THREE PIECES OF ACQUISTION EVIDENCE FOR THE v-VP FRAME*

Keiko Murasugi and Tomoko Hashimoto
Nanzan University

1. Introduction: The Syntactic Representation of Agentive Verbs
This paper presents evidence for the v-VP frame in the syntactic representation of
agentive verbs from our longitudinal study on a Japanese-speaking child, Akkun, over theperiod of five years. He showed various patterns in the process of the acquisition of agentive
verbs, and we argue that those patterns can be explained elegantly with the v-VP frame.
The v-VP frame developed out of Larson’s (1988) VP-shell analysis of ditransitive
sentences such as (1).
(1)

Mary gave it to John

According to this analysis, there are two layers of VPs where the higher V assigns the agentrole to its Spec. This was generalized to all agentive sentences in Hale and Keyser 1993 andChomsky 1995. That is, the agent role is always assigned by the higher verb, called v in
distinction with the lower verb V, to its Spec. Thus, (1) and (2) have the representations in (3)and (4), respectively.
(2)

Mary sank the boat(3)

vP (v [+cause] + GIVE = give)
／ ＼
Mary
v′
／ ＼
v
VP
[+cause]
／ ＼
it
V′
／ ＼
V
PP
｜
／ ＼
GIVE to
John
(GO)

*

We would like to thank Mamoru Saito for discussions, comments, and suggestions for this paper.
We would also like to thank Sachiko Kato, Sonja Eisenbeiss, Elizabeth Laurencot, and John Shillaw
for their helpful suggestions. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the workshop on threeplace predicates held at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen) in May, 2003. We
benefited from the comments by the participants and also from the stimulating discussion on
three-place predicates from various perspectives. The research reported here was supported in part by
the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A and by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid to St. Luke’s College
of Nursing (#15320071, Principal Investigator: Keiko Fukaya) for the study of psycholingusitics.

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

(4)vP (v [+cause] + SINK = sink)
／ ＼
Mary
v′
／ ＼
v
VP
[+cause]
／ ＼
V
NP
｜
／ ＼
SINK the boat

According to one version of this analysis, the verb give consists of two abstract verbs, as
illustrated in (3). The higher one, small v, assigns the agent role to the subject of the sentence
and takes a VP complement. It has the meaning of CAUSE. The lower one, capital GIVE, has
the basic meaning of GO and takes two arguments, the theme and the goal. In (3), the agent isMary, the theme is it, and the goal is John. The small v-projection represents the ACTIVITY
or CAUSE, and the large V-projection represents the CHANGE OF STATE. The precise
meaning of the ditransitive sentence (1) is that Mary DID something and that she CAUSED
the event that it goes to John. The lower V is raised to the higher v-position, and then they
together yield the lexical item give. And finally, the highest argument, Mary, moves to TP
Spec, and assumes the subject position of the sentence. (4) is basically the same except thatthe event Mary CAUSED is the boat’s sinking.
This analysis provides an elegant account for the alternation in (5) and also that in (6),discussed in detail in Baker 1996.
(5)

a.
b.

Mary sank the boat
The boat sank

(6)

a.
b.

John passed the ring to MaryThe ring passed to MaryThe structure of (6a) is shown in (7).
(7)

vP (v [+cause] + PASS = pass, v [–cause] + PASS = pass)
＼
v′
／ ＼
v
VP
[±cause]／ ＼NPV′／ ＼ ／ ＼
the ring VPP｜／ ＼PASS to Mary／John

Exactly as in (3), there are two verbs in the structure (7): the small v and the capital PASS.
The higher verb, small v, assigns the agent role to John. The small v-projection expresses the
CAUSE of the event, whereas the lower V-projection expresses the resulting CHANGE OF
STATE. Accordingly, the ring GOES or PASSES to Mary. The lower verb, capital PASS, is–2–

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)raised to the small v-position, and small v + capital PASS yield the lexical item pass. The
highest argument, John, assumes the subject position of the sentence.
On the other hand, (6b), the unaccusative counterpart of (6a), has only two arguments,
the theme and the goal. The ring is the theme, and Mary is the goal. Since the agent argument
is missing, one possibility is that the small v-projection is absent and there is only the large Vprojection in this case. The highest argument, the ring, is raised to the TP Spec position andbecomes the subject of the sentence. An alternative possibility, with similar effects, is that thesmall v is present but has the feature [–cause]. Unlike the small v with [+cause], the small v
with [–cause] does not assign the agent role to its Spec position. In this case also, the highest
argument is the ring because the agent is absent. Hence, the ring becomes the subject of thesentence. Capital PASS is raised to the [–cause] v and they yield the lexical item pass, which
is identical in form to the ditransitive pass. We assume the latter analysis because the [–cause]
small v shows up overtly in some cases in Japanese, as will be shown directly.
In the following sections, we present data from our longitudinal study on Akkun thatseem to provide direct evidence for the v-VP frame just illustrated. In Section 2, we discuss
the early stage in the acquisition of verbs and argue that there is a point when he realizes v
with the verb do, which is tiyu in his actual speech. The claim is that the v-VP frame shows up
directly at this stage. Then, in Section 3, we consider the process of the acquisition of theactual verb forms. In particular, we discuss some consistent “mistakes” made in this process,where unaccusative verbs are used in place of the corresponding agentive (di)transitive verbs.
We suggest that those mistakes are made because Akkun assumes initially that there is nophonological distinction between the [+cause] small v and the [–cause] small v and that v isphonologically null in Japanese as in English. Finally, in Section 4, we present data on theacquisition of the causative morpheme -sase. It is widely assumed that -sase is a large V
taking a sentential complement. Akkun started the productive use of causative sentences
rather late. This is expected because the construction is complex with an embedded structure.
However, our data indicate that specific kinds of examples with -sase are observed relatively
early. We analyze those early instances as cases where Akkun employs -sase as a realizationof the [+cause] small v. We show that this hypothesis makes a prediction, based onlearnability considerations, for the adult syntax of causative sentences, and that the prediction
is indeed borne out.
2. Stage I: The Emergence of the v-VP Frame
There are some utterances with no overt verbs that convey ditransitive meanings in thevery early stage. Akkun’s typical utterances around the age 2 are shown in (8)–(10).
(8)

Koe. Papa
This Daddy

hai doozyo
yes please

∅

(2;0)

‘This one. (I want to give it) to Daddy.’–3–

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

(9)

Motto koe
more thisbuubu ∅
water

(2;1)

‘(I will give) more water to this.’(10) Koe Akkun Mama
hai doozyo
thisMommy yes please

(2;5)

∅

‘Mommy, please give this to Akkun(/me).’In all of these examples, the verb is missing. This is clear in the case of (9). There is no verb,
but the number of arguments and the intended meaning show that the verb give is missing. In(8) and (10), the phrase hai doozyo appears at the end of the utterance. These words literally
mean ‘yes’ and ‘please’, but the phrase hai doozo means ‘here you are’ in the adult usage.
Akkun seems to be using it to express the meaning of give or possibly transfer of an item fromone person to another. He did not use an actual verb in the ditransitive construction at thisstage.
At around 2;5, Akkun started placing tiyu at the end of utterances quite productively.
Some examples are shown in (11)–(16). Tiyu/tita/tite are suru/sita/site in adult speech, andthey correspond in meaning to ‘do/did/doing’ in English.
(11)

Mama
Akkun hai doozyo tiyu
Mommy
yes please do(2;5)‘Akkun(/I) will give it to Mommy.’(12) a. Kotyan koe Akkun hai doozyo tiyu
thisyes please do(2;7)‘Akkun(/I) will give this to Kotyan.’b. Kotyan koe Akkun hai doozyo tita (2;7)
thisyes please did‘Kotyan gave this to Akkun(/me).’
(13)

Mama
Akkun paku
tiyu
Mommy
onomatopoeia do(2;7)‘Mommy, please make Akkun(/me) eat this.’(14)

Koko maamoi maamoi tiyu
here circular circular do(2;9)‘(Please) draw a circle here.’–4–

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)(15)

Akkun nezi kuyukuyu tite, konoko syabeyu
screw turn around doing this one talk(2;9)

‘When Akkun(/I) will wind this one around, it will talk.’(16)

Mama, otitayo. Akkun-ga poitita kaya (3;0)
Mommy fell
-Nom onomatopoeia did because‘Mommy, (it) fell (on the floor), because Akkun(/I) threw (it down).’

Note that tiyu/tita/tite did not appear in the sentences similar to (11)–(12) before this period.
Many utterances without these items had been observed, such as Mama, Akkun, hai doozyo;
Akkun, Kotyan, hai doozyo; Akkun, Kotyan, hai doozyo; and so on.
There are a few more observations that we can make with these examples. First, the“predicates” that appear right before tiyu/tita/tite in (13)–(16) are typically onomatopoeic or
mimetic expressions. For example, paku in (13) is the sound that describes a person putting afood into his or her mouth or a food going into a person’s mouth. The utterance means,‘Please mother put this in Akkun’s mouth’ or more literally ‘Mother makes this food go into
Akkun’s mouth’. Maamoi in (14), which corresponds to marui in adult speech, means‘circular’. Akkun said this to his mother, meaning ‘I ask you to write circles here’ or more
literally ‘I ask you to cause there to be circular things here’. Kuyukuyu in (15), whichcorresponds to kurukuru in adult speech, is a mimetic word describing things turning around.
He tried to say that he will wind the screw, or more literally that he will cause the screw toturn around and as a result the toy will talk. Similarly, poi in (16) is the sound that describes a
person throwing something away. He intended to say that he threw something away, or more
literally that he caused something to be thrown away and as a result it fell on the floor.
As should be clear by now, Akkun seems to be using tiyu/tita/tite to describe an activity
that causes a certain event or change of state. The adult counterpart of tiyu/tita/tite,suru/sita/site, can assign the agent role, like the English verb ‘do/did/doing’. Further, the restof the utterance seems to describe an event or a change of state. Thus, tiyu/tita/tite seems tocorrespond exactly to the small v. The structure of (15), then, for example, will be as in (17).
(17)

／
Akkun

vP

＼
v′
／ ＼

XP
v [+cause]／ ＼｜nezi kuyukuyu tite
In (17), tite describes an activity that causes a screw to turn around, and Akkun is the agent.
The complement of the small v is indicated not as VP but as XP because it lacks a verb. Again,
kurukuru is a mimetic word describing things turning around, and the XP expresses the–5–Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

meaning that ‘the screw turns around’.1
If the analysis shown in (17) is correct, we have direct evidence for the v-VP frame foragentive verbs. Akkun, at one point, started using tiyu/tita/tite as realizations of the [+cause]
small v to express agentivity, and he formed agentive (di)transitives productively based on his
grammar at the time. Since kurukuru-suru is not a regular Japanese verb, he has to acquire theactual verb later. But at this point, he realizes the small v as tiyu/tita/tite phonetically.
3. Stage II: The Acquisition of the Lexical Items for v-V
According to what we proposed so far, Akkun already utilizes the v-VP frame when hestarts adding tiyu/tita/tite at the end of his sentences. But he is still a step away from the adultgrammar: he needs to acquire the actual lexical items for the v-V combination. In English, forexample, as was illustrated in (7), the speaker knows that the [+cause] small v + capital PASS
is realized as pass, and so is the [–cause] small v + capital PASS.
Akkun’s acquisition of actual verbs starts early and proceeds step by step. Around age 3,
he uses unaccusative verbs correctly, as in (18) and (19).
(18)

dango-ga
uta pakantite, dango-ga
atta (2;9)
dumpling-Nom lid onomatopoeia doing dumpling-Nom there-be‘There was a dumpling (when I) opened the lid of the dumpling (box).’(19)… Akkun-no

papa-gamuti
yatta toki, ame-ga
hutta-Gen Daddy-Nom mosquito did when rain-Nom fell

(3;0)‘When … Akkun’s Daddy lit a mosquito coil, it rained.’
Around the same period, ditransitive verbs are also observed. As shown in (20)–(21), theditransitive verb ageyu, which means ‘give’ and corresponds to ageru in adult Japanese,
appears at 2;7, and its past counterpart ageta ‘gave’ appears at 2;10.
(20)

Mama
tyotto ageyu
Mommy a little give

(2;7)

‘Mommy, (I will) give you a little bit.’(21)

Kinnou Akkun akatyan toki, papa ni koe ageta (2;10)
yesterday
baby
when Daddy to this gave
‘Akkun gave this to Daddy when he was a baby yesterday (= in the past).’1

It is not clear whether Akkun-ga nezi-o kurukuru-suru ‘Akkun-Nom screw-Acc going around-do’ isgrammatical in adult grammar. It certainly makes sense with to ‘that’ as in Akkun-ga nezi-o kurukuru
to suru, that is, with embedded structure. Of course, (15) as such is not grammatical.

–6–Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)But as this acquisition process proceeds step by step, Akkun keeps making a systematic“mistake” and it lasts for some time. The “mistake” is related to the alternation in (6),repeated in (22).
(22) a. John passed the ring to Maryb. The ring passed to Mary
This kind of alternation is widely attested, and we have many (di)transitive-unaccusative pairs
like ‘John sank the boat/The boat sank’ with the verb sink, and ‘John opened the door/The
door opened’ with the verb open. Note here that both lexical items in the alternation have thesame surface form. For example, both the transitive sink and the unaccusative sink arerealized as sink. We may then say that both the [+cause] small v and the [–cause] small v are
realized as zero-morphemes (i.e., without phonological content).
Japanese is also abundant with this kind of alternation, but the situation is a little
different. Let us consider the pairs in (23).
(23) a. mi-se-ru (= show-pres.) / mi-ru (= see-pres.)b. utu-s-(r)u (= copy-pres.) / utu-r-(r)u (= be copied-pres.)c. todok-e-ru (= deliver-pres.) / todok-(r)u (= be delivered-pres.)d. os-ie-ru (= teach-pres.) / os-owar-(r)u (= be taught)
The pair, utu-s ‘copy’/utu-r ‘be copied’, is used in (24a) and (24b).
(24) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-osyasin-ni utu-s-(r)u-Nom-Acc picture-in copy-pres.

(transitive)‘Taroo takes a picture of Hanako.’
b. Hanako-ga
syasin-ni utu-r-(r)u (unaccusative)-Nom picture-in be copied-pres.
‘Hanako appears in a picture.’
Note here that the transitive verb and the unaccusative verb have different forms, utu-s andutu-r. This suggests that the [±cause] small v’s are overt in Japanese. The structures of (24a)and (24b) are shown in (25a) and (25b), respectively. Utu is the common verb in both
structures. And in (25a), -s represents the [+cause] small v, whereas in (25b), -r represents the[–cause] small v.

–7–

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003(25) a.

vP
／ ＼
agent
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [+cause]
／＼
｜
theme
V′ -s
／ ＼
location
V
｜
utu-

b.

vP
／ ＼
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [–cause]
／ ＼
｜
theme
V′ -r
／ ＼
locationV｜
utu-

However, the way [±cause] small v’s are spelled out is idiosyncratic in Japanese. That is,
it is not the case that the [+cause] small v is always spelled out as -s and the [–cause] small v
as –r, as in (25). For example, we have different realizations of the [±cause] small v’s in (26).
(26) a. Hanako-ga
hon-o
Taroo-ni
todok-e-ru(ditransitive)-Nom book-Acc-Dat deliver-pres.
‘Hanako delivers a book to Taroo.’b. Hon-ga
Taroo-ni
todok-∅-(r)u (unaccusative)
book-Nom-Dat be delivered-pres.
‘A book is delivered to Taroo.’
The structures of (26a) and (26b) are shown in (27a) and (27b), respectively. We have theverb, todok, and the [+cause] small v is realized as -e and the [–cause] small v as a zero
morpheme.
(27) a.

vP
／ ＼
agent
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [+cause]
／＼
｜
theme
V′ -e
／ ＼
goal
V
｜
todok–8–

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)

b.

vP
／ ＼
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [–cause]
／＼
｜
theme
V′ -∅
／ ＼
goal
V
｜
todok-

With this background, let us now consider the “mistakes” that Akkun made. He
frequently used unaccusatives for (di)transitives, but never vice versa. Some examples areprovided in (28)–(33). As indicated, this kind of “mistake” continues for two years up to age
4;8.
(28)

Koe ziityan
ni miyuthis Grandfather to see(2;9)‘I show this to Grandfather.’- Instead of mi-se-ru ‘show’, Akkun produced what corresponds to mi-ru ‘see’ in adultspeech. Mi-ru is probably nonagentive here. If so, he is using an unaccusative form fora ditransitive verb.
(29)

Akkun ima kaya koe nayabu (2;11)
now from this be-in-line‘From now, Akkun(/I) will put these in line.’- Instead of narab-e-ru ‘put … in line’, Akkun produced what corresponds tonarab-(r)u ‘be … in line’. This is the usage of an unaccusative form for the transitive
verb.

(30)

Nee, ati-o
hirogat-te (3;7)
Int legs-Acc spread(unaccusative)-request‘Please spread your legs.’- Instead of hirog-e-te ‘spread-request’ (transitive), Akkun produced hirog-at-te‘spread-request’ (unaccusative). Again, he is using an unaccusative form for atransi-tive verb. The same comment applies to (31) and (32) as well.

(31)

Kore, ai-toku
kara saa
this open(unaccusative)-keep as Int(4;5)‘(I will) open this and keep it open.’- Instead of ak-e ‘open’ (transitive), Akkun produced ai ‘open’ (unaccusative).

–9–Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

(32)

Kono yatu ni isi-o
doi-te-moratte nee
this thing by rock-Acc remove-have Int(4;6)‘(I will) have the rocks removed by this one.’- Doi is probably nonagentive here. If so, instead of dok-e ‘remove’ (transitive), Akkun
produced doi ‘remove’ (unaccusative).
(33)

Todok-ok-ka, ano hito
ni todok-(y)ooarrive-let’sthat person to arrive-let’s

todok-(y)ooarrive-let’s(4;8)‘Let’s send (it). Let’s send (it) to that person.’- Instead of todok-e ‘deliver’, Akkun produced todok ‘be delivered’. So, he is using an
unaccusative form for a ditransitive verb.
What is happening here seems quite clear. First let us consider (29). Narab-∅-(r)u is anunaccusative verb meaning ‘be in line’. Akkun uses it in the form of nayab-∅-(r)u. But what
he intends is the transitive narab-e-ru ‘put something in line’. The structure of what heintended to say is shown in (34).
(34)

vP
／ ＼
agent
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [+cause]
／ ＼
｜
theme
V
-e
｜
narab-

This is a transitive structure, and there are places for agent and theme. But he does not use -e.
That is, although the [+cause] small v should be realized as -e in this case, he uses a zero
morpheme instead.
The other examples can be analyzed in basically the same way. As we saw before,
todok-(r)u is an unaccusative verb meaning ‘(something) is delivered (to somebody)’.
Todok-e-ru, on the other hand, is a ditransitive verb meaning ‘(somebody) delivers(something to somebody)’. (33) is intended as ‘let’s send/deliver it to that person’. So, theform todok-e-yoo is required, where -e is the [+cause] small v and -yoo is ‘let’s’. The structurethat Akkun has in mind must be as in (35).

– 10 –

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)

(35)

vP
／ ＼
agent
v′
／ ＼
VP
v [+cause]
／ ＼
｜
theme
V′ -e
／ ＼
goal
V
｜
todok-

But, again, he assumes that the [+cause] small v is a zero morpheme and fails to produce -e.
Thus, what he utters is identical to the unaccusative form todok-∅-(y)oo.
More generally, it seems that Akkun starts out with the VP, representing STATE or
CHANGE OF STATE. He then embeds this under [±cause] small v’s but initially assumes
that [±cause] small v’s are always a zero morpheme, as in English. This predicts not only that
he makes the kind of “mistake” he does but also that the “mistake” never occurs in the
opposite directionthat is, he never uses (di)transitives for unaccusatives. The prediction isindeed borne out.
Interestingly, it is not that Akkun always made this “mistake.” He was apparently alreadyin the process of acquiring the correct adult forms of (di)transitive verbs, and the correct adultforms were used occasionally with the incorrect ones. This is illustrated in (36).
(36) a. Baatyan
ni koe mityeyu (2;10)Grandmother to this show

cf. (28)‘I’ll show this to Grandmother.’b. Tigau. Ak-e-toku dakenoopen-keep just

(4;5)

‘No. I’ll just keep it open!’
Around the same time Akkun uttered (28) using mi-∅-ru ‘see’ instead mi-se-ru ‘show’, heproduced (36a) with mityeyu, which corresponds to the correct adult form of the verb.
Similarly, in the same month as he uttered (31) with the unaccusative ai-∅-toku ‘openunaccusative keep’, he produced (36b) with the correct ak-e-toku ‘open-transitive keep’. This
makes the “mistakes” he made all the more significant. It is neither that he only used theunaccusative forms nor that the “mistakes” were random.
4. On the Acquisition of Syntactic Causatives
In this section, we consider Akkun’s production of sentences with the causative
morpheme -sase ‘make, let’. It is said that Japanese has syntactic and lexical causatives. The– 11 –

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003(di)transitives in the pairs in (23) are lexical causative verbs. Another alternation of this kindis shown in (37).
(37) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-niyoohuku-o ki-se-ru-Nom-Dat clothes-Acc dress-pres.
‘Hanako puts the clothes on Taroo.’b. Taroo-ga
yoohuku-o ki-ru-Nom clothes-Acc wear-pres.
‘Taroo wears the clothes.’(37a) is a ditransitive construction with the verb ki-se, where -se is the [+cause] small v thatassigns the agent role to the subject. The sentence has a causative meaning because of thepresence of this small v. Hence comes the name “lexical causative.”
Parallel to this, Japanese has the causative morpheme -sase, which is a verbal suffix
morphologically but is an independent predicate syntactically. An example with -sase is givenin (38).
(38)

Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
-Nom
-Dat

yoohuku-o ki-sase-ru
clothes-Acc wear-cause-pres.

‘Hanako makes/lets Taroo put on the clothes.’
This kind of causative is quite productive, as indicated in (39).
(39) a.

John-ga Mary-ni susi-otabe-sase-ta-Nom-Dat sushi-Acc eat-cause-past‘John made/let Mary eat sushi.’b.

Isya-gakanzya-ni kusuri-onom-(s)ase-ta
doctor-Nom patient-Dat medicine-Acc drink-cause-past‘The doctor made the patient take medicine.’c.

Sensei-ga
seito-nitegami-o kak-(s)ase-ta
teacher-Nom student-Dat letter-Acc write-cause-past‘The teacher made/let the students write letters.’d.

Hahaoya-ga kodomo-ni hon-oyom-(s)ase-yoo to
si-ta
mother-Nom child-Dat book-Acc read-casue-try Comp do-past‘The mother tried to make her child read a book.’– 12 –

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)

In Section 4.1, we discuss Akkun’s acquisition of sentences with this causative
morpheme -sase. In particular, we show that although he seems to have acquired syntactic
causatives around age 5, he produced isolated examples with -sase much earlier. We argue
that he employed -sase as a realization of [+cause] v in those examples. This implies that
Akkun assumed at one point that the [+cause] v can be realized as -sase along with the othermorphemes discussed in the preceding sections. Interestingly, this seems to predict that hemaintains this assumption even after he acquires -sase as an independent V taking a sentential
complement. This is so because it would probably require indirect negative evidence to rejecthis initial assumption. In Section 4.2, we discuss Matsumoto 2000, as that analysis suggeststhat the prediction is indeed borne out. He argues that -sase can form lexical causatives in
addition to syntactic causatives.
4.1. -Sase as a Realization of v
We just mentioned that a causative sentence with the morpheme -sase is assumed to
involve a complex structure with a sentential complement. One piece of evidence is providedin (40).2(40) a. *Hanakoi-ga
kanozyoi-o hihansi-ta-Nom she-Acc
criticize-past‘Hanakoi criticized heri.’b. Hanakoi-ga Taroo-ni kanozyoi-o hihans-(s)ase-ta-Nom-Dat she-Acc
criticize-cause-past‘Hanakoi made/let Taroo criticize heri.’In (40a), Hanako and kanozyo ‘she’ cannot refer to the same person. This is due to Condition
B of the binding theory, which prohibits coreference between a name and a pronoun that areclausemates. On the other hand, in the case of the causative sentence (40b), this coreference isallowed. This shows that the name and the pronoun are not clausematesthat is, the example
has a structure with embedding.
More specifically, (40b), for example, has the structure in (41).

2

The proposal that -sase takes a sentential complement was first made in Kuroda 1965. The
evidence in (40) is discussed in detail in Oshima 1979.

– 13 –

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

(41)

vP
／ ＼

v′
／ ＼
VP
v [+cause]
／ ＼
｜
vP
V
-∅
／ ＼
｜
agent
v′ -sase／＼VPv [+cause]
／＼
｜
theme
V -∅
｜
hihansagent-Sase is an independent large V, and there are two layers of small v-projections that represent
the complex structure. Note in particular that the structure contains two positions for agents.
The structure roughly corresponds to that of English causative sentences ‘someone madesomeone do something’.
Then, what was Akkun’s pattern of the acquisition of causative sentences? He first did
not use the causative forms in the context where we expected them. He consistently omitted
the causative morpheme -sase and just used the regular verbs as illustrated in (42)–(44).
(42)

Mama
Akkun non-de (2;8)
Mommydrink-request‘Mommy, please feed me (with milk).’(43)

Papa koe
Daddy thisnui-de (2;10)
undress-request‘Daddy, please take these (clothes) off me.’Intended meaning: Daddy, please make me undressed.
Literal meaning: Daddy, please take off your clothes.
(44)

Mama-gapantyunui-datoki
Mommy-Nom underpants undress-past when

(3;2)‘(I hurt) when Mommy took underpants off me.’Intended meaning: ... when Mommy took my underpants off me.
Literal meaning: ... when Mommy took her underpants off.
Take a look at the sensational utterances that Akkun made. He said ‘Mommy, Akkun,
drink’ without the causative -sase as the glosses of (42) show. But his utterance means‘Mommy, please make Akkun drink this’. He said ‘Daddy, this, take off’ in (43), but heintended to say ‘Daddy, please make me undressed’. The verb form should have been nug(s)ase-te ‘undress-make-request’ instead of nui-de ‘undress-request’ to convey this meaning.

– 14 –

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)In the adult grammar, what he said means ‘Daddy, please take your clothes off’. Strikingly,(44) also has a completely different meaning from what Akkun intended to say. In adultspeech, it means ‘when Mommy took off her underpants’. What he intended is ‘when mommy
took my underpants off me’, and the verb should have been nug-(s)ase-ta ‘take off-causepast’ instead of nui-da ‘take off-past’.
The question that arises with these examples is why this omission of -sase happens. Notethat this is observed in the same period that Akkun often assumed that the [+cause] small v isa zero morpheme. So, we suspect that (42)–(44) contain this zero morpheme. Then, theseexamples are lexical causative sentences in Akkun’s grammar.
The causative morpheme appears much later, at around the age 5. At that point weobserved sentences like (45)–(46).
(45)

Name-tee, name-tee,lick-want lick-want

name-sase-te.
Akkun name-tai (4;9)
lick-make-request
lick-want‘(I) want to lick (the candy). Let me lick it. Akkun(/I) wants to lick it.’(46)

Obaatyan-no toko de tabe-masu.
Att, biiru dake nom-(s)ase-te
Grandma-Gen place at eat-pres. (formal) Int beer only drink-let-request
kudasaiplease(5;3)‘(I will) eat (dinner) at Grandma’s place. Eh, allow me only to drink beer (here),please.’(45), for example, has the expected syntactic properties of a syntactic causative. The
morpheme -sase correctly appears in name-sase-te ‘let me lick’, and the semantic subject ofname- ‘lick’ (Akkun) receives an agentive interpretation. In (46), at age of 5;3, he is using theformal style of speech as part of a joke. He says ‘(I will not eat here.) I will eat at
Grandmother’s place. But please allow me only to drink beer (before I go to Grandmother’splace)’.
Here comes a puzzle. Although Akkun started producing causative sentences such as(45) and (46) at around the age of 5, there are sporadic instances of the morpheme -sase muchearlier. Examples are given in (47) and (48).
(47)

Akkun-ni tabe-sase-tee (3;6)-Dat eat-cause-request‘Please feed Akkun(/me) (with food).’– 15 –

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003

(48)

Nomi-tatye-te (3;7)
drink-cause-request(-Tatye seems to correspond to the adult -sase.)‘Please feed me (with miso soup).’
The question is what they are. If the structure of causatives in (41) is acquired later, then,what would be the structure of (47) and (48)?
We would like to suggest that a hint lies in their interpretation. As noted earlier, there are
two agents in a standard causative sentence. Thus, Taroo as well as Hanako are interpreted asagents in (40b). This property of causatives is clearly represented in the structure in (41),which contains two positions for agents. However, it is absent in (47) and (48). The former
means ‘Feed Akkun (with food)’. So Akkun, if anything, assumes the goal role. Similarly,(48) means ‘Feed me (with liquid)’. Based on this observation, we would like to suggest that-sase in (47) and (48) is not an independent V but a lexical realization of the [+cause] small v.
Recall that at this stage, Akkun was struggling with the various realizations of the [+cause] v.
Sometimes it is -s, sometimes it is -e, and sometimes it is -se, as in (24a), (26a), and (37a),
respectively. It is therefore not surprising if Akkun assumed that -sase is one of those forms.
Further, this fits perfectly with our speculation about (42)–(44). The adult grammar requires-sase in those examples. We suspected that Akkun did not produce this element because heassumed a [+cause] v in its place. As these utterances were observed when Akkun often
assumed that v is a zero morpheme, we would then expect the utterances in (42)–(44). He
most likely had a zero morpheme small v in those examples, and later, filled the slot with-sase. Note that (42)–(44) do not contain two agents in their intended meanings. The predicatein (42) is ‘feed (someone with something)’ and that in (43)–(44) is ‘strip (someone ofsomething)’.
4.2. Further Evidence from Syntax
Our analysis of (47) and (48) makes an interesting prediction. According to this analysis,
Akkun first assumed that -sase is a realization of the [+cause] small v. Then, later, he realizes
that the morpheme represents an independent verb and acquires the syntactic causative. But
there must be two -sase’s in his grammar at this point. That is, the acquisition of -sase as V
does not automatically exclude -sase as v. It would probably require indirect negative
evidence to reach the conclusion that -sase is not a realization of the [+cause] v. Thus, thefinal grammar that he acquires is quite likely to have two -sase’s: one is an independent verb,
and the other is small v.
Interestingly, Matsumoto (2000) proposes that -sase is ambiguous exactly in this way inthe adult grammar of Japanese. Earlier, we mentioned a piece of evidence for the biclausalityof causative sentences based on Condition B of the binding theory. Another piece of evidence
can be found when we examine the behavior of the reflexive pronoun zibun ‘self’. As shownin (49a), zibun is subject oriented.

– 16 –

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)

(49)

a.

Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-ni zibuni/*j-no hon-oage-ta-Nom-Dat self-Gen
book-Acc give-past‘Taroo gave self’s book to Hanako.’b.

Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-ni zibuni/j-no namae-o kak-(s)ase-ta-Nom-Dat self-Gen name-Acc write-cause-past‘Taroo made Hanako write self’s name.’

In (49a), the subject Taroo qualifies as zibun’s antecedent, but the indirect object Hanako
does not. On the other hand, in the causative sentence (49b), both Taroo and Hanako are
possible antecedents for zibun. This indicates that a causative sentence has two subjectsthatis, it has a structure with an embedded sentence. Note also that the dative argument Hanako isinterpreted as an agent in (49b), given that the subject of the verb kak- ‘write’ is assigned theagent role.
In examples like (50a-b), however, the agentivity of the dative argument is less clear.
(50)

a.

Taroo-ga Hanako-ni kutu-ohak-(s)ase-ta-Nom-Dat shoes-Acc put on-cause-past‘Taroo made Hanako put on shoes’b.

Taroo-ga Hanako-ni miruku-o nom-(s)ase-ta-Nom-Dat milk-Acc drink-cause-past‘Taroo made Hanako drink milk’(50a), for example, seems to be ambiguous. It can mean ‘Taroo gave an order to Hanako andmade her put on shoes’. In this case, Hanako is an agent. But the sentence can also mean
‘Taroo put shoes on Hanako’s feet’. In this latter case, Hanako does not seem to be an agent
but instead a goal.3
The latter interpretation is clearly observed with examples like (51a-b).
(51)

a.

Sono onnanoko-ga ningyoo-ni kutu-ohak-(s)ase-ta
that girl-Nom
doll-Dat
shoes-Acc put on-cause-past‘The girl put shoes on a doll.’

3Note that (47) and (48) are ambiguous in the same way. Thus, (i) can mean that ‘Hanako made/letTaroo eat it’ or that ‘Hanako fed Taroo with it’.
(i)

Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
sore-o tabe-sase-ta-Nom-Dat it-Acc eat-cause-past– 17 –

Nanzan Linguistics 1: Research Results and Activities 2003b.

Sono onnanoko-ga ningyou-ni miruku-o nom-(s)ase-ta
that girl-Nom
doll-Datmilk-Acc drink-cause-past‘The girl fed a doll with milk’

As a doll cannot be an agent, (51a) only has the interpretation where it is a goal. Matsumoto(2000) proposes that in this case, a causative sentence does not have a complex structure with
an embedded clause but has only one verb of the form V-sase. This is consistent with thestructure where -sase is a realization of the [+cause] v.
Matsumoto, further, points out that his proposal is confirmed by the example in (52).
(52)

Hanakoi-ga
umaretabakari-no akatyanj-ni zibuni/*j-no kutusita-o hak-(s)ase-ta-Nom new born-Gen
baby-Dat self-Gen socks-Acc put on-cause-past‘Hanako put self’s socks on a new born baby’

As a new born baby cannot be an agent, the dative phrase in (52) is interpreted as a goal. And
zibun in this example unambiguously refers to Hanako and not the baby.
According to this analysis, -sase is ambiguous in the adult grammar of Japanese. When it
is an independent large V, it takes a v-projection as its complement and yields a complex
structure. In this case, the dative argument is interpreted as an agent. In the other case, it
combines with a large V and forms a complex verb to yield a simple sentence with noembedding. The dative argument is then interpreted as a goal. In our terms, this means that-sase is a realization of the [+cause] small v. Hence, if Matsumoto’s proposal is correct, theprediction made from the analysis of Akkun’s acquisition data is indeed borne out. -Sase canbe a realization of the [+cause] v in the adult grammar as well.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we presented acquisition data obtained from a longitudinal study andexamined their implications for the analysis of agentive (di)transitive verbs. It was shown thatthe use of tiyu/tita/tite ‘do/did/doing’ at the early stage provides direct evidence for the
analysis based on small v and large V. The elements seem to be realizations of the [+cause] v.
Then we examined the process of the acquisition of actual lexical items. We suggested thatthe “mistakes” made at this stage are due to Akkun’s assumption that Japanese is exactly like
Englishthat is, that [±cause] small v’s are zero morphemes. If [±cause] small v’s are zero
morphemes, then they receive a straightforward explanation based on the v-VP frame. Finally,
we discussed the acquisition of syntactic causatives. We proposed that the causative
morpheme -sase is used initially as a realization of the [+cause] small v. This initial use of-sase predicts that it is ambiguous between V and v in adult Japanese, and we argued that theprediction is indeed borne out.

– 18 –

Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame (K. Murasugi and T. Hashimoto)

The discussion in this paper, we believe, provides strong support for the v-VP frame.
According to our analysis, the process of the acquisition of (di)transitive verbs illustrated inthis paper does not necessarily reflect the acquisition of the predicate-argument structuresassociated with verbs. The predicate-argument structures of large V’s and small v’s are
acquired quite early. What requires time is the acquisition of the lexical form of each V and,more importantly, the forms in which [±cause] small v’s are realized. The latter, in particular,
must proceed step by step, because the realization of [±cause] small v depends on theassociated large V in Japanese. This is part of the reason that Akkun makes the “mistakes”
illustrated in Section 3. And as this acquisition process proceeds successfully, he starts
producing lexical causatives with -sase much before he acquires syntactic causatives.

References
Baker, M. (1996) “On the Structural Positions of Themes and Goals.” In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring,eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 7–34.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
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 inHonor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 53–109.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese.” Foundations of Language 1, 30–50.
Larson, R. (1988) “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.
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.
Oshima, S. (1979) “Conditions on Rules: Anaphora in Japanese.” In G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi and M.
Muraki, eds., Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, Kenkyusha, Tokyo,
423–448.

– 19 –