Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Variation
Vol. 19:2 (2019) ► pp.280–351

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Quantifier particle environments

 | University of Utah
Published online: 9 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
Abstract
I examine the set of environments in which KA-type quantifier particles appear crosslinguistically. These environments include interrogatives, disjunctions, indefinites, all of which arguably involve elements with Hamblin-type ‘alternative’ semantic values. I show that if KA-particles are assigned a uniform denotation as variables over choice functions we can account for their appearance in what otherwise appears to be a set of heterogeneous environments. Crosslinguistic and diachronic variation in the distribution of Q-particles – including, in some cases, the appearance of multiple morphologically-distinct Q-particles in different contexts – can be handled largely in terms of differing formal morphosyntactic features and/or pragmatic components of specific KA-particles. This study focuses on tracking the evolution of KA-type particles in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to other languages of the Indian subcontinent (including Malayalam and Tamil) as well as to Japanese, Tlingit, and English.
Article outline
  • 1.Overview
  • 2.Language overview – examples
    • 2.1Sinhala
      • 2.1.1Modern colloquial Sinhala
      • 2.1.2Modern literary Sinhala
      • 2.1.3Classical Sinhala
      • 2.1.4Old Sinhala
      • 2.1.5Summary of the evolution of Sinhala particles da & hō
    • 2.2Dravidian
      • 2.2.1Malayalam
      • 2.2.2Modern Tamil
      • 2.2.3Old Tamil
      • 2.2.4Other remarks
    • 2.3Japanese
    • 2.4Tlingit
    • 2.5English
    • 2.6Summary
  • 3.KA in interrogatives
    • 3.1A Hamblin semantics of wh-words
    • 3.2Choice-functions & the denotation of Q-particles
  • 4.KA in disjunctions
    • 4.1Evidence for a category J(unction)
  • 5.Syntactic analysis
    • 5.1Modern colloquial Sinhala
    • 5.2Modern literary Sinhala
    • 5.3Early Sinhala
    • 5.4Old Malayalam
    • 5.5Modern Malayalam
    • 5.6Tlingit
    • 5.7Japanese
  • 6.Morphosyntactic & semantic/pragmatic variation crosslinguistically
  • 7.Comparison with other accounts
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (115)
References
Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev & J. M. Shukla. 1977. A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda, Gujarat: Maharaja Sayajirao University, Oriental Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2009. Short wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Shoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia M. Clancy & Sung-Ock Sohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 171, 549–563. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Carl LeRoy. 1968. Indirect questions in English. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 61.197–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 171. 53–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Böhtlingk, Otto & Rudolph Roth (eds.). 1855–1875. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Borges, Jorge Luis. [1942] 1999. John Wilkins’ analytical language. In Eliot Weinberger (ed.), Borges: Selected non-fictions, 229–232. New York, NY: Penguin. Originally published as “El idioma analítico de John Wilkins”, La Nación, 8 February 1942.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Donna Farkas. 2011. How indefinites choose their scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(1). 1–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Anna Szabolcsi. 2013. Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too . In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of 𝜙, ?𝜙 and ⋄𝜙. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stockhof, and Frank Veltman, [URL]
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo. 1932. A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics 33(2). 346–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1936. An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics 58(2). 345–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1940. A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2). 56–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2012. Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI 2012 Lecture notes. [URL]
. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(9). 459–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Information, issues and attention. In D. Gutzmann, J. Köpping & C. Meier (eds.), Approaches to meaning, composition, values, and interpretation. Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics-Interface (CRiSPI) 321, 128–167. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dauenhauer, Nora Marks & Richard Dauenhauer. 1990. Classics of Tlingit oral literature, volume 2: Haa tuwunáagu yís, for healing our spirit: Tlingit oratory. Juneau, AK: Sealaska Heritage Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2009. The infinity of lists. New York: Rizzoli. Translated by Alastair McEwen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fukutomi, Yasuyuki. 2006. Japanese alternative questions and intervention effects in DP. In Changguk Yim (ed.), Minimalist views on language design: Proceedings of the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 53–60. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, James W. 1968 [1998]. Sinhalese diglossia. Anthropological Linguistics 10(8). 1–15. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:213–223].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986 [1998](a). Sinhala diglossiarevisited, or diglossia dies hard. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani KumarSinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 322–336. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:224–236].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986[1998](b). Sinhala focused sentences: Naturalization of a calque. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 147–164. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:155–169].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. AGR, INFL, Case and Sinhala diglossia, or Can linguistic theory find a home in variety. In Braj Kachru, Edward C. Dimock & Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (eds.), Dimensions of South Asia as a sociolinguistic area: Papers in memory of Gerald B. Kelley, 179–197. Delhi: Oxford India Book House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, James W. & W. S. Karunatilaka. 1974. Literary Sinhala. Ithaca, NY: South Asia Program and Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, James W. & Lelwala Sumangala. 1991. What to focus in Sinhala. In Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee-Rahk Chase (eds.), ESCOL ‘91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 93–108. Columbus: Ohio State University Working Papers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geiger, Wilhelm. 1938. A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. [reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1995].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 1941. An etymological glossary of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: The Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch. [Reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1997].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Jason Robert. 2009. Interrogative features. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1994. Questions. Lecture notes, MIT, Fall 1994.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics. an international handbook of natural language meaning. vol. 21, 996–1025. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1988. Review article: Finiteness in Dravidian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2). 211–231.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989a. Conjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of Sanskrit relative structures. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1). 93–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989b. Review of Steever. (1988): The serial verb formation in the Dravidian languages. Language 651. 398–405.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Dravidian syntactic typology: A reply to Steever. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 164–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Proto-Indo-European verb finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. In Leonid Kulikov & Nikolaos Lavidas (eds.), Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2). 63–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Question particles and disjunction. Ms., Hyderabad, English and Foreign Languages University. [URL]
2016. Decomposing coordination: The two operators of coordination. Linguistic Analysis 40(3–4). 237–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karunatillake, W. S. 2012. Etymological lexicon of the Sinhala language. Colombo: S. Godage & Brothers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1994. The structure of noun phrases and the interpretation of quantificational NPs in Japanese. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(1). 1–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge in [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4). 867–916. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate phrases: the view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas. 1989. A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Old Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 75–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1960. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I. Communications of the ACM 3(4). 184–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno. 2014a. Deriving and interpreting ‘ka(karimusubi)’ in premodern Japanese. Acta Lingustica Asiatica 4(3). 9–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 362–367.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. On islands. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1970a. English as a formal language. In Bruno Visentini et al. (ed.), Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1970b. Universal grammar. Theoria 361. 373–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, James, John Simpson & Edmund Weiner et al. (eds.). 1884–2017. The Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narayanapilla, P. K. (ed.). 1971. Prācīna-Malayāḷa-gadya-mātrkakaḷ Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyman, Elizabeth & Jeff Leer. 1993. Gágiwdul.àt: Brought forth to reconfirm. The legacy of a Taku River Tlingit clan. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogawa, Kunihiko. 1976. Japanese interrogatives: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Where diachronic and synchronic rules meet: A case study from Japanese interrogatives and kakari-musubi. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 51.193–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 1992. Functional articulation in diglossia: A case study of grammatical and social correspondences in Sinhala. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paranavitana, Senarat. 1956. Sigiri graffiti, Sinhalese verses of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. [Reprinted in Portner and Partee. (2002), pp.357–381].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pillai, P. V. 1973. Early Malayalam prose: A study. Trivandrum, Kerala: University of Kerala.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priyanka, Benille. 2010. Recently deciphered records from the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya (7th to 13th centuries). Colombo: Godage International Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raman Pilla, C. V. 1918. Rāmarājabahadur. [Reprinted by Little Prince Publishers, Kottayam, Kerala. 1983].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1994. Wh-in-situ: in the framework of the Minimalist Program. University of Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 335–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1). 29–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2015/2017. The semantics of declaratives and interrogative lists. Ms., University of Amsterdam. [URL]
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rullman, Hotze & Sigrid Beck. 1998. Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. In Graham Katz, Shin-Sook Kim & Heike Winhart (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 1271, 233–256. Tübingen and Stuttgart: Universities of Tübingen and Stuttgart.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sansom, George. 1928. An historical grammar of Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafim, Leon A. & Rumiko Shinzato. 2000. Reconstructing the Proto-Japonic kakari musubi, … ka …-(a)m-wo. Gengo Kenkyu 1181. 81–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slade, Benjamin. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Question particles and relative clauses in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to early and modern Dravidian. In Shu-Fen Chen & Benjamin Slade (eds.), Grammatica et verba/Glamor and verve: Studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, 245–268. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Sinhala epistemic indefinites with a certain je ne sais quoi . In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, 82–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. under review. The role of Q-particles in the formation of relative clauses in Sinhala and other languages. In Moreno Mitrović (ed.), Logical vocabulary & logical change, John Benjamins.
Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E.J. Brill. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Some remarks on choice functions and LF-movement. In Klaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Proceedings of the Konstanz workshop “reference and anaphorical relations”, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steele, Guy L. 1990. Common Lisp: The language. Newton, MA: Digital Press. [2nd rev. edn.].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2001. Partial movement constructions, pied piping, and higher order choice functions. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae: a festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 473–486. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 381.159–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, James Doh Whang & Vera Zu. 2012. Compositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts. Ms., New York University. [URL]
Turner, Ralph Lilley. 1962–1966. A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2014. Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. In Proceedings of SALT 241.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites, questions and disjunctions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2002. Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 179–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 1997. Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 61, 161–178. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickremasinghe, Don Martino De Zilva, Humphry William Codrington & Senarat Paranavitana (eds.). 1912–1933. Epigraphia Zeylanica: being lithic and other inscriptions of Ceylon. London: H. Frowde for the Govt. of Ceylon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wijemanne, Piyaseeli. 1984. Amävatura, a syntactic study. Colombo: Ministry of Higher Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1995. Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meaning. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 399–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Flexible Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko. 2006. Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(1). 37–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2001. The distribution of mo and ka and its implications. In Maria Christina Cuervo, Daniel Harbour, Ken Hiraiwa & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 3, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17(2). 141–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoshida, Keiko & Tomoyuki Yoshida. 1996. Question marker drop in Japanese. ICU Language Research Bulletin 111. 37–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zermelo, Ernst. 1904. Beweis, daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann. Mathematische Annalen 591. 514–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
2025. Interrogative and standard disjunction in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Semantics DOI logo
Fiorini, Matteo
2024. Biased interrogatives in Camuno. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue