The Scope of Pronounced and Unpronounced

Negation: A Case of Japanese Sika-nai and its Correlates

Tomohide KINUHATA

Osaka University

Abstract. The negation appearing in senteneces with NPI sika have a

peculiar scope property: when an XP-sika c-commands a QP, the nega-
tion scopes over the QP, and when an XP-sika is c-commanded by a
QP, the negation is scoped over by the QP. In this paper, I show that
the same scopal property can be found with the sentences with dake
and igai, despite the absence of pronounced negation, and explain the
correlation of them by investigating the conditions of extraction with
universal determiners.

Keywords: sika, dake, igai, negation, extraction

1 Introduction
Kataoka (2006a, 2006b) proposes the following structural relationship held be-
tween XP-sika and negation.
(1) Kataoka’s proposal
XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF. Kataoka (2006a: 229)
Sika is one of the most discussed NPIs in the literatures on Japanese which needs
one negation for one occurence of it in the same clause (Oyakawa 1975).
(2) Each sika must co-occur at least with one negation.
a. Taro-wa manga-sika yoma-nai
Taro-Top comic-sika read-Neg
‘Taro does not read any books other than comics.’
b. ∗ Taro-wa manga-sika yomu.
Taro-Top comic-sika read
∗
c. Taro-sika manga-sika yoma-nai.
Taro-sika comic-sika read-Neg

(3) Sika and negation must be clausemate.

a. ∗ Hanako-sika [Taro-ga manga-o yoma-nai] to iu.
Hanako-sika Taro-Nom comic-Acc read-Neg Quote say.
b. Hanako-sika [Taro-ga manga-o yomu] to iwa-nai.
Hanako-sika Taro-Nom comic-Acc read Quote say-Neg
‘Everyone except Hanako does not say that Taro read comics.’
 c. ∗ Hanako-ga [Taro-ga manga-sika yomu] to iwa-nai.
Hanako-Nom Taro-Nom comic-sika read Quote say-Neg.
d. Hanako-ga [Taro-ga manga-sika yoma-nai] to iu.
Hanako-Nom Taro-Nom comic-sika read-Neg Quote say.
‘Hanako says that Taro does not read any books other than comics.’

Kataoka’s proposal nicely explains those properties of sika since Spec is in one
to one correspondence with its head, obviously, in the same clause. 1
In addition, her analysis can account for the scope of negation relative to the
QPs occuring in the sentence with sika. Consider the following:

(4) a. Taro-sika 3-bai-izyoo-no raamen-o tabe-nakat-ta.

Taro-sika 3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc eat-Neg-Past
‘Everyone but Taro didn’t eat more than three bowls of noodles’
b. 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga Taro(-o)-sika
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro(-Acc)-sika
suisensi-nakat-ta.
recommend-Neg-Past.
‘More than three professors didn’t recommend anyone but Taro.’

Assuming that the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object (see Hoji
2003 and the referencs therein), the XP-sika in (4a) c-commands the QP whereas
in (4b) the QP c-commands the XP-sika. Since XP-sika is in the Spec of negation
in Kataoka’s proposal, the negation takes scope over the QP in (4a) whereas the
QP outscopes the negation in (4b). The relavant structures are given in (5).

(5) a. [NegP Taro-sika [Neg′ [VP QP-Acc eat]-Neg]] LF of (4a)

b. [ QP-Nom [NegP Taro-sika [Neg′ [VP recommend]-Neg]]] LF of (4b)

As the structures in (5) indicate, (4a) can only mean (6a) where the negation
takes wider scope than the QP and (4b) only means (7b) where the QP is wider
than the negation. 2 To see that (4a) does not have the truth condion in (6b),
it suffices to consider the situation in which someone other than Taro ate more
1
Kataoka (2006a, 2006b) uses the term Spec-head only to capture the structural
relationship between XP-sika and negation, and does not claim that those have
features checked by agreement contra Aoyagi and Ishii (1994). Kataoka (2006a: fn
10) notes ‘(t)he important point of my proposal, however, is not whether there is
some kind of agreement or not, but that, at LF, XP-sika must c-command and be
close enough to Neg just like the structural relation between Spec and head.’
2
The subject position can be in the scope of negation in Japanese as well as in English.
i) 3-nin-izyoo-no kyooju-ga Taro-o suisensi-nakat-tara, Taro-wa
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro-Acc recommend-Neg-if, Taro-Top
syuusyoku deki-nai
get.job can-not.
‘If more than three professors does not recommend Taro, Taro cannot get a job.’
ok
Neg>QP
than three bowls of noodles. (4a) is clearly false in this situation but (6b) is
not. In the same way, consider the situation where there are five professors who
recommended everyone but Taro. This situation makes (7a) false, but (4b) is
true if there are other five professors who recommended only Taro.

(6) Interpretation of (4a)

a. Everyone but Taro ate less than three bowls of noodles. Neg>QP
b. ∗ For more than three bowls of noodles, everyone but Taro did not eat
it. QP>Neg

(7) Interpretation of (4b)

a. ∗ Less than three professors recommended everyone but Taro. Neg>QP
b. For more than three professors, he did not recommend anyone but
Taro. QP>Neg

This paper argues from a semantic viewpoint why XP-sika and negation
seem to occupy the closest position at LF as in (5). This question might not be
taken up seriously by researchers working in syntax. Because there is a plenty
of phenomena which can be explained by agreement between Spec and head,
e.g. ‘Negative Concord’ (Haegeman 1995)3 , and sika and negation might be
considered as one instance of this phenomena (cf. Aoyagi and Ishii 1994).
However, as suggested by Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988), Japanese might
lack functinal categories which constitute the basis of feature agreement. Thus
I believe it to be worth pursuing whether or not a semantic account is viable.
Since syntactic features are highly abstract constructs, agreement based accounts
should be taken into consideration after going through intuitive accounts such
as those based on lexical meanings.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, I will look at Kataoka (2007)’s
explanation for the syntactic position of XP-sika and negation. Her account
is rather semantic but cannot be maintained. Section 3 provides new data on
dake [only] and igai [except], which are parallel with the data of sika, and are
closely related to the meaning of it. In section 4, I will give the semantics of sika
capturing the parallels of it with dake and igai. Section 5 concludes the paper.
Though my argument is indirect in that it relies on the correlations found in
different lexical items, they provide us with an empirical ground on which we
should give those items similar semantics, which explains the scope phenomenon
of the negation of sika without syntactic features.

2 Previous Account: Kataoka (2007)

Rejecting the view that XP-sika and negation have agreement features, Kataoka
(2007) considers that they form a ‘Subject-Predicate structure’ in the sense
of Kuroda (1992). I argue, however, in this section that XP-sika and negation
3
But see Giannakidou (2000) for the explanation of negative concord which does not
assume any features.
need not form a Subject-Predicate structure, and even if they constitute that
structure, negation does not necessarily take wider scope than the QP occurring
after the subject.
Referring to the Ueyama (1998)’s observation that the clause expressing
‘predicational propositoins’ cannot be embedded in the complement of percep-
tual verbs, Kataoka (2007) claims that the following data suggest that XP-sika
and negation constitute the Subject-Predicate structure.

(8) a. ♯ Taro-ni-wa [Hanako-ga piano-sika hika-nai-no]-ga mieta

Taro-Dat-Top Hanako-Nom piano-sika play-Neg-FN-Nom saw
(kikoeta).
(heard)
‘Taro happened to {see/hear} that Hanako did not play any instru-
♯

ments but piano.’

As indicated in the translation, however, the English sentence corresponding to

(8) sounds not perfectly natural,4 which indicates that the weirdness of (8) does
not come from a particular structural relation which sika and negation form,
but from an interpretation associated with it. I suspect that it is not usual to
perceive non-existence of events: that Hanako does not play instruments in (8).
If this is correct, the pragmatic deviancy can be improved by specifying the
alternatives implied by the sika-phrases. Consider the following:

(9) Context: Hanako said to Taro that she buys three types of meats for the
dinner: chiken, pork and beef. But in a grocery store,
Taro-ni-wa [Hanako-ga gyuuniku-sika tora-nai-no]-ga mieta.
Taro-Dat-Top Hanako-Nom beef-sika take-Neg-FN-Nom saw
‘Taro happened to see that Hanako does not take any meats but beef.’

I made explicit the event which Hanako perceived in (9): that Hanako passed the
corner of chicken and pork without taking them. This shows that XP-sika and
negation does not necessarily constitute the Subject-Predicate structure, since
the sentence containing sika can denote an event, which the Subject-Predicate
structure cannot denote (Kuroda (1992), Ueyama (1998), Kataoka (2007)).5
4
The same oddity can be found with the sentences in which sika is replaced by igai
which is not an NPI as we will see in section 3.2.
i) ♯ Taro-ni-wa [Hanako-ga piano-igai-o hika-nai-no]-ga mieta (kikoeta).
‘Taro-Dat-Top Hanako-Nom piano-sika play-Neg-FN-Nom saw (heard)’
♯
‘Taro happened to {see/hear} that Hanako did not play any instruments but
piano.’
5
Another evidence that XP-sika and the predicate do not constitute the Subject-
Predicate structure is that the XP-sika does not have to occupy the sentence initial
positions as opposed to the typical subject marker wa. XP-wa which occupies non-
sentence-initial positions is called huku-joshi in Kuroda (1969-70) and is not regarded
as a Subject.
 A more serious problem of Kataoka (2007)’s analysis is that even if XP-sika
and negation constitute the Subject-Predicate structure, it does not lead to the
conclusion that the negation appearing in that sentence occupies the closest
position to XP-sika. That is, the following two options are still available for the
structural relation between the XP-sika and the negation.

(10) a. [ [Subj XP sika] [Pred [ QP-Acc V ] Neg ]]

b. [ [Subj XP sika] [Pred QP-Acc [V-Neg ] ]]

When XP-wa, a typical subject marker, occupies the sentence initial positions,
the negation does or does not scope over the QP in the object position. Thus
analyzing XP-sika as a subject still leaves the question why the LF associated
with the sentence is not (10b) but (10a).
I will show in the next section that the data presented as illustrations of the
property of sika can be observed in other lexical items, namely dake and igai.

3 Implicit Negation

3.1 dake [only]

The sentence with dake [only] can convey the same truth conditional meaning
as the sentence with sika. (11a) and (11b) both mean that Taro reads comics
(henceforth, ‘positive component’) and he does not read other genres of literature
(‘negative component’).

(11) a. Taro-wa manga-sika yoma-nai.

Taro-Top comic-sika read-Neg
b. Taro-wa manga-dake(-o) yomu.
Taro-Top comic-dake(-Acc) read.
‘Taro reads only comics.’ (Taro does not read any books but comics.)

Although it is still under debate what status those components have (see Beaver
and Clark (2008) for the survey of discussions), it is ascertained that they are lex-
ically induced uncancelable meanings, since neither ‘Taro does not read comics’
nor ‘Taro also reads novels’ can follow those sentences.
Given the truth conditional meanings of sika and dake, readers may notice
that dake as well as sika includes negation in its meaning though the negation
is not pronounced. What I want to show here is that the negation involved in
the meaning of dake behaves semantically in the same way as the pronounced
negation in the sentence with sika. In (12), I repeat the examples of sika from
(4), and (13) is the dake-counterparts of (12), both with same truth conditional
meanings.

(12) a. Taro-sika 3bai-izyoo-no raamen-o tabe-nakat-ta.

Taro-sika 3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc eat-Neg-Past
‘Everyone but Taro didn’t eat more than three bowls of noodles’
 b. 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga Taro(-o)-sika
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro(-Acc)-sika
suisensi-nakat-ta
recommend-Neg-Past.
‘More than three professors didn’t recommend anyone but Taro.’

(13) a. Taro-dake-ga 3bai-izyoo-no raamen-o tabeta.

Taro-dake-Nom 3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc ate
‘Only Taro ate more than three bowls of noodles’
b. 3-nin-izyoo-no kyooju-ga Taro-dake-o suisensita.
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro-dake-Acc recommended
‘More than three professors recommended only Taro.’

In the basic SOV order, when XP-sika and XP-dake precede QPs, as in (12a)
and (13a), only the interpretation in which the negation, pronounced or not
pronounced, takes wider scope than the QP, i.e. (14a), is possible: the situation
where someone other than Taro ate more three bowls of noodles, under which
(14b) can still be true, makes (12a) and (13a) false.
(14) Interpretation of (12a) and (13a)
a. Everyone but Taro ate less than three bowls of noodles. Neg>QP
b. ∗ For more than three bowls of noodles, everyone but Taro did not eat
it. QP>Neg
On the other hand, when a QP precedes an XP-sika and XP-dake as in (12b)
and (13b), the QP must take wider scope than the negation as in (15b): when
just two professors recommended only Taro, (12b) and (13b) are obviously false
but (15a) is not.
(15) Interpretation of (12b) and (13b)
a. ∗ Less than three professors recommended everyone but Taro. Neg>QP
b. For more than three professors, he did not recommend anyone but
Taro. QP>Neg
Not only in the basic word order but also in the scrambled sentence do sika
and dake have the same scope interpretations. It is acknowledged that when the
object is scrambled, it can occupy both higher and lower positions relative to
the subject (Ueyama 1998). That is, the PF in (16a) has two LFs such as (16b)
and (16c).

(16) a. PF : NP-o NP-ga V.

b. LF1: [ Obj [ Subj [ e [ V ]]]]
c. LF2: [ Subj [ Obj [ V ]]]

When an XP-sika is in the subject position, since the negation occupies the clos-
est position to it (Kataoka’s proposal), the QP in the object position can take
higher and lower positions than the negation. These structures give the scram-
bled sentence two possible interpretations, i.e. QP>Neg in LF1 and Neg>QP in
LF2. This ambiguity also arises when an XP-dake occupies the subject position
without a pronounced negation. Consider the scrambled counterparts of (12a)
and (13a) below.

(17) a. 3-bai-izyoo-no raamen-o Taro-sika tabe-nakat-ta.

3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc Taro-sika eat-Neg-Past
b. 3bai-izyoo-no raamen-o Taro-dake-ga tabeta.
3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc Taro-dake-Nom ate

Both sentences can mean (14a) and (14b).

When an XP-sika is the object and a QP the subject, the scrambled sentence
has two readings, depending on the LF associated with it. When the XP-sika
is base-generated in the higher position as in (16b), the negation takes wider
scope than the QP, occupying the closest position to the XP-sika. On the other
hand, the negation takes narrower scope than the subject QP when the object
is reconstructed in the lower position than the subject as in (16c), the negation
interpreted in that positon. This prediction is born out. Dake, however, has the
same ambiguity inspite of the lack of pronounced negation. See the following
scrambled counterparts of (12b) and (13b). Both can mean (15a) and (15b).

(18) a. Taro(-o)-sika 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga

Taro(-Acc)-sika 3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom
suisensi-nakat-ta.
recommend-Neg-Past.
b. Taro-dake-o 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga suisensita.
Taro-dake-Acc 3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom recommended

3.2 igai [except]

We saw in the previous subsection that the negation involved in the semantic
interpretation of dake behaves in the same way as the pronounced negation in
the sentences with sika. This subsection turns to another lexical item which
introduces negation in its interpretation but lacks the phonetic equivalent.
Igai, meaning ‘except’ or ‘other than’, can be used with or without negation.

(19) a. Taro-wa manga-igai-o yoma-nai.

Taro-Top comic-igai-Acc read-Neg
‘Taro does not read books other than comics.’
b. Taro-wa manga-igai-o (yoku) yomu.
Taro-Top comic-igai-Acc (often) read.
‘Taro (often) reads books other than comics.’

When used with negation as in (19a), the sentence seems to convey the same
meaning as the sentence with sika such as (2a). However, the scope restriction
of QPs and negation observed in sentences with sika do not hold for igai.
(20) a. Taro-igai-ga 3-bai-izyoo-no raamen-o tabe-nakat-ta.
Taro-igai-Nom 3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc eat-Neg-Past
‘Everyone but Taro didn’t eat more than three bowls of noodles’
b. 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga Taro-igai-o
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro-igai-Acc
suisensi-nakat-ta.
recommend-Neg-Past.
‘More than three professors didn’t recommend everyone but Taro.’

For example (20a) can mean ‘everyone but Taro ate less than three kinds of
noodles’ (Neg>QP) and ‘for more than three kinds of noodles, everyone but
Taro did not eat it’ (QP>Neg).6 This means that the negations in (20) are not
necessarily in the closest position to XP-igai contrary to the negation introduced
by sika.
However, an interpretation of the sentence with igai can induce the negation
which works in the way the negation of sika does. In order to illustrate this, let
us use the sentence without a pronounced negation.

(21) a. Taro-igai-ga 3bai-izyoo-no raamen-o tabeta.

Taro-igai-Nom 3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc ate
‘Everyone but Taro ate more than three bowls of noodles’
b. 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga Taro-igai-o suisensita.
3–CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro-igai-Acc recommended
‘More than three professors recommended everyone but Taro.’

(21a) has the meaning given in the translation and, at the same time, can imply
that Taro did not eat more than three bowls of noodles. But the implication
must be the one where the negation scopes over the QP. That is, (22a) is the
possible implication of (21a) but (ex1b) is not.

(22) Implication of (21a)

a. Taro ate less than three bowls of noodles. Neg>QP
b. ∗ For more than three bowls of noodles, Taro did not eat it. QP>Neg

On the other hand, when a QP takes a higher positon than an XP-igai as in

(21b), the only available implication is that the QP takes wider scope than the
negation.
6
One might find it difficult to get the interpretation where the negation outscopes
the QP in (20b). But embedding the sentence into conditionals or causals makes the
relevant interpretation more easily.
i) 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga Taro-igai-o suisensi-nakat-tara,
3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom Taro-igai-Acc recommend-Neg-if,
Taro-wa syuusyoku dekiru.
Taro-Top get.job can.
‘If less than three professors recommend someone other than Taro, Taro can get
a job.’
(23) Implication of (21b)
a. ∗ Less than three professors recommended Taro. Neg>QP
b. For more than three professors, he did not recommend Taro. QP>Neg

Those facts coincide with the data of sika and dake: when sika, dake and igai,
attaching to NP, take higher positions than a QP, the negation must scope over
the QP and when those resides in lower positions than a QP, the QP must take
wider scope than the negation.
When the object is scrambled, the implication becomes ambiguous depending
on the LF associated with it. Thus (24a) can imply both (22a) and (22b), and
(24b) can imply both (23a) and (23b).

(24) a. 3-bai-izyoo-no raamen-o Taro-igai-ga tabeta.

3-CL-more.than-Gen noodle-Acc Taro-igai-Nom ate
b. Taro-igai-o 3-nin-izyoo-no kyoozyu-ga suisensita.
Taro-igai-Acc 3-CL-more.than-Gen professor-Nom recommended

The rise of ambiguity here parallels with the cases we found in the scrambled
sentences including sika and dake.
It should be noted, however, that the meaning of igai is not the same as
the meaning encoded by dake and sika. We considered the negative and positive
component of sika and dake as lexically induced meanings, showing that they
cannot be canceled in usual contexts. On the other hand, the meanings described
as (22a) and (23b) are neither assertions nor presuppositions: the meanings given
in (22a) and (23b) can be canceled (though the cancelation is less natural when
universal quantifiers are interpreted to quantify over the rest of the people as we
will discuss).

(25) a. Taro-igai-ga kita. ? Taro-mo kita kedo.

Tao-igai-Nom came Taro-also came
‘Everyone other than Taro came. Taro also came.’
b. Taro-igai-mo kita. Taro-mo (motiron) kita kedo.
Taro-igai-also came Taro-also (surely) came but
‘Some people than Taro also came. Taro came(, of course).’

Those facts indicate that the negative component of igai is conversational im-
plicatures. The unpronounced negation is not involved in the pragmatic inter-
pretation when the implicatures are canceled. However, when that meanings are
not canceled, the negation must be interpreted contingent upon the position of
XP-igai.

4 Explaining Correlation

We have shown that the scope property of negation in sika-sentences is found in

conversational implicatures of igai. I analyze in this paper that the negation in
sika-sentences, as well as that in dake-sentences, is a conventionalized meaning
of the negation appearing in conversational implicatures. To illustrate this, let
us first consider the meanings associated with igai.
As we have seen, sentences with igai can have negative and positive meanings.
The negative meaning, however, tends to arise particularly when the igai-phrase
is interpreted with universal determiners: the igai-phrase appearing in the re-
striction of non-universals as in (26b) induces the implication that Mary sleeps
rather than that she does not sleep.7

(26) a. John-igai-ga zenin neteiru. (;John does not sleep.)

John-igai-Nom all sleep
‘Everyone but John sleeps.’
b. Mary-igai-ga 3-nin neteiru. (;Mary sleeps.)
Taro-igai-Nom 3-CL sleep
‘Three people other than Mary sleep.’

The reasoning behind the inferences indicated by ‘;’ in (26) is stated as: if it is
unnecessary to extract an element from the set, you should not extract it. This
means that the extracted elements are to be the smallest sets, which, ‘Smallest
Extraction Condition’, is formulated as in (27).

(27) Smallest Extraction Condition

For a sentence ‘C igai D P’,
∀S[P ∈ D(E − S) → |C| ≤ |S|]

In order to see the condition clearly, consider the situation in (28) and compare
the appropriate sentences in (26) and the inappropriate ones in (29). Note that
all sentences in (26) and (29) are true under the situation (28).

(28) not sleeping={John}

sleeping={Bill, Chris, Mary, Sue}

(29) a. ♯ John-to Mary-igai-ga zenin neteiru.

John-and Mary-igai-Nom all sleep
‘Everyone other than John and Mary sleeps,’
b. ♯ John-to Mary-igai-ga 3-nin neteiru.
Mary-and John-igai-Nom 3-CL sleep
Just three people other than John and Mary sleep.
7
The negative implicature can arise also when the quantifier is not universal. For
example, (21b) can be interpreted as ‘more than three professors recommended
someone other than Taro’, still implicating they did not recommend Taro. In this
example, however, the implicature seems to arise from a particular lexical meaning
of recommendation: If one recommends someone, he does not recommend the oth-
ers. Since it is hardly conceivable that a particular lexical meaning of a verb give
rise to the meaning of grammatical markers such as dake and sika, we will be only
concerned with the negative implicature introduced by universals.
The contrast between (26) and (29) is exactly what the smallest extraction
condition tells: {John, Mary} is not one of the smallest sets to make the sentence
true since |{John}| < |{John, Mary}| in (29a) and |{Mary}| < |{John, Mary}|
in (29b). Note that we treat the quantifier in (26b) and (29b) as ‘just three’ for
simplicity. In addition, the smallest extraction condition leads us to infer that
Mary has the property of sleeping in (26b), since if Mary does not sleep, the
smallest set is an empty set.
In the case of universal determiners, the extracted set is not just the smallest
in number but also is unique. In the example (26a), the exception must not be
the others than ‘John’. This condition is formulated by von Fintel (1993).
(30) Uniqueness Condition
For a sentence ‘C igai zenin P’,
∀S[P ∈ every(A − S) → C ⊆ S] von Fintel (1993: 130)
Given this formula, it is easily shown that the extracted element, e.g. John in
(26a), does not have the property P , i.e. {john}⊆ ¬P .
(31) ∀S[P ∈ every(A − S) → C ⊆ S]
= ∀S[(A − S) ⊆ P → C ⊆ S]
= ∀S[(¬P ∩ A) ⊆ S → C ⊆ S]
= C ⊆ (¬P ∩ A) von Fintel (1993: 131)
Now we have a negation scoping over P . Therefore, if a QP is in the c-
command domain of XP-igai, it is within the scope of negation, and it is, oth-
erwise, outside the scope of it. I assume that the smallest extraction condition
emerges from the use of igai and is strengthened to the uniqueness condition by
universal determiners as follows.
(32) a. [[[ john igai ] every ] P ]
b. J john igai Kimp =λDλP. ∀S[P ∈ D(A − S) → |{john}| ≤ |S|]
c. J[[ john igai ] every ]Kimp =λP. ∀S[P ∈ every(A − S) → {john} ⊆ S]
=λP. {john} ⊆ (¬P ∩ A)
We have seen how the negation appears in the interpretation of igai with the
aid of the condition on inference. Since the negation of dake- and sika-sentences
works in the same way, it is worthwile to investigate the relation of the role of
inference to the negative meaning of dake and sika. In order to illustrate this,
let us assume the LFs of dake and sika as in (33).
(33) a. PF John dake kuru.
LF [[john dake] come]
b. PF John sika ko nai.
LF [[john sika] come]
In (33), the sentences with dake and sika has the same LF, where the counterpart
of the pronounced negation in sika-sentences is absent.8 This means that the
8
Alternatively, sika and dake can have the LF which is similar to the suface form of
sika-sentences rather than that of dake-sentences: [[taro {sika/dake}i ] [come Opi ]]
NPI sika is not licenced in LF or in syntax, but in PF. Since LF is a theoretical
construct to obtain an appropriate interpretation, it is not necessary for it to
have every element corresponding to those in the PF.
Given the LF in (33), dake and sika creates the positive meaning of the
sentences by combining the subject and the predicate as follows.9

(34) a. Jdake/sikaK=λx.λP. {x} ⊆ P

b. J[[john dake/sika] come ]K={john} ⊆ come

In addition, dake and sika divide the relevant group into two and only two
groups: in other words, they extract the elements from the contextually rele-
vant set with the universal determiner taking the remaining members as the
restriction. Thus an extraction condition is imposed which in this case says: if
it is necessary to extract an element, you should extract it. This requires the
exhaustive extraction of elements if necessary, which is expressed as:

(35) Exhaustive Condition

For a sentence ‘C dake/sika P’,
∀S[S ⊆ (P ∩ A) → S ⊆ C]

The condition in (35) leads to the interpretation in which all remaining mem-
bers have the property ¬P .

(36) ∀S[S ⊆ (P ∩ A) → S ⊆ C]
=(P ∩ A) ⊆ C
=(A − C) ⊆ ¬P

Thus we have a negation scoping over P . Integrating the exhausitive condition

into the semantics of dake and sika results in (37), where only the QP which is
in the c-command domain of XP-dake or XP-sika is under the scope of negation.

(37) a. [ [ john dake/sika ] P ]

b. Jdake/sikaK=λx. λP.{x} ⊆ P & (A − {x}) ⊆ ¬P
c. Jjohn dake/sikaK=λP.{john} ⊆ P & (A − {john}) ⊆ ¬P

Considering the negation pronounced in sika-sentences as corresponding to

the boolean complement in (37) explains why it behaves to occupy the nearest
position to XP-sika: the semantic negation is induced by extraction and univer-
sals, i.e. the lexical meaning of sika. I then propose the following relationship
between sika and its pronounced negation.
where the subscription ‘i ’ indicates that sika and dake lexically introduces the Op,
which works as the semantic counterpart of negative ‘nai’. In this paper, however,
I do not discuss about the LF of this form, since the problem we are discussing is
exactly why this operator is introduced in the meanings of dake and sika.
9
Treating dake and sika in the same way may receive a support from the compound-
ing of those particles: ‘Jaro dakesika ko-nai [Everyone but John does not come]’.
Intuitively, no semantic transition is involved between a single use of dake and that
in the compound, though the latter is accompanied by a pronounced negation.
 (38) Pronounced negation associated with sika must be the counterpart of the
negation in the lexical semantics of sika.

(38) ensures the scopal property of negation observed in (4), (17a) and (18a), in
stead of (1).
In this section, we have discussed that the conditions on extraction introduce
not only the negation of igai but also that of dake and sika. Those negations are
regarded as coming out of the same womb, since the exhaustive condition and the
smallest extraction condition constitute the necessary and sufficient condition for
extraction (with universals) respectively.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, I showed that the scope propery of negation in sika-sentences

can be found in the sentences with dake and igai, and explained the correlation
of them by positing conditions on the extraction with universal determiners.
Though I could not include the discourse functional phenomena of sika, dake and
igai, which show interesting distinctions of those particles, the truth conditional
semantics presented in this paper are the basic aspects of their meanings on
which further investigations should be established.

Appendix: Interpretation

In this paper, I assume that quantifiers are interpreted in-situ and negation works
as boolean complements, not sentential negation. To illustrate the feasiblity of
this idea, I use the tools from Keenan and Faltz (1985) and Keenan (1988).
Analysis Tree (4b)
(4a) 3more P rof.(taro sika(x recom)):P0
taro sika(3more noodle(x eat)):P0

3more P rof.:P0 /P1 taro sika(x recom):P1

taro sika:P0 /P1 3more noodle(x eat):P1
taro sikaacc :P1 /P2 recom:P2
3more noodleacc :P1 /P2 eat:P2
taro sika:P0 /P1
3more noodle:P0 /P1

Notation and Definition

• P0 : zero place predicate, P1 : one place predicate, P2 : two place predicate.
• sika(x)(P )=1 iff {x} ⊆ P & A − {x} ⊆ ¬P
• 3more(P )(Q)=1 iff 3 ≤ |P ∩ Q|
• Facc is an accusative extension of F defined as;
a ∈ Facc (R) iff F (aR)=1, where aR =def {b|⟨a, b⟩ ∈ R}
 Bibliography

Aoyagi, Hiroshi, Ishii, Toru, 1994. On NPI licensing in Japanese. In: Akatsuka,
N. (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 295–311.
Beaver, David, Clark, Brady, 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines
meaning. Blackwell, Cambridge.
Fukui, Naoki, 1986. A theory of category projection and its aplications. Ph.D.
thesis.
Giannakidou, Anastasia, 2000. Negative... concord? Natural Language and Lin-
guistic Theory 18, 457?523.
Haegeman, Lilian, 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hoji, Hajime, 2003. Falsifiability and repeatability in generative grammar: A
case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113 (4-6),
377–446.
Kataoka, Kiyoko, 2006a. ‘Neg-sensitive’ elements, neg-c-command and scram-
bling in Japanese. In: Timothy, J., Jones, K. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Lin-
guistics 14. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 221–233.
Kataoka, Kiyoko, 2006b. Nihongo Hiteibun no Kōzō: Kakimazebun to
Hiteikoōhyōgen [The structure of negative sentences in Japanese: Scrambling
sentences and Neg-sensitive expressions]. Kuroshio Publisher.
Kataoka, Kiyoko, 2007. Gendainihongo sika no hurumai to tōgotekijōken [syn-
tactic behavior of -sika in Japaneseand its syntactive condition]. In: Nihon-
gengogakkai dai135kai Yokoosyuu. Nihongengogakkai.
Keenan, Edward, 1988. On semantics and the binding theory. In: Hawkins, J.
(Ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 105–144.
Keenan, Edward, Faltz, Leonard, 1985. Boolean semantics for natural language.
D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1969-70. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words
like also, even, and only. In: Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics 3-4. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, pp. 111–129, 127–152.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English
and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 2–44.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1992. Judgment forms and sentence forms. In: Japanese syntax
and semantics: Collected papers. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp.
13–77.
Oyakawa, Takatsugu, 1975. On the Japanese sika-nai construction. Gengo
Kenkyu 67, 1–20.
Ueyama, Ayumi, 1998. Two types of dependency. Ph.D. thesis.
von Fintel, Kai, 1993. Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics 1,
123–148.