A VP-SHELL ANALYSISFOR THE UNDERGENERATION AND THE OVERGENERATION IN THE
ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE CAUSATIVES AND POTENTIALS ∗Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Hashimoto and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

In this paper, we discuss the undergeneration and the overgeneration observed in theacquisition of Japanese complex predicates. In particular, we focus on the errors children
make in causatives and potentials. It has been reported that Japanese-speaking children, ataround two to four years of age, produce causatives without the causative morpheme -(s)ase
as in (1) (Suzuki 1987, Ito 1990, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi, Hashimoto andFuji 2007, among others).1(1)

Mama Akkun non -de.
mommydrink-Req(Akkun, 2;8)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)

Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) drink Akkun(/me).’Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) feed Akkun(/me) (with milk).’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
In (1), the causative form nom-(s)ase-te should be used in this context, but the child does notphonetically realize -(s)ase and produces non-de instead.
Another type of error is also observed in the acquisition of causatives as in (2) (Ito 1990,
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the BUCLD 32, and was published in Online
Proceedings Supplement of BUCLD 32. We would like to thank the audience in the BUCLD 32,
especially Tom Roeper, William Snyder, Jeff Bernath, Jean Crawford, Alison Gabriele, Jim Huang,
Takuya Goro, Elena Koulidobrova and Akira Omaki for their questions and comments on this paper.
Our sincere thanks go to Mamoru Saito, Keiko Yano, Yasuaki Abe, Tomoko Kawamura, Tomohiro
Fujii, Kensuke Takita, Seichi Sugawa, the members of the undergraduate seminar classes of Murasugi,and the anonymous reviewers of the BUCLD 32 for their helpful discussions and suggestions on thispaper.
∗

1

Abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows: Acc=accusative C=complementizer, Case,
Cause=causative, Cop=copula, Dat=dative Case, I=inflection, Int=interjection, Intr=intransitive,
N=noun, Neg=negation, Nom=nominative Case, Pres=present, Past=past, Pot=potential, Req=request,
Top=topic, Trans=transitive

Nanzan Linguistics 4, 21-41©2008 Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

Arai 2003, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, among others).
(2)

a.

b.

Nomi -tyatye -te. (-tyatye = -sase)drink -Cause -Req

(Akkun, 3;7)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)Intended meaning: ‘(Please) feed (me with miso soup.)’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
Kuruma -o
too -si-sase -ru. (Taatyan, 3;10) (adult form: too-s-(r)u)
car-Acc pass -Cause -Cause -Pres
Intended meaning: ‘(I’ll) let the car pass through.’(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 thetransitive verb too-s-(r)u ‘to let … pass’ itself can be a causative verb, the child additionallyattaches the unnecessary causative morpheme -sase to it, yielding the unacceptable form
too-si-sase-ru. The Japanese-speaking children overgenerate the morpheme -sase in eithercase.
The similar errors have been reported in the acquisition of -(rar)e potential complex
predicates (Okubo 1967, Noji 1974-1977, Ito 1990, Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006, among others).
Arai (2006), for instance, gives a phonological explanation for the erroneous potential forms
productively produced by a Japanese-speaking child. The data discussed in Arai (2006) andthe data of Sumihare (Noji 1974-1977) are further reanalyzed by Yano (2007a) under
Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis. The relevant examples are shown in (3)and (4).
(3)

Mother: Zenbu tabe -rare -ru kara ne.
alleat -Pot -Pres as Int
Child:

Zenbu tabe φ -ru ne.
alleat-Pres Int‘(You) can eat all.’(Sumihare, 2;1)

(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) eat all.’Intended meaning: ‘(I) can eat all.’(4)a.

Yar -(r)are -nai.
do -Pot -Neg

(Taatyan, 3;5)

(Noji 1974-1977)(adult form: yar-e-nai)

Intended meaning: ‘(I) cannot do.’b. Zyoozuni mot -e -rare -ta.
(Taatyan, 4;2)
wellhave -Pot -Pot -Past
Intended meaning: ‘(I) could bring (this) up very well.’(adult form: mot-e-ta)(Arai 2006)(3) is an example of the undergeneration. According to the observer, the child repeats his-22-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

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), the child 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 the morpheme -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 the overgeneration
phenomena observed in the acquisition of Japanese causative and potential complex
predicates. This paper is an extension of Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), Murasugi,
Hashimoto and Fuji (2007) and Yano (2007a). Yano’s basic line of argument is that theintermediate acquisition stages for both types of the complex predicate can be uniformly
explained by Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) v-VP frame analysis. We pursue this line ofargument based on the analysis of longitudinal studies of Japanese-speaking children reported
in the previous literatures, e.g., Akkun (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004), 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 parallel
undergeneration and overgeneration phenomena are observed in the acquisition of -(rar)epotential complex predicates as well as -(s)ase causative complex predicates. We provide
supporting evidence for Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) proposal that the undergenerationis due to the Japanese-speaking children’s initial hypothesis that the v does exist but it isphonetically null (just as in adult English). We also support Murasugi’s (2007a,b,c) proposalthat the overgeneration takes place because of the erroneous realization of the v and the use of
the undifferentiated verbal form.
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 Japanese complex 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.
2.1.

The Adult Grammar of Japanese Complex Predicates-(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).

-23-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

(5)

Taroo -ga Hanako -ni pan -o tabe -sase -ta.
-Nom
-Dat bread-Acc eat -Cause -Past‘Taroo made Hanako eat some bread.’

(6)

a.

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

b.

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 sentence with 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’
VP

vP
causeev’causerv [+cause]

V

VP
NP

b. lexical causativevPv’
VP
causeeφ-(s)asev[+cause]V’NP-(s)aseVv [+cause]Vφ(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 adultgrammar 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 thecausee, is interpreted as an agent. In the other case, it combines with the V and forms acomplex verb, yielding a simple sentence with no 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.2
2

Following Miyagawa (1980, 1984, 1998), Zenno (1985), Harley (1995), Matsumoto (2000),among others, Harley (2006) also argues that -sase is ambiguous between syntactic and lexicalcausatives, and that syntactic causatives are bi-clausal while lexical causatives are mono-clausal. She-24-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

Following Hale and Keyser (1993, 2003), Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) give the v-VP
frame structure to Japanese transitive and intransitive sentences as well. Japanese transitiveand intransitive verbal forms are distinguished with their morphemes as in (9), and thesemorphemes are in the v as shown in (10).3(9)a.

utu-s-(r)u (photograph-Pres) /utu-r-(r)u (be photographed-Pres)b.

todok-e-ru (deliver-Pres)/todok-(r)u (be delivered-Pres)c.

os-ie-ru (teach-Pres)/

os-owar-(r)u (be taught-Pres)d.

too-s-(r)u (let … pass-Pres) /(10)

too-r-(r)u (pass-Pres)a. transitive
vP
agent

b. intransitive
vP
v’

VP
theme

v[+cause]V’location

v’
VP

-s

theme

v[-cause]
V’

-r

V

location

V

utu

utu
(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Unlike Japanese, the [±cause] v is not phonetically realized in English transitive andintransitive 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.

further assumes the v-VP structure for Japanese causatives based on Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002).
Harley (2006), however, considers -sase to be the head of the vP in both syntactic and lexicalcausatives. According to her analysis, in lexical causatives, a CAUS vº is adjacent to a root. On theother hand, in syntactic causatives, a CAUS vº is not adjacent to a root and takes another vP
complement.
3

Japanese 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.
-25-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008(12) a. transitiveb. intransitive
vP

vP
Mary

v’

v[+cause]

v’
VP

V

v[-cause]NP

VP

the boati

SINK
the boat(v[+cause] +SINK =sink)

V’
V

SINK
(v[-cause] +SINK =sink)NPti(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 phonetically null, and the transitive and the intransitive verbs have thesame verbal form.
2.2.

-(Rar)e Potentials4

Japanese -(rar)e potential complex predicates are constructed by adding the morpheme-(rar)e ‘-able’ to the verb stems. The vocalic verb stems, whose final elements are vowels,take the morpheme -rare, and the consonantal verb stems, whose final elements areconsonants, 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‘see-Pot-tense’
mi-rare-ru
mi-rare-ta

Consonantal verbs: stem + -e
‘go-Pot-tense’
present:
ik-e-ru
past:ik-e-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, and the morpheme
4

The analysis of child potentials presented here is an extension of Yano’s MA thesis (2007a)
submitted to Nanzan University, which was also presented at Connecticut-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.

-26-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)-rare is attached to the verb stems to derive the potential forms, tabe-rare-ru ‘can eat’ andmi-rare-ru ‘can see.’ In contrast, ik-u ‘to go’ and tukur-(r)u ‘to make’ shown in (13b) areconsonantal verbs, 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 typicalpotential sentences.
(14) a.

Taroo -wa hitoride
supagetti -otabe -rare -ru.
-Top by oneself spaghetti -Acc eat -Pot -Pres‘Taroo can eat spaghetti by himself.’b.

Hanako -wa hitoride
gakkoo -ni ik -e -ru.
-Top by oneself school -Dat go-Pot -Pres‘Hanako can go to school by herself.’

There are several important proposals regarding the structure of potentials (e.g., Tada (1992)
and Koizumi (1995) for the AGR-based approach, Saito and Hoshi (1998) for the Head-HeadMerger 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 thehead of the vP. Given their analysis, the structure of (14a) would be the one shown in (15).
(15)

vP
Taroo

v’
VP

hitori-dev
VP- rareNP

VP

supagetti-otabeThus, under the v-VP frame analysis, the potential morpheme -(rar)e, transitive andintransitive morphemes, and the causative morpheme -(s)ase in lexical causatives are all thehead of the vP.
In the following sections, we analyze the undergeneration and the overgeneration in-(s)ase causatives and -(rar)e potentials, and provide some supporting evidence for the
hypothesis that children, in the course of language acquisition, fail to realize the correct adultform for the v (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi 2007a,b,c).

-27-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

3.

The Undergeneration

According to Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), the structure of VP-shell itself is acquiredvery early,5 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 wherechildren hypothesize that the v is realized phonetically null. This stage corresponds to what
we call the stage of the undergeneration.
3.1.

The Undergeneration in -(S)ase Causatives

In the early two-year-old, children’s utterances which have the causative meaning (orintention) are produced without the causative morpheme -(s)ase (Murasugi and Hashimoto2004). We call such phenomenon ‘the undergeneration.’ A couple of examples are given in(16a =(1)) and (16b).
(16) a.

Mama Akkun non -de.
mommydrink -Req

(Akkun, 2;8)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)

Literal meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) drink Akkun(/me).’Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, (please) feed Akkun(/me) (with milk).’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
b.

Kutyu
hai
-te.
(Sumihare, 2;1)
a pair of shoes put on -Req

(adult form: hak-(s)ase-te)

Literal meaning: ‘(Please) put on (your) pair of shoes.’
Intended meaning: ‘(Please) put a pair of shoes on (me).’(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)
As shown in (16a), Akkun intends to say nom-(s)ase-te to ask his mother to feed him, bututters non-de ‘please drink’ instead, without lexically realizing -(s)ase. Murasugi, Hashimotoand Fuji (2007) find the same type of undergeneration error 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 ofshoes on him. This type of erroneous causative has been widely observed in previous
literatures (e.g., Okubo 1967, Suzuki 1987, Ito 1990, Arai 2003, among others).
5

From around 1;5 through 3 years of age, the sentences with onomatopoeic expressions andsuru/sita/site ‘do/did/doing’ as in (i) are often produced by Japanese-speaking children.
(i)

Mama Akkun hai doozyo tiyu. (tiyu = suru)
mommy
yes please do‘Akkun(/I) will give (it) to Mommy.’(Akkun, 2;5)
(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 as suru/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.
-28-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) point out that the period in which erroneous causativesin (16) are observed overlaps with that of children’s transitive/intransitive alternation errors
observed by them and other researchers (Okubo 1967, Ito 1990, among others). Children start
producing the intransitive and the transitive verbs “correctly” (i.e., in the adult form) at
around the age of two. It should be noted, however, not all the verbal forms are always“correct.” The relevant examples of the transitive/intransitive alternation errors are given in(17).
(17) a.

Akkun ima kaya koe nayab -u. (nayab-u = narab-(r)u)(Akkun, 2;11)
now from this be-in-line -Pres(adult form: narab-e-ru)
Intended meaning: ‘From now, Akkun(/I) will put these in line.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)b.

Nui-ta koko.
pull-Past here

(Sumihare, 2;1)

(adult form: nuk-e-ta)

Intended meaning: ‘(This) is out from here.’(Fuji 2006, 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 the intransitive verb narab-(r)u ‘to be...in line.’ In contrast, in(17b), the intransitive verb nuk-e-ta ‘came off’ must be used in the adult grammar. However,
Sumihare uses the transitive form nui-ta ‘pulled.’
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) argue that both of the causatives without -(s)ase and thetransitive/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 adult Japanese, the [±cause] v are basically overt, and therefore atransitive verb and an intransitive verb have different forms, such as utu-s-u ‘to photograph’and utu-r-u ‘to be photographed.’ However, children assume the [±cause] v to be null in thisperiod, 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 theverb (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 two-year-old. We find the same type of undergeneration as causatives, as
shown in (18).

-29-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008(18) a.

Child: Zenbu tabe φ -ru ne.
alleat-Pres Int

(Sumihare, 2;1)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) eat all.’Intended meaning: ‘(I) can eat all.’b.

Sime φ nai wa yo.
close
Neg Int Int(2;3)(adult form: tabe-rare-ru)(Noji 1974-1977)(adult form: sime-rare-nai)

Literal meaning: ‘(I) don’t close (it).’Intended meaning: ‘(I) cannot close (it).’(Okubo 1967)

In (18a=(3)), as we mentioned in Section 1, Sumihare repeats after his mother without using
the -rare form, despite the fact that the mother speaks to her son using the -rare form
tabe-rare-ru ‘can eat.’ (18b) is the same type of utterance produced by anotherJapanese-speaking child. Okubo (1967) reports that the child intends to say sime-rare-nai‘cannot close,’ but in the actual speech, he produces the verbal form sime-nai ‘don’t close,’
without attaching the potential morpheme -rare. Given that the potential morpheme is in the v(Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005, 2007), this error can be well explained under Murasugi and
Hashimoto’s (2004) VP-shell analysis. That is, children in this stage, at around the age of two,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, among others).
Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) report that children start producing the correct potential
forms with the morpheme -e at around the age of two. 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 around 2;0. Some examples of Sumihare’s potential sentences are givenin (19).
(19) a.

Too -r -e -n.
(Sumihare, 2;0)pass -Intr -Pot -Neg‘(I) cannot pass (here).’b.

Kakko -gahak-e -n.
shoes -Nom put on -Pot -Neg

(Yano 2007a,b,c)(Sumihare, 2;2)‘(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 andhak-e-nai. Those are possible truncated forms in some Japanese dialects.
Then, are potentials really acquired in such an early stage, even at the age of two? An
possible answer for this question is a positive one, i.e., the adult syntax of potentials is
acquired very early compared with other complex predicates. The other possibility is, on the-30-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

contrary, what apparently looks like the adult potential form does not, in fact, have exactly thesame structure as adults’. Murasugi (2007a,b,c) gives an answer to this problem. She proposesthat children’s predicates produced at the early age of two are the uninflected(undifferentiated) form, and that the v is phonetically null in this stage. Hereafter, we support
the latter possibility or Murasugi’s (2007a,b,c) analysis: Sumihare’s potential predicatesproduced at the early age of two, in fact, are the undifferentiated form, and this is the stage
where the v is phonetically null as well. In other words, in this stage, the children attach thepotential morpheme -e onto the V.
Some evidence for this proposal is found in Murasugi and Fuji’s (2007) analysis of thelongitudinal data of Sumihare (Noji 1974-1977). First, Sumihare, in the stage where theundergeneration in question is observed, produces “erroneous” tense inflections as shown in(20).
(20) Tootyan, koko gomi tui -ta yo.
father here dust stick -Past Int(Sumihare, 2;1)
(adult form: tui-tei-ru (perfect))

Intended meaning: ‘Daddy, you have got the dust here (=on your cheek).’(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 perfect form -tei-ru6 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/aspectual markers such as -ta, -(r)u, or-te(iru) and the stems of verbs are not differentiated at the very early stage. This analysis
stands upon the proposal by Murasugi (2007a,b,c) that the verbal forms of Japanese-speaking
children at around the age of two are the unmerged form of the verb and the tense, and thatthe children’s functional categories such as T and v are not phonetically realized at the very
early stage in such agglutinative language as Japanese. The verbs and the tense/aspectual
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 intermediate acquisition stage inquestion. 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).

6Japanese -tei-ru sentences are ambiguous between the progressive and the perfect interpretations.
-31-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

(21)

IP
I’
NEGP
VP

I
NEG

Root +irrealis affix-i (present) /-kat-ta (past)na-(=finite)(Based on Sano 2000)

The examples in (22), however, indicate that Sumihare, in an early age of two, does not havethe structure in (21).
(22) a.

Father:Sinbuntot -ta?
Newspaper take -Past

Sumihare: Tot -ta -nai.
take -Past -Neg

‘Have (you) fetched the newspaper yet?’(Sumihare, 2;1)

(adult form: tot-te-nai)

Intended meaning: ‘(I) haven’t.’b.

Mother:Oti-ru yo.
fall down -Pres Int

Sumihare: Oti-ta -nai.
fall down -Past -Neg‘(You) will fall down.’(Sumihare, 2;1) (adult form oti-te-nai/oti-nai)

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, the negative form tot-te-nai ‘haven’t taken’ should be used.
However, Sumihare puts -nai on the past tense form tot-ta ‘took,’ and produces theunacceptable negative form tot-ta-nai. (22b) shows the same type of error. Even though hismother speaks to him using 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 thenegative 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 phonetically realized in the early stage, and the verbal forms ofJapanese-speaking children at around the age of two are the unmerged form (Murasugi
2007a,b,c). The examples given above create one of the good cases 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 the tense marker as a rote form.
Thus, the discussion so far leads us to presume that Sumihare, at the early age of two,
produces the undifferentiated verbal forms as Murasugi (2007a,b,c) discusses. Then, it is-32-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

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 child attaches the potential morpheme -e, not as a realization of the v, but as a part of theV. This analysis seems to be plausible since none of early potentials produced by
Japanese-speaking children has the -(r)are form. The -(r)are potentials forms appear ataround the age of 2;5, according to Noji (1974-1977), Shibuya (1994) and Arai (2006) (seeFuji, Hashimoto and Murasugi (2008a) for details.)
Note here that the children’s potentials without a potential morpheme -(rar)e and the“lexical potentials” are all used with the potential meaning in the “correct” context. Hence, itis plausible that the v does exist and it has the feature (i.e., [+potential]) at this point, but it isphonetically 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 Japanesecausatives and potentials are elegantly explained under Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004)
v-VP frame analysis. In this section, we turn to the overgeneration phenomenon. We point out
that the two types of overgeneration are observed in a parallel way in the acquisition ofJapanese causatives and potentials. We argue there is an intermediate acquisition stage where
the children know that the v has to be phonetically realized in their target grammar, but thechildren (i) have not acquired the “correct (adult)” lexical forms, and/or (ii) have still theundifferentiated rote verbal forms.
4.1.

The Overgeneration in -(S)ase Causatives

After the stage of the undergeneration, Japanese-speaking children start producing
lexical causatives (at around the age of three for Akkun, and around 2;5 for Sumihare)(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007).
(23) a.

Akkun -ni tabe -sase -tee.
-Dat eat -Cause -Req

(Akkun, 3;6)‘(Please) feed Akkun(/me) (with food).’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

b. Seizi-kun boku-ga
ne nak-asi-tan ja -nai -no yo.
I-Nom Int cry -Cause -Past Cop -Neg-C/N Int‘It is not me who made (Mr.) Seiji cry.’(Sumihare, 2;7)

(Murasugi, Hashimoto and Fuji 2007)

In (23a), Akkun is not an agent but a goal, since Akkun is asking his mother to put some fooddirectly into his mouth. Seizi-kun in (23b) is not an agent either, because his action, i.e.,crying, was caused by someone else. The object Seizi-kun is scrambled to (or topicalized in)the sentence-initial position, and the agent is boku (I, or Sumihare). Thus, the verbs in (23) are-33-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

analyzed to be lexical causatives, and it is plausible to consider that each sentence in (23) has
a mono-clausal structure. Children, at this stage, are apparently aware that the [±cause] v mustbe phonetically realized.
Note here that, exactly at this stage, the overgeneration also takes place. There are in fact
two types of overgeneration: one is “a verb + -(s)ase” form, and the other is “a causative verb
+ a causative morpheme” form. The examples of the first type of overgeneration are given in(24).
(24) a.

b.

Ok -i -sasi -te.
(Sumihare, 3;1)
get up-Intr -Cause -Req

(adult form: ok-osi-te)

Intended meaning: ‘(Please) get (me) up.’(Noji 1994-1997)

Nomi -tyatye -te. (-tyatye = -sase)drink -Cause -Req

(Akkun, 3;7)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)Intended meaning: ‘(Please) feed (me with miso soup.)’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)
c. Gyunyu nomi -sase -te.
(Taatyan, 2;9)(adult form: nom-(s)ase-te)milk
drink -Cause -Req
Intended meaning: ‘Please feed (me) with milk.’(Arai 2003)

In (24a), Sumihare asks someone to get him up. Here, the imperative form of the lexicalcausative 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 instead of the standard -sase in
his dialect) to the stem of the intransitive verb ok-i-ru ‘to get up.’ (24b=(2a)) shows thesimilar type of error. The correct causative form of the verb nom-(r)u ‘to drink’ isnom-(s)ase-ru, which is formed by attaching the causative morpheme -ase to the verb stem,nom. However, Akkun erroneously attaches -tyatye, or the child’s phonetic form of -sase- to
its preverbal form nomi, and makes nomi-tyatye-te. In (24c), a child (not Sumihare) also
produces nomi-sase-te, instead of nom-(s)ase-te. Those children commonly overgenerate thecausative morpheme -sase in the cases where the transitive morpheme -os or the causative
morpheme -ase should be chosen.
These data indicate that the children know that the v should be phonetically realized tomake causatives, but they fail in choosing the right one among several ways of the realizationof the causative morphemes. Interestingly enough, those children tend to choose theunmarked bound morpheme form, i.e., -sase.
The second type of overgeneration, “a causative verb + a causative morpheme,” isproduced at around later three years old upto five years old. The relevant examples are shownin (25).

-34-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)(25) a.

b.

Kuruma -o
too -si-sase -ru.
(Taatyan, 3;10) (adult form: too-s-(r)u)
car-Acc pass -Cause -Cause -Pres
Intended meaning: ‘(I’ll) let the car pass through.’(Arai 2003)

Kondo mi -se-si-te ageru kara ne.
next time see -Cause -Cause -I give/let as Int(Taatyan, 4;6)
(adult form: mi-se-te)Intended meaning: ‘(I’ll) show (it to) you next time.’
c. Mag -e-si-te.
(3;11)
bend -Cause -Cause -Req

(Arai 2003)(adult form: mag-e-te)Intended meaning: ‘(Please) bend (this).’(Ito 1990)

In (25a (=2b)), the transitive verb too-s-(r)u ‘to let … pass,’ which is a causative verb as well,is erroneously associated with an additional causative morpheme -sase. (25b) is anotherexample of doubly-marked causatives. The transitive verb mi-se-ru ‘to show’ or ‘to let … see’is, in fact, a causative verb containing the transitive (or causative) morpheme -se in it.
However, the child adds the additional causative morpheme -si7and produces mi-se-si-te “bymistake.” The example in (25c) reported by Ito (1990) can also be classified into the causative
doubling overgeneration. The verb mag-e-ru ‘to bend’ is a lexical causative verb containing
the transitive (or causative) morpheme -e in it, but the child wrongly attaches the additional-si to the already-lexical causative verb.
Then, why does the second type of overgeneration take place? We conjecture that this is
the stage where children still have difficulty in finding the appropriate form for the stem of averb as well as the correct form of a bound morpheme. What children know at this stage is an
undifferentiated causative verb as the stem of a bare verb, and the mechanism that the v
should be phonetically realized to make a causative verb. Hence, those children attach
additional causative morphemes -sase or -si onto the undifferentiated V, as illustrated in (26).
(26)

vP
v’
VP

v
V

-sase/-si

toosi/mise

7

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

-35-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

Since children regard the whole verbal forms toosi and mise as V, they add the causative
morphemes in the position of the v to realize it phonetically. This is probably the reason forthe causative doubling phenomenon or the second overgeneration phenomenon where thelexical causatives are associated with additional unnecessary causative morphemes.8
4.2.

The Overgeneration in -(Rar)e Potentials

Japanese-speaking children start producing potential sentences with the morpheme -rareat around the age of 2;5 (Shibuya 1994, Arai 2006, Fuji, Hashimoto and Murasugi 2008a,
among others). (27) is an example from Arai (2006).
(27) Ake -rare -nai.
open -Pot -Neg

(Taatyan, 2;5)‘(I) cannot open.’(Arai 2006)

In (27), Taatyan produces the potential sentence correctly with the morpheme -rare. Children
apparently know by this stage that the potential morpheme -(rar)e is the realization of the v.
However, just like the causatives, in the acquisition of potentials as well, we find in Noji
(1974-1977), Shibuya (1994), and Arai (2006) that the Japanese-speaking children go throughthe stage of overgeneration. And just like the causatives, two types of overgeneration are also
found in the acquisition of -(rar)e potentials. One type of overgeneration is “a verb + -rare.”Observe the examples in (28a) and (28b (=4a)) found in Arai (2006).
(28) a.

Taakun hitori-de tukur -(r)are-ta.
(Taatyan, 3;0)by oneself make -Pot -Past(adult form: tukur-e-ta)

Intended meaning: ‘Taakun(/I) could make (this) by himself(/myself).’b.

(Taatyan, 3;5)

(Arai 2006)(adult form: yar-e-nai)

Intended meaning: ‘I cannot do.’(Arai 2006)

Yar-(r)are -nai.
do -Pot -Neg

In the standard Japanese, -rare is attached to vocalic verb stems, while -e is attached toconsonantal verb stems, as is discussed in Section 2. However, the child overgenerates -rarein this stage. According to Arai (2006), the child has his own morpho-phonological rule, andputs -rare on the vocalic verbs, and -are on the consonantal verbs. Thus, in (28a) and (28b),
the morpheme -are attaches to the stems of the verbs tukur-(r)u ‘to make’ and yar-(r)u ‘to8Mamoru Saito brought our attention to this analysis. The overgeneration in (25) can be consideredas the morphological one since the number of argument does not increase unlike the famous exampleof 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.

-36-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)do,’ though the morpheme -e should be attached in the adult grammar.9
The same type of overgeneration is found in Sumihare’s data as well (Fuji, Hashimotoand Murasugi 2008a).
(29) Kaatyan nakanaka tor -(r)are -nyo.
mommy not easily take -Pot -Neg Int(Sumihare, 3;3)

Intended meaning: ‘Mommy, (I) can’t take (it) easily.’(Noji 1974-1977)

In (29), the morpheme -e should be attached to yield the potential form tor-e-n, but Sumihare
attaches -(r)are to the verb stem and produces the erroneous potential form. (28) and (29)indicate that children tend to choose an unmarked potential morpheme for the overgeneration
just like the case of the causative -sase. In the case of potentials, -rare seems to be theunmarked potential morpheme. In the stage where the overgeneration in the acquisition ofpotentials is found, children have knowledge that the v is phonetically realized, but they do
not know the “correct” adult bound form for the v, and hence, they choose the unmarked
potential morpheme -rare.
The second type of overgeneration, i.e., “a potential verb + a potential morpheme,” isalso observed in Japanese-speaking children at three through five years of age.10 A couple ofexamples are given in (30a) and (30b (=4b)).
(30) a.

b.

Gakko -ni ik -e -re -ru yo.
School -Dat go-Pot -Pot -Pres Int(Sumihare, 3;1)

(adult form: ik-e-ru)

Intended meaning: ‘(I) can go to school by myself.’(Noji 1974-1977)

Zyoozuni mot -e -rare -ta.
(Taatyan, 4;2)
wellhave -Pot -Pot -Past(adult form: mot-e-ta)

Intended meaning: ‘(I) could bring (this) up very well.’(Arai 2006)

In (30), children attach an additional potential morpheme -re or -rare onto thealready-potential-verbs (or “lexical” potentials). (30a) indicates that Sumihare produces anerroneous potential form, ik-e-re-ru for ik-e-ru (the adult potential form of ik-u ‘to go’). The
same type of potential doubling error is found in Taatyan’s data, as shown in (30b). Taatyan
correctly attaches -e to the consonantal verb mot-(r)u ‘to have.’ However, he additionallyattaches the potential morpheme -rare, yielding an unacceptable potential form mot-e-rare-ta.
9

As far as we know, Shibuya (1994) is one of the pioneers who found the productive
overgeneration errors found in the acquisition of Japanese potentials. Arai (2003, 2006) reports theovergeneration phenomena in causatives as well as potentials, and attempts to analyze them in a
uniform way.
10

In the case of Sumihare, he starts producing two types of overgeneration at the same age, ataround the age of three.
-37-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

As is the case of causatives, this type of overgeneration would reflect the stage where children
still use the undifferentiated potential verbs. This is the stage where children know that apotential morpheme should be attached to make a productive potential form in the target
grammar, and hence, they put a potential morpheme such as -re or -rare on the lexical
potential verb.
5.

Discussion and Conclusion

In line with Yano (2007a,b,c), we overviewed that the parallel intermediate stages in theacquisition of Japanese causatives and potentials are observed. We showed that theseintermediate 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, we introduced Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) analysis of undergeneration,
where -(s)ase as the v is not morphologically realized and the transitive/intransitive
alternation errors are frequently observed. We pointed out that this analysis can be extended
to potentials as well. Japanese-speaking children do not produce -(rar)e, and employ theunanalyzed adult form as a potential verb, and like the case of causatives, these errors are due
to children’s initial hypothesis that the v does exist in their grammar, but it is phonetically null.
In fact, Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) relate this stage to the adult English
transitive/intransitive alternation, as shown in (31) (See also (11)).
(31) a.
b.

John passed the ring to Mary.
The ring passed to Mary.

Both the transitive pass and the intransitive pass are realized as pass in English. 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, we discussed two types of overgeneration for causatives and potentials. One
type of overgeneration is “a correct (but sometimes inappropriate) stem of a verb +(unmarked) -sase or -rare.” 11 Another type of overgeneration is the causative and thepotential doubling: “an undifferentiated causative verb + a causative morpheme” and “anundifferentiated potential verb +a potential morpheme, ” respectively. We argued that theseovergenerations take place, since Japanese-speaking children, at one point of language
acquisition, have difficulty in finding the “correct” adult forms of the bound morphemes forcausatives and potentials. The agglutinative language learners, at an early stage of language
acquisition, have difficulty in differentiating the bound morphemes from the stem of verbs as
Murasugi (2007a,b,c) discusses.

11

Precisely speaking, this type of error may not be the case of overgeneration, but rather, amorphological error, as Mamoru Saito (p.c.) and Alison Gabriele (p.c.) pointed out to us.
-38-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

The analysis presented here confirms Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) proposal thatJapanese-speaking children acquire the v-VP structure very early, but they seem to be
confused in choosing the correct morpho-phonological realization of the v. This conclusion
further provides a piece of supportive evidence for Null Functional Head Hypothesis
proposed by Murasugi (2007a,b,c), which states that what is acquired late is not functional
categories per se but the morpho-phonological realization of functional heads. The
undergeneration and the overgeneration observed in the acquisition of Japanese complex
predicates are not due to the lack of the related functional category, v, but due to the difficulty
in realizing it with an appropriate morpheme.
References
Arai, F. (2003) “Nihongo ni Okeru Kiin Tadousi no Syutoku Dankai [Developmental Sequence in the
Acquisition of Lexical Causative Verbs -Implications of Causative Errors in Japanese-],”Kyoto-Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu Zinbunkagaku-Keiretu [Kyoto-Sangyo University Essays on
Humanity Science] 30, Kyoto-Sangyo University, 1-38.
Arai, F. (2006) “Nihongo ni Okeru Kanou Hyougen no Syutoku Katei [Developmental Sequence in
the Acquisition of the Potential Construction in Japanese],” Kyoto-Sangyo Daigaku Ronsyu
Zinbunkagaku-Keiretu [Kyoto-Sangyo University Essays on Humanity Science] 34,
Kyoto-Sangyo University, 1-23.
Bowerman, M. (1982) “Evaluating Competing Linguistic Models with Language Acquisition Data:
Implications of Developmental Errors with Causative Verbs,” Quaderni di Semantica 3,
5-66.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2005) “The Domain of Agreement,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 23, 809-865.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect, and Anti-reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, No.1, 27-42.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fuji, C. (2006) “Two Types of Causatives in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language: A Study in
Syntax and Acquisition,” Master’s thesis, Nanzan University.
Fuji, C., T. Hashimoto, and K. Murasugi (2008a) “VP-shell Analysis for the Acquisition of Japanese
Potentials,” Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3.2, 65-102.
Fuji, C., T. Hashimoto, and K. Murasugi (2008b) “A Theoretical Account for the Undergeneration andthe Overgeneration in Japanese Complex Predicates,” in H. Chan, E. Kapia and H. Jacob,
eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of BUCLD 32.
(http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/proc.html)
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, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 53-109.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (2002) Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Harley, H. (1995) Subjects, Events and Licensing, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

-39-

Nanzan Linguistics 4: Research Results and Activities 2006 ~ 2008

Harley, H. (2006) “On the Causative Construction,” to appear in S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
(http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000433)
Ito, K. (1990) Kodomo no Kotoba - Syutoku to Souzou [Child Language: Acquisition and Innovation],
Keisou Syobou, Tokyo.
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, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Matsumoto, Y. (2000) “On the Crosslinguistic Parameterization of Causative Predicates: Implications
from Japanese and Other Languages,” in M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., Argument Realization,
CSLI Publications, Stanford, 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,” Journalof 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. (2007c) “Null Functional Head Hypothesis for Language Acquisition,” Paper Presented
at International Symposium of the Cambridge - Connecticut - Hyderabad - Nanzan - Siena Tsing Hua Consortium for Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, December 17.
Murasugi, K. and C. Fuji (2007) “Asupekuto no Kakutoku: Ehime Hougen kara Gengo(riron) e [TheAcquisition 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 and C. E. Smith, eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of BUCLD 28.
(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, Bunka Hyouron Syuppan, Tokyo.
Okubo, A. (1967) Youzi Gengo no Hattatu [The Development of Child Language], Tokyodo Syuppan,
Tokyo.

-40-

A VP-shell Analysis (C, Fuji., T. Hashimoto and K. Murasugi)

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 ofJapanese Potential Construction], Osaka Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyou [Memories of Osaka
University School of Letters] 33(1), 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], Dainihon
Tosyo, Tokyo, 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) “Fukugouzyutugobun no Kakutoku - Kanou Koubun o Tyuusin tosite [TheAcquisition 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 [Nanzan University Linguistic
Science] 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.

(Received: March, 2008)-41-