The standard contemporary semantics for ‘every’ predict the truth of occurrences of sentences with restrictors that denote the empty set, such as ‘Every American king lives in New York’. The literature on empty restrictors has been concerned with explaining a particular violation of this prediction: many assessors consider empty-restrictor sentences to be odd rather than valued, and they are apparently more likely to do so when such sentences include determiners like ‘every’ as opposed to those like ‘no’. Empirical investigation of this issue is overdue, and I present the results of three experimental surveys. The first unexpected outcome is that there is no evidence of a contrast in assessors’ tendencies to judge sentences to be odd based on determiner type. An additional surprising result is that those assessors who assign a truth value to sentences where ‘every’ combines with an empty restrictor overwhelmingly assign the value false. The full results do not fit straightforwardly with any existing account.

“每个”的标准当代语义预测带有表示空集的限制词的句子出现的真实性，例如“每个美国国王都住在纽约”。关于空限制词的文献一直致力于解释对这一预测的特定违反：许多评估者认为空限制词句子是奇怪的而不是有价值的，并且当这些句子包含像“every”这样的限定词时，他们显然更有可能这样做反对诸如“不”之类的说法。对这个问题的实证研究早就该进行了，我将介绍三项实验调查的结果。第一个意想不到的结果是，没有证据表明评估者根据限定词类型判断句子奇怪的倾向存在差异。另一个令人惊讶的结果是，那些为“every”与空限制符组合的句子分配真值的评估者绝大多数都将值分配为假值。完整结果并不直接适合任何现有帐户。