THE STRUCTURE OF THE JAPANESE POTENTIAL (R)ERU CONSTRUCTION:
A STUDY IN SYNTAX, LEARNABILITY, AND ACQUISITION*
Keiko Yano
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

Japanese has complex predicate constructions, including morphological -(s)ase causativeand potential -(r)eru constructions. There are some pieces of evidence to support the claimthat morphological causatives are biclausal.
(1)

Tarooi-ga
Taroo-Nom

Hanakoj-ni zibuni/j -no
Hanako-Dat self- Gennamae-oname-Acckak-(s)ase-ta.
write-Cause-Past‘Taroo made Hanako write self’s name.’
As shown in (1), both Taroo and Hanako can serve as an antecedent for zibun. This meansthat both Taroo and Hanako function as the ‘subject,’ and that there are two ‘agent’ positionsin the sentence Therefore, Japanese morphological causatives are biclausal. However,Matsumoto (2000) points out that there is a morphological causative that exhibits amono-clausal property as shown in (2). In (2), Akatyan cannot be an ‘agent’ but interpreted asa ‘goal.’ Therefore, the morphological causative in (2) is mono-clausal.
(2)

Hanako-ga
Hanako-Nom

umaretabakari-no akatyan-ni zibun-no kutushita-o hak-(s)ase-ta.
new born-Gen
baby -Dat self-Gen socks-Acc put on-Cause-Past‘Hanako put self’s socks on a new born baby.’
Matsumoto (2000) argues that Japanese has two types of causatives: a syntactic causative thatis biclausal and a lexical causative that is mono-clausal.
On the other hand, the Japanese potential construction is exemplified by a sentence like
(3). In this case, the object can be either in the accusative or in the nominative.
1*This paper is part of my MA thesis that was submitted to Nanzan University. This paper waspresented at Connecticut-Siena-Nanzan Joint Workshop on February 21, 2007 held at Nanzan
University. This project was originally motivated by the talks on the acquisition of complex predicates
under the VP-shell analysis (published in Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji, 2007, among others)
discussed in the Cambridge-Connecticut-Hyderabad-Siena-TsingHua-Nanzan workshops in
2004-2007. I would like to thank Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito, Yasuaki Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi,
Tomohiro Fujii, Chisato Fuji, Masashi Nomura, and William Snyder for the invaluable comments anddiscussions on this paper.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 331-351© 2007 Keiko Yano

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

(3)

a.

Taroo-wa
Taroo-Top

Itariago-o hanas-e-ru.
Italian -Acc speak-can-Pres‘Taroo can speak Italian.’b.

Taroo-wa
Taroo-Top

Itariago-ga
Italian-Nom

hanas-e-ru.
speak-can-Pres‘Taroo can speak Italian.’
In (3a), the object, Itariago, is marked with accusative, and in (3b) the object is withnominative. However, if the object NP is a quantifier NP, an asymmetry is observed between
the accusative and nominative objects with respect to scope interpretation. The relevant
examples are shown in (4).
(4)

a.

John-wa migime-dake-oJohn-Top right.eye-only-Acc

tumur-e-ru.
close-Can-Pres‘John can close only his right eye.’(i) can > only (John can wink his right eye.)(ii)?*only > can (It is only his right eye that he can close.)b.

John-wa
migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-ru.
John-Top
right.eye-only-Nom lose-Can-Pres(i) * can > only(ii) only > can(Koizumi 1995)

To account for this difference between accusative and nominative objects, for example,
Koizumi (1995) proposes a structure like the one in (5).

1Japanese potentialized verbs are formed either by attaching -rareru to vowel-ending verbs or byattaching -eru to consonant-ending verbs.

-332-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

(5)

AgrP
NPk(-dake)-ga

Agr’

VP

Agr

Johni-waV’
AgrP

NPj-(dake)-o

Agr’

VP
PROi

V
-eru(stative)
Agr

V’
tk/j

V
tumur-(non-stative)

In the structure shown in (5), the potential suffix -eru takes an AgrP (or an IP) as its
complement. On the other hand, Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2004) propose a structure thatinvolves VP complementation.
(6)a.

John-wa hon-ga
yom-e-ru.
John-Top book-Nom read-Can-Pres‘John can read a book.’

b.

VP1
NOM
honi-ga
ti /hon-o

V’
VP2

V1
-eru
V2
yom-

(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

The structure in (6b) indicates that the potential suffix -eru takes a VP as its complement.
We will first review the syntax of the Japanese potential construction in Section 2. Herewe will examine a traditional approach to the potential construction (e.g., Koizumi’s (1995))
and Bobaljik and Wurmbrand’s (2004) alternative. Then, we will see that the difference
between these two structures lies in their complementation, namely IP complementation or
VP complementation. This difference in complementation is actually observed in two
causative structures, the syntactic causatives and the lexical causatives. Murasugi, Hashimotoand Kato (2003) (MH&K hereafter) and Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) argue that thelexical causatives are acquired earlier than the syntactic causatives. Based on their analysis,
we will examine about the acquisition of structure of the potential constructions as in (6).
When and how are the Japanese potentials acquired?

-333-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

In Section 3, we will go over some previous studies on the acquisition of causatives.
MH&K (2003) proposed that there are two types of morphological causatives in Japanese,namely the syntactic causative and the lexical -(s)ase causative, and that the structure of theformer is biclausal, while that of the latter one is mono-clausal. We will propose that these
two types of causative are different in that the former involves IP complementation while thelatter, VP complementation. These two possibilities, as mentioned above, are exactly the twoconceivable structures for the potential construction. As for the acquisition of causatives,
MH&K (2003) and Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) propose that the children acquire thelexical causative earlier than the syntactic causative. Therefore, we state our hypothesis asfollows: if Japanese potentials take an IP as their complement, the acquisition of theconstruction in question should be as late as that of the syntactic causatives. But if thepotentials are like lexical causatives, they should be acquired as early as lexical causatives as
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) proposes.
In Section 4, we will present an original acquisition study based on the analysis of
CHILDES database (MacWhinney, 2000). The focus here is the acquisition of potential-(r)eru. Based on Sumihare’s data, we will show that children make few errors on potentials
at early two years of age, and that the potential is acquired much earlier than the syntactic
causative. If we assume Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), we do not predict that the children
acquire the potentials as early as the age of 2, if complement of the potential were IP.
Sumihare’s acquisition data rather supports the possibility that the lexical causatives andpotentials are acquired at a very early stage of language acquisition at around 2;5, and we willpropose that the Japanese potential construction involves an VP complement. Section 5 is theconclusion.
2.

The Syntax of the Japanese Potential Construction

In this section, we will go over some syntactic properties of the Japanese potential
construction. In Japanese potential sentences, the object can be marked with either accusative
or nominative case. The example is shown in (7).
(7)

John-wa migime-o/ga
John-Top right.eye-Acc/Nom

tumur-e-ru
close-Can-Pres‘John can close his right eye.’
However, when the object contains a quantifier such as -dake (only), there would be an
asymmetry arising between the accusative-object and nominative-object patters with respect
to scope interaction. The relevant examples are repeated in (8).

-334-The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

(8)

a.

John-wa
John-Topmigime-dake-oright.eye-only-Acc

tumur-e-ru.
close-Can-Pres‘John can close only his right eye.’(i) can > only (John can wink his right eye.)(ii)?*only > can (It is only his right eye that he can close.)b.

John-wa
migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-ru.
John-Top
right.eye-only-Nom close-CAN-Pres(i) * can > only(ii) only > can(Koizumi 1995)

The example in (8a), which has an accusative object, allows a narrow scope reading of theobject quantifier. However, the example in (8b), which has a nominative object, does notallow it. We will review a traditional approach to this scope fact such as Koizumi’s (1995)
and a new proposal like the one made by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2004). The former
approach assumes a structure containing an IP complement, while the latter assumes a
structure containing a VP complement.
2.1.

IP-complement Structure

Koizumi (1995) accounts for the scope difference between accusative and nominative
objects by appealing to the way in which the nominative and accusative objects differ inlicensing their case feature (see also Tada 1992). The Kooizumi-style traditional approachassumes a biclausal structure for the potential construction. In this structure, the verbal suffix,-(r)eru, is in the matrix predicate, and the verbal root is in the embedded clause. Then, thecase feature of the accusative object is checked by the Agr of the embedded clause, while thatof the nominative object is checked by the Agr of the matrix clause. The relevant structure isshown in (9).

-335-Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(9)IP-complement structure
AgrP
NPk-(dake)-ga

Agr’

VP
Johni wa

Agr
V’

AgrP
NPj-(dake)-oV-eru(stative)
Agr’

VP
PROi

Agr
V’

tk/j

V
tumur-(non-stative)

According to this analysis, the accusative object stays within the embedded clause; therefore
it remains within the scopal domain of the matrix predicate, whereas the nominative object
moves out of the same domain of the matrix predicate for the purposes of case checking. Thisdifference induces the asymmetry between the accusative and nominative objects (Koizumi
1995, Tada 1992, Takano 2000). In this account, the potential suffix, -(r)eru, takes an IP as its
complement. We call this structure an ‘IP-complement structure’.2
2.2.

VP-complement Structure

Saito and Hoshi (1998) point out a problem for the IP-complement structure reviewed
above. They observe that the fact that (8b) does not allow a narrow scope reading of thenominative quantifier does not make much sense given that case-checking movement(movement of the nominative quantifier out of the scope domain of the matrix predicate in thepresent case) usually induces reconstruction effects for scope interpretation. To solve thisproblem, Saito and Hoshi (1998) propose the structure shown in (10a) for the accusative
object construction and the one shown in (10b) for the nominative object one.

2

Here, ‘IP’ means that there is an external argument position in the complement.

-336-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)(10) a.

VP

John-gab.
V’

migime-dake-ga
VP
tv

VP

John-ga
V’

V’
VP

V(stative)V
tumur-

PROV-eru(stative)

V(stative)V’

migime-dake-oVtumrtvV-eru(stative)(Saito and Hoshi 1998)

Saito and Hoshi (1998) argue that the nominative object is not raised out of the embedded VP,
but that it is inserted directly into the projection of the stative suffixal verb. The problem of
the reconstruction effect can be solved under this assumption. In this structure, after the verb
tumur- is incorporated into -(r)eru, the agent role of the verb is absorbed, and its theme role isassigned to the object migime-dake-ga. Moreover, Saito and Hoshi (1998) argue that because
the nominative quantifier asymmetrically c-commands -(r)eru, it takes wide scope over thisverb.
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2004) (B&W hereafter) propose an alternative hypothesis
based on the behavior of time span adverbials. According to B&W (2004), bare timeadverbials such as 1-jikan ‘one-hour’ correspond to English PPs headed by ‘for’, and modify
the duration of an event or state. On the other hand, expressions such as 1-jikan-de‘one-hour-in’ exhibit the same distribution as English ‘in’ PPs, representing accomplishment.
The relevant English examples are shown in (11) below.
(11) a.
b.

John read #in an hour/for an hour.
John read the book in an hour.

(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

As the examples in (11) show, the verb read in (11a) cannot represent accomplishment, and it
cannot accompany ‘in’ PPs. Therefore, B&W (2004) propose that only a transitive VP with anobject licenses an ‘in’ PP. Importantly, they suggest, accomplishment-identifying-de
adverbials in Japanese are licensed in the potential construction, even when the object isnominative. The crucial examples are cited in (12).
(12) a.

Taro-ga
Taro-Nom

hon-ga1jikan-de
book-Nom 1-hour-in

yom-e-ruread-Can-Pres‘Taro can read the book in one hour.’b.

Taro-wa pizza-ga
1-pun-deTaro-Nompizza-Nom 1-minute-intabe-rare-ru
eat-Can-Pres‘Taro can eat the pizza in one hour.’(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

In the examples in (12), hon ‘book’ and pizza, both of which are the object of a non-stative-337-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

verb, are marked with nominative case. If the sentence with a nominative object has the
structure in (10a), there should not be a non-stative transitive VP with an object DP in thatstructure, and it should not denote accomplishment. However, the sentence in (13) shows thata -de marked time-span adverbial is licensed. To account for this problem, B&W (2004)
propose the structure in (13) for the potential construction.
(13) VP-complement structure
VP1
NOM
honi-ga
ti /hon-o

V’
VP2

V1
-eru
V2
yom-

(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

According to B&W (2004), the structure in (13) can make a correct predication; the lower VP
contains an object trace, which helps to define an accomplishment, correctly licensing the -deadverbial. B&W (2004) assume the structure in (13) for the Japanese potential construction,
and we call the structure they propose a ‘VP-complement structure’.
2.3.

The Complement of the Potential -(r)eru

We have reviewed so far that there are roughly two possibilities for the structure of theJapanese potential construction. One is the IP-complement structure, where an IP (or an
AgrP) occurs as the complement of -(r)eru, and another is the VP-complement structure,
where a VP occurs as the complement of the affixal verb. The issue here is which way ofcomplementation is empirically more adequate for the -(r)eru construction. The
IP-complement structure is repeated in (14) on the next page. In the IP-complement structure,
the complement of the potential -(r)eru is headed by Infl. By contrast, the complement under
the latter hypothesis is headed by V. The relevant structure is repeated in (15) on the next
page.

-338-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)(14)(=9) IP-complement structure
AgrP
NPk-(dake)ga

Agr’

VP

Agr

Johni wa

V’
AgrP

V
-eru(stative)NPj-(dake)o

Agr’
VP

Agr

PROi

V’
tk/j

V
tumur-(non-stative)(15)(=13) VP-complement structure
VP1
NOM
honi-gaV’
VP2ti /hon-o

V1
-eru
V2
yom-

(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

In (15), the potential -(r)eru takes a VP as its complement. When these two structures arecompared, the difference between them is whether the potential -(r)eru takes an IP or a VP as
its complement.
Somewhat similarly, as for -(s)ase causatives, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato (2003)
propose two different structures for the syntactic causatives and the lexical causatives.
According to MH&K (2003), the syntactic causative involves a biclausal structure; while thelexical causative a mono-clausal one. Moreover, they point out that the lexical causative isacquired earlier than the syntactic causative is. The syntactic difference between syntactic andlexical causatives and the difference with respect to the timings of their acquisition may
provide us with a way of differentiating the two analyses of the potential constructions.
Suppose that the size difference between the complements of two complex predicate
constructions affects how early children can acquire these constructions. Namely, if one
construction has a smaller complement than the other, the former is acquired earlier than thelatter, all other things being equal. This possibility is stated as Hypothesis 1 below.

-339-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(16) Hypothesis 1
The Japanese potential -(r)eru takes an IP complement, which contains the externalargument of the embedded predicate.
Prediction: The acquisition of the potential construction is as late as that of the syntactic
causative.
In order to test the prediction of Hypothesis 1, we will first go over some previous studies ofJapanese -(s)ase causatives in next section.
3.

The Acquisition of Causatives and (Di)transitives

In this section, we will review some studies on the acquisition of causatives, whichenables us later to examine the validity of Hypothesis 1. The hypothesis is repeated in (17).
(17) Hypothesis 1
The Japanese potential -(r)eru takes an IP complement, which contains the externalargument of the embedded predicate.
Prediction: The acquisition of the potential construction is as late as that of the syntactic
causative.
This hypothesis is based on the proposal of Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato (2003), Murasugi
and Hashimoto (2004), and Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji (2007). Below we will review
these existing studies on the acquisition of causatives before going on to the acquisition of thepotential constructions.
3.1.

The Acquisition of -(s)ase Causatives

First, MH&K (2003) support Matsumoto’s (2000) observation that there are two types of
causatives, namely the syntactic causative and the lexical causative. 3 The Japanesesase-causative is formed by attaching the causative suffix -(s)ase to a verb, as shown in (18).
(18) Taroo-ga
Taroo-Nom

Hanako-ni hon-o
Hanako-Dat book-Accyom-(s)ase-ta
read-CAUSE-Past‘Taroo made/had Hanako read the book.’
In example (18), the causative suffix -(s)ase is attached to the verbal root yom-, forming thecausativized verb yom-(s)ase-ta. Japanese -(s)ase causatives, as often observed, display abiclausal property. Consider the following example.
(19) Tarooi-ga
Taroo-Nom

Hanakoj-ni zibuni/j-no
Hanako-Dat self-Gen

namae-oname-Acckak-(s)ase-ta.
write-CAUSE-Past‘Taroo made/had Hanako write self’s name.’3

See Murasugi, Hashimoto and Kato (2003) for more details of their analysis.

-340-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

As shown in (19), both Taroo and Hanako can be an antecedent for zibun. Given that zibun isa subject oriented anaphor, this suggests that either Taroo or Hanako functions as a ‘subject,’
and that the sentence contains two positions of ‘agent.’ Therefore, the causative sentence in(19) is considered to be biclausal. However, MH&K (2003) points out that there is amorphological causative that exhibits a mono-clausal property in this regard (see also
Matsumoto 2000).
(20) Taroo-ga
Taroo-Nom

Hanako-ni miruku-o
Hanako-Dat milk-Acc

nom-(s)ase-ta
drink-CAUSE-Past

a. Taroo ordered Hanako to drink some milk.
b. Taroo fed Hanako with some milk.

MH&K (2003)

According to MH&K (2003), the sentence in (20) is ambiguous: Hanako functions as anagent in the reading given in (20a), and as a goal in the reading given in (20b). Further, theyargue that when the causee is not capable of performing the caused action by himself or
herself, it always functions as a goal, and that in such a situation, the ambiguity of thesentence disappears. The relevant examples are shown in (21).
(21) a.

Sono onnanoko-ga
that girl-Nom

ningyoo-ni kutu-ohak-(s)ase-ta.
doll-Dat
shoes-Acc put on-CAUSE-Past‘The girl put shoes on a doll.’b.

Sono onnanoko-ga
that girl-Nom

ningyo-ni
doll-Dat

miruku-o
milk-Accnom-(s)ase-ta
drink-CAUSE-Past‘The girl fed a doll with milk.’
In (21a), the causee, ningyo, is not capable of wearing socks by itself; thus it cannot be anagent. The only possible reading is that the causee is a goal, and this is taken to show that thesentence is mono-clausal (MH&K 2003, Matsumoto 2000). They call this mono-clausal-(s)ase causative the ‘lexical -(s)ase causative’, while they call its biclausal counterpart the‘syntactic causative’.
MH&K (2003) further observe that those two types of causative are acquired at different
times. What is interesting is that the lexical causative is acquired earlier than the syntactic
causative. MH&K’s (2003) observation is based on their longitudinal study with one
Japanese-speaking child, Akkun.
The acquisition data observed by MH&K are theoretically explained by Murasugi and
Hashimoto (2004), where a VP-shell analysis is proposed.4 Under A VP-shell analysis,
proposed by Larson (1988) among others, the sentence like (22) is analyzed as involving two

4

See Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) for more details of the analysis.

-341-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

VPs in its structure. The higher V(=v) always assigns the agent role to its specifier (M&H
2004).
(22) Mary gave it to John.
Studying Japanese -(s)ase causatives under this view, MH&K (2003) propose that thestructures of the syntactic and lexical causatives can be represented as in (23a) and in (23b),
respectively (M&H 2004).
(23) a. Syntactic causative
vP
Agent

v’
VP

vP
Agent

Agent
v [+cause]ØV-(s)ase

v’
VP

Goal

v’

VP
Theme

b. Lexical -(s)ase causativevPv [+cause]-(s)ase
V’

Theme

V

v [+cause]ØV(M&H 2004)

Building on M&H’s VP-shell analysis, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji (2007)(henceforth MH&F) examine a longitudinal Japanese corpus (Noji 1973), which is available
in the CHILDES database (MacWhinney 2000).
M&H (2004) proposed that there are four stages in the course of the acquisition of verbs
including morphological -(s)ase causatives in Japanese. According to MH&F (2007),
Sumihare also went through those four stages. The four stages are shown in (24)5.
(24) Stage I:
Stage II:
Stage III:the small v is tiyu/tita/tite ‘do/did/doing’
the small v is null.
the acquisition of lexical causatives and transitive verbs; several erroneous
lexical realizations of v
Stage IV: the acquisition of syntactic causatives;
several erroneous lexical realizations of V
(MH&F 2007)

Sumihare’s Stage I started at around 1;11, and he started to put tiyu/tita/tite6 at the end ofsentences (MH&F 2007). An example is shown in (24).
5

See Murasugi, Hashimoto, and Fuji (2007) for a detailed analysis of these forms of ‘do’.

6

According to MH&K (2003), tiyu/tita/tite are suru/sita/site in adult speech, and they can assign anagent role.

-342-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)(25) Taabi
Tabi

pai
throw (onomatopoeia)

si-ta(1;11)
do-Past‘I took off (a pair of) tabi.’(MH&F 2007)

MH&F (2007) suggest that Sumihare seems to hypothesize [+cause] v to be suru in thesentence (25).
Stage II is from 2;1 through 2;5, and in this period, Sumihare used verbs correctly as
shown in (26).
(26) a.

Buu
cartoot-tanepass-Past
Int.

(2;1)

‘A car passed.’b.

Boku teteara-u
I
hands wash

(2;2)

‘I wash my hands.’(M, H&F 2007)

While Sumihare used unaccusative and transitive verbs correctly in (26), he sometimes
erroneously used unaccusatives where adults would use their transitive counterparts, as shownin (27).
(27) Kaatyan a-ite
motherbe open-Request(2;1)

Literal meaning: ‘(Please) be open, mother.’
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) open (the door), mother.’(MH&F 2007)

Moreover, Sumihare used transitives where adults would use their unaccusative couterparts.
One representative example is shown in (28).
(28) Nu-ita
pull-Past

koko
here

(2;1)

Literal meaning: ‘I pulled (this) here.’
Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’(M, H&F 2007)

In (28), the past tense form of the unaccusative verb nuke-ru, nuke-ta, should be used, but
Sumihare used the transitive verb nuk-(r)u. MH&F (2007) argue that the children assume[±cause] v to be phonetically null at this acquisition stage, thus ‘unaccusative-transitive’errors of the sort found in examples such as (27) and (28) arise. MH&F (2007) go on tosuggest that a child who assumes [±cause] v to be null produce the structures shown in (29)for transitives and unaccusatives, respectively.

-343-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(29)

a. transitive; utus-uvPb. unaccusative; utur-u
vP

v’
VP
theme

v’
v[+cause]ØV’location

VP
theme

V
utus-

v [-cause]ØV’locationV
utur-(MH&F 2007)

Since both [+cause] v and [-cause] v are not phonetically realized, (29a) and (29b) are notdistinguishable in children’s utterances (MH&F 2007).
According to MH&F(2007), Sumihare’s Stage III started at around 2;5, where heproduced lexical causatives productively. An example is shown in (30).
(30) Seiji-kun
Seiji-kunboku-ga
I-Nom

ne
Int.

nak-asi-tan7
cry-CAUSE-Past‘It is not me who made Seiji cry.’janaino yo
not
Int.

(2;7)

(MH&F 2007)

Assuming M&H’s (2004) VP-shell analysis, the structure of (30) can be something like the
one given in (31).
(31)

vP
boku

v’
VP

NP
Seiji-kun

v [+cause]-(s)asiV’Vnak-

As shown in (31), Seiji-kun is not an agent, since his action, crying, is caused by someone
else. The agent is boku (I, referring to Sumihare), and thus the sentence can be considered tohave a mono-clausal structure.
Stage IV started at around 3;4, and his syntactic causative became productive after
around 4;7 (MH&F 2007). An example is shown in (32).

7

Sumihare used -(s)ite instead of -(s)ase since he is a Kansai dialect speaker.

-344-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)(32) mou gohan
more dishtabe-sase-n
eat-CAUSE-not

yo
Int.

(4;9)

‘(I) won’t let you eat dinner any more.’(MH&F 2007)

Following M&H’s (2004) VP-shell analysis, examples like (32) may be represented as in
(33).
(33)

vP
(I)

v’
VP
vP

(you)

v [+cause]ØV-(s)ase

v’
VP

gohan

v [+cause]Øtabe

As (33) shows, there are two agents in the sentence (32); thus it should be considered to be asyntactic causative.
MH&F’s (2007) study provides further support for MH&K’s (2003) argument thatsyntactic and lexical causatives should be distinguished in Japanese and that the lexicalcausative is acquired earlier than the syntactic causative. Just like M&H (2004), MH&F
(2007) argue that there are four stages for the acquisition of -(s)ase causatives and otherverbs.
3.2.

The Complements of -(s)ase and -(r)eru

This subsection discusses complementation in -(s)ase and that of -(r)eru constructions.
The syntactic causative contains a vP as the complement of -(s)ase while the lexical causative
contains only a VP (see (23)). The difference between these two types of causatives iscomparable to the difference between the IP-complement hypothesis and the VP-complement
hypothesis for the potential construction, in that the syntactic causative head and the potential
head under the IP-complementation hypothesis take a complement that contains the externalargument of the embedded predicate, whereas the lexical causative head and the potential
head under the VP-complement hypothesis take a smaller complement that lacks the externalargument. The situation can be stated as in Table1 below.
Table 1-(s)ase causative-(r)are potential

Smaller complement

Larger complement

Lexical causative
VP-complement structure

Syntactic causative
IP-complement structure-345-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

This is the major reason why we have stated Hypothesis 1 and its prediction in the proposed
way. Hypothesis 1 is repeated below.
(34) Hypothesis 1
The Japanese potential -(r)eru takes an IP complement, which contains the externalargument of the embedded predicate.
Prediction: The acquisition of the potential construction is as late as that of the syntactic
causative.
In the next section, we will evaluate this hypothesis by examining Sumihare’s acquisition
data.
4.

The Acquisition of the Potential Morpheme -(r)eru

Now in this section, we will examine the Sumihare data from CHILDES database(MacWhinney 2000), focussing on the acquisition of potential -(r)eru. His utterances
containing the potential affix -(r)eru are presented in Table 2. The table indicates ages,
Sumihare’s utterances, and their adult counterparts from left to right. * in the last column
indicates that the relevant utterance deviates from the usage of adults.
As we see in Table 2, Sumihare started using the potential -(r)eru at the age 2;0. It is
possible to argue that Sumihare’s use of the potential is almost adult-like at this stage, though
he made some mistakes, as can be seen in (35).
(35) a.

mada ommo samui-kara asob-(r)are-sen
still outside cold-because
play-can-not‘Because it is still cold outside, (we) cannot play outside.’b.

ame-ga furu-kara asob-(r)are-n nerain-Nom fall-because play-can-not‘Because it is raining, (we) cannot play (there).’

c.

(2;7)

toor-a-masen
go through-can-not‘(I) cannot go through.’

d.

(2;7)

(2;8)

boku mada obo(e)-(ra)re-n noyoIyetremember-can-not‘I cannot remember (it) yet.’(2;9)

In (35a) and (35b), since the verb asob-u and is consonant-ending, the potential morphemeshould be -e. However, Sumihare uses -(r)are instead in these examples. In (35c), the verb
toor-u is also consonant-ending, and the potential morpheme should be -e. However,-346-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

Sumihare uses -a, instead. In (35d), the verb oboe-ru is vowel-ending, and therefore thepotential morpheme should be -rare. However, Sumihare uses -re, instead.
Table 2 Sumihare’s potential -(r)eru
Age Sumihare's utterances
1;11 zero
2;0 toor-e-n

Adult form

2;1

koko toor-e-n

toor-e-n

tor-e-yasen

de-re-tabatyabatya hai(r)-e-nai
akatyan yoo nor-e-nde-rare-ta
hair-e-nai
nor-e-ntor-e-n yo, kugi-ga
mada asob-(r)are sen
asob-(r)are-n ne

hak-e-ta

hak-e-tatoor-e-masen

tor-e-ta

tor-e-tagenkan toor-e-n netoor-e-ntoor-a-masen

oimo-ga toor-e-n
kakko-ga hak-e-n

toor-e-nhak-e-nkakko hak-e-n
muk-e-rutootyan toor-e-n yo

toor-e-npanpan tabe-re-n kara

tor-e-ntor-e-ntor-e-n yo

tor-e-nommo-de asob-e-nai ne

asob-e-nai

niityan hair-e-naku
nattyatta
ik-e-n ne, ame-ga futte

hair-e-nakuik-e-ntabe-rarenai

2;10 naka hair-e-ru nehair-e-ru

3;0ka(w)-e-n

nor-e-masen

2;2

2;3

koppu taber-e-nai

toor-e-n2;4hair-e-nhair-e-n2;5toor-e-n, ommatyan-ga
ommatyan-ga toor-e-n
nor-e-nare nor-e-nai
tonbo tor-e-nai
mada ik-e-nai
kam-e-ta?
boku yoku kam-e-ru yokitya-ga toor-e-naku
nattan?
deki-nai

toor-e-ntoor-e-n
nor-e-nnor-e-nai
tor-e-nai
ik-e-nai
kam-e-ta
kam-e-rutoor-e-nakudeki-nai

2;6

Age Sumihare's utterances
2;7 ofune-ga.. toor-e-n
toor-e-n2;82;9toor-e-masen

boku mada obo(e)-re-nofune nottara ne-re-ru?
densya-ni nottara
ne-re-ru?

Adult form
toor-e-ntoor-e-n
tor-e-masentor-e-nasob-e-n
asob-e-ntoor-e-mas
entoor-e-mas
entoor-e-mas
enhak-e-nmuk-e-rutabe-rarenaioboe-raren
ne-rare-ru
ne-rare-ru

basu-ni nottara ne-re-ru? ne-rare-ru

sositara ka(w)-e-n ne

4;0otiteru ken tor-e-n yo
nokanakya toor-e-n
soko ni oru ken toor-e-n
ik-e-n no
kaer-e-n yo
kyoo wa kaer-e-n ne
kaer-e-ru ne
tor-e-nnor-e-masentor-e-ntoor-e-ntoor-e-n
ik-e-nkaer-e-nkaer-e-nkaer-e-ru
tor-e-n4;3tur-e-ru njaa

tur-e-ru

4;5

shiiraa ga…tor-e-ta
tonbo ga tor-e-ta n dee

tor-e-ta
tor-e-ta

3;2

3;5

-347-

*
*

*

*

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Then, the question arises here is the exact structure Sumihare assumes for the potential
construction at the stage where he produced utterances like those cited above. Now take alook at Table 3, which compares the developmental course of Sumihare’s acquisition of-(s)ase causative (the data from MH&F 2007) and that of the -(r)are construction.
Table3Age
1;11Sumihare’s -(s)ase causatives and -(r)eru potentials-(s)ase causatives
v=suru/sita/site

Potential -(r)eru

2;0First use of -(r)eru

2;1

v=Ø

Increase of -(r)eru

2;5Acquisition of the lexical causative

4;7

Acquisition of the syntactic causative

As Table3 shows, Sumihare started producing the potentials at around 2;0, and that there is aclear time difference between the acquisition of the syntactic causatives and that of thepotentials. Here, recall the Hypothesis 1.
(36)(=34) Hypothesis 1
The Japanese potential -(r)eru takes an IP complement, which contains the externalargument of the embedded predicate.
Prediction: The acquisition of the potential construction is as late as that of the syntactic
causative.
As shown in Table 3, the potential -(r)eru is acquired much earlier than the syntactic
causatives. Sumihare’s data do not support Hypothesis 1. Given that there are two kinds ofstructure conceivable for the complementation in the potential construction, the observation
made about Sumihare’s data above leaves the VP-complement structure as the only one
possibility. This is Hypothesis 2, under which the Japanese potential construction, at least
those acquired early, involves a VP-complement structure.
(37) Hypothesis 2
The Japanese potential -(r)eru takes a VP-complement, which lacks the externalargument of the embedded predicate.
Prediction: The acquisition of the potential construction should be as early as that of thelexical causative.
As shown in Table1, the VP-complement structure is similar to the structure for the lexicalcausative in terms of complementation; these complements lack the external argument. If theJapanese potential head has a VP-complement structure, we can make a correct prediction
about the order of the acquisition of complex predicates: that the acquisition of the potential is
as early as that of the lexical causative. MH&F (2007) reported that the Sumihare’s
acquisition of the lexical causative is at around 2;5, pointing out that it is earlier than that of-348-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

the syntactic causative. Note that Sumihare acquired the potential -(r)eru at around 2;0 andthat it is close to the time at which he acquired the lexical causative. Then, we can naturally
take Sumihare’s acquisition data to support Hypothesis 2. Therefore, we conclude that theJapanese potential -(r)eru construction involves a VP-complement structure. The
VP-complement structure proposed by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2004) is repeated in (38).
(38)(=13) VP-complement structure
VP1
NOM
honi-ga

V’
VP2

V1
-eru

ti /hon-o

V2yom-(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2004)

Bobaljik and Wurmbrand’s (2004) analysis is compatible with the fact that Sumihare’s
acquisition of the potential -(r)eru is as early as that of the lexical causative.
While we argue that Sumihare acquired the potential construction early and that few
errors are found in the database, Ito (1990) and Arai (2006) both report that children
sometimes make errors in the course of their acquisition of the morpheme in question, i.e.
-(r)eru. Consider (39), as a representative case.
(39) shime-nai-wayo.
close-not-Int.

(2;3)

Literal meaning; ‘I do not close (the door).’Intended meaning; ‘I cannot close (the door).’(Ito 1990)

In (39), the child omitted the potential morpheme -(r)eru while, according to Ito, the intended
meaning of the utterance is that the speaker is not able to close the door. Some other errors arecited below.
(40) a.

ik-erare-nai.
go-can-not(3;6)‘(I) cannot go.’b.

nug-erare-nai. (3;6)
take off-can-not‘(I) cannot take off (my shoes).’c.

(Ito 1990)

mat-erare-nai. (3;7)
wait-can-not‘(I) cannot wait.’(Arai 2006)-349-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

In examples like those in (40), adults would use the -e form of the potential morpheme, but
the children used -erare instead.
(41) Taakun
Taakunotume kir-are-ru (2;8)
nailcut-can-Pres‘Taakun (/I) can cut my nail.’(Arai 2006)

In (41), the child used -are instead of -e, intending the sentence to be a potential sentence.
How can we interpret these errors? As MH&F (2007) proposes based on the data
concerning lexical causatives, children realize the small v in several different non-adult-likeways. We conclude that this is a general pattern found in the acquisition of complex
predicate constructions in general. We would like to suggest that, for the children’s errors
found in children’s potential sentences, as in the case of the lexical causative, due to thelexical realization of V1 is responsible
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we discussed two possible structures for the Japanese potential
construction. One is the IP-complement structure and another is the VP-complement
structure. By comparing the acquisition of the construction with the acquisition of -(s)ase
causatives, we argued that the potential construction involves VP-complement
complementation, as is proposed by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2004). This structural analysis
provides a way to answer the question of why Sumihare’s acquisition of the potential form is
as early as that of the lexical causative and earlier than that of the syntactic causative. Our
claim is that the construction acquired earlier shares one property, i.e., the property of having
a VP complement. Furthermore, while arguing for the earlier acquisition of VP-complement
structures, we suggested that what children do when produce the potential morpheme incertain erroneous, non-adult manners (Ito 1990 and Arai 2006) is learning how tomorphologically realize the potential head, though they have acquired the basis clausestructure of this construction.

References
Arai, F. (2006) “Nihongo ni okeru Kanou Hyougen no Syuutoku Katei,” Kyoto-sangyo daigaku
ronnsyu jinbunkagaku-keiretu 34, 1-23.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2004) “The Domain of Agreement,” unpublished ms., Universityof Connecticut Storrs.
Fuji, C. (2006) Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language: A Study in Syntax
and Acquisition. MA thesis, Nanzan University.
Ito, K. (1990) Kodomo no Kotoba. Keiso Syobo.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

-350-

The Structure of the Japanese Potential (R)eru Construction (K. Yano)

MacWhinney, B. (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Matsumoto, Y. (2000) “On the Crosslinguistic Parametarization of Causative Predicates: Implicationfrom Japanese and other Languages.” In M. Butt and T.H. King, eds., Argument Realization,
Stanford CSLI Publications.
Murasugi, K., T. Hashimoto, and S. Kato (2003) “On the Acquisition of Causatives in Japanese.”
Nanzan Linguistics 2.
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) (to appear) “VP-Shell Analysis for the Acquisition ofJapanese Intransitive Verbs, Transitive Verbs, and Causatives.” Linguistics 45.3.
Noji, J. (1974-1977) Youji no Gengoseikatu no Jittai 1-4. Bunka Hyoron Shuppan.
Nomura, M. and Y. Shirai (1997) “Over Extension of Intransitive Verbs in the Acquisition ofJapanese.” The Proceedings of the Twenty-eight Annual CHILD LANGUAGE RESEARCHFORUM 28, 233-242.
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.
Takano, Y. (2003) “Nominative Objects in Japanese Complex Predicate Constructions: A Prolepsis
Analysis.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 779-834-351-