On anaphoras to "every"
|Submitter Email:||click here to access email|
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
Please send the answer to
Faculty of Language and Culture, Osaka University
Subject-Language: English; Code: ENG