[The postings under this thread have been copied from elsewhere; they were originally posted in March 2009, as the dates of these postings indicate. 3/1/2012]

(A) is what is remarked in Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007: 654 and (B) is what we find in Kato 1988 that seems to come closest to what M&A must have meant when citing Kato 1988 in (A) below.

(A) Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007: 654
If the universal occurs in subject position, it is most naturally interpreted under neutral intonation as being outside the scope of negation; most speakers find it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret it inside the scope of negation (Kato 1988).
(2) Zen'in-ga tesuto-o uke-na-katta.

(B) Kato 1988: 32
It has been well observed in the literature that the sentence (9) is ambiguous in two ways, while sentence (10) is not ambiguous.
(9) zen'in WA ko-nakat-ta
(10) zen'in GA ko-nakat-ta
(11) a. Not all of them came.
b. No one came.
The quantifier zen'in 'all, everyone' may be negated to get the reading (11a) if it appears with WA as in (9) and WA functions as CONTRASTIVE; it may not be construed as negated as in (11b), if WA functions as TOPIC. It seems, however, that when the regular Case marker such as GA appears as in (10), it has only the total negation reading (11b).
　　This interpretive asymmetry between WA and GA, if it is a real one, imposes a serious problem on our theory of negation reviewed above. This is because nothing in our theory prevents us from assigning sentence (10) with structure (12), from which it is predicted that GA phrase may be interpreted negated:
(12) NEG [_S [_α zen'in][_S x ga ki-ta]]
***End of (B)***

Let us grant that what M&A intended was that Kato 1988: 32 remarks that "[i]t has been well observed in the literature ..." (Kataoka-san, do you know earlier references on this that you think Kato (1988) had in mind (as the past literature)?) If so, they are relying on Kato 1988 for the "well-observed contrast in the literature." Be that as it may, we should not fail to note that the main claim of Kato 1988 is as indicated in (C) below, which is the last sentence of the text discussion in Kato 1988.

(C) Kato 1988: 36
This result confirms the basic claim of the theory of negation developed in Kato (1985), the claim that the relative scope of the negative and quantifiers in a clause is free and that the resolution of the scope ambiguity is performed in the sphere of discourse.

In other words, Kato 1988 offers an analysis of the putative absence of the NEG>Q (and in terms of his own discussion, the Q-being-negated reading) in (10) "in the sphere of discourse." M&A's failure to even mention that is indeed a good and clear example of Cargo Cult Science: present what looks good to you and hide what may look bad to you.