Modal affective demonstratives in Japanese

Osamu Sawada and Jun Sawada

Mie University & Aoyama Gakuin University [Draft: July 2014] Abstract This paper investigates the meanings and distribution patterns of modal affective demonstratives in Japanese (i.e., kono ‘lit. this’, sono ‘lit. that’, and ano ‘lit. that’). Modal affective demonstratives are different from other kinds of demonstratives (e.g., spatial (deictic)/non-spatial (anaphoric and recognitional) uses) in that they have modal meaning. Although these demonstratives are demonstratives in that they specify how the speaker construes the target (similar to regular demonstratives), they express the speaker’s attitude toward a proposition. Namely, they signal that the at-issue proposition with respect to a specific individual target (i.e., a proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true at the non-at-issue level. We will argue that this non-at-issue modal meaning automatically explains the puzzling behavior of modal affective demonstratives. That is, these demonstratives can co-occur with a proper noun, the nominative case marker ga, and a stage-level predicate, but they cannot co-occur with a common noun, the topic marker wa, or an individual-level predicate.

It is theoretically important that the modal affective demonstrative is situated within the domain of DP, but their meanings have to do with the probability of the at-issue proposition. This is because it causes a problem of mismatch between an at-issue level and non-at-issue level in terms of predicate-argument structure. To overcome the problem of mismatch, this study proposes that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an ‘overt’ type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain in addition to having a non-at-issue modal meaning.

The theoretical implication of the modal affective demonstratives is that if there is a mismatch between an at-issue dimension and a non-at-issue dimension in an argument-predicate structure, the former adjusts to the latter. This can be another fundamental difference between non-at-issue and at-issue meanings. Key words: modal affective demonstratives, likelihood, non-at-issue meaning, semantics/pragmatics mismatch

1

1. Introduction This paper investigates the meaning and distribution patterns of modal affective demonstratives in Japanese as exemplified in (1): (1) Ano Federer-ga make-ta. (I can’t believe it.) That Federer-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Federer lost. Non-at-issue: Federer is highly unlikely to lose.

In (1) the speaker uses ano to express his/her surprise that ‘Federer lost’. Note that ano in (1) is different from the “ordinary” (spatial) demonstrative ano ‘that’ because here, the speaker is not physically or deictically pointing to Federer (a professional tennis player) by using ano; instead, he/she is mentally construing Federer as a highly unlikely person to lose.1 Note that if make-ta ‘lose-PAST’ in (1) is replaced with kat-ta ‘win-PAST’, the sentence becomes odd, as shown in (2): (2) ?? Ano Federer-ga kat-ta. (I can’t believe it.) That Federer-NOM win-PAST

At-issue: Federer won. Non-at-issue: Federer is highly unlikely to win.

Sentence (2) is odd because, although Federer is a highly likely person to win (according to our world knowledge)2, the sentence implies that he is an unlikely person to win. In terms of use, the sentence (1) has a similar effect as mirrativity (or exclamativity).3 According to DeLancey (2001), the term ‘mirativity’ refers to the linguistic marking of an utterance which is as conveying new or unexpected information to the speaker. However, unlike the mirative markers like wow, ano in (1) is a (adnominal) demonstrative that morphologically combines with a DP. Although there have been many studies on the meanings and use of Japanese demonstratives, to knowledge, no serious attention has been paid to the phenomenon like (1). In this paper we will call the demonstrative that triggers the meaning of unexpectedness/unlikelihood the modal affective demonstrative.

1 The follow data are the examples from the Internet: (i) Ano Brazil-ga make-ta. Dare-ni kii-temo yuusyoo That Brazil-NOM lose-PAST Who-to ask-even championship

machigai-nashi-to iwa-re-ta Brazil-ga makeru-towa… doubt-NEG-that say-PASSIVE-PAST Brazil-NOM lose-Interjection ‘Ano Brazil lost. The Brazil team which everyone said to win the championship

without fail lost...’ (http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/~neeskens/sakka22.html)

(ii) (Context: A writer is writing about Ichiro Suzuki, a Japanese professional baseball player who currently plays for the New York Yankees.)

Ano Ichiro-ga yowane-o hai-ta-koto-ni That Ichiro-NOM complaint-ACC express-PAST-fact-to bikkuri-desu-ga … surprise-PRED.POLITE-but

‘I am surprised that ano Ichiro made complaint, but ....’ (http://www.ichiro-meigen.com/page01/)

2 Federer is a very strong tennis player (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer). 3 Thanks to Anastasia Giannakidou for her valuable discussions of the connection with the notion of mirativity.

2

The modal affective demonstrative has several puzzling properties that other

kinds of demonstratives do not. First, although modal affective demonstratives naturally combine with a specific noun phrase, they cannot naturally combine with a common noun: (3) ?? Ano senshu-ga kat-ta. (The spatial (or recognitional) reading only)4 That player-NOM win-PAST ‘lit. That player won.’ This feature clearly contrasts with the spatial demonstratives. Spatial demonstratives can combine with a common noun (e.g., ano/sono/kono gakusei ‘that/this student’), but they cannot usually combine with a proper noun (e.g. ??ano/sono/kono Taro ‘that/this Taro’).

Second, the modal affective demonstratives naturally co-occur with nominative case marker ga, but they cannot co-occur with the topic marker wa: (4) Ano Federer-{ga/*wa} make-ta. That Federer-NOM/TOP lose-PAST

At-issue: Federer lost. Non-at-issue: Federer is highly unlikely to lose.

Third, the modal affective demonstratives are sensitive to the distinction

between a stage-level predicate and an individual-level predicate (Carlson 1977; Carlson & Pelletier 1995; Kratzer 1995 among many others). Although the modal affective demonstratives can co-occur with a stage-level predicate, they cannot naturally co-occur with an individual-level predicate: (5) a. Ano Taro-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate) That Taro-NOM drunk-PAST ‘Ano Taro got drunk.’ b. ??Ano Taro-ga yoi-yasui. (Individual-level predicate) That Taro-NOM drunk-easy to ‘Ano Taro is easy to get drunk.’ Individual-level predicates generally express permanent properties, and stage-level predicates denote temporary properties.

This contrast does not exist in “ordinary” demonstratives. As the following examples show, the spatial/non-spatial (recognitional) uses of ano are not sensitive to the distinction between a stage-level predicate and an individual-level predicate: (6) a. Ano gakusei-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate) That student-NOM drunk-PAST

‘That student got drunk.’ b. Ano gakusei-ga yoi-yasui. (Individual-level predicate)

That student-NOM drunk-easy to ‘That student is easy to get drunk.’

4 We will explain the spatial and recognitional uses of ano in section 2. 3

Fourth, the modal-affective use of demonstratives is pervasive, but each

demonstrative seems to have a different selectional restriction regarding the targeted DP: (7) Ano {Taro /(?) watashi/(?) anata}-ga make-ta. That Taro / I / you-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: {Taro/(?)I/(?) you} lost. Non-at-issue: {Taro/(?)I/(?)you} is/am/are highly unlikely to lose.

(8) Kono {watashi/(?) Taro/(?) anata}-ga make-ta. This I / Taro/ you-NOM lose-PAST At-issue: {I/(?) Taro/(?) you} lost. Non-at-issue: {I/(?) Taro/(?) you} am/is/are highly unlikely to lose. (9) Sono {Taro/watashi/anata}-ga make-ta. That Taro /I /you-NOM lose-PAST At-issue: {Taro/I/you} lost.’ Non-at-issue: {Taro/I/you} is/am/are highly unlikely to lose.

The modal affective ano can naturally combine with a third person, but usually it is not natural for the modal affective ano to combine with a first person or a second person, as shown in (7). (However, as we will discuss in detail, the modal ano can select for the first person or the second person if interpreted as a third person.) On the other hand, the modal affective kono can combine with a first person; however, it is not so natural to combine it with a second or a third person, as shown in (8). As for the modal affective sono, there seems to be no person restrictions to the modal affective sono, as shown in (9).

The following questions will naturally arise from the above observations: (10) a. What are the meaning of modal affective demonstratives?

b. How can we explain the distribution patterns of modal affective demonstratives?

c. What does the modal use of modal affective demonstratives theoretically mean?

This paper will investigate the meaning and distribution patterns of modal affective demonstratives and attempt to address these questions. As for the meaning of modal affective demonstratives, we will argue that unlike other types of demonstratives, modal affective demonstratives have a modal meaning: They signal that the at-issue proposition with respect to a specific individual target (i.e., a proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true at the non-at-issue level.

It will be shown that this (non-at-issue) modal meaning automatically explains the puzzling behavior of modal affective demonstratives. That is, these demonstratives can co-occur with a proper noun, the nominative case marker ga, and a stage-level predicate, but they cannot co-occur with a common noun, the topic marker wa, or an individual-level predicate.

However, we will also claim that modal affective demonstratives retain their status as a demonstrative. Unlike pure modal expressions, modal affective

4

demonstratives are situated within the DP domain and specify how the speaker construes the targeted DP: The modal affective ano selects an entity that is in the speaker’s memory. As for the modal affective, kono specifies that the target is in the speaker’s personal space. Finally, the modal affective sono anaphorically refers to an entity that has previously appeared in the discourse. We will argue that these properties naturally explain the difference in the selectional restriction of a targeted DP (e.g., (7)-(9)).

It is theoretically important that the modal affective demonstrative has a property of demonstratives but also trigger a modal meaning (i.e. the proposition with respect to a targeted entity is highly unlikely to be true). This is because it causes a problem of mismatch between an at-issue level and non-at-issue level in terms of predicate-argument structure. To overcome the problem of mismatch, this study proposes that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an ‘overt’ type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain in addition to having a non-at-issue modal meaning.

The theoretical implication of the modal affective demonstratives is that when there is a mismatch between an at-issue dimension and an non-at-issue dimension in an argument-predicate structure, the former adjusts to the latter. This can be another fundamental difference between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings.

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 will present an overview of previous studies on the spatial (deictic) and non-spatial (non-deictic) demonstratives and the so-called affective demonstratives, and will show that the modal affective demonstratives, which we are going to focus on, are different from the spatial and non-spatial demonstratives (including affective demonstratives) in meaning. Section 3 will look at the semantic properties of modal affective demonstratives in terms of the semantics/pragmatics interface and consider the differences between modal affective demonstratives (kono, ano, and sono). We will also compare the modal affective ano and the so-called “famous” ano. Section 4 will discuss the distributional properties of modal affective demonstratives and claim that the distribution pattern of modal affective demonstratives can be explained naturally on the basis on their meanings. Next, section 5 will analyze the meaning of modal affective demonstratives and discuss the problem of mismatch between an at-issue level and a non-at-issue level in terms of a predicate-argument relationship and argue that the problem of mismatch can be solved by assuming that modal affective demonstratives behave like an “overt” type-shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain, in addition to having a non-at-issue modal meaning. We will also claim that our analysis of modal affective demonstratives can naturally apply to analyses of more complex cases, including conjoined determiner phrases (DP), transitive sentences, and sentences with multiple modal demonstratives. Section 6 will discuss the alternative approach where the modal affective demonstrative only has a non-at-issue meaning and the mismatch between the at-issue and the non-at-issue level is solved independently of the modal affective demonstrative. However, it will be shown that this confront with a problem of compositionality. Lastly, section 7 will present the conclusion. 2. Basic background on Japanese Demonstratives

5

Before moving to the discussion on modal affective demonstratives, we will first present an overview of the meaning and use of spatial/non-spatial uses of demonstratives and the so-called affective demonstratives. 2.1 Japanese Demonstratives: Spatial Use and Non-spatial Use In Japanese there are three demonstrative prefixes: ko-, so-, and a-. There have been a number of studies on the meaning/use of Japanese demonstratives (see Kinsui and Takubo (1992) for a detailed survey on the history of research on demonstratives), and it is impossible to provide an overview of every study. However, it is often assumed that there are two kinds of demonstrative in Japanese: spatial (deictic) and non-spatial (anaphoric and recognitional) (e.g. Kuno, 1973a, b; Yoshimoto, 1986; Kinsui and Takubo 1992; Iori 1995, 2007; Kinsui 1999; Hoji et al. 2003; Takubo 2010; Tsutsumi 2012, among many others).5

In spatial use, where the referent is visible in the speech location, ko- refers to something (somewhere) close to the speaker; so- refers to something (somewhere) close to the addressee (it may also refer to somewhere slightly removed from the speaker especially when it is part of the local pronoun so-ko ‘there’); and a- refers to something (somewhere) far from the speaker (and the addressee) as shown in (11): (11) (A speaker is looking at a book.) a. Ko-no-hon-wa omoshiroi. (kono hon = close to the speaker) This-GEN-book-TOP interesting ‘This book is interesting.’

b. So-no-hon-wa omoshiroi. (sono hon = close to the addressee) That-GEN-book-TOP interesting ‘That book is interesting.’

c. A-no-hon-wa omoshiroi. (ano hon = far from the speaker That-GEN-book-TOP interesting (and the addressee))

‘That book is interesting.’

5 The following table shows the paradigm of the Japanese demonstratives ko/so/a (Yoshimoto 1986: 54):

Part of speech Function KO SO A Pronoun Pronominal kore ‘this one’

koitsu ‘this guy’ sore ‘that one’ soistu ‘that guy’

are ‘that one’ aitsu ‘that guy’

non-infl. adj. Adnominal kono ‘this (NP)’ sono ‘that (NP)’ ano ‘that (NP)’ non-infl. adj. Adjectival konna

‘this kind of (NP)’

sonna ‘that kind of (NP)’

anna ‘that kind of (NP)’

Adverb Adverbial konnani ‘such a’ kô ‘in this manner’

sonnani sô ‘in that manner’

annani â ‘in that manner’

Pronoun Local koko ‘here’ soko ‘there’ asoko ‘there’ Pronoun Directional kochira, kotchi

‘this direction’ sochira, sotchi ‘that direction’

achira, atchi ‘that direction’

6

On the other hand, in the ‘non-spatial use’, the referent is anaphoric and it is not

visible in the speech location. In this use, ko- refers to something which is salient in the discourse context (e.g., discourse topic)(see Kuno 1973b; Shoho 1981; Yoshimoto 1986; Kinsui and Takubo 1992; Iori 1995, 2007; Tsutsumi 2012): (12) Ima-kara ohanashi-o shi-masu. Now-from story-ACC do-PRED.POLITE ‘Let’s talk about a story.’ Shujinkoo-wa isha-ni shi-mas-yoo. Main character-TOP doctor-as do-PRED.POLITE ‘Let’s assume that a main character as a doctor.’

Namae-o karini Tanaka-san-to shi-masu. Name-ACC tentatively Tanaka-Mr-as do-PRED.POLITE ‘I will tentatively name him Tanaka-san.’

Kono otoko-wa totemo ude-no ii shinzoogekai-desu. This man-TOP very arm-GEN good cardiac surgeon-PRED.POLITE

‘This man is a very good cardiac surgeon.’ (Kinsui 1999: 77)

As for the non-spatial (anaphoric) use of so-, many researchers consider that it neutrally refers to something introduced in the discourse context, as in (13) below:

(13) Senshuu Kanda-de kaji-ga ari-mashi-ta. Last week Kanda-at fire-ga exist-PRED.POLITE-PAST ‘Last week there was a fire at Kanda.’

Sono kaji-de gakusei-ga futa-ri shin-da-soo-desu. That fire-with student-NOM two-CL die-PAST-report-PRED.POLITE ‘I heard that two students died because of it.’

(Kuno 1973b: 187) Finally, in terms of the non-spatial use of a-, it is well known that it refers to

something located in the speaker’s ‘episodic memory’ (see Yoshimoto 1986; Kinsui and Takubo 1992; Kinsui 1999; Tsutsumi 2012, among others): (14) Kobe-de tabe-ta ano nikumanjuu oishi-katta-naa. Kobe-LOC eat-PAST that meat bun delicious-PAST-Prt ‘lit. That meat bun that I ate at Kobe was delicious.’ (Kinsui 1999: 72) In the above example, the speaker is referring to the speaker’s memories of the meat bun he/she ate at Kobe. Some scholars calls this use as a “recognitional use” (Diessel 1999; Levinson 2004).

The above data clearly show that Japanese demonstratives (ko-, so-, and a-) have both spatial and non-spatial uses. 2.2 Affective/emotive demonstratives In the demonstratives literature, affective or emotional demonstratives have also received serious attention. Lakoff (1974) classifies the English demonstratives this/that

7

into three types: (i) spatio-temporal deixis; (ii) discourse deixis; and (iii) emotional deixis; she claims that emotional deixis express ‘emotional closeness’ between the speaker and the addressee (Lakoff 1974: 347, 351). Lakoff also claims that emotional deixis links to the speaker’s emotional involvement in the subject matter of his utterance. The most natural use seems to be with proper names the speaker expects the hearer to be familiar with, as follows: (15) I see there’s going to be peace in the mideast. This Henry Kissinger really is

something. (Lakoff 1974: 347) Lakoff (1974: 347) notes that there is another use of the emotional deictic this, which seems to replace indefinites (a or one) in emotional-deictic contexts, where syntactically, the indefinite article is usually the only possibility: (16) a. There was this traveling salesman, and he… (Lakoff 1974: 347) b. He kissed her with this unbelievable passion. (Lakoff 1974: 347) an *the Lakoff observes that “this” in (16) seems to give greater “vividness” to the narrative in order to involve the addressee in it more fully. On the other hand, Lakoff (1974) also notes that the distance marker that establishes emotional closeness between speaker and addressee, as follows: (17) a. How’s that throat? (Lakoff 1974: 351) b. That Henry Kissinger sure knows his way around Hollywood! (Lakoff 1974: 352) Diessel (1999: 107) observes that sentence (17a) shows the speaker shares the hearer’s concern about his or her throat, and sentence (17b) suggests that the interlocutors share the same view about Henry Kisssinger. Diessel (1999) then opines that the demonstratives in (17) have the properties of a recognitional demonstrative.

Based on Lakoff’s study, Naruoka (2008) claims that the Japanese adjectival demonstratives konnna, sonnna, and annna (-na series) can behave as affective demonstratives and can express negative emotion (rejection) or surprise on the part of the speaker, as follows (see also Suzuki 2006): (18) Konna ryori-wa tabe-taku-nai. This kind of food-TOP eat-want-NEG. ‘lit. I don’t want to eat this kind of food.’ In (18), we see the speaker’s negative evaluation that “the food is not good.”6

6 Notice that the negative emotive meaning of anna, konnna, and sonna can only arise in a “negative” environment (environments including negation or a negative predicate like kirai ‘hate’. If they are used in a positive environment, they do not trigger a negative meaning: (i) (Pointing to a bag)

Konnna baggu-ga hoshii. This kind of bag-NOM want

‘I want this kind of bag.’ 8

Following Lakoff (1974) and Naruoka (2008), Davis and Potts (2009) investigate

English and Japanese affective demonstratives and address the question of where affective readings come from.7 Those authors argue that they can be traced to Horn’s “division of pragmatic labor,” where unmarked expressions are generally used to convey unmarked messages and marked expressions are generally used to convey marked messages (Horn 1984: 400). Davis and Potts (2009) further argue that because the affective demonstratives this in English and konna in Japanese are morphosyntactically more complex than the definite article the and the adnominal demonstrative kono respectively, they convey marked messages. 3. Modal affective demonstratives: A preliminary discussion Let us now start discussing the main topic of this paper, the meaning and interpretation of modal affective demonstratives in Japanese. Modal affective demonstratives are radically different from both the special/non-spatial use (section 2.1) and the affective use of demonstratives (section 2.2) in that they have to do with the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition. Let us consider this based on the following examples: (19) Ano Federer-ga make-ta. That Federer-NOM lose-PAST

Ano Federer lost.’ (Implication: Federer is a person who is highly unlikely to lose.)

In (19) there is an implication that Federer is a highly unlikely person to lose. One might think that this kind of implication just a matter of our world knowledge and has nothing to do with ano. However, this idea is not correct. The unlikelihood implication arises regardless of who the target is. For example, in (20) even if we do not know anything about Taro, we can infer that Taro is a highly unlikely person to eat vegetables: (20) Ano Taro-ga yasai-o tabe-ta. That Taro-NOM vegetables-ACC eat-PAST At-issue: Taro ate vegetables.

Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to eat vegetables. If we delete ano in (20), the sentence only describes the fact that Taro ate vegetables; as a result, the modal meaning does not necessarily arise. Thus it is safe to assume that it is the demonstrative ano that triggers an unlikelihood meaning.

In this paper we propose that the modal affective demonstrative triggers the following meaning at the non-at-issue level:

(ii) (Pointing to a bag) Annna baggu-ga hoshii.

That kind of bag-NOM want ‘I want that kind of bag.’ (iii) (Pointing to a bag.)

Sonnna-no-ga hoshii. That kind of-thing-NOM want ‘I want that kind of bag.’ 7 Davis and Potts (2009), Potts and Schwarz (2010), and Acton and Potts (2014) use the term “affective demonstratives” for emotional deixis.

9

(21) The meaning of modal affective demonstratives (descriptive): The modal affective

demonstratives signals that the at-issue proposition with respect to a specific individual target (i.e., a proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true at the non-at-issue level.

What is interesting is that ano is not the only demonstrative that can express the modal meaning. Kono ‘this’ and sono ‘that’ also have a modal use. In this section we will investigate the difference among the modal affective kono, sono, and ano and consider the semantic status of each modal affective demonstrative in terms of semantics/pragmatics interface. 3.1 Differences among modal affective demonstratives The interesting point about modal affective demonstratives is that although all demonstratives series (kono, sono, and ano) can express a modal affective meaning like (21), each modal affective demonstrative seems to have a different selectional restriction regarding a target. The modal affective ano can be naturally combined with a proper noun (third person); however, it usually cannot naturally combine with a first or second person pronoun: (22) Ano {Taro/(?)watashi/(?) anata}-ga make-ta. That Taro/ I / you-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: {Taro/(?) I/(?) you} lost. Non-at-issue: {Taro/(?) I/(?) you} is/am/are unlikely to lose.

As for the modal affective kono, it is naturally combined with the first person

pronoun; however, it usually cannot be naturally combined with the third person specific noun or the second person: (23) Kono {watashi/(?) Taro/(?) anata}-ga make-ta. This I / Taro/ you-NOM lose-PAST At-issue: {I/(?) Taro/(?) you} lost. Non-at-issue: {I/(?) Taro/(?) you} am/is/are unlikely to lose. The sentence with kono sounds “self-centered” because there is a strong implication that “I am the person who is highly unlikely to lose.” Finally, the modal affective sono is neutral about the selection of a target but specifies that the target is already discourse given: (24) a. {Taro/watashi/anata}-wa totemo {tsuyoi/??yowai} senshu-da. Taro/I /you -TOP very strong/ weak player-PRED ‘{Taro/I/you} is/am/are a very {strong/weak} player.’ b. Sono {Taro/watashi/anata}-ga make-ta. That Taro /I /you -NOM lose-PAST At-issue: Sono {Taro/I/you} lost. Non-at-issue: {Taro/I/you} is/am/are highly unlikely to lose. Note that (24a) with yowai “weak” is odd because it does not fit with the non-at-issue meaning of (24b) (see also Iori 1995, 2007).

10

We propose that these differences in selectional restriction come from the differences in how the speaker construes a target: (25) a. The modal affective ano recognitionally refers to an entity in the speaker’s

memory. b. The modal affective kono deictically specifies that the target is in the speaker’s

personal space. c. The modal affective sono anaphorically refers to an entity that is described in

the previous discourse. The above characteristics on construal can naturally explain the selectional restriction on the target. As for the modal affective ano, it is similar to the recognitional ano ‘that’. We can say that the reason that the modal affective ano cannot be combined with a first or second person pronoun is because the first and second person are participants in the conversation. We usually do not consider them to be in the speaker’s episodic memory. However, if we interpret the first person and second person in accordance with the speaker’s memory, the modal affective ano can be combined with them. With regard to the modal affective kono, it cannot naturally combine with the third or second person pronouns because we usually do not consider a third person/second person to be in the speaker’s personal space. However, if we posit a context whereby the third person (here Taro) or the second person is in the speaker’s space, then the sentence might sound natural. Finally, with regard to the modal affective sono, this property is similar to the anaphoric use of sono ‘that’ in that it refers to a discourse-given entity.

The above discussion strongly suggests that although modal affective demonstratives have to do with a speaker’s attitude toward an at-issue proposition, they retain demonstrative (or referential) status. They provide information regarding how the speaker construes the target. As we will see later, this point will become important in considering the compositionality of the modal affective demonstrative. 3.2 The semantic status of modal affective demonstratives In the previous section, we claimed that although there are variations among modal affective demonstratives regarding what kind of target a modal affective demonstrative takes, they have the same meaning: The modal affective demonstrative signals that the at-issue proposition for a specific individual target (i.e., a proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true in the non-at-issue level.

Let us now consider the status of the non-at-issueness of modal affective demonstratives in more detail. Several pieces of evidence show that the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative is not part of “what is said.” First, even if we delete the modal affective demonstrative, the truth condition of a given sentence does not change. This point is radically different from other uses of demonstratives. In the case of other demonstratives (spatial/non-spatial), the presence or absence of a demonstrative affects the truth condition of a given sentence.

Second, the meaning of the modal affective demonstrative cannot be challenged. This is supported by the fact that if we deny (26), (27) and (28) by saying Iya, sonnna hazu-wa nai! ‘No that can’t be right!’ the denial targets only the at-issue part of the sentence:

11

(26) Ano Taro-ga make-ta. That Taro-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Taro lost. Non-at-issue: Taro is unlikely to lose.

(27) Kono watashi-ga make-ta. This I-NOM lose-PAST At-issue: I lost. Non-at-issue: I am unlikely to lose. (28) Sono {Taro/watashi/anata}-ga make-ta. That Taro /I /you -NOM lose-PAST At-issue: Sono {Taro/I/you} lost. Non-at-issue: {Taro/I/you} is/am/are highly unlikely to lose. (29) Iya sonnna hazu-wa-nai! No that must-TOP-NEG ‘No that can’t be right!’

Third, unlike other kinds of demonstratives, it is odd to question a sentence with a modal affective demonstrative using “dono NP?” (which NP?):

(30) (Speaker A is pointing to a player.) A: Ano senshu-ga make-ta. (spatial/recognitional use) That player-NOM lose-PAST ‘That player lost.’

B: Dono senshu-ga? Which player-NOM ‘Which player?’

(31) A: Ano Roger Federer-ga make-ta. (Modal affective use) That Roger Federer-NOM lose-PAST

‘lit. That Roger Federer lost.’ B: *Dono Roger Federer-ga? Which Roger Federer-NOM ‘lit. Which Roger Federer?’

Unlike (30) in (31), the speaker cannot ask a question using dono NP, “which NP?”. This is because in this sentence, ano and its host NP do not semantically interact, so we cannot form a question using dono NP.

Fourth, similarly to other CI-triggering expressions, modal affective demonstratives never appear within the scope of logical operators, such as a question and the past tense: (32) Sono Taro-ga make-ta. (Past tense) That Taro-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Taro lost. Non-at-issue: Taro is highly unlikely to lose.

12

(33) Ano Taro-ga make-ta-no? (Confirmation question) That Taro-NOM lose-PAST-Q At-issue: Did Taro lose? (I can’t believe it.) Non-at-issue: Taro is highly unlikely to lose.’ (34) Kono watashi-ga makeru-kamoshirenai. (Modal) This I-NOM lose-may

At-issue: I may lose. Non-at-issue: I am highly unlikely to lose.

The question is what the “non-at-issue meaning” is theoretically. We used the term “non-at-issue” to highlight that it is independent from “at-issue” entailments. However, there are many kinds of non-at-issue meanings, including conventional implicature (CI), presupposition, conversational implicatures, etc. We argue that the meaning of the modal affective ano and the modal affective kono is a CI, while the meaning of the modal affective sono is a presupposition. In the Gricean theory of meaning, the notion of CIs is part of the meanings of words but is independent of “what is said” (e.g., Grice 1975; Potts 2005, 2007; Horn 2007, 2013; McCready 2010; Sawada 2010; Gutzmann 2011, 2012). Furthermore, it is often mentioned in the literature that CIs have a semantic property of speaker-orientedness (at least by default) (Potts 2005, 2007). On the other hand, usually a presupposition is considered to be a proposition whose truth is taken for granted as background information in the utterance of a sentence (i.e., it is common ground among the participants in the conversation.

Although the debate on the status of CIs and their relation to presupposition continues (see Bach 1999; Potts 2005, 2013; Horn 2007; Schlenker 2012), we would like to consider that the meaning of the modal affective kono and that of the modal affective ano are CIs, while the meaning of the modal affective sono is a presupposition. The main reason is that the non-at-issue meanings (i.e. the unlikelihood modal meanings) of the modal affective kono and the modal affective ano cannot be backgrounded, while the non-at-issue meaning of the modal affective sono must be backgrounded. In the literature, scholars often assume that although presuppositions are backgrounded, CIs are anti-backgrounded (e.g., Potts 2005; Horn 2007). For example, Potts (2005) claims that a supplement should be considered a CI (rather than a presupposition) because, unlike a presupposition, it cannot be backgrounded based on the following contrast: (35) Lance Armstrong survived cancer.

a. # When reporters interview Lance, a cancer survivor, he often talks about the disease.

b. And most riders know that Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor. (Potts 2005: 34) According to Potts (2005), (35a) is infelicitous/redundant because the content of a supplement is part of the initial context. A supplement is a CI and thus cannot be backgrounded. However, (35b) is perfectly natural because know is a presupposition trigger and does not have the anti-backgroundedness property.

If we consider the phenomenon of modal affective demonstratives, we can see a similar distinction between the modal affective kono/ano and the modal affective sono. As we can see in the following examples, the sentence with the modal ano/kono

13

becomes odd/infelicitous if the content of the modal ano/kono (i.e. the unlikelihood meaning) is discourse old: (36) Taro-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru. Taro-NOM lose possibility-TOP low-as thing-PASSIVE-TEIRU ‘Taro is thought to be unlikely to lose.’ # Shikasi ano Taro-ga make-ta. But that Taro-NOM lose-PAST ‘lit. But that Taro lost.’ (37) Watashi-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru. I-NOM lose possibility-TOP low-as thing-PASSIVE-TEIRU ‘I am thought to be unlikely to lose.’ # Shikasi kono watashi-ga make-ta.

But this I-NOM lose-PAST ‘lit. But this I lost.’ However, the meaning of the modal affective sono can naturally be backgrounded, as shown in: (38) Taro-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru. Taro-NOM lose possibility-TOP low-as thing-PASSIVE-TEIRU ‘Taro is thought to be unlikely to lose.’ Shikasi sono Taro-ga make-ta. But that Taro-NOM lose-PAST ‘lit. But that Taro lost.’ Actually, the sentence with the modal sono must always be discourse old. If it is uttered in an out-of-the-blue context, the sentence becomes infelicitous. This is expected if we consider that the modal affective sono anaphorically refers to an entity that is described in the previous discourse (see section 3.1). Notice, however, that unlike the typical examples of presupposition, there is no dependency between at-issue entailment and a presupposition in the case of the modal affective sono. Even if the presupposition part is false, we don’t think that the whole sentence is meaningless.8 Although the theoretical status of conventional implicature/presupposition is still being debated, based on the behavior of (anti-)backgroundedness, we would like to take the position that the modal affective kono and ano are CI-triggering expressions while the modal affective sono triggers a presupposition. 3.3 Note on the “famous” ano Interestingly, ano has another non-at-issue use, i.e., what we call the “famous” ano. The famous ano is different from the modal affective ano, in that, it does not have a modal/unlikelihood meaning. Rather, it signals that the target (proper noun) is “famous” (Kim 2006: 108; Nakamata 2010: 435):

8 The famous example of the dependency between a presupposition and an at-issue entailment is “The King of France is bald.” Strawson (1950) considers that the definite article the presupposes the existence of its reference, but if the presupposition fails, the at-issue statement is meaningless (i.e., neither true nor false).

14

(39) Kore-ga ano John Lennon-no shuki-desu. This-NOM that John Lennon-GEN memo-PRED.POLITE ‘lit. This is that John Lennon’s memo.’

However, the famous ano is similar to the modal affective ano, in that, it is combined with a proper noun and that its meaning is not part of “what is said.” Furthermore, the famous ano and the modal affective ano are similar, in that, they both have to do with the speaker’s recognition (similar to the recognitional ano). The famous ano refers to an entity in the speaker’s memory.

Note that the following sentence with ano can be ambiguous between two readings, a modal reading and a famous reading: (40) [[Ano John Lennon]-ga sain-o kure]-ta-yo. (Modal use/famous use) That John Lennon-NOM sign-ACC give-PAST-Prt ‘lit. That John Lennon gave me a sign.’ We can say that the difference between the two readings resides in whether ano only scopes over John Lennon or it scopes over an entire proposition (without tense). In this paper, we focus only on the modal affective reading. 4. The semantic/grammatical environment of modal affective demonstratives In the previous section, we claimed that modal affective demonstratives signals that the at-issue proposition with respect to an individual target (i.e., a proposition without tense, modality, or speech act operators) is highly unlikely to be true at the level of non-at-issue level.

In this section, we claim that the non-at-issue modal meaning automatically explains the puzzling behavior of modal affective demonstratives: they can co-occur with a proper noun, the particle ga, and a stage-level predicate, but they cannot co-occur with a common noun, the topic marker wa, or an individual-level predicate. For the sake of simplicity in the following discussion, we will mainly focus on the data of the modal affective ano, but it will be shown at the end of this section that exactly the same observation and explanation apply to the other modal affective demonstratives (i.e., kono and sono). 4.1 Modal affective demonstratives take a proper noun, not a common noun The first puzzling property is that modal affective demonstratives are combined with a proper noun, but they cannot naturally be combined with a common noun: (41) Ano {Taro/??gakusei}-ga rakudai-shi-ta. (Modal use) That Taro/ student-NOM fail-do-PAST ‘Lit. That {Taro/student} failed.’

This clearly contrasts with spatial demonstratives. As the following example shows, spatial demonstratives can be combined with a common noun, but they cannot be combined with a proper noun:

15

(42) (Context: Pointing to the person) Ano {gakusei/*Taro}-o koko-ni tsure-te ki-nasai. That student/Taro-ACC here-to bring-TE come-IMP ‘lit. Bring that {student/Taro} here.’ It makes sense that the modal affective demonstrative cannot be combined with a common noun because if a target is unspecified, the speaker cannot trigger a feeling of surprise. It does not make sense to convey that it is highly unlikely that a student lost.

On the other hand, it is natural that spatial demonstratives can be combined with common nouns but not with proper nouns. The main function of spatial demonstratives is to specify a target from a set of individuals. Thus, if a target is already individuated/specified as in the case of a proper noun, there is no reason to use an adnominal demonstrative. 4.2 Grammatical marking: ga but not wa Second, modal affective demonstratives naturally co-occur with the nominative case marker ga, but they cannot co-occur with the topic marker wa: (43) Ano Federer-{ga/*wa} make-ta. That Federer-NOM/TOP lose-PAST

‘lit. That Federer lost.’ On the other hand, the other uses of demonstratives (spatial/recognitional uses) do not have this kind of contrast: (44) Ano gakusei-{ga/wa} make-ta. (spatial/recognitional use) That student-NOM/TOP lose-PAST

‘lit. That student lost.’ Our analysis of modal affective demonstratives can naturally explain why they can naturally co-occur with ga but not wa.

According to Kuroda (1972), a statement made by a wa-sentence expresses a categorical judgment. A categorical judgment is assumed to have two separate acts; one is the act of recognition of that which is to be made the subject, and the other is the act of affirming or denying what is expressed by the predicate about the subject. On the other hand, Kuroda argues that a statement made by a ga sentence expresses a thetic judgment. A thetic judgment represents the perception of a situation (see also Brentano (1874 [1924]) for the distinction between thetic vs. categorical judgments). In our analysis, modal affective demonstratives convey that the speaker thinks that the at-issue proposition is highly unlikely to be true. The non-at-issue meaning of the modal affective demonstrative creates a gap between the at-issue level and the non-at-isuue level. In order to conceive a gap between the at-issue situation and the speaker’s assumption, the at-issue proposition must be new (unexpected) to the speaker; the particle ga, which reports the perception of a situation, naturally fits this situation. On the other hand, the sentence with wa sounds odd because it does not fit the situation whereby the speaker contrasts the current situation and the expected situation. As Kuroda argues, wa involves two steps within the at-issue level, and this is not useful for making a contrast between an at-issue situation and the speaker’s expected situation.

16

4.3 Stage-level predicates, not individual-level predicates, co-occur with modal affective demonstratives The third point is that modal affective demonstratives are sensitive to stage-level and individual-level predicates (Carlson 1977; Carlson & Pelletier [eds.]1995; Kratzer 1995; Krifka et al. 1995). (45) a. Ano Taro-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate) That Taro-NOM drunk-PAST ‘lit. That Taro got drunk.’ (Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to get drunk.) b. ?? Ano Taro-ga yoi-yasui. (Individual-level predicate)

That Taro-NOM drink-easy to ‘lit. That Taro is easy to get drunk.’ (Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to easy to get drunk.)

(46) a. Ano Taro-ga oko-ttei-ta. (Stage-level predicate) That Taro-NOM get angry-TEIRU-PAST ‘lit. That Taro was getting angry.’ (Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to get angry.) b. ?? Ano Taro-ga okori-ppoi. (Individual-level predicate) That Taro-NOM get angry-having the property

‘lit. That Taro is short-tempered.’ (Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to be short-tempered.)

On the other hand, regular demonstratives (spatial/recognitional use) can co-occur with both individual-level and stage-level predicates: (47) a. Ano gakusei-ga oko-ttei-ta. (Stage level predicate) That student-NOM get angry-TEIRU-PAST ‘That student was getting angry.’ b. Ano gakusei-ga okori-ppoi. (Individual level predicate) That student-NOM get angry-easy to ‘That student is easy to get angry.’ It makes sense that modal affective demonstratives cannot co-occur with individual level predicates because the latter express permanent properties. The modal affective demonstrative is used in a situation where there is a gap between the at-issue situation and the speaker’s expected situation. However, if we use an individual-level predicate, the at-issue part of the sentence denotes a permanent situation, and we cannot create a gap between the at-issue situation and the speaker’s expected situation. On the other hand, stage-level predicates fit naturally with sentences containing modal affective demonstrative because the former denote temporary properties.

Note that if time adverbs like kyoo-wa ‘today-TOP’ are added contrastively, then (46b) becomes natural:

17

(48) Ano Taro-ga kyoo-wa naze-ka okori-ppoi. (Modal affective use) That Taro-NOM today-CT.TOP why-KA get angry-easy to ‘lit. I don’t know why but today that Taro is easy to get angry.’ We can say that (48) is natural because the time adverb with the contrastive wa conventionally implicates that usually, Taro is not a person who easily get angry.

We have so far focused on the data pertaining to the modal affective ano, but the same explanations can apply to the other modal affective demonstratives: (49) The modal affective kono a.?? Kono senshu-ga make-ta. (Common noun)

This player-NOM lose-PAST ‘This player lost.’

b. Kono watashi-{ga/*wa} make-ta. (The topic wa/ga) This I-NOM /TOP lose-PAST ‘lit. This I lost.’

c. *Kono watashi-ga okori-ppoi. (Individual-level predicate) This I-NOM angry-easy to ‘lit. This I is easy to get angry.’

cf. Kono watashi-ga naze-ka kyoo-wa okori-ppoi (Stage-level reading) This I-NOM why-KA today-CT.TOP angry-easy to ‘lit. This I is easy to get angry today.’ (50) The modal affective sono a. ?? Sono senshu-ga make-ta. (Common noun)

That player-NOM lose-PAST ‘That player lost.’

b. Sono Taro-{ga/*wa} make-ta. (The topic wa/ga) That Taro-NOM/TOP lose-PAST

‘lit. That Taro lost.’ c. *Sono Taro-ga okori-ppoi. (Individual-level predicate) That Taro-NOM angry-easy to ‘lit. That Taro is easy to get angry.’ cf. Sono Taro-ga kyoo-wa naze-ka okori-ppoi. (State-level reading) That Taro-NOM today-CT.TOP why-KA angry-easy to ‘lit. That Taro is easy to get angry.’ Based on the above discussions, it is safe to conclude that the distribution patterns of the modal affective demonstrative is affected by its meaning. 5. Formal analysis of modal affective demonstratives In the previous sections, we argued that although modal affective demonstratives are situated inside the DP domain and retain demonstrative status, they have a modal meaning. It signals that given the speaker’s knowledge about a target x, the at-issue proposition (a proposition without tense, modality, question, or propositional attitude predicate) with a target individual is highly unlikely to be true at the non-at-issue level.

In this section, we theoretically analyze the meaning of modal affective demonstratives and consider what the modal affective demonstrative suggests for the theory of meaning. We claim that the phenomenon of the modal affective demonstrative

18

causes a serious problem for the theory of semantics/pragmatics interface because it creates a mismatch between the at-issue level and the non-at-issue level in terms of the predicate-argument structure. To overcome this mismatch, we propose that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an ‘overt’ type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain in addition to having a non-at-issue modal meaning. We then propose the generalization that if there is a mismatch between the at-issue dimension and the non-at-issue dimension in an argument-predicate structure, the former adjusts to the latter. 5.1 The unlikelihood meaning First, let us consider the meaning of the modal part. Regarding the meaning of likelihood meaning, in this paper, we adopt the idea that the meaning of likely is gradable. According to Yalcin (2007), Portner (2007), Lassiter (2011) and Klecha (2012), the concept of likely is a gradable predicate like relative gradable predicates, that posits a contextual standard.9 Whether a proposition p is likely or not is determined on the basis of a contextually determined standard. Under this approach, we can posit the following lexical items for the modal affective demonstratives: (51) Denotations of modal affective demonstratives (not final) a. [[ ano MOD.AFF]] = λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc (where x is in the speaker’s memory) b. [[ kono MOD.AFF]] = λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc (where x is in the speaker’s personal space (utterance location)) c. [[ sono MOD.AFF]] = λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc (where x is in the previous utterance) All kinds of modal affective demonstratives have the same meaning of unlikelihood; that is, they take an individual and a predicate and signals that the degree of unlikelihood of P(x) is much greater than a contextually determined standard/norm at the non-at-issue level. That is, P(x) is highly unlikely to be true. (“>!! STANDc” stands for “greater than a contextual standard by a large amount”; cf. much, (Kennedy and McNally 2005)). 5.2 The problem of mismatch between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings However, the denotations in (51) turns out to be problematic if we consider the compositionality of the entire sentence. The denotation in (51) engenders a mismatch between a non-at-issue dimension and an at-issue dimension in terms of

9 This is corroborated by the fact that it can form comparatives and accept degree modification: (i) a. It is more likely that the Yankees will win than it is that the Blue Jays will.

b. It is very likely that the Yankees will win. (Lassiter 2011: 56) (ii) a. # It is completely likely that the Jets will win this year. b. # It is slightly likely that the Jets will win.

c. It is likely that the Jets will win, but it could be more likely. (Lassiter 2011: 67)

19

predicate-argument structure. Let us consider this based on the following example: (52) Ano Taro-ga make-ta. (I can’t believe it.) That Taro-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Taro lost. Non-at-issue: Taro is highly unlikely to lose.

The crucial point of modal affective demonstrative is that although it is situated within the DP domain, it meaning has to do with the probability of the at-issue proposition. It takes not only the subject noun (here Taro) but also a main predicate (here make ‘to lose’). The box part shows the semantic domain of the modal affective ano: (53) The semantic domain of the modal ano

IP

VP I -ta DP V make ‘lose’ D Ano NP ‘that’ Taro-ga ‘Taro-NOM’

This is problematic for the theories of non-at-issue meanings/conventional implicature (e.g., Potts 2005, 2007; McCready 2010) because it causes a “mismatch” between the at-issue and non-at-issue levels in terms of the predicate-argument structure. At the non-at-issue level, the modal affective ano takes Taro and the verb make as its arguments. In contrast, at the at-issue level, the verb make ‘to lose’ is the main predicate and takes Taro as its argument.

To see the problem of compositionality, let us first consider the non-problematic case based on the example of the expressive damn: (54) The damn Republications are aggressively cutting taxes.

(Potts 2005: 162) Potts (2005) argues that the expressive damn in (54) is speaker oriented and it is independent of the at-issue entailment, although it attaches to a noun Republicans, just like usual modifiers (e.g., young, old, etc.):

20

(55) Syntactic structure of the damn Republicans DP D NP the AP NP damn Republicans

(Potts 2005: 164) There are various types of evidence that expressives such as damn and jerk are independent of the at-issue entailment. First, as Potts (2005) shows, the expressive cannot be under the scope of negation as in (56): (56) It’s just not true that Sheila’s damn dog is on the couch! (Potts 2005: 159) As Potts says, (56) cannot be read as negating the speaker’s disapprobation of Sheila’s dog. Furthermore, the expressive cannot be under the tense operator as well, as in (57): (57) That jerk Ed skipped work last week. # But Ed isn’t a jerk now, not since he has

started showing up regularly. (Potts 2005: 159) For additional evidence of the CI-hood of expressives, see Potts (2005, 2007).

To account for the semantic independency of CI expressions such as damn in a semantic composition, Potts (2005) proposes a novel compositional rule, called CI application (cf. Karttunen and Peters’ (1979) two-dimensional semantic composition system for presupposition/conventional implicature): (58) Potts’ CI application

β : σa

•

α (β) : τc

α: <σa, τc> β: σa

(Potts 2005: 64)

There are two kinds of type. The superscript c stands for a CI type, and the superscript a stands for an at-issue type. In the above application an α that is of type <σa, τc> takes a β of type σa and returns a conventional implicature τc. The important point is that this rule is resource insensitive. β is saturated by α, but at the same time, it passes up to the level above the bullet. The bullet • is a metalogical device for separating independent lambda expressions.

21

(59)

republican: <ea, ta> • damn (republican): tc republican: <ea, ta> damn: <<ea, ta>, tc>

(Potts 2005: 166)

Regarding the lexical entry for expressives like damn, Potts offers a general lexical entry, in which an expressive can take an argument (slightly simplified): (60) damn bloddy = λX. bad(∩X): <<τa, ta>, tc>

… fucking (Potts 2005: 167, slightly simplified)

The expressives in (60) take any function and return the plural individual composed of all members of the input set. Notice that the measure function “bad” does not always induce a negative emotion. Potts (2005) claims that it expresses that “the speaker is in a heightened emotional state regarding X.” See McCready (2012) for a detailed investigation of how an expressive with underspecified emotive content is interpreted.10

At first glance, this analysis can naturally extend to the modal affective demonstrative (at least for the modal affective ano and kono that clearly have the property of CIs). Similarly to the case of damn, the modal affective demonstrative takes a noun phrase, and its meaning is independent of at-issue entailment. However, if we apply the CI application to the modal affective demonstrative, the problem of compositionality arises. Let us suppose that the modal affective demonstrative ano has the following pure CI meaning: (61) Denotations of modal affective demonstratives (not final) [[ ano MOD.AFF]] : <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, tc>> = λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc (where x is in the speaker’s memory) If ano is combined with Taro via the CI application, the argument Taro is not only saturated by ano; it also passed up to the higher level as shown in (62):

10 In Potts (2007), expressives like damn and bastard are analyzed as “context-shifters.” In this version, expressives alter expressive indices and create new context. Note also that in Potts (2007) the expressive fucking has stronger emotion than damn.

22

(62) ?? Taro: ea make: <ea,<ia, ta>> • λxλt.lose(x)(t) λP. unlikely(P(Taro))>!STAND: <<ea, <ia, ta>>, tc> ano Taro-ga: ea λxλP. unlikely(P(x))>!!STAND

However, this situation is problematic. We have to stop the CI computation.11

Then what if we posit the following logical structure?

(63) The tentative logical structure of (52)

lose(Taro)(PAST): ta • unlikely(lose(Taro)(PAST))>!STAND: tc

ano

λp. unlikely(p)>!STAND: <ta,tc> lose(Taro)(PAST): ta λt. lose(Taro)(t): <ia, ta> ta: PAST make: <ea,<ia, ta>> Taro-ga: ea λxλt. lose(x)(t)

In this structure, the modal affective demonstrative behaves like a sentential operator, similar to the focus particle even (e.g., Karttunen and Peters 1979: 28; Rooth 1985).12 However, a logical structure like (63) is problematic for several reasons.

First, we cannot assume that it is a sentential operator because, as discussed in the previous sections, each modal affective demonstrative has different selectional restrictions regarding the targeted DP. One factor providing evidence that we cannot analyze the modal affective demonstrative as a pure modal operator is that there is a semantic difference between the following two transitive sentences:

11 Readers may wonder what if we type-shift the denotation of Taro from the individual ea to <<ea,<ia, ta>>, ta>. We will consider this possibility later in section 6 and show that this approach is problematic in terms of the resource insensitivity of CI application. 12 Note that the modal affective demonstratives is not a focus sensitive operator like even (e.g. Karttunen and Peters 1979: 28; Rooth 1985) in that they does not create a set of alternatives.

23

(64) a. Ano Taro-ga Ziro-ni kat-ta. That Taro-NOM Ziro-DAT beat-PAST At-issue: Taro beat Ziro. Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to beat Ziro.

b. Taro-ga ano Ziro-ni kat-ta. Taro-NOM that Ziro-DAT beat-PAST

At-issue: Taro beat Ziro. Non-at-issue: Ziro is a highly unlikely person to be beaten by someone. The first sentence conventionally implicates that it is highly unlikely the subject Taro can beat Ziro. On the other hand, the second sentence conventionally implicates that it is highly unlikely the object Ziro can be beaten. This clearly suggests that the modal affective demonstrative triggers a modal meaning in relation to the attached DP, and it cannot be analyzed as a pure modal operator.13

Another problem for a logical structure like (63) is that it triggers an incorrect interpretation for the CI meaning of the modal affective demonstrative. The logical structure will generate a CI meaning that “it is highly unlikely that Taro lost.” However, this meaning is not what we want. The sentence in (52) conventionally implicates that “Taro is highly unlikely to lose” and there should be no past tense information in the CI part of the sentence. How then can we solve the mismatch problem? In the next section, we will attempt to do this based on the notions of type shifting and mixed content. 5.3 Solving the mismatch problem We propose that the mismatch problem can be solved by assuming that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an ‘overt’ type-shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain, in addition to having a likelihood non-at-issue meaning. According to this view, modal affective demonstratives are mixed content (McCready 2010), as shown below in (65) (the left side of the black diamond corresponds to the at-issue domain, and the right side of the black diamond corresponds to the non-at-issue domain): (65) Denotations of modal affective demonstratives (revised version)

a. [[ ano MOD.AFF]] = <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>> λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STANDc

(where x is in the speaker’s memory) b. [[ kono MOD.AFF]] = <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STANDc (where x is in the speaker’s personal space (utterance location))

c. [[ sono MOD.AFF]] = <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>> λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STANDc

(where x is discourse-given)

In the at-issue dimension, the modal affective demonstrative behaves as an “overt” type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue dimension, which makes it possible for the “DP (with the modal demonstrative)” to take a main predicate as its argument in the at-issue dimension. Note that the modal affective demonstratives in (65) are not typical cases of

13 Thanks to Kai von Fintel for the valuable comments regarding this issue. 24

mixed content. McCready (2010: 4-5) claims that in order to be mixed content, a mixed-content element should introduce semantic content in both the at-issue and the CI/non-at-issue dimensions and that it should be monomorphemic. Typical examples of mixed content are pejoratives like Kraut (e.g., Bach 2006; McCready 2010; Williamson 2009). Kraut has a descriptive meaning of “German,” but it also triggers a CI meaning that a speaker construes German negatively. Clearly, modal affective demonstratives do not have a descriptive meaning as in the case of Kraut. The truth condition of a proposition with a modal affective demonstrative does not change even if we delete it. However, this does not mean that the modal affective has no function at the at-issue level. It changes the logical structure in terms of the predicate-argument relationship. In this sense, modal affective demonstratives are considered to be mixed content.

We now consider the compositionality of mixed content. In this paper, we will follow McCready (2010) that the meaning of mixed content is computed on the basis of the rule that involves an operation of shunting (McCready 2010): (66) Mixed application

α(γ)♦β(γ): τa × υs

α♦β: <σa, τa> × <σa, υs> γ: σa

(Based on McCready 2010: 20)

Here, we introduce a new superscript s for the CI type. The superscript s is used for a special kind of CI-triggering expression that involves the resource-sensitive semantic operation of shunting: (67) Shunting application (McCready 2010)

α(β): γs

α: <σa, γs> β: σa

Unlike in Potts’ CI function application, the at-issue element β is “shunted.” The same resource sensitivity is observed in mixed application in (66). In the mixed application, γ does not pass up to the above level. Recall that Potts’ CI application is resource insensitive, in that, the argument of a CI-triggering expression passed up to the above level.

We will also assume following McCready (2010: 20) that the following rule applies for the final interpretation of the CI part of mixed content: (68) Final interpretation rule: Interpret α♦β: σa × ts as follows:

α: σa •

β: ts

25

The rule in (68) instructs us to replace mixed-type terms involving the conjunction ♦ with terms conjoined by the bullet • when the CI part of mixed content is propositional (of type t).

If we apply the above rules to the sentence (69), we can get the logical structure like (70): (69) Ano Taro-ga make-ta. (I can’t believe it.) That Taro-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Taro lost. Non-at-issue: Taro is highly unlikely to lose.

(70) The logical structure of (69) lose(Taro)(PAST): ta λt.lose(Taro)(t): <ia, ta> ta: PAST • unlikely(λt.lose(Taro)(t)) >!!STAND : ts λP.P(Taro)♦λP. unlikely(P(Taro))>!!STAND make: <ea,<ia, ta>> <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> × <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts> λxλt.lose(x)(t) ano Taro-ga: ea λxλP.P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x))>!!STAND <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

The structure correctly analyzes both the at-issue and non-at-issue meanings of the sentence (69). Then what about the case where the modal affective sono is used? In section 3.2 we assumed that the modal affective ano and the modal affective kono have the property of a CI but the modal affective sono has the property of a presupposition. In this paper we will consider that the same analysis can be made for the modal affective sono. Similarly to a CI, a presupposition is independent from at-issue entailment (i.e. it is a non-at-issue meaning). Thus we think that it is possible to analyze the meaning of the modal affective sono based on the same compositional mechanism/rules (i.e. the mixed application and the shunting application). 5.4 The modal affective demonstratives with a conjoined DP Let us now consider how our analysis can extend to more complex cases. So far, we have considered the case where a modal affective demonstrative combines with one DP. However, as the following example shows, the modal affective ano can actually combine with a conjoined DP, as shown in the following example:14

14 We thank Kenta Mizutani for the valuable comments and discussion regarding this fact.

26

(71) Ano Taro-to Hanako-ga ie-o ka-tta. That Taro-and Hanako-NOM house-ACC buy-PAST At-issue: Taro and Hanako bought a house together. Non-at-issue: Taro and Hanako are highly unlikely persons to buy a house. In (71), the speaker is assuming that “Taro-to Hanako” denotes one group; that is, according to the speaker’s memory, Taro and Hanako are the kind of people who will never buy a house. Maybe Taro and Hanako became bankrupt 10 years ago, and the speaker knew they were having difficulties.

One possibility for analyzing the interpretation of (71) is to assume Link’s ⊕ operator, which joins Taro and Hanako together to denote the plural individual (i.e., Taro⊕Hanako). This results in a plural individual of type e (see Link 1983; Partee and Rooth 1983). Note that it is not possible to parse sentence (71) as sentence (72), because the modal affective ano only scopes over one of the conjoined elements, as shown below: (72) ?? [Ano Taro]-to Hanako-ga ie-o ka-tta. That Taro-and Hanako-NOM house-ACC buy-PAST At-issue: Taro and Hanako bought a house. Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to buy a house. Theoretically, this makes sense because ano(Taro) cannot skip Hanako and combine with the predicate part ie-o kau ‘to buy a house.’ Taro intervenes between ano Taro and a predicate, and this prevents the interpretation of a CI component. 5.5 Transitive sentences with a modal affective demonstrative Let us now consider the environment where a modal affective demonstrative arises in a transitive sentence. (73a) shows a case where the modal affective ano is attached to a subject DP, Taro, and (73b) shows a case where the modal affective ano attaches to the object DP, Ziro, as follows: (73) a. Ano Taro-ga Ziro-o yabu-tta. That Taro-NOM Ziro-ACC beat-PAST At-issue: Taro beat Ziro.

Non-at-issue: Taro is a highly unlikely person to beat Ziro. (It is highly unlikely that Taro beats Ziro.)

b. Taro-ga ano Ziro-o yabu-tta. Taro-NOM that Ziro-ACC beat-PAST

At-issue: Taro beat Ziro. Non-at-issue: Ziro is a highly unlikely person to be beaten by someone. (It is

highly unlikely that someone can beat Ziro.) The crucial point is that there is asymmetry between (73a) and (73b) in terms of the domain of CI computation. In (73a), the modal affective ano takes the object Ziro as its (second) argument. Thus, the sentence conventionally implicates that Taro is a highly unlikely person to beat Ziro. On the other hand, in the case of (73b), the modal affective ano, which attaches to the object Ziro, does not take the subject Taro as its argument. That is, the CI meaning is “Ziro is a highly unlikely person to be beaten by someone,”

27

and the identity of the subject is not relevant.

The following evidence supports the idea that ano in the subject position takes the object DP as its argument, but ano in the object position does not take the subject DP as its argument. Let us suppose that the speaker and the hearer are talking about sumo (the traditional wrestling sport in Japan), based on the following background: (74) a. Mainoumi: a sumo wrestler. He is known for being small (but strong.) b. Akebono: a sumo wrestler. He is Yokozuna (the highest rank in sumo). He is

gigantic and strong. c. Konishiki: a sumo wrestler. He is extremely gigantic/heavy and strong. He is

Ozeki, the second highest rank in sumo. According to this situation, (75a) is quite odd, but (75b) is perfectly natural, as follows: (75) (The modal affective ano attaching to the subject DP)

a.?? Ano Akebono-ga Konishiki-o mochi-age-ta. That Akebono-NOM Konishiki-ACC lift-raise-PAST At-issue: Akebono lifted-up Konishiki. Non-at-issue: Akebono is a highly unlikely person to lift Konishiki. b. Ano Mainoumi-ga Konishiki-o mochi-age-ta. That Mainoumi-NOM Konishiki-ACC lift-raise-PAST

At-issue: Mainoumi lifted-up Konishiki. Non-at-issue: Mainoumi is a highly unlikely person to lift Konishiki.

(75a) is odd because it conventionally implicates that Akebono is highly unlikely to lift Konishiki. This conflicts with our world knowledge (common ground) on Akebono. Akebono is gigantic and strong (Yokozuna), so it is not unlikely that he can lift Konishiki (although he may be lighter than Konishiki). By contrast, (75b) sounds perfectly natural because the CI of (75b) matches our knowledge of Mainoumi.

On the other hand, in (76) where the modal affective ano arises in an object position, both (76a) and (76b) are perfectly natural: (76) (The modal affective ano attaching to the object DP)

a. Akebono-ga ano Konishiki-o mochi-age-ta. Akebono-NOM that Konishiki-ACC lift-raise-PAST At-issue: Akebono lifted-up Konishiki.’

Non-at-issue: Konishiki is a highly unlikely person to be lifted by someone.

b. Mainoumi-ga ano Konishiki-o mochi-age-ta. Mainoumi-NOM that Konishiki-ACC lift-raise-PAST

At-issue: Mainoumi lifted-up Konishiki. Non-at-issue: Konishiki is a highly unlikely person to be lifted by someone.

The crucial point here is that (76a) is perfectly natural. If the modal affective ano takes the subject argument into consideration, the sentence (76a) should sound odd, because it is false that Konoshiki is a highly unlikely person to be lifted by Akebono (who is also gigantic and strong.) However, in reality, (76a) is perfectly natural. This strongly suggests that if the modal affective ano appears in an object position, it does not take

28

the subject DP as its argument in order to trigger a modal CI meaning.

Based on the above discussion, we will assume that modal affective demonstratives are polymorphic and a denotation of modal affective demonstrative can differ according to the environment in which it occurs: (77) a. [[anoSUBJ]] = λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND

<ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

b. [[anoOBJ]] = λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP∃y.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!!STAND <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

(78) and (79) show the logical structures of (73a) and (73b), respectively: (78) The logical structure of (73a) beat(Taro)(Ziro)(PAST): ta

ta ‘PAST’: ia λt. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t): <ia, ta>

• unlikely(λt. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t)) >!!STAND: ts

λyλt. beat(y)(Ziro)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>> Ziro-o ‘Ziro-ACC’: ea yabu ‘beat’: <ea,<ea, <ia, ta>>>

λxλyλt. beat(y)(x)(t) λP.P(Taro)♦λP.unlikely(P(Taro)) >!!STAND <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> × <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>

Ano ‘that’ Taro-ga ‘Taro-NOM’: ea

λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

29

(79) The logical structure of (73b) beat(Taro)(Ziro)(PAST): ta

ta ‘PAST’: ia λt. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t): <ia, ta>

λyλt. beat(y)(Ziro)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>>

• ∃y.unlikely(λt.beat(y)(Ziro)(t)) >!!STAND: ts

Taro-ga: ea ‘Taro-NOM’ λP.P(Ziro)♦ λP∃y.unlikely(P(Ziro)(y)) >!!STAND yabu ‘beat’: <ea,<ea, <ia, ta>>>

: <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> × <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts> λxλyλt.beat(y)(x)(t)

ano ‘that’ Ziro-o ‘Ziro-ACC’: ea λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP∃y.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!!STAND <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

5.6 Multiple modal affective demonstratives Our proposed analysis can also naturally explain the sentence with multiple modal affective demonstratives: (80) Ano Mainoumi-ga ano Konishiki-o mochi-age-ta. That Mainoumi-NOM that Konishiki-ACC lift-raise-PAST At-issue: Mainoumi lifted up Konishiki.

Non-at-issue1 (triggerd via anoSUBJ): Mainoumi is a highly unlikely person to lift Konishiki.

Non-at-issue2 (triggerd via anoOBJ): Konishiki is a highly unlikely person to be lifted (by someone). (= It is highly unlikely that someone lifts Konishiki.)

The above sentence has two kinds of non-at-issue meanings. One relates to the subject Mainoumi, and the other relates to the object Konishiki. 15 The two non-at-issue meanings are compatible and the speaker is surprising at the fact that “Mainoumi lifted up Konishiki” in terms of two perspectives. The following figure shows the logical structure of (80):

15 Mainoumi was a sumo wrestler who was known for being small (but strong), and Konishiki was a sumo wrestler (Ozeki) who was gigantic/heavy and strong.

30

(81)

lift-up(Mainoumi)(Konishiki)(PAST): ta

ta ‘PAST’: ia λt. lift-up(Mainoumi)(Konishiki)(t): <ia, ta>

• unlikely(λt. lift-up(Mainoumi)(Konishiki)(t)) >!!STAND: ts

λyλt. lift-up(y)(Konishiki)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>>

• ∃x. unlikely(λt. lift-up(x)(Konishiki)(t)>!!STAND: ts

λP.P(Konishiki)♦ mochiage ‘lift up’

λP∃x. unlikely(P(Kinishiki)(x)>!!STAND λxλyλt. lift-up(y)(x)(t)

λP.P(Mainoumi)♦ ano Konishiki-o λP.unlikely(P(Mainoumi)) >!!STAND ‘that’ ‘Konishiki-ACC’ <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> × <<ea, <ia, ta>>, > λxλP. P(x)♦

λxλP∃y.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!STAND Ano ‘that’ Mainoumi-ga ‘Mainoumi-NOM’: ea

λxλP. P(x)♦λxλP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> × <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>

To sum up, in this section, we considered the problem of mismatch between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings in terms of predicate-argument structure, and also looked at how this mismatch can be solved. To overcome the problem of mismatch, we proposed that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an “overt” type-shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain, in addition to having a likelihood meaning in the non-at-issue dimension. We also showed that this idea can naturally extend to various complex environments, including transitive sentences, conjoined DPs, and situations where multiple modal affective demonstratives are used within a single utterance.

Based on the above discussions, we propose the following generalization regarding the relationship between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings: (82) Generalizations about the relation between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings.

If there is a mismatch between an at-issue dimension and a non-at-issue dimension in an argument-predicate structure, the former adjusts to the latter.

6. An alternative approach One might argue against our analysis by saying that we do not need to posit modal affective demonstratives as mixed content because the proper names (type e) can be lifted to <<e,t>,t> independently, as a general type-shifting operation (Partee and Rooth

31

1983; Partee 1987).16 In this view the modal affective demonstrative only contains a non-at-issue meaning.

Under this approach, the meaning of Taro in (83) can be represented as in (84), and the meaning of the modal affective ano in (83) can be represented as in (85) (Here tense information is included): (83) Ano Taro-ga make-ta. That Taro-NOM lose-PAST

At-issue: Taro lost. Non-at-issue: Taro is highly unlikely to lose.

(84) [[Taro]]: <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>

= λP∈D<ea, <ia, ta>>. P(Taro) (85) [[ ano MOD.AFF]] : <<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>, <<ea, <ia,ta>>, tc>> (alternative view) = λP<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>λQ<ea, <ia, ta>>. unlikely(P(Q)) >!! STANDc (↓P = x where x is in the speaker’s memory) The modal affective demonstrative in (85) takes a “type-shifted” proper noun and a verbal predicate and returns an unlikelihood CI (non-at-issue) meaning. The important point of this approach is that since the modal affective ano is a pure CI trigger it has to combine with a type shifted individual (of type <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>) via Potts CI application, which is a resource insensitive compositional rule (= (87)), as in (86): (86) λP<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro) : <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> •

λQ<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(Q(Taro)) >!! STAND: <<ea,<ia,ta>>, tc> ano Taro-ga λP<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>λQ<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(P(Q)) >!! STAND: λP<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro) <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>, <<ea,<ia,ta>>, tc>> : <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> (87) Potts’ CI application

β : σa

•

α (β) : τc

α: <σa, τc> β: σa

(Potts 2005: 64)

16 We thank Yasutada Sudo for the valuable comments and discussions regarding this approach.

32

However, it turns out that this approach becomes problematic in the course of

semantic derivations. We cannot compute the meaning of the CI part of ano(Taro): (88) ?? λP<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro): <<ea,<ia,ta>>, ta> make ‘lose’ • λxλt.lose(x)(t)

λQ<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(Q(Taro)) >!! STAND : <<ea,<ia,ta>>, tc>

ano Taro-ga λP<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>λQ<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(P(Q)) >!! STAND λP<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro) : <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>, <<ea,<ia,ta>>, tc>> : <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>

Since ano involves a CI type (tc), the CI part of ano(Taro) (the meaning right below the bullet) needs to be combined with the verb make ‘lose’ via the CI application. This means that the verb make ‘lose’ must pass up to the higher level. However, this is not what we want. The verb is not necessary in the later computation.17 The above independent typeshifting approach is not consistent with the recourse insensitive property of CI application.

On the other hand, our proposed mixed approach is not problematic because it assumes that the modal affective demonstrative is mixed content. In our analysis, a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an “overt” type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain, in addition to having a likelihood CI meaning, and these meanings are computed on the basis of a mixed application that involves a shunting type (superscript s). 7. Conclusions and discussion In this paper, we investigated the meaning of modal affective demonstratives in Japanese and considered the semantic/pragmatic mechanisms that can capture their meaning and distribution patterns.

For the meaning of modal affective demonstratives, we argued that unlike other kinds of demonstratives (spatial/non-spatial demonstratives, affective demonstratives), modal affective demonstratives have a modal meaning. They signal that the at-issue proposition with a specific target is highly unlikely to be true in the non-at-issue dimension. We showed that this non-at-issue meaning naturally explains the puzzling behavior of modal affective demonstratives; that is, these demonstratives can co-occur with a proper noun, the particle ga, and a stage-level predicate, but they cannot co-occur with a common noun, the topic marker wa, or an individual-level predicate.

17 McCready (2010) also discusses the same kind problem based on the example of the honorific verb irassyaru ‘come/go/exist [Hon]’. He then proposed to add a shunting type and proposed a resource-sensitive CI application, a shunting application. See section 5.3.

33

However, we also argued that modal affective demonstratives are not pure

modal expressions and retain demonstrative status. Although all demonstratives series (kono, sono, and ano) can have a modal use, they have different properties regarding how the speaker construes the target (similar to regular demonstratives). That is, the modal affective ano selects an entity that is in the speaker’s memory. The modal affective kono specifies that the target is in the speaker’s personal space. Finally, the modal affective sono ‘that’ anaphorically refers to an entity that has previously appeared in the discourse.

We then looked at the compositionality of modal affective demonstratives and showed that their dual property of having a modal meaning despite behaving as a demonstrative causes a serious problem for the compositional theory of non-at-issue/conventional implicature. Namely, the phenomenon creates a mismatch between the at-issue meaning and the CI in terms of the predicate-argument relationship. To overcome the mismatch, the study proposed that a modal affective demonstrative behaves as an “overt” type shifting (lifting) operator in the at-issue domain, in addition to having a likelihood CI meaning. We then proposed the following generalization regarding the relationship between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings: (89) Generalization (=82)

If there is a mismatch between an at-issue dimension and a CI dimension in an argument-predicate structure, the former adjusts to the latter.

Finally, let us consider this generalization in a more theoretical way. We think

that the above generalization can be considered as a natural consequence of the type system of CIs. In the multidimensional approach (Potts 2005; McCready 2010), CI-triggering expressions (which have a CI type (type c) or a shunting type (type s) apply to at-issue meanings to produce CI meanings as in (90iv) and (91ii): (90) Potts’ type system for conventional implicature: i. ea, ta, sa are basic at-issue types for LCI. ii. ec, tc, sc are basic CI types for LCI. iii. If σ and τ are at-issue types for LCI, then <σ, τ> is an at-issue type for LCI.

iv. If σ is an at-issue type for LCI and τ is a CI type for LCI, then <σ, τ> is a CI type for LCI.

v. If σ and τ are at-issue types for LCI, then <σ × τ> is a product type for LCI. vi. The full set of types for LCI is the union of the at-issue types and CI types for LCI.

(Potts 2005: 55) (91) McCready’s modified type system: L+ S

CI The type system itself is identical to that of LCI, except that: i. es, ts, ss are basic shunting types for L+ S

CI. ii. If σ is an at-issue type for L+ S

CIand τ is a shunting type for L+ S CI, then <σ, τ> is a

shunting type for L+ S CI.

iii. If σ is a shunting type for L+ S CI and τ is a shunting type for L+ S

CI, then <σ, τ> is a shunting type for L+ S

CI. However, in multidimensional systems, at-issue meanings never apply to CIs (Potts

34

2005: 58); that is, there are no such elements that take a CI meaning as its argument. Since it is impossible for an at-issue element to apply to a CI to make a new CI meaning, if there is a mismatch between the at-issue and CI meanings in terms of the predicate-argument relationship, the only solution is to restructure the predicate-argument relationship between the at-issue elements so that they can adjust to the logical structure of CIs. Adjusting to the CI dimension is a natural consequence of the type systems. We hope that this paper has provided a new perspective on the relationship between at-issue and non-at-issue meanings.

In future research, we would like to consider the extent to which the proposed analysis of modal affective demonstratives can apply to other mismatch phenomena. It seems that there are various kinds of modal-like expression that appear within a DP level. For example, similar to the modal affective demonstratives, the expression DP tomo arou mono ‘great person as DP’ seems to induce a non-at-issue (CI) meaning whereby the at-issue proposition with respect to a DP is highly unlikely to be true: (92) Taro-tomo ar-ou mono-ga shiken-ni ochi-ta. Taro-as BE-seem person-NOM exam-in fail-PAST At-issue: Taro failed the exam. Non-at-issue: I evaluate Taro positively and Taro is a highly unlikely person to

fail the exam. In (92), there is an implication that Taro is highly unlikely to fail the exam.

However, it seems that unlike modal affective demonstratives, the expression tomo arou mono also conventionally implicates that the speaker has a high level of evaluation in relation to the DP. This idea is supported by the fact that the following sentence is odd: (93) ?? Taro-tomo ar-ou mono-ga shiken-ni uka-tta. Taro-as BE-seem person-NOM exam-in pass-PAST At-issue: Taro passed the exam. Non-at-isuue: I evaluate Taro positively and Taro is a highly unlikely person to

pass the exam. (92) is perfectly natural but (93) is quite odd. (93) is odd because although the sentence conventionally implicates that the speaker evaluates Taro positively, it also conventionally implicates that Taro is highly unlikely to pass the exam, which is clearly a contradiction. This kind of asymmetry cannot be observed with the modal affective demonstrative. If we delete tomo arou mono ‘a great person as’ and add the modal ano before Taro, both versions (i.e., (92) and (93)) become perfectly natural. Note that tomo arou mono does have a modal meaning. If tomo aro-u mono only expressed the speaker’s attitude toward a DP (i.e., the speaker’s positive evaluation in relation to the target), (93) should have been natural. However, in reality, it is odd. The phenomenon of tomo arou mono seems to suggest that there is an expression/construction that inherently has multiple CI meanings, i.e., a “local CI,” which is computed as a DP domain, and a “global CI,” which targets a proposition.

35

Acknowledgements References Acton, Eric K. and Christopher Potts. 2014. That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the

sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(1): 3-31. Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy

22: 327-366. Bach, Kent. 2006. Review of Christopher Potts, The logic of conventional implicatures.

Journal of Linguistics 42(2). 490-495. Brentano, Franz. 1973. Psychology from an empirical point of view. Translated by

Antos C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell, and Linda L. McAlister from Psychologie vom empirischen standpunkt (1874, 1924). Sections V-IX.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Carlson, Gregory N., and Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.). 1995. The generic book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Christopher, and Potts, Christopher. 2009. Affective demonstratives and the division of pragmatic labor. In Preproceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager, Peter van Ormondt and Katrin Schulz, 32-41.

Delancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369-382.

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Geurts, Bart, and Nouwen, Rick. 2007. At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83: 533-559.

Gutzmann, Daniel. 2011. Expressive modifiers and mixed expressives. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, eds. Oliver Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 123-141.

Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Dissertation, University of Frankfurt.

Grice, Paul. H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, iii: Speech acts, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.

Hoji, Hajime, Kinsui, Satoshi, Takubo, Yukinori, and Ueyama, Ayumi. 2003. The demonstratives in modern Japanese. In Functional structure(s), form and interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian languages, eds. Yen-Hui Audrey Li and Andrew Simpson, 97-128. London: Routledge.

Horn, Laurence. R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, Deborah Schiffrin, 11-42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Horn, Laurence. R. 2007. Toward a Fregean pragmatics: Voraussetzung, nebengedanke, andeutung. In Explorations in pragmatics, eds. Istvan Kecskes and Laurence R. Horn, 39-69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Horn, Laurence. R. 2013. I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, eds. Daniel Gutzmann and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 151-199. Leiden: Brill.

36

Iori, Isao. 1995. Tekisutoteki imi no fuyo nitsuite: bunmyaku shizi ni okeru kono to

sono no tukaiwake ni tsuite. (On the assignment of textual meaning: with special attention to the difference between kono and sono in contextual demonstratives). Nihongogakuho 14: 79-93.

Iori, Isao. 2007. Nihongo ni okeru tekisuto no kessokusei no kenkyu (A Study of cohesion in Japanse). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.

Karttunen, Lauri, and Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics. Vol. 11. Presupposition, eds. Choon-Kyu. Oh and David A. Dinneen, 1-56. New York: Academic Press.

Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise, McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345-381.

Kim, Sunmi. 2006. Kankokugo to nihongo no shizishi no tyokuji yoohoo to hityokuji yoohoo (The deictic and non-deictic uses of Korean and Japanese demonstratives). Tokyo: Kazamasyobo.

Kinsui, Satoshi. 1999. Nihongo no shizishi niokeru tyokuji yoohou to hityokuji yoohou no kankei nituite (On the Relation between the deictic use and the non-deictic use of the Japanese demonstratives). Journal of Natural Language Processing 6(4): 67-91.

Kinsui, Satoshi, and Takubo, Yukinori. 1992. Nihongo shizishi kenkyusi kara/e (From/toward a history of research on Japanese demonstratives). In Shizishi (Demonstratives), eds. Satoshi Kinsui and Yukinori Takubo, 151-192. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobu.

Klecha, Peter. 2012. Positive and conditional semantics for gradable modals. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. 363-376.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, eds. Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125-175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry, Pelletier, Gregory, N. Carlson, Alice, ter Meulen, Godehard, Link, and Gennaro, Chierchia. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, eds. Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 1-124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuno, Susumu. 1973a. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Kuno, Susumu. 1973b. Nihon bunpoo kenkyu (The studies of Japanese grammar). Tokyo: Taisyukan.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. (Ko), so, a nituite (On (ko), so and a). In Eigo to nihongo to (English and Japanese), 41-59. Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan.

Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 10, 345-356.

Lassiter, Daniel. 2011. Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal Semantics. New York University, Ph. D. Dissertation.

Levinson, Stephen. C. 2004. Deixis. In The handbook of pragmatics, eds. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 97-121. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, eds. Raomer Baüerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, 303-323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

37

McCready, Eric. 2010. Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics & Pragmatics

Vol. 3(8): 1-57. McCready, Eric. 2012. Emotive equilibria. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 243-283. Nakamata, Naoki. 2010. Sonna ya nanka wa naze teihyooka ni katayoruka? (Why are

sonnna and nannka biased toward negative evaluation? In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 427-437.

Naruoka, Keiko. 2008. Expressive functions of Japanese adnominal demonstratives ‘konna/ sonna/ anna.’ In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13, eds. Mutsuko Endo Hudson, Peter Sells, and Sun-Ah Jun, 433-444. Stanford: CSLI publications.

Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, D and Martin J.B. Stokhof, 115-143. Dordrecht: Foris.

Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Raomer Baüerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, 361-383. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33:

165-198. Potts, Christopher. 2013. Presupposition and implicature. To appear in The handbook of

contemporary semantic theory, 2nd edition, eds. Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Potts, Christopher, and Schwarz, Florian. 2010. Affective ‘this.’ Linguistic Issues in Language Technology vol. 3(5): 1-30.

Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Sawada, Osamu. 2010. Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Schlenker, Philippe. 2012. The semantics/pragmatics interface. To appear in Cambridge Handbook of Semantics, eds. Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shoho, Isamu. 1981. Ko, so, a no taikei (The system of ko, so, a). In Nihongo no shizishi (Japanese demonstratives), 51-122. Tokyo: Kokuritu kokugo kenkyuujo.

Strawson, Peter, F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59: 320-344. Suzuki, Tomomi. 2006. Sonna x bun ni mirareru kanjou hyoukateki imi: wasyaga

toraeru jitai no kachi, imi to hi yosokusei (The emotional and evaluative meaning os the “sonna X…” construction: Speaker’s evaluation and unexpectedness). Nihongobunpou 6: 88-105.

Takubo, Yukinori. 2010. Nihongo no koozoo: Suiron to chishikikanri (Structure of Japanese: inference and knowledge management). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher.

Tsutsumi, Ryoichi. 2012. Gendai nihongo shizishi no sougou teki kenkyuu (A comprehensive study on modern Japanese demonstratives). Tokyo: Koko shuppan.

Williamson, Timothy. 2009. Reference, inference and the semantics of pejoratives. In The philosophy of David Kaplan, eds. Joseph Almog and Paolo Leonardi, 137–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116 (464): 983–1026.

38

Yoshimoto, Kei. 1986. On demonstratives ko/so/a in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 90:

48-72.

39