Advertisement

A Modifier Hypothesis on the Japanese Indeterminate Quantifier Phrase

  • Mana Kobuchi-Philip
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4914)

Abstract

Shimoyama’s [20, 21] analysis of the Japanese indeterminate quantifier construction (e.g. dono gakusei-mo odotta. ‘Every student danced’) is superior to previous analyses in the sense that it closely adheres to the Principle of Compositionality. However, under this analysis the mo-phrase of the form [[...wh...] NP -mo], is analyzed as a generalized quantifier of semantic type < < e,t > ,t >, and this gives rise to a type-theoretical problem. In order to overcome the difficulties, this paper proposes an alternative analysis in which the mo-phrase is treated as a modifier of semantic type < < e,t > , < e,t > >. It also discusses sentences in which mo combines with a PP and an IP and argues that here the modifier hypothesis of the mo-phrase can still be maintained.

Keywords

Generalize Quantifier Semantic Type Direct Object Sentence Type Natural Language Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aoyagi, H.: On Association with Focus and Scope of Focus Particles in Japanese. In: Koizumi, M., Ura, H. (eds.) Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1, pp. 23–44. MITWPL, Cambridge, MA (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker, C.: Partitives, Double Genitives and Anti-Uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 679–717 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chierchia, G.: Reference to Kinds across Languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hagstrom, P.: Decomposing Questions. Ph.D. Diss. MIT (1998) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamblin, C.: Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10, 41–53 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasegawa, N.: Floating Quantifiers and Bare NP Expressions. In: Hasegawa, N. (ed.) Japanese Syntax in Comparative Grammar, pp. 115–145. Kuroshio, Tokyo (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heycock, C.: Syntactic Predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 167–211 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heycock, C., Lee, Y.-S.: Subject and Predication in Korean and Japanese. In: Hoji, H. (ed.) Japanese /Korean Linguistics, pp. 239–253. CSLI, Stanford (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobuchi-Philip, M.: Distributivity and the Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier. Ph.D. Diss. CUNY Graduate Center (2003) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobuchi-Philip, M.: Identity of the Domain of Quantification for the Numeral. In: Tasmowski, L., Vogeleer, S. (eds.) Non-Definiteness and Plurality, pp. 267–290. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobuchi-Philip, M.: Semantics of the Cardinal Partitive. In: Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, pp. 390–402. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kratzer, A.: An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landman, F.: Events and Plurality. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Link, G.: The Logical Analysis of Plural and Mass Terms: A Lattice-theoretical Approach. In: Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., von Stechow, A. (eds.) Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. de Gruyter, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lasnik, H., Saito, M.: Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nishigauchi, T.: Quantification in Syntax. Ph.D. Diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nishigauchi, T.: Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohno, Y.: Mo. In: Bach, E., Kratzer, A., Partee, B.H. (eds.) Papers on Quantification. NSF Grant Report. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 224–250 (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Partee, B.: Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles. In: Groenendijk, J., de Jongh, D., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, pp. 115–143. Foris, Dordrecht (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shimoyama, J.: Wh-Constructions in Japanese. Ph.D. Diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shimoyama, J.: Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14, 139–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    von Stechow, A.: Against LF Pied-Piping. Natural Language Semantics 4, 57–110 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watanabe, A.: Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation. In: WWW 1995, MITWPL, Cambridge MA (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mana Kobuchi-Philip
    • 1
  1. 1.UiL-OTS, Utrecht University 

Personalised recommendations