LINGUIST List 14.1743

Thu Jun 19 2003

Qs: Eng 'every' and anaphora

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


  1. Norihiro Ogata, On anaphoras to "every"

Message 1: On anaphoras to "every"

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:33:36 +0000
From: Norihiro Ogata <>
Subject: On anaphoras to "every"

Dear all,

I'm a formal semanticist and now I'm interested in the semantics of
generics. In the progress of this research, I could have find the
following examples which show the anaphoras to ''every''+N:

(1) Every rice-grower_i in Korea owns a wooden cart. Usually he_i gets
(it from his father. 2) Every Swiss male_i must do military
(service. He_i is required to do so by law.

On the other hand, I was concentrated to G. Carlson's ''unbound''
reading of ''every'' as follows:

(3) Every friend of John smokes.
(4) A master craftsman builds every house in this area.

(3-4) are ambiguous bewteen `universally quantified reading' and
`unbound reading'. In the unbound reading, the genericisty is
stronger and the domain of quantification is ''unbound'', i.e., past,
present, future, ideal worlds, etc.

Then I found some sort of similarity of unbound reading ''every'' with
''every'' which have its anaphora, and I asked to some native English
speakers if the following sentences are meaningful:

(5) Every fried of John smokes. (Usually) she also drugs. 
(6) A master (craftsman builds every house in this area. (Usually) it
is very (small.

The answers were all ''no''. 

I can agree this result when I think about the following example: (7)
Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it. *He is a sadist.

However, even (1)-(2), they rejected.

So I was confusing and, on the other hand, the both phenomena can be
related if (5)-(6) or more appropriate examples were acceptable.

So, I would like to ask to every English native speaker or linguists
of English if (5)-(6) or similar and more appropriate examples are

Please send the answer to

Best regards,

Norihiro Ogata
Faculty of Language and Culture, Osaka University 

Subject-Language: English; Code: ENG 
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue