TWO TYPES OF CAUSATIVES IN JAPANESE AND JAPANESE SIGNLANGUAGE: A STUDY IN SYNTAX AND ACQUISITION*
Chisato Fuji
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction
It is well known that English has two types of causatives as shown in (1) and (2).

(1)

a.
b.

I caused John to go.
I made John go.

(2)

a.
b.

I opened the window.
I put a pair of shoes on John.

Causative verbs such as ‘make,’ ‘cause,’ ‘let,’ and ‘have’ express causative meanings bythemselves. They form a causative sentence with an independent non-causative predicate
which expresses a resultive event. This kind of causative is productive, and is derived bysyntactic processes. Therefore, causatives in (1) are called syntactic causatives. In syntactic
causatives, both of a causer ‘I’ and a causee ‘John’ behave as agents. Thus, syntactic
causatives have biclausal structures.
On the other hand, the causatives in (2) are called lexical causatives. In (2), transitive
verbs, ‘open’ and ‘put,’ function as causative verbs. The causative and the resultive event arecontained in the lexical item itself. In lexical causatives, only a causer ‘I’ behaves as an agent.
Therefore, they have a mono-clausal structure.
In this paper, we will discuss two types of causatives: syntactic and lexical causatives, inJapanese and Japanese Sign Language (JSL). We will present supportive evidence forMurasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) (Henceforth, M&H) v-VP frame analysis on theacquisition of agentive verbs and two types of causatives in Japanese, and suggest that theproperty of small v is acquired very early. Together with the analysis of causatives inJapanese Sign Language, we will conclude that v is universal.
In the following section, we will briefly go over two types of Japanese -(s)ase causatives.
*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at Cambridge-Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Seminar heldat Nanzan University, March 8-10, 2006. I would like to express my gratitude to the audience, and inparticular I would like to thank Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito, Yasuaki Abe, Masatake Arimoto,
Hiroshi Aoyagi, R. Amritavalli, Yuji Takano and Masumi Aono. All remaining errors andinadequacies are of course my own.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol.1, 33-65©2007 Chisato Fuji

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

Then, in Section 3, we will overview M & H’s v-VP frame analysis, which gives an elegant
account of the acquisition process of complex predicates. In Section 4, we will present
additional evidence for their analysis. The evidence was found in CHILDES longitudinal
database. We will examine the Sumihare data (Noji, 1973) in detail, and show that it exhibits
almost the same acquisition pattern as Akkun’s. We will also discuss the results of anexperimental study in section 5. We will show the results are compatible with M&H’s
analysis. The investigation of JSL causatives is presented in Section 6. Section 7 concludes
the paper.
2.
2.1.

Two Types of Japanese -(s)ase causatives: syntactic and lexical causatives
Syntactic causatives

As is the case in English, Japanese also has both syntactic causative, namely -(s)ase
causatives, and lexical causatives (Miyagawa, 1980; Shibatani, 1973, 1976 among others).
Japanese morphological causatives are formed by attaching the causative suffix -(s)ase to theverb stems. Example (3) shows that the causee can be marked either with dative or accusative
Case when the base verb is intransitive (unergative).
(3)a.

Tarooi-ga
Taro -Nom

Hanakoj- o /ni benkyoo-sase -ta
Hanako -Acc /Dat study -Cause -Past‘Taro made / had Hanako study.’b.

Taroo -gaTaro -Nom

Hanako-ni / *-onimotu-o
mot -(s)ase -ta
Hanako-Dat / *-Acc luggage-Acc carry -Cause-Past‘Taro made Hanako carry the luggage.’
In (3a), the causee, Hanako is marked with accusative Case, -o, and it is marked with dative
Case, -ni, in (3b). When a base verb is intransitive as in (3a), -(s)ase causatives have four
possible readings (Shibatani, 1973). The four readings are illustrated in (4).
(4)

coercive (‘make…do…’)
inducing
persuasive (‘persuade… to do…’)
explicit (‘give…permission to do…’)
permissive
implicit (‘let…do…)(Matsumoto, 2000)

These four readings are first divided into ‘inducing causatives’ and ‘permissive’
causatives, and then each of them are again divided into two different readings. With thecoercive meaning, the causative sentence in (3a) has an interpretation as in (5a). With the- 34 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

persuasive meaning, (3a) has an interpretation as in (5b). With the explicit meaning, (3a) has
an interpretation as in (5c). With the implicit meaning, (3a) has an interpretation as in (5d).
(5)

a.
b.
c.
d.

Taro ordered Hanako to study. She understood and she studied.
Taro persuaded Hanako to study. She said “OK” and she studied.
Taro made sure that Hanako wanted to study. He said “I don’t mind” and she
studied.
Taro noticed Hanako wanted to study. He thought “I don’t mind” and she studied.

However, this distinction cannot be seen when the verb is transitive as in example (3b) since
the causee can be marked only with dative Case.
2.2.

Lexical Causatives

As is the case in English, there are some (di)transitive verbs which function as causative
verbs. Some of the verbs which function as causative verbs are listed in (6) below together
with their unaccusative counterparts.
(6)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

(di)transitives
mi-se-ru (= show-pres.)utu-s-(r)u (= copy-pres.)todok-e-ru (= deliver-pres.)os-ie-ru (= teach-pres.)ki-se-ru (= put on)
kasan-e-ru (pile up)

unaccusatives
mi-ru (= see-pres.)utu-r-(r)u (= be copied-pres.)todok-(r)u (=be delivered-pres.)os-owar-(r)u (= be taught)
ki-ru (=wear)
kasan-ar-(r)u (=be piled up) (Matsumoto, 2000)

Japanese is different from English in that the form of (di)transitive verbs andunaccusative verbs are different. The (di)transitive verbs in (6) form a lexical causative.
Example (7) is a lexical causative with the ditransitive verb kiseru (put…on).
(7)

Hanako-ga Taroo -ni yoohuku-oki-se -ru
Hanako-Nom Taro -Dat clothes -Acc dress-Pres‘Hanako puts the clothes on Taroo.’(M & H, 2004)

The sentence (7) does not mean ‘Taro wears the clothes,’ rather it means ‘Hanako put them on
Taro.’ Thus, only Hanako is an agent. Taroo is not an agent but behaves as a goal. Hence, thelexical causative in (7) has a mono-clausal structure.
It has been recognized that Japanese morphological -(s)ase causatives are biclausal.
This is supported by the examples in (8) and (9).

- 35 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(8)

Tarooi -ga Hanakoj -ni zibuni/*j -no koto -ohanasi -ta
Taro -Nom Hanako -Dat self
-Gen things -Acc tell
-Past
‘Taro told Hanako (things) about himself.’(9)

Tarooi -ga Hanakoj -o /ni zibuni/j -no heya-de benkyoo-sase -ta
Taro -Nom Hanako -Acc/Dat self
-Gen room-in study -Cause -Past‘Taro made / had Hanako study in self’s room.’

In Japanese, it is widely generalized that the self reflexive zibun (self) is subject oriented(Kuroda, 1965). Thus, in (8), only Taroo is a subject. However, in (9), zibun can take either
Taroo or Hanako as its antecedent. This implies that both Taroo and Hanako function as
subjects. Hence, the sentence in (9) has a biclausal structure.
However, Matsumoto (2000) suggests that when the causative suffix-(s)ase is attached toverbs listed in (10), the sentence is ambiguous.
(10) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

haku ‘put…on one’s own lower body’matou ‘put…on, wrap oneself in’taberu ‘eat’kuu ‘eat’nomu ‘drink’ou‘carry…on one’s back, bear’

g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

siru
kiku
motu
nigirusuu‘come to know’‘hear’‘come to have’‘grasp’‘suck’(Matsumoto, 2000)(11a) and (11b) are -(s)ase causatives with verbs taberu (eat) and kiru (wear).
(11) a.

Taroo -ga Hanako-ni pan -oTaro -Nom Hanako-Dat bread -Acc

tabe -sase -ta
eat -Cause -Past‘Taro made Hanako eat some bread.’b.

Taroo -ga
Hanako-ni ongaku -o
kik -(s)ase -ta
Taro -Nom Hanako-Dat bread -Acc listen -Cause -Past‘Taro made Hanako listen to music.’(11a) and (11b) are ambiguous; Hanako bahaves as an agent in one reading, and as a goal inanother reading. The two different readings are shown in (12) and (13).
(12) a.
b.

Taro ordered Hanako to eat some bread.
Taro fed Hanako with some bread.

- 36 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(13) a.
b.

Taro gave an order to Hanako and Hanako listened to music.
Taro played music toward Hanako.

In (12a) and (13a) Hanako is interpreted as an agent, but as a goal in (12b) and (13b).
In addition, Matsumoto (2000) suggests that this ambiguity of the sentence disappears
when the causee is not capable of the caused or permitted actions by himself or herself. The
relevant examples are shown in (14).
(14) a.

Hahaoya -waakatyan-ni kutusita-omother -Top baby -Dat socks -Acchak-(s)ase -ta
put-on -Cause -Past‘The mother put the socks on the baby’s feet.’b.

(Mastumoto, 2000)

Hahaoya –wa akatyan -ni miruku -o
nom -(s)ase -ta
mother -Top baby
-Dat milk -Acc drink -Cause -Past‘The mother fed the baby with the milk (in a bottle).’(Ibid.)The interpretation ‘the mother ordered and the baby to wear the socks or to drink the milk byhimself / herself’ is pragmatically unnatural for (14). The only possible readings are the ones
indicated by the English translations. In these readings, the causee behaves as a goal. Thus,
the sentence has a mono-clausal structure.
The mono-clausality of (14a) is supported by the sentence in (15).
(15)

Hanakoi-ga umaretabakari-no akatyanj -ni zibuni*/j -no
Hanako -Nom new born -Gen baby
-Dat self-Gen
hak -(s)ase -ta
put on -Cause -Past

kutusita -osocks -Acc

‘Hanako put self’s socks on a new born baby.’(M&H, 2004)

As mentioned before, Japanese self refrexive pronoun, zibun, is self oriented. In (15), it
cannot take akatyan (the baby) as its antecedent. This indicates that only Hanako is an agentand (15) is mono-clausal. Matsumoto (2000) named these -(s)ase causatives which have amono-clausal structure “lexical -(s)ase causatives.”
2.3.

Support for Matsumoto’s (2000) Hypothesis

Matsumoto’s (2000) hypothesis is supported by the acquisition data of aJapanese-speaking child, Akkun studied by Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato (2003, 2005)(Henceforth M, H & K). They report that lexical -(s)ase causatives are acquired earlier thansyntactic causatives. The fact that there are two stages in acquiring -(s)ase causatives suggeststhat -(s)ase causatives are indeed divided into two; syntactic and lexical causatives.

- 37 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

Based on Matsumoto’s (2000) hypothesis, M & H propose structures of these two typesof -(s)ase causatives under VP-Shell Hypothesis.
(16) a.

syntactic causativevP
causerv’

VPvP
casuseev’lexical -(s)ase causativevP
causerv [+cause]
V

VP
NP

b.

v’
VP

φ

causee-(s)asev [+cause]V’NP-(s)aseVv [+cause]V

φ(M&H, 2004)

In syntactic causatives, both a causer and a causee behave as agents. Therefore, they are in the
spec of vP as shown in (16a). The causative morpheme -(s)ase appears in the head of thehigher VP.
On the other hand, in lexical causatives, a causee functions as a goal, not an agent. Thus,
it appears in the spec of VP, not vP. The head of vP is realized as -(s)ase and it assigns anagent role to its spec. Lexical causatives have the same structures, and [+cause] small v isrealized with other morphemes such as -s, or -se.
3.

Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004)

M&H provides more detailed analysis of a Japanese-speaking child Akkun, and suggestthat there are actually four steps of acquiring morphological -(s)ase causatives. In this section,
we will overview their v-VP frame analysis on the acquisition of two types of causatives andagentive verbs.
3.1.

Stage I: The Acquisition of Ditransitives

According to M&H Akkun produced sentences without overt verbs at around the age of
2. Examples are shown in (17a) and (17b).
(17) a.

Motto koe buubu φmore this water(2;1)‘(I will give) more water to this.’- 38 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

b.

Koe
This

Papa
hai doozyo φ
Daddy yes please(2;0)‘This one. (I want give it) to Daddy.’(M&H, 2004)

In (17a), ageru (give) is missing. In (17b), Akkun produced hai doozyo. Hai means ‘yes’ anddoozyo means ‘please,’ but the phrase hai doozyo means ‘Here you are,’ so M&H conjecturethat Akkun used this phrase to express the meaning of ‘give.’ However, this is not a verb.
Therefore, a verb is missing in (17b) as well.
After this period, it is reported that Akkun started to place tiyu/tita/tite at the end of his
utterances. Examples are shown in (18).
(18) a.

Mama Akkun hai doozyo tiyu
Mommy
yes please do(2;5)‘Akkun (/I) will give it to Mommy.’b.

Koko maamoi maamoi tiyu1
here circular circular do(2;9)‘(Please) draw a circle here. ’c.

Kotyan koe Akkun hai doozyo
this
yes please

tita
did

‘Kotyan gave this to Akkun (/me).’(2;7)(M&H, 2004)

M & H suppose that Akkun used tiyu/tita/tite instead of a ditransitive verb to express theagentivity since the adult usage suru (do) can assign the agent role. They also argue thattiyu/tita/tite correspond to v because according to Chomsky (1995), v assigns an agent role.
The structure proposed by M & H to the sentence in (18a) is illustrated in (19).
(19)

vP
Akkun

v’

XP
mama hai doozyo

v [+cause]tiyu(M&H, 2004)

1

Tiyu/tita/tite are suru/sita/site in adult speech, and they correspond in meaning to ‘do/did/doing’ inEnglish. (M&H 2004; 4)- 39 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

Since hai doozyo is not a verb, the complement of the vP is indicated as XP. If this hypothesis
is on the right track, a child has already acquired v in this stage and realize it as tiyu/tita/titephonetically.
3.2.

Stage II: The Acquisition of the Lexical Items for Ditransitives

M&H report that while Akkun used verbs in the same way as an adult would, he also
produced some interesting “errors”. Sentences in (20) are examples of correct usage of verbs.
(20) a.

dango-ga
uta pakan
tite,
dumpling -Nom lid onomatopoeia doing

dango
-ga
atta
(2;9)
dumpling -Nom there-be‘There was a dumpling (when I) opened the lid of the dumpling (box).’b.

Mama tyotto ageyu
Mommy a little give

(2;7)

‘Mommy, (I will) give you a little bit.’(M&H, 2004)

In (20a) an unaccusative verb is correctly used, and in (20b) a ditransitive verb is usedcorrectly. However, it is reported that Akkun often used unaccusative verbs for transitive or
ditransitive verbs. Relevant examples are shown in (21).2(21) a.

Koe
thisziityanni miyuGrandfather to see(2;9)‘I show this to Grandfather.’b.

Kore, ai-toku
kara saa
thisopen (unaccusative) -keep as
Int.

(4;5)

‘(I will) open this and keep it open.’c.

Todok-ok-ka,
arrive -let’s

ano
that

hito niperson to

todok-(y)ooarrive-let’s

todok-(y)ooarrive-let’s(4;8)‘Let’s send (it). Let’s send (it) to that person.’In (21a), although a ditransitive verb, miseru (show), must be used in this context, Akkun
produced an unaccusative verb, miyu3 (see), “by mistake.” The same “error” can be seen in(21b). Akkun used the unaccusative verb, aku (be open), instead of a transitive verb, akeru(open). In (21c), a transitive from, todokeru (deliver something) should be used in the adultusage, but Akkun used an unaccusaive verb, todoku (be deliverd) instead.

2

The italicise letters indicates that they are used in a different way from adult usage.

3

Miyu is miru in adult usage- 40 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

M&H hypothesize that Akkun produced these errors because he assumed [±cause] v tobe zero.
The sentences in (22) are verb pairs of unaccusative and transitive in adult grammar.
(22)

a. Hanako -ga
hon -o-Nom book-Acc

Taroo -ni-Dat

todok-e -ru(transitive)
deliver -pres.

‘Hanako delivers a book to Taroo.’b. Hon -ga
Taroo -ni todok-∅-(r)ubook-Nom-Dat be delivered-pres.

(unaccusative)‘A book is delivered to Taroo.’(M&H, 2004)

Sentences in (22) have structures in (23a) and (23b) respectively.
(23) a.

transitive verbs
vP

b. unaccusative verbs
vP

v’

v’

VP
theme
goal

v[+cause]
V’

-e

VP
theme

V

goal

todok-

v[-cause]V’

φV
todok-(M & H, 2004)

In (23a) which includes the transitive verb, [+cause] v is realized as -e but in (23b) which
includes the unaccusative verb, [-cause] v is not realized phonetically.
Now, let us consider the sentence in (21a). The sentence in (24) is the “correct from” of(21a).
(24) Kore ziityannithis Grandfather tomiserushow‘I show this to Grandfather.’
In (24), a ditransitive verb, miseru (show) is used in the adult grammar. The structure of (24)is supposed to be the one in (25).

- 41 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

(25)

vP
v’
VP

v[+cause]

koe

V’

PP
ziityan-ni

-se
V
mi-

However, if Akkun hypothesized that [±cause] v was zero, the structure which Akkun had in
his mind is the one in (26).
(26)

vP
v’
VP
koe

v[+cause]V’ φPPziityan-ni

Vmi-(M&H, 2004)

In (26), v is not realized phonetically. Thus, Akkun intended to produce the ditransitive verb,
miseru, but he produced the unaccusative verb miyu. It is reported that Akkun often usedunaccusatives for (di)transitives, but never vice versa, and this type of errors continued for
two years.
3.3.

Stage III: The Acquisition of the Lexical -(s)ase Causatives

Akkun produced causative sentences without causative suffix -(s)ase like in (27) (M&H,
2004).
(27)

Mama Akkun
Mommy

non -de (2;8)
drink -Request‘Mommy, please feed me (with milk).’(M&H, 2004)

M&H mention that Akkun intended to convey the causative meaning with (27). Then, theadult grammar should be the causative form nomasete. However, Akkun omitted -(s)ase andproduced nonde. Therefore, he intended to say ‘Mommy, please feed me,’ but the meaning ofwhat actually he said is ‘Mommy, drink Akkun.’- 42 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

Sentences with the causative suffix, -(s)ase, are observed at around the age of 3;5. An
example is shown in (28).
(28)

Akkun -ni-Dattabe -sase-tee(3;6)
eat -sase –Request‘Please feed Akkun (/me) (with food).’(M&H, 2004)

The causative in (28) can be considered to be a lexical -(s)ase causative. If (28) is thesyntactic causative, the meaning of the sentence should have been something like ‘You will
permit me to eat some food, please’, but (28) does not have this meaning. Instead, themeaning of (28) is ‘You feed some food to me,’ and with this interpretation, the word Akkun
behaves as a goal. Therefore, (28) is the lexical -(s)ase causative.
3.4. Stage IV: The Acquisition of Syntactic Causatives
Syntactic causatives were observed at around the age of 5 (M&H, 2004). An example isshown in (29).
(29)

Obaatyan-no toko -deGrandma-Gen place-at
kudasai(5;3)
pleasetabemas -uAtt, iiru dakeeat
-Pres Int beer only

nom -(s)ase -te
drink -let
-Req.

‘(I will) eat (a dinner) at Grandma’s room. Eh, only beer, allow me to drink beer,please.’(M&H, 2004)
In (29), Akkun does not ask his mother to feed him, but asks her to let him drink beer. Thus,
although the causee, Akkun is not overtly produced, it is agentive. Hence, causative in (29) is
considered to be a syntactic causative.
3.5. v-VP frame analysis
Why did Akkun produced causatives without the causative suffix, and why were lexicalcausatives acquired earlier than syntactic causative? M&Hs v-VP frame analysis gives anelegant explanation for these two puzzles, too. They hypothesize that syntactic causatives
have the structure in (16a) while lexical causatives have the structure in (16b). (16a) and (16b)are repeated in (30a) and (30b) respectively.

- 43 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(30) a.

syntactic causativevP
causerv’

VPvP
casuseev’lexical -(s)ase causativevP
causerv [+cause]
V

VP
NP

b.

v’
VP

φ

causee-(s)asev [+cause]V’NP-(s)aseVv [+cause]V

φ(M&H, 2004)

Recall here the “errors” of unaccusative and transitive pairs in (21). These “errors” and thecausative sentences without -(s)ase were observed in the same period. Therefore, M&H
hypothesize that Akkun produced the sentence such as in (27) because he thought -(s)ase
appears in the head of vP but v is not realized phonetically. When he started to produce
transitive and ditransitive verbs and lexical -(s)ase causatives correctly, he started to realize v
as an overt lexical item. However, since -(s)ase appears in the head of VP, syntactic
causatives were acquired later.
As a whole, M& H (2004) explain three interesting acquisition phenomena in uniform
way by employing the v-VP frame. Their argument is that Akkun hypothesized that v waszero at one point. Therefore, he produced “errors” of unaccusative and transitive pairs andcausatives without the causative suffix -(s)ase. Lexical -(s)ase causatives were acquired
earlier than syntactic causatives. This is because the causative suffix -(s)ase appears in thehead of vP in lexical -(s)ase causatives but it appears in the head of VP in syntactic causatives.
Proposing this analysis, M&H present supportive evidence for v-VP frame structure.
4. Evidence for Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) from CHILDES: Sumihare’s data
In the previous section, we overview M&H’s v-VP frame analysis on the acquisition ofcomplex predicates. In this section, we will present some additional evidence for theiranalysis. We will show that Sumihare goes through exactly the same stages as Akkun.
4.1. Stage I: The Acquisition of Ditransitives
In the first stage, as is the case of Akkun, Sumihare produced sentences without overt
verbs. Examples are shown in (31).

- 44 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(31) a.

Ta- ta- φ
socks

(1;7)

‘Please put my socks on me.’b.

Kaatyan
Mommy

hai
yes

φ

(1;9)

‘Mommy (I) will give you.’c.

Mother (=M): Sumihare-tyan

jorijorisi -ta necut (onomatopoeia) do-Past Int.

‘Sumihare, I cut your hair.’
Sumihare (=S): Jorijori φ(1;7)
cut (onomatopoeia)‘(You) cut (my) hair.’In (31a), the causative form of haku (put on), that is, hakasete is missing. In (31b), though thesubject is dropped, an indirect object kaatyan (mommy) is pronounced. Thus, it can beconjectured that a ditransitive verb, ageru (give), is missing. In (31c), even after his motherproduced a verb, suru (do), he did not produce it.
After this period, Sumihare started to put tiyu/tita/tite at the end of sentences just as
Akkun did. In Sumihare’s utterances, tiyu/tita/tite is tyuru/sita/site. Relevant examples are
given in (32).
(32) a.

Taabi paisi -tatabi throw (onomatopoeia) do-Past(1;11)‘I took off (a pair of) tabi.’b.

Totyan,Daddy

ojityan-ga
a man -Nom

dondonsi-ta
yobeat (onomatopoeia) do-Past Int‘Daddy, a man beat a wall.’c.

KaatyanMommy

ombu
tyuru yopiggyback do
Int

(2;0)

‘Mommy, (I will) give you a piggyback.’d.

Kaminari-tyan gorogoro
tyuru yothunderthundering (onomatopoeia) do
Int.
‘It is thundering.’- 45 -(2;1)(1;11)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

In (32a) and (32b), sita (did) is attached to the end of the sentences, and in (32c) and (32d),
tyuru (d0) is attached to the end of the sentences.
4.2. Stage II: The Acquisition of the Lexical Items for Ditransitives
In the second stage, while using verbs correctly, Sumihare also made some errors of
unaccusative and transitive pairs. In (33a) and (33b), unaccusative and transitive verbs areused correctly. A ditransitive verb is also used correctly in (33c).
(33) a.

Ototyan syuppoppo too -tta ne
Daddy trainpass -Past Int.

(1;11)‘Daddy, a train passed.’b.

Pantyuhitoriunderpants alone

hai -ta
wear-Past(2;0)‘I wore (my) underpants by myself.’c.

Mama tyotto ageyu
Mommy a little give

(2;7)

‘Mommy, (I will) give you a little bit.’(M&H, 2004)

However, at the same time, he used unaccusatives for transitives “by mistake” as shownin (34).
(34) a.

Baatyan
ai
-te
(2;0)
Grandmother be opened -Request
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) open the door, grandmother.’
Literal meaning: ‘(Please) be open, grandmother.’b.

Koko oite tyameru
here put get cold

(2;1)

Intended meaning: ‘I put (a cup of tea) here and make it cold.’
Literal meaning: ‘I put (a cup of tea) here and it gets cold.’c.

Kaatyan taitai
agat -teBoku -no agat -te
Mommy a carp streamer go up-Request I-Gen go up -Request
Agat -teya(2;2)
go up -Request Int
Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, please make my carp streamer go up higher. Make ithigher. Higher.’
Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, please go up my carp streamer. Go up mine. Go up.’- 46 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)d.

Empetyu noi-te
timbunnoi-tea pencil be away newspaper be away

(2;2)

Intended meaning: ‘(Please) get a pencil away. (Please) get newspaper away.’
Literal meaning: ‘(Please) be away a pencil. (Please) be away newspaper.’In (34a), adult usage should be a transitive verb, akeru, but Sumihare used an unaccusative
verb aku. In (34b), in adult usage, a transitive verb samasu should be used, but he used an
unaccusative verb tyrameru4. The same type of “errors” are observed in (34c) and (34d). In(34c), a transitive verb ageru should be used, but he used an accusative verb agaru. In (34d),
Sumihare also used an unaccusative verb noku instead of a transitive verb nokeru. Thus, notonly Akkun but also Sumihare used unaccusatives for transitives.
More interestingly, Sumihare used transitives for unaccusatives. The related examples
are shown in (35).
(35) a.

Nui-takoko
pull-PAST here

(2;1)

Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’
Literal meaning: ‘I pulled (this) here.’b. Koko kara hi -ga
dasun
ze
here from sun -Nom take out Int.

(2;6)

Intended meaning: ‘The sun rises from here.’
Literal meaning: ‘The sun takes out from here.’In (35a), adult usage should be an uccusative verb, nuketa, but Sumihare used a transitive
verb nuku. In (35b), he used a transitive verb dasu instead of an unaccusative verb deru.
Note here that these “errors” were not observed in M&H. The “errors” that Akkun
produced were always one way, unaccusatives for (di)transitives. It may appear that (35a) and(35b) contradict their argument. However, these “errors” are in fact compatible with it.
(36a) and (36b) are verb pairs of transitive and unaccusative in adult grammar, andstructures of them are illustrated in (37a) and (37b) respectively.
(36) a.

Taroo -ga
Hanako-osyasin -ni utu-s-(r)u-Nom-Acc picture -in copy -Pres.
‘Taro takes a picture of Hanako.’

4

Tymeru is child speech of sameru.

- 47 -(transitive)Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1b.

Hanako-ga
syasin-ni-Nom picture-in

utu-r-(r)u.
be copied -Pres.

(unaccusative)‘Hanako appears in a picture.’(37) a.

vP(M&H 2004)
b.

vP

v’
VP
theme

v’
v [+cause]V’-slocation

V
utu-

VP
theme

v [-cause]V’location-rV(transitive)

utu-(unaccusative)

However, if [± cause] v is asuumed to be zero, the structures that a child seems to havein mind to the sentences in (36a) and (36b) are those shown in (38a) and (38b).
(38) a.

vP

b.

vP

v’
VP
theme
locationv’v [+cause]

V’

φ

VP
theme

V

locationutus-

v [-cause]
V’

φ
V
utur-

(M&H 2004)

Since both [+cause] v and [-cause] v are not realized phonetically, a child does notdistinguish (38a) from (38b). However, since s/he never hears the verb without morphemes -s
or -r, s/he probably put those morphemes to V randamly. Then, the possibility that amorpheme, -s, or -r is produced “by mistake” should be the same. Therefore, errors of
unaccusative and transitive pairs cannot always be one way. If the errors of using transitives
for unaccusatives are never produced, it suggests that a child does not hypothesize that[-cause] v is zero.
Hence, not only “errors” in (34), but also those in (35) indicate that Sumihare’s [±cause]v is also hypothesized to be zero at that stage. Although M&H’s argument is on the basis of
Akkun’s errors of using unaccusatives for transitives, the fact that Sumihare showed both- 48 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)“errors,” using unaccusatives for transitives and using transitives for unaccusatives, gives
stronger evidence for their argument.
4.3.

Stage III: The Acquisition of the Lexical -(s)ase causatives

In the third stage, as in the case of Akkun, causatives without suffix -(s)ase wereobserved in Sumihare’s speech. This example is shown in (39).
(39)

Kutyu
hai
-te
(2;1)
a pair of shoes put on -Request
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) put the pair of shoes on me.’
Literal meaning: ‘(Please) wear the pair of shoes.’In the context of (39), the causative form hakasete should be used, but Sumihare used haite,
an unaccusative form. We believe, thus, (39) presents additional evidence that a childhypothesizes that the suffix -(s)ase appears in the head of vP, but s/he omits it since [±cause]v is assumed to be zero in this stage.
Sumihare produced lexical causatives at about the age of 3. Examples are shown in (40).
(40) a.

Okaatyan hak -asi
-te
(3;0)
Mommy put on -Cause -Request‘Mommy (please) put (a pair of shoes) on me.’b.

Okaachan
Mommy

kore
this

terukityan-ga
sina -si-tan yo-Nom die -Cause -Past Int.

(3;4)

‘Mommy, Terukityan made this die.’In (40a) and (40b), causatives were correctly produced. In (40a), though an indirect object is
not present, Sumihare ordered his mother to put a pair of shoes directly on him. Thus, in thiscase, it seems that the indirect object Sumihare functions as a goal but not as an agent. Thatmeans (40a) is mono-clausal. In (40b), kore (this) referred a fly in the actual situation. It is notnatural to think that the causee, a fly, died because it wanted to do so. Thus, it is not anagent, and (40b) also has a mono-clausal structure. Since Sumihare spoke one of Kansai
directs, he uttered hakasite and sinasita instead of hakasete and sinaseta. However, with thisutterances it is not clear whether the causative suffix -(s)ase is attached or the lexicalcausative suffix -as is attached. Therefore, (40a) and (40b) might be lexical -(s)ase causatives
but might be not. However, it is clear that Sumihare acquired lexical causatives in this stage.
4.4.

Stage IV: The Acquisition of the Syntactic Causatives

As in the case of Akkun, syntactic causatives like the sentence in (41) were observed
relatively late.

- 49 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(41)

Mou gohanmore dishtabe -sasen yo
eat -Cause Int.

(4;9)‘(I) won’t let you eat dinner any more.’
Sumihare said this sentence to his father. Therefore, the agent of the action, taberu (eat), is hisfather. That indicates that (41) has two agents. Thus, we regard (41) as a syntactic causative.
4.5.

Discussion

In this section, we examined the acquisition data of a different Japanese-speaking child,
Sumihare. By comparing his data with Akkun’s data by M, H & K and M&H, we found outthat their acquisition pattern is significantly similar. The order of acquisition stages was thesame, and even the “errors” that they produced were the same type.
Though only Sumihare, not Akkun produced “errors” of using unaccusatives fortransitives, this is not surprising under M&H’s argument. The “errors” rather provide strong
evidence for their argument. Therefore, their analysis is applicable not only to Akkun but also
to Sumihare. Actually Sumihare’s data was collected in 1960s. On the other hand, Akkun’s
was collected in 2000s. Since the two children brought up in the different era and the different
place showed the same acquisition pattern, it is quite plausible to suppose that otherJapanese-speaking children acquire verbs and causatives in the same way. Therefore, we
believe that the analysis proposed by M&H is convincing.
5.

Another evidence for M&H (2004) from an experimental study

In this section, we will discuss an experimental study which was conducted to show that
M&H’s analysis is also supported from an experimental study. While the longitudinal study
aims to look at Sumihare’s production of complex predicates, the experimental study aims tolook at the children’s comprehension of causative sentences.
5.1. Subject
Thirty-nine monolingual Japanese-speaking children ages from 2;10 to 6;6 participatedin the study. They are all from Shinsei nursery school5. These children are divided into fourgroups according to the classes they actually belong to. Group 1 consists of 6 children whoseages range from 2;10 to 3;6. Group 2 has 11 children whose ages range from 3; 11 to 4;7.
Group 3 has 11 children whose ages range from 4;8 to 5;7. Group 4 has 11 children whoseages range from 5; 10 to 6; 6. All the children showed no signs of neurological developmental
difficulties, and no socio-emotional behavioural problems.

5

We would like to thank the people, adults and children, in Shinsei Nursery School for letting us
hold the experiment.

- 50 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

5.2. Procedure
The sentence in (42) is tested with the act-out task and the confirmation task.
(42)

Inu -ga
kuma -nidog -Nom bear -Dat

miruku -o
nom -(s)ase -ta
milk -Acc drink -Cause -Past‘A dog fed a bear with the milk.
The causative sentence in (42) is ambiguous; it has syntactic causative reading as in (43a) anda lexical causative reading in (43b).
(43) a.
b.

A dog ordered a bear to drink milk and the bear drank it.
A dog fed a bear with the milk.

First, the experimenter asked children to move the dolls and objects as described by (42).
Then, almost all children from Group 1 through Group 4 showed the lexical causative readingin (43b).
Next, the experimenter conducted the confirmation task. For those children who
interpreted (42) as a lexical -(s)ase causative, the experimenter showed them the syntactic
causative reading by moving the toys, and asked them whether the action is also consistent
with (42). For those children who interpreted (42) as a syntactic causative, the experimenter
showed them the lexical -(s)ase causative reading and asked them whether the action also
consistent with (42).
5.3.

Results

Children in Group 4 judged that both the syntactic and lexical -(s)ase causative readings
are possible for (42) as adults. On the other hand, children from Group 1 through Group 3
judged that the syntactic causative reading is not possible for (42). In other words, theresults indicates that younger children understand (42) only in the lexical -(s)ase causative
reading, whereas, elder children interpreted that (42) has both the syntactic and the lexicalcausative readings as adults.
The data obtained in this experimental study is compatible with our CHILDES data-baseanalysis, and the original proposal by M&H. Hence, their v-VP frame analysis on theacquisition of complex predicates and the agentive verbs is supported from both longitudinalobservational study and cross-sectional experimental study.
6.

JSL causatives with v-VP frame analysis

In section 3 and 4, we presented some additional evidence for M&H’s v-VP frame
analysis on complex predicates acquisition, and it seems that their analysis is on the right- 51 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

track. Then, we will examine Japanese Sign Language (JSL) causatives by employing v-VP
frame.
6.1.

JSL causatives

Sign languages are natural languages used by deaf people, but they are still
misunderstood by many people, and some people think that sign languages do not havecomplex grammar. However, recently many researchers have studied sign languages. For
example, Diane Lillo-Martin (1991) shows that the Principle and Parameters approach can beapplied to the analysis of particular syntactic phenomena, such as topicalization in American
Sign Language6. Moreover, it is reported that the acquisition process of sign language andspoken language is the same 7 (Bellugi and Fischer, 1972; Newport and Meier, 1985;
Masataka, 2001; Fuji, 2004 among others).
Ichida in his studies (1994, 1998, 2000, 2005a, 2005b) also states that JSL has its own
grammar, and proposes that JSL has causative sentences which are different from Japanesecausative sentences. Ichida suggests that sentences in (45) correspond to Japanese -(s)ase
causative in (44).
(44)

Taroo -ga Hanako-ni
-Nom
-Dat

miruku -o
nom -(s)ase-ta
milk -Acc drink -Cause-Past‘Taro made Hanako drink the milk.’(45) a.

Taroo

Hanakoi  miruku nom -(r)u ▲ wakar -(r)u ▼milk
drink-Pres.
understand-Pres.
miruku nom -(r)u owar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro made Hanako drink the milk.’
Direct Interpretation ‘Taro ordered Hanako to drink the milk. She said “I understand”
and she drank it.’6

(i)

Example (i) is ungrammatical.
t*[CP[TOP aMOTHERi], [IP fPRONOUN DON’T-KNOW [CP “WHAT” [IP ei‘Motheri, I don’t know what shei likes.’a LIKE]]]](Lillo-Martin, 1990; 58)

In (i), the trace in the most deeply embedded clause is not properly governed.
sentence (i) violates the ECP.
7

Therefore, theHowever, some researchers report that the first sign is acquired earlier than the first word.

- 52 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)b.

Taroo Hanakoi  miruku
nom -(r)u  kamawa -nai ▼milk
drink-Pres.
mind -notmiruku nom -(r)u owar-(r)u
PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro recommended Hanako to drink the milk.
Direct interpretation:‘Taro recommended Hanako to drink the milk. She said
“OK” and she drank it.’c. Taroo Hanakoi  miruku nom -(r)u (kiboo) milk
drink-Pres. (want)miruku nom -(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person

kamawa -nai▼
mind -not‘Taro permitted Hanako to drink the milk.’
Direct interpretation: ‘Taro made sure that Hanako wanted to drink the milk andhe said “I don’t mind.” So she drank it.’d.

Taroo Hanakoi  miruku nom -(r)u  kamawa-nai ▼milk
drink-Pres.
mind -notmirukunom -(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro let Hanako drink the milk.’
Direct interpretation: ‘Taro noticed Hanako wanted to drink the milk and hethought “I don’t mind.” So she drank it.’(Ichida, 2002, 2005b)

All signals such as ▼ and  express non manual signals. In sign languages, facial
expression and movement of head and shoulder are very important grammatical elements, andthey are called “Non Manual Signals” (NMS). Here following Ichida, ▲ means ‘nod up’,▼means ‘nod down’,  means ‘head hold’,  means ‘shaking head’, and  means ‘a small
nod after .’ The word owaru (finish) functions as an aspect marker which expresses the pasttense. The same signing position is used for both Hanako and ‘PT3’ to indicate that ‘PT3’
refers to Hanako.
6.2.

Lexical Causatives in JSL

In addition to (45), we propose here that (46) also corresponds to (44). The Japanesecausative sentence in (44) is ambiguous; it has a syntactic and a lexical causative reading. The
lexical causative reading is ‘Taro fed Hanako with the milk.’ (46) seems to correspond to thislexical causative reading.

- 53 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(46)

Taroo▼ Hanako

mirukumilk

nom -(r)udrink-Pres.

owar -(r)ufinish-Pres.

‘Taro fed Hanako with milk.’
In (46), with a plain verb nomu (drink), ‘Role Shift’8 is used to show the direction of theaction. In JSL Role Shift is expressed with special eye-gaze. It may appear that (46) means‘Taro drank milk by himself,’ but the person who actually drank milk is Hanako. It is obviousthat the word Hanako behaves as the goal. Hence, we hypothesize that (46) has the samestructure as lexical causatives in Japanese as shown in (47).
(47) a.

Japanese lexical causativeb. JSL lexical causative

TP

TP
T’

vP
Taroo

T
v’

VP
HanakoNP
mirukuT’vPda (PAST)

Taroov [+cause]

T
v’

VP

V’

HanakoVnom-owar- (=PAST)v [+cause]V’NP
mirukuV
nom-

Since the word Hanako behaves as a goal, it appears in the spec of VP, not vP. Taroo is
assigned an agent role by the head of v. The head of vP is not realized as an overt sign. It isrealized, however, as the direction of the action. A causer and a causee can be shown withsigning direction in JSL. The direction seems to convey the causative meaning, and functionsin the same way as -(s)ase in Japanese. Hence, we conjecture that [± cause] v is realized as
the direction in JSL.
6.3.

Syntactic Causatives in JSL

Then, are causatives in (45) syntactic causatives? In section 2, we mentioned that there
are four possible readings in Japanese syntactic causatives. They are repeated in (48).

8‘Role Shift’ indicates that the following discourse should be understood from the point of view of
the referent associated with the shift (Emmorey, 2002).

- 54 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(48)

coercive (‘make…do…’)
inducing
persuasive (‘persuade… to do…’)
explicit (‘give…permission to do…’)
permissive
implicit (‘let…do…)

Interestingly, Ichida independently points out that the causatives in (60) have almost thesame meaning as Japanese syntactic causatives. These four readings are illustrated in (49).
(49)

coercive
inducing
recommendation
explicit
permissive
implicit(Ichida, 2002, 2005a)

As in the case of Japanese, these four readings are divided into inducing and permissive
causatives depending on the subject of wakaru (understand) and kamawanai (do-not-mind). In(45a), the subject of wakaru is Hanako, and in (45b), the subject of kamawanai is Hanako.
On the other hand, in (45c) and (45d), the subject of kamawanai is Taroo. According to
Ichida (2002, 2005a), (45b) has an interpretation of “recommendation.” However, weconsider that this recommendation reading is similar to persuasive interpretation9.
Therefore, four readings in (49) correspond to dour readings of a Japanese syntactic
causative. In (5), with the four possible readings of a syntactic causative in (3a), we put dottedline under some words. (3a) and (5) is repeated in (50) and (51).
(50)

Tarooi-ga
Hanakoj -o /ni benkyoo-sase -ta-Nom Hanako -Acc/Dat study -Cause-Past‘Taro made / had Hanako study.’(51) a.
b.
c.
d.

Taro ordered Hanako to study. She understood and she studied.
Taro persuaded Hanako to study. She said “OK” and she studied.
Taro made sure that Hanako wanted to study. He said “I don’t mind” and she
studied.
Taro noticed Hanako wanted to study. He thought “I don’t mind” and she
studied.

In JSL, these words are actually expressed with manual signs or non manual signals.
Therefore, causatives in (45) have the same character as Japanese syntactic causatives
9

Ichida (2005a) notes that (45b) has no corresponded Japanese causative sentence.

- 55 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

concerning with their interpretation.
Biclausality is the important character of syntactic causatives. However, it is worthy toexplain some basic grammar of JSL before discussing biclausality of JSL causatives.
The basic word order of JSL is SOV. Let us consider sentences in (52).
(52) a.

Tanakapan taber-(r)u
bread eat -Pres.

(SOV)‘Mr. Tanaka eats (a slice of) bread.’b. * Tanaka taber-(r)u pan10
eat -Pres. bread(SVO)‘Mr. Tanaka eats (a slice of) bread.’c. *Pan taber-(r)u Tanaka11
bread eat -Pres.

(OVS)‘Mr. Tanaka eats (a slice of) bread.’(Ichida, 2005a)

In (52), with the meaning of ‘Taro eats bread,’ only (52a), SOV order is grammatical.
However, (52b), SVO order, and (52c) OVS order can be grammatical when a certain non
manual signals co-occur as shown in (53a) and (53b).
(53) a.

Tanakataber-(r)u () pan
eat -Pres.
bread

(SOV)

‘Mr. Tanaka eats (a slice of) bread.’b.

Pan taber-(r)u () Tanaka
bread eat -Pres.

(OVS)‘Mr. Tanaka eats (a slice of) bread.’(Ichida, 2005a)

In this case, “head hold” which is expressed as  functions as a topic marker. According to
Ichida (2005a), head hold also functions as a marker of an embedded clause.
The sentence in (54) is an example of complex sentence.

10(64b) is grammatical with the meaning of ‘the bread which Mr. Tanaka eats’ (Ichida, 2005a).

11(64c) is grammatical with the meaning of ‘Mr. Tanaka who eats (a slice of) bread’ (Ichida, 2005a).

- 56 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(54)

Tanaka  Suzuki

pantaber-(r)u  mir-(r)u
bread eat -Pres. see-Pres.

‘Mr. Tanaka sees that Mr. Suzuki eats (a slice of) bread.’(Ichida, 2005a)

In (54), “head hold” is expressed as a , and two s indicate that the sentence between themis the embedded clause. Thus, ‘Suzuki pan taberu’ (Mr. Suzuki eats bread) is the embedded
clause in (54). The structure of (54) is illustrated in (55).
(55)

vP
Tanaka

v’

VP
 TP

v
V

T’
vP
Suzuki

mirT

v’
VP

N
pan

v
V
taber

In (55), both Tanaka and Suzuki behaves as agents. Thus, the higher v assigns an agent role to

Tanaka, and the lower v assigns an agent role to Suzuki.
(56a) and (56b) are the examples of relative clauses.
(56) a.

Tanaka  Suzuki bentoo
a packed lunch

tukur -(r)u  taber-(r)uprepare-Pres. eat -Pres.

‘Mr. Tanaka will eat the packed lunch which Mr. Suzuki prepares.’b.

Tanaka  Suzuki

tukur -(r)u bentoo 
prepare-Pres. a packed lunch

taber-(r)ueat -Pres.

‘Mr. Tanaka will eat the packed lunch which Mr. Suzuki prepares.’ Ichida, 2005a)
According to Ichida (1998, 2002, 2005a) JSL has two types of relative clauses. (56a) ishead-internal relative clause and (56b) is head-external relative clause. Nevertheless, thisdifference is not so important here. The point here is that the embedded clause ‘Mr. Suzuki- 57 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

prepares’ is marked by  (head hold) in (56), too.
The sentence in (57) is an example of conjoined sentence.
(57)

Tahnaka  Suzuki  bentoo
a packed lunch

tukur-(r)u ▼ taber-(r)uprepare-Pres. eat -Pres.

‘Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Suzuki prepare a packed lunch and will eat it later.’Comparing (57) and (56a), only NMS is different. In (57), s, “head hold”, function as a
topic marker, and ‘nod down’ which is expressed as ▼ indicates conjunction. On the other
hand, in (56a), “head hold” functions as an embedded clause marker. This fact suggests thatnon manual signals are the marker of the sentence structure.
Now, let us consider the sentences in (45) which is repeated in (58).
(58) a.

Taroo Hanakoi miruku nom -(r)u▲ wakar-(r)u▼milk
drink-Pres.
understand-Pres.
miruku nom -(r)uowar-(r)uPT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro made Hanako drink the milk.’b.

Taroo Hanakoi miruku nom -(r)u kamawa -nai▼milk
drink-Pres. mind -notmiruku nom -(r)u owar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro recommended Hanako to drink the milk.

c.

Taroo Hanakoi miruku nom -(r)u (kiboo) kamawa -nai▼milk
drink-Pres. (want) mind -notmiruku nom -(r)u owar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro permitted Hanako to drink the milk.’d.

Taroo Hanakoi miruku nom -(r)u kamawa -nai▼milk
drink-Pres. mind -notmiruku nom -(r)u owar-(r)u PT3i
milk
drink-Pres. finish-Pres. third person‘Taro let Hanako drink the milk.’

In all sentences, ▼ (nod down) after wakaru (understand) or kawamanai (do-not-mind)
express conjunction.  (head hold) after Hanako seems to function as a marker of anembedded clause. However, in (58a) and (58b), the different NMS appear after miruku nomu
(drink milk). We conjecture that these NMS also function as an embedded clause marker.
- 58 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

These NMS need to convey a certain meaning, that is, ‘order’ in (58a) and ‘recommendation’in (58b). Therefore, in (58a) and (58b), the embedded clause ‘drink milk’ is marked by those
NMS together with . In (58c) and (58d), the embedded clause is marked by . Hence, allsentences in (58) contained the embedded clause. That means causatives in (58) havebiclausal structure.
Taken together, causatives in (58) have the character of syntactic causatives in respect ofinterpretation and biclausality. However, unlike English, in which causative verbs such as‘make’ and ‘let’ express causative meanings, in JSL syntactic causatives, they are expressedby manual signs (understand or do-not-mind) together with non manual signals.
6.4. Structures of Syntactic Causatives with v-VP frame
The structures of (58a), (58b), (58c) and (58d) are as in (59a), (59b), (59c), and (59d),
respectively under the v-VP frame hypothesis (Murasugi and Fuji, 2005).

- 59 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(59) a.

Taroo Hanakoi   miruku nom -(r)u▲wakar -(r)u▼miruku nom -(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
TP
TP

TP

T’
vP

TP
T

Taroo

v’
VP

Hanakov[+cause]
V’

TP

PRO
(Hanako)▼pro
T’(Hanako)
VP
V
wakar-

TP
T’

T

VP

NP
s mirukuTowar (=PAST)
V
nom-

V
order ▲
T’

vP

T

v’
VP

v
[+cause]NP
V
miruku nom
In (58a), the sentence is divided into two parts: ‘Taro ordered Hanako to drink milk’ and‘Hanako understood and drank it.’ Taroo appears in the head of vP and Taroo is assigned anagent role by v. The causative V is realized as ‘order’ associated with NMS. wakaru(understand) is in the adjunct position of conjoined TP, and the agent of wakaru is Hanako.
The structures in (59b) is aomost the same as (59a).

- 60 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(59) b.

Taroo Hanakoi   miruku nom-(r)u  kamawa-nai ▼ miruku nom-(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
TP
TP

TP

T’

TP

vP

T

Taroo

v’

VP

▼

TP

pro
T’
(Hanako)
VP
T

T’

v
[+cause]V’

HanakoV
kamawanai

VP

NP
mirukuTowar (=PAST)
V
nom-

V
recommend 
T’

TP
PRO
(Hanako)
vP

T

v’
VP
NP
mirukuv[+cause]Vnom

The difference between (59a) and (59b) is that the causative V is realized as‘recommendation’ associated with NMS, and that kamawanai appears as the spec of TP
instead of wakaru.

- 61 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(59) c.

Taroo Hanakoi   miruku nom-(r)u (kiboo)  kamawa-nai▼miruku nom-(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
TP
TP

▼

TP
TP

T’
vP

pro
(Taroo)
T

Taroo

T’
T’

vP
v’

VP

T
owar- (=PAST)T NP
V
miruku nom-

v’

VP

v
VP
v
[+cause]HanakoV’
NP
V(it)kamawanai
 TPV
confirmation PROT’(Hanako)
vP
T
v’
VP

v
[+cause]V’NP
Vmiruku nomIn (59c), the subject of kamawanai is Taroo, so the structure is different from (59a) and(59b). The former part of the sentence means ‘Taro confirmed that Hanako wanted to drink
milk and he did not mind it’, so the left most TP is an adjunct. The causative V is realized as‘confirmation’ associated with NMS.
The structure of (58d) is similar to that of (58c).

- 62 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)(59) d.

Taroo Hanakoi   miruku nom-(r)u  kamawa-nai ▼ miruku nom-(r)uowar-(r)u PT3i
TP
TP

▼

TP
TP

T’

pro

T’
T’

VP

(Taroo)
vP

T

Taroo

vP

v’
VP

 TP
PRO
(Hanako)NP
miruku

V
nom-

v’

v
[+cause]V’

HanakoTTowar- (=PAST)

VP
NP
(it)

v
V
kamawanaiVconfirmation 
T’

vP

T

v’
VP

v
[+cause]V’NP
Vmiruku nom(59d) is the same structure as (59c) except that the causative V is realized as ‘awareness’
associated with NMS.
6.5.

Discussion

By employing v-VP frame structure, we propose that JSL has lexical causatives asJapanese. However, JSL syntactic causatives are probably different from Japanese andEnglish syntactic causatives. In Japanese, causative V is realized as -(s)ase. In English,
causative V is realized as “make” and “let”, for example. In JSL, it is realized as manual signs,- 63 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1‘understand’ or ‘do-not-mind’ and non manual signals: order, recommendation, confirmation
and awareness.

7.

Conclusion

In this paper, we overviewed Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis on
the acquisition of agentive verbs and two types of causatives. Then, we presented anotherJapanese-speaking child, Sumihare’s data, and showed that the acquisition pattern of
Sumihare is significantly similar to that of Akkun. We also briefly mentioned the results ofthe experimental study and stated that we obtained the parallel data. Children acquire
structures including small v in the very early stage.
Then, we examined the JSL causatives under v-VP frame hypothesis, and proposed that
JSL lexical causatives have the same structures as Japanese lexical causatives. Therefore, we
concluded that their v-VP frame analysis and the VP-shell hypothesis have the explanatory
power. However, JSL syntactic causatives are probably different from Japanese syntactic
causatives, because the way of the lexical realization of the causative V is not the sameamong languages.
All of these discussions converge to suggest that [± cause] v is universal while therealization of causative V is different depending on languages. If this analysis is on the righttrack, we predict that JSL-speaking children acquire the lexical causatives earlier than thesyntactic causatives. We also expect that JSL children exhibit the stages in which they havedifficulty in lexically realizing [±cause] v. We would like to examine these hypotheses in thenext project.

References
Bellugi, U. and Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition
vol.1, pp173-200
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Mass: MIT Press.
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language cognition, and the brain. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Fuji, C. (2004). A study of the comparison of language acquisition by hearing and deaf infants. BA
Thesis, Nanzan University, Nagoya.
Fuji, C. (2006). Two types of causatives in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language: A study in syntax
and acquisition. Master’s Thesis, Nanzan University, Nagoya.
Ichida, Y. (1994). Nihon shuwa-no bunpoo to goi. Nihongogaku, 13.
Ichida, Y. (1998). Nihon shuwa-no bunpoo. Gengo, 27, 44-51.
Ichida, Y. (2002). Roukyouiku-ha shuwa-wo gengo toshite ninchi dekiruka. In T. Kanazawa (Ed.),
Roukyouiku-no datsu kouchiku (113-141). Tokyo: Akashi shoten.
Ichida, Y. (2005a). Bunkouzou-to atama-no ugoki: Nihon shuwa-no bunpoo (6) gojun, hobun,
kankeisetsu. Gengo, 34, 91-99.

- 64 -

Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and JSL (C. Fuji)

Ichida, Y. (2005b). Bunpooka: Nihon shuwa no bunpoo (7) jodooshi, hiteigo, koobun reberu-no
bunpooka. Gengo, 34, 88-96.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of Japanese language. Mass: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S. Y. (1965). Causative form in Japanese. Foundation of Language, 1, 30-109.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.
Lillo-Martin, D. (1991). Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument
parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Masataka, N. (2001). Kodomo wa kotoba wo karada de oboeru. Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho
Matsumoto, Y. (2000). On the crosslinguistic parameterization of causative predicates: Implications
from Japanese and other languages. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Ed.), Argument
realization(135-169). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Miyagawa, S. (1980). Complex verbs and the lexicon (Coyote Papers I). Tucson, AZ: University of
Arizona Linguistic Circle.
Murasugi, K & Fuji, C. (2005). The acquisition of complex predicates: How and why are theyacquired late. ms. Linguistic Colloquium at Kyoto University.
Murasugi, K. & Hashimoto, T. (2004). Three pieces of acquisition evidence for the v-VP frame.
Nanzan Linguistics, 1, 1-19.
Murasugi, K., Hashimoto, T., & Kato, S. (2003). On the acquisition of causatives in Japanese. Online
Proceeding Supplement of BUCLD 28.
Murasugi, K., Hashimoto, T., & Kato, S. (2005). On the acquisition of causatives in Japanese. Nanzan
Linguistics, 2, 47-60.
Newport, E. and Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language in D. Slobin(ed.) The
cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Noji, J. (1973). Youji no gengoseikatu no jittai 2. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron Shuppan.
Shibatani, M. (1973). Lexical versus periphrastic causatives in Korean. Journal of Linguistics, 9,209-383.
Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions (1-40). NY: Academic Press.

- 65 -