VERY EARLY PARAMETER-SETTING: NEW EVIDENCE*
Koji Sugisaki
Mie University

1. Introduction
Over the past twenty years, language acquisition studies within the Principles-andParameters approach (Chomsky 1981) have convincingly demonstrated that the invariant
principles of UG constrain the course of acquisition from virtually the very beginning,
namely as soon as the child becomes able to use relevant lexical items and structures (seeOtsu 1981 and Crain & Thornton 1998, among many others). Recent progress suggests that
this conclusion should be extended to the settings of ‘basic’ parameters. According to Wexler(1996, 1998), parameters relevant to word order and null subjects are set correctly at theearliest observable stages, contrary to the traditional expectation that parameter-setting takes
time, given its experience-dependent nature. In this study, I present two case-studies thatargue for Wexler’s view. The first case-study demonstrates that the word-order parameter iscorrectly set from the earliest stages even in Japanese, a free word-order language. The
second case-study shows that the acquisition of clitic-climbing in Spanish is consistent withan early setting of the null-subject parameter. These findings not only provide new evidence
for Wexler’s proposal, but more importantly lend further support to the postulation of innate
constraints on language variation.
2. Very Early Parameter-Setting
It has been observed at least since Brown (1973:156) that in the early speech of Englishlearning children, “the violations of normal [word] order are triflingly few.”1 The correct
word order of verb-object (or more accurately, head-complement) is displayed quite early,
which suggests that children reach the correct value of the head-parameter at an extremely
young age.

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Second Nanzan Language Acquisition
Workshop. I am grateful to the audience, especially to Keiko Murasugi and Mamoru Saito forvaluable comments. I would also like to thank David Stringer for his detailed comments andsuggestions. The usual disclaimers apply. This study was supported in part by Mie University COE
Research Award 2004-2005.
1

Still, incorrect object-verb order is observed occasionally. See Koizumi (2002) for a minimalist
analysis of these OV sentences in child English.

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

The same observation has been made in the acquisition of German. Poeppel & Wexler(1993) report that early child German exhibits a strong correlation between the structural
position of the verbs and their finiteness: [+finite] verbs systematically appear in second
clausal position, and [-finite] verbs consistently remain in final position, after the object.2(1)

a. IchIhabhaveb. Thorsten
Thorstenein dossesn
a big

Ball.
ball

Caesarhaben.
C. (= doll) have

S-V[+fin]-O

S-O-V[-fin](Poeppel & Wexler 1993:5-6)

Under the assumption that [-finite] verbs occupy their base-generated position, sentences like(1b) show that child German has the underlying object-verb order, the basic word order ofGerman that can be detected in subordinate clauses in the case of adult grammar. Again, thedata from child German suggest that the setting of the head-complement parameter iscompleted quite early.
Going back to the acquisition of English, it is well-known that before or around the ageof two, children produce sentences that lack overt subjects, as in (2):(2)

a. See window.
b. Want more apple.

(Hyams 1986:63)

The seminal work by Hyams (1986) proposed a grammar-based parametric account for thisphenomenon. Based on the observation that the availability of null-subject sentences is adistinctive property of adult Italian and Spanish, Hyams suggested that subject omission in
the child’s speech follows from the early non-adult-like setting of the null-subject parameter.
However, this parametric account of null subjects ran up against a number of empiricalchallenges (see e.g. Bloom 1990 and Valian 1991). A compelling argument against thisanalysis came from the distribution of null subjects in child language. As summarized inHyams (2001:36), various studies have shown that in a number of non-null-subject languages,
there is a strong correlation between the omission of subjects and the expression of finitenesson the verb: In these languages, children’s use of null subjects is largely contingent on the useof non-finite main verbs, as exemplified in (3).
(3)

a. Zahneteeth

pussenbrush-inf.

Germanb. Dormir
sleep-inf.

tout
all

French

nu
naked

2

For discussion of why the child grammar permits [-finite] verbs in matrix contexts, see e.g.
Hoekstra & Hyams (1998), Hyams (2001), Rizzi (1993/1994), and Wexler (1994, 1996, 1998).

− 82 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)c. Niet
not

neus
nose

snuitenblow-inf.

Dutch(Hyams 2001:36)

Since finite clauses permit null subjects in adult Italian and Spanish, this observation is
directly at odds with the parametric account. In addition, since null subjects are allowed in thesubject position of an infinitive even in adult English (and in other non-null-subject
languages) as exemplified in (4), the correlation between subject omission and finitenesssuggests that null subjects in children’s speech stems not from the mis-setting of the nullsubject parameter but from incorrect use of infinitives in root clauses.
(4)

I love [to work in my garden].

These findings concerning the word-order parameter and the null-subject parameter have
led Wexler to propose the hypothesis of Very Early Parameter-Setting (VEPS):(5)

Very Early Parameter-Setting (Wexler 1998:25):
Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stages, that is, at leastfrom the time that the child enters the two-word stage, around 18 months of age.

According to Wexler (1998:29), ‘basic parameters’ include at least the following:
(6)

a.
b.
c.
d.

Word order, e.g. VO versus OV (e.g. Swedish versus German)
V to I or not (e.g. French versus English)
V2 or not (e.g. German versus French or English)
Null subject or not (e.g. Italian versus English or French)

The hypothesis of VEPS is quite stimulating, since it goes against the traditional view
(adopted in Hyams 1986) that parameters are set relatively late, only after the child has been
exposed to ‘sufficient experience’. Yet, whether and to what extent this hypothesis is correct
remain important questions. In light of this situation, this study puts VEPS to further
empirical tests, by examining (i) the acquisition of basic word-order in Japanese and (ii) the
acquisition of clitic-climbing in Spanish.
3. Case-Study I: Acquisition of Basic Word-Order in Japanese3
3.1. VO Sentences in Japanese
In Japanese, word order is flexible. For example, both SOV and OSV orders are possible
for a simple transitive sentence:43This section is based on Sugisaki (in press).

4

For arguments that OSV order is derived from SOV order via movement (scrambling), see Saito(1985) and Nemoto (1999), among many others.

− 83 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

(7)

a. Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomchaahan-ofried rice-Acc

tabeta yo.
ate
Excl(amation)

SOV

b. Chaahan-ofried rice-Acc

Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomtabeta yo.
ate
Excl

OSV

‘Dylan ate fried rice.’
In addition, English-like SVO order is available:(8)

Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomtabeta yo,
ate
Excl

chaahan-o.
fried rice-Acc

SVO

Yet such SVO sentences exhibit various restrictions that do not apply to SOV order. First,
SVO order cannot appear in embedded contexts.
(9)a. Susan-ga [ Dylan-ga
Susan-Nom Dylan-Nom

chaahan-ofried rice-Acc

tabeta to ] omotteiru.
ate
C thinkb. * Susan-ga [ Dylan-ga
Susan-Nom Dylan-Nom

tabeta, chaahan-oatefried rice-Accto ] omotteiru.
C think‘Susan thinks that Dylan ate fried rice.’
Second, idiom chunks that consist of a verb and an object lose their idiomatic interpretation
when the object is located after the verb (Tanaka 2001:575).
(10)

a. Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomhara-ostomach-Acc

b.??Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nom

tatetaset uptatetaset up

yo,
Excl

yo.
Excl

hara-o.
stomach-Acc.

‘Dylan got upset.’
Third, the SVO order is incompatible with direct-object wh-questions, as illustrated in (11).
(11)

tabeta (no)?5
ateQ

a. Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomnani-owhat-Accb. * Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomtabeta (no),ateQnani-o?
what-Acc‘What did Dylan eat?’
5

The Q-particle no can be omitted when the sentence is pronounced with an appropriate question
intonation. See Yoshida & Yoshida (1997) for a detailed discussion of Q-particle drop.

− 84 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)

The existence of these restrictions on SVO sentences suggests that this is a marked order,
derived in some way from the basic SOV order, which has more freedom. In other words, thecontrasts exhibited in (9) - (11) indicate that Japanese is an SOV language that takes the headfinal value of the head-complement parameter.
Following Kuno (1978), Tanaka (2001) argues that SVO sentences in Japanese consistof two independent sentences. Under Tanaka’s analysis, the first sentence contains pro in its
object position, and the second sentence undergoes scrambling of the object and deletion of aclausal constituent. Thus, the sentence in (8) is derived in the following manner:(12)

Dylan-ga pro
Dylan-ga pro
Dylan-ga pro

tabeta yo,

Dylan-ga chaahan-o tabeta yo.
↓ scrambling of the object
tabeta yo,chaahan-o1 [ Dylan-ga t1 tabeta yo ].
↓ deletion
tabeta yo,chaahan-o1 [ Dylan-ga t1 tabeta yo ].

The assumption that the object of the first clause is pro (and not a trace) is supported by thefact that the gap can be filled with an overt lexical item, as shown in (13) (Tanaka 2001:552).
(13)

Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomsono ryouri-othat dish-Acc

tabeta yo,
ate
Excl

chaahan-o.
fried rice-Acc‘Dylan ate that dish, fried rice.’
Tanaka’s (2001) analysis neatly accounts for the three restrictions on SVO sentences
discussed above. The incompatibility with embedding illustrated in (9) is explained bywhatever rules out the repetition of the subordinate clause:(14) * Susan-ga [Susan-Nomtabeta to ]ateCDylan-ga chaahan-oDylan-Nom fried rice-Acc
omotteiru.
thinktabeta, Dylan-gaateDylan-Nomchaahan-ofried rice-Acc‘Susan thinks that Dylan ate fried rice, Dylan ate fried rice.’
The loss of idiomatic interpretation with the SVO order stems from pro in the first clause.
Under Tanaka’s analysis, the sentence in (10b) has the following underlying structure:(15)[S1 Dylan-ga pro
Dylan-Nom[ Dylan-ga t1
Dylan-Nom

tatetaset uptatetaset up

yo ],
Excl
yo ]
Excl

[S2 hara-o1
stomach-Acc]

The first clause in (15) contains an incomplete idiom: The object is an empty pronoun, whichcannot constitute an idiom chunk with the verb. The impossibility of direct-object wh-− 85 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

questions with SVO also results from this empty pronoun. The underlying structure for (11b)is represented in (16).
(16)[S1 Dylan-ga pro
Dylan-Nom[ Dylan-ga t1
Dylan-Nomtabetaatetabeta
ate

no ],
Q
no ]
Q

[S2 nani-o1
what-Acc]?

A wh-phrase in a question is inherently focused and bears new information. Thus, it cannot be
an empty pronoun in S1, making the sentence ungrammatical.
To summarize this section, we have seen that Japanese permits both SOV and SVOorders. Yet, the latter exhibits various restrictions that do not apply to the former, whichsuggests that the head-final order is the basic one. According to Tanaka (2001), the marked
SVO order in fact consists of two separate sentences, the latter of which undergoes
scrambling and deletion.
3.2. VO Sentences in Child Japanese and Very Early Parameter-Setting
Japanese-learning children around the age of 2;5 (years;months) sometimes produce
utterances that contain VO order. Some examples are provided in (17).
(17)

a. Yomoo,
read

koko.
this part(Aki, 2;7: Miyata 2004a)‘Let’s read this part.’b. Akete,
open

kore.
this

(Ryo 2;5: Miyata 2004b)‘Open this.’c. Morattekita,
got

kore.
this

‘(I) got this.’(Tai 2;2: Miyata 2004c)

There are two possible syntactic sources for these VO sentences in child Japanese. One
possibility is that the child has already figured out that the target language takes the headfinal value of the head parameter, and that VO sentences are derived in exactly the same way
as in the adult grammar (the derivation in (12), under Tanaka’s (2001) analysis). This is what
is predicted by VEPS, the hypothesis which claims that the word-order parameter is correctly
set already at the earliest stages of production. The other possibility, which is consistent witha more traditional view of parameter-setting, is that children are still entertaining both valuesof the head parameter, and that sentences like those in (17) stem from the head-initial value.
If the former possibility is right, then VO sentences in the child’s speech should obey the− 86 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)

constraints on this order discussed in the previous section. On the other hand, if the latter
possibility is correct, then OV and VO sentences should have the same syntactic status in thechild grammar, and hence VO order should show no restrictions compared to the OV order.
3.3. Transcript Analysis
In order to determine which of the two possibilities discussed in the previous section iscorrect, I analyzed three longitudinal corpora for Japanese (Miyata 2004a,b,c) from theCHILDES database (MacWhinney 2000), which provide a total sample of more than 48,000
lines of child speech. Since embedded sentences and idiom chunks are extremely rare in earlychild speech, I focused on the restriction on direct-object wh-questions exemplified in (11),repeated here as (18).
(18)

a. Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomnani-owhat-Acc

tabeta (no)?
ateQb. * Dylan-ga
Dylan-Nomtabeta (no),ateQnani-o?
what-Acc‘What did Dylan eat?’
Every sentence with either OV order or VO order that appeared after the first clear use of adirect-object wh-question was picked out by hand.6 The corpora I analyzed are summarized in(19), and the results of my analysis are presented in (20). Some actual utterances are given in
the Appendix 1.
(19)

Corpora analyzed:
Child
Aki
Ryo
Tai

(20)

Age
2;6.15 - 3;0.0
2;4.25 - 3;0.30
1;9.3 - 3;1.29# of child utterances
12,415
5,901
29,980

Collected by
Miyata (2004a)
Miyata (2004b)
Miyata (2004c)

Results of the transcript analysis:

Aki(S)OV (S)VO
Total # of utterances518
38# of direct-object wh-questions
185
0% of direct-object wh-questions
38.7
0

6

Ryo
(S)OV (S)VO
252
43
40
0
15.9
0

Tai
(S)OV (S)VO
1120
50
70
1
6.3
2

OV and VO sentences include not only sentences that contain a verb and a nominal object but
also those that contain a verb and a prepositional complement.

− 87 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

All the three children have shown a clear contrast between (S)OV and (S)VO sentences:
Both VO sentences and direct-object wh-questions occurred reasonably often, but there wasonly a single (apparent) example of an object wh-question with VO order.7 This contrast
suggests that young Japanese-learning children already know that the head-final value is thecorrect setting, and that VO sentences have the same syntactic basis as for adults. Thus, theacquisition of word order in Japanese provides a new piece of evidence for the recent
proposal of VEPS.
4. Case-Study II: Acquisition of Clitic-Climbing in Spanish8
4.1. Clitic-Climbing and Kayne’s (1989) Parametric Proposal
One of the parametric differences that have been of central interest in the comparativesyntax of Romance languages is the possibility of clitic-climbing. As illustrated in (21),Spanish permits the pronoun lo ‘it’ to appear as a clitic either (i) on the infinitival verb bywhich it is selected or (ii) on certain types of matrix verb. The latter option is known as thephenomenon of clitic-climbing. French, in contrast, does not allow this option, as exemplified
in (22).9(21)

Spanish:a. non-climbing:

Quierowant-1Sgver+lo.
see+MSg‘I want to see it.’b. clitic-climbing:Lo
MSgquierowant-1sg

ver.
see

7

The single apparent example of an object wh-question with VO order is given in (i). A plausible
analysis of this example would be that the child intended to say the sentence in (ii) (which isgrammatical in adult Japanese) but mispronounced dokoka-ni ‘somewhere’ as doko-ni ‘where’.
(i) minna
everyonehaitta no-ka-na,
entered Q

doko-ni.
where(ii) minna
everyonehaitta no-ka-na,
entered Q

dokoka-ni.
somewhere(Tai 2;10.6: file t950216)‘Did everyone enter somewhere?’
8This section is based on Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Snyder & Sugisaki (to appear).

9

French allows clitic-climbing in very limited environments (specifically, in certain causative
constructions). See Kayne (1989) for relevant discussions.

− 88 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)(22)

French:a. non-climbing:Je veux
I want

le
MSg

voir.
see

‘I want to see it.’b. clitic-climbing:* Je le
I MSg

veux
want

voir.
see

Given this intriguing contrast between Spanish and French, a number of syntactic studies
have addressed the issue of what parameter is responsible for this difference between theseclosely-related languages.
Kayne (1989) proposed that the cross-linguistic variation in clitic-climbing is tightly
connected to another notable difference between Spanish and French: the possibility of nullsubjects. Spanish permits null subjects by taking the positive value of the null-subject
parameter, as shown in (23). In contrast, French takes the negative setting and disallows nullsubjects, as shown in (24).
(23)

Spanish:a. overt subject:

Él estáhe isen la escuela.
at the school‘He is at the school.’b. null subject:(24)

French:a. overt subject:

Está
is

en la escuela.
at the school

Il esthe isà l’ école.
at the school‘He is at the school.’b. null subject:

*

Est
is

à l’ école.
at the school

Under Kayne’s analysis, the correlation between the availability of clitic-climbing andthe licensing of null subjects is obtained in the following way. He postulates that the nullsubject parameter consists of two values, which distinguish between languages with ‘strong’
INFL and languages with ‘weak’ INFL.
(25)

Null-Subject Parameter: INFL is {strong, weak}.

Spanish selects the ‘strong’ value, and French takes the ‘weak’ one. The ‘strong’ INFL has
the following two properties. First, it licenses null subjects in its specifier position. Second, it
L-marks its VP complement.

− 89 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004(26)

a. prolicensestrong Infl [VP … ]b. … V [IP PRO strong Infl
L-mark[VP … clitic … ]In order for a clitic to move up from an infinitival complement to the matrix clause, it must beable to escape from the infinitival VP. However, VP is potentially a barrier to antecedent
government, and it loses its barrierhood only when it is L-marked by a ‘strong’ INFL. Thus,
clitic-climbing is possible only in languages with the ‘strong’ INFL that licenses nullsubjects.10,11
4.2. Prediction for the Acquisition of Spanish
Under Kayne’s (1989) parametric system, the availability of clitic-climbing follows fromthe positive setting of the null-subject parameter. As for child language, the hypothesis of
VEPS claims that the null-subject parameter is set correctly from the earliest observablestages. If both of these claims are correct, then the essential prerequisite for clitic-climbing isavailable to children from very early on and hence we make the following prediction.
(27)

Prediction for Acquisition:a. Spanish-learning children will begin to use clitic-climbing as soon as theyacquire other relevant knowledge (specifically, clitics and infinitival
complements).
b. In other words, they will never go through a stage in which the non-climbing
option (as in (21a)) is consistently chosen over clitic-climbing (as in (21b)).

4.3. Transcript Analysis
In order to evaluate the acquisitional prediction in (27), we selected five longitudinal
corpora for Spanish from the CHILDES database (MacWhinney 2000), which provide a total
sample of more than 23,000 lines of child speech. The corpora we analyzed are summarizedin (28).

10

Under Kayne’s account, wh-movement in French escapes VP by adjoining to this maximal
projection. Clitics do not have this option because clitics, being heads, may adjoin to another head but
never to a maximal projection.
11

For a minimalist implementation of Kayne’s parametric proposal, see Ogawa (2003).

− 90 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)(28)

Corpora Analyzed
Child
Juan
Koki
María
EduardEmilioAge2;8 - 4;8
1;7 - 2;11
2;0 - 3;10
1;4 - 3;10
2;5 - 4;6

# of child utterances
2,520
4,303
7,706
1,560
7,129

Collected by
LinanzaMontes (Montes 1987, 1992)
Ornat (López Ornat 1994)
Serra
Vila

The results are summarized in (29). We take the age of acquisition for a construction tobe “the age of first clear use, followed soon after by additional uses” (Stromswold 1996,
Snyder & Stromswold 1997).12 One child (Eduard) produced only clitic-climbing forms by
the end of his corpus. The remaining four children showed uses of both non-climbing andclitic-climbing forms. Among these four, two children (Koki and Emilio) produced the nonclimbing option first, and the other two children (Juan and María) produced the cliticclimbing form first. The former type of child is potentially problematic for the prediction in(27), which maintains that Spanish-learning children should never acquire the non-climbing
option significantly earlier than clitic-climbing.
In order to determine whether the observed age difference between the acquisition of the
non-climbing form and the acquisition of clitic-climbing is statistically significant in thedevelopment of these two children, we counted the number of clear uses of non-climbing
forms before the first clear use of clitic-climbing. We next calculated the relative frequency of
the two constructions in the child’s own speech, starting with the transcript after the first clear
use of clitic-climbing, and continuing through the end of the corpus. We then used a Binomial
Test to obtain the probability of sampling the observed number of tokens of the non-climbing
construction simply by chance, before the first use of the clitic-climbing construction, under
the null hypothesis that both became available concurrently and had the same relative
probability of use as in later transcripts (Stromswold 1996, Snyder & Stromswold 1997).
The results of the statistical analysis show that the age-discrepancy did not reachsignificance (p > .10 by Binomial Test). Thus, the prediction in (27) was borne out: We foundno child who acquired the non-climbing form significantly earlier than clitic-climbing. These
results in turn provide support for (i) Kayne’s (1989) parametric proposal that the possibilityof clitic-climbing follows directly from the positive setting of the null-subject parameter, and(ii) the VEPS hypothesis that the null-subject parameter constitutes one of the early-set
parameters.

(29)
12

Results of the Transcript Analysis:

See Appendix 2 for the actual utterances.

− 91 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Ages of First Clear Use
non-climbing
clitic-climbing
1;7
2;1
2;5
2;8
3;9
2;8
2;1
2;0
Not attested
3;10

Child
Koki
EmilioJuan
María
Eduardp=p > .10
p > .10
N/A
N/A

5. Conclusion
This study has provided two new pieces of evidence for the hypothesis of Very Early
Parameter-Setting, as proposed by Wexler (1996, 1998). The first case-study presented datafrom child Japanese which reveal early setting of the word-order parameter, and the second
case-study showed that the acquisition of clitic-climbing in Spanish is consistent with theprediction from the early setting of the null-subject parameter. Such early acquisition of
language-particular knowledge lends further support to the postulation of innate constraints
on language variation.
These findings lead to a broader question. Is the ‘strongest’ form of VEPS correct? Inother words, does VEPS hold for the setting of every parameter? Some recent acquisition
studies indicate that the answer is no (see Snyder 2001, 2002, and Sugisaki 2003). In this case,a sensible following question would be what distinguishes the parameters that undergo early
fixation from those that undergo delayed fixation. A few recent studies have already started toaddress this important issue (e.g. Guasti 2003, Rizzi 2004), but I will leave my own
investigation for future research.

Appendix 1: Examples from Child Japanese(30)

Examples from Aki’s speech:a. (S)OV:
koko juusu
utteru.
here
soft drinks sell‘This (shop) sells soft drinks.’b. wh-question:

empitsu
pencildoko ittano@fp?13
where went-Q‘Where did the pencil go?’c. (S)VO:
13

a

mite,

(file 36: 2;7.12)

kore!

The symbol “@fp” stands for “final particle”.

− 92 −(file 36: 2;7.12)

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)

hey look

this‘Hey, look at this!’(31)

Examples from Ryo’s speech:a. (S)OV:
Hirokun
Hiro

no
Poss

(file 36: 2;7.12)

tsukue ni
deskDatnotta.
got on‘(I) got on Hiro’s desk.’
b. wh-question:

nani
what

(file r20927: 2;9.27)

yatteru no@fp ?
doing Q

‘What (are you) doing?’c. (S)VO:

Ryookun
Ryo

wa
Top

(file r20927: 2;9.27)

iku,
gakkoo.
will-go school‘Ryo will go to school.’(32)

Examples from Tai’s speech:a. (S)VO:
bokujooranchmotteru
have(file r20913: 2;9.13)

yo.
Excl

‘(I) have a ranch.’b. wh-question:

hoochookitchen knife(file t940414: 2;0.4)

waTop

doko itchatta?
where went

‘Where did the kitchen knife go?’c. (S)VO:

jibun de motteru,
oneself by keep

(file t940714: 2;3.4)

kore.
this

‘(I) keep this by myself.’(file t940526: 2;1.16)

Appendix 2: First Clear Uses in the Acquisition of Spanish
(33)

Koki:
a. non-climbing (1;7):

no puede cerrar+lo
not canclose+it-3pMSg-CL‘I cannot close it.’b. clitic-climbing (2;1):me
1pSg-CLvoygoa hacer
to make‘I’m going to make poo poo.’(34)

Emilio:− 93 −

popó
poo pooNanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

a. non-climbing (2;5):voygoa poner+lato put+3pFSg-CL

aquí
here

‘I’m going to put it here.’b. clitic-climbing (2;8):

hoy
today

no me
not 1pSg-CL

puedo levantar
canstand up

‘I cannot stand up today.’
(35)

Juan:
a. clitic-climbing (2;8):te
1pSg-CL

tiene
has

que
to

bajar
put down‘He has to put you down.’
b. non-climbing (3;9):todos
a coger+la
everybody to catch+3pFSg-CL‘Everybody go to catch it.’(36)

María:
a. clitic-climbing (2;0):

me
1pSg

vas
go

a comprar
to buyunos?
ones‘Are you going to buy me some ones?’b. non-climbing (2;1)

vamos a guardar+losgo
to lock+3pMPl-CL‘Let’s lock them.’(37)

Eduardo:a. clitic-climbing (3;10):

la
3pFSg

voy
go

a ponerto put‘I’m going to put it.’b. non-climbing:not attested

References
Bloom, Paul (1990) “Subjectless Sentences in Child Language,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491-504.
Brown, Roger (1973) A First Language: The Early Stages, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Crain, Stephen and Rosalind Thornton (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide toExperiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

− 94 −

Very Early Parameter-Setting: New Evidence (K. Sugisaki)

Guasti, Maria Teresa (2003) “How Parameters are Set and the Order of Setting,” in Yukio Otsu ed.,The Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 2358.
Hoekstra, Teun, and Nina Hyams (1998) “Aspects of Root Infinitives,” Lingua 106, 81-112.
Hyams, Nina (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Hyams, Nina (2001) “Now You Hear It, Now You Don't: The Nature of Optionality in Child
Grammars,” in Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Domínguez and Aimee Johansen eds., Proceedings ofthe 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla Press,
Somerville, MA, 34-58.
Kayne, Richard (1989) “Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing,” in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir eds.,
The Null Subject Parameter, Reidel, Dordrecht, 239-261.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2002) “The Split VP Hypothesis: Evidence from Language Acquisition,” inProceedings of the Third Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference, MITWPL
41, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, 267-285.
Kuno, Susumu (1978) Danwa-no Bunpoo [Grammar of Discourse], Taishukan, Tokyo.
López Ornat, Susana (1994) La Adquisición de la Lengua Española, Siglo XXI, Madrid.
MacWhinney, Brian (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Miyata, Susanne (2004a) Japanese: Aki Corpus, TalkBank, Pittsburgh, PA, 1-59642-055-3.
Miyata, Susanne (2004b) Japanese: Ryo Corpus, TalkBank, Pittsburgh, PA, 1-59642-056-1.
Miyata, Susanne (2004c) Japanese: Tai Corpus, TalkBank, Pittsburgh, PA, 1-59642-057-X.
Montes, Rosa (1987) Secuencias de Clarificación en Conversaciones con Niños (Morphe 3-4),
Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.
Montes, Rosa (1992) Achieving Understanding: Repair Mechanisms in Mother-Child Conversations,
Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
Nemoto, Naoko (1999) “Scrambling,” in Natsuko Tsujimura ed., The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, Blackwell, New York, 121-153.
Ogawa, Yoshiki (2003) “Microparametric Syntax and Minimalist Syntax,” English Linguistics 20,
299-355.
Otsu, Yukio (1981) Universal Grammar and Syntactic Development in Children: Toward a Theory ofSyntactic Development, Doctral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Poeppel, David, and Ken Wexler (1993) “The Full Competence Hypothesis of Clause Structure in
Early German,” Language 69, 1-33.
Rizzi, Luigi (1993/1994) “Some Notes on Linguistic Theory and Language Development: The Case of
Root Infinitives,” Language Acquisition 3, 371-394.
Rizzi, Luigi (2004) “On the Grammatical Basis of Language Development: A Case Study,” in
Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne eds., Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel, William Snyder, and Koji Sugisaki (To appear) “Clitic-Climbing inChild Spanish and the Theory of Parameters,” in BUCLD 29 Proceedings Supplement.
Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Snyder, William (2001) “On the Nature of Syntactic Variation: Evidence from Complex Predicatesand Complex Word-Formation,” Language 77, 324-342.
Snyder, William (2002) “Parameters: The View from Child Language,” in Yukio Otsu ed.,Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 2744.
Snyder, William, and Karin Stromswold (1997) “The Structure and Acquisition of English Dative
Constructions,” Linguistic Inquiry 28, 281-317.

− 95 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Stromswold, Karin (1996) “Analyzing Children's Spontaneous Speech,” in Dana McDaniel, Cecile
McKee and Helen Smith Cairns eds., Methods for Assessing Children's Syntax, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 23-53.
Sugisaki, Koji (2003) Innate Constraints on Language Variation: Evidence from Child Language,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sugisaki, Koji (In press) “Early Acquisition of Basic Word Order: New Evidence from Japanese,” inProceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development,
Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Massachusetts.
Tanaka, Hidekazu (2001) “Right-Dislocation as Scrambling,” Journal of Linguistics 37, 551-579.
Valian, Virginia (1991) “Syntactic Subjects in the Early Speech of American and Italian Children,”Cognition 40, 21-81.
Wexler, Ken (1994) “Optional Infinitives, Head Movement, and the Economy of Derivations,” inDavid Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein eds., Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 305-350.
Wexler, Ken (1996) “The Development of Inflection in a Biologically Based Theory of Language
Acquisition,” in Mabel. L. Rice ed., Toward a Genetics of Language, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, 113-144.
Wexler, Ken (1998) “Very Early Parameter Setting and the Unique Checking Constraint: A New
Explanation of the Optional Infinitive Sstage,” Lingua 106, 23-79.
Yoshida, Keiko, and Tomoyuki Yoshida (1997) “Question Marker Drop in Japanese,” International
Christian University Language Research Bulletin 11, 37-54.

− 96 −