Interactions of Negative Polarity Items in Korean - Semantic Scholar

Interactions of Negative Polarity Items in Korean Peter Sells Stanford University

1. NPIs and the Scope of Negation In Sells (2001a) I discussed some properties of Korean Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in terms of their syntax and semantics, especially with regard to examples containing more than one NPI. Kuno and Whitman (2004) pointed out some potential problems with the rather complex account that I had presented, and offered a simpler and more surface-based account aiming to cover the same territory. Inspired by their paper, in conception though not in details, I offer here a surfacebased account of NPI licensing and interpretation.∗ The paper is organized as follows. First, I briefly review evidence showing that Korean NPIs are not in the scope of negation, and in section 2 I present examples with multiple NPIs. My analysis falls into two parts – a syntactic licensing component (section 3), and a surface semantic interpretation components (section 4). Korean has three surface expressions of negation (cf. mek-ess-ta ‘ate’): (1) a.

Long-Form Negation, e.g., mek-ci anh-ass-ta ‘did not eat’.

b.

Short-Form Negation, e.g., an mek-ess-ta ‘did not eat’.

c.

Lexically negative verbs: eps-ta ‘not exist’, molu-ta ‘not know’. These block *an iss-ta (‘not exist’), *an al-ta (‘not know’); but LongForm Negation is always grammatical (e.g., iss-ci anh-ta).

Some of the Korean NPIs are given in (2): (2) a.

any-type: amwu-to ‘anyone’, amwu kes-to ‘anything’, amwu tey-to ‘anywhere’, etc.; -to means ‘even’, intuitively it is scalar and conjunctive (and leads to a kind of universal reading).

b.

even-type: hana-to ‘even one thing’, han salam-to ‘even one person’, etc.; this is also scalar.

c.

NP+pakkey ‘other than’; cf. pakk ‘outside’ + -ey (dative). With negation, this forms a construction meaning ‘only’.

any-type NPIs are formed with -to, which is conjunctive and leads to a kind of universal meaning (see (20) in section 4), while Free Choice items are formed with -(i)na (e.g., Lee (1993)), as in amwu-na, nwukwu-na (‘anyone’; nwukwu is a whindefinite). -(i)na is intuitively disjunctive (and leads to an existential meaning). (3) shows some simple examples, with the NPIs underlined. Korean NPIs are only licensed by negation, and not by other downward-entailing contexts. (3) a.

swuni-ka amwu tey-to ka-ci anh-ass-ta Sooni-NOM anywhere go-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Sooni didn’t go anywhere.’

b.

swuni-ka han mati-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta Sooni-NOM one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Sooni didn’t say even one word.’

c.

swuni-pakkey paymcange-lul mek-ci anh-ass-ta Sooni-pakkey eel-ACC eat-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Only Sooni ate eel.’

Importantly, any kind of negation from (1) can license an NPI (here, a subject): (4) a.

amwu-to ton-i eps-ta anyone money-NOM not.exist-DECL ‘No one has money.’

b.

amwu-to ku chayk-ul an ilk-ess-ta anyone that book-ACC NEG read-PAST-DECL ‘No one read that book.’

c.

amwu-to ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ass-ta anyone that book-ACC read-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘No one read that book.’

This is so, even though negation typically cannot scope over the subject (especially Short-Form and Lexical negation). For instance, (5) is not ambiguous. (5)

manhun salam-i cip-ey eps-ess-ta many people-NOM house-at NEG.be-PAST-DECL ‘Many people were not at home.’ (the only scope order is many > neg)

And note the contrast in (6), even with LFN: (6) a.

han salam-i o-ci anh-ass-ta one person-NOM come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘One person did not come.’ (one > neg)

b.

han salam-to o-ci anh-ass-ta one person-FOC come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not (even) one person came.’ (‘No one came.’)

While the data in (4) was originally taken to show that Korean NPIs are licensed in any position due to a relatively high position for NegP (see e.g., Ahn and Yoon (1989)), a much more reasonable approach is that Korean NPIs are not in the scope of negation (or at least, that they need not be in that scope). This is the view of Chung and Park (1998), Lee (1996, 2001), Kim (2002), Han et al. (2005), Sells (2001a), among others. I argue here that the NPIs are never in the scope of negation, and the facts in (7) are consistent with this. One piece of evidence is that NPIs are typically not good in examples such as (7), with the focus marker -nun on V (see Sells (2001a), Kim (2002)): (7) a. b.

*han salam-to o-ci-nun anh-ass-ta one person-even come-COMP-FOC NEG-PAST-DECL anh-ass-ta *amwu-to o-ci-nun anyone come-COMP-FOC NEG-PAST-DECL

Here it is plausible that the NPI should be in the scope of negation, but the examples are bad. Shifting the prosodic focus to the verb improves things (cf. (8)d). The interpretations of (8)a (from Sohn (1995, 24)) seem to show that negation targets Focus, but scopes below the NPI (see also Lee (2002, 493)): (8) a. b. c. d.

[John-i] amwu kes-to [ecey] [sa]-ci-nun anh-ass-ta John-NOM anything yesterday buy-COMP-FOC NEG-PAST-DECL Stress on John: unacceptable. Stress on ecey: ‘Whatever it was, it was [not yesterday] that John bought it.’ Stress on sa-ci: ‘Whatever it was, it was [not buying] it that John did yesterday.’

The fact that negation associates with the (real) Focus is also problematic for Watanabe’s (2004) approach in which negation is supposed to check an uninterpretable focus feature on the NPI itself. In his account (of Japanese), negation loses its semantic force in the checking process, and the NPIs are themselves semantically negative. I argue here for almost the opposite conclusion: the negation expressed by a form in (1) is the real negation, the NPIs are not negative quantifiers, and they are not in the (semantic) scope of negation. The analysis below is successful precisely because the NPIs are outside the scope of negation. This means that basic NPIs are interpreted as universals, not as existentials. Some extra evidence for this is the possibility to cooccur with ‘almost’, a diagnostic for a universal (see Carlson (1980); for Korean, Chung and Park (1998) and Lee (1996, 2001)):

(9) a. b.

*John did not meet almost anyone. John-un keuy amwu-to manna-ci anh-ass-ta John-TOP almost anyone meet-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘John met almost no one.’

2. Multiple NPIs In English, there is no restriction on the number of any-type NPIs in a given clause: (10)

Max did not say anything to anyone, at any time.

In Korean, multiple NPIs are possible, but not always straightforwardly so. Two amwu-NPs have been considered to be fine (though Nam (1994) and Chung and Park (1998) do not accept all such examples). (11) a.

b.

amwu-to amwu kes-to mek-ci anh-ass-ta anyone anything eat-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘No one ate anything.’ (acceptable to almost all speakers) John-i amwu-eykey-to amwu kes-to an cwu-ess-ta John-NOM to.anyone anything NEG give-PAST-DECL ‘John didn’t give anything to anyone.’ (acceptable to almost all speakers)

Two han-NP type NPIs are also acceptable (noted by Kuno and Whitman (2004)), though slightly less generally: (12) a.

b.

han salam-to han mati-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person said even one word.’ (acceptable only to some speakers) han phwun-to nay-ci anh-ass-ta han salam-to one person-even one cent-even give-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person gave even one cent.’ (acceptable only to some speakers)

In Sells (2001a) I presented a rather complex account of the interactions of negation scope, the licensing of NPIs, and multiple NPIs. Kuno and Whitman (2004) have suggested a simpler system operating left-right through the clause: (13)

Kuno and Whitman (2004) a.

Negation licenses (only) the leftmost NPI in an clause.

b.

An NPI that is licensed can license an NPI to its right unless the latter is stronger on the scale: -pakkey > han N-to > amwu N-to.

I have three observations about this proposal. First, what kind of licensing does (13)a refer to? This is a potentially difficult issue, as the NPI is not in the scope of negation. Second, how can a licenser license only the leftmost NPI (and not the others)? Note that if an NPI was in the scope of negation, any NPI to its right would be as well. Third, ‘strength’ may not be the right notion (see (14)– (15)), but why then is there an asymmetry in the relative order of the NPIs of the kind observed by Kuno and Whitman (2004)? My account addresses these issues: there is a separate notion of syntactic licensing, and in the semantic component, NPIs are licensed by the relative linear position of constituents, but in fact this effectively works from right to left, due to the clause-final position of negation giving it very low scope, as described in section 4.2. In contrast to (11)–(12), mixing the types of NPI leads to unexpected results. Kuno and Whitman (2004) claim that only the order han-NP > amwu-NP is acceptable, motivating their proposal above. However, I have been unable to verify their factual claims, and in fact have found quite the opposite: speakers only accept the order amwu-NP > han-NP, quite consistently. (14) a.

amwu-to han phwun-to nay-ci anh-ass-ta anyone one cent-even give-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Noone gave even one cent.’

b. ??han salam-to amwu kes-to nay-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even anything give-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person gave anything.’ ha-ci anh-ass-ta amwu-to han mati-to anyone one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Noone said even one word.’ b. ??han salam-to amwu mal-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even any word-FOC do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person said any word.’

(15) a.

My account below is based on accounting for the asymmetry seen in these examples involving the any-type and even-type NPIs. Once that is in place, I add NP-pakkey to the account.

3. Syntactic Licensing I have argued in previous work that Korean needs a notion of ‘negative clause’ which is independent of scope of negation (Sells (2001a, 2001b)). This is necessary as the NPIs in (4), repeated here, are licensed only in negative clauses, even though negation does not scope over the surface position of the NPI (and even on a transformational approach, maybe not over the base position of the NPI – e.g., in (4)a); the licensing condition is given in (16).

(4) a.

amwu-to ton-i eps-ta anyone money-NOM not.exist-DECL ‘No one has money.’

b.

amwu-to ku chayk-ul an ilk-ess-ta anyone that book-ACC NEG read-PAST-DECL ‘No one read that book.’

c.

amwu-to ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ass-ta anyone that book-ACC read-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘No one read that book.’

(16)

Syntactic Licensing: Each amwu-NP and han-NP must be licensed by the syntactic clausal feature [NEG +]; otherwise the structure is ungrammatical.

There is a very general point that this illustrates about the architecture of the grammar: there is a distinction between the information that is associated with a constituent and the structure of that constituent. For instance, a clause may be [NEG +] without there being (i) any specific position or form which expresses negation (as long as there is some negative form somewhere; cf. Ladusaw (1992)), or (ii) a designated position where negation scopes semantically (e.g., NegP). Models of syntax, such as the Minimalist Program, which do not express correspondences between monotonic structures have a ‘design flaw’ in that a structure cannot have a property unless that property has scope. The classical ‘clause-mate’ constraint in (16) is straightforwardly stateable in LFG or HPSG – see e.g., Sells (2000) on Swedish, crucially involving a clausal [NEG +] specification – but apparently impossible to state in the Minimalist Program; in this derivational approach, the only way in which negation can syntactically license the NPIs is to c-command them, in which case they are, incorrectly, in the scope of negation. The recent proposal of Watanabe (2004) for NPI licensing treats each NPI as semantically negative itself, yet nevertheless in his account, Neg c-commands each NPI; after Agree, Neg loses its semantic negative force. If an NPI in Korean has to be licensed according to (16), the prediction is that the NPI cannot be embedded – it needs ‘clause-mate’ negation – in contrast to English, where the NPI only needs to be in the semantic scope of negation. In Korean, the phrases which are directly arguments and adjuncts of the predicate are the only phrases licensed by [NEG +].1 The a examples below are ungrammatical, though their literal English translations are not: (17) a.

*[[amwu-to]NPI-uy phyenci-lul] pat-ci anh-ass-ta [[anyone]NPI-GEN letter-ACC] receive-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘I did not receive anyone’s letters./I received no one’s letters.’

b.

(18) a.

b.

[amwu-uy phyenci-to]NPI pat-ci anh-ass-ta [anyone-GEN letter-FOC]NPI receive-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL *[[amwu kes-ey-to]NPI kwanhan sayngkak-i] eps-e-yo [[anything]NPI concerning idea-NOM] not.exist-DECL-LEVEL ‘I don’t have an idea about anything.’ [amwu kes-ey kwanhan sayngkak-to]NPI eps-e-yo [anything-DAT concerning idea-FOC]NPI not.exist-DECL-LEVEL

In Korean, the syntactic licensing condition means that an embedded NPI is ungrammatical, though the b examples, in which the entire containing NP is made into an NPI, are correctly predicted to be acceptable.

4. Interpretations 4.1. The ‘any’ and ‘even’ types The interpretation of any in English is subject to WIDENING: Kadmon and Landman (1993) proposed that free choice and negative polarity items involve ‘domain widening’. Interpreted on scales, this means going from a domain containing the most likely elements to a wider domain with less likely elements in it as well. For NPIs, the additional notion of STRENGTHENING has been proposed: in particular, Chierchia (2004) argues that any-type NPs are licensed as NPIs only when widening leads to a stronger claim. If the any-type phrase is interpreted as an existential, the only way to get a stronger interpretation is for the any-type phrase to be in the scope of negation – in other words, this approach is intended to predict why ‘negative’ is a component of ‘negative polarity item’. Roughly speaking, Chierchia’s theory has existential closure over the semantic form and compares it to a form with universal closure over domain expansions. The semantic form for (19)a is given in b, with the strengthening form in c: (19) a. b. c.

It is not the case that anyone came. ¬[someD (x) ∧ person(x) ∧ come(x)] ∀g ∈ ∆¬[someg(D) (x) ∧ person(x) ∧ come(x)]

The point of (19)c is that failure to find a suitable x in D0 is more informative than failure to find a suitable x in D, where D0 ⊃ D. This is STRENGTHENING. Domain-widening for a positive existential does not lead to a stronger claim, but domain-widening for an existential in the scope of negation does. Now Korean NPIs are interpreted as universals, and are not in scope of negation. Widening a universal always gives a stronger interpretation, so ‘strengthening’ does not predict the correlation with negation; in turn, negation must be

present due to a formal syntactic licensing reason (see (16)). The necessary semantic operation is ‘conjunctive widening’, proposed by Lee (2001), taking advantage of the conjunctive nature of the Korean morpheme -to. Lee proposes that -to widens the domain, iterating over variables which will be assigned values within the widened domain (‘repeated variables’). The widening is shown in (20)b, for the example in (20)a, with the contribution of -to to introduce repeated variables shown in (20)c. Finally, he treats closure of this iteration at the upper limit as universal quantification over the domain, and so the meaning of the whole expression is what is given in (21). Domain widening will lead to a stronger claim, and the conjunctive meaning of -to has been translated into a universal quantification over the widened domain: (20) a.

amwu-to o-ci anh-ass-ta anyone come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL

b.

WIDENING: {person}

c.

REPEATED VARIABLES:

‘No one came.’

+

⊂ {person }

[person+ (x1 ) ∧ ¬come(x1 )] ∧ [person+ (x2 ) ∧ ¬come(x2 )] ∧ . . . ⇒ (21) (21)

∀x[person+ (x) → ¬come(x)]

Now I move to the even-type NPI, which has a concessive (scalar) interpretation (see e.g., Lahiri (1998), Lee (2002)): hence, (22) means that it is not the case that one person came, and for all N, the likelihood of N persons not coming is greater than the likelihood of one person not coming. (22)

han salam-to o-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not a single person came.’

I assume that the even part is quantificational, and scopes out above negation (following Karttunen and Peters (1979, 28ff.); see also Guerzoni (2004)), with the rest of the even-NP under the scope of negation. This gives the semantic effect ‘even the most likely thing did not happen’. Although negation does not scope over the even part, for an NPI like han salam-to as in (22), negation should scope over the predicates one and person. The scalar interpretation itself is over one, indicated by the small caps in the representation of the meaning in (23), with the contribution of the NP minus even in the inner brackets: (23)

EVEN¬[[ON E (x) ∧ person(x)] ∧ come(x)]

4.2. Surface Interpretation I propose to interpret the Korean examples directly, with negation scoping over no more than the verb that hosts it, in line with the morpho-syntax of the language. ¬ represents the ‘position’ of negation, directly interpreted from the syntax, and the dashed line represents the interpreted scope of negation, as shown in (24): ∀x[person+ (x) → ¬come(x)]

(24)

(=(21))

This is interpreted correctly, and negation never scopes wider than a quantifier which precedes/commands it (the widening quantifier in this case). Negation is ‘trapped’ in the consequent of the conditional. In (25) we see that negation can take semantic scope over the bracketed part, though it scopes just under the quantifier EVEN. Scoping negation over all 3 conjuncts is logically equivalent to scoping negation over any one of them (as there is no quantification within the bracketed part). Alternatively, we can think that the mapping from syntax to semantics allows negation to scope wider than its surface position, but not over any quantifier. EVEN[[ON E (x) ∧ person(x)] ∧ ¬come(x)]

(25)

(=(23))

The key is now that negation does not need to scope very wide at all in the interpretation of examples like (15)a. (15) a.

amwu-to han mati-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta anyone one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Noone said even one word.’

b. ??han salam-to amwu mal-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even any word-FOC do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person said any word.’ For (15)a, the representation in (26) receives a coherent interpretation. (26) a. b.

any person one word even not say (even scopes out) (= (15)a) ∀x[person+ (x) → EVEN[[ON E (y) ∧ word(y)] ∧ ¬say(x, y)]]

However, for examples like (15)b, ∀ blocks negation from scoping high enough to be just under EVEN, even if negation can scope out of the consequent: (27) a. b.

one person even any word not say (even scopes out) (= (15)b) + *EVEN[[ON E (x) ∧ person(x)] ∧ ∀y[word (y) → ¬say(x, y)]]

Intuitively, it is the NPI on the right which blocks the correct interpretation of the NPI on the left, and the even-type is potentially problematically quantificational. For examples with multiple NPIs of the same type, I would assume an absorption analysis for the similar quantifiers, as shown below:

(11) a.

(12) a.

(28) a. b. (29) a. b.

amwu-to amwu kes-to mek-ci anh-ass-ta anyone anything eat-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘No one ate anything.’ han salam-to han mati-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person said even one word.’ any person any thing not eat (= (11)a) + + ∀x, y[person (x) ∧ thing (y) → ¬eat(x, y)] one person even one say even not say (= (12)a) EVEN[[ON E (x) ∧ person(x)] ∧ [ON E (y) ∧ word(y)] ∧ ¬say(x, y)]

The absorption account is not strictly necessary for (28), and a representation with one conditional inside another would be interpretable, as negation scope can stay very narrow. For (29), absorption is necessary, or else the linearly second NPI would block the interpretation of the first (as in (27)).

4.3. Interpreting -pakkey NP-pakkey with negation means ‘only. Its etymology leads one to expect it to have the meaning of an ‘exceptive phrase’ (see (2)c). (30)a can be paraphrased in (30)b; a similar account is suggested in A. H.-O. Kim (1997, 328) for Korean. (30) a. b.

I read nothing except this book. ∼ ‘I read only this book.’ If you remove this book from the domain of quantification, then the generalization is that I read nothing.

In Korean, NP-pakkey and amwu-NP may co-occur, noted by A. H.-O. Kim (1997), though not all speakers accept this overt expression of the exceptive argument. (31) a.

b.

anh-ass-ta chelswu-pakkey o-ci Chelsoo-pakkey come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Only Chelsoo came.’ chelswu-pakkey amwu-to o-ci anh-ass-ta Chelsoo-pakkey anyone come-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Except Chelsoo, no one came.’ (acceptable only to some speakers)

Let us follow the analysis that this suggests. We know that amwu-NP is not in the scope of negation, so this would entail that NP-pakkey is not in the scope of negation, either. In contrast, Kim (2002) suggests that NP-pakkey is licensed by and within the scope of ‘constituent negation’, which for her is VP-level negation (in a system which distinguishes VP and vP). This seems an unworkable proposal, as NP-pakkey can be in subject position, and can be licensed by any form of negation. As with the other NPIs, there is in fact no positive evidence that NP-pakkey is in the scope of negation, semantically.

Kuno and Whitman (2004) observe the interaction of NPIs in (32): (32) a.

b.

chelswu-pakkey han mati-to ha-ci anh-ass-ta Chelsoo-pakkey one word-even do-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘No one except Chelsoo said a single word.’ (acceptable only to some speakers) *han salam-to chelswu-wa-pakkey manna-ci anh-ass-ta one person-even Chelsoo-with-pakkey meet-COMP NEG-PAST-DECL ‘Not one person met anyone except Chelsoo.’

Above, we saw that in the interpretation, negation scopes just under the han-NP. From this, the unacceptability of (32)b is easily understood – the interpretation of the han-NP would put the NP-pakkey in the scope of negation, but this contradicts the proposal that NP-pakkey is not in the scope of negation. Like the other NPIs, though, NP-pakkey has to be licensed in a [NEG +] clause.2 (32)a can be successfully interpreted with negation scoping low, just under the han-NP. The meaning representation for (31)a is shown in (33). Chelsoo is removed from the domain of persons, and the resulting domain D0 is the domain of universal quantification. Where D0 = Dperson − {Chelsoo}, ∀x[x ∈ D0 → ¬come(x)]

(33)

One unformalized step here is the calculation that Chelsoo is a person, for the selection of D. This may be a pragmatic property (perhaps a presupposition), and D may be salient in the context.3

5. Conclusion In conclusion, I have argued for the following: (34) a.

Korean NPIs are not licensed by (being in) the scope of negation. Rather, they are licensed by being in a clause specified as [NEG +].

b.

The relative scope of quantifiers and negation corresponds closely to surface order, with negation low, as suggested by the morpho-syntax.

c.

The interactions of multiple NPIs follow directly from the proposed surface-based interpretation.

In general, there is a mismatch between the syntactic domain of [NEG +], which is the clause, and the semantic scope of negation, which tends to be smaller than the clause. Long-Form Negation is more flexible, in potentially allowing wide scope (see Kim (2002), Han et al. (2005), Sells (2001a), among others).

In the wider typology of NPIs, strengthening is a property which has to be guaranteed by the system – in order to provide the pragmatic informativity which seems to be at the basis of uses of NPIs. In languages where NPIs are existentials in the scope of negation, the semantics alone will guarantee this (as in the system developed by Chierchia (2004)). In languages where NPIs are outside of the scope of negation, a syntactic licensing condition is also necessary. We might expect that languages with the syntactic licensing mechanism restrict the licensers of NPIs to morpho-syntactically identifiable categories, such as negative elements, while languages where all licensing takes place in the semantics will allow a wider range of licensers, such as any downward entailing operator.

Notes *My thanks to Jong-Bok Kim and Heejeong Ko for help with the examples in this paper, and to Shin-Sook Kim for much discussion of the examples and their interpretations. Cleo Condoravdi and especially David Beaver provided useful advice regarding the proposed semantics for Korean NPIs. 1 Lee (1996) proposes that an NPI is a functor which takes a negative predicate as its argument, simplifying his proposal a little. 2 Korean also expresses ‘only’ with the particle -man, which attaches to the XP which is the focus of ‘only’. Hence an alternative for (31)b would be chelswuman o-ass-ta. Native speakers have the intuition that such an example lacks the negative character of (31)b, suggesting that negation is not simply a purely formal licensing device for NP-pakkey, but that NP-pakkey clauses are internally semantically negative, as (30)b suggests. 3 David Beaver suggested to me the potentially similar property of only. In the discourse Three students ate fish. Only Chelsoo enjoyed it., we must ‘accommodate’ the fact that Chelsoo is a student.

References Ahn, Hee-Don, and Hang-Jin Yoon. 1989. Functional categories in Korean. In S. Kuno et al. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 3. Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, 79–88. Carlson, Greg N. 1980. Polarity any is existential. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 799–804. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structure and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 39–103.

Chung, Daeho, and Hong-Keun Park. 1998. NPIs outside of negation scope. In Ho-Min Sohn and John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 6. Stanford, CSLI Publications, 415–435. Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in Yes/No questions. Natural Language Semantics 12, 319–343. Han, Chung-hye, Jeffrey Lidz, and Julien Musolino. 2005. Verb-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Ms., Simon Fraser University, Northwestern University, and Indiana University. Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353–422. Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In ChoonKyu Oh and David A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition. New York, Academic Press, 1–56. Kim, Ae-Ryung. 2002. Two positions of Korean negation. In Noriko Akatsuka and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10. Stanford, CSLI Publications, 587–600. Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak. 1997. The NPI pakkey and universal quantifier negation in Korean. In S. Kuno et al. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 7. Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, 323–337. Kuno, Susumu, and John Whitman. 2004. Licensing of multiple negative polarity items. In Young-Key Kim-Renaud and John Whitman (eds.), Studies in Korean Syntax and Semantics by Susumu Kuno. Seoul, International Circle of Korean Linguistics, 207–228. Ladusaw, William. 1992. Expressing negation. In Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Columbus, Dept. of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 237– 259. Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6, 57–123. Lee, Chungmin. 2002. Negative polarity in Korean and Japanese. In Noriko Akatsuka and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10. Stanford, CSLI Publications, 481–494. Lee, Hyunoo. 1996. Two types of polarity sensitive (PS) “ANY”. Language Research 32, 237–266.

Lee, Hyunoo. 2001. The morphology-based semantics of “Any” in English and Korean. Enehak 31, 127–158. Lee, Young-Suk. 1993. Licensing and semantics of any revisited. In S. Kuno et al. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 5. Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, 577–592. Nam, Seungho. 1994. Another type of negative polarity item. In Makoto Kanazawa and Christopher Pi˜no´ n (eds.), Dynamics, Polarity, and Quantification. Stanford, CSLI Publications, 3–15. Sells, Peter. 2000. Negation in Swedish: Where it’s not at. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Online Proceedings of the LFG-00 Conference, Stanford. CSLI Publications. (At http:// csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/5/lfg00.html). Sells, Peter. 2001a. Negative polarity licensing and interpretation. In S. Kuno et al. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, Vol. 9. Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, 3–22. Sells, Peter. 2001b. Three aspects of negation in Korean. Journal of Linguistic Studies 6, Jeju Linguistics Circle, 1–15. Sohn, Keun-Won. 1995. Negative Polarity Items, Scope, and Economy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 559–612.