On The Syntax And Semantics Of "Every + NP" And "Mei + NP"

Much attention has been focused on universal quantifier every and mei since Kamp (1981) and Heim(1982) bring forth the theory of tripartite structure. This thesis is devoted to revealing the similarities and differences by describing, explaining and comparing"every + NP"in English and"mei + NP"in Chinese respectively with respect to their syntactic distribution, scope reading, licensing condition and semantic properties. Every is a determiner universal quantifier which has inherent distributive force, while mei is a dual-functional operator which can trigger a tripartite structure and bring out universal quantification as a universal quantifier or has adduction function as a sum operator. The variation of semantic feature results in different syntactic behavior and quantificational force.Two main results are derived in this thesis:On one hand, there are some similarities between"every + NP"and"mei + NP". Firstly, different from other universal quantifier such as all / suo you, both every and mei cannot be followed by arguments such as mass noun or bare plural nouns directly. Secondly, they are all excluded from there-insertion, as the existential operator is incompatible with universal quantification. Thirdly, in subject position, indirect object position or in complex NP, operator every or mei triggers distributive reading, while it is noticed that the simple object"every + NP"or"mei + NP"may express collectivity occurring with predicate with [+reproductive] or operator dou. As a universal distributive quantifier,"every + NP"and"mei + NP"involve a skolem function which requires a lexically or morphologically licensed variable in their c-command domain. This variable could be brought out by an indefinite, a reflexive or a covert event argument which is made overt by an English tense operator or the Chinese iato operato dou.On the other, there are some differences between"every + NP"and"mei + NP". Firstly, these two kinds of NPs show different inner structures. In"every + NP", a singular countable noun and numerals can be connected to every directly, but in"mei + NP"classifiers has to be inserted between mei and NP. This is because"every + NP"of type [+arg, +pred] can be counted naturally; while in NP [+arg, -pred] Chinese, a classifier will be added to individuate a counting level or minimal parts. Secondly, based on isomorphism, Chinese"mei + NP"won't have ambiguity except for the occurrence of operator dou. The scope reading of"every + NP"is much more complicated. Apart from the scope ambiguity observed by previous researches, this paper finds that an indirect object"every + NP"will take narrow scope although it has illusive scope in generic context. Thirdly, in Chinese the occurrence of operator dou will license"mei + (yi) + CL + NP"by bringing out a covert event argument or change its scope relation, but it is incompatible with an indeterminate"mei + num + CL + NP construction."The comparative study of these two kinds of universal quantifiers reveals that there is an interaction between syntax and semantics. Single syntactic approach or semantic approach cannot explain the licencing contex and licensing condition of"every + NP"and"mei + NP".