Japanese Syntax: Implications From Language Acquisition
KEIKO MURASUGI, Nanzan University and University of Connecticut
Abstract
Child grammar is a window into linguistic variation in adult grammar.
Examining children's knowledge of grammar in the course of language
acquisition can bring new insights to cross-linguistic syntactic
differences. This paper describes the typical errors Japanese-speaking
children produce, i.e., Root Infinitive analogues, Case-marking errors,
erroneous verbal forms, and the overgeneration of complementizer incomplex NPs, and discuss the implications for the syntactic theory.
1. Introduction
The study of child language has implications for the theories of language
variation. Not only adult languages, but children's intermediate acquisition
stages are restricted within the permitted variation of human languages(Hyams, 1986; Murasugi, 1991; Roeper, 2007; Snyder, 2007; Sugisaki,
2003, among others). Child grammar is a window into linguistic variation,and the close examination of children's knowledge of grammar in the courseof language acquisition can bring new insights to cross-linguistic syntactic
differences. Linguistic theory seeks to specify the range of grammars
permitted by the human language faculty and thereby to specify the child's"hypothesis space" during language acquisition.
Japanese is a non-nominative-accusative, agglutinating language withdiscourse pro-drop, TP/IP relative clauses (but not CP relative clauses),rich Case marking, and the operations of scrambling and argument ellipsis.
Children born in the environment of such Japanese grammar hypothesize
parametric values different from their target language at an intermediatestage of language acquisition.
In this paper, we view the properties of Japanese syntax through thewindow of grammar acquisition. We will discuss four types of syntactic
errors that children typically make in the acquisition of Japanese: Root
In:finitive analogues observed at around age of 1, Case-marking errors foundin 2-year-old children, erroneous alternation between intransitive verbs vs.
transitive/causative verbs, and erroneous CP structure for modifying complex
NPs at around 2 to 3 years of age. The cases we discuss in this paper will
indicate that children know a great deal about the morpho-syntactic properties
and the functional structure of their language at a very early age, and even ifchildren produce erroneous sentences, children's intermediate acquisition
stages are restricted within the permitted variation of human languages.
S. Arita et al. (Eds.) Studies in Language Sciences JO. 17-39.
201 I, Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo, Japan.

18

Murasugi

2. Language Acquisition and Language Variation
2.1. CP/TP Parameter for the Structure of Relative Clauses
A certain acquisition order commonly found in children would provide
us insight into the theory of markedness in language. For example, Japanese­and Korean-speaking children's errors observed in the acquisition of relative
clauses would provide a piece of evident support for the theorizing of the
Principles-and-Parameters approach to language acquisition.
Japanese and Korean are languages where discourse plays an importantrole to license the gap not only in sentence but also in relative clauses, andsentential modifiers inside complex NPs are never followed by an overt
complementizer as in (1a).
(I) a. Eri -ga
robusutaa-o hazimete
tabeta (*no) mise
-Nom lobster-Acc for the first time ate
restaurant'the restaurant that Ken ate lobster for the first time'b. Eri-ga
robusutaa-o hazimete
tabeta-no-wa bosuton de da-Norn lobster-Acc for the first time ate-C-Top
Boston in is'lt is in Boston that Eri ate lobster for the first time.'
The complementizer no, obligatorily employed as the head of thepresuppositional phrase in the cleft sentence as in (Ib), is never allowed inrelative clauses. This fact sharply contrasts with languages such as English,
where the complementizer that is employed for both constructions.
Saito (I985) argues that a relative clause in Japanese, unlike in English,
has an IP/TP structure, rather than a CP structure. According to him,
Japanese relative clauses lack a C to host a complementizer; and they are
not operator-oriented. The Aboutness Condition (Kuno, 1973) licenses
the relative clause, when the "relativized" element is an argument base­generated as pro in the relative clause. Thus, Japanese does not have thecounterpart of the complementizer that in English complex NPs such as apancake that Mighty bakedfor us last night.
Saito's (1985) analysis is supported by the analysis of Japanese-speaking
children's errors. Tokyo-dialect speaking children, at around 2-4 years old,
overgenerate no (or ga, in Toyama dialect, and to in Kumamoto dialect),the complementizer, at a stage of language acquisition, when they start
producing the complex NPs and realizing Tense on verbs (Murasugi, 1991,
among others). 1
1
Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: Acc=accusative Case, Asp=aspect
morpheme, Benef = Benefactive, Cause= Causative, Comp = Complementizer,
Dat = Dative Case, Decl=declarative, Gen = genitive Case, Ger = Gerund,lmper =imperative, INF = infinitive, lnt = lnterjection, Mood=mood marker,
Neg=negation, Nom=nominative Case, Pass= Passive, Pres=present, Past= past,

Japanese Syntax

19(2) a. tigau(*no) outi
b. usatyan-ga tabeta (*no) ninjin
house
different (+Pres)rabbit-Nom ate
carrot'the different car''the carrot that the rabbit ate'c. iziwaru na (*no) obatyan d. suppai (*no) zyuusu
mean (+Pres)
lady
sour
JU tee'the lady who is mean''the juice that is sour'
Interestingly, the complementizer, which also appears in the presuppositional
C projection in the cleft sentences as in (I b), is erroneously attached to thesentential modifiers in (2).
Within the Principles-and-Parameters approach, Murasugi (I 991) argues
that structi.1re of complex NPs is parameterized; i.e., it is either IP/TP or CP,
and Japanese- and Korean-speaking children initially take the CP value ofthe relative clause parameter, and realize the C head of the relative clause
by inserting an overt morpheme. Positive evidence that C can be realized�xkally as no is provided, for example, by cleft sentences such as (2).
This implies that the unmarked setting for the CP/TP parameter for relati�eclauses is CP. Children later reset the value to IP/TP, based on the positive
evidence available, and consequently retreat from overgeneration �f 110 in
the position of C.
2.2. Null Realization of Functional Category
The status of functional categories in early child language has been acentral_ subject of debate for the last two decades. Demuth (1992) suggests.
�at :�ere are two approac hes to acquisit ion of functio�al c�teg�;ies.
!he first termed Lexical Projection Hypothesis (Clasen, 1990) �!lowsfor � mopho-phonetic bootstrapping to take place, so that the phonetic.
realizat ion of function al heads constitu tes a positive evidenc�
for thesyntactic building of functional projections. The second termed
Functional
Hypothesis (Whitman et al., 1991) calls for the acquisition of�rojection_
functional heads without morpho-phonetic evidence, but rather
�laims th;tof functional heads is a prerequisite for the acquisitio� of-�
�he _ knowledge_
lexi al realization of the functional head. De�uth (1992)�
further find; �ha-�
evidenc for the second hypothesis, Functional ProJectio,nHypothesis: She�r� �ues :hat Sesotho-speaking children have acquired functio1��I projections
before they have acquired any phonetically realized functional heads.
Japaneselike Korean and Turkish, is an agglutinative language. Th i s_'. _subsection discuss
es the errors within the verbal structure produced by!gglutin ativ e languag e-speak ing childre n, and present s a�gument f;r_i
Fun ctio nal Pro
rojection Hypothe sis. We support the Strong Continu ity
Prog=Progress1ve, Perf= Perfective, Req= Request =, Q question, Top=topic.

20

Murasugi

Japanese Syntax

Hypothesis (Deprez & P ierce, 1994, among others), which makes a claimthat children's structures are of the same basic form as adult's and are
constrained by the same principles ofgrammar.
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) report that 2-4 year-old Japanese­
speaking children, who can use an unaccusative and a ditransitive as in(3a-b), often show interesting and consistent errors as they acquire theactual verbs. In the process of acquiring the lexical items that stand for
V-v combinations, Japanese-speaking children often produce transitive andcausative sentences with unaccusative verbs as in (3c-e).

(4) a.

／

agent

vP

v'

VP

へ

Theme/／/ |v [＋cause]P\V'-leGoal(3) a. Dango-ga
uta pakantite, dango-ga
dumpling-Norn lid (onomatopoeia) doing dumpling-Norn(Akkun, 2;9)atta
there-be'There was a dumpling (when I) opened the lid ofthe dumpling (box).'b. Kinnou Akkun akatyan toki, papa-ni koe ageta (A.kkun, 2; IO)
yesterday
baby
when Daddy-to this gave
'Akkun gave this to Daddy when he was a baby yesterday (=in thepast).'
c. Mama
Akkun non-de (Akkun, 2;8) (Adult form: noma-(s)ase-te)drink-Request
Mommy'Mommy, please feed me(with milk).'d. Nee, ati-o
hirogat-te (Akkun, 3;7) (Adult form: hiroge-te)
Hey legs-Ace spread (unaccusative)-Req'Hey, spread your legs.'
e. Todok-ok-ka, ano hito-ni
todok-(y)oo todok-(y)oo. (Akkun, 4;8)
arrive-let'sthat person-to arrive-let's arrive-let's(Murasugi & Hashimoto, 2004)(Adult form: todoke-yoo)'Let's send (it). Let's send (it) to that person.'

b.

21

Theme

V
todok-

v [-cause]

/ミ

Goal

V
todok-In English adult grammar, the same lexical item is often used as a transitive
and as an unaccusative. Thus, we have alternations as in (5).
(5) a.

John passed the ring to Maryb. The ring passed to Mary�f th� argument structures of these sentences were realized as in (6), then vi� a "zero _m�rpheme" without phonetic content whether it is [+c�u��] as in
the case of(Sa) or [-cause] as in the case of(Sb).
(6)

� (v [+cause] + PASS = pass, v [-cause]+ PASS = pass)

□iロロ
Jo

Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) analyze that the errors Japanese-speaking
children make in the process of verbal acquisition as in (3c) through (3e)and suggest that children initially assume the pronounced verbs are Vs andthat［土cause] v is phonetically empty.

aryCo�sequently, both'v [+cause)+PASS' and 'v (-cause)+PASS'
are realized
as'pass'.
In contrast, in adult Japanese, trans1t1v1ty and unaccus
ativitvy are often
marked by distinct suffixes, as illustrated in(7)．
(7) �- utu-s-(r)u (=copy-present)
I utu-r-(r)r) u'=be copied-present'b. todok-e-ru (=deliver-present) / todok�(�)u'=b
e de,liver;d��;��-ent'
These examples show that the forms ofthee suffixes
suffi
are idiosyncratic andprobably have to be learnt one by one bychildren. The suffixes wouldL22

Murasug1

plausibly occupy the v position in the strncture of ���s�ell, .g., [+ a_ u_s�]� _ ,�
:·is-;e;lized a; :s and [�cause] vas -r, in the case of (7a), and accordin�ly,
�o-�h·;�hildren making-such e�rors as (3), unaccusatives and their transi�i_ve
���n�erparts should b; homophonous, as in English. T_�ey only lat r realiz�, �;h;t··;h/�urface forms of the. verbs are derived by suffixing v to the verbal
���tAs the actual realization of［土cause] vis idiosyncratic and sometimes
�:�� � �- II, the acquisition of verb; requires complex morphological an lys_i .
��M��-a��gi and H�shimoto (2004) indicate that children re equipped ith���h� �--VP frame from the e�rly stage of acquisition, but Japanese-speak_ing
�hildren initially hypothesize. the English pass-type verbs, and it require_ actual�;�;;,�· �ime for (hei�· to discover the morphologi�al make-up of_ the_ ates��rbs, which are formed by combining V and記This case al_so indici_.
h ldren's intermediatethat even if children produce erroneous sentences, c111
��-quisition stages ar� restricted within the permitted variation of humanlanguages.
2.3. Root Infinitive Analoguess��e aspects of child languages vary in systematic w y r tlecti 1g� � �'.
the -n�ture ;f the adult gram�ar. Children know a great deal about thei�ftectional structure of their language when they enter the two-word stage.
”Children speakmg “ European languages such as English, Dutch andFre;�h- ;re weil know�, to produce Root Infinitives (Rls), or non-finite verbal
forms in matrix clauses, where they are not possible in adult �ram a at!:'1 �
�;�-�i�d two years of age. (Blom & Wijnen, 2000; Haegeman, 1995; Wexler,
1994, among others):(8) a. Eve sit floor ( 1;7) (English)b. That truck fall down (2;0) (English)c. Peter bal pakken (2; I) (Dutch)
Peter ball get-INF'Peter (wants to) get the ball.'(Blom & Wijnen, 2000)
2
Murasugl and Hashimoto's (2004) analysis is supported by the data analysis of
another Jap-;,nese-speaking child, Sumihare(Noji, 1973-1977) in CHILDES database(MacWhmney, 2000)．Sunnhare goes through acqulsition stages exactly parallel with
Akkun: The erroneous alternation between intrans!itive verbs and transitive/causative
verbs is also found(Murasugi, Hashimoto, & Fuji, 2007)：(i) a. Kutyu
ha-ite(Sumlhare, 2;l ) （Adult form: hak-（S)ase-te)of shoes put on�Request'(Pl�a�e) put a pai; of shoes on me.
� �;ir_b. l<.;atyan ai-te(Sumihare, 2; I)(Adult form : 1:�e-te)_‘.
mother be open(unaccusative)-Request (Please) 0pen(the door), mother.’c. Nui-ta koko·(Sumihare, 2; l )(Adult form: nuke-ta)
pull-Pas there'(This) comes out from here.'Japanese Syntax 23
d. Dormir
petit bもbe (I;11) (French)
sleep-INF little baby 'A little baby sleeps.'
The very early non-finite verbal forms, termed Rls, are known to havesome salient morpho-syntactic and semantic properties, as listed in (9).
(9) a. RJs are optional: Rls occur side by side with fully inflected verbs.
b. Rls are tenseless verbs in root contexts.
c. Rls occur predominantly with null subjects.
d. RJs generally do not occur in wh-questions.
e. Rls occur in modal contexts (Modal Reference Effects (MRE)).
f. Rls are restricted to event-denoting predicates (Eventivity Constraint).
g. Rls are very rare in pro-drop languages.
(Deen, 2002; Hyams, 2005)
As (9g) states, it was once considered in researches of language acquisition
that Ris are not found in the early grammar of such pro-drop languages as
Italian, Spanish, Catalan, and Japanese (e.g., Guasti, 1993/1994; Sano, 1995,
among others).
However, recent researchers have proposed that there is an RI analogue
stage in the pro-drop languages as well. Hyams (2005) argues, for example,
that the bare perfective is an RI analogue in Greek; Kim and Phillips (1998)
suggest that the RI analogue is the V with mood marker -e for Korean.3
Japanese is an agglutinating pro-drop language where bare stems cannot
stand alone without, for example, tense or aspect morphemes, as shown in(I0). That is, Japanese is, like Italian and Spanish, a [-stem] language whoseverbs cannot surface as bare forms.
(I 0) a. *tabe- (to eat)b.

*suwar- (to sit)

Unlike Italian and Spanish verbs, however, Japanese does not have a richverbal inflection that indicates number and gender. Japanese verb inflects fortense, negation, aspect, and mood. Following are some inflections for theverb "to eat," which has the root tabe-.
K im and Phillips (1998) analyze the V-e (e being a mood marker) form as an
RI analogue in Korean. In Adult Korean, the tense morpheme -ess is obligatorily
attached to refer to the completive events, but Jiyoung from 2;2 through 2;3 did
�ot use past-tense morphemes even in obligatory contexts, but used V -e form only.
Salu_ stri and Hyams (2006) suggest that the-RI a-nalogue in Italian is the imperativ�,�nd a parallel proposal is made for Kuwaiti(Aljenaie,-2000), American and Brazilian
Sign Languages(Lillo-Martin & Quadros, 2009), and Chin�se(Chien, 2008).

24

Japanese Syntax

Murasugi(desire) or request.5(11) a. tabe-ru(eat) present/dictionary formb. tabe-ta(eated) pastc. tabe-(a)nai(not eat) negationd. tabe-(i)te iru(is eating) progressive
e. tabe-te(eat) imperative
f. tabe-tara(if(you) eat) conditional
The verb stem tabe- (to eat) is followed by the present-/past-tense
morphemes as in(11 a-b), and it is followed by the aspectual morpheme -te­i to indicate either the ongoing process or the result state of the event as in(11d).4 For request or imperative, the morpheme -te forms are employed asin( l l e).
The conjugations are acquired at around 2 of age. The number of eachverbal form in Sumihare(Noji, 1973-1977) is shown in Figure I.
350

9

300

250

1,00

I

II

--.4

�/

�,,oi
100

p..t -,. fomn■

―景ーp,.●●nt

,_,
.,...

-～

fomn

●9四fom`

心1-,0 fo,mv.-.如 ....如(Ov● mo)ー10-----A9..ct -toru如 ”.../..noct)

50

o

15

16

17

18

19

1 10

1 11

2,0

25

21

-＋-N•••lon -n●9 (no no`）O<ho,fo,m,

Fi印,re 1. Frequency of verbal forms in Sumihare's corpus.
Murasugi, Fuji and Hashimoto (2007) and Murasugi and Fuji (2008a,b) argue that there is a stage of Root infinitive analogues in Japanese.
According to them, some of the typical properties of Rls given in (9) arealso observed in Japanese early non-finite verbal forms: (i) Verb-ta forms(past-tensed verb forms) are used only in matrix clauses for the irrealis orvolition meaning as in (12a, b)(Modal Reference Effects (=MRE)), and forprogressive and result state as in (I3d) at l year of age, (ii) T-related (e.g.,
Nominative Case and copula) and C-related items are皿observed withthe early non-finite verbs, and tense is underspecified, (iii) the past-tense
morpheme is not found with adjectives (i.e., only present-tensed adjectives
are produced), and (iv)皿merger of heads inside the verbal projection are,as Phillips(1995) proposes, observed at the Root Infinitive analogue stage.
Sumi hare, for example, at around I;6 through I; 11, used Y-ta form ina different way from adults, semantically denoting the meaning of volition
ons in Adult
The abbreviated V-terul-teta forms are used as colloquial expressi
Japanese.
(i) Tabe-te-ru/-ta
eat-Asp-Pres/-Past'(I) have/had eaten.' /'(I) am/was eating.'(12) a. Atti Atti Atti i-ta(I ;6)(irrealis/volition)(Adult fom1: ik-u/ik-e)
there there there go-Past'I want to go there / Go there.'si-ta(1 ;7)(irrealis/volition)(Adult form: si-ta-i)
b. Tii..
_onomatopoeia(pee) do-Past 'I want to pee.'
pai-ta(I;8)(request)(Adult form: pai-si-te )c. Babaonomatopoeia (throw away)-Past'Throw(the mud) away.
mud
Noji (the observer) describes the meaning of i-ta in (12a) as ik-u (go-Pres)
while Sumihare uttered i-ta, because he could not say ik-u(Noj i, 1973-1977
I: 195). Noji also
al wntes important comments for(12b), which convinces us
f the Modal Reference Effects at the early stage of Japanese acquisition:�_ih re used tii-si-ta in a volition context when he w;nted to pe�. As for
�-um
_ _ �
(12c), Sumihare produced pai-ta, attaching -ta on the onomatopoeia pai (tothro� away), in order to ask his mother to remove mud from a potato.
The exactly parallel data is found in a longitudinal study ·with anotherJapanese-speaking child, Yuta, as in(13)(Nakatani & Murasugi, 2009).
6(13) a. Ai-ta
Ai-ta(I ;7.1)(irrealis/volition)(Adult form: ake-te)_??en-Past open-Past'I want to open this cabinet./ Open this c�binet.'b. Hait-/�
Hait-ta(I;7.16)(volition)(Adult form: i�e-tai):_n�er-Past nter-Past 'I want to put this notebook into this bag.':Otyoto(=Osoto) Oti-ta(I ;7.13) (progressive)c. Oti-ta
drop-Past(Aduit fo�m: otosi-teiru)
oto;idrop-Past outside'I am putting this doll out outside.'d. ?ti-ta
Oti-taOti-ta(I;7.5)(result)(Adult form:
oti
orm: ot1-te1ru）
fall-Past fall-Past fall-Past‘A container of the video tape is lying there.'
The percentage of V-ta forms decreases with age; as is clear in Figure 2. At
1;6-1 ;7,, heh predominantly used the Y-ta form almost l 00% of th; time. RI
RI typically has a modal or irr alis eaning, expressing volition or requesti ��_(H�ekstra & Hyams, 1998, among others).
The infinitive verb expresses the speaker's
volition as in (i).
(i) ��a�htwagen emmer doen (2;4) (Dutch)
truckbucket do-lNF
Context: The speaker wants the observer to put the truck in the bucket.
6
The context for (12a) is the follow
ollowii g: Sumihare's father (Noji, the observer)
went out�or a walk with Sumihare on �his back. Noji tried to go back home, butiSumihare noi
pointed to a different d1rection
recti
and produced "atti (there)" twice. Sumihare
got frustrated and said, "atti i-ta (there
go-Past)=(Literal meaning: 1 went; Intended
meaning:: J1 wanna go there)" angrily again.

26—

Murasugi

analogues are not "optional" "infinitives" in Japanese-type languages .
●
100%

5
g

※

Present-ru form

Preverbal-te form
Volition - tyoodai'Give- me'g―Aspect - teru (progress/ perfective)
1;5

lf,

1;7

1;8

1;9

age

1;10

1;11

2fJ

2;1

(14) a.

-1--Negation-nai (no/ not)-other forms

Figure 2. The overall proportion of verbal forms in Sumihare's corpu s ateach stage.
Based on the analy sis of the Sumihare corpus (Noji, 1973-1977), the factthat -ta forms, but not the other verbal forms , such as imperatives andpresent-tensed fom1s, are consistently used to denote differe�� �1ea�mgs,
�ould suggest that the verbal conjugation, i.e., the merger ofY a��
inflection:is not yet available then, and this is the stage where a default form
is picked up by a child for the verbal element.
b and thIn fact,'Ph-illips (1995) argues that the verb
the inflectional feature�are not sy�tactic;lly.joined (�erged) when Rl s are produce�. Muras u�i and_ _Fuji (2008a) supp�rt Phillips (1995), arguing that during t�� � nalogue
�_(RIA) stage: the. �erger of a verb with inflection is �o� avai�able in Jap�nese_�_They argue that even after the stage where only Verb-la form lS employed(which is termed RIA stage)，at the post-RIA stage, where some inflectedd 1:1
I. the child uses, for example, theI;11,forms come to be employed at around�b-br;viated aspectual or.negative forms without making multiple step headmerger.
Evidence for the unavailability of two-step head merg er at the postRIA stage is provided by the analysis of the negativ� sentences Sum�har:_.
produced, for instance. In adult Japanese, the negative marker -nal (not)is � verb�l p redicate which itself carries finite Tens e, and two-��ep he�?
_�ovement (V-Neg-T) is involved. To form the adult negati:e predicates �i­_/e-na-i or utawa-na-i, two- (or more) step head movement (or merge in the
PF merge analysis) is required:

:
1
＼

NegP

Past -ta formllk--- Imperative form

5•6eiu•"ad

紐Japanese Syntax

As6"

ヘ

/＼sp

|
/
V -te-i
NP

I

eg
|
-na

b.

27

TP
Neg P

T

�Neg -�

|/NP
VP -na(k)|utaw-aki-/tui
However, the child (Sumihare) at around I;11-2;2, consistently roducedperroneous neg ative s entences such as (15) and (16), without making theadult-like app lication of multip le app lication of mer e in the PF
merg eganalysis.
(15) a. Tinbun
ki-ta-naiyo (I;11) (Adult form: ki-te(i)-nai)
newspaper come-Past-Neg Mood (The newspa er hasn't comeyet.)pb. MOT: Sekken-ga te-ni
tui-te-i-ru
kara arai nasaisoap-Nom hand-Dad put-Asp-Pres as
wash Imper'Wash your hand. Some soup sticks on your hand.'
SUM: Tui-ta-nai (I;11) (Adult form: tui-te(i)-nai)
put-Past-Neg'No, (they do) not stick (on my hand) .'(16) Utaw-u-nai (2:0) (Adult form: utaw-a-nai)sing-Pres-Neg'(Mommy) doesn't sing (a song).'
In these examples, the ne ative marker -nai
is not merged with the preverbalgform ki-te-i or tui-te-i. R ather, -nai follow
s the full past-tensed verb ki-ta(came) in (!Sa) and tui-ta (stick-past) in (15b).
In (16), -nai even attaches tothe full present-ten sed verb utaw-(r,)虻T
his would suggest that the structureof (15) and (16) in child Ja anese would
be something like (17), which ispdifferent from the ones in adult rammar (14a, b) in that NegP is locatedgoutside of TP.
Th��e are a few correct negative
sentences like (ia-b). The unanalyzed "negative
forms" are stored as chunk (r�te)in the child lexic�n: the past tense form -na-k-alla� ?mes to be productively
produced by Sumihare with different verbs after 2;2.
(i) a. Mie-nai ne (I;II jb., Nakanaka ko-naine (2; I)s�e -Neg Mood
not nearly come-Neg Mood'(We ) cannot see (that).''(The train) does not-come, does it?'28

Japanese Syntax 29

Murasugi
NegP

(17)

／

Neg

TP

/

〗 ―ta]ーN/l（：ki-/tui-/ut aw

The productive errors Sumih a re made for nega !ion w_ith d'.f�e�ent}��e�
�f:�;rb� would indic a te that only one merger of a verb and inflecti?� is.
;� a-il�bl-e a t~ around J; \ 1-2;0. He�e, the negative morpheme -nai would be
t
no
re
a
(-i)
T
nd
a
ba�e-gener ated a s an unanalyzed form, i.e., Neg (-na)
separ ated in the child gr ammar.
Mur a sugl a nd Fuji (2008 a )，provi ding further support for theun av ailability of two head merger inside the verba l projection a t a roundl ; l l -2;O in the morphology of aspectual or mood forms, argue th at only
one-step head merger, or the merger of a verb and T(I) in Phillip's term, isavaila ble at the post RIA (Post-Non-Finite Verb) stage, at around l ;l l. It
l , when the multiple heads are2; I.
is only a fter the RIA stage at around a ge 2:

joined..
diff�r nt f om
Thus, although J a pa nese-type RI an a logues are quite __
�
”
” “
“
and �that theyives,tinfinilaEuropea n Rls in th a t they are not option
are observed at the very early stage even at l year of age, the step-by-steply observed. When the RI analogues
acquisition of head-mergers is commonIv
are· produced, the limitation of processing English Rls, as Phillips (1995)_
sta tes, is observed in J ap anese as well. When children start producing the
not merged as indepe �ent
re
a
ion
t
inflechet;,;�;b;I;; e-lements, the v�rb and� _beanese RIA stage would
p
a
J
in
form
v-ta
synt actic c ategories. The whole
rote
form
as
illustrated
in
(18).
This
st
a
ge
lyzed
base-generated as an unana
is characterized as the one where the verbs are not merged with the head of
TP.
(18)

入／

A

NP

T

V

乙ニミ

V -ta

◄

Then, why do J a p a nese-type langua ges h a ve RIAs inst ead of thei
R s observed in Europe an langua ges? Why is it th a t the children's verye arly verb al forms show cross-linguistic v aria tions? Mura sugi, Fuji, a nd
H a shimoto (2007) a rgue th a t children lea rning [-stem] langua ges, whose
verba l stem obligatorily requires the morpheme to be a ttached, go throughthe stage of the Root Infinitives analogues.
It has been observed that children speaking the agglutinative languages,e.g., Tamil (R agh a vendr a & La urence, 1989) a nd Turkish (Aksu-Koc; &Slobin, 1985), acquire verb inflections at a very ea rly st a ge. The e a rly
emergence of RI analogues in such languages as J apanese, Korean (Kim &Phillips, 1998), Ita li an (Salustri & Hyams, 2006), American and Brazili an
Sign Languages (Lillo-Martin & Quadros, 2009), Chinese (Chien, 2008),
Arabic (Aljenaie, 2000), and Greek (Hyams, 2005, a mong others), will be
explained by a morphologic al parameter, the Stem P ara meter proposed byHyams (1986), which is responsible for the well-formedness of verbal barestems in a langua ge. (See also Aljen aie, 2000) According to this hypothesis,
English, for example, takes a value [+inflected stem], as verbs can surface asbare stems. On the other hand, in such langua ges as J apanese, the parameter
takes the opposite value, [-inflected stem], because verbs cannot surface asbare stems. Children acquiring J a panese will learn the verb conjugations
earlier than English speaking children because, given the J apanese setting of
the parameter, there is no option of omitting the verb conjugations.
Then, why is it the c ase that -ta form is chosen as the RI analogue in
J apanese by different children out of sever al sentence-ending morphemes,
despite the fact that each child receives different input?
Here arises a bridge between child langua ge and syntactic theory. Cinque(2004) and K a wa i (2006), for adult Syntax, propose th a t there are non­finite "surrogate" verbs tha t look like finite verbs, and the su汀ogate forms
of non-finite verbs are derived by an opera tion to ma ke the verbal stems
the well-formed morphologic al words in the adult gr amm a r of Salentino/
Serbo-Croa ti a n, and J a p anese, respectively. Furthermore, there is someevidence to show th at the past-tense form, Verb-ta that children pick up as
Root Infinitive An a logue seems to be most unmarked among the possible
surroga te forms in J apanese.8
Two conjuncts unspecified regarding Tense, for example, are conjoinedby the verbal conjunct with -ta forms in (19 a-b), and -ta forms can be used
Although the non-finite verb forms of Japanese children are found only in matrix
clauses, it has been well known that the non-finite verb forms arefound in theem�edded clauses in Adult Japanese. It has been argued that the past
verbal inflection-ta ..lacks a tense interpretation (but it is rather aipectual in s·uch
relative clauses)
�s _"Y_ude-ta tamago" (hoil-past egg, meaning the boiled egg (property reading)) in
Adult Japanese (Abe, i 992;° Miyag;�a, 200(among other�'.
8

x

�

30

Murasugi

for future as in (19a), and with irrealis meaning as well as shown in (20).
(19) a. Tabe但ri 11 011血ri su-ru/si-ta
drinkeatdo-Pres/do-Past'We eat/ate, a11d we drink/drank.'b. It-ta ri ki-ta ri de taihe11
da/dat-ta
gocome- for troublesome is /was'It's troublesome to go back a11d forth.'(20) a. Asu-wa
na11i-owatasi-wa suru-no-dat-旦-kana?
tomorrow-Top what-Ace I-Top
do-Nomi-Cop-Past-C mood
'What am I going to do tomorrow?'
paatii-dat追！
Sooda! Asu-wa
Aha! Tomorrow-Top party-Cop-Past (Aha! Tomorrow is a party!)b. Mosimo watasi-ga ie-otate-ru/＿旦 11ara t11sana
If
I-Nornhouse-Ace build
then small
ie-otate-ru/-ta (deshoo)house-Ace build-pres/-past'If f built a house, I would build a tiny 011e.'
Furthermore, like infinitives in Italian (Rizzi, 1993/1994), in Japanese ta
forms can be used as 11on-finite surrogate forms with the meaning of strong
imperatives as i11 (21).
(21) a. Partire immediatamente!
Go
immediately (Rizzi, 1993/1994)
Kaet-ta!
Kaet-ta!
b. Sassato
Immediately go back-Past go back-Past'Go back immediately.'
The parallelism between infinitives in ltalia11 a11d the past te11se -ta f?rm i11
Japa�ese i11dicate that whether or 11 ot the target la11 guage has a11 infinitive
form a11d the form childre11 choose as Root Infinitive a11alogues are
i11depe11 de11t issues. Despite the fact that Italian has i11fi11itives i11 th� adult_gra�mar, childre11 use imperative or perfective forms as the Root lnfi11itive
a11alogues, as Italia11 is, like Japa11ese, a [-stem] la11guage.
S�ppose that the u11marked surrogate form i11 Japanese is the 11011-?11ite
Verb-,�- form i11 adult Japanese. T he11, 011e of the 11011 -finite surrogate forms
i11 Ci11 que's term, probably the u11marked form in adult Grammar, is theso-call�d Root Infinitive a11alogue. The agglutinative la11guage-speaki11g
childre11, eve11 at the age of I , know that verbal stems cannot be present
without tense/aspect morphemes i11 their la11guages, and when te11se is still

Japanese Syntax

31

underspecified, the unn1arked sentence-ending morpheme(s) is (are) chosen
as the surrogate forms, i.e., the Root Infinitive analogues. Root Infinitive
analogues in Japanese are found at around age I, much earlier than Rls
found in European languages, and the non-finite form is initially (at around
1 ;6-1 ;7) used 100% of the time in a full range of environments, and there isno co汀elation between null subjects and non-finite verb forms in Japanese,
unlike the European Rls.
2.4. Erroneous Non-Nominative Subjects When Tense is Underspecified
European Root Infinitives are considered to reflect the acquisition
stage where the Tense is underspecified (Schutze & Wexler, 1996), and theverb forms, correct and incorrect (without inflection), are both producedby children at around 2. On the other hand, Root Infinitive analogues inJapanese (and Korean) are productively used at around age I , earlier thanRls found in European languages, and the non-finite fonn is initially (ataround 1;6-1;7) used 100% of the time in a full range of environments.
A natural explanation is provided for the latter point regarding why"Optional Infinitives" are not found in Japanese, if we adopt the "surrogate
fonn (Cinque, 2004)" analysis: Optional use of correct form is not observedin Root [n:finitive analogue stage, because it is the stage where the unmarked
form is picked up as the onset of the verbal element by very young children.
T hen, how about the former point regarding the acquisition of Tense? Do
we expect that Japanese-speaking children acquire the Tense system muchearlier than European language-speaking children?
The answer is probably negative. Rather, the immature specificationof Tense features at around age 2 would be realized in a different mannerdepending on the language types.
Japanese is a language with a rich Case-marking system: Not only
nominative subjects as in (22a), but also dative subjects (in the sentence)and the genitive subjects (in the NPs) in (22b) and (22c) are subject-like.
(22) a. Taroo-ga eigo-ohanas-uTaro-Nom English-Acc speak-Pres'Taro speaks English.'b. Taroo-ni/ga
dekir-ueigo-ga
Tato-Dat/Nom English-Nom understand-Pres'Taro understands English.'c. Taroo-no/ga
hanas-ueigo
Taro-Gen/Nom speak-Pres English'The English that Taro speaks'
After the Root Infinitive analogue (RIA)
stage is over, Japanese-speakmg
children start to productively use~the· verb conjugations and Case-�arking
on subjects in the adu
lt way, but at the same time, not a few Case-marking

34Japanese Syntax

Murasugi

with respect to the properties of the predicate. Sawada, Murasugi and Fuji
(in preparation) argue that the erroneous genitive subjects appear withthe predicates containing unaccusative verbs, adjectives, and the verbs
associated with aspectual expressions such as verb- te(i)ru (progressive/
perfective) and verb-tyatta(perfective), unlike the case of datives.
The findings in child language shown above are, again, neatly tied withfindings in adult Syntax. The properties of the predicate observed with theerroneous genitive Case errors are parallel with those found with genitive
subjects within the sentential modifiers (relative clauses) in adult Japanese(i.e., Ga/No conversion) as in (26).10(26) [John -ga/no
ei yon-da] hon,
-Norn/-Gen
read-Past book (the book that John read)
The sentences children produce with genitive (not dative) subjects
generally lack the phonetically overt object NP; if the discourse requires,
they appear in the topic (kore) or dislocated position as in (27), thereby
obeying Transitivity Restriction that forbids accusative objects fromoccurring in structures with the genitive subjects in adult Japanese as in(28).
(27) a. Okaasan-*no osiete age-ru
dake (2;8) (Adult Form: Okaasan-ga)
Mommy-Gen teach give-Pres just'Mommy (=I) just teaches (something to the doll).'(Moko corpus)
b. Kore, Ee-tyan -*no tukut-ta
no (2;3) (Adult Form: Ee-tyan-ga)-Gen make-Past Particle'This one, Ee-tyan(=l) made'this(* hon-o)kasi-tahito(28) John-no-Genbook-Ace lend-Past person'The person to whom John lent a book'(Miyagawa, 2008)

Although the genitive subject is allowed only in the embedded clausein NPs in Adult Japanese, there are not a few languages (e.g., Dravidian
languages) where the non-nominative subjects, either dative or genitive,
are allowed in matrix clauses. (See Arnritvalli, 2004; Jayaseelan, 2004; Lin,
2008; Mahajan, 2004, among others). The parametric account for the non­nominative subjects would provide an elegant explanation for both the adultsyntax and the erroneous non-nominative subjects found at the intermediate10

Miyagawa (2008) argues that an adult relative clause with the genitive subject
in Japanese is Aspectual Phrase, not Tense Phrase, which, in turn, confirms theunderspecification of Tense in Child Grammar.

acquisition stage in Japanese.

35

11

3. Conclusion
Languages vary, though not randomly. Some aspects of languages areuniversally invariable (e.g., Universal Grammar), but some asp�cts oflanguages vary in systematic ways within possible human grammar. Thisis also true for child languages. They vary, though not randomly. Some
aspects of child 1 anguages are universally invariable, but some aspects ofchild languages vary in systematic ways reflecting the possible grammar inhuman language. Children's errors are not simply the coincidental deviant
strings, but rather, they reflect a possible grammar different from their target
grammar. The errors in child production show how it is unlike target ad�lt
gr mmar, and hence, antinominally tell us the range of possible grammar(s)nin human language. There is an abundance of input available to children.
i
Still, ch tldren
ldcommonly make syntactic errors, producing the strings they
have never heard in the input. We cannot provide a natural expl�natio�
without assuming an unconscious innate knowledge of grammar in humanmind.
The cases we discussed in this paper indicate that children's intermediateacquisition stages are restricted within the permitted variation of humanlanguages. Child grammar 1s constrained in some principled and predictable�t by the properties of Universal Grammar, and Japanes�-speaking
�_ intermediate grammar corresponds to the adult grammar - in othe;children's
1 anguages, sometimes English, sometimes Hindi, somet11nes Tamil, and soon. The errors children make are often the best teachers to demonstrate that
II

"Erroneo�s" dativ�. s�bj_ects in children's production are, in fact, not unique to_year-old Children's erroneous- subjects are �idely observed �;�s;�
!.apane�e. 2-3
Iinguistically (Huxley, 1970; Pierce, 1 992; Radford, 1 990, 1999, among others.） asin(i) and(ii), and the analysis here would explain th�se ca�es as �ell.
(i) a.
c.
�f.
�-a b�!loon(2;0)
b. Her too cold(2;I) (Pierce, 1992)
�er holding_ it off(2; I)
o
me
�ake
d.
Does him fish? (2;2) (a-d: Pierc�, 1992);-:_ _ ___ _ (Yainik.
Her crying now(2;3)
ka, 1994)
Her fell off(2;3)( Radford, 1999)
Look what my got(2;3) (Vainikka, 1994)
�1. Him does go there(2;4) (Radford, 1990)
j. Him pulled out the telephone(3;2):: �ow �hat i:12e_�eep for you?(3;0)
K. Him is bear(3;3)
1. Her would just break it(3;4)
m. No us buyed this in a shop (3;9) (i-m: Huxley, 1970)(ii) a. Moi essiner la mer(l ;IO)
b. Aller dedans moi(2;3)
�the sea (I draw the sea.)goinside me (1 g� inside.)�e. d�aw_
c. Moi fais tout seul moi(2;I)
me do all by myself/me (I do all by myself.) (Pierce, 1992)

36

Japanese Syntax

Murasug1

language is parameterized and how the parameters are related with eachother.
Acknowledgments
ro Shirai, Yasushi
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Yasuhi
two anonymous
e,
Comri
d
BernarArita,o
Setsukki,
Terao, Koichi Sawaza
ka Kenritu
Shizuo
in
JSLS
of
ants
particip
the
and
ers
reviewers, the organiz
I would
tions.
suggesandmoral,
andic
academt,
supporDaigaku, for theirstics at Nanza nlike to thank the collea gues in the Center for Lingui
the researchers I have
University and the University of Connecticut, anddiscussed in this paper,
met though them for their suggestions on the topics
on, Adriana Belletti,
although l cannot name them all here: Mona Anders
o Hashimoto, Chisato
Zeljiko Boskovic, Memo Cinque, Kami! Deen, Tomok
Lillo-Martin, Vincenzo
Fuji, Michiya Kawai, Thomas Lee, Jonah Lin, Diane
Ian Roberts, Tom
Moscati, Tomomi Nakatani, Colin Phillips, Luigi Rizzi,
Snyder, Koji Sugisaki,
Roeper, Naoko Sawada, Bonnie Schwartz, William, and in particular,
Kensuke Takita, Dylan Tsai, Eriko Watanabe, Ken Wexler
suppo rted in part byMamo ru Saito. T he resear ch presen ted here wasand by JSPS Grant-in­
Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A 2010,
Aid (C) (#20520397).
Referenceson in Japanese. ln C. Lee
Abe, Y. (I 992). Dethematized subjects and property ascripti
ation: Proceedings
computandtion
informage
Lan思ta& Beom-mo Kang (Eds.),ksa.
ThaehaSeoul:
4).
132-14(pp.
nce
confereofAsianof Turkish. In D. I. Slobm
Aksu-Koc;, A., & Slobin, D.I. (1985). The acquisition
tion, 1. The data. Hillsdale,acquisige/angitaof(Ed.), The Cross-linguistic study.
NJ: Erlbaum
ent in Kuwaiti children
Aljenaie, K. (2000). The Emergence of tense and agreem
g Working Paper in
Readin(Eds.),
ll
KerswiP.
&
speaking arabic. In R. Ingham
1-24.
linguistics, 4.
a. In P. Bhaskararao & K. Y.
Amritavalli, R. (2004). Experiencer datives in Kannad1-24). Amsterdam: John
(pp.
I
Vol.
s,
subject
Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative

Benjamins.
infinitives become modal.
Blom, E., & Wijnen, F. (2000). How Dutch children's root
ence on Language
Confersity
Univer
BostonProceedings of the 24th annual.
Development, 1, 128-139
e analogue stage in early
Chien, M. (2008). ls there a root infinitives or root infinitiv
ity.
Univers
Hua
Mandarin? Ms. Taiwan: National Tsing. Dordrecht, Holland:
Chomsky, N. (1981). lectures on government and binding
Foris.
e. In A. Belletti (Ed.),
Cinque, G. (2004). "Restructuring" and functional structur
es, Vo/.3, (pp. 132structur
ic
syntactofaphycartogr
The:
Structur,es and beyond
ress.
P
ity
Univers
Oxford
York:
New
191).

Clasen, H. (1990). Constraints on parameter setting:g: A grammatical analysis of someacqulSItIOn stages in German child language. LanguageAcquisllion, l , 35 l -39 l .
Deen, K . u. （2002). The omission o/Inflection prejixes m /he acquisition of Nairobi
Swahili. Doctoral dissertation., Uni
University of California, Los Angeles.
Demuth, K. (1992) Accessing functional categories in Sesotho: Interactions at theinterface. In J.M. Meisel (Ed.),, lhe
Th acquisition of verb placement
i:norpho-syntax_(pp. 83-108). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Deprez, V., & P ierce, A. (1994).. <:!osslinguisticCevidence for functional projections
in early child grammar. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.）, Language
acquisi/ion sludies in generaIive grammaI: Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guasti, M. T. (1993/1994). Verb sy�tax in ltalian child grammar: Finite and nonfinite forms. LanguageAcquisition, 3(I), 1-40.
Hae?eman, L. (I 995). Root infinitives, tense, and truncated structures in Dutch.
langiiageAcquisition, 4(3), 205-255.
�oe�stra.'.. T.; -�-�?'a�s, N. (I 998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua, J 06, 9 J -112.
Huxley, R. (1970). The development of ti1e correct use of subject pronouns in twochildren. In F. d'Arcais & W. Levelt (Eds.),, AdvancesAdin psycholinguistics (pp.
141-165). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hya'.�: � } l ;�6). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht,; , _- ,Holland: Kluwer.
Hyams, N. (2005). Child non-finite clauses and the mood-aspect connection:
Evidence from child Greek. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.），The
semantics and acquisition of aspect (pp. 293-316). Dordrech.t, H�i'land::!ntax,,
Kluwer.
i
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2004). The possessor-experiencer dat
at1ve m Malayalam. In P.
Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.),, Non-nominativeN
subjects, Vol. I (pp. 227244). Amsterdam: John Benjaminskawai, M (2006)．Raising to obJect in Japanese: Small clause analysis. LInguisIIC
inquiry, 37(2), 329-339.
Kim, M., & P hillips, C. (1998). Complex verb constructions in child Korean: Overt
markers of covert functional structure. p/'oceedings of the 22nd annual BostonUni�1ersity Conference on Langi1age Development,-Vo/2, 430-441.
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure ;/ the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
P ress.
Lill� � rti , D., & � a�os, R M. (2009). Two in one: Evidence for imperatives as
�
� � �
.__
the analogue to Rls from ASL and LSB. proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston
U.::i��rsity conference on langiiage development, Vol. I,,302�3-li
Lin, T-H. J. (2008). Locative s�bje�t in Ma�darin. Chinese. Nanzan linguistics, 4,69-88.
MacWhinney, 8. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for anaかzing talk. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mahajan, A. (2004). On the origin of non-nominative subjects. f n P. Bhaskararao& K. Y. Subbarao (Eds.),, Non-nominative subjects, Vol. I (pp. 283-300).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
・・ e s 1 bje s in Altaic. Proceedings of the workshop 011
Miyagawa, S. (2008). G 111t1
� : _ ��
�
Altaic formal linguistics, 4, I_ 81:
I 98.

N

一

37

38

Murasugi

Murasugi, K. (1991). Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax,
learnability and acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2008). Underspecification offimctional heads in language acquisition.
Paper presented at the I st workshop of the international research project oncomparative syntax and language acquisition. Center for Linguistics, Nanzan
University, Nagoya
Murasugi, K., & Fuji, C. (2008a). Root infinitives in Japanese and the lateacquisition of head-movement. Paper presented at Boston University Conferenceon Language Development 33, Boston University, MA. (Proceeding online
supplement)
Murasugi, K. & Fuji, C. (2008b). Root infinitives: The parallel route that Japanese­and Korean-speaking children step in. Paper presented at Japanese-Korean
Linguistics Conference 18, City University of New York. (Proceedings, in press).
Murasugi, K., Fuji, C., & Hashimoto, T. (2007). What's acquired later in an
agglutinative language. Paper presented at the Asian GLOW 6, Chinese
University of Hong Kong.
Murasugi, K., & Hashimoto, T. (2004). Three pieces of acquisition evidence for thev-V P Frame. Nanzan Linguistics, 1, 1-19.
Murasugi, K., Hashimoto, T., & Fuji, C. (2007). V P-shell analysis for the acquisitionof Japanese intransitive verbs, transitive verbs and causatives. Linguistics, 45(3),615-651.
Murasugi, K., & Watanabe, E. (2009). Case errors in child Japanese and the1
implications for the syntactic theory. Proceedings of 3" Conference on
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America, 153-164.
Nakatani, T., & Murasugi, K. (2009). Gengo kakutoku ni okeru shusetsu fute1s1
gensho: Judanteki kansatsuteki kenkyu [Root infinitive analogues in Japanese: Alongitudinal study]. Academia, 86, 1-36.
Noji, J. (1973-I 977). Yooji no gengo seikatu no jittai [The nature of an infant's
language] (Vols. 1-4). Hiroshima: Bunka Hyoron.
Phillips, C. (1995). Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. MIT Working
Papers in Lin胆1istics , 26, 325-382.
Pierce, A. ( I 992). language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative
analysis of French and English child grammars. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The
nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell.
Radford, A. (1999). Genitive subject in child English [Electronic version]. lingua,
I 06 (1-4), II 3-13I.
Raghavndra, P., & Leonard, L. (1989). The acquisition of agglutinating languages:
Converging evidence from Tamil. Journal of Child Lan思mge, 15, 313-322.
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development:
The case of root infinitives. Langitage acquisition, 3 (4), 371-393.
Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar: How child language illuminates
humanism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implicatt0ns.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Salustri, M., & Hyams, N. (2006). Looking for the universal core of the Rl stage. In

Japanese Syntax

39

V. Ton-ens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages(pp. 159-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sano, T. (1995). Roots in language acquisition: A comparative stud_y of Japaneseand European languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calilfornia, Los
Angeles.
Schiitze, C., & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives.
Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Conference on Language
Development, Vo/.2, 670-681
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sugisaki, K. (2003). Innate constraints on Ian忠wge variation: Evidencej,·om childlanguage. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ura, H. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical fimctional
splitting. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Vainikka, A. (1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language
Acquisition, 3(3), 257-325.
Watanabe, E. (2008). The overgeneration of dative subjects in child Japanese.
Nanzan linguistics special issue, 3(2), 229-26I
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement, and economy of derivat10n.
In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 305-350).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Whitman, J, Lee, K.-0. & Lust, B. (1991). Continuity of universal grammar in first
language acquisition: The issue of functional categories. NELS Proceedings of
the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, 21, 383-397. Amherst,
MA: University of Massachusetts.