F-"-_.---.---'-"--.,

Noun Phrasesof 'ono"in Japanese
Two DifferentTypesof Overgeneration
the genitiveCasemarker,the pronoun("one" in English)and theIn the standardJapanese,complementizerall arephoneticallyrealizedas"no'oasshownin (1).
(1) a. John-no hon-Genbook (John'sbook)b. akai no
red one (the red one)c. robusutaa-o tabetano-waBosuton-deda
lobster -Acc ate C -top Boston-in is(It is in Bostonthat Q) ateLobster.)andKim (1987)andLee(1991),for Korean,Clancy(1985)andMurasugi(1991),for Japanese,amongothers,find thatsomechildreninsert"no" and'oke"inthe respectivelanguageevenafter
relativeclauses,asshownin (2).
(2)a. usatyan-gatabetano ninzin (Murasugi,1991)
rabbit -Nom ate (*no) carrot(the carrotthat the rabbit ate)b. Acessi otopai tha-nun ke soli-ya (Kim, 1987)
uncle motorcycleride Pres(*ke) soundis((This) is the soundthat a manis riding a motorcyle.)
study with a
The presentpaper reports,basedon our four-year-longitudinal-observationalchild, thattherearetwo distincttypesof overgenerationof"no" observedin
Japanese-speaking
the grammaracquisitionprocess:the first takesplacebeforethe genitiveCasemarkerand thecomplementizerareacquiredandthe secondis observedaftertheseareacquired.
The first part of the paperreportsthe order in which the different "no's" were acquired
betweenthe age I and the age 5. The order was (i) "the independentgenitive form" (e.g.,
Akkun-no(Akkun's)),(ii) the noun(e.g.,akoi-no(thered one)),and(iii) NP with the eenitive
Casemarkerinsertedbetweenthe modifyingNP and the headN (e.g.,Akkun-nosyuppoppo(Akkun's choo-choo)).
ofThen,we reportthe empiricalfinding of two distinctstagesconcerningthe overgeneration"no".The first overgeneration
takesplaceat2:4just after(ii), andthe secondat2:7 after(iii).
The two types of overgeneration
took place with the samechild at the different stageof
acquisition.Crucially,the first overgeneration
shown in (3) was observedwhen neitherthe
gentiveCasemarkerinsertionrule nor the complementizer
wereacquired.This overgeneration
stoppedat around2:6. And then,just aroundthe time when the tenseand nominativeCaseassignment
wereacquired,the overgenerationof "no" asin (4) startedagain.
(3) a. Akkun tiityai- no konkonkonkon [2:a]Akkun small-*nohammer(in Akkun's vocab)(Akkun cannotfind) his hammer,the smallone.)-24-

b. Ookii- no booti P:albig -+nohat((Motherwore)thebig one,thebig hat.)(4) a. Katta-no keeki
12:71
get-Past-*nocake(The cakesthat (we) got.) 12:91
b. pengintyan tyuiteyu- no kaban
penguin have -*no bag(The bag that has a penguin (logo) on it.)c. ima papa -ga ieta- no ottotto doko [2:10]
wherenow Father-Nom put-*no fish
(Where is the fish that Father put in (the aquarium)just now?)
In acquisition studies,three hypotheseshave been proposedregarding the syntactic statusof
the overgenerated"no": "no" as the genitive Casemarker (Ito 1993),"no" aSa noun (lt{agano1960), and"no" as a complementizer(Murasugi 199I , Lee I 991). This study suggeststhat thefirst overgeneraed"no" isthe pronoun, and the second,the complementizer,thereby providing
supporting evidence for both the noun hypothesisand the complementizerhypothesis.

AnWe further conjecture that the first overgenerationtakes place when children overgeneralize
the usageof the pronoun "no" andplaceit after any pronominal modifier. The meaning of (3b),for example,is as indicated,i.e., 'the big one,the hat'. This possibilitywas rejectedin Murasugi(1991)becausethe children sheexaminedalreadyhad properknowledgeof the genitivemarker"no." ThuS,if the overgenerated"no"is a pronoun,the genitive "r?o" must appealbetweenit
and the head noun e.g. 'hat'. But note that the first overgenerationof "no" we observedtakes
place before the genitive Casemarker is acquired.Hence,the absenceof the genitive "no" rn(3)is in fact expected.

ｄｌｂκ一 ηｆｏ鸞 ｎｏｏＯ ｆｌ鵬As for the secondovergeneration,the "no" inquestion cannot be the pronoun becauseit takes
place after the genitive Casemarker is acquired.Hence,we maintain Murasugi's (1991,2001)
analysis:the prenominal sententialmodifiers in adult Japaneseand Korean are of the category
IP (insteadof CP) but children initially hypothesizethat they are CPs. Consequently,somechildren produce an overt complementizer inthe prenominal CP (basedon the knowledge thatThosechildrenretreatfrom the overgenerationon theC is "no" for examplein cleft sentences.)
basisof their knowledgeof universalprinciplesand the positive evidence.(SeeMurasugi 1991,2001 for the details.)
Thus, our longitudinal study provides apartial resolution for the long-standingdebateon theovergenerationof "no." The overgenerationof the genitive "no" never takes place. But thepronoun analysis and the complementizer analysis were both correct. The overgenerationof
theseelementstake place at different stagesof the grammar acquisition.

-25-