Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation

Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation
sentences are truth-conditionally equivalent, and that in general at most V...QNP is equivalent to V...at
most-QNP. Our proposal is that at most-Q NPs, like negative NPs, consist of two syntactic parts - at-most
and Q - and that the former takes scope independently of the latter at LF.
(59) a. Max has at most five bananas
b. Max at most has five bananas
c. Max at most has [ t five ] bananas
\______/
Specifically, we assume that at most in (59a) raises at LF to the position occupied by at most in (59b).
Ultimately, then, (59a) has a logical form analogous to (59b), namely, (59c).
As in the case of negation, the equivalence between at most V...QNP and V...at most-QNP fails in
clausal complement contexts. (60a) is equivalent to (60b), but not to (60c).
(60) a. Max needs to have at most five bananas
b. Max needs to at most have five bananas
c. Max at most needs to have five bananas
We assume this non equivalence reflects the same kind of scope limitation observed with negatives. That
is, we assume that at most in (60a) must raise to the close position occupied by at most in (60b), and not
to the more distant position occupied by at most in (60c):
(60a’) Max needs [PRO to have [ at most five ] bananas
X
Our diagnosis of the situation with at most QNP in intensional transitives is likewise identical to that
given for negation. Unlike (60a), (61a) can have a reading equivalent to (60b):
(61) a. Max needs at most five bananas
b. Max at most needs five bananas
The greater scope possibilities for (61a) arise from the crucial fact that the latter undergoes restructuring,
which raises the VP containing the at most-Q NP to Spec CP (62a-c). From this point, the closest
appropriate position to which at most can raise is in the upstairs clause.
3.4.1 A Scope Asymmetry
The clausal complement + restructuring analysis appears to shed light on an interesting asymmetry in
accessibility of upstairs versus downstairs scopes for need versus want. Consider the preferred scopes
for at most and negation in the following pairs:
(62) a. Max needs at most two visitors.
b. Max wants at most two visitors.
25