Movement and alternatives don’t mix:
Evidence from Japanese∗
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine1 and Hadas Kotek2
1

National University of Singapore mitcho@nus.edu.sg
2
New York University hadas.kotek@nyu.edu
Abstract

Certain quantificational elements (“interveners”) have long been known to disrupt theinterpretation of wh-in-situ (Hoji 1985 and many others), but the correct description of theset of interveners and the nature of intervention effects have been the subject of continued
debate. In Erlewine and Kotek (2017), we offer a new generalization concerning the natureof intervener-hood in Japanese: A quantifier acts as an intervener if and only if it isscope-rigid. We argue that this generalization is explained by — and in turn supports —Kotek’s (2017) account of intervention effects as reflecting a logical incompatibility between
Predicate Abstraction and the computation of Rooth-Hamblin alternatives. In this paper
we provide additional evidence in support of the above generalization, and test several of
its predictions.

1Intervention and intervener-hood

This paper concerns the proper characterization of so-called intervention effects in wh-questions
and the characterization of interveners in Japanese. Intervention effects refer to the inability ofcertain quantificational elements to precede an in-situ wh-phrase, in a c-commanding position at
surface structure. For example, Hoji (1985) observes that a wh-mo universal quantifier cannot
precede a wh object in canonical in-situ position (1).1
Intervention with universal wh-mo:(1)??

(Hoji 1985:270)

Da’re-mo-ga nani -okai-mashi-ta-ka?
who-mo-nom what-acc buy-polite-past-Q
Intended: ‘What did everyone buy?’

However, not all quantificational elements trigger intervention. For example, as noted by
Tomioka (2007:1574), the universal quantifier subete-no-NP ‘all NP’ in the same configuration
as in (1) does not lead to ungrammaticality:
Universal subete ‘all’ does not cause such intervention:(2)
X[Subete-no hito]-ganani -okai-mashi-ta-ka?
all-genperson-nom what-acc buy-polite-past-Q‘What did everyone buy?’∗ For comments and questions on this work, we thank participants of the NYU seminar on wh-constructions
cross-linguistically and the NUS syntax/semantics reading group, as well as audiences at LENLS 2017, Stony
Brook University, and the University of Pennsylvania. For discussion of judgments, we thank Minako Erlewine,
Hiroki Nomoto, Yohei Oseki, and Yosuke Sato. Errors are each other’s.
1 Throughout the paper, interrogative wh are in italics and quantifiers of interest (potential interveners) —as well as sentential negation below — are in bold.

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

245

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek

Even without changing the choice of intervener, Hoji (1985) notes that scrambling the wh in(1) above the quantifier also yields a grammatical question, as in (3).
(3)

Intervention is avoided by scrambling the intervener
X

Nani -oda’re-mo-ga
what-acc who-mo-nom‘What did everyone buy?’

kai-mashi-ta-ka?
buy-polite-past-Q

What makes the wh-mo universal quantifier (1) an intervener but not the subete universal
quantifier (2)? More generally: What is the proper characterization of the set of interveners,
and what is the nature of intervention? Previous work has tied intervention — and therefore
the set of intervening elements — to the semantics of focus (Kim 2002, Beck 2006, Beck andKim 2006), quantification (Beck 1996), topichood (Grohmann 2006), prosody (Tomioka 2007),(anti-)additivity (Mayr 2014), and semantic type-mismatch (Li and Law 2016).
Against this backdrop, we showed in Erlewine and Kotek 2017 that intervener-hood tracks
scope-rigidity in Japanese. For example, even though the two universal quantifiers in (1–2)
may have the same denotation as a universal quantifier, they differ in their scope-rigidity withrespect to negation:(4) wh-mo universal quantifier is scope-rigid; subete is not:a. Da’re-o-mo tsukamae-nak-atta.
who-acc-mo catch-neg-past‘pro did not catch anyone.’b. [Subete-no mondai]-otoka-nak-atta.
all-genproblem-acc solve-neg-past‘pro did not solve every problem.’X

every > not, *not > every(Mogi 2000:59)
every > not, Xnot > every

X

Shibata (2015a) reports a similar correlation: ka-disjunction is scope-rigid with respect tonegation whereas naishi -disjunction is not (5), and this correlates with intervener-hood (6).2(5) ka-disjunction is scope-rigid; naishi is not:a. [Taro-ka Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro-or Jiro-nom come-neg-past‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’b. [Taro-naishi Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro-orJiro-nom come-neg-past‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’(6) ka is an intervener; naishi is not:a. ??? [Taro-ka Jiro]-ga nani -oyon-da-no?
Taro-or Jiro-nom what-acc read-past-Q
b. X [Taro-naishi Jiro]-ga nani -oyon-da-no?
Taro-orJiro-nom what-acc read-past-Q‘What did [Taro or Jiro] read?’(Shibata 2015a:23)
or > not, *not > orX

(Shibata 2015a:96)
or > not, Xnot > or

X

(Hoji 1985:264)(Shibata 2015a:98)

2 We note that many speakers, including the first author, do not have clear judgments for naishi or feel thatnaishi simply patterns together with ka in (5–6). The judgments in (5–6) are those reported by Shibata. Thereseem to also be speakers who allow the ‘not > or’ reading of ka in (5) and for whom ka is not an intervener;
Daisuke Bekki (p.c.) notes that he is such a speaker. What is important here is simply that there is a correlation
between scope-rigidity and intervener-hood.

2

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

246

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek

Erlewine and Kotek 2017 shows that this correlation generalizes across a variety of quantificational elements in Japanese, as summarized in (7). Here, “Scope-rigid” ( ) indicates thatthe given quantifier takes obligatory wide scope with respect to negation, whereas non-“scoperigid” (×) quantifiers exhibit scope ambiguities with respect to negation. The nature of suchscope ambiguities will be discussed in section 2.2 below.
(7) Summary of Japanese data from Erlewine and Kotek 2017:

scope-rigid?
intervener?

scope-rigid?
intervener?

disjunctionkanaishi(5a) × (5b)(6a) × (6b)indefinite
wh-ka(S:72)(HH:269)

universal
wh-mo
subete(4a) × (4b)
(1)
× (2)
also
-mo
(M:59)(NH:119; Y:30)

NPI only-shika(K:228)(DT:134)
even-sae(M:59)(Y:30)

NPI
wh-mo
3

(EK:4)

modifiednumerals× (S:66)
× (EK:5)

only-P-dake-dake-P(F:12)× (F:12)(EK:6) × (EK:6)

Abbreviations: “X:pp” = X page pp; F = Futagi 2004; K = Kataoka 2006; M = Mogi 2000; HH =Hoji 1985; NH = Hasegawa 1995; S = Shibata 2015a; DT = Takahashi 1990; ST = Tomioka 2007; Y= Yanagida 1996; EK = Erlewine and Kotek 2017

Based on this evidence, we offered the following generalization in Erlewine and Kotek (2017):(8) Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. Quantifiers that allow
scope ambiguities — i.e., those that allow reconstruction below wh — do not.
We propose that the generalization in (8) can be derived based on Kotek’s (2017) account forintervention effects, as a corollary of a logical incompatibility between Predicate Abstraction andRooth-Hamblin alternative computation (see e.g. Shan 2004, Novel and Romero 2009, Ciardelli,
Roelofsen, and Theiler 2017, Charlow 2017). In section 2, we briefly present the Kotek 2017
theory for intervention and then explain how this derives the correlation observed in Japanese.
The remainder of the paper, in section 3, presents new data corroborating predictions of thisaccount for intervention in Japanese.

2

Analysis

2.1

Kotek’s (2017) proposal in a nutshell

Kotek (2017) proposes that intervention effects are due to a logical problem (described below)that occurs when any quantifier takes scope between a wh-phrase and C at LF:4(9) Intervention is the result of scope-taking across focus (Kotek 2017):
Movement into a scope position above wh-in-situ at LF leads to ungrammaticality.
(10) Kotek’s intervention schema:* LF: C ... λ ... wh
3 We follow Shimoyama (2011) in analyzing wh-mo NPIs as wide-scope ∀ over negation.

4 Throughout, arrows indicate movement, and squiggly arrows indicate areas of in-situ (alternative) compu-

tation. These arrows are used as a notational convenience only.

3

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

247

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek

That is, whether or not a quantifier acts as an intervener depends on whether or not it canmove out of the way at LF to avoid the configuration in (10). We assume that wh-phrases
can be interpreted in-situ at LF by introducing Rooth-Hamblin alternatives which compose
pointwise (squiggly arrow) and which will be interpreted by the interrogative complementizer;
see e.g. Beck (2006) and Kotek (2017) for details.
Previous literature on focus and wh semantics has recognized a problem with defining Predicate Abstraction (PA) over sets of alternatives in simple semantic models (Rooth 1985, Shan
2004, Novel and Romero 2009, Ciardelli et al. 2017; see also Poesio 1996, among others). In
brief, standard syncategorematic PA rules (as in Heim and Kratzer 1998) are not well-definedover sets of alternatives. PA over a set of propositional alternatives should intuitively apply
pointwise, yielding a set of functions. However, because the input to PA is an assignmentsensitive set of propositions, PA yields instead a function returning a set of propositions.
Shan (2004) demonstrates that simple solutions assumed in the previous literature — transposing a function into sets of propositions that a PA rule yields into a set of functions, usinga type-shifter as in (11) — leads to a problem of over-generation. The result includes both(desired) constant functions (12) but also (undesired) non-constant ones (13).
(11) A type-shifter for turning type he, hτ, tii functions into type hhe, τ i, ti sets:
λQhe, hτ, tii . f he, τ i : ∀xe . f(x) ∈ Q(x)(12) 
Constant
he, titi-functions

 
 

x1 7→ Barbara saw x1
x1 7→ Carol saw x1 
 x1 7→ Alice saw x1
 x2 7→ Alice saw x2 ,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2 ,  x2 7→ Carol saw x2 
x3 7→ Alice saw x3
x3 7→ Barbara saw x3
x3 7→ Carol saw x3(13)

Non-constanthe, titi-functions


 
 

x1 7→ Alice saw x1
x1 7→ Carol saw x1
 x1 7→ Alice saw x1
 x2 7→ Carol saw x2
,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2 ,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2 
x3 7→ Barbara saw x3
x3 7→ Carol saw x3
x3 7→ Alice saw x3

Previous work has proposed instead to type-lift all denotations, either to take assignment
functions as arguments (Novel and Romero 2009; see also Poesio 1996), or to operate oversets of propositions (Ciardelli et al. 2017, Charlow 2017), so PA can be defined. Anothersuggestion is to eschew movement/PA altogether (Shan 2004). In contrast, Kotek argues that
this fundamental inability of defining PA over non-trivial sets of alternatives should not be“solved” — instead, it is precisely what gives rise to intervention, (10). We refer the reader tothe above-cited works for more details and for additional data.

2.2

Explaining the correlation

Based on the consideration of scope interactions between different quantificational objects andnegation in Japanese, Shibata (2015a,b) argues that all objects in Japanese (DP arguments inv P) move overtly out of v P. Objects also necessarily move out of NegP, if present, which Shibata
argues has a fixed position just above v P. We further assume the v P-internal subject hypothesis (see e.g. Fukui 1986, Kitagawa 1986, Kuroda 1988), concluding that all (DP) arguments
evacuate v P in Japanese. These assumptions are illustrated schematically in (14a). Quantifiers
then vary with respect to their ability to reconstruct: those which cannot reconstruct haveobligatory wide-scope with respect to negation (14b), whereas those which can reconstruct leadto scope ambiguities with respect to negation, allowing the LFs in (14b) or (14c).
4

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

248

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek(14) Scope-taking in Japanese (Shibata 2015a,b):
a. All arguments move out of v P:
[CP ... DP ... [v P ... t ... V ] ]b. LF interpretation in surface position leads to wide scope over negation:
LF: [CP ... DP λx ... [NegP [v P ... x ... V ] Neg ] ]DP > Negc. Some (not all) quantifiers reconstruct into v P, allowing narrow scope:
LF: [CP...
[NegP [v P ... DP ... V ] Neg ] ]Neg > DPNow consider a surface structure where the DP could lead to an intervention configuration(15a). (Movement of the wh-phrase to its surface position is not illustrated. The interpretingcomplementizer is at the left edge of CP for illustration purposes only.) If the quantifier isscope-rigid, it has no choice but to lead to the LF configuration as in (15b). This is a Kotek
intervention configuration (10): the calculation of Rooth-Hamblin alternatives must cross an
instance of Predicate Abstraction (λx, in bold), which cannot be defined. But if a quantifier
is not scope-rigid — i.e. it can reconstruct at LF — the LF in (15c) will also be available.
Alternatively, scrambling the wh-word above the potential intervener also avoids intervention(15d) without requiring the DP to reconstruct. Finally, the possibility of scoping the quantifier
out of the question itself (15e) offers one additional means for avoiding intervention.5(15) Deriving the generalization (8):Potential intervener (DP) above wh:a.
[CP C ... DP ... wh ... [v P ... t ... V ] ]
b.
c.
d.
e.

3

LF interpretation in surface position lead to intervention!
* LF: [CP C ... DP λx ... wh ... [v P ... x ... V ] ]XReconstruction avoids the intervention configuration:
LF: [CP C...
wh ... [v P ... DP ... V ] ]XScrambling wh above also avoids intervention:
LF: [CP C ... wh λy ... DP λx ... y ... [v P ... x ... V ] ]XScoping the quantifier out of the question also avoids intervention:
LF: ... DP λx ... [CP C ...
... wh ... [v P ... x ... V ] ]Predictions of the accountIn the remainder of this paper we present three predictions of our account and show that they
are indeed borne out by the data, supporting the approach to intervener-hood and intervention presented here. We believe that these findings are not predicted by existing accounts ofintervention effects in Japanese.

5 Note that in order to predict no intervention in cases of reconstruction (15c) and of further movement (15e),
all intermediate landing sites of movement — between DP’s base position and its final scope position at LF —must be ignored as far as the computation of intervention configurations is concerned. Instead, the λ-binder at
the final LF position of the moved DP must directly bind its lower variable. See Kotek (2017) for discussion.

5

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

249

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

3.1

Erlewine and Kotek

Non-intervention through reconstruction

First, we concentrate on our characterization of non-intervening quantifiers. We claim thatquantifiers which descriptively do not intervene can do so by reconstructing into a lower, v Pinternal base position. Therefore in a potential intervention configuration, we predict that thepotentially intervening quantifier must be interpreted in this reconstructed position inside v P.
We first test this forced reconstruction by considering the scope of the intervening quantifier
with respect to sentential negation. Following Futagi (2004), we showed in Erlewine and Kotek
2017 that the only particle dake inside a postposition (DP-dake-P) can take scope above or
below sentential negation, and at the same time is descriptively a non-intervener. Now consider
example (16) below. The quantificational PP ‘with only Hanako’ Hanako-dake-to is in a higher
position than the wh-word in the surface structure, so we predict that it will be forced toreconstruct into its v P-internal base position, which will necessarily be below negation.
(16) DP-dake-P must reconstruct below wh; only > not reading is not possible:
Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to nani -otabe-nai-no?
Taro-top Hanako-only-with what-acc eat-neg-Qa.
b.

* ‘What does Taro only not eat with HanakoF ?’Answer: Squid ink pasta (because he gets embarrassed)?
‘What does Taro not eat with only HanakoF ?’Answer: Dimsum (because it’s better with more people)

only > notnot > only

The two potential readings are illustrated by the potential expected answers and respective
contexts: what is x such that, just when he is with Hanako, Taro won’t eat x (wide scope for
only over negation), vs what is x such that Taro does not eat x with Hanako alone (narrow
scope for only). While both readings are plausible in appropriate supporting contexts, and-dake-P can generally scope above or below negation, only (16b) is possible here. This is aspredicted by the reconstruction account of non-intervention, illustrated in (15c) above.
We note that scrambling the wh-word above Hanako-dake-to makes both readings available.
This, too, is predicted by our account. See the LF schema in (15d).
(17) When wh scrambles above intervener, both scope readings become available:
Taro-wa nani -o
Hanako-dake-to
Taro-top what-acc Hanako-only-with
a.
b.

?
?

tabe-nai-no?
eat-neg-Q‘What does Taro only not eat with HanakoF ?’‘What does Taro not eat with only HanakoF ?’only > notnot > only

Next, consider the collective vs distributive event interpretation of subjects. We assume
that distributive readings require a short movement of the subject. Example (18) provides
a baseline, illustrating that in the absence of an intervener, universally quantified subjects
in Japanese allow for both collective and distributive interpretations. However, when thesequantifiers c-command an in-situ wh-phrase, only a collective interpretation is possible, (19).
(18) Baseline: collective and distributive readings with zen’in:[Gakusei zen’in]-ga LGB-o
ka-tta.
student all-nom
LGB-acc buy-pasta. ‘All the students together bought a copy of LGB.’b. ‘All the students each bought a copy of LGB.’

collective
distributive

6

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

250

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek(19) Zen’in must reconstruct below wh; only the collective reading survives:[Gakusei zen’in]-ga [dono hon]-oka-tta-no?
student all-nom
which book-acc buy-past-Q
a.
b.

X

‘Which book(s) did the students all buy together?’* ‘Which book(s) did the students all individually buy?’(and they each bought other books too)collective
distributive

Here too, scrambling the wh-phrase above the quantifier allows for both the collective anddistributive readings (20). The distributive reading is possible in (20) because scrambling thewh-phrase higher (15d) makes it no longer necessary to reconstruct the quantifier (15c) in order
to interpret the wh-question.
(20) When wh is scrambled above zen’in, both readings are again available:[Dono hon]-o[gakusei zen’in]-ga
which book-acc student all-nom
a.
b.

3.2

X
X

ka-tta-no?
buy-past-Q‘Which book(s) did the students all buy together?’‘Which book(s) did the students all individually buy?’collective
distributive

Non-intervention by scoping out

Next, we consider another way of avoiding intervention, discussed in prior literature for German
in Beck 1996 and for English in Pesetsky 2000 and Kotek 2014: A quantifier can avoid causing
an intervention effect if it is able to scope out of the question and quantify-in, see (15e). This ispossible with universal quantifiers, and leads to a predicted wide-scope reading of the quantifier
with respect to the wh-phrase — a pair-list reading (see e.g. Karttunen 1977, Comorovski 1989,
1996, É Kiss 1993, Krifka 2001).
The relevant example in given in (21). The embedded question in (21) allows the collective
interpretation but not a distributive interpretation, just as in (19) above. However, this sentence
has another reading where all students takes wide scope out of the question. The resulting
interpretation, then, expects that each student bought a (potentially different) book, and that
this list of pairs is what the teacher would like to know.6(21) An additional possible reading: A pair-list with zen’in quantifying-inSensei-wa [CP [gakusei zen’in]-ga [dono hon]-oka-tta-ka] shiri-tai.
teacher-top
student all-nom
which book-acc buy-past-Q know-want‘The teacher wants to know...
a. X [which book(s) the students all bought together].’b. * [which book(s) the students all individually bought].’c. X [for each studenti , which book(s) theyi bought].’

collective (19a)distributive (19b)pair-list

6 Matrix questions with universal quantifiers also permit pair-list interpretations, but this reading seems
clearer at least in this example when embedded, as in (21).

7Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

251

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

3.3

Erlewine and Kotek

Base-generated quantifiers are not interveners

Finally, we return again to the fact that the proposal above ties intervention to movement into
a position between the in-situ wh and C. The data we have seen so far is compatible with
the interpretation of wh-in-situ being interrupted by (a) any quantification or (b) λ-bindersof quantifiers in derived positions. Here we offer an argument to tease these two potential
explanations apart.
Our proposal predicts that quantifiers that are base-generated high and can be interpreted
in their base positions would not be interveners.7 In example (22), this is shown to be the caseusing the adjunct ‘only on Tuesdays,’ which unlike arguments, can be base-generated in a highposition and does not require movement out of a low v P position (see section 2.1).
(22)

Temporal modifiers base-generated high do not cause intervention:
X

Taro-wa kayoubi-ni-dake nani -otabe-ru-no?
Taro-top Tuesday-on-only what-acc eat-nonpast-Q‘What does Taro eat only on Tuesdays?’

We observe that this adjunct does not cause an intervention effect, supporting hypothesis(b), that it is specifically quantificational material interpreted in a derived position that triggers
intervention, over hypothesis (a), that simply any quantificational material triggers intervention.

4

Conclusion

Intervention effects have been the subject of a large and growing body of literature over the past
30 years. Previous work offered rigid descriptions of the set of interveners — be it as related
to the semantics of focus (Kim 2002, Beck 2006, Beck and Kim 2006), quantification (Beck1996), topichood (Grohmann 2006), prosody (Tomioka 2007), (anti-)additivity (Mayr 2014), or
semantic type-mismatch (Li and Law 2016). We argued here that these descriptions will allnecessarily fall short of the desired result.
Instead, we argued that intervener-hood is crucially tied to a (potential) intervener’s scope
position at LF: Following Kotek 2017, interveners are those elements which move into a scope
position that separates an in-situ wh-phrase from the interrogative complementizer that must
interpret it at LF, and which cannot move out of the way. A (potential) intervener can evadeintervention by moving out of the way in one of two ways: (a) some quantifiers are able toreconstruct to a base-position below wh-in-situ, and (b) some quantifiers are able to scope
above interrogative C and quantify into the question. In addition, as has been widely observed,
wh-in-situ can evade intervention through scrambling above the intervener. We conclude thatall DPs in a derivation act as potential interveners, and their precise nature as interveners or
non-interveners in a particular derivation will be tied to their possible syntactic positions at
LF and the reflexes of their interpretation. It follows that the goal of a theory of intervention
is not to pre-classify quantifiers as interveners or non-interveners, but instead to consider thescope-taking possibilities of all potential interveners.

7 We thank Paloma Jeretič (p.c.) for suggesting this prediction and to Yohei Oseki (p.c.) for initial discussion.

8

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

252

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek

References
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language
Semantics 4:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language
Semantics 14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journalof Comparative German Linguistics 9:165–208.
Charlow, Simon. 2017. The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands. Manuscript,
Rutgers University.
Ciardelli, Ivano, Floris Roelofsen, and Nadine Theiler. 2017. Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 40:1–36.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. Doctoral
Dissertation, Cornell University.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
É Kiss, Katalin. 1993. Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
11:85–120.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. 2017. Intervention tracks scope-rigidity inJapanese. In Proceedings of LENLS 14 .
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its application. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Futagi, Yoko. 2004. Japanese focus particles at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2006. Top issues in questions: Topics—topicalization—topicalizability.
In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1995. Wh-gimonbun, hitei-taikyoku-hyogen-no shika, to also no mo [whquestions, NPI shika, and ‘also’ mo]. In Proceedings of the Third International Nanzan
University Symposium on Japanese Language Education and Japanese Linguistics, 107–128.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar . Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3–44.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. Neg-sensitive elements, neg-c-command, and scrambling in Japanese.
In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14 , 221–233.
9

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

253

Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese

Erlewine and Kotek

Kim, Shin-Sook. 2002. Intervention effects are focus effects. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics
10 , 615–628.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral Dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts Amherst.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.
Kotek, Hadas. 2017. Intervention effects arise from scope-taking over alternatives. In Proceedings of NELS 47 , ed. Andrew Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff, volume 2, 153–166. Amherst,
MA: GLSA.
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9:1–40.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English andJapanese. Linguistic Investigations 12:1–47.
Li, Haoze, and Jess Law. 2016. Alternatives in different dimensions: A case study of focus
intervention. Linguistics and Philosophy 39:201–245.
Mayr, Clemens. 2014. Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics 31:513–554.
Mogi, Toshinobu. 2000. Toritate-shi-no kaisosei-ni tsuite [on the layeredness of focus particles].
In Proceedings of the Fall 2000 meeting of the Society for Japanese Linguistics, 54–61.
Novel, Marc, and Maribel Romero. 2009. Movement, variables, and Hamblin alternatives. In
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14 .
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Poesio, Massimo. 1996. Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, ed. Kees van Deemter and Stanley Peters, chapter 8, 159–201.
Chicago, IL.: CSLI Publications.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Shan, Chung-chieh. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls for variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 16 .
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015a. Exploring syntax from the interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015b. Negative structure and object movement in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 24:217–269.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Japanese indeterminate negative polarity items and their scope.
Journal of Semantics 28:413–450.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics
7:129–146.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39:1570–1590.
Yanagida, Yuko. 1996. Syntactic QR in wh-in-situ languages. Lingua 99:21–36.
10

Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium

254