focus particle (scale) (scalar reading) The basic semantic function of `toritate'(designting)-particles in Japanese, which correspond to so-called `focus particles' in English, is to designate an object in the context as the focused element, and to quantify the set of its alternatives (contrastive objects). Among those particles, some induce a kind of scalar readings (interpretations) depending on their context. For these scalar readings, an ordered structure among the set of alternatives is set up. But the ways those readings are induced dier depending on the particle used and the context it is in. These dierences lead to further subtle but signicant dierences among those readings. In this paper, we examine four of those scalar particles, SAE, MO, MADE, and DAKE, and try to clarify the dierences among the scalar readings. 1 [16] [[16], p.8] [10] { { { { [[10], p.108] 1
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (4) a. b. come(t) (5) a. b. come(t) ^9x 2 C((x 6= t) ^:come(x)) (6) a. b. come(t) ^9x 2 C((x 6= t) ^ come(x)) (7) a. b. come(t) ^8x 2 C((x 6= t) :come(x)) b a C C (t) (alternatives) A B (8) a. MO(A; B) ((A \ B 6= ) ^ (A \ B 6= )) b. DAKE(A; B) (A \ B = ) c. WA(A; B) ((A \ B 6= ) ^ (A \ B 6= )) (scale) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 2
(14) (9) (scale) (10) (11)(12) (13) (9) (14) (15) (16) (17) (15) (16) (17) (10) (scale) (scalar reading) [10] [16] (18) (9) (10) (11),(12) (13),(14) (6) (15),(16) (7) (17) (18) 2 1 (9)(13)(14)(15)(16) 3
(19) a. b. c. (19) (20) a. b. c. d. NP( )- -P redicate( ) NP( )- - P redicate( ) NP( )- -Pred( ) (21) NP particle P redicate particle = f g (20) jnp j=a jpredicatej=p (22) a. P (A) b. 8x 2 C(x 6= A (P (A) ) P(x))) c. 9x 2 C(x 6= A ^ P (x)) d. 8x 2 C(P(x)) (22a) (21) A P (22b) A (alternatives) C P A (20b) A P (22a) (22c) (existential implicature) (20c) (22d) (20d) `)' (22a) (22b) (22d) (22c) (22d) (22a)? (22d)? (22c) (22b) (22b) `)' (19) (15) 4
`even' `)' [5] `least likely' [1] `more surprizing' [4] `more informative' 1 `)' 2.1 (22b) (22b) (23) jsaej = xp (P(x) ^8y 2 C((y 6= x) (P (x) ) P(y)))) x C P `)' x (22a)(22b) (22d) (22a)(22b) `)' (22c) (22d) 2 3 (22) $ (22a) (22b)? (22d)? % (22c) ' & 2.2 (25) (16) (26) (16) (16) (26) 1 [4] `more informative' Grice 2 (presupposition) (conventional implicature) (conversational implicature) 3 (19a) (24) (22d) `)' (deontic) (22d) 5
(27) (28) [16] X P P X P P X P P [[16], p.108] (scale) (22) (6) (22c) (22c) (22c) (29) jmoj = xp(p (x) ^9y 2 C((y 6= x) ^ P (y))) (22a)(22c) (22b)(22d) (scale) (30) 8x1;x2 2 C(((P (x1) ) P (x2)) _ (P (x2) ) P (x1))) ^ (((P (x1) ) P(x2)) ^ (P (x2) ) P(x1))) x1 =x2)) C `)' 4 (29) (22c) A P A1 (30) (31) (P (A1) ) P (A)) _ (P (A) ) P (A1)) (30) A1 A A1 A P (A) A1 A (32) P (A1) ) P (A) P(A1) P (A) Grice (informativeness) (32) P (A1) P(A) (informative) P (A1) (uninformative) P (A) P (A) (33) P (A) ) P (A1) 4`)' 6
P (A) P(A1) (informative) P (A1) P(A) P(A1) A1 (scale) A P (A) A A1 A (22b) (22b) (scale) (22a) (22c) (30)? (22b)? (22d) 2.3 [16] (21) A P A A (34) (35) (36) (34)(35) (36) A (37) a. b. 5 (35) (36) A (35)(36) (35) (36) (38) 5 [10] 7
(38) (??) P P P A (39) 8x 2 C(x 6= A A<x) (22b) P (39) A A C A (39) (22b) (22a) (39)? (22d)? (22b) 3 1 [10] [16] (40) 2.1 (41) a. b. c. d. (42) a. b. c. d. 8
(41a) (41b,c) (41d) (41a) (42) (42d) (42a) (41a) (43) a. b. c. (41) (17a) [6][7] (44) a. b. (44b) [2][9] (44a) (44a) (44a) 3.1 [10] (45) a. b. (45a) (45b) ad hoc (41)(45) (41a) (23) 6 6 P Q(if P then Q) 9
(46) a. (wide scope) jsaej( )(P(if P then ))= (if then )^ 8R 2 C(R 6= ((if then ))(if R then ))) b. (narrow scope) (if jsaej( )(x(x )) then )= (if ( ^8y(y 6= ( ) y ))) then ) (46a) 2.1 (22c,d) (47) a. 9R 2 C((R 6=( )) ^ (if R then )) b. 8R 2 C(if R then ) (47b) (41a) (41a)(45a) (46b) (41a) (45) (45b) (48) (45) (45a) (45b) (41a) (49) A,B,C (50) (B < A < C) (51) B A C (50)??? - 10
(51) a. (A ) 8x ((x A) (x )) b. (A ) 8x ((x >A) :(x )) (41a) [10] 3.2 (17)(41d) (52) jdake j = xp (P (x) ^8y 2 C(P (y) y = x)) (41d) (53) a. (wide scope) jdake j( )(P( if P then )) = (if then ) ^8R 2 C((if R then ) R =( )) b. (narrow scope) (if jdake j( )(x(x )) then ) = (if ( ^8y(y y = )) then ) (53a) (53b) [13] (54) a. b. c. (54) [13] (54a) (54b) (54c) 11
(55) (wide scope) (narrow scope) (54a) { { + (54b) { + + (54c) + + { (56) (56) (54b) (54b) (56) (54b) (57) a. b. c. 7 4 (scale) (focus) (focus) 7 [4] `plus' (58) a. George drank a little wine, a little brandy, a little rum, a little calvados, plus a little armagnac. b. George drank a little wine, a little brandy, a little rum, a little calvados, even a little armagnac. (58a) (58b) 12
(focus) (scale) (focus) (59) (9) (10) (11),(12) (13),(14) + (6) (15),(16),(60) (7) (17),(61) (60) (61) (60) (61) no more than [1] Bennet, J. (1982). Even if. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5:403{418. [2] Harada, Y. and N. Noguchi (1992). On the Semantics and Pragmatics of dake (and only). In the proceedings of the SALT II, Ohio State University Press. 13
[3] Hoeksema, J. and Zwarts, F. (1991). Remarks on Focus Adverbs. Journal of Semantics,851{70. [4] Kay, P. (1991). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16:589-611. [5] Karttunen, L., and Peters, S. (1979). Conventional Implicature. In C-K. Oh and D. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.11. Academic Press, New York, 1{56. [6] (1983)... [7] (1971).,, 10:1-27. [8] Noguchi, N. and Y. Harada (1992). Semantic and Pragmatic Interpretations of Japanese Sentences with DAKE (ONLY). In the proceedings of COLING-92. [9], (1993)., 10. [10] (1986).,,. [11] (1991).,, 3. [12] (1993).,. [13] (1994).,. [14] Rooth, M.E.: (1985). Association with Focus. PhD. Dissertation, UMass. [15] Taglicht, J. (1984). Message and Emphasis: On focus and scope in English. Longman. [16] (1991). III.. [17] von Stechow, A. (1989). Focusing and Backgrounding Operators. In Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Konstanz, Arbeitspapier Nr.6. 14