Polarity and Focus Interpretation of Toritate Particles

Abstract

This paper argues that toritate particles mo and wa are licensed as focus by Agree with F(ocus). Since movement is not required for focus licensing, either particle can remain in its merged position. Several researches, however, have claimed that either mo or wa should undergo obligatory focus movement. Pointing out problems with their observations, I claim that obligatory movement takes place when Agree with F is otherwise blocked by an intervener. I assume that mo bears a [positive], and wa bears a [negative] polarity feature, and that Agree between F and mo/wa is blocked by an intervening polarity operator of the opposite value. It explains why mo has to move in a negative sentence, and wa in a positive sentence.

  The assumption of polarity features also explains scope interaction between toritate particles and negation (nai). Unlike previous analyses, I suggest that a focus phrase, which constitutes the final assertion of the sentence, should take the widest scope. It is therefore expected that either mo or wa takes scope over nai. The prediction apparently does not hold for wa, but the problem disappears once we take wa’s [negative] feature into consideration. What seems to be the denotation of nai is actually a realization of wa’s negative polarity meaning. Nai is contained in the assumption of the sentence, which means that wa as well as mo takes scope over nai.

  The suggested analysis also explains why the above properties of mo/wa are absent in some subordinate clauses. Those properties are assigned to a focus, but mo/wa is not licensed as focus when it fails to Agree with F.