Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:21:04.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the variability of negative scope in Japanese1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2008

HIDEKI KISHIMOTO
HIDEKI KISHIMOTO
Affiliation:
Kobe University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article shows how the Japanese negative expression nai ‘not’ changes its scope depending on whether it is overtly head-raised to T or not. In Japanese, overt Neg-head raising takes place when a negative head acts as a functional predicate, devoid of its lexical (i.e. adjectival) properties in an analogous way to the aspectual verbs have and be in English. When the negative head nai undergoes overt head raising, it takes scope over TP. In some cases, however, the scope of negation becomes narrower due to the absence of overt Neg-head raising. The data provide us with empirical evidence showing that overt head raising – the kind of functional predicate raising observed in English and elsewhere in Japanese – is instantiated at the level of syntax, rather than at PF.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 379 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Fukuoka Gengogakkai (December 2005), the Morphology and Lexicon Forum 2006 (May 2006), and the Sendai Area Circle of Linguistics (June 2006). I am grateful to John Whitman, Masaki Sano, Yo Matsumoto, Taro Kageyama, Yoko Yumoto, Hiroaki Tada, Saeko Urushibara, Tadashi Eguchi, Yoko Sugioka, Nobuhiro Kaga, Hiroto Hoshi, Jun Abe, Nobuko Hasegawa, Yoshie Yamamori, Miho Mano, Kiyoko Eguchi, Takayuki Tono, and the audiences of the meetings for their comments and suggestions. I am indebted to Mark Campana for his suggestions on the style as well as the content of the present paper. I am also thankful to anonymous JL reviewers for providing detailed comments on the earlier versions of the paper. The author is solely responsible for any remaining inadequacies and errors in the article.

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, Joseph & Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Yen-hui Audrey, Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 1998. Particles as adjunct clitics. North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 28, 17–31.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 1999. On association of quantifier-like particles with focus in Japanese. In Masatake, Muraki & Enoch, Iwamoto (eds.), Linguistics: In search of the human mind – A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, 24–56. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi & Ishii, Toru. 1994. On NPI licensing in Japanese. In Noriko, Akatsuka (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 4, 295–311. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew & Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1994. What does adjacency do? In Heidi, Harley & Colin, Philips (eds.), The morphology–syntax connection (MIT working papers in linguistics 22), 1–31.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Robert, Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth, Hale & Samuel Jay, Keyser (eds.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist program, 219–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger, Martin, David, Michaels & Juan, Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael, Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana, Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of negative sentences. Linguistics 17, 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope. Lingua 105, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V′–V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Sakai, Hiromu. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113, 321–375.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth, Hale & Samuel, Jay Keyser (eds.), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope and c-command. In Laurence, R. Horn & Yasuhiko, Kato (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 113–146. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1984. Logic as grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katada, Fusa. 1991. The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–314.Google Scholar
Kato, Yasuhiko. 1985. Negative sentences in Japanese (Sophia Linguistica Working Papers in Linguistics 19). Tokyo: Sophia University.Google Scholar
Kato, Yasuhiko 1994. Negative polarity and movement. In Masatoshi, Koizumi & Hiroyuku, Ura (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1 (MIT working Papers in Linguistics 24), 101–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kawashima, Ruriko & Hisatsugu, Kitahara. 1992. Licensing of negative polarity items and checking theory. The Third Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica (FLSM III), 139–154. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Roeper, Thomas. 1992. Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89–125.Google Scholar
Kinsui, Satoshi, Kudo, Mayumi & Numata, Yoshiko. 2000. Toki-hitei-to toritate [Tense, negation, and focus]. Tokyo: Iwanami.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597–633.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Toogokoozoo-to bunpoo-kankei [Syntactic structure and grammatical relations]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2007. Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua 117, 247–288.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry, Fodor & Jerrold, J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in Minimalist syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995a. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist program. In Hector, Campos & Paula, Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995b. Last resort. In Shosuke, Haraguchi & Michio, Funaki (eds.), Minimalism and linguistic theory, 1–32. Tokyo: Hituzi Shyobo.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2005. Interpretive effects of head movement. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000178 (22 November 2006).Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Mara, Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 45–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Masuoka, Takashi & Takubo, Yukinori. 1989. Kiso nihongo bunpoo [Basic Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Matsushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 69–109.Google Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2004. A history of English negation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mihara, Ken'ichi. 2004. Asupekuto-kaisyaku-to toogo-gensyoo [Aspectual interpretations and syntactic phenomena]. Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989a. Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 659–668.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989b. Structure and case marking in Japanese (Syntax and Semantics 22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Muraki, Masatake. 1978. The sika nai construction. In John, Hinds & Irwin, Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 155–177. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Otani, Kazuyo & Whitman, John. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1990. Sentential negation, relativized minimality, and the aspectual status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7, 183–231.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A Minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1983. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3, 21–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1991. Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 209–218.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1998. Have/be raising, move F, and procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2005. Principles and parameters in a VSO language: A case study in Welish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1999. Morphologically-driven syntax: A theory of V-to-I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement. In Mark, Baltin & Anthony, Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu. 1998. Feature checking and morphological merger. In David, J. Silva (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 8, 189–201. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo-no bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Sohn, Keun-Won. 1995. Negative polarity items, scope, and economy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics 7, 129–146.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Uribe-Etxebarria, María. 1994. Interface licensing conditions on NPIs: A theory of polarity and tense interactions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1992/93. Die Aufgaben der Syntax. In Joachim, Jacobs, Arnim, von Stechow, Wolfgang, Sternefeld & Theo, Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 1–88. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 559–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, John. 1991. String vacuous V to Comp. Ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1997. Negation and clause structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar