Abstract
The existential and universal quantifiers in Japanese both consist of two morphemes: an indeterminate pronoun and a quantificational suffix. This paper examines the distributional characteristics of these suffixes (ka for the existential quantifier and mo for the universal quantifier). It is shown that ka can appear in a wider range of structural positions than mo can. This difference receives explanation on semantic grounds. I propose that mo is a generalized quantifier. More specifically, I assume that the phrase headed by mo is of type \({\langle\langle\alpha, t\rangle, t}\). Because of its type, mo cannot appear in certain structural positions without causing type mismatch. Ka, on the other hand, is a choice function variable of type \({\langle\alpha/t, \alpha\rangle}\), and due to its type, its distribution is not as restricted. One of the consequences of this analysis is that there are no quantifier raising or type shifting operations in Japanese that would adequately obviate type mismatch.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aoun J., Li Y.-H.A. (1993) Syntax of scope. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219
Brockett, C. 1994. Mo: Quantificational evidence. In The proceedings of formal approaches to Japanese linguistics, vol. 1, ed. M. Koizumi and H. Ura, 45–59. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, MA
Fox D. (1995) Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341
Hackl M. (2009) On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17: 63–98
Hagstrom, P. 1998. Decomposing questions. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Hamblin, C.L. 1976. Questions in montague English. In Montague grammar, ed. B. Partee, 247–259. New York: Academic Press.
Heim, I. 1999. Lecture notes on superlative. MIT.
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford
Hoji, H. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structure in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Johnson, K., and S. Tomioka. 1998. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen workshop, ed. G. Katz, S.-S. Kim, and H. Winhart, 185–205. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungs bereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 127, Tübingen, Germany.
Koizumi M. (1998) Remarks on nominative objects. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16: 39–66
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Krifka, M. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, vol. 1 of current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, ed. K. Turner, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Kuno S. (1973) The structure of the Japanese language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1970. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only. Illustrating certain manners in which formal systems are employed as auxiliary devices in linguistic descriptions, part 2. Annual Bulletin 4, Logopedics and Phoniatrics Research Institute, University of Tokyo.
Link, G. 1987. Generalized quantifiers and plurals. In Generalized quantifiers. Linguistic and logical approaches, ed. P. Gärdenfors, 151–180. Dordrecht: Reidel.
May, R. 1977. The grammar of quantification, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Morita, H. 2003. The syntax and semantics of “Mo”: How propagation of [+focus] affects the interpretation. Ms. Assumption University, Thailand.
Nishigauchi T. (1990) Quantification in the theory of grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands
Ohno, Y. 1989. Mo. In Papers on quantification, NSF Grant BNS 8719999, ed. E. Bach, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee, University of Massachusetts.
Partee, B.H., and V. Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts (interface explorations 4), ed. E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius- Hansen , 67–112. Mouton de Gruyter.
Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How the labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397
Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sauerland, U. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 2003, ed. R. Young and Y. Zhou, 258–275. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Sauerland U., Elbourne P. (2002) Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319
Shimoyama, J. 1999. Complex NPs and wh-quantification in Japanese. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 29, ed. P. N. Tamanji et al., 355–365. Amherst: GLSA.
Shimoyama, J. 2001. Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shimoyama J. (2006) Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 139–173
Suzuki, S. 2003. Additive mo. Ms., MIT.
Tada H. (1992) Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14: 91–108
Takahashi D. (2002) Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4): 573–615
Takahashi, D. 2008. Scope interaction in DPs with NP-deletion in Japanese. In The state of the art in linguistic research: The interface of form and meaning, ed. Y. Kaneko, A. Kikuchi, Y. Ogawa, S. Etsuro, and D. Takahashi, 397–407. Tokyo: Kaitakusya.
Ura, H. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Verkuyl, H. 1981. Numerals and quantifiers in X-bar syntax and their semantic interpretation. In Formal methods in the study of language, vol. 2, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof , 567–599. Amsterdam: MCT.
Yamaguchi G. (1990) Nihongo Gimonshihyoogen Tsuushi. Meiji Syoin, Tokyo
Yatsushiro, K. 1996. On the unaccusative construction and nominative case licensing. Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Yatsushiro, K. 1999. Case licensing and VP structure. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Uli Sauerland, Irene Heim, Orin Percus, Satoshi Tomioka, Elizabeth Laurencot, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on present and earlier versions of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at FAJL3 and WCCFL20, and at McGill University, Osaka University, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Universität Tübingen, and the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. I thank the audiences at these presentations, especially Arnim von Stechow, Henk van Riemsdijk, Angelika Kratzer, Manfred Krifka, and Ede Zimmermann, for their helpful comments. I thank my informants for kindly answering my numerous queries: Daiko Takahashi, Jun Abe, Toshiko Oda, Masashi Noura, Shigeto Kawahara, Takuro Tanaka, Makoto Kadowaki, Hideki Maki, Masako Hirotani, and Tsuyoshi Sawada. Part of the research was financially supported by a Marie Curie Action granted to the author (Grant#022079: Determiner Interpretation in Growing Grammer: Normal and Impaired Development), which is thankfully acknowledged. All the remaining errors are, of course, my own.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yatsushiro, K. The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Nat Lang Semantics 17, 141–173 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9044-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9044-8