1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 19, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
2019-07-09
2025-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev & J. M. Shukla
    1977 A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. Baroda, Gujarat: Maharaja Sayajirao University, Oriental Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldridge, Edith
    2009 Short wh-movement in Old Japanese. InShoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia M. Clancy & Sung-Ock Sohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol.17, 549–563. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis
    2006 Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
  4. Asher, Ronald E. & T. C. Kumari
    1997 Malayalam. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Carl LeRoy
    1968 Indirect questions in English. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.
  6. 1970 Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language6.197–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bittner, Maria
    1994 Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy17. 53–108. 10.1007/BF00985041
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985041 [Google Scholar]
  8. Böhtlingk, Otto & Rudolph Roth
    eds. 1855–1875. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Borges, Jorge Luis
    [1942] 1999 John Wilkins’ analytical language. InEliot Weinberger (ed.), Borges: Selected non-fictions, 229–232. New York, NY: Penguin. Originally published as “El idioma analítico de John Wilkins”, La Nación, 8February 1942.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brasoveanu, Adrian & Donna Farkas
    2011 How indefinites choose their scope. Linguistics and Philosophy34(1). 1–55. 10.1007/s10988‑011‑9092‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9092-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brasoveanu, Adrian & Anna Szabolcsi
    2013 Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too. InMaria 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, www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 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.
  13. 2010 The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InAdriana Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2007 Approaching UG from below. InUli 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]
  18. Church, Alonzo
    1932 A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics33(2). 346–366. doi:  10.2307/1968337
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1968337 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1936 An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics58(2). 345–363. doi:  10.2307/2371045
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2371045 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1940 A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic5(2). 56–68. doi:  10.2307/2266170
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2266170 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen
    2012 Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI 2012 Lecture notes. https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/courses/nasslli-2012
  22. 2013 Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass7(9). 459–476. 10.1111/lnc3.12037
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12037 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 Information, issues and attention. InD. Gutzmann, J. Köpping & C. Meier (eds.), Approaches to meaning, composition, values, and interpretation. Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics-Interface (CRiSPI)32, 128–167. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004279377_007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_007 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. den Dikken, Marcel
    2006 Either-float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory24(3). 689–749. 10.1007/s11049‑005‑2503‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-2503-0 [Google Scholar]
  26. Eco, Umberto
    2009 The infinity of lists. New York: Rizzoli. Translated byAlastair McEwen.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fukutomi, Yasuyuki
    2006 Japanese alternative questions and intervention effects in DP. InChangguk 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]
  28. Gair, James W.
    1968 [1998] Sinhalese diglossia. Anthropological Linguistics10(8). 1–15. [Reprinted with additional notes in Gair 1998:213–223].
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 1986 [1998](a) Sinhala diglossiarevisited, or diglossia dies hard. InBhadriraju 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]
  30. 1986[1998](b) Sinhala focused sentences: Naturalization of a calque. InBhadriraju 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]
  31. 1992 AGR, INFL, Case and Sinhala diglossia, or Can linguistic theory find a home in variety. InBraj 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]
  32. 1998 Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Gair, James W. & Lelwala Sumangala
    1991 What to focus in Sinhala. InGermán 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]
  35. Geiger, Wilhelm
    1938 A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. [reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services 1995].
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (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]
  37. Ginsburg, Jason Robert
    2009 Interrogative features. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
  38. Hagstrom, Paul
    1998 Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
  39. Hamblin, Charles Leonard
    1973 Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language10(1). 41–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Heim, Irene
    1994 Questions. Lecture notes, MIT, Fall 1994.
  41. 2011 Definiteness and indefiniteness. InK. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics. an international handbook of natural language meaning. vol.2, 996–1025. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1988 Review article: Finiteness in Dravidian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences18(2). 211–231.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 1989a Conjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of Sanskrit relative structures. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences19(1). 93–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 1989b Review ofSteever (1988): The serial verb formation in the Dravidian languages. Language65. 398–405.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008 Dravidian syntactic typology: A reply to Steever. InRajendra Singh (ed.), Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 164–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013 Proto-Indo-European verb finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. InLeonid Kulikov & Nikolaos Lavidas (eds.), Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A.
    2001 Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax4(2). 63–93. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00037
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00037 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008 Question particles and disjunction. Ms., Hyderabad, English and Foreign Languages University. ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000644
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2016 Decomposing coordination: The two operators of coordination. Linguistic Analysis40(3–4). 237–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Karttunen, Lauri
    1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy1(1). 3–44. 10.1007/BF00351935
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935 [Google Scholar]
  51. Karunatillake, W. S.
    2012 Etymological lexicon of the Sinhala language. Colombo: S. Godage & Brothers.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kawashima, Ruriko
    1994 The structure of noun phrases and the interpretation of quantificational NPs in Japanese. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.
  53. Kishimoto, Hideki
    2005 Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory23(1). 1–51. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑6574‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-6574-0 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ko, Heejeong
    2005 Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge in [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory23(4). 867–916. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑5923‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama
    2002 Indeterminate phrases: the view from Japanese. InYukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
    2003 The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486876
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486876 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
    1965 Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
  58. Lehmann, Thomas
    1989 A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1998 Old Tamil. InSanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages, 75–99. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. McCarthy, John
    1960 Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I. Communications of the ACM3(4). 184–195. 10.1145/367177.367199
     https://doi.org/10.1145/367177.367199 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mitrović, Moreno
    2014a Deriving and interpreting ‘ka(karimusubi)’ in premodern Japanese. Acta Lingustica Asiatica4(3). 9–28. 10.4312/ala.4.3.9‑28
     https://doi.org/10.4312/ala.4.3.9-28 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2014b Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
  63. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    1987 LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry18(2). 362–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 1998 On islands. Ms., MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Montague, Richard
    1970a English as a formal language. InBruno Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 1970b Universal grammar. Theoria36. 373–398. 10.1111/j.1755‑2567.1970.tb00434.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1970.tb00434.x [Google Scholar]
  67. 1973 The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. InK. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2506‑5_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  68. Murray, James, John Simpson & Edmund Weiner
    (eds.) 1884–2017 The Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Narayanapilla, P. K.
    (ed.) 1971 Prācīna-Malayāḷa-gadya-mātrkakaḷThiruvananthapuram: Kerala University.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 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]
  71. Ogawa, Kunihiko
    1976 Japanese interrogatives: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
  72. 1977 Where diachronic and synchronic rules meet: A case study from Japanese interrogatives and kakari-musubi. Papers in Japanese Linguistics5.193–242. 10.1515/jjl‑1976‑1‑210
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1976-1-210 [Google Scholar]
  73. Paolillo, John C.
    1992 Functional articulation in diglossia: A case study of grammatical and social correspondences in Sinhala. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
  74. Paranavitana, Senarat
    1956 Sigiri graffiti, Sinhalese verses of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries. London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Partee, Barbara H.
    1986 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. InJeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. [Reprinted inPortner and Partee (2002), pp.357–381].
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
    2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. InSimin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  77. Pillai, P. V.
    1973 Early Malayalam prose: A study. Trivandrum, Kerala: University of Kerala.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Priyanka, Benille
    2010 Recently deciphered records from the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya (7th to 13th centuries). Colombo: Godage International Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Raman Pilla, C. V.
    1918 Rāmarājabahadur. [Reprinted by Little Prince Publishers, Kottayam, Kerala 1983].
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Reinhart, Tanya
    1994 Wh-in-situ: in the framework of the Minimalist Program. University of Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 1997 Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy20. 335–397. 10.1023/A:1005349801431
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005349801431 [Google Scholar]
  82. 1998 Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics6(1). 29–56. 10.1023/A:1008240014550
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008240014550 [Google Scholar]
  83. Roelofsen, Floris
    2015/2017 The semantics of declaratives and interrogative lists. Ms., University of Amsterdam. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jdiNjljO/paper.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Rooth, Mats
    1985 Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
  85. Rullman, Hotze & Sigrid Beck
    1998 Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. InGraham Katz, Shin-Sook Kim & Heike Winhart (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen WorkshopArbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr.127, 233–256. Tübingen and Stuttgart: Universities of Tübingen and Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Sansom, George
    1928 An historical grammar of Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Serafim, Leon A. & Rumiko Shinzato
    2000 Reconstructing the Proto-Japonic kakari musubi, … ka …-(a)m-wo. Gengo Kenkyu118. 81–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 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.
  89. 2013 Question particles and relative clauses in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to early and modern Dravidian. InShu-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]
  90. 2015 Sinhala epistemic indefinites with a certain je ne sais quoi. InLuis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, 82–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  91. 2018 History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1). 2. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.241
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.241 [Google Scholar]
  92. . under review. The role of Q-particles in the formation of relative clauses in Sinhala and other languages. InMoreno Mitrović ed. Logical vocabulary & logical change, John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Speijer, J. S.
    1886 Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E.J. Brill. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1973].
     [Google Scholar]
  94. von Stechow, Arnim
    1996 Some remarks on choice functions and LF-movement. InKlaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Proceedings of the Konstanz workshop “reference and anaphorical relations”, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Steele, Guy L.
    1990 Common Lisp: The language. Newton, MA: Digital Press. [2nd rev. edn.].
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Sternefeld, Wolfgang
    2001 Partial movement constructions, pied piping, and higher order choice functions. InC. Féry & W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae: a festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 473–486. Berlin: Akademieverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Szabolcsi, Anna
    2010 Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511781681
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781681 [Google Scholar]
  98. 2013 Quantifier particles and compositionality. InMaria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 2015 What do quantifier particles do?Linguistics and Philosophy38.159–204. 10.1007/s10988‑015‑9166‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z [Google Scholar]
  100. Szabolcsi, Anna, James Doh Whang & Vera Zu
    2012 Compositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts. Ms., New York University. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001560
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Turner, Ralph Lilley
    1962–1966 A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press. [Reprinted, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1999].
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Uegaki, Wataru
    2014 Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. InProceedings of SALT24.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 2018 A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites, questions and disjunctions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1). 14. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.238
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.238 [Google Scholar]
  104. Watanabe, Akira
    2002 Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. InDavid Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 179–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  105. Whitman, John
    1997 Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. InHo-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol.6, 161–178. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 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]
  107. Wijemanne, Piyaseeli
    1984 Amävatura, a syntactic study. Colombo: Ministry of Higher Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Winter, Yoad
    1995 Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meaning. InSemantics and linguistic theory (SALT)5.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy20. 399–467. 10.1023/A:1005354323136
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005354323136 [Google Scholar]
  110. 1998 Flexible Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language: Utrecht University dissertation.
  111. Yanagida, Yuko
    2006 Word order and clause structure in early Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics15(1). 37–67. 10.1007/s10831‑005‑2165‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-005-2165-2 [Google Scholar]
  112. Yatsushiro, Kazuko
    2001 The distribution of mo and ka and its implications. InMaria Christina Cuervo, Daniel Harbour, Ken Hiraiwa & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 3, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 2009 The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics17(2). 141–173. 10.1007/s11050‑009‑9044‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9044-8 [Google Scholar]
  114. Yoshida, Keiko & Tomoyuki Yoshida
    1996 Question marker drop in Japanese. ICU Language Research Bulletin11. 37–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Zermelo, Ernst
    1904 Beweis, daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann. Mathematische Annalen59. 514–516. 10.1007/BF01445300
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01445300 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
Loading
Quantifier particle environments
Linguistic Variation 19, 280 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): choice functions; disjunction; indefinites; interrogatives; morphosyntax; quantifier particles; semantics; Sinhala; wh-words

Most Cited

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