1887
image of Quantifier particle environments
  • 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
2019-07-09
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abhyankar, Kashinath Vasudev & J. M. Shukla
    1977A 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
    1997Malayalam. 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. 2010The 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
    1995The 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
    1990Classics 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
    2006Either-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
    2009The 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. 1998Studies in South Asian linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gair, James W. & W. S. Karunatilaka
    1974Literary 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
    1938A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society. [reprinted, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services 1995].
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (ed.) 1941An 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. 2008Question 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.
    2012Etymological 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
    2005Wh-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
    2003The 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
    1989A 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. 1998On 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.) 1884–2017The Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Narayanapilla, P. K.
    (ed.) 1971Prācīna-Malayāḷa-gadya-mātrkakaḷThiruvananthapuram: Kerala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Nyman, Elizabeth & Jeff Leer
    1993Gágiwdul.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
    1956Sigiri 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.
    1973Early Malayalam prose: A study. Trivandrum, Kerala: University of Kerala.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Priyanka, Benille
    2010Recently deciphered records from the Mirror Wall at Sigiriya (7th to 13th centuries). Colombo: Godage International Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Raman Pilla, C. V.
    1918Rāmarājabahadur. [Reprinted by Little Prince Publishers, Kottayam, Kerala 1983].
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Reinhart, Tanya
    1994Wh-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. 1998Wh-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
    2015/2017The 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
    1928An 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.
    1886Sanskrit 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.
    1990Common 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
    2010Quantification. 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
    2012Compositionality questions: Quantifier words and their multi-functional(?) parts. Ms., New York University. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001560
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Turner, Ralph Lilley
    1962–1966A 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.) 1912–1933Epigraphia Zeylanica: being lithic and other inscriptions of Ceylon. London: H. Frowde for the Govt. of Ceylon.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Wijemanne, Piyaseeli
    1984Amävatura, 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.17007.sla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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