Raising from the Dead

1 Quantification in the Clause

There's a family of proposals now suggesting that the quantificational force for noun phrases is associated with heads situated higher in the extended projection of the clause (Beghelli and Stowell 1997, Szabolcsi 1997, Hallman 2000, Sportiche 2005). While these proposals differ in their implementation,¹ all converge on the expectation that the absence of such projections limits the scope options for quantified nouns. Sportiche (2005) points out that this view may offer a way to understand why the small clause subject (SCS) in (1a) fails to take scope under the raising verb seem, in contrast to the subject raised from the infinitive in (1b).

1. 1.

   1. a. Someone seems sick.
      someone > seem; *seem > someone

   2. b. Someone seems to be sick.
      someone > seem; seem > someone

(Williams 1983:293, (40a))

These data were used by Williams (1983) to argue that the SCS in (1a) does not raise from a Stowellian small clause (Stowell 1983). On the view that nominal quantification is dependent on some amount of clause structure, an SC analysis remains tenable: SCs are simply too small to house the heads that license nominal quantification. What has gone unnoticed is that SCSs can have lowered scope interpretations and that this depends on the choice of predicate in the SC. When the SC predicate is a modal adjective like necessary, the SCS can be interpreted in the scope of that adjective, and as a result within the scope of the embedding verb. No such lowering is possible with a nonmodal adjective, like available or sick.

1. 2.

   1. a. A new solution seems necessary. But none presently exists.

   2. b. A new solution seems available. #But none presently exists.

On all viable theories of scope reconstruction-whether syntactic (Fox 1999, Sauerland and Elbourne 2002) or semantic (Cresti 1995)-the lowered interpretation in (2a) is tied to movement.² This means that SCs are raising constructions, and as a consequence the lack of narrow scope in (1a) and (2b) cannot be attributed to lack of raising.

The difference is conditioned, instead, by the nature of the positions to which the SCS can reconstruct (see Hallman 2004 on the diversity of such positions). Adjectives like available and sick denote garden-variety properties of individuals. Modal adjectives (MAs) such as necessary, I argue, are like intensional transitive verbs, particularly in embedding covert clausal material (McCawley 1974, Larson, Den Dikken, and Ludlow 1997). This covert clause is large enough to contain at least some of the functional structure that licenses quantification. The SCS in (2a) is interpreted in this covert clause and raises from it. SCs, as always, reveal the functional scaffolding of the clause, even when those clauses go silent.

2 Scope Reconstruction in Small Clauses

Williams's observations extend to a range of scope-taking SCSs (Heycock 1995). These include numeral indefinites, which give rise to scope interactions that are more easily truth-conditionally distinguishable.³

1. 3. There are several empty seats in our otherwise totally full classroom.

   1. a. #Two students seemed sick today.
      2 > seem; *seem > 2

   2. b. Two students seemed to be sick today.
      2 > seem; seem > 2

Scope reconstruction is possible, however, when the SC contains an MA, like necessary, likely, or required. A range of indefinites, including existentially interpreted some and at least, fall in the scope of the MA in the SC.

1. 4.

   1. a. At least two more Green senators seem necessary.
      seem > necessary > 2

   2. b. Some policemen appear necessary.
      appear > necessary > ∃

   3. c. A storm seems likely.
      seem > likely > ∃

   4. d. Five police officers seemed required by the regulations.            seem > require > 5

In virtue of being interpreted narrowly with respect to the embedded predicate, these SCSs are interpreted narrowly with respect to the embedding predicate.⁴

Scope reconstruction is also shown by "split" readings of negative quantifiers. Negative quantifiers appear to be composed of two parts: sentential negation and existential quantification (Klima 1964, Ladusaw 1992, Larson, Den Dikken, and Ludlow 1997). That these two components can obtain independent scopes is diagnosed by the intervening modal in (5). SCs that contain an MA allow a split reading (6).⁵

1. 5. No book about Nixon...