Wh-quantificationin Dharamsala Tibetan
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

Hadas Kotek
McGill University

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

hadas.kotek@mcgill.ca

37th International Conference, Linguistic Society of India
Jawaharlal Nehru University
October 2015

TodayToday we discuss a series of negative polarity items (NPIs) inDharamsala Tibetan:(1) Wh-EVEN NPIs:
Su-(chi)-yelep-ma-song.
who-(one)-EVEN arrive-NEG-PRFV‘No one arrived.’
Dharamsala Tibetan is SOV, wh-in-situ, with scrambling. Some transitivesubjects bear an ergative marker (see DeLancey, 2011).

2

TodayThe combination of wh-words and EVEN for NPIs is well attested:(2) Japanese wh-EVEN NPI:

(3) Bengali wh-EVEN NPI:

Dare-mo ko-nak-atta.
who-EVEN come-NEG-PASTRam kotha-ojay na.
Ram where-EVEN go NEG‘No one came.’‘Ram doesn’t go anywhere.’(Ramchand, 1996, 22)

The contribution of EVEN in NPIs has been well studied (Heim, 1984; Leeand Horn, 1994; Lahiri, 1998; Chierchia, 2013, a.o.). How they composewith wh-words is less understood (but see Ramchand 1996).
☞ How does a wh-word combine with EVEN to produce an NPI?
3

Shape and distribution4

Wh-EVEN NPIs

(1) Who-EVEN NPI = anyone:
Su-(chi)-yelep-ma-song.
who-(one)-EVEN arrive-NEG-PRFV‘No one arrived.’☞ NPIs can be constructed very productively with different wh-words
and EVEN -ye/yang, with an optional chik ‘one.’5

Wh-EVEN NPIs

(4) What-EVEN NPI = anything:a. Nyekhare-yang se-me.
1sg.ERG what-EVEN eat-NEG‘I didn’t eat anything.’b. Nyekheese-me.
1sg.ERG anything eat-NEG‘I didn’t eat anything.’
Hypothesis: khare-ye > khee6Wh-EVEN NPIs
(5) When-EVEN NPI = at any time:
Nga khatu-ye nye-khi-me.
1sg when-EVEN sleep-PROG-NEG‘I never sleep.’ = ‘I don’t sleep at any time.’(6) Where-EVEN NPI = anywhere:
Nga kawa-chi-yeching-me.
1sg where-one-EVEN go-NEG‘I didn’t go anywhere.’(7) Which-EVEN NPI = any of...:Kuu tep-kangki-ye lok-min-duk.
3sg book-which-EVEN read-NEG-EVID‘He didn’t read any of the books.’
7Chik and -ye/yangWh-ye/yang and wh-chiye are productively NPIs.
Q: Could -chiye be one morpheme?
Case markers show that chik and -ye/yang are two separate morphemes:(8) Chik and -ye/yang separated by ERG:
Kyarang su-chi-ki-ye
thong-song-pe?
2sg
who-one-ERG-EVEN see-PRFV-Q‘Did anyone see you?’
In fast speech, su-chi-ki-ye > su-chi-k-e.
8Chik and -ye/yang(9) Chik is ‘one’:Lopchuk chik lep-ma-song.
student one arrive-NEG-PRFV‘One student didn’t arrive.’ (̸= ‘No student arrived.’)(10) -ye/yang means ‘also/even’:
Tenzen-ki tep-di-yelok-song.
Tenzen-ERG book-this-EVEN read-PRFV‘Tenzen also read THIS BOOK.’
More later on the meaning of -ye/yang.
9One-EVEN NPIs

Dharamsala Tibetan has an additional type of NPI:
(11) One-EVEN NPIs:
Lopchuk chi-ye lep-ma-song.
student one-EVEN arrive-NEG-PRFV‘No student arrived.’
Here, chik ‘one’ is obligatory. As noted above, -ye/yang by itself means‘also/even.’ We will focus today on wh-EVEN NPIs.

10

NPI licensingNPIs are licensed in the scope of negation, but often also in otherdownward-entailing environments (Ladusaw, 1979).
☞ NPIs in Dharamsala Tibetan are licensed by negation and questions
but not other downward-entailing environments.

11

NPI licensing(12) NPIs require a licensing negation or question:
a.

* Nye
khee
see-yin.
1sg.ERG anything eat-EVID

b.

Nye
khee
see-me.
1sg.ERG anything eat-NEG‘I didn’t eat anything.’c.

Kyarang-ki kheesee-pe?
2sg-ERG
anything eat-Q‘Did you eat anything?’
̸= ‘What did you eat?’(See Guerzoni (2004) on why questions behave like negation for NPI licensing.)

12

Conditional clauses(13) NPIs not licensed in conditional clause:a.

[Tenzen chang tung-nga], ra-si-khi-duk.
Tenzen beer drink-if
drunk-become-PROG-EVID‘If Tenzen drinks beer, she gets drunk.’b.

* [Tenzen chang chi-ye tung-nga], rasi-khi-duk.
Tenzen beer one-EVEN drink-if
drunk-become-PROG-EVID
Intended: ‘If Tenzen drinks any beer, she gets drunk.’

Compare to English any, in translations.

13Clause-mate condition(14) Licensing negation must be in the same clause:a.

Tashi-ki [Tenzen chang chi-ye tung-ma-song] lap-song.
Tashi-ERG [Tenzen beer one-EVEN drink-NEG-PRFV] say-PRFV‘Tashi said [Tenzen didn’t drink any beer].’b.

* Tashi-ki [Tenzen chang chi-ye tung-song] lap-ma-song.
Tashi-ERG [Tenzen beer one-EVEN drink-PRFV] say-NEG-PRFVIntended: ‘Tashi didn’t say [Tenzen drank any beer].’

Similar clause-mate conditions are well-known for Japanese and Korean
NPIs (McGloin, 1972; Oyakawa, 1975; Choe, 1988; Kuno, 1998, a.o.).

14

Summary

Wh-EVEN NPIs: wh-(one)-EVEN
Both syntactic and semantic requirements on NPI licensing:Semantics: NPI-licensing environments include negation, questions
Syntax: clause-mate condition

15

Analysis

16

The semantics of even

Two parts to the meaning of even:(Karttunen and Peters, 1979, a.o.)(15) Even JOHN came to the party.
Additive: ; Someone else came to the party.

(also, too, etc.)

Scalar: ; John is less likely than others to come to the party.
Both will be important.

17

The semantics of even(16) Additive -ye/yang:
Gegen lep-song. Lopchuk-ye lep-song.
teacher arrive-PRFV student-EVEN arrive-PRFV‘Teachers arrived. STUDENTS also arrived.’(17) Scalar -ye/yang:Context: Tenzen has done many things to advance her career.
(Tenzen-ki) sinzi-nyamto-ye/yang changsa gyap-pare.
Tenzen-ERG president-with-EVEN marriage LV-EVID‘Tenzen even married the PRESIDENT.’

18

Formalization
Two meanings for α:(Rooth, 1985)o• JαK = ordinary semantic valuef• JαK = focus semantic value, a set of alternatives

Alternatives vary in the position of focus:
o(18) JJOHN came to the partyK = that John came to the party that John came to the party, f(19) JJOHN came to the partyK = that Mary came to the party, that Bill came to the party,... o

We call JαK the prejacent.
19Formalization(20) The additive part:fo
ADD(α) ; ∃ϕ ∈ JαK \ JαK (ϕ true)(21) The scalar part:
fooSCAL(α) ; ∀ϕ ∈ JαK \ JαK (JαK <likely ϕ)Both of these meanings are presuppositional. Even does not affect truth
conditions (the ordinary semantic value).

20

NPIs and even

The connection between even and NPIs has been well established, both
empirically and theoretically.
Core idea: NPI = EVEN + indefinite(see e.g. Heim, 1984; Lee and Horn, 1994; Lahiri, 1998)

The scalar part of even associated with an indefinite will be strange,
unless it’s in a downward-entailing environment.

21

NPIs and even
(22)

EVEN(I saw SOMEONE).

 that I saw someone, f
JI saw SOMEONEK = that I saw many, that I saw everyone 
SCAL ; (that I saw someone) <likely (that I saw many) and(that I saw someone) <likely (that I saw everyone)(23)

AEVEN(NEG(I see SOMEONE)). = “I didn’t see anyone.” NEG(that I saw someone), f
JNEG(I saw SOMEONE)K = NEG(that I saw many), NEG(that I saw everyone) 
SCAL ; NEG(that I saw someone) <likely NEG(that I saw many) andNEG(that I saw someone) <likely NEG(that I saw everyone)⇐⇒ (that I saw someone) >likely (that I saw many) and(that I saw someone) >likely (that I saw everyone),22

Where’s the indefinite?
To use this approach, we have to find an indefinite:(24) Su lep-song(-pe)
who come-PRFV-Q‘Who came?’* ‘Someone came.’
This is true even with the numeral ‘one’ chik.
(25)* Su-chik lep-song.
who-one come-PRFVIntended: ‘Someone came.’

23

The semantics of wh-words
Wh-words denote alternatives corresponding to possible (short) answers
to the question:(Hamblin, 1973)f(26) JwhoK = {x | x animate} = {John, Mary, Bill...} that John came, f(27) Jwho cameK = that Mary came, that Bill came,... Wh-words do not have an ordinary semantic value:(Ramchand, 1996; Beck, 2006, see also Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002)
o(28) JwhoK undefinedo(29) Jwho cameK undefined24ProposalIdea: Use the additive part of EVEN to create the indefinite first.
We’ll illustrate with the following example:(30) Su-yang lep-ma-song.
who-EVEN come-NEG-PRFV‘No one came.’25

Proposal
Let the two parts of EVEN (ADD and SCAL) take scope independently:
LF:SCALNEG

whocomeADD

EVEN being interpreted higher, not where it is pronounced, isindependently necessary (see Karttunen and Peters 1979, also Lahiri 1998).

☞ The movement of EVEN at LF is clause-bound, explaining theclause-mate condition.

26

Proposalo(31) Jwho comeK undefined that Tenzen comes, f(32) Jwho comeK = that Tashi comes,
 that Migmar comes,... Now compute ADD:(33)fo; ∃ϕ ∈ Jwho comeK \ Jwho comeK (ϕ true)o( but Jwho comeK is undefined, so subtract nothing from Jwho comeKf )f⇐⇒ ∃ϕ ∈ Jwho comeK (ϕ true)⇐⇒ (that Tenzen comes) or (that Tashi comes) or (that Migmar comes)...
⇐⇒ that someone comes
ADD(who come)☞ This is our indefinite, but it’s currently a presupposition. SinceoJADD(who come)K is currently undefined, adopt the presupposition
as the truth condition via Local Acommodation (Heim, 1983).
27

Proposal
Next we add negation. Just apply this point-wise:o(34) JNEG(ADD(who come))K = NEG(that someone comes)= that no one comes that Tenzen doesn’t come, f(35) JNEG(ADD(who come))K = that Tashi doesn’t come, that Migmar doesn’t come,... Finally, compute SCAL:(36)SCAL(NEG(ADD(who come))) ;(that no one comes) <likely (that Tenzen doesn’t come) and(that no one comes) <likely (that Tashi doesn’t come) and(that no one comes) <likely (that Migmar doesn’t come)...

,28

ProposalWe run into trouble if we hadn’t included negation—or more generally, adownward-entailing operator:o(37) JADD(who come)K = that someone comes that Tenzen comes, f(38) JADD(who come)K = that Tashi comes,
 that Migmar comes,... Compute SCAL:(39)

SCAL(ADD(who come)) ;(that someone comes) <likely (that Tenzen comes) and(that someone comes) <likely (that Tashi comes) and(that someone comes) <likely (that Migmar comes)...

A29

Previous approaches
Previous approaches to the compositional semantics of wh-EVEN NPIs:
1Ramchand (1996) on Bengali a.o.:Similar in spirit, but the existential is not derived compositionally:“...a result of the notion of alternativity itself and is not contributedby any additional linguistic particle.” (p. 25)

2

Choi (2007) on Korean:
Korean bare wh-words can be indefinites, unlike in Tibetan.
(40)

Nwukwu-to an oasse.
who-EVEN NEG came
‘No one came.’(41) Nwukwu oasse.
whocame‘Someone came.’(Choi, 2007, 24)
30

Conclusion

31Conclusion• Today we investigated a productive series of NPIs in Dharamsala

Tibetan made of a wh-word and EVEN.
• Requires both semantic and syntactic licensing.
• The wh-words are not indefinites by themselves.

• A novel compositional analysis for wh-EVEN NPIs:• Use the additive part of EVEN to create the indefinite.
• Scope-taking of the parts of EVEN explains clause-mate condition.

• This analysis may be applicable to other wh-EVEN NPI languages.

32Thank you! Questions?
Our deepest thanks go to Tashi Wangyal for sharing his language with us.
We also thank Jessica Coon for discussion. Errors are ours.
Slides at http://mitcho.com and http://hkotek.com.

33

References I
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. NaturalLanguage Semantics 14:1–56.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention.
Oxford University Press.
Choe, Hyon Sook. 1988. Restructuring parameters and complex predicates: A
transformational approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.
Choi, Jinyoung. 2007. Free choice and negative polarity: a compositional analysis
of Korean polarity sensitive items. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofPennsylvania.
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. “optional” “ergativity” in tibeto-burman languages.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34:9–20.
Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language
Semantics 12:319–343.

34References II
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language
10:41–53.
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedingsof WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and N. Wiegand, 114–125.
Heim, Irene. 1984. A note on negative polarity and DE-ness. In Proceedings of NELS14, 98–107.
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax
and semantics, volume 11: Presupposition, ed. Choon-Kyu Oh and David A.
Dinneen, 1–56. Academic Press.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view
from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002), 1–25.
Kuno, Susumu. 1998. Negative polarity items in Korean and English. In Description
and explanation in Korean linguistics, ed. Ross King, 87–131.
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

35References III
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language
Semantics 6:57–123.
Lee, Young-Suk, and Laurence Horn. 1994. Any as indefinite plus even.
McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka. 1972. Some aspects of negation in Japanese. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Oyakawa, Takatsugu. 1975. On the Japanese sika nai construction. Gengo Kenkyu
67:1–20.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1996. Questions, polarity and alternative semantics.
Manuscript, Oxford University.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

36One-even NPIs

(42) One-EVEN NPIs
a. Lopchuk chi-ye lep-ma-song.
student one-EVEN arrive-NEG-PRFV‘No student arrived.’(=11)

b. Nyetep chi-ye
lok-me.
1sg.ERG book one-EVEN read-NEG‘I didn’t read any book.’37

One-even NPIs

(43)

ONE-EVEN NPIs without an overt domain:

A: Konga duk-pe?
egg EVID-Q‘Are there eggs?’
B: Chi-ye mǐn-duk.
one-EVEN NEG-EVID‘There are none.’ (= no eggs)

38

One-even NPIs

Q: Is chiye one morpheme?
(44) ‘One’ and EVEN can be separated by ERG:
Lopchuk chi-ki-ye
tep-dilok-min-duk.
student one-ERG-EVEN book-this read-NEG-EVID‘No student read this book.’
A: Chi-ye is the numeral ‘one’ chik and the EVEN particle -ye/yang (asindicated by our glosses).

39