ON NULL ARGUMENTS AND PHI-FEATURES IN SLA:A PRELIMINARY STUDY*
Yoichi Miyamoto and Kazumi Yamada
Osaka University and Kwansei Gakuin University

1. Introduction
Since the 1970s, it has been widely accepted that Japanese is one of the pro-drop
languages. For example, (1) is perfectly acceptable if an appropriate context is given.
(1) Tabeta(-yo).
ate (-ending particle)µ(The person(s) under consideration) ate (the dish(es) under consideration).¶If someone asks what Hanako did to the cookies that she made, we can answer the question
by uttering the one word in (1), meaning she ate them, although this ³sentence´ does notcontain any overt pronoun. Sentences like (1) thus show that Japanese null arguments behave
like pronouns (Perlmutter 1972).
However, the recent development of Japanese syntax reveals that Japanese nullarguments do not quite correspond to pronouns. One of the characteristics of overt pronouns
is that they do not allow sloppy reading, which follows from the characteristic of pronouns inthat they refer to the entities already salient in the discourse. For example, following (2a),(2b) is unambiguous, meaning that Mary also saw John¶s picture. Crucially, this sentence
does not mean that Mary also saw the picture of herself.
(2) a. John saw the picture of himself.
b. Mary saw it, too.
Likewise, as Oku (1998) observes, null subjects only allow strict reading in pro-drop
languages like Spanish. Consider (3).
(3) a. Maria cree
Mary believes

[que
that

su
her

propuesta
proposal

sera
aceptada]
will-be acceptedyandµMary believes that her paper will be accepted, and¶*We are indebted to Ivan M. Brenes and Regan M. Thomson for their comments on the earlier versionof the paper. We are also thankful to Mika Kizu for her help with the data collection. This research
was supported in part by the grant-in-aid for scientific research (No. 24520681; PI: Kazumi Yamada).
The usual disclaimers apply.

Nanzan Linguistics 10, 1±20©2015 Yoichi Miyamoto and Kazumi Yamada

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. JuanJuantambientoocree[[ e ]
believe

sera
aceptada].
will-be acceptedµJuan also believes that [ e ] will be accepted.¶(3b) only means that Juan also believes that Maria¶s paper will be accepted, and it lacks thesloppy reading which would describe the situation in which Juan also believes that his own
paper will be accepted. This shows that the null subject in (3b) is pronominal in nature.
Given this observation, as noted by Oku (1998), it is quite surprising that Japanese nullarguments permit both strict and sloppy readings if Japanese null arguments are also
pronominal. Consider (4):(4) a. Mary-wa [jibun-no
Mary-TOP self-GEN

ronbun-ga
paper-NOM

saiyoosareru]-towill be accepted-thatomotteiru.
thinkµMary thinks that her paper will be accepted.¶b. John-mo
John-also[[ e ]

saiyoosareru]-towill be accepted-thatomotteiru.
thinkµJohn also thinks that [ e ] will be accepted.¶
As a continuation to (4a), (4b) can mean that John also thinks that Mary¶s paper will be
accepted. In addition, this example can also describe the situation in which John also thinksthat his own paper will be accepted. The presence of the latter reading in (4b) thus shows thatJapanese null arguments have properties different from those of null subjects in pro-drop
languages.
Another property that differentiates Japanese null arguments from null subjects inlanguages like Spanish is the availability of what Takahashi (2008) calls ³quantificational
reading.´ Consider (5a, b).
(5) a. Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

taitei-nosensei-omost-GEN teacher-ACC

sonkeishiteiru.
respectµHanako respects most teachers.¶b. Taroo-moJohn-also[e]sonkeishiteiru.
respectµTaroo respects [ e ], too.¶(5b), which follows (5a), is ambiguous. It can describe the situation in which Taroo respects
those teachers whom Hanako respects. It can also mean that Taroo respects a set of teacherswhich can be different from a set of teachers whom Hanako respects. This is an instance of-2-2-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)quantificational reading. Notice that the former reading, but not the latter, can be readily
accommodated under the assumption that the null object in (5b) is a null pronoun due to thelack of the relevant entities already introduced in the discourse. Again, Japanese nullarguments behave differently from null subjects in pro-drop languages. In the literature,
Japanese null arguments have been called ³argument ellipsis (AE)´ in order to tell them apartfrom null pronouns in so-called pro-drop languages.
In the field of language acquisition, one of the fundamental questions arising from thecontrast between Japanese AE and Spanish null subjects is how Japanese AE is acquired in
the course of language development. Does it follow the same developmental steps as thosethat Spanish null arguments follow? In the field of second language acquisition, it has been
observed that in the course of English acquisition, null arguments ³disappear´ earlier in thegrammar of Japanese EFL learners than in the grammar of EFL learners of European prodrop languages (White 1985, Lakshmanan 1991, Wakabayashi 2002, among others). If
Japanese null arguments are not null pronouns, in contrast to null subjects in pro-drop
languages, this developmental difference between them may not be too surprising.
This paper deals with the (un)learning of null arguments in the grammar of Japanese EFL
learners and JFL learners of non-pro-drop languages and aims to contribute to issues
surrounding (un)learning AE in SLA. We report on experimental results showing thatJapanese EFL learners can ultimately ³unlearn´ AE in their English grammar by theadvanced level, while AE is very difficult, if not impossible, to learn for JFL learners ofEuropean non-pro-drop languages. We explain why this is the case under Ishino¶s (2012)
framework, which is modified by Miyamoto (2012).
For this purpose, this paper is organized as follows. Following this introduction, Section
2 introduces Wakabayashi¶s early minimalist account on the contrast between Japanese andSpanish EFL learners with respect to when they stop using null arguments in their target
language, and also points out remaining issues under his proposal. Section 3 turns to Saito¶s(2007) proposal on null arguments, based on the absence of phi-feature agreement inJapanese. Section 4 reviews Ishino¶s (2012) phi-feature-based model on second language
acquisition. Based on Saito¶s theoretical framework that the present paper assumes, this paper
assumes a slightly modified version of Ishino¶s proposal in accordance with the assumptionthat Japanese lacks phi-feature agreement. Section 5 presents our experiment. In Section 6,
we discuss our results LQUHODWLRQWR 2ED¶V  experimental results showing that subject
condition effects start emerging in the grammar of Japanese advanced EFL learners. Section 7
contains concluding remarks.
2. Previous Account on the Contrast between Japanese and Spanish EFL Learners
Under the early minimalist framework, Wakabayashi (2002) explains why Spanish EFL
learners drop more subjects in their L2 English than Japanese EFL learners. Wakabayashi-3-3-Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

proposes that in English, T has a [+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to a strong nominalfeature, and T merges with VP in overt syntax. Subject-raising to TP SPEC satisfies the EPP
requirement on T in English, as exemplified in (6).
(6) a. I read the book.
b.

TP
T¶

DP1
I

T

VP
t1

V¶
read the book

In Spanish, on the other hand, T has a [+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to a strong
verbal feature, and T merges with VP in overt syntax. This time, the EPP requirement on T issatisfied by verb-raising without any DP moving into TP SPEC (Alexiadou andAnagnostopoulou 1998). For example, (7a) has the structure given in (7b).
(7) a. LeoelI-read thelibro.
bookµI read the book.¶
b.

TP
T¶
T
V1
leo

VP
T

V¶
DP

t1

el libro
Finally, in Japanese, T does not have a [+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to a weaknominal feature. Accordingly, the subject and T are merged in covert syntax since they do nothave phonological and semantic content. When a subject has a phonological feature, it isassumed to merge in overt syntax at VP SPEC. (8a) and (9a), for example, have the structures
given in (8b) and (9b) in overt syntax, respectively.

-4-4-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)(8) a. Watashi-ga
sono
I-NOM that

hon-o
yomu.
book-ACC readµI read the book.¶
b.

VP
DP

V¶

watashi-ga sono hon-o yomu
(9) a. Sono
that

hon-o
yomu.
book-ACC readµ(the person(s) under consideration) read the book.¶
b.

VP
V¶
sono hon-o yomu

Given this, let us turn to clarify what Japanese and Spanish EFL learners need to do.
Japanese EFL learners must only learn T having a [+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to astrong nominal feature. In contrast, Spanish EFL learners must first unlearn T having a[+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to a strong verbal feature, and then they must learn T
having a [+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature due to a strong nominal feature. Notice that
Spanish EFL learners must follow more steps than Japanese EFL learners, which may pose
extra difficulty for Spanish EFL learners to learn English. Alternatively, for some reason,
learning new features may be easier than unlearning L1 features. Either way, we predict thatJapanese EFL learners have an easier time than Spanish EFL learners in learning the target
language.
Attractive though Wakabayashi¶s proposal may be, it remains speculative with the[+merge-in-overt-syntax] feature, whose existence needs to be independently justified. In
addition, a number of questions naturally arise on the structures exemplified in (8b) and (9b).
One issue concerns the position of the subject in Japanese. We now have evidence that aJapanese overt subject is located in CP SPEC (Hasegawa 2005, Miyagawa 2010, Saito 2011,
Ueda 2002). For instance, Fukui (1984) argues that the Japanese subject is situated in an A¶position. His evidence comes from the paradigm in (10).

-5-5-Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(10) a. *John-ga
kare-noJohn-NOM his-GEN
kaet-tereturn-TE

kaban tobagandjibun-noself-GENsyasin-omottepicture-ACC
with

ki-ta.
cameµJohn came back with his bag and a picture of himself.¶b. *John-ga
jibun-noJohn-NOM self-GEN
kaet-tereturn-TE

syasin-omottepicture-ACC
withkaban tobagandkare-nohis-GENsyasin-omottepicture-ACC
withkaban tobagandjibun-noself-GENsyasin-omottepicture-ACC
with

ki-ta.
camed. John-ga
jibun-noJohn-NOM self-GEN
kaet-tereturn-TE

kare-nohis-GEN

ki-ta.
camec. John-ga
kare-noJohn-NOM his-GEN
kaet-tereturn-TE

kaban tobag
andki-ta.
came

The contrast between (10a, b) and (10c, d) is surprising, given the fact that the English
translation given to (10a) is fully acceptable. Fukui proposes that this contrast follows fromthe Parallelism Constraint on Operator Binding (Safir 1986), which states (11), under theassumption that the reflexive jibun and the pronoun kare have different feature specifications
and the Japanese subject is located in an A¶-position, creating an operator-variable chain.
(11)

If O is an operator and x is a variable bound by O, then for any y, y a variable, x andy are the same in their feature specifications.1

In (10a, b), the feature specifications of the reflexive jibun and the pronoun kare result infeature conflict, and thus, these examples violate the constraint in point. On the other hand,no such conflict occurs in (10c, d), thus, these examples are acceptable.
To the extent that Fukui is correct, we cannot maintain the hypothesis that the Japanese
subject is located in VP SPEC since the position under consideration must be an A-positionXQGHU :DNDED\DVKL¶V SURSRVDO. The fact that the English translation given in (10a) is
grammatical also indicates that the position that the Japanese subject occupies is not TP
1

The definition in (11) is from Fukui (1984), cited in Ueda (2002).

-6-6-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)SPEC, which we assume the English subject occupies. Then, the most plausible candidate
would be CP SPEC, as Ueda (2002) states. This leads us to suggest that Wakabayashi¶saccount cannot be maintained as it is. In the sections to follow, we develop an alternative tohis proposal under the current minimalist framework. Nevertheless, the reader will see that
Wakabayashi¶s insight on LF-copying is still maintained under our proposal.
3. Feature-based Approach to Null Arguments in JapaneseObserving the contrast between Japanese and Spanish, Oku proposes that null arguments,
which are missing in overt syntax, are copied from the preceding sentence in LF. For instance,
the DP jibun-no ronbun-ga is copied from (4a), repeated here as (12a), to the embedded
subject position in (4b), repeated here as (12b), in LF, as illustrated in (12c).
(12) a. Mary-wa [jibun-no ronbun-ga
Mary-TOP self-GEN paper-NOM

saiyoosareru]-towill be accepted-thatomotteiru.
thinkµMary thinks that her paper will be accepted.¶b. John-mo
John-also[[ e ]

saiyoosareru]-towill be accepted-thatomotteiru.
thinkµJohn also thinks that [ e ] will be accepted.¶c. John-mo [jibun-no
John-also self-GEN

ronbun-ga
paper-NOM

saiyoosareru]-towill be accepted-thatomotteiru.
think

Building on his proposal based on LF-copying, Saito (2007) further develops a theory of AE,
given the hypothesis that Japanese lacks phi-feature agreement (see Kuroda (1988) for
relevant discussion), and explains why AE is not available in languages like English. Under
the assumption that agreement is an instance of a probe-goal relation triggered byuninterpretable phi-features on T and v, the interpretable phi-features of the subject or object
DP agree with the uninterpretable phi-features of T or v. For Chomsky (2000), this agreement
relation leads to the deletion of the uninterpretable phi-features of T or v as well as theuninterpretable Case-feature of the DP under consideration. Under this probe-goal based
theory of Case, Saito (2007) argues that the absence of phi-features in Japanese enables the
LF-copying of the element missing in overt syntax to be legitimate in Japanese, but not inEnglish.
Let us illustrate how his proposal works with concrete examples. We start with (13a, b) in
English.
(13) a. John praised himself.
b. *But Mary did not praise.

-7-7-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

In (13a), the interpretable phi-features of the DP himself agree with the uninterpretable phifeatures of v; consequently, the uninterpretable phi-features of v and the uninterpretable Casefeature of the DP under question are deleted. This means that the DP himself becomesinactive. Now, this DP, being inactive, cannot act as a goal of v in (13b) when it is copiedfrom (13a). As a result, the uninterpretable features of v remain in this example, and thisderivation crashes. In contrast, due to the lack of phi-features in Japanese, (12b) undergoes
different derivational steps. In (12b), since T does not have uninterpretable phi-features, itdoes not have to establish any probe-goal relation with the subject DP jibun-no ronbun,
which is copied from (12a). Consequently, no crash occurs in (12b).
Notice that this feature-based approach to AE also correctly accounts for the crosslinguistic contrast between Japanese and Spanish null elements, as illustrated in the contrast
between (12a, b) and (3a, b), repeated here as (14a, b).
(14) a. Maria cree
Mary believes

[que
that

su
her

propuesta
proposal

sera
aceptada]
will-be acceptedyandµMary believes that her paper will be accepted, and¶b. JuanJuantambientoocree[[ e ]
believe

sera
aceptada].
will-be acceptedµJuan also believes that [ e ] will be accepted.¶
Spanish does have phi-feature agreement; accordingly, AE is unavailable for the same reason
that (13b) is excluded in English. If so, null subjects in Spanish must be of a type different
from AE. Given the fact that they do not allow sloppy reading, the most plausible candidate isa null pronominal, as has been proposed in the literature (Chomsky 1982).
This concludes the brief introduction of Saito¶s (2007) proposal on AE. In the sections tofollow, the reader will see that this feature-based approach to AE, along with Ishino¶s (2012)
feature-based model in second language acquisition, makes significant predictions for theacquisition of AE in second language acquisition.
4. Feature-based Approach to Second/Foreign Language Acquisition
In this paper, we adopt Ishino¶s (2012) model on second language acquisition in essence,
which is based on feature transfer and feature learning (FTFL). Yet, we do not adopt her
theoretical assumption that Japanese is specified for (some of the) phi-features, i.e., thenumber feature.2
The essence of the FTFL is: the L1 features, if any, are first transferred to the L2
2

This section is based on Miyamoto (2012).

-8-8-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)grammar at the elementary/intermediate level, and then the competition of feature
specification between the L1 and the L2 occurs at the advanced level. If the L1 features havebeen transferred to L2 at the earlier stage, they remain even at the advanced level. In contrast,
if no L1 feature is present at the earlier stage, the L2 feature specification will be adopted at
the advanced level.
Notice that the unavailability of the feature specification resetting readily accounts for theobservation, mentioned in Section 1, that Japanese EFL learners ultimately stop using nullarguments while Spanish EFL learners have a difficult time in doing so. The following charts
informally illustrate the relevant processes. In (15) and (16), 䘠 means the presence of (phi-)features while 䘢 indicates the absence of such features.
(15)

Japanese EFL Learners

Stage in L2
Learning
Earlier
Later(16)

L1 Feature
Inventory䘢䘢

L2 Grammar(Elementary/Intermediate)䘢䘢

L2 Grammar(Advanced)
䘠

L2 Feature
Inventory䘠䘠

EFL Learners from Pro-drop Languages (e.g., Spanish)

Stage in L2
Learning
Earlier
Later

L1 Feature
Inventory䘠䘠

L2 Grammar(Elementary/Intermediate)䘠䘠

L2 Grammar(Advanced)
䘠

L2 Feature
Inventory䘠䘠

In (15), since Japanese is assumed to have no phi-features, no phi-feature specification is set
for the L2 grammar at the earlier stage. Then, the phi-feature specification from English, thetarget language, can ultimately be adopted at the later stage in their grammar. On the other
hand, since pro-drop languages have phi-feature agreement, this L1 setting persists
throughout their acquisition of English, as illustrated in (16).
The present concern regards the case where the target language does not have phi-featureagreement, unlike the case discussed above. In this preliminary study, we focus on theavailability of feature resetting in the grammar of JFL learners of non-pro-drop languages.
Under Ishino¶s proposal, we predict the developmental steps, illustrated in (17).
(17)

JFL Learners from Non-pro-drop Languages

Stage in L2
Learning
Earlier
Later

L1 Feature
Inventory䘠䘠

L2 Grammar(Elementary/Intermediate)
䘠
䘠

-9-9-

L2 Grammar(Advanced)
䘠

L2 Feature
Inventory䘢䘢Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

In (17), the L1 feature specification should also remain even at the advanced level. We tested
whether this prediction is fulfilled in our experiment.
5. Experiment
We now introduce our experiment. In Section 5.1, we present our hypothesis, followedby the subjects in Section 5.2. Section 5.3 discusses the procedures, and Section 5.4 is for our
results.
5.1. Hypothesis
Under Saito¶s (2007) feature-based approach to AE as well as Ishino¶s (2012) featurebased model on second language acquisition, we predict, as mentioned in Section 4, that by
the advanced level Japanese EFL learners (J-EFL, hereafter) will be able to ³unlearn´ AE, but
JFL learners of European non-pro-drop languages (E-JFL learners, hereafter) will experience
difficulty in ³learning´ AE. This in turn means that advanced J-EFL learners should not
permit null arguments altogether, whereas advanced E-JFL learners should permit neither
sloppy nor quantificational reading for null arguments.
5.2. Subjects
A total of 58 subjects participated in our study (see Table 9). The control group (English
native speakers (NS¶s) = 8, Japanese NS¶s = 11) served as a baseline against which wecompared the learners¶ results. The experimental groups consisted of NS¶s of European nonpro-drop languages (n = 12) and Japanese NS¶s (n = 27). They were either undergraduate or
postgraduate students at universities in England and Japan. 7KH VXEMHFWV¶ SURILFLHQF\ wasevaluated, based on the Simple Performance-Oriented Test (for E-JFLs) and the Oxford
Placement Test (for J-EFLs) scores. All of the learners started studying their target language
from age 12. Their language profiles are summarized in (18).
(18)

Participants

L1
Non-pro-drop
languages
Japanese

N
12*

Age
19-26
(mean = 21.9)
18-20(mean = 18.8)

Level
Length of Study (year)
Advanced(n = 5) 1-6 (mean = 2.9)
Upper Int.
(n = 7)27
Upper Int.
(n = 7)Lower Int.
(n = 16) 6-9 (mean = 6.9)
Elementary (n = 4)
*English (n = 8); French (n = 2); Dutch (n = 1); German (n = 1)
In addition to these experiment groups, we tested eight Japanese (age = 18-20; mean = 18.7)
and 11 English (age = 29-68; mean =  16¶s as the control groups.

- 10 -10-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)5.3. Procedures
The experiment was conducted in two steps. All participants took part in two
experimental tasks in the following order: the truth-value judgment task, followed by thegrammaticality judgment task. This task order was selected in an effort to prevent participantsfrom ascertaining that the focus of the study was on interpretation of null elements. The
session was in approximately 60 minutes for both groups of learners. They were given a brief
break between each task when necessary.
5.3.1 The Grammaticality Judgment Task
This task was performed to first identify the participants who allowed null arguments intheir L2. For the E-JFL learners, the task consisted of 6 stimuli in Japanese: 3 included nullsubjects and 3 null objects. Examples are given in (19). (19a) is an instance of a null subject
whereas (19b) exemplifies a null object.
(19) a. Taroo-ga akai huku-no
onna-nohito-omita
Taro-NOM red cloth-NOM woman-GEN person-ACC saw[ e ] sonothathito-oSam-nooneesanda-toperson-ACC Sam-NOM elder sister is-that

toki,
when,

omoimashita.
thoughtµWhen Taro saw a lady wearing a red clothes, [ e ] thought she was Sam´s elder
VLVWHU¶b. Taroo-ga
kompyuutaa-o kowashi-te shimaimashita ga,
otoosan-ga
Taro-NOM computer-ACC ended up breaking
although Father-NOM[ e ] naoshimashita.
fixedµAlthough Taro broke a computer, his father fixed [ e ].¶The test for the J-EFL learners consisted of 8 stimuli in English: 3 included null subjects, 3
null objects, and 2 distracters. Test items are exemplified in (20a, b).
(20) a.
b.

John saw a very beautiful woman. He thought [ e ] ZDV0DU\¶VPRWKHUBefore John used [ e ], Mary broke his computer.

Both E-JFL and J-EFL learners were also asked to correct the sentence when they found it
unnatural/not acceptable. Responses were not explicitly timed, but they were instructed toanswer quickly, and not to change their answers to previous items.
5.3.2. The Truth-Value Judgment Task
After identifying the participants who allowed null arguments from the results in the- 11 -11-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

grammaticality judgment task, we further examined their responses from the truth-value
judgment task to investigate whether the null arguments under question permit sloppy andquantificational reading. Each stimulus consisted of a dialogue among animals or people,
along with their photos/videos that subjects saw on a projector screen while listening to thecorresponding audio. The dialogues were given in English for the non-pro-drop language
group and in Japanese for the Japanese group to make sure that they fully understood eachcontext/situation. The E-JFL group was WROG WKDW µElmo¶ is learning Japanese, but he is notgood at Japanese yet. The J-EFL group was told that µTaroo¶ is learning English, but he is notgood at English yet. Each of the learners was required to judge whether the uttered
Japanese/English test sentences by µElmo¶/¶Taroo¶ correctly described the situations of given
dialogues. Examples of the test items (dialogues and test sentences) are illustrated in (21)(23).
(21)

Sloppy Reading
No. 1 (1/4)O-1-1(E): ³My car is very dirty. I should clean it.
(J): ³Kuruma-o kiree-ni siyoo´car-ACC clean
shall doNo. 1 (2/4)(E): ³It¶s very clean now.
(J): ³Pika pika-ni natta-zoo´shining
became-ending particle

No. 1 (3/4)(E): ³I should clean the car, too.´(J): ³Sorosoro kiree-ni siyoo´
soon
clean
shall doNo. 1 (4/4)(E): ³Now, it is very clean.´(J): ³Yoshi, pika pika-ni natta-zoo´
alright shining
became-ending particle- 12 -12-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)

Test Sentence(E) Elmo: ³Kuma-wa
Bear-TOPjibun-no kuruma-o
self-GEN car-ACC

fuita. Sosite, Pengin-mo
wiped andpenguin-also[ e ] fuita.´
wipedµBear wiped his own car, and Penguin wiped [ e ], as well.¶(J) Taroo: ³Bear cleaned his own car, and Penguin cleaned [ e ], as well. ´(22)Strict Reading
No. 37 (1/2)

O-2-1(E) Bear:³/HWVFOHDQWKHFDU´
Penguin: ³I will help you.´(J) Bear:³Kuruma-o kiree-ni shiyoo´car-ACC clean
shall doPenguin: ³Boku-mo tetsudau-yo´help-ending particle
I-alsoNo. 37 (2/2)(E) Bear:³1RZLWLVUHDOO\FOHDQ
Thank you very PXFK3HQJXLQ´
Penguin: ³<RXUHZHOFRPH´(J) Bear:³Pika pika-ni natta!
shining
becamePengin-san, arigatoo.´
Penguin,thank you
Penguin: ³Dooitashimashite!´
Welcome

Test Sentence(E) Elmo: ³Kuma-wa jibun-no kuruma-o fuita.
Bear-TOP self-GEN car-ACC wiped

Sosite, Pengin-mo
andpenguin-also[ e ] fuita.
wipedµBear wiped his own car, and Penguin wiped [ e ], as well.¶(J) Taroo: ³Bear cleaned his own car, and Penguin also cleaned [ e ].´- 13 -13-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(23)

Quantificational Reading
No. 48 (1/4)O-1-2(E): ³They look tasty.´(J): ³Tottemo oishisoo.´verylook tasty

No. 48 (2/4)(E): ³I¶m full now.´(J): ³Oishikatta´were tasty
No. 48 (3/4)(E): ³They look good.´(J): ³Kiree-na keeki´beautiful cakeNo. 48 (4/4)(E): ³I¶m also full.´(J): ³Oishikatta-wa´
were tasty-ending particle

Test Sentence(E) Elmo: ³Erikku-wa ni-ko-no
keeki-otabeta.
Eric-TOP two-CL-GEN cake-ACC ate
Monika-mo [ e ] tabeta.´
Monika-alsoateµEric ate two pieces of cake, and Monika also ate [ e ].¶(J) Taroo: ³Eric ate two pieces of cake, and Monika ate [ e ], as well.´
Dialogues were recorded by two English or Japanese native speakers. For the tasks for thetwo experimental groups, each task consisted of 52 stimuli including 28 sentence types. The
10 stimuli including 5 sentence types, summarized in Table (24), are relevant for the present
concern.

- 14 -14-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)(24)

Sentence Types
Context

Null subject

Null object(n = 4) Sloppy(n = 2)

Strict(n = 2)(n = 6) Sloppy(n = 2)

Strict(n = 2)

Quantificational(n = 2)For both learning groups, we created two versions of the test (version 1 and version 2) withthe same stimuli distributed differently on each test to avoid any ordering effect. Half of eachgroup took version 1 and the other half took version 2. Before starting the experiment, bothgroups were given a practice session where, together with the researcher, they worked
through how to do the task. They were also given a list of vocabulary with definitions in caseany of the vocabulary was unfamiliar to them. For the truth-value judgment task, both groups
were told that they should not go back to the previous items and correct their answers.
5.4. Results
5.4.1. The Grammaticality Judgment Task
A benchmark was set in this task: when learners allowed a null element at least once ineach position of subject and object, they were included in our interpretation task. All 12 EJFL learners met our standard while among the 38 J-EFL learners, 27 J-EFL allowed nullarguments in each position, so they were included in the truth-value judgment task.
5.4.2. The Truth-Value Judgment Task
The overall judgment of the Japanese native control group indicated that all of the Japanese
test sentences with null elements uttered by Elmo are acceptable: in subject position, 93.8%
for sloppy reading and 81.3% for strict reading while in object position, 100% for sloppy
reading, 93.8% for strict reading, and 100% for quantificational reading. The Japanese native
control allowed null elements to have both readings (i.e. sloppy and strict) in both positions(i.e. subject and object). The results of the English native control group show that all of the
English test sentences with a null element uttered by Taroo are not acceptable. Null elements
are prohibited from appearing in both subject and object positions in English.
The learnerV¶ results of the task were summarized in (25), (26) and (27). First andforemost, the advanced E-JFL learners, but not the intermediate J-EFL learners, rejectedsloppy reading with a null subject (80.0% vs. 28.3%). Yet, both learners permitted strict- 15 -15-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

reading. Secondly, the acceptance rate of strict reading with a null object by the E-JFL
learners was higher than that of sloppy reading (62.5% vs. 29.2%). Meanwhile, no suchdifference was observed by the J-EFL learners (85.2% vs. 88.9%). Finally, the acceptance
rate of quantificational reading with a null object by the J-EFL learners was also higher thanthat of the E-JFL learners (94.4% vs. 29.2%). Crucially, the advanced E-JFL learners still
rejected both sloppy and quantificational reading with null objects (70.0% and 90.0% each).
(25)

Percent Null Subject Items Judged Appropriate on the Interpretation Task

(26)

Percent Null Object Items Judged Appropriate on the Interpretation Task (1)- 16 -16-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)(27)

Percent Null Object Items Judged Appropriate on the Interpretation Task (2)We conducted within-group comparisons to observe how each group would behave inreadings. Concerning subject position, a repeated measure t-test shows there is a highly
significant difference in their acceptance of strict and sloppy readings in the E-JFL group(t(11) = -5.61, p < .001), whereas there is no significant difference between the two readingsin the J-EFL group (t(26) = .00, p = 1.00). Regarding object position, a repeated measure,one-way ANOVA shows a significant main effect of reading in the E-JFL group (F(2, 22) =4.63, p < .05). Further multiple comparisons confirmed that there is a marginally significant
contrast in their acceptance of strict and sloppy readings (p = .074), but no significant gap
between sloppy reading and quantificational reading (p = 1.00). As for the J-EFL group, on
the other hand, there is no main effect on readings (F(2, 52) = 1.62, p = .21). A null
hypothesis is adopted, so there is no difference in their readings.
On the basis of these considerations, we conclude that while null arguments result fromAE in the grammar of J-EFL learners, it is a covert pronominal in the grammar of E-JFL
learners.
6. The Emergence of Subject Condition Effect in the Grammar of Japanese Advanced
EFL Learners
Before closing this paper, this section briefly concerns the status of Japanese upperintermediate EFL learners who did not permit AE in the grammaticality judgment task. The
question to be addressed here is whether the unavailability of AE at the upperintermediate/advanced level is merely a surface phenomenon without L2 phi-featuresacquired.

- 17 -17-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

Oba (2003) reported experimental results showing that Japanese advanced EFL learners
start observing subject condition effect in their English grammar. We can interpret his results
under Oseki and Miyamoto (2014) who argue that the absence of subject condition effect istied to the absence of phi-features in Japanese.
Saito (2011) argues that under the assumption that Japanese lacks phi-feature agreement,
an EPP feature at C is not subject to feature inheritance to T, which is assumed to be triggeredby phi-features. Consequently, the EPP feature at C is satisfied by the raising of the subject to
CP SPEC in Japanese. Under the phase theory (Chomsky 2008), this means that the Japanese
subject is located at the phase edge, as illustrated in (28a), and thus, Oseki and Miyamotopropose that it should be visible from the next phase domain. In English, on the other hand,the EPP feature at C is inherited by T along with the phi-features. This results in the raising of
the subject to TP SPEC in English. Now, under Epstein, Kitahara and Seely¶s (2012, 2013)
Simplest Merge framework, this subject raising creates the so-called ³two-peaked´ structure,
as illustrated in (28b)(28) a. JapaneseCP
Subject

CP
TP

vP

C
[EPP]
T

t

vP

b. English
TP
Subject

CP
C

TP
T
[EPP]

vP
t

vP

In (28b), Epstein, Kitahara and Seely claim that one of the two peaks must be removed via
Transfer as soon as possible for the derivation to continue, which means that the subject must- 18 -18-

On Null Arguments and Phi-Features in SLA: A Preliminary Study (Y. Miyamoto and K. Yamada)be transferred at this point in the derivation. As a result, the subject becomes inaccessible tonarrow syntax as soon as the subject-raising applies. Thus, subject condition effects result inEnglish.
To the extent that Oseki and Miyamoto¶s proposal is correct, Oba¶s results suggest that
phi-features of English can be acquired by Japanese advanced EFL learners. If this is correct,
it is not unnatural that Japanese upper intermediate EFL learners start rejecting AE because
they have acquired L2 phi-features. We take this clustering effect as supporting evidence forthe hypothesis that Japanese EFL learners can acquire phi-features by the advanced level.
Crucially, this is exactly what we predict under Ishino¶s (2012) FTFL model, modified byMiyamoto (2012).
7. Concluding Remarks
This study reported experimental results showing that Japanese EFL learners can³unlearn´ AE in their English grammar while JFL learners from European non-pro-drop
languages cannot learn AE in their Japanese grammar. We then reach the conclusion that the³incorrect´ feature specification remains throughout the L2 development when the L1 phifeatures are first transferred (e.g., Franceschina 2005, Hawkins 1998), and the ³incorrect´feature specification can be ³corrected´ in the grammar when the L1 does not have relevant
phi-features; thus, the absence of AE and the presence of subject condition effect are correctlypredicted for the grammar of Japanese advanced EFL learners. Accordingly, this study
supports the FTFL model on second language acquisition in that the ³correct´ L2 phi-feature
specification can ultimately be obtained when no phi-features are present in L1 (Ishino 2012,
Miyamoto 2012).

References
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou (1998) ³Parameterizing Agr: Word Order, V-movement and
EPP-checking´ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491-539.
Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N. (2000) ³Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,´ in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 89±155.
Chomsky, N. (2008) ³On Phases,´ in R. Freidin, C. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Fundamental
Issues in Linguistic Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 133±166.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and D. Seely (2012) ³Structure Building That Can¶t Be,´ in Myriam
Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala, eds., Ways of Structure Building, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 253±270.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and D. Seely (2013) ³Simplest Merge Generates Set Intersection:
Implications for Complementizer µThat¶ Explanation,´ The Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX,- 19 -19-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

77±92.
Franceschina, F. (2005) Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical
Gender, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
)XNXL 1   ³6WXGLHV RQ -DSDQHVH $QDSKRUD , 7KH $GMXQFW 6XEMHFW +\SRWKHVLV DQG µ=LEXQ¶´
Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hasegawa, N. (2005) ³EPP Materiarized First, Agree Later: Wh-Questions, Subjects and MOPhrases´ Scientific Approaches to Language 4, 33-80.
Hawkins, R. (1998) ³The Inaccessibility of Formal Features of Functional Categories in Second
Language Acquisition,´ Paper presented at PacSLRF ¶98, Aoyama Gakuin University, March 28,
1998.
Ishino, N. (2012) Feature Transfer and Feature Learning in Universal Grammar: A Comparative
Study of the Syntactic Mechanism for Second Language Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, Kwansei
Gakuin University.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) ³Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,´in W. J. Poser, ed., Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, CSLI
Publications, Stanford, 103±143.
Lakshmanan, U. (1991) ³Morphological Uniformity and Null Subjects in Child Second Language
Acquisition,´ in L. Eubank, ed., Point and Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second
Language, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 398±411.
Miyagawa, S. (2010) Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse
Configurational Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Miyamoto, Y. (2012) ³Dainigenngo-ni okeru Hikenzaiteki-na Yooso-ni kansuru Ichikoosatsu [AStudy on Null Elements in Second Language Acquisition],´ Paper presented at the 84th ELSJ
Annual General Meeting, Senshu University, May 26, 2012.
Oba, H. (2003) ³The Acquisition of WH-movement by Advanced Japanese Learners of English,´
Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education 22, 587-599.
Oku, S. (1998) ³LF Copy Analysis of Japanese Null Arguments,´ CLS 34, 299±314.
Oseki, Y. and Y. Miyamoto (2014) Some Consequences of Simplest Merge and Phi-Defectiveness inJapanese,´ Paper presented at WAFL 10, MIT, May 4, 2014.
6DILU.  ³5HODWLYH&ODXVHVLQD7KHRU\RI%LQGLQJDQG/HYHOV´Linguistic Inquiry 17, 663-689.
Perlmutter, D. (1972) ³Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization,´ in P. M. Peranteau, J.
N. Levi and G. C. Phares, eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative ClauseFestival, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 73±105
Saito, M. (2007) ³Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,´ Language Research 43, 203±227.
Saito, M. (2011) ³Two Notes on Feature Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in the Distribution of the
EPP,´ Nanzan Linguistics 7, 43±61.
Takahashi, D. (2008) ³Noun Phrase Ellipsis,´ in S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394±422.
Ueda, Y. (2002) Subject Positions, Ditransitives, and Scope in Minimalist Syntax: A Phase-based
Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Kanda University of International Studies.
Wakabayashi, S. (2002) ³The Acquisition of Non-null Subjects in English: A Minimalist Account,´Second Language Research 18, 28-71.
White, L. (1985) ³The µPro-drop¶ Parameter in Adult Second Language Acquisition,´ Language
Learning 35, 47-62.

- 20 -20-