Seoul National University Oct. 18, 2011
Indeterminate phrases, polarity, and free choice: the view from Greek and Korean
Anastasia Giannakidou University of Chicago [email protected]
(With many thanks to Eun-Hae Park and Suwon Yoon, for helping me navigate me through the rich terrain of the Korean indeterminates; and Lisa Cheng and Josep Quer for our ongoing collaborations)
Free choice items (FCIs)
(1) a. Greek opjos-dhipote, lit. DEF.who-FC marker b. Catalan qual-sevol, lit. who-FC marker c. Spanish qual-quiera, lit. who-FC marker d. Dutch wie dan ook, lit. who-then-too e. Korean nwukwu-na, lit. Who-or amwu-na f. Japanese dare-demo lit. who-even
(2) a. I will order whatever is recommended by the chef. English b. I will order anything that is recommended by the chef.
2 Main questions
1. What is the role of wh-morphology in free choice?
2. What is the role of the free choice morphology? Does the absence of FCI morphology tell us something about the putative FCI status of an item (as e.g. with English any)?
3. Does free choice depend on interrogative source? Does free choice rely on propositional or individual alternatives?
4. How can we predict the polarity or not status of a given FCI paradigm within and across languages?
3 Plan: We address these questions by looking at Greek and Korean FCIs.
And here is what we find:
• Propositional alternatives are not necessary for free choice (pace Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002).
• In fact, positing propositional alternatives makes the wrong predictions.
• Quantification over individuals does a fine job in giving us the basis for FC semantics. Free choice is an aspect of ‘referential deficiency’ (Giannakidou 1998), or anti-specificity (Giannakidou and Quer 2011) after all.
• We need both indefinite and definite analyses for free choice (Giannakidou and Cheng 2006, E.H. Park 2009).
• There is no widening. Rather, there is a strong role of concession (C. Lee 2000, Lee et al.) which can apply to a very specific domain, or may have to do with expressive meaning (E.H. Park 2009).
4
First, conceptual clean-up: any is NOT a FCI
• Since Kadmon and Landman 1993, discussions of FCIs often start out with any. • But this is misleading because any is not a FCI, and transferring the questions of any to FCIs distracts from the empirical patterns to be explained for FCIs.
Any is ‘negative’ polarity item:
(3) a John didn’t see anything. No free choice b *John saw anything. c Did you hear any noise? No free choice
Free choice use in nonveridical contexts: modal verbs (can, must, may, will), generic sentences, with non-veridical propositional attitudes (Giannakidou 1998), imperatives:
(4) a. Any cat hunts mice. b. Any student can solve this problem. c. At the party tonight, you may talk to any student. (non-generic) d. At the party tonight, any minor must be accompanied by an adult.(non-generic) e. I would like to invite any student at the party next week. (non-generic) f. Press any key. (non-generic)
5 Giannakidou 2001:
“Given the dubious status of FC-any as a distinct lexical item, trying to provide a theory of the quantificational force of free choice by concentrating on a language like English is a complicated, tricky, and dangerous business. It is akin to undertaking a study of the semantic differences between definiteness and indefiniteness on the basis of a language like Russian, which fails to lexicalize these distinctions in articles, or to providing a semantics for distinguishing simple and progressive aspects by concentrating only on German, which lacks a morphological distinction between these, or indeed to elucidating the nature of case by examining only the English pronominal system.” (Giannakidou 2001: 660).
6
Table 1: Comparative distribution of NPIs, FCIs, and any
Environments any kanenas NPI FCI 1. Episodic negation OK OK */# 2. Episodic yes/no question OK OK */# 3. Conditional (if-clause) OK, both OK OK 4. Restriction of every/all OK OK OK 5. DE quantifier OK ?? ?? 6. Modal verbs OK, with FC OK OK 7. Directive attitudes (e.g. want) OK, with FC OK OK 8. Imperatives OK, with FC OK OK 9. Generics/Habituals OK, with FC OK OK 10. Disjunctions * OK OK 11. isos/perhaps * OK OK 12. stative verbs OK, with FC * OK 13. prin/before clauses OK OK OK 14. Future OK, with FC OK OK 15. monon/only OK * * 16. Progressives * * * 17. Episodic past sentences * * * 18. Positive existential structures * * * 19. Epistemic attitudes (e.g. believe, * * * imagine, dream, say)
7 Any: an NPI indefinite with a free choice implicature
• The free choice inference of any seems to be cancelled in negative contexts.
• So it must be an implicature, since implicatures get cancelled in these contexts (Gazdar, Horn).
• Giannakidou and Quer 2011, Giannakidou and Yoon: a unitary analysis of any is indeed possible: as an NPI indefinite with a FC implicature. This would be consistent with the fact that any, unlike FCIs, lacks FC marking.
• So, we better leave any out of the discussion of FCIs!
• But, what about Kadmon and Landman’s widening? Don’t we need it?
Widening of any (Kadmon & Landman 1993): In an NP of the form any CN, any widens the interpretation of the common noun phrase along some contextual dimension.
I am not sure we do (see Giannakidou in press for extended discussion).
8
Duffley and Larivee 2010: Anyone for non-scalarity?
Any is not “scalar” in negation and with questions:
(5) Context: I need to move our of the driveway: Do you see any cars coming?
(6) Context: I am parking. You can come now. I don’t see any cars.
• These are bare bones, non-scalar, non-“widening” uses. Scalar meaning arises only with intonation (Giannakidou in press, see also earlier observation in Krifka 1995).
• The domain can be very limited or specific: any with partitives (Dayal 2004, Giannakidou and Quer 2011):
(7) Pick any of these cards
9
Today’s claims about ‘widening’
• The illusion of widening is due to the free choice component which involves domain exhaustification.
• With free choice items, domain exhaustification is a presupposition (Giannakidou 1997, 1998, 2001).
• With any, domain exhaustification is a cancellable implicature.
• The vehicle of exhaustification is free choice marking, that any lacks.
• Domain specificity argues directly against widening, and we find it lexicalized in Korean nwuku-FCIs.
10
Free choice and wh-indeterminates
(8) a. [Dare-ga odorimasu] ka? who-Nom dance Q ‘Who dances?’ (Shimoyama 2006) b. Dare-mo-ga ki-ta. who-∀-Nom came ‘Everyone came.’ (Nishigauchi 1999) c. Dare-demo kono mondai-ga tok-eru who-demo this problem-NOM solve-can ‘Anyone can solve this problem.’ (Yoshimura 2007)
Quantificational variability typical of indefinites:
(9) Q[w, x] [...{indefinite Q} NP (x,w) ...] Classical indefinite analysis
11
Kratzer’s conjecture: propositional alternatives
Kratzer’s hypothesis: Japanese shows us the real thing. All quantification is propositional:
(10) [{?/∀/∃}p … [wh-indeterminate VP ]] Hamblin analysis
The bracketed part [wh-indeterminate VP] delivers a set of propositions, to be closed by the higher sentential operators. Closure is accompanied by ‘concord/agreement’ (very broadly understood).
Menéndez-Benito 2010, Aloni 2007: apply the propositional move to FCIs: the underlying structure with FCI contains (a) generation of a Hamblin set (propositional alternatives), (b) closure of the set under sentential ∀, and (c) exhaustification, prior to the closure, of the Hamblin set by a covert operator Excl. We call this the ‘universal free choice analysis’ (UFCA) schematized below:
(11) a. *Cualquiera (Spanish FCI) jumped three minutes ago. b. [∀p … [Excl … p: [FCI jumped ]]]
12
Why the Hamblin move is a no-starter in Greek, Korean, and Chinese
– General, conceptual point:
The Hamblin theory posits a systematic mismatch between syntax (where the determiner is part of the nominal) and semantics, where the Q force comes from invisible propositional quantifiers (unlike with classical unselective binding, where the Q is visible). This produces a non-compositional theory of Q-meaning, that makes the indefinite construction-specific, learnable only as construction.
– Greek: interrogative wh-word wont’ do the job (Giannakidou and Cheng 2006)
(12) [o- pjos]-dhipote DEF- who/which- FC marker (Greek) [o- ti]- dhipote DEF- what- FC marker [o- pote]- dhipote DEF- when- FC marker [o- pu]- dhipote DEF- where- FC marker
We need the definiteness marker!
(13) *pjos-dhipote; *ti-dhipote; *pote-dhipote; *pu-dhipote
13
FCIs are not used in questions
Giannakidou and Quer 2011:
(14) a. *Idhes opjondhipote? (Greek) b. *Vas veure qualsevol? (Catalan) c. *Viste a cualquiera? (Spanish) d. *Did you see almost anybody?
• FCIs are not only unusable as question words, they are simply bad in questions
• FCIs are also not compatible with universals:
(15) {ena/tria/*kathe} opjodhipote periodiko/-a (Greek) {one/three/every} FCI magazine/-s
14 Two sources for FCIs in Korean, no question meaning with the wh-
Korean PIs are composed of one of two indefinite roots, amwu- and wh-, only one of which is wh. Plus a choice of the three particles, -to ‘also/even’ , -lato ‘ even’ , and –na . (C. Lee 1999, Lee, Chung, Nam 2000, C. Lee 2003, Choi 2007, Park 2009)
(16) Nwukwu-na ku il-ul ha-l swu.iss-ta. (Exs from Park) who/someone-NA that job-ACC do-can-DEC ‘Anyone/everyone/all the people can do the job; it doesn’t matter which.’
(17) Amwu-na ku il-ul ha-l swu.iss-ta. AMWU-NA that job-ACC do-can-DEC ‘Just anyone/everyone can solve that problem.’
Nwukwu by itself, though wh, does NOT receive question meaning in isolation:
(18) Nwukwu(-ka) o-ass-e. nwukwu(-nom) come-Pst-Decl. With neutral intonation: Someone has come.
15
Korean NPIs: again, two paradigms
Two lexical paradigms of ‘indeterminates’, two possible EVEN markings: (Lee 1999, Lee, Chung and Nam 2000, Lee 2003)
• Amwu-to versus amwu-lato • Nwukwu-to versus nwukwu-lato
Common observation in the literature: the lato series is non-emphatic. And even for the to series, there are emphatic and non-emphatic variants (Yoon 2008, Giannakidou and Yoon to appear, yesterday’s lecture):
(19) Amwu-to/*lato oci-anh-ass-ta. Anyone-even come-Neg-Pst-Decl ‘No one came.’
(20) Nwukwu-to/*lato oci-anh-ass-ta. Anyone-even come-Neg-Pst-Decl ‘No one came.’
16
Chinese: which is a polarity FCI but who is not
Giannakidou and Cheng 2006
(21) a. Shéi dōu jìnlái-le. who all enter-PERF ‘Everyone entered.’ b. *Nă-ge xuéshēng dōu jìnlái-le which-CL student all enter-PERF ‘Every/any student entered.’ c. Nă-ge xuéshēng dōu kĕyĭ jìnlái which-CL student all can enter ‘Any student can enter.’
It doesn’t follow from Kratzer’s conjecture why one wh-word should be a FCI, but not the other. (See Cheng and Giannakidou for more).
17 Interim summary
• We don’t seem to have evidence that FC phenomena in Greek, Spanish, Catalan, Korean, and Chinese have an interrogative source, or interrogative source only.
• Even in Japanese, when demo or mo are used, we see that demo/mo form a constituent with the wh-word. So we have to posit a mismatch between syntax (noun modifier) and semantics (propositional Q) for Kratzer’s conjecture to work.
• Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
• We think not (see Giannakidou and Quer 2011 for detailed critique).
18 Intensionality, exhaustive variation, definite and indefinite FCIs
The indefinite-style analysis: Giannakidou 1997, 1998, 2001, Giannakidou and Cheng 2006, Quer 1998, 1999; see also Horn 2000, 2005
• FCIs are intensional expressions • They contain a non-deictic world variable that needs to be bound. This explains their polarity behavior. • FCIs come in two varieties: indefinite FCIs, and indefinite FCIs • In both varieties, FCI morphology gives a presupposition of exhaustive variation
(22) i-alternatives (= epistemic alternatives: Dayal 1997, Giannakidou 2001) A world w1 is an i-alternative wrt α iff there exists some w2 such that: w1 w2 w1 w2 [[α]] ≠ [[α]] ; and for all β ≠ α: [[ β]] = [[ β]]
(23) Free choice item (= FCI nominal in Giannakidou and Cheng 2006) Let Wi be a non-empty, non-singleton set of possible worlds. A sentence with a free
choice item [[ OP DETFC (P, Q)]] is true in W0 with respect to Wi iff: w1 w2 a. Presupposition:∀w1, w2 ∈ Wi: [[ α]] ≠[[ α ]] , where a is the free choice phrase. (This is domain exhaustification) b. Assertion: [[OPw,x [P(x, w); Q (x, w)]]]= 1, where x,w are the FCI variables.
19 Free choice indefinite
(24) Free choice QP, 5 (Giannakidou and Cheng 2006)
Q-det, 4 NP, 3 | enas/∅ FC-det, 2 NP, 1 | opjosdhipote fititis
1. [[fitititis]] = λwλx.student(x)(w) 2. [[opjosdhipote]] = λP
Hence: The syntax produces a FC meaning that will be indefinite, and polarity sensitive.
20
Free choice definite: D-marked, no polarity
(25) Free choice FR (Giannakidou and Cheng 2006) DP, 9
D, 8 FC-CP, 7 | o FC, 6 CP, 5 | -dhipote whP,4 C', 3
pjos C,2 IP,1
t1 erthi sto parti ‘whoever came to the party’ had a good time
1. [[IP]] = came.to.party(t1) 2. [[C]] = λp.p (identity function) 3. [[C']] = came.to.party(t1) 4. [[pjos]] = no denotation of its own; it triggers λ-abstraction (Heim and Kratzer 1998: 96) 5. [[CP]] = λx.came.to.party(x)
21 FCI definite continued: D marking, no polarity
1. [[- dhipote]] = λP
This would require lifting first the CP property λx.came.to.party (x) to its intension λw.λx. came.to.party(x)(w). After this is done (and we may assume an additional node for it) we get:
7. [[FC-CP]] = [[-dhipote]] ([[CP]] ) =
λP
The input to iota will thus now be of type
8. [[o]] = λP
λP
• No polarity behavior! There is no unbound w variable—w here is bound by λ. FC-FR will generally be licensed in episodic contexts (unlike the FCI indefinite), and this captures the rescuing effect of subtrigging.
22 E.H. Park 2009: definite and indefinite variants in Korean FCIs
• “The previous universal and existential FCI analyses fail to capture that, unlike FCI amwu-(N)-na, FCI wh-(N)-na strongly implies the existence of an individual for a given eventuality or property”
• Park takes this difference to suggest that Korean lexicalizes the difference between indefinite FCI (amwu-na) and definite FCI (nwukwu-na)
• The definite FCI is definite marked by the marker –ta, which is taken to be parallel to Chinese dou, analyzed as maximality operator in Giannakidou and Cheng (2006)
• The depreciative (i.e., negative) meaning in indefinite FCI amwu-(N)-na is explained by adopting the expressive meaning analysis of Potts (2007).
23
Previous approaches: universal (nwuku-FCI) versus existential (amwu-FCI)
Lee et al. 2000, Kim and Kaufmann 2006, Choi 2007
• Universal FCI nwukwu-na carries only universal quantificational force (QF), whereas existential FCI amwu-na can also carry existential QF.
• Universal FCI nwukwu-na has no distributional restriction and can occur anywhere. But, existential FCI amwu-na has limited distribution
• Universal FCI nwukwu-na does not convey widening (a counterfactual implicature, in KK and Lee et al 2000) whereas existential FCI amwu-na conveys widening
• The basic meaning of –na is a disjunctive particle ‘or.’ Yet, –na induces a universal quantification in nwukwu-na.
24
Universal versus existential: imperative
(26) a. nwukwu-na teylye o-la. NWUKWU-NA bring come-IMP ‘Bring everyone regardless of who he/she is.’
b. amwu-na teylye o-la. AMWU-NA bring come-IMP ‘Bring one person whoever it is (but okay to bring more than one person).’ (Kim and Kaufmann 2006: 4)
But: Park (ex. 19):
(27) nwukwu-na o-myen, swuep-ul sicakha-ca. NWUKWU-NA come-if class-ACC start-let.us ‘If (just) anyone comes, let us start the class.’ No universal!
(28) motwu(-ka) o-myen, swuep-ul sicakha-ca. averyone/all-NOM come-if class-ACC start-let.us ‘If everyone comes, let us start the class.’ Real universal
25
Licensing and maximality marker –ta
(29) a. nwukwu-na Seoul-tay-ey iphakhay-ss-ta. NWUKWU-NA Seoul-university-GOAL enter-PAST-DEC ‘Anybody/everybody entered Seoul National University.’ b. *amwu-na Seoul-tay-ey iphakhay-ss-ta. AMWU-NA Seoul-university-GOAL enter-PAST-DEC Intended. ‘Anybody/everybody entered Seoul National University.’ (Kim&Kaufmann 2006: 4)
E.H. Park 2009: It is not true that FCI nwukwu-na has no distributional restriction and occurs anywhere. The FCI nwukwu-na requires the maximality marker in a non- matrix- subject (e.g., object) position.
26 Object and subject position
(30) a. */??John-un nwukwu-na macwuchi-ess-ta. John-TOP NWUKWU-NA run.into-PAST-DEC ‘John ran into anyone/everyone.’ (cf. Kim and Kaufmann 2006: 4)
Kim and Kaufmann (2006) judge this sentence as grammatical; but Choi and Park as ungrammatical.
b. John-un nwukwu-na ta macwuchi-ess-ta. John-TOP NWUKWU-NA MAX run.into-PAST-DEC ‘John ran into anyone/everyone.’
From Park: (31) a. *etten-namca-na se-iss-ta. what-guy-NA stand-PROG-DEC Intended: ‘Any guy/Every guy is standing.’ b. etten-namca-na ta se-iss-ta. what-guy-NA MAX stand-PROG-DEC ‘Every guy (or all the guys) is/are standing.’
27
Park’s analysis: definiteness of the FCI
– ta is like dou in Chinese, and o in Greek: an iota contributing expression. (For an earlier claim along this like, see Gill et al. 2004). This means that nwuku-na ta is a definite FCI.
(32) Nă-ge xuéshēng *(dōu) kĕyĭ jìn-lái. which-CL student all can enter ‘Any student can enter.’
Giannakidou and Cheng 2006, Cheng and Giannakidou to appear: The presence of dou determines whether the FCI will be definite (dou) or indefinite (no dou). The ‘which FCI’ needs dou. In addition, Chinese FCIs contain intensionality via wulun (Lin 1998):
(33) [[wulun]] = λP
(35) a. [[ na-ge xuéshēng]] = λw.λy.student (y)(w)
b. [[wulun]] ([[ na-ge xuéshēng]]) = λP
28
Consequence:
• The domain specificity, non-widening of nwuku- follows from the definiteness analysis. These NPIs do not convey widening typically, and are OK in episodic contexts.
Two remaining questions:
Do we still need widening for amwu? What is the role of na?
– Lee et al. (2000) assume that a derogatory meaning in amwu-(N)-na comes from a scalar implicature. Scalar implicature in amwu is assumed to denote the least- likely value on the likelihood scale.
29 Meaning shifts in polarity: Morphology ‘recycling’
Recall our discussion of –lato yesterday!
Jespersen cycle of negation
. . . the original negative adverb is first weakened, then found insufficient and therefore strengthened, generally through some additional word, and this in turn may be felt as the negative proper and may then in the course of time be subject to the same development as the original word. (Jespersen 1917:4)
« Bleaching »: a piece of morphology loses semantic features, and gets re-analyzed
(36) Je ne sais pas que dire. I don’t know what to say.
(37) avant qu’il ne vienne ‘expletive’ negation before he goes
In the expletive use, negation loses the property of polarity reversal, and is reanalyzed as an NPI (see Yoon 2010, Choi and Lee 2011).
30
Likewise, na gets re-analyzed as a FC marker :
‘Weakening of disjunction’: multiple na structure
(23) Joe-na Mary-na hansimhaki-nun machankaci-yess-ta. Joe-NA Mary-NA being.stupid-TOP same-was-DEC Both Joe and Mary are stupid. (E.H. Park 2009)
Reanalysis as a FC marker :
(38) [[- dhipote/na]] = λP
• This gives polarity, as expected, because of the non-deictic world variable.
• In addition, expressive meaning, in the sense of Potts 2007, as Park 2009 suggests!
(39) amwu-na taytonglyeng-i toy-nun kuna! AMWU-NA president-NOM become-PRE EXCLAMATION ‘Just anyone is being elected as a president!’
31
Conclusions
Studying Korean FCIs is important in a number of ways:
1. They show that free choice need not have interrogative source. This informs us about the need or not of propositional alternatives in free choice.
2. They show that there is a domain specific and a non-domain specific variant of FCI. This argues against the routine claims about widening and genericity as the source of FC.
3. Domain specificity of nwuku-na supports the definiteness analysis of FCIs.
4. Overall, Korean FCIs support the variable analysis free choice (Giannakidou, Giannakidou and Cheng) and sensitivity to nonveridicality.
5. Korean FCIs and –lato NPIs provide evidence for morphology recycling in polarity!
32
Thank you!
33
References Aloni, M. 2007. Sin und Bedeutung paper. Cheng and Giannakidou. To appear. The Non-Uniformity of wh-indeterminates with free choice and polarity in Chinese. In The Nature of Quantification and Crosslinguistic variation, ed. by G. Tsoulas and K.-H. Gil. Oxford University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language, Linguistic Inquiry, 37: 535–590. Choi, Jinyoung, 2005. Another type of free choice effect: Korean Amwu-N-lato. In Alderete, John, Chung-hye Han, and Alexei Kochetov (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 24, pp. 88–96. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Choi, Jinyoung, 2007. Free Choice and Negative Polarity: A Compositional Analysis of Korean Polarity Sensitive Items. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Choi, Yoonhee and Chungmin Lee. 2011. Expletive negation and exhaustification. In Lee, Chungmin, Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Krifka (eds) Contrastiveness and Scalar Implicatures, Springer. Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free choice and -ever: identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VII: 99-116. Dayal, Veneeta. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433-76. Dayal, V. 2004. The Universal Force of Free Choice Any", Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4, 5-40 Duffley, Patrick J. and Pierre Larivee. 2010. Anyone for non-scalarity?. English Language and Linguistics, 14, 1-17.
34 Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. Linking sensitivity to limited distribution: the case of free choice. In P. Dekker et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. 139-145. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. John Benjamins. Amsterdam. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367- 421. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659-735. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of even. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1), 39–81. Giannakidou, Anastasia. In press. Negative polarity and positive polarity: licensing, variation, and compostionality. In von Heusinger, Maienborn, and Portner (ed.), The Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (second edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Lisa Cheng. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh- morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23:135-183. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Josep Quer. 2011. Against universal free choice: free choice and referential vagueness in Greek, Spanish, and Catalan. Ms. Giannakidou, Anastasia and Suwon Yoon. To appear. Referential vagueness and negative polarity: evidence from Greek and Korean. Proceedings of the 47th Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 47). University of Chicago. Gill, Kook-Hee, Steve Harlow, and George Tsoulas. 2004. Connectives, Indeterminates, and Quantificational Variability. In O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 5, 75-88. Han, C.-H.: 1998, The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford University Press,
35 Horn, Laurence R. 2000a. Any and (–)ever: Free choice and free relatives. In: A. Z. Wyner (ed.). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (= IATL) 15. Jerusalem: Akademon, 71–111. Horn, Laurence R. 2000b. Pick a theory: Not just any theory. In: L. Horn & Y. Kato (eds.). Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives. Oxford. 147–192. Horn, Laurence R. 2005. Airport ‘86 revisited: Toward a unified indefinite any. In: G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.). The Partee Effect. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 179–205. Israel, Michael 2004. The pragmatics of polarity. In: L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 701–723. Kim, Minjoo and Stefan Kaufmann. 2006. Domain Restriction in Freedom of Choice: A View from Korean Indet-Na Items. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 11, 375-389. Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate Phrases: the View from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1-25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Indefinites and the Operators they Depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In G. N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (eds.): Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford (CSLI Publications). 113- 142. Lee, Chungmin. 2003. Negative Polarity Items and Free Choice in Korean and Japanese: A Contrastive Study in Icwung enehak (Bilingualism) 22. Korean Society of Bilingualism. Lee Chungmin, Daeho Chung and Seungho Nam. 2000. The Semantics of amwu N-to/-irato/-ina in Korean.*−Arbitrary Choice and Concession. in Language Research 38.1: 319-337. Language Education Institute, Seoul National Univ. Lee, Chungmin. 1999. Types of NPIs and Nonverdicality in Korean and Other Languages UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 3, Syntax at Sunset 2-Gianluca Storto (ed.) Lin, Jo-Wang (1998), On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:219-255.
36 Park, Eun-Hae. 2009. Wh-indeterminate, free choice, and expressive Content in Korean. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Yoon, Suwon. 2008a. No-one vs. Anyone: a morphological account of n-words. 2008. Proceedings of the Workshop in General Linguistics Vol 8. UW-Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Yoon, Suwon. 2008b. Two Types of Negative Indefinite in Korean. 2008. Inquires into Korean Linguistics III, pp. 179-192, ed. by J. Whitman, P. Lee, C. Suh, S. Cho, Y. Jung, J. Chung, J. Han, Hankook Publishing Co. Yoon, Suwon, 2010. Not in the mood: the syntax and semantics of evaluative negation. PhD thesis, U. of Chicago. Yoshimura, Keiko 2007. Focus and Polarity in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago. Yun, Jiwon. 2009. Disjunction and alternative conditionals in Korean, the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics.
37