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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the gap cannot be the direct object of the double object construction when the indirect object is a full DP, (1)e. Fourth, the selection problem refers to the nature of the selectional and locality relations in which the TM configuration is possible, (1)d. Beside TM triggers such as impossible stand expressions that look like they ought to be TM triggers but are not, like (not) possible; there are non-thematic raising predicates which unlike easy cannot take OP clauses, like seem; and there are no TM triggers like α in (1)d where the relation between the TM subject and the OP clause crosses an argument with structural Case (Nuwa), though both intervening obliques in the matrix clause and intervening DPs with structural Case in the OP clause are fine. I outline the basic properties of TM in the next section, and then I turn to addressing these questions. Section 3 is develops a predication analysis that unifies TM with another construction displaying some of its core properties, copy-raising, and the two with the interpretation of nonthematic positions in general. The mechanisms linking the TM subject to the OP-gap chain in the OP clause are those needed for the syntax and interpretation of movement anyway. The result is a fairly explanatory answer to the subject-gap correlation and linking problems; the system also correctly accounts for the similarities and differences between tough-movement, movement, and copy-raising. Section 4 examines the OP-gap relation within the OP clause, and proposes a hypothesis that explains some of its anomalous properties: the gap is a null pronoun which enters into long-distance Ā-Agree with the C head of the OP clause, but does not undergo Ā- movement. Finally, the selection problem is addressed more vaguely. Mainly, I try to sharpen the question in section 4.4, by seeing how OP clauses stack up against other "null operator" constructions and how far Browning's (1989) promising proposal that OP requires φ- identification goes. There is a long history to the analysis of tough-movement, beginning with Chomsky (1964:61ff.). Rosenbaum (1965:194ff.), Postal (1971), Postal and Ross (1971), Berman (1973), Brody (1993), Hornstein (2000: chapter 3), propose a movement transformation relating the gap and the TM subject, which in the case of the last two authors gives an A-Ā-A movement chain. Hicks (2003) adds a new twist by A-moving the TM subject out of a complex null operator headed DP, itself Ā-moved within the OP clause. Lasnik and Fiengo (1974) develop an objectdeletion account suggested earlier by Ross (1967) and Akmajian (1972). Williams (1983), Wilder (1991), Dalrymple and King (2000), and many others, argue that the TM subject is an argument of the TM trigger and the relation to the OP clause gap is indirect. Chomsky (1973, 1977, 1981:309ff.) argues for an Ā-chain in the OP clause, and most later work assumes this. Chomsky (1981) links the TM subject to the gap through a widely-criticized complex predicate reanalysis of the in-between material at S-structure (cf. Nanni 1978, 1980 vs. Levine 1984ab). 1 Browning (1989) links the TM subject and the OP-gap chain by a version of Williams's (1980) Predication Theory. To account for the correlation problem, Chomsky (1986b) proposes that OP alone is not enough to identify a variable as such and "strong binding" by an explicit rangeassigner, the TM subject, is required; addressing the same problem, Browning (1989) takes OP as an Ā pro in need of identification by the TM subject. The proposals in section 3 are closest to Browning's, and could be viewed as a combination of the predication analysis with the use of Agree to identify predicate variables, independently justified by the syntax and interpretation of movement and copy-raising. Why is tough-movement important? The subject-gap correlation and linking problems are a difficult, sometimes even seemingly paradoxical, problem for many theories of the syntax of long-distance dependencies (cf. Holmberg 2001:839, Hicks 2003). The linking is anomalous in 2
that it involves an Ā-step between two A-positions, and interpretation of thematic properties in one position and quantificational in another. The TM subject-gap correlation is troubling because there is a complete Ā-chain (or on a different view, a pro) in the OP clause whose existence, unlike that of other Ā-chains and other pro's, depends on a separately base-generated DP, the TM subject. I aim to show that these anomalies largely follow from syntactic mechanisms that are needed anyway to derive and interpret more orthodox structures. 2 Basic properties of tough-movement I start out from the conclusion of Berman (1973), Chomsky (1981:309ff.), Brody (1993), among others, that the TM subject is not selected by the TM trigger. The position in which it appears can be filled by the it expletive in the clausal subject construction (2) (I return to the absence of the there expletives in 3.2). It is thematically interpreted in and subject to selectional restrictions imposed on the gap in the OP clause (Lasnik and Fiengo 1974:536ff.): the hatchet in (3)a is interpretable either idiomatically or literally as the object of bury, and deviant as an argument of be impossible alone (3)b. 2 However, quantificational properties of the TM subject are not interpreted in the gap, so the two expressions in (4) are not synonymous: (4)b has the scope reading hard >> nothing that (4)a lacks. Deriving these facts will be a major result of section 3. (2) a. Nearly every dragon i is easy for his i foe to admire e. b. It is easy for his *i/j foe to admire nearly every dragon i . (3) a. The hatchet is impossible to bury e after all these years. b. #The hatchet is impossible. c. #Reconstruction is easy to dance with e. d. #I danced with the flight of these birds. (4) a. Nothing is hard for Melvin to lift. ≠ b. It is hard for Melvin to lift nothing. (Postal 1974:356) An alternative hypothesis that has been proposed is that the TM subject is interpreted as an argument of the TM trigger: Yann Gerven is easy to read is essentially Yann Gerven is easy, with the infinitive as an adjunct (Williams 1983, Wilder 1991). That is a hard road to take semantically (cf. Heycock 1994:259ff.). There are no relations such as entailment between the two constructions when both are available to TM triggers, (5)a, (5)b, yet these are expected when adjunct (modifier) interpretation is involved, (5)c (I use x ⊂ y for x entails y). (5) a. The stone is easy [to lift e] ⊄ The stone is easy. b. The hatchet is easy [to bury e] ⊄ The hatchet is easy. c. Tartalo bought the pig [to eat e] ⊂ Tartalo bought the pig. If the TM subject's position is non-thematic, it should allow idiom chunks selected for in the gap. 3 However, only some are permitted. Two alternative hypotheses seem compatible with the data: that the permitted idiom chunks are those which may head restrictive relative clauses and 3
Page 1: On tough-movement * Milan Rezac, Un
Page 5 and 6: d. *John is easy that anyone likes
Page 7 and 8: Adopting the copy theory for traces
Page 9 and 10: In tough-movement, the TM subject i
Page 11 and 12: (28) *There were asked what things
Page 13 and 14: . =No person is such that it seems
Page 15 and 16: constructions, all accounts share t
Page 17 and 18: the top of the OP clause. Various q
Page 19 and 20: not find an active wh-phrase as a g
Page 21 and 22: The pattern of goodness and degrada
Page 23 and 24: Although there is reason to be caut
Page 25 and 26: makes them available to external φ
Page 27 and 28: 14 It is an open question whether O
Page 29 and 30: References Abeillé, A., Goddard, D
Page 31 and 32: Kaplan, R. M. and Bresnan, J. 1982.
Page 33 and 34: Rizzi, L. Forthcoming. "On the form
Page 35: TABLE 1: Properties of "On wh-movem

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?