This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyrightAuthor's personal copy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63
www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Prosodic matters in intervention effects in Japanese:
An experimental study
Yoshihisa Kitagawa a,*, Katsuo Tamaoka b, Satoshi Tomioka cbaDepartment of Linguistics, Memorial Hall 325, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7005, USA
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi-ken 277-8686, Japanc
Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, University of Delaware, 46 E. Delaware Avenue, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Received 28 April 2011; received in revised form 4 January 2012; accepted 14 January 2012
Available online 24 March 2012

Abstract
This paper is an experimental investigation of the effect of prosody on the intervention effect (IE) in Japanese. The
experiment reported here compares the acceptability ratings of visual-only stimuli with those of visual-stimuli accompanied byaudio-stimuli in which focal prominence was not assigned to the interveners. The results show that with lexically accented
interveners, the ratings of the visual + audio stimuli were significantly higher than those of the visual-only stimuli. We argue that thiscontrast arises because language users tend to assign focus prosody to accented interveners as a default strategy when they
process IE-sentences via silent reading. Furthermore, such silent prosody implicitly focalizes the interveners, which leads to lower
acceptability. Thus, the current study confirms the relevance of Implicit Prosody in silent reading and supports an approach which
treats IEs not as a reflex of ungrammaticality, but as the amalgam of acceptability-lowering effects caused by diverse extragrammatical factors.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Intervention effect; Implicit prosody; Focus; Negative polarity; Lexical accent

1. Intervention effects --- what they are
Wh-interrogative sentences host a wide variety of phenomena that have made a significant impact on generative
theorizing. The Intervention Effect (henceforth IE) is one of the newer additions to the list of such phenomena, but it has
nonetheless attracted a great deal of attention in both the syntactic and the semantic circles (e.g., Hoji, 1985; Takahashi,
1990; Kim, 1991; Beck, 1996; Beck and Kim, 1997; Tanaka, 1997; Hagstrom, 1998; Kim, 2005; Beck, 2006; Tomioka,
2007, among others). The core property of this phenomenon is schematically expressed below:(1) At the level of surface syntax:

is worse thanIntervener
WH

WHIntervener* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 855 6456; fax: +1 812 855 5363.
E-mail addresses: kitagawa@indiana.edu (Y. Kitagawa), ktamaoka@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp (K. Tamaoka), stomioka@udel.edu (S. Tomioka).

0024-3841/$ -- see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.006

Author's personal copy

42

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63(2) below lists typical examples of ‘IE’-sentences in Japanese, together with the acceptability judgments provided in theliterature.1,2
(2)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

?

*Daremo nani-oyom-ana-kat-ta-no? (NPI)
anyonewhat-ACC
read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What didn’t anyone read?’*Ke’n-si(’)ka nani-oyom-ana-kat-ta-no? (NPI)
Ken-but
what-ACC read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What didn’t anyone but Ken read?’??
Da’remo-ga/??Da’reka-ga
nani-oyon-da-no? (8/9)
everyone-NOM/someone-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did everyone/someone read?’???/*[Zy’on-ka Bi’ru]-ga nani-oyon-da-no? (Disjunction)
John-or Bill-NOM
what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did John or Bill read?’??
Ke’n-dake(’)-ga nani-oyon-da-no? (Focus particle)
Ken-only-NOM
what-ACC read-PAST-Q?
‘What did only Ken read?’This restriction is considered applicable only to the surface structure --- once the structural relation is reversed via
scrambling of the wh-phrases over the interveners, the sentences are reported to become more acceptable.
(3)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Nani-o1 daremo t1 yom-ana-kat-ta-no______________|
Nani-o 1 Ke'n-si (') ka t 1 yom-ana-kat-ta-no_________________|
Nani-o 1 da'remo-ga/da'reka-ga t 1 yon-da-no___________________________|
Nani-o 1 [Zy'on-ka Bi'ru]-ga t1 yon-da-no_____________________|
Nani-o1 Ke'n-dake (') -ga t 1 yon-da-no___________________|

Although the paradigm shown above gives the impression that the IE is a clear-cut, well-defined phenomenon, there
are many intricate issues that make it far more complex than it appears. Among such complications is the matter of theinterveners themselves. ‘Interveners’ are certain operator-like expressions that exhibit various degrees of difficulty intaking surface positions from which they c-command wh-phrases. The repertoire of potential interveners is not 100%
identical across languages. In Japanese, it includes negative polarity items (NPIs), such as daremo ‘anyone’, NP-sika‘anything/anyone but NP’, quantifiers based on wh-indeterminate pronouns, such as da’re-mo ‘everyone’ and da’re-ka‘someone’, the disjunction with ka ‘or’, and NPs with focus sensitive particles (-dake ‘only’, -sae ‘even’, -mo ‘also/even’).
First of all, it is not easy to give a precise definition of ‘potential intervener’. The expressions that cause IEs have often
been characterized as quantificational (cf. Hoji, 1985; Beck, 1996; Beck and Kim, 1997), but it was also noted that thisterminology is rather imprecise (e.g., Beck, 1996, 2006; Tomioka, 2007; Miyagawa, 2010). There are some nonquantificational interveners, such as NPs with even and also, which are quite common across languages, and not all
quantificational NPs induce IEs.3 Second, not all interveners have the same effect on acceptability. For instance, Tomioka(2007, 2011) claim that, in Japanese, NPIs manifest the strongest effects while the others are comparatively weaker, as
the range of the acceptability markings in (2) suggests.

1

In Hoji (1985), the IE sentences are uniformly judged ungrammatical (*). Beck and Kim (1997) mention differences in acceptability judgments
based on interveners in Korean. The judgments reported here follow those in Tomioka (2007, 2009, 2011).
2
We need to exercise care in distinguishing two distinct types of daremo: the negative polarity item (NPI) ‘anyone’ as in (2a) and the universallyquantified item ‘everyone’ as in (2c). The former is lexically unaccented while the latter is accented as indicated by an apostrophe in (2c). In all
example sentences that follow, we indicate the lexical accents of all and only interveners with an apostrophe. If an apostrophe does notaccompany an intervener, it is unaccented. See also (20) in Section 6.2.1 for a possible variation in the location of an extra F0 boost in the focus
prosody.
3
The quantifiers that do not cause IEs in Japanese include subete-no ‘all’, hotondo-no ‘most’, and daibubun-no ‘most’.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

43

Recently, however, there has been some positive development towards a more reliable way to identify potential
interveners. Beck (2006) and Kim (2002, 2005), for instance, offer new insight on this issue by appealing to the semantic
notion of focus. Their generalization states that potential interveners are expressions that elicit non-singleton sets ofalternatives in the sense of the Alternative Semantics for Focus (Rooth, 1985, 1992; Kratzer, 1991). In Beck’s (2006)
semantic account, intervention effects arise in the following structural configuration.
(4)*[CP Q . . . [  [YP . . . [XP]F . . . [Wh] . . . ]]]; where  is Rooth’s focus operator, and Q is a question operator.

Following Hamblin’s (1973) semantics of interrogatives, Beck assumes that a wh-phrase denotes a set of possible
constituent answers. Beck’s invention is to connect this set denotation to focus semantics. More concretely, the Hamblin
denotation is the focus value of a wh-phrase (in the sense of Rooth, 1992), and its ordinary value is undefined. Any
constituent that contains a wh-phrase also lacks the ordinary value until the derivation meets a Q operator. The role of a Q
operator is to elevate the focus value of its sister constituent to the ordinary value. In the configuration in (4), however, theintervening focus operator  accidentally closes off the focus value of the wh-phrase. A typical focus operator (with the sole
exception of a Q operator) requires both the ordinary and the focus values of its sister constituent. YP in (4), on the other hand,
only has a focus value, which means that neither semantic value of the constituent, +YP, is defined. This semantic
undefinedness is inherited all the way up to the sentence level. Thus, ‘‘the interpretation component of the grammar derives
uninterpretability, hence ungrammaticality, of the intervention data. (p. 1)’’ Beck’s analysis is a reincarnation of the concept ofminimality, in which the dependency between a and b is disrupted by the presence of g, an element similar to a, when gstructurally intervenes between a and b. The idea goes back at least to Aoun’s (1986) Generalized Binding and gained
popularity with Rizzi’s (1990) Relativized Minimality. Beck’s invention is to extend this general scheme to semantic licensing.4
Tomioka (2007) offered another focus-related categorization, appealing to the pragmatic definition of focus based on
properties of information structure. Tomioka assumes, following the spirit of Krifka (2001), that an ordinary wh-question isdivided up in a way similar to the focus-background partition: the wh-phrase is information-structurally focused while the restof the sentence belongs to the background against which the question is asked. The grammatical realization of
informational partitioning in Japanese is done by the combination of morphology, prosody, and syntactic positions assigned
to the items in distinct positions. Roughly speaking, information-structural focus receives prosodic prominence, andbackgrounded material appears either in the post-focal position in some prosodically reduced form or as a topic, typicallyindicated with the topic marker wa at or near the left periphery of an utterance. (The details of focus prosody in Japanese will
be described in section 3.3 below.) Tomioka claims that it is the notion of information-structural focus, rather than semantic
focus, which is relevant to the explication of IEs. The crucial observation is that all of the potential interveners in Japaneseand Korean, such as NPIs, disjunctive NPs, and wh-indeterminates, resist the morphological marking of topichood (i.e., wa
in Japanese and (n)un in Korean) while the non-interveners, whether they are quantificational or not, are compatible with the
topic morphology. This ‘anti-topicality’ leads to the increased likelihood of the interveners being interpreted as informationstructural foci unless they are clearly indicated as non-foci via prosodic reduction. A typical IE sentence, exemplified in (2),places the intervener before a wh-phrase, which is a less than ideal location for prosodic reduction. Tomioka proposes a
pragmatic account of IEs in which he ascribes the degradation of IE sentences to the imperfect realization of the needed
information structure for a wh-question. The degree of imperfection in the mapping between grammar and information
structure is gradable and varies with factors other than syntactic positions, such as prosody and contextual information.
These two approaches to IEs, which exploit the focal nature of interveners, share one common feature: the potential
interveners are more likely to be construed as informational foci.5 However, there is a matter in which the two analyses
make different predictions. If the inherent semantic nature of an intervener as a focus-demanding expression is at the coreof IEs, as Beck assumes, focal prominence makes no impact. Those interveners require non-singleton focus meanings
whether they are information-structural foci or backgrounded, while focal prominence is sensitive primarily to theinformation-structural notion of focus. Tomioka’s notion of anti-topicality makes a similar prediction but in a different way.
The wa-marking is an effective way to force its bearer to be included in the background, and the lack of topic-marking

4
The source of the unacceptability of IE sentences is semantic undefinedness, and it is a new idea to use the concept of definedness for thispurpose. It nonetheless shares the common feature with the tradition of syntactic constraints in that there is no middle ground --- the consequencemust be either positive (semantically defined/no constraints violated) or negative (semantically undefined/some constraint(s) violated).
5
A good illustration is the widely accepted meaning of only proposed by Horn (1972): for a sentence of the form only [S [X] [Y]], where X is thefocus associate of only, the presupposition is the proposition denoted by the prejacent S (= the sentence meaning without only), and the sentence
as a whole asserts that, among the focus values of X, for no alternative X0 such that X0 ≠ X, [S [X0 ] [Y]] is true. This means that the linguistic
materials that correspond to Y must be in the background, which in turn means that only + X is the sentence focus. Of course, only and its focus
associate can be confined within the background (e.g., a case of the Second Occurrence Focus construction), but such a case needs a very
specific context and should not be considered a default scenario.

Author's personal copy

44

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

increases the likelihood of its interpretation as an information-structural focus.6 In Tomioka’s pragmatic account,
therefore, focal prominence should have an impact on the acceptability judgments of intervention sentences, because theprosodic indication of foci unambiguously signals the informationally focalized statuses of the interveners, which is
expected to contribute to the further degradation of IE sentences.
In this work, we will report the results of our experiment on the acceptability judgments of sentences and argue that the‘implicit’ prosody reflected in language users’ minds (Fodor, 1998) can be one of the decisive factors to induce IE. Thisfinding leads us to support the approach in which IE is analyzed not as a reflex of ungrammaticality but as the amalgam of
acceptability lowering effects. Such effects are caused by several extra-syntactic (or extra-grammatical) factors, one ofwhich, we believe, is information packaging and the specific prosodic pattern associated with it. In our experiment, we also
made some unexpected discoveries, some of which are quite surprising to virtually all approaches to the IE phenomena in
the past. We will also propose what we consider to be reasonable accounts of these unexpected findings.
2. Implicit prosody and intervention effects
There is a specific hypothesis for sentence processing that we critically appealed to in designing our experiment on
acceptability judgments. Suppose a language user is attempting to provide acceptability judgments for sentences
presented in writing. In an effort to identify the syntactic structure involved in the sentence, the parser may pronounce itwith a prosodic/intonational pattern that the parser considers to be naturally associated with the particular construction athand. Interestingly, recent psycholinguistic findings suggest that similar prosodic processes are involved even when
judging the acceptability of a written sentence without reading it aloud. Sentence parsing data for languages as diverse as
Japanese and Croatian are argued to be explicable in terms of (5) (Fodor, 1998).
(5)

The Implicit Prosody Hypothesis:(Fodor, 2002:113)
In silent reading, a default prosodic contour is projected onto the stimulus, and it may influence syntactic
ambiguity resolution. Other things being equal, the parser favors the syntactic analysis associated with themost natural (default) prosodic contour for the construction.7

It is assumed, in other words, that prosody is always present in the processing of language, whether by ear or by eye.
And because prosodic structure and syntactic structure are tightly related (Selkirk, 2000), those who solicit syntactic
judgments need to control for prosody. This will be particularly important for any construction that requires a non-default
prosodic contour, since readers are inclined to assign a default contour in their silent reading.
As case studies to support this hypothesis, Kitagawa and Fodor (2006) (henceforth K&F) report their experimental
results from English and Japanese. First, they took up a construction in English which involves potentially ambiguous
scope interpretations, as in (6).
(6)

Marvin didn’t leave the meeting early because he wanted to kill time.

The literature on experimental results for written materials indicates that the preferred interpretation has narrow-scope
negation --- that is, the because-clause is outside the scope of the negation (Frazier and Clifton, 1996). It was also noted byHirschberg and Avesani (2000:90) that the intonation contours for the (preferred) narrow-scope-negation ‘‘usually exhibit
major or minor prosodic phrase boundaries before the subordinate conjunction’’ and ‘‘usually were falling contours,’’ as
indicated in (7) by // and an arrow, respectively.
(7)

Marvin [ T' didn't leave the meeting early ] // [ because he wanted to kill time ]On the other hand, the intonation contours for the (dispreferred) wide-scope negation, as indicated in (8) below, ‘‘rarely
contain internal phrase boundaries’’ and ‘‘often end in a ‘continuation rise’.’’ (Hirschberg and Avesani, 2000:90)(8)

Marvin didn't [ VP leave the meeting early [ because he wanted to kill time ]]6
This tendency is particularly strong with a matrix subject, for which the absence of wa is interpreted as indicating that the subject is focused (cf.
Heycock, 1994).
7
For an examination of various linguistic phenomena in several different languages, see Bader (1998), Fodor (2002), Hirose (1999), Pynte andColonna (2000), Lovric (2003), Kitagawa and Fodor (2006), among others.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

45

This prosody -- especially the sentence-final rise -- is generally perceived to be highly marked for English (Hirschberg
and Avesani, 1997; Koizumi, 2009).
In their experiment, K&F used the same ‘not-because’ construction, crucially disambiguating its potential ambiguity
with the inclusion of a negative polarity item in the because-clause as in (9).
(9)

Marvin didn’t leave the meeting early because he was mad at anyone.

The acceptability of this sentence depends on the scope of the negation: Under the wide-scope negation reading,which places the NPI in the scope of the negation, it would be grammatical, but with the reverse hierarchical order, the NPI
fails to be licensed. Translating these scope asymmetries into prosody, it is predicted that the sentence will begrammatical only with the more marked prosody as in (10b).
(10)a. *Marvin [ T' didn't leave the meeting early ] // [ because he was mad at anyoneb.

Marvin didn't [ VP leave the meeting early [ because he was mad at anyone]]]

They conducted tests involving both silent reading and listening, assigning this marked prosody to their audio stimuli.
The results showed that the acceptance rate was extremely low in the silent reading condition, while there was a striking
increase in acceptance for these sentences in the listening condition, suggesting that in their silent reading theparticipants tend to assign the default prosody as in (10a) (= the narrow-scope negation prosody), which fails to license the
NPIs.8Let us now return to the matter of intervention effects in the context of implicit prosody. The focus-based analyses ofintervention effects assume that the interveners are likely to be interpreted as information-structural foci. This would
certainly affect the prosodic patterns of the sentences in which they appear. More concretely, it is expected that theinterveners are likely to be prosodically marked as being foci. In Japanese, a focused phrase receives an increased pitch
peak (F0 boost). Assuming that a wh-phrase is also focused in a wh-interrogative sentence, we expect a kind of multi-focistructure and the prosodic pattern shown in (11).9
(11)

a.
b.

[Ke’n-daKE’-ga]F [NA’ni-o]F yon-da-no?
Ken-only-nom
what-acc read-past-Q?
[NA’ni-o1]F [Ke’n-daKE’-ga]F t1 yon-da-no
what-acc
Ken-only-nom
read-past-Q?
‘What did only Ken read?’

Such prosody has different theoretical consequences. As sketched out in section 1, in Tomioka’s (2007) pragmatictheory of IEs, the source of the degradation in IE sentences is the imperfect information structure. Tomioka assumes thatin an ordinary wh-question, the wh-phrase is focused and the rest of the sentence must be backgrounded. Second,
potential interveners are anti-topical and hence cannot belong to the background as topics. The most effective way forthe interveners to be confined within the background is to be prosodically reduced. Therefore, the multiple focus
prominence in (11) is considered to induce informational incongruence. This leads us to predict that if the implicit prosody
assigns focus prominence to a potential intervener, it will negatively affect the acceptability judgment in silent reading.
We also predict that if such prosody is explicitly removed in the presentation of audio stimuli, the ill effect of the implicit
prosody will also be removed, and the acceptability judgment is expected to improve. It is worth noting that Tomioka’s
pragmatic account predicts the improvement to be significant for both orders in (11). Like any other analysis of IEs, thepragmatic analysis expects (11b) to be more acceptable than (11a) both in silent reading and in audible presentation.
However, both (11a) and (11b) should improve with the explicit prosody that discourages the focused interpretation for
the NP-dake.

8

Similar experiments were conducted on a larger scale by Koizumi (2009), which reinforced this conclusion. More detailed investigation of themarked prosody in (10b) and its correlation with the associated information packaging would be another interesting topic to pursue. Note thesimilarity of this prosodic pattern to Jackendoff’s (1972) B-accent.
9
We will elaborate on the focus prosody in question in Section 3.3. See Kori (1989), Maekawa (1991), Deguchi and Kitagawa (2002), andIshihara (2003), among others for an examination and discussion of focus prosody in wh-questions. In all examples that follow, the F0 boost of a
focused element is indicated by capital letters in bold face. As will be described in more detail in (20) of Section 6.2.1, there are a few alternative
prosodic patterns for the intervener in (11). For example, it is possible to pronounce it as KE’n-dake-ga with the F0 peak falling on the first syllable.
This option is available for all phrases with focus sensitive particles, such as dake ‘only’, sae ‘even’, and sura ‘even’.

Author's personal copy

46

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

On the other hand, if the IE arises due to the semantic definition of focus, the role of prosody is not expected to be afactor in the generation of a non-singleton set meaning. Focus-sensitive particles, such as only and even, demand suchsets for the focus values of their associates regardless of their information-structural status. If IEs are sensitive to thesemantic notion of focus rather than the pragmatic one, implicit prosody will not affect the acceptability judgment. With orwithout focus intonations, as long as the interveners c-command the wh-phrases, IEs are predicted to arise.
The main objective of the current study is to confirm the presence or absence of the implicit prosody effects in the IE
environments in Japanese by comparing the acceptability judgments of two different types of stimuli: visual-only stimuli
and visual stimuli accompanied by audio-stimuli.
3. Experiment
An experiment was conducted to examine the influence of word order and focus prosody on the acceptability of bothwh-questions and declarative sentences involving three distinct interveners dake, daremo and sika.

3.1. Materials
For the stimulus sentences in our experiment, we paired an IE-sentence (‘Intervener ^ wh’) with one involving thereversed order (‘wh ^ intervener’: Non-IE sentence). Each experimental sentence contained one of the potential
interveners listed in (12).
(12)

a.

Focus particle:-dake(’) ‘only’b.

Negative Polarity Item (NPI):(i)-si(’)ka‘only’/‘anyone/thing but’(ii)
daremo‘anyone’As a non-NPI intervener, we selected dake ‘only’ since it is often assumed to mark a focused element and induce analternative set, and it is also semantically similar to sika ‘anyone/thing but’, which we selected as a negative polarity (NPI)intervener. An example from each experimental paradigm of wh-questions containing one of the above potential
interveners is listed in (13)--(15).
(13)

The dake ‘only’ + wh stimuli:a. Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga dare-osasot-ta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh = Base-generated order)
Mariko-only-NOM
who-ACC
invite-PAST-Q‘Who did only Mariko invite?’b. dare1-o Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga t1 sasot-ta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int = Scrambled order)
who-ACC Mariko-only-NOM
invite-PAST-Q(14)

The sika ‘anyone but’ + wh stimuli:a. Mi’nako-si(’)kadare-osasow-ana-katta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh)
Minako-anyone.but who-ACC
invite-NEG-PAST-Q‘Who didn’t anyone but Minako invite?’b. dare1-oMi’nako-si(’)ka
t1 sasow-ana-katta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)
who-ACC
Minako-anyone.but
invite-NEG-PAST-Q(15)

The daremo‘anyone’ + wh stimuli:
a. daremo dare-osasow-ana-katta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh)
anyone who-ACC
invite-NEG-PAST-Q‘Who didn’t anyone invite?’b. dare1-o daremo t1 sasow-ana-katta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)
who-ACC anyone
invite-NEG-PAST-Q

We also paired these wh-questions with 12 declarative sentences, in which the wh-phrases were replaced by non-whphrases, as exemplified in (16)--(18).

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63(16)

The dake + NP stimuli:a. Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga Yuuzi-o sasot-ta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
Mariko-only-NOM
Yuji-ACC invite-PAST‘Only Mariko invited Yuji’
b. Yuuzi1-o Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga t1 sasot-ta. (Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)
Yuji-ACC Mariko-only-NOM
invite-PAST(17)

The sika + NP stimuli:a. Mi’nako-si(’)ka
Naoya-osasow-ana-katta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
Minako-anyone.but Naoya-ACC invite-NEG-PAST‘Anyone but Minako didn’t invite Naoya. (= No one but Minako invited Naoya.)’b. Naoya1-oMi’nako-si(’)ka
t1 sasow-ana-katta. (Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)
Naoya-ACC Minako-anyone.but
invite-NEG-PAST(18)

The daremo + NP stimuli:
a. daremo Yuuzi-osasow-ana-katta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
anyone Yuji-ACC
invite-NEG-PAST‘Anyone didn’t invite Yuji. (= No one invited Yuji.)’b. Yuuzi1-o daremo t1 sasow-ana-katta. (Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)
Yuji-ACC anyone
invite-NEG-PAST47

We prepared these control sentences so that we could obtain base-line judgments for the experimental sentences in(13)--(15) when they do not involve intervention effects. For each sentence in the paradigm above, we prepared anotherset of similar examples involving a distinct verb (home ‘praise’) and a distinct subject nominal (listed in Appendices A andB), and hence had 12 experimental wh-sentences and 12 declarative sentences (i.e., 24 target sentences in total). All of
the above stimulus sentences were combined with 51 filler sentences and presented to the participants in a randomizedorder. Out of the 51 filler sentences, 17 were what we regarded as clearly acceptable sentences, 13 as less acceptablesentence, and 21 as clearly unacceptable sentences. Some of the filler sentences taken from these three groups are listed
in the Appendices C--E.
3.2. Participants
51 native speakers of Japanese (16 males, 35 females) participated in this experiment, which was conduced in
September 2009. They were either undergraduate or graduate students at Nagoya University in Japan, and none of themwere students of linguistics. They were all paid for their participation. After analyzing the obtained data carefully, we
decided not to take into consideration those provided by 5 of the participants for the following reasons. First, 4 participants
did not complete the provided questionnaire, yielding some missing values. Furthermore, 1 participant provided the same
response to most of the items irrespective of their obvious acceptability/unacceptability. In the end, data from 46
participants were used for the analysis of the 24 target sentences.
3.3. Procedure
A questionnaire study was conducted in a large quiet room equipped with a large monitor and speakers. All of thestimulus sentences (i.e., target + filler sentences) were randomized twice and each set was presented to the participantsin two separate sessions. In the first session, the stimuli were presented only visually --- that is, without any prosody --- andthe participants were asked to silently read the example sentences projected on the monitor one by one and complete thequestionnaire. (The example sentences were also printed on the questionnaire.) When the first session was over, theparticipants took a break. The interval between the two sessions was 15 min, during which the participants were allowed
to act freely: they walked around, conversed, used a cell phone, had a snack/beverage, and so on. In the second session,
the same stimuli were presented in another randomized order. In this session, the stimulus sentences were again
presented visually on a large monitor as well as on a questionnaire sheet. At the same time, they were presented aurally
through speakers with an interval of approximately 7.5 seconds between sentences. In effect, we doubled the number ofstimuli to 150, 48 of which were the target stimuli.
Typical wh-focus prosody was assigned to the audio stimuli of all the experimental wh-questions, as illustrated by thepitch-track diagrams in Fig. 1. The recordings were made by one of the authors (Kitagawa), who is a native speaker ofTokyo Japanese. (The F0 boost in the focus prosody is indicated by capitalization and arrows.)

Author's personal copy

48

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

Fig. 1. Pitch-track diagrams for the audio stimuli involving dake ‘only’ in a wh-question. (a) IE order; (b) Non-IE order.

Fig. 2. Pitch-track diagrams when focus prominence is placed on dake. (This prosodic pattern was not assigned to our audio stimuli.)

The assigned wh-focus prosody typically involves an emphatic F0 boost on the wh-word itself (as indicated by the
upward arrows in Fig. 1). This pitch prominence is then followed by post-focal reduction (indicated by the oval), whichsignificantly (though not completely) compresses the pitch range of all items following a focused element, thereby
considerably reducing any rises from a low tone to a high tone up to the end of the focus domain. Therefore, when the dake
‘only’ intervener appeared after the wh-phrase (i.e., post-focally), its pitch range was significantly compressed, as shownin Fig. 1b. When the intervener appears in a position preceding the wh-focus as in Fig. 1a, on the other hand, we did not
impose such prosodic reduction. At the same time, we intentionally avoided assigning any notable focus prominence. If
we did, the dake phrase would have shown a clear prosodic peak (ma’riko-daKE’-ga) in addition to the wh-peak as inFig. 2.
In the declarative control sentences, focus prominence was assigned only to the dake phrase (ma’riko-daKE’-ga)
irrespective of the word order, as illustrated in Fig. 3a and b.

Fig. 3. Pitch-track diagrams for the audio stimuli involving a declarative sentence. (a) IE order; (b) Non-IE order.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

49

The naturalness of the prosody of all the recorded stimuli was confirmed by two third-party speakers of a ‘(near)standard’ dialect of Japanese, one a linguist and the other a non-linguist. The same speakers also confirmed that the
prosodic pattern represented in Fig. 2 is rather unnatural.
In both sessions, the participants were asked to provide an acceptability rating for each sentence by selecting one of
the six options indicated in (19) below as the slide went by for both visual-only and visual-and-audio stimuli.10
(19)

5
4
3
2
1
0

‘Entirely appropriate as a Japanese sentence’‘Quite/Rather appropriate as a Japanese sentence’‘Somewhat appropriate as a Japanese sentence’‘Somewhat inappropriate as a Japanese sentence’‘Quite/Rather inappropriate as a Japanese sentence’‘Entirely inappropriate as a Japanese sentence’4. Analysis
The acceptability of the sentences was measured by the 6-point scale in (19). The present study assumed this scale asparametric data. The 48 target stimuli were controlled by two conditions --- word order and prosody --- in each of the whinterrogative sentences and the declarative sentences involving one of the three distinct interveners dake, daremo andsika. Two sets of sentence stimuli involving two different verbs, sasow ‘invite’ and home ‘praise’, respectively, were usedin the experiment, and the obtained acceptability scores for the two sets were averaged in each condition for the analysis.
The three distinct interveners (dake, daremo or sika) and the two distinct sentence types (wh-interrogative or
declarative) were not directly compared among themselves, because they involve fundamentally distinct syntactic
structures and properties: dake ‘only’ and sika ‘anyone/anything but’ involve the form NP-particle while daremo ‘anyone’and dare ‘who’ are single lexical items. In addition, sika and daremo (NPIs) must appear in a negative sentence while dakeand dare need not.
If, as suggested in section 2, the implicit prosody involving illicit multi-focus intonation indeed is a significant partial
source of IEs, the removal of the focus prosody (i.e., removal of the extra F0 boost) from the interveners in our audio whstimuli is predicted to eliminate its ill effect and hence to reduce the IEs. Moreover, if one adopts the approach that regards
IEs not as pure and simple ungrammaticality but as a composite acceptability-lowering phenomenon caused byheterogeneous extra-syntactic or extra-grammatical factors, it is predicted that the word order difference (IE order vs. nonIE order) may not induce as clear and uniform IEs as claimed in many syntactic/semantic approaches to IEs. Accordingly,
the acceptability scores of IE sentences might not necessarily hit rock bottom.
A series of two-way 2 (IE order or non-IE order)  2 (presence or absence of prosody) analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
with repeated measures were conducted on the acceptability scores (0--5 points) of the 48 target stimuli. These stimuli

10
An anonymous reviewer raises the concern that, since the two experimental sessions were conducted on the same day, some of theexperimental sentences presented in the first session might have remained in the memory of the participants and affected the experimental
results of the second session. It was also pointed out that, since the participants were exposed to the scrambled word order before the nonscrambled word order in some of the target sentences, they might have already identified the intended interpretation and circumvented theintervention effect. While these concerns are legitimate, we consider that such factors were unlikely to have significantly affected the acceptability
results in the current experiment, which measured the subjective acceptability of sentences rather than the performance measurement of reaction
time. As described above, the participants were engaged in various activities unrelated to the experiment during the 15-min interval between thetwo sessions. In addition, the experiment involved a large number of stimuli (24 target and 51 filler sentences), which were separately randomized
for each session. Together, we believe, these factors provided the minimally necessary neutralization of the memory effect. It also is the case that
ungrammatical and hence clearly unacceptable sentences are generally unlikely to improve as drastically as they did in the cases we will observein the next section. The sentence in (ib) below, for instance, does not seem to improve in any significant way even after we encounter (ia) andunderstand its intended interpretation.

(i) a. John-wa kodomo-ni gohan-o tabe-sase-ta.
John-TOP child-DAT
meal-ACC eat-CAUSE-PAST‘John let/made his child have a meal.’b. John-wa kodomo-*o gohan-o tabe-sase-ta.
John-TOP child-ACC
meal-ACC eat-CAUSE-PAST‘John let/made his child have a meal.’
As will be presented and discussed in the following sections, the scrambled order in fact did not necessarily induce such drastic improvementin acceptability in our experiment.

Author's personal copy

50

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

involved 6 distinct combinations of interveners and sentence types.11 When a significant interaction or at least its trend
was detected, a series of simple contrasts were also conducted between each of the distinct conditions. The results of theanalysis of the acceptability scores are reported in section 5 for each of these 6 distinct combinations.
5. Results
5.1. dake
5.1.1. dake + wh
For the stimuli with dake ‘only’ in a wh-sentence, the mean acceptability scores and their standard deviations (inparentheses) are shown in Table 1. All of the data and their graphic summaries presented below indicate the averagescores of the two stimulus sets. Table 1 indicates, for example, the average score of (13a) and (26a) (IE order) and that of(13b) and (26b) (non-IE order). (Examples (26a and b) can be found in Appendix A.)
Table 1Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (dake in a wh-sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (dake-ga ^ wh-o)

Non-IE order (wh-o ^ dake-ga)

2.76 (1.34)
3.10 (1.24)

2.88 (1.36)
3.11 (1.15)

The two-way 2 (IE order or non-IE order)  2 (presence or absence of prosody) ANOVA with repeated measures ofboth variables indicated that the main effect of the word order was not significant [F(1,45) = 0.651, MSe = 0.943,
p = 0.651, h p 2 ¼ 0:005] while the main effect of the presence/absence of prosody was significant [F(1,45) = 5.429,
MSe = 0.677, p < 0.05, h p 2 ¼ 0:108]. The interaction of these variables was also not significant [F(1,45) = 0.258,
MSe = 0.528, p = 0.614, h p 2 ¼ 0:006].
Specifically, the acceptability score of the ‘IE order’ (dake-ga ^ wh-o) was significantly increased by the presence of
prosody (M = 2.76 vs. M = 3.10). Likewise, the acceptability score of the scrambled ‘Non-IE order’ (wh-o ^ dake-ga) was
significantly increased by the presence of prosody (M = 2.88 vs. M = 3.11). However, due to the null main effect of word
order, the acceptability scores between the IE and Non-IE orders did not differ significantly, whether or not prosody was
assigned.
5.1.2. dake + NP
For the stimuli with dake ‘only’ in a declarative sentence, the mean acceptability scores and their standard deviations(in parentheses) averaged over the two sets are shown in Table 2 below: those of (16a) and (32a) (IE order) and those of(16b) and (32b) (non-IE order). (Examples (32a and b) can be found in Appendix B.)
Table 2Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (dake in a declarative sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (dake-ga ^ NP-o)

Non-IE order (NP-o ^ dake-ga)

4.51 (0.52)
4.08 (0.80)

4.34 (0.68)
4.51 (0.60)

As in section 5.1.1, the same 2  2 ANOVA was conducted and showed neither a main effect of the word order [F(1,45) = 3.873, MSe = 0.202, p = 0.055, h p 2 ¼ 0:079] nor a main effect of the presence/absence of prosody [F(1,45)= 3.671, MSe = 0.213, p = 0.062, h p 2 ¼ 0:075], although both F-values approached the 5% significance level.

11

An anonymous reviewer questions whether the term
(appropriate)’ in (19) can indeed be interpreted on a par with "acceptable." Alternatively,
we could have used expressions like(grammatical)’,(acceptable)’, or(natural)’. Each and every one of these expressions,however, seems to have the potential to invite some irrelevant and undesirable aspect of the participants’ evaluation of the stimulus sentences. Whatparticular expression should be used to describe the standard of acceptability presumably is a problem common to all experiments attempting tomeasure the degree of acceptability of linguistic expressions, irrespective of the type of scale adopted in the questionnaire. What we are treating as
the acceptability scores in this work, therefore, must be regarded as our best approximation of the acceptability judgments of linguistic expressions,which in reality reflect the participants’ evaluation of stimuli involving somewhat heterogeneous aspects of linguistic communication. Acknowledging
the importance of this issue, we must leave its further discussion to our and others’ future research.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

51

The interaction of both variables was significant [F(1,45) = 15.828, MSe = 0.269, p < 0.001, h p2 ¼ 0:260]. Therefore,
pairwise simple contrasts were conducted. The acceptability scores for the IE order (M = 4.51) showed a significant
decrease with the presence of prosody (M = 4.08) [F(1,45) = 16.438, MSe = 0.529, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:268]. Prosody thus
produced negative effects in this particular case. In the Non-IE order, on the other hand, a slight increase in the scores wasobserved --- M = 4.34 without prosody and M = 4.51 with prosody --- although the difference was not significant [F(1,45)= 3.193, MSe = 0.436, p = 0.081, h p 2 ¼ 0:066]. Without prosody, the difference in acceptability scores between the IE
order (M = 4.51) and the Non-IE order (M = 4.34) was not significant [F(1,45) = 2.996, MSe = 0.469, p = 0.092,
h p 2 ¼ 0:062]. With the presence of prosody, however, the difference in acceptability scores between the IE order(M = 4.08) and the non-IE order (M = 4.51) was significant [F(1,45) = 18.367, MSe = 0.473, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:290].12
5.2. sika
5.2.1. sika + wh
For the stimuli with the NPI intervener sika ‘anyone/anything but’ in a wh-sentence, the mean acceptability scores andtheir standard deviations (in parentheses) averaged over the two sets are shown in Table 3 below: those of (14a) and(27a) (IE order) and those of (14b) and (27b) (non-IE order) (Examples (27a and b) can be found in Appendix A.)
Table 3Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (sika in a wh-sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (sika ^ wh-o)

Non-IE order (wh-o ^ sika)

0.96 (0.97)
1.52 (1.16)

1.55 (1.33)
1.87 (1.44)

The two-way 2  2 ANOVA indicated that the main effect was significant for both variables --- [F(1,45) = 12.373,
MSe = 0.831, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:216] for the word order, and [F(1,45) = 10.150, MSe = 0.878, p < 0.01, h p 2 ¼ 0:184] forthe presence/absence of prosody. The interaction of these variables, on the other hand, was not significant [F(1,45)= 1.177, MSe = 0.610, p = 0.284, h p 2 ¼ 0:025].
More specifically, the acceptability scores for the Non-IE order were significantly higher than those for the IE order --(M = 1.55 vs. M = 0.96 without prosody) and (M = 1.87 vs. M = 1.52 with prosody). Furthermore, the acceptability scoresfor both word orders were significantly increased when prosody was added: M = 0.96 vs. M = 1.52 in the IE order and
M = 1.55 vs. M = 1.87 in the Non-IE order.
5.2.2. sika + NP
For the stimuli with the NPI intervener sika ‘anyone/anything but’ in a declarative sentence, the mean acceptability
scores and their standard deviations (in parentheses) averaged over the two sets are shown in Table 4: those of (17a) and(33a) (IE order) and those of (17b) and (33b) (non-IE order). (Examples (33a and b) can be found in Appendix B.)
Table 4Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (sika in a declarative sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (sika ^ NP-o)

Non-IE order (NP-o ^ sika)

4.65 (0.55)
4.72 (0.40)

3.09 (1.52)
3.53 (1.15)

The two-way 2  2 ANOVA indicated that the main effect was significant for both variables---[F(1,45) = 70.874,
MSe = 1.227, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:612] for the word order, and [F(1,45) = 4.331, MSe = 0.693, p < 0.05, h p 2 ¼ 0:088] forthe presence/absence of prosody.
Specifically, the acceptability scores of the Non-IE order were significantly lower than those of the IE order, whether
prosody was absent (M = 3.09 vs. M = 4.65) [F(1,45) = 54.352, MSe = 2.073, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:547] or present(M = 3.53 vs. M = 4.72) [F(1,45) = 57.906, MSe = 1.115, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:563].
The interaction of these variables was also significant [F(1,45) = 4.533, MSe = 0.367, p < 0.05, h p 2 ¼ 0:092].
Therefore, pairwise simple contrasts were conducted. Prosody significantly increased the acceptability scores for the12
While the notion of intervention is irrelevant in declarative sentences, we continue to use the same labels ‘‘IE’’ and ‘‘Non-IE’’ to indicate word
orders for ease of reference.

Author's personal copy

52

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

Non-IE order (M = 3.09 vs. M = 3.53) [F(1,45) = 9.136, MSe = 1.736, p < 0.05, h p 2 ¼ 0:105] while it had no significant
effect on the acceptability scores for the IE order (M = 4.65 vs. M = 4.72) [F(1,45) = 0.509, MSe = 0.385, p = 0.479,
h p 2 ¼ 0:011].
5.3. daremo
5.3.1. daremo + wh
For the stimuli with the NPI intervener daremo ‘anyone’ in a wh-sentence, the mean acceptability scores and theirstandard deviations (in parentheses) averaged over the two sets are shown in Table 5: those of (15a) and (28a) (IE order)
and those of (15b) and (28b) (non-IE order). (Examples (28a and b) can be found in Appendix A.)
Table 5Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (daremo in a wh-sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (daremo ^ wh-o)

Non-IE order (wh-o ^ daremo)

1.39 (1.18)
1.77 (1.47)

2.23 (1.52)
2.46 (1.73)

The two-way 2  2 ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of word order [F(1,45) = 27.239, MSe = 0.978, p < 0.001,
h p 2 ¼ 0:377], but the main effect of the presence/absence of prosody was not significant [F(1,45) = 2.659, MSe = 1.603,
p = 0.110, h p 2 ¼ 0:056]. The interaction of these variables was also not significant [F(1,45) = 0.385, MSe = 0.691,
p = 0.538, h p 2 ¼ 0:008].
Specifically, the acceptability scores were significantly higher for the non-IE order than for the IE order with or without
prosody: M = 2.23 vs. M = 1.39 without prosody and M = 2.46 vs. M = 1.77 with prosody. The absence or presence of
prosody, on the other hand, did not significantly change the acceptability scores for either the IE order or the non-IE order.
5.3.2. daremo + NP
For the stimuli with the NPI intervener daremo ‘anyone’ in a declarative sentence, the mean acceptability scores andtheir standard deviations (in parentheses) averaged over the two sets are shown in Table 6: those of (18a) and (34a) (IE
order) and those of (18b) and (34b) (non-IE order). (Examples (34a and b) can be found in Appendix B.)
Table 6Means and standard deviations of acceptability scores (daremo in a declarative sentence).

No Prosody
Prosody

IE order (dakemo ^ NP-o)

Non-IE order (NP-o ^ daremo)

4.99 (0.07)
4.90 (0.31)

4.33 (0.88)
4.48 (0.89)

The two-way 2  2 ANOVA indicated that the main effect of the word order was significant [F(1,45) = 26.978,
MSe = 0.504, p < 0.001, h p 2 ¼ 0:375], but the main effect of the presence/absence of prosody was not significant [F(1,45) = 0.211, MSe = 0.0.232, p = 0.648, h p 2 ¼ 0:005]. The interaction of these variables was also not significant [F(1,45) = 3.085, MSe = 0.213, p = 0.086, h p 2 ¼ 0:064].
Specifically, the acceptability scores for the non-IE order were significantly lower than those for the IE order, whether
prosody was absent (M = 4.33 vs. M = 4.99) or present (M = 4.48 vs. M = 4.90). However, due to its null main effect, thepresence/absence of prosody did not cause a significant difference in the acceptability scores for either word order.
6. Discussion
6.1. The dake ‘only’ as intervener
Two main factors were examined in this study. According to the syntactic and semantic approaches, a significant wordorder effect (IE order vs. non-IE order) was predicted to be observable with all three of the interveners, dake, daremo andsika. Our findings indicate, however, that while the two NPIs are archetypical interveners in the sense that they showed
the expected word order effects, dake ‘only’ does not show IEs in the way that the previous analyses have reported. This
point is well-illustrated by the lack of any significant contrast between the two word orders (i.e., by the flat lines in Fig. 4a
below).

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

a

b

5

53

5

4.51

4.51
4.08

3

3.10

3.11

2.76

2.88

2
With Prosody
Without Prosody

Acceptability

Acceptability

4.34

4

4

3
2

1

1

0

0

wh-o ^ dake-ga
dake-ga ^ wh-o
(IE order)(Non-IE order)
Word OrderWith Prosody
Without Prosody

dake-ga ^ NP-o
(IE order)

NP-o ^ dake-ga(Non-IE order)

Word Order

Fig. 4. Mean acceptability scores as a function of word order and prosody. (a) dake in a wh-sentence; (b) dake in a declarative sentence.

Tomioka (2009, 2011) described dake as a weak intervener, but even that terminology seems inaccurate. The lack of
IEs with dake is particularly surprising for Beck’s (2006) and Kim’s (2005) analyses, which rely on the presence of nonsingleton focus meaning and the structural relation (= c-command) between interveners and wh-phrases to capture thealleged ungrammaticality of IEs. Dake is a typical focus particle whose lexical meaning demands a non-singleton set, andits surface position should make a crucial difference in the judgments of these sentences.
It is important to note, however, that the overall acceptability of the wh-questions with dake hovers around the‘marginal’ range (M = 2.76--3.11). The declaratives with dake, on the other hand, were judged ‘clearly acceptable’ in all
four variants, with average ratings ranging from 4.08 to 4.51, as shown in Fig. 4b. This contrast suggests that dake does
cause some negative effects when it interacts with a wh-question, but these effects cannot be identified as IEs since thesignature characteristic of IEs, the improvement with scrambling, is not observed. That is, dake does not seem to becausing grammatical violations even in the IE construction.
As mentioned in section 1, the information-structural account of Tomioka (2007) can offer a reasonable explanation
for the contrast. The overall negative effect in wh-questions with dake is due to the default interpretation of dakephrases as sentence foci regardless of their structural positions. Such a construal would create a less than ideal
information structure for a wh-question since the dake-phrases are less likely to be confined within the background.13
The ill effects that result from the imperfect information structure, however, are expected to be relatively mild since
there are no syntactic or semantic constraints being violated. Under the Implicit Prosody Hypothesis, the defaultinterpretation of the intervener as a focalized expression would impact the silent reading process in such a way thatdake-phrases receive implicit focal prominence (as in Fig. 2) when the sentences are presented without audio-stimuli.
Comparing the two types of stimuli, we detected a statistically significant improvement with prosody. The result implies
that the addition of auditory stimuli as in Fig. 1a and b eliminates some of the ill effects of the implicit focal accents on
dake-phrases.14
6.2. The NPI interveners
The outcomes concerning the two NPI interveners sika ‘anyone/thing but’ and daremo ‘anyone’ are illustrated in Figs. 5
and 6 below, and are just as expected in some respects but quite surprising in others.
As was already mentioned in connection with dake, the NPIs proved to be archetypical interveners: for both NPIs, theIE order was significantly less acceptable than the non-IE order with both the visual-only and the visual + audio stimuli(Figs. 5a and 6a). The two NPIs behaved differently, however, with respect to the other main effect we examined, namely
the role of implicit and explicit prosody. While explicit prosody led to a robust improvement in the acceptability judgments

13
That is, wh-questions are less acceptable when something other than the wh-phrase is focused (either instead of the wh-phrase or in addition
to the wh-phrase).
14
It is not the case, however, that addition of prosody unconditionally improves acceptability judgments of all sentences. This point isdemonstrated in Fig. 4b by the contrast between the visual stimuli (M = 4.51) and the visual + audio stimuli (M = 4.08) in declarative sentences.

Author's personal copy

54

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63b

Acceptability

4With Prosody
Without Prosody

3
2

1.87
1.55

1.52

5
4

4.72
4.65
3.53

Acceptability

a5

1

3
3.09
2
With Prosody
Without Prosody

1

0.96
0

0
sika ^ wh-o
wh-o ^ sika
(IE order)(Non-IE order)
Word Ordersika ^ NP-o
NP-o ^ sika
(IE order)(Non-IE order)
Word Order

Fig. 5. Mean acceptability scores as a function of word order and prosody. (a) sika in a wh-sentence; (b) sika in a declarative sentence.

a 5

b 5

3
2
1

4.48
4.33

4
With Prosody
Without Prosody
2.46
2.23
1.77
1.39

Acceptability

Acceptability

4

4.99
4.90
With Prosody
Without Prosody

3
2
1

0

0
daremo ^ wh-o
wh-o ^ daremo(IE order)(Non-IE order)
Word Order

NP-o ^ daremo
daremo ^ NP-o
(IE order)(Non-IE order)
Word Order

Fig. 6. Mean acceptability scores as a function of word order and prosody. (a) daremo in a wh-sentence; (b) daremo in a declarative sentence.

of wh-questions with NP-sika ‘anyone/thing but NP’ (Fig. 5a), it turned out to be not significantly effective with daremo‘anyone’, although it did create non-significant positive effects (Fig. 6a).

6.2.1. Prosody and the NPI interveners
Recall that the prosodic effect was also significant in wh-questions with dake. What relevant property distinguishes
daremo from the other two, especially when focus prosody is assigned? We believe that the key is the presence versus
absence of a lexical accent (i.e., a contour HL) on the intervener. When -dake or -sika is affixed to a host N, focus
prominence shows up as an increased pitch peak (F0 boost), as exemplified in (20).
(20)

a.

Unaccented N (e.g., mayumi):b.

Accented N (e.g., ma’riko):

mayumi-daKE’-ga ‘Mayumi-only-NOM’
mayumi-SI’ka‘Mayumi-anyone.but’(i)ma’riko-daKE’-ga‘Mariko-only-NOM’(ii)
ma’riko-SI’ka‘Mariko-anyone.but’(iii)
MA’riko-dake-ga(iv)
MA’riko-sika(v)
MA’riko-daKE’-ga(vi)
MA’riko-SI’ka

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

55

We can perhaps consider that dake and sika involve a ‘recessive’ lexical accent (cf. Poser, 1984), which isrealized in a somewhat irregular way as focus prominence. When the host N is unaccented as in (20a), focus
prominence generally shows up on the affix itself. When the N is lexically accented as in (20b), on the other hand, it
may show up on the affix alone ((i)--(ii)), on the N alone ((iii)--(iv)), or on both of them ((v)--(vi)). Which of thesealternative forms is accepted or preferred varies among speakers. In any case, the focus prosody of the N-dake/sika
sequence involves an emphatic F0 boost of the form LHL. In addition, it is followed by a post-focal reduction of theelements immediately following the sequence. On the other hand, daremo ‘anyone’, a free-standing lexical item,
lacks a lexical accent altogether. Accordingly, its focus prominence does not involve any contour from H to L. It does
not involve any radical pitch range compression by post-focal reduction, either. Our speculation is that because of
these differences, stimuli with prosody are more helpful for figuring out the focal status of an NP when the NP
involves a lexical accent.
Though informally, we can observe such a contrast between accented and unaccented foci when we compare theirpitch contours with those of non-foci. In Fig. 7, we are comparing one of our audio stimuli involving an accented focus withan almost identical sentence in which the accented focus was replaced by an accented topic.

Fig. 7. Pitch-track diagrams for an accented focus and non-focus in a declarative sentence. (a) Accented focus: (=Fig. 3a above). (b) Accented
non-focus.

The focus prosody involving emphatic prominence and post-focal reduction in Fig. 7a and the lack thereof in Fig. 7bprovide us with quite distinct tonal contours. In Fig. 8, we are making a similar comparison with an unaccented focus (inone of our audio stimuli) and an unaccented topic.

Fig. 8. Pitch-track diagrams for an unaccented focus and non-focus in a declarative sentence. (a) Unaccented focus. (b) Unaccented
non-focus.

In contradistinction to the accented cases in Fig. 7, an unaccented focus and non-focus display somewhat similar tonal
contours, as shown in Fig. 8a and b. We consider that such a contrast between accented and unaccented foci is likely to
be at least a partial reason why in our experiment explicit prosody failed to induce a robust improvement in theacceptability judgments of wh-questions with the unaccented intervener daremo ‘anyone’. While it goes beyond the scopeAuthor's personal copy

56

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63of this article, further investigation of the contrast between accented and unaccented foci has great potential to influence
our prosodic analyses of information packaging in general.15
To sum up, we have found effects of prosody on the acceptability of intervention sentences in two out of the threepatterns that we examined. The presence of an improvement effect in those examples suggests the following scenario.
The participants tend to assign focal prominence to the interveners in their silent readings of the intervention sentences.
The removal of such prominence with the audio stimuli helps the participants to ‘undo’ this implicit prosody for theinterveners with lexical accents. This led to the improvement in the acceptability judgments of the intervention
sentences.
Directing our attention to the significant positive effects of the accented NPI interveners, we point out that the results
are consistent with the pragmatic analysis of IEs by Tomioka (2007). The prosody employed in the audio stimuli explicitly
discourages the information-structural focus interpretation for the intervener NP-sika, and only in the pragmatic analysis
is this manipulation expected to play a positive role in the acceptability judgments. The ideal information-structural
partition in a wh-question places the intervener in the background, and the prosody that avoids focal prominence on theintervener would certainly facilitate the realization of that partition. The semantic analysis (or any other ‘structural’
analysis), on the other hand, would not attend to the information-structural status of interveners. An intervener isearmarked for the semantic property of requiring a non-singleton focus meaning. Since this property is independent of
whether the intervener is a sentence focus or is a part of the background, the intervention effects are expected to beinvariably induced regardless of the information-structural shifts. This prediction is not supported by our experimental
results.

6.2.2. Scrambling and the NPI interveners
Another surprising finding concerning the NPI interveners is the ratings of the supposedly grammatical non-IE
questions. Although they show a clear improvement over the IE questions, they were hardly considered fully acceptable.
The mean scores for the non-IE variant (= the wh ^ NPI order) for daremo ‘anyone’ are 2.23 (visual-only) and 2.46 (visual+ audio), as shown in Fig. 6a. The scores are even lower for sika: 1.55 (visual only) and 1.87 (visual + audio), as shown in
Fig. 5a. These ratings can perhaps be characterized as ‘marginal’ at best (or even worse). The overall low ratings of the
non-IE sentences come as a big surprise for all the existing theories of IEs.
We have at least a partial answer to this puzzle of the unexpectedly low acceptability of non-IE sentences.
The results of declarative sentences with NPI subjects show that the acceptability of the scrambled order (= the NPacc ^ NPI) is significantly lower than that of the base order (= the NPI ^ NP-acc) in both types of stimuli (Figs. 5b and6b). (Recall that the scrambled order corresponds to the non-IE wh-questions in the sense that the NPI subject
follows the object.) We can then hypothesize that the scrambling of an object over an NPI subject causes some
negative effects. Let us now reconsider the contrast between the IE and the non-IE orders of wh-questions. The
non-IE order improves, but its improvement should be interpreted in the context of the negative effects of scrambling.
In other words, the enhancement in the acceptability would have been more dramatic if the scrambling over the NPI
subject did not have a negative impact. It should also be pointed out that the overall acceptability is higher
with daremo than with sika in the declarative sentences, and the tendency is even more noticeable with thescrambled order. That is, the lowering effect of scrambling in declarative sentences is larger with sika than daremo(Fig. 5b vs. Fig. 6b) while the repair effect of scrambling in wh-interrogatives is weaker with sika than daremo(Figs. 5a and 6a). This inverse correlation suggests that our account is probably correct. It is still uncertain if theacceptability of the non-IE pattern would have jumped to the acceptable range were there no negative effect ofscrambling, but it is highly likely that it makes a significant contribution to the generally low acceptability of whquestions with NPI subjects.
At the same time, it should be noted that the main effect of word order in the declarative sentences with dake was
non-significant, and no consistent negative effect of scrambling was observed (see Table 2 and the paragraphfollowing it in section 5.1.2). We cannot, therefore, ascribe the observed phenomenon entirely to the general andsimple processing cost associated with scrambled sentences. This leads us to conclude that the lack of IEs with dakein wh-interrogatives (Fig. 4a and Table 1) is genuine and is not masked by the negative impact of the scrambled
order. At the same time, it brings out a new agenda for future research --- how exactly the observed asymmetry arises
between NPI and non-NPI subjects in the scrambling construction needs to be clarified with further experimental
investigation.

15
See McCawley (1968), Poser (1984), Pierrehumbert and Beckman (1988), and Maekawa (1994), among others, for related discussion
revolving around the hypothesis that ‘dephrasing’ takes place in prosodic phonology.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

57

6.2.3. Further burdens on the NPI interveners
The NPI interveners si’ka and daremo showed clearer IEs than the non-NPI intervener dake in our experiment. While
this result could suggest the existence of IEs as a grammatical failure, there are reasons to consider that it does notnecessarily urge us to draw such a conclusion. In fact, the degree of (un)acceptability of the IE-sentences shown in
Figs. 5a and 6a (M = 1.52--1.77 with prosody and M = 0.96--1.39 without) seems to be more comparable to that of the‘‘less acceptable’’ fillers than the ‘‘clearly unacceptable’’ fillers shown in Appendices D and E, respectively.16 There may
be additional extra-grammatical factors, in other words, that contribute to the degenerated status of IE-sentences
involving the NPI interveners.
One such factor may be traced back to a subtle subject-object asymmetry in wh-questions with negative quantifiers/
NPIs. (21) below involves wh-questioned objects with negative quantifier/polarity subjects. While they are by no means
ungrammatical/unacceptable, they are noticeably more complex compared to (22), which involves wh-questioned
subjects with negative quantifier/polarity objects.
(21)

a.
b.

Who did nobody invite?
Who didn’t anybody invite?

(22)

a.
b.

Who invited nobody?
Who didn’t invite anybody?

This presumably is because (21) needs more specialized contextual information: the list of potential invitees
and that of actual invitees must be compared. Functionally speaking, the same information can be asked for in a
simpler way by uttering Who wasn’t invited?. All of our test sentences in Japanese have the pattern of (21), and it islikely that their acceptability scores are negatively affected by whatever features make (21) less straightforward than
(22).
Another candidate for an additional extra-grammatical IE factor for the NPI interveners is the presence of twolicenser-licensee relations, ‘‘NPI-NEG’’ and ‘‘wh-COMPQ,’’ within a single utterance. It is conceivable that they may
impose an additional memory load in the processing of the IE sentences (de Vincenzi, 1991; Miyamoto and
Takahashi, 2002). Moreover, since such dual licensing must be fulfilled in a crossing fashion in the IE sentences,some processing problem may also arise (cf. Bach et al., 1986; Nakamura and Miyamoto, 2006; Nakatani and
Gibson, 2010).
In short, more exhaustive explication of the IEs involving the NPI interveners must await further examinations ofmultiple factors.
7. Conclusion
This paper investigated the effects of implicit prosody on the judging of intervention sentences in Japanese. The
experimental results reported here showed that implicit prosody has significant effects in two of the three cases we
examined. When the intervener is lexically accented, the effects of implicit prosody are significant, whereas unaccented
interveners showed the same tendencies but the effects were not significant. All in all, the results argue for the Implicit
Prosody Hypothesis, although the support may not be unconditional. They also imply that the notion of focus relevant to
IEs is the one based on information structure, rather than semantics. Only, for instance, requires a non-singleton focus
value for its associate, whether it has information-structural focus or not. If that property alone were responsible for IEs, no
implicit prosody effects would be expected to arise. Therefore, the results reported here cannot be accommodated by apurely semantic explanation.

16
For example, one of the ‘‘less acceptable fillers’’ in (i) below (M = 0.71 with prosody and M = 0.96 without) involves no grammatical problems,and its marginality/awkwardness arises from the complexity of the predicate, which involves multiple negation (and more).

(i)

Kinoo-nopaatii-wa omosiroku-na-sasugi-masen-desita.
yesterday-GEN party-TOP
interesting-NEG-too-NEG-was‘The party last night was not too uninteresting.’(= (40))This makes a sharp contrast with a "clearly unacceptable filler" as in (ii) (M = 0.41/M = 0.25), which involves violation of the well-known ‘double-o’constraint.
(ii)

Sanzi-nikodomo-o oyatu-otabe-sase-masita.
3.o’clock-at
child-ACC snack-ACC
eat-CAUS-PAST‘(I) had the child eat snacks at 3 o’clock.’(= (41))

Author's personal copy

58

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

In addition to the findings on the main effect, the experiment has also revealed a few rather intriguing points.
First, contrary to the previous characterization of IEs, dake ‘only’ should not be considered as an intervener. Thisin turn makes it necessary to re-examine other ‘weak’ interveners, such as da’remo ‘everyone’, dareka ‘someone’,and A ka B ‘A or B’. Second, while the NPI interveners showed clearer IEs, the supposedly grammatical ‘wh ^intervener’ order did not meet our expectation and was still judged quite low in terms of acceptability. We speculated
that this could be attributed to the general negative effects generated by the scrambling of an object over an NPI
subject.
All these considerations combined with our experimental results lead us to support the approach that regards IEs notas simple ungrammaticality but as a composite acceptability-lowering phenomenon caused by heterogeneous extrasyntactic or extra-grammatical factors.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-0650415(Indiana University) and BCS-0650385 (University of Delaware), and by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Japan(No. 23320106 and No. 23652116). We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We are also
grateful to Shigeto Kawahara for his detailed suggestions for improvement, and Jane Chandlee for her careful
proofreading of the entire manuscript. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 5th Formal Approaches toJapanese Linguistics (FAJL 5) at the University of California at Santa Cruz. We are grateful to the audience for comments
and discussion.

Appendix A. The Wh-stimuli
A.1. <The sasow ‘invite’ set>(23)

The dake ‘only’ + wh stimuli:a. Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga dare-oMariko-only-NOM
who-ACC‘Who did only Mariko invite?’
b.

(24)

t1

sasot-ta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int = Scrambled order)
invite-PAST-Q

The sika ‘anyone but’ + wh stimuli: (= (14))
a. Mi’nako-si(’)kadare-osasowa-na-kat-ta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh)
Minako-anyone.but who-ACC invite-NEG-PAST-Q‘Who didn’t anyone but Minako invite?’
b.

(25)

dare1-o Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga
who-ACC Mariko-only-NOM(= (13))sasot-ta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh= Base-generated order)
invited-PAST-Q

dare1-o Mi’nako-si(’)ka
who-ACC Minako-anyone.but

The daremo ‘anyone’ + wh stimuli:
a. daremo dare-oanyone who-ACC‘Who didn’t anyone invite?’b.

dare1-o daremo
who-ACC anyone

t1

t1

sasowa-na-kat-ta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)
invite-NEG-PAST-Q(= (15))sasowa-na-kat-ta-no? (IE order: Int ^ Wh)
invite-NEG-PAST-Q

sasowa-na-kat-ta-no? (Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)
invite-NEG-PAST-Q

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

A.2. <The home ‘praise’ set>
(26)

The dake ‘only’ + wh stimuli:a. Na’nako-dake(’)-ga dare-ohome-ta-no?
Nanako-only-NOM who-ACC praise-PAST-Q‘Who did only Mariko praise?’
b.

(27)

t1

home-ta-no?
praise-PAST-Q

The -sika ‘anyone but’ + wh stimuli:
a. Yu’miko-si(’)kadare-ohome-na-kat-ta-no?
Yumiko-anyone.but who-ACC praise-NEG-PAST-Q‘Who didn’t anyone but Yumiko praise?’
b.

(28)

dare1-o Na’nako-dake(’)-ga
who-ACC Nanako-only-NOM(IE order: Int ^ Wh)

t1

dare1-o Yu‘miko-s(’)ika
who-ACC Yumiko-anyone.but

dare1-o daremo
who-ACC anyone

t1(IE order: Int ^ Wh)

home-na-kat-ta-no?
praise-NEG-PAST-Q

The daremo ‘anyone’ + wh stimuli:
a. dare-mo dare-ohome-na-kat-ta-no?
anyone who-ACC
praise-NEG-PAST-Q‘Who didn’t anyone praise?’b.

(Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)

home-na-kat-ta-no?
praise-NEG-PAST-Q(Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)

(IE order: Int ^ Wh)(Non-IE order: Wh ^ Int)

Appendix B. The NP-stimuli
B.1. <The sasow ‘invite’ set>
(29)

The dake + NP stimuli:(= (16))a. Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga Yuuzi-oMariko-only-NOM
Yuji-ACC‘Only Mariko invited Yuji’
b.

(30)

Yuuzi1-o Ma’riko-dake(’)-ga
Yuji-ACC Mariko-only-NOM

t1sasot-ta.
invite-PAST(IE order: Int ^ NP)

sasot-ta. (Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)
invite-PASTThe sika + NP stimuli:(= (17))(Non-IE order: Int ^ NP)
a. Mi’nako-si(’)ka
Naoya-osasowa-na-kat-ta.
Minako-anyone.but Naoya-ACC
invite-NEG-PAST‘Anyone but Minako didn’t invite Naoya. (= No one but Minako invited Naoya.)’b.

Naoya1-o Mi’nako-si(’)kat1
Naoya-ACC Minako-anyone.butsasowa-na-kat-ta.
invite-NEG-PAST(IE order: NP ^ Int)59

Author's personal copy

60

(31)

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

The daremo + NP stimuli: (= (16))
a. daremo Yuuzi-osasowa-na-kat-ta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
anyone Yuji-ACC
invite-NEG-PAST‘Anyone didn’t invite Yuji. (= No one invited Yuji.)’b.

Yuuzi1-o daremo
Yuji-ACC anyone

t1sasowa-na-kat-ta.
invite-NEG-PAST(Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)

B.2. <The home ‘praise’ set>
(32)

The dake + NP stimuli:a. Na’nako-dake(’)-ga Yuuzi-oNanako-only-NOM
Yuji-ACC‘Only Nanako praised Yuji’
b.

(33)

t1

home-ta.
praise-PAST(IE order: Int ^ NP)(Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)

The sika + NP stimuli:a. Mi’nako-si(’)ka
Naoya-ohome-na-kat-ta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
Minako-anyone.but Naoya-ACC praise-NEG-PAST‘Anyone but Minako didn’t praise Naoya. (= No one but Minako praised Naoya.)’
b.

(34)

Yuuzi1-o Na’nako-dake(’)-ga
Yuji-ACC Nanako-only-NOM

home-ta.
praise-PAST

Naoya1-o Mi’nako-si(’)kat1
Naoya-ACC Minako-anyone.but

home-na-kat-ta. (Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)
praise-NEG-PASTThe daremo + NP stimuli:a.

daremo Yuuzi-ohome-na-kat-ta. (IE order: Int ^ NP)
anyone Yuji-ACC
praise-NEG-PAST‘Anyone didn’t praise Yuji. (= No one praised Yuji.)’b.

Yuuzi1-o daremo
Yuji-ACC anyonet1home-na-kat-ta.
praise-NEG-PAST(Non-IE order: NP ^ Int)

Appendix C. Clearly acceptable fillers
Samples of filler sentences are divided into three different groups (clearly acceptable, less acceptable, and clearly
unacceptable). The mean acceptability scores from 49 to 51 participants and their standard deviations (in parentheses)
are shown after each sentence.
(35)

Boku-wa hikooki-yorimo sinkansen-noho-ga
I-TOP
airplane-thanbullet.train-choice-NOM‘I prefer bullet trains to airplanes.’
No Prosody 4.92 (0.34)
Prosody

4.90 (0.36)

sukidesu.
likeAuthor's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63(36)

Kimi-wa naze sonna-tokoro-e itta-no?
you-TOP why such-place-to
went-Q‘Why did you go to such a place?’

No Prosody 4.92 (0.34)
Prosody(37)

4.90 (0.36)

Asu-wadokoemodekakeru yotee-wa arimasen.
tomorrow-TOP to.anywhere go.out
plan-TOP doesn’t.exist‘I have no plan to go out anywhere tomorrow.’
No Prosody 4.37 (1.22)
Prosody

4.73 (0.80)

Appendix D. Less acceptable fillers
(38)

(39)

Taroo-ga kooen-e kodomo-ni ika-ase-ta.
Taro-NOM park-to child-DAT go-CAUS-PAST‘Taro had the child go to the park.’
No Prosody

1.75 (1.32)

Prosody

1.86 (1.28)

Boku-no koko-e kita-koto-wa
naisyo-dayo.
I-GEN
here-to came-the.fact-TOP secret-it.is‘Please keep it to yourself that I came here.’
No Prosody 1.53 (1.27)
Prosody(40)

1.94 (1.42)

Kinoo-nopaatii-wa omosiroku-na-sasugi-masen-desita.
yesterday-GEN party-TOP interesting-NEG-too-NEG-was‘The party last night was not too uninteresting.’
No Prosody 0.96 (0.94)
Prosody

0.71 (0.81)

Appendix E. Clearly unacceptable fillers(41)

Sanzi-nikodomo-o oyatu-otabe-sase-masita.
3.o’clock-at child-ACC snack-ACC eat-CAUS-PAST‘(I) had the child eat snacks at 3 o’clock.’

No Prosody 0.25 (0.56)
Prosody

0.41 (0.67)

61

Author's personal copy

62

(42)

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

Nee kyoo dare-ga kita-to
omow-ana-katta-yo.
hey today who-NOM came-COMP think-NEG-PAST-I.SAY‘Hey. Let me tell you who I didn’t think had come.’

No Prosody 0.67 (0.82)
Prosody(43)

0.22 (0.42)

Ore kesa-karanannimo tabeterun-daze.
Ithis.morning-since anything have.eaten-I.tell.you‘Let me tell you that I have eaten nothing since this morning.’

No Prosody 0.08 (0.27)
Prosody

0.06 (0.24)

References
Aoun, J., 1986. Generalized Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
Bach, E., Brown, C., Marslen-wilson, W., 1986. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: a psycholinguistic study. Language andCognitive Processes 1 (4), 249--262.
Bader, M., 1998. Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In: Fodor, J.D., Ferreira, F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in Sentence
Processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol. 21. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Beck, S., 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4, 1--56.
Beck, S., 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14, 1--56.
Beck, S., Kim, S.-S., 1997. On WH- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339--384.
de Vincenzi, M., 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Deguchi, M., Kitagawa, Y., 2002. Prosody and Wh-questions. In: Hirotani, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Linguistic Society. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 73--92.
Fodor, J.D., 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7, 285--318.
Fodor, J.D., 2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In: Hirotani, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Linguistic Society. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 113--137.
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., 1996. Construal. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hagstrom, P., 1998. Decomposing Questions. PhD Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hamblin, C.L., 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10, 41--53.
Heycock, C., 1994. Focus Projection in Japanese, Proceedings of NELS 24. GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pp. 157--171.
Hirose, Y., 1999. Resolving Reanalysis Ambiguity in Japanese Relative Clauses. PhD Dissertation. The Graduate Center of the City University of
New York.
Hirschberg, J., Avesani, C., 1997. The role of prosody in disambiguating potentially ambiguous utterances in English and Italian. In: ESCA Tutorial
and Research Workshop on Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications, Athens, pp. 189--192.
Hirschberg, J., Avesani, C., 2000. Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian. In: Botinis, A. (Ed.), Intonation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Hoji, H., 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington.
Horn, L.R., 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD Dissertation. UCLA.
Ishihara, S., 2003. Intonation and Interface Conditions. PhD Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jackendoff, R., 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kim, S., 1991. Chain Scope and Quantification Structure. PhD Dissertation. Brandeis University.
Kim, S.-S., 2005. Focus Intervention Effects in Questions, Theoretical East Asian Languages, vol. 3. Harvard University.
Kitagawa, Y., Fodor, J.D., 2006. Prosodic influences on syntactic judgments. In: Fanselow, G., Fery, C., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R. (Eds.),
Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 336--358.
Koizumi, Y., 2009. Processing the Not-Because Ambiguity in English: The Role of Pragmatics and Prosody. PhD Dissertation. The Graduate
Center of the City University of New York.
Kori, S., 1989. Kyocho-to Intoneishon (Emphasis and intonation). In: Sugito, M. (Ed.), Koza Nihongo-to Nihongo-kyoiku 2: Nihongo-no
OnseiOn’in, vol. 1. Meiji-Shoin, Tokyo, pp. 316--342.
Kratzer, A., 1991. Representation of Focus. In: Stechow, Armin von, Dieter, Wunderlich (Eds.), Handbook of Semantics. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp.
825--834.
Krifka, M., 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In: Fery, C., Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia.heycoc A
Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag (= Studia Grammatica 52), Berlin, pp. 287--319.
Lovric, N., 2003. Implicit Prosody in Silent Reading: Relative Clause Attachment in Croatian. PhD Dissertation. The Graduate Center of the City
University of New York.

Author's personal copy

Y. Kitagawa et al. / Lingua 124 (2013) 41--63

63

Maekawa, K., 1991. Perception of intonation characteristics of WH and non-WH questions in Tokyo Japanese. In: Proceedings of the XXIInd
International Congress of Phonetic Science 4. Ain-en-Provence. Universite de Provence, France, pp. 202--205.
Maekawa, K., 1994. Is there ‘dephrasing’ of the accentual phrase in Japanese? OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 44, 146--165.
McCawley, J.D., 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague, Mouton.
Miyagawa, S., 2010. Why Agree? Why Move?---Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Miyamoto, E.T., Takahashi, S., 2002. The processing of Wh-phrases and interrogative complementizers in Japanese. In: Akatsuka, Noriko, M.,
Susan Strauss, (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 10. CSLI Publications, pp. 62--75.
Nakamura, M., Miyamoto, E.T., 2006. Crossed dependencies and plausibility factors in the interpretation of double-gap relative clauses inJapanese. Cognitive Studies 13 (3), 369--391.
Nakatani, K., Gibson, E., 2010. An on-line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science 34, 94--112.
Pierrehumbert, J., Beckman, M., 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Poser, W.J., 1984. The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. PhD Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Pynte, J., Colonna, S., 2000. Decoupling syntactic parsing from visual inspection: the case of relative clause attachment in French. In: Kennedy,A., Radach, R., Heller, D., Pynte, J. (Eds.), Reading as a Perceptual Process. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 529--547.
Rizzi, L., 1990. Relativized Minimality. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rooth, M., 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75--116.
Selkirk, E., 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In: Horne, M. (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Kluwer, Amsterdam,
pp. 231--262.
Takahashi, D., 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics 7, 129--146.
Tanaka, H., 1997. Invisible movement of sika-nai and the linear crossing constraint. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 143--188.
Tomioka, S., 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1570--1590.
Tomioka, S., 2009. Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18 (4), 253--271.
Tomioka, S., 2011. Intervention Effects. University of Delaware.