for
InternetCelebrotion

AdrianaBelletti 60thBirthday

Inquiriesinto LinguisficTheoryand
LonguogeAcquisifion.
PopersofferedIo Adric,nqBelleffi.
Editedby
CorloContemoriond LenoDol Pozzo

CISCL PRESSISBN 9788890794322
Studi Cognitivi sul Unguaggio,Universit) di Siena
ComplessoS. Niccold, Via Roma, 56
I-53100Siena.Italv

This e-book collects a number of contributionswritten in honour of Adriana
Belletti. The contributors are some of Adriana's colleagues and former
studentsrepresentativeof a wider community,who have been part of CISCL's
inspiringcommunilr, eitheras studentsor visiting scholars.

Content
Noga Balabanand NaamaFriedmann
Disentanglingresponses
to WH-questions:TOM andsyntacticabilities
Giulia Bianchi
Genderin L2 German

15

Giuliano Bocci and Lucia Pozzan
Questions(andexperimentalanswers)aboutItalian subjects.
Subjectpositionsin main andindirectquestionin Ll, attrition andL2

28

Irene Franco
Effects of parametricchangeand active/inactivealignment:the caseof C-omission

45

Mara Frascarelli and FrancescaRamaglia
Split NominalConstructions
in Italian

74

Anna Gavarrf andNoemiFort1n
Personfeaturesandthe acquisitionof Clitics

97

RichardKayne
OnceandTwice

114

VincenzoMoscati
Eliciting clitics in French:againstthe Generalized
Null ObjectStage

130

Keiko Murasugi(Neluke) on the TruncatedSentences
Ne-attacltrnent

145

Marco Nicolis
Clausalexhapositionandsyntacticdoubling:pro-legomena

157

JacopoGarzonioand Cecilia Poletto
Thenegativemarkerthat escaped
the cycle:somenoteson manco

182

Emilio Semidio
Polarityparticlesin intenogativetags

198

lYe- attach m ent (N e- t uk e)on the TruncatedSentences*
KEIKO MURASI]GI
NanzanUniversityjpmurasugi@nanzan-u.ac
Children at around the age of two producethe main
declarativein a non-finite form or Root Infinitives (RI)and Root Infinitive Analogues(RIAs). They are elegantly
explainedby Truncation Hypothesis(Rizzi 199311994),
but thereis apparentlycounter-evidence
to the hypothesis.
That is, very young children learningJapaneseproduce
the sentence-ending
discourseparticles at the stage of
RIAs.
In this paper,we focus on Japaneseand arguethat (i)discourseparticlesare not T/C-elementsin both child andadult Japanese,and (ii) the descriptive findings ofJapaneseacquisition rather supports the Truncation
Hypothesis.

To afriendfar apart but closein heart
sinceourfamilies meteachothersin Cambridge
1. Introduction
The TruncationHypothesisproposedby Rizzi (199311994)
suggeststhat languages
may vary in termswhat is optionallyallows the root projections,and child grammar
allowsthe choiceof optionallytruncatedstructures.CP is the root of all clausesin the
The researchpresentedhere would not have been possible without discussionswith
colleaguesand studentsinvolved in the activitiesof the Centerfor Linguisticsat NanzanUniversity.
Although I cannot name them all, I would especiallylike to thank Adriana Belletti, Luigi Rizzi,
Mamoru Saito, Chisato Fuji, Tomomi Nakatani Murai, Tomoko Hashimoto,Naoko Sawada,Ken
Wexler, Kamil Deen,Diane Lillo-Martin, William Snyder,JonahLin, Koji Sugisaki,KensukeTakita,
Hideki Kishimoto, K.A. Jayaseelan,
and R. Amritavalli, Dylan Tsai, Andrew Simpson,and Audrey
Li, for their insightfulcommentson the topic discussedhere.
The researchreported here was supportedin part by by JSPS Grant-in-Aid to Nanzan
University (#26370515,PI: Keiko Murasugi) for the study of the Root Infinitives and Truncation
Hypothesis and by NanzanUniversity PacheResearchSubsidyl-A-2 (2014). Thanksalso go to themembersof the seriesof the IntemationalSymposium(2006-present)of the Cambridge-ConnecticutHyderabad-Nanzan-Siena-Tsinghua
Consortiumin Linguistics,which arethe baseof the presentwork.
2014KeikoMurasugi@Copyright
Inquiries into Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition.
Papers ofered to Adriana BellettiInquiries into Lingtistic Theory and Language Acquisition
Papers ofered to Adriana Belletti

CISCL,S′ ο′αadult grammar, but children lack the specific knowledge that every well-formedclause is CP in adult grammar. Adults build their phrase structure all the way to CP
becauseCP is the root of all clauses,while child phrase structurescan only go
partway up to CP. This hypothesis naturally explains why the children at around theage of two go through the Root Infinitive (analogue) (:RI(A) stage, producing themain declarativeeither in infinitive (e.g., Dutch, German), bare verb (e.g., English,
Swahili, Chinese), or surrogatenon-finite form (e.g., Turkish, Japanese,KuwaitiArabic), and why RIAs are incompatible with C/T-related items such as wft-elements,
subjectclitics, and auxiliaries.
However, it seems that there is a descriptive question it might raise. Does the
Truncation Hypothesis imply that all the elements above TP are incompatible with
the RI(A)s? In fact, in child Japanese,sentence-endingmarkers, which should resideoutside TP, are typically produced in the natural production at around the age of two.
The sentence-endingmarker, ne, for example, indicates that the speakerconsiders
that the addresseesharesthe information and thoughts, is used when the speaker isseekingthe hearer's agreementjust like "rigltt?" or such a tag questionas "isn't it?".
Japanese-speakingchildren, even at the two-word stage, produce discourse markers
such as ne to consolidate the already established relation of the speaker with the"addressee"l.
In this short paper, we will first show the evidence that the sentence-ending
discoursemarkers are typically producedby very young Japanese-speaking
childrenat the RIA stage, and argue that the fact does not constitute counter-evidenceto the
TruncationHypothesis.
2. SpeechAct Elements
2.1. TheAdult Grammar of Discourse Markers
The languages typologically very far apart may share common properties. West
Flemish, a dialect of Dutch, and Japanese,for example, share an intriguing property
regardingthe sentence-discourse
interface.Both languageshave sentence-initialandsentence-ending"particles" which are used to establishdiscourserelations between
the speaker and the hearer. They encode the speaker's attitude with respect to the(content of the) speech act andlor with respect to the addressee.The discourse
markers are optional in that an utterance remains grammatical even if they are
removed, but their deletion results in a change in interpretation, and they can neverappearin the embeddedclauses.Discoursemarkers can only be attachedto the edge
ofthe utterances.
There are somerestrictionsthat sentence-finaldiscoursemarkersobey.According
to Haegemanand Hill (2011), sentence-finaldiscoursemarkers in West Flemish cooccur only in a specified order. When sentence-finaldiscourse marker nd and wd cooccur, nd mtst be to the right of wd shown in (1a) and (1b).

I
A matron at Yamazato daycare told the present writer that a Japanese-speakingtoddler, Sachiko,would touch the matron's shoulder smiling, turned toward her, and said "ne (long [e])" whenever shecame near the girl. The matron's reporl that she could not scold the girl whenever the girl did sosuggeststhat the discourse marker "ne" successfully bonded the speaker (a toddler) and the hearer (amatron) in the adult wav.

146

Ne-Attachment(Ne-tuke)on the TruncatedPhrases(1) a.Mon artikelis gedoan weュ

b.* len野

Keiko Murasugiё.

artikel

is
ls

paper

gedoan ne】 配e.
done

̀ け paper is inished.'(Hacgeman 2010)
fmal discourse llllarkers 。
zaccurs
co¨ withηιorルクa,4ι f01lows z夕asWhen sentence‥
shown in(21a,b)bllt Wa precedcs za as in(3a,b).
(2)

a. ゝ
/1en artikel is gedoan ztt. n重b.*】/1cn artikel is gedoan ne ze.

(3) a.Men artikelis gedoan wc zё
b.*Mcn ttikel is gedoall塗.
量 .(Hacgeman 2010)

vo posttions for discourse markers.Though′ιcan co…
Wcst Flemish has just●o c c u r w i t h z l a s i n ( 2 a ) a ns d i Wn t( ,t1 ahめnジd t h O u g h l 1 7 1 c oa cn c ua rl s wo i tc ho …
ocCur,regardlessof thc ordcr,as″ as in(3al,the three discourse markers calllnotco―
we can sec in(4).
(4) a.*Men artikelis gedoan we zёb.Mcn artikel is gedoan量■6.
生 .Nd(Haegettan 2010)( 4 b ) i s a C C e p t a b l e b e iC sa u cs le e a4 rιl y s e t o f f f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g s e g m e n t .
Sentencef̈lnal discourse lnarkers in Wcst Flemish are not clause typers,and they co―occur with clauses that arc indcpcndcntly typcd.Though some ofthem are inse
ple,zO(andto clause typc,othcrs are sensitivc to thc ttpe of the sentence.For
exal■
its variant ya)co¨Occurs mainly with declaratives and with some imperttivcs.Wtth
gh夕.
′regard to intcrrogat
es,only rhetorical questions canoccur
co¨with zとThe properties of Japancse discourse markcrs arc vc=y sillllilar with tllose in West
Flcllnish,although the sentence¨ ending particles in Japanese can be attached not only

to thc sentence,but also basically to any maOr syntactic categories.Japancsc
h respectdiscourse markers encode the speaker's atthudc
w■to thc(contCnt Of the)speech act and/or with respect to the addressec. It is optional in that an utterance
remains gramJfnatical even if it is rcmoved although the deletion of the discourse
markers results in a changc in intcrprctation.
ヽ4urasugi and Kido(20H)arguc that thcrc arc also rcstrictions that discourse

markers in Japanese obcy just as in West Flcmish.Thc particlcs
ηθα,η,and such ashearcrツο, alnong others, are pragmatic markers used to proflle the speaker¨rclationship in Japanese.The particles are involved in the licensing of vocativcs.Tllc
initial vocative has aǹ̀appeal''or attention sceking function,aillling at establishing a
discourse relation;thc final vocative consolidatcs thc alrcady cstablished relation of147

C■SCL,Sた 4α

Inquiries into Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition.
Papers ofered to Adriana Belletti

the speakerwith an "addressee".Examples are shown below:(5)a. Nee Nee Otoosan,torampu
NE NE Daddy cardslyoo
do-VocativeyoSentence-endingparticle'Hey, Daddy, let's play cards.'

b. Konothiskootya-wa oisii
tea-Top yummy-isneNE'This teais tasty,isn't it?'particlesdisplayrigid orderingrestrictions
Justlike West Flemish,the sentence-final
as shown in (6).
(6)

pan-wabread-Topa. Kobe-no
Kobe-Genoisii yo ne/)'o na.
tasty'Kobe'sbreadis tasty.'b. *Kobe-no

pan-waoisii ne yo/na yo.

The sequences,yoneandyona, are grammatical, but neyo ot nayo are ungrammaticalas shown in (6b). When sentence-finaldiscoursemarkersyo and ne co-occur, ne must
be to the right of yo.
Second,just like West Flemish, Japanesebasically only has two positions fordiscourse markers. Though yo can co-occur with ne (7a) and with na (7b), the three
discoursemarkers cannot co-occur, regardlessof the order as we can see in (8):(7)

a. Taro-wa ringo -o
Taro-Top apple-Acc
b. Taro-wa ringo -o
Taro-Top apple-Acc(8)* Taro-wa

ringo -oTaro-Top

apple-Acc

taberuYq ne.

taberuyo na.

taberuyo ne na.

eat

eat

eat

'Taro eatsapples.'(8) is only acceptable when na is clearly set off from the preceding segment.2Just'Three sentence-final
particlesareallowedonly whenwa comesfirst.

148

Ne-Attachment (Ne-tuke) on the Truncated Phrases

Keiko Murasugi

like sentence-final
discoursemarkersin West Flemish, Japanesesentence-final
particlesarebasicallynot clause-tlperseither,andthey co-occurwith clausesthat are
independentlyt1ped. For example,yo co-occursmainly with declarativesand
imperatives.
Thesediscoursemarkersdo not seemto be part of the CP system.The properfy
parallelswith that of left peripheryin head-initialof the right peripheryof Japanese
languagessuch as Italian (Rizzi 1997) in many respects(Saito 2009), and thediscoursemarkerssuchas ne, na, andyo, all seemto resideoutsidethe CP system.
According to Saito (2009), /o is the complementizerthat headsa Report Phrase,paraphrases
which expressesor reportsof direct discoursein the senseof Plann(1982); kn is a head of Force Phrase(ForceP), for questions.And no is thecomplementizerthat heads a Finite Phrase, for propositions.The structure isschematized
below.
(9)a. ICP [CP... [CP...Finite(no)]Force(ka)l Report(to)lb. [CP...[CP...[CP...[CP...Finite(no)](Topic*)lForce(ka)lReport(to)lc. [CP...ICP...[CPthematic
topic[C'[CPITP ...]Finite(no)lTopicllForce(ka)l Report(to)lAnd the discoursemarkersne,na) andyo follow ka, which is the sentence-typer.
(10)

kal
ne
-Top
particle
Finite Force Sentence-final

a. [Force[Fin[TPTaroo-wa
eel-Acc

unagr-oeattaberulno I'I wonder whether or not Taro eatseels.'b.

[Force[Fin[TP Taroo-wa unagi-o taberu] nol kal na

C.

[Force[Fin[TPTaroo-waunagi-otaberu] nol kal yo

ForceP is a sentencetyper, and if the sentenceis interrogative, kn appearsin the headof ForceP.As (1Oa-c)indicate,sentence-finalparticlesfollow ka, andthis showsthat
the discoursemarkers are above ForceP at least.
Haegeman and Hill (201l) proposes the Speech Act Shell Hypothesis for thephenomena,and arguesthat sentence-endingparticles in West Flemish constitute theheadsof the SpeechAct Phrases.The analysismay apply to Japaneseadult grammar
as well, although we do not discussit in detail here. Rather, in what follows, we argue
particles,which shouldresidein the very
that early acquisitionof the sentence-ending

gakko-nigoschool-Dat'You aregoingto schooltomorrow,aren'tyou?'

149

ｕＡ
ｋ
ｉ Ｗ

(i) Anataasita
You
tomorrowwa yq ne.
YONEInquiries into Linguistic Theoryand LanguageAcquisition.
Papersofered to Adriana Belletti

CISCL, Siena

top-most edge of the utterance, make an impact upon the issues regarding how
children acquire the syntactic structure.
2.2. Sentence-endingParticles and k[As in Child Japanese
It has been widely observedby a lot of researchersthat Japanese-speakingchildren
produce discourse particles at a very early stage of language acquisition. Shirai,
Shirai and Furuta (1999), for example, based on the corpus analysis of four Japanesemonolingual children's longitudinal data (CHILDES), find that the children begin touse sentence-final particles when their MLU (Mean Length of Utterances) is below
l;02.Even in the 1960s,Okubo (1967), for instance,has alreadyfound that sentenceending particles such as yo, ne, and na, are first produced at l;6, l;7, and 1;8,
respectively, by a child Y, and they are produced earlier than the Case particles.
According to Okubo (1967), the child Y's ga, the nominative Case marker, forexample, first appearedin the natural production at l;9.
Nanzan Acquisition Project (e.g., Murasugi, Fuji and Hashimoto 2006, Murasugi
and Fuji 2008,2009, Murasugi, Nakatani and Fuji 2009,Mttrasugi and Kido 2011,
among others) has found that the discourse particles appearin the natural productionof children learning Japaneseduring the stageof the RIA stage.
Before the full conjugation of the verbs appears in the production, at around theage of late one, the discoursemarkers are observed.The examplesin (11) indicate
thatthe discoursemarkersfollowthe mimetic expression(11a),RIAs (1lb and 11c),
and an shortenedverbal stem (1 1d).
(11)a.Pannaa (l;05)
Sentence-finalparticle

bread'I want a piece of bread.'b. Atti ita
na (1;07) (volition) (talking to his mother,the addressee)
there go-TA Sentence-finalparticle'(I) want to go over there'c.

Sii si-ta naa (l;07) (adult : volition si-tai)
pee do-TASentence-finalparticle'(I) want to pee.'e. Riigo downnana (1;07)
Sentence-finalparticle'I want to go down.'
Context: Sumihareis on his father's shoulder.(Murasugi and Fuji 2008)
The children at around the age of one to two years produce the main declarative
either in bare mimetics/onomatopeia (English-type) or surrogate non-finite form
(Yerb+a form, Turkish-type) as the RIAs. (Murasugi, Nakatani and Fuji 2009) The

150

Ne-Attachment (Ne-tuke) on the Truncated Phrases

Keiko Murasugi

R[As given in (11a) through (11e), which are eventive and receive a modal
interpretation, are associatedwith the sentence-endingmarker that link the speaker
and the hearer. Volitional modality in the early stagesof acquisition is expressedby
the 4a form or mimetics/onomatopoeia,sometimesassociatedwith the sentence-final
particle -na.
It is worth mentioning here that the discoursemarkers are pragmatically used in theadult way, while the verb forms per se are not. The observer (Noji) notes that it isaround then that the social and communicative skills of the child becomesnoticeable,
and Sumihare, the child, in fact, appropriately distinguishes ne from na }ust like
adults do: He employs na when he talks to himself, while he employs ne when hetalks to the addresseewho holds him, as the contrast between (I2a) and (l2b)indicates:(r2) a.

Tyun
mien naa (talking to himself) (1;09)
theplane is-not-visible sentence-finalparticle'(I) cannotseethe plane.'b.

Tyun mien ne (talking to father,the addresseewho holds him)(1;09)
theplane is-not-visible sentence-finalparticle'(I) cannot seethe plane.'...ne (1;07)
Sentence-finalparticle'isn't it?' (Sumiharepronouncesne clearly.)

A sentence-final particle without the phonetically realized phrase is also often
produced, as shown in (12c) and the footnote 1 in child Japanese.This is also
possible in the adult Japanesein fact; it is used when the speakerwants to confirm thestatement of his/hers to the addresseein the context where the addresserand theaddresseeboth sharethe information expressedphoneticallynull.
Although discourse markers are productively used at the stage of RIAs. RIAs areincompatible with C/T-related items such as wh-element and Case markers. Children
produce such sentence-ending discourse markers as ne and na earlier than CPelements. Okada and Grinstead (2003), for example, report that ne appearsat l;ll,
while C-related element such as no and te appear later in 2;02, and ka appearsevenlater at 2;04,basedon the corpusanalysisof Aki (CHILDES).
As for Sumihare,the Japanese-speaking
child we examined,the head of FiniteP
first appear at around the time when nominative Case marker and some conjugationof the verbs come to be produced, much later than such discoursemarkers as na and
ne.

151

Inquiries into Linguistic Theory and LanguageAcquisition.
Papers ofered to Adriana Belleui(13) a. Nenne
sleep

ta
Past

CttCL,Sプ θ′αnoo(Sumihare,
1;10)
NO

'(I) am sleepingwith my daddy.'b. Kataiis-hardno (Sumihare,1;10)NO'(Thiscandy)is (very)hard.'c. Katai
hard

yo

zya
is

no (talkingto his mother,the addressee)(l;10)
NO'(It) is very hardanddifficult to take.'
The data given aboveindicatesthat the end point of the sentenceis markedby no.
They appearonly after 1;10, later than the stagewhere the discoursemarkersare
produced.Furthermore,Sumihareproducessuch discoursemarkers as ne and na
earlierthan the headof ForcePka, too. Sumiharestartsproducingkn at 2;03, muchlater than ne andna, and evenafterno.
Interestinglyenough, sequencesof two discoursemarkers (or sentence-final
particles)suchasyo ne startto appeara bit beforeno doesin the production.Observe
examplesin (14).
(14) a. Atui yo ne (Sumihare,1:09)
hot YO NE'It is hot,isn'tit?'b. Hairan yo ne (Sumiare,l;09)
doesn'tfit YO NE'(The feet)do not fit (in the socks).'c. Oimo oitiyopotato delicious YO

ne (Sunmiare,
1;10)
NE

'The potatoes(are)delicious,aren'tthey?'d. Toofu kita yo ne (Sumihare,
1;11)
Tofu came YO NE'A mansellingTofu cameover,didn't he?'At aroundthetime childrendiscoverthat morethanone sentence-final
particlecanbe
attachedto a phrase,the headof FinP andthe verbalconjugationscometo appear.
To sum up, NanzanAcquisitionProject's8-yearresearchon R[As indicatesthat
sentence-ending
discoursemarkersareproducedat the RIA stage.Japanese
RIAs are152

Ne-Attachment(Ne-tuke)on the TruncatedPhrases

KeikoMurasugi

incompatible with such C/T-related items as wh-element and Case markers just likeother languages,but they are compatible with sentence-finaldiscoursemarkers.
2.3. Were the Truncation Hypothesis and JapaneseDiscourse Particles Meet
The very early emergence of the Japanese sentence-endingdiscourse particles
suggestthat the syntactic structure is not only constructed in the bottom-up fashion
but also in the top-down fashion. The co-occulrence of RIAs with a sentence-final
particle in child grammar would indicate that a discourse marker or a Speech Act
element can be precededby the truncated structure, even when there is no T/C heads.
Then it might apparently seemto cast doubt on the Truncation Hypothesis. How is it
possible that children have elementsof SpeechAct Phraseup above CP when there is
no TP in the structure hypothesizedthen? Does the early appearanceof sentence-final
particles constitute a counter-exampleto the Truncation Hypothesis?
A detailedanalysisof child Japaneseindicatesthat it is, probably,not the case.'
As we noted above, Japanese-speakingchildren produce sentence-finalparticles at
the RIA stage. The sentence-final particles look as if they are added on the"truncated" structuresas shown in (15).

(15) Buuwatui-ta nene (Sumihare,
1;09)
candlelight-taSentence-finalparticle Sentence-finalparticle
Intended meaning: Pleaselight the candle.
Literal meaning: The candle lit, didn't it?
In (15), the child verb, tui-ta (inhansitive verb stem with +a) in the declarative shouldbe, in the adult grammar, the transitive verb (imperative), tuke-te.It is the example
indicating that the child still has difficulties in choosing the adult lexical realizationof v, thereby producing the transitive and intransitive verbs in the sameform, and thesurrogate non-finite form (RIA), which are eventive and receive a modal
interpretation, co-occurs with a sentence-ending p article ne.
Recall here that it is only at alater stagethat two sentenceending particles appear
as the examples in (14) show. The fact that only one discoursemarker is compatible
with RI.As indicates that it is doubtful to hypothesize that there is an adult-like phraseof SpeechAct then. In other words, just a discourse marker such as ne is attached("ne-tsuke") to the edge ofthe utteranceproduced at the RIA stage.
Then, the next question is regarding why it is the case that children attach a
discoursemarker to the truncated phrases.Recall here that adult Japaneseis different
from West Flemish in that the former allows the discourse markers to be attachedbasicallyon any major syntacticunit as shown in (16).
(16)

kawaii neko(-ga)
Cute cat (-Nom)tr€,yane-karane, otita ne
roof-fromfell'A cut cat fell from the roof.'

3Theparallelobservationin Murasugi(2013).
andanalysisofChineseis discussed

153

Inquiries into Lingtistic Theory and Language Acquisition.
Papers ofered to Adriana Belletti

CISCL.Siena

Japanesediscoursemarkers can follow NPs (with a Case marker), PPs, and TPs, andso on, as far as the structure constitutes a well-formed major syntactic constituent,while they cannot be inserted betweenNP and a Casemarker, nor NP and P in PP.
(17)b. *yane neroof NE臨﹄

a. xNeko ne-ga
Cat NE-Nom 'The cat (nominative).''from the roof

Given that sentence-final particles follow basically any proposition in adultJapanese, and given also the fact that the child discourse marker are not only
associatedwith various types of syntactic constituent but also appearsas a separate
item, the child structure of the sentence-final particles following such a truncatedphraseas an RIA would be somethinglike (18).
(18)[xPI

X:Pr@osilion

ne/na
-

XP is a proposition, and can be phonetically realized as zero in Japanese,theargument-drop language. Children produce truncated sentenceor even a phoneticallynull form, followed by a discourse marker that links the speaker and the addressee.
Tense Phrase can be projected only at around the stage where nominative Case
marker and severalconjugation forms of verbs come to be used.
In fact, children after two even tend to put ne onthe every propositional unit. (19)is an example of an utteranceof a child at the age of four.
(19) (Answering to the question, "What do you want to be in the future?")Kasuteraya santte ne, wakaranakattakarane, ii ni itte ne,
Cake-bakerC
did not recall because tell to soganbaretane tte ne, homete kureta
did greatCadmire got'I did not say that I would like to be a baker (when I was asked), so
I went to tell so to the person (later) and the person admired me sayingthat I did a good iob.'
In (19), ne is attachedto the underlined proposition given above, which "sounds very
childish" to the adult Japanese-speakers
although the position ne is inserted isgrammaticallyadult-like.
The fact that the RIAs and the sentence-final particle may co-occur in Japaneseacquisition would be explained naturally by assumingthat children do not fully know
the (adult) syntactic properties of sentence-finalparticles at the RIA stage, although
they know the pragmatic properties associatedwith them.

154

Ne-Attachment (Neluke) on the Truncated Phrases

Keiko Murasugi

The finding that T- and C-related items are not compatible with RIAs also suggeststhat discourse markers do not constitute a natural class with the T- and C-related
elements. From the view point of Japanese acquisition, it is more natural tohypothesize that the sentence-endingdiscourse markers such as ne, na and yo arelocatedabovethe CP layer, as Haegemanand Hill (2011) and Saito (2009) suggest.
3. Conclusion
In this paper, focussing on Japanese,we argued that the fact that JapaneseRIAs arecompatible with sentence-endingdiscourseparticle at around the age of two does notconstitute a counter-example to the Truncation Hlpothesis proposed by Fiizzi(1993/1994).
The phonetic realization of proposition-discourse interface would be the onset ofthe phrase structure. Japanese-learningchildren at the babbling stage and one-wordstage raise the intonation at the edge of utterances when they ask/command
something (Murasugi and Nakatani 2007), and such discourse marker as ne is
lexically realized at around one/two-word stage. The RIA observed at the age of one
and two is naturally compatible with a lexically realized discourse marker, andchildren put one on the truncated structure as well.
There are always two processes, bottom-up and top-down, involved in humanprocessing. The Truncation Hypothesis naturally explains the bottom-up process inthe acquisition of syntactic structure,while the argument presentedin this short paper
may suggesta possible top-down processfound in the acquisition of phrase structure.

Referencesms.,Ghent
L., andV. Hill (2011)Thesyntacticizationof discourse.
unpublished
Haegeman,
UniversityandUniversityof NewBrunswick-SJ.
in Chinese
Murasugi,
K. (2013)Rootinfinitiveanalogues
andJapaneseandtheemergenceof full
Ms.Nanzan
syntactic
structure.
University.
K. andC. Fuji.(2008)Rootinfinitives:TheparallelroutethatJapaneseandKoreanMurasugi,
Linguistics
18,Citychildrenstepin. Paperpresented
at Japanese-Korean
Conference
speaking(Paperappearedin JapaneseandKoranLinguisticsI 8,
Universityof NewYork,l3 November.
pp.3-15,2011).
CSLIPublications,Murasugi,
K. andC. Fuji.(2009)Rootinfinitivesin Japaneseandthelateacquisitionof headmoement.
BUCLD33Proceedings
supplement.
(2010)What'sacquired
K., C.Fuji,andT. Hashimotolaterin anagglutinative
language.
Murasugi,
NanzanLinguistics6. 4718.
Paper
Murasugi,K. andT. Nakatani(2007)Very early langaugeacquisition:A view from Japanese.
presentedat the workshopon Early Child Pnonology.ChineseUniverstiyof Hong Kong,
Augutst17.
The surrogate
Murasugi,K. T. Nakatani,and C. Fuji (2009)The rootsof root infinitive analogues:
verb forms commonin adultandchild grammars.BUCLD 34 Supplement.
http://www.ic.nanzan-u.acjp/
LINGUISTICS/ staffl murasugi_keikolpdfl2}l}murasugi nakatani_fuji.pdf.
nobunka.[Acquisition
Murasugi,K. andY. Kido (2011)Yoji no togokozokarasagarushuhenryoiki
ofPeripheralStructurein Japanese]Paperpresentedat the 2ndworkshopon Linguistic
andVariationswithin the Confinesof LanguageFaculty:Studiesin the Acquisiionof Japanese
LanguageandParametricSyntax(Research
ProjectofNational Institutefor Japanese
23.
Lingusitics).
KobeUniversity.December
Noji, J. (1973-1977)Ydjinogengoseikatsunojittai[The languageusein child age] I-IV. Tokyo:
BunkaHyoron Shuppan.
155

Inquiries into Linguistic Theory and LanguageAcquisition.
Pqers ofered bAdrbru Belletti

CSCL,Sia″ αOl€da" K., and J. Crrinstead(2003) The emergenceof CP in child Japanese.In JuanaM.Liceras,
Helmut Zobl, and Helen Goodluck @ds.)Proceedingsof the 6th GenerativeApproachesto
SecondIanguage Acquisition Corference(GASLA 2002), Qry.213-218)Somerville,
MA:Cascadilla ProceedingsProject
Okubo, A. (1967) Youji Gengono Hattatu [The Developmentof Child LanguageJ,Tokyo:Tokyodou
Shuppan.
Planq S. (1982) Indirect questionsin Spanish.Lingaistic Inquiry 13,2n1n.
Rizzi,L. (1993/1994) Somenoteson linguistic theory and languagedevelopmenf The caseof root
infinitives.LanguageAcquisition3. 37l-:393,
Rizzi,L. (1997)The fine structureof the left periphery,In Lillian HaegemanElementsof
Grammar:Handbookof GenerativeEntax (Ed.) (pp . 281-331)Dordrecht Kluwer.
Saito,M. (2009) Selectionand clausetypes in Japanese.Paperpresentedat the International
Conferenceon SentenceTypes: Ten Yearsafter, Universitdt Frankfirt am Maiq hxrc27.
Shirai, J., Hidetostti S. and Y. Furuta (1999) orr the acquisition of sentence-finalparticlesin Japanese.
In Michael Perkinsand SaraHoward @ds.)lfew Directions in Langnge hvelopment otd
Disorders, (pp.24F250) New York Plenum.

156