(1) A. Tom Does Not Lift a Finger. / B. #Tom Lifts a Finger

[Neg-sensitive Numeral 1 and Numeral 1-mo The title is not very uninformative and not 'catchy'. You should think about a better title, which would be more informative of the content of the abstract.] abstract v.5 Kiyoko Kataoka 6/18/07

Background: [(A) The negation-sensitive item in (0), which isso called negative polarity item (NPI), gives an interpretation in (0): universal negation AND the implication in (2b), i.e., the 'scale' interpretation in the terms of Fauconnier (1975)]. [(B) Japanese expression Noun+Numeral 1+classifier (henceforth, N+1-[CLS => CL (because I think "CL" (rather than "CLS") is used as an abbreviation of "classifier". Well, I would actually go with "N+one+CL" because "one" is easier to read than "1.") gives rise to the same reading: universal negation AND the implication, when it is combined with sentential negation (Neg) as in (0).] Try to combine A and B, making the latter the main clause and the former the subordinate to the latter.

(0) a. Tom does not lift a finger. / b. #Tom lifts a finger. (0) a. Tom tries nothing. / Tom does not try anything. b. Implication: Tom does not do any of all things including from the smallest to the biggest. (0) Taro-wa yubi-i-ppon ugokas-anai./ *ugokasu. Taro-TOP finger-1-CLS move-Neg / move 'Taro does nothing.'

[Another Japanese expression (as in (0)), Noun-Case-marker+Numeral 1+classifier+suffix-mo (henceforth, N-CM+1-CLS-mo), induces universal negation as in (0) combined with Neg, but with its N-CM being only as the restriction, never giving rise to the implication involving a scale like (0), though it differs only in -CM and -mo.  This sentence should be more like the following:

There is also an expression minimally different from N+one+CL, as illustrated in (0); see (xx) for the crucial difference.

(0) Taro-wa yubi-o i-ppon-mo ugokas-anai /*ugokasu. Taro-TOP finger-ACC 1-CLS-mo move-Neg / *move (0) For all x, if x is a finger, then Taro does not move any x.

(xx) a. N+one+CL: Noun one classifier b. N-CM+one-CL-mo: Noun + case marker +one classifier +mo Since they (xx-a) and (xx-b) both require Neg, they have both been generally treated (e.g., Kato 1985) as NPIs and assumed to be c-commanded by Neg at LF (e.g., Kato 1985) falling under the general condition on NPIs by Klima 1964 (that it be c-commanded by Neg at LF).

I think you should provide more 'background' and tell the readers/reviewers what issues you will be addressing. If you did that, your main point(s) will be appreciated more directly. In a way, the effectiveness and the strength of the abstract will largely depend upon what issues you are addressing here. Since (xx-a) and (xx-b) look very much alike, you may want to say that one of the empirical contributions of this paper is to demonstrate that they have very distinct formal properties. If that conclusion goes against something that has been said, adopted, used in the literature in a crucial way in relation to something, you could mention that as part of the background. . Main Claim: In this work, I show that (i) N+1-CLS must be c-commanded by Neg at LF but that (ii) N-CM+1-CLS-mo MUST C-COMMAND Neg at LF. I think you should mention here the other main points of the paper. (I understand that the above is the main point.) E.g., (i) not all Neg-sensitive elements must be c-commanded by Neg, providing support for the claim made in Kataoka 200x, and (ii) what is responsible for universal negation with (xx-b) is the universal force of (xx-b) (<= I wonder if you can specify this further, by saying something like the universal force of "mo") rather than the existential force (in the Neg-scope) of (xx-b), contrary to what is typically assumed.

Arguments: I think it is more important to work on the preceding sections, unless you feel that the content of the preceding sections depends upon how the arguments might go and how strong they might be. May I suggest that you work on what I have suggested above that you do?

, and maintain that universal negation with the latter is due to its universal force rather than its existential force (in the Neg-scope), contrary to what is typically assumed for. The argument comes from their interactions with XP-sika 'all but XP', another Neg-sensitive element in Japanese. In Japanese, the scope relation between Neg and a QP in a clause is ambiguous, as in (0) (Kuno 1980 and others). However the presence of XP-sika makes the ambiguity disappear, as in (0.

(0) a. [gonin-izyoo-no gakusee]QP1-ga sono-hon-o yom-anai (koto) five:or:more-GEN student-NOM that-book-ACC read-Neg (Comp) ok QP1>Neg, ok Neg>QP1 (i) QP1>Neg: There are more than five students who did not read the book. (ii) Neg>QP1: There are not more than five students who read that book.

b. sono-gakusee-ga [gosatu-izyoo-no hon]QP2-o yom-anai (koto) that-studnet-NOM five:or:more-GEN book-ACC read-Neg (Comp) ok QP2>Neg, ok Neg>QP2 (i) QP2>Neg: There are more than five books which the student did not read. (ii) Neg>QP2: There are not more than five books which the student read.

(0) a. [gonin-izyoo-no gakusee]QP1-ga sono-hon-sika yom-anai (koto) five:or:more-GEN student-NOM that-book-all:but read-Neg (Comp) 'There are five or more students who do not read any book but that book.' ok QP1>Neg, *Neg>QP1

b. [sono-gakusee-sika]subj [gosatu-izyoo-no hon]QP2-o yom-anai (koto) that- student-al:but five:or:more-GEN -book-ACC read-Neg (Comp) 'All but that student do not read five or more books.' *QP2>Neg, ok Neg>QP2

Given that the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object in Japanese 'non-scrambling' sentences (Hoji 1985, 2003), the example (7a,b) shows that a QP cannot be in the Neg-scope if QP>>XP-sika (where A>>B means A c-commands B) obtains, while a QP cannot take scope over Neg if XP-sika>>QP obtains. Assuming that the scope of α is its c-command domain at LF (Reinhart 1983), the observation shows that a QP in the case of QP>>XP-sika cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg (henceforth, Neg-domain) at LF, while a QP in the case of XP-sika>>QP cannot be outside it. We also assume that Neg occupies the sister position of VP at LF and that XP-sika as well as QP undergo QR (May 1985) observing the Scope Rigidity Principle (SRP), which prohibits the c- command relation between the maximal projections XP1 and XP2 from being altered by any LF movement (Huang 1982, Hoji 1985). The observation leads us to conclude that XP-sika must c- command and be close enough to Neg at LF such as Spec-head relation, playing a role of 'marking' the Neg-domain at LF. We also assume that both N+1-CLS and N-CM+1-CLS-mo undergo QR. When they co-occur with an XP-sika in a clause, their c-command relations never change at LF due to SRP. Since XP-sika marks the Neg-domain at LF, N+1-CLS would be outside the Neg-domain at LF when N+1- CLS>>XP-sika obtains, while N-CM+1-CLS-mo could not c-command Neg at LF when XP-sika>>N- CM+1-CLS-mo obtains. Given all, our proposals (i) and (ii) give us the following consequences: neither the relation N+1-CLS>>XP-sika nor XP-sika>>N-CM+1-CLS-mo is possible, while N- CM+1-CLS-mo>>XP-sika and XP-sika>>N+1-CLS are possible. It is impossible as predicted that N+1-CLS would be the subject with XP-sika as its object and that N-CM+1-CLS-mo would be the object with XP-sika as its subject as in (8a) and (9b), while (8b) and (9a) are acceptable as expected.

(0) a. *[Gakusee-hitori] manga-sika yom-anai. student-1-CLS comics-all:but read-Neg b. [Gakusee-ga hitori-mo] manga-sika yom-anai. student-NOM-1-CLS-mo comics-all:but read-Neg 'All students are such that he reads nothing but comics.' (0) a. Hanako-sika sinbun-hitotu yom-anai (koto) Hanako-all:but newspaper-1-CLS read-Neg (Comp) 'All people but Hanako do not read even a newspaper or anything to read.' b. *Hanako-sika sinbun-o-hitotu-mo yom-anai (koto) Hanako-all:but newspaper-ACC-1-CLS-MO read-Neg (Comp)

According to Fauconnier (1975) and Ladusaw (1979), NPIs are items which indicate the lowest point on a pragmatic scale (polar). See (1). If a proposition (Taro doesn't do x.) holds at a point on the relevant scale, it holds at a higher point for pragmatic reasons, thus it holds at all the points if it holds at the lowest, leading to universal reading such as (2b), and for that reason of scale interpretation, NPIs must be in the scope of negation. I argue that N+1-CLS, which must be c- commanded by Neg at LF inducing the scale interpretation ((3)), should be regarded as 'pure NPI' in that original sense, but not N-CM+1-CLS-mo, which must c-command Neg at LF never allowing the scale interpretation ((4)). Their difference is also observed in parallel in the availability/possibility of numeral floating, a pause in their accent patterns, and ellipsis, all suggesting their distinct constituency (see (3), (4), (10) and (11)). In N+1-CLS, Numeral cannot be floated, a pause cannot be inserted before the Numeral, its N cannot be deleted though any noun can be its N if the pragmatics allows it. In N-CM+1-CLS-mo, on the other hand, Numeral can be floated, a pause can be inserted before the Numeral, its N-CM can be deleted given the context. They suggest that N+1-CLS has a stronger constituency than N-CM+1- CLS-mo. This work will influence the locality issue between N-CM and Numeral, which has long been discussed in the Japanese literature (xxxx).

(0) a. * i-ppon Taro-ga yubi ugokas-anai (koto) (Cf. (3)) 1-CLS Taro-NOM finger move-Neg (Comp) b. i-ppon-mo Taro-ga yubi-o ugokas-anai (koto) (Cf. (4)) 1-CLS-mo Taro-NOM finger-ACC move-Neg (Comp) (0) a. Taro-wa *(yubi)-i-ppon ugokas-anai. Taro-TOP finger-1-CLS move-Neg b. Taro-wa (yubi-o) i-ppon-mo ugokas-anai. Taro-TOP finger-ACC 1-CLS-mo move-Neg

I would like to suggest that the suffix -mo in N-CM+1-CLS-mo plays a role to induce a universal force. Without -mo (see (12)), N-CM+1-CLS can never be interpreted in the Neg-scope to give rise to universal negation, which contrasts with other QPs (see (6)).

(0) Taro-ga yubi-o-i-ppon ugokas-anai (koto) Taro-TOP finger-ACC-1-CLS-mo move-Neg (Comp) 'There is one finger that Taro does not move.' one>Neg, *Neg>one

[ The conclusion provides further support for the claim made in Kataoka 2006 that the Neg-c- command condition at LF is not a general condition on all the Neg-sensitive elements (Sells 2006).. <= If you mention this in the section on the "main claims," you don't need it here.]

Selected references Fauconnier (1975) Kato 1985 Klima 1964 Ladusaw (1979) Sells