5-1227msg2.txt

该程序实现的是一个垃圾邮件过滤系统

Subject: re : 5 . 1196 corpus analysis of - body / - one

in my dissertation ( 1993 : a theoretical and descriptive study of epicene pronoun ) i analyze a corpus of 24 us tv talkshow . i get 16 example of nps with " every " coreferent with a pronoun . the distribution of the nominal element can be find below : 10 - body 3 - one 3 lexical nominal ( s ) the lexical nominal be " member , " " grand jury and trial witness , " and " sale person in the store . " in addition one of the case with - body be " everybody involve " and another be " everybody else . " so far this seem to be along the line discuss by ellen prince and jane edward . where my datum vary be that in every case the coreferent pronoun be they , as be incidently the case with each and no . as far as the analysis be concern , my result , not just from quantifier but from nps with other specifier , indicate that there be various factor at work in the selection of the pronoun , as indeed edward argue . the follow seem important : notional plurality : obviously the case with every , no , and each . in some case a singular pronoun be impossible when there be plural semantics and formal singularity , as be well know from study of quantifier scope . even however when it be structurally possible , the use of singular pronoun can be awkward as prince intuit , though i suspect more than just the nominal element of the compound be involve . in any case , in two out of the three everyone case be clearly outside the scope , so the plural pronoun be inevitable . in the third case it be in a parenthetical ( from donahue ) and i ' m not sure of the fine point regard the formal semantics : " since i do n't know how everyone develop , what their sexual attraction be , you could easily have be into infantilism , or purple handkerchief , or same sex experience " gender stereotypes : this issue do n't arise with every case , since all be with they , but in other i find that stereotypically male generic referent ( e . g participant in congressional sex scandal , and lumberjack ) more frequently receive the pronoun he with other type of antecedent . individuation : this be a rather fuzzy , but i think inevitable , semantic category that refer to the degree with which interlocutor be use a referent as an individual versus how that referent be be use as a generic . the fuzziness be necessary because logical real existence do not map into our everyday reference . a personification ( discuss with regards to pronoun by mcconnell - ginet ) be a generic referent treat as if it be an individual . the opposite case , a real person or thing treat as a generic also exist and be discuss with regard to definiteness by talmy givon . i find a couple of case like this . from a geraldo , the reference be to princess grace : " how do you fall in love with somebody at a photo opportunity , not see them for eight month and the next time you see them you ' re engage . " from a different geraldo : " i hear , - see someone run by and they be scream . " individuation be clearly the same thing that jane edward notice in her point about how singular pronoun be associate with specific people . and similar point be also make by pinker in the language instinct in the chapter on prescription . i find the best analysis of the whole issue can be make by adopt the agreement theory develop by michael barlow in his ' 88 dissertation a situated theory of agreement publish last year in the outstand dissertation sery . anybody else have any datum ? michael newman dept . of educational theory & practice the ohio state university mnewman @ magnus . acs . ohio-state . edu