A ‘Removal’ Type of Negative Predicates JIEUN JOE AND CHUNGMIN LEE Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 1. Introduction1 This paper aims to introduce a new class of negative predicates, removal predicates, which have their own syntactic and semantic behavior, and to scrutinize their lexical properties and thus broaden the research of negative predicates. Interestingly, removal predicates and their lexical antonyms, generation predicates, have opposite characteristics in syntax and semantics. In this paper, we show that there are two kinds of removal predicates according to their negative force. One type of removal predicates, such as absence of, devoid of, free from and sterile, which we call absence-state predicates, is monotone decreasing and moreover anti-additive. And the other type of removal predicates, such as disappear, turn off and destroy, which we call removal-process predicates, is weaker in negativity, failing to be monotone-decreasing, than the absence-state predicates. In Section 2, we propose the semantics of removal predicates in contrast with generation predicates. Removal predicates are universal and negative, whereas generation predicates are existential and positive. To show the universal nature of removal predicates we resort to 1We thank the NPI Project (KRF '99-'01grant) group including Daeho Chung, Seungho Nam and Ed Keenan for discussion and the audience of the 10 th J/K Conference at UCLA including Ora Matushansky for comments and questions. strong/weak readings in donkey anaphora. Our findings on the negative nature of removal predicates reveal: (a) monotone-decreasingness and anti-additivity of absence-state predicates; and (b) implicature suspension of removal-process predicates. In Section 3, we discuss the syntax of removal predicates. We deal with the cases in which any is licensed by predicates such as disappear in preverbal position. Interestingly, any is not licensed by didn’t appear, even though it seems more negative than disappear. In Section 4, we discuss morphological characteristics of removal predicates. It is demonstrated that negative morphemes such as indiscriminately in English, -peri-‘throw away; get through’ in Korean and -tesimau- ‘throw away; get through’ in Japanese further support our claim that removal predicates are negative. Throughout the paper, we use the British National Corpus (henceforth BNC) to support our claim. 2. Semantics of Removal Predicates 2.1. Two Kinds of Removal Predicates In this Section, we define a removal type of negative predicates on semantic grounds. Removal predicates are predicates whose meanings involve absence-state or removal-process. An absence-state predicate denotes a simple event and is not decomposable, whereas a removal-process predicate can be decomposed into a process subevent and a result-state subevent. In the narrow sense of the term, remove, eliminate and disappear are removal predicates, but aspectual verbs such as finish and end, though broader in scope, may be included. Removal predicates are universal and negative. The lexical antonyms of these are generation predicates, whose meanings involve presence-state or the process of some entity’s coming into being. In this paper, we divide removal predicates according to the observation (a) whether the predicate is monotone decreasing; (b) whether the predicate has implicature suspension; and (c) whether the predicate licenses any. (K stands for Korean examples and J for Japanese ones.) Observe: (1) Absence-state predicates: absence of, clear of, be devoid of, free from, be freed of, independence from, be innocent of, regardless of, (up to here from Hoeksema and Klein 1995), sterile, barren of, arid, immune (2) Removal-process predicates: a. Implicature suspension and licensing any in object/oblique position: remove, destroy, get rid of, cut off, blot out, erase, cancel, break down, annihilate, ttey-(K)/hanare-(J) 'remove', chwuisoha-(K)/torike-(J) ‘cancel’, kkunh-(K)/tewoki- ‘cut’, ‘sever’(a relationship)(J), agehana- (the head) (J) ‘cut off’ b. Implicature suspension and licensing any in subject position: disappear, vanish, perish, saraci-(K)/kie-(J)'disappear' c. Implicature suspension and licensing any in both subject and object position: end, break (middle verbs) d. Implicature suspension and not licensing free choice any except in a sugtrigging context: turn off, kku-(K)/ke-(J)'turn off', desalinize, dehydrate (we adopt a unified theory of any (Lee 1999)) In the next section, we provide the semantics of two kinds of removal predicates: absence-state predicates and removal-process predicates. 2.2. Negative Nature of Removal Predicates In this Section, we discuss negative nature of removal predicates. As mentioned in the previous section, absence-state predicates such as be devoid of, sterile and barren are monotone decreasing and antiadditive, based on Ladusaw (1996). And removal-process predicates such as disappear and turn off are neither monotone decreasing nor nonveridical in a strict sense. However, removal-process predicates are negative and thus necessarily yield implicature suspension and sometimes license any, while their antonyms, generation predicates, do not license it at all and do not yield implicature suspension. 2.2.1. Monotone Decreasingness and Anti-additivity: Absence-state predicates Absence-state predicates given in (1) in the last section, are monotone decreasing and anti-additive. Consider the definition of monotone decreasingness and anti-additivity from Ladusaw (1996): (3) a. If A and B are two Boolean algebras, the function f from A into B is polarity reversing/monotone decreasing iff any a1, a2 in A, if a1≤a2, then f(a2)≤f( a1) b. A functor f is anti-additive iff f (xy) = f (x)f(y). On this definition, absence-state predicates such as be devoid of are monotone decreasing. But removal-process predicates such as destroy and eliminate are not monotone decreasing. Compare (4) and (5): (4) |a spelling error |≤|an error| a. John’s term paper is devoid of an error. b. John’s term paper is devoid of a spelling error. (5) |a spelling error |≤|an error| a. John eliminated an error in the paper. --/--> b. John eliminated a spelling error in the paper. (4a) entails (4b), whereas (5a) does not entail (5b). That is, if John’s paper is devoid of an error, naturally it means there is no spelling error. However, if John eliminated an error, the error could be a spelling error, a citation error or another kind of error. Thus, be devoid of is monotone decreasing and eliminate is not monotone decreasing based on the definition (3). However, Hoeksema and Klein (1995:153) treat these two predicates, eliminate and be devoid of, as monotone decreasing. Their claim is based on the fact that eliminate as well as be devoid of licenses any as shown in (6). In (6a) any is licensed by be devoid of and in (6b) it is licensed by eliminate. And in (6c,d) any is licensed by destroy. Still they are not monotone-decreasing. Observe: (6) a. He was devoid of any of the normal human weaknesses such as fear or self-doubt. (from BNC) b. It is likely too that the priest tidied up and eliminated any traces there may have been distorted thinking or language, as he almost certainly corrected any theological mistakes, for his own safety. (from BNC) c. The death of Wordsworth's brother John in the spring of 1805 destroyed any remaining illusions. (from BNC) d. But the worsening weather conditions as we cycled destroyed any possibility of us seeing such stunning views. (from BNC) Even though removal-process predicates such as eliminate and destroy license any as in (6b, c, d), their negative force is weaker than monotone decreasing, as demonstrated earlier. Consider (7). (7) |a red-blocked house|≤|a house| a. John destroyed a house. b. John destroyed a red-blocked house. Example (7a) does not entail (7b). That is, in (7a) it is possible that John destroyed a white-blocked house or yellow-blocked house. Therefore, just like eliminate in (5), destroy (or even remove) is not monotone decreasing, although such verbs become more negative when they are used in their extended mental or abstract senses, as in (6d). It further shows that licensing any is not a sufficient condition but a necessary condition of monotone decreasingness. Returning to absence-state predicates, whose negative force is stronger than monotone decreasing, the level of negativity differs. As shown in (3), anti-additivity is defined as follows: (8) A functor f is anti-additive iff f (xy) = f (x)f(y). Depending on this definition, absence-state predicates such as be devoid of is anti-additive. Consider (9): (9) a. John’s term paper is devoid of a spelling error or a citation error. b. John’s term paper is devoid of a spelling error AND is devoid of citation error. Examples like (9a) and (9b) above entail one another. That is, if it is true that John’s term paper is devoid of a spelling error or a citation error, it is also true that John’s term paper is devoid of a spelling error and is devoid of a citation error, and vice versa. Therefore, absencestate predicates are monotone decreasing and anti-additive. In the next section, we show the negative force of removal-process predicates. 2.2.2. Implicature Suspension: Removal-Process Predicates Removal-process predicates given in (2) are neither monotone decreasing nor nonveridical. However, they yield implicature suspension, whereas their lexical antonyms do not have such a semantic characteristic. Observe the relevant examples on implicature suspension from Chierchia (2000): (10) a. Every student who takes a written test or makes an oral presentation will pass. b. Expectation: a student that does both passes. (suspension of exclusion implicature.) Chierchia (2000) points out that any licensing contexts as in (10a) can suspend implicature. That is, potential implicature ‘not both A and B’ is suspended as in (10b). And Horn (1989) indicates that the computation of scalar implicatures appears to be inhibited not only by negation but also generally in ‘negation like’ monotone decreasing contexts such as doubt. Our removal predicates can also suspend implicature ‘not both A and B’ and take a role as a ‘negation-like’ context, whereas generation predicates cannot suspend such an implicature. Consider the following Korean examples in (11) and Japanese examples in (12): (11) a. Haksayng-tul-un ppippi-na handphone-ul kke-t-ta. Students-PL-TOP-beepers-or cellular phones-ACC turn off-PSTDEC ‘Students turned off beepers or cellular phones.’ b. Haksayng-tul-un ppippi-na handphone-ul khy-e-tta. Students-PL-TOP-beepers-or cellular phones-ACC turn on-PST-DEC ‘Students turned on beepers or cellular phones.’ (12) a.Gakusei-tachi-wa pokeberu-ya keitaidenwa-no suichi-wo kesi-ta. Students-PL-TOP-pager-or cellular phones-POS-switch-ACC turn off-PST ‘Students turned off beepers or cellular phones.’ b.Gakusei-tachi-wa pokeberu-ya keitaidenwa-no suichi-wo ire-ta. Students-PL-TOP-pager-or cellular phones-POS-switch-ACC turn on-PST ‘Students turned on beepers or cellular phones.’ In (11a) and (12a), even if some students with both beepers and cellular phones turned off both of them, suspending the implicature 'not both,' the sentences are quite appropriate. However, in (11b) and (12b) even if some students with both beepers and cellular phones turned on only one kind of them, the sentences can be appropriate. Such an asymmetry occurs to all pairs of removal-process predicates and their lexical antonyms. The negative force of removal-process predicates is substantiated in the same line of Horn (1989), Chierchia (2000) and Chungmin Lee (2000). Consider (13), which also suspends implicature: (13) a. Recently, the measles or chicken pox disappeared from the schools. b. Recently, the measles or chicken pox appeared in the schools. In (13a), if some schools did not have measles but had chicken pox, and the other schools did not have chicken pox but had measles, the sentence is not appropriate. In the same situation, however, (13b) is. 2.2.3. (Non)veridicality: Removal-Process Predicates One of the interesting properties of removal-process predicates is that they are not nonveridical in its strict sense. In the previous section, we demonstrate that removal-process predicates are negative and suspend implicature, but are not monotone decreasing. Giannakidou (1998:116) notes that negative verbs in Greek such as arnume ‘deny’ and apagorevo ‘forbid’ are nonveridical. However, different from other negative predicates, removal-process predicates are not nonveridical. That is, if Jane denies that she saw Paul, this does not entail that she did not see Paul nor does it imply that she saw Paul, of course. Yet, in the case of removal-process predicates such as disappear and destroy, if any rumors about his past disappeared, this implies that there are no rumors about his past left. So, disappear is veridical in a sense, with no overt operator. Consider the following definition of (non)veridicality from Chungmin Lee (1999), originated from Zwarts (1995). (14) Definition Let O be a monadic sentential operator. O is said to be veridical just in case Op p is logically valid. If O is not veridical, then O is nonveridical. E.g., ‘it seems,’ ‘it is possible’, ‘Sue hopes.’ Truthfunctional connectives are likewise defined. E.g., in p and q, both the p- and q- positions are veridical; in p or q, and p if q, both the p-and q-positions are nonveridical. Based on the definition, our removal-process predicates are weakly negative but are veridical. Consider: (15) a. The death of Wordsworth's brother John in the spring of 1805 destroyed any remaining illusions. (from BNC) b. Any rumors/doubt about his past disappeared. In (15a), if it is true that the death of Wordsworth's brother John destroyed any remaining illusions, then it is implied that there were no illusions left. In (15b), if it is true that any rumors/doubt about his past disappeared, then it is also implied that there remained no rumors or doubt. 2.2.4. Licensing any in object/oblique/subject positions As shown in previous section, removal predicates are divided into two types: (a) absence-state predicates; and (b) removal-process predicates. Absence-state predicates such as be devoid of and immune license any in object/oblique/subject position as in (16)l. Consider the examples in (16) from BNC: (16) Any licensing in oblique position: Absence-state predicates a. His face was devoid of any warmth or humor. b. The rest of the room was barren of any furniture. c. A problem with making recordings direct from electronic instruments is that they are totally free from any natural reverberation. In addition, some removal-process predicates such as destroy, disappear and cut off license any in object or subject positions. In most cases, if removal-process predicates license any, it denotes an abstract or psychological stuff such as illusion and doubt, with almost monotone decreasing force. However, other removal-process predicates such as turn off do not license any (except in a subtrigging context). Removalprocess predicates such as disappear, destroy and break license any as in (17) but not their lexical antonyms, as shown in (17): (17) Any licensing in subject/object position: Removal-process predicates a. Any rumors about his past disappeared. (/*appeared.) b. I urge the Minister to drop this idea and cancel (/*make) any tenders he may have called for the construction of such a cruel detention center. (from BNC) c. The Government buys very little from South Africa and should, in fact, have ended (/*begun) any purchase from that country long ago. (from BNC) d. The death of Wordsworth's brother John in the spring of 1805 destroyed (/*built) any remaining illusions. (from BNC) However, generation predicates such as appear can license any in a subtrigging context, as in (18). In fact, almost every predicate can license any in a subtrigging context. (For a detailed discussion, see Section 3.) (18) Any student who passed the entrance exam appeared (at the party). Note that other removal-process predicates such as turn off as well as its lexical antonym turn on do not license any except in a subtrigging context, as in (19): (19) a. *Jane turned off any lamps in the building. b. *Jane turned on any lamps in the building. c. Any lamps in the building were turned off/on. Compared to absence-state predicates, removal-process predicates do not always license any. Additionally, the negative force of these removal-process predicates is weaker than absence-state predicates. In Korean as well as in Japanese, removal-process predicates such as saraci-(K)/kie-(J) ‘disappear’ do not license strong NPIs such as te isang (K)/koreijyo (J) ‘any more’, as in (20), and predicates such as phokiha-(K)/yame-(J) ‘give up’ are anti-additive and thus license the strong NPI te isang (K)/koreijyo(J) ‘any more’, as in (21) below: (20) a.* LA -ey-nun te isang kkamagui-tul-i saracie-ssta. (Korean) LA-in-TOP-any more-crow-PL-NOM-disappear-PST b.* LA-ni-wa koreijyo karasu-tachi-ga kie-tta. (Japanese) LA-in-TOP-any more-crow-PL-NOM-disappear-PST ‘ In LA any more crows disappeared.’ (21) a. Jane-un te isang nonmwun-ul sseki-rul phokihay-ssta (Korean) Jane-TOP-anymore-paper-ACC write-ACC-give up-PST b. Jane-wa koreijyo ronbun-wo kakukoto-wo yame-ta (Japanese) Jane-TOP-anymore-paper-ACC-write-ACC-give up-PST ‘Jane gave up writing paper anymore.’ Removal-process predicates in Korean license a weaker existential NPI form etten- N-i-ra-to ‘any’, as in (22): (22) a. Etten toshi-i-ra-to pakoyhay-ss-ta. (Korean) any city -be-DEC-C destroy-PST-DEC Lit. ‘(They) destroyed any city.’ b.* Etten toshi-ra-to kenselhay-ss-ta. any city -be-DEC-C destroy-PST-DEC Lit. ‘(They) constructed any city ’. Etten- N -i-ra-to (K) ‘any’ is allowed to occur with removal predicates, but is awkward with generation predicates. In a clearer piece of evidence, removal predicates, as universal ones, are not likely to be combined with contrastive topic marker (heretofore CT-marker) -nun, whereas their lexical antonyms have no such problems. Consider (23): (23) a. ?? pakoy-/cwukiki-/saraciki-NUN hay-ss-ta destroy/kill / disappear CT do-PST-DEC ‘ It (is) destroyed/killed/disappeared’ b. kenselhaki-/kwucohaki-/natanaki-NUN hay-ss-ta construct /rescue / appear CT do-PST-DEC ‘It (is) constructed/rescued/appeared’ In the next section, we show another semantic characteristics of removal predicates: universality. 2.3 Universal Nature of Removal Predicates In this section, we discuss universal nature of removal predicates as well as existential nature of generation predicates. Krifka (1996) and Yoon (1996) introduce total/partial predicates to explain preferred strong/weak readings in a donkey sentence. We replace total by universal and partial by existential to generalize the phenomena. Consider the following examples from Krifka (1996:140): (24) a. Every farmer who owned a donkey kept it healthy during the rainy season.(strong reading) b. Every farmer who owned a donkey kept it sick during the rainy season. (weak reading) In the above examples, healthy is a total predicate and sick is a partial predicate. When the given predicate is total, the sentence is true if it involves almost all donkeys. However, when the predicate is partial, it is acceptable, even when the event involves ‘some’ of the donkeys with the anaphor it. The same judgment is valid for our removal and generation predicates. Removal predicates are total and, in our terms, universal, while generation ones are partial and existential. Consider: (25) a. Every student who owned an error in his essay obliterated it. b. Every student who owned a reward added it to his resume. (26) a. Every student who owned a lamp turned it off. b. Every student who owned a lamp turned it on. As in (25a) and (26a), removal predicates such as obliterate and turn off show strong readings, while as in (25b) generation predicates such as add and turn on show weak readings. Thus, in the donkey sentence, if the main predicate is a removal predicate, the E-type pronoun it exhibits a strong reading, whereas if the main predicate is a generation predicate, the E-type pronoun it exhibits a weak reading. That is, in the situation of (25a), the sentence is expected to be true if every student obliterated any kind of errors in his paper, while in the situation of (25b) the sentence is expected to be true even if some students added only remarkable records, but not all of them. Interestingly, the following pair of aspectual predicates shares this strong/weak contrast: (27) a. Every student who owned a comic book finished (reading) it. b. Every student who owned a comic book began (to read) it. E-type pronoun it in (27a) has a strong reading as with removal predicates, whereas (27b) has a weak reading like generation predicates. Ter meulen (1995:32) tried to show that aspectual verbs such as finish and end are monotone decreasing, while the aspectual verbs such as start and begin are monotone increasing. However, in the strict sense of monotonicity, aspectual verbs such as finish and end are not monotone decreasing. Observe: (28) |a spelling test |≤|a test| a. Jane ended a test. --/--> b. Jane ended a spelling test. (28a) does not entail (28b).2 3. Syntax of Removal Predicates In this Section, we discuss the syntax of removal predicates. We analyze the cases in which any is licensed by removal predicates such as disappear in the preverbal position. Our analysis is based on the two theoretical assumptions: (a) any reconstruction at LF; (b) Unaccusative Hypothesis. 3.1. Asymmetries in NPI-licensing Consider the following examples in (29): (29) a. Any rumors/doubts about his past disappeared. (inherently negative predicate) b. *Any rumors/doubt about his past appeared. (positive predicate) c. *Any rumors/doubts about his past didn’t appear (overtly negative predicate) (29b) and (29c) are ungrammatical, whereas (29a) is grammatical. Examples in (29) raise the two problems as follows: (a) why disappear 2 We owe Tim Stowell for his observation that finish does not seem to have any monotone-decreasingness effects. licenses NPI any, whereas appear, the lexical antonyms of disappear does not license any; and (b) why disappear licenses NPI any, whereas seemingly more negative predicate didn’t appear does not license it. The asymmetry found in (29a, b) reflects the negative nature of disappear and further supports our claim that disappear is a negative predicate. However, the asymmetry found in (29b, c) is still problematic, as an overtly negative predicate does not license any, whereas an inherently negative predicate licenses any. In the next section, we propose a solution to this problem. 3.2. The Analysis 3.2.1. LF Approach to NPI licensing From a syntactic point of view, there could be two approaches, based on S-structure and Logical Form (henceforth LF) in explaining any licensing in preverbal indefinite. Consider the following examples from Uribe-Etxebarria (1995:346-48). (30) a. A doctor who knew anything about the acupuncture was not available. b. *A doctor who knew anything about acupuncture was not intelligent. (No bleached predicate) c. A solution of any of these problems doesn’t exist. d. *Anybody didn’t come.(No indefinite NP in which any is embedded.) Following the S-Structure approach, some cases such as (30a, c) are problematic, as the triggered element any precedes the triggering element ‘not’. In such a case Neg cannot c-commands the NPI but examples in (30a, c) are grammatical. Thus, Uribe-Etxebarria (1995) proposes an LF approach to solve this problem. She proposes that polarity items reconstruct at LF if there is a bleached predicate3 and any is embedded in an indefinite NP such as in (30a, c), in contrast with (30b, d). However, we find the following counter-examples. Observe: (31) a. The solution(s) to any of these problems does/do not exist. (No indefinite NP) b. Any rumors about his past disappeared. (No bleached predicate) In (31a), NPI any is licensed inside a definite NP, not an indefinite NP. In (31b), any is licensed, although there is no bleached predicate. Therefore, in our analysis, we basically assume the LF approach to 3 Szabolsci (1986) introduces ‘bleached predicates’ to explain the Definiteness Effects in Hungarian. Those verbs that express existence, or changes in the state of existence or availability belong to that category. account for any licensing in the preverbal position but do not strictly follow these requirements. 3.2.2. NPI any licensing: The case of disappear At first, consider the following examples, in which any is licensed in the preverbal position. (32) a. Any rumors/doubt about his past disappeared(/*appeared.) b. Any possible variation of dose delivered from position to position was eliminated (/*added) by rotating the entire assembly at six revolutions per minute. (from BNC) c. Rotating the entire assembly at six revolutions per minute eliminated (/*added) any possible variation of dose delivered from variation to variation. In the above examples, any is licensed by removal predicates such as disappear and was eliminated in preverbal positions. However, their lexical antonyms do not license any, as they are not negative. Interestingly, passives such as was eliminated in (32b) also license any in the preverbal position, whereas actives such as eliminate in (32c) licenses any in the postverbal position. Assuming the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978), we consider passives such as was eliminated as well as unaccusative predicates such as disappear to license any in the postverbal position at D-Structure and then, reconstruct at LF so as not to violate the case filter. Keeping this reconstruction idea in mind, consider (33): (33) a. Any rumors/doubts about his past disappeared. b. ?*Any rumors/doubts about his past didn’t appear. c. ?*Any rumors/doubts about his past didn’t disappear. Presumably, (33b), where overtly negative predicate is used, is stronger in negative force than (33a), where inherently negative predicate is used. However, in (33), disappear in (33a) licenses any, whereas didn’t disappear and didn’t appear do not license the NPI any. Examples in (33) support our reconstruction idea. That is, in (33a) any phrase is preceded by disappear in D-Structure and LF it moves to the subject position so as not to violate the case filter. On the other hand, the reason why (33b) and (33c) are awkward is that overt negation ‘not’ blocks movement and becomes a barrier. Parallel to this, we can search no phrases such as didn’t avoid any and didn’t dislike any in the corpus, whereas we can easily find the phrases such as avoid any and dislike any in the same corpus.4 4 Native speakers say that double-negative sentences such as (33c) are difficult understand and that they would not use such sentences in everyday life. 4. Morphological-/Collocational Characteristics of Removal Predicates 4.1. Serial Verb Construction: -peri-(K), -tesimau-(J) Consider the following Korean and Japanese examples. (34) a. pakoyhay-/cwukie-/saracie-peri-ess-ta (Korean) destroy/kill/disappear- get through-PST- DEC ‘(They) destroyed/kill/disappeared (some-one/-thing).’ b.* kenselhay-/kwucohay-/natanay- peri-ess-ta construct/rescue/appear -get through- PST-DEC ‘constructed/rescued/appeared.’ (35) a. hakaishi-/koroshi-/kie-tesima-tta (Japanese) destroy/kill/disappear- get through-PST ‘destroyed/kill/disappeared.’ b.* kensetushi-/suku-/araware-tesima-tta construct/rescue/appear -get through- PST ‘constructed/rescued/appeared.’ In Korean and Japanese, removal predicates occur with auxiliaries such as -peri-(K) and tesimau-(J) ‘throw away; get through’, respectively. By contrast, generative predicates are not allowed to co-occur with those auxiliaries. 4.2. Removal vs. Generation affixes/particles/prepositions Following affixes, particles and prepositions from English and Korean occur with removal and generation predicates, respectively. Observe: (36) a. Removal morphemes: off, of, from away, out, ex-, de-, dis-, ob-, -eyse ‘from’(K), myel-/pak-/so-/sak-/tal-/ke-‘root up’(K) b. Generation morphemes: on, into, to, at, -ey ‘to; on’ (K) (37) Removal Predicates with Removal Morphemes sakceha-‘eliminate’(K), semmyelha-‘annihilate’(K), pakthalha‘rob of’, ‘rip off’(K) 4.3. Negative Adverbs There is a list of adverbs that precede our removal predicates. Generation predicates are not likely to occur with these adverbs. Consider such negative adverbs in (38) and further observe the relevant sentence in (39), below: (38) mocori(K)/kotogotoku(J) ‘with no exception’; mwuchapyelcekuro (K) and musabetuni(J) ‘indiscriminately’; utterly, indiscriminately, flatly in English (39) a. Soldiers indiscriminately killed citizens. (negative adverb) b. *Soldiers indiscriminately rescued citizens. In English, indiscriminately easily occurs with ethically negative verbs such as kill and does not easily occur with ethically positive verbs such as praise and rescue. 5. Conclusion In this paper, we identified a unique type of weakly negative predicates, i.e., removal predicates. The process-involved ones yield implicature suspension but are not monotone decreasing unlike other stronger types of negative predicates. The absence-state-involved ones, on the other hand, reveal monotone-decreasingness in Korean, Japanese and English. The absence-state removal predicates can license any in English. References Chierchia, G. 2000. Scalar implicatures and polarity items, Abstract for a colloquium at UCLA. Giannakidou,A.1998.Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hoeksema and Klein. 1995. ‘Negative Predicates and Their Arguments’, Linguistic Analysis 25. Horn, L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: Chicago U. Press. Ladusaw, W.1996. ‘Negation and Polarity Items. In S. Lappin (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell. Oxford. Lee, Chungmin. 1999. ‘Types of NPIs and nonveridicality in Korean and other languages’. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 3: Syntax at Sunset 2, ed. by G. Storto, 96-132. Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA. Lee, Chungmin. 2000. ‘Contrastive Predicates and Conventional Scales’, CLS 36. Perlmutter, D. M 1978. ‘Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis’, Proceedings of the fourth Annual Meeting of the BLS,157-189. Szabolsci, A.1986. ‘Indefinites in Complex Predicates, Theoretical Linguistic Research 2. ter Meulen, A.G.B. 1995. Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect, The MIT Press. Uribe-Etxebarria, M.1995.‘Negative Polarity Item Licensing, Indefinites and Complex Predicates’ in Simons, M. (ed.), SALT V, 346-361. Yoon, Youngeun. 1996. ‘Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations.’ Natural Language Semantics. 4/3: 217- 36.