Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.


New from Brill!

ad

Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!


Query Details


Query Subject:   On anaphoras to "every"
Author:   Norihiro Ogata
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Query:   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) i
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
acceptable.

Please send the answer to
norry@tcct.zaq.ne.jp

Best regards,

Norihiro Ogata
Faculty of Language and Culture, Osaka University

Subject-Language: English; Code: ENG


LL Issue: 14.1743
Date posted: 19-Jun-2003



Back

Sums main page