“每”的语义的再认识——兼论汉语是否存在限定性全称量化词

A Reanalysis of the Semantics of Mei ‘Every’

本文认为Lin(1998)将“每”看作加合算子的观点更为合理。“每”对与之相关联的成分进行加合,使之获得最大化的、复数性解读。“每”强调加合单位的特征使得“每NP”具有内在的逐指性特征。因此主语位置上的“每NP”要求与之共现的谓语部分的语义特征与之相兼容。全称量化副词“都”、(隐性的)分配算子在满足其自身语义要求的情况下,可以充当主语“每NP”的允准者。而宾语“每NP”由于是谓语动词的内论元,对谓语的特征没有兼容性要求,但它通常要求加合对象的出现。当强调全称义时,“每NP”应出现在量化副词或分配算子的定义域之内,使其自身可以充当量化域或分类关键词,进而获得强调性解读。由此“每”的语义可以得到统一解释。“每”加合算子的语义同时也说明汉语很可能缺少限定性全称量化词。

This paper argues for a unified account of mei‘every’and thinks that Lin s(1998)account that mei is a sum operator is more reasonable than any other analysis of mei.Specifically,mei operates on its associate-element and produces a maximal and plural set interpretation.Due to its emphasis on the unit of summation,mei has to co-occur with a distributive predicate.As a result,a mei-NP at the subject position requires its co-occurring predicate to be compatible with this distributive property.To be more specific,a mei-NP is incompatible with a collective predicate,though it can co-occur with a reciprocal predicate.Whether a mei-NP is compatible with a predicate with an adverbial universal quantifier or not depends on the property of the quantifier under consideration.It is required that the quantifier concerned not possess the property of emphasizing‘the whole’.Due to its property of emphasizing the whole,the adverb of universal quantifier quan/quanbu is,in general,incompatible with a mei-NP.Hence quan/quanbu cannot take a mei-NP as its quantificational domain.The adverb of universal quantification dou and distributive operators like ge make it possible for a predicate to meet the above requirement,thus licensing the subject mei-NP.This is because the adverb dou does not emphasize the whole and it merely requires its associate-element to be semantically plural,and the presence of distributive operators like ge makes the predicate in question distributive,which matches the semantics of mei.Since the sum operator mei is a unary operator and it only operates on its associated common noun phrase,it cannot establish an explicit semantic relation between its associate-element and the rest of the sentence.Furthermore,a preverbal mei-NP requires the semantic property of the predicate be compatible with it.Therefore,a subject mei-NP needs to be licensed.Universal quantifiers such as dou and(covert)distributive operators like ge can play the licensing role.A covert distributive operator can be assumed if the following conditions are met:a)a semantically plural NP with the distributive property occurs to the left of the predicate,which serves as the sorting key;and b)the distributive share is active,which is an indefinite NP or reflexive in the predicate.It is noted that a mei-sentence with one numeral expression always expresses the distributive meaning,while the interpretation of a sentence with two numeral noun phrases is influenced by contexts,for example,the tense operator.These two types of sentences are different even in the case of an implicit distributive operator:the former emphasizes the distributive meaning,whereas the latter highlights the corresponding relationship between the two numeral expressions,not always with the distributive interpretation.A mei-NP at the object position,functioning as the internal argument of the verb in question,does not impose the above compatibility requirement on the predicate co-occurring with it,though mei generally requires the occurrence of the object for the sum operation.In order to get the universal reading,a mei-NP should occur in the domain of the adverbial universal quantifier or the distributive operator.Since the universal reading does not come from mei but from its licensors such as dou and ge,mei receives a unified account,being a sum operator.It is claimed that Mandarin Chinese may be short of determiners of universal quantification,given that even the most likely candidate mei is a sum operator.