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 |
