THE OVERGENERATION OF DATIVE SUBJECTS IN CHILD JAPANESE∗
Eriko Watanabe
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

In Japanese, Nominative Case is indicated by the Case-particle, ga. In complex
predicate, Transitive, and Unergative constructions, the external argument gets theNominative Case. Let’s take a look at the complex predicate constructions first. A complex
predicate consists of a main verb and a suffix, or a compound of two main verbs. In thispaper, we deal with Passives, Causatives and Benefactives, which are shown in (1a) through(1c) respectively.
(1)a.

Taroo-ga-Nom

Hanako-ni-Dattatak -are -ta.1
hit -Pass -Past‘Taroo was hit by Hanako.’b.

Taroo-ga Hanako-ni
-Nom
-Dat

hatarak -ase -ta.
work -Cau -Past‘Taroo made Hanako work.’c.

Taroo-ga-Nomhahaoya-ni
mother -Dat

dakko-shi -tehold -do -Ger

mora -tta.
Benef-Past‘Taroo asked and got (his) mother to hold him.’
These sentences in (1) are the complex predicate constructions, and the subject Taroo is theexternal argument marked with the Nominative Case.

This paper is presented at Connecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Minimalist Syntax, held at
Nanzan University on June 26, 2007. I would like to thank the organizers and all the participants, inparticular, Mamoru Saito, Masatake Arimoto, Susanne Wurmbrand, Tomohiro Fujii, Chisato Fuji, andKensuke Takita for their invaluable comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to Tomoko
Kawamura for the detailed comments and suggestions for this paper. Last but not least, I would like tothank Keiko Murasugi, my advisor, for her constant invaluable comments and suggestions for thispaper.
∗

1

Abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows:
Acc=Accusative, Benef=Benefactive, Cau=Causative, Comp=Complementizer, Dat=Dative Case,
Gen=Genitive Case, Ger=Gerund, Nom=Nominative, Pass=Passive, Past=past, Pres=present,
Q=question marker
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 243–261© 2008 Eriko Watanabe

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

The sentence (2) is a simple Transitive construction.
(2)

Taroo-ga-Nomringo -o tabe -ta.
apple-Acc eat -Past‘Taroo ate an apple.’
In (2), the subject Taroo is the external argument, and it is marked with the Nominative Case.
The example in (3) is considered to have a simple Unergative construction.
(3)

Taroo-gakawa-de oyoi -da.
-Nom river -at swim-Past‘Taroo swam in the river.’In (3), the Nominative Case appears on the external argument Taroo.
In a simple Unaccusative construction, on the other hand, the internal argument ismarked with the Nominative Case as in (4).
(4)

Fune -ga
ship -Nom

shizun -da.
sink -past‘A ship sunk.’
In (4), the internal argument fune ‘a ship’ is marked with the Nominative Case.
It has been reported in Murasugi and Machida (1998) that a Japanese-speaking child of 4
years old erroneously marks the subject with the Dative Case ni in the complex predicate
constructions. One of the example sentences is given in (5).
(5)

Onee-tyan-*ni
sister-Datotoosan-ni shika-rare -ta. (4;7-4;9)
father -Dat scold-Pass-Past(adult form(A); Onee-tyan-ga)‘(My) sister was scolded by (my) father.’(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 381)(our translation)
The sentence in (5) is a complex predicate construction with the Passive morpheme -rare. In
the adult form, the Nominative subject should appear, but in (5), the Dative is assigned to thesubject Onee-tyan ‘(my) sister’ erroneously.
Murasugi and Machida (1998) analyze that these errors reflect an intermediateacquisition stage where children do not move the VP-internal subject to TP-SPEC. Since thesubject does not move to TP-SPEC, nothing can assign any Case to the subject. When there is-244-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)

no other way to assign Case, the Dative Case ni is assigned as a default Case2 to satisfy theCase Filter.3 In (5), the Nominative Case is failed to be assigned, so the default Case appearson the subject.
In fact, the erroneous ni in the production of the Japanese-speaking children is found in
the Transitive constructions as well. Suzuki (2002) reports that a Japanese-speaking childerroneously marks the subject with the Dative ni in the Transitive constructions as in (6).
(6)

A-tyan -*ni-Dattabe-tyauyo. (2;7)
eat(A: A-tyan-ga)‘A-tyan will eat.’(Suzuki 2002: 48)(our translation)

The sentence (6) is considered to have a simple Transitive construction. The subject A-tyan iserroneously marked with the Dative Case ni.
Furthermore, we find the similar errors in the sentence with a Unergative verb as well.
The sentence in (7a) is a simple Unergative construction, and the sentence in (7b) is a simple
Transitive construction. In the Aki corpus from 1;5 to 3;0 (Miyata 2004a), the Jun corpus
from 0;6 to 3;8 (Ishii 2004), the Ryo corpus from 1;4 to 3;0 (Miyata 2004c) and the Tai
corpus from 1;5 to 3;1 (Miyata 2004b), which are transcribed in the CHILDES format third
edition (MacWhinney 2000), the erroneous Dative marking on the subject in the Transitive
and Unergative constructions is reported.
(7)a.

Kangaruu-*ni
kangaroo -Datbasu. (2;5)
bus(A: Kangaruu-ga)‘The kangaroo got on the bus.’b.

Okaasan-*ni
mother -Dat

(aki35.cha)(our translation)

yon-da. (2;8)
read-Past(A: Okaashan-ga)‘Mother, please read this.’(aki40.cha)(our translation)

In (7a) and (7b), the subject is erroneously marked with the Dative Case ni.
Interestingly, however, although we find the errors in the complex predicate, Transitive
and Unergative constructions, we never find this kind of errors in the Unaccusative
constructions.
According to Kuno (1973) and Yatsushiro (1999), among others, in the complex
2

Following Takezawa (1987) among others, Murasugi and Machida (1998) assume that the particle
ni can be inserted into the subject position when no other way of assigning Case to it is available.
3

Case Filter: *[NPα] if α has no Case and α contains a phonetic matrix or is a variable. (Chomsky
1981; 175)

-245-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

predicate, Transitive and Unergative constructions, Tense assigns the Nominative Case to thesubject. In contrast, in the Unaccusative constructions, each verb assigns the Nominative Caseto the subject. The child errors discussed above can be summarized below with this analysis.
Table 1:The Nominative Case assigner and the child Case-marking errors

Group Children’s erroneous marking
on the subject
A
The errors are observed.
(Murasugi and Machida 1998,
Suzuki 2002 and CHILDES)B
No errors are observed.

The type ofthe constructions
Complex PredicatesTransitives
Unergatives
Unaccusatives

Nominative
Case assigner
Tense

Each verb

The child errors are found in the complex predicate, Transitive, and Unergative constructions.
In these constructions, the Nominative Case is assigned by Tense. On the other hand, theerrors are never observed in the Unaccusative constructions, in which the Nominative Case isassigned by each verb.
In this paper, we provide a piece of supportive evidence for the proposal made by
Murasugi and Machida (1998). According to their analysis, the erroneous ni found in thecomplex predicates, such as Passives, can be considered to reflect an intermediate acquisition
stage where children do not move the subject to TP-SPEC. Hence, the default Case, or the
Dative Case ni, is inserted to the subject position to satisfy the Case Filter.
We extend their analysis to the Transitive and Unergative constructions, arguing that the
subject cannot get the Nominative Case VP internally in those cases. As Murasugi and
Machida (1998) discuss, the erroneous ni is found in the sentences with the Transitive and theUnergative verbs, because the subject does not move to TP-SPEC, and hence, the default
Case, or the Dative Case ni, is inserted to the subject to satisfy the Case Filter.
We further argue that their analysis provides an elegant explanation for the lack of theerrors in the Unaccusative constructions. In the Unaccusative constructions, the verb assigns
the Nominative Case to the subject inside VP. Therefore, even if the subject does not move to
TP-SPEC, the Nominative Case is assigned VP internally.
In the next section, we introduce the Japanese Nominative Case assignment system. In
section 3, we will provide a piece of supporting evidence for Murasugi and Machida’s (1998)
analysis on the erroneous Dative Case marking on the subject. Section 4 concludes this paper.
2.

The Nominative Case Assignment in the Adult Grammar

In this section, we discuss the Japanese Nominative Case assignment system. We show
how the Nominative Case is assigned in each construction; complex predicate, Transitive,
Unergative and Unaccusative constructions.

-246-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)(8a) is an example of the complex predicate constructions with the Passive morpheme-rare. Following Hoshi (1994a, 1994b, 1999), Murasugi and Machida (1998) analyze that theNP, which is marked with the Nominative Case in complex predicate constructions, is theexternal argument.4 It is derived as in (8b).
(8)

a.

Taroo-ga-Nom

Hanako-ni-Dattatak-are -ta.(=(1a))
hit -Pass -Past‘Taro was hit by Hanako.’b.

Derivation
i.

ii.

vP

Tarooiv’TP

Tarooi-ga

VP

v

vP

V’ -(r)are
Hanako

V’

PROi

T’
T

ti

v’ -ta
VP

v

V

PROi

V’ -(r)aretatak-

Hanako-ni

V’tiVtatak(cf. Hoshi 1999: 212)

The subject moves to TP-SPEC and gets the Nominative Case from Tense.
The same Nominative Case assignment system is used in the Transitive and Unergative
constructions. The derivation is given in (9) and (10) respectively.

4

It is widely considered that the Passive and Unaccusative constructions have the same Caseassignment pattern because the argument NP, which is marked with the Nominative Case ga, is theinternal argument in these constructions. On the other hand, Hoshi (1994a, 1994b, 1999) proposes thatthe argument, which is marked with ga, in the Passive constructions is the external argument.
Murasugi and Machida (1998) provide a piece of evidence for Hoshi’s (1994a, 1994b, 1999)
analysis from the acquisition viewpoint, as they find the case errors in the Passives and the case errors
are always found with the external argument. In section 3, we will show the data that children
erroneously mark with the external argument with the Dative, but not the internal argument with the
Dative. These data are compatible with the data of Murasugi and Machida (1998). Therefore, we also
employ the analysis by Hoshi (1994a, 1994b, 1999).

-247-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

(9)

a.

Taroo-ga ringo-otabe -ta.(=(2))-Nom apple -Acc eat -Past‘Taro ate an apple.’

b.
i.

ii.

vP

Taroo

v’

TP

Tarooi-ga

VP

v

vP

V’
ringo

T’

ti

T
v’

V

-ta

VP

tabe-

v
V’

ringo

V
tabe-

(10) a.

Taroo -ga oyoi -da.(=(3))-Nom swim -Past‘Taro swam.’

b.
i.

ii.

vP
Taroo

v’
VP

TP
Tarooi-ga

v

T’
vP

V’

ti
V

T
v’

VP

oyoi-

-ta
v

V’
V
oyoi-

In (9) and (10), Tense assigns the Nominative Case to the subject at TP-SPEC.
Now, let's take a look at the Nominative Case assignment system in the Unaccusative
constructions.

-248-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)(11) a.

Fune -gashizun -da.(=(4))
ship -Nom sink -past‘The ship sunk.’

b.

vP
v’
VP

v
V’

fune-gaVshizun-(11) is an example of the Unaccusative constructions. As Kuno (1973) and Yatsushiro (1999),
among others, propose, the Unaccusative predicates assign the Nominative Case to thesubject. Therefore, the subject gets the Nominative from the verb in the VP.
The Nominative Case assignment system in the adult grammar is summarized as follows;(12) The mechanism of the Nominative Case assignment in Japanese;a.

In the complex predicate, Transitive and Unergative constructions, the Nominative
Case is assigned to the subject by Tense after it moves to TP-SPEC.

b.

In the Unaccusative constructions, the Nominative Case is assigned to the subject
by each verb in the Verb Phrase.
(Kuno 1973 and Yatsushiro 1999,5 among others).

The subject gets the Nominative Case from Tense after it moves to TP-SPEC in thecomplex predicate, Transitive and Unergative constructions.6 In contrast, in the Unaccusative
constructions, the subject gets the Nominative Case from the verb in VP (Kuno 1973 andYatsushiro 1999, among others).
5

Belletti (1988) and Lasnik (1992, 1995) propose that the Unaccusative verbs assign the Partitive
Case to their object in Finnish, Italian and English. Based on their conclusion, Yatsushiro (1999)
proposes that Japanese has the similar Case Licensing system of the Unaccusatives although, inJapanese, the Unaccusative verbs license the Nominative Case to their object rather than the Partitive
Case. Her proposal is based on the scope relation between the Locative phrase and the Nominative
phrase. (See Yatsushiro 1999; ch.2)
6

Watanabe (2007, in preparation) assume that, following Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), themovement of the subject to TP-SPEC is signaled by the EPP feature of T. Furthermore, she stands on
the hypothesis that the strong EPP feature of T plays the important role in the Japanese Nominative
Case assignment. See Watanabe (in preparation) for the details.

-249-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

3.

Ni Errors in Complex Predicate Constructions and in Simple Sentences

In this section, we examine the erroneous Dative marking on the subject, which are
originally reported by Murasugi and Machida (1998). Murasugi and Machida (1998) argue
that these errors reflect the intermediate acquisition stage where a subject NP does not movefrom VP internal position to TP-SPEC in the complex predicate constructions. We report, in
this section, that such erroneous ni is found not only in the complex predicate constructions,but also in the simple sentences.
3.1.

Ni Errors in Complex Predicate Constructions (Murasugi and Machida 1998)

Murasugi and Machida (1998) conduct the observational and experimental studies on a
Japanese-speaking child, Yuuko, from 4;7 to 4;9. They report that the child erroneously marks
the subject with the Dative in the complex predicate constructions, as shown in (13).
(13) a.

Onee-tyan-*ni otoosan -ni shika -rare -ta.(4;7-4;9)(=(5))
sister-Dat father -Dat scold -Pass -Past(A: Onee-tyan-ga)‘(My) sister was scolded by (my) father.’b.

Yuu-tyan -*ni neko-tyan-ni osakana tabe-sase -ta.(4;7-4;9)-Dat cat-Dat fish
eat -Cau -Past(A:Yuu-tyan-ga)‘Yuu-tyan made a cat eat fishes.’c.

Yuuko-tyan-*ni otoosan-ni dakko-shi -te morat -ta.(4;7-4;9) (A:Yuuko-tyan-ga)-Dat father -Dat hold -do -Ger Benef -past‘Yuuko-tyan asked and got (my) father to hold her.’(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 381)(our translation)(13a) is a Passive construction, and Onee-tyan ‘(my) sister’ is the subject. (14b) is a Causative
construction, and Yuu-tyan is the subject. (14c) is a Benefactive construction with Yuuko-tyan
as the subject. In each utterance, the subject is erroneously marked with the Dative, instead of
the Nominative.
Based on the experimental and observational studies, Murasugi and Machida (1998)
closely examine the stage where the child erroneously marks the subject of the complex
predicates with the Dative Case. Interestingly, they found three pieces of evidence that show
the child has, in fact, already acquired the system of the Nominative Case assignment in boththe simple and the complex predicate constructions.
First, their results obtained from the picture identification task indicate that the childcomprehended the structure of the complex predicates “correctly”. They show that the child
identified the agent of the matrix and embedded predicate “correctly” in the complex
predicate constructions. The sentence in (14) is one of the test sentences of this task.

-250-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)(14) Kithi-tyan-ga wantyan-ni
hon -o yon -de
mora -tta.
-Nom-Dat book-Acc read -Ger Benef -Past‘Kithi-tyan asked and got wantyan to read a book for her.’(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 381)(our translation)
In (14), Kithi-tyan, which is marked with the Nominative, is the agent of the matrix verb
morau ‘Benefactive’. On the other hand, wantyan, which is marked with the Dative, is theagent of the embedded verb yomu ‘read’. The child interpreted Kithi-tyan as the agent of thematrix verb, and wantyan as the agent of the embedded verb “correctly”. Based on
Chomsky’s (1995) proposal that ‘thematic roles are conceived of as assigned to XP positions
within a VP-shell (Manzini and Savoia 1997:2)’,7 Murasugi and Machida (1998) conjecturethat the child in this stage knows the structure of the VP-shell, which is the minimum
requirement for the θ-role assignment.
Secondly, just at the time that the child makes the Case marking errors, the child shows
the adult knowledge of the Nominative Case assignment. Based on the repetition task,
Murasugi and Machida (1998) find that the child assigned the Nominative Case to the subject
in the complex predicates “correctly” as shown in (15).
(15) a.

Yuu-tyan-ga neko-tyan-ni home -rare -ta.(4;8)-Nom cat-Dat praise -Pass -Past‘Yuu-tyan was prized by the cat.’b.

Yuu-tyan-ga hon -o yom -ase -ta Aririn-ni.(4;8)-Nom book -Acc read -Cau -Past-Dat‘Yuu-tyan made Aririn read a book.’c.

A-tyan-ga Yuu-tyan-ni pantsu kashi -te morat-ta.(4;8)-Nom-Dat pants borrow-Ger Benef-Past‘A-tyan asked and got Yuu-tyan to borrow her pant.
(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 405)(our translation)(15a) is a Passive construction with Yuu-tyan as the subject. (15b) is a Causative construction,
where Yuu-tyan is the subject. (15c) is a Benefactive construction, where A-tyan is the
subject. In each case, the child assigned the Nominative to the subject “correctly.” Recall herethat the child at this stage erroneously marks the subject with the Dative in the complex
predicate constructions as in (13), repeated in (16).

7This Chomsky’s (1995) proposal is based on Larson (1988) and Hale and Keyser (1993).

-251-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2(16)(=(13))
a. Onee-tyan-*ni otoosan -ni shika -rare -ta.(4;7-4;9)
sister-Dat father -Dat scold -Pass -Past(A: Onee-tyan-ga)‘(My) sister was scolded by (my) father.’b.

Yuu-tyan -*ni neko-tyan-ni osakana tabe-sase -ta.(4;7-4;9)-Dat cat-Dat fish
eat -Cau -Past(A:Yuu-tyan-ga)‘Yuu-tyan made a cat eat fishes.’c.

Yuuko-tyan-*ni otoosan-ni dakko-shi -te morat -ta.(4;7-4;9) (A:Yuuko-tyan-ga)-Dat father -Dat hold -do -Ger Benef -past‘Yuuko-tyan asked and got (my) father to hold her.’(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 381)(our translation)

The contrast between (15) and (16) indicates that the child makes the errors on the
Nominative Case assignment although she has already acquired the Nominative Caseassignment system.
Finally, Murasugi and Machida (1998) show an interesting piece of evidence for the
hypothesis that the child in fact has the knowledge of the Nominative Case Assignment at thetime when the child makes the erroneous ni. They report that the child has already known thesystem of Case omission (Kuno 1973, Saito 1983, and Kageyama 1993). It has been observedthat in the adult Japanese, the Nominative marker on the object can be omitted, but theNominative marker on the subject cannot be omitted (Kuno 1973, Saito 1983, and Kageyama
1993). The contrast is given in (17).
(17) a.

Nominative Case on the Object: Taroo-wa okashi-(ga) tabe-tai.
-Top snack -Nom eat -want‘Taro wants to eat snacks.’b.

Nominative Case on the Subject: dare-*(ga)ki -tano ?
who-*(Nom) come -Past Q‘Who came?’(Saito 1983: 252)

Murasugi and Machida (1998) made a detailed observation, and found that the child omitted
the Nominative Case on the object, but not the Nominative Case on the subject. Some of theexamples are given in (18).
(18) a.

Yuu-tyan-ga
otechudai chu-ru.(4;8)-Nom help
do -Pres‘Yuu-tyan does help.’-252-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)b.

Yuu-tyan-wa-Topnani -φwakaruno? (4;7-4;9)
what-(Nom) understand Q‘What does Yuu-tyan understand?’(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 429-431)(our translation)
As shown in (18b), the child omitted the Nominative Case on the object, but she neveromitted the Nominative Case on the subject as in (18a).
Hence, Murasugi and Machida (1998) conclude that at the time when the child produces
the erroneous Dative Case marking on the subject of the complex predicate constructions, she
in fact knows the adult system of the Nominative Case assignment. Therefore, they conclude
that those errors in (16) are not due to the lack of the knowledge of the Nominative Caseassignment.
Furthermore, Murasugi and Machida (1998) report some crucial features of the errors.
First, the argument, which the child erroneously marks with the Dative, is the externalargument of the complex predicates. In addition, the child makes the errors only in thecomplex predicates, and she never makes the errors in the simple clauses. Recall that theexternal argument gets the Nominative Case from Tense at TP-SPEC in the complex
predicate constructions. Thus, they propose that the case errors are found when the child fails
to move the external argument to TP-SPEC. Murasugi and Machida’s (1998) proposal aresummarized as in the hypothesis given in (19).
(19) a.

A subject NP does not move to TP-SPEC.

b.

Therefore, the subject NP remains inside the Verb Phrase and cannot get theNominative Case from Tense.

c.

To satisfy the Case Filter, the subject NP gets the default Case, or the Dative ni.
(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 439-440)8(our translation)

When children form a complex predicate construction, the subject NP does not move to
TP-SPEC, but it remains inside the Verb Phrase. Thus, Tense cannot assign the Nominative
Case to the subject. Since the complex predicates do not assign the Nominative to the subject
either, the subject fails to get the Nominative Case. Consequently, the default Case, namely,
the Dative Case ni, is inserted to the subject position. Hence, we get the Dative Case errors.
We call the hypothesis in (19) as “Subject-Raising Deficit Hypothesis”, and call thoseerrors in (16) as “Subject-Raising Deficit Errors” in this paper.

8

Murasugi and Machida (1998) propose that the subject NP does not move to TP-SPEC because acomplex predicate does not move to T.

-253-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

In the next sub-section, we introduce Suzuki (2002). He reports that the Dative Caseerrors are observed in the Transitive constructions. We discuss that his findings would be able
to be elegantly explained by the Subject-Raising Deficit Hypothesis as well.
3.2.

Ni Errors in Transitive Constructions

Suzuki (2002) conducts an observational study on a Japanese-speaking child from 1;10
to 3;6. Although he does not analyze the data, his data contains a lot of the errors frequently
made by the Japanese-speaking child. Some of the examples he reported are given in (20).
(20) a.

A-tyan-*ni-Dattabe-chauyo.(2;7)
eat(A: A-tyan-ga)(=(6))‘A will eat.’b.

mama -*ni suupu
mother -Dat soupire -ta-no.(2;9)
pour-Past(A: mama-ga)‘Mother poured soup.’c.

mama -*ni dame tte
mother -Dat nothati-tta.(3;1)
say -Past(A: mama-ga)‘Mother said no.’d.

chichi-*ni
father-Dat

A-tyan-ochuusha -shi -ta.(3;7)-Acc injection -do -Past(A: chichi-ga)‘(My) father did injection to A-tyan.’(Suzuki 2002: 48)(our translation)
The sentences in (20) are the Transitive constructions. Note that the child erroneously marks
the subject with the Dative Case ni.
Just like Murasugi and Machida’s (1998) subject, Suzuki’s (2002) subject showed theknowledge of the Nominative Case assignment system even before the child started to makethe errors. The examples in (21) are some examples of Suzuki’s (2002) child’s utterances.
Here, the child marks the subject with the Nominative Case “correctly”.
(21) a.

konna-tokoro -ni
such -place -at

basu-gabus -Nomi -ta.(2;4)
be-Past‘Bus is being here.’b.

(Suzuki 2002: 44)(our translation)

A-tyan-ga
mi -ru.(2;7)-Nom see -Pres‘A-tyan sees.’(Suzuki 2002: 48)(our translation)-254-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)c.

kore A-tyan-ga
this
-Nom

ki -tayatsu
wear-Past thatdayo.(2;9)
be-Pres‘This is what A-tyan wore.’d.

A-tyan-ga
mama -ni-Nom mother-Dat(Suzuki 2002: 40)(our translation)
panchi-sare-chauyo.(3;0)
punch -Pass‘A-tyan is punched by mother.’(Suzuki 2002: 47)(our translation)

The sentence in (21a) has an Unaccusative construction. The subject basu ‘a bus’ is marked
with the Nominative Case as in the adult way. The sentence in (21b) is considered to have a
Unergative construction and the sentence in (21c) is considered to have a Transitive
construction. Here, the subject is marked with the Nominative Case “correctly”. The sentencein (21d) has a Passive construction. The subject A-tyan is marked with the Nominative, justlike adults do. These facts indicate that this child has already acquired the Nominative Caseassignment system before the Dative Case errors are observed. Therefore, the errors shown in(20) are also categorized as the Subject-Raising Deficit Errors.
3.3.

Ni Errors in Unergative and Unaccusative Constructions

So far, we have overviewed that the Subject-Raising Deficit Errors are observed in the
production of the sentences with a complex predicate and a Transitive verb. Table 2
summarizes the findings of Murasugi and Machida (1998) and Suzuki (2002).
Table 2:The child errors reported by the previous works
Constructions
Complex PredicatesTransitives
Unergatives
Unaccusatives

Dative Case marking errors
Observed (Murasugi and Machida 1998)
Observed (Suzuki 2002)
Not examined yet.

Note here that we have not checked whether or not the children erroneously mark thesubject with the Dative in the Unergative and Unaccusative constructions as well. Do theJapanese-speaking children make the errors in the Unergative and Unaccusative
constructions? Recall here Murasugi and Machida’s (1998) hypothesis.
(22)(=(19))
a. A subject NP does not move to TP-SPEC.
b.

Therefore, the subject NP remains inside the Verb Phrase and cannot get theNominative Case from Tense.

c.

To satisfy the Case Filter, the subject NP gets the default Case, or the Dative ni.
(Murasugi and Machida 1998: 439-440)(our translation)-255-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

With this hypothesis in mind, in this sub-section, based on the corpus analysis, we
examine whether or not the Japanese-speaking children make the Subject-Raising Deficit
Errors in the Unergative and Unaccusative constructions as well. We examine four corpora,
the Aki corpus from 1;5 to 3;0 (Miyata 2004a), the Jun corpus from 0;6 to 3;8 (Ishii 2004),
the Tai corpus from 1;5 to 3;0 (Miyata 2004b) and the Ryo corpus from 1;4 to 3;0 (Miyata
2004c). They are transcribed in the CHILDES format third edition (MacWhinney 2000). The
CLAN program (KWAL) was run to identify the relevant child utterances.
We, in fact, found some case errors in the Transitive and Unergative constructions, but
not in the Unaccusative constructions. The utterances in (23) are those errors in the Transitive
constructions.
(23) The errors in the Transitive constructions
a.

b.

c.

Aki-tyan-*ni.(2;7)-Dat(A: Aki-tyan-ga)‘Aki-tyan did take that.’(aki37.cha)(our translation)

Okaasan-*ni yon -da.(2;8)
mother -Dat read-Past(A: Okaashan-ga)(=(7b))‘Mother, please read this.’(aki40.cha)(our translation)

Dore-*ni tsukut-ta no?(2:10)
who -Dat make -Past Q(A:Dore-ga)‘Who made (this) ?’d.

(aki51.cha)(our translation)

Otoosan-*ni.(2;9)
father -Dat

(A: Otoosan-ga)‘Father must repair this.’e.

(20915.cha)(our translation)

Okaasan-*ni.(2;9)
mother -Dat

(A: Okaashan-ga)‘Mother bought this.’f.

Ojii-tyan -*ni.
grandfather -Dat

(20920.cha)(our translation)

Kat-taa.(3;0)
buy-Past(A: Ojii-tyan-ga)‘Grandfather bought.’
g.

(30016.cha)(our translation)

Mama-*ni. Mama-*ni. Mama-*ni.(2;2)
mother-Dat mother-Dat mother-Dat‘(My) mother ate (that).’(A: Mama-ga)(r20229.cha)(our translation)-256-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)

In (23), the arguments, which are marked with ni, are considered to be the subjects based on
the context. Therefore, we conjecture that those children erroneously marked the subject with
the Dative Case, instead of the Nominative Case.
The utterances in (24) have some errors of the Unergative constructions.
(24) The errors in the Unergatives constructionsa.

Kore-wa
this -Topneko-tyan-*ni tori -ni ikun da-tte.(2;3)
cat-Dat fetch-for go-Comp(A: neko-tyan- ga)‘This is that the cat will fetch.’
Neko-tyan-*ni ikunda-tte.(2;3)
cat-Dat go-Comp(A: Neko-tyan-ga)‘The cat will go.’b.

(t940623.cha)(our translation)

Kangaruu-*ni basu.(2;5)
kangaroo -Dat bus(A: Kangaruu-ga)(=(7a))‘The kangaroo got on the bus.’c.

(aki30.cha)(our translation)

Papa -*ni it -ta.(2;3)
father -Dat go -Past(A: Papa-ga)‘(My) father(‘s car) went.’d.

(20320.cha)(our translation)

piipo-*ni it -ta kara.(2;4)
ambulance-Dat go-Past because‘Because the ambulance went,’(A: piipoo-ga)(20407.cha)(our translation)

In (24), the Dative marked arguments are considered to be the subjects. Thus, these utterances
are also regarded as the Dative Case marking errors.
In order to see if the errors in (23) and (24) are the Subject-Raising Deficit Errors or not,we examine whether or not those children have the knowledge of the Nominative Caseassignment system. We examine the same four corpora, and found that Aki, Jun, Ryo and Tai
have the knowledge. The data is given in (25) through (28).
(25) The correct Nominative Case assignment reported in Aki corpus (Miyata 2004a)a.

aki-tyan-ga kit -ta.(2;4)-Nom cut-Past‘Aki cut that.’(aki28.cha)(our translation)-257-

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

Kaatyan-ga ne -ta.(2;3)
mother -Nom sleep-Past‘(My) mother went to the bed.’(aki23.cha)(our translation)(26) The correct Nominative Case assignment reported in Jun corpus (Ishii 2004)a.

Jun-ga kowashi-ta.(2;3)-Nom break -Past‘Jun broke that.’b.

(20327.cha)(our translation)ookii buubuu-ga ki -ta.(2;2)
big car-Nom come-Past‘A big car came.’(20205.cha)(our translation)(27) The correct Nominative Case assignment reported in Tai corpus (Miyata 2004b)a.

mikkii-tyan-ga ato huk -u.(1;9)
Mickey-Nom rest wipe-Pres‘Mickey will wipe the rest.’b.

(t940204.cha)(our translation)kocchi-ga ik -u.(1;9)
this -Nom go-Pres‘This will go.’(t940204.cha)(our translation)(28) The correct Nominative Case assignment reported in Ryo corpus (Miyata 2004c)a.

oneetyan-ga motte-iru.(1;11)
sister-Nom bring -be‘(My) sister brings that.’b.

(r11118.cha)(our translation)kocchi-ga toora-nai.(2;0)
here -Nom go through-not‘This does not go through here.’(r20317.cha)(our translation)

From (25) through (28), (a) has a simple Transitive construction, and (b) has a simple
Unergative constructions. In each sentence, those four children assigned the Nominative Caseto the subject “correctly”. These data indicate that, when Aki, Jun, Ryo and Tai make the
Dative Case marking errors, they have the knowledge of the Nominative Case assignment
system. Thus the errors in (23) and (24) are the instances of the Subject-Raising Deficit
Errors.
As the result, we found the Dative Case marking errors in the Transitive constructions-258-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)

and the Unergative constructions, but we did not find the errors in the Unaccusative
constructions. The descriptive findings are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3:The descriptive findings of the child errors

Group
Type A
Type B

Types of constructions
Complex PredicatesTransitives
Unergatives

Subject-Raising Deficit Errors
Observed (Murasugi and Machida 1998)
Observed (Suzuki 2002, CHILDES)
Observed (CHILDES)

Unaccusatives

Not Observed

To conclude, the Subject-Raising Deficit Errors are observed only in the complex predicate,Transitive, and Unergative constructions. However, we never find the errors in the
Unaccusative constructions. The Subject-Raising Deficit Hypothesis can explain why there
found the Dative Case marking errors in the complex predicate, Transitive and Unergative
constructions. As Murasugi and Machida (1998) analyze, the subject that does not move to
TP-SPEC cannot get the Nominative Case from anything. Therefore, the Dative Case isinserted as default to the subject position in order to satisfy the Case Filter. Furthermore, if we
employ the Nominative Case assignment system in the Unaccusative constructions by Kuno
(1973) and Yatsushiro (1999), among others, we can explain why it is the case that the errors
are not observed in the Unaccusative constructions. This is because the subject can get theNominative Case from each verb even if it does not move to TP-SPEC.
4.

Conclusion

In this paper, we studied the erroneous Dative marking on the subject found in theintermediate acquisition stage of the Japanese-speaking children. Our descriptive study was
based on the longitudinal studies reported in the previous literatures (Murasugi and Machida1998 and Suzuki 2002), and the analysis of CHILDES databases (MacWhinney 2000). Ourstarting point was Murasugi and Machida’s (1998) reporting that a Japanese-speaking childerroneously assigns ni on the subject in the complex predicates at the stage where she has
already acquired the adult Nominative Case assignment system. They analyze that the Dative
marking errors in the complex predicate constructions reflect the intermediate acquisition
stage where the subject does not move to TP-SPEC.9
We reported that there are ni errors found in the Transitive and Unergative constructions
as well. Those children who showed the erroneous ni-marking already had a good commandof ga-marking, as Murasugi and Machida (1998) discussed. In addition, we found no ni errors
in the Unaccusative constructions. By employing the analysis on the Nominative Case
9

Platzack (1997, 2002) discusses that EPP is parameterized; the strong EPP feature and the weak
EPP feature. Watanabe (in preparation), in her MA thesis, discusses the possibility thatJapanese-speaking children make the Subject-Raising Deficit Errors because they may wrongly
assume that the Japanese EPP feature of T is weak. See Watanabe (in preparation) for the details.

-259-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3,Vol. 2

assignment in the Unaccusatives by Kuno (1973) and Yatsushiro (1990), among others, we
discussed in this paper that we can elegantly explain the lack of the ni errors in the
Unaccusative constructions under the hypothesis proposed by Murasugi and Machida (1998).

References
Belletti, Adriana. (1988) “The Case of Unaccusatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-31.
Chomsky, Noam. (1981) Lecture on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. (1993) “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of
Syntactic Relations.” In: Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds., The View from Building
20, MIT Press, Cambridge, 53-110.
Hoshi, Hiroto. (1994a) “Theta Role Assignment, Passivization, and Excorporation,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 3, 147-78.
Hoshi, Hiroto. (1994b) Passive, Causative and Light Verbs: A Study on Theta Role Assignment, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Hoshi, Hiroto. (1999) “Japanese Passives.” In: Natsuko Tsujimura, ed., The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, Blackwell Publishers, Mass. 191-235.
Ishii, Takeo. (2004) The Jun-corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy aged 0;6-3;8,(available through CHILD Language Data Exchange System).
Kageyama, Taroo. (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei [Grammar and Word Formation], Hitsujishoboo,
Tokyo.
Kuno, Susumu. (1973) The Structure of Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Larson, Richard K. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Lasnik, Howard. (1992) “Case and Expletives: Notes toward a Parametric Account,” Linguistic
Inquiry 23, 381-405.
Lasnik, Howard. (1995) “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings,”
Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615-633.
MacWhinney, Brian. (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk 3rd Edition. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Manzini, M. Rita and Leonardo M. Savoia. (1997) “Null Subjects without pro,” (available on line at:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/97papers /manzini.pdf).
Miyata, Susanne. (2004a) The Aki-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy aged 1;5-3;0,(available through CHILD Language Data Exchange System).
Miyata, Susanne. (2004b) The Tai-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy aged 1;5-3;1,(available through CHILD Language Data Exchange System).
Miyata, Susanne. (2004c) The Ryo-Corpus-Longitudinal Speech Data of a Japanese Boy aged 1;4-3;0,(available through CHILD Language Data Exchange System).
Murasugi, Keiko and Nanako Machida. (1998) “Fukugoo-jyutsugobun no Kakutoku: 4saiji no Baai
[The Acquisition of the Complex Predicate Constructions by the Japanese-Speaking
Children],” Academia: Literature and Language 66, 381-459. Nanzan University, Nagoya.

-260-

The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese (E. Watanabe)

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. (2001) “Tense-to-C Movement: Cause and Consequences.” In
Michael J. Kenstowicz et al. eds., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,
355-426.
Platzack, Christer. (1997) “Null Subjects, Weak AGR and Syntactic Differences in Scandinavian.” In
Hoskuldur Thrainsson, Samuel David Epstein, and Steve Peter, eds., Studies in Comparative
Germanic SyntaxⅡ, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 180-196.
Platzack, Christer. (2002) “Uninterpretable Features and EPP: a Minimalist Account of Language
Build Up and Break Down,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 75, Lund, Departmentof Scandinavian Languages, 97-128.
Saito, Mamoru. (1983) “Case and Government in Japanese.” In Michael Barlow et al. eds.,
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 241-259.
Saito, Mamoru and Naoki Fukui. (1998) “Order in Phrase Structure and Movement,” Linguistic
Inquiry 29, 439-474.
Suzuki, Takeru. (2002) “Nihongo no Shiekikoubun no Shuutoku ni Kansuru Keesusutadii:
Shiekimeireikasetu [The Study on the Acquisition of the Japanese Causative
Constructions],” English Studies, Tokyo Gakugei University, Tokyo, 21-51.
Takezawa, Koichi. (1987) A Configurational Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Watanabe, Eriko. (2007) “The Overgeneration of Dative Subjects in Child Japanese.” Paper presented
at Connecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Minimalist Syntax, held at Nanzan University on
June 26, 2007.
Watanabe, Eriko. (in preparation) Yooji no Kaku no Goyoo to Rironteki Bunseki: Nihongo o Bogo to
Suru Yooji no Baai [The Analysis on the Case Errors in the Japanese-Speaking Children],
M.A. Thesis, Nanzan University.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. (1999) Case Licensing and VP Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

-261-