Language and Linguistics 18.1: 1-25 (DOI 10.1075/lali.18.1.01SAI), 2017.
Japanese Wh-Phrases as Operators with Unspecified Quantificational Force*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University and University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
The precise analysis of Japanese wh-words such as dare ‘who’, nani ‘what’ and itu ‘when’has been controversial. I argue in this paper, building on an insight of Nishigauchi (1990), thatthey are operators that need to be specified for quantificational force. When applied towh-questions, this yields the covert movement analysis that Lasnik and Saito (1984) andRichards (2001) pursued on the lead of Huang’s (1982) analysis of Chinese.
The Japanese wh-expressions exhibit apparently conflicting properties. First, they areinterpreted differently in different contexts as the following examples show:(1)

Taroo-wa [[dare-ga
sore-o tabeta] ka] sitteiru
Taroo-TOP who-NOM it-ACC ate
Q know‘Taroo knows who ate it.’(2)[[[Dare-ga kaita] hon] mo] omosiroi
who-NOM wrote book also interesting‘For every x, x a person, the book that x wrote is interesting.’

In (1), dare indeed seems to be construed as an interrogative wh-phrase. However, it is part ofuniversal quantification in (2), an example cited from Takahashi (2002). Then, thequantificational force originates in the particles, ka and mo, instead of dare. Kuroda (1965)
made this observation and called the wh-words ‘indeterminate pronouns’. He explicitly statesthat they function as “yet unbound variables.” Nishigauchi (1990) develops this idea andproposes an analysis in terms of Heim’s (1982) unselective binding. According to this analysis,
mo serves as a universal quantifier and dare is interpreted as a variable in (2).
*The material in this paper was presented in the 2013 advanced syntax course at Nanzan University andin colloquia at Academia Sinica and Keio University in 2014. I would like to thank Henry Y. Chang,
Hisatsugu Kitahara and Kensuke Takita, among others, for helpful discussion and an anonymous
reviewer for constructive comments. I also benefited from discussions with Noam Chomsky, Tomohiro
Fujii, Keiko Murasugi and W.-T. Dylan Tsai.

2
At the same time, a locality restriction is observed between a wh-expression and theassociated particle. In particular, wh-island effects obtain as discussed in detail in Nishigauchi(1990) and Watanabe (1992). The examples in (3) illustrate this.
(3) a.

[[Hanako-ga
sono toki [[Taroo-gakuru] to]itta] ka] osiete kudasai
Hanako-NOM that time Taroo-NOM come COMP said Q teach please‘Please tell me if Hanako said then that Taroo was coming.’b.

[[Hanako-ga
sono toki [[dare-gakuru] to]itta] ka] osiete kudasai
Hanako-NOM that time who-NOM come COMP said Q teach please‘Please tell me who Hanako said then was coming.’c.

[[Hanako-ga
sono toki [[dare-gakuru] ka] tazuneta] ka] osiete kudasai
Hanako-NOM that time who-NOM come Q asked
Q teach please
A. Please tell me if Hanako asked then who was coming.
B. ??Please tell me who Hanako asked then if she/he is coming.

(3a) shows that the question particle ka yields a yes/no question in the absence of awh-expression. The most deeply embedded subject Taroo is changed to dare ‘who’ in (3b).
This example demonstrates that a wh-expression and the associated question particle ka can beseparated by a clause boundary. Finally, ka is substituted for the most deeply embedded
complementizer to in (3c). This example should be ambiguous. If the wh-expression isassociated with the lower ka, it should have the interpretation in A, which is indeed possible.
On the other hand, if it is associated with the higher ka, the lower ka should be interpreted as‘whether’ and the interpretation in B should obtain. But this interpretation is more difficult.
This wh-island effect suggests that Japanese wh-questions are derived by movement.
Attempts have been made to reconcile these two properties. For example, Tsai (1999)
adopts Watanabe’s (1992) analysis for Japanese and proposes that a null interrogative operator
originates with the wh-word in the language and moves to its scope position as in (4a) whereas
Chinese allows direct merger of the null operator at its scope position as in (4b).
(4) a.

b.

[CP Op[Q] x [C' [TP ... [DP Op[Q] x [whx]] ... ] C]][CP Op[Q] x [C' [TP ... [DP [whx]] ... ] C]]

Then, wh-expressions are construed as variables bound by interrogative operators in bothlanguages. But wh-island effects are observed in Japanese because the interrogative operator

3
must move to the scope position. Particle movement analysis, as an alternative, is entertained in
Maki (1995) and Hagstrom (1998) for wh-questions, and Takahashi (2002) for otherquantificational constructions. For example, Takahashi proposes that mo in (2) originates withdare and moves to its surface position as in (5).
(5)[[Dare-mo-ga

kaita hon] mo ] omosiroi

This analysis, like Nishigauchi’s (1990), assumes that dare is interpreted as a variable and mo,which is argued to undergo movement, serves as a universal quantifier.
Although these analyses have many attractive features, I argue that they do not quite capture
the special relation between wh-expressions and the associated particles in Japanese. I propose
then that wh-expressions in Japanese are operators without specific quantificational force. I
argue that they must move covertly to positions that allow them to probe particles and to havetheir quantificational force valued. This is illustrated in (6).
(6)[wh [[ ..... wh ..... ] particle]]quantificational force

The analysis basically works out Nishigauchi’s (1990) idea that “the quantificational force of awh-expression” is determined by “a quantificational particle.” I show that it successfully
accounts for the island sensitivity as well as the relation between wh-expressions and theassociated particles. Although it incorporates the insights of the works mentioned above, it isdifferent in one fundamental respect from most of them. Nishigauchi (1990), Tsai (1999) and
Takahashi (2002) all follow Kuroda (1965) and assume that wh-expressions are interpreted as
variables. I question and argue against this widely held assumption.1
In the following section, I go over Nishigauchi’s (1990) unselective binding analysis,
illustrating the basic facts of wh-expressions in Japanese at the same time. In Section 3, I first
discuss Tsai’s (1999) proposal to develop this analysis on the basis of comparative syntax ofChinese and Japanese. Then, I consider Takahashi’s (2002) analysis in terms of particle
movement. Through the discussion, I present the motivations for the idea that wh-expressions
in Japanese are not to be construed as variables but are operators. In Section 4, I outline theanalysis and discuss some consequences. Section 5 concludes the paper.

1

Nishigauchi’s (1990) analysis is nicely summarized in Nishigauchi (1991). A survey of various
analyses, including Shimoyama’s (2001) semantic account, can be found in Shimoyama (2008).

4
2. Nishigauchi’s (1990) Unselective Binding Analysis
As noted above, wh-expressions in Japanese are employed in various contexts. This is
illustrated in (7) with dare ‘who’.
(7) a.

[[Dare-ga kuru] ka] osiete kudasai (interrogative wh)who-NOM come Q teach please‘Please tell me who is coming.’b.

[dare-mo-gayomu] hon (universal quantifier)
who-also-NOM read book‘the book that everyone reads’c.

[dare-ka-ga suteta] hon (existential quantifier)
who-or-NOM discarded book‘the book that someone discarded’d.

[dare-de-momotteiru] hon (free choice)
who-Cop.-also havebook‘the book that anyone has’e.

[dare-mo yomanai] hon (negative polarity)
who-also read-not book‘the book that no one reads’

It should be clear from these examples that the particles in italic play crucial roles in theinterpretation. Further, as shown in (2), repeated below as (8), not only the question particle ka
but also the other particles can appear separated from the wh-words.
(8)[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] omosiroi
who-NOM wrote book also interesting‘For every x, x a person, the book that x wrote is interesting.’

In this example, mo appears on the relative head whereas dare ‘who’ is contained within therelative clause. While forms like dare-mo in (7b) may be lexicalized, the relation between dare

5and mo in (8) is clearly mediated by syntax.2 Hence, I focus on cases where a wh-expression
and the associated particle appear apart as in this example. As the relevant cases are observed
most extensively with the question particle ka and the universal particle mo, I mainly discussthese in what follows.
Nishigauchi (1990) develops Kuroda’s (1965) idea that wh-words are ‘indeterminate
pronouns’, and proposes an analysis for the diverse contexts of wh-expressions in terms of
unselective binding. Let us first briefly review Heim’s (1982) unselective binding before
discussing his analysis. Heim assumes that quantification is represented with a tri-part clausestructure as in (9b).
(9) a.
b.
c.

Everyone is smart[Everyx] [x is a person] [x is smart][Every x: x is a person] [x is smart]

The second part ‘x is a person’ is the restriction on the quantifier, and the last part is the coresentence. (9b) is expressed as (9c) in more familiar notation. Given this, (10a), an example ofdonkey anaphora, would be initially assigned the structure in (10b), pending the interpretationof the indefinite a painting.
(10) a.
b.
c.

Everyone who bought a painting was satisfied with it[Everyx] [x is a person and x bought a painting] [x was satisfied with it][Everyx, y] [x is a person, y is a painting, and x bought y] [x was satisfied with y]

The final structure to be obtained is (10c). Then, Heim proposes that indefinites are interpreted
as variables and are unselectively bound by quantifiers. In (10b), a painting is interpreted as avariable bound by every. With a proper representation of the restriction, we derive (10c).
Although the universal quantifier that unselectively binds the indefinite is explicit in (10a),2

The pattern in (8) with the universal mo is quite productive. On the other hand, the form, wh-word+mo,
is idiosyncratic. For example, dare-mo ‘who+mo’ is allowed, but nani-mo ‘what+mo’ is not, as shown
below.
(i) *Nani-mo(-ga)
oisikatta
what-also-NOM delicious-was‘Intended. Everything was delicious.’
Further, the particle mo usually cannot be followed by a Case marker, but dare-mo in (7b) must be.
These facts suggest that dare-mo, for example, is lexicalized as a noun meaning ‘everyone’.

6
it can be implicit. Thus, (11a), another typical example of donkey anaphora, is analyzed as in(11b).
(11) a.
b.

If a man sees a panda, he chases it[Everyx, y] [x is a man, y is a panda and x sees y] [x chases y]

Conditionals, Heim points out, inherently have universal force. If in (11a), for example, can be
replaced by whenever. Then, the implicit universal quantifier binds the indefinites, a man and apanda, and the corresponding pronouns, he and it, as in (11b).
Heim’s (1982) proposal is that indefinites are always interpreted as variables. When there isno quantifier to bind them, she assumes the operation of existential closure, which inserts anexistential quantifier into the structure. (12a) is interpreted as in (12b).
(12) a.
b.

John saw a cat[Somex] [x is a cat] [John saw x]

Diesing (1992), on the basis of Carlson’s (1977) observations, proposes that existential closure
applies to bare plural subjects of stage-level predicates as in (13) whereas a generic operator
serves to bind subjects of individual-level predicates as in (14).
(13) a.
b.

Firemen are available[Somex] [x is a fireman] [x is available](14) a.
b.

Cats are wise
[Genericx] [x is a cat] [x is wise](13a) expresses a temporal situation whereas the predicate in (14a) expresses a permanent
property. The subject in (14a) is not interpreted existentially, as in ‘There are wise cats’, but isinterpreted generically.
Nishigauchi (1990) proposes that wh-expressions in Japanese are interpreted as variables,
just like indefinites, and the associated quantificational particles serve as unselective binders.
This allows the embedded question in (15a) to be interpreted as in (15b).
(15) a.

Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga
nani-otabeta] ka] sitteiru
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC ate
Q know‘Taroo knows what Hanako ate.’7b.

[Qx] [x is a thing] [Hanako ate x]

Nani in (15a) is interpreted as a variable in (15b) with the restriction that it is a thing. Similarly,(2), repeated again in (16a), receives interpretation as in (16b-c).
(16) a.

b.
c.

[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] omosiroi
who-NOM wrote book also interesting‘For every x, x a person, the book that x wrote is interesting.’[Everyx] [x is a book and dare wrote x] [x is interesting][Everyx, y] [x is a book, y is a person, and y wrote x] [x is interesting]Mo, like every in (10a), is assumed to be a universal quantifier on the relative head. This byitself leads to the representation in (16b). Then, dare, like indefinites, is unselectively bound by
the universal quantifier and consequently, the interpretation in (16c) obtains.
Nishigauchi (1990) presents this unselective binding analysis, but he notes at the same timethat there is a clear locality restriction between a wh-expression and the associated particle. (3)was an example illustrating the wh-island effect on a wh-expression and the question particle ka.
Nishigauchi demonstrates that the effect is even more clearly observed on the relation between
wh-expressions and the particle mo. A relevant example is shown in (17).
(17) a.

b.

c.

Taroo-wa [ [Hanako-ga
kuru to]kiite] mo ikanai daroo
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM come COMP hear even go-not will
‘Taroo won’t go even if he hears that Hanako is coming.’
Taroo-wa [ [dare-ga
kuru to]kiite] mo ikanai daroo
Taroo-TOP who-NOM come COMP hear even go-not will
‘For every x, x a person, Taroo won’t go even if he hears that x is coming.’

Taroo-wa [ [dare-ga
kuru ka] kiite] mo ikanai daroo
Taroo-TOP who-NOM come Q hear even go-not will
A. Taroo won’t go even if he hears who is coming.
B. *For every x, x a person, Taroo won’t go even if he hears if x is coming.
Mo is construed as ‘also, even’ in the absence of a wh-expression, as (17a) shows. It can beobserved in (17b) that mo, just like the question ka, need not be clausemates with the associatedwh-expression. (17c) shows that an intervening ka blocks the association of mo with awh-expression. Dare ‘who’ in this example can only be part of a question and cannot yield a8universal quantification structure with mo. The wh-island effects in (3c) and (17c) suggest thata wh-expression moves covertly to the vicinity of the associated particle.3 Nishigauchi (1990),
then, proposes that a government relation between the binder and the bindee is required for
unselective binding to obtain.
Nishigauchi (1990) considers important data and faithfully tries to accommodate them in
his analysis. At the same time, the appeal to both unselective binding and covert movement is alittle puzzling. Operator movement reflects the property of the moved phrase as both anoperator and a variable. For example, Chomsky’s (1993) copy + deletion theory of movement
yields the interpretation of a wh-chain as in (18).
(18) a.
b.
c.

Who did John see?
[[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x][[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x]

Who is an operator ‘[which x: x is a person]’ and a variable ‘x’ at the same time. It is copied at
an operator position as in (18b). Then, with deletion, the operator part receives interpretation at
the landing site and the variable part at the initial site as in (18c). On the other hand, unselective
binding applies to two independent elements; one is a quantifier and the other is a phrase that isinterpreted as a variable. It is not clear why it requires movement.
It is interesting in this connection that while Nishigauchi (1990) appeals to unselective
binding in his analysis, he also hints that wh-expressions in Japanese have quantificational
forces of their own. For example, he states that “the quantificational force of a wh-expression”
is determined by “a quantificational particle.” This is not consistent with Kuroda’s (1965)
characterization of wh-expressions as “indeterminate pronouns,” which Nishigauchi aims todevelop in his analysis. I pursue this alternative conception of Japanese wh-expressions in
Section 4.

3

Other island effects, including complex NP effects, are not observed in similar Japanese examples.
Thus, (i) is perfectly grammatical.
(i)Boku-wa [[[nani-omotteiru] hito]-niatte] mo odorokanai
I-TOP
what-ACC haveperson-DAT meet even be-surprised-not‘For every x, x a thing, I won’t be surprised even if I see a person who carries x.’

I assume with Nishigauchi (1990) that the movement of the wh-expression pied-pipes the whole islandin these cases though the precise mechanism of pied-piping still needs to be worked out.

9
3. Alternatives with Null Operator Movement and Particle Movement
In this section, I consider two alternative analyses that attempt to reconcile unselective
binding and the wh-island facts. I first examine Tsai’s (1999) proposal that adopts Watanabe’s(1992) empty operator movement analysis. Then, I discuss the particle movement analysis of
Takahashi (2002). Building on their insights, I motivate the idea, already hinted at in
Nishigauchi (1990), that wh-expressions in Japanese are operators that need to receive specificquantificational force from quantificational particles.
3.1 Tsai’s (1999) Comparative Syntax of Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese
As discussed above, if Japanese wh-expressions are subject to unselective binding, it ispuzzling that they exhibit wh-island effects. Tsai (1999) proposes a solution for this, but I first
briefly go over his analysis of Chinese as it helps to elucidate the peculiarity of Japanese
wh-expressions further.
As Tsai discusses in detail, there is abundant evidence that Chinese wh-expressions areindefinites and are interpreted with unselective binding. Let us first consider (19).
(19)

Shei xian lai, shei jiu keyi xian chi ne
who first come who then can first eat Qwh‘For which x, x a person, if x comes first, then x is allowed to eat first.’

This example is interpreted as a question with a wh-question marker. The two instances of shei
‘who’ are not interpreted as independent interrogative operators but are construed as variables
bound by the same operator. This, Tsai argues, follows if shei is an indefinite and isunselectively bound by a null interrogative operator as in (20).
(20)[CP Op[Q] x [TP ... sheix ..... sheix ... ]]Note that the Japanese counterpart of (19) in (21) can only be interpreted as a multiple-whquestion.
(21)[Dare-ga saisyo-ni kita-ra, dare-ga
saisyo-ni taberareru ka] (osiete kudasai)
who-NOM firstcome-if who-NOM firsteat-can Q teach please‘(Tell me) for which x and y, x and y persons, if x comes first, then y can eat first.’

There is a clear difference between Chinese and Japanese here.

10

When the question particle ne is omitted from (19), then the sentence can be interpretedwith universal quantification as shown in (22).
(22)

Shei xian lai, shei (jiu) xian chi
who first come who then first eat‘For every x, x a person, if x comes first, then x eats first.’

This is expected if shei is subject to unselective binding as Tsai (1999) points out. As noted
above, conditionals have implicit universal force. When the universal quantifier unselectively
binds shei, the desired interpretation obtains. The situation with wh-expressions in Japanese isagain different. (23a) is an example of donkey anaphora with an indefinite gakusei ‘student’.
(23) a.

Gakusei-ga ku-reba, baku-wa pro au
student-NOM come-if I-TOP
meet‘For every x, x a student, if x comes, I will meet x.’

b. *Dare-ga ku-reba, boku-wa pro au
who-NOM come-if I-TOP
meet
Heim’s (1982) analysis correctly predicts the interpretation because indefinites are construed as
variables and conditionals have universal force. But when a wh-expression dare ‘who’ issubstituted for the indefinite, the sentence becomes ungrammatical as shown in (23b).
As expected, Chinese wh-expressions can be interpreted with existential closure in theabsence of an unselective binder. Tsai (1999) notes that the following example is ambiguous:(24)

Akiu bu xiang chi shenme
Akiu not want eat what
A. ‘Akiu doesn’t want to eat anything.’(= ¬ [Somex] [x is a thing] [Akiu wants to eat x])
B. ‘What does Akiu not want to eat?’

The wh-question reading in B obtains with a null interrogative operator. On the other hand, theinterpretation in A is derived by existential closure under negation as indicated below thetranslation.
Finally, Chinese wh-expressions do not exhibit wh-island effects, in contrast with Japanese,as the following examples from Huang (1982) show:11(25) a. Ni xiang-zhidao [Akiu mai-bu-mai shenme] (ne)You wonder
Akiu buy-not-buy what
Qwh
‘What is the thing x such that you wonder whether Akiu will buy x.’b. Ni xiang-zhidao [shei mai-le shenme]
you wonder
who buy-Asp what
A. ‘What is the thing x such that you wonder who bought x.’
B. ‘Who is the person x such that you wonder what x bought.’(25a) can be construed as a matrix wh-question on shenme ‘what’. And (25b) is ambiguous. In
particular, it can be a matrix wh-question on shei ‘who’ or shenme ‘what’. Tsai (1999) argues
that this too follows from the unselective binding analysis because no movement applies inthese examples.
Tsai’s (1999) Chinese examples discussed above illustrate well that wh-expressions in thelanguage are construed as variables and are subject to unselective binding. Then, how should
the corresponding Japanese examples be analyzed? Adopting Watanabe’s (1992) analysis ofJapanese wh-questions, Tsai proposes that the contrasts between Chinese and Japanese should
be attributed to the difference in the positions where null interrogative operators are merged.
They are merged at their scope positions in Chinese whereas they originate at the edges of DPs
and PPs in Japanese. This is illustrated in (26).
(26) a.

b.

Chinese[CP Op[Q] x [TP ... whx ... ]]Japanese[CP Op[Q] x [TP ... [DP/PP Op[Q] x [...whx ...]] ... ]]According to this analysis, wh-expressions in Japanese questions are indefinites unselectively
bound by null interrogative operators just as those in Chinese. But as the operators in Japaneseare merged at the edges of DPs and PPs, they must move to their scope positions. This yields
the wh-island effects.4
Tsai points out that this analysis enables us to capture the similarities between dou ‘all’ in
4Aoun and Li (1993) and Takita and Yang (2014) discuss further contrasts between Chinese andJapanese, and also arrive at the conclusion that Chinese wh-questions are interpreted by binding
whereas the Japanese counterparts are derived with movement.

12Chinese and the universal particle mo ‘also’ in Japanese. An example of dou-quantification isshown in (27).
(27)

Akiu shei dou xiangxin
Akiu who all trust‘Akiu trusts everyone.’

In this example, dou unselectively binds the wh-expression. (16a) with mo, repeated below as(28), can be analyzed similarly along the lines proposed by Nishigauchi (1990).
(28)[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] omosiroi
who-NOM wrote book also interesting‘For every x, x a person, the book that x wrote is interesting.’

In this example, mo unselectively binds the wh-expression exactly as dou does in (27).
Tsai’s (1990) proposal clearly is an important contribution to the comparative syntax ofChinese and Japanese. However, questions arise with the specifics of the analysis. First, it is notclear why null interrogative operators must merge with DPs or PPs in Japanese. It makes sense
to merge them at their scope positions. On the other hand, if they must originate elsewhere,
there must be a reason for it. But one cannot say that wh-expressions require them to be in thevicinity. In (28), for example, the wh-expression and its unselective binder appear far apart.
Secondly, the analysis does not capture all the wh-island effects observed with wh-expressions
in Japanese. Let us consider again (17c), repeated as (29).
(29)

Taroo-wa [ [dare-ga
kuru ka] kiite] mo ikanai daroo
Taroo-TOP who-NOM come Q hear even go-not will
A. Taroo won’t go even if he hears who is coming.
B. *For every x, x a person, Taroo won’t go even if he hears if x is coming.

As Nishigauchi (1990) points out, a clear wh-island effect is observed with the association ofdare ‘who’ and mo ‘also’. But if mo, as a universal quantifier, can unselectively bind dare, thisis unexpected.
Finally and most importantly, Tsai’s (1999) detailed comparison of Chinese and Japaneseraises doubts on the hypothesis that wh-expressions in Japanese are interpreted as variables. He
acknowledges that Japanese examples similar to (22), repeated as (30), are totallyungrammatical.

13

(30)

Shei xian lai, shei (jiu) xian chi
who first come who then first eat‘For every x, x a person, if x comes first, then x eats first.’

This is confirmed by (31).
(31) *Dare-ga ku-reba, boku-wa dare-ni
au
who-NOM come-if I-TOP who-DAT meet
‘Intended. For every x, x a person, if x comes, I will meet x.’
Given the universal force of conditionals, this example should be able to have the intended
interpretation if dare can indeed be unselectively bound. Tsai takes the ungrammaticality ofexamples of this kind as evidence that Japanese does not allow merger of an operator at thesentential level. But this is dubious if conditionals have intrinsic universal force because of its
meaning.
A clearer case can be made on the basis of the following examples:(32) a.

Taroo-wa hito-ni
atte ita
Taroo-TOP person-DAT meet was‘Taroo was meeting a person.’(= [Somex] [x is a person] [Taroo was meeting x])

b. *Taroo-wa dare-ni atte ita
Taroo-TOP who-DAT meet was‘Intended. Taroo was meeting a person.’(33) a.

Taroo-wa hito-ni
awanakatta
Taroo-TOP person-DAT met-not‘Taroo did not see a person.’(= ¬ [Somex] [x is a person] [Taroo saw x])

b. *Taroo-wa dare-ni
awanakatta
Taroo-TOP who-DAT met-not‘Intended. Taroo did not see a person.’
Tsai (1999) has demonstrated with (24) that wh-expressions in Chinese can be interpreted withexistential closure. The operation of existential closure itself should be operative in Japanese

14
because the indefinites in (32a) and (33a) receive existential interpretation. But then, theinserted existential quantifier should be able to bind the wh-expressions in (32b) and (33b) if
they are subject to unselective binding. The ungrammaticality of the examples then indicatesthat wh-expressions in Japanese are not interpreted as variables.
In the following subsection, I consider Takahashi’s (2002) alternative particle movement
analysis. It not only overcomes some of the problems pointed out in the preceding paragraphs
but also presents further insights into the nature of Japanese wh-expressions. I argue, however,that it raises new questions as well.
3.2 Takahashi’s (2002) Particle Movement Analysis
In order to motivate his particle movement analysis, Takahashi (2002) shows that therelation between wh-expressions and quantificational particles is much tighter than a standard
unselective binding analysis predicts. I go over this discussion first.
Recall that a standard case of unselective binding takes place between a quantifier that
selectively binds a variable and an independently generated expression that is construed as avariable. Let us consider (10) again, repeated below as (34).
(34) a.
b.
c.

Everyone who bought a painting was satisfied with it[Everyx] [x is a person and x bought a painting] [x was satisfied with it][Everyx, y] [x is a person, y is a painting, and x bought y] [x was satisfied with y]

As indicated in (34b), ‘Everyx’ binds the variable ‘x’ in the subject position and also within the
restriction. Then, it enters into unselective binding relation with the indefinite a painting andyields (34c). Nishigauchi (1990) assumes that this happens also in the binding relation between
a quantificational particle and a wh-expression. This can be seen in the analysis of (16) repeatedbelow as (35).
(35) a.

b.
c.

[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] omosiroi
who-NOM wrote book also interesting‘For every x, x a person, the book that x wrote is interesting.’[Everyx] [x is a book and dare wrote x] [x is interesting][Everyx, y] [x is a book, y is a person, and y wrote x] [x is interesting]As noted in Section 2, mo is assumed to universally quantify over the relative head hon ‘book’,
and then, unselectively bind dare ‘who’. (35c) indeed seems to be the correct interpretation of

15(35a).
However, Takahashi (2002) points out that mo is not interpreted as a universal quantifierindependently of a wh-expression. First, (36a) and (36b) differ in meaning.
(36) a.

b.

Taroo-wa dono hon-mo yonda
Taroo-TOP which book-also read
‘Taroo read every book.’
Taroo-wa hon-mo yonda
Taroo-TOP book-also read
‘Taroo read a book also.’ NOT ‘Taroo read every book.’

While mo in (36a) serves to express universal quantification over books, mo in (36b) simply
means ‘also’.
Further, Takahashi (2002) observes that the analysis in (35) faces a problem when theadjective omosiroi ‘interesting’ is changed to a stage-level predicate. His example is given in
(37).
(37)

[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] tosyokan-ni aru
who-NOM wrote book also library-in is‘For every x, x a person, there is (also) a book that x wrote in the library.’(37) does not mean that the library has every book of every author. It is true if there is at least
one book for each author in the library. It can be paraphrased as in (38).
(38)[Every x: x is a person] [Some y: y is a book and x wrote y] [y is in the library]

Then, the fact that (35) is construed with universal quantification over books is not because mouniversally quantifies over hon ‘book’ but is due to other factors. It seems certainly relevantthat the main predicate is individual-level. Takahashi (2002) concludes that mo is interpreted asa universal quantifier only with respect to a wh-expression.
In order to capture this tight relation between wh-expressions and quantificational particles,
Takahashi (2002) proposes that mo as a universal quantifier, for example, selects a
wh-expression. Based on this, he analyzes examples like (37) with particle movement as in
(39).

16

(39)

[[Dare-mo-ga
kaita hon] ] tosyokan-ni aru
who-also-NOM wrote booklibrary-in is‘For every x, x a person, (also) a book that x wrote is in the library.’

This movement seems well motivated for the purpose of interpretation. As noted in (18),
operator movement establishes an operator-variable chain with copy and deletion. (18) is
repeated in (40).
(40) a.
b.
c.

Who did John see?
[[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x][[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x]

If dare-mo is composed of two parts, dare, which is construed as a variable with a restriction,and mo, which is interpreted as a universal quantifier, then it should suffice to move mo. This is
illustrated in (41).
(41) a.
b.
c.

[[dare-mo-ga kaita hon] ][[[x: x is a person]-[every x]-ga kaita hon]][[[x: x is a person]-[every x]-ga kaita hon] [every x]]

Takahashi (2002) proposes this movement analysis specifically for quantificational particles
other than the question ka, but similar analyses are presented for the question particle in Maki
(1995) and Hagstrom (1998).
Although Takahashi’s analysis has attractive features, a few questions can be raised. First, itremains to be seen whether the wh-island effect on the relation between a wh-expression andthe associated particle can be captured properly with particle movement, as Takahashi
acknowledges and discusses. Secondly, the analysis, like those of Nishigauchi (1990) and Tsai
(1999), assumes that wh-expressions are interpreted as variables. Then, it is not clear why theycannot occur without quantificational particles and be interpreted with unselective binding.
Examples like (23b), repeated as (42), indicate that this is impossible.
(42) *Dare-ga ku-reba, boku-wa pro au
who-NOM come-if I-TOP
meet‘Intended. For every x, x a person, if x comes, then I will meet x.’

17Third, according to the analysis, a quantificational particle must always be employed
together with a wh-expression. This is so because mo, for example, is interpreted as a universal
quantifier only in conjunction with a wh-expression. Takahashi (2002) appeals to selection toguarantee this, but the nature of the selectional relation is unclear. The distributions of therelevant particles and wh-expressions suggest that it is rather the wh-expressions that requireparticles. The following examples show that the question particle ka can occur without awh-expression, but a wh-expression cannot be interpreted without a particle:(43) a.

b.

Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga
nani-otabeta] ka] sitteiru (koto)
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC ate
Q know fact‘(the fact that) Taroo knows what Hanako ate’Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga
wani-otabeta] ka] sitteiru (koto)
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM alligator-ACC ate
Q know fact‘(the fact that) Taroo knows if Hanako ate alligator meat’c. *Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga
nani-otabeta] to]omotteiru (koto)
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC ate
COMP thinkfact
The embedded clause of (43a) is a wh-question, and that of (43b) with the same question
particle ka is interpreted as a yes/no question. (43c) contains only a wh-expression without ka,
and fails to receive an interpretation.
The same point applies to the particle mo, as shown in (44).
(44) a.

b.

[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] tosyokan-ni aru (koto) (= (37))
who-NOM wrote book also library-in is fact‘(the fact that) for every x, x a person, there is (also) a book that x wrote in thelibrary’[[Kaigironzya-ga kaita hon] mo] tosyokan-ni aru (koto)skeptic-NOM wrote book also library-in is fact‘(the fat that) there is also a book that a skeptic wrote in the library’c. *[Dare-ga kaita hon]-ga
tosyokan-ni aru (koto)
who-NOM wrote book-NOM library-in is fact
Mo in (44b) is interpreted as ‘also’ in the absence of a wh-expression. (44c), without mo, istotally ungrammatical. According to Takahashi’s (2002) analysis, the mo in (44a) and that in18(44b) are different lexical items. The former is a universal quantifier whereas the latter means‘also, even’. But a unified analysis would be desirable.
If the mo’s in (44a) and (44b) are identical, then they should both be interpreted as ‘also’.
This implies that it is not a universal quantifier in (44a). Then, dare ‘who’ should be interpreted
as the universal quantifier after all. Since this construal of dare is possible only in the presenceof mo, the particle should be the source of its quantificational force. This brings us back to
Nishigauchi’s (1990) statement that “the quantificational force of a wh-expression” isdetermined by a “quantificational particle.” The idea can be schematically expressed as in (45).
(45) a.

b.

[wh + variable [[ ..... wh + variable ..... ] particle]]covert movement[wh + variable [[ ..... wh + variable ..... ] particle]]quantificational force

A wh-expression is an operator without specific quantificational force. It then has to movecovertly to a position where it can probe a quantificational particle that provides the required
quantificational force. When it probes mo, the wh-expression is interpreted as a universal
quantifier. I outline an analysis along this line in the following section.

4. Valuation of Operator Feature with Covert Movement
I propose in this section that the mechanism of feature valuation, widely assumed for
f-features and Case features, can successfully accommodate the idea illustrated in (45). I first
briefly go over the mechanism of feature valuation as proposed in Chomsky (2000) andBošković (2007), and then apply it to wh-expressions in Japanese.
Chomsky (2000) proposes that f-feature agreement takes place under probe-goal relation asin (46).
(46)

à

TP
T
[f: _ ]
DP
[f: a]vPTP
T[f: a]v'[Case: _ ]vPDP[f: a]v'[Case: NOM]

19
Subject-verb agreement is a phenomenon where the morphological form of T reflects the
f-feature values (for person, number, and gender) of the subject. Since T itself does not havevalues for these features, it searches its domain for a DP. It then enters into Agree relation with
the DP and acquires its f-feature values. Chomsky assumes that the Case of the DP is valued asnominative as a reflection of this agreement. Bošković (2007) develops this analysis andproposes that Case is valued also in probe-goal relation. His analysis is illustrated in (47).
(47)

à

TP
T
[f: _ ]vPDP
[f: a]

T[f: a]v'

vPDP[f: a][Case: _ ]
t

à

TP

TP

DP
[f: a][Case: NOM]v'
[Case:T'T[f: a]_vP]v'

In the last step, the subject DP raises to a position from which it can probe T, and T values its
Case feature as nominative.5 This, according to Bošković (2007), motivates the movement of
the subject to the specifier position of T.
In Saito (2014), I argued that the multiple nominative subject construction in Japaneseprovides support for Bošković’s (2007) analysis. Kuno’s (1973) celebrated example in (48a),for example, is accounted for as in (48b).
(48) a.

Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo-ga
mizika-i
civilized.country-NOM male-NOM average-life.span-NOM short-Pres.
‘It is in civilized countries that male’s average life span is short.’

b.

TP
DP
[Case: _ ]T'DP[Case: _ ]T'DP[Case: _ ]5

T'

If probe is by definition (a feature on) a head, then the relation of DP and T here is not a probe-goalrelation, strictly speaking. Hisa Kitahara suggests the possibility that Case feature valuation is mediatedinstead by a mechanism similar to that employed for feature sharing in Chomsky (2013). After internal
merge forms {DP, T'}, search into DP yields D, the locus of Case feature, and search into T' yields T,
which values the Case feature as nominative. This can be an appropriate configuration for Casevaluation. The idea in effect characterizes the “Spec-head” relation in terms of search. It is more precise
but I continue to use “probe-goal” in the text for ease of exposition.

20
vP

T

By assumption, all the subjects have Case features that need to be valued. As they all find T in
the search domain, their Case features are valued as nominative.6
The mechanism of feature valuation just illustrated allows the analysis of wh-expressions inJapanese as unvalued operators that need to be specified for quantificational force. The
embedded wh-question in (49a), for example, is analyzed as in (49b).
(49) a.

Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga
nani-otabeta] ka] sitteiru (= (43a))
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC ate
Q know‘Taroo knows what Hanako ate.’

b.

CP
TP

à

ka
[Q(uestion)]CP
nani[Op: Q(uestion)]

C'
TP

ka
[Q(uestion)]..... nani ......
[Op: _ ].......

......

Nani ‘what’ has an operator feature, but its value is not lexically specified. Then, it must moveto a position that allows to it to probe for a quantificational particle, just like the DP in (47)
raises to probe for T. The question particle values the operator feature of nani and turns thewh-expression into an interrogative operator.
The example of universal quantification in (44a), repeated below in (50a), is analyzed inbasically the same way.7(50) a.

b.

6[[Dare-ga kaita hon] mo] tosyokan-ni aru
who-NOM wrote book also library-in is‘For every x, x a person, (also) a book that x wrote is in the library.’
FP

à

FP

Saito (2014) argues that multiple subjects are ruled out in English because of failure in labeling in thesense of Chomsky (2013). As the discussion of this would take us too far afield, I must refer the reader tothe paper.
7
As the category of mo is not crucial in this context, I simply use F in (50b).

21
NP

mo
[Conjunctive]dare[Op: Conjunctive]F'
NP..... dare ......
[Op: _ ]mo[Conjunctive]..... t .....
Dare ‘who’ moves and has its operator feature valued as conjunctive.8 As it is widely assumed
and often noted, it does not seem to be an accident that mo is associated with universal force. As
shown in (51), this particle is employed for conjunction.
(51)

Hanako-mo Taroo-mo Ziroo-mo soko-ni ita
Hanako-also Taroo-also Ziroo-also there was‘Lit. Also Hanako, also Taroo, also Ziroo were there.
= Hanako, Taroo and Ziroo were there.’

Universal quantification is equivalent to conjunction of all individuals in the domain of
discourse. Thus, (52) holds when the set of persons in the domain of discourse is {a, b, c, ...}.
(52)

Everyone was there = [a and b and c and ...] were there

I assumed in (50) that this conjunctive meaning of mo turns dare ‘who’ into a universal
quantifier.
Similarly, the existential particle ka in (53a) is employed for disjunction as in (53b).
(53) a.

b.

8

Dare-kara-ka tegami-ga todoita
who-from-or letter-NOM arrived‘A letter arrived from someone or other.’[Hanako-ka Taroo-ka Ziroo-ka]-ga soko-ni ita
Hanako-or Taroo-or Ziroo-or-NOM there was‘Hanako, Taroo or Ziroo was there.’

Dare ‘who’ is extracted out of a relative clause in (50b) and this raises the question why no islandeffect is observed with the example, as the reviewer points out. Although I do not have a concrete
proposal to make here, there are two factors that seem relevant. The first is that Japanese relative clauses
are defective as CPs and are arguably TPs, as shown by Murasugi (1991), and the second is that the final
landing site is within the extended projection of the NP. Given these, it is at least not obvious that an
island effect is predicted with the movement in (50b).

22This is not surprising either because existential quantification is equivalent to disjunction ofelements in the domain of discourse, as illustrated in (54).
(54)

Someone was there = [a or b or c or ...] was there

One advantage of the analysis proposed here is that there is no ambiguity in theinterpretation of quantificational particles. For example, ka as a C is always interpreted as aquestion marker and mo as ‘also, even’. Thus, the same mo occurs in both (55a) and (55b).
(55) a.

b.

[[Taroo-ga
kite] mo] boku-wa pro au
Taroo-NOM come even I-TOP
meet‘Even if Taroo comes, I will meet him.’[[Dare-gakite] mo] boku-wa pro au
who-NOM come even I-TOP
meet‘For any x, x a person, even if x comes, I will meet x.’

It is straightforwardly interpreted as ‘even’ in (55a), and the same interpretation applies in (55b)
as indicated in the translation. There is no need to assume that there are two mo’s, and that one
is interpreted as ‘also, even’ and the other as ‘every’. It is just that the mo in (55b) assumes anadditional function, that is, it values the operator feature of dare and turns the wh-expression
into a universal quantifier.
The analysis also provides a reason for the covert phrasal movement of wh-expressions. As
noted in Section 2, Nishigauchi (1990) proposes that the movement takes place in order for
unselective binding to obtain. But it is unclear why unselective binding should impose a
locality requirement on the binder and the bindee. According to the analysis just presented, awh-expression moves so that its operator feature is valued. It was shown above that a
wh-expression cannot occur in the absence of a quantificational particle. If the operator featureof a wh-expression remains unvalued, the wh-expression cannot receive an interpretation. Then,it follows also that a wh-expression requires a quantificational particle that values its operator
feature.
The wh-island effect examined in Nishigauchi (1990) also receives a straightforward
explanation. Let us consider (3c), repeated below as (56a).
(56) a.

[[Hanako-ga
sono toki [[dare-gakuru] ka] tazuneta] ka] osiete kudasai
Hanako-NOM that time who-NOM come Q asked
Q teach please

23
A. Please tell me if Hanako asked then who was coming.
B. ??Please tell me who Hanako asked then if she/he is coming.

b.

feature valuation[CP [TP ... [CP wh [Op: Q] [C' [TP ... wh ... ] ka [Q] ] ... ] ka [Q] ]covert movement

If CPs constitute phases as proposed in Chomsky (2000), then dare in (56a) must move to theedge of the most deeply embedded CP as in (56b) even if the final landing site is the edge of thehigher CP. But its operator feature is valued as ‘Question’ at this point. Further, it can beinterpreted properly as an interrogative-operator in this position. Hence, there is no need for it
to move on to the edge of the higher CP. Then, the wh-island effect is a clear instance of Rizzi’s(2010) criterial freezing. Once an operator moves to a position where its operator feature isproperly interpreted, it cannot move further.
The island effect in (17c), repeated below as (57a), is stronger.
(57) a.

b.

Taroo-wa [ [dare-ga
kuru ka] kiite] mo ikanai daroo
Taroo-TOP who-NOM come Q hear even go-not will
A. Taroo won’t go even if he hears who is coming.
B. *For every x, x a person, Taroo won’t go even if he hears if x is coming.
feature valuation[FP [TP ... [CP wh [Op: Q] [C' [TP ... wh ... ] ka [Q] ] ... ] mo [Conj] ]covert movement

This is also expected under the proposed analysis. Dare moves to the edge of the most deeply
embedded CP and its operator feature is valued as ‘Question’. As dare is properly interpreted as
an interrogative-operator in this position, further movement is prohibited just as in the case of(56). In addition, in this case, if dare moves to the edge of the higher CP in violation of criterial
freezing, then the result simply fails to be interpreted. This is so because the higher CP is not aquestion and an interrogative wh-operator can only be interpreted as part of a question. Hence,
the interpretation in (57B) should be totally impossible.
To summarize, I argued in this section that wh-expressions in Japanese are unvalued
operators that need to covertly move to obtain quantificational force from particles. The
analysis allows the particles to be interpreted uniformly whether they appear in the presence orabsence of wh-expressions. It accounts for why wh-expressions require particles whereas the24particles can be interpreted without wh-expressions. Finally, it provides a reason for the covert
movement of wh-expressions and a straightforward explanation for the wh-island effects thatthe movement exhibits.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, I suggested an analysis of wh-expressions in Japanese. As it requires covert
phrasal movement of wh-expressions, it resembles Nishigauchi’s (1990) as well as Tsai’s(1999) in some respects. Also, the arguments relied heavily on Takahahashi’s (2002) criticism
of the standard unselective binding analysis. He showed that quantificational particles do notcreate quantificational structures independently of wh-expressions. The analysis in this paper
develops this insight and proposes, along the lines hinted at in Nishigauchi (1990), that
wh-expressions in Japanese are operators that require their quantificational forces to be
determined by the associated particles. This accounts for the fact that wh-expressions, unlike
indefinites, require quantificational particles. I argued that the quantificational force of awh-expression is determined by a quantificational particle through covert phrasal movement.
Despite its similarities with the proposals in the literature, the analysis in this paper makes anovel claim on the status of wh-expressions in Japanese. It denies the widely assumed proposalof Kuroda (1965) that Japanese wh-expressions are ‘indeterminate pronouns’, which receive
interpretation as variables. The present analysis asserts that they are operators, along the linesof Huang (1982), Lasnik and Saito (1984), and Richards (2000). But it departs from theseworks in the claim that they are operators without specific quantificational force. Anotherconsequence of the analysis concerns the valuation of operator feature. As illustrated with
Chomsky (2000) and Bošković’s (2007) analyses of f-feature agreement and Case valuation,
the proposed cases of feature valuation apply to uninterpretable features. For example,
f-features on Tense and Case features on DPs are not subject to semantic interpretation andonly have effects on PF. On the other hand, the valuation of operator feature proposed in thispaper not only has effects on semantic interpretation but is required for semantic interpretation.
Then, if the analysis in this paper is on the right track, the mechanism of feature valuation is
employed more extensively than generally assumed.

References
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. On some differences between Chinese andJapanese wh-elements. Linguistic Inquiry 24.2: 365-372.

25
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even moreminimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38.4: 589-644.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The View from Building 20:
Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay
Keyser, 1-52, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels andJuan Uriagereka, 89-155, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hagstrom, Paul A. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT dissertation.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic
Inquiry 15.2: 235-289.
Maki, Hideki. 1995. The Syntax of Particles. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, andAcquisition. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1991. Construing wh. Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, ed. by
C.-T. James Huang and Robert May, 197-231, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. On some properties of criterial freezing. The Complementizer Phrase:
Subjects and Operators, ed. by E. Phoevos Panagiotidis, 17-32, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without f-feature agreement. On
Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, ed. by Anna Cardinaletti,
Guglielmo Cinque and Yoshio Endo, 269-297, Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2001. Wh-constructions in Japanese. Amherst: University of26
Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2008. Indeterminate pronouns. The Oxford Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 372-393, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2002. Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33.4:
575-615.
Takita, Kensuke and Barry Chung-Yu Yang. 2014. On multiple wh-questions with ‘why’ inJapanese and Chinese. Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, ed. by Mamoru Saito,
206-227, New York: Oxford University Press.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.1: 39-73.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 1.3: 255-291.