VP-SHELL ANALYSIS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE POTENTIALS∗
Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Hashimoto and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University
1.

Introduction

In this paper, we analyze the undergeneration and overgeneration phenomena observedin the acquisition of -(rar)e potential complex predicates in Japanese, and propose that theintermediate acquisition stages can be explained by Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP
frame analysis of the acquisition of causatives and agentive (di)transitive verbs. According totheir analysis, children have knowledge of VP-shell at a very early stage of language
acquisition, but they produce some erroneous causative, transitive and unaccusative forms in
the course of language acquisition because they hypothesize that the small v is phoneticallynull, and they lexically realize the small v with the non-adultlike (incorrect) forms.
Regarding the acquisition of potentials, Yano (2007a, b, c, d) finds that children acquirepotentials in the early two-year-old. However, she also mentions that some children produce
erroneous potential forms until 3;7. Extending her observation and the analysis based on theobservation made by Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006), we show that Murasugi and
Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis basically holds in the acquisition of potential
constructions.
Japanese -(rar)e potential forms are constructed by adding the suffix -(rar)e ‘-able’ toverb stems. The vocalic verb stems take the suffix -rare, and the consonantal verb stems takethe suffix -e in the potential constructions, as shown in (1) (Shibuya 1993, Kinsui 2003, Arai
2006, among others).
(1)a.

Vocalic verbs: stem +-rare‘eat-can-tense/neg’
present:tabe-rare-ru
past:tabe-rare-ta
negation:tabe-rare-nai‘see-can-tense/neg’
mi-rare-ru
mi-rare-ta
mi-rare-nai*This paper was presented at Connecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Minimalist Syntax held at
Nanzan University on June 24th in 2007. This work is an extension of Yano’s (2007) MA thesis, which
was also presented at Connecticut-Nanzan-Siena Joint Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language
Acquisition at Nanzan University, February 21st in 2007, and in Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3.1.
We would like to thank Keiko Yano, Mamoru Saito, and Tomoko Kawamura for discussions,comments and suggestions on this topic. We also wish to express our gratitude to Yasuaki Abe,
Masumi Aono, Tomohiro Fujii, Masashi Nomura, Seichi Sugawa, Koji Sugisaki, Kensuke Takita, Susi
Wurmbrand and the audience in the workshop for their questions, comments and suggestions.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 65–102© 2008 Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Hashimoto and Keiko Murasugi

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2b.

Consonantal verbs: stem + -e
‘go-can-tense/neg’
present:
ik-e-ru
past:ik-e-tanegation:
ik-e-nai‘make-can-tense/neg’tukur-e-ru
tukur-e-ta
tukur-e-nai

As seen in (1a), tabe-ru ‘eat’ and mi-ru ‘see’ are vocalic verbs, whose stems end with vowels,
and the suffix -rare is attached to the verb stems to derive the potential forms, tabe-rare-ru‘can eat’ and mi-rare-ru ‘can see.’ In (1b), ik-u ‘go’ and tukur-(r)u ‘make’ are consonantal
verbs, whose stems end with consonants, and the suffix -e is attached to the verb stems toderive the potential forms, ik-e-ru ‘can go’ and tukur-e-ru ‘can make.’ The typical potential
constructions are as follows:1(2)

a.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -rare -ru
open-can -Pres‘Taroo can open the door by himself.’b.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -e -ru
by oneself school -Dat go-can -Pres‘Hanako can go to school by herself.’c.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -rare-nai
open -can -Neg

‘Taroo cannot open the door by himself.’d.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -e -naiby oneself school -Dat go-can -Neg

‘Hanako cannot go to school by herself.’
Since ake-ru ‘open’ is a vocalic verb, -rare is chosen as in (2a). In (2b), the suffix -e attaches
to the stem of the consonantal verb ik-u ‘go.’ The examples in (2c) and (2d) indicate that thesame phonological rule is applied to the negated case, yielding ake-rare-nai ‘cannot open’and ik-e-nai ‘cannot go.’It has been reported that children at around 2 to 4 years old make some “errors” in theacquisition of -(rar)e potentials (Okubo 1967, Ito 1990, Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006, Yano
2007a, b, c, d, among others). Some typical “errors” are given in (3) .2
1

Abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows:
Acc=accusative Case, Cause=causative, Dat=dative Case, Gen=genitive Case, Int=interjection,
Nom=nominative Case, Nomz=nominalizer, Pres=present, Past=past, Prog=progressive,
Q=question marker, Req=request, Sug= suggestion, Top=topic

2

We use italics in bold face to indicate non-adultlike usage.

-66-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)(3) a.

Mother: Zenbu tabe -rare -ru
karaall
eat -can -Pres as

ne.
Int

‘You can eat all.’Child: Zenbu tabe-φ -ru
ne.
all
eat
-Pres Int

(2;1)

(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) eat all.’Intended meaning: ‘(I) can eat all.’Father’s comment: ‘When he replied to his mother, he failed to repeat“tabe-rare-ru” correctly but uttered “tabe-ru ne” instead.’(Noji 1974-77 II; 144 [our translation])b.

Sime-φ -nai wa yo.
close -Neg Int Int(2;3)(adult form: sime-rare-nai)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) don’t close (it).’Intended meaning:‘(I) cannot close (it).’c.

Taakunhitoride tukur-(r)are -ta.
by onself make-can -Past(Okubo 1967)(3;0)‘Taakun (I) could make (this) by myself.’d.

Yar -(r)are -nai.
do -can -Neg

(3;5)

Ik -e -rare -nai.
go -can -can -Neg

(Arai 2006)(3;8)(adult form: ik-e-nai)‘(I) cannot go.’f.

(Okubo 1967)

Zyoozuni mot -e -rare -ta.
wellhave -can -can -Past(4;2)‘I could bring (this) up very well.’g.

(Arai 2006)(adult form: yar-e-nai)‘I cannot do.’e.

(adult form: tukur-e-ta)(adult form: mot-e-ta)(Arai 2006)

Narabe-φ -ru kana, narabe -re -rare-ru
kana, narabe -rare-ru
line-Pres Qline -can -can -Pres Q
line -can -Pres
kana.
(2;9)
(adult form: narabe-rare-ru)
Q
Intended meaning: ‘Could (I) line (them) up?’

(Shibuya 1994)(3a) is an example of -rare omission errors. The observer, Sumihare's father, describes that in-67-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

the context of (3a), the child repeats his mother's utterance without using the -rare form (Noji
1974-1977). According to Noji’s comment, the child fails to produce tabe-rare-ru, but rather,
the child employs the plain form tabe-ru. (3b) is another example of the -rare omission. For(3b), Okubo (1967) reports that the child intends to say sime-rare-nai ‘cannot close,’ but inthe actual speech, he omits -rare, yielding sime-φ -nai ‘don’t close.’ The examples in (3c)through (3f) show the erroneous potential forms. The child intends to say that he can make itby himself in (3c) and that he cannot do something in (3d). Since tukur-(r)u ‘make’ andyar-(r)u ‘do’ are consonantal verbs, -e should be put on the stems. However, the child puts
-rare on them, and erroneous forms are produced. In (3e-f), instead of attaching the suffix -e,
the children attach -erare, yielding the unacceptable potential forms ik-erare-nai in (3e) or
mot-erare-nai in (3f). In (3g), it seems that the child is trying several possible suffixes. First,
he omits -rare, employing the plain verb narabe-ru ‘put in line.’ Then, he attaches theerroneous suffix -erare, producing narabe-re-rare-ru, and finally he succeeds in producing
the correct adult form narabe-rare-ru.
The purpose of this paper is to give an explanation for these undergeneration andovergeneration phenomena observed in the acquisition of -(rar)e potential constructions in(3). We introduce Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis on the intermediateacquisition stages of -(s)ase causatives and agentive (di)transitive verbs. We show that thesimilar intermediate stages are also observed in the acquisition of potential constructions, anddiscuss that the v-VP frame analysis will provide an elegant explanation for theunder/overgeneration phenomena of potential constructions.
In Section 2, we overview the structure of the Japanese -(rar)e potential construction in
the adult grammar we assume. Passing by, we also mention that there are not a few of
dialectical and idiolectal variations in morphological realization of -(rar)e in Japanese adultusage. Section 3 overviews Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis for theacquisition of causatives and agentive (di)transitive verbs. In Section 4, we review thelongitudinal acquisition studies of potentials in the previous literature, and we reanalyze theirdescriptive findings under the VP-shell analysis. We show that the acquisition of -(rar)epotentials proceeds in the same way as -(s)ase causatives with the parallel intermediate stages,
and supports Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) analysis for the acquisition of complex
predicates. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2.

Potentials in the Japanese Adult Grammar

2.1. The Variations in Morphological Realization
In this subsection, we show how the potential suffix -(rar)e is realized in the adultgrammar.

-68-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)As we mentioned briefly in Section 1, the suffix -rare attaches to a vocalic verb stem,and the suffix -e attaches to a consonantal verb stem in “standard” Japanese (Shibuya 1993,
Kinsui 2003, Arai 2006 among others).
In some Japanese dialects and idiolects, the other type of -(rar)e potentials, which wecall “Ra-omission Type,” are widely observed. As shown in (4a), the suffix -re instead of-rare attaches to the vocalic verb stems. While the potential form of tabe-ru is tabe-rare-ru in“standard” Japanese, it is pronounced as tabe-re-ru in these dialects. The potential form of aconsonantal verb is identical in “standard” Japanese and the “Ra-omission” dialects.
(4)

a.

b.

Vocalic verbs: stem +-re‘eat-can-tense/neg’
present:tabe-re-ru
past:tabe-re-ta
negation:(nai) tabe-re-nai‘see-can-tense/neg’
mi-re-ru
mi-re-ta
mi-re-nai

Consonantal verbs: stem + -e
‘go-can-tense/neg’
present:
ik-e-ru
past:ik-e-tanegation:(nai) ik-e-nai‘make-can-tense/neg’tukur-e-ru
tukur-e-ta
tukur-e-nai

Examples in (5) indicate Ra-omission Type potentials. The phonological rule in (4) is applied
to negatives as in (5c) and (5d) as well.
(5)a.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -re -ru
open-can -Pres‘Taroo can open the door by himself.’b.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -e -ru
by oneself school -Dat go-can -Pres‘Hanako can go to school by herself.’c.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -re -nai
open-can -Neg

‘Taroo cannot open the door by himself.’d.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -e -naiby oneself school -Dat go-can -Neg

‘Hanako cannot go to school by herself.’
The Ra-omission Type potentials are found in several dialects. Potentials in both the
Kyoto and the Osaka dialects, for example, can be basically categorized as Ra-omission Type.

-69-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

However, when the negative marker -hen ‘not,’ a negative form used in the Kansai dialects,
attaches to a potential verb, these two dialects show slight differences.
The Kyoto dialect is of the Ra-omission Type as shown in (6) and (7).
(6)

a.

b.

Vocalic verbs: stem+-re‘eat-can-tense/neg’
present:tabe-re-ru
past:tabe-re-ta
negation:(nai) tabe-re-nai
negation:(hen) tabe-re-hen‘see-can-tense/neg’
mi-re-ru
mi-re-ta
mi-re-nai
mi-re-hen[-hen = not]Consonantal verbs: stem + -e
‘go-can-tense/neg’
present:
ik-e-ru
past:ik-e-tanegation:(nai) ik-e-nai
negation:(hen) ik-e-hen‘make-can-tense/neg’tukur-e-ru
tukur-e-ta
tukur-e-nai
tukur-e-hen[-hen = not]In the Kyoto dialect, the -hen negative potential form of ake-ru ‘open’ is ake-re-hen, and thatof ik-u ‘go’ is ik-e-hen, as shown in (7).
(7)

a.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -re -henopen-can -Neg[-hen = not]‘Taroo cannot open the door by himself.’b.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -e -henby oneself school -Dat go-can -Neg[-hen = not]‘Hanako cannot go to school by herself.’
The Osaka dialect is also basically of the Ra-omission Type, putting the suffix -re to a
vocalic verb stem and -e to a consonantal verb stem. However, the crucial difference between
the Osaka dialect and the Kyoto dialect is found in the negative forms; i.e., in the Osaka
dialect, -ra is not omitted when it is associated with the negative -hen, as in (8) and (9).33

We thank Seichi Sugawa and Masashi Nomura for their discussion of the dialectical properties ofthe potential forms. Masashi Nomura (p.c.) pointed out to us that negative forms in (8) and (9) are also
acceptable for some speakers of the Kyoto dialect.

-70-VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)

(8)

(9)

a.

Vocalic verbs: stem +-re, stem + -rare-hen ‘not’‘eat-can-tense/neg’‘see-can-tense/neg’
present:tabe-re-ru
mi-re-ru
past:tabe-re-ta
mi-re-ta
negation:(nai) tabe-re-nai
mi-re-nai
negation:(hen) tabe-rare-hen
mi-rare-hen[-hen = not]b.

Consonantal verbs: stem + -e, stem+-are-hen ‘not’‘go-can-tense/neg’‘make-can-tense/neg’
present:
ik-e-rutukur-e-ru
past:
ik-e-tatukur-e-ta
negation:(nai) ik-e-nai
tukur-e-nai
negation:(hen) ik-are-hen
tukur-are-hen[-hen = not](Sanada 1995, Shibuya 1993, Arai 2006, among others)a.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -re -ru/-naiopen -can -Pres -Neg

‘Taroo can open the door by himself.’b.

Hanako -wa-Tophitorideby oneself

gakkoo -ni ik -e -ru /-naischool -Dat go-can -Pres -Neg

‘Hanako can go to school by herself.’c.

Taroo -wa-Tophitoridesono
by oneself theto -odoor -Acc

ake -rare -henopen-can -Neg[-hen = not]‘Taroo cannot open the door by himself.’d.

Hanako -wa-Tophitoridegakkoo-ni ik -are -henby oneself school -Dat go-can -Neg[-hen = not]‘Hanako cannot go to school by herself.’
In (9a), the suffix -re attaches to the stem, yielding ake-re-ru ‘can open’ and ake-re-nai‘cannot open,’ just as in Ra-omission dialects. However, when the sentence is negated with
the negative marker -hen, -rare, but not -re/-e, attaches to the stem, yielding the negative
potential form ake-rare-hen ‘cannot open’ in (9c). Similarly, in (9b), the suffix -e is attachedto the stem, yielding ik-e-ru ‘can go’ and ik-e-nai ‘cannot go,’ just as in Ra-omission Type.
Once the sentence is negated with the negative marker -hen, however, -are is attached,yielding ik-are-hen ‘cannot go’ as in (9d). Thus, potentials in the Osaka dialect are
categorized as “Mixed Type” being slightly distinguished from Ra-omission Type. (See Arai
(2006) also for the morphological differences between the Kyoto dialect and the Osaka
dialect.)
There are some other interesting cases. For example, in the Ehime dialect, Ra-omission-71-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Type potentials are used. Hence, the suffix -re attaches to vocalic verbs. According to
Shibuya (2006) and Masumi Aono (an Ehime dialect speaker, p.c.), they put -rere to a verbal
stem to emphasize the potential meaning. Compare (10a) and (10b).
(10) a.

(after trying to open the window which had seemed not to be opened)
Att, kono mado
ake -re-ta
Int this
window open-can -Past‘Oh, I could open this window.’b.

(after trying to open the window again and again)
Kono mado
yatto ake -rere-ta
this window finally open -can -Past‘Finally I could open this window.’(Shibuya 2006, 64; Masumi Aono p.c.)

Although the past potential form of the verb ake-ru ‘open’ is ake-re-ta ‘could open’ in an
ordinary meaning in (10a) for the phonological rule of Ra-omission Type, the meaning,“Finally I could open,” is expressed by doubling of -re, or –rere, as shown in (10b).
According to Kinsui (2003), the morphological variations do not affect the actual
meaning of a sentence per se. 4 However, the empirical facts we saw above clearly show thatJapanese potential morphemes are realized in various ways even in the adult usage.

4

Interestingly, however, Shibuya (1993, 2006), Inoue (1998), Shin (2002) and Takeda (2006) claimthat there are two types of interpretation of -(rar)e potentials; potentials for person’s ability andpotentials for situations. The examples are given in (i).
(i)

a.

Potentials for person’s ability
Uti-no mago
-wa
zi -o
our-Gen grandchild -Top letter -Accyom -e -ru
read -can -Presoboe-talearn-Pastnodebecausehon -ga /obook-Nom/Acc‘Since our grandchild has learned how to read letters, (he/she) can read a book.’b.

Potentials for situations
Dentoo-ga
akarui node
light -Nom bright because

sinbun-ga /o yom-e-runewspaper -Nom/Acc read-can -Pres‘Since the light is well-lighted, the newspaper is readable.’(Takeda 2006: 52-53, slightly modified)
In (ia), the potential phrase yom-e-ru ‘can read’ expresses the grandchild’s ability. In (ib), the potential
phrase yom-e-ru ‘can read’ that the newspaper is readable. According to Takeda (2006), some dialects
distinguish (ia) and (ib) by using different morphological forms. In this paper, however, we do not go
into this issue in detail.

-72-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)2.2. The Syntax of Potentials
We now turn to the syntactic structure of -(rar)e potentials.
In the Japanese transitive construction, it has been observed that non-stative predicatestake accusative objects in (11a) and stative predicates take nominative objects in (11b).
(11) a.

John -garosiago -o/*-gayom -(r)u-Nom Russian -Acc/*-Nom read -Pres‘John reads Russian.’b.

John -garosiago -ga/*-o
wakar
-(r)u
-Nom Russian -Nom/*-Acc understand -Pres‘John understands Russian.’(Kuno 1973)

When the predicate is non-stative, such as yom-(r)u ‘read’ in (11a), the object is marked withthe accusative Case. Crucially, it cannot be marked with the nominative Case. When thepredicate is stative, such as wakar-(r)u ‘understand,’ however, the object is not marked withthe accusative Case, but is marked with the nominative Case as in (11b).
Now, when a stative suffix -(rar)e ‘-able’ attaches to a non-stative verb stem, the object
can be marked either with the accusative Case or with the nominative Case as in (12) .5(12) John -ga rosiago -ga/-o-Nom Russian -Nom/-Acc

yom-e -ruread-can -Pres‘John can read Russian.’(Kuno 1973)

In (12), the potential suffix -e attaches to the stative predicate yom-(r)u ‘read,’ and the object
rosiago ‘Russian’ can get either the nominative Case -ga or the accusative Case -o.
It has been argued that a nominative object and an accusative object take different scope(Sano 1985, Tada 1992, Koizumi 1995, Saito and Hoshi 1998, Takano 2003, Nomura 2005,
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2007). Compare (13a) and (13b).

5

When the subject is marked with the dative Case, the object must be marked with the nominative
Case.
(i)

John

-ni
-Dat

rosiago -ga/*-o
yom-e
-ru
Russian -Nom/*-Acc read-can -Pres‘John can read Russian.’-73-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(13) a.

John-ga
John-Nom

migime dake -ga
ake -rare -ru
right eye only -Nom open-can -Pres
only > can, *can > only6‘John can only open his right eye.’b.

John-ga
John-Nom

migimeright eyedake -oonly -Acc

ake -rare -ru
open -can -Pres‘John can open only his right eye.’

only > can, can > only

The nominative object must take scope over -(rar)e as in (13a) while the accusative object
may take either wide scope or narrow scope as in (13b). Two interpretations are given in (14).
(14) only>can: He cannot open his left eye for some reason and he can open only his righteye.
can>only: He has “special ability” to open only his right eye (closing his left eye).
These scopal differences between the nominative object and the accusative object are
observed with the Ra-omission Type potentials, as in (15).
(15) a.

John-ga
John-Nom

migimeright eyedake -gaake -re -ru
only -Nom open -can -Pres‘John can only open his right eye.’b.

John-ga
John-Nom

migimeright eyedake -oonly -Acc‘John can open only his right eye.’

only > can, *can > only
ake -re -ru
open -can -Pres
only > can, can > only

In (15), -re attaches to the verb stem for the phonological rule of Ra-omission Type. As
shown in (15a) and (15b), the sentences have the same interpretations as (13a) and (13b),
respectively. This fact indicates that the variation of morphological realization of -(rar)e does
not affect its interpretation.
There are several important proposals regarding the structure of potentials (see Tada
6

Contrary to the generalization that a nominative object cannot take low scope, Matsumoto (1996)
and Nomura (2005) observe that a nominative object can take low scope.
(i)

Taro-gakoyubi-dake-ga mage-rare -ru no-wa sit -te-Nom pinkie -only-Nom crook-can -Pres Nomz -Top know-Prog-ita -ga,(kare-ga)kusuriyubi-dake-ga
mage -rare-ru no -ni -wa-Past-Nom (he -Nom) ring finger-only -Nom crook-can -Pres Nomz-Dat-Top
odoroi -ta
surprise-Past‘I had known that Taro could crook only his pinkie but I was surprised that he could also crook
only his ring finger.’(Nomura 2005)-74-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)(1992) and Koizumi (1995) for the AGR-based approach, Saito and Hoshi (1998) for the
Head-Head Merger approach, and Takano (2003) for the Prolepsis approach). In this paper,
we assume Bobaljik and Wurmbrand’s (2007) analysis.
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2007) propose two different structures for each interpretationof -(rar)e potential construction; the structure (16a) for (13a) and (15a), and the structure(16b) for (13b) and (15b).
(16) a.

only > can; *can > onlyTPb. only > can; can > onlyTP

Johni-ga-NomJohni-ga
-Nom
vP

.

T’
vP

migime-dakej-ga‘only right eye’-Nom
ti

T
-ru
vP

ti
v’

VP
tj

T’
T
-ru
v’

vP
v°
-rare/-re‘can’Vake‘open’

PRO

v’
VP

v°
-rare/-re‘can’v°

migime-dake-o‘only right eyes’-AccVake‘open’(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2007)

Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2007) argue that the nominative-accusative alternation on theembedded object depends on whether -(rar)e takes a VP complement or a vP complement,
and with which morpheme the small v is realized in each structure. Given that the small v isrealized with one of the potential morphemes -(rar)e, -re, or -rere in the adult grammar as wehave seen in 2.1, it is plausible to consider that children also use various morphemes for the
position of the small v at some intermediate acquisition stages.
Given Bobaljik and Wurmbrand’s (2007) analysis, the children's “errors” of potential
constructions are assimilated to Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis ofchildren's errors on -(s)ase causatives and the agentive (di)transitive verbs. In the next section,
we overview Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) and see how causative acquisition data can beanalyzed under their VP-shell analysis.
3.

The Acquisition of Causatives
Several researches have worked on the acquisition of Japanese -(s)ase causatives (Ito-75-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

1990, Morikawa 1997, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato 2003, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004,
Fuji 2006a, b, Okabe 2007, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007, among others).
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), based on their 6-year longitudinal study, propose the
VP-shell analysis, which uniformly accounts for the acquisition of lexical causatives,
syntactic causatives and agentive (di)transitive verbs.
It has been observed that Japanese -(s)ase causatives are ambiguous (Matsumoto 2000,
Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato 2003, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, among others). (17),for example, has two meanings in (18).
(17) Taroo -ga-Nom

Hanako-ni
Hanako-Datpan-obread -Acc

tabe -sase-taeat -Cause -Past‘Taro made Hanako eat some bread.’(18) a.
b.

Taro gave an order to Hanako and Hanako ate some bread.
Taro fed Hanako with some bread.

When (17) is interpreted as in (18a), both the causer Taroo and the causee Hanako are agent.
This suggests that the sentence has the biclausal structure as in (19a). In contrast, in theinterpretation of (18b), the causee Hanako is not an agent but a goal. This indicates that thesentence has the mono-clausal structure in (19b).
(19)a. syntactic causativevP
causerb. lexical causative
vP
v’

VP
vP
causeeVPNPv [+cause]Vv’causerφv’
VPcausee-(s)asev[+cause]VNP-(s)aseVv [+cause]Vφ(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Causatives which have the biclausal structure in (19a) are called syntactic causatives, andcausatives which have the mono-clausal structure in (19b) are called lexical causatives.7
7

See Matsumoto (2000), and Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato (2003) for detailed argument about two
types of causatives.

-76-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)The longitudinal studies of Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), Murasugi, Hashimoto andFuji (2007), and Arai (2003) indicate that there are four stages in the acquisition of -(s)ase
causatives. These four stages and Pre-stage I are illustrated in (20).
(20) Pre-Stage I:
Stage I:
Stage II:
Stage III:
Stage IV:

the small v is tiyu/tita/tite ‘do/did/doing’
the small v is nulla verb (preverbal form) + -sasea causative verb + -sasethe adult form

In the following subsections, we will show typical examples observed in each stage, andoverview the analysis for it.
3.1. Pre-Stage I: No Overt Verbs or the Small v Tiyu ‘do’
According to Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), their subject, Akkun, first produces asentence without pronouncing an overt ditransitive verb until 2;5 to express giving action,
though he really intends to say that he wants to give something to someone or something. We
call this stage as Pre-Stage I in this paper. An example is given in (21).
(21) Motto
more

koe buubu
this water

φ

(2;1)

‘(I will give) more water to this.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

In (21), the verb age-ru ‘give’ is missing. Later, Akkun starts putting tiyu/tita/tite‘do/did/doing’ at the end of sentences as in (22).
(22) Mama Akkun hai
mommy
yes

doozyoplease

tiyu
do

(2;5)

‘Akkun (/I) will give it to Mommy.’(Ibid.)The phrase ‘Hai doozyo,’ or ‘Hai doozo’ in adult speech, is used when one gives something tosomeone, just like the English phrase ‘Here you are.’ Akkun utters hai doozyo andtiyu/tita/tite ‘do/did/doing’ instead of a ditransitive verb. Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004)
propose that the small v is realized as tiyu/tita/tite and that it assigns an agent role to a subject.
The structure proposed by Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) is given in (23).
(23)

vP
Akkun

v’
XP

mama

v [+cause]

hai doozyo tiyu

(Ibid.)-77-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Their analysis shows that a child acquires the VP-shell structure at the very early stage oflanguage acquisition.
3.2. Stage I: The Null Realization of the Small v
In Stage I, Akkun starts using the verbs correctly, but at the same time he also producessome “errors,” alternating unaccusative and transitive.
(24) a.

Mama
mommy

tyottoa little

ageyu
give (Pres)(2;7)‘Mommy, (I will) give you a little bit.’b.

(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Dango
-ga
uta pakantite, dango-gaatta (2;9)
dumpling -Nom lid onomatopoeia doing dumpling -Nom there-be(Past)‘There was a dumpling (when I) opened the lid of the dumpling (box).’(Ibid.)In (24a), the ditransitive verb age-yu ‘give,’ or age-ru in adult speech, is correctly used, andin (24b), the past form of the unaccusative verb a-ru ‘be’ is correctly used. Nevertheless,
Akkun produces some erroneous verbal forms as in (25).
(25) a.

b.

Kore, ai
-toku
this open (unaccusative)-keep

kara saa
as Int(4;5)‘(I will) open this and keep it open.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Todok-ok-ka, ano
arrive -let’sthat

todok-(y)ooarrive-let’s

hito niperson to

todok-(y)ooarrive-let’s(4;8)‘Let’s send (it). Let’s send (it) to that person.’(Ibid.)In (25a), the transitive verb ake-ru ‘open’ must be used in this context. However, Akkun
erroneously uses the preverbal form of the unaccusative verb ak-(r)u ‘be open,’ ai. The
similar error is found in (25b). The transitive form todoke-ru ‘deliver something’ should be
used in the adult usage, but Akkun uses the unaccusative form todok-(r)u ‘be delivered’
instead.
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) report that lexical causatives without the causative
suffix -(s)ase are observed in the same period. A couple of examples are given in (26).
(26) a.

Mama
mommy

Akkun non -de.
drink -Req

(2;8)

Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, drink Akkun(/me).’Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, please feed Akkun(/me) (with milk).’-78-(Ibid.)

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)b.

Mama-gapantyu
nui
-da
toki.
mommy-Nom underpants undress -Past when

(3;2)

Literal meaning: ‘(I hurt) when Mommy took her underpants off.’
Intended meaning: ‘(I hurt) when Mommy took my underpants off me.’

(Ibid.)In (26a), the causative form nom-(s)ase-te should be used in this context, but Akkun omits-(s)ase and produces non-de instead. He intends to say ‘Mommy, please feed me,’ but themeaning of what actually he says is ‘Mommy, drink Akkun.’ Similarly, in (26b), the causative
form nug-(s)ase-ta should be used in this context, but Akkun omits -(s)ase and produces
nui-da instead. He intends to say ‘I hurt when Mommy undressed my underwear,’ but (26b)means ‘I hurt when Mommy took off her underwear.’
For the unaccusative and transitive alternation “errors” and the -(s)ase omission “errors,”
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) provide an elegant account. They propose that children
assume the [±cause] v to be phonetically null at Stage I.
Now, take (27) into consideration. (27a) and (27b) are the verb pair of transitive andunaccusative in adult grammar. The syntactic structures proposed by Murasugi and
Hashimoto (2004) under the v-VP frame are given in (28a) and (28b), respectively.
(27) a.

Taroo -ga
Hanako-osyasin-ni utu-s-(r)u.
-Nom-Acc picture-Dat photograph -Pres(transitive)‘Taro takes a picture of Hanako.’b.

Hanako -ga
syasin -ni utu-r-(r)u.
-Nom picture -Dat photograph -Pres(unaccusative)‘Hanako appears in a picture.’
(28)

a.

(Ibid.)

vP
agent

b.

vP

v’
VP

theme

v [+cause]V’location

v’

-s

VP
theme

V

V’
locationutu

v [-cause]-rV
utu(Ibid.)In (28a), which has a transitive verb, the [+cause] v is realized as the transitive suffix -s, whilein (28b), which has an unaccusative verb, the [-cause] v is realized as the unaccusative suffix-r. If a child hypothesizes that the [±cause] v is phonetically null and does not distinguish-79-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(28a) from (28b), the structures s/he has in mind are (29a) and (29b) instead of (28a) and(28b).
(29)

a.

vP

b.

Agent

vP

v’

v’

VP
theme

v [+cause]V’location

φ

VP
theme

V

v [-cause]V’location

utus

φ
V
utur

Note here that a child probably notices that either -s or -r must be attached to the verb,
because verbs without the morphemes -s/-r are never heard in the input. Under this v-VP
frame analysis, since the child assumes that the [±cause] v is null, the “erroneous” morphemes
are attached to V, and “errors” of the unaccusative-transitive alternation take place. Similarly,
the -(s)ase omission “errors” take place, since the suffix -(s)ase is in the position of the small
v in lexical causatives as shown in (19b), which is repeated in (30) below. Here, since a childhypothesizes that the [±cause] v is null, s/he would omit -(s)ase.
(30)

vP
causerv’
VP

causeev [+cause]V’ -(s)ase

NP

V

According to Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), since a child assumes that the [+cause] v isnull, s/he omits the overt suffix -(s)ase and still thinks s/he can express causative meaning.
Fuji (2006a, b) and Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji (2007) provide supportive empiricalevidence for Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) analysis, based on Sumihare’s data (Noji
1974-1977) in CHILDES database (MacWhinney 2000).
The -(s)ase omission errors are also found in Sumihare’s data.

-80-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)(31) Kutyu
a pair of shoes

hai
-te.
(2;1)
put on -Req

Intended meaning: ‘(Please) put on (your) pair of shoes.’
Literally meaning: ‘(Please) put a pair of shoes on me.’
(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)
In the context of (31), the causative form hak-(s)ase-te ‘shoe me please’ should be used.
However, Sumihare omits the causative suffix -(s)ase, and produces hai-te ‘put on please.’
This type of “errors” indicates that Sumihare initially hypothesizes that the [+cause] v is null.
As in (32), Sumihare also produces some “errors” of unaccusative and transitive
alternation.
(32) a.

Kaatyanmother

ai
-te.
(2;1)
be open -Req

Literal meaning: ‘(Please) be open, mother.’
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) open (the door), mother.’b.

Nui-takoko.
pull-Past here

(Ibid.)(2;1)

Literal meaning: ‘I pulled (this) here.’
Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’(Ibid.)In (32a), an adult would use the transitive verb, ake-ru ‘open,’ but Sumihare uses theunaccusative verb ak-(r)u. In (32b), inversely, the unaccusative verb nuk-e-ta ‘came off’ must
be used in the adult grammar. However, Sumihare uses the transitive form nui-ta ‘pulled’ “bymistake.” The data like (32b) is crucial because it indicates that not only the [+cause] v, but
the [-cause] v is also null at one point of language acquisition.
3.3. Stage II: A Verb (Preverbal Form) + -sase (Acquisition of Lexical Causatives,
Transitives, and Unaccusatives)
In Stage II, Akkun starts producing lexical causatives correctly in (33). In this stage, thesmall v is considered to be lexically realized, and the “erroneous” alternation of
unaccusative-(di)transitive / causative drastically decreases in number.
(33) Akkun-ni tabe -sase -tee.
-Dat eat -Cause -Req

(3;6)

‘Please feed Akkun (/me) (with food).’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

In (33), Akkun is not the agent but the goal since he is asking his mother to put some fooddirectly into his mouth. Thus, (33) is an example of lexical causatives, where the [+cause] v isphonetically realized as -(s)ase.

-81-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

However, at the same time, Akkun and other children produce the erroneous lexicalcausatives as in (34).
(34) a.

Nomi -tyatye -te. (-tyatye = -sase)drink -Cause -Req

(Akkun, 3;7)

‘Please feed (me with miso soup.)’b.

(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Gyunyu nomi-sase -te.
(Taatyan (B)8, 2;9)milk
drink-Cause -Req

(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)‘Please feed (me) with milk.’c.

Boku-noI-Gen(Arai 2003)

ringo tabe -si-te ageru.
apple eat -Cause-Req give

(3;10)‘I’ll let (you) eat my apple.’(adult form: tabe-sase-te)(Ito 1990)

In (34a), the correct causative form of the verb nom-(r)u ‘drink’ is nom-(s)ase-ru. However,Akkun “erroneously” attaches -tyatye, or -sase in adult speech, to its preverbal form nomi,
and produces nomi- tyatye-te. The same type of “errors” is reported by Arai (2003), as in(34b). In (34c), -sase must be attached to the stem of the verb tabe-ru ‘eat’, but the child puts
the erroneous suffix -si to it instead.
These data indicate that even after children acquire the adult form of lexical causatives,
they are still confused by the choice of appropriate morphemes in the small v.
3.4. Stage III: A Causative Verb + -sase
In Stage III, children produce another type of “errors”: a causative verb +-sase, as givenin (35).
(35) a.

Kuruma -ocar-Acctoos -(s)i -sase -ru. (3;10)
pass -Cause-Cause -Pres(adult form: toos-(r)u)‘I’ll pass a car through.’
b.

Kondo
mi-se
-si-tenext time see-Cause -Cause(Arai 2003)
ageru kara ne.
let
as Int‘I’ll show you next time.’(4;6)(adult form: mi-se-te)(Arai 2003)

In (35a), although the transitive verb, toos-(r)u ‘pass through’ itself can be a causative verb,
the child further puts the additional causative suffix -sase to it, and produces the unacceptableform toos-(s)i-sase-ru. (35b) is another doubled causative example. The correct causative
form must be mi-se-ru ‘show,’ but the child adds the causative suffix -si and produces
8 See fn.12 for Taatyan (B).

-82-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)mi-se-si-te “by mistake.” (See Fuji, Hashimoto and Murasugi (in preparation) for the analysisof the doubled causative forms.) While some children, like Akkun and Taatyan (B)erroneously realize the small v in Stage II and III, overgenerating two types of forms
associated with –sase, some children, like Sumihare, never do so.
3.5. Stage IV: Adult Forms
Stage IV is the stage where all children start producing the “correct” adult form for all
verbs. As for Sumihare, as far as Yano (2007a, b, c, d) and we examine, all of the lexicalcausatives he produces conform to the adult usage as in (36).
(36) a.

Okaatyan
Mommy

hak
-asi
-te.
(3;0)
put on -Cause -Req

‘Mommy (please) put (a pair of shoes) on me.’
(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)b.

Seizi-kun boku -ga
ne nak-asi-tan janaino
I-Nom Int cry-Cause -Past not‘It is not me who made Seiji cry.’

yo.
Int

(2;7)
(Ibid.)In (36a), Sumihare asks his mother to put a pair of shoes directly on him. In (36b),
Sumihare wants to explain that it is not Sumihare who made Seizi cry. In both cases,
Sumihare produces the correct causative forms with an appropriate morpheme -ase; hak-asi-te‘shoe me please’ in (36a) and nak-asi-ta ‘made him cry’ in (36b).9
Syntactic causatives are acquired later than lexical causatives. Akkun starts producing
syntactic causatives around the age of 5. Sumihare’s syntactic causatives appear around 2;7,and become productive around the age of 4.
3.6. Summary
In this section, we have shown four acquisition stages of causatives. These four stages
are repeated in (37) with actual verbs, nom-(r)u ‘drink’ and toos-(r)u ‘pass through.’
Under the v-VP frame analysis (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004), we can make thefollowing analysis. Stage I is the stage of undergeneration. In Stage I, children hypothesizethat [±cause] v is null. Hence, they produce unaccusative-transitive alternation “errors” andcausative sentences without -(s)ase. In Stage II, the small v is lexically realized, and thecorrect verbal forms are observed productively. Hence, this stage contains the adult forms(Stage IV) as well. However, in Stages II and III, the overgeneration of -sase is also observed
because the lexical realization of the small v is not still fully acquired. It takes some time toacquire the complete adult forms of causatives, which we will call the Stage IV.
9In Sumihare’s dialect, hak-ase-te and nak-ase-ta are often pronounced as hak-asi-te and nak-asi-ta.

-83-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(37) Table 1: The acquisition stages of causatives
Stage Children’s causatives utterances-(s)ase omission errors and transitive-intransitive alternationIv = nullerrorsnomi-sase -tea verb (preverbalIIthe preverval form of the verb nom-(r)u-Cause -Reqform) +-sase'please let me go through'(Adult form: nom-ase-te)
toos-i-sase -tea causative verbIII
the preverval form of the causative verb toos-(r)u-Cause-Req+ -sase'please let me go through'(Adult form: too-si-te)IVthe adult form
Then, how are other complex predicates, for example, -(rar)e potentials acquired? In thenext section, we will examine the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials in Japanese.
4.

The Acquisition of Potentials

In the previous section, we showed the four acquisition stages of -(s)ase causatives. In
this section, we will examine the acquisition data by Yano (2007a, b, c, d), Shibuya (1994),
and Arai (2006), and show that the same stages can be found in the acquisition of -(rar)epotentials.
4.1.

Stage I: The Null Realization of the Small v

As we discussed in 3.2, in the acquisition of causatives, children go through Stage I,
where the small v is not phonetically realized. In this section, we will show that this stage isalso found in the acquisition of potentials. Note here that Stage I includes two types of“errors” as for potentials: the one that the potential morpheme -(rar)e is omitted (4.1.1.), andthe other that -(rar)e is produced as a part of the unanalyzed form of the large V (4.1.2.).
4.1.1. The Non-Morphological Realization of the Small v
In the initial stage, the potential morpheme is not realized phonetically as in (38).
(38) a.
Mother: Zenbu tabe -rare -ru
ne.
(=3a)
all
eat -can -Pres Int‘You can eat all.’Sumihare: Zenbu tabe-φ -ru
ne.
all
eat
-Pres Int

(2;1)

(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)

Literal meaning:‘(I) eat all.’Intended meaning: ‘(I) can eat all.’(Noji 1974-77)-84-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)b.

Tabe-φ -naku nattyau.
eat-Neg become(2;2)(adult form: tabe-rare-naku)

Literal meaning: ‘I will not eat.’
Intended meaning: ‘(It) will be uneatable.’c.

Sime-φ -nai wa yo.
close -Neg Int Int(2;3)(Ito 1990)(=3c)(adult form: sime-rare-nai)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) don’t close (it).’Intended meaning: ‘(I) cannot close (it).’(Okubo 1967)(38a) is the same example as (3a). As we mentioned in Section 1, in this context, according tothe observer (Noji, 1974), the child repeats after his mother without using -rare form, despite
the fact that the mother speaks to her son using -rare form tabe-rare-ru ‘can eat.’ In (38b),
according to Ito (1990), the potential form tabe-rare-nai ‘cannot eat’ must be used in thiscontext. However, the child omits -rare, and the negative morpheme is attached to the verb
stem directly as in tabe-nai ‘don’t eat.’ (38c) (=3c) indicates the same type of error reported
in Okubo (1967). Given the transcribers’ comments, this stage seems to correspond to Stage I
we proposed for the acquisition of causatives, where the small v is not phonetically realized.
4.1.2. Uninflected Adult Forms
While the omission of -(rar)e is observed in the early 2 year-old, it is reported that“correct” potential sentences are also produced at around 2;0 (Okubo 1967, Ito 1990, Shibuya
1994, Arai 2006, Yano 2007a, b, c, d).
Based on her analysis of Noji corpus from CHILDES database, Yano (2007a, b, c, d)finds that -e potentials appear very early, at 2;0. Some examples of Sumihare’s potential
sentences are given in (39).
(39) a.

Toor -e -n.
(2;0)
pass -can -not‘(I) cannot pass.’b.

(Yano 2007a, b, c, d)Kakko -gahak-e -n.
(2;2)
shoes -Nom put on -can -not‘(I) cannot put on my shoes.’c.

Tor -e -ta.
take -can -Past(Ibid.)(2;2)‘(I) could take (this).’(Ibid.)In (39a) through (39c), Sumihare apparently produces potential forms correctly. Toor-e-n-85-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2‘cannot pass’ in (39a) and hak-e-n ‘cannot put on’ in (39b) are the short forms of toor-e-nai
and hak-e-nai. Those phrases are often used even in the adult grammar. In (39c), Sumihare
produces the “correct” potential form tor-e ‘can take’ with the past tense marker -ta.
Then, are potentials really acquired in such an early stage, even at 2;0? A possible
answer for this question is a positive one, i.e., the adult syntax of potentials is acquired very
early compared with other complex predicates. The other possibility is that the answer for thequestion is negative; what apparently looks like the adult potential form does not have exactly
the same structure as adults,’ but rather, it is an unanalyzed form. Hereafter, we support thelatter possibility, and propose that Sumihare’s potential sentences produced at early age of 2
are, in fact, uninflected adult forms, and hence, this is the stage where the small v isphonetically null as well. In other words, in this stage, the child puts the potential morpheme-(rar)e onto V. This claim is supported by three pieces of evidence from Sumihare’s
acquisition data.
The first evidence is found in the “erroneous” inflection forms of tense markers.
According to Murasugi and Fuji (2007), Sumihare (Noji 1974-1977) produces someerroneous inflection forms in this stage.
(40) a.

Tootyan, koko gomi tui -ta
yofatherhere dust stick -Past Int(2;1) (adult form: tui-te iru(perfect))‘Daddy, you have got the dust here (=on your cheek).’b.

Sumihare: Nak-u nak-u(2;1)
cry -Pres cry -Pres(Murasugi and Fuji 2007)(adult form: nai-te iru (progressive))

Literal meaning: ‘(He) cries, cries.’
Intended meaning: ‘(He) is crying.’
Father: Dare-ga
nai-te iru
no?
who-Nom cry-te iru (progressive) Q‘Who is crying?’(Ibid.)

The context of (40a) is that Sumihare wants to tell his father that his father has dust on his
cheek. In this context, the perfect form -te iru should be used. However, Sumihare employs
the simple past form and says tui-ta ‘stuck’ instead of tui-te iru ‘be sticking.’ In (40b),
Sumihare intends to describe that somebody is crying. Thus, the -te iru form which conveys
the progressive meaning in this case should be used in the adult grammar. Nevertheless,
Sumihare uses the present form and produces nak-u ‘cry’ instead of nai-te iru ‘be crying.’
Based on the close study on the acquisition of progressive forms of Sumihare (Noji
1974-1977), Murasugi and Fuji (2007) propose that tense markers such as -te(iru), -ta, or-(r)u, are not realized as T independently at the very early stage of language acquisition, but-86-VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)rather, they are realized as V together with the verbs. That is, Sumihare puts these tense
markers onto V and regards the whole tui-ta in (40a) and nak-u in (40b) as V.
The second evidence is found in the acquisition of negation. In adult Japanese, -nai ‘not’is a verbal predicate which itself carries finite tense (Sano 2000). The structure of negation isrepresented schematically in (41).
(41)

IP
I’
NEGP

I
-i (present) /-kat-ta (past)

VP
NEG
Root+irrealis affix na(=non-finite)(=finite)(Sano 2000; 132 slightly modified)

The following examples in (42) indicate that Sumihare does not have the structure in (41).
(42) a.

Father:Sinbuntot -ta?
newspaper take -Past ‘Have (you) taken newspaper yet?’

Sumihare: Tot -ta -nai.
take-Past-notb.

Mother:(2;1)‘(I) haven’t.’

Oti
-ru
yo.
fall down -Pres Int(adult form: tot-te-nai)(Murasugi and Fuji, 2007)‘(You) will fall down.’

Sumihare: Oti-ta-nai
fall down -Past -not

(2;1)‘(I) won’t.’(adult form: oti-te-nai/oti-nai)(Ibid.)In (42a), Sumihare is asked if he has already taken newspaper, and intends to answer ‘No, I
haven’t.’ In the adult grammar, the negative form tot-te-nai ‘haven’t taken’ should be used,
but Sumihare puts -nai to the past tense form tot-ta ‘took,’ and produces the unacceptablenegative form tot-ta-nai. (42b) is the same type of error. Even though his mother speaks to
him with the present verbal form oti-ru ‘fall down,’ he says oti-ta-nai, putting -nai to the pasttense form oti-ta ‘fell down,’ though the negative form oti-te-nai or oti-nai should be used.
These data indicate that Sumihare does not consider the past tense marker to appear in
the head of IP. He puts -ta directly to V instead. Thus, it can be conjectured that Sumihare
regards the whole past tense form of verbs, totta or otita, as V, and puts -nai ‘not’ to them. 10
10(i)Sano (2000) shows that children produce erroneous negative forms such as in (i).
a.

Nor-u
nai.
ride-Pres not(2;6)‘(It) does not ride.’-87-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

The third evidence is found in the acquisition of causatives discussed in Section 3. Recall
here that Sumihare produces a lot of transitive and unaccusative alternation “errors” from 2;1
to 2;5, as shown in (43).
(43) a.

Kaatyanmotherai-te.
be open -Req

(2;1)(=32a)

Literal meaning: ‘(Please) be open, mother.’
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) open (the door), mother.’(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)b.

Nui-takoko.
pull-Past here

(2;1)(=32b)

Literal meaning: ‘I pulled (this) here.’
Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’(Ibid.)As mentioned above in Section 3, children produce such errors since they hypothesize that the[±cause] v is null. Thus, in (43), Sumihare puts a transitive or an unaccusative suffix to V notv, and produces erroneous verbal forms (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi,
Hashimoto and Fuji 2007).
The three pieces of evidence lead us to conjecture that Sumihare, at early age of 2,
produces unanalyzed verbal forms and the examples in (39) are “lexical potentials.” Heb.

Tuk -uattach -Pres

nai.
not

(2;4)
‘(It) does not attach.’(Sano 2000, 134 slightly modified)

In (i), children attach nai ‘not’ to a finite non-past form of the verbs. Sano (2000) reports thaterroneous forms like in (i) are rarely observed with verbs which have roots ending with a vowel.
Based on these observations, Sano (2000) proposes that it takes some time for children to acquire theirrealis form of a verb. He argues that children assume the structure in (ii) for negations instead of
(41).
(ii)

IP
NEGP
IP
VP
root

I
-i (=finite)
NEG
na-

NEG
Tns-af (=finite, -u)(Sano 2000, 141)

In this structure, the negated verb is finite and it is selected by NEG. See Murasugi (2007a,b,c) and
Murasugi, Fuji and Hashimoto (2007).

-88-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)attaches tense morphemes or transitive or unaccusative morphemes to V though they are in I
(or T) or the small v in the adult grammar.11
Therefore, Stage I of the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials seems to be parallel to that of
the acquisition of -(s)ase causatives. In this stage, children hypothesize that the small v isphonetically null.
Note here, however, that the close examination of the acquisition data of -(s)ase
causatives and -(rar)e potentials reveals some differences between them. First, the omission“errors” are found more often in causatives than potentials. Second, erroneous verbal forms in
the acquisition of causatives have more varieties than those in the acquisition of potentials.
That is, while the transitive and unaccusative alternation “errors” are observed besides the-(s)ase omission “errors” in the causative acquisition, only the -(rar)e omission “errors” areobserved in the acquisition of potentials. The third difference is the age when children retreat
from such “errors.” The -(rar)e omission “errors” produced by Sumihare and by otherchildren reported in Okubo (1967) and Ito (1990) are all observed in the early 2 years old. On
the other hand, the -(s)ase omission “errors” and the unaccusative and transitive alternation“errors” are observed until relatively late, 2;6 for Sumihare and 4;8 for Akkun.
We conjecture that these differences are grounded in the properties of two features:[±cause] and [±potential]. When the small v has [+cause], a verb is transitive or causative,
while when the small v has [-cause], a verb is unaccusative. In the acquisition of causatives,children need to learn how each realization of the [±cause] v is correlated to verbal properties,
such as transitive, unaccusative and causative. Hence, even after they notice that the [±cause]v must be realized phonetically, they still make some errors on their forms. Thus, children areeasily confused by the realization of the [±cause] v. On the other hand, [+potential] just adds
the potential meaning to a verb. There is no antonymous lexeme associated with [-potential].
In the acquisition of potentials, what children need to learn is just to put a potential suffix to a
verb as a realization of [+potential]. Therefore, the three differences listed above, i.e., thefrequency of the suffix omission “errors, the existence/non-existence of transitive andunaccusative alternation “errors”, and the age when children retreat from such “errors,” could
all be captured by the asymmetries in the lexical realization of [±cause] and [±potential]features.12

11

When Sumihare produces “lexical potentials” as in (39), he also produces other forms of thoseverbs, such as present tensed form and past tensed form (e.g. too-ru (pass-Pres) and toot-ta (pass-Past)
for toor-en (cannot pass)). Although Sumihare’s potential forms are uninflected adult forms, he uses
those potential forms in the correct situations. That indicates that the small v is not phoneticallyrealized, but it has the [+potential]. Hence, the null realization of the small v does not indicate that it
does not have its feature.
12

We would like to thank Mamoru Saito for making this point to us.

-89-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

4.2. Stage II, Stage III and Stage IV
In 4.1, we showed that children go through Stage I, where the small v is phoneticallynull, in the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials. Then, how about other stages? In this section, we
will show that some children produce “errors” in -(rar)e potentials just like the “errors”
produced in Stage II and III in the acquisition of causatives (Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006), while
Sumihare produces very few erroneous potential sentences.
4.2.1. The Case of Sumihare (Yano 2007a, b, c, d)Yano (2007a,b,c,d) analyzes potential sentences in Sumihare’s productive data
(CHILDES) in line with Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004). She shows that -e potentials are
acquired as early as lexical causatives which has a mono-clausal structure in (30) and thereby
supports the VP complement structure proposed by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2007), as
shown in (16a)(=(44b)). The structures in (30) and (16a) are repeated below in (44).
(44) a.

the structure of lexical causatives

b. the structure of the nominative object
construction
TP

TP
T’

Subj

vP
causervPv’

VP
causeeT’objj-ga-Nomv [+cause]V’ -(s)ase

T
vP

ti

v’
VP

v°
-rare/-re
tj
V
‘can’
(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2007)

NP
V(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Given the analysis that the potentials in early 2 year-old are uninflected adult forms and that-e potentials are acquired as early as lexical causatives, it is plausible to consider that
Sumihare starts producing the potential morpheme -e as a realization of the small v at the time
when he acquires lexical causatives.
According to Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji (2007), Sumihare starts producing lexicalcausatives at around 2;3. Some examples are shown in (45).
(45) a.

Mi -se-te -goransee-Cause -Req -Sug

(2;3)

‘Why don’t you show (it) to me?’(Noji 1974-1977)-90-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)b.

Kiiroino
yellow

fuku
clothes

ki -tye -te (2;5)
wear -Cause -Req

‘Please put the yellow clothes on me.’

(Ibid.)

Sumihare utters (45a) when he is watching his mother trying to repair his younger brother’stoy (Noji 1974-1977 II; 388). He correctly uses the causative verb mi-se-te ‘show me.’ In(45b), he asks his mother to put the yellow clothes on him (Noji 1974-1977 II; 631). Ki-tye-te
is ki-se-te ‘dress me’ in adult speech, which is the correct causative verb in this context.
Therefore, we conjecture that potential sentences produced after 2;3 are not uninflected
adult forms any more. In other words, the potential morpheme -e is produced as a realizationof the small v, but not V. A couple of examples are given in (46).
(46) a.

Ame-ga futte
rain -Nom fall

onmo -de asyob -e -nai neoutside -in play -can -not Int‘Since it’s raining, (I) cannot play outside.’b.

Boku yoku kam -e -ru
yoI
good chew-can -Pres Int(2;3)(Yano 2007a, b, c, d)(2;5)‘I can chew (this) very well.’(Noji 1974-1977)

Asyob-e-nai in (46a) is a child phonetic form of asob-e-nai ‘cannot play’, which is a correct
potential form. (46b) is uttered when Sumihare is eating a sweet (Noji 1974-1977 II; 594).
The correct potential form kam-e-ru ‘can chew’ is used.
At around the age of 2;5, Sumihare starts producing potentials attaching the suffix-(r)are. However, at around the age of 3, Sumihare produces some erroneous potential forms.
Some examples are given in (47a) through (47c).
(47) a.

Kaatyanmommy

nakanaka
not easily

tor -are -nyotake -can -Neg Int(3;3)‘Mommy, I can’t take (it) easily.’
b.

Mada
still

ik-are-n(3;4)
go-can-Neg‘(I) still cannot go.’c.

Gakko-nischool-to

ik -e -re-ru
(3;1)
go-can-can -Pres‘(I) can go to school.’
In (47a) and (47b), the suffix -e should be attached to yield the potential form tor-e-n in (47a)-91-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

and ik-e-n in (47b). However, Sumihare attaches -(r)are to the verb stems and produces
erroneous potential forms. In (47c), Sumihare correctly attaches the suffix -e to the verb ik‘go.’ Yet, he attaches another potential suffix -re, and yields the unacceptable potential form.
Thus, although Sumihare produces few erroneous causatives, it seems that he is confusedby the choice of appropriate morphemes in the small v in this stage.
In the proceeding subsections, we will introduce two empirical findings of the erroneous
potential verbs as for the intermediate stages of potential acquisition. Together with
Sumihare’s data given above, the longitudinal studies reported in Shibuya (1994) (4.2.2.) andArai (2006) (4.2.3.) seem to show exactly the same four stages as we found in causatives,
thereby supporting Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis.
4.2.2. The Case of Taatyan (A) (Shibuya 1994)
Shibuya (1994), based on his corpus study of Taatyan (A)’s data 13 from National
Institute for Japanese Language, reports that there are four stages in acquiring -(rar)epotentials as in (48).
(48) Stage I:
Stage II:
Stage III:
Stage IV:the “verb+-e” form14
the “verb+-rare” form
the “verb+-e+-rare” form
the adult form

According to Shibuya (1994), Taatyan (A) starts producing the “verb+-e” form first.
Some examples are given in (49).
(49) a.

tor-e-ru‘can take’

(2;1)

b.

ik-e-ru‘can go’

(2;2)

13

This child is different from Taatyan in Arai (2006) we discuss later in 4.2.3. For convenience, we
distinguish those two children who have the same nickname accidentally, by using Taatyan (A) for
Shibuya (1994) and Taatyan (B) for Arai (2006).
14(i)

Before Stage I, Taatyan (A) seems to understand potential sentences (Shibuya 1994).
Adult: Taatyan
Child: Un.
yesyoguruto tabe-rare-ru?
yogurteat -can-Pres‘Can you eat yogurt?’(2;0)‘Yes.’(Ibid.)In (i), the mother asks her child if he can eat yogurt using the -(rar)e potential form, and the childanswers correctly. Thus, Shibuya (1994) reports that even -(rar)e potentials are never produced in thisage, before 2-years-old, it seems that the child understands -(rar)e potential sentences.

-92-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)c.

hair-e-ru‘can enter’(2;3)(Shibuya 1994)

In (49a) through (49c), all potential forms are “correctly” produced.
Note here that the “correct” potential forms produced by Taatyan (A) in this stage look
similar to those produced by Sumihare in the same age, i.e., the “verb+-e” form. Thus, as we
discussed in 4.1.2, potential sentences in this stage are considered to be uninflected adultforms. Despite its appearance, it is plausible to consider that he puts the potential morpheme-e to V.
Shibuya (1994) reports that after Stage I, in Stage II, the “verb+-rare” form appears. In
this stage, such overgeneration as in (50) is observed.
(50) Deki-rare-nai.
can -can-not(3;7)‘(I) cannot do.’(adult form: deki-nai)(Ibid.)In (50), the verb deki-ru, which itself means ‘can,’ does not need any potential suffix.
However, Taatyan (A) overgenerates -rare, yielding the unacceptable negative form
deki-rare-nai instead of the correct form deki-nai.
Since “verb+-rare” forms are observed in the stage termed Stage II by Shibuya (1994),
this stage seems to be the same as Stage II in the acquisition of causatives, where“verb+-sase” forms appear.
In the next stage, Taatyan (A) starts producing “verb+-erare” forms, which are notcorrect in the adult grammar. A couple of examples are given in (51).
(51) a.

b.

Adult: Sutoroo dasi
-te
straw
take out -Req

Taatyan.
‘Taatyan, take a straw out.’

Child: Das-e -rare-nai
take out -can -can -not

(3;0)
(adult form: das-e-nai)‘(I) cannot take it out.’(Ibid.)

Narabe -φ -ru
kana, narabe -re -rare -ru
kana, narabe -rare-ru
line-Pres Qline -can -can -Pres Q
line -can -Pres
kana. (2;9)(=3g)
QIntended meaning: ‘Could (I) line (them) up?’(adult form: narabe-rare-ru)(Ibid.)In (51a), the adult form should be das-e-nai ‘cannot take out’ with the potential suffix -e, but
Taatyan (A) puts the erroneous suffix -erare and produces das-erare-nai. (51b) is the same
example we looked at in Section 1. It seems that the child tries some possible suffixes. Firsthe omits -rare. Next, he puts the erroneous suffix, -rerare, and finally he produces the correct
form. Shibuya (1994) refers this stage as Stage III.

-93-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Considering these data closely, we find that Taatyan (A) puts -rare to potential verbs inthis stage. In (50a), das-e ‘can take out’ is the correct potential form if one puts the negative-nai to it, but he inserts -rare between the potential morpheme and the negative marker. In(50b), narabe-re ‘can line up’ is the correct form in the Ra-omission Type if one puts thepresent tense marker -ru to it. Taatyan (A) inserts -rare between the potential morpheme andthe present tense marker in this example, too. Therefore, this stage seems to be parallel toStage III in the acquisition of causatives, where the incorrect “causative verb+-sase” form is
produced. And finally, in Stage IV, Taatyan (A) starts producing potentials as the same form
as adult usage (Shibuya 1994).
Thus, the four acquisition stages of -(rar)e potentials proposed by Shibuya (1994) are
parallel to those of causatives in (20). In the next subsection, we will discuss anotherlongitudinal study on potentials made by Arai (2006), which apparently proposes different
four stages, but in fact does not, as we discuss in 4.2.4.
4.2.3. The Case of Taatyan (B) (Arai 2006)
Arai (2006) observes the utterances of his son, Taatyan (B), longitudinally from 1;10 to
6;8. He reports that Taatyan (B) produces erroneous potential sentences, and proposes thatthe errors are of two types of overgeneration.
15

Taatyan (B)’s -e potential sentences are observed at the very early stage of language
acquisition, at the age of two (Arai 2006). Arai (2006) terms this stage as Conservative Stage.
He discusses that in Conservative Stage, the child produces potential sentences as what heactually hears and he does not use them productively. In other words, the child just imitates
what adults say.
Arai’s (2006) analysis is similar to our analysis that potential sentences in early age of
two are uninflected adult usage. Therefore, the stage termed Conservative Stage by Arai
(2006) is the same as Stage I, where the small v is phonologically null.
Arai (2006) reports that from 2;8 to 3;5, Taatyan (B) erroneously puts -rare to verbs asshown in (52).
(52) a.

Taakunhitori-deby oneself

tukur -(r)are-ta (3;0) (adult form: tukur-e-ta)
make-can -Past‘Taakun (/I) could make (this) by himself(/myself).’b.

Yar-(r)are -nai.
do -can -Neg

(3;5)
‘I cannot do.’

15

(=3c)

(Arai 2006)(adult form: yar-e nai)(=3d)
(Ibid.)He recorded Taatyan (B)’s naturalistic data everyday focusing on transitive verbs, causatives, andpotentials. Taatyan (B) was born in Osaka where Mixed Type -(rar)e potentials, according to Arai
(2006), are spoken. When Taatyan (B) was three years old, he moved to Shiga prefecture. The dialect
spoken there is similar to the Kyoto dialect, or Ra-omission Type we discussed in 2.1.

-94-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)In standard Japanese, -rare is attached to vocalic verb stems while -e to consonantal verb
stems as shown in Section 1, but Taatyan (B) overgenerates -rare in this stage. He obeys his
own morpho-phonological rule, according to Arai (2006), and puts -rare to vocalic verbs
while -are to consonantal verbs. Thus, in (52a) and (52b), the suffix -are attaches to the stemsof the verbs tukur-(r)u ‘make’ and yar-(r)u ‘do,’ though the suffix -e should attach in theadult grammar. This stage is the same as Stage II we discussed in 4.2.2.
After Stage II, Arai (2006) reports that there is another type of overgeneration observed.
Taatyan (B) erroneously puts -rare to a verb without following his morpho-phonological rulementioned above at the age of 3;5. According to Arai’s (2006) analysis, the child puts -rareeven to a consonantal verb and inserts the vowel -e between the ending consonant of a verb
stem and the beginning consonant of -rare, as shown in (53).
(53) a.

Konnani ippai hakob-e-rare-ta.
(3;11)
like this many carry -Vowel -can -Past(adult form: hakob-e-ta)(Ibid.)‘(I) could carry so many things like this.’b.

Zyoozuniwell

mot -e-rare -ta.
(4;2)
have -Vowel-can -Past‘I could bring (this) up very well.’(adult form:mot-e-ta) (=3f)(Ibid.)In (53a), the stem of the verb hakob-(r)u ‘carry’ ends with a consonant -b, but Taatyan (B)attaches -rare, inserting the vowel -e between the verb stem and -rare. The same error isfound in (53b). Taatyan (B) puts -rare to the consonantal verb mot-(r)u and inserts the vowel-e between the consonants, yielding an unacceptable form mot-e-rare-ta.
According to Arai (2006), Taatyan (B) goes through the four stages in acquiring -(rar)epotentials as illustrated in (54).
(54) “conservative stage” (2;0-2;8): The child produces potentials “correctly”“overgeneration 1” (2;8-3;5) : The child overgenerates -(r)are, and follows his
own morpho-phonological rule“overgeneration 2” (3;5-4;8) : The child overgenerates-rare, and follows thephonological rule to insert a vowel between consonants“the adult form”
Arai (2006) mentions two possible analyses for the four stages given above. One is basedon the (morpho-)phonological rules Taatyan (B) obeys as shown in (53). This
(morpho-)phonological analysis, however, faces learnability problems, as it is not crystal clear
why it is the case that children try various (morpho-)phonological rules and what triggers thetransition from one (morpho-)phonological rule to another. Another possible analysis Arai
(2006) mentions is based on Bowerman’s (1982) examples such as “straightenen” that
English-speaking children erroneously make. He suggests that the “overgeneration 2” of-95-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Taachan (B) indicates the stage where children doubly attach the potential morphemes, -e and-rare, like English-speaking children do.
In 4.2.3., we will reanalyze Arai’s (2006) data by pursuing the second possibility hementions, and show that Taatyan (B) goes through exactly the same stages as Taatyan (A)observed by Shibuya (1994), and hence Arai’s (2006) four stages are the same as those incausatives as shown in (20).
4.2.3. The Reanalysis of Arai’s (2006) Data
Table 2 shows Taatyan (B)’s utterances of -(rar)e potentials. We put a circle (○) for thecorrect usage, a spade (♠) for the “verb+-e” form, a white diamond (◊) for the “verb+-rare”
form, and a black diamond (♦) for the “verb+-erare” form.
Let us take the first one tor-e-nai ‘cannot take’ as an example. Since this is the correct
form, we put a circle (○) to it. Moreover, since the utterance is the “verb+-e” form, we also
put a spade (♠) to it. We can divide these data into four stages. Interestingly, these stages
correspond to the acquisition stages found in causative constructions. These four stages areillustrated in (55).
(55) Stage I:
Stage II:
Stage III:
Stage IV:the “verb+-e” form (2;0- ) ⇒♠the “verb+-(r)are” form (2;5- 4;7) ⇒◊the “verb+-e+-rare” form (3;7-5;8) ⇒♦the adult form

Stage I, the stage which Arai (2006) terms “Conservative Stage”, starts at around the ageof two. The potential sentences observed in this stage have the “verb+-e” form. This is thesame as the case in Sumihare and Taatyan (A). Thus, we conjecture that the “verb+-e” form in
the early stage is the undifferentiated adult form. This is the stage of undergeneration, orStage I, where the small v is lexically realized null. Note here that the [+potential] feature is
there, and the meaning of the verb is [verb+potential].
In Stage II, from 2;516 to 4;7, Taatyan (B) produces the “verb+-(r)are” form. For
example, in 12 of Table 1, Taatyan (B) puts -are to the consonantal verb tukur-(r)u ‘make.’On the other hand, in 24 of Table 1, -rare attaches to the vocalic verb oki-ru ‘get up.’ This
corresponds to our Stage II.
In Stage III, from 3;7 to 5;8, Taatyan (B) produces the “verb+-e+-rare” form. For
example, in 18 of Table 1, the correct potential form should be tor-e-ta ‘could take.’ As for 34
of Table 1, the correct adult form is naos-e-ru ‘can repair’. Thus, in this stage, Taatyan (B)adds the extra suffix -rare to the correct potential forms, yielding erroneous potential forms
such as tor-e-rare-ta in 18 and naos-e-rare-ru in 34 of Table 1. This corresponds to our Stage
16

Arai (2006) argues that the first overgeneration starts at the age of 2 years and 8 months. However,since the utterance ake-rare-nai ‘cannot open’ is the “verb+-rare” form, we classify it into Stage II.

-96-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)III. Again, it takes some time for Taatyan (B), too, to attain the complete “correct” adultpotential forms.
Table 2: Taatyan (B)’s utterances of -(rar)e potentials (based on Arai (2006))
age

his utterancestranslations

age

his utterances

12;0

tor-e-nai○♠cannot take2

2;5

ake-rare-nai

○◊

3

2;8

si-e-naku

4

2;8

kir-are-ru

5

2;9

6

28

4;5

erab-e-rare-hen♦

cannot choose

cannot open

29

4;5

sim-e-rare-ta♦

could close♠cannot do

30

4;6

ire-rare-ta○◊ could put in◊can cut31

4;6

ut-e-rare-ru♦

can shootkake-rare-nai ○◊cannot hang

32

4;6

ik-e-rare-hen♦

cannot go

3;0

tukur-are-ta◊

can make

33

4;7naos-e-rare-ta♦

could repair

73;0si-(r)a-(r)e-ru◊

can do34

4;7naos-e-rare-ru♦

can repair

83;5

yar-are-nai◊

cannot do

35

4;7

kowas-e-rare-ta♦

could break

9

3;7

mat-e-ran-nai♦

cannot wait

36

4;7

muk-e-rare-ta♦

could open

10

3;7

kak-e-rare-ru♦

can write

37

4;7

ori-re-nai◊ cannot go down

11

3;8

mot-i-rare-ta◊

could lift

38

4;8

huk-e-rare-ru♦

can wipe

123;8or-e-rare-ta♦

could break

39

4;8

huk-e-ru○♠

can wipe

13

3;10

tukur-are-ta◊

could make

40

4;8

huk-e-rare-nai♦

cannot wipe

14

3;11

hakob-e-rare-ta ♦could carry

41

4;9

mi-re-rare-hen♦

cannot watch

15

4;2

mot-e-rare-ta♦

could lift

42

4;10

mak-e-ru○♠

can wrap

16

4;3

nuk-e-rare-ru♦

can pull out

43

4;10

aw-e-nai○♠cannot meet

17

4;3

kir-are-ta◊

could cut

44

4;10

mi-rare-soo○◊ can see

18

4;3

tor-e-rare-ta♦

could take

45

4;10

aw-e-ru○♠

can meet

19

4;3

kat-e-rare-ta♦

could win

46

4;11

kam-e-rare-ru♦

can bite20

4;3

yar-are-ta◊

could do47

5;0

tukam-e-ru♠

can catch21

4;3

mak-e-rare-n-de ♦can roll up

48

5;0

oyog-e-ru○♠

can swim

22

4;3

otos-are-nen-de ◊can drop49

5;3

moraw-e-hen○♠

cannot get

23

4;3

oyog-e-rare-ru♦

can swim50

5;3

moraw-are-hen ○◊ cannot get

24

4;3

oki-rare-ta◊

could get up

51

5;7

mot-e-rare-ru

♦

25

4;4

tukur-are-ta◊

could make

52

5;7

i-rare-nai○◊ cannot be

26

4;4

mi-re-rare-n-de ♦can see53

5;8nokos-i-tok-e-ra ♦

27

4;4

muk-e-rare-ta

could open

54

5;8

nokos-i-tok-e-ru ♠○ can leave♦translations

can grasp
can leave○= the adult form, ♠= the “verb+-e” form, ◊=the “verb+-(r)are” form, ♦=the “verb+-erare”
form
The reanalyzed Taatyan (B)’s four acquisition stages of -(rar)e potentials are exactly thesame as Taatyan (A)’s four stages proposed in Shibuya (1994), as shown in (55) and (48).
And these two children’s acquisition stages of -(rar)e potentials are parallel to those of
causatives given in (20).

-97-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

4.3. Summary
In this section, we discussed the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials. We showed that thefour acquisition stages of -(rar)e potentials are identical with those of -(s)ase causatives.
Those stages are illustrated in (56) and (57) respectively.
(56) The four acquisition stages of -(s)ase causatives
Stage I:
the small v is realized null:-(s)ase omission errors and transitive-unaccusative alternation errors
Stage II: a verb (preverbal form) + -saseStage III : a causative verb + -saseStage IV: the adult form(57) The four acquisition stages of -(rar)e potentials
Stage I:
the small v is realized null:-(rar)e omission errors and the uninflected adult form (“verb+-e”)
Stage II: a verb + -rareStage III: a potential verb +-rare form
Stage IV: the adult form
Furthermore, we pointed out three differences between the acquisition of -(s)ase
causatives and that of -(rar)e potentials: i) the frequency of the suffix omission “errors,” ii)
the existence/non-existence of transitive and unaccusative alternation “errors,” and iii) the
difference of the age when children retreat from such “errors.” We argued that thesedifferences are due to the properties of [±cause] and [±potential]. While [±cause] is realized inthree different kinds of verbs such as unaccusative, transitive, or causative verbs, there is nosuch variety in [±potential].
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we discussed the acquisition of Japanese complex predicates, in particular,potentials and causatives, and proposed that the “erroneous” verbal forms reflect the stages
where the small v and T (or I) are lexically realized null as the VP-shell analysis expects(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004).
In Section 2, we examined -(rar)e potentials in the adult grammar. In Section 3, weoverviewed Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis on the acquisition of -(s)ase
causatives and agentive (di)transitives. Based on their longitudinal study and the CHILDES
data (Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007), we discussed that causatives are acquired in thefour steps: i) children hypothesize that the small v is phonetically null, ii) children produce the“verb+-sase” form, iii) children produce the “causative verb+-sase” form, and iv) children
produce adult-like causatives. In passing, we pointed out that there are individual differences
regarding whether or not children go through Stage II and Stage III, or the two overgeneration
stages.

-98-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)In Section 4, we turned to the acquisition of potentials. We have reanalyzed Yano
(2007a, b, c, d), Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) in line with Murasugi and Hashimoto's(2004) VP-shell analysis, and we have shown that potential constructions are acquired in thevery similar way to causative constructions. Under the v-VP frame analysis, we proposed thatintermediate stages of potential acquisition are explained in the parallel way as causativeacquisition: i) children hypothesize that the small v is phonetically null, ii) children produce
the “verb+-rare” form, iii) children produce the “potential verb+-rare” form, and iv) children
produce adult-like potentials. Again, in passing, we pointed out that there are individual
differences regarding whether or not children go through the two overgeneration stages.
We thus conclude that although the structures (or the projections of v and V) are
acquired at a very early stage, the lexical acquisition takes time. One of the intermediatestages observed in the acquisition of complex predicates in an agglutinative language such as
Japanese is attributed to the lexical realization of the small v in the VP-shell or functional
categories (Murasugi 2007a, b, c, d). It is the exact lexical (morphological) realization of thesmall v and the functional categories that takes time for the children to acquire, and this is theorigin of the undergeneration and overgeneration phenomena of causatives and potentials inJapanese.

References
Arai, F. (2003) ‘Nihongo niokeru Kiin Tadousi no Syuutoku Dankai [Developmental Sequence in the
Acquisition of Lexical Causative Verbs – Implications of Causative Errors in Japanese –].’
Kyoto Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu Zinbunkagaku Keiretu [Essays on Humanity Science, Kyoto
Sangyo University] 30, Kyoto Sangyo University, 1-38.
Arai, F. (2006) ‘Nihongo niokeru Kanou Hyougen no Syuutoku Katei [Developmental Sequence in
the Acquisition of the Potential Construction in Japanese].’ Kyoto Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu
Zinbunkagaku Keiretu [Essays on Humanity Science, Kyoto Sangyo University] 34, Kyoto
Sangyo University, 1-23.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) ‘Complex Predicates, Aspect, and Anti-reconstruction.’
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, Number 1, 27-42.
Bowerman, M. (1982) ‘Evaluating Competing Linguistic Models with Language Acquisition Data:
Implication of Developmental Errors with Causative Verbs.’ Quaderni di Sematica 3,
pp.5-66.
Fuji, C. (2006a) Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language: A Study in Syntax
and Acquisition. M.A. thesis, Nanzan University.
Fuji, C. (2006b) ‘Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language: A Study in
Syntax and Acquisition.’ Paper presented at Cambridge-Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Workshop
on Functional and Lexical Categories. Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University, March 9th.
Fuji, C., T. Hashimoto, and K. Murasugi (2007) ‘Intermediate Stages in the Acquisition of the
Potential Construction.’ Paper presented at Connecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on
Minimalist Syntax. Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University, June 24th.

-99-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Fuji, C., T. Hashimoto, and K. Murasugi (in preparation) ‘A Theoretical Account for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in Japanese Complex Predicates.’ BUCLD 28
Proceedings Online Supplement.
Inoue, F. (1998) Nihongo Wottingu [Japanese Watching]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2-31.
Ito, K. (1990) Kodomo no kotoba - Shutoku to Souzou [Child Language: Acquisition and Innovation].
Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Kinsui, S. (2003) ‘Ra-nuki Kotoba no Rekisiteki Kenkyu [A historical Study of Ra-omission Forms].’
Gengo [Language] vol.32, No.4, 56-62.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996) Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion‘Word.’ Stanford, CA: CSLI Publishers.
Morikawa, H. (1997) Acquisition of Case Marking and Argument Structure in Japanese. Tokyo:
Kuroshio Publishers.
Murasugi, K. (2007a) ‘Intermediate Acquisition Stages: A View from Japanese.’ Paper presented at
the Workshop on Romance-Japanese: Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition:
Cambridge-Connecticut-Hyderabad-Tsing Hua-Siena-Nanzan Consortium. University of
Siena, Siena, Italy, May 5th.
Murasugi, K. (2007b) ‘Intermediate Stages in Language Acquisition: Prism in an Agglutinative
Language.’ Paper presented at the 3rd Acquisition Research Workshop, Center for
Linguistics. Nanzan University, June 16th.
Murasugi, K. (2007c) ‘Intermediate Stages in Grammar Acquisition: A View from Japanese.’ Paper
presented at the 7th Symposium of the Nordic Association of Japanese and Korean Studies(NAJAKS 7) , Copenhagen, Denmark, August 25th.
Murasugi, K. (2007d) ‘Null Functional Head Hypothesis for Language Acquisition.’ Paper presented
at International Symposium of Cambridge-Connecticut-Hyderabad-Nanzan-Siena-Tsing Hua
Consortium for Linguistics. National Tsing Hua University. December 17th.
Murasugi, K. and C. Fuji (2007) ‘Asupekuto no Kakutoku: Ehimehoogen kara Gengo(riron) e [TheAcquisition of Aspects: Theoretical Implications from Ehime Syntax].’ Academia 82,
Nanzan University.
Murasugi, K., C. Fuji, and T. Hashimoto (2007) ‘What Acquired Later in an Agglutinative Language.’
Paper presented at GLOW in Asia VI, Chinese University of Hong Kong, December 27th.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) ‘Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame.’
Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1-19.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, and C. Fuji (2007) ‘VP-Shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese
Intransitive Verbs, Transitive Verbs, and Causatives.’ Linguistics 45, vol. 3, 615-651.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, and S. Kato (2003) ‘On the Acquisition of Causatives in Japanese.’ In
Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla and Christine E. Smith (eds.), BUCLD 28 Proceedings
Online Supplement. (http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/supp.html)
National Institute for Japanese Language (1982) Hougen Bunpou Siryouzu Syuu [Database of thegrammar of dialects] (II).

-100-

VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Potentials (C. Fuji et al.)National Institute for Japanese Language (1983) Hougen Bunpou Siryouzu Syuu [Database of thegrammar of dialects] (III).
Noji, J. (1974-1977) Youzi no Gengoseikatu no Zittai [Substance of the Language Use in Child Age]
I-IV. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron Syuppan.
Nomura, M. (2005) Nominative Case and AGREE(ment). Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Okabe, R. (2007) ‘Children’s Acquisition of Causatives and Bi-clausality in Japanese: An
Experimental Study.’ In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., and Umeda, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the
2nd Conference on Generative Approach to Language Acquisition North America(GALANA). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 309-320.
Okubo, A. (1967) Youji Gengo no Hattatsu [The Development of Child Language]. Tokyo: Tokyodo
Shuppan.
Saito, M and H. Hoshi (1998) ‘Control in Complex Predicates.’ Report of the Special Research
Project for the Typological Investigation of Language and Cultures of the East and West,
University of Tsukuba, 15-46.
Sanada, S. (1995) ‘Osaka no Kotoba no Henyoo o Megutte –K-si to no Taidan– [On the change of thelanguage in Osaka –An interview with Mr. K–.’ In M. Tokugawa and S. Sanada (ed.) Kansai
Hooden no Syakai Gengogaku [Sociolinguistics of Kansai Dialects]. Tokyo: Sekai Shisosha.
201-214.
Sano, M. (1985) ‘LF-movement in Japanese.’ Descriptive and Applied Linguistics, vol. XVIII,
245-259.
Sano, T. (2000) ‘Issues on Unaccusatives and Passives in the Acquisition of Japanese.’ Proceedings ofTokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics 1, Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, 1-21.
Shibuya, K. (1993) ‘Nihongo Kanou Hyougen no Syosou to Hatten [The State and the Developmentof Japanese Potential Construction].’ Osaka Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyou [Memories of Osaka
University School of Letters] 33, Osaka University.
Shibuya, K. (1994) ‘Youzi no Kanou Hyougen no Kakutoku [The Acquisition of the Potential
Construction].’ Musa 1, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, 23-40.
Shibuya, K. (2006) ‘Zihatu·Kanou [Spontaneous Potentials].’ In T. Kobayashi et al. (ed.) Hougen no
Bunpou [Grammar of Dialects]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 47-92
Shin, S. (2002) ‘“Ra-nuki Kotoba” no Kenkyuu Gaikan [A Survey of the Study of Ra-Omission
Forms].’ Gengo Bunka to Nihongo Kyouiku [Language, Culture and Japanese Education],102-119.
Tada, H. (1992) ‘Nominative Objects in Japanese.’ Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91-108.
Takano, Y. (2003) ‘Nominative Objects in Japanese Complex Predicate Constructions: A Prolepsis
Analysis.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 779-834.
Takeda, K. (2006) ‘Yomukoto ga Dekiru (Nouryoku Kanou·Zyoukyou Kanou) [You Can Read
(Potentials for Person’s Ability and for the Situations)]’ Gengo [Language] vol. 35, No. 12,
52-55.
Yano, K. (2007a) Fukugozyutugobun no Kakutoku – Kanou Koubun o Tyuusin tosite. [The Acquisitionof Complex Predicates: A Case Study of the Potential Construction] M.A. thesis, Nanzan
University.

-101-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Yano, K. (2007b) ‘The Structure of Japanese Potential -(r)eru Construction: A Study in Syntax,
Learnability, and Acquisition.’ Paper presented at Connecticut-Nanzan-Siena Joint
Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition. Nanzan University, February
21st.
Yano, K. (2007c) ‘The Structure of Japanese Potential -(r)eru Construction: A Study in Syntax,
Learnability, and Acquisition.’ Nanzan Gengo Kagaku [Linguistic Science, Nanzan
University] 2, 261-277.
Yano, K. (2007d) ‘The Structure of Japanese Potential -(r)eru Construction: A Study in Syntax,
Learnability, and Acquisition.’ Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3.1, 331- 351.

-102-