Follow-Ups :
 No Follow-Ups
MENU
O Hajime Hoji's HP Top
.
o Research Interests
o What's New
O Discussion
.
o General Remarks
o Remarks
o Past Postings
O Works
.
o Downloadable Papers
o List of Publications
o Conference/Workshop Presentations
o Invited Talks
o Abstracts
O Works by other linguists (downloadable papers included)
.
o Works by Ayumi Ueyama (including her 1998 thesis)
o Works by J.-R. Hayashishita
o Works by Teruhiko Fukaya
o Works by Satoshi Kinsui
o Other Works
LINKS
O Dept of Ling, USC
O Ayumi Ueyama's webpage (written mostly in Japanese)
O Satoshi Kinsui's webpage (written mostly in Japanese)
O Jason Merchant's webpage
E-MAIL
You can e-mail me at: hoji [at] usc.edu
Mailing address
Department of Linguistics
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90089-1693
U.S.A.
......
Remarks
　
Subjects (Tree) Subjects (Date) Postings (List)

[36505] Hajime Hoji (→ [36500]) Mar/02/2009 (Mon) 08:11
Re. Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007 and Kato 1988
(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).

(A) of M&A 2007 quoted above immediately follows their remark that their (19) allows the Neg>all reading.

M&A 2007: (19)
Taro-ga zen'in-o sikar-ana-katta.

So, the crucial observation M&A 2007 note in regard to their (20) is coupled with the observation in regard to (19). As noted in [36500], they mention Kato 1988 in relation to the observation about their (20), perhaps intending to give the reader an impression that Kato 1988 gives at least the observation concerning their (20). In fact, Kato 1998 does mention the observation, as noted in [36500]. But for Kato 1998, the NEG>Q reading (for him the negated-Q-reading) is 'marked' even when the Q is in the object position. He mentions his (16) in the context of demonstrating that it is not always impossible to have the NEG>Q reading (for him the negated-Q-reading). So, Kato 1998 cannot be cited as a work in which the alleged contrast is noted and discussed. M&A in fact does not cite Kato 1998 when they mention the observation regarding (20). But, given that fact that the crucial generalization in question is between (19) and (20), M&A should have had the decency and integrity to acknowledge that they are not citing Kato 1998 for the crucial generalization involving the alleged contrast. (After all, Kato 1998 does not address or admit such a generalization, to begin with.) See the last three paragraphs, below (12), in [36500] for an independent issue I have with M&A 2007.

References :
 
[36500] Hajime Hoji Mar/02/2009 (05:58)  Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007 and Kato 1988