and I-l adjectives as in (35c). The
average rate of overt be is only 20.9% in locative predicates and 72.4% in nominal predicates. A
similar contrast is also found between S-l adjectives (46.2%) and I-l adjectives (68.3%).
Becker (2000, 2001) proposes that only S-l predicates contain Aspectual Phrase which provides atemporal anchor for the sentence. Copula be drops in S-l predicates because Infl is empty without [-fin]feature. AspP head, but not TP head, is bound by Tense operator.5
Given Becker¶s insight, it is expected that the copula omission is also found in other childlanguages. The next section deals with the Japanese copulative constructions and argues that
underspecified T can be the same mechanism underlying copula omission in child Japanese.

6.2. The Omission/Production of Copulative Elements in Child Japanese
In adult Japanese, the copulas appear as da (or ya (Kansai dialect)) or desu, and they appear only
in nominal predicates. In case the copulas da (and ya) are produced followed by a sentence-ending
particle no, they have adnominal form na. Just like copulative sentences in English, it is impossible forI-l predicates to occur with temporal expressions (such as kyoo (today)). See the examples shown in(36).
5

Wexler (2000) argues that the asymmetry in copula omission found by Becker (2000, 2001) can be explainedby adopting Agreement and Tense Omission Model (Schütze and Wexler, 1996) and Unique Checking Constraint(UCC) (Wexler, 1998). According to Wexler (1998), UCC allows a D-feature on DP to check against only one
functional category in child grammar, thus forcing either AGR or TNS to be omitted. Wexler (2000) employs'LHVLQJ¶V  SURSRVDOWKDWWKHVXbject NP of I-l predicates is base-generated in TP Spec; while the subject NP
of S-l predicates, which is base-generated inside VP, has to move to the TP Spec. TNS or AGRS must be omitted
for UCC and consequently finite be in S-l predicates is dropped by children. UCC does not apply, when thesubject DP is generated in the Spec of TP, and hence, be is not omitted. See Wexler (2000) for detailed discussion.

221
(36)

a. Taroo-ga (kyoo) genki da (ya, desu)/na-no-Nom today active Dec Copula/Ad Copula-ParticleµTaroo is fine (today).¶b. Kore-ga (*kyoo) hikooki da (ya, desu)/na-no
this-Nom today
airplane Dec Copula/Ad Copula-Particleµ7KLVLVDQDLUSODQH¶[Stage-level][Individual-level]

As in (36a), the S-l predicate genki (active) can occur with the temporal modifier kyoo, while theI-l nominal predicates hikooki (airplane) as in (36b) cannot.
Our analysis of copulative elements produced by a Japanese-speaking child, Jun, who is a
Kansai-dialect speaker, finds that Jun optionally drops copulas just like English-speaking children. The
total number of copula omissions is 32 (18 in S-l predicates, 12 in I-l predicates and 2 in non-classified
predicates) out of 1,677 utterances of copulative sentences6 from the age of 2;0 to 3;1, when erroneous
genitive subjects are also produced (from 2;2 to 2;9). The relevant examples are shown as in (37).
(37)

a. Iyaĳ no (Jun 2;2)
(Adult form: na no)
reluctantParticleµ , GRQ¶WZDQW WREULQJWKHWR\V ¶
b. Kirai ĳ wa (Jun 2;6)
(Adult form: da wa)
dislike
Particleµ , GLVOLNH P\GDGG\VR,ZLOOQRWEULQJDFXSIRUKLP ¶
c. Jun-no
ĳ kara nesaattara akanyo (Jun 2;6) (Adult form: da-kara)-Genitive because Particle touch not allowed Particleµ(This) is Jun¶s, so (you are) not allowed to touch (it).¶

Although the subjects are null in (37), the adjectival noun iya (reluctant) in (37a) is erroneously
followed by the particle no without a copula na in adnominal form . In (37b), the copula in declarative
form da should appear following the adjectival noun kirai (dislike), but it is omitted. (37a) and (37b)
are the copula omissions in S-l predicates. Copula omission in I-l predicates such as (37c) is seldom
observed.
As for the production of copulative elements, the overt copulas are mostly found in I-l predicateswith null subjects as given in (38). We also find that nominative subjects occur with copulas indeclarative form (da) as shown in (39) from the age of one.
(38)

(39)

a. Hikooki ya (Jun 1;10)
airplane Dec Copulaµ 7KLV LVDQDLUSODQH¶Kore gakakkoi buubu
this-Nom coolcarµThis is the cool car.¶b. Gattyaman da (Jun 2;5)
Gattyaman Dec Copulaµ 7KLV LV*DWW\DPDQ (=a TV character)¶ya (Jun 2;6)
CopulaIn (38a) and (38b), the copulas da (and ya) are produced followed by the nominal predicateshikooki (an airplane) and Gattyaman. When subject NP is overtly produced as in (39), the subject kore
(this) is marked with the nominative Case. Based on the data shown above, a Japanese-speaking childtends to drop copulative elements in S-l predicates. Moreover, copulative elements are produced early,
even before the stage of genitive subjects and copula omissions. The total numbers of copula omission
and production in Jun¶s production are summarized in Table 3.

6

The copulative sentences containing da, ya and desu (copula-Pres) and datta, yatta and deshita (copula-Past)
are counted, while the fixed expressions such as nan(i)-da (What is this?), soo da (I got it.), koo-da (I do in thisway.), the imitation production which Jun repeated what his father said, unclear utterances and erroneous usages(e.g., tabe-ta desu (eat-Past Copula)) are not.

222
Table 3
The Number of Copulative Element Omission/Production in Jun¶s Production (2;0-3;1)
The Type of Predicates
S-l predicates
I-l predicates Not Classified Total Number
The Copula Omission (Rates)
18 (5.3%)
12 (1.1%)
2 (0.7%)32
The Copula Production

318

1,056

271

1,645

Though the copula omission rates are not as high as Becker¶s (2000, 2001) data, Table 3 showsthat Jun tends to drop copulas in S-l predicates. This result complies with our hypothesis. 7
For this hypothesis, an interesting utterance of copula omission occurring with an erroneous
genitive subject is found in Moko¶s corpus as shown in (40).
(40)

Moko-tyan-*notensai ĳ (Moko 2;0)-Gen geniusµMoko-W\DQ , LVJHQLXV¶In (40), the declarative form of copula da or desu is not overtly produced. Moreover, our corpus
analysis finds related Case errors with respect to the form of copulative elements as in (41) and (42).
(41)

Kotesatehime-*no daisuki ĳ (Moko 2;7)-Gen loveµ,ORYH.RWHVDWHKLPH (=a kind of princess)¶(42)

A-tyan-*no hambaagu suki-na-Gen hamburger like-Ad Copulaµ$-W\DQ , OLNHVWKHKDPEXUJHUVWHDN¶no (A 2;3)
Particle

In (41), the copula after daisuki (love) drops, and the object NP, Kotesasehime, is erroneously
marked with the genitive Case. In (42), the copula in adnominal form na is overtly produced since it isfollowed by the particle no. Thus, copula tends to drop, and when it does not, it appears in adnominal
form followed by sentence-ending particle no. However, the copulas in declarative form da or ya are
not found with erroneous genitive subjects. These facts suggest that it is the Adnominal T, but not the
Declarative T, that checks the genitive subjects. Figure 2 gives the numbers of genitive Case errors,
relative clauses (both *CP relatives and TP relatives) and the copula omissions.

7

As one reviewer pointed out, Jun¶s copula drop rate is significantly lower than English-speaking children¶s. In
adult Japanese, copulas can drop (e.g., Kore-ga hikooki ĳ µThis is an airplane.¶). In our corpus analysis, suchutterances are not classified as ungrammatical copula omissions, but the copula omissions such as (37) arecounted. This may be the cause of very low rate of copula omissions in child Japanese.

223

Figure 2. The Numbers of Utterances of ‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects, Relative Clauses and the
Omission of Copulas (Jun)
Figure 2 shows that three types of errors are produced during the same age span, and it also showsthat it is at around the age of 2;10 that all these errors cease.
Furthermore, we have supportive evidence found in erroneous genitive subjects for our hypothesis.
See the English copulative sentences shown in (32), which are repeated in (43). This semantic contrast
corresponds to the Japanese existential sentences as in (44).
(43)

a. Rodney is in the kitchen. [Stage-level]b. Rodney is a cat/fat. [Individual-level](44)

a. Hon-ga
heya-ni a-ru
book-Nom room-at exist-Pres‘A book is in the room.’b. Taroo-wa gakusei dea-ru-Top student Copula exist-Pres‘Taroo is a student.’

The S-l predicate (43a) meaning that Rodney is located in a place, kitchen, corresponds to (44a)the existential sentence containing an existential verb ‘(-ni) aru’ in Japanese. The I-l predicate (43b)corresponds to the construction with ‘(-de) aru,’ which is the literal expression of da in Japanese as
shown in (44b).
In Jun’s corpus, we found that erroneous genitive subjects occurring with the S-l verb ‘(-ni) aru’ as
given in (45).
(45)

a. Koori-*no ippai
a-ru (Jun 2;8)
ice-Gena lot
exist-Pres‘There are lots of ice.’b. Karendaa-*no a-ru (Moko 2;7)
calendar-Gen
exist-Pres‘There is a calendar.’

As in (45), the subject NPs marked with the genitive Case are produced with the verb ‘(-ni) aru’ as
S-l predicates. Crucially, the erroneous genitive subjects co-occurring with I-l predicates ‘(-de) aru,’
even with its colloquial expressions da or desu, are not found at all. Hence, the empirical evidencecollected from the Japanese corpus given above is consistent with Becker’s finding for child English.
The age span when Jun produces erroneous genitive subjects, TP and CP relative clauses, copulasand existential verb aru are summarized in Table 4.

224
Table 4
Ages that Jun Produced µErroneous¶ Genitive Subjects, Relative Clauses, Copulas and Existential
Verbs
Age
2;0 2;12;2 2;3 2;4 2;5 2;6 2;7 2;8 2;9 2;10 2;11 3;0 3;1
Types of Predicates
Erroneous Genitive Subjects*CP Relative Clauses
TP Relative Clauses
Omission of Copulas in S-l P
Production of Copulas in S-l P
Existential Verb aru** Dot lines indicate that *CP relative clauses and omission of copulas in S-l predicates are lessproduced compared to solid lines.
Our descriptive corpus analysis finds that the omission of copulas is observed roughly at aroundthe same stage as erroneous genitive subjects (from 2;2 to 2;9). This result, hence, is consistent with
our hypothesis that children¶s copula omissions and the erroneous genitive Case-marked subjects are
due to the underspecification of the features in Tense.

7. Conclusion
In this paper, we showed that young children acquiring Japanese and English produce erroneous
genitive subjects and omit copulative elements, based on the descriptive corpus analysis. The
erroneous genitive subjects are observed during the Root Infinitive stage. Then, correct nominative
subjects and copulative elements (in Stage-level predicates) optionally appear at the stage of Caseerrors. Genitive subjects cease when the adult-like relative clauses in Japanese and progressive
sentences in English appear productively. Furthermore, the properties of sentences with the erroneous
genitive subjects are parallel with the genitive subjects in the sentential modifiers in noun phrases inadult Japanese and gerundive constructions in adult English.
We argued that the genitive Case errors are due to the underspecification of Tense. Precisely,
2-year-old children have not specified the external relation of Adnominal or Gerundive T [Genitive] inthe adult way, and they initially assume that the Adnominal or Gerundive T can be compatible with C,
as they percolate CP as the default root clause (Rizzi, 1994). This happens after the acquisition of (i)the structure of relative clauses by setting the TP value for the parameter of the relative clauses(Murasugi, 1991) in Japanese and (ii) progressive sentences in English by finding the lexical andstructural differences between DP gerund constructions and CP progressive sentences. In order toattain adult grammar, children need to learn that Adnominal T is compatible only with N (D), not with
C. We have shown that our observation of the optional copula omission found in child Japanese also
correlates with the lack of fully specified Tense.

References
Abe, Yasuaki. (1992). Tense, Conditionals and Arbitrary PRO Interpretation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Sophia
Linguistic Society, 6, 33-58.
Abe, Yasuaki. (1993). Dethematized Subjects and Property Ascription in Japanese. In Chungmin Lee, & Beom-mo
Kang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp.
132-144). Thaehaksa, Seoul.
Becker, Misha. (2000). The Development of the Copula in Child English: The Lightness of Be. Ph.D. Dissertation,
UCLA.
Becker, Misha. (2001). The Syntactic Structure of Predicatives: Clues from the Omission of the Copula in Child
English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 22, 25-42.
Budwig, Nancy. (1989). The Linguistic Marking of Agentivity and Control in Child Language. Journal of Child
Language, 16, 263-284.
Diesing, Molly. (1992). Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hamburger, Henry. (1980). A Deletion Ahead of Its Time. Cognition, 8, 389-416.

225
Harada, SLQ¶LFKL. (1971). Ga-No Conversion and Idiolectal Variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu, 60, 25-38.
Hiraiwa, Ken. (2001). On Nominative-Genitive Conversion. In Elena Guerzoni, & Ora Matushansky (Eds.), MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 39: A Few from Building (E-39, pp. 66-125).
Ishii,Takeo. (2004). The Jun-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy Aged 0;6-3;8. (CHILDES)
Lillo-Martin, Diane, Snyder, William, & Murasugi, Keiko. 7KH'DWDEDVHRI³0RNR.´ University of Connecticut
and Nanzan University.
Miyagawa, Sigeru. (2008). Structures that License Genitive Subjects in Altaic. Ms., Nagoya University.
Miyagawa, Sigeru. (2009). Genitive Subjects in Altaic and the Specification of Phase. Ms., MIT. Available on-line
at: http://web.mit.edu/miyagawa/www/Miyagawa%20Lingua%20ms%20June29-09.pdf
Miyata, Susanne. (2004a). The Tai-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy Aged 1;5-3;1. (CHILDES)
Miyata, Susanne. (2004b). The Ryo-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy Aged 1;4-3;0.
(CHILDES)
Miyata, Susanne. (2004c). The Aki-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy Aged 1;5-3;0. (CHILDES)
Murasugi, Keiko. (1991). Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, Keiko. (2008). Underspecification of Functional Heads in Language Acquisition. Presentation at the 1st
Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition,
Nanzan University, November 23rd.
Murasugi, Keiko. (2009). What Japanese-Speaking Children¶V(UUors Tell Us about Syntax. Presentation at GLOWin Asia VII, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, February 28th.
Murasugi, Keiko, & Fugi, Chisato. (2008). Root Infinitives: The Parallel Routes the Japanese- and KoreanSpeaking Children Step in. Presentation at Japanese/Korean Linguistic Conference 18, City University of
New York, November 13th.
Murasugi, Keiko, & Fugi, Chisato. (2009). Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisition of
Head-Movement. BUCLD 33 Supplement, Cascadilla Press.
Murasugi, Keiko, Fuji, Chisato, & Hashimoto, Tomoko. (2007). What Acquired Later in an Agglutinative
Language. Paper presented at Asian GLOW VI, Chinese University of Hong Kong, December 27th.
Murasugi, Keiko, & Watanabe, Eriko. (2009). Case Errors in Child Japanese and the Implication for the Syntactic
Theory. In Jean Crawford, Koichi Otaki, & Masahiko Takahashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference
on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (pp. 153-164).
Nakatani, Tomomi, & Murasugi, Keiko. (2009). Gengokakutoku ni okeru Syusetuhuteisigensyoo: Zyuudanteki
Kansatuteki Kenkyuu [Root Infinitive Analogues as Non-Finite Surrogate Forms: A Longitudinal Study of aJapanese-Speaking Child]. Academia, 86, 59-94. Nanzan University.
Pensalfini, Rob. (1995). Pronoun Case Errors, Both Syntactic and Morphological. In Carson T. Schütze, Jennifer B.
Ganger, & Kevin Broihier (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 26, pp. 305-324).
Radford, Andrew. (1998). Genitive Subjects in Child English. Lingua, 106, 113-131.
Rispoli, Matthew. (1994). Pronoun Case Overextensions and Paradigm Building. Journal of Child Language, 21,
157-172.
Rispoli, Matthew. (1995). Mechanisms of Pronoun Case Error: Biased Retrieval, Not Syntactic Incompetence. Ms.,
Northern Arizona University.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1994). Early Null-Subjects and Root Null-Subjects. In Teun Hoekstra, & Bonnie Schwartz (Eds.),
Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 151-176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saito, Mamoru. (2004). Genitive Subjects in Japanese: Implications for the Theory of Null Objects. In Peri
Bhaskararao, & Karumuri V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-Nominative Subjects (Vol. 2, pp. 103-118). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sawada, Naoko, & Murasugi, Keiko. (2010). µ(UURQHRXV¶*Hnitive Subjects in Child Grammar. Presentation at the
7th Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition,
Nanzan University, January 31st.
Sawada, Naoko, Murasugi, Keiko, & Fuji, Chisato. (2009). A Theoretical AFFRXQWIRUWKHµEUURQHRXV¶Genitive
Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense. Presentation at BUCLD 34, Boston University,
November 7th.
Schütze, Carson, & Wexler, Kenneth. (1996). Subject Case Licensing and English Root Infinitives. In Andy
Stringfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes, & Andrea Zukowski (Eds.), BUCLD 20 (pp.
670-681). Cascadilla Press.
Suzuki, Takeru. (2001). No no Syuutoku ni Kansuru Yobikennkyuu [The Preliminary Study on the Acquisition ofJapanese]. English Studies, 32, 37-63. Tokyo Gakugei University.
Suzuki, Takeru. (2007). Nihongo no Kakutoku Katei de Arawareru Syugohyoosiki no Bunretu [Subject Split in the
Acquisition of Japanese]. Bulletin of Tokyo Gakugei University. Humanities and Social Sciences. I Vol. 58,

226
45-69. Tokyo Gakugei University. Available on-line at: http://hdl.handle.net/2309/65548
Suzuki, Tatsuya. (1988). The Structure of English Gerunds. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Teramura, Hideo. (1982). Nihongo no Sintakkusu to Imi 2 [Japanese Syntax and Meanings 2]. Kuroshio Shuppan,
Tokyo.
Vainikka, Anne. (1993/1994). Case in the Development of English Syntax. Language Acquisition, 3, 257-325.
Wexler, Ken. (2000). Three Problems in the Theory of the Optional Infinitive Stage: Stage/Individual Predicates,
Eventive Verbs and Finite Null-Subjects. WCCFL 19 Proceedings, 560-573.

Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference
on Generative Approaches to Language
Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010)edited by Mihaela Pirvulescu,
María Cristina Cuervo, Ana T. Pérez-Leroux,
Jeffrey Steele, and Nelleke Strik
Cascadilla Proceedings Project

Somerville, MA

2011

Copyright information
Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches
to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010)© 2011 Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. All rights reservedISBN 978-1-57473-447-8 library binding
A copyright notice for each paper is located at the bottom of the first page of the paper.
Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Ordering information
Orders for the library binding edition are handled by Cascadilla Press.
To place an order, go to www.lingref.com or contact:
Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA
phone: 1-617-776-2370, fax: 1-617-776-2271, sales@cascadilla.com

Web access and citation information
This entire proceedings can also be viewed on the web at www.lingref.com. Each paper has a unique document #which can be added to citations to facilitate access. The document # should not replace the full citation.
This paper can be cited as:
Sawada, Naoko and Keiko Murasugi. 2011. A Cross-linguistic Approach to the ‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects:
Underspecification of Tense in Child Grammar Revisited. In Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), ed. Mihaela Pirvulescu et al.,209-226. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #2597.