Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 139–173 | Cite as

Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese

  • Junko Shimoyama
Article

This paper examines the question of how so-called indeterminate phrases in Japanese (Kuroda 1965) associate with relevant particles higher in the structure. In the universal construction in Japanese, the restrictor (provided by an indeterminate phrase) sometimes appears to be separate from the universal particle mo. It is proposed that quantification at a distance is only apparent, and that the restriction is in fact provided locally by the sister constituent of mo as a whole. The proposal leads us to a straightforward uniform picture of the syntax-semantics mapping of the universal construction and wh-questions, building upon Hamblin’s (1973) semantics for wh-phrases as sets of alternatives. It allows for a switch of perspective on a long-standing puzzle regarding locality effects in the indeterminate–particle association by deriving the locality pattern from the way indeterminate phrases are interpreted and associated with particles, without any stipulations.

Keywords

Relative Clause Homework Assignment Natural Language Semantic Uniform Analysis Universal Construction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, J., Li, Y.-H.A. 1993Wh-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?’Linguistic Inquiry24199238Google Scholar
  2. Arregi, K. 2003‘Clausal Pied-Piping’Natural Language Semantics11115143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, C.L. 1970‘Notes on the Description of English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’Foundations of Language6197219Google Scholar
  4. Beck, S., Rullmann, H. 1999‘A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions’Natural Language Semantics7249298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, S. (1991). On the Semantics and Logical Form of WH-Clauses, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. 1998‘Reference to Kinds Across Languages’Natural Language Semantics6339405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choe, J.-W. 1987‘LF Movement and Pied-Piping’Linguistic Inquiry18348353Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. 1977‘On Wh-Movement’Culicover, P.Wasow, T.Akmajian, A. eds. Formal SyntaxAcademic PressNew York71132Google Scholar
  10. Deguchi, M. and Y. Kitagawa (2002). ‘Prosody and Wh-questions’, in M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32, pp. 73–92. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Dowty, D. and B. Brodie (1984). ‘The Semantics of ‘Floated’ Quantifiers in a Tranformationless Grammar’, in M. Cobler, S. MacKaye, and M.T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 75–90. CSLI Publications, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, G. 1980‘Pronouns’Linguistic Inquiry11337362Google Scholar
  13. Fukushima, K. 1991‘Phrase Structure Grammar, Montague Semantics, and Floating Quantifiers in Japanese’Linguistics and Philosophy14581628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukushima, K. 1993‘Model Theoretic Semantics for Japanese Floating Quantifiers and Their Scope Properties’Journal of East Asian Linguistics2213228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. 1982‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’Linguistics and Philosophy5175233Google Scholar
  16. Hagstrom, P. (1998). Decomposing Questions, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Hamblin, C.L. 1973‘Questions in Montague English’Foundations of Language104153Google Scholar
  18. Haspelmath M. (1995). ‘Diachronic Sources of ‘All’ and ‘Every”. In: Bach E., Jelinek E., A.Kratzer, and B.H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. pp. 363–382. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Haspelmath, M. 1997Indefinite PronounsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. (1994). ‘Interrogative Semantics and Karttunen’s Semantics for Know’, in R. Buchalla and A. Mittwoch (eds.), IATL 1, pp. 128–144. Akademon, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  22. Hermon, G. 1984Syntactic ModularityForisDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirotani, M. (2003). ‘Prosodic Effects on the Interpretation of Japanese Wh-questions’, in L. Alonso-Ovalle (ed.), On Semantic Processing (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 27), pp. 117–137. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Hoji, H. (1985). Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Ishihara, S. (2003). Intonation and Interface Conditions, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Kamp, H. (1981). ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, pp. 277–322. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), (1984) Truth, Interpretation and Information, pp. 1–41. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Karttunen, L. 1977‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’Linguistics and Philosophy1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keenan, E.L., Stavi, J. 1986‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’Linguistics and Philosophy9253326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, J.-Y. (2002). ‘Specific Nominals in Chinese and Korean’, Paper presented at GLOW in Asia (2002). National Tsing-Hua University.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A. 1998‘Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?’Susan, Rothstein eds. Events in GrammarKluwerDordrecht163196Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer, A. (2006). ‘Indefinites and the Operators They Depend on: From Japanese to Salish’, in G.N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama (2002). ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese’, in Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 1–25. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  34. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Lasnik, H., Saito, M. 1992Move α: Conditions on Its Application and OutputMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  36. Li, Y.-H.A. 1992‘Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese’Journal of East Asian Linguistics1125155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lin, J.-W. (1996). Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  38. Matthewson, L. 1999‘On the Interpretation of Wide-Scope Indefinites’Natural Language Semantics779134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. May, R. 1985Logical Form: Its Structure and DerivationMIT PressCambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  40. Moltmann, F. 1995‘Exception Sentences and Polyadic Quantification’Linguistics and Philosophy18223280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nishigauchi, T. 1990Quantification in the Theory of GrammarKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  42. Ochi, M. (1999). Constraints on Feature Checking, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  43. Ohno, Y. (1989). ‘Mo’, in E. Bach, A. Kratzer, and B.H. Partee (eds.), Papers on Quantification, NSF Grant Report, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 224–250. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Ohno, Y.,  et al. 1991‘Arguments against Unselective Binding in Korean’Kuno, S. eds. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IVHanshin PublishingSeoul553562Google Scholar
  45. Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1990). ‘Operator Feature Percolation and Clausal Pied-Piping’, in L. Cheng and H. Demirdash (eds.), Papers on Wh-movement (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 13), pp. 193–208. MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  46. Pesetsky, D. (1987). ‘Wh-in-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 98–129. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  47. Ramchand, G.C. (1997). ‘Questions, Polarity and Alternative Semantics’, in K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 27, pp. 383–396. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart, T. 1997‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’Linguistics and Philosophy20335397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reinhart, T. 1998Wh-in-Situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program’Natural Language Semantics62956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richards, N. (1997). What Moves Where When in Which Language? PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Richards, N. 2000‘An Island Effect in Japanese’Journal of East Asian Linguistics9187205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rizzi, L. 1990Relativized MinimalityMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  53. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  54. Rooth, M. 1996‘Focus’Lappin, S. eds. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic TheoryBlackwellOxford271297Google Scholar
  55. Sharvit, Y. (1998). ‘Possessive Wh-Expressions and Reconstruction’, in P.N. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, pp. 409–423. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  56. Shimoyama, J. (1999). ‘Complex NPs and Wh-Quantification in Japanese’, in P.N. Tamanji, M. Hirotani, and N. Hall (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 29, pp. 355–365. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  57. Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-Constructions in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  58. Shimoyama, J. (2004). ‘Wide Scope Universal NPIs in Japanese’, talk presented at GURT (2004). Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  59. Stechow, A. 1996‘Against LF Pied-Piping’Natural Language Semantics457110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suzuki, S. (2003). ‘Additive Mo’, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  61. Takahashi, D. 2002‘Determiner Raising and Scope Shift’Linguistic Inquiry33575615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tanaka, H. 1999‘LF Wh-islands and the Minimal Scope Principle’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17371402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tancredi, C. and M. Yamashina (2002). ‘Wh-setsu-to mo-no dooteki-soogokankei [The Dynamics of Wh-Mo Interaction]’, in T. Ito (ed.), Bunpoo-riron: Rekishikon-to Toogo [Grammatical Theory: Lexicon and Syntax], pp. 273–299. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  64. Toyoshima, T. (1996). ‘LF Subjacency and Stationary Wh-in-Situ’, ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
  65. Tsai, W.-T. (1994). On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  66. Watanabe, A.: 1992a, ‘Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2, MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  67. Watanabe, A. 1992b‘Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-Situ’Journal of East Asian Linguistics1255291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Watanabe, A. 2001‘Wh-in-situ Languages’Baltin, M.Collins, C. eds. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic TheoryBlackwellOxford203225Google Scholar
  69. Watanabe, A. 2004‘The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling’Linguistic Inquiry35559612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Winter, Y. 1997‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’Linguistics and Philosophy20399467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wold, D.E. (1996). ‘Long Distance Selective Binding: The Case of Focus’, in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VI, pp. 311–328. CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  72. Yatsushiro, K. (2004). ‘Mo and Ka’, ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  73. Yoshida, T. (1999). ‘LF Subjacency Effects Revisited’, in V. Lin, C. Krause, B. Bruening, and K. Arregi (eds.), Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle Two (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34), pp. 1–34. MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations