THE ACQUISITION OF THE MECHANISM OF UNSELECTIVE BINDING, LF
WH-MOVEMENT AND CONSTRAINTS ON MOVEMENT*
Yoshie Kabuto
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

In this paper, based on an experimental study, we discuss the acquisition of LF
wh-movement and the constraints on the movement. The purpose of this paper is to provide
some pieces of empirical evidence for the proposal that young children know the mechanismof unselective binding, and to present support for the claim that young children know
constraints regulating the locality of LF wh-movement at a very early stage of language
acquisition.
It has been reported in Sugisaki (1999) that Japanese-speaking children of three and four
year olds know that wh-adverbial naze ‘why’ cannot appear in an island, and hence, children
have the knowledge of LF wh-movement and constraints on movement. In this paper, basedon the syntactic analysis by Tsai (1994) and his subsequent works, we compare two
wh-phrases, naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason.’ These two wh-phrases show
different behavior when they appear within an island. More specifically, island effects areobserved when naze ‘why’ appeared in an island, while no island effects are observed when
dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’ appeared in an island. We examine when and how
Japanese-speaking children acquire the differences between naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de‘for what reason,’ and the relevant syntactic properties.
2.

Theoretical BackgroundIn this section, I will briefly discuss the mechanism of wh-movement and unselective
binding in Japanese.
2.1

An Argument vs. Adjunct Asymmetry with Respect to the Empty Category
Principle (Huang 1982, Lasnik and Saito 1992)
It has been argued that Japanese wh-element does not obligatorily move overtly (Kuno*This paper was presented at Connecticut-Siena-Nanzan Joint Workshop on February 20, 2007 held at Nanzan
University. This project was originally motivated by Dylan Tsai and Mamoru Saito’s lectures on wh-movement
at the Tsing Hua-Nanzan Consortium held at Nanzan University in summer, 2006. I would like to thank Keiko
Murasugi, Mamoru Saito, Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, Tomohiro Fujii, Koji Sugisaki, Masatake Arimoto, Chisato Fuji,
and Luigi Rizzi for the invaluable comments and discussions on this paper. I would like to thank the
Otokikiyama Day Care Center for letting me hold the experiments for this project.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 151-163© 2007 Yoshie Kabuto

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

1973). According to Huang (1982), however, even in languages without overt wh-movement,
the sentence becomes ungrammatical when an adjunct wh-phrase appears within an island.
Compare (1) and (2).
(1)

Kimi-wa [NP [S’ e1 nani-okatta]
you-TOP
what-ACC boughthito]-osagasiteiru no?
person-ACC looking.for Q

Lit. ‘What are you looking for the person [who bought t]?’(2)

* Kimi-wa [NP [S’ e1 naze sono hon-okatta] hito]-osagasiteiru no?
you-TOP
why that book-ACC bought person-ACC looking.for Q
Lit. ‘Why are you looking for the person [who bought that book t]?’(1) contains the wh-argument nani ‘what’ whereas (2) contains the wh-adjunct naze ‘why.’ In(2), contra to (1), the sentence becomes ungrammatical when an adjunct wh-phrase appears
within an island. Huang (1982) explains the contrast in grammaticality between (1) and (2),employing the Empty Category Principle (ECP) and LF wh-movement.1 According to him,
wh-phrases undergo LF movement to the matrix CP. In (1), the initial trace of nani ‘what’ isproperly governed by the lexical verb, and hence, the ECP is satisfied. In (2), on the other
hand, the initial trace of naze ‘why’ cannot be governed by the verb because it is an adjunct. It
is not governed by its antecedent either due to the presence of the NP node. Therefore, the
ECP is not satisfied, and the sentence in (2) becomes ungrammatical. Based on this analysis,
Huang (1982) suggests that the ECP holds in LF, while Subjacency is not applied to LF
movement.
2.2. Unselective Binding (Tsai 1994)
Tsai (1994) presents another account for the contrast between (1) and (2). According toTsai (1994), there are two ways to construe the operator-variable pair. One way is tounselectively bind wh-in situ by a Q(uestion) operator as in (3a). The other way is to move thewh-in-situ into the specifier position of [+wh] C, so that the moved wh-phrase binds its trace,
as in (3b).
(3)

a.
b.

[X’’ Opi[Q] [X’ … wh(i) …]][X’’ whi [X’ … ti …]]

Whether the wh-phrase is unselectively bound in situ as in (3a) or move to the specifier
1

The Empty Category Principle (ECP) (Chomsky 1981) is stated as follows:(i)

A nonpronominal empty category must be properly governed.

Lasnik and Saito (1992) define proper government as follows:(ii) a.
b.

α lexically-governs β if α c-commands β, and α assigns Case or a θ-role to β.
α antecedent-governs β if α binds β, and β is subjacent to α.

-152-Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)

position as in (3b) depends on whether the wh-phrase contains a nominal item or not.
Specifically, when the wh-phrase contains a nominal element, it is a variable to be bound by
Q-operator. When the wh-phrase does not contain a nominal element but a pure adjunct, thewh-phrase is not a variable but an operator and hence, it has to move to the specifier position.
Keeping this in mind, consider the Japanese examples in (4) and (5).
(4)* John-wa [Mary-ga
naze sono hon-wo
yonda atoni] okotta no?
John-TOP Mary-NOM why the book-ACC read after got.angry Q‘Why did John get angry [after Mary read the book t]?’(5)

John-wa [Mary-ga
dooiu-riyuu-de sono hon-wo yonda atoni] okotta no?
John-TOP Mary-NOM for what reason the book-ACC read after got.angry Q‘For what reason did John get angry [after reading the book t]?’Suppose Tsai’s (1994) account applies to Japanese, then the contrast between (4) and (5) is
explained as follows: In (4), naze ‘why’ is an adverb, which cannot be a variable to beunselectively bound by a Q feature. Therefore, it cannot be licensed through unselective
binding so that it has to move to the spec of CP. However, this movement violates the ECP
and the sentence is ruled out. In (4), dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’ is an NP, and hence, it can belicensed through unselective binding. The inner structures of naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de‘for what reason’ are represented in (6a) and (6b) respectively.
(6) a.

AdvP

b.

PP

Adv’

P’

Adv

DP

P

naze

D’

de

NP

D

IP

N’

dooiu

N
riyuu

As in (6a), naze ‘why’ is an adverb. On the other hand, as in (6b), riyuu ‘reason’ is a noun andhence, dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ is a phrase including a nominal element.
The contrast between (4) and (5) is crucial in our experimental study, which will be
discussed in Section 4.

-153-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

3. Previous Studies on the Acquisition of Wh-questions
3.1. Acquisition of Wh-questions
I will briefly overview the acquisition of wh-questions in Japanese. Table 1 illustrates thedevelopmental order for wh-words in Japanese.
Table 1 Developmental order for wh-words in Japanese
wh-word
doko (where), nani (what)dare (who)dore (which)dou (how), donnna (what kind of)
doushite (why/ how)dotti (which), dare-no (whose)naze (why)ikura (how much)dono (which), itsu (when)

Average age of acquisition
1;8
1;11
2;1
2;3
2;5
2;6
3;0
4;0
4;10
(Okubo 1967: 167)

For the purpose of this paper, I focus on children’s utterances related to naze ‘why’ and dooiu
riyuu-de ‘for what reason.’2
The utterance of naze is observed at 3:0, as in (7).
(7)

Karasu naze naku no desyo? (3;0)
crow why sing Q‘Why does a crow sing?’(Okubo 1967: 165)

The use of dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ itself is not observed. However, it is a complex
expression, and dooiu ‘how’ and de ‘by’, which are subparts of the expression, areindependently observed in children’s speech, as in (8) and (9), respectively.
(8)

KojikaBanbi tteiunowa
dooiu
mono-otabemasu ka? (4;2)
child deer Banbi what is called what kind of thing-ACC eat
Q
Lit. ‘What does the what is called child deer Banbi eat?’(9)(Okubo 1967: 166)

Kuruma de? (1;11)carby‘By car?’(Okubo 1967: 92)(8) is an utterance containing dooiu ‘what kind of’, which is found at the age of 4;2. (9) is anutterance containing de ‘by’, which is found at the age of 1;11. As for riyuu ‘reason’, there is2

See Okubo (1967) for more data.

-154-

Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)

no data listed, but it is reported that its first use was observed between 3;0 to 3;11 (Okubo
1967: 14).
Table 2 illustrates the developmental order for wh-words in English.
Table 2 Developmental order for wh-words in English
wh-wordwhere, what
who
how
why
which, whose, when

Average age of acquisition
2;2
2;4
2;9
2;11
After 3;0(Bloom, Merkin, and Wootten 1982: 1086)

According to Bloom, Merkin, and Wooten (1982), the first use of why is observed at the ageof 2;11. Since the first use of Japanese naze ‘why’ in the database we looked at was observed
at 3;0, the acquisition of why in English and naze in Japanese is similar in terms of the age ofacquisition. The use of for what reason is not reported. As for other types of wh-questions,Japanese wh-questions seem to be acquired earlier than English wh-questions in general. As
Luigi Rizzi (p.c.) suggests, the age difference in the acquisition in English and Japanese may
be due to the difference between overt vs. covert movement.
3.2. Acquisition of LF Wh-movement: Sugisaki (1999)
In this section, I overview a prior experimental study on the acquisition of LF
wh-movement. Sugisaki (1999) conducted an experiment to investigate children’s knowledgeof LF wh-movement and of the constraint on movement, namely, the ECP in Japanese. The
subjects were seventeen Japanese-speaking children ranging in age from 3;4 to 4;8. The
average age was 4;2. The method he used in the experiment was a comprehension task.
A question like (10) is asked by an experimenter after a story is presented.
(10)

Nande sono hon-oyomu
why that book-ACC readmaeni [CP John-wa okottano]?3
beforeJohn-TOP got.angry Q‘Why did John get angry before reading that book?’(10) potentially has two interpretations, as in (11).
(11) a.

Nande [CP proi sono hon-oyomu maeni] Johni-wa
whythat book-ACC read before John-TOP

okottano?
got.angry Q‘Why did John get angry t [before reading that book]?’3

Nande is a colloquial form. When nande is used for asking reasons as naze is, it behaves in the same
way as naze with respect to the obedience to various islands.

-155-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

b. * [CP proi nande sono hon-oyomu maeni] Johni-wa okottano?
why that book-ACC read before John-TOP got.angry Q‘Why did John get angry [before reading that book t]?
In (11a), the wh-phrase naze ‘why’ is interpreted as an element of the matrix clause. On theother hand, in (11b), the wh-phrase is interpreted as an element embedded within the adjunctclause. However, this interpretation is impossible, as indicated by * in (11b), because LF
wh-movement of naze is subject to the ECP. The trace of the wh-phrase in (11b) violates theprinciple. Therefore, if children interpret (10) to be (11a) but not (11b), then it implies thatthey know that a wh-phrase moves to the Spec of the matrix CP at LF and the movement inquestion is constrained by the ECP. However, there is one possibility to be excluded in order
to confirm the result. Because the matrix verb comes after the verb of the adjunct clause,children may simply construe the wh-phrase as a matrix element presumably for a processing
reason. In other words, children may have interpreted naze ‘why’ as an element of the matrix
clause only because they tend to associate the wh-word with the verb they hear at last,
regardless of whether the embedded clause is an island or not. Therefore, the question (12) is
included in the experiment.
(12)

Nande Pikachu-ga
ouchi-ni kaettekita to Satoshi-wa omotta no?
why Pikachu-NOM home-to came.back that Satoshi-TOP thought Q‘Why did Satoshi think that Pikachu came back home?’(13) a.

Nande [CP Pikachu-ga
ouchi-ni kaettekita to] Satoshi-wa omotta no?
why
Pikachu-NOM home-to came.back that Satoshi-TOP thought Q‘Why did Satoshi think t [that Pikachu came back home]?’b.

[CP Nande Pikachu-ga
ouchi-ni kaettekita to] Satoshi-wa omotta
why Pikachu-NOM home-to came.back that Satoshi-TOP thoughtno?
Q‘Why did Satoshi think [that Pikachu came back home t]?’In (12), the embedded clause is a CP complement, not an adjunct clause, and the wh-phrase
naze ‘why’ can serve as a modifier within the embedded clause. Therefore, (12) is ambiguous
as in (13a) and (13b). If children gives the ‘embedded’ answer more often with a ‘island-less’question like (12) than with an ‘island’ question like (10), then children’s choice of (11a) over(11b) should not be due to the problems in processing mentioned earlier but due to theknowledge of the constraint on movement.
The result clearly confirms the prediction. For (10), the subjects chose the interpretationin (11a) 97% of the time. For (12), on the other hand, they chose (13a) only 36% of the time.

-156-

Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)

Sugisaki (1999) argues that children of three and four years of age have the knowledge of LF
wh-movement and the ECP.4
4. An Experimental Study on Two Types of “Reason” Questions
In this section, I will discuss the experimental study on when and how children come toknow the differences between naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ and discusswhen and how the mechanism of LF wh-movement and constraints on movement are
acquired.
4.1. Purposes and the Hypothesis
The purpose of the experiment is to examine children’s knowledge of the mechanism of
unselective binding, LF wh-movement, and the ECP, by using a contrast in grammaticality
obtained between naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ when they are embedded
within an adjunct clause. The contrast between (14) and (15) is an illustration.
(14)* [CP proi nande sono hon-oyomu maeni] Johni-wa okottano?
why that book-ACC read before John-TOP got.angry Q
Lit. ‘Why did John get angry [before reading that book t]?’(15)

[CP proi dooiu riyuu-de sono hon-oyomu maeni] Johni-wa okottano?
for what reason that book-ACC read before John-TOP got.angry Q
Lit. ‘For what reason did John get angry [before reading that book t]?’
The hypothesis of this experiment is as follows:(16)

If unselective binding, LF movement, and the ECP are operative in children’s
grammar, children who pass the pre-test will interpret naze ‘why’ in thematrix clause, but not as an element of the adjunct clause, while they will interpret
dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’ either inside or outside the adjunct clause.

4.2. Subjects
The subjects are forty children ranging in age from 3;0 to 6;7. The mean age is 5;2.
There are ten three-year-olds, ten four-year-olds, ten five-year-olds, and ten six-year-olds. Tenadults are also tested as a control group. All of them are native speakers of Japanese. They aretested individually.

4

See Sugisaki (1999) for the detailed analysis.

-157-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

4.3. Procedures
In the experiment, the Truth-Value Judgment Task was used. There are two
experimenters for a subject. One experimenter tells a story and asks a question on it, and theother experimenter, having a puppet, answers the question. Then, a subject is asked to judge
whether the answer is correct or not.
The experiment consists of a pre-test and a main test. In the pre-test, children are tested
with respect to whether they have the lexical knowledge of naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de‘for what reason.’ One of the test sentences is given in (17).
(17)

Naze Shou-kun-wa mainichi mikan-otaberu no?
why Shou-TOP
everyday tangerine-ACC eat
Q‘Why does Shou eat tangerine every day?’

Then, to test whether the subjects have acquired the lexical knowledge of temporal adjuncts
and conditional adjuncts, sentences such as (18) are used.
(18)

Shou-kun-wa mikan-wo
tabeta atoni, te-oaraimashita.
Shou-TOP tangerine-ACC ate after hands-ACC washed‘After Shou ate a tangerine, he washed his hands.’

The subjects are shown two pictures: one describes Shou, washing his hands after having
eaten a tangerine while the other describes him eating a tangerine after having washed hishands. The subjects are asked to choose the picture which matches the story.
The main test consists of two sessions: session 1 and session 2. Session 1 consists of fivequestions, where dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ is used. The questions are divided into
three types: (19), (20), and (21).
(19) Type 1: Temporal AdjunctDooiu riyuu-de banana-omoratta atoni kumasan-wa banana-o
for what reason banana-ACC received after bear-TOP banana-ACC
zenbu tabetano?
allhave eaten Q‘For what reason did the bear eat all the bananas after he got them?’(20) Type 2: Conditional AdjunctDooiu riyuu-de byouin-e iku to Taro-wa beddo-ni neru no?
for what reason hospital-to go if Taro-TOP bed-on lie Q‘For what reason did Taro lie on a bed if he goes to bed?’-158-

Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)(21) Type 3: CP Complement
Dooiu riyuu-de Taro-wa Hanako-ga
kouen-e itta to omotta no?
for what reason Taro-TOP Hanako-NOM park-to went that thought Q‘Why did Taro think that Hanako went to the park?’
In (19), (20) and (21), dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’ can be interpreted as an element either
within the matrix clause or the adjunct clause.
Session 2 consists of five questions, where naze ‘why’ is used. The questions are divided
into the same three types as those asked in session 1. (22), (23) and (24) are the test sentences.
(22) Type1: Temporal AdjunctNaze gakkou-oyasunda atoni
whyschool-ACC absent after

Kumasan-wa
Bear-TOP

terebi-omitano?
television-ACC watched Q‘Why did the bear watch television after he absented himself from school?”(23) Type2: Conditional AdjunctNaze suupaa-e
iku to Taro-wa narande matsu no?
why
supermarket-to go if Taro-TOP in line wait Q?
‘Why does Taro wait in line if he goes to a supermarket?’(24) Type3: CP Complement
Naze Hanako-wa Taro-ga
giuniu-o nonda to omotta no?
why Hanako-TOP Taro-NOM milk-ACC drank that thought Q‘Why did Hanako think that Taro had drunk some milk?’
As noted in 2.2, naze ‘why’ cannot be unselectively bound and therefore has to move to thematrix CP, but this movement induces the ECP violation. Thus, (22) and (23) only allow thewh-phrase to be interpreted as a matrix modifier. However, in (24), naze ‘why’ is in a CP
complement rather than an adjunct clause. Hence, it can be interpreted either within thematrix clause or the CP complement.
Table 3 summarizes the patterns attested in the main test.
Table 3 Possible interpretations of the test sentences used in the main test
Sentence typeA given reading
for what reason
why

temporal adjunctEmbedded Matrix
OK
OK
*
OK

conditional adjunctEmbedded Matrix
OK
OK
*
OK

CP complement
Embedded
MatrixOK
OK
OK
OK

As for ‘for what reason’ questions, the wh-phrase can be interpreted both as an element of the
adjunct clause and an element of the matrix clause. On the other hand, the wh-phrase in ‘why’-159-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

questions cannot be interpreted as an element within the adjunct clause, although it can beinterpreted as an element of the CP complement.
4.4. Results
Table 4 shows the results of the pre-test for different age groups.
Table 4 The results of the pre-test (different age groups)
Percentage
correct

6-year-olds
100%

5-year-olds
100%

4-year-olds
100%

3-year-olds
60%

total
90%

As seen in Table 4, four, five, and six year olds gave a correct answer for all thesentences in the pre-test. On the other hand, six out of the ten three-year-old children gave acorrect answer for all the sentences.
Table 5 shows the percentages of the correct responses in the main test, sorted out bydifferent age groups.
Table 5 The percentages of the correct responses in the main test (different age groups)
The type of a sentence

Temporal
adjunct
Embedded Matrix
83.3%
100%
83.3%
100%

ConditionalCP
adjunct
complement
Embedded Matrix Embedded
100%
100% 83.3%
66.7%
100% 100%4-year-olds for what reason(N=10)
why
5-year-olds for what reason(N=10)
why

100%

90%

100%

100%

80%

80%
100%
80%

100%
100%
100%

90%
100%
80%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

6-year-olds for what reason(N=10)
why

90%
80%

100%
100%

80%
80%

90%
90%

80%
90%

Adults(N=10)

for what reason

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

why

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

A given reading
3-year-olds for what reason
(N=6)
why

Since Table 5 illustrates the percentages of the correct responses, the percentages are
acceptance rates except for those for the embedded responses to naze ‘why’ questions. The
table reads as follows: for example, 83.3% on the left top indicates that the three year olds
understood ‘for what reason’ as a modifier outside the temporal adjunct clause 83.3% of thetime. On the other hand, as indicated by the second row of the same column, they refused, atthe same rate, to interpret ‘why’ in such a way. Also, 66.7% in the second row under the‘Conditional adjunct’ column means that the three years correctly rejected the matrix readingof ‘why’ at this rate.

-160-

Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)

4.5. Discussions and Conclusion
The results show that children accepted the interpretation of dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’both as an element of the matrix clause and as that of the adjunct clause, almost as often as
adults did. The results also show that children, almost as often as adults did, accepted theinterpretation of naze ‘why’ as an element of the matrix clause and rejected the other,
ECP-violating interpretation, although three-year-olds gave a correct answer at a little lower
rate compared with the other age groups.
Judging from the percentages of the correct responses, we conclude that children knowthat only dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ but not naze ‘why’ can survive in the adjunctclause. Analyses of variance show that the effect was statistically significant (p<.0001).
For the CP complement sentences, both wh-phrases are interpreted by children as anelement of the embedded clause. This result excludes the possibility that children simply
construe the wh-phrase to the matrix verb for the processing reason mentioned above.
There may be a possibility, however, that the different judgments observed between‘why’ and ‘for what reason’ questions are due to the fact that the stories for the ‘why’
sentence and ‘for what reason’ sentence are different. To exclude this possibility, a follow-up
experiment is conducted. The procedure is the same as the one used in the main test. Thistime, however, naze ‘why’ is used in session 1 and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ is used insession 2. Only those who gave the adult-like responses in the main test participated in thisexperiment.
Table 6 shows the percentage of the correct response of the follow-up test.
Table 6 The percentages of the correct responses of the follow-up test (different age groups)
The type of a sentence
A given reading
3-year-olds why(N=3)
for what reason

Temporal adjunctEmbedded
Matrix
100%
100%
100%
100%

Conditional adjunctEmbedded Matrix
100%
100%
100%
100%

4-year-olds why(N=4)
for what reason
5-year-olds why(N=4)
for what reason

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%
100%
75%

100%
100%
100%

75%
75%
100%

100%
100%
100%

6-year-olds why(N=5)
for what reason

100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%

As in table 6, 75% of the four-year-olds correctly rejected interpreting naze ‘why’ as modifier
embedded inside a temporal adjunct. 75% of the five-year-olds correctly rejected interpretingnaze ‘why’ as a modifier embedded inside a conditional adjunct. For dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what
reason’ questions, 75% of the four-year-olds correctly accepted interpreting the wh-element-161-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

inside a conditional clause, and 75% of the five-year-olds correctly accepted interpreting it
inside a temporal adjunct. Unlike these four cases, all the other responses are identical to the
responses by the adults. The results show that there is no preference for construing one of theverbs in the test sentences for contextual reasons.
Therefore, the results imply that although both naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what
reason’ are wh-phrases for asking reasons, children as young as three know that only thelatter, which contains a wh-nominal dooiu riyuu ‘what reason’, can appear in an island. Thatis, children are sensitive to the syntactic category of these wh-expressions and know that
nominal wh-elements can be unselectively bound in situ, while wh-adverbs like naze ‘why’
cannot be unselectively bound, and therefore have to move into the specifier position of thematrix CP. In other words, children know that when naze ‘why’ moves into the specifier
position of the matrix CP across an adjunct clause, the trace of it is not properly governed,
and hence it violates the ECP.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we discussed children’s knowledge on the mechanism of unselective
binding and LF wh-movement. Based on the experimental study, I showed that children
distinguish naze ‘why’ and dooiu riyuu-de ‘for what reason’ at a very early stage of language
acquisition. Although we found that some of the children at the age of three years have notacquired the lexical knowledge of the wh-phrases used in the experiment, our study showedthat once children acquire the relevant wh-phrase, they become capable of unselective
binding, and sensitive to constraints regulating the locality of LF wh-movement.

References
Bellugi, Ursula. (1971) “Simplification in Children’s Language.” In R. Huxley and E. Ingram (eds.),
Language Acquisition: Models and Methods, 95-119. New York: Academic Press.
Bloom, Lois, Susan Merkin, and Janet Wooten. (1982). “Wh-questions: Linguistic Factors thatContribute to the Sequence of Acquisition.” Child Development 53: 1084-92.
Chomsky, Noam. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, Noam. (1986) Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clancy, Patricia. (1985) “The Acquisition of Japanese.” In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Studyof Language Acquisition (vol.1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publishers.
Collins, Chris. (1991) “Why and How Come.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 31-45.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Crain, Stephen and Rosalind Thornton. (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Goodluck, Helen, Michele Foley and Julie Sedivy. (1992) “Adjunct Island and Acquisition.” In H.
Goodluck and M. Rochemont (eds.), Island Constraints, 181-194. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

-162-

Acquisition of UB, LF Wh-Movement and Constraints on Movement (Y. Kabuto)

Huang, C.-T. James. (1982) Logical Relation in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D.
Dissertation, MIT.
Klima, Edward, and Ursula Bellugi. (1966) “Syntactic Regularities in the Speech of Children.” In J.
Lyons and R.J. Wales (eds.), Psycholinguistic Papers, 183-208. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. (1992) Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murasugi, Keiko. (1991) Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut.
O’Grady, William. (1997) Syntactic Development. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Okubo, Ai. (1967) Yooji Gengo no Hattatsu. Tokyo: Tokyodo.
Reinhart, Tanya. (1998) “Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program.” Natural Language
Semantics 6: 29-56.
Stromswold, Karin. (1990) Learnability and the Acquisition of Auxiliaries. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Sugisaki, Koji. (1999) “LF Wh-Movement in Child Japanese.” Paper presented at GALA ’99.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A-bar dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation.
MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (2006) Lectures on the Syntax & Semantics of How and Why. Handout of theSummer Intensive Seminar at Nanzan University, September 12th-13th, 2006.

-163-