* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Exceptional Binding with Psych Verbs
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Norse morphology wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Proto-Indo-European verbs wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek verbs wikipedia , lookup
Latin conjugation wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup
German verbs wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
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.