Abstract
In many languages, the same particles that form quantifier words also serve as connectives, additive and scalar particles, question markers, roots of existential verbs, and so on. Do these have a unified semantics, or do they merely bear a family resemblance? Are they aided by silent operators in their varied roles―if yes, what operators? I dub the particles “quantifier particles” and refer to them generically with capitalized versions of the Japanese morphemes. I argue that both MO and KA can be assigned a stable semantics across their various roles. The specific analysis I offer is motivated by the fact that MO and KA often combine with just one argument; I propose that this is their characteristic behavior. Their role is to impose semantic requirements that are satisfied when the immediately larger context is interpreted as the meet/join of their host’s semantic contribution with something else. They do not perform meet/join themselves. The obligatory vs. optional appearance of the particles depends on whether the meet/join interpretations arise by default in the given constellation. I explicate the proposal using the toolkit of basic Inquisitive Semantics.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aloni, M. (2007). Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. In E. Puig-Waldmueller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Dissertation, UMass, Amherst.
Alonso-Ovalle, L., & Menéndez-Benito, P. (Eds.). (to app). Epistemic indefinites. Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amritavalli, R. (2003). Question and negative polarity in the Disjunction Phrase. Syntax, 6, 1–18.
AnderBois, S. (2010). Sluicing as anaphora to issues. In N. Li & D. Lutz (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory 20 (pp. 451–470). Ithaca: Cornell.
AnderBois, S. (2012). Focus and uninformativity in (Yucatec Maya) questions. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 349–390.
Arsenijević, B. (2011). Serbo-Croatian coordinative conjunctions at the syntax–semantics interface. The Linguistic Review, 28, 175–206.
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Barker, C., & Shan, C.-C. (2014). Continuations and natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beck, S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 1–56.
Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 349–409). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bhat, D. N. S. (2000). The indefinite–interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology, 4, 365–400.
Biezma, M., & Rawlins, K. (2012). Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics & Philosophy, 35(5), 361–400.
Bobaljik, J. (2012). Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Brasoveanu, A. (2013). Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics, 30, 155–209.
Brasoveanu, A., & Szabolcsi, A. (2013). Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ϕ, ?ϕ, and ◊ϕ. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman. http://www.illc. uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/.
Brody, M. (1990). Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 3 (pp. 95–123). Szeged: JATE.
Cable, S. (2010). The Grammar of Q. Q-particles, Wh-movement, and Pied Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Dissertation, University of Tromsoe. http://ling.auf. net/lingbuzz/000956.
Carlson, G. (1983). Marking constituents. In F. Heny & M. Richards (Eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles I (pp. 69–98). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Carlson, G. (2006). ‘Mismatches’ of form and interpretation. In V. van Geenhoven (Ed.), Semantics in acquisition (pp. 19–36). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Champollion, L. (2013). Man and woman: The last obstacle for Boolean conjunction. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), 19th Amsterdam colloquium proceedings. http://staff.science.uva.nl/ ~maloni/AC2013/AC_proceedings.pdf.
Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 177–226.
Cheng, L. L.-S. (1991). On the typology of Wh-questions. Dissertation, MIT.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, P. Portner, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2012). Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI 2012 Lecture Notes. https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/courses/nasslli-2012.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2014). Information, issues and attention. In D. Gutzmann, J. KͰping & C. Meier (Eds.), Approaches to meaning. composition, values, and interpretation. Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics-Interface (CRiSPI) 32, (pp. 128?167). Leiden: Brill.
Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2014). Composing alternatives. In Handout for Sinn und Bedeutung 19. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9fwooq0g4hhf25o/sub-2014-composing-alternatives.pdf?dl=0.
Coppock, E., & Brochhagen, T. (2013). Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–57.
de Swart, H., & Sag, I. A. (2002). Negation and negative concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 373–417.
Dekker, P. (2012). Dynamic semantics. Dordrecht: Springer.
den Dikken, M. (2006). Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 689–749.
Farkas, D. (2002). Varieties of indefinites. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XII (pp. 59–83). Ithaca: Cornell.
Farkas, D., & Bruce, K. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 81–118.
Gärtner, H.-M. (2009). More on the indefinite–interrogative affinity. Linguistic Typology, 13, 1–37.
Gärtner, H.-M., & Gyuris, B. (2012). Pragmatic markers in Hungarian: Some introductory remarks. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 59, 387–426.
Gil, D. (2008). Conjunctions and universal quantifiers. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. http://wals.info/feature/description/56.
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. Dissertation, MIT.
Haida, A. (2007). The indefiniteness and focusing of Wh-words. Dissertation, Humboldt University, Berlin.
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MIT WPL 21 (pp. 275–288).
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.
Han, C., & Romero, M. (2004). On the syntax of whether/Q… or questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 527–564.
Harley, H. (2012). Semantics in distributed morphology. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2151–2172). Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heim, I. (2011). Definiteness and indefiniteness. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of meaning (pp. 996–1025). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Higginbotham, J. (1991). Either/or. In T. Sherer (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 21 (pp. 143–157). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Hurford, J. (1974). Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language, 11, 409–411.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax, 4, 63–83.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2008). Question particles and disjunction. Linguistic Analysis, 38, 35–51. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000644.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2011). Comparative morphology of quantifiers. Lingua, 121, 269–286.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2014). Decomposing coordination. Talk given at GLOW in Asia X, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: OUP.
Karttunen, L. (1977). The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 1–44.
Katzir, R. (2011). Morphosemantic mismatches, structural economy, and licensing. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 48–82.
Katzir, R., & Singh, R. (2013). Constraints on the lexicalization of logical operators. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 1–29.
Kayne, R. (2005). Movement and silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. (2010). Comparisons and contrasts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, E. L., & Faltz, A. (1985). Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Kobuchi-Philip, M. (2009). Japanese MO: Universal, additive and NPI. Journal of Cognitive Science, 10, 172–194. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mIxZDk0N/.
Koopman, H. (2005). Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 601–633.
Koopman, H., & Szabolcsi, A. (2000). Verbal complexes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kratzer, A. (2005). Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The Partee effect (pp. 113–142). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The proceedings of third Tokyo conference in psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Shyobo. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/.
Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 287–319). Berlin: Akademie Verlag = Studia Grammatica 52.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Dissertation, MIT.
Kusumoto, K. (2005). On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 317–357.
Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing negation. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory II (pp. 236–259). Columbus, OH: OSU.
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Larson, R. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 217–264.
Levy, R., Bergen, L., & Goodman, N. (2014). ‘Roses and flowers’: An informativeness implicature in probabilistic semantics. Talk given at Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 24.
Lin, J.-W. (1998). Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 201–243.
Lin, S.-Y. (2014). Inquisitive semantics for Mandarin Chinese question particles. Ms., New York University.
Mitrović, M. (2012). Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction. Submitted to A. Cardoso & A. M. Martins (Eds.), Word order change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitrović, M., & Sauerland, U. (2014). Decomposing coordination. In J. Iyer & L. Kusmer (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 44/2 (pp. 39–52). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Potts, C. (2013). Conversational implicature: Interacting with grammar. Draft for the Michigan Philosophy–Linguistics Workshop, Nov 22–24, 2013.
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated theory of formal pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.
Roelofsen, F. (2013a). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190, 78–102.
Roelofsen, F. (2013b). A bare bone attentive semantics for might. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ϕ, ?ϕ, and ◊ϕ. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman. http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/.
Roelofsen, F., & Farkas, D. (2014). Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language, to appear.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
Shimoyama, J. (2006). Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 139–173.
Sigurðsson, H. (2004). The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica, 16, 219–251.
Simons, M. (2005a). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 271–316.
Simons, M. (2005b). Semantics and pragmatics in the interpretation of or. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XV (pp. 205–222). Ithaca: Cornell University.
Singh, R. (2008). On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 245–260.
Slade, B. (2011). Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in sinhala and other languages. Dissertation, University of Illinois. http:// semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TdhYTM3Y/.
Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 1–61.
Starke, M. (2009). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. http://ling.auf. net/lingBuzz/001230.
Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 109–155). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Szabolcsi, A. (2010). Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szabolcsi, A. (2012). Compositionality without word boundaries: (the) more and (the) most. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 22 (pp. 1–25). http:// elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/22.1.
Szabolcsi, A. (2013). Quantifier particles and compositionality. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), 19th Amsterdam colloquium proceedings. http://staff.science.uva.nl/~maloni/AC2013/AC_ proceedings.pdf.
Szabolcsi, A., & Zwarts, F. (1993). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope-taking. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 235–285.
Szabolcsi, A., & Haddican, B. (2004). Conjunction meets negation: A study in cross-linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics, 21, 219–249.
Szabolcsi, A., Whang, J. D., & Zu, V. (2014). Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts. Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 115–155. http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2014_ 1__6501.pdf.
Winter, Y. (1995). Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meaning. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 5. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/5.387.
Winter, Y. (1998). Flexible Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language. Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Winter, Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yatsushiro, K. (2009). The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics, 17, 141–173.
Zhang, L. (2014). Decomposing English particles and and or. To appear in Proceedings of NELS 45.
Zimmermann, M. (2009). Variation in the expression of universal quantification and free choice: The case of Hausa koo-wh expressions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 8, 179–232.
Zumpt, K. G. (1856). A grammar of the Latin language. New York: Harper & Brothers. http://www. logicmuseum.com/latin/conjunctions.htm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Szabolcsi, A. What do quantifier particles do?. Linguist and Philos 38, 159–204 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z