169. “All”, “Each” and “Every”

.

These three words of similar meaning differ in numerous ways in their grammar and meaning.

THE DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING THESE WORDS

All, each and every can give trouble because there are subtle differences between them of both grammar and meaning (rather like the differences shown by 98. “Very”, “Much” and “Very Much”). Many of these differences are given attention in English Language coursebooks, but a detailed comparison of the three words together seems rare.

It is this kind of comparison that I am attempting in the present post. Consideration is given first to usage with a following noun and then to usage without. A number of specialised uses are also presented. One other Guinlist post dealing with the same kind of meaning is 308. Complexities of “Whole”.

.

USAGE WITH A FOLLOWING NOUN

The principal ways in which the three words can combine with a following noun may be illustrated as follows:

(a) All sentences need a subject.

(b) All (of) the sentences need a subject.

(c) Each sentence needs a subject.

(d) Each (one) of the sentences needs a subject.

(e) Every sentence needs a subject.

(f) Every one of the sentences needs a subject.

The following differences are illustrated by these examples:

1. The three words equally express the meaning of “100%”. However, each highlights the individuals that make it up rather than the whole group.

2. Each and every accompany only countable nouns. All is also shown above with a countable noun, but elsewhere its noun might be uncountable (e.g. all suffering).

3. Each and every require any noun placed directly after them to be singular, but all sometimes has a singular one (all suffering, all day, all the world), and sometimes a plural one (all people).

4. To place each/every before a noun with the, you must add of in between and make the noun plural (see 160. Uses of “of”, #5). However, all allows both all the and all of the, and normal singular/plural usage.

5. Before of the, every must have one, all cannot have it, and each allows a choice. The reason for the need with every is that it is always an adjective (needing a noun-like word to describe). Each, on the other hand, allows a choice because it can be either an adjective (needing a noun-like partner) or a pronoun (needing to be alone). Including one after each is emphatic, giving more prominence to the individuality of the group members. For more on flexible pronouns like each, see 28. Pronoun Errors.

6. A noun without the (or similar) after all/each/every must also be without of (see 133. Confusions of Similar Structures 1, #1). It has to be singular after each and every (each/every sentence), but may be singular or plural after all depending on its type (all suffering, all sentences). For information about when to drop the, see 110. Nouns without “the” or “a”.

.

Additional points, not illustrated by the examples above, are:

7. Each is less common than the other two words, but is the only possibility when the partner noun belongs to a group of only two members, as in this example:

(g) Each side of the brain has specialized functions.

If you wished to say sides here instead of side, you would have to replace each with both, not all. It is quite a common error to use all when both is required.

8. The three words are not commonly used before the words person, people and thing(s), with or without the. Instead, the pronouns everyone and everything are usually preferred (e.g. Everything perishes rather than *Each/Every thing perishes or *All things perish).

9. The three words easily combine with a pronoun by means of of (all of us, each of them, every one of you). All and each can also follow the pronoun without of (e.g. we all, them each).

10. When describing a noun that is a subject of BE or a multi-word verb, any of the expressions can precede it, but each and all can alternatively follow it, either with the first word of the verb moved before them (e.g. The sentences can each/all have…) or without it (e.g. The sentences each/all can have…). Each and all are adjective-like determiners when used without of and pronouns with it.

11. After of an alternative to the is a similarly definite word like the “demonstrative” adjectives” this/that and “possessive” adjectives its, their etc. (each of their sentences…). The entire combination of the (etc.) + plural noun can be replaced by plural pronouns like them.

12. Every and all can be used after almost and practically, but each cannot (Practically all sentences/every sentence …).

.

USAGE WITHOUT A FOLLOWING NOUN

Points 1, 7 and 11 above also apply when there is no following noun. In addition, there is an equivalent to points 2/3: each and every imply singular countable nouns, while all can imply plural and uncountable nouns too. Consider this:

(h) The figure contains six triangles. Each is equilateral.

The underlined verb is singular because each always stands for a singular countable noun (here triangle). On the other hand, if all replaced each, the verb would need to be plural (are) because all would represent the plural triangles.

To use every in (h) instead of each, it would be necessary to add one. This is again due to the exclusively adjective nature of every. If the reference is to people, one must be joined onto every to make a single word:

(i) The building can accommodate six residents. Everyone has their own bathroom.

For the use of every one, plus other pairs that make a similar contrast, see 26. One Word or Two?

A special use of each by itself occurs in the object position after a verb: alongside the word other, it indicates that two people or things are each doing the same thing to the other, as in this example:

(j) Large apes like to groom each other.

For more on such sentences, see 143. Subtleties of “-self” Words.

.

SPECIALISED USES

Sentence (g) above illustrates a situation where only only one of the three words (each) is possible. There are a number of other meanings that similarly restrict choice.

1. Before “that…”

All can go directly before that… (= “which”), sometimes to mean everything (…described all that they saw), sometimes the only thing (All that I know is…). Care is needed not to say *all what instead (see 231. Confusions of Similar Structures 3, #1).

.

2. With Time Nouns

Singular time nouns like minute, day and year can combine directly with each and every to make two different kinds of phrase: noun-like and adverb-like. The first kind act in sentences in typical noun positions like “subject” and “object”:

(k) Every/Each second counts.

(l) Take each/every day as it comes.

The adverb-like uses are unusual in lacking a starting preposition (similarly to time phrases with last… and next…). They are recognizable as adverbs because they occupy typical adverb positions and express the typical adverb meaning of frequency (see 120. Six Things to Know about Adverbs, #1):

(m) Exams are held each/every year.

Note that every can also make the one-word adjective everyday (see 26. One Word or Two?).

All too can go directly before a singular time noun, but only to make adverb phrases (saying how long):

(n) The consequences were visible all day.

A single long day is being referred to here, rather than the repeated days that each or every would signify (see 258. Saying How Long Something Lasts, #2).

To make all and a singular time noun usable in noun positions, you sometimes have to add of a(n) or of the, and sometimes just of. The former are needed before time nouns that normally follow a(n) or the, such as day, night or week:

(o) Preparation can occupy all of a day.

Of alone is necessary with time nouns in a noun position if they are the kind that are not generally used with the or a(n), such as today, Tuesday, July and 2019 (e.g. all of today).

All of and all of the can make not just noun expressions like all of today in (o), but also adverb ones like all day in (n). This means adding the or a(n) is always right, but dropping them can be wrong.

The use of all with a plural time noun, with or without of, is different from that with singular time nouns, as it tends to be just noun-like:

(p) All years are the same.

Finally, a notable contrast is between each/every time and all (of) the time. Time in the former is countable and means “occasion” (see 236. Tricky Word Contrasts 9, #3), while in the latter is uncountable and means “period”. For more on this kind of meaning difference, see 43. Substance Locations.

.

3. With Numbers

All, each and every can go with a number + plural noun, e.g. …three spaces, but different meanings result. All indicates that the number is a total – not part of a larger group – and that no exceptions exist within this total, e.g.:

(q) All three spaces contained a car.

This means a total of three spaces existed, and none was empty.

Every and each, on the other hand, indicate that the mentioned number is repeated at regular intervals. Replacing all in (q), for example, they would show that there were numerous groups of three spaces, and all of these groups had one of their spaces occupied by a car.

In (q), the usage is noun-like. Adverb usage is also possible, especially with time nouns. All/Each/Every three years, for example, could indicate frequency.

 

PRACTICE EXERCISE: “All”, “Each” AND “Every”

Readers wishing to strengthen understanding and retention of the above points are invited to try the following exercise. You have to decide which one(s) of the three words are possible in each space (answers below).

1. .….. year brings different weather.

2. ….. tyre on a motor vehicle must be at the correct pressure. ….. need to be checked before a long drive.

3. Practically ….. human being responds positively to kindness.

4. The conference will run from Wednesday to Friday. ….. three days will begin with coffee.

5. Parents will show interest in ….. thing that their child learns.

6. There were numerous balls of different colours. Participants were asked to identify ….. of the green ones.

7. The USA and Canada are …. traversed by the Rocky Mountains.

8. In 2016, the weather was unusual ….. year.

.

Answers

1. Each/every (+ singular year);  2. Each/every (+ singular tyre); all (+ plural need).  3. every (cf. practically + singular being);  4. all (only one group of 3);  5. each (not every because that would make one word, not two);  6. all/each (not every because one is absent).  7. each (not all because only two countries are involved);  8. all (only one year was involved).

168. Ways of Arguing 2

 

Writers sometimes support an opinion in an argument by questioning the truth or the strength of opposing evidence

CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT

Argument is common in professional writing. In academia, students might need it to answer “analytic” essay questions (see 94. Essay Instruction Words), while researchers might use it to derive conclusions from data. In business, written arguments assist such purposes as defining company policy or requesting funding for a project.

Arguments have two essential components: a “main” point whose truth is debatable – i.e. an opinion – and at least one fairly factual supporting point to give the opinion some credibility. If the second of these is absent, leaving just the opinion, there is no argument, and a likelihood in serious writing of losing the reader’s interest and respect. If the truth of the main point is not debatable – i.e. is a fact – then it and the supporting point form an explanation rather than an argument.

Language associated with the opinion part of an argument is considered in depth in this blog in the post 107. The Language of Opinions. Here I wish to continue the discussion started in the post before this of the language that can link opinions with their supporting statement(s). The variations are greater than might be expected because English seems to differ from some other languages in being more willing to place the opinion in an argument at the beginning rather than the end (see 222. Information Orders in Texts, #4).

There are two main ways of supporting an opinion: giving evidence in its favour and criticising opposing evidence. The first of these is the topic of the earlier post (167. Ways of Arguing 1). Criticism of evidence for an opinion opposing your own opinion can be achieved by throwing doubt on either its factuality or its relative strength.

.

LANGUAGE FOR CRITICISING OPPOSING EVIDENCE

1. Factuality Questioning

Expressing doubt about the factuality of a statement supporting an opposing opinion is not by itself proof that one’s own opinion is correct, but it strongly implies that it is. Here is an example of an argument involving this kind of criticism. The evidence under attack is underlined.

(a) Critics of modern soccer often argue that players are paid too much. Salaries, they say, are not proportionate to the game’s role in society. Yet much of this concern is misplaced. The high player salaries are no more unjustified than the earnings of other well-paid sports personalities such as tennis players. There is, moreover, no proof that providing enjoyment to millions of people is any less a contribution to society than performing more obviously worthy services such as running a government.

The writer is here arguing that soccer players’ high salaries are justified. S/he does not agree that they are too high for soccer’s role in society. The reasons are that other sports stars earn similarly high salaries, and that the level of soccer’s importance in society is a matter of opinion.

This kind of argument has some characteristic language. First, the opinion that is being disagreed with must be linked with other people than the writer. In (e) this is done with critics. For other possibilities, see 22. Multiple Speakers in a Text. Next, after the opinion and introducing the questioning there must be a word – normally a conjunction or connector – meaning “but” (but, yet, however, nevertheless, even so etc.). Finally, there is normally a criticism expression like misplaced. For more examples, see 13. Hidden Negatives and 152. Agreeing and Disagreeing in Formal Contexts.

Here is another example of this kind of argument. Readers are invited to identify the above-described key elements:

(b) Various research findings have been cited in support of a link between high-cholesterol foods and heart attacks. However, this link is questionable. There have been other research projects that have not confirmed a connection between diet and heart disease.

The first sentence here contains the opinion being criticised and, first of all, simple evidence on which it is based (various research findings). All of this is attributed to other people by the passive form of the reporting verb have been cited. The criticism begins with however. The criticism word is questionable. The problem with the factuality of the evidence is said to be the suggestion that all research supports the same conclusion when in fact only some does.

.

2. Counterbalancing

In this kind of argument, evidence against the writer’s own opinion is accepted as factual, but is shown to be weaker than evidence for it. There are two different ways of indicating such weakness. In one, a numerical imbalance is highlighted: the number of points opposing the writer’s opinion is shown to be smaller. In the other, it is the impact rather than the number of the opposing points that is questioned.

Counterbalancing arguments are often needed in academic essays, particularly those instructing the writer to discuss (see 94. Essay Instruction Words). If the discussion is about a single idea – whether, for example, capital punishment is a desirable state policy – the approach is often to list all of its advantages together, followed (or preceded) by all of its disadvantages, and to draw a conclusion (or validate a previously-stated one) by comparing the size or importance of each list. A useful kind of statement in this process is that one point or list outweighs the other.

An alternative type of discussion compares various competing alternatives, for example types of transport in urban areas. A likely approach here would be to consider each alternative in turn, listing first all of its advantages and then all of its disadvantages (or the reverse), before finally explaining how all this information explains a particular opinion about which alternative is the most desirable (see 277. Advantages and Disadvantages).

A typical language need in both of these argument prodedures will be for the grammar and vocabulary of listing across multiple sentences. There will usually be a sentence introducing the list (ending in a full stop, not a colon) plus a need for a suitable link word at the start of each new point (see 122. Signpost Words in Multi-Sentence Lists).

A particularly useful expression for starting the points in favour of a preferred opinion is to begin with (see the end of 183. Statements between Commas). Its value is to suggest that the list is long and strong. Statements of subsequent evidence are typically introduced with “addition” connectors like moreover, furthermore and in addition, or adjectives like another. A switch from supporting to opposing points or vice versa can be shown with however or on the other hand.

At the end, when a link has to be made between the mentioned evidence and the opinion based on it, it is useful, as in oral presentations, to begin with a phrase like in conclusion, to sum up, it is clear from the above that… or on the basis of the above.

One way to make opposing evidence seem less important during this summing up is by means of “concession” language, as in the following examples from the Guinlist post 51. Making Concessions with “May”:

(c) Coal may be a cheap fuel but it harms the environment.

(d) Train travel should be preferred to driving whenever possible. It may be tiring, but it is kinder to the environment.

No opinion is actually stated in (c), but one is easily inferred: the writer thinks coal should not be used as a fuel. This can be said explicitly if necessary, at either the start or the end. The opinion stated in the first sentence in (d) can also go at the end.

Both (c) and (d) signal the opposing point (underlined) with may and the writer’s own point with but. The very meaning of but suggests that what follows is a more important point, but a writer ought to back this up with some subsequent detail. May and but are not the only words that can do what they do: the above-mentioned post lists numerous alternatives.

167. Ways of Arguing 1

.

An opinion in an argument may be supported with “simple” or “complex” evidence, each signalled by particular language

CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT

Argument is common in professional writing. Students, for example, need it to answer “analytic” essay questions (see 94. Essay Instruction Words), while business executives might use it to request funding for a project.

Written argument has two essential components: a “main” point whose truth is debatable – i.e. an opinion – and at least one fairly factual supporting statement to give the opinion some credibility. If the second of these is absent, leaving just the opinion, there is no argument, and a likelihood in serious writing of losing the reader’s interest and respect. If the truth of the main point is not debatable – i.e. is a fact – then it and the supporting information form an explanation rather than an argument.

Language associated with the opinion part of an argument is considered in depth elsewhere within these pages in 107. The Language of Opinions. Here I wish to concentrate on the language that can link opinions with their supporting statement(s). The variations are quite numerous because English allows the opinion in an argument to be placed at either the beginning or the end (see 222. Information Orders in Texts, #4).

There are at least three main types of support for an opinion: simple evidence, complex evidence, and criticism of opposing evidence. The first two are the topic of the present post, while the last is considered separately in the next (168. Ways of Arguing 2).

.

SIMPLE EVIDENCE

This term is my own for one or more supporting points that are simply stated rather than explained or discussed in any way. In the following example, the opinion comes first and is supported by two separate points:

(a) The Government should invest in solar energy. It does not harm the environment. It is relatively cheap to produce.

Both of the supporting points here are presented as the writer’s own thinking. However, other people’s points can easily be used too, provided the people’s names are given in a suitable manner alongside them (see 76. Tenses of Citation Verbs). A useful means of linking such naming with the relevant point, indicating agreement with it, is the word as, e.g. As Williams (2019) points out, … (see “Role of as” in 183. Statements between Commas).

Most of the language that can link simple evidence with an opinion comprises conjunctions, connectors and synonyms of connectors. Conjunctions enable the number of separate sentences to be reduced. Connectors and their synonyms keep the different statements separate, but express their logical relationships very precisely (see 40. Conjunctions versus Connectors).

When simple evidence follows the opinion being supported, as in (a), wording linking the two is not compulsory, but if present it must express the idea of “reason”. Possible conjunctions – replacing the first full stop in (a) – include because, for, given that, seeing that and since (see 306. Ways of Giving a Reason, #1). Since suggests a more logical reason-consequence relationship (see 61. “Since” versus “Because”).

Consequence connectors that could replace a conjunction – following rather than cancelling the first full stop – include this is because…, for one thing…, the reason is (that)… and it is not just (that)…. For one thing implies multiple reasons, which may or may not all be mentioned. The last two expressions can, without that, introduce a reason lacking a verb. It is not just (that) is mostly used when the preceding opinion is a complaint and the accompanying reason less the main point than another one following after (see 228. Exotic Grammar Structures 5, #2).

One other way of introducing simple evidence in a new sentence after the opinion is with one reason is…. This too implies that a later sentence will name a further reason (see 263. Uses of “One” and “Ones”, #4).

With a new supporting point after the first, addition-signalling language is usually compulsory. Without it, only the first supporting point will be understood as the evidence. The only exception to this requirement is after an earlier it is not just…, where no special introduction to the next sentence is possible.

One simple signaller of a new supporting point is the conjunction and (in the same sentence as the first point). Another is an addition-showing connector (in a new sentence) – typically also, moreover, furthermore or in addition. After an earlier one reason is, further evidence can be signalled in a new sentence with another or a second or a further.

When simple evidence goes before rather than after an opinion, a slightly different set of optional link words exists. Consider this:

(b) Solar energy does not harm the environment. It is relatively cheap to produce. The Government should invest in it.

Once again, the evidence can be marked as a reason for the opinion by means of reason-showing words. The conjunctions since, because, given that and seeing that (but not for) remain possible at the start of the evidence – now at the very beginning of the argument (see 25. Conjunction Positioning). One other possibility, suggesting uncertainty about the truth of the evidence, is if, meaning “if it is true that” (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”). Another, suggesting reluctantly-accepted factuality, is granted that (see 230. Multi-Word Conjunctions, #1).

Whichever conjunction starts, and must be added later on (not a connector), between the two supporting points. As a result, the whole argument will occupy a single sentence.

Alternatively, instead of a starting since conjunction, so can be added later on, after the two supporting points, again with and between them so that everything becomes a single sentence. So suggests the same logicality as since (see 32. Expressing Consequences).

No connector can be used at the very start in place of the since conjunctions, as connectors link back to earlier statements, not forward to later ones. However, since conjunctions can be replaced by a later connector which means the same as so and goes in the same place – at the start of the opinion – but with a full stop not a comma before. Connectors of this kind include consequently, hence, therefore and thus:

(c) Solar energy is not harmful to the environment. (Moreover,) it is relatively cheap to produce.  Therefore, the Government should invest in it.

Using connectors like therefore instead of a conjunction allows a choice of link words between the supporting points (after environment). As well as the conjunction and, the connectors moreover, furthermore and in addition are all possible without being necessary.

.

COMPLEX EVIDENCE

This is my own term for supporting information that comprises more than one factual statement but only one supporting point. Again, it may go before or after the opinion. Here is an example of it placed after:

(d) Coal should not be used as an energy source. It produces carbon dioxide. This gas contributes to global warming.

In this case, the second sentence of complex evidence, rather than giving a second reason for the validity of the opinion, helps to explain the first one.

Like simple evidence, the complex kind can be linked to its supporting information in numerous different ways. With the opinion at the start, the conjunctions since, because and given that are again options between it and following evidence, as are the connectors this is because and the reason is that. However, with all of these the second evidence statement, unlike with simple evidence, can always remain a separate sentence, as it is in (d) – there is a free choice about whether or not to add and. This is a consequence of the second evidence sentence not being a new supporting point.

An occasional alternative way of combining the two sentences of complex evidence into one when the opinion comes first seems to be with the relative pronoun which (with a preceding comma): in (d) this can usefully replace the repetitious this gas. On the other hand, no connectors seem possible. Moreover and its synonyms signal a new supporting point, not a continuation of an old one.

If complex evidence is placed before an opinion, the argument might look like this:

(e) Coal produces carbon dioxide. This gas contributes to global warming. Other energy sources should be used.

The conjunction options for linking the evidence with the opinion here are similar to those when simple evidence precedes an opinion. There can be a since conjunction at the very start or so before the opinion. The former again needs and (or which) between the two evidence statements (otherwise the second evidence sentence will be understood as the opinion!), so that everything is in a single sentence. However, the use of so makes an earlier and optional: there can be one or two sentences overall.

If is not normally possible at the start of arguments like (e). The reason is that the second evidence sentence (This gas …) – necessarily linked to if by and – will usually express a fact rather than the uncertain point that if suggests.

Connector alternatives to the possible conjunctions are again consequence ones in the final (opinion) sentence: consequently, hence, therefore and thus. These are the only connector options in arguments like (e): the two evidence sentences, like those in (d), cannot have a connector between them.

The third type of support for an opinion is criticism of opposing evidence. This is different from simple and complex evidence in that it brings in points made by other people which go against the writer’s own opinion. It is considered in detail in the next post.