| { |
| "paper_id": "Y02-1035", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:43:54.542267Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "A Focus-Based Approach to Scope Ambiguity in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ryoya", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Okabe", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Sophia University", |
| "location": {} |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This paper puts forward an analysis of scope interactions between Japanese adverbial quantifiers like mainichi 'everyday' and tokidoki 'sometimes' and a negative morpheme nai 'not' on the basis of Aocus)-structures. In this analysis, three f-structures are assigned to a sentence with an adverbial quantifier and a negative morpheme. One of them represents a negation-wide reading, and the other two represent quantifier-wide readings. Some f-structures, however, are unacceptable due to semantic or pragmatic factors. Different scope behaviors of the two quantifiers mentioned above can then be ascribed to acceptability of f-strucures.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y02-1035", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper puts forward an analysis of scope interactions between Japanese adverbial quantifiers like mainichi 'everyday' and tokidoki 'sometimes' and a negative morpheme nai 'not' on the basis of Aocus)-structures. In this analysis, three f-structures are assigned to a sentence with an adverbial quantifier and a negative morpheme. One of them represents a negation-wide reading, and the other two represent quantifier-wide readings. Some f-structures, however, are unacceptable due to semantic or pragmatic factors. Different scope behaviors of the two quantifiers mentioned above can then be ascribed to acceptability of f-strucures.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper mainly concerns with the following pairs of Japanese negative sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) a. Taro-wa mainichi gakko-ni ika-nai Taro-TOP everyday school-TO go-not b. Taro-wa mainichi-wa gakko-ni ika-nai Taro-TOP everyday-TOP school-TO go-not Taro does not go to school everyday'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) . a. Taro-wa tokidoki gakko-ni ika-nai Taro-TOP sometimes school-TO go-not b. Taro-wa tokidoki-wa, gakko-ni ika-nai Taro-TOP sometimes-TOP school-TO go-not Taro sometimes does not go to school'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "All of these four sentences contain a frequency quantifier (mainich 'everyday' tokidoki 'sometimes') and a negative morpheme (nai `not'). (b) sentences in these pairs differ from (a) sentences in that the adverbial quantifiers that appear in them are marked by a topic marker wa. There are two potential interpretations for these sentences: one in which the adverbial quantifier takes the wider scope than the negative morpheme, and one in which the scope relationship is reversed. I will henceforth call the former reading QN reading and the latter NQ reading. What is interesting concerning these sentences is the following contrast. Both sentences in (2) are invariably interpreted as QN, while the (lb) is invariably NQ. Judgments on (la) are controversial. The QN reading is the dominant reading and, in addition, it is even the only reading available for some speakers. Nonetheless, other speakers do admit the NQ reading for (la). These facts can be summarized as in the following table.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) (a) Q (b) Q+wa", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1 We could dismiss the NQ reading of (la) as simply ungrammatical given its marginal status. This approach, however, leaves the difference of NQ acceptability between (la) and (2a) unexplained; the NQ reading is totally unavailable in the case of (2a), while some people accept the NQ reading for (la).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Furthermore, there are some constructions where NQ readings seem to be relatively easier for universal quantifiers without a topic marker wa.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(4) a. mainichi tsudzuka-nai everyday continue-not GO does not continue everyday.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. mainichi onaji huku-o ki-nai everyday same clothes-ACC wear-not (he) does not wear the same dress everyday.' ( (Kudo, 2000) ) (5) a. zen'in-ga mada kite-i-masen everyone-NOM yet come-BE-not Not all the members have come yet.' ( (Kato, 1985)) b. subete-o ii-kira-nai-ga", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 114, |
| "end": 126, |
| "text": "(Kudo, 2000)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 231, |
| "end": 244, |
| "text": "(Kato, 1985))", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 all-ACC say-PERF-not-BUT Although I have not say all...' ( (Kato, 1989)) In (4), the verb tsudzuku 'continue' or the adjective onaji 'same' indicate that more than one day are involved, and hence NQ readings are facilitated. In (5), likewise, the verbs are in some kind of perfective form, suggesting that more than one thing are involved. As long as such examples exist, we may conclude that both readings are available to (la) but withdrawn for some reasons.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 65, |
| "end": 78, |
| "text": "(Kato, 1989))", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Accepting two scope possibilities for (la) naturally poses several questions. (1) How should the two readings be represented theoretically? (2) Why is the QN reading not available to (lb)?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) Why can the sentences in (2) only have QN readings?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In section 2, we will review some of the previous studies of the scope of Japanese negative morpheme nai, and see what is problematic to them. In section 3, I will set out my assumptions about Japanese simple sentences based on the f-structure analysis of (Erteschik-Shir, 1997). In section 4, I will show that scope ambiguity is made possible by the f-structures defined in section 3. In section 5, (Boring, 1997) 's analysis is applied to Japanese to rule out the readings for contrasted universal quantifiers. In section 6, unavailability of NQ readings for existential quantifiers like sometimes is explained on the basis of f-structures proposed here.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 400, |
| "end": 414, |
| "text": "(Boring, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Objective", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section, we will briefly review some of the previous studies concerning the scope of the negative morpheme nai in Japanese. (Kuno, 1980) argues that the scope of nai is limited to the verbal it is attached to on the basis of the difference between (6a) and (6b).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 132, |
| "end": 144, |
| "text": "(Kuno, 1980)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) a. ?Shekusupia-wa 1564-nen-ni umare-nakat-ta Shakespeare-TOP the year 1564-IN be born-not-PAST Shakespeare was not born in 1564.' b. Shekusupia-wa 1564-nen-ni umare-ta no de wa nai Shakespeare-TOP the year 1564-IN be born-PAST NOML COP TOP not It is not the case that Shakespeare was born in 1564.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In a simple sentence in (6a), Kuno aregues the scope of nai is the verb umare(ru) 'be born' and therefore 156-nen-ni 'in 1564' cannot be negated. So understood, (6a) means something lik\u00e8 What Shakespeare did in 1564 was not to be born,' which sounds peculiar. In (6b), in contrast, 156-nen-ni umare-ta is in the embedded clause marked by the nominalizer no. Furthermore, this embedded clause and the copula de(su) following it together form a verbal phrase to which the negative morpheme is attached. Hence, in (6b), 1564-nen-ni lies within the scope of nai. (6a) may mean 'It is not in 1564 that Shakespeare was born.' It is plain to see that this analysis cannot account for the NQ readings of the sentences in (1), because the quantifier mainichi must be outside the scope of the negative morpheme in both sentences. In fact, Kuno adds an exception clause which stipulates that quantifiers may be in the scope of the negative morpheme. Given that NQ readings are available for some sentences, Kuno's definition of the scope of nai is inadequate. (Yatabe, 1996) , criticizing Kuno's definition, argues that the scope of nai is what he calls \"infinitival portion\", which is roughly equivalent to a VP under the VP-internal subject hypothesis. He further adds the following hypothesis about negative sentences in Japanese. 7The \"infinitival portion\" of a sentence is not a syntactic constituent and hence cannot serve as the scope of a focused expression.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1049, |
| "end": 1063, |
| "text": "(Yatabe, 1996)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Given this hypothesis, (8) may be analyzed as follows.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) Shekusupia-wa [1564-nen-ni] F [umare-nakat-ta]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The underlined parts form the infinitival portion of the sentence, but they do not form a single constituent. 1564-nen-ni, being focused (in this case), must be associated with a scope, which cannot be the infinitival portion as stated in (7). The scope of the focused phrase therefore must be the matrix clause. The scope of the negative morpheme, on the other hand, is the infinitival portion, as mentioned above. Thus the focused phrase ends up outside the scope of the negative operator. Quantifiers, like focused phrases, are expressions for which the scope must be determined, and therefore must necessarily take a wider scope than the negative operator. We must conclude, then, that NQ readings are unavailable at all, contrary to the fact. As regards this problem, Yatabe claims that zen'in in (9), which is ambiguous, is not a quantifier, but a plural noun phrase.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) gakusei-ga zen'in ko-nakat-ta (koto) student-NOM all come-not-PAST (fact) (the fact that)none of the students came' (the fact that) not all the students came' I agree that when a subpart of sentence is focused (on its own), the result is what is called exhaustive reading and the focused phrase is interpreted outside the scope of the negative operator. However, not all instances of what is normally assumed to be a focus escape from the effect of the negative operator. mainichi-wa in (lb), for instance, is a so-called contrastive topic, which is presumably focused. Yet it is negated in (lb). This means that a focused phrase is not necessarily interpreted outside the scope of a negative operator.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (Kato, 1985) , a focused phrase is first raised and adjoined to an S-node. At this point, there are two landing sites for a negative operator: the higher and lower S.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 3, |
| "end": 15, |
| "text": "(Kato, 1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) [S1 [F] [s, . .NEC4]1", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the negative operator is raised up to the higher S, it outscopes the focused phrase. In this case, the negative operator is interpreted as part of assertion. If it is raised to the lower S, it is outscoped by the focused phrase, and is interpreted as part of presupposition. (Kato, 1985) calls the first reading, NEG-A (negative assertion), and the second, NEG-P (negative presupposition). In Kato's system, we may conclude that any phrase that is capable of being focused may be negated. (Kuno, 1977) observes that subjects (marked by ga) in Japanese sentences cannot be negated by a negative morpheme.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 278, |
| "end": 290, |
| "text": "(Kato, 1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 492, |
| "end": 504, |
| "text": "(Kuno, 1977)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) a. Taro-ga Kobe-ni it-ta Taro-NOM Kobe-TO go-PAST Taro went to Kobe.' b. *iya, Taro-ga ika-nakat-ta no Taro-NOM go-not-PAST No, Taro didn't go (to Kobe).' c. iya, Taro-wa ika-nakat-ta no Taro-TOP go-not-PAST (11b)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "is not acceptable as a reaction to someone's utterance of (11a). An appropriate rejection of (11a) may be (11c), where the subject is marked by topic marker wa.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Likewise, (Homma, 1998) cites (12) as an example that is hardly understood to have an NQ reading even for those who admit NQ readings for negative sentences with universally quantified objects.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 10, |
| "end": 23, |
| "text": "(Homma, 1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(12) Subete-no hito-ga Taro-o seine-nakat-ta all-of person-NOM Taro-ACC blame-not-PAST All the people didn't blame Taro.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Kato tries to explain the inadequacy of (11b) by appealing to some pragmatic factors. (11b), he claims, must have an exhaustive listing (EL) interpretation due to its contextual environment. EL interpretation, in turn, requires the assertion should be positive, favoring the NEG-P reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If Kato is correct, we would not expect asymmetry between the nominative marker ga and other case markers such as o, ni, etc. because EL reading is not limited to noun phrases marked by ga. This expectation is not born out. Consider the following example, again cited from (Kuno, 1977) . In contrast to (11), (13b) is not so bad a reaction, if not a perfect one, to (13a).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 273, |
| "end": 285, |
| "text": "(Kuno, 1977)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To summarise, we reviewed three previous proposals for the scope of a Japanese negative morpheme nai in this section. It is quite obvious that (Kuno, 1980) 's definition of the scope of the negative morpheme is too narrow for our purpose. We must therefore seek a definition that provides a broad enough scope for the negative morpheme. Once the scope is broadened, focused phrases must be raised out of the scope to account for the exhaustive reading. But not all focused phrases have to be excluded from the scope. Conversely, capability of being focused does not necessarily involve capability of being negated. We may reconcile these problems by distinguishing two types of foci: one that is associated with assertion, and the other, associated with negation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 143, |
| "end": 155, |
| "text": "(Kuno, 1980)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3 The Focus Structures of Japanese Sentences", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Problems concerning the Scope Negation in Japanese", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section, I will briefly review (Erteschik-Shir, 1997) , and present my basic assumptions about the focus structures of Japanese sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 39, |
| "end": 61, |
| "text": "(Erteschik-Shir, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "F-Structures for Basic Sentences", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Such distinctions as 'topic vs comment', 'background vs focus', and 'new vs old information' are widely recognized to be essential for analyzing the meanings of sentences from the viewpoint of discourse. (Erteschik-Shir, 1997) posits a level at which a structure where topics and foci are perspicuously marked is generated. Such a structure is called ffocus)--structure. The sentence in 14, for example, may correspond to five different f-structures listed in (15). Each of these f-structures is appropriate as an answer to the question shown below it. 14 In Erteschik-Shir's system, every sentence is required to have a topic. It may be an overt constituent as in (15a-d), or sTOP t , what she calls stage topic, as in (15e). Stage topics correspond to spatio-temporal arguments in (Kratzer, 1989) , and therefore are available only to stage-level predicates. In (15e), the whole sentence is the focus and no overt constituent serves as a topic. The difference between (15a) and (15e) is also related to the distinction made by (Kuroda, 1972) : that of thetic and categorical judgment.. The thetic judgment 'represents simply the recognition or rejection of material of a judgment.' The categorical judgment, on the other hand, 'is assumed to consist of two separate act, one, the act of recognition of that which is to be made the subject, and the other, the act of affirming or denying what is expressed by the predicate about the subject.' The difference between the thetic and categorical judgments can, Kuroda claims, be represented by the difference between the particles ga (nominative marker) and wa (topic marker) in Japanese. 17 Note that there is no topic in (20). Firstly, there is no noun phrase other than inu, and secondly the topic, if any, might not be the stage topic since the sentence is generic. Therefore I do not know what counts as the topic of (20) at the moment. I will tentatively accept f-structures like (20) as legitimate. This f-structure may be interpreted a la (Jackendoff, 1972) as follows. A question arises as to whether (20) is a categorical judgment or not. Kuroda notes 'a wh-interrogative sentence of the generic type may be made in noncategorical subjectless form, provided that the syntactic subject is a wh-word.' This conclusion is drawn from his hypothesis that Japanese particles wa and ga reflect the categorical and the thetic judgements respectively. However, we can maintain that the logical subject of (20) is covert and not pronounced. I have no idea what that logical subject is and how it should be represented, but given its quasisynonymous translation 'It's dogs that run', it may not be so unfounded to categorize (20) as a categorical judgment.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 783, |
| "end": 798, |
| "text": "(Kratzer, 1989)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1029, |
| "end": 1043, |
| "text": "(Kuroda, 1972)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1995, |
| "end": 2013, |
| "text": "(Jackendoff, 1972)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "F-Structures for Basic Sentences", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Another interesting observation made by (Kuroda, 1972) is the difference between (22a) and (22b). We cannot focus the object neko-o in (22a). If we want to place focus on the object, we must topicalize the syntactic subject Fido as in (22b). Recall that we assumed that the f-structure in (20), in which the syntactic subject is focused, is a categorical sentence. From these observations, I set up the following hypotheses.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 40, |
| "end": 54, |
| "text": "(Kuroda, 1972)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "F-Structures for Basic Sentences", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(23) a. Narrow foci can occur only in categorical sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "F-Structures for Basic Sentences", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. If the subject is marked by the nominative marker ga and is not a focus on its own, the sentence expresses a thetic judgment.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "F-Structures for Basic Sentences", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "( Erteschik-Shir, 1997) gives the following f-structure for the sentence John didn't eat the pizza. Note that there are two foci and two topics in this structure. In addition, one of the foci is embedded in the other. The former is called subordinate focus. I will refer to the latter focus as the main focus. 1 (Jackendoff, 1972) rejects existential presuppositions, and adopts a function-under-discussion approach in order to avoid contradiction that might be caused by sentences like NOBODY likes Bill, where nobody is focused. According to (Herburger, 2000) , however, the following sentence has an existential presupposition that someone likes Bill.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 2, |
| "end": 23, |
| "text": "Erteschik-Shir, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 312, |
| "end": 330, |
| "text": "(Jackendoff, 1972)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 544, |
| "end": 561, |
| "text": "(Herburger, 2000)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Negative Sentences and Focus Structures", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "i. MANY OF HIS COLLEGUES likes Bill She concludes that whether the focused quantifier is decreasing or not is involved in the determination of presuppositions. Following Herburger, I adopt existential presuppositions for non-negative phrases. This assupmption about presuppositions is particularly crucial in the discussion given in section 6 2To be precise, the negated auxiliary verb didn't is not included in the main focus in Erteschik-Shir's analysis. In the intended reading, in contrast to the free reading that will be introduced just below, the negative operator forms a part of assertion. Thus I believe it is more appropriate, for the purpose of distinguishing these two readings, to include the negated auxiliary verb in the main focus.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Negative Sentences and Focus Structures", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The f-structure in (24) represents a reading which is called bound reading in (Herburger, 2000) 's terminology. The bound reading may be interpreted as follows.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 78, |
| "end": 95, |
| "text": "(Herburger, 2000)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Negative Sentences and Focus Structures", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(25) a. Presupposition: 3x.[eat(j, x) ]. b. Assertion: the pizza Ax. [eat(j, x) ] (Herburger, 2000) distinguishes another reading for a negative sentence, namely a free reading. I propose the free reading of this sentence is represented by the f-structure in (26), whose interpretation will be (27). These two readings may well be translated into the following Japanese. Note that in the free reading, the object is marked by accusative case o, while in the bound reading it is marked by wa. 28 The first structure presupposes that there are days when Taro does not go to school, and asserts that everyday is such a day. Therefore (31a) represents a QN reading. On the other hand, (31b) presupposes that there are days when Taro goes to school, and asserts that it is not everyday. This represents the NQ reading. In addition to these two f-structures, (32a) is also possible. Since the scope of the negative operator is restricted to the main focus, it cannot negate mainichi, which resides outside the main focus. This f-structure says that not to go to school is one of the things Taro does everyday. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 8, |
| "end": 34, |
| "text": "Presupposition: 3x.[eat(j,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 35, |
| "end": 37, |
| "text": "x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 69, |
| "end": 79, |
| "text": "[eat(j, x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 82, |
| "end": 99, |
| "text": "(Herburger, 2000)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Negative Sentences and Focus Structures", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Recall that it is difficult to interpret (12) as NQ, even for those who accept the NQ reading of (la). In this section, we will see how this fact might be incorporated into our analysis. (Teramura, 1979) and (Nitta, 1991) While it is not entirely clear why these sentences are anomalous, it seems that, as (Nitta, 1991) comments, a negative thetic sentence like (33) requires its positive counter part (an event of raining, for example) to be taken for granted. Therefore I assume, that only when a certain kind of condition is satisfied can a negative thetic sentence be acceptable.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 187, |
| "end": 203, |
| "text": "(Teramura, 1979)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 208, |
| "end": 221, |
| "text": "(Nitta, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 306, |
| "end": 319, |
| "text": "(Nitta, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Subjects and Negation", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us now consider the.two potential f-structures for (12) in (35). [subete-no hito-ga] Foc Taro-o seme-nakat-ta (35a) is the thetic reading and corresponds to the NQ reading. We have just claimed, however, that negative thetic sentences are generally anomalous. Thus, (35a) is not an acceptable fstructure in a normal situation. (35b), on the other hand, is a legitimate one. Its presupposition is that there are some people who blamed Taro, and asserts that everybody is one of them. That is, (35b) represents the QN reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Subjects and Negation", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "From the discussion given in the previous section, we may conclude that (lb) must be ambiguous, which is not the case as we saw in the first section. This problem can be solved by simply adopting the analyses proposed by (Baring, 1997) and (Kaga, 1997) . (Biking, 1997) introduces a third type of semantic value which he calls topic value, in addition to the ordinary value and the focus value of (Rooth, 1985) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 221, |
| "end": 235, |
| "text": "(Baring, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 240, |
| "end": 252, |
| "text": "(Kaga, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 255, |
| "end": 269, |
| "text": "(Biking, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 397, |
| "end": 410, |
| "text": "(Rooth, 1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The topic value of a sentence S is a set of sets of propositions. Each set in the topic value is the focus value of a sentence S' obtained from S by replacing the topic with one of its alternatives. Suppose that the alternatives of John are John, Bill, and Tom and the alternatives of Mary are Mary, Nancy, and Elizabeth. Then the topic value of the sentence (36a) is (36b). 3 More precisely, (Teramura, 1979) and (Nitta, 1991) observe that negated counterpart of what they call phenomenon sentences is in general anomalous. Phenomenon sentences are ones that describe a phenomenon that occur at a time and space as it is, without subjectivity. I suppose phenomenon sentences largely correspond to sentences that express a thetic judgment. (Biking, 1997) maintains that a use of a topic requires there to be an issue left open, what he calls residual topic or disputable question, after the sentence is uttered. A residual topic must be one of the members in the topic value. In the example above, the residual topic must be whom Bill likes (the second member in (36b)) or whom Tom likes (the third member).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 393, |
| "end": 409, |
| "text": "(Teramura, 1979)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 414, |
| "end": 427, |
| "text": "(Nitta, 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 740, |
| "end": 754, |
| "text": "(Biking, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Baring makes use of such notions as topic value and residual topic and explains the unavailability of the QN reading of (37), where the quantifier alle 'all' is a topic. 37 Suppose that the QN reading of (37) were chosen. Then, its topic value might be (38a). Alternatives of all are assumed to be all, most, some, and one, which constitute a scale in (38b) ordered by implication relation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(38) a. {{all(politicians) (Ax.[corrupt(x) ]),all(politicians) (Ax.[N corrupt(x) Isom,e(politicians)(Ax.[corrupt(x) ]),some(politicians) (Ax.[ ,,, corrupt(x) One of the issues in (38a) must be disputable because of the requirement for residual topics. Given the implication relation in (38b), however, none of the issues is disputable. Since we know that each of the politicians are not corrupt, we know that most of the politicians are not corrupt, some of the politicians are not corrupt, and so on. That is, the QN reading of (37) cannot satisfy the requirement for a disputable issue. As for the NQ reading, on the other, no such inconvenience occurs. Even if we know that not all of the politicians are corrupt, the issue whether or not most politicians are corruput, for example, is still disputable. Therefore, Biking concludes, only the NQ reading survives.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 27, |
| "end": 42, |
| "text": "(Ax.[corrupt(x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 63, |
| "end": 80, |
| "text": "(Ax.[N corrupt(x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 81, |
| "end": 115, |
| "text": "Isom,e(politicians)(Ax.[corrupt(x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 137, |
| "end": 157, |
| "text": "(Ax.[ ,,, corrupt(x)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "])}, {most(politicians)(Ax .[corrupt(x)]) , most(politicians)(Ax corrupt(x)])} ,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Exactly the same explanation can be applied to the Japanese sentence in (lb). (Kaga, 1997) independently proposes an analysis similar in vein. mainichi in (lb) which is marked by the topic marker wa (and is focused) is a so-called contrastive topic. Therefore mainichi-wa requires a disputable issue obtained by replacing mainichi with an alternative frequency adverb. The QN reading of (lb) cannot satisfy this requirement and is thereby discarded.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 78, |
| "end": 90, |
| "text": "(Kaga, 1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A remaining problem concerning (1) is why the QN reading is dominant in (la). We may have recourse to blocking effect in this respect. Firstly, I suppose that mainichi in (31b) is not so markedly stressed because it is only a subordinate focus. Then, this f-structure cannot be easily distinguished on phonological ground from the f-structure in (32a), which represents a QN reading. If mainichi is marked by wa, however, the sentence receives unambiguously the NQ interpretation. So, if the speaker intends to express the NQ reading, (s)he may have used unambiguous sentence in (lb) instead of (la).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Contrastive Topics and Scales", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We assumed three f-structures for sentences in (1) so that both NQ and QN readings may be theoretically available to them. The QN reading of (lb) is rejected on the basis of the requirement for residual topics, and the NQ reading of (la) was disfavored due to the blocking effect.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since the same story must go for the sentences in (2), we might expect (2a) and (2b) to be ambiguous, which is not the case. Let us consider the following three f-structures. (39a) corresponds to the QN reading and (39b) and (39c) represent the NQ reading. (40) and (41) are the interpretations of (39a) without and with the topic marker, respectively. The variable P ranges over the alternatives of the frequency adverb sometimes.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(40) a. Presupposition 3P [P(r-go(t, school) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 26, |
| "end": 44, |
| "text": "[P(r-go(t, school)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ")]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. Assertion sometimes E AP[P (-, go(t, school) )]", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 30, |
| "end": 47, |
| "text": "(-, go(t, school)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(41) a. Presupposition 3.13 [P(, go(t, school) I assume that sometimes is the least element in the scale that consists of its alternatives and ordered by implication relation. ( 42, for examples.) Then, the assertion in (40) is virtually equivalent to its presupposition. Thus (39a) without the topic marker adds no new information to what is presupposed. So I conclude this f-structure is anomalous. The same holds for (41), but in this case there is an implicature induced by the topic marker. It contrasts sometimes with some other adverbial quantifier. Because of this implicature, (41) is better than (40).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 28, |
| "end": 46, |
| "text": "[P(, go(t, school)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The presupposition and the assertion of (39b) is the following.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(43 ) a. Presupposition 3P[P(go(t, school))] b. Assertion sometimes cl AP [P(go(t, school) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 74, |
| "end": 90, |
| "text": "[P(go(t, school)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Affirmative Polarity Items and F-Structures", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Note that the assertion in (43) entails that Taro never goes to school, which contradicts the presupposition (a). Therefore (39b) with or without the topic marker expresses a contradiction, and hence is unavailable. The last f-structure to be considered is (39c).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": ")]", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(44) a. Presupposition 3P[sometimes(P(t))] b. Assertion not go to school E AP[sometimes(P(t))]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": ")]", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As we have seen previously, the scope of the negative operator is limited to the main focus, and therefore this f-structure means that not to go to school is one of the things Taro does sometimes, which yields the QN reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": ")]", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "The Meaning of Topic and Focus", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Daniel", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Boring", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Boring, Daniel. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus. Routledge, London.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "The Dynamics of Focus Structure", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Nomi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Erteschik-Shir", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "What Counts: Focus and Quantification", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Elena", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Herburger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2000, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Herburger, Elena. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. The MIT press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Scope of negation, syntactic movement, and structure of Japanese negative sentences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shinsuke", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Homma", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "Tsukuba English Studies", |
| "volume": "17", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "25--50", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Homma, Shinsuke. 1998. Scope of negation, syntactic movement, and structure of Japanese negative sentences. In Tsukuba English Studies, volume 17. Tsukuba University, pages 25-50.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ray", |
| "middle": [ |
| "S" |
| ], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1972, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Suuryoshi to bubunhitei", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Nobuhiro", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kaga", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "Shiji to Shoo to Hitei, Nichieigohikakusensho 4. Kenkyusha Shuppan", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "91--184", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kaga, Nobuhiro. 1997. Suuryoshi to bubunhitei. In Minoru Nakau, editor, Shiji to Shoo to Hitei, Nichieigohikakusensho 4. Kenkyusha Shuppan, Tokyo, pages 91-184.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Negative Sentences in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Yasuhiko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kato", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "Sophia Linguistica. Sophia University", |
| "volume": "19", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kato, Yasuhiko. 1985. Negative Sentences in Japanese, volume 19 of Sophia Linguistica. Sophia Univer- sity.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Hitei no sukopu", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Yasuhiko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kato", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1989, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "208--212", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kato, Yasuhiko. 1989. Hitei no sukopu. In Kazuko Inoue, editor, Nihonbunpo shojiten. Taishukan, Tokyo, pages 208-212.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Stage-level and individual-level predicates", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Angelika", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kratzer", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1989, |
| "venue": "Papers on Quantification. Department of Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Papers on Quantification. De- partment of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "kare wa kaze kurai dewa yasumanaiyo'-hitei no sukopu to shoten", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mayumi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kudo", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2000, |
| "venue": "Gengo", |
| "volume": "29", |
| "issue": "11", |
| "pages": "38--44", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kudo, Mayumi. 2000. `kare wa kaze kurai dewa yasumanaiyo'-hitei no sukopu to shoten. Gengo, 29(11):38-44.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Nihongo no shugo no tokushusei", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Susumu", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuno", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1977, |
| "venue": "Gengo", |
| "volume": "6", |
| "issue": "6", |
| "pages": "11--18", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, Susumu. 1977. Nihongo no shugo no tokushusei. Gengo, 6(6):11-18.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "The scope of question and negation in some verb-final languages", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Susumu", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuno", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1980, |
| "venue": "Chicago Linguistic Society", |
| "volume": "16", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "155--169", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, Susumu. 1980. The scope of question and negation in some verb-final languages. In Chicago Linguistic Society 16, pages 155-169.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S.-Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuroda", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1972, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "9", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "153--185", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Founda- tions of Language, 9:153-185.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Genshobun o megutte", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Yoshio", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nitta", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Nihongo no Modariti to Ninsho. Hitsuji shobo", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "113--134", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Genshobun o megutte. In Nihongo no Modariti to Ninsho. Hitsuji shobo, pages 113-134.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Association with Focus", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mats", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rooth", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Mudo no keishiki to hitei", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hideo", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Teramura", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "Eigo to Nihongo to. Kuroshio shuppan", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "191--222", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Teramura, Hideo. 1979. Mudo no keishiki to hitei. In Eigo to Nihongo to. Kuroshio shuppan, Tokyo, pages 191-222.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Negation and focusing in the grammar of Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shuichi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yatabe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "Studies on the Universality of Constraint-Based Phrase Structure Grammars", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "217--225", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Yatabe, Shuichi. 1996. Negation and focusing in the grammar of Japanese. In Takao Gunji, editor, Studies on the Universality of Constraint-Based Phrase Structure Grammars. pages 217-225.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "13) a. Taro-wa Hanako-o nagut-ta Taro-TOP Hanako-ACC hit-PAST Taro hit Hanako.' b. Iya, Taro-wa Hanako-o nagura-nakat-ta no Taro-TOP Hanako-ACC hit-not-PAST No, Taro didn't hit Hanako.'", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "22) a. ??Fido-ga [neko-o] Foc oikakeru Fido-NOM cat-ACC chase Tido chases cats.' b. Fido-wa [neko-o] Foc oikakeru Fido-TOP cat-ACC chase", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "26) [John] Top didn't eat [the pizza]Foc (27) a. Presupposition: 3x. N eat(j, x)]. b. Assertion: {the pizza} eat(j, x)]", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "35) a. ??sTOP t [subete-no hito-ga Taro-o seme-nalcat-ta]Foc b.", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "36) a. [John] Top likes [Mary]Foc b. {{like(j, m), like(j, n), like(j, e)}, {like(b, m), like(b, ), like(b, e)}, {like(t, m), like(t, n), like(t, e)}}", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "text": "The predicate of this sentence, namely eat, is a stage-level predicate and can make use of a stage topic. When the predicate is an individual-level predicate, one of its arguments must stand as a topic, since, unlike stage-level predicates, stage topics are not available. (16a) is illegitimate and (16b) is the only possible f-structure for the sentence Firemen are altruistic." |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>a. Inu-ga</td><td>hashit-teiru</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">dog-NOM run-PROG</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">A/The dog is running.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. Inu-wa hashit-teiru</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">dog-TOP run-PROG</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">The dog is running.'</td></tr><tr><td>(19) a. ??Inu-ga</td><td>hashiru</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">dog-NOM ru\u01f9</td></tr><tr><td>Dogs run.'</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. Inu-wa hasiru</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">dog-TOP run</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">While (19b(20) [Inu-ga] FOC hashir\u00f9</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">It is dogs that run.'</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "FocGiven the unavailability of stage topics to non-stage-level predicates, we may expect that generic sentences with ga-marked subjects is unacceptable. Consider the following. ) is a natural sentence that reports dogs' habit of running, (19a) is not natural as an independent sentence. (19a), however, can be acceptable when it is embedded in a subordinate clause, or the subject is focused. In the latter case, exhaustive reading is obtained. The exhaustive reading of (19a) may then be represented by the following f-structure." |
| }, |
| "TABREF10": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "text": "(39) a.[Taro-wa]Top [tokidoki(-wa)] FOC gakko-ni. ika-nai b. [Taro-wa] Top [[t okidoki (-wa)]FOC gakko-ni FOC c. [Taro-wa]rop tokidoki [gakko-ni ika-nai] FOC" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
