Modal Affective Demonstratives in Japanese

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
speakers 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 cant 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 cant 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
speakers memory. As for the modal affective, kono specifies that the target is in the
speakers 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 sore that one are that one
koitsu this guy soistu that guy aitsu that guy
non-infl. adj. Adnominal kono this (NP) sono that (NP) ano that (NP)
non-infl. adj. Adjectival konna sonna anna
this kind of that kind of that kind of
(NP) (NP) (NP)
Adverb Adverbial konnani such a sonnani annani
k in this s in that in that
manner manner manner
Pronoun Local koko here soko there asoko there
Pronoun Directional kochira, kotchi sochira, sotchi achira, atchi
this direction that direction 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
Lets talk about a story.
Shujinkoo-wa isha-ni shi-mas-yoo.
Main character-TOP doctor-as do-PRED.POLITE
Lets 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 speakers 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 speakers 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 speakers 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 theres 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. Hows 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 hearers
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 Lakoffs 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 dont want to eat this kind of food.
In (18), we see the speakers 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 Horns
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 speakers 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.
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 speakers
memory.
b. The modal affective kono deictically specifies that the target is in the speakers
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 speakers episodic memory.
However, if we interpret the first person and second person in accordance with the
speakers 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 speakers personal space. However, if we posit a
context whereby the third person (here Taro) or the second person is in the speakers
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 speakers 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 cant 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.
(29) Iya sonnna hazu-wa-nai!

No that must-TOP-NEG
No that cant 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)

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 cant believe it.)
(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 dont 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 Lennons 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 speakers recognition (similar to the recognitional ano). The famous
ano refers to an entity in the speakers 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 speakers
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 speakers 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 speakers 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 speakers 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 dont 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 speakers 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]] = xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc
(where x is in the speakers memory)
b. [[ kono MOD.AFF]] = xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc
(where x is in the speakers personal space (utterance location))
c. [[ sono MOD.AFF]] = xP. 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 cant believe it.)

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) Its just not true that Sheilas damn dog is on the couch!
(Potts 2005: 159)
As Potts says, (56) cannot be read as negating the speakers disapprobation of Sheilas
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 isnt 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

: a

() : c
: <a, c> : a
(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 that is of type <a, c> takes a
of type a and returns a conventional implicature c. The important point is that this rule
is resource insensitive. is saturated by , 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 = X. bad(X): <<a, 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>> =
xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!! STANDc
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>>

xt.lose(x)(t)
P. unlikely(P(Taro))>!STAND: <<ea, <ia, ta>>, tc>
ano Taro-ga: ea
xP. 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
p. unlikely(p)>!STAND: <ta,tc> lose(Taro)(PAST): ta
t. lose(Taro)(t): <ia, ta> ta: PAST
make: <ea,<ia, ta>>

Taro-ga: e a
xt. 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
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>>
xP. P(x)xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STANDc
b. [[ kono MOD.AFF]] = <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>
(where x is in the speakers personal space (utterance location))
c. [[ sono MOD.AFF]] = <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>> <ea, <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>>
(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

()(): a s
: <a, a> <a, s> : a
(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)

(): s
: <a, s> : a
Unlike in Potts CI function application, the at-issue element is shunted. The same
resource sensitivity is observed in mixed application in (66). In the mixed application,
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 : a ts as follows:

: a

: 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 cant believe it.)

(70) The logical structure of (69)

lose(Taro)(PAST): ta
t.lose(Taro)(t): <ia, ta> ta: PAST

unlikely(t.lose(Taro)(t)) >!!STAND : ts
P.P(Taro)P. unlikely(P(Taro))>!!STAND make: <ea,<ia, ta>>

<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts> xt.lose(x)(t)
ano Taro-ga: ea
xP.P(x)xP. 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 speakers 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 Links
operator, which joins Taro and Hanako together to denote the plural individual (i.e.,
TaroHanako). 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
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
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]] = xP. P(x)xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND

b. [[anoOBJ]] = xP. P(x)xPy.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!!STAND

(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
t. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t): <ia, ta>

unlikely(t. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t)) >!!STAND: ts
yt. beat(y)(Ziro)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>>
Ziro-o Ziro-ACC: ea yabu beat: <ea,<ea, <ia, ta>>>

xyt. beat(y)(x)(t)
P.P(Taro)P.unlikely(P(Taro)) >!!STAND
<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts>
Ano that Taro-ga Taro-NOM: ea

xP. P(x)xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND
29
(79) The logical structure of (73b)
beat(Taro)(Ziro)(PAST): ta
ta PAST: ia
t. beat(Taro)(Ziro)(t): <i , t >
a a
yt. beat(y)(Ziro)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>>

y.unlikely(t.beat(y)(Ziro)(t)) >!!STAND: ts
Taro-ga: ea
Taro-NOM
P.P(Ziro) Py.unlikely(P(Ziro)(y)) >!!STAND yabu beat: <ea,<ea, <ia, ta>>>

: <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ts> xyt.beat(y)(x)(t)
ano that Ziro-o Ziro-ACC: ea

xP. P(x)xPy.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!!STAND
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
t. lift-up(Mainoumi)(Konishiki)(t): <i , t >
a a

unlikely(t. lift-up(Mainoumi)(Konishiki)(t)) >!!STAND: ts
yt. lift-up(y)(Konishiki)(t): <ea, <ia, ta>>

x. unlikely(t. lift-up(x)(Konishiki)(t)>!!STAND: ts
P.P(Konishiki) mochiage lift up

Px. unlikely(P(Kinishiki)(x)>!!STAND xyt. lift-up(y)(x)(t)
P.P(Mainoumi) ano Konishiki-o

P.unlikely(P(Mainoumi)) >!!STAND that Konishiki-ACC
<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta> <<ea, <ia, ta>>, > xP. P(x)
xPy.unlikely(P(x)(y)) >!STAND
a
Ano that Mainoumi-ga Mainoumi-NOM: e
xP. P(x)xP. unlikely(P(x)) >!!STAND
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.

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

= PD<ea, <ia, ta>>. P(Taro)
(85) [[ ano MOD.AFF]] : <<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>, <<ea, <ia,ta>>, tc>> (alternative view)
= P<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>Q<ea, <ia, ta>>. unlikely(P(Q)) >!! STANDc
(P = x where x is in the speakers 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)
P<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro) : <<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>

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

: a

() : c
: <a, c> : a
(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)
??
P<ea,<ia, ta>>. P(Taro): <<ea,<ia,ta>>, ta> make lose

xt.lose(x)(t)
Q<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(Q(Taro)) >!! STAND
: <<ea,<ia,ta>>, tc>
ano Taro-ga
P<<ea, <ia, ta>>, ta>Q<ea,<ia, ta>>. unlikely(P(Q)) >!! STAND P<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 speakers memory. The modal
affective kono specifies that the target is in the speakers 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 and are at-issue types for LCI, then <, > is an at-issue type for LCI.
iv. If is an at-issue type for LCI and is a CI type for LCI, then <, > is a CI
type for LCI.
v. If and are at-issue types for LCI, then < > 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) McCreadys modified type system: L+CIS

The type system itself is identical to that of LCI, except that:
i. es, ts, ss are basic shunting types for L CI.
+S
ii. If is an at-issue type for L+CISand is a shunting type for L+CIS, then <, > is a
shunting type for L+CIS.
iii. If is a shunting type for L+CIS and is a shunting type for L+CIS, then <, > is a
shunting type for L+CIS.
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 speakers attitude toward a DP (i.e., the speakers 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 Grtner, 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 Baerle, 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 Baerle, 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: Speakers 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, 137159.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116 (464): 9831026.
38
Yoshimoto, Kei. 1986. On demonstratives ko/so/a in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 90:
48-72.
39

Modal Affective Demonstratives in Japanese

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modal Affective Demonstratives in Japanese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modal affective demonstratives in Japanese

Osamu Sawada and Jun Sawada

Mie University & Aoyama Gakuin University

[Draft: July 2014]

Key words: modal affective demonstratives, likelihood, non-at-issue meaning,

(1) Ano Federer-ga make-ta. (I cant believe it.)

(2)?? Ano Federer-ga kat-ta. (I cant believe it.)

(4) Ano Federer-{ga/*wa} make-ta.

Third, the modal affective demonstratives are sensitive to the distinction

(5) a. Ano Taro-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate)

Individual-level predicates generally express permanent properties, and stage-level

(6) a. Ano gakusei-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate)

(7) Ano {Taro /(?) watashi/(?) anata}-ga make-ta.

(8) Kono {watashi/(?) Taro/(?) anata}-ga make-ta.

(9) Sono {Taro/watashi/anata}-ga make-ta.

(10) a. What are the meaning of modal affective demonstratives?

2. Basic background on Japanese Demonstratives

2.1 Japanese Demonstratives: Spatial Use and Non-spatial Use

(11) (A speaker is looking at a book.)

Part of speech Function KO SO A

(12) Ima-kara ohanashi-o shi-masu.

(13) Senshuu Kanda-de kaji-ga ari-mashi-ta.

(14) Kobe-de tabe-ta ano nikumanjuu oishi-katta-naa.

2.2 Affective/emotive demonstratives

(17) a. Hows that throat? (Lakoff 1974: 351)

(18) Konna ryori-wa tabe-taku-nai.

3. Modal affective demonstratives: A preliminary discussion

(19) Ano Federer-ga make-ta.

(20) Ano Taro-ga yasai-o tabe-ta.

(ii) (Pointing to a bag)

3.1 Differences among modal affective demonstratives

(22) Ano {Taro/(?)watashi/(?) anata}-ga make-ta.

(23) Kono {watashi/(?) Taro/(?) anata}-ga make-ta.

(24) a. {Taro/watashi/anata}-wa totemo {tsuyoi/??yowai} senshu-da.

3.2 The semantic status of modal affective demonstratives

(27) Kono watashi-ga make-ta.

(28) Sono {Taro/watashi/anata}-ga make-ta.

(29) Iya sonnna hazu-wa-nai!

Third, unlike other kinds of demonstratives, it is odd to question a sentence with

(30) (Speaker A is pointing to a player.)

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

(32) Sono Taro-ga make-ta. (Past tense)

(34) Kono watashi-ga makeru-kamoshirenai. (Modal)

The question is what the non-at-issue meaning is theoretically. We used the

(35) Lance Armstrong survived cancer.

According to Potts (2005), (35a) is infelicitous/redundant because the content of a

(36) Taro-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru.

(37) Watashi-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru.

(38) Taro-ga makeru kanousei-wa hikui-to kangae-rare-teiru.

3.3 Note on the famous ano

(40) [[Ano John Lennon]-ga sain-o kure]-ta-yo. (Modal use/famous use)

4. The semantic/grammatical environment of modal affective demonstratives

(41) Ano {Taro/??gakusei}-ga rakudai-shi-ta. (Modal use)

4.2 Grammatical marking: ga but not wa

(43) Ano Federer-{ga/*wa} make-ta.

(44) Ano gakusei-{ga/wa} make-ta. (spatial/recognitional use)

(45) a. Ano Taro-ga yo-tta. (Stage-level predicate)

(46) a. Ano Taro-ga oko-ttei-ta. (Stage-level predicate)

(47) a. Ano gakusei-ga oko-ttei-ta. (Stage level predicate)

(49) The modal affective kono

(50) The modal affective sono

5. Formal analysis of modal affective demonstratives

5.1 The unlikelihood meaning

(51) Denotations of modal affective demonstratives (not final)