The Question Particle in Japanese andthe Nature of Exhaustivity in Wh-questions
Shigeru Miyagawa
MIT
October 2019

Miyagawa September 20191

Exhaustivity/maximality in wh-questions(1) What are you bringing to the picnic?
(Baker 1968; Beck and Rullman 1999; Comorovski 1989, 1996; Dayal 1996;
Engdahl 1986; Groenendijk and Stokhof 1982, 1984; Heim 1994, Karttunen
1977; among others)
Intuitive idea
Gricean maxim of quantity — be as informative as possible (Grice 1975, 1989)
Suspending exhaustivity(Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984; Engdhal 1986; Karttunen 1977)(2) a. Who, for example, came to the party?
b. Where can you buy the New York Times?

Miyagawa September 20192

Question particle drop
The Question particles no/ka clause-type both content and polarity questions.
(3) Dare-ga kuru no?
who-NOM come Q‘Who will come?’(4) Hanako-wa kuru ka?
Hanako-TOP come Q‘Will Hanako come?’
It is possible to optionally omit the Q-particle in root clauses.
(Takahashi and Nakayama 1995, Ueyama 1992, Yoshida and Yoshida 1996)(5) Dare-ga kuru (no)?
who-NOM come (Q)‘Who will come?’

Miyagawa September 20193

Dropping the Q-particle changes the meaning of the wh-question (Miyagawa
2001).
(6) Anata-wa pikunikku-ni nani-omottekuru (no)?
you -TOP picnic-to
what-ACC bring(Q)‘What will you bring to the picnic?’
With the Q-particle in place, the questioner is expecting an answer that would
exhaustively list the items that the addressee plans to bring to the picnic.
By omitting the Q-particle, the questioner is not expecting an exhaustive answer,
but instead, giving a partial list of items will satisfy as an answer, although it
doesn’t exclude giving an exhaustive answer.
(7) The Q-particle in the root clause indicates that the speaker assumes that thehearer knows the complete answer.
(based on Miyagawa 2001)
Miyagawa September 20194

Q-particle drop is a root phenomenon. The Q-particle is always required in thesubordinate clause, so that exhaustivity is not overtly marked in subordinate clauses.
(8) Taroo-wa [dare-ga
kuru *(ka)] sitteiru.
Taro-TOP who-NOM come Q
know‘Taro knows who will come.’
The Q-particle differs from the so-called “exhaustive markers” in other languages (thefollowing taken from Xiang 2016: section 2.2.)(9) English all (Texas English)
Who all can teach Introduction to Linguistics?
(10) German alles
Wer kann alles Einfüng
in die Sprachwissenschaft unterrichten?
who can all
introduction into the linguistics
teach‘Who all can teach Introduction to Linguistics?’(11) Mandarin dou
Zai fujin women dou keyi zai nali mai dao kafei?
at near we
DOU can at where buy get coffee‘Where all can we get coffee around here?’
Miyagawa September 20195

Pair-list questions and Q-particle drop
PL questions work the same way.
(12) Dare-ga nani-okau (no)?
who-NOM what-ACC buy (Q)‘Who will buy what?’

A striking demonstration: Dayal (1996: 105-106) gives two possible scenarios for
multiple wh-questions -- the idea is that the left-most wh-phrase in a multiple whquestion must be answered exhaustively.
(13) a. Which man is playing against which woman?
b.

We’re organizing singles tennis games between men and women. There arethree men interested in playing against women, namely Bill, Mike and John.
But there are four women interested in playing against men, namely Mary,
Sue, Jane, and Sarah. 3 men, 4 womenc.

We’re organizing singles tennis games between men and women. There are
four men interested in playing against women, namely Harry, Bill, Mike andJohn. But there are three women interested in playing against men, namely
Mary, Sue, and Sarah. 4 men, 3 womenMiyagawa September 20196

Yoshida (2012): the same holds in Japanese. For the scenario in (b), in which
there are three men and four women, only the following, with “which man” asthe left-most wh-phrase, is appropriate.
(14) Dono dansei-ga dono-zyosei-totatakau no?
which man-NOM which woman-with match Q‘Which man is playing against which woman?’

To make this compatible with the scenario in (c), scramble the internal argument.
(15) Dono zyosei-to
dono-dansei-ga tatakau no?
which woman-with which man-NOM match Q
Lit.: ‘With which woman, which man is playing against?’
Or drop the Q-particle.
(16) Dono dansei-ga dono-zyosei-totatakau?
which man-NOM which woman-with match‘Which man is playing against which woman?’Miyagawa September 20197

Question Under Discussion (QUD)
In one instance, the Q-particle is not allowed to appear.
Sudo and Uegaki (2019) give the following scenario together with a wh-question.
(17) a. You and your co-author are giving a paper at a conference in a location
neither of you have visited. After the first day, you ask your co-author
the following question about dinner.
b. Tokorode kyoo yuuhan doko-de taberu (no)?
by.the.way today dinner where-in eat
Q‘By the way, where are we going to have dinner today?’Sudo and Uegaki: the Q-particle is felicitous if it was the job of the co-author topick a place for dinner, and you are now asking for the location of the dinner.
(18) A more interesting point is what Sudo and Uegaki don’t discuss about thisexample. This is a scenario in which you have not made a decision on thelocation of the dinner, and you assume that your co-author hasn’t, either; inthis scenario the Q-particle is infelicitous.
Miyagawa September 20198

(19) The presumption is that you believe that your co-author has not decided
where to eat, and you are also indicating that you have not, either.
Moreover, there is the assumption that both you and the co-author are
unfamiliar with the local scene, so that there are no specific restaurants
under consideration.

(20) In this scenario, the set of possible/true answers in the sense of Hamblin/
Karttunen is null.
In English, the closest question to this is:(21) Where do you want to eat?
This still implies a set of known restaurants.
(22) Let’s figure out where to eat.

Miyagawa September 20199

(17b) without the Q-particle in the context given is a pure form of Question
Under Discussion.
(23) A conversational context is changing constantly as new information is added
to the “common ground” (Stalnaker 1978). When one asks a question, it isput at the top of “the stack” (Farkas and Bruce 2010) as the “question underdiscussion” (QUD) (Roberts 1996). The addressee cooperatively chooses
from among the set of possible answers denoted by the question, whichgoes into the common ground. There are two steps: first, the presentation of
the question as being under discussion; and second, the commitment toanswer it.
(24) As a wh-question with no specific set of possible answers, (17b) is posing aquestion for discussion without expectation of a direction answer. It is apure form of QUD.

Miyagawa September 201910

Partial answer
Yoshida (2012) argues against treating the Q-particle as exhaustive marking because
it can appear with questions that expect a partial answer.
(25) a. Who, for example, came to the party? (Q-particle may occur)b. Where can you buy the New York Times? (Q-particle OK with mention-some)For example(26) Tatoeba
dare-gapaatii-ni kuru no?
for.example who-NOM party-to come Q‘Who, for example, will come to the party?’
This is not a contradiction because for example is not a part of the root denotation.
Xiang (2016) observes that for example is often ungrammatical in subordinate
contexts (examples slightly changed).
(27) a. Mary ate what (*for example) John cooked.
b. John knows who (*for example) Mary invited to her party.
For example is most appropriately treated as a “discourse expression outside theroot denotation: it signals that the questioner is tolerant of partial answers” (Xiang
2016: section 2.3.1).
Miyagawa September 201911

Xiang’s observation: for example is a main-clause phenomenon that describes
the questioner’s attitude towards the root denotation of the question.
Similar to style adverbs such as frankly, truthfully, and honestly, which are
attitudinal adverbs that typically only occur in the main clause to indicate thespeaker’s attitude toward the proposition (Greenbaum 1969).
(28) a. I frankly/truthfully/honestly don’t know the answer to that question.
b. *I regret that I frankly/truthfully/honestly don’t know the answer to thatquestion.
(29) Q-particle and for example:
The underlying question is marked for exhaustivity; for example indicates thequestioner’s attitude towards the exhaustive list of answers —fine to pick asubset of the entire set.
Without the Q-particle(30) Tatoeba
dare-gapaatii-ni kita?
for.example who-NOM party-to came
‘Who, for example, came to the party?’
Miyagawa September 201912

Partial answer: mention-all vs. mention-one
Exhaustivity may be suspended by pragmatic context (Groenendijk and Stokhof
1984, Rooj 2004).
(31) Where can you buy the New York Times around here?
a. List every store that sells the Times in the neighborhood.
b. That corner store.

But is mention-one “non-exhaustive”? I suggest that there is no difference
between “mention-all” and “mention-one”; both are exhaustive answers.
Xiang (2016: section 2.2): a prosodic difference between partial and exhaustive
answers. An exhaustive answer is associated with a falling prosody (“¥”). A partial
answer has a rise-fall-rise prosody, marked below by “/”, which marks uncertainty
or incompleteness,

Miyagawa September 201913

Xiang (2016): mention-all, mention-one, mention-intermediate(32) Who can chair this committee?
(Only John, Mary, and Sally can; it is a single-chair committee)
a. John, Mary, and/or Sally can¥b. John can¥c. John and/or Mary…/(33) Fox’s generalization of mention-some (2013)
A question takes a mention-some reading only if it can have multiple
maximally informative true answers.
See Xiang (2016) for some important extensions.

Miyagawa September 201914

(34) Dare-ga kono-iinkai-no
gityoo-ni nar-e-ru no?
who-NOM this-committee-GEN chair-DAT be-can-PRES Q‘Who can be the chair of this committee?
(Only Taro, Hanako, and Yukiko are candidates to become the chair)a. Taroo-to/ka Hanako-to/ka Yukiko ¥Taro-and/or Hanako-and/or Yukiko
b. Taroo ¥c. Taroo-to/-ka Hanako…/
Taro-and/-or Hanako(35) Mention-all and mention-one fulfill the expectation for an exhaustive
answer as indicated by the falling intonation. Mention-intermediate doesnot.
(36) Mention-all = mention-one

Miyagawa September 201915

Singleton indefinites (Schwartzchild 2002) and mention-one
Specific indefinite (Fordor and Sag 1982, Cooper 1979, Barker 1998, etc.)(37) a. I have a friend in every class this semester.
b. I had dinner with a friend last night.
(38) Schwartzchild (2002): the meaning of the existential quantification is thesame in both types of indefinites. The difference between them arises fromthe nature of the extension of the restrictor. A restrictor of existential
quantification contains bound variables, which themselves do not impose
any limitation on the possible set of items that the quantifier quantifies overbeyond the meaning of the restrictor. However, the extension of therestrictor is typically bounded by either overt or covert means.
(39) a. Mention-all: the extension of the restrictor bounded by “around here”;
b. Mention-one: the extension of the restrictor is limited to one.
Both count as fully exhaustive, contra Fox, Xiang.
Miyagawa September 201916

Structure with and without the Q-particle
Yoshida and Yoshida (1996) point out that the naze ‘why’ question does noteasily allow omission of the Q-particle.
(40) Hanako-wa naze Bosuton-ni iku ??(no)?
Hanako-TOP why Boston-to go
Q‘Why is Hanako going to Boston?’
One possiblity is somehow to tie this to anti-superiority (Saito 1982, 1985):(41) a. Taroo-wa
nani-o
naze
katta
no?
Taro-Top
what-Acc
whybought Q'Why did Taro buy what?'b. ??Taroo-wa naze
nani-okattano?
Taro-Top why
what-ACC bought
Q
NOTE:(42) Taroo-wa
nani-onaze
katta??(no)?
Taro-Topwhat-Acc
whyboughtQ'Why did Taro buy what?'
Miyagawa September 201917

Structure with and without the Q-particle
Yoshida and Yoshida (1996) point out that the naze ‘why’ question does noteasily allow omission of the Q-particle.
(43) Hanako-wa naze Bosuton-ni iku ??(no)?
Hanako-TOP why Boston-to go‘Why is Hanako going to Boston?’Q

Wh-infinitives (Shlonsky and Soare 2011)(44) I asked Bill a. who to serve.
b. what to buy.
c. when to go.
d. how to fix the car.
e. ??why to read the book.
(45) I asked Bill why I should read the book.
Miyagawa September 201918

Why raises to a higher position than the other wh-phrases (Rizzi 1997, 2001)
XP

(46)

YP
[why]

[who/what/when…](46) With no, the projection can go all the way to XP. Without no, “YP” cannot belabeled, thus blocking XP from projecting (see Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 2019).

Miyagawa September 201919

Selected references
Baker, C.L., 1968. Indirect Questions in English. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Illinois, Urbana.
Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness, Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 16 (4), 679-717
Farkas, Donca and Bruce, Kim B. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions.
Journal of
Semantics 27: 81–118
Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. (1982) Referentialand quantificational indefinites. Linguistics andPhilosophy 5 :355–398
Fox, Danny. 2013. Mention-some readings of questions. MIT seminar notes .
George, Benjamin Ross. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.
Greenbaum, Sydney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics iii: Speech acts, ed.
Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan. Academic Press. New York.
Grice, P., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh- complements.
Linguistics and Philosophy .
Miyagawa September 201920

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and thepragmatics of answers. Varieties of formal semantics 3:143–170.
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in montague English. Foundations of language
10:41–53.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and philosophy
1:3–44.
Kuno, Susumu, and Ken-Ichi Takami. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press.
Miyagawa, S., 2001. The EPP, scrambling and wh-in situ. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken
Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 293--338.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. LI Monograph. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Miyagawa, S., Wu, D., Koizumi, M. 2019. Inducing and blocking labeling. Ms.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman, ed.,Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

Miyagawa September 201921

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position ‘‘int(errogative)’’ in the left periphery of the clause. In
Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi, eds., Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays
offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 267–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated
formaltheory of pragmatics. Journal of heuristics. 49(6): 91-136.
Schwartzchild, Roger. 2002. Singleton Indefinites. Journal of semantics 19: 289–314.
Shlonsky, Ur and Gabriela Soare. 2011. Where’s ‘why’? Linguistic Inquiry 42, 651–669.
Sudo, Yasutada and Uegaki, Wataru. 2019. Question marker drop in Japanese andgeneralized factivity. ICU Working papers in linguistics VII in honor of Tomoyuki
Yoshida’s 60th Birthday, pp. 57-62.
Takahashi, S., Nakayama, M., 1995. Conditions on Japanese interrogative sentences.
Nagoya Gakuin University Japanese Linguistics and Japanese Language Education 2,
33--53.
Ueyama, A., 1992. I-to-C movement as a last resort of licensing [+wh]. Unpublishedmanuscript.
Van Rooy, Robert. 2004. Utility of mention-some questions. Research on Language andComputation 2:401–416.
Watanabe, A., 1992. Wh-in Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation. MIT Occasional Papers
in Linguistics 2. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
Miyagawa September 201922

Xiang, Yimei. 2016. Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers. Doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University.
Yoshida, Tomoyuki. 2012. Wh-questions and informativeness. Lingua 122: 19961612.
Yoshida, K., Yoshida, T., 1997. Question marker drop in Japanese. International
Christian University Language Research Bulletin 11, 37--54.

Miyagawa September 201923

WAFL 16
Late September, 2020

Miyagawa September 201925

National University of Mongolia
Institute of Mongolian Studies
Ulaanbaatar