Download Exceptional Binding with Psych Verbs

Squibs
and
Discussion
EXCEPTIONAL BINDING
PSYCH VERBS?
Márcia Cançado
UFMG, Brazil
Carlos Franchi
UNICAMP, Brazil
WITH
As has been well known since Postal 1970, 1971, an anaphor inside
the subject of a psych verb with an experiencer object can take the
object as its antecedent, in apparent violation of the C-Command Condition on binding.
(1) Stories about herself generally worry Mary.
Proposed explanations for this phenomenon generally follow two different lines. One states that the configurational representation of (1) is
distinct from the transitive relation implied by the surface arrangement
(Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Pesetsky 1987, 1995). The other treats (1)
as resulting from a long-distance anaphor operation: on this view, the
binding conditions are not sensitive to pure syntactic configurationality; rather, they are sensitive to other prominence judgments about
the antecedent (Giorgi 1984, Lebeaux 1985).
The goal of this squib is to evaluate these two proposals in relation
to facts of Brazilian Portuguese (BP). Although we do not offer a
solution in a theoretical framework for the issues we address here, this
evaluation is relevant because it reveals peculiarities of psych verb
constructions in BP that strongly suggest a revision of these proposals,
which are generally well accepted in the literature.
1 Belletti and Rizzi’s Analysis and Psych Verbs in Brazilian
Portuguese
In the Government-Binding framework, Belletti and Rizzi (B&R) suggest that psych verbs with an experiencer object, the Italian preoccupare ‘worry’ class, are unaccusative verbs with two internal arguments.
(2) PREOCCUPARE : [ IP e [ V P [V ¢
NPTheme ] NPExperien cer ]]
In the D-Structure representation of (2), the surface subject (theme)
is a derived subject, and it attains its position from a site lower than
that of the surface object (experiencer), allowing the surface subject
to contain a reflexive bound to the surface object. Thus, Principle A
We thank the anonymou s reviewers for their suggestions regarding a first
version of this squib.
133
134
SQU IB S A ND DISC USSION
of the binding theory, which requires anaphors to be bound in their
governing category, can be fulfilled already at D-Structure. This is the
case if one accepts the ‘‘anywhere’’ version of Principle A proposed
by B&R: it suffices for Principle A to be met somewhere, either at
D-Structure, at S-Structure, or at LF.
In BP a cluster of properties of the preocupar ‘worry’ class of
psych verbs seems to corroborate the claim that the surface subject is
actually derived from an internal VP projection. According to B&R’s
tests, presented as evidence of the derived-subject nature of the Italian
preoccupare class, preocupar (like other unaccusative verbs) does not
allow reflexive cliticization (3), arbitrary pro (4), impersonal se (5),
and analytical passivization (6).
(3) *Maria se preocupa.
Maria self worries
‘Maria worries herself.’
(4) *Preocuparam Maria.
(they) worried Maria
(5) *Preocupa-se Maria com isso.
worry- IMPERS Maria by something
‘Maria is worried by something.’
(6) *Maria foi preocupada por João.
Maria was worried
by João
However, Cançado (1995b) has presented substantial evidence
that BP psych verbs with experiencer objects do not constitute a homogeneous class. She found several genuinely transitive psych verbs. For
example, the behavior of psych verbs like acalmar ‘calm’ is precisely
the reverse of that of the prototype preocupar; in addition, verbs like
assustar ‘frighten’ display the behavior of both these verb classes.1
Compare (3), (4), (5) with (7), (8), (9), respectively.
(7) a.
Maria se acalma.
Maria self calms
‘Maria calms herself.’
b. ??Maria se assusta.
Maria self frightens
‘Maria frightens herself.’
(8) a. Acalmaram Maria.
(they) calmed Maria
b. Assustaram
Maria.
(they) frightened Maria
(9) a. Acalmou-se Maria com drogas.
calm-IMPERS Maria with drugs
‘Maria was calmed with drugs.’
1
In data involving 255 psych verbs, Cançado (1995b) found 130 verbs
of the preocupar ‘worry’ class, 35 verbs of the acalmar ‘calm’ class, and 90
verbs of the assustar ‘frighten’ class.
SQUIBS A ND DISCUSSION
135
b. Assustou-se
Maria com gritos.
frighten-IMPERS Maria by cries
‘Maria was frightened by cries.’
B&R point out similar psych verbs, which allow natural passive
sentences. Nevertheless, they argue that, in Italian, these are instances
of adjectival passivization. Support for this conclusion is provided by
auxiliary selection and by the past participle’s ability to take typical
adjectival morphology like the superlative suffix -issimo ‘very’. In BP
the facts look very different. Verbs like preocupar are compatible
only with an adjectival passive and select ficar/estar ‘become’/‘be’ as
auxiliary; verbs like acalmar are compatible only with a verbal passive
and select ser ‘be’ as auxiliary; and verbs like assustar are compatible
with both a verbal and an adjectival passive.
(10) Maria ficou/está preocupada com João.
Maria became/is worried
about João
(11) a. *Maria
Maria
b. Maria
Maria
ficou/está acalmada com João.
became/is calmed by João
foi acalmada por João.
was calmed by João
(12) a. Maria ficou/está assustada com o amigo.
Maria became/is frightened by the friend
‘Maria became/is frightened by her friend.’
b. Maria foi assustada pelo amigo.
Maria was frightened by the friend
‘Maria was frightened by her friend.’
One can also show that the (b) sentences in (11)–(12) are not ‘‘apparent
passive structures’’ in BP, but real ones. They are precisely the passive
sentences whose past participles do not take a superlative form: *acalmadõ´ ssimo ‘very calmed’ and *assustadõ´ ssimo ‘very frightened’.
(13) *Maria foi acalmadõ´ ssima pelo amigo.
(14) a. Maria ficou assustadõ´ ssima com o amigo.
b. *Maria foi assustadõ´ ssima pelo amigo.
Given these syntactic properties of acalmar and assustar, there
is no evidence that the subject of these verbs is not an external argument and thus no justification for an unaccusative structure; in fact,
these verbs are transitive causative. Most relevant, though, is that all
verbs of the acalmar and assustar classes also occur with exceptional
binding; their binding behavior is thus similar to that of the preocupar
class.
(15) Estórias sobre si mesma generalmente preocupam
stories about herself generally
worry
Maria/-a.2
Maria/her
2
Si ‘himself/herself’ is an oblique form of the third person reflexive pro-
136
SQU IB S A ND DISC USSION
(16) a. Referências a si mesma/própria no
jornal
references to herself
in the newspaper
acalmaram Maria/-a.
calmed
Maria/her
b. O sucesso do próprio filho tranquilizou João/-o
the success of his own son calmed down João/him
a investir na
área.
to invest in the area
(17) a. Uma fofoca sobre si mesma/própria assustou
a
gossip about herself
frightened
Maria/-a.
Maria/her
b. O sucesso do próprio filho consolou Maria/-a.
the success of his own son consoled Maria/her
The occurrence of exceptional binding with transitive psych verbs
raises serious doubts about the established correlation between this
phenomenon and the structure proposed by B&R. Even the unaccusative character of the preocupar verb class is not beyond question.3 In
BP all the psych verbs allow the much-studied causative alternation,
the intransitive use marked by an ergative-se.
(18) a. João quebrou/abriu a porta.
João broke/opened the door
b. A porta se quebrou/abriu.
the door broke/opened
(19) a. As notõ´ cias preocuparam/acalmaram/assustaram
the news worried/calmed/frightened
Maria/-a.
Maria/her
b. Maria/Ela se preocupou/acalmou/assustou.
Maria/she became worried/calmed/frightened
Let us take a deeper look at B&R’s unaccusative proposal for
the preoccupare class. Two kinds of empirical evidence support their
hypothesis. First, the preoccupare subject exhibits a cluster of properties typical of derived subjects (see (3)–(6)). Second, the preoccupare
object lacks one typical object property—full transparency to extraction processes4 —although it does receive overtly manifested accusative Case when it is cliticized (see (15)–(17)). This state of affairs
contradicts Burzio’s Generalization, which states, ‘‘Case is assigned
noun. In colloquial Portuguese ‘‘nonmonomorphemi c anaphors’’ such as si
mesmo, si próprio are more commonly used. The possessive próprio (not focal
or emphatic), despite behaving like a long-distance anaphor , has local anaphoric
properties, as pointed out by Brito (1990).
3
Many authors reject B&R’s unaccusativ e hypothesis for psych verbs:
Legendre (1989), Stowell (1991), Bouchar d (1988), Zubizarreta (1992), Iwata
(1995), and Cançado (1995b, 1997).
4
This property does not apply to BP examples.
SQUIBS A ND DISCUSSION
137
to the object if and only if a theta-role is assigned to the subject’’
(Burzio 1986:178 –186). To escape this problem, B&R propose the
following interpretation of Burzio’s Generalization: ‘‘V is a structural
case-assigner iff it has an external argument’’ (1988:332). Therefore,
according to B&R, the accusative shown by the preoccupare class
cannot be a structural Case because these verbs do not have an external
argument. Hence, this accusative must be an inherent Case, overtly
manifested. In the Case grids of psych verbs, this inherent accusative
will be specified as being related to the experiencer slot, so that the
theme will have to move to object position to prevent movement of
the experiencer to that position, as shown in (2).
Nevertheless, most of the explanations of Romance ergative-se
make use of the descriptive generalization that this structure occurs
only in contexts where an external thematic role is assigned, as a
morphological reflex of the ‘‘loss’’ of the subject thematic role
(Belletti 1980, Burzio 1981, Everett 1985, Cinque 1988). Thus, in
light of the sentences in (19b), one can conclude, contra B&R, that
all psych verbs must have an external argument and consequently must
be structural Case assigners. If this is so, the Case shown by these
verbs is a structural one, and there is therefore no justification for
attributing inherent Case to them. As a result, one can conclude that
there is no justification for proposing an unaccusative structure.5
2 Some Problems for Other Analyses
Giorgi (1984) argues that a long-distance anaphor must be bound to the
antecedent that plays the most prominent role in its thematic domain,
prominence being determined by a proposed thematic hierarchy in
which experiencer outranks theme. If one accepts that anaphor-binding
constructions with psych verbs are examples of long-distance anaphora, then the experiencer object will be a proper antecedent for the
anaphor in the theme subject.
In favor of a long-distance anaphora hypothesis, it can be observed that the properties that are typical of nonlocally bound anaphors,
pointed out by Lebeaux (1985), are also found in cases of anaphor
binding with psych verbs. Besides relaxing the C-Command Condition, long-distance anaphora has the following properties: (a) the anaphoric elements appear in free variation with pronouns (20); (b) the
anaphoric elements allow split antecedents (21); and (c) the anaphoric
elements allow two readings under VP-ellipsis (22).
5
As a counterargumen t to this conclusion, there are still B&R’s tests,
presented as evidence of the derived-subjec t nature of the preoccupare verb
class. However, some of these tests have also been used in the literature to
provide evidence for other phenomena . B&R themselves (see also Jackendof f
1972) give examples showing that reflexivization hinges upon other lexical,
semantic, and pragmatic factors. For instance, in (i) reflexivization with preocupar is possible.
(i) Deprimida, Maria se preocupa/assusta até a si mesma.
depressed Maria worries/frightens even herself
138
SQU IB S A ND DISC USSION
(20) A distância entre
ele (si)
e o orientador
the distance between him (himself) and his advisor
preocupa João.
worries João
(21) O sucesso do proprio filho aproxima
João
the success of their own son brings closer João
de Maria.
to Maria
‘The success of their own son brings João closer
to Maria.’
(22) Boatos sobre si mesmo assustam João, mas não seu
rumors about himself frighten João but not his
colega.
colleague
In view of these examples, one can conclude that treating exceptional
binding with psych verbs as a case of long-distance anaphora is well
motivated. In addition, according to Giorgi’s hypothesis, the accusative
structure of psych verbs remains intact. In this case the objections
against B&R’s proposal, based on the syntactic properties of the
acalmar/assustar verb classes, do not apply. An independent explanation is still needed for the peculiar syntactic behavior of the preocupar
verb class (see Cançado 1995b).
Other examples are sentences with arbitrary pro: according to Rizzi (1986) and
Jaeggli (1988), these constructions are restricted to sentences with [`human]
subjects and [`generic] traces. Finally, we show elsewhere (Franchi and Cançado 1998) that the use of passive ser ` ‘‘by phrase’’ constructions in BP is
restricted to sentences with a control or direct-causation interpretation.
(ii) a. Paulo/A tempestade matou João. !
[`control]/
Paulo/the storm
killed João
[`direct causation]
b. João foi morto por Paulo/pela tempestade.
João was killed by Paulo/by the storm
c. João matou de
inveja o colega. !
[1control]/
João killed out of envy the colleague
[1direct causation]
‘João killed his colleague out of envy.’
d. *O colega
foi morto de
inveja por João.
the colleague was killed out of envy by João
(iii) a. João recebeu uma herança. !
[`control]
João received an inheritance
b. Uma herança
foi recebida por João.
an inheritance was received by João
c. João recebeu um tapa. !
[1control]
João received a slap
d. *Um tapa foi recebido por João.
a slap was received by João
SQUIBS A ND DISCUSSION
139
However, there are some BP facts that raise doubts about Giorgi’s
hypothesis. Causative verbs such as obrigar ‘force’, trazer ‘bring’,
levar ‘take to’ show the same anaphoric binding conditions credited
only to psych verbs.6
(23) a. A distância entre
si
e o orientador
the distance between himself and his advisor
obriga João a
longas viagens.
forces João to (take) long trips
b. O descaso da própria mulher trouxe João
the neglect of his own wife brought João
à realidade.
to his senses
c. Uma estória sobre si mesmo levou João ao
a
story about himself brought João to the
cinema.
cinema
What relates these examples to psych verbs is that the subject
argument of these verbs may be thematically characterized as
‘‘causer’’ (Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995, Iwata 1995, Cançado
1995b). We could, therefore, be tempted to propose a hypothesis that
explores the prominence of the experiencer (in the case of psych verbs)
and that of the theme/patient (in the other cases) in relation to the
causer in a thematic hierarchy.7 This might explain the binding in both
cases. But there are some considerations that weaken this hypothesis.
First, we would be nullifying the best argument in favor of a thematic
hierarchy, which is based on facts related to argument promotion. It
is exactly the prominent thematic role that determines the selection of
the subject argument, and, as many languages attest, the causer NP is
the preferred candidate for this position, in the absence of an agent.8
Also, this hypothesis runs up against several counterexamples.
There are verbs that can select a complex NP for subject position, not
6
These examples are not isolated or idiosyncratic cases; we can list a
large number of other transitive verbs that behave the same way. Examples in
English are given by Zubizarreta (1992) and Pesetsky (1995).
7
This would be similar to Pesetsky’s (1995:49) descriptive generalization:
‘‘A Causer argument of a predicate p may behave as if c-commanded by an
argumental DP governed by p .’’ We cannot discuss this proposal at length.
However, we think that it runs into problems arising from the facts we addressed
earlier about ergative-se constructions and other facts we will present in this
squib.
8
Grimshaw (1990) tries to avoid this difficulty by assuming (as in Jackendoff 1987) a two-tiered system of prominence . The aspectual hierarchy, in
which causer is the most prominent role, determines which argument is realized
as subject. The thematic hierarchy, which includes experiencer and theme,
determines the binding relations. Besides facing other problems (see van Voorst
1992, Cançado 1995a), this analysis cannot be extended to (23a–c). The object
thematic role is a theme, lower in Grimshaw’s hierarchy and others proposed
thus far.
140
SQU IB S A ND DISC USSION
necessarily associated with the thematic role causer, for which similar
examples of exceptional anaphor binding can be provided.
(24) Estórias sobre si
têm a aprovação do
vaidoso
stories about himself have the approval of the vain
mestre.
master
(25) Fofocas dos próprios amigos não convêm a quem
gossip about one’s own friends do not suit
whoever
assuma tão
importante cargo.
assumes such an important job
(26) Uma foto de si mesmo na
primeira página do
a
photo of himself on the first
page of the
jornal
vale o dia
para um polõ´ tico.
newspaper is a real boost for a politician
We can informally characterize the thematic roles of the subject in
(24)–(26) as possessor, theme, and value, respectively, and the thematic role of the object—antecedent of the anaphor—as agent, goal,
and beneficiary. Given the variety of thematic roles involved in subject
and complement positions, any hypothesis that considers these notions
related to a thematic hierarchy will fail to deal with these counterexamples.
(24)–(26) point to a fact that provides the strongest counterargument to the proposals we have discussed. In fact, in the structures
considered, it is not necessary for the NP antecedent to be a surface
object, as pointed out by Lebeaux (1985:349), Pesetsky (1990:109),
and Iwata (1995:114) . It is not even necessary for the antecedent to
be an argument of the verb, contra Giorgi (1984:322).
(27) O desprezo da própria mulher justifica o
the disdain of his own wife justifies the
comportamento de João.
behavior
of João
‘The disdain of his own wife justifies João’s behavior.’
(28) Rumores sobre si
explicam a insegurança
rumors about himself explain the insecurity
mostrada por João.
shown by João
(29) O sucesso dos próprios filhos fazem a alegria
the success of their own children causes the happiness
dos pais.
of the parents
‘The success of their own children causes the parents’
happiness.’
In B&R’s hypothesis, the c-command requirement on the antecedent
anaphor is met at D-Structure, with the presupposition that c-command
is established between two coarguments of the psych verb. In the
SQUIBS A ND DISCUSSION
141
examples above, even if the phrasal structure proposed by B&R is
accepted, there is no way to satisfy this condition. It is also clear that
the relation of order in a prominence hierarchy has effects only if it
is established between coarguments of the same predicator.9
3 Conclusion
We have shown, first, that the exceptional binding of anaphors, considered to be a typical phenomenon of psych or causative verbs, encompasses other verb classes in BP. This fact leads to rejecting the hypothesis that this phenomenon is associated with a specific syntactic
configuration of these particular verbs. Conceivably, the different instances of binding into subject could have different explanations, depending on the classes of verbs involved. But this is unlikely. Rather
than thinking about exceptional binding as a typical phenomenon of
specific verbs, one should look deeper into binding theory for other
solutions.
Second, we have shown that this issue is neither related to thematic role types nor dependent on a thematic hierarchy, at least in the
way these notions have been defined. The exceptional anaphor binding
between NPs that are not coarguments of the same predicator casts
further doubt on both hypotheses. Finally, the fact that these structures
exhibit the same properties as long-distance anaphora is only an observation, not an explanation.
References
Belletti, Adriana. 1980. Morphological passive and pro-drop: The impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Research
2:1–34.
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and u -theory.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:291– 352.
Bouchard, Denis. 1988. From conceptual structure to syntactic structure. Ms., Université du Québec à Montréal.
Brito, Ana Maria. 1990. ‘‘Próprio’’ as a local and long distance anaphoric expression in Portuguese. In Workshop sobre Anáfora,
Encontros Regionais da Associação Portuguesa de Linguõ´ stica, 116–138. Faculdade de Letras do Porto, Universidad do
Porto.
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
9
We cannot discuss at length the consequence s of proposing that backwar d
anaphor a is licensed by logophoricity, as Iwata (1995) does (with reference
to Zribi-Hertz’s (1989) discourse principle Minimal Subject Consciousness) .
However, BP offers evidence that this hypothesis is not correct. First, we do
not know how examples such as (25), (27), and (28), which do not implicate
the subject’s (un)consciousness , could be treated in terms of this principle.
More to the point, the best cases used as support for the hypothesis are ungrammatical in BP with reflexives.
142
SQU IB S A ND DISC USSION
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cançado, Márcia. 1995a. A teoria da proeminência de Grimshaw e os
psico-verbos do Português Brasileiro (Grimshaw’s prominence
theory and the psych verbs of Brazilian Portuguese). D.E.L.T.A.
11:279 –299. São Paulo.
Cançado, Márcia. 1995b. Verbos psicológicos: A relevância dos papéis
temáticos vistos sob a ótica de uma semântica representacional
(Psychological verbs: The relevance of thematic roles from
the point of view of a representational semantics). Doctoral
dissertation, UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo.
Cançado, Márcia. 1997. Os psico-verbos do Português Brasileiro e a
análise inacusativa de Belletti & Rizzi: Indõ´ cios para uma proposta semântica (The psych verbs of Brazilian Portuguese and
Belletti and Rizzi’s unaccusative analysis: Indications for a
semantic proposal). D.E.L.T.A. 13:119 –139. São Paulo.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb.
Linguistic Inquiry 19:521–581.
Everett, Daniel. 1985. On Romance se. Ms., UNICAMP, Campinas,
São Paulo.
Franchi, Carlos, and Márcia Cançado. 1998. O estudo dos papéis temáticos em uma semântica representacional (The study of thematic roles within representational semantics). Ms., UNICAMP, São Paulo, and UFMG, Belo Horizonte.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 1984. Toward a theory of long distance anaphors:
A GB approach. The Linguistic Review 3:307– 361.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Iwata, Seizi. 1995. The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic Analysis 25:95– 120.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic
theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369–411.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1988. Arbitrary plural nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:43–46.
Lebeaux, David. 1985. Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic
Review 4:343– 363.
Legendre, Géraldine. 1989. Inversion with certain French experiencer
verbs. Language 65:752 –782.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18:126–140.
Pesetsky, David. 1990. Experiencer predicates. Ms., MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1970. On the surface verb ‘‘remind.’’ Linguistic Inquiry 1:37–120.
SQUIBS A ND DISCUSSION
143
Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501–557.
Stowell, Tim. 1991. As so, not so as. Boletim da Associação Brasileira
de Linguõ´ stica 11:9–49.
Voorst, Jan van. 1992. The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs.
Linguistics and Philosophy 15:65– 92.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view:
English reflexive pronouns in sentence and in discourse. Language 65:695 –727.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1992. The lexical encoding of scope relations
among arguments. In Syntax and semantics 26: Syntax and the
lexicon, ed. Eric Wehrli and Tim Stowell, 211–255. San Diego,
Calif.: Academic Press.
NOTES ON QUANTIFIER/WH
INTERACTION
Satoshi Oku
Hokkaido University
A sentence like (1) may anticipate a pair-list answer like (2) or a single
answer like (3).1
(1) What did every student buy?
(2) John bought a book, Mary bought a pen, and Bill bought a
tie.
(3) Every student bought a book.
Lasnik and Saito (1992) (henceforth, L&S) claim that both (2) and
(3) are possible answers to (1) when every student takes wide scope
over what. 2 In this interpretation (1) is asking, with respect to each
individual student, what that student bought. This is roughly represented as in (4).
I thank Sigrid Beck, ZÏ eljko BosÏ ković, Dave Braze, Howard Lasnik, and
William Snyder for comment s and suggestions on this work. I am also grateful
to an anonymou s LI reviewer for substantial suggestions that helped me make
the argument of this squib clear and concise.
1
I will use the universally quantified NP every student and avoid using
the word everyone/everybody, although everyone/everybody is often employed
in the literature on quantifier/wh interaction. The reason for this choice is the
following. Everyone/Everybody allows another interpretation that would induce
an unnecessar y complication for the point I will make in this squib: the nonquan tificational group interpretation (Williams 1986, Lasnik and Saito 1992). Everyone bought a book can be interpreted as ‘everyone together as a group bought
a single token of book’, as well as ‘everyone individually bought a different
token of book’. The first reading (‘‘the group purchase reading’’) is not available with other universally quantified NPs like every student. Note that, although the nonquantificationa l group interpretation of everyone/everybody is
not directly relevant to the point of this squib, the existence of such an interpretation is a nontrivial issue that is sometimes overlooked and/or causes some
confusion in the literature.
2
L&S’s (p. 153) actual example is Everyone bought Max a book, but the
change from everyone to every student does not affect the point in the present
discussion.