Is "each" an adverb, pronoun, determiner, or what else?



What do Online Dictionaries Say?


Cambridge Dictionaries Online says each is used as an adverb in the following examples:



There are five leaflets – please take one of each.
Each of the brothers has a different personality.
It’s 500 miles each way.
The bill comes to $80, so that’s $20 each



Oxford Dictionaries says each is a determiner and a pronoun in the following



each one of us was asked what went on (determiner)
Derek had money from each of his five uncles (pronoun)



Merriam-Webster's entry for each states it is an adjective,



A rope was tied to each end of the boat.
Each student had a different explanation.



a pronoun,



He took shot after shot, each missing by inches



and an adverb



They cost 50 cents each.
We were allowed two tries each.



But Wikipedia tells me that each is an indefinite pronoun



Each of the players has a doctor



and Grammar Monster (which btw I really like) says that each is an indefinite adjective



An indefinite adjective is used to describe a noun in a non-specific sense.


The most common indefinite adjectives are: any, each, few, many, much, most, several, and some. They are often used to describe a noun to show an element of uncertainty.


Indefinite adjectives should not be confused with indefinite pronouns. Indefinite adjectives modify nouns or pronouns. Indefinite pronouns are standalone pronouns




Examples



  1. I gave my friends a book each

  2. I gave each a book

  3. I gave each of my three friends a book

  4. I gave a book to each one of my friends

  5. Each one of my friends received a book

  6. Each friend of mine received a book


I believe that all the sentences above are grammatical. If any are considered non-standard in English, please please tell me!


QUESTIONS




  • For sentence No. 1, I cannot find a satisfying "tag" to place on each. Since the word "each" is placed at the end of a sentence, I suppose it must be an adverb but it feels like a quantifier to me because it tell me how many books, i.e. to each of my friends. Is each in No.1 an adverb? Why?




  • Sentence 2 is definitely a pronoun.




  • For sentences 3, 4, and 5 "each of" and "each one of" can be substituted with all of, with no loss in meaning. But are each of and each one of pronouns? If we use a pronoun to replace a noun phrase or a noun, then how can each in: each (one) of my friends be a pronoun? And I imagine it can't be an indefinite pronoun because we know exactly "how many" people in sentence 3. Oxford Dictionaries suggest that each of is a pronoun but each one of is a determiner.




  • In sentence 6 each is an adjective/determiner/indefinite adjective because it tells us something about the number of friends. Right?





Answer



In a related question, John Lawler has suggested Quantifier as the designation for each:



In linguistics and grammar, a quantifier is a type of determiner, such as all, some, many, few, a lot, and no, (but not numerals)... that indicates quantity.



The Wikipedia article recognizes the difficulty of analyzing quantifiers in natural language:



The study of quantification in natural languages is much more difficult than the corresponding problem for formal languages. This comes in part from the fact that the grammatical structure of natural language sentences may conceal the logical structure. Moreover, mathematical conventions strictly specify the range of validity for formal language quantifiers; for natural language, specifying the range of validity requires dealing with non-trivial semantic problems. For example the sentence "Someone gets mugged in New York every 10 minutes" does not identify whether it is the same person getting mugged every 10 minutes....



Each of the six sentences in the OP share a common logical meaning:



Y received a book


Where Y is the quantified group: each of my friends.



In the first four sentences, the agent is identified with the active voice of give, while the identity of the agent is suppressed in the passive euivalent of receive for sentences 5-6. Additionally, each sentence adds or reduces identifying information without changing the common logical meaning of the sentence, but in doing this changes the interaction of the words and phrases.




  1. I gave my friends a book each.



This is the logical equivalent to: I gave each of my friends a book, where:



  • gave is the transitive verb

  • I is the agent of the action

  • a book is the theme of the action

  • each of my friends is the recipient


As John Lawler explained the Q-float: "each of my friends" is transformed, eliminating the of and moving each from its normal prenominal position into an adverbial position:


I gave my friends a book each, where:



  • gave is the transitive verb

  • I is the agent of the action

  • a book is the theme of the action

  • my friends is the recipient

  • each identifies ambiguously with gave or my friends


It is ambiguous because each has floated to the end of the sentence, but one can reasonably parse each as an adverb. "The grammatical structure conceals the logical structure" slightly, but the natural reader, who rarely bothers to parse consciously, can intuitively interpret the common logical meaning: Each of my friends received a book, with an added emphasis on each.




  1. I gave each a book.



This is a much simpler analysis. Each of my friends is reduced to each, which is used as a pronoun recipient. Again the natural reader infers the common logical meaning: Each of my friends received a book, but they are probably expecting clearer identification in the larger context.




  1. I gave each of my three friends a book.



Adding the extra modifier three does not change the quantifier function in this construction. It behaves like all, because all is also a quantifier. Because the phrase is reduced so naturally, each can be parsed as a pronoun recipient. Still the natural reader interprets the common meaning: Each of my friends received a book, with the additional information.




  1. I gave a book to each one of my friends



Since quantifiers are a type of determiner, this is simply adding one determiner to another along the lines of "any other". Again, the phrase is reduced so naturally, each is parsed routinely as a pronoun. The natural reader interprets the common meaning: Each of my friends received a book, with the additional emphasis of each one.




  1. Each one of my friends received a book.



The shift to the passive equivalent "received" subdues the identity of the agent, emphasizing the theme and the recipient. Once again, the natural lister automatically gets it.




  1. Each friend of mine received a book.



This construction is the clearest use of each as a quantifier, making it very easy to label it with the more general tag: determiner. Each friend of mine is the logical (and linguistic) equivalent to each of my friends, so the natural reader interprets the same common meaning: Each of my friends received a book.


Conclusion:


The grammatical usage of the quantifier each may change with different constructions, but each of the uses is logically connected to its function as a quantifier.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more