| { |
| "paper_id": "Y12-1047", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:45:39.113102Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Japanese Pseudo-NPI Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Universal Quantifier", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Katsuhiko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yabushita", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Naruto University of Education Naruto", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "772-8502", |
| "settlement": "Tokushima", |
| "country": "Japan" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "yabuchan@naruto-u.ac.jp" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Japanese dare-mo has been widely acknowledged to be an NPI, furthermore, a \"strict\" NPI in the sense of Giannakidou (2011) as it seems to be licensed only in an \"antiveridical\" environment, specifically, with a clausemate negation. However, there is a type of positive sentences in which dare-mo can appear, i.e. non-episodic sentences, which indicates that dare-mo is in fact not an NPI and its NPI-like distribution is an epiphenomenon due to dare-mo's lexical meaning and the resulting interpretational properties of dare-mo sentences. In the current work, based on novel data we will propose that dare-mo is an \"unrestricted\" universal quantifier and demonstrate that the proposed meaning of dare-mo and a reasonable assumption about episodic predicates predict that positive episodic dare-mo sentences will be contradictory while negative episodic ones and nonepisodic ones, positive or negative will be contingent, nicely characterizing the grammaticality facts of dare-mo sentences.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y12-1047", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Japanese dare-mo has been widely acknowledged to be an NPI, furthermore, a \"strict\" NPI in the sense of Giannakidou (2011) as it seems to be licensed only in an \"antiveridical\" environment, specifically, with a clausemate negation. However, there is a type of positive sentences in which dare-mo can appear, i.e. non-episodic sentences, which indicates that dare-mo is in fact not an NPI and its NPI-like distribution is an epiphenomenon due to dare-mo's lexical meaning and the resulting interpretational properties of dare-mo sentences. In the current work, based on novel data we will propose that dare-mo is an \"unrestricted\" universal quantifier and demonstrate that the proposed meaning of dare-mo and a reasonable assumption about episodic predicates predict that positive episodic dare-mo sentences will be contradictory while negative episodic ones and nonepisodic ones, positive or negative will be contingent, nicely characterizing the grammaticality facts of dare-mo sentences.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "1 Introduction of Japanese Dare-mo in Question (\"NPI\" Dare-mo) in Contrast to D\u00e1re-mo (\"Non-NPI\" Dare-mo)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section the Japanese expression in question, dare-mo will be introduced in terms of its morphological, phonological, and preliminary semantic features.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Dare-mo is morphologically composed of indefinite pronoun dare 'who' and particle mo, which has been sometimes glossed as 'also' and other times as 'even'. 1", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Morphological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As will be seen in the next subsection, there is another dare-mo distinct from dare-mo in question here syntactically and semantically. In correlation with the syntactic and semantic differences, there is a phonetic and phonological difference between them at least in Tokyo Japanese. In Japanese, a pitch accent language, the placement of accent induces difference in meaning, as is illustrated in (1): 1 In this paper the issue is not addressed whether mo in question is polysemous, there is a unique meaning, or there are two distinct mo's, in which case, which one is relevant here. In any case, the compositional analysis of the meaning of dare-mo out of that of dare and that of mo will not be dealt with here; thus, throughout this paper, mo will be glossed rather ambiguously simply as 'MO'.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 404, |
| "end": 405, |
| "text": "1", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phonological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) (Adopted from Haraguchi 1995: (6) In Tokyo Japanese, the accent is placed on the mora before the pitch drop; in other words, the accent is on the H immediately before L. (Haraguchi 1999: 5) As dare-mo in question has the same tone melody as (1c), as is shown in (2), it is considered to be an unaccented word.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 18, |
| "end": 37, |
| "text": "Haraguchi 1995: (6)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 174, |
| "end": 193, |
| "text": "(Haraguchi 1999: 5)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phonological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "( 2)The tone melody of \"NPI\" dare-mo dare-mo L H H On the other hand, the near-homonymous, \"non-NPI\" dare-mo has the tone melody as illustrated in (3), which is of the same pattern as in (2a). Thus, \"non-NPI\" dare-mo is regarded to be a word with the accent on da(re) 'who'.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phonological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) The tone melody of \"Non-NPI\" dare-mo d\u00e1re-mo H L L", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phonological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the above, we have reviewed the features differentiating the so-called \"NPI\" dare-mo and \"non-NPI\" dare-mo from each other. Henceforth, however, we will abandon the nomenclature, for it will be demonstrated that \"NPI\" dare-mo in fact is not an NP, rendering the current term misleading/a misnomer. Instead, we will designate/denote \"NPI\" dare-mo and \"non-NPI\" dare-mo as (plain) \"daremo\" and \"d\u00e1re-mo\", respectively, reflecting the accentual contrast between them.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Phonological Features", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Having identified two \"dare-mo\"s, i.e. dare-mo and d\u00e1re-mo, let us consider some example sentences in which they do or do not occur:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(4) a. *Dare-mo paatii-ni ki-ta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "who-MO party-Dat come-Past b. Dare-mo paatii-ni ko-nakat-ta. who-MO party-Dat come-Neg-Past 'Nobody came to the party.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(5) a. D\u00e1re-mo-ga paatii-ni ki-ta. who-MO-Nom party-Dat come-Past 'Everybody came to the party.' b. D\u00e1re-mo-ga paatii-ni ko-nakat-ta. who-MO-Nom party-Dat come-Neg-Past 'Nobody came to the party.' What is to be noted in the contrast between (4) and (5) is that first, d\u00e1re-mo is followed by a case marker, e.g. nominative marker ga in (5) while dare-mo is not, second, dare-mo seems to be licensed only in negative sentences while d\u00e1re-mo is not sensitive to polarity. Because of the second feature, dare-mo has been widely acknowledged to be an NPI. However, in the next section, we will see some evidence that dare-mo is not a genuine NPI.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Dare-mo IS a Pseudo-NPI Data like (4) apparently suggest that dare-mo is an NPI, which has been widely accepted and prompted many analyses of dare-mo as such (e.g. Kato 1985 , Kawashima 1994 , Kishimoto 2008 .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 166, |
| "end": 175, |
| "text": "Kato 1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 176, |
| "end": 192, |
| "text": ", Kawashima 1994", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 193, |
| "end": 209, |
| "text": ", Kishimoto 2008", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, there is a type of sentences questioning the legitimacy of dare-mo as a genuine NPI. Consider the following examples:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) 2", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "a. Hito-wa dare-mo itsukawa shinu. human-Top who-MO someday die 'Everyone (Anyone) dies someday.' b. Hito-wa dare-mo jibun-ni amai. human-Top who-MO self-Dat lenient 'Everyone (Anyone) is lenient to herself.' c. Hito-wa dare-mo yume yabure, furikaeru. human-Top who-MO dream break reflect 'Everyone (Anyone) loses in her dream and reflect on herself.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In terms of tone melody and co-occurrence with a case marker, dare-mo in (6) is to be identified with dare-mo, not d\u00e1re-mo, as it has LHH as its tone melody and the sentences resulting from (6a-c) by adding a (nominative-)case marker will be ungrammatical.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Contrary to what has been widely acknowledged about dare-mo; i.e., it is an NPI, specifically, strict NPI, which requires the accompaniment of negation for its being licensed, in terms of Giannakidou (2011) , the data like (6) clearly show that dare-mo is not an strong NPI, not even a weak NPI, which is licensed in antiveridical contexts; in short, not an NPI at all. Now that dare-mo has been shown not to be an NPI, has the \"NPI\"-ness of dare-mo been lessened accordingly? The answer is Yes and No. No because the fact remains that dare-mo cannot grammatically cooccur with a positive predicate in examples like (4a). Yes because the \"NPI\"-ness of dare-mo is now characterized not as a feature of dare-mo on its own, but an epiphenomenon mirroring its interaction with its environment whatever it is. Thus, dare-mo is now better termed as \"Pseudo-NPI\" and will be analyzed as such in the following.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 188, |
| "end": 206, |
| "text": "Giannakidou (2011)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Someone suggested that dare-mo in (6) should be considered a phonetic variant of \"free-choice anyone\" dare-demo 'whoeven', as is indeed the case that the resulting sentences from the examples in (6) with dare-mo being replaced by daredemo would be basically synonymous with the original ones. Nonetheless, as dare-demo is not always replaced by dare-mo, as is illustrated in dare-demo/*dare-mo sono kouenkai-ni sanka-suru koto ga dekiru 'Anyone can participate in the lecture', the apparent replacability of dare-mo by dare-demo in (6) cannot justify the claim unless it is augmented with an principle predicting when the phonetic variation is possible.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3 Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Universal Quantifier", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section we will argue that dare-mo denotes a universal quantifier as well as d\u00e1re-mo, but unlike the case of d\u00e1re-mo, the universal quantifier denoted by dare-mo is \"unrestricted\" in that it lacks the restrictor in terms of the tripartite structure of quantification (Kamp (1981) , Heim (1982) , Partee (1995) ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 275, |
| "end": 287, |
| "text": "(Kamp (1981)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 290, |
| "end": 301, |
| "text": "Heim (1982)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 304, |
| "end": 317, |
| "text": "Partee (1995)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "D\u00e1re-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Quantifier \u00e1 la Kadmon and Landman (1993) Because of the apparent similarity of dare-mo to English any N\u00b4, specifically, anyone in this case in that they both are \"NPI\"s and mean 'no one' in the context of negation, it was widely assumed that a very influential analysis of any by Kadmon and Landman (1993) would/should be carried over to Japanese dare-mo with the basic assumption that dare-mo was an existential quantifier; furthermore, it needs to be under the scope of negation. Among the analyses proposed along the line are Kato (1985) , Kawashima (1994) , and Kishimoto (2008) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 16, |
| "end": 41, |
| "text": "Kadmon and Landman (1993)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 281, |
| "end": 306, |
| "text": "Kadmon and Landman (1993)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 530, |
| "end": 541, |
| "text": "Kato (1985)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 544, |
| "end": 560, |
| "text": "Kawashima (1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 567, |
| "end": 583, |
| "text": "Kishimoto (2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyses of Dare-mo as an Existential", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, given that dare-mo can occur in a non-negative sentence as in (6) and the resulting sentence is of a universal-quantificational force, dare-mo as a quantifier should be taken to be a universal one instead of an existential one; consequently, the logical structure of the \"nobody\"-interpretation associated with a negative dare-mo sentence should be construed as a universal quantifier over negation, \u2200\u00ac instead of negation over an existential quantifier, \u00ac\u2203. This conclusion in fact has been independently reached by Shimoyama (2008 Shimoyama ( , 2011 and Kataoka (2006 Kataoka ( , 2007 , neither of whom, however, has an account for dare-mo's \"(pseudo-)NPI-ness\".", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 526, |
| "end": 541, |
| "text": "Shimoyama (2008", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 542, |
| "end": 560, |
| "text": "Shimoyama ( , 2011", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 565, |
| "end": 578, |
| "text": "Kataoka (2006", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 579, |
| "end": 595, |
| "text": "Kataoka ( , 2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Analyses of Dare-mo as an Existential", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In philosophical logic, the question has been hotly debated whether there is an absolute, unrestricted quantifier, while in linguistic semantics, it is a general understanding that there is no expression denoting an unrestricted quantifier in the absolute sense in natural languages.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consider the following English sentence.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(7) Every student had a good time.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The universal quantifier involved in (7), (denoted by) every has its domain restricted to the set of students. Furthermore, as the sentence is about not all the students in the world, but some contextually determined group of students.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In general, quantifiers in natural languages are considered to have their domains of quantification restricted linguistically, e.g. common noun (phrases), relative clauses, and partitives for D(eterminer)-quantifiers, and when/if-clauses for A(dvervial)-quantifiers, and furthermore, contextually. The linguistic and contextual restriction of domain is illustrated by the following logical forms of (7) in some semantic frameworks, where variable C represents the contextual restriction. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) a. \u2200x[[student(x) \u22c0 C(x)] \u27f6 had-a-good-time(x)] (first-order logic) b. \u27e6every\u27e7 (\u27e6student\u27e7 \u2229 \u27e6C\u27e7)(\u27e6had-a-good-time\u27e7) (generalized quantifier theory) (von Fintel (1994)) c. every x [ Restrictor student(x) \u22c0 C(x)] [", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain of Quantification for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Contrary to the widely acknowledged assumption about natural-language quantifiers, i.e., they are restricted quantifiers, we would like to propose that dare-mo is an \"unrestricted\" quantifier. Obviously, a word is in order here. In the above we have agreed that dare-mo basically means 'every person'; therefore, its domain is clearly restricted (at least) to the set of humans. That being correct, dare-mo cannot be an unqualified, unrestricted quantifier, which is why \"unrestricted\" has scare quotes around it. Then the question is in what sense the domain of quantification for dare-mo is \"unrestricted\".", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We propose that the domain of quantification for dare-mo is indeed restricted to the set of humans, but that's it; that is, no further restricted linguistically or contextually. Admittedly that may sound counterintuitive given examples like the following.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9) Yamada-sensei-no gakusei-wa Yamada-professor-of student(s)-Top dare-mo paatii-ni ko-nakat-ta who-MO party-Dat come-Neg-Past 'None of Professor Yamada's students came to the party.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As the gloss of the example suggests, it seems natural to take Yamada-sensei's gakusei 'Professor Yamada's students' as restricting the domain of quantification for dare-mo; however, we will argue and see some evidence that the nominal is to be interpreted as part of not the restrictor, but the nuclear scope in terms of the tripartite structure of quantification. In fact, we propose that the meaning of dare-mo should be something as follows: 10The proposed meaning of dare-mo", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "dare-mo: \u03bbQ\u2200x h [Q(x h )]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ", where x h is a sortal variable for humans.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As the variable bound by \u2200 is a sortal one for humans, the domain of the universal quantifier is naturally restricted to the set of humans; however, as the restrictor is lacking, there will be no more restriction on the domain. As a consequence, the content of the nominals construed with dare-mo will be entered into the nuclear scope. For instance, the logical form of (9) will be analyzed to be as in (11) instead of (12)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) \u2200x h \u00ac[Prof.Y'sStudents(x h ) \u2227 Came(x h )] (12) \u2200x h [Prof.Y'sStudents(x h ) \u27f6 \u00acCame(x h )]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Some readers might be quick to point out that (11) and (12) are equivalent, which is true. But what we are concerned here is not just the right truth conditions, but also the correct logical form. Sure enough, later we will see some examples in which the interpretation of a nominal as part of the restrictor and that of the nuclear scope differ in the resulting truth conditions and the latter ones are correct.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Dare-mo as an \"Unrestricted\" Quantifier", |
| "sec_num": "3.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Incompatibility with Partitives: A Partitive occurring with a nominal quantifier is considered to restrict the domain of quantification, as in (13).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(13) All/Most/None of the students laughed.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In 13, of the students clearly functions as restricting the domain of the quantifier denoted by all/most/none. In Japanese as well, partitives serve as the restrictor of quantifiers as illustrated in the example corresponding to (13).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "a. Gakusei-no zen-in ga ki-ta. students-of all-Cl Nom come-Past 'All of the students came.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. Gakusei-no hotondo ga kit-ta. students-of most Nom come-Past 'Most of the students laughed.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Then, let us see the cases of dare-mo and d\u00e1remo; that is, whether they can be restricted with a partitive. Starting with d\u00e1re-mo, it can cooccur with a partitive grammatically with the latter restricting the domain of the former, as exemplified by (15).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(15) Gakusei-no d\u00e1re-mo ga ko-nakat-ta. students-of who-MO Nom come-Neg-Past 'None of the students came.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Next, consider the following example, (16), which is minimally different from (15) in that dare-mo appears in place of d\u00e1re-mo and (since dare-mo cannot cooccur with a case marker,) the nominative marker, ga is missing.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "?? Gakusei-no d\u00e1re-mo ko-nakat-ta. students-of who-MO come-Neg-Past As the \"??\" indicates, compared with (14) and (15), (16) is considerably less unacceptable if not downright ungrammatical.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the above, it has been shown that a partitive as a domain restrictor sits well with d\u00e1re-mo, but not with dare-mo. This, we contend, strongly imply that unlike the \"regular\" quantifiers or d\u00e1re-mo, dare-mo does not have the restrictor in terms of the tripartite structure of quantification. In the following we will see additional evidence to the effect.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Incompatibility with Relative Clauses: In the same vein as with partitives, when occurring with a quantificational nominal, (restrictive) relative clauses are regarded as restricting the domain of the quantifier, as illustrated in the following example:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(17) Every one who came to the party had a good time.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In 17, the relative clause, who came to the party clearly restricts the domain from the set of (contextually-determined) people denoted by one further into that of people who came to the party. In this regard, let us examine the compatibility of dare-mo with relative clauses. Consider, for instance, the following example. 18 The incompatibility of dare-mo with relative clauses again implies the absence of the restrictor for dare-mo. The plausibility is further strengthened by the contrast with d\u00e1re-mo, which is perfectly compatible with relative clauses. In the above we have argued against the restrictivity of the domain of quantification for dare-mo by demonstrating its incompatibility with typical domain-restricting expressions, specifically, partitives and relative clauses. This time, we will argue for the same thesis by presenting (grammatical) examples such that if a nominal construed with dare-mo were interpreted as restricting the domain for dare-mo, that would result in the wrong readings. The sentence has the reading in which the nominal in the topical phrase, i.e. paatii ni kita gakusee 'the students who came to the party' restricts the domain of the universal quantifier denoted by d\u00e1re-mo, i.e., that all students who came to the party were not/no students who came to the party weer at some place which is unspecified, but contextually understood place. For instance, you can imagine the classroom for a class on the following day of the party. The question is whether the sentence that is minimally different from (20) in that d\u00e1re-mo is replaced by dare-mo with nominative-marker ga deleted, i.e. (21) will have the same reading as (20). If the nominal in the topical phrase, i.e. paatii ni kita gakusee 'the students' restricted the domain of dare-mo as in the case of d\u00e1re-mo, (21) would be expected to have the same reading as (20). However, the matter of fact is that the reading of (21) is that no student came to the party, which is truth-conditionally distinct from that of (20). The reading in fact corresponds to the one expected of the meaning of dare-mo as in (10) and the content of the topical phrase being entered into the nuclear scope, which is represented in (22), where \"St.\" and \"C.T.P\" are abbreviations of \"Student\" and \"CameToTheParty\", respectively.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Domain for Dare-mo", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(22) \u2200x h \u00ac[St.(x h ) \u2227 C.T.T.P.(x h ) \u2227 Existed(x h )]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The interpretational difference we have observed between a d\u00e1re-mo sentence, (20) and the corresponding dare-mo one, (21), again points to the unrestrictiveness of dare-mo. The two sentences are minimally different from each other with some necessary adjustments; daremo occurs in (23) while d\u00e1re-mo with the nominative case-marker, ga in (24), and okyaku 'customer(s)' can be marked only with the topic marker, wa, not the nominative marker in (24), which is presumed to be due to there being a nominative-case marked phrase, i.e. d\u00e1re-mo-ga.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There is a difference between (23) and (24) in interpretation, specifically, with respect to whether the speaker has some particular clientele in mind when uttering the sentences. (24) can be felicitously uttered only when the speaker has some preexisting set of people as the clientele, of whom she checked whether they came or not. On the other hand, (23) can be felicitously uttered without the speaker having any clientele in mind; the sentence can be interpreted that there were no events of visiting by people who would have been predicated of as customers if they had visited the (implicit) store.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We propose that the above interpretational difference between (23) and (24) is an reflection of the difference between dare-mo and d\u00e1re-mo with regards to the presence and absence of the restrictor. It has been generally acknowledged that for a given natural-language quantified sentence with the tripartite structure, it is presupposed that there exists an (at least one) instance satisfying the content of the restrictor. In terms of felicity conditions, this would be rendered that when one utters a quantified sentence, she has a particular set of individuals as satisfying the restrictor. Then, what is the function of the nuclear scope? Given a set of individuals that satisfy the restrictor as given, it is asserted that the content of the nuclear scope is or is not predicated of a certain quantity of the individuals.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "With the understanding of the restrictor and the nuclear scope, it is proposed that the difference between (23) and (24) in interpretation corresponds to where the content of the nominal construed with the quantifier, okyaku 'customer' is entered, the nuclear scope or the restrictor. Specifically, it is proposed that dare-mo has the content of the nominal entered into the nuclear scope, which is necessitated by the absence of the restrictor while d\u00e1re-mo, into the restrictor. Thus, the logical form of (23) and that of (24) are as in (23)\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4, respectively.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(23)\u00b4 \u2200x h \u00ac[customer(x h ) \u2227 came(x h )] (24)\u00b4 \u2200x h [customer(x h ) \u27f6 came(x h )]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, (23)\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4 are equivalent and do not properly represent the distinction between the nominal being used attributively/entered into the restrictor and being used predicatively/entered into the nuclear scope. Although we cannot go into detail because of lack of space, we amend (23)\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4 to (23)\u00b4\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4\u00b4, respectively. In (23)\u00b4\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4\u00b4, \"e\" is an event variable and \"customer(e, x h )\" reads \"x h manifests herself as a customer in e\", which is in contrast with \"customer(x h )\" where x h is designated as a customer independently of a(n) (shopping) event. All in all, (23)\u00b4\u00b4 and (24)\u00b4\u00b4 are contended to represent the readings of (23) and (24), capturing the differences between (23) and (24) in interpretation. That is made possible by the hypothesis that dare-mo does not have the restrictor.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Restricted Quantification Predicts Wrong", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the current section we hypothesized that daremo is an \"unrestricted\" universal quantifier that lacks the restrictor part, with the proposed meaning in (10), which is reproduced here, and have seen some pieces of evidence for the thesis. 10The proposed meaning of dare-mo", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentence", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "dare-mo: \u03bbQ\u2200x h [Q(x h )]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentence", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ", where x h is a sortal variable for humans.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentence", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We conclude this section with the truth conditions of a dare-mo sentence that are necessitated by the proposed meaning of dare-mo, i.e. (10). The logical form of a dare-mo sentence is now \u2200x h [P(x h )], where P is a possibly complex, one-place predicate. It is assumed that sortal, human variable x h ranges over the entire set of humans at world w in model M, denoted D h, w, M . From which, the truth conditions of a dare-mo sentence, \u2200x h [P(x h )] are determined as follows: , t, w = 1 if and only if the entire set of humans at world w in model M is a subset of the extension of P, i.e., D h, w, M \u2286{a : \u27e6P(x)\u27e7 M, g[x/a], t, w = 1}.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 480, |
| "end": 486, |
| "text": ", t, w", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentence", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(25) Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentences \u2200x h [P(x h )] \u27e6\u2200x h [P(x h )] \u27e7 M", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentence", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Putting the meaning of dare-mo itself aside for now let us go back to a phenomenon surrounding dare-me we observed in sections 1 and 2, i.e., dare-mo cannot occur in some positive sentences as in (4a), which is why dare-mo was believed to be an NPI, but it can appear in other positive sentences, as in (6), which disqualifies dare-mo from being a genuine NPI. Although dare-mo has turned out to be a pseudo-NPI, it remains a fact that its distribution is somewhat restricted, which deserves to be explained. Since dare-mo does not always require negation for occurring grammatically in sentences, the necessary cooccurrence of negation for it in some sentences cannot be a direct consequence from a lexical feature or requirement of dare-mo alone. The phenomenon should rather be taken to be an epiphenomenon mirroring some interaction of the lexical semantics of dare-mo with its environment.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Condition on the Extension of Episodic Predicates", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The question is what aspect of the environment is relevant to the interaction. In the following we will propose that it is the (non-)episodicity of the predicate that is relevant and formulate a condition on the extension of episodic predicates.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Condition on the Extension of Episodic Predicates", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The obvious differences between sentences in which dare-mo requires negation, e.g. (4) and those in which it doesn't, e.g. (6) is that the former is an episodic sentence while that in the latter is a non-episodic, or \"tenseless\" one.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Condition on the Extension of Episodic Predicates", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As events or situations, which are referred to by episodic sentences, are spatio-temporally bounded, it is reasonable to suppose that the extensions of episodic predicates cannot contain the entire domain of individuals of any sort. For illustration, let us take episodic predicate \"came to the party\" as an example. Referring to a certain coming-tothe-party event at some time in the past, the predicate cannot contain the entire set of humans, for a spatio-temporally bounded event cannot have as its participants, humans who were dead or unborn at the time of the event. The property of episodic predicates can be formulated as the following condition on the extension of episodic predicates: ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Condition on the Extension of Episodic Predicates", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "With the meaning of dare-mo proposed and the condition on the extension of episodic predicate postulated, from which follows some consequence relevant to dare-mo's NPI-like distribution. To see that, the truth conditions of a dare-mo sentence , (25) and the condition on the extension, strictly speaking, its special case where the sort is human, ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "An Account of Dare-mo's NPI-like Distribution", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "D h, w, M \u2288 {a : \u27e6P(x)\u27e7 M, g[x/a], t, w = 1}.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "An Account of Dare-mo's NPI-like Distribution", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "From (25) and (26)\u00b4, it immediately follows that positive episodic dare-mo sentences will never be true. Since (26) and (26)\u00b4 are considered to hold at any admissible models it follows that positive episodic dare-mo sentences will never be true at any admissible model; that is, they are contradictory. On the other hand, negative dare-mo sentences will be a contingent proposition irrespective of the kind of the predicate, episodic or not, as can be seen in their truth conditions, (27). Compared with the impossibility of conceiving an event in which absolutely every human being in the world, dead, alive, or to be born at the time of the event participates, it is easy to imagine a poor party or concert to which absolutely no one came or a property which cannot be applicable to any human being throughout history, e.g., being immortal. How about positive non-episodic predicate daremo sentences? A non-episodic predicates is not subject to the condition of (32)\u00b4; thus, it can have a superset of the entire set of humans as its extension, which is the truth conditions for a dare-mo sentence as given in (25). For instance, let us take (6a) for an example. This example is not about any particular group of people at any time at any place, but expresses a timeless truth about humanity. Although human beings are normally assumed invariably to die sooner or later, it is easy to conceive worlds such that at least some people are immortal in them. That is why (6a) is contingent.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "An Account of Dare-mo's NPI-like Distribution", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As is shown in (28), the logical properties of dare-mo sentences characterized by the current analysis, contradictory and contingent coincide with the grammaticality of the sentences, ungrammatical and grammatical, respectively. In the current analysis, the grammaticality facts of dare-mo sentences, or the NPI-like distributions of dare-mo are now reduced to the logicality, or the contingency/contradiction of dare-mo sentences. Giannakidou (2011) has strongly opposed to such a pragmatic approach to NPIs pursued in, e.g. Kadmon & Landman (1993) , Krifka (1995) and Chierchia (2006) , on the basis that pragmatic infelicity is too weak to characterize the categorical nature of the ungrammaticality judgments involving (strict) NPIs. Alternatively, she has argued that strict NPIs are lexicalized, or grammaticalized as such and their distributions are dealt with in syntax; for dare-mo, Giannakidou (2007 Giannakidou ( , 2011 and Yoshimura (2007) argued that the characteristic rising tone on dare-mo is a marker of the lexicalization of its NPI-ness on a par with, e.g. the accent on Greek emphatic n-word KANENA. Now that there is evidence that daremo is not a strict NPI or a weak one for that matter, as is indicated by data like (2), the hard-wired, syntax-based account has lost its rationale, while the current pragmatic, semantics-based analysis is empirically better motivated to say the least. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 432, |
| "end": 450, |
| "text": "Giannakidou (2011)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 526, |
| "end": 549, |
| "text": "Kadmon & Landman (1993)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 552, |
| "end": 565, |
| "text": "Krifka (1995)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 570, |
| "end": 586, |
| "text": "Chierchia (2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 892, |
| "end": 909, |
| "text": "Giannakidou (2007", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 910, |
| "end": 930, |
| "text": "Giannakidou ( , 2011", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 935, |
| "end": 951, |
| "text": "Yoshimura (2007)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "An Account of Dare-mo's NPI-like Distribution", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We have seen that Japanese dare-mo is in fact a pseudo-NPI, being licensed in some type of positive sentences, which suggests that its NPI-like distribution should be attributed to other factors than the hard-wired requirement of negation in syntax. We have proposed that dare-mo's NPI-like distribution is a reflection of some logicality property of a dare-mo sentence; that is, dare-mo is licensed in a contingent sentence while it is not licensed in a contradictory sentence. The above analysis is crucially dependent on the hypothesis that dare-mo is an \"unrestricted\" universal quantifier in contrast to d\u00e1re-mo, which is a restrictive quantifier.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the \"Logicality\" of language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Gennaro", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chierchia", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2006, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "37", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "535--590", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chierchia, Gennaro. (2006). \"Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the \"Logicality\" of language\". Linguistic Inquiry 37, 535-590.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Restrictions on Quantifier Domains", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "von Fintel, Kai (1994) Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "The Landscape of EVEN", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Anastasia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Giannakidou", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2007, |
| "venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", |
| "volume": "25", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "39--81", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Giannakidou, Anastasia. (2007). \"The Landscape of EVEN\". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39-81.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Negative and positive polarity items", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Anastasia", |
| "middle": [ |
| ";" |
| ], |
| "last": "Giannakidou", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "De Gruyter", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "SemanticsAn International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning", |
| "volume": "33", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1660--1712", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Giannakidou, Anastasia (2011) \"Negative and positive polarity items\". In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn and P. Portner (eds.) SemanticsAn International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (HSK 33.2), de Gruyter. 1660-1712", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shosuke", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Haraguchi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1999, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1--32", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Haraguchi, Shosuke. (1999) \"Accent\" In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Blackwell Publishers. 1-32.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Neg-sensitive elements, negc-command, and scrambling in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Kiyoko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kataoka", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2006, |
| "venue": "Japanese/Korean Linguistics", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "221--254", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kataoka, Kiyoko (2006) \"Neg-sensitive elements, neg- c-command, and scrambling in Japanese\". In T.J. Vance and K. Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Vol. 14. CSLI Publications. Stanford, CA. 221-33.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Neg-o c-toogyosuru huteigo+mo", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Kiyoko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kataoka", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2007, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kataoka, Kiyoko (2007) \"Neg-o c-toogyosuru huteigo+mo\" [Wh-mo outside the Neg-c-command Domain].", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Negative sentences in Japanese'. In Sophia Linguistica Monograph 19", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Yasuhiko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kato", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kato, Yasuhiko. (1985), 'Negative sentences in Japanese'. In Sophia Linguistica Monograph 19. Sophia University. Tokyo.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "The Structure of Noun Phrases and the Interpretation of Quantificational NPs in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ruriko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kawashima", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kawashima, Ruriko. (1994), The Structure of Noun Phrases and the Interpretation of Quantificational NPs in Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "On the variability of negative scope in Japanese'", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Hideki", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kishimoto", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "Journal of Linguistics", |
| "volume": "44", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "379--435", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kishimoto, Hideki. (2008), 'On the variability of negative scope in Japanese'. Journal of Linguistics 44:379-435.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Manfred", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Krifka", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Analysis", |
| "volume": "15", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "209--257", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Krifka, Manfred. (1995). \"The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion\". Linguistic Analysis 15, 209-257.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Quantificational Structures and Compositionality", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barbara", |
| "middle": [ |
| "H" |
| ], |
| "last": "Partee", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Quantification in Natural Languages", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "541--601", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Partee, Barbara H. (1995) \"Quantificational Structures and Compositionality\" In Bach, E. et al. (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, 541-601. Kluwer Academic Publishers", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Indeterminate NPIs and scope", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Junko", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Shimoyama", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII (SALT18)", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Shimoyama, Junko (2008) \"Indeterminate NPIs and scope\". In Tova Friedman and Satoshi Ito, (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII (SALT18), CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Nuclear Scope had-a-good-time(x)] (tripartite structure of quantification: Kamp (1981), Heim (1982), Partee (1995))", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Readings: Consider the following sentence, (20). (20) [[Paatii-ni kita] gakusee]-wa party-Dat came students-Top d\u00e1re-mo ga i-nakat-ta who-MO Nom be/exist-Neg-Past", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Construed with Dare-mo Are Interpreted Predicatively: Consider the following two example sentences. (23) okyaku-ga dare-mo ko-nakat-ta. customer(s)-Nom come-Neg-Past. 'There were no customers (who) came.' (24) okyaku-wa d\u00e1re-mo-ga ko-naka-tta. customer(s)-Top -Nom come-Neg-Past. 'None of the customers came.'", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "23)\u00b4\u00b4 \u2200x h \u00ac\u2203e[customer(e, x h ) \u2227 came(e, x h )] (24)\u00b4\u00b4 \u2200x h [customer(x h ) \u27f6 \u00ac\u2203e[came(e, x h )]]", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Condition on the Extension of Episodic PredicatesGiven model M, variable assignment g, point of time t, possible world w, sort s, the domain of sort s at world w in M, D s, w, M , and episodic predicate P, the following condition holds: D s, w, M \u2288 {a : \u27e6P(x)\u27e7 M, g[x/a], t, w = 1}.", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "\u00b4 are reproduced here: (25) Truth Conditions of Dare-mo Sentences \u2200x h [P(x h )] \u27e6\u2200x h [P(x h )]\u27e7 M, t, w = 1 if and only if the entire set of humans at world w in model M is a subset of the extension of P, i.e., D h, w, M \u2286{a : \u27e6P(x)\u27e7 M, g[x/a], t, w = 1}. (26)\u00b4 Condition on the Extension of Episodic Predicates Given model M, variable assignment g, point of time t, possible world w, human sort h, the domain of sort h at world w in M, D s, w, M , and episodic predicate P, the following condition holds:", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Truth Conditions of Negative Dare-mo Sentences \u2200x h \u00ac[P(x h )] \u27e6\u2200x h \u00ac[P(x h )] \u27e7 M, g, w = 1 if and only if the entire set of humans in the model is outside the extension of P, i.e., D h, w, M \u2229 {a : \u27e6P(\u2026, x, \u2026)\u27e7 M, g[x/a], t, w = 1} = \u2205.", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Dare-mo</td><td>Logical</td><td>Grammaticality</td></tr><tr><td>sentences</td><td>Property</td><td/></tr><tr><td>positive</td><td>contradictory</td><td>ungrammatical</td></tr><tr><td>episodic</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>predicate</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>negative</td><td>contingent</td><td>grammatical</td></tr><tr><td>episodic</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>predicate</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>non-episodic,</td><td>contingent</td><td>grammatical</td></tr><tr><td>or \"tenseless\"</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>predicate</td><td/><td/></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "(28) Logical Properties and Grammaticality ofDare-mo Sentences" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
