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

clause. Consider the following data-set, where an analogue of each of the ungrammatical
sentences would be fine if the TM trigger stood in the clausal subject construction:
(39) a. The man was hard for Mary to find e attractive/*sick. (Dalrymple and King 2000:14)
b. The children were difficult for us to return e unharmed/*exhausted. (Dalrymple and
King 2000:14)
c. (*The) money was tough for John to lack e. (cf. Dalrymple and King 2000:14)
d. *That expensive dress was easy for Mary to want e. (Dalrymple and King 2000:14)
e. *The hardcover edition was hard for the teacher to prefer e. (Dalrymple and King
2000:14)
f. Your cousin is difficult for me to like e. (Dalrymple and King 2000:14)
g. *John is illegal to talk to e. (Chomsky 1986b:113)
h. Some plants are illegal to grow e in Illinois.
i. John is impossible/*not possible/easy/*feasible to please e. (Brody 1993:9)
Some of these like (39)i seem to be irreducible cases of selection for the OP clause, so that
possible is simply not a TM trigger; see section 4.4. However in others such as (39)a some
property of the OP clause or its relationship to the TM subject must be the relevant factor.
Dalrymple and King (2000:14f.), discussing the conclusions of Nanni (1978), conclude from
their examples that the TM subject is required to be in a volitional or intentional relation to the
predicate (cf. also Kim 1995). 16 This however is surely incorrect; Hicks (2003) gives (40) as a
demonstration of the lack of intentionality/volitionality on the part of the TM subject.
(40) a. This mountain is difficult to walk up while carrying such a large and cumbersome
rucksack.
b. That Jo wears size 9 shoes is difficult to believe.
c. The hatchet is hard to bury after long years of war.
(Hicks 2003:14f., (40)c from Berman 1973)
Limitations arising from the individual-level nature of the predication seem a better bet,
although it remains to be seen how far it formally accounts for the data-set (39). 17
3.4 Summary
The mechanics of the syntax and interpretation of non-thematic positions given above unify
movement, copy-raising, and tough-movement. All three constructions instantiate the sequence
of φ-Agree by T and Merge of non-thematic [Spec, TP] that λ-binds the goal of T's Agree.
Differences derive from copy deletion, binding theory, and the options available for externalizing
the φ-features of a CP-internal DP to make them accessible for higher φ-Agree. The mechanism
resolves the central problem of tough-movement: the correlation and link between the TM
subject and the OP clause's gap. Copy-raising and tough-movement come out as virtually
identical instantiations of the mechanics, their difference being that an Ā-relation is required to
make a DP within an OP clause accessible to higher φ-Agree, while the CPs of copy-raising
make accessible their [Spec, TP]/T directly.
The idea that copy-raising and tough-movement should be assimilated has a clear antecedent
in Massam (1985: chapter 3). In terms of the specific mechanics that allows such cross-clausal
14