THE ACQUISITION OF ARGUMENT ELLIPSIS IN JAPANESE:
A PRELIMINARY STUDY*
Koji Sugisaki
Mie University

1.

Introduction

Japanese is a language that allows productive use of null arguments in finite clauses. In(2), which constitutes replies to (1), either the matrix subject or the matrix object is notovertly expressed. Similarly, in (3), both the subject and the object of the embedded clause
are phonologically empty.
(1)

Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP

doo simasita
how didka?
Q‘What happened to Taroo?’(2)a.

e ano kaisya-ni
syuusyoku simasita.
that company-DAT employment did‘He got employed by that company.’b.

Ano kaisya-ga
e saiyouthat company-NOM
recruitment

simasita.
did‘That company recruited him.’(3)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni[ e e saiyou
suru
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
recruitment doto ] yakusokusita.
that promised‘Hanako promised Taroo that she will recruit him.’
It has been observed at least since Otani and Whitman (1991) that null objects inJapanese allow sloppy-identity interpretation when their antecedent contains the anaphor* I would like to thank Ayaka Kashitani and Yuusuke Suzuki for their help in conducting theexperiment reported in this study. I am grateful to Cedric Boeckx, Shigeru Miyagawa, Koichi Otaki,
Mamoru Saito, and especially Keiko Murasugi for their detailed comments on an earlier version ofthis study (Sugisaki 2007). The usual disclaimers apply. The research reported here was supported inpart by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science to Center for Linguistics at
Nanzan University for establishment of centers for advanced research, and also by a research grant foryoung researchers from Mie University in 2008. The results of a larger-scale experiment will bereported in Sugisaki (in preparation).
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 61-73©2009 Koji Sugisaki

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

zibun ‘self’. For example, the sentence with a missing object in (4b) is ambiguous: It means
either that Taroo discarded Hanako’s letter (strict-identity interpretation) or that Taroo
discarded his own letter (sloppy-identity interpretation). Oku (1998) observes that the same istrue with null subjects: The missing embedded subject in (5b) can be construed either as
Hanako’s student or as Taroo’s student.
(4)a.

Hanako-wa zibun-no tegami-o suteta.
Hanako-TOP self-GEN letter-ACC discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’b.

Taroo-mo eTaroo-also

suteta.
discarded

Lit. ‘Taroo also discarded e .’(5)a.

Hanako-wa [ zibun-no gakusei-ga
siken-nitootta to ] omotteiru.
Hanako-TOP self-GEN student-NOM exam-DAT passed that think‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 student passed the exam.’b.

Taroo-mo [ e siken-ni
tootta to ] omotteiru.
Taroo-also
exam-DAT passed that think
Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks that e passed the exam.’

This study is an interim report of my ongoing experiment which investigates whether
Japanese-speaking preschool children allow the sloppy-identity interpretation ofphonologically null subjects illustrated in (5). Even though preliminary, the results suggestthat the relevant knowledge is already in the grammar of Japanese-speaking preschoolers,
which is consistent with the recent parametric proposal that the availability of sloppy
interpretation of null arguments is tightly connected to other prominent properties of Japanese(Oku 1998, Saito 2007, Takahashi 2008).
2.

Argument Ellipsis in Japanese

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

a.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

zibun-noself-GEN

tegami-osuteta.
letter-ACC discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’-62-

The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)b.

Taroo-moTaroo-alsosore-oit-ACC

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

a.

[TP Hanako-wa [T' [VP zibun-no tegami-o tV ] [T suteV-taT ] ] ]Hanako-TOP
self-GEN letter-ACC
discarded‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter.’b.

[TP Taroo-mo [T' [VP e ] [T suteV-taT ] ] ]Taroo-also
discarded
Lit. ‘Taroo also discarded e .’(8)

[TP Taroo-mo [T' [VP zibun-no tegami-o tV ] [T suteV-taT ] ] ]Taroo-also
self-GEN letter-ACC
discarded

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

Hanako-wa [ zibun-no teian-ga
saiyousareru to ] omotteiru.
Hanako-TOP self-GEN proposal-NOM accepted-be that think‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 proposal will be accepted.’1

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

-63-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009b.

Taroo-mo [ e saiyousareru to ] omotteiru.
Taroo-also
accepted-be that think
Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks that e will be accepted.’

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

Hanako-wa [CP [DP zibun-no teian-ga ][T' saiyousareru ] to ] omotteiru.
Hanako-TOP
self-GEN proposal-NOM accepted -be that think‘Hanako1 thinks that her1 proposal will be accepted.’b.

Taroo-mo [CP [DP e ] [T' saiyousareru ] to ] omotteiru.
Taroo-also
accepted-be that think
Lit. ‘Taroo also thinks that e will be accepted.’(11)

Taroo-mo [CP [DP zibun-no teian-ga ][T' saiyousareru] to ] omotteiru.
Taroo-also
self-GEN proposal-NOM accepted-be that think

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

a.

Maria cree[que su propuesta será
aceptada ] yMaria believes that her proposal will-be accepted and‘Maria1 believes that her1 proposal will be accepted and …’

2

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

3

See also Takahashi (2007) for a detailed cross-linguistic survey concerning the availability ofargument ellipsis.

-64-

The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)

b.

Juan
Juan

también cree
[ que e será
aceptada. ]toobelieves thatwill-be accepted

Lit. ‘Juan also believes that e will be accepted.’(13)

Bill1 ate his1 shoe, and John ate, too.

(Oku 1998: 305)
(Oku 1998: 311)

To account for the cross-linguistic difference between Japanese on one hand and English
and Spanish on the other, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) proposed that the availability ofargument ellipsis in a given language is tightly connected to the availability of (Japanesetype) scrambling. 4 They argue that both of these properties stem from the parameter
proposed by Bošković and Takahashi (1998), which can be called the Parameter of θ-feature
Strength.
(14)

The Parameter of θ-feature Strength: θ-features are {strong, weak}.

According to Bošković and Takahashi (1998), θ-features of a verb are weak in Japanese,while they are strong in non-scrambling languages like English and Spanish. Given their
weak nature, θ-features of Japanese verbs need not be checked in overt syntax. This propertyof Japanese makes it possible for an argument to be base-generated in a ‘scrambled’ position,
as shown in (15a). In the LF component, the ‘scrambled’ object undergoes a lowering
operation and merges with the predicate, in order to check the selectional features of the verb.
(15) a.

In overt syntax:[TP Ken-o [TP Taroo-ga[CP Hanako-ga[VP sikatta ] to ] itta. ] ]Ken-ACC Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
scolded that said
Lit. ‘Ken, Taroo said that Hanako scolded.’b.

In the LF component:[TP[TP Taroo-ga[CP Hanako-ga [VP Ken-osikatta ] to ] itta. ]]Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM Ken-ACC scolded that said

Such a derivation is not available in English or Spanish, since θ-features in these languages
are strong and hence they must be checked in overt syntax soon after verbs are introduced
into the derivation.
Building on Bošković and Takahashi’s LF analysis of scrambling, Oku (1998) and
Takahashi (2008) argue that the possibility of argument ellipsis in Japanese also follows fromthe weakness of θ-features. Since θ-features of Japanese verbs need not undergo checking in
overt syntax, an argument position can be literally absent in Japanese, as shown in (16a). At
LF, the second clause in (16b) comes to have a licit transitive configuration through the LFcopying of an antecedent DP.
4

See also Saito (2003) for a related proposal.

-65-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(16)

a.

In overt syntax:
Hanako-wa [VP [ zibun-no tegami-o ] suteta. ]Hanako-TOP
self-GEN letter-ACC discarded
Taroo-moTaroo-also[VP

suteta.]discarded

Lit. ‘Hanako1 discarded her1 letter. Taroo also discarded e .’b. In the LF component:
Hanako-wa [VP
Hanako-TOP

Taroo-moTaroo-also[ zibun-no tegami-o ] suteta. ]self-GEN letter-ACC discarded
LF-Copy[VP [ zibun-no tegami-o] suteta. ]self-GEN letter-ACC discardedThis way, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) attribute both the availability of scrambling andthat of argument ellipsis to a single parametric property of Japanese: the property that θfeatures are weak.
In contrast, building on Kuroda’s (1988) proposal that the main source of the various
differences between English and Japanese is the presence vs. absence of obligatory
agreement, Saito (2007) claims that argument ellipsis in Japanese arises from the absence ofovert agreement in this language. According to Chomsky (2000), agreement is a probe-goalrelation induced by a set of uninterpretable φ-features on a functional head (T or v). In thecase of object agreement illustrated in (17), the uninterpretable φ-features of v agree with thematching, interpretable φ-set of the object DP. The object satisfies the condition that the goal
must have an uninterpretable Case feature (the Activation Condition), and hence qualifies as agoal. The agreement relation results in the deletion of the uninterpretable φ-features on v andthe uninterpretable Case feature of the DP.
(17)

vP
v
[φ-features]

VP
V

DP
[φ-features, Case feature]

Saito (2007) argues that the agreement relation illustrated above is obligatory in languages
like English and Spanish, and that this obligatoriness of agreement excludes argument ellipsis
from these languages. For example, in the English example in (18), the object DP his friendin (18a) must be copied into the object position of (18b) at LF for the latter sentence to beproperly interpreted. If we assume that only LF objects can be employed in LF-copying, the-66-The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)

DP his friend must be copied into (18a) from the LF representation of (18b).5 Yet, this DP
has already agreed with its v in (18a) and hence, its uninterpretable Case feature has alreadybeen deleted. Then, given the Activation Condition, it does not qualify as a goal in therequired agree relation in (18b), and consequently, the derivation crashes due to the remaining
uninterpretable φ-features of v.
(18)

a.

John brought [DP his friend].

b. *But Bill did not bring.

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

a.

Taroo-wa [DP zibun-no tomodati-o ] turetekita.
Taroo-TOP
self-GEN friend-ACC brought‘Taroo1 brought his1 friend.’b.

Demo Hanako-wa
but
Hanako-TOP

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

Demo Hanako-wa [DP zibun-no tomodati-o ] tureteko-nakatta.
but
Hanako-TOP
self-GEN friend-ACC brought-not

To summarize this section, we have seen evidence that Japanese permits ellipsis ofargument DPs. Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) proposed that the presence of argument
ellipsis in Japanese and its absence in English and Spanish are correlated with the availabilityof (Japanese-type) scrambling. In contrast, developing the idea of Kuroda (1998), Saito(2007) claimed that the possibility of argument ellipsis in Japanese is closely tied to theabsence of overt agreement in this language. Even though these proposals significantly differ
in their details, they share the fundamental assumption that a parameter of UG establishes atight connection between the availability of argument ellipsis and other prominent properties
of Japanese. My experiment to be presented below is an attempt to evaluate this basic insightof their proposals, by investigating the acquisition of Japanese.

5

See Saito (2007) for evidence that only LF objects can be employed in the LF-copying operation
involved in argument ellipsis.

-67-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 20093.

Prediction for Child Japanese

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

a.

Kooen-nipark-inahirusan-ga imasita.
duck-NOM was‘There was a duck in the park.’b.

Sono ahirusan-othe duck-ACC

kamesan-ga
turtle-NOM

osimasita.
pushed‘A turtle pushed the duck.’Hyams (2002) summarizes the results of various acquisition studies, and observes thatchildren acquiring “rich” agreement languages such as Italian and Catalan obey subject-verb
agreement requirement from the earliest stage (before or around the age of two), even before
they produce all the forms in a paradigm. For example, singular verb morphology is typicallyacquired before plural morphology, and first- and third-person forms appear earlier thansecond-person forms. Nevertheless, agreement is almost always correct for those forms thatare used. According to Hyams (2002), across children and languages, agreement errors under
4%. Given the finding that agreement errors are extremely rare in the acquisition of “rich”
agreement languages, we can reasonably speculate that children acquiring agreementlesslanguages like Japanese would also be sensitive to the absence of overt agreement from theearly stages of acquisition.
Given that we have reasons to believe that the properties that are allegedly connected toargument ellipsis are acquired early, the parametric proposals by Oku (1998), Saito (2007),and Takahashi (2008) should make the following prediction:(22)

Prediction for Child Japanese:
Japanese-speaking preschool children should have knowledge of argument ellipsis.

Matsuo (2007) and Sugisaki (2007) conducted an experiment to investigate how Japanesespeaking children interpret null-object sentences as in (23).

6

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

-68-The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)

(23)

a.

Zousan-ga
zibun-no oyatsu-otabeteru yo.
elephant-NOM self-GEN snack-ACC eating EXCL
‘An elephant1 is eating his1 snack.’b.

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

a.

Zhangsan bu xihuan guany ziji deyaoyan.
Zhangsan not like
about self GEN rumour‘Zhangsan does not like rumours about himself.’b.

Mali ye bu xihuan e .
Mali also not like
Lit. ‘Mali does not like e either.’

(25)

a.

Zhangsan shuo ziji dehaizi mei na qian.
Zhangsan say self GEN child not take money‘Zhangsan said that his child did not take money.’b.

Lisi ye shuo e mei
Lisi too say
notna qian.
take money

Lit. ‘Lisi also said that e did not take money.’ (Takahashi 2008: 415)
This observation suggests that UG permits two options to derive the sloppy interpretation ofnull objects: VP-ellipsis (preceded by overt V-to-T raising) as in Chinese, and argument
ellipsis as in Japanese. In order to make sure that child Japanese is not like adult Chinese andthat it indeed has argument ellipsis, the new experiment reported in the next section makes-69-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009use of sentences that contain null argument in the subject position, as illustrated in (5) and(9).
4.

Experiment

In order to re-evaluate the validity of the prediction in (22), we conducted an experimentwith 10 Japanese-speaking children, ranging in age from 4;11 (years; months) to 5;11 (meanage, 5;03). These children were divided into two groups. One group of children(Experimental Group) was presented test sentences involving an embedded clause with a nullsubject, as in (26). The other group of children (Control Group) was presented test sentences
involving an overt pronoun in the embedded subject position, as in (27). Both types ofsentences were accompanied by exactly the same stories.
(26)

Test sentence involving a null subject:a. Zousan-wa [ zibun-no e-ga
itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
elephant-TOP self-GEN picture-NOM the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b.

Raionsan-mo [ e itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
lion-also
the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The lion also thinks that e is the best.’(27)

Test sentence involving an overt pronominal subject:a. Zousan-wa [ zibun-no e-ga
itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
elephant-TOP self-GEN picture-NOM the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b.

Raionsan-mo [ sore-ga itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
lion-also
it-NOM the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The lion also thinks that it is the best.’

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

-70-

The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)(28)

Sample Story 1 (which investigates the availability of sloppy interpretation):
An elephant, a lion, and a monkey are drawing their portraits. The elephant said to thelion, “Hey, look at this! I think my portrait is the best.” Looking at the elephant’s
portrait, the lion replied, “Your portrait looks very good, but I think mine is the best.”
Puppet:Zousan-wa[ zibun-no e-ga
itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
elephant-TOP self-GEN picture-NOM the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’
Raionsan-mo [ e / sore-ga itiban zyouzuda to ] omotteru yo.
lion-also
it-NOM the-first goodthat think
EXCL‘The lion also thinks that e / it is the best.’(29)

Sample Story 2 (which investigates the availability of strict interpretation):
A rabbit, a squirrel, and a dog are reading their picture books. The rabbit said to thesquirrel, “Hey, look at this! I think my picture book is the most amusing.” Looking at
the rabbit’s picture book, the squirrel replied, “Yes, I agree. My picture book is very
good, but I think yours is the most amusing.”
Puppet:Usagisan-wa [ zibun-no ehon-ga
itiban omosiroi to ] omotteru yo.
rabbit-TOP self-GEN picture book-NOM the-first amusing that think
EXCL‘The rabbit1 thinks that her1 picture book is the most amusing.’
Risusan-mo [ e / sore-ga itiban omosiroi to ] omotteru yo.
squirrel-also
it-NOM the-first amusing that think
EXCL‘The squirrel also thinks that e / it is the most amusing.’-71-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

The results are summarized in Table 1. Children permitted strict-identity interpretation
both for the sentences with a null subject and the sentences with an overt pronominal subject.
In contrast, children showed a strong tendency to allow sloppy-identity interpretation only
when the sentence contains a null subject, and to disallow this reading when the sentence
involves an overt pronominal subject. These results are in conformity with the prediction in(22), and suggest that the knowledge of argument ellipsis is already in the grammar ofJapanese-speaking preschool children.
strict-identity interpretation
Sentences involving
argument ellipsis
Sentences involving
an overt pronoun

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

10/10

100%

08/10

80%

10/10

100%

02/10

20%

Table 1: Summary of the Results
6.

Conclusion

Even though the results are still preliminary in that the number of children tested isrelatively small at this point, we obtained a clear indication that Japanese-speaking preschool
children permit sloppy-identity interpretation for null-subject sentences. The results of myexperiment provide evidence that Japanese-speaking preschoolers already have knowledge ofargument ellipsis, in conformity with the prediction in (22). The evidence presented in thisstudy is more convincing than the one presented in Sugisaki (2007), given that the newexperiment made use of sentences involving null subjects, and hence that the sloppy
interpretation children provided to these empty elements cannot be attributed to VP-ellipsis.
The findings of this study are consistent with the parametric proposals by Oku (1998), Saito(2007), and Takahashi (2008) that the availability of argument ellipsis in Japanese is closely
related to other prominent characteristics of this language. A broader implication of this study
is that child language acquisition constitutes an important testing ground for the evaluation ofparametric proposals (Sugisaki 2003, Snyder 2007).

References
Bošković, Ž, and D. Takahashi (1998) “Scrambling and Last Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89-155.
Crain, S. and R. Thornton (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on
the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics, MIT Pres, Cambridge, Mass..
Hoji, H. (1998) “Null Object and Sloppy Identity in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 127-152.

-72-

The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study (K. Sugisaki)

Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) “Remarks on the Status of the Null Object,” in Robert Freiden, ed., Principles
and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Pres, Cambridge, Mass., 56-76.
Hyams, N. (2002) “Clausal Structure in Child Greek: A Reply to Varlokosta, Vainilla and Rohbacher
and a Reanalysis,” The Linguistic Review 19, 225-269.
Kim, S.-W. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255-284.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Matsuo, A. (2007) “Differing Interpretations of Empty Categories in English and Japanese VP Ellipsis
Contexts,” Language Acquisition 14, 3-29.
Murasugi, K., and T. Kawamura (2005) “On the Acquisition of Scrambling in Japanese,” in J. Sabel
and M. Saito, eds., The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 221-242.
Oku, S. (1998) “LF Copy Analysis of Japanese Null Arguments,” CLS 34, 299-314.
Otani, K, and J. Whitman (1991) “V-raising and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358.
Otsu, Y. (1994) “Early Acquisition of Scrambling in Japanese,” in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz,
eds., Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam,
253-264.
Saito, M. (2003) “On the Role of Selection in the Application of Merge,” NELS 33, 323-345.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203-227.
Snyder, W. (2007) Child Language: The Parametric Approach, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sugisaki, K. (2003) Innate Constraints on Language Variation: Evidence from Child Language, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sugisaki, K. (2007) “The Configurationality Parameter in the Minimalist Program: A View fromChild Japanese,” BUCLD 31, 597-608.
Sugisaki, K. (in preparation) “Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese.”
Takahashi, D. (2007) “Argument Ellipsis from a Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Interim Report,”
Paper presented at GLOW in Asia 6, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis,” in S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 394-422.

-73-