Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese:
A Preliminary Report*
Koji Sugisaki
MIE UNIVERSITY
1.

Introduction
Japanese is a language that allows productive use of null arguments infinite clauses. In (2), which constitutes replies to (1), either the matrix subject or
the matrix object is not overtly expressed. Similarly, in (3), both the subject andthe object of the embedded clause are phonologically empty.
(1)

Taroo-wadooshimashitaka?

Taroo-TOP

how

did

Q

‘What happened to Taroo?’
(2)

a.

e

ano kaisya-ni

syuusyoku

shimashita.

that company-DAT

employment

did‘He got employed by that company.’b.

Ano kaisya-gaethat company-NOM

saiyoushimashita.

recruitment

did‘That company recruited him.’(3)

Hanakoo-ga

Taroo-ni

Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
to
that

]

yakusokusita.
promised[eesaiyousuru

recruitment

do‘Hanako promised Taroo that she will recruit him.’
It has been observed at least since Otani and Whitman (1991) that null
objects in Japanese allow sloppy-identity interpretation when their antecedentcontains the anaphor zibun ‘self’. For example, the sentence with a missing
object in (4b) is ambiguous: It means either that Taroo discarded Hanako’s letter(strict-identity interpretation) or that Taroo discarded his own letter(sloppy-identity interpretation). Oku (1998) observes that the same is true withnull subjects: The missing embedded subject in (5b) can be construed either as
Hanako’s student or as Taroo’s student.
(4)a.

Hanako-wa

zibun-notegami-osuteta.

Hanako-TOP

self-GENletter-ACC

discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’b.

Taroo-mosuteta.

eTaroo-also

discarded

Lit. ‘Taroo also discarded(5)a.

Hanako-wa[

Hanako-TOP
toottatopassed

that

e

.’

zibun-no gakusei-ga

siken-niself-GEN student-NOM

exam-DAT]

omotteiru.
think‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 student passed the exam.’b.

Taroo-mo[eTaroo-also

siken-nitoottatoexam-DAT

passedthatomotteiru.
think
Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks thate passed the exam’]This study is an interim report of my ongoing experiment whichinvestigates

whetherJapanese-speaking

preschool

children

allow

the

sloppy-identity interpretation of phonologically null subjects illustrated in (5).
Even though preliminary, the results suggest that the relevant knowledge isalready in the grammar of Japanese-speaking preschoolers, which is consistent
with the recent parametric proposal that the availability of sloppy interpretationof null arguments is tightly connected to other prominent properties of Japanese(Oku 1998, Saito 2007, Takahashi 2008).

2.

Argument Ellipsis in Japanese
The availability of sloppy reading in examples like (4) is unexpected if theobject position is occupied by a null pronoun pro, since pronouns do not permit
sloppy interpretation, as exemplified in (6b).

(6)

a.

Hanako-wa

zibun-notegami-osuteta.

Hanako-TOP

self-GENletter-ACC

discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’b.

Taroo-mosore-osuteta.

Taroo-also

it-ACC

discarded‘Taroo also discarded it. / *Taroo1 also discarded his1 letter.’
An influential study by Otani and Whitman (1991) put forth the idea that thesloppy-identity interpretation of null-object sentences in Japanese as in (4b)stems from VP-ellipsis. One of the fundamental assumptions of their analysis isthat Japanese has overt V-to-T raising, and hence the sentences in (4) arerepresented as in (7) in overt syntax. In LF, the antecedent VP is copied onto theempty VP, yielding (8), which contains an anaphor in its object position as well.
The LF representation in (8) accounts for the sloppy interpretation of thesentence involving a null object in (4b).

(7)

a.

[TP

Hanako-wa

[T'

[VP

zibun-no tegami-o

Hanako-TOP
[T

tV ]

self-GEN letter-ACC

suteV-taT ] ] ]discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’b.

[TP

Taroo-mo

[T'

[VP

e

]

Taroo-also[TP

Taroo-mosuteV-taT ] ] ]discarded

Lit. ‘Taroo also discarded(8)[T[T' [VP

Taroo-alsoe.’zibun-no tegami-o
self-GEN letter-ACC

tV ] [T suteV-taT ]]]discarded

Even though the VP-ellipsis analysis successfully explains why null
objects in Japanese permit sloppy interpretations, it faces a variety of problems(see Hoji 1998, Oku 1998, Saito 2007, and Takahashi 2008).1 Most notable isthe observation by Oku (1998) that even null subjects allow the sloppy-identity
reading, as illustrated in (5) and also in (9): The sentence in (9b) can mean either
that Taroo also thinks that Taroo’s proposal will be accepted (the sloppy
reading), or that Taroo also thinks that Hanako’s proposal will be accepted (thestrict reading). Given that subjects arguably stay outside of VP in overt syntax
and in LF, the VP-ellipsis analysis by Otani and Whitman (1991) would predictthat the former interpretation should not be possible with null subjects, contrary
to facts.

(9)a.

Hanako-wa[

Hanako-TOP
to
that

]

zibun-no teian-ga

saiyousareru

self-GEN proposal-NOM accepted-beomotteiru.
think‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 proposal will be accepted.’b.

Taroo-mo[saiyousareru

toTaroo-also

accepted-be

that

Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks that

e

e

]

omotteiru.
thinkwill be accepted.’

In order to accommodate both the null-object examples as in (4) and thenull-subject examples as in (5) and (9), Oku (1998), Saito (2007) and Takahashi(2008) (among others) put forth an alternative analysis in which only therelevant argument DP (not the VP) is elided.2 Under their argument-ellipsis
analysis, the sentences in (9) have the representations in (10) in overt syntax.
After the derivation enters into LF, the antecedent DP, namely the anaphoric
subject in (10a), is copied onto the empty subject position in (10b), resulting in
the LF representation in (11), which successfully yields the sloppy interpretationof the null subject.
(10) a.

Hanako-wa

[CP

[DP

Hanako-TOP[T'zibun-no teian-ga]

self-GEN proposal-NOM

saiyousareru]

accepted-beto]omotteiru.

that

think

‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 proposal will be accepted.’b.

Taroo-mo

[CP

[DP

e

Taroo-also
to
that

]

]

[T'

saiyousareru
accepted-beomotteiru.
think

Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks thatewill be accepted.’](11) Taroo-mo

[CP

[DP

Taroo-also
to

]

that

zibun-no teian-ga] [T' saiyousareru]

self-GEN proposal-NOM accepted-beomotteiru.
think

According to Oku (1998), the availability of argument ellipsis is subject tocross-linguistic variation: Argument ellipsis is permitted in Japanese but is notallowed in languages like Spanish or English.3 As illustrated in (12b), Spanish
permits null subjects, but these null subjects cannot have sloppy interpretation:(12b) only means that Juan believes that Maria’s proposal will be accepted, andit never means that Juan believes that Juan’s proposal will be accepted. In the
English example (13), which contains a verb that optionally allows a missing
object, the second clause simply means that John did some eating activity, andnever permits a sloppy reading.
(12) a.

Maria

cree

Maria

believes

aceptada]

accepted[que supropuesta

seráthat her proposal

will-beyand‘Maria1 believes that her1 proposal will be accepted and …’
b.

Juan

también

cree

[

que

Juan

too

believes

Lit. ‘Juan also believes thatserá

aceptada

thatwill-beacceptedewill be accepted.’e](Oku 1998:305)(13) Bill1 ate his1 shoe, and John ate, too.

(Oku 1998:311)

To account for the cross-linguistic difference between Japanese on one
hand and English and Spanish on the other, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008)

proposed that the availability of argument ellipsis in a given language is tightly
connected to the availability of (Japanese-type) scrambling.4 They argue thatboth of these properties stem from the parameter proposed by Bošković and
Takahashi (1998), which can be called the Parameter of θ-feature Strength.
(14) The Parameter of θ-feature Strength: θ-features are {strong, weak}.
According to Bošković and Takahashi (1998), θ-features of a verb are weak inJapanese, while they are strong in non-scrambling languages like English andSpanish. Given their weak nature, θ-features of Japanese verbs need not bechecked in overt syntax. This property of Japanese makes it possible for anargument to be base-generated in a ‘scrambled’ position, as shown in (15a). In
the LF component, the ‘scrambled’ object undergoes a lowering operation andmerges with the predicate, in order to check the selectional features of the verb.

(15) a.
[TP
to

In overt syntax:
Ken-o

[TP

Taroo-ga [CPHanako-ga

Ken-ACC

Taroo-NOM

Hanako-NOM]]

itta ]

that[VP

sikatta]scoldedsaid

Lit. ‘Ken, Taroo said that Hanako scolded.’b.

In the LF component:

[TP
to
that

[TP
]

itta ]
said

Taroo-ga [CPHanako-ga [VP Ken-oTaroo-NOM

Hanako-NOM Ken-ACC scolded]

sikatta]Such a derivation is not available in English or Spanish, since θ-features in theselanguages are strong and hence they must be checked in overt syntax soon after
verbs are introduced into the derivation.
Building on Bošković and Takahashi’s LF analysis of scrambling, Oku(1998) and Takahashi (2008) argue that the possibility of argument ellipsis inJapanese also follows from the weakness of θ-features. Since θ-features ofJapanese verbs need not undergo checking in overt syntax, an argument position
can be literally absent in Japanese, as shown in (16a). At LF, the second clause in(16b) comes to have a licit transitive configuration through the LF-copying of anantecedent DP.
(16) a.

In overt syntax:
Hanako-wa[VP[ zibun-no tegami-o ]suteta.

self-GEN letter-ACC

discarded

Hanako-TOP
Taroo-mo[VPsute-ta. ]Taroo-also

discarded

Lit. ‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter. Taroo also discarded e
b.

]

.’

In the LF component:
Hanako-wa[VP[ zibun-no tegami-o ]suteta.

self-GEN letter-ACC

discarded

Hanako-TOP]

LF-Copy
Taroo-moTaroo-also[VP[

zibun-no tegami-o ]suteta.

self-GEN letter-ACC

discarded]

This way, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) attribute both the availability ofscrambling and that of argument ellipsis to a single parametric property ofJapanese: the property that θ-features are weak.
In contrast, building on Kuroda’s (1998) proposal that the main source ofthe various differences between English and Japanese is the presence vs.

absence of obligatory agreement, Saito (2007) claims that argument ellipsis inJapanese arises from the absence of overt agreement in this language. According
to Chomsky (2000), agreement is a probe-goal relation induced by a set of
uninterpretable φ-features on a functional head (T or v). In the case of object
agreement illustrated in (17), the uninterpretable φ-features of v agree with thematching, interpretable φ-set of the object DP. The object satisfies the condition
that the goal must have an uninterpretable Case feature (the Activation
Condition), and hence qualifies as a goal. The agreement relation results in thedeletion of the uninterpretable φ-features on v and the uninterpretable Casefeature of the DP.
(17)

vP
ru
VP
ru

v
[φ-features]VDP[φ-features, Case feature]

Saito (2007) argues that the agreement relation illustrated above is
obligatory in languages like English and Spanish, and that this obligatoriness ofagreement excludes argument ellipsis from these languages. For example, in the
English example in (18), the object DP his friend in (18a) must be copied into
the object position of (18b) at LF for the latter sentence to be properlyinterpreted. If we assume that only LF objects can be employed in LF-copying,
the DP his friend must be copied into (18b) from the LF representation of (18a).5
However, this DP has already agreed with its v in (18a) and hence, its
uninterpretable Case feature has already been deleted. Then, given the
Activation Condition, it does not qualify as a goal in the required agreement
relation in (18b), and consequently, the derivation crashes due to the remaining
uninterpretable φ-features of v.

(18) a.

John brought [DP his friend].

b. * But Bill did not bring.

The corresponding derivation converges in Japanese, however, given thatJapanese lacks overt agreement. In (19), the object DP zibun-no tomodati ‘self’s
friend’ is copied from the LF representation of (19a) into the object position of(19b), as in (20). Since Japanese does not have obligatory agreement, v in (19b)need not have uninterpretable φ-features. Thus, the object DP in (19a) can be
successfully copied into (19b) even though its uninterpretable Case feature has
already been deleted, and the derivation converges.
(19) a.

Taroo-wa[DP

Taroo-TOP

zibun-no tomodati-o ] turetekita.
self-GEN friend-ACC

brought‘Taroo1 brought his1 friend.’
b.

Demo

Hanako-wa

tureteko-nakatta.

but

Hanako-TOP

brought-not‘But Hanako1 did not bring her1 friend.’(20) Demobut

Hanako-wa [DP zibun-no tomodati-o ]tureteko-nakatta.

Hanako-TOP

brought-not

self-GEN friend-ACC

To summarize this section, we have seen evidence that Japanese permits
ellipsis of argument DPs. Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) proposed that thepresence of argument ellipsis in Japanese and its absence in English and Spanish
are correlated with the availability of (Japanese-type) scrambling. In contrast,
developing the idea of Kuroda (1998), Saito (2007) claimed that the possibilityof argument ellipsis in Japanese is closely tied to the absence of overt agreementin this language. Even though these proposals significantly differ in their details,
they share the fundamental assumption that a parameter of UG establishes atight connection between the availability of argument ellipsis and otherprominent properties of Japanese. My experiment to be presented below is anattempt to evaluate this basic insight of their proposals, by investigating theacquisition of Japanese.

3.

Prediction for Child Japanese
As we have seen in the previous section, theoretical studies of Japanesesuggest that argument ellipsis is closely related to other prominent characteristics
of Japanese, such as scrambling or the lack of overt agreement. Previous
acquisition literature reports that both scrambling and agreement are acquired
fairly early, at least by the age of three. For example, using an act-out task, Otsu
(1994) investigated whether Japanese-speaking three- and four-year-olds cancorrectly interpret scrambled sentences as in (21b). The results showed thatyoung children had virtually no difficulty in understanding scrambled sentences,
once the discourse context was provided by adding a sentence as in (21a).6(21) a.

Kooen-niahirusan-ga

imashita.

park-induck-NOM

was‘There was a duck in the park.’
b.

Sono

ahirusan-okamesan-ga

osimashita.

theduck-ACC

turtle-NOM

pushed‘A turtle pushed the duck.’Hyams (2002) summarizes the results of various acquisition studies, andobserves that children acquiring “rich” agreement languages such as Italian and
Catalan obey subject-verb agreement requirements from the earliest stage(before or around the age of two), even before they produce all the forms in aparadigm. For example, singular verb morphology is typically acquired before
plural morphology, and first- and third-person forms appear earlier than

second-person forms. Nevertheless, agreement is almost always correct for those
forms that are used. According to Hyams (2002), across children and languages,
agreement errors are under 4%. Given the finding that agreement errors are
extremely rare in the acquisition of “rich” agreement languages, we canreasonably speculate that children acquiring agreementless languages like
Japanese would also be sensitive to the absence of overt agreement from the earlystages of acquisition.
Given that we have reasons to believe that the properties that are allegedly
connected to argument ellipsis are acquired early, the parametric proposals by
Oku (1998), Saito (2007), and Takahashi (2008) should make the following
prediction:(22) Prediction for Child Japanese:
Japanese-speaking preschool children should have knowledge of argument
ellipsis.
Matsuo (2007) and Sugisaki (2007) conducted an experiment to investigate
how Japanese-speaking children interpret null-object sentences as in (23).
(23) a.

Zousan-ga

zibun-no oyatsu-oelephant-NOM self-GEN snack-ACC

tabeteruyo.

eating

EXCL‘An elephant1 is eating his1 snack.’b.

Penginsan-moepenguin-also‘A penguin is also eatingetabeteruyo.

eating

EXCL.’

Their results revealed that children between the age of four and six permit
sloppy-identity interpretation for null-object sentences like (23b), which isconsistent with the prediction in (22) that argument ellipsis should be inchildren’s grammar. However, given that these experiments used sentences
involving null objects, there remained a possibility that children may have
employed VP-ellipsis, not argument ellipsis, to derive the sloppy interpretation.
This possibility gains more plausibility in light of the proposal by Takahashi(2008) that Chinese has VP ellipsis but does not have argument ellipsis. As
observed by Huang (1991) and Otani and Whitman (1991), null objects in
Chinese exhibit the sloppy interpretation: The null object in (24b) can mean
either rumors about Zhangsan (strict reading) or rumors about Mali (sloppy
reading). In sharp contrast, according to Takahashi (2008), null subjects in
Chinese do not permit sloppy interpretation: The missing subject in (25b) may
refer to Zhangsan’s child but cannot refer to Lisi’s child.
(24) a.

Zhangsan bu

xihuanZhangsan not likeguanyziji deyaoyan.

about

self GEN rumor‘Zhangsan does not like rumors about himself.’
b.

Mali

ye

bu

xihuanMalialso not like

Lit. ‘Mali does not like(25) a.

ee.

either.’Zhangsan shuoziji dehaizi

Zhangsan say

self GEN childmei naqian.

take not money‘Zhangsan said that his child did not take money.’b.

Lisi yeshuo

mei nae

Lisi too say
Lit. ‘Lisi also said thatqian.

take not moneye

did not take money.’(Takahashi 2008:415)

This observation suggests that UG permits two options to derive the sloppy
interpretation of null objects: VP-ellipsis (preceded by overt V-to-T raising) as inChinese, and argument ellipsis as in Japanese. In order to make sure that child
Japanese is not like adult Chinese and that it indeed has argument ellipsis, the
new experiment reported in the next section makes use of sentences that containa null argument in the subject position, as illustrated in (5) and (9).

4.

Experiment
In order to re-evaluate the validity of the prediction in (22), we conducted

an experiment with 10 Japanese-speaking children, ranging in age from 4;11
(years;months) to 5;11 (mean age, 5;03). These children were divided into twogroups. One group of children (Experimental Group) was presented test sentences
involving an embedded clause with a null subject, as in (26). The other group ofchildren (Control Group) was presented test sentences involving an overt pronounin the embedded subject position, as in (27). Both types of sentences wereaccompanied by exactly the same stories.

(26) Test sentence involving a null subject:a.

Zousan-wa[

elephant-TOP
jyouzuda to
good

]

that

zibun-noe-gaichibanself-GEN

picture-NOM

the-first

omotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b.

Raionsan-mo[elion-also

ichibanjyouzuda

tothe-first

good

that

omotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The lion also thinks thateis the best.”]

(27) Test sentence involving an overt pronominal subject:a.

Zousan-wa[

elephant-TOP
jyouzuda to
good

]

that

zibun-noe-gaichibanself-GEN

picture-NOM

the-first

omotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b.

Raionsan-mo[sore-gaichibanjyouzuda tolion-also

it-NOM

the-first

goodomotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

]

that

‘The lion also thinks that it is the best.”

Each child was presented with four target trials and two filler trials. Amongthe four target trails, two of them were aimed at investigating whether children
allow sloppy interpretation for null subjects or overt pronouns, and the other twoof them were aimed at investigating whether children allow strict interpretation
for null subjects or overt pronouns. The task was truth-value judgment (Crain andThornton 1998). In each trial, a child was told a story, which was accompanied bya series of pictures presented on a laptop computer. At the end of each story, apuppet described verbally what he thought had happened in the story, using
sentences as in (26) or (27). The task for the child was to judge whether thepuppet’s description was correct or wrong, by pointing at one of the cards thepuppet had in his hands: ○ (circle, which means ‘correct’) or × (cross, whichmeans ‘wrong’). Sample stories are given in (28) and in (29).

(28) Sample Story 1 (which investigates the availability of sloppy reading):
An elephant, a lion, and a monkey are drawing their portraits. The elephantsaid to the lion, “Hey, look at this! I think my portrait is the best.” Looking
at the elephant’s portrait, the lion replied, “Your portrait looks very good,but I think mine is the best.”

Puppet:Zousan-wa[

elephant-TOP
jyouzuda to
good

]

that

zibun-noe-gaichibanself-GEN

picture-NOM

the-first

omotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’
Raionsan-mo[lion-also
to

]

that

e / sore-ga

ichibanjyouzuda

it-NOM

the-first

goodomotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The lion also thinks that e / it is the best.”(Expected Answer: “Yes” with a null subject, “No” with a pronominal
subject)(29) Sample Story 2 (which investigates the availability of strict reading):
A rabbit, a squirrel, and a dog are reading their picture books. The rabbit
said to the squirrel, “Hey, look at this! I think my picture book is the mostamusing.” Looking at the rabbit’s picture book, the squirrel replied, “Yes, I
agree. My picture book is very good, but I think yours is the mostamusing.”

Puppet:Usagisan-wa[

rabbit-TOP
omosiroi toamusing]thatzibun-noehon-gaichibanself-GEN

picture book-NOM

the-first

omotteru

yo.

think

EXCL

‘The rabbit1 thinks that her1 picture book is the most amusing.’
Risusan-mo[e / sore-ga

ichibanomosiroisquirrel-also

it-NOM

the-first

amusingtoomotteru

yo.

think

PART

]

that

‘The squirrel also thinks that e / itis the most amusing.”(Expected Answer: “Yes” both with a null subject and a pronominal
subject)

The results are summarized in Table 1. Children permitted a strict-identity
interpretation both for the sentences with a null subject and the sentences with an
overt pronominal subject. In contrast, children showed a strong tendency to allow
sloppy-identity interpretation only when the sentence contains a null subject, andto disallow this reading when the sentence involves an overt pronominal subject.

These results are in conformity with the prediction in (22), and suggest that theknowledge of argument ellipsis is already in the grammar of Japanese-speaking
preschool children.

strict-identity interpretation

Sentences involving
a null subject
Sentences involving
an overt pronoun

sloppy-identity interpretation# of acceptance% of acceptance# of acceptance% of acceptance

10/10

100%

08/10

80%

10/10

100%

02/10

20%

Table 1: Summary of the Results

5.

Conclusion
Even though the results are still preliminary in that the number of children

tested is relatively small at this point, we obtained a clear indication thatJapanese-speaking preschool children permit sloppy-identity interpretation for
null-subject sentences. The results of my experiment provide evidence thatJapanese-speaking preschoolers already have knowledge of argument ellipsis, inconformity with the prediction in (22). The evidence presented in this study ismore convincing than the one presented in Sugisaki (2007), given that the newexperiment made use of sentences involving null subjects, and hence that thesloppy interpretation children provided for these empty elements cannot be
attributed to VP-ellipsis. The findings of this study are consistent with theparametric proposals by Oku (1998), Saito (2007), and Takahashi (2008) thatthe availability of argument ellipsis in Japanese is closely related to otherprominent characteristics of this language. A broader implication of this study isthat child language acquisition constitutes an important testing ground for theevaluation of parametric proposals (Sugisaki 2003, Snyder 2007).
Notes* I would like to thank Ayaka Kashitani and Yusuke Suzuki for their help in
conducting the experiment reported in this study. I am grateful to Cedric Boeckx,
Shigeru Miyagawa, Koichi Otaki, Mamoru Saito, and especially Keiko
Murasugi for their detailed comments on an earlier version of this study(Sugisaki 2007). I am also grateful to Aijun Huang, Kazuko Hiramatsu, Nina
Hyams, Thomas Hun-tak Lee, Kazumi Matsuoka, Mineharu Nakayama, Koichi
Otaki, and the audience of TCP 2009 (poster session) for valuable comments on
this study. The usual disclaimers apply. The research reported here was
supported in part by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education andScience to Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University for establishment ofcenters for advanced research, and also by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists(B) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#21720174). The
results of a larger-scale experiment will be reported in Sugisaki (in preparation).
1

Even though the VP-ellipsis analysis of null objects may not be valid forJapanese, it may be valid for Chinese. See Takahashi (2008:414-415), and thediscussion in Section 3 of this paper.
2

Kim (1999) provides compelling evidence that argument ellipsis is available in

Korean.
3

See also Takahashi (2007) for a detailed cross-linguistic survey concerning theavailability of argument ellipsis.
4

See also Saito (2003) for a related proposal.

5

See Saito (2007) for evidence that only LF objects can be employed in the

LF-copying operation involved in argument ellipsis.

6

See also Murasugi and Kawamura (2005) for early acquisition of scramblingin Japanese.

References
Bošković, Ž. and D. Takahashi (1998) Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic
Inquiry, 29, 347-366.
Chomsky, N. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D.
Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-15). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Crain, S. and R. Thornton (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A
Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hoji, H. (1998) Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry,
29, 127-152.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) Remarks on the status of the null object. In R. Freiden(Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 56-76).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hyams, N. (2002) Clausal structure in child Greek: A reply to Varlokosta,
Vainilla and Rohbacher and a reanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 19,
225-269.
Kim, S.-W. (1999) Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 255-284.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English
and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes, 12, 1-47.

Matsuo, A. (2007) Differing interpretations of empty categories in English andJapanese VP ellipsis contexts. Language Acquisition, 14, 3-29.
Murasugi, K. and T. Kawamura (2005) On the acquisition of scrambling inJapanese. In J. Sabel and M. Saito (Eds.), The Free Word Order
Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity (pp. 221-242). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Oku, S. (1998) LF copy analysis of Japanese null argument. Proceedings of CLS
34, 299-314.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman (1991) V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry,
22, 345-358.
Otsu, Y. (1994) Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In T. Hoekstra andB. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative
Grammar (pp. 253-264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saito, M. (2003) On the role of selection in the application of Merge.
Proceedings of NELS 33, 323-345.
Saito, M. (2007) Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis,” Language Research,
43, 203-227.
Snyder, W. (2007) Child Language: The Parametric Approach. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sugisaki, K. (2003) Innate Constraints on Language Variation: Evidence fromChild Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sugisaki, K. (2007) The configurationality parameter in the minimalist program:
A view from child Japanese. Proceedings of BUCLD 31, 597-608.
Sugisaki, K. (in preparation) Argument ellipsis in child Japanese.

Takahashi, D. (2007) Argument ellipsis from a crosslinguistic perspective: Aninterim report. Paper presented at GLOW in Asia 6, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong.
Takahashi, D. (2008) Noun phrase ellipsis. In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito (Eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp. 394-422). New
York: Oxford University Press.

(sugisaki@human.mie-u.ac.jp)