Discourse-Initial Too and Epistemic Modality
Sumiyo Nishiguchi
The University of Tokushima
This paper discusses what I call the discourse-initial too, which has not been
discussed so far. Usually, sentences containing the conjunctive adverb too with the meaningof also are felicitous only when it follows another sentence, as in (1). However, too canappear discourse-initially and can be uttered unexpectedly without sounding remotely
peculiar, as in (2).
(1)(2)

Kyoto is nice. Nara is nice, too
It’s nice here, too.

Discourse-initial too in (2) does not require any antecedent. While Kyoto is the antecedent for
Nara in the example in (1), there is neither antecedent nor contrastive focus in (2).
Japanese mo, which can be translated as too or also, can also be used discourseinitially:
(3)

Yo-mo
fuke-ta.
Monight-also
grow-PAST already“It’s late, indeed. It’s time to go to bed.”neru-toshi-yo.
sleep-COMP do-let’s

There is no antecedent for yo “night” to which mo “too” is attached. Yo “night” is notparticularly contrasted with anything else. While Numata (1986) and Teramura (1984) do not
pay attention to the discourse-initial behavior, such mo expresses attenuation according to theformer, and admiration according to the latter. Similar to too in English, regular mo-sentences
are felicitous only when they follow another sentence, as in (4).
(4)#(Kyoto-wa i-shi,)Nara-mo
Kyoto-TOP good-andNara-also“Kyoto is good and so is Nara.”ii.
goodIn (4), Nara is contrasted with its antecedent Kyoto.
Why do discourse-initial too and mo “too” not require their antecedents? This paper
analyzes discourse-initial too as an epistemic necessity modal and an emphatic marker,
similar to indeed or really. Too is a sentential modal that associates with a whole proposition.
(5)[| too |] = p<s, t>.ww’.[wRw’ -> p(w’) = 1]
(R: epistemic accessibility relation, w: possible world)

In all the worlds epistemically accessible from the actual world to the speaker, theproposition to which too is attached is true (Kratzer 1981). In other words, the speakerbelieves that the proposition holds true. The interpretation of (2) is true, if and only if thespeaker believes that the location s/he is in is nice.
Therefore, the discourse-initial too is similar to epistemic must, and semantically, toreally and indeed. According to Romero and Han (2004), really and indeed are epistemic
adverbs, which express the speaker’s evaluations.
(6)

Nara is really good.

The proposition in (6) is true if Nara is good in any of the speaker’s belief world.
Given such a meaning of the discourse-initial too, the sentential modal too should takehigher scope over the proposition in the syntactic tree, as in (7).
(7)

TP
itT’T
isModalP
Modaltoo<is>

PredP
PredP

AdvPAP

hereniceThe syntactic structure of the expletive construction in (2) is given in (7), in which too ccommands PredP in base position. Nice and here are assumed to be raised higher so that too
is spelled out in the lower position compared to them.
In this manner, this paper presented an analysis of the novel use of too from semantic
and syntactic perspectives.
References
Kratzer, Angelika (1981) “The Notional Category of Modality,” Words, Worlds, andContexts, eds., by H.-J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, 38-74, de Gruyter, Berlin.
Numata, Yoshiko (1986) “Toritateshi (focus particles),” Iwayuru Nihongo Joshi-no Kenkyu,eds. by K. Okutsu et al., 105-225, Bonjinsha, Tokyo.
Romero, Maribel and Chung-hye Han (2004) “On Negative Yes/No Questions,” Linguistics
and Philosophy 27, 609-658.
Teramura, Hideo (1984) Nihongo-no Shintakusu to Imi III, Kuroshio, Tokyo.