1 On tough-movement* Milan Rezac, University ... - Multimania.co.uk

(28) *There were asked what things 1 there are to do t 1 in Kolkhis.
An interesting consequence of the proposed syntax is that OP counts as associate of the
matrix T/[Spec, TP]. This explains the impossibility of the there-expletive as a TM subject, (29),
simply through the definiteness effect, if its OP-gap associate is definite or pronominal, e.g
Browning's (1989) pro; see 3.3 and 4.
(29) a. *There is hard to believe e to have been a crime committed. (Chomsky 1981:309)
b. It is hard to believe there to have been a crime committed. (Chomsky 1981:318 note
30)
The semantics of tough-movement is exactly like that of (copy) raising in relevant respects.
Assume that OP is an Ā-fronted pro. This serves as the goal of matrix φ-Agree and is bound as
the predicate variable, itself ultimately binding the gap; under the assumption that the whole OP
clause is the argument of the TM trigger, (30)a results. Alternatively, suppose the proposal in
section 4 is correct and the gap is a null pronoun that Agrees with C OP but does not move. C OP is
the goal of matrix T's φ-Agree, valuing it with the φ-features of the gap from which it has itself
been valued; the matrix subject then λ-binds the gap directly, giving (30)b.
(30) a. The books λx 1 [[x 1 λx 2 [PRO to read x 2 ]] is easy]
b. The books λx 1 [[PRO to read x 1 ] is easy]
Thus, the syntax and semantics of movement and copy-raising sketched in the last section
succeed in accounting for the subject-gap correlation and linking problems. This seems a
considerable step forward, given that the tools are independently necessary to implement the
Compositional Theory of Movement in the first place. A tiny part of the selection problem is
accounted for as well: φ-locality limits TM triggers to the raising type, lacking their own DPs.
3.3 Base-generation of the TM subject and its consequences
A-movement and copy-raising differ in that the former involves copies, which are deleted by a
copy-deletion algorithm ∆, and the latter overt pronouns. This difference correlates with the fact
that a CP boundary is crossed by φ-Agree in copy-raising but not in raising and other A-
movement. In Rezac (2004a:160ff., 2004b), I argue that the CP boundary blocks ∆, though for
reasons derivable from other principles. Condition C, which ∆ obviates, determines that copyraising,
where ∆ fails to apply, can use pronouns only.
(31) a. Kate 1 seems like [she 1 /*the girl 1 /*Kate 1 left] copy-raising
b. Kate 7 seems [Kate 7 /*she 1 /*the girl 1 to have left] movement
This syntactic difference gives rise to significant interpretive differences. The non-thematic
DP in both movement and copy raising is interpreted as λ-binding the goal identified by φ-Agree,
which (ultimately) gives it its thematic interpretation. However, a pronoun is an e-type element,
and thus non-e-type, quantificational, properties of its λ-binder cannot "reconstruct" into it. A
copy on the other hand is a full representation, and the higher copy may be deleted, leaving
quantificational properties to be interpreted in the lower copy (Sauerland 1998, 2004).
11