The Semantics of Even and Negative polarity Items in Japanese
The English focus particle even is known to introduce a scalar presupposition (ScalarP) given in (1); (2)
presupposes that `that Bill saw Alan' is the least-likely proposition among alternatives (LeastP). When
even occurs in downward-entailing (DE) contexts, we observe ambiguity between LeastP and MostP
(`that Alan saw Bill' is the most-likely proposition), as in (3). One theory holds that the ambiguity is due
to the scope interaction between even and a DE expression (Kartunnen and Peters 1979); when even is
under doubt, we obtain LeastP, just like in (2), while, when even takes scope over doubt, the likelihood
scale gets reversed by the DE operator doubt, yielding MostP. The other theory holds that even is lexically
ambiguous between a regular even with (1) and an NPI even with (4) (Rooth 1985). Cross-linguistic data
have been provided in favor of the lexical theory; in (5), sogar `even' allows LeastP only, while auch nur
`also only' allows MostP only, suggesting that sogar is a regular even and auch nur is an NPI even. Indeed,
sogar, but not auch nur, is acceptable in positive contexts, as in (6). Just like (5) and (6), the Japanese
examples in (7) and (8) seem to suggest that -mo `even' and -demo `even' are a regular even, while
-dake-demo `only even' is an NPI even. However, the distribution of these items in negative contexts casts
doubt on this analysis. In negative contexts, only MostP is available in English, and auch nur, but not
sogar, is licensed in German, as in (9). In contrast, in Japanese, -dake-demo, which behaves like an NPI
even in (7) and (8), cannot be licensed in negative contexts, while -mo/-demo can, as in (10). Under the
lexical theory, we may need to posit two types of NPI even, one licensed by negation (-mo/-demo) and one
by other DE operators (-dake-demo). However, it is not clear why there are two types and furthermore
why there are two forms for the first type, i.e., -mo and -demo. In this paper, based on a scope theory, I
account for the distribution of Japanese even and further extend the analysis to the data on Japanese NPIs.
The scope of negation in Japanese is known to be "narrow" (Kuno 1980); as in (11), negation never
takes scope over a quantificational element in a sentence. Then -mo/-demo necessarily take scope over
negation, yielding MostP. Moreover, the fact that -mo/-demo only allow LeastP, as in (7), suggests that
they cannot move above other DE operators. As for -dake-demo, I account for its distribution by extending
Guerzoni's (2003) analysis on German auch nur. Guerzoni argues that a presupposition of auch
contradicts that of nur, and that the contradiction can be revolved if auch can scope over a DE operator. In
Japanese, -dake `only' is assumed to introduce a presupposition in (12), which is inconsistent with ScalarP
of -demo `even' in (1). However, when there is a DE operator that -demo can take scope over, the conflict
is resolved due to a scale-reversal property of a DE operator (LF: even>DE>only). The movement of
-demo is well-motivated in that it is required to resolve a semantic conflict. Without the presence of -dake,
which causes a semantic conflict, -demo cannot undergo any movement, as in (7). The compositional
analysis is capable of explaining why -dake-demo is unacceptable in positive and negative contexts, as in
(8) and (10). In positive contexts, there is no DE operator, hence there is no way to resolve a semantic
conflict. In negative contexts, as in (11)b, -dake as well as -demo necessarily takes scope over negation,
thus it is impossible to obtain LF: even>negation>only, the only configuration free of the semantic conflict.
The LF we obtain after resolving a semantic conflict yields MostP (-demo>DE), predicting that
-dake-demo, whenever it is licensed, yields MostP only. As shown above, this prediction is borne out.
The proposed analysis further accounts for the distribution of NPIs consisting of the numeral one
followed by -mo/-demo/-dake-demo. All three forms are unacceptable in positive contexts, as in (13),
while, the distribution is more complex in DE contexts, as in (14) and (15). Following Lahiri (1998), the
alternatives are introduced in terms of cardinality, as in (16). In positive contexts, the semantics of even
says that John's solving one question is the least-likely among the alternatives, which is inconsistent with
the ordinary meaning of one in (17), i.e., one is the most-likely cardinality. If even can take scope over a
DE operator, the inconsistency can be resolved (even>DE>one) due to the scale-reversal property of DE
operator. According to the current analysis, -mo never moves, hence one-mo is predicted to be bad except
for with negation. One-dake-demo should be licensed in DE contexts other than negative ones; to resolve a
semantic conflict, -demo moves above a DE operator, yielding LF: even>DE>only. Regarding -demo, its
distribution is the same as that of -dake-demo, which suggests that -demo in one-demo comes with a silent
only. This is not implausible given that ScalarP of one in (17) and of -dake `only' in (12) are always
consistent. Then the distribution of -demo is explained exactly in the same way as that of -dake-demo.
[[even]]w (C)(p) q[ [qC qp] likelihood(q) > likelihood(p) ]
(1)
Alan even saw [Bill]F. q[x[q=see(a,x,w)qsee(a,b,w)]likelihood(q)>likelihood(see(a,b,w))]
(2)
(3) I doubt that Alan even saw [Bill]F.
[[evenNPI]]w (C)(p) q[ [qC qp] likelihood(p) > likelihood(q) ]
(4)
(5) Es hat uns überrascht, das {sogar / auch nur} [der Hans]F da war. [German]
it has us surprised that {even / also only} the Hans there was
`It surprised us that even Hans was there.'
{Sogar / *auch nur} [der Hans]F da war. [German]
(6)
{even / also only} the Hans there was `Even Hans was there.'
(7) a. John-ga [itiban muzukasii mondai]F{-mo/?-demo/#-dake-demo} toita-koto-o utagatta.
John-NOM most difficult question{-even/-even/-only-even} solved-that-ACC doubted
`I doubted that John solved even the most difficult question.' LeastP
b. John-ga [itiban kantanna mondai]F{#-mo/#-demo/-dake-demo} toita-koto-o utagatta.
John-NOM most easy question{-even/-even/-only-even} solved-that-ACC doubted
`I doubted that John solved even the easiest question.' MostP
[itiban muzukasii mondai]F{-mo/-demo/*-dake-demo} toi-ta.
(8) John-wa
John-TOP most difficult question{-even/-even/-only-even} solve-PAST
`John even solved the most difficult question.' LeastP
{*sogar / auch nur} [der Hans]F begruesst. [German]s
(9) Niemand hat
nobody have {even / also only} the Hans greeted
`Nobody even greeted Hans.' MostP
[sono mondai]F{-mo/?-demo/*-dake-demo} tok-ana-katta.
(10) John-wa
John-TOP that question{-even/-even/-only-even} solve-NEG-PAST
`John didn't even solve that question.' MostP
(11) a. John-wa subete-no mondai-o tok-ana-katta.
John-TOP all-GEN question-ACC solve-NEG-PAST
>¬, *¬>
`John didn't solve all the questions.'
b. John-wa [sono mondai]F-dake-o tok-ana-katta.
John-TOP that question-only-ACC solve-NEG-PAST only>¬, *¬>only
q[ [qC qp] p >likely/insignificant... q ]
(12)
*John-wa [iti-mon]F{-mo/-demo/-dake-demo} toi-ta.
(13)
John-TOP one-CL{-even/-even/-only-even} solve-PAST
(14) John-wa [iti-mon]F{-mo/*-demo/*-dake-demo} tok-ana-katta.
John-TOP one-CL{-even/-even/-only-even} solve-NEG-PAST
`John didn't solve any question.'
(15) John-ga [iti-mon]F{*-mo/-demo/-dake-demo} toi-ta-koto-o utagat-ta.
John-NOM one-CL{-even/-even/-only-even} solve-PAST-that-ACC doubt-PAST
`I doubted that John solved any question.'
{p: n[p=w. x[|x|=n question(x) solve(j,x,w)]]}
(16)
(e.g. {John solved one question, John solved two questions, John solved three questions, ... })
x[ |x|=n question(x) solve(j,x,w) ] x[ |x|=1 question(x) solve(j,x,w) ]
(17)
References
Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why Even Ask? On the Pragmatics of Questions and the Semantics of Answers.
Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kartunnen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C. K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen
eds., Syntax and Semantics 11: Presuppositions, 1-55. New York: Academic Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1980. The scope of question and negation in some verb-final languages. Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Chicago Linguistic Society, 155-169.
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6, 57-123.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.