Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery*
Masao Ochi
Osaka University

1. Introduction
Numeral classifiers (henceforth NC) in Japanese are known to appear in at least three syntactic environments:
prenominally, postnominally, and floating.
(1) a.

Prenominal Numeral Classifier (NC):
Taro-wa san-ko-no(*kinoo)Taro-TOP three-CL-GEN yesterday[Num-CL-Gen N-Case]
ringo-otabeta.
apple-ACC ate‘Taro ate three apples (yesterday).’b.

Postnominal NC: [N Num-CL-Case]san-ko-otabeta.
Taro-wa ringo (*kinoo)
Taro-TOP apple yesterday three-CL-ACC ate‘Taro ate three apples (yesterday).’c.

Floating NC: [N-Case .... Num-CL]
Taro-wa ringo-o(kinoo)san-koTaro-TOP apple-ACC yesterday three-CLtabeta.
ate‘Taro ate three apples (yesterday).’
Based on the proposal of Huang and Ochi (2014), I will explore in this paper a particular instantiation of a
non-uniform approach to those NC constructions.1 Let me spell out a few crucial points. First, I assume,
following authors such as Saito et al. (2008) and Miyamoto (2009), that the prenominal NC is an NP-level
modifier (or an adjunct), as shown in (2).
(2)

NP
CLP-no NP* Portions of the material in this paper were presented at the 1st International Workshop on Basque-Japanese and
Neighboring Languages, held at the University of Basque Country (December, 2015). I would like to thank the workshop
participants for comments and questions. This research is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.
25370431), the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.
1

See Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2004) and Miyamoto (2009) for a non-uniform treatment of the NC constructions inJapanese. See also Shlonsky (2004) for a non-uniform treatment of prenominal and postnominal numerals in Hebrew.

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

Second, I assume that the postnominal NC has the structure shown below (based on Watanabe (2006)).2
(3)

XP
NP

X’
CLP

X

# CL’
tNP

CL

According to Chierchia (1998), noun extensions in languages such as Chinese and Japanese are mass, and thoselanguages make a productive use of classifiers, which combine with mass nouns and create countable units. We
might say that the structure in (3) reflects such a viewpoint: The classifier (CL) head combines with a noun (orNP), thereby creating countable units, and then a numeral combines with the combination of a classifier and anoun. Moreover, according to (3), the NP complement of CL undergoes movement and lands in the edge of anominal domain.3 As a result, we get the order ‘NP-numeral-classifier.’ Let us assume that X in this structure
may be occupied by Case (e.g., -ga and -o) (see Watanabe (2006) analysis). As we will see shortly, X may beoccupied by something else as well (i.e., a focus particle).
Before turning to the floating NC, let us briefly consider Chinese. Following Tang (1990) and Cheng andSybesma (1999), I will assume, without any further discussion, that the NC construction in Chinese instantiatesa structure like the one in (5), where the classifier is a head selecting NP as its complement.
(4) san-ben (*-de) shu
three-CLbook‘three books’
(5)

CLP
#

CL’
CL NP

We can see that the NC construction in Chinese (5) and the postnominal NC construction in Japanese shown in
2

For Watanabe (2006), a classifier occupies the head of #P and a numeral is in its specifier (he posits no CLP). The choice
between the two is immaterial for what follows.
3

Scholars such as Koizumi (1995), Ochi (2009), Bošković (2011), and Shibata (2015) argue that Japanese employs
movement of the nominal complement. If such a view is tenable, we could establish some degrees of parallelism between
the nominal domain and the verbal domain in this language, as both domains involve the movement of the nominal
complement.

-36-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)(3) essentially share the same structure, except that the latter involves overt movement of NP. This point will
become important.
Let us now turn to the floating NC. I assume, following Huang and Ochi (2014), that the postnominal NC
and the floating NC share (essentially) the same underlying structure.4
(6)

VP
NP

VP
CLP V

#

CL’
tNP

CL

The idea is that the NP complement of the CL head always moves in Japanese (but not in Chinese), and thedifference between the postnominal NC and the floating NC concerns the syntactic position in which the moved
NP occupies.5 We obtain the postnominal NC if the moved NP ends up in the edge of a nominal domain. If the
moved NP moves further into a verbal domain, we obtain the floating NC. This viewpoint is corroborated by
Jenks’ (2011) cross-linguistic generalization concerning floating/stranded NC: Only those classifier languages
that have (or allow) the Noun-NC order allow NC-float (head-final languages: Burmese, Japanese, and Korean;head-initial languages: Thai, Khmer). To the extent that the stranding view is correct, this has an implication that
it is the postnominal NC, and not the prenominal NC, that should be related to the floating NC. Unlike Japanese,
Chinese lacks the relevant NP-movement altogether: NP does not move to the edge of the (extended) nominal
domain, nor does it move out of the nominal domain.
There is one additional point to consider. If we combine the structures in (2) and (3), we expect that apostnominal quantifier is structurally higher than a prenominal one. This is because the former selects an NP as
its complement, and the latter is located inside such an NP. The following sets of data in (7) and (8) confirm thispoint. First, the data in (7) show that universal quantifiers such as subete occur in the same three environments
discussed above with respect to numeral classifiers.
(7) a.

Taro-wa subete-no
Taro-TOP ∀-noringo-otabeta. (prenominal ∀)apple-ACC eat-PAST‘Taro ate all the apples.’4

Some studies such as Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2004) and Miyamoto (2009) converge on the idea that prenominal NCs
should be treated separately from postnominal NCs and floating NCs.
5

I have no specific proposal to make about why this movement is obligatory. As suggested by Daiko Takahashi (p.c.), it
might be that a numeral and a classifier need to form a cluster of some sort, but that cannot take place unless NP moves
away, as it intervenes between a numeral and a classifier.

-37-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016b.

Taro-wa ringo-oTaro-TOP apple-ACC

subete∀tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(floating ∀)‘Taro ate all of the dumplings.’c.

Taro-wa ringo subete-oTaro-TOP apple ∀-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(postnominal ∀)‘Taro ate all of the dumplings.’
Crucially, when NC and a universal quantifier co-occur in the same nominal domain, there is a restriction (seeHuang and Ochi (2014)): the latter must be postnominal.
(8) a.

*Taro-wa
Taro-TOP

subete-no∀-GENringo go-ko-otabe-ta.
apple 5-CL-ACC eat-PAST‘Taro ate all of the 5 apples.’b.

Taro-wa go-ko-no ringo subete-oTaro-TOP 5-CL-GEN apple ∀-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST‘Taro ate all of the 5 apples.’This fact would follow from the hypothesis under discussion if aided by the idea that a strong quantifier is in ahigher position than a weak one in the nominal domain (see Borer (2005)). In English, for example, all occurs
higher than a cardinal expression such as five: all five apples vs. *five all apples. (9a) below shows theunderlying structure of the nominal expression in (8a). It is illegitimate as the cardinal expression go ‘five’occurs higher than the universal quantifier subete in the same nominal domain. The structure in (9b) (for (8b))
does not violate such requirement.
(9)

a.

* CLP
5
NP

b.

∀P

CL’
CL

NP

∀

5-CL-Gen NP
apple∀-Gen NP
apple
Now, according to the structure in (3), the postnominal NC construction involves obligatory movement: if
the relevant movement need not take place, we should get such outputs as *san hon satsu ‘three book CL.’ But
is there evidence for this NP-movement? The question is important in light of the preceding discussion about
the contrast in (8). It was suggested above that (8a) is bad because a universal quantifier cannot occur lower thana numeral in the same nominal domain. But this idea can be executed without adopting (9a). One alternative
structure for (8a) would be (10). Here, CL selects NP as its complement, and the resulting structure is embedded
by Number Phrase.

-38-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)

(10)

#P
CLP
NP CL
ringo ko#gogo-ko ‘five-CL’

Although this structure would wrongly yield the word order ‘NP-CL-Num,’ we could avoid this undesired
result by assuming that the linear order between a classifier and a numeral is permuted by some sort of PF rule(e.g., perhaps a classifier is enclitic). Crucially, this line of analysis can maintain our earlier discussion about (8a)without positing NP-movement. As (11) below shows, the universal quantifier subete that occurs prenominallyis structurally lower than the postnominal numeral.
(11)

#P
CLP
NP

CL
ko
subete-no ringo#
go
go-ko ‘five-CL’Furthermore, an analysis that posits the structure in (9a) for (8a) would need an additional assumption to rule out(8a), since the universal quantifier subete does not remain in the c-command domain of go ‘five’ after the NP
containing subete is displaced. Accordingly, it would be necessary to assume that the relevant condition (i.e., auniversal quantifier cannot be in the scope of a weak quantifier) applies to the underlying structure, or that it
applies after the moved NP is (obligatorily) reconstructed.
Despite such potential drawbacks, I will argue in the next section that we can in fact find some empiricalevidence for the structure in (3) for the postnominal NC. The evidence comes from the distribution of thenumeral classifiers that exclusively occur in negative contexts. Section 3 will discuss some interpretive
differences associated with such negation-oriented numeral classifiers. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2. Numeral classifiers and Negative Polarity
2.1. Data
It is well known that a combination of an indeterminate (such as dare ‘who’ and nani ‘what’) and -mo may
function as a negative polarity item (NPI) in Japanese.6(12) wh-NPIsa.
Kinoo dare-mo ko-nakat-ta.
yesterday who-MO come-Neg-PAST‘No one came yesterday.’6 See Watanabe (2004) for a view that such items are negative concord items.

-39-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016b.

Taro-wa kinoo
Taro-TOP yesterday

nani-mokawa-nakat-ta.
what-MO buy-NEG-PAST‘Taro didn’t buy anything yesterday.’Such wh-NPIs may occur with a Case-marked noun (see Aoyagi and Ishii (1994)), which suggests that they
may be adjuncts (at least in such cases).
(13) a.

Gakusei-ga kinoo
dare-mostudent-NOM yesterday who-MO

ko-nakat-ta
come-NEG-PAST‘No student came yesterday.’b.

Taro-wa kudamono-o
Taro-TOP fruit-ACC

kinoo
yesterday

nani-mokawa-nakat-ta.
what-MO buy-NEG-PAST‘Taro didn’t buy any fruit yesterday.’Japanese also allows another type of NPI, which consists of one-CL and -mo.7 Following Nakanishi (in prep.),
I will refer to this type of NPIs as one-NPIs. Let us first confirm that one-CL ordinarily means ‘one.’(14) a.

Prenominal one-CL NP [one-CL-no N-Case]
Taro-wa sono hi ichi’-wa-no tori-o mi-ta.
Taro-TOP that day one-CL-GEN bird-ACCsee-PAST‘Taro saw one bird that day.’b.

Postnomial one-CL NP [N one-CL-Case]
Taro-wa sono hi tori ichi’-wa-o
Taro-TOP that day bird one-CL-ACC

mi-ta.
see-PAST‘Taro saw one bird that day.’c.

Floating one-CL [N-Case ...... one-CL]
Taro-wa tori-osono hi ichi’-wa mi-ta.
Taro-TOP bird-ACC that day one-CL see-PAST‘Taro saw one bird that day.’Japanese is a pitch-accent language, and the numeral classifier is generally accented, realized as a sequence of ahigh tone followed by a low tone, as in e.g., ichi’-wa ‘one-CLBIRD’ and hito’-ri ‘one-CLHUMAN.’ Keeping thispoint in mind, consider the following examples, which contain one-NPIs that occur in the three syntactic
7

Here ‘one’ acts as a minimizer. As for -mo, I follow Nakanishi (2008) (see also Lahiri (1998) and An (2007b)) andassume that it introduces a scalar presupposition that the proposition being asserted is the least likely among the set ofalternative propositions. Given that the proposition with ‘one’ is more likely than other propositions with other numbers (asthe latter entail the former), it follows that a combination of ‘one’ and -mo (i.e., one-NPI) cannot occur in affirmative
contexts.

-40-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)

environments under discussion.
(15) a.

Prenominal one-NPI [one-CL-no N-mo]
Taro-wa sono hi {ichi-wa-no/ichi’-wa-no} tori-mo mi-nakat-ta.
Taro-TOP that day one-CL-GEN
bird-MO see-Neg-PAST‘Taro didn’t see any bird that day.’ (with unaccented ichi-wa ‘one-CL’)‘Taro didn’t see one bird (as well as something else) that day.’ (with accented ichi’-wa ‘one-CL’)8b.

Postnomial one-NPI [N one-CL]
Taro-wa sono hi tori {*ichi-wa /ichi’-wa} mi-nakat-ta.
Taro-TOP that day bird one-CL
see-Neg-PAST‘Taro didn’t see anything, even one bird, that day.’c.

Floating one-NPI [N-Case ...... one-CL-mo]
Taro-wa tori-osono hi {ichi-wa-mo/ichi’-wa-mo}
Taro-TOP bird-ACC that day one-CL-MO

mi-nakat-ta.
see-Neg-PAST‘Taro didn’t see any bird that day.’ (with unaccented ichi-wa ‘one-CL’)‘(Lit.) Taro didn’t see as many as one bird that day.’ (with accented ichi’-wa ‘one-CL’)
The postnominal one-NPI is unlike the other two in the following two respects. First, while the numeralclassifier with ‘one’ is unaccented when it is part of the prenominal one-NPI or the floating one-NPI, as shownin (15a) and (15c), this is not the case with the postnominal one-NPI, as shown in (15b). The following
affirmative sentences are unacceptable if the numeral classifier is unaccented (i.e., the NPI reading isunavailable).
(16) a.

Prenominal one-NPI [one-CL-no N-mo]
Taro-wa sono hi {ichi’-wa-no/*ichi-wa-no} tori-mo
Taro-TOP that day one-CL-GEN
bird-MOmi-ta.
see-PAST

Taro saw one bird (in addition to something else).’NOT ‘Taro didn’t see any bird that day.’b.

Postnomial one-NPI [N one-CL(-?mo)]*Taro-wa sono hi tori{ichi’-wa/ichi-wa} mi-ta.
Taro-TOP that day bird
one-CL
see-PAST‘Taro didn’t see any bird that day.’

8

With the accented ichi-wa ‘one-CL’, another interpretation may be possible, which would be approximately translated as‘(Lit.) Taro didn’t see as many as one bird that day.’-41-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016c.

Floating one-NPI [N-Case ...... one-CL-mo]*Taro-wa tori-osono hi {ichi’-wa-mo/*ichi-wa-mo} mi-ta.
Taro-TOP bird-ACCthat day one-CL-MO
see-PAST‘(Lit.) Taro saw as many as one bird that day.’NOT ‘Taro didn’t see any bird that day.’

Second, the prenominal one-NPI and the floating one-NPI must be accompanied by an overt focus marker,-mo, but the postnominal one-NPI occurs without -mo. For example, (17a), which contains a prenominal
one-NPI, is simply ungrammatical without -mo. Similarly, (17b), in which ip-piki ‘one-CL’ appears away fromthe host noun, does not have an NPI reading in the absence of -mo. But the postnominal one-NPI does not
require the presence of -mo, as (17c) shows.
(17) a.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

sono
that

hi ip-piki-no
ari *(-mo)
day one-CL-GEN ant MO

mi-nakat-ta.
see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see any ant that day.’b.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

ari-o
sono
ant-ACC thathi ip-piki mi-nakat-ta.
day one-CL see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see one ant that day.’NOT ‘I didn’t see any ant that day.’c.

Boku-wa sono
Taro-TOP thathi ari ip-pi’ki mi-nakat-ta.
day ant one-CL see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see any ant that day.’
Although I have nothing interesting to say about the first point of difference, I will take up the second point atsome length in the next section.
2.2. Proposal
Following Nakanishi (in prep.), I would like to pursue the following hypothesis.
(18) The postnominal one-NPI contains a null focus head.
As Nakanishi (in prep.) reports, Korean provides a nice confirmation of this hypothesis. Like Japanese, Korean
allows three kinds of one-NPIs: prenominal, postnominal, and floating. And all the three types occur with thefocus marker -to, which, as Nakanishi reports, may optionally be dropped for the postnominal one-NPI but notfor the other two. The following examples are taken from Nakanishi (in prep.).
(19) a.

Alan-unhan-mali-uy kangaci-to po-ci mos
see-CI not
Alan-TOP one-CL-GEN dog-TO‘Alan didn’t see a dog.’-42-

ha-ssta.
do-PAST

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)b.

Alan-unkangaci-lul han-mali-to
Alan-TOP dog-ACC one-CL-TO

po-ci mossee-CI not

ha-ssta.
do-PAST‘Alan didn’t see a dog.’c.

Alan-unkangaci han-mali(-to) po-ci mos ha-ssta.
Alan-TOP dog
one-CL(-TO) see-CI not do-PAST‘Alan didn’t see a dog.’

It thus seems that Korean and Japanese are minimally different: the focus element of the postnominal one-NPI
is optionally null in Korean while it must be null in Japanese.
In fact, as noted by Nakanishi (in prep.), the postnominal one-NPI in Japanese (as well as the other two
types) can occur with -sae, another focus marker whose meaning is akin to even. This is shown in (20c).
(20) a.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

sono
that

hi ip-piki-no
ari-sae mi-nakat-ta.
day one-CL-GEN ant-MO see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see even one ant that day.’b.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

ari-o
sono
ant-ACC thathi ip-piki-sae
mi-nakat-ta.
day one-CL-MO see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see even one ant that day.’c.

Boku-wa sono
Taro-TOP thathi ari ip-piki-sae
mi-nakat-ta.
day ant one-CL-MO see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see even one ant that day.’
While this fact may provide some support for the hypothesis in (18), I would like to keep those expressions with-sae out of the discussion. For example, wh-NPIs are incompatible with -sae.
(21) a.

Gakusei-ga kinoo
dare-{mo/*sae} ko-nakat-ta
student-NOM yesterday who-MO
come-NEG-PAST‘No student came yesterday.’b.

Taro-wa kudamono-o
Taro-TOP fruit-ACC

kinoo
yesterday

nani-{mo/*sae} kawa-nakat-ta.
what-MO
buy-NEG-PAST‘Taro didn’t buy any fruit yesterday.’I thus assume that the postulated null Foc is a variant of -mo, and not of -sae.
Returning to the main discussion, the postnominal one-NPI (e.g., mushi ip-piki ‘insect one-CL’) would
have the following structure under the current hypothesis.

-43-Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

(22)

FocP
insectFoc’
CLP {∅Foc/mo}
one CL'tNP

CL

As we saw earlier in (3), the postnominal classifier construction is obtained when the CL head takes an NP as its
complement and a numeral as its specifier. Here, I assume that one-NPI is a Focus Phrase (FocP), whose head
selects CLP. Furthemore, let us suppose that Foc head may or may not be phonetically null, and that NP moves
to the spec of FocP. But once we postulate a null Foc head in the grammar of Japanese, a question immediately
arises: why can’t this null Foc head occur with the prenominal one-NPI or the floating one-NPI? In what
follows, I would like to argue that the limited distribution of the null focus head need not be stipulated.
Let us first examine the prenominal one-NPI. On the assumption that the prenominal NC is an NP-adjunctin the sense of Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008), the structure of (23a) would be as in (23b). Again, I assume that
FocP is projected on top of NP.
(23) a.

ip-piki-no
ari-{mo/*∅Foc}
one-CL-GEN ant-FOCb.

(see (17a))

FocP
NP

{mo/*∅Foc}

one-CL-Gen NP
ant
Unlike in (22), the null Foc head is not licensed in this configuration. In order to explain this difference, let us
turn to a well-known restriction on the distribution of null complementizers (null C) in English, which has been
extensively discussed by such authors as Stowell (1981), Pesetsky (1992), Bošković (1997), Bošković and
Lasnik (2003), and An (2007a). As shown in (24), the null C cannot occur in non-complement (ornon-canonical) positions, and this limitation has been analyzed in various manners, e.g., in terms of the ECP(Stowell (1981)), and affixation to a verbal head (Pesetsky (1992), Bošković and Lasnik (2003)).
(24) a.
b.

I believe {that/∅C} he likes linguistics.
{that/*∅C} he likes linguistics is widely believed.

Whatever the right analysis of the null C may be, we must take into consideration the fact, noted by Bošković(1997), that the distribution of the null C is rather free when it specifier is filled. For instance, (25b) is fine,-44-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)

unlike (24b).
(25) a.
b.

I know [whati ∅C he likes ti].
[Whati ∅C he likes ti] is apples.

Here I would like to essentially follow An (2007a) and assume the following:(26) Either the spec or the head of a clause in a non-canonical position must have a phonetic realization.9(27) a.
b.
c.

[CP ∅ that [TP he likes linguistics]] is widely believed.
*[CP ∅ ∅ [TP he likes linguistics]] is widely believed.
[CP what ∅ [TP he likes ti]] is apples.

Although we are dealing with the nominal expressions containing classifiers and not with clauses, let us explore
the possibility that the null Foc head postulated above is subject to a requirement similar to the one governing
the distribution of the null C in English. Assuming that one-NPIs typically occur in a non-complement (e.g.,
adjunct) position (see section 3), I would like to argue that the null Foc head requires that its spec position be
filled.
(28)∅Foc needs to have its specifier filled by an overt material. No such requirement applies to overt focus
markers (e.g., mo).

This hypothesis allows us to capture the distinction between the postnominal one-NPI (represented in (22)) andthe prenominal one-NPI shown in (23). As shown in (22), the postnominal one-NPI has NP (e.g., mushi‘insect’) in the spec of FocP via movement. By contrast, nothing occupies the spec of FocP in (23). As a result,
Foc head cannot be null in this case.10
Let us now turn to the floating one-NPI and consider why the null Foc head cannot occur in that
construction (see (17b)). As discussed in section 1, I assume that the floating NC construction and the
postnominal NC construction have essentially the same underlying structure, and that they differ with respect tothe landing site of the movement of the NP complement of the CL head: we obtain the floating NC when NP
moves out of the nominal domain (and into the verbal domain), and the postnominal NC when NP moves nofurther than the edge of the nominal domain. Under this line of analysis, the floating one-NPI would have astructure like the following.

9

An’s (2007a) proposal is about the edge of an independently parsed intonational phrase, but I will keep the discussion
rather informal here. See An (2007a) for details.

10

A question remains as to why the null Foc cannot be licensed by being adjacent to a verb (see, for example, (17a)). It
could be that one-NPIs are always in non-canonical (i.e., adjunct) positions (see Kobuchi-Phillip (2008)). But we will see in
the next section that the prenominal one-NPI may occupy an argument position. If so, the question is real, and I have no
proposal to offer at this point.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

(29)

* VP
NP

VP

FocP
ti

V

Foc’
CLP ∅Foc
one CL’ti

CLEven if we assume that NP moves out of the nominal domain via the spec of FocP, no overt material remains inthe spec of FocP. I would like to argue that this is why Foc cannot be null. As An (2007) observes, a CP in a
non-canonical position must have some phonetically overt material in its edge: a copy/trace will not suffice forsatisfying the condition in (26). In particular, a copy/trace left in the edge of a clause in a non-canonical position
does not lead to improvement11(30) a.
b.
c.

We believe sincerely [CP {that/*∅C} [IP Natasha likes ti ]]?
?Whati do you believe sincerely [CP ti that [IP Natasha likes ti ]]?
*Whati do you believe sincerely [CP ti ∅C [IP Natasha likes ti ]]?

(30a) is the baseline data that involves no movement through the spec of the embedded CP. Of interest here isthe contrast seen between (30b) and (30c). As discussed by Bošković and Lasnik (2003) and An (2007), an
example like (30b) is somewhat degraded due to the extraction of a wh-phrase out of a displaced clause.
Crucially, (30c) is worse, suggesting that the null C is not allowed in this configuration, although its spec
position is filled in the course of the derivation.
A condition like (28) can also cover the contrast between wh-NPIs vs. wh-one-NPIs with respect to the(im)possibility of null Foc. As shown in (31a), the wh-NPI must be accompanied by the overt focus particle -mo.
But the wh-one-NPI does not require -mo, as we see in (31b).
(31) a.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

mushi-onani-{mo/*∅}insect-ACC what-Foc

mi-nakat-ta.
see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see any insect.’

11

(i)

Extraction of wh-subject seems to pattern differently, as shown in (i) below. See An (2007a) for an analysis of this point.
?Who do you believe sincerely likes Natasha?

-46-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)b.

Boku-wa
I-TOP

mushi-onani hito’-tsu-{??mo/∅}insect-ACC what one-CL-MO

mi-nakat-ta.
see-Neg-PAST‘I didn’t see any insect.’
This contrast receives a natural explanation under our analysis. Let us suppose that the wh-NPI is headed by Foc,
which selects a nominal wh-element (such as nani ‘what’) as its complement, as shown in (32a), we can see that(28) is violated when Foc has no phonetic content. Turning to the wh-one-NPI in (31b), whose structure isshown in (32b), I suggest that nani ‘what’ selected by CL moves to the spec of FocP, deriving the surface word
order nani hito’-tsu ‘what one-CL’ and satisfying (28).
(32) a.

*

FocP

what
b.
what

{mo/*∅Foc}

FocP
Foc’
CLP ∅Foc
one CL’tNP

CL

2.3. Support for the analysis
Our analysis gains support from ellipsis phenomena involving one-NPIs. Let us start our discussion withthe observation that the floating NC (33) and the postnominal NC (34) both allow the NP portion to be elided.
(33) Floating NC
Bushu-wa [jibun-ni kansuru hon]-oni-satsu yonda.
Bush-TOP self-Dat related book-ACC two-CL read
Obama-wa e
Obama-TOP

san-satsu
three-CLyonda.
read‘Bush read two books about himself. Obama read three e.’
e = jibun-ni kansuru hon ‘book about oneself’ (sloppy reading ok)(34) Postnominal NC
Bushu-wa [[jibun-ni
Bush-TOP self-Dat

kansuru hon] ni-satsu]-oyonda.
related book two-CL-ACC read-47-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

Obama-wa e
Obama-TOP

san-satsu-oyonda.
three-CL-ACC read

‘Bush read two books about himself. Obama read three e.’
e = jibun-ni kansuru hon ‘book about oneself’ (sloppy reading ok)
As indicated above, the sloppy identity reading is possible in both cases. Following the literature on this topic(see Takahashi (2008) for a comprehensive review), I assume that (33) and (34) each involve ellipsis of a nounphrase (which is the complement of CL). The floating NC construction in (33) has the structure in (35), where
the NP jibun-ni kansuru hon ‘the book about onself’ moves out of the nominal constituent headed by the CL
satsu and gets elided. (28) is satisfied here because FocP is headed by -mo.
(35)

VP

book about self

VP

CLP

V
read
CL’

3

tNP

CL

As for the postnominal NC construction in (34), I assume (partly in line with Watanabe (2006)) that the entire
nominal is headed by the Case head, and NP moves to the spec of CaseP and gets elided. Again, (28) isobserved, assuming that the head of CaseP receives pronunciation as -o ‘ACC’.
(36)

CaseP

book about self

Case’

CLP
3
tNP

Case ( o ‘acc’)CL’
CL

Now, it is interesting to observe that their NPI counterparts do not behave alike. As Kataoka (2009) points out,
the floating one-NPI allows NP to be elided, but the postnominal one-NPI does not.12

12

As will be discussed in the next section, the postnominal one-NPI and the floating one-NPI yield distinct interpretations.
The translations for the two examples given here reflect this point.

-48-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)(37) a.

Floating one-NPI
Hanako-wa yubi-osan-bonHanako-wa finger-ACC three-CLugokashita ga,
moved
thoughTaro-wa (yubi-o)
ip-pon-mo
ugokas-anai.
Taro-TOP finger-ACC one-CL-MO move-NEG‘Though Hanako moved three fingers, Taro doesn’t move any finger.’b.

Postnominal one-NPI
Hanako-wa te-mo
Hanako-TOP hand-also
Taro-wa *(yubi)
Taro-TOP finger

ashi-mo yubi-sae
ugokashita ga,
leg-also finger-even moved
thoughip’-pon ugokas-anai.
one-CL move-NEG‘Though Hanako moved her hand(s), her leg(s), and even her finger(s), Taro doesn’t move any
part of his body, even a finger.’
This contrast follows naturally from our analysis. Let us consider the relevant structure of (37a) first. Just like in(33), the NP complement of CL (i.e., yubi ‘finger in this case) moves out of the nominal phrase by passing
through the spec of FocP before it gets elided. (28) is trivially satisfied because FocP is headed by -mo.
(38)

VP
finger-Acc

VP
FocP

V

tNP Foc'
CLP
one

Foc
mo
CL’

t NP

CL

On the other hand, NP cannot be elided in (37b) because of (28). Since the head of FocP is phonetically null,
eliding the NP yubi ‘finger’ in the spec of FocP leads to a violation of (28), as neither the Foc head nor its
specifier has an overt element.

-49-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016(39)* FocP
fingerFoc’
CLP ∅Foc
one CL’tNP

CL

3. Remarks on some interpretive differences among one-NPIs
3.1. Data
Under the current hypothesis, the postnominal one-NPI and the floating one-NPI are essentially derived
from the same underlying structure. Although the translations given for the data in the first two sections havenot pointed to any interpretive differences among the three one-NPI constructions, that is not quite accurate, as
discussed by Kataoka (2009) and Nakanishi (in prep.) among others. Let us consider the following examples:(40) a.

Prenominal one-NPI [one-CL-no N-mo]
Taro-wa sono hi ip-piki-no
inu-moTaro-TOP that day one-CL-GEN dog-MO

mi-nakat-ta.
see-NEG-PAST‘Taro didn’t see any dog that day.’‘Taro didn’t see any animal that day, even one dog.’b.

Postnomial one-NPI [N one-CL]
Taro-wa inu
ip-piki mi-nakat-ta.
Taro-TOP dog one-CL see-Neg-PASTNOT JUST ‘Taro didn’t see any dog that day.’‘Taro didn’t see anything that day, even one dog.’c.

Floating one-NPI [N-Case ...... one-CL-mo]
Taro-wa inu-o
ip-piki-mo
mi-nakat-ta.
Taro-TOP dog-ACC one-CL-MO see-Neg-PAST‘Taro didn’t see any dog that day.’NOT ‘Taro didn’t see any animal that day, even one dog.’

All the examples above assert that Taro didn’t see any dog that day. But they cannot always be uttered in thesame context. For example, imagine the situation in which Taro didn’t see any dog but he saw some otheranimals. In that situation, (40a) and (40c) are felicitous but (40b) is not. The latter is felicitous only when Tarodidn’t see any animals (or humans) at all. The following set of examples makes this point clear, with explicit-50-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)

reference to the presence of other animals, mice and cats, in the village under discussion.
(41) Kono
thismura-ni-wa
takusan-no
village-in-TOP many-GEN

nezumi-ya neko-ga
mouse-and cat-NOM

iru
exist

noni, ...
though‘Although there are many mice and cats in this village, ....
a.

ip-piki-no
inu-mo i-nai.
one-CL-GEN dog-MO be-not(prenominal one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’
b. #inudog

ip-piki i-nai.
one-CL be-not(Postnominal one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’c.

inu-gaip-piki-mo
i-nai
dog-NOM one-CL-MO be-not(Floating one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’
Note in passing that Nakanishi (in prep.) reports that the prenominal one-NPI as well as the postnominal
one-NPI is infelicitous in contexts in which Taro saw some other animals. Yet for me and the others that I haveconsulted, the prenominal one-NPI can be used in such contexts. I have nothing to say about this speakervariation. Note also that the prenominal one-NPI sounds infelicitous with -sae instead of -mo.
(42) Kono
thismura-ni-wa
takusan-no
village-in-TOP many-GEN

nezumi-ya neko-ga
mouse-and cat-NOM

iru
exist

noni, ...
though‘Although there are many mice and cats in this village, ....
a. #ip-piki-no
one-CL-GEN

inu-saedog-SAEi-nai.
be-not(prenominal one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’
b. #inudog

ip-piki-sae
i-nai.
one-CL-SAE be-not(Postnominal one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’c.

inu-gaip-piki-sae
i-nai
dog-NOM one-CL-SAE be-not(Floating one-NPI)‘there isn’t any dog.’
This is one respect in which -mo and -sae do not pattern alike. For the reason that I mentioned earlier, I would
like to focus on the distribution of one-CL with -mo in this paper.

-51-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

Returning to the main discussion, the observation made above with respect to the distinct interpretations
for the three types of one-NPIs raises a number of questions. Among other things, the contrast that we see
between (41b) and (41c) poses an interesting problem for the analysis entertained in this paper, since theanalysis holds that the postnominal one-NPI and the floating one-NPI have the same underlying structure.
Below, I would like to suggest one possible line of analysis for this question.
3.2. (Tentative) Hypothesis
As we saw in (13), wh-NPIs may occur with Case-marked arguments with which they are associated.
Based on such observations, Aoyagi and Ishii (1994) argue that wh-NPIs are adjuncts, and they are associatedwith an argument that may or may not be overtly realized. Extending Aoyagi and Ishii’s viewpoint to one-NPIs,
let us assume that they act as adjuncts when they are associated with an overt, Case-marked argument. In thefollowing examples, one-NPIs occur with a Case-marked argument.
(43) Sono
thata.

mori-ni iru mushi-tachi-ga sono
forestbe insect-PL-NOM that
ip-piki-no
one-CL-GEN

hi-wa ...
day-TOPari-mo sugata-o
ant-MO appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
(prenominal)
show-NEG-PAST‘Those insects living in that forest didn’t show up that day, even one ant.’b.

ari ip-pi’ki sugata-o
ant one-CL appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
show-NEG-PAST(postnominal)‘Those insects living in that forest didn’t show up that day, even one ant.’
c. ?? ari-ga
ip-piki-mosugata-o
ant-NOM one-CL-MO appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
(floating)show-NEG-PAST‘(Lit.) Those insects living in that forest, no ant showed up that day.’
Here one-NPIs with the noun ari ‘ant’ occur with the nominative subject mushi-tachi-ga ‘insect-PL-NOM.’
And the prenominal one-NPI in (43a) as well as the postnominal one-NPI in (43b) yields the reading in which
no insects, including ants, showed up. This clearly indicates that the prenominal one-NPI and the postnominal
one-NPI may appear as an adjunct. The grammatical status of (43c) is unclear, but importantly, it asserts that noant showed up without making any assertion about other insects. This is not surprising since ari ‘ant’ isga-marked in this case. I assume that the floating one-NPI serves as an adjunct and its ‘NP-portion’ functions as
an argument. To be more accurate, the floating one-NPI and the Case-marked argument originate as a unit, andthey are separated in the course of derivation.
But the above discussion does not preclude the possibility that the prenominal and postnominal one-NPIs
occur as arguments when there is no Case-marked argument present (here we set aside the floating one-NPI, as
it is always associated with some argument). Although this possibility is a little hard to test because one-NPIs
are not Case-marked, we can check it by placing those NPIs in the complement position of a postposition.

-52-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)(44)

Boku-wa
I-TOP

kinoo
yesterday

kono gakkoo-ni kita bakari nanode, ....
this school-to came just COP because‘Because I arrived at this school just yesterday, ...’
a. hito-ri-no
kodomo to-mo
one-CL-GEN childwith-MOmada atte inai.
yetmeet not‘I haven’t met with any child yet.’b. kodomo hito’-ri-tomada atte inai.
child
one-CL-with yet
meet not‘I haven’t met with one (particular) child yet.’
NOT ‘I haven’t met with any child yet.’As shown in (44a), the prenominal one-NPI does occur as an argument of a postposition, in which case -mo is
attached to the postposition. On the other hand, (44b) does not yield an NPI reading, and kodomo hito’-ri ‘child
one-CL’ yields the literal reading of ‘one child.’13 On the basis of this, I conclude that the postnominal one-NPI
cannot occur as an argument, which means that it always occurs as an adjunct.
To summarize, the prenominal one-NPI occurs as an argument or as an adjunct. When it is an adjunct, it isassociated with a Case-marked argument, which may or may not be overtly realized. Postnominal one-NPI
always occurs as adjunct, and there is a clause-mate argument, overt or covert. As for the floating one-NPI, it
counts as an adjunct in the sense that the NP-portion of the entire nominal expression serves as an argument.
The table below summarizes our discussion up to this point:(45)
Prenominal one-NPI
Postnomial one-NPI
Floating one-NPI

argument✓✓✓ ( NP)adjunct✓*✓ ( one-CL)

I believe that the above discussion sheds some light on the question we raised earlier: if the postnominal
one-NPI and the floating one-NPI share the same underlying structure, as assumed throughout this paper, why
do they yield distinct interpretations (e.g., (41b) vs. (41b))? The two types of one-NPIs have distinct
interpretations because they have distinct elements in the relevant argument slot: e.g., (unpronounced) ‘NP’ in
the postnominal one-NPI construction and the NP-portion of the floating one-NPI in the floating one-NPI
construction. (46) and (47) illustrate this point.

13

When we add -mo to this example, the sentence seems to yield the ‘also’ reading:(i) ...., kodomo hito’-ri-to-momada atte
inai.
child
one-CL-with-MO yet
meet not‘... I haven’t met with one (particular) child (as well as someone else).’-53-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016(46)(NP-ga) [adjunct ari ip-piki-∅Foc] sugata-o
ant one-CL-FOC appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
(postnominal)
show-NEG-PAST‘Nothings/No insect showed up today, even one ant.’(where ‘NP’ denotes some set of objects that includes ant)
(47)

[adjunct ip [ti piki]-mo] sugata-o
ari-gai
ant-NOM
one CL-MO appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
(floating)show-NEG-PAST‘No ant showed up today.’
As for the prenominal one-NPI, since we are assuming that it may serve as an argument or as an adjunct, weshould expect structural ambiguity, unless there is an overt argument present (in which case the prenominal
one-NPI is an adjunct). For example, we get the ‘no ant’ reading out of the example in (48) when the nominal
with the prenominal one-NPI is an argument, as shown in (49a), and the ‘nothing/no insect’ reading when it isan adjunct, as shown in (49b).
(48) Kyoo-wa
ip-piki-no
ari-mo sugata-o
today-TOP one-CL-GEN ant-MO appearance-ACC

mise-nakat-ta.
show-NEG-PASTi. ‘No ant showed up today.’ii. ‘Nothing/No insect showed up today, even one ant’
(49)

a.

Ip-piki-no
ari-mo sugata-oone-CL-GEN ant-MO appearance-ACC

b.

NP-ga

mise-nakat-ta.
show-NEG-PAST

ip-piki-no
ari-mo sugata-o
mise-nakat-ta.
one-CL-GEN ant-MO appearance-ACC show-NEG-PAST(where ‘NP’ denotes some set of objects that includes ants)

While this line of analysis seems to me to be promising, there are many issues that need to be addressed
and answered. For example, we saw that the postnominal one-NPI does not appear as an argument (see (44b)),
but we want to know why its distribution is so limited. Here, I believe that Huang and Ochi’s (2014) discussionof numeral classifiers and specificity is highly relevant. Based in part on Downing (1994), they claim that the
postnominal NC tends to yield a specific indefinite reading. For example, the postnomoinal NC sounds odd
when a non-specific reading is forced.
(50) heikin-suru to, kono byooin-de-wa maishuu ....
average-do,
this hospital-at-TOP every week
‘On average, every week in this hospital, .... ’a.

san’-nin-no
akanboo-ga
three-CL-GEN baby-NOM

umare-teiru.
be born‘... three babies are born.’-54-

Numeral Classifiers, Negative Polarity, and Movement to the Nominal Periphery (M. Ochi)b. #akanboo san’-nin-ga
umare-teiru.
baby
three-CL-NOM be born‘... three babies are born.’cakanboo-ga san’-nin umare-teiru.
baby-NOM three-CL be born‘... three babies are born.’

It may not be so surprising then that the postnominal one-NPI does not occur as an argument. After all,
one-NPIs do not give rise to a specific reading, as what is at stake in this case is simply the cardinality of thenominal under discussion (e.g., one ant vs. two or more ants).
4. Conclusion
To summarize, this paper addressed several issues arising from Huang and Ochi’s (2014) treatment ofadnominal and floating numeral classifiers. In particular, I attempted to provide some empirical evidence for thenominal-internal movement that is claimed to be involved in creating the postnominal numeral classifier
construction. Crucial evidence for this movement came from the distribution of NPIs that employ a
combination of ‘one’ and a classifier. Following Nakanishi (in prep.), I argued for the existence of aphonologically null focus element that acts as the head of such an NPI, and the postulated movement of NP
plays an important role in licensing this null head. Then, some interpretive differences among the three types of
one-NPIs were discussed, and I tried to argue that such differences may (at least in part) stem from their distinct
syntactic distributions. Many issues remain open, but I must leave the discussion of such issues for anotheroccasion.

References
An, D.-H. (2007a) “Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax-Phonology Interface,” Syntax 10, 38-79.
An, D.-H. (2007b) “On the distribution of NPIs in Korean,” Natural Language Semantics 15, 317-350.
Aoyagi, H. and T. Ishii (1994) “On NPI Licensing in Japanese,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4, 295– 311.
Borer, H. (2005) In Name Only, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bošković, Ž. (2011) “Rescue by PF deletion, Traces as (Non)-interveners, and the that-trace effect,” Linguistic Inquiry 41,
1-44.
Bošković, Ž. and H. Lasnik (2003) “On the Distribution of Null Complementizers,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 527-546.
Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma (1999) “Bare and Not-so-bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 509-542.
Chierchia, G. (1998) “Reference to Kinds across Languages,” Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405,
Downing, P. (1996) Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Huang, C.-T. J. and M. Ochi (2014) “Remarks on Classifiers and Nominal Structure in East Asian,” In C.-T. J Huang and
F.-H Liu, eds., Peaches and Plums, Language and Linguistics Monograph Series, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 53-74.
Jenks, P. (2011) “Thai Quantifier Float as Quantifier Raising," Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia VIII, 198-204.

-55-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

Kataoka, K. (2009) “N hito-ri to N ga hito-ri mo (“N one-CLPESON and ‘N-Nom one-CLPESON mo),” Proceedings of theThirty-third Annual Meeting of Kansai Linguistic Society, 12-22 [written in Japanese].
Kobuchi-Philip, M. (2008) Presuppositional Compositionality with Japanese mo,” In T. Friedman and S. Ito, eds.,
Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University, 496-509.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Lahiri, U. (1998) “Focus and Negative polarity in Hindi,” Natural Language Semantics 6, 57-123.
Miyamoto, Y. (2009) “On the Nominal-internal Distributive Interpretation in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
18, 233–251.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nakanishi, K. (2008) “Scope of even: A Crosslinguistic Perspective,” Proceedings of NELS 38, GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nakanishi, K. (in prep) “Focus, Numerals, and Negative Polarity Items in Japanese,” Unpublished ms., Ochanomizu
University.
Ochi, M. (2009) “Overt Object Shift in Japanese,” Syntax 12, 324-362.
Pesetsky, D. (1992) “Zero Syntax II: An Essay on Infinitives,” Unpublished ms., MIT.
Saito, M., T.-H. J Lin, and K. Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese and Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.
Sauerland, U. and K. Yatsushiro (2004) “A Silent Noun in Partitives,” Proceedings of NELS 34, GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shibata, Y. (2015) “Negative Structure and Object movement in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24, 217-269.
Shlonsky, U. (2004) “The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases,” Lingua 114: 12, 1465-1526.
Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis,” In S. Miyagawa & M. Saito, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, 394422, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tang, C.-C. J. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar Theory, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University,
Ithaca.
Watanabe, A. (2004) “The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling,” Linguistic
Inquiry 35, 559-612.
Watanabe, A. (2006) “Functional projections of Nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 24, 241–306.

-56-