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-NC 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.10, 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.2, 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 Linguistics28: 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 Linguistics14: 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 Linguistics2: 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