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

. This is a pleasant room in which to work (Chomsky 1981:309)
c. a(n easy) topic [about which to write] (Wilder 1991:126)
Table 1 gives a more comprehensive overview of the different tensed and infinitival
constructions apart from questions and topicalizations; for examples and discussion, see
Browning (1989) and Cinque (1990) in general, Montalbetti (1984) for the Overt Pronoun
Constraint OPC, and Bhatt (1999) for infinitival relatives. The properties are self-explanatory
given the preceding discussion, except for the category of overt subject; this refers to whether the
clause of the relevant construction allows an overt subject.
[INSERT TABLE 1]
The pattern indicates that TM OP clauses, degree clauses, and parasitic gaps go together,
falling under the pure Ā-Agree by C OP analysis. 30 On the other hand, the pattern of infinitival
relatives suggests that wh-movement is at least an option, leading to the possibility of overt
operators (though obligatorily deleted under recoverability), which the C OP group cannot have.
Such a conclusion would remove subject/object asymmetries from the diagnostic characteristics
of pro Ā ; perhaps that is just as well, since as noted there is no clear understanding of how they
arise.
C OP thus shows no correlation with finiteness or the possibility of overt subjects. The contrast
between it and infinitival relatives in the possibility of overt operators is valuable: it suggests that
C OP must be stipulated to simply not project a specifier, namely to not have an EPP/OCC feature
in current terminology. One could press this conclusion to answer question (ii) posed above, why
C OP cannot have an overt goal such as a relative pronoun instead of pro Ā . If such an overt goal
requires movement under Agree, it cannot be the goal of C OP . Relative pronouns in English are a
good example: they must move to [Spec, CP] (or be contained within a constituent that does),
and cannot stay in-situ:
(67) a. The palette which Narmer had requested.
b. The palette (that) Narmer had requested ∅/*which.
c. The palette such that Narmer had requested it/*which.
This leaves questions (i) and (iii): is there a deeper principle underlying the external
distribution of C OP clauses apart from arbitrary selection (much as the distribution of C Q partly
reduces to the semantics of questions), and why does pro Ā require C OP rather than e.g.
topicalization. Browning's (1989:26f., 53ff.) idea is that the φ-features of OP, for her pro in an
Ā-position and here pro with an Ā-feature, must be identified, in the sense of Rizzi (1986). This
is promising: tough-movement and perhaps degree clauses involve φ-Agree between C OP and a
higher T where φ-features are expressed, and the licensing of parasitic gaps refers to φ/Case
features as well (Culicover 2001:35ff. and literature cited therein).
Two broad groups of C OP occurrences should therefore exist. First, C OP in selected positions
(compatible with it semantically) that lie within the reach of a higher φ-Agree. This ultimately
identifies the φ-features of pro Ā : T Agrees with C OP which has Agreed with pro Ā . Toughmovement
belongs here. Second, unselected adjuncts where the parasitic gap mechanism works,
whatever it be. 31 This approach solves questions (i) and (iii) both. The distribution of pro Ā is tied
to the distribution of C OP because only C OP is such that it both gets φ-features from pro Ā and
24