A Theoretical Account for the Undergeneration and the Overgeneration in Japanese Complex
Predicates1
Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Hashimoto and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University
1. Introduction
In this paper, we discuss the undergeneration and the overgeneration observed in the acquisition of Japanese complex
predicates. In particular, we focus on the errors children make for causatives and potentials. It has been reported thatJapanese-speaking children, at around 2 to 4 years of age, produce causatives without the causative morpheme -(s)ase as in (1)(Suzuki 1987, Ito 1990, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007, among others).2(1) Mama
Akkun non -de.
(Akkun, 2;8)mommydrink-Req
Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) drink Akkun(/me).’Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) feed Akkun(/me) (with milk).’(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

In (1), the causative form nom-(s)ase-te should be used in this context, but the child does not phonetically realize -(s)ase andproduces non-de instead.
Another type of error is also observed in the acquisition of causatives as in (2) (Ito 1990, Arai 2003, Murasugi and
Hashimoto 2004, among others).
(2) a.

b.

Nomi -tyatye-te.
(-tyatye = -sase)(Akkun, 3;7)drink
-Cause-Req
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) feed (me with miso soup.)’
Kuruma -o
too-si-sase-ru.
(Taatyan 3;10)car-Acc
pass-Cause -Cause -Pres
Intended meaning: ‘(I’ll) let the car pass through.’(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)(adult form: too-s-(r)u)(Arai 2003)

In (2a), the causative morpheme -(s)ase should be attached to the verb stem nom ‘to drink.’ However, the child “erroneously”
attaches -tyatye (meaning -sase) to the preverbal form nomi, and produces nomi-tyatye-te. (2b) is an example of doubled
causatives. Although the transitive verb too-s-(r)u ‘let … pass’ itself can be a causative verb, the child additionally attaches theunnecessary causative morpheme -sase to it, yielding the unacceptable form too-si-sase-ru. The children overgenerate themorpheme -sase in either case.
Arai (2006) gives a phonological explanation for the erroneous causative and potential forms productively uttered by aJapanese-speaking child. The data discussed in Arai (2006) and the data of Sumihare (Noji 1974-1977) are further reanalyzed
by Yano (2007a) under Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis. This paper is an extension of Yano (2007a),
arguing that the parallel undergeneration and overgeneration phenomena are observed in the acquisition of -(rar)e potential
complex predicates as well as -(s)ase causative complex predicates.(Okubo 1967, Ito 1990, Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006, among
others).3 The relevant examples are shown in (3) and (4).
1

We would like to thank Mamoru Saito, Keiko Yano, Tomoko Kawamura, Tomohiro Fujii, Kensuke Takita, Tom Roeper,
William Snyder, Jeff Bernath, Jean Crawford, Alison Gabriele, Jim Huang, Takuya Goro, Elena Koulidobrova, Akira Omaki,
Seichi Sugawa, and the members of the undergraduate seminar classes of Murasugi, for their helpful discussions andsuggestions on this paper. We thank the anonymous reviewers of BUCLD 32 for the comments and suggestions.
2

Abbreviation used in the glosses are as follows: Acc=accusative Case, Cause=causative, Dat=dative Case, Int=interjection,
Neg=negation, Nom=nominative Case, Pres=present, Past=past, Pot=potential, Req=request, Top=topic, Trans=transitive1(3) Mother: Zenbu
tabe -rare
-ru
kara
ne.
all
eat -Pot
-Pres
as
Int
‘You can eat all.’Child: Zenbu
tabe φ -ru
ne.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)
all
eat
-Pres
Int
Literal meaning: ‘(I) eat all.’ Intended meaning: ‘(I) can eat all.’(Noji 1974-1977)(4) a.
b.

Yar -(r)aredo -Pot
Zyoozuni
well

-nai.
(Taatyan, 3;5)(adult form: yar-e nai)
-Neg
Intended meaning: ‘I cannot do.’mot -e -rare-ta.
(Taatyan, 4;2)
(adult form: mot-e-ta)
have -Pot-Pot-Past Intended meaning: ‘I could bring (this) up very well.’(Arai 2006)(3) is an example of the undergeneration. According to the observer, the child repeats his mother's utterance without using the-rare form (Noji 1974-1977). (4a) and (4b), on the other hand, are the examples of the overgeneration. In the case of (4a), thechild intends to say that he cannot do something, and the potential morpheme -e should be attached to the verbal stem.
However, -rare is attached, and the erroneous form -yarare, instead of -yare, is produced. In (4b), the child attaches themorpheme -e correctly to the verbal stem, but additionally attaches the unnecessary morpheme -rare, thereby producing an
unacceptable doubled potential form. In either case, the morpheme -rare is overgenerated.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the undergeneration and overgeneration phenomena observed in the acquisition ofJapanese causative and potential complex predicates. We argue that the intermediate acquisition stages can be uniformly
explained by Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis for the complex predicates. Based on the analysis of
longitudinal studies of Japanese-speaking children reported in the previous literatures, e.g., Akkun (Murasugi and Hashimoto2004), Sumihare (Noji 1974-1977), Taatyan (Arai 2003, 2006), and the subjects observed by Okubo (1967), Ito (1990),
Shibuya (1993, 1994) Suzuki (1987), among others, we argue that the undergeneration is due to the Japanese-speaking
children’s initial hypothesis that the v does exist but it is phonetically null (just as in English), as Murasugi and Hashimoto(2004) propose. We also discuss that the overgeneration takes place because of the erroneous realization of the v, and/or theuse of the undifferentiated verbal form, as Murasugi (2007a, b) proposes.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss Japanese adult grammar of causatives and potentials. We
overview the proposals made by Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) and Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005, 2007) that Japanesecomplex predicates have v-VP or VP-shell structures (Larson 1988, Hale and Keyser 1993, 2003, Chomsky 1995, Harley
1995, 2006, among others). Then, we discuss the undergeneration phenomenon in Section 3, and the overgeneration
phenomenon in Section 4. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2. The Adult Grammar of Japanese Complex Predicates
2.1. -(S)ase Causatives
Japanese morphological -(s)ase causatives are formed by attaching the causative morpheme -(s)ase to the verb stems. It
has been argued that -(s)ase is ambiguous in two ways (Miyagawa 1984, 1998, Harley 1995, 2006; Matsumoto 2000,
Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato 2003, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, among others). The sentence in (5), for instance, isambiguous between (6a) and (6b).
(5) Taroo-ga
Hanako -ni
pan
-Nom
-Dat
bread
‘Taroo made Hanako eat some bread.’

-o
-Acc

tabe -saseeat -Cause

3

-ta.
-Past

This paper is an extension of Yano’s MA thesis (2007a) submitted to Nanzan University, which was also presented atConnecticut-Nanzan-Siena Joint Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition at Nanzan University, February
21st in 2007, and in Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3.1.

2

(6) a.
b.

Taroo gave an order to Hanako and Hanako ate some bread.
Taroo fed Hanako with some bread.

In one reading, as shown in (6a), Hanako is an agent, whereas it is a goal in another reading as shown in (6b). The sentencewith the former reading is called ‘the syntactic causative,’ while that with the latter reading is called ‘the lexical causative.’
Based on the VP-shell hypothesis (Larson 1988, Hale and Keyser 1993, 2002, Chomsky 1995, among others), Murasugi
and Hashimoto (2004) propose the structures for these two types of -(s)ase causative, as shown in (7a) and (7b), respectively.
(7)a.

syntactic causativevP
causerv’
VPv [+cause]vP
V φcauseev’-(s)aseVPv [+cause]
NP
V
φ

b.

lexical causativevP
causerv’
VP
causeeVNPv[+cause]-(s)aseV(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

As shown in (7), a syntactic causative has the bi-clausal structure, whereas a lexical causative has the mono-clausal structure.
According to their analysis, -(s)ase is ambiguous in the adult grammar of Japanese. In one case where it is an independent V, it
takes a v-projection as its complement, yielding a complex structure as in (7a). In this case, the dative argument, or the causee,
is interpreted as an agent. In the other case, it combines with the V and forms a complex verb, yielding a simple sentence withno embedding as in (7b). The dative argument is then interpreted as a goal. In Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) terms,
Japanese causative morpheme -(s)ase is a realization of the [+cause] v.4
Following Hale and Keyser (1993, 2003), Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) give the v-VP frame structure to Japanesetransitive and intransitive sentences. Japanese transitive and intransitive verbal forms are distinguished with their morphemes
as in (9), and these morphemes are in the v as shown in (10).5(9) a. utu-s-(r)u (= photograph-Pres)b. todok-e-ru (= deliver-Pres)c. os-ie-ru (= teach-Pres)d. too-s-(r)u (= let … pass-Pres)
(10)

/
/
/
/

utu-r-(r)u (= be photographed-Pres)todok-(r)u (=be delivered-Pres)
os-owar-(r)u (= be taught-Pres)
too-r-(r)u (= pass-Pres)a. transitive
vP
agent
v’
VP
v [+cause]
theme
V’ -s
locationVutu

b. intransitivevPv’
VPv[-cause]
theme
V’ -r
location V
utu(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

4

Following Miyagawa (1980, 1984, 1998), Zenno (1985), Harley (1995), and Matsumoto (2000) among others, Harley(2006) also argues that -sase is ambiguous between syntactic and lexical causatives, and that syntactic causatives are bi-clausal
while lexical causatives are mono-clausal. She further assumes the v-VP structure for Japanese causatives based on Hale andKeyser (1993, 2002). Harley (2006), however, considers -sase to be in the v in both syntactic and lexical causatives. According
to her analysis, in lexical causatives, a CAUS vº is adjacent to a root. On the other hand, in syntactic causatives, a CAUS vº is
not adjacent to a root and takes another vP complement.
5Japanese transitive and intransitive morphemes are not always overt. For instance, in the case of todok-(r)u in (9b), the[-cause] v is realized phonetically null like English verbs.

3Unlike Japanese, the [±cause] v is not phonetically realized in English transitive and intransitive sentences, as in (11).
(11) a.
b.

Mary sank the boat. (transitive)
The boat sank.
(intransitive)

The structures of (11a) and (11b) are represented in (12a) and (12b) respectively.
(12)a.

vP
Mary[+cause]v

v’

VP
V
NP
SINK the boat(v[+cause] +SINK =sink)b.
vP[-cause]v
VP
the boati
V’
V
NP
SINK
ti
(v[-cause] +SINK =sink)(Larson 1988, Hale and Keyser 1993, 2002, Chomsky 1995)

In (12a) and (12b), the verb ‘sink’ consists of two abstract verbs: the [±cause] v and V. The [±cause] v is realized phoneticallynull, and the transitive and the intransitive verbs have the same verbal form.
2.2. -(Rar)e Potentials
Japanese -(rar)e potential complex predicates are constructed by adding the morpheme -(rar)e ‘-able’ to the verb stems.
The vocalic verb stems take the morpheme -rare, and the consonantal verb stems take the morpheme –e, as shown in (13)(Shibuya 1993, Kinsui 2003, Arai 2006, among others).
(13) a.

b.

Vocalic verbs: stem +-rare‘eat-Pot-tense’
present:tabe-rare-ru
past:tabe-rare-ta
Consonantal verbs: stem + -e
‘go-Pot-tense’
present:
ik-e-ru
past:ik-e-ta‘see-Pot-tense’
mi-rare-ru
mi-rare-ta‘make-Pot-tense’tukur-e-ru
tukur-e-ta

The verbs tabe-ru ‘to eat’ and mi-ru ‘to see’ shown in (13a) are vocalic, whose stems end with vowels, and the morpheme-rare is attached to the verb stems to derive the potential forms, tabe-rare-ru ‘can eat’ and mi-rare-ru ‘can see.’ In contrast, ik-u
‘to go’ and tukur-(r)u ‘to make’ shown in (13b) are consonantal verbs, whose stems end with consonants, and the morpheme-e is attached to the verb stems to derive the potential forms, ik-e-ru ‘can go’ and tukur-e-ru ‘can make.’ The examples in (14)indicate the typical potential sentences.
(14) a.

b.

Taroo

-wa
hitoridesupagetti-Topby oneself
spaghetti‘Taroo can eat spaghetti by himself.’
Hanako -wa
hitoridegakkoo-ni-Topby oneself
school -Dat
‘Hanako can go to school by herself.’

-o
-Acc

tabe -rareeat -Pot

ik-e
go-Pot

-ru.
-Pres

-ru.
-Pres

There are several important proposals regarding the structure of potentials (e.g., Tada (1992) and Koizumi (1995) for the4AGR-based approach, Saito and Hoshi (1998) for the Head-Head Merger approach, and Takano (2003) for the Prolepsis
approach). In this paper, we assume Bobaljik and Wurmbrand’s (2005, 2007) analysis that the potential morpheme -(rar)e is in
the head of the vP. Given their analysis, the structure of (14a) would be the one shown in (15).
(15)

vP
Taroo

v’

VP
v
hitori-de VP -rareNP
VP
supagetti-o tabeThus, under the v-VP frame analysis, the potential morpheme -(rar)e, transitive and intransitive morphemes, and the causative
morpheme -(s)ase in lexical causatives are all in the head of the vP.
In the following sections, we analyze the undergeneration and the overgeneration in -(s)ase causatives and -(rar)epotentials, and provide some supporting evidence for the hypothesis that children, in the course of language acquisition, fail torealize the correct adult form for the v (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi 2007a, b).
3. The Undergeneration
According to Murausgi and Hashimoto (2004), the structure of VP-shell itself is acquired very early,,6 but it takes time
for the Japanese-speaking children to acquire the “correct” lexical form of the v. Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose that
there is a stage where children hypothesize that the v is realized phonetically null. This stage corresponds to what we call thestage of the undergeneration.
3.1. The Undergeneration in -(S)ase Causatives
Children start producing the intransitive and the transitive verbs correctly at around the age of 2. However, they do notalways produce the correct ones. The utterances which have the causative meaning (or intention) are produced without thecausative morpheme -(s)ase in the early 2-year-old. We call such phenomenon ‘the undergeneration.’ A couple of examples
are given in (16a (=(1)) and (16b).
(16) a.

b.

Mama
Akkun non-de.
(Akkun, 2;8)
mommy
drink
-Req
Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) drink Akkun(/me).’Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) feed Akkun(/me) (with milk).’
Kutyu
hai
-te.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
a pair of shoes
put on -Req
Literal meaning: ‘(Please) put on (your) pair of shoes.’
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) put a pair of shoes on (me).’(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)(adult form hak-(s)ase-te)(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)

6

From around 1;5 through 3 years of age, the sentences with suru/sita/site ‘do/did/doing’ as in (i) are often produced by
Japanese-speaking children.
(i) Mama
Akkun haidoozyo tiyu (tiyu = suru) (Akkun, 2;5)
mommy
yes
please do‘Akkun(/I) will give (it) to Mommy.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose that suru/sita/site assigns an agent role to a subject. That is, the v is realized assuru/sita/site in this stage, and children have VP-shell structures. See Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) and Murasugi,
Hashimoto and Fuji (2007) for more data and detailed analysis.

5As shown in (16a), Akkun intends to say nom-(s)ase-te to ask his mother to feed him, but utters non-de ‘please drink’ instead,without lexically realizing -(s)ase. The same type of undergeneration error is found in the longitudinal data of Sumihare (Noji
1974-1977). In (16b), Sumihare produces hai-te instead of hak-(s)ase-te. He does not produce -(s)ase though it is clear that
he intends to ask someone to put a pair of shoes on him.
In this stage, children also produce transitive/intransitive alternation errors such as in (17).
(17) a

b.

Akkun

ima
kaya
koe
nayab-u. (nayab-u = narab-(r)u) (Akkun 2;11) (adult form: narab-e-ru)
now
from
this
be-in-line
Intended meaning: ‘From now, Akkun(/I) will put these in line.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
Nui-takoko.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
(adult form: nuk-e-ta)
pull-Past
here
Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)

In (17a), instead of the transitive verb narab-e-ru ‘to put...in line,’ Akkun erroneously produces what corresponds to theintransitive verb narab-(r)u ‘to be...in line.’ In contrast, in (17b), the intransitive verb nuk-e-ta ‘came off’ must be used in theadult grammar. However, Sumihare uses the transitive form nui-ta ‘pulled.’
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) argue that both of the causatives without -(s)ase and the transitive/intransitive
alternation errors are due to children’s initial hypothesis that the [±cause] v is phonetically null. To be precise, the utterances in(16) are not ‘omission’ errors, but they are ‘the undergeneration.’ Although the children apparently omit -(s)ase, they justassume the v to be null. This also holds for the transitive/intransitive alternation errors. As discussed in Section 2.1, in adultJapanese, the [±cause] v are basically overt, and therefore a transitive verb and an intransitive verb have different forms, suchas utu-s-u ‘to photograph’ and utu-r-u ‘to be photographed.’ However, children assume the [±cause] v to be null in this period,
and they do not distinguish the two forms. Thus, Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose that this is the stage where children
know that either -s or -r should be attached to the verb (probably because they never hear the verb without these morphemes),and hence, children randomly attach these morphemes directly onto the V. This is why children sometimes produce verbal
forms correctly and sometimes do not.
3.2. The Undergeneration in -(Rar)e Potentials
Like causatives, children start producing potentials without the potential morpheme -(rar)e in the early 2-year-old. We
find the same type of undergeneration as causatives. The example (3) is repeated below as in (18).
(18) Child:Zenbutabe φ -ru
ne.
all
eat
-Pres
Int
Literal meaning:‘(I) eat all.’Intended meaning:‘(I) can eat all.’(Sumihare, 2;1)

(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)(Noji 1974-1977)

As we mentioned in Section 1, Sumihare repeats after his mother without using -rare form, despite the fact that the motherspeaks to her son using -rare form tabe-rare-ru ‘can eat.’ This type of error is also reported in other literatures, e.g., Okubo(1967) and Ito (1990). Given that the potential morpheme is in the v (Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005, 2007), this error can bewell explained under Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis. That is, children in this stage, at around the age of 2,
hypothesize that the v is phonetically null.
On the other hand, the “correct” potential forms also appear in the children’s early production (Okubo 1967, Ito 1990,
Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006, Yano 2007a, b, c). Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) report that children start producing the correct
potential forms with the morpheme -e at around the age of 2. Based on her analysis of Noji corpus from CHILDES database(MacWhinney 2000), Yano (2007a, b, c) also finds that -e potentials appear very early, at 2;0. Some examples of Sumihare’s
potential sentences are given in (19).

6

(19) a.
b.

Too -r-e -n.
(Sumihare, 2;0)pass -Trans -Pot -Neg‘(I) cannot pass.’
Kakko -gahak-e -n.
(Sumihare, 2;2)
shoes-Nom put on -Pot-Neg‘(I) cannot put on my shoes.’(Yano 2007a, b, c)

In (19a) and (19b), Sumihare apparently produces potential forms correctly. Too-r-e-n ‘cannot pass’ in (19a) and hak-e-n‘cannot put on’ in (19b) are the short forms of too-r-e-nai and hak-e-nai. Those are possible truncated forms in some dialects.
Then, are potentials really acquired in such an early stage, even at the age of 2? A possible answer for this question is apositive one, i.e., the adult syntax of potentials is acquired very early compared with other complex predicates. The otherpossibility is, on the contrary, what apparently looks like the adult potential form does not, in fact, have exactly the samestructure as adults’. Murasugi (2007a, b) gives an answer to this problem. She proposes that children’s predicates produced at
the early age of 2 are the uninflected (undifferentiated) forms, and that the v is phonetically null in this stage. Hereafter, we
support the latter possibility and Murasugi’s (2007a, b) analysis, presuming that Sumihare’s potential sentences produced at
the early age of 2, in fact, are the undifferentiated forms, hence, this is the stage where the v is phonetically null as well. In
other words, in this stage, the children attach the potential morpheme -e onto the V.
Some evidence for this proposal is found in Murasugi and Fuji’s (2007) analysis of the longitudinal data of Sumihare(Noji 1974-1977). First, Sumihare, in the stage where the undergeneration in question is observed, produces “erroneous”
inflection forms of tense markers as in (20).
(20) Tootyan, koko
gomi
tui -tayo.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
father here
dust
stick-Past
Int
Intended meaning: ‘Daddy, you have got the dust here (=on your cheek).’(adult form: tui-te iru (perfect))(Murasugi and Fuji 2007)

The context of (20) is that Sumihare wants to tell his father that his father has dust on his cheek. In this context, the perfectform -te iru7 should be used. However, Sumihare employs the simple past form and says tui-ta ‘stuck’ instead of tui-te iru‘have been stuck.’ Based on the detailed analysis of other perfect and progressive forms produced by Sumihare (Noji
1974-1977), Murasugi and Fuji (2007) argue that tense markers such as -te(iru), -ta, or -(r)u and the stems of verbs are notdifferentiated at the very early stage. This analysis stands upon the proposal by Murasugi (2007a, b) that the verbal forms ofJapanese-speaking children at around the age of 2 are the unmerged form of the verb and the tense, and that the children’sfunctional categories such as T and v are not phonetically realized at the very early stage in such agglutinative language asJapanese. The verbs and the tense markers are unanalyzed (undifferentiated), and they are base-generated in the V. That is,
Sumihare regards the whole verbal form tui-ta in (20) as V.
The second evidence is, as is discussed in Murasugi and Fuji (2007), found in Sumihare’s erroneous negative forms
observed in the acquisition stage in question. In adult Japanese, -nai ‘not’ is a verbal predicate which itself carries finite tense(Sano 2000). The structure of negation is represented schematically in (21).
(21)

IP
I’
NEGP
I
VP
NEG
-i (present) /-kat-ta (past)
Root +irrealis affix na-(=finite)(Based on Sano 2000)

The examples in (22), however, indicate that Sumihare, in an early age of 2, does not have the structure shown in (21).

7Japanese -te iru sentences are ambiguous between the progressive interpretation and the perfect interpretation.

7

(22) a.

Father:Sumihare:b.

Mother:Sumihare:Sinbuntot -ta?
newspaper take -Past‘Have (you) fetched the newspaper yet?’Tot -ta -nai.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
(adult form: tot-te-nai)take-Past-Neg
Intended meaning: ‘(I) haven’t.’
Oti
-ru
yo.
fall down -Pres
Int‘(You) will fall down.’
Oti-ta -nai.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
(adult form: oti-te-nai/oti-nai)fall down -Past-Neg
Intended meaning: ‘(I) won’t.’(Murasugi and Fuji 2007)

In (22a), Sumihare is asked if he has already fetched the newspaper, and he intends to say, ‘No, I haven’t.’ For this context, thenegative form tot-te-nai ‘haven’t taken’ should be used. However, Sumihare puts -nai on the past tense form tot-ta ‘took,’ andproduces the unacceptable negative form tot-ta-nai. (22b) shows the same type of error. Even though his mother speaks to him
with the present verbal form oti-ru ‘fall down,’ the child produces oti-ta-nai, putting -nai on the past tense form oti-ta ‘fell
down,’ despite the fact that the negative form oti-te-nai or oti-nai should be used for this context.
Recall here that in such agglutinative language as Japanese, the functional categories such as T and v are not phoneticallyrealized in the early stage, and the verbal forms of Japanese-speaking children at around the age of 2 are the unmerged form
(Murasugi 2007a, b). The examples given above create one of the examples for this hypothesis. The negative marker -nai ‘not’is attached to the verbal form, totta or otita in this acquisition stage, because the child regards the whole verb containing thetense marker as a rote form.
Thus, the discussion so far leads us to presume that Sumihare, at the early age of 2, produces the undifferentiated verbal
forms as Murasugi (2007a, b) discusses. Then, it is natural to consider that the potentials found in this period are also
undifferentiated verbs. Given this analysis, the examples in (19) would be, in fact, the “lexical potentials.” That is, the childattaches the potential morpheme -e, not as a realization of the v, but as a part of the V. Note here that the child forms are allused with the potential meaning in the “correct” context. Hence, it is plausible that the v does exist and it has the feature at thispoint, but it is phonetically null in the stage of the undergeneration, as Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose.
4. The Overgeneration
In Section 3, we argued that the undergeneration phenomenon observed in Japanese causatives and potentials areelegantly explained under Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis. In this section, we turn to theovergeneration phenomenon. We first report that the parallel pattern of the overgeneration is observed in the acquisition ofJapanese causatives and potentials. We, then, point out that there are two types of overgeneration. We argue that they indicatethat there is an acquisition stage where the children know that the v has to be phonetically realized in their target grammar, but(i) have not acquired the “correct (adult)” lexical form, and/or (ii) have still the undifferentiated rote verbal form.
4.1. The Overgeneration in -(S)ase Causatives
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) report that Akkun, their subject, produces lexical causatives at around the age of 3, as in(23).
(23) Akkun-ni tabe -sase-tee.
-Dat eat -Cause -Req‘(Please) feed Akkun(/me) (with food).’(Akkun, 3;6)
(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

In (23), Akkun is not an agent but a goal, since Akkun is asking his mother to put some food directly into his mouth. Thus, inthis stage, children are apparently aware that the [±cause] v must be realized phonetically.
However, at the same time, children produce two types of overgeneration. The one is “a verb + -(s)ase” form, and theother is “a causative verb + a causative morpheme” form. The examples of the first type of overgeneration are given in (24a)8and (24b(=2a)).
(24) a.
b.

Oki
-sasi
-te.
(Sumihare, 3;1)
(adult form: ok-osi-te)
get up -Cause -Req
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) get (me) up.’(Noji 1994-1997)
Nomi -tyatye -te. (-tyatye = -sase)(Akkun, 3;7)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)drink-Cause -Req
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) feed (me with miso soup.)’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

In (24a), Sumihare asks someone to get him up. Here, the imperative form of the lexical causative verb ok-os-(r)u ‘to get …
up,’ or ok-osi-te, is expected in the adult grammar, but Sumihare erroneously attaches -sasi (which is sometimes used insteadof the standard -sase in his dialect) to the stem of the intransitive verb ok-i-ru ‘to get up.’ (24b) shows the similar type of error.
The correct causative form of the verb nom-(r)u ‘to drink’ is nom-(s)ase-ru. However, Akkun erroneously attaches -tyatye, orthe child’s phonetic form of -sase, to its preverbal form nomi, and makes nomi-tyatye-te. Thus, both of Sumihare and Akkun
overgenerate the causative morpheme -sase in the cases where the transitive morpheme -os or the causative morpheme -aseshould be attached. These data indicate that the children know that the v should be phonetically realized, but they fail inchoosing the right one among several ways of the realization of the causative morphemes, and choose the unmarked boundmorpheme form, i.e., -sase.
The second type of overgeneration, “a causative verb + a causative morpheme,” is produced at around later 3 years old to
5 years old. The relevant examples are shown in (25a (=2b)) and (25b).
(25) a.

b.

Kuruma -o
too -si
-sase
-ru.
car
-Acc
pass -Cause -Cause -Pres
Intended meaning: ‘(I’ll) let the car pass through.’Kondo
mi -se-si-teageru
kara
next timesee -Cause -Cause letasIntended meaning: ‘(I’ll) show you next time’

ne.
Int

(Taatyan, 3;10)(adult form: too-s-(r)u)(Taatyan, 4;6)

(adult form: mi-se-te)(Arai 2003)

In (25a), the transitive verb too-s-(r)u ‘to let … pass,’ which is a causative verb as well, is erroneously associated with anadditional causative morpheme -sase. (25b) is another example of doubly marked causatives. The transitive verb mi-se-ru ‘toshow’ or ‘to let … see’ is, in fact, a causative verb containing the transitive morpheme -se in it. However, the child adds the
additional causative morpheme -si 8and produces mi-se-si-te “by mistake.”Why do the children produce the second type of overgeneration? We conjecture that this is the stage where children still
have difficulty in finding the appropriate stem form of a verb as well as the correct form of a bound morpheme. They assume
an undifferentiated causative verb as the stem of a bare verb. They also know that the v should be phonetically realized tomake a causative verb. Hence, children attach an additional causative morpheme -sase or -si onto the undifferentiated V, as
illustrated in (26).
(26)

vP
v’
VP

v
V -sase/-si
toosi/mise

Since children regard the whole verbal forms toosi and mise as V, they add the causative morphemes to realize the v
phonetically. This is probably why the children make the causative doubling: the lexical causatives with an additional

8

The causative morpheme -(s)ase and -(s)e are often produced as -(s)asi and -(s)i in the western dialects of Japanese.

9unnecessary causative morpheme.9
4.2. The Overgeneration in -(Rar)e Potentials
Just like the causatives, in the acquisition of potentials as well, we find in Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) that theJapanese-speaking children may go through the stages of the overgeneration. And just like the causatives, two types ofovergeneration is also found in the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials. One type of overgeneration is “the stem of a verb + -rare.”
Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) report that children produce the overgeneration as given in (27a) and (27b (=4a)).
(27) a.

b.

Taakunhitori-detukur -(r)are -ta.
(Taatyan, 3;0)by oneself
make-Pot-Past
Intended meaning: ‘Taakun(/I) could make (this) by himself(/myself).’
Yar-(r)are-nai.
(Taatyan, 3;5)
do -Pot-Neg
Intended meaning: ‘I cannot do.’(adult form: tukur-e-ta)(adult form: yar-e nai)
(Arai 2006)

In standard Japanese, -rare is attached to vocalic verb stems, while -e is attached to consonantal verb stems, as is discussed in
Section 2. However, Taatyan overgenerates -rare in this stage. According to Arai (2006), the child has his own
morpho-phonological rule, and puts -rare on the vocalic verbs, and -are on the consonantal verbs. Thus, in (27a) and (27b), themorpheme -are attaches to the stems of the verbs tukur-(r)u ‘to make’ and yar-(r)u ‘to do,’ though the morpheme -e should be
attached in the adult grammar.10 Again, just like the causative -sase, children tend to choose an unmarked potential morpheme.
In the case of potentials, -rare seems to be the unmarked potential morpheme attached. Thus, in the stage where theovergeneration in the acquisition of potentials is found, children have knowledge that the v is phonetically realized, but they do
not know the “correct” adult form, and hence, they choose the unmarked potential morpheme -rare.
Another type of overgeneration, “a potential verb + a potential morpheme,” is also observed at the later 3 years old to 5
years old.11 A couple of examples are given in (28a) and (28b (=4b)).
(28) a.

b.

Gakko-ni
ik -e -re -ru
yo.
(Sumihare, 3;1)
school-Dat go -Pot -Pot -Pres
Int
Intended meaning: ‘(I) can go to school by myself.’
Zyoozunimot -e -rare-ta.
(Taatyan, 4;2)
wellhave -Pot-Pot-Past
Intended meaning: ‘I could bring (this) up very well.’(adult form: ik-e-ru)(Noji 1974-1977)(adult form: mot-e-ta)(Arai 2006)

In (28), children attach an additional potential morpheme -re or -rare onto the already-potential-verb (or “lexical”
potentials). Sumihare, in (28a), produces an erroneous potential form, ik-e-re-ru for ik-e-ru (the adult potential form of ik-u ‘togo’). The same type of error is found in Taatyan’s data, as in (28b). Taatyan correctly attaches -e to the consonantal verb
mot-(r)u ‘to have.’ However, he additionally attaches the potential morpheme -rare, yielding an unacceptable potential form
mot-e-rare-ta. As is the case of causatives, this type of overgeneration would reflect the stage where children still use theundifferentiated potential verbs. This is the stage where they know that a potential morpheme should be attached to make aproductive potential form in the target grammar, and hence, they put the (unmarked) form -rare on the lexical potential verb.
9

Mamoru Saito brought our attention to this analysis. The overgeneration in (25) can be considered as the morphological one
since the number of argument does not increase unlike the famous example of the syntactic overgeneration ‘Don’t giggle me’(Bowerman 1982). We would like to thank Jean Crawford and William Snyder for also making this point to us.
10

As far as we know, Shibuya (1994) is one of the pioneers who found the productive overgeneration errors in potentials.
Arai (2003, 2006) report the overgeneration phenomena in causatives as well as potentials, and attempt to analyze them in a
uniform way.
11

In the case of Sumihare, he starts producing two types of overgeneration at the same age, at around the age of 3.

10

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we reported that the parallel intermediate stages in the acquisition of Japanese causatives and potentials arefound. We argued that these intermediate stages, the undergeneration and the overgeneration, can be uniformly analyzed under
the VP-shell hypothesis for the acquisition of the Japanese complex predicates proposed by Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004).
First, in the stage of the undergeneration, -(s)ase as the v is not realized, and the transitive/intransitive alternation errors arealso found. As for potentials, children do not produce -(rar)e, and employ the unanalyzed adult form as a potential verb. We
argued that these errors are due to children’s initial hypothesis that the v does exist in their grammar, but it is phonetically nullas Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose. They relate this stage to the English transitive/intransitive alternation (See also(11)).
(29) a.
b.

John passed the ring to MaryThe ring passed to Mary

Both the transitive pass and the intransitive pass are realized as pass. The children’s alternation errors found in Japanese
have, in fact, the adult English-type structure: both the v’s of [±cause] are realized as zero morphemes.
Second, children go through the two types of overgeneration stage for causatives and potentials. One type ofovergeneration is “a correct (but sometimes inappropriate) stem of a verb + (unmarked) -sase or -rare.”12 Another type ofovergeneration is the causative and the potential doubling: “an undifferentiated causative verb + a causative morpheme” and“an undifferentiated potential verb +a potential morpheme.” We argued that the overgeneration takes place, since
Japanese-speaking children, at one point of language acquisition, have difficulty in finding the “correct” adult forms of thebound morphemes for causatives and potentials, and those agglutinative language learners, at an early stage of language
acquisition, also have difficulty in differentiating the bound morphemes from the stems of verbs (Murasugi 2007a, b).
References
Arai, F. (2003) ‘Nihongo ni Okeru Kiin Tadousi-no Syuutoku Dankai [Developmental Sequence in the Acquisition of Lexical
Causative Verbs -Implications of Causative Errors in Japanese-].’ Kyoto-Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu
Zinbunkagaku-Keiretu [Essays on Humanity Science, Kyoto-Sangyo University] 30, Kyoto-Sangyo University, 1-38.
Arai, F. (2006) ‘Nihongo ni Okeru Kanou Hyougen-no Syuutoku Katei [Developmental Sequence in the Acquisition of the
Potential Construction in Japanese].’ Kyoto-Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu Zinbunkagaku-Keiretu[Essays on Humanity
Science, Kyoto-Sangyo University] 34, Kyoto-Sangyo University, 1-23.
Bowerman, M. (1982) ‘Evaluating Competing Linguistic Models with Language Acquisition Data: Implications ofDevelopmental Errors with Causative Verbs.’ Quaderni di Semantica 3, 5-66.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2005) ‘The domain of agreement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 809-865.
Bobaljik, J.D. and S. Wurmbrand. (2007) ‘Complex Predicates, Aspect, and Anti-reconstruction.’ Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 16, Number 1, 27-42.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) ‘On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.’ In K. Hale and S.
J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press. 53-109.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (2002) Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Harley, H. (1995) Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Harley, H. (2006) ‘On the Causative Construction.’ To appear In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito (eds.), The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000433)
12

Precisely speaking, this type of error may not be the case of overgeneration, but rather, a morphological error, as Mamoru
Saito (p.c.) and Alison Gabriele (p.c.) pointed out to us.
11

Ito, K. (1990) Kodomo-no Kotoba - Syutoku to Souzou [Child Language: Acquisition and Innovation]. Tokyo: Keisou
Syobou.
Kinsui, S. (2003) ‘Ra-nuki Kotoba-no Rekisiteki Kenkyu [A Historical Study of Ra-omission Forms].’ Gengo [Language]
vol.32, No.4, 56-62.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the Double Object Construction.’ Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.
MacWhinney, B. (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matsumoto, Y. (2000) ‘On the Crosslinguistic Parameterization of Causative Predicates: Implications from Japanese andOther Languages.’ In M. Butt and T. H. King (eds.), Argument Realization. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 135-169.
Miyagawa, S. (1980) Complex Verbs and the Lexicon. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Miyagawa, S. (1984) ‘Blocking and Japanese Causatives.’ Lingua 64, 177-207.
Miyagawa, S. (1998) ‘(S)ase as an Elsewhere Causative and the Syntactic Nature of Words.’ Journal of Japanese Linguistics
16, 67-110.
Murasugi, K. (2007a) ‘Intermediate Acquisition Stages: A View from Japanese.’ Paper presented at Workshop on
Romance-Japanese: Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. University of Siena, May 5.
Murasugi, K. (2007b) ‘Intermediate Stages in Language Acquisition: Prism in an Agglutinative Language.’ Paper presented
at the 3rd Acquisition Research Workshop, Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University, June 16.
Murasugi, K. and C. Fuji (2007) ‘Asupekuto-no Kakutoku: Ehime Hougen kara Gengo(riron) e [The Acquisition of Aspects:
Theoretical Implications from Ehime Syntax].’ Academia 82, Nanzan University, 43-93.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) ‘Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame.’ Nanzan Linguistics 1,
1-19.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, and C. Fuji (2007) ‘VP-Shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese Intransitive Verbs,
Transitive Verbs, and Causatives.’ Linguistics 45, vol. 3, 615-651.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, and S. Kato (2003) ‘On the acquisition of causatives in Japanese.’ In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla andC. E. Smith (eds.), BUCLD 28 Proceedings Online Supplement.
(http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/supp.html)
Noji, J. (1974-1977) Youzi-no Gengoseikatu no Zittai [Substance of the Language Use in Child Age] I-IV. Tokyo: Bunka
Hyoron Syuppan.
Okubo, A. (1967) Youzi Gengo-no Hattatu [The Development of Child Language]. Tokyo: Tokyodou Syuppan.
Saito, M and H. Hoshi (1998) ‘Control in Complex Predicates.’ Report of the Special Research Project for the Typological
Investigation of Language and Cultures of the East and West. University of Tsukuba, 15-46.
Shibuya, K. (1993) ‘Nihongo Kanou Hyougen-no Syosou to Hatten [The State and the Development of Japanese Potential
Construction].’ Osaka Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyou [Memories of Osaka University School of Letters] 33, Osaka
University.
Shibuya, K. (1994) ‘Youzi-no Kanou Hyougen-no Kakutoku [The Acquisition of the Potential Construction].’ Musa 1,
University of Kyoto Foreign Studies, 23-40.
Suzuki, S. (1987) ‘Youzi-no Bunpou Nouryoku [Children’s Grammatical Competence].’ In S. Fukazawa (ed.), Kodomo no
Gengo Sinri [Psychology of Children’s Language]. Tokyo: Dainihon Tosyo. 141-180.
Tada, H. (1992) ‘Nominative Objects in Japanese.’ Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91-108.
Takano, Y. (2003) ‘Nominative Objects in Japanese Complex Predicate Constructions: A Prolepsis Analysis.’ Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 779-834.
Yano, K. (2007a) Fukugo-jutugobun-no Kakutoku –Kanou Koubun-o Tyusin tosite [The Acquisition of Complex
Predicates: A Case Study of the Potential Construction-]. Master’s thesis, Nanzan University.
Yano, K. (2007b) ‘The Structure of Japanese Potential -(r)eru Construction: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition.’
Nanzan Gengo Kagaku [Linguistic Science, Nanzan University] 2, 261-277.
Yano, K. (2007c) ‘The Structure of Japanese Potential -(r)eru Construction: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition.’
Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3.1, 331-351.
Zenno, Y. (1985) Paradigmatic Structure and Japanese Idioms. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.

12