Eva Klingvall On non-copula Tough Constructions in Swedish (PDF ...

1342 Similarities and differencesTCs and go-TCs behave in the same way in many respects. Like their Englishcounterparts, for instance, both types have alternative versions wherethe subject is either expletive or clausal:(6) a. Detitb. Detitc. Atttod. Atttoärislätt att läsa böckerna.easy to read books-DEF‘It is easy to read the books.’går lätt att läsa böckerna.goes easily to read books-DEF‘It is easy to read the books.’läsa böckerna är lätt.read books-DEF is easy‘To read the books is easy.’läsa böckerna går lätt.read books-DEF goes easily‘To read the books is easy.’Furthermore, both types have an implicit Experiencer argument that can beovertly expressed via a för-phrase (‘for’-phrase):(7) a. Artikelnpaper-DEFärislätt för vem som helst att läsa.easy for anyone to read‘The paper is easy for anyone to read.’b. Artikelnpaper-DEFgår lätt för mig att läsa.goes easily for me to read‘The paper is easy for me to read.’TCs and go-TCs also behave the same with respect to wh-movement, longdistance dependencies and parasitic gaps, as will be shown in section 3.3.Crucially, neither of the types can be reduced to a raising construction.Although TCs and go-TCs are very similar in meaning and surface form,the constructions also differ in some interesting respects. As will be shownbelow, go-TCs are subject to a number of restrictions not applying to TCs.In the next two sections, I discuss what adjectives and adverbs are found in