Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067



The main aim of this study is to reconsider Tomioka’s (2007) pragmatic account of the -intervention effects (IE), and to claim that Polarity Sensitive Items (s) are genuine syntactic interveners. I will examine the parallelism among s in IE configurations, which is distinct from other interveners, and further claim that the study of IE should not be monolithic, but hybrid: Syntactic -interveners (s), blocking scopal interactions/Pragmatic interveners, causing illegal information structures. The predictions will be borne out that s actually cause IE in other contexts as well, which pragmatic accounts cannot explain (Funakoshi & Takahashi 2014). Such hybrid perspectives bring back enormous findings on IE (e.g. wh-movement) to the field of syntax, without relegating all of them to pragmatics.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Baker, C. L.
    1970 Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry1.2: 169–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beck, Sigrid
    2006 Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics14.1: 1–56. doi:  10.1007/s11050‑005‑4532‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [Google Scholar]
  3. Fox, Danny
    2000Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Funakoshi, Kenshi , & Masahiko Takahashi
    2014  lf intervention effects and nominative objects in Japanese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics20.1: 101–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Goro, Takuya
    2006 Positive polarity as a syntactic phenomenon. Paper presented at the133rd Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, November 18–19, 2006. Sapporo: Sapporo Gakuin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007Language-Specific Constraints on Scope Interpretation in First Language Acquisition. College Park: The University of Maryland dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hasegawa, Nobuko
    1991 Affirmative polarity items and negation in Japanese. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Carol Perkins Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara , 271–285. Netherlands: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3818‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hoji, Hajime
    1985Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1986 Scope interpretation in Japanese and its theoretical implications. WCCFL 5: Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Mary Dalrymple , Jeffrey Goldberg , Kristin Hanson , Michael Inman , Christopher Piñon & Stephen Wechsler , 87–101. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hirotani, Masako
    2004Prosody and lf: Processing Japanese Wh-questions. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ishihara, Shinichiro
    2002 Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts , 180–193. Somerville: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kato, Takaomi
    2007 The CSC as an lf condition: evidence from neg-raising in Japanese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics13.1: 113–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kato, Yasuhiko
    1994 Negative polarity and movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 24: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 1, ed. by Masatoshi Koizumi & Hiroyuki Ura , 101–120. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000 Interpretive asymmetries of negation. Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, ed. by Laurence R. Horn , & Yasuhiko Kato , 62–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, Shin-Sook
    2002 Intervention effects are focus effects. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol.101, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss , 615–628. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa
    2005 Wh-scope puzzles. NELS 35: Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol.21, ed. by Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery , 335–349. Amherst: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuno, Masakazu
    2008 Negation, focus, and negative concord in Japanese. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics281: 195–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    1988 Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticæ Investigationes12.1: 1–47. doi:  10.1075/li.12.1.02kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.12.1.02kur [Google Scholar]
  20. 1992 Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers, ed. by S.-Y. Kuroda , 315–357. Netherlands: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2789‑9_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2789-9_11 [Google Scholar]
  21. Krifka, Manfred
    2001 For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. by Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld , 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nagahara, Hiroyuki
    1994Phonological Phrasing in Japanese. Los Angeles: University of California Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nishigauchi, Taisuke
    1990Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Berlin: Kluwer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑009‑1972‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1972-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Nomura, Masashi
    2005Nominative Case and AGREE(ment). Storrs: University of Connecticut Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Progovac, Ljiljana
    2005 Negative and positive feature checking and the distribution of polarity items. Negation in Slavic, ed. by Sue Brown & Adam Przepiorkowski , 179–217. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tada, Hiroaki
    1992 Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics141: 91–108. 10.1515/jjl‑1992‑0105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1992-0105 [Google Scholar]
  27. Tomioka, Satoshi
    2007 Pragmatics of lf intervention effects: Japanese and Korean wh-interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics39.9: 1570–1590. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2009 Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics18.4: 253–271. doi:  10.1007/s10831‑009‑9053‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-009-9053-0 [Google Scholar]
  29. Vallduví, Enric
    1992 A preverbal landing site for quantificational operators. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics21: 319–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1995 Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. Discourse Configurational Languages, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss , 122–152. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Watanabe, Akira
    1992 Subjacency and s-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1.3: 255–291. doi:  10.1007/BF00130554
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130554 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2013 Ingredients of polarity sensitivity: bipolar items in Japanese. Strategies of Quantification, ed. by Kook-Hee Gil , Stephen Harlow & George Tsoulas , 189–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692439.003.0010 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): lf-intervention effects; polarity sensitive items; wh-movement
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error