Abstract
After presenting some basic genetic, historical and typological information about Japanese this chapter outlines the quantification patterns it expresses. It illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definited and partitive which are defined in the Quantifier Questionnaire in Chapter 1. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Nominal (or Determiner) type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in Japanese, both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Modal-like expressions such as yooda ‘it seems’, sooda ‘I heard’, rasii ‘it seems’, and mitaida ‘it seems’ are added to the sentences (within parentheses) to make the occurrences of ga-marked nominal expressions natural. Without such an expression, some people prefer to use the topic marker wa in place of ga.
- 2.
We use the following abbreviations: TOP = topic, NOM = nominative, ACC = accusative, DAT = dative, GEN = genitive, NEG = negation, COMP = complementizer, EMPH = emphasizer, CL = classifier, Q = question, and P = particle. Where necessary, we rank the acceptability of a given sentence, using the following scale: (i) ‘ok’ or ‘ ’ = acceptable; (ii) ‘?’ = slightly marginal; (iii) ‘??’ = marginal; (iv) ‘?*’ = very marginal; (v) ‘*’ = unacceptable.
- 3.
- 4.
The issue of how to characterize case-marking in Japanese is controversial. For example, Takezawa (1987) adheres to a structural view, and Saito (1983) assumes that o is the realization of structural Case but ga is not. Kuroda (1978), on the other hand, offers an account in terms of language-particular canonical case patterns.
- 5.
However, Kuroda (1978) maintains that ga and o must be treated differently from the other case-markers and postpositions.
- 6.
- 7.
It should be noted that the relation between the X and the NP in (21) may not be one only of modification but also of predication. For example, (i) can be understood to mean the criminal’s son or [someone’s] son, who is a criminal.
(i)
[Hannin no
[musuko]]
 criminal gen son
 While we acknowledge that labeling something that expresses the predication relation as a genitive marker may not be appropriate, for simplicity’s sake we will call no a genitive marker for both its modification and predication uses.
- 8.
For counting one and two persons, the different classifier form ri is used, e.g., gakusei huta-ri ‘two students’.
- 9.
/piki/ and /biki/ are allomorphs of /hiki/, whose distributions are phonologically determined. A similar remark applies to hon/bon/pon, hako/pako, and hai/bai/pai as well.
- 10.
The behavior of measure phrases is difficult to describe. Measure phrases can follow the object under measurement as in (30), and measure the object itself. But they can also follow a phrase describing the scale under discussion as in omosa 3 g ‘(lit.) heaviness 3 g’, nagasa 3m ‘(lit.) length 3m’, and haikiryoo 3000 cc ‘displacement 3000 cc’, and the resulting phrases can modify an NP as in nagasa 3m no turizao ‘a 3m fishing rod’ and haikiryoo 3000 cc no kuruma ‘a 3000 cc car.’
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Some of them allow duplication—e.g., doko doko ni itta no desuka ‘where did you go?’; dare dare ga kita no ka osiete kudasai ‘please tell me who came?’ But their functions are complex, and are beyond the scope of this paper.
- 14.
Watanabe (1992) takes this to be the evidence for syntactic movement and assumes that what is moved is an empty operator rather than a wh-word itself.
- 15.
See Onoe (1983) for the various uses of wh-words.
- 16.
- 17.
As we see later, the QEs in (48a), (48b), and (48c) serve as quantifiers. In addition, in the (48a) pattern, they may function as denoting a property—e.g., san-ko no ringo can be translated into three apples or a pack of three apples (as opposed to a pack of five apples, for example).
- 18.
Regarding which item can be used in which pattern, speakers’ responses may vary. We have observed variation especially with regard to the NP + QE + CM and NP + CM + QE patterns.
- 19.
Boo-NP ‘some NP’ is different from the English expression some NP in that in uttering boo-NP, the speaker necessarily refers to a particular individual that he/she has in mind. As a consequence, the speaker gives the hearer the impression that he/she is unwilling to disclose the name of the individual about whom he/she is talking.
- 20.
In English, when the speaker speaks about a referent that is known to him/her but not to the hearer, the use of an existential quantifier is appropriate; see (i).
(i)
Since I need to meet some teacher, I will not be able to come to your place today.
By contrast, the existential quantifier analogues constructed with a wh-word in Japanese do not have this use—they are used to address a referent that the speaker does not know.
- 21.
One exception is dare ka ‘someone’. When dare ka is used as the QE of the QE + no + NP + CM pattern, the resulting unit becomes no longer an existential quantifier analogue; see (i).
(i) Dare ka no
gakusei ga
 kita.
who
p
gen student
nom came
 ‘Someone’s student came.’
  Incidentally, any existential quantifier analogues built from a wh-word (including dare ka ‘someone’) can be followed by the NP + CM unit, and the resulting unit as a whole expresses what existential quantifiers mean; see (ii).
(ii)
Dare ka gakusei ga
 kita.
 who
p
student nom came
 ‘Some student came.’
  One might wonder if the pattern exemplified by (ii) is a variation of the NP + QE + CM pattern (i.e., (48b)) or the NP + CM + QE pattern (i.e., (48c)). While this is a reasonable assumption, there is a fact indicating otherwise—as pointed out by Kamio (1973) and Okutu (1985), we can find situations where the pattern illustrated in (ii) is acceptable while the NP + QE + CM and NP + CM + QE patterns are not; see (iii) against (iv).
(iii)
Dare ka siranai
hito
kara tegami ga
kita.
 who
p
not:know person from letter
nom came
 ‘A letter came from someone we do not know.’
   (iv)
a.
*Siranai hito dare ka kara tegami ga kita.
   b.
*Siranai hito kara dare ka tegami ga kita.
  - 22.
We note that while in in zen-in, sya in zen-sya, and bu in zen-bu are all bound morphemes, one might argue that some of these are not regarded as classifiers, for in in zen-in, for example, cannot accompany a number (e.g., *ni-in ‘two-in’ and *san-in, ‘three-in’). For this reason, the heading phrases consisting of a prefix that means ‘all’ + a classifier may turn out to be inappropriate.
- 23.
There are exceptions to this description. For example, when mo appears between dare ‘who’ and α of the dare-α unit, where α is a case-marker or a postposition, the resulting unit becomes a universal quantifier analogue, as illustrated in (i).
(i)
a.
dare mo
ga
sitteru kono omise
    who also nom know
this
shop
    ‘this shop, which everyone knows’
     b.
dare mo
o
nattokusaseru settokuryoku
    who also acc convince
ability:to:convince
     ‘the ability to convince anyone’
     c.
Reiko wa
dare mo
ni
syootaizyoo o
okutta.
  Reiko top who also dat invitation
acc sent
     ‘Reiko sent an invitation to everyone.’
    - 24.
Also with this point, existential D-quantifier analogues are different from universal D-quantifier analogues. As illustrated in (i), embedding a wh-word in an NP and attaching the particle ka to the NP does not produce existential quantifier analogues.
(i)
*[Nani o
katta
hito]
ka ga
syousai o
hookokusita.
 what
acc bought person p
nom details
acc reported
  - 25.
So it appears that universal quantifier analogues built on a wh-word can appear as a head but not in an NP.
- 26.
Sika is morphologically similar to the particle mo, a particle we saw above. When it is attached to an NP-α unit where α is a case marker ga or o, the case-marker may not phonologically surface. If, on the other hand, it is attached to an NP-α unit where α is a postposition or a case-marker other than ga and o, then it must appear.
- 27.
In the literature, hotondo is often compared with the English word most. But as we hint in our translation, hotondo does not encompass all the meanings of most. For example, to describe the situation where 51% of the citizens voted for Obama, (i) is appropriate but (ii) is not.
(i)
Most citizens voted for Obama.
    (ii)
Hotondo no
simin
wa
Obama ni
toohyoosita.
 almost:all gen citizen top Obama dat voted
     ‘Almost all citizens voted for Obama.’
    - 28.
Depending on the speaker we ask, some items in (125) may not be fully compatible with (48b) or (48c).
- 29.
For as yet unknown reasons, universal quantifier analogues built from a wh-word cannot appear as the QE in (133); see (i).
(i)
*Uti no
gakusei no
dono
gakusei mo
kita.
 our gen student
gen which student also came
    ‘All of our students came.’
    - 30.
The sentence in (i) below, whose object has the NP + QE + CM pattern (i.e., (48b)), is not acceptable. This is expected, as san-satu ika ‘three or below’ cannot be used independently from the NP that it modifies; see (ii).
(i)
??Yukiko wa
hon
san-satu
ika
o
yonda. (Cf. (48b).)
 Yukiko top book three-cl equal:less acc read
      ‘Yukiko read three books or less.’
     (ii)
?*Yukiko wa san-satu ika o yonda.
     - 31.
- 32.
Miyachi (1999) also records that the speakers’ judgments of the sentences where an FP is inserted between the NP and the CM of the NP-CM unit may vary.
- 33.
- 34.
Inoue (1978), Shibatani (1978), Miyagawa (1989), Takami (1998), and Tsubomoto (1995) document ‘exception’ cases such as (i).
(i)
(= Takami 1998 [24], slightly adapted)
       Boku wa
gantan
ni osiego
kara go-nin
nengazyoo
o
moratta.
 I
top new:year:day at student from five-cl greeting:card acc received
      ‘I received greeting cards from five students of mine.’
     - 35.
We note that some speakers have difficulty in treating the A-B sequence in (233) to be felicitous when the relevant QNP is gakusei sanbun no iti ga.
- 36.
Regarding the scope interaction between QNPs and negation, some linguists propose generalizations; e.g., Kuno (1980), Imani (1993), Miyagawa (2001), Kataoka (2006). However, these generalizations are controversial, perhaps in part because they do not pay close attention to the locations of focused phrases. In contrast, Kato (1985, 1988) considers the locations of focused phrases; however, he makes a number of stipulations in order to account for certain scope orders—he in effect maintains that a given QNP takes narrow scope with respect to negation only if it is a focused phrase (cf. Kato 1985:100 [25]). We cannot agree the generalization Kato attempts to capture in his analysis.
- 37.
- 38.
The sentences in (282) use the QE + no + NP + CM pattern (i.e., (48a)) and the NP + CM + QE pattern (i.e., (48c)). If the NP + QE + CM pattern is used, they become unacceptable; see (i).
(i)
a.
*Gakusei sensei yori takusan ga paatii ni kita.
 b.
*John wa dansigakusei zyosigakusei yori takusan o syootaisita.
 c.
*Gakusei sukunakutomo sensei to onazi gurai no kazu ga paatii ni kita.
 d.
*John wa dansigakusei sukunakutomo zyosigakusei to onazi gurai no kazu o syootaisita.
References
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 2006. Nihongo no zyosi to kinoohanchu (Japanese particles and their categories). Tokyo: Hitsuji publishers.
Ben Shalom, Dorit. 1993. Object wide scope and semantic trees. In Proceedings of SALT 3, ed. U. Lahiri. Irvine, CA: University of California.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1:181–234.
Deguchi, Masanori, and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and wh-questions. In NELS 32, 73–92. GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Interpreting questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1989. Type-shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives. In Properties, types and meanings, Vol. 2: Semantic issues, eds. G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee, and R. Turner, 21–69. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harada, S.-I. 1977. Nihongo ni ‘henkei’ wa hituyoo da (‘Transformation’ is necessary for Japanese). Gengo 6(11–12):88–95.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 1999. Two ways of deriving distributive readings. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201–216. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 6.1.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2000a. Scope ambiguity and ‘scrambling’. In WCCFL 19, 204–217. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2000b. More on two ways of deriving distributive readings. In Japanese /Korean Linguistics 9, 283–296. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2004. Syntactic and non-syntactic scope. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2010. On the nature of inverse scope readings. Unpublished manuscript, University of Otago, Dunedin. (A paper read at On Linguistic Interfaces, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, June 2, 2007)
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2011. An argument for removing focus from sentence syntax: A case study of so-called focus-sensitive particles in Japanese. Unpublished manuscript, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29:127–152.
Hoji, Hajime. 2003a. Surface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntax. In Anaphora: A reference guide, ed. A. Barss, 172–236. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hoji, Hajime. 2003b. Falsifiability and repeatability in generative grammar: A case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113:377–446.
Hoji, Hajime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama. 2003. Demonstratives in modern Japanese. In Functional structure(s), form and interpretation, eds. A. Li and A. Simpson, 97–128. London: Routledge.
Iida, Asako. 2004. Kazoekata no ziten (Dictionary of counters), Tokyo: Shogakukan Publishers.
Imani, Ikumi. 1993. Hitei ryooka bun o zenken ni motu zyookenbun ni tuite (On conditionals whose antecedent contains quantifiers and negation). In Nihongo no zyooken hyoogen (Japanese conditionals), ed. T. Masuoka, 203–222. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1978. Nihongo no bunpoo kisoku (Grammatical rules in Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kamio, Akio. 1973. Observations on Japanese quantifiers. In Descriptive and applied linguistics 6, 69–91, Tokyo: International Christian University.
Kamio, Akio. 1983. Meisiku-no koozoo (The structure of noun phrases). In Nihongo no kihonkoozoo (The basic structure of Japanese), ed. K. Inoue, 77–126. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3–44.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. Nihongohiteibun-no koozoo: Kakimaze-bun to hiteekoohyoogen (The syntactic structure of Japanese negative sentences: Scrambling construction and negationsensitive elements). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kato, Yasuhiko. 1985. Negative sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Monograph 19. Tokyo: Sophia University.
Kato, Yasuhiko. 1988. Negation and the discourse-dependent property of relative scope in Japanese. In Sophia Linguistica, Working Papers in Linguistics 23/24, 31–37. Sophia University.
Kato, Yasuhiko. 1994. Negative polarity and movement. In MIT working papers in linguistics 24: Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1, 101–120. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1998. The structure of extended nominal phrases: The scrambling of numerals, approximate numerals, and quantifiers in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:1–26.
Kinsui, Satoshi, and Yukinori Takubo. 1990. Danwa kanri riron kara mita nihongo no sizisi (A discourse management analysis of the Japanese demonstrative expressions). In Ninti Kagaku no Hatten (Advances in Japanese cognitive science), 3, 85–116. Tokyo: The Japanese Cognitive Science Society.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1990. Anti-scrambling. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. (A paper read at the Tilburg University Workshop on Scrambling, October 19, 1990)
Kondo, Yasuhiro. 1983. Hukuzyosi no taikei—Gendai nihongo (The classification of focus sensitive particles—Modern Japanese). In Bungakubu 32, 27–38. Tokyo: Japan Women’s University.
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9:1–40.
Kubo, Tomoyuki. 1989. Hukuokasi hoogen no dare/nani nado no gimonsi o hukumubun no pitti pataan (On the Fukuoka dialect pitch patterns of the sentences including wh-words such as dare and nani). Kokugogaku 156:1–12.
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1980. The scope of the question and negation in some verb-final languages. In CLS 16, 155–169.
Kuno, Susumu, Ken-ichi Takami, and Yuru Wu. 1999. Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language 75:63–111.
Kurafuji, Takeo. 1999. Japanese pronouns in dynamic semantics: The null/overt contrast. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Kurafuji, Takeo. 2003. Plural morphemes, definiteness and the notion of semantic parameter. In The proceedings of the third GLOW in Asia. Taipei: National Tsing Hua University.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1969 /1970. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even or only. In Annual Bulletin, Vol. 3, 111–129, and Vol. 4, 127–152. Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter equi in Japanese (A preliminary survey). In Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, eds. J. Hinds and I. Howards, 30–51. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. (Ko), so, a nituite (On (ko), so and a). In Eigo to Nihongo to (English and Japanese), 41–59. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12:1–47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Judgment forms and sentence forms. In Japanese syntax and semantics, 13–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1994. Quantifier scope in Japanese. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15:235–289.
Liu, Feng-hsi. 1990. Scope dependency in English and Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Masuoka, Takashi, and Yukinori Takubo. 1989. Kiso nihongo bunpoo (Basic Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
McGloin, Naomi. 1976. Negation. In Syntax and semantics 5—Japanese generative grammar, ed. M. Shibatani, 371–419. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Mikami, Akira. 1959. Sinteiban: Gendai gohoo zyosetu—Syugo wa hituyoo ka – (Newly revised version: Prolegomena to grammar of modern Japanese – Is subject necessary? –), Tokyo: Tooe Syoin.
Mikami, Akira. 1960. Zoo wa hana ga nagai (As for elephants, the nose is long). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Mikami, Akira. 1970. Bunpoo syooronsyuu (Collected papers on grammar). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Miyachi, Asako. 1999. Toritate keisiki no koobunteki tokutyoo to imikinoo (The categories of focus-sensitive particles and their syntactic properties and semantic contributions)—Toritatesi to kakarizyosi/hukuzyosi. In Nihongoron kenkyuu (Studies of Japanese grammar) 6: Goi to imi (Lexicon and meaning), ed. Nagoya Kotoba no Tudoi Hensyuuiinkai, 51–87. Osaka: Izumi Shoin Publishers.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese, syntax and semantics 22. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 38:645–670.
Nakanishi, Kumiko, and Satoshi Tomioka. 2004. Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13:113–140.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1986. Quantification in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Numata, Yoshiko. 1986. Toritatesi (focus-sensitive particles). In Iwayuru Nihongozyosi no kenkyuu (Studies of so-called focus-sensitive particles), ed. K. Okutu, 105–226. Tokyo: Bonjinsha Publishers.
Okutu, Keiichiro. 1969. Suuryooteki hyoogen no bunpoo (the grammar of quantity expressions). Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese language education) 14:42–60.
Okutu, Keiichiro. 1983. Suuryoosi idoosairon (Quantifier movement revisited). In Zinbun Gakuhoo 160, 1–24. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan University.
Okutu, Keiichiro. 1985. Huteisi dookaku koozoo to huteisi idoo (The structure of appositive indeterminates and their movement). In Todaironkyuu 22, 1–12. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan University.
Okutu, Keiichiro. 1986. Toritatesi no bunpu to imi (The distribution of focus-sensitive particles and their meanings)—‘de dake’ to ‘dake de’ (‘with only’ and ‘only with’)—. In Kokubun Mejiro 25, 80–87. Tokyo: Japan Women’s University.
Onoe, Keisuke. 1983. Huteigo no gosei to yoohoo (The nature and uses of indeterminate words). In Hukuyoogo no kenkyuu (A study of modifiers), 404–431. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin Publishers.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. E.J. Reuland and A.G.B. ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. In WCCFL 2, 247–259. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Sakuma, Kanae. 1951. Gendai nihongo no hyoogen to gohoo—Kaitei-ban (Expressions and constructions in modern Japanese—Revised version). Tokyo: Kooseikaku Publishers.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki (Analysis of the Japanese language). Tokyo: Taishukan Publishers.
Takai, Iwao. 2009. Sukoopu kaisyaku no toogoron to imiron (Syntax and semantics of scope interpretation). Doctoral dissertation, Kyushu University, Fukuoka.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Nihongo-no suuyoosi-yuuri-ni tuite (On quantifier float in Japanese). Gengo 27.1:86–95; 27.2:86–95; 27.3:98–107.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Takubo, Yukinori, and Satoshi Kinsui. 1996. Hukusuu no sinteki ryooiki niyoru danwa kanri (Discourse management in terms of multiple mental domains). Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society 3(3):59–74.
Takubo, Yukinori, and Satoshi Kinsui. 1997. Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics 28:741–758.
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of null arguments in Japanese and its cross-linguistic implications. In Interface, eds. K. Schwabe and S. Winkler, 321–339. Amsterdam /Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
Tsubomoto, Atsuro. 1995. Bunrenketu to nintizusiki—Iwayuru syuyoobu naizaigata kankeisetu to sono kaisyaku (Sentence links and cognitive schemata—So-called head-internal relatives and their interpretations). Nihongogaku 14:79–91.
Ueyama, Ayumi. 1998. Two types of dependency. Doctoral dissertation. Distributed by GSIL publications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Ueyama, Ayumi. 2003. Two types of scrambling constructions in Japanese. In Anaphora: A reference guide, ed. A. Barss, 23–71. Cambridge, CA: Blackwell.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:255–292.
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 24:241–306.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1908. Nihon bunpooron (Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Houbunkan Publishers.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful that we could contribute to this innovative reference book project. We thank Edward Keenan for initiating this project and inviting us to it. In writing this chapter, we have received help from several people, including Kiyoko Kataoka, Tomohide Kinuhata, and Asako Miyachi. Our special thanks go to Tadashi Eguchi and Hajime Hoji, whose comments and suggestions led us to improve the quality of the chapter greatly. We acknowledge that without the help of Ann Hassan on its English exposition, the present chapter was not as readable as it is now. This research was partially supported by the PBRF Research Output Publishing Grant, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hayashishita, JR., Ueyama, A. (2012). Quantity Expressions in Japanese. In: Keenan, E., Paperno, D. (eds) Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 90. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2680-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2681-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)