Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 19:2 (2019) ► pp.280–351

Quantifier particle environments

| University of Utah
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.
Keywords: quantifier particles, interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, wh-words, choice functions, semantics, morphosyntax, Sinhala
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
Published online: 9 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
References
Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev & J. M. Shukla
1977 A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda, Gujarat: Maharaja Sayajirao University, Oriental Institute.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
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis
2006 Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. & T. C. Kumari
1997 Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl LeRoy
1968 Indirect questions in English. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.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
Bittner, Maria
1994 Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 171. 53–108. DOI logoGoogle 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
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Donna Farkas
2011 How indefinites choose their scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(1). 1–55. DOI logoGoogle 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
2010 The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.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
Church, Alonzo
1932 A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics 33(2). 346–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1936 An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics 58(2). 345–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1940 A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2). 56–68. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
den Dikken, Marcel
2006  Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto
2009 The infinity of lists. New York: Rizzoli. Translated by Alastair McEwen.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
Gair, James W.
1968 [1998] Sinhalese diglossia. Anthropological Linguistics 10(8). 1–15. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:213–223].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
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
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
1998 Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.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
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
Geiger, Wilhelm
1938 A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. [reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services 1995].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
Ginsburg, Jason Robert
2009 Interrogative features. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1998 Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard
1973 Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1994 Questions. Lecture notes, MIT, Fall 1994.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
Hock, Hans Henrich
1988 Review article: Finiteness in Dravidian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2). 211–231.Google Scholar
1989a Conjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of Sanskrit relative structures. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1). 93–126.Google Scholar
1989b Review of Steever (1988): The serial verb formation in the Dravidian languages. Language 651. 398–405.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
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
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
2001 Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2). 63–93. DOI logoGoogle 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
Karttunen, Lauri
1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karunatillake, W. S.
2012 Etymological lexicon of the Sinhala language. Colombo: S. Godage & Brothers.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
Kishimoto, Hideki
2005  Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(1). 1–51. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
2003 The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1965 Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas
1989 A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar
1998 Old Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 75–99. London: Routledge.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno
2014a Deriving and interpreting ‘ka(karimusubi)’ in premodern Japanese. Acta Lingustica Asiatica 4(3). 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1987 LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 362–367.Google Scholar
1998 On islands. Ms., MIT.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
1970b Universal grammar. Theoria 361. 373–398. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, James, John Simpson & Edmund Weiner et al.
(eds.) 1884–2017 The Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narayanapilla, P. K.
(ed.) 1971 Prācīna-Malayāḷa-gadya-mātrkakaḷ Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala University.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
Ogawa, Kunihiko
1976 Japanese interrogatives: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. San Diego: University of California dissertation.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Paranavitana, Senarat
1956 Sigiri graffiti, Sinhalese verses of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries. London: Oxford University Press.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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pillai, P. V.
1973 Early Malayalam prose: A study. Trivandrum, Kerala: University of Kerala.Google Scholar
Priyanka, Benille
2010 Recently deciphered records from the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya (7th to 13th centuries). Colombo: Godage International Publishers.Google Scholar
Raman Pilla, C. V.
1918 Rāmarājabahadur. [Reprinted by Little Prince Publishers, Kottayam, Kerala 1983].Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1994 Wh-in-situ: in the framework of the Minimalist Program. University of Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar
1997 Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 335–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998  Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1). 29–56. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Sansom, George
1928 An historical grammar of Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Steele, Guy L.
1990 Common Lisp: The language. Newton, MA: Digital Press. [2nd rev. edn.].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
Szabolcsi, Anna
2010 Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34.Google Scholar
2015 What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 381.159–204. DOI logoGoogle 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
Uegaki, Wataru
2014 Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. In Proceedings of SALT 241.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Wijemanne, Piyaseeli
1984 Amävatura, a syntactic study. Colombo: Ministry of Higher Education.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad
1995 Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meaning. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 51.Google Scholar
1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 399–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Flexible Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko
2006 Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(1). 37–67. DOI logoGoogle 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
2009 The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17(2). 141–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Keiko & Tomoyuki Yoshida
1996 Question marker drop in Japanese. ICU Language Research Bulletin 111. 37–54.Google Scholar
Zermelo, Ernst
1904 Beweis, daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann. Mathematische Annalen 591. 514–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar