DISCREPANCIES IN TOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS* YOSHIYUKI …

DISCREPANCIES IN TOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS*

YOSHIYUKI IGARASHI

Sophia University

The so-called tough construction has a number of problems, whichmake all of the previous analyses inadequate. The most notable ofthem, which none of the previous analyses has taken into account, isthe fact that tough constructions exhibit great differences in acceptabilityamong speakers. Thus in this paper I propose an appropriate analysisof tough constructions that covers this fact. Especially I claim thatthe idiolectal differences originate from syntactico-semantic discrepancythat induces semantic or syntactic reorganization. Other notions ofinterest are multiple analysis and semantic binding. These two play avery important role in accounting for the difference in judgment ofapparent violation of the wh-island constraint.

1. INTRODUCTION. The so-called tough construction, such as John iseasy for me to please, has been posing problems for the government andbinding theory of generative grammar. A number of analyses have been

proposed, but none of them has been able to account for all ofthe relevant data adequately. What I think to be the most important

problem, though to my knowledge no one has so far taken accountof it, is that tough constructions exhibit great idiolectal differences inacceptability. Thus this paper first points out inadequacies of the

previous analyses, and then presents and analyzes the data concerningthe idiolectal differences.

2. PREVIOUS ANALYSES. A number of analyses have been proposedconcerning the tough construction, including the Tough Movementand Tough Deletion analyses. Chomsky (1977) observed the characteris-

* This is a greatly refined and revised version of my earlier papers, 'Variationin Judgment with Tough Constructions' and 'Idiolectal Difference in Judgmentof Tough Constructions'. I am much indebted to Akira Ota and some graduatestudents at Sophia for their helpful comments on the earlier versions of this paper.I also thank Roger Finch for having acted as an informant and given me a numberof suggestions. As usual, the remaining errors are all mine.

-165-

166 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 2 (1985)

tics of wh-movement and proposed the analysis in which the matrixsubject is base-generated in that position, like the tough deletion analysis,and the embedded infinitival clause undergoes wh-movement. Chomsky

(1981) improves his analysis and proposes the following derivation:

(1) a. D-structure: [NP e] is [AP easy [s' COMP [s PRO to pleasePRO]]]

b. PRO-movement: [NP e] is [AP easy [s' PROi [s PRO to pleaseti]]]

c. Reanalysis: [NP e] is [AP [A easy to please] ti]d. S-structure: Johni is [AP [A easy to please] ti]

At D-structure, PRO is inserted in the embedded object position, butsince PRO must be ungoverned at S-structure, it is moved into COMPof the infinitival by PRO-movement. The matrix subject position is aθ-position, as can be seen from a sentence like It is easy to please John,

and so no lexical item is inserted into it at D-structure. After PRO-movement the adjective and the following infinitival are reanalyzedinto a complex adjective. This ensures the lexical insertion into thematrix subject at S-structure since free indexing at S-structure makesthe matrix subject and the embedded trace coindexed and that formsthe two positions into a chain. Because of the chain, the matrixsubject can receive a θ-role and is able to undergo lexical insertion,

since at this point the θ-criterion can be met. Note that at S-structure

the embedded trace is functionally determined as an anaphor boundby the matrix subject.1

This analysis has various empirical problems. First, see the followingexample:

1 Lexical insertion into the matrix subject position must be done at S-structure(if we assume that lexical insertion applies to representations), for the followingreasons: first, reanalysis must be after the application of movement transformations,since otherwise idiom chunks could be inserted into the embedded object positionat D-structure and then moved to the matrix subject by NP-movement, hence thefollowing example could not be blocked:

(i) *Good care is hard to take t of the orphans.Second, free indexing cannot be done at D-structure, since D-structure free index-ing would permit an idiom chunk to be inserted into the subject position due tothe chain composed of the matrix subject and the embedded object. From thesetwo points it follows that lexical insertion into the matrix subject cannot be done atD-structure, for the subject argument cannot receive a θ-role and violates the θ-

criterion. In the third place, lexical insertion cannot be after the level of S-structure,

so that PF may contain the lexical item in question.

DISCREPANCIES IN TOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS 167

(2) How hard were the instructions for John to learn.2 indicates that the adjective alone can be moved to make a wh-ques-tion, contrary to the reanalysis account predicts. If the adjective andthe infinitival were converted into a complex lexical item by reanalysis,then the adjective could not move by itself, since it is impossible tochop part of a lexical item and move it by a syntactic operation. Thus2 tells us that the tough adjective does not undergo reanalysis withthe following infinitival.

A second problem is concerned with the so-called parasitic gap.

Chomsky (1982: 40) gives 3 as the licensing condition for a parasitic gap:

(3) A parasitic gap is licensed by a variable that does not c-command it.

Bearing 3 in mind, consider the following tough sentence cited fromMontalbetti and Saito 1983:

(4) The book is hard to buy_without reading_.The first gap is an ordinary tough gap, created by PRO-movement inChomsky's terms, but the second one is a parasitic gap. Now, if re-analysis were operative in tough constructions, the following wouldbe the resultant structure of 4:

(5) The book is [AP [A hard to buy]_[PP without reading_]]In 5 there is no A binder, and because of reanalysis, the tough gap isinterpreted as an anaphor. And what is worse, it c-commands the

parasitic gap. Thus condition 3 is not satisfied. This means thatChomsky's analysis wrongly predicts that 4 is ungrammatical. Tosave this situation, Montalbetti and Saito assume a double representa-tion in which one is reanalyzed and the other is not, but not only isthis solution ad hoc but poses a serious problem, as we see next.

A third problem is about prenominal modifiers. In English a singleadjective can occur before a noun, as in a [A smart] [N guy]. But whatif reanalysis took place in tough constructions? Since reanalysiswould change tough adjectives and the following elements into singleadjectives, the resultant complex adjectives could occur prenominally.This is not the case, however, as the following examples show (citedfrom Nanni 1980):

(6) a. *an easy to quickly clean roomb. *an easy to expect to finish problemc. *an easy for Bill to finish problem

Note that the double representation assumed in Montalbetti andSaito 1983 cannot solve this issue and makes the matter worse. To solve


the first and second problems by assuming double representation,we must have an underlying assumption that the construction can existif at least one of the two representations meets the requirement forthe construction to occur. Thus, the unreanalyzed representationsatisfies the requirements for the wh-extraction of an adjective andthe parasitic gap construction. But then 6 must also be grammatical,since one of the two representations, the reanalyzed one in this case,satisfies the requirement for the prenominal modifier. Therefore, thedouble representation analysis is self-contradictory.

A forth problem is the central issue of this paper, that is, great idiolectaldifference in judgment of tough constructions. The tough constructionsare interesting in that acceptability varies considerably from speakerto speaker. If the theory of language and the grammar of English areto elucidate the true nature of language, they should not neglect thisfact and should explain it in a principled way. But Chomsky's analysisand all the others that I know have not attained this goal. This paper,in contrast, attempts to achieve it. Now, let us see in the nextsection how and to what extent speakers' judgments differ on toughconstructions.

3. IDIOLECTAL DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT. This section shows speakers'differences in judgment of tough sentences, with respect to twoaspects: section 3.1 concerns violation of the wh-island constraint,and 3.2, gaps within tensed clauses.

3.1. VIOLATION OF THE Wh-ISLAND CONSTRAINT. As we saw in the pre-ceding section, Chomsky assumes wh-movement within the infinitivalclause of a tough sentence. Thus the infinitival forms a wh- island, andno element should be able to move out of it. Chomsky (1977) andNanni (1978) claim that this is the case. Some of Nanni's examplesare given in 7:

(7) a. *Which cupboard were the bagels tough to put_in_? (Cf. The bagels were tough to put_in the

cupboard.)b. *Which cellar were the books hard for us to keep _in

_? (Cf. The books were hard for us to keep_inthe damp cellar.)

Each example in 7 has two gaps within the infinitival, one beingassociated with the matrix subject and the other with the wh-phrase


at the top of the sentence. Since the wh-phrase is extracted out ofthe infinitival which is a wh-island, the sentence is urgrammatical,as predicted by Chomsky's analysis.

However, there are speakers who accept this type of sentences. Thus,Schachter (1981) makes the following judgment:

(8) a. What violin is the sonata easy to play_on_?b. Which students is this subject easy to talk about_

with_?c. Which of these dresses would Mary be easier to fit_

into_?Notice that Schachter's grammar has the wh-island constraint:

(9) *Which violin did John ask which sonata he should play_on_?

Hence in his grammar the infinitival of the tough construction doesnot constitute a wh-island.

Moreover, he presents interesting data, where a subject/object asym-metry is observed:

(10) a. Mary is easy for me to understand why John dated_.b. *Mary is easy for me to understand why_dated John.

In 10, an object gap is allowed, but a subject gap is not. Note inci-dentally that 10a contains a wh-clause within the infinitival, whichmeans that the clause is a wh-island and could not contain a gap if the

gap resulted from movement, but actually the sentence is acceptableto Schachter, though he has the wh-island constraint.

3.2. GAPS WITHIN TENSED CLAUSES. Many speakers disallow toughconstructions with gaps inside tensed clauses embedded in theinfinitivals. Thus, Nanni (1978) gives the contrast between 11 and 12:

(11) a. The drugs were tough for us to force Susan to take_.b. John is hard for us to pretend to want Mary to marry_.

(12) a. *The car was difficult for us to convince Harry thatwe needed_.

b. *The mistakes were hard for me to admit_were mine.11 only involves embedding of infinitivals and is acceptable, whereas in12 the gaps are within tensed clauses and so the sentences are judgedungrammatical.

Some speakers, however, accept tensed embedding in tough construc-tions. See the following example:

(13) Mary is hard for me to believe John kissed_.


(Schachter 1981)Nonetheless many of those speakers display a subject/object asym-metry. Thus, contrast 13 with 14:

(14) *Mary is hard for me to believe_kissed John.(Schachter 1981)

13, in which the gap occurs in the object position, is acceptable,but 14, the gap being in the subject position, is unacceptable.

According to Nanni (1978), however, a few speakers permit even asubject gap. To those speakers, examples like 15 are all acceptable:

(15) a. The errors were hard for John to admit that he hadmade_.

b. The mistakes were hard for me to admit_were mine.15a has a gap in an object position and so is less problematic, but15b contains a gap in a subject position and yet is not starred.

4. A MORE ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF Tough CONSTRUCTIONS. Now, I will

propose a more adequate analysis of tough constructions that canaccount for the problems pointed out in the preceding sections. Froma theoretical point of view, the most important of the mechanismsoperative in the account are reorganization induced by syntactico-semantic discrepancy, multiple analysis, and semantic binding.

4.1. SYTACTICO-SEMANTIC DISCREPANCY. In this section, I will examinethe sytactic and semantic structures of tough constructions relevant tothe present analysis. To brief a conclusion in advance, the syntacticstructure does not correspond to the semantic structure, and thissyntactico-semantic discrepancy induces reorganization of either struc-ture.

Let us first consider the syntactic structure. There is evidenceshowing that tough adjectives and the following (for phrases and)infinitival clauses do not form a constituent. First, Nanni (1978) presentsthe following data:

(16) a. *How difficult to persuade Bill to wear was the coat?b. *How easy for John to read were the instructions?

(17) a. How difficult was the part for Brando to learn?b. How hard were the instructions for John to read?

The contrast between 16 and 17 shows that wh-movement cannotmove the sequence of A (for NP) to VP of the tough construction, butcan only move the adjective alone. If the adjective and the following


infinitival were a constituent as a whole, that whole must be able tomove, as Nanni (1978) argues. Thus, compare 16 with the followingexamples:

(18) a. How concerned about her student was the teacher?b. How eager to examine the ruins were the tourists?

In 18, the adjectives and the following PP or infinitival clause, beinga constituent, can be moved by wh-movement. This makes a sharpcontrast with 16, indicating non-constituency of the tough adjectiveand the infinitival.

Second, the for-phrase of the tough construction can move to theend or top of the sentence freely, as in 19 (cited from Lasnik andFiengo 1974):

(19) a. John is easy to please, for Bill.b. For Bill, John is easy to please.

This fact indicates that the for-phrase does not form a constituentwith the adjective, which in turn suggests that the infinitival doesnot constitute a single unit with the adjective, either, since in theordinary order the for-phrase intervenes between the adjective andthe infinitival.

Let us next examine the semantic structure. If the infinitival doesnot appear, the sentence sounds odd, as the following examples show

(cited from Nanni 1978. The question marks before the examplesare mine.):

(20) a. ?The pencil was tough.b. ?Mary is hard.

The examples are odd because not the pencil or Mary but acts as-sociated with them can be measured by easiness for someone, but thereis no implication of such acts in 20. (Actually there is an acceptableexample like the book is easy, but in such an example the subjectimplies the typical act associated with it, e. g. to read in the case of'book'. What I intend to say here is that if the entity in the subject

position did not imply such a typical act, the sentence would soundodd.) In other words, the easy-type adjective semantically requiresa description or implication of an act that can be carried out by the

person expressed by the for phrase or someone implied if the for phraseis omitted. Moreover, the subject is interpreted as the target of theact. This means that there is a close semantic dependency betweenthe matrix subject and the gap in the infinitival. I refer to this depend-ency as "semantic" binding. In sum, the infinitival is semantically a


complement to the adjective, hence the adjective and the infinitivalform a semantic constituent, and in addition, the subject "semantically"binds the gap in the infinitival.

To summarize, the tough adjective and the following infinitivalclause do not form a syntactic constituent. Thus I assume that theinfinitival is syntactically an adjunct to the adjective and that thesyntactic structure of the tough construction is roughly as follows:

(21) John is [AP easy] [s' PRO to please]Semantically, however, the infinitival is a necessary ingredient forthe adjective, and the subject and the gap are in a close relationshipwhich I call semantic binding. This situation of syntactico-semanticdiscrepancy gives rise to what Kajita calls reorganization.2 Sincethe syntactic and semantic structures do not correspond, reorganizationcan proceed in two ways, i. e. the semantic structure is reorganizedand conformed to the syntactic one, or vice versa.3 This brings aboutone kind of idiolectal difference because a speaker's grammar chooseseither of the two reorganizations.

If semantic reorganization takes place, the result is that the semanticconstituency of the adjective and the infinitival is broken and thelatter becomes an optional element. Correspondingly the semanticbinding relation between the subject and the gap no longer exists. Itis predicted then that the speaker whose grammar takes this optionaccepts tough sentences without an infinitival. This is actually thecase because Williams (1983) gives the sentence John is easy asacceptable and says that 'in every case, the clausal complement ofthe tough predicates can be omitted'.

As for syntactic reorganization, it can be realized in two ways. Inone way, the adjective and the infinitival are united to become aconstituent, in accordance with the semantic structure. Thus theresultant syntactic structure would be as follows:

(22) John is [AP easy to please]In. 22 easy and to please has become a new adjective phrase. As a

2 In his 1977 paper Kajita calls the mechanism 'reinterpretation', but he renames

it as 'reorganization' in his TEC lecture in 1983. I think 'reorganization' reflectsthe process better and so will adopt that terminology.

3 It seems that Kajita (1977) thinks the process to manifest itself only in one way,i. e. as syntactic reorganization. But logically speaking, it is natural to conceive ofthe two ways mentioned in the text, and in reality, examples of both types ofreorganization are found, as the discussion to follow shows.


result, the adjective and the following infinitival behave in the samemanner as ordinary adjectives and their complements. Gazdar et al.

(1984) are such speakers since they provide 23 as acceptable, contraryto Nanni (1978), and remark that the difference between 23 and 24 seemsnegligible to them.

(23) How easy for the children to tease is John?(24) How easy is John for the children to tease?

In 23 the sequence A for NP to VP is fronted by wh-movement. Recallthat this is one of the properties of the AP consisting of an adjectiveand its complement, as 18 shows.

The second type of syntactic reorganization will be discussed indetail in the next section. The more important of the two semantic

properties-the semantic constituency of the adjective and the in-finitival and the semantic binding of the gap by the subject is the latter,since the fact that the infinitival is syntactically outside the adjective

phrase reflects one aspect of the semantics of the tough construction, i. e.,the easiness of the act described by the infinitival is expressed by theadjective, and so the infinitival is semantically the subject of the adjectivein a sense (for more detail, see a later discussion). Hence the second typeof reorganization is to make the matrix subject directly bind the gap inreflection of the semantic binding.

So far we have seen that there are two ways of reorganization,semantic and syntactic, but it seems that the syntactic reorganizationis more prevalent than the semantic one. I suppose the reason isthat language is essentially a pair of form and meaning and that syntaxis an abstract mediator between them. If the semantic structureof a sentence is reorganized, that may change the meaning of thesentence, which does not make sense because the meaning, and notthe syntactic structure, is what the speaker wants to convey. Ifthe syntactic structure is reorganized, however, that does not cause aserious effect since the meaning and the form of the sentence is

preserved.4

4 As one aspect of the syntactic and semantic structures of a sentence weare considering the constituent structures (i. e. which elements syntactically orsemantically constitute a unit and which do not) in this section. The questionof whether reorganization is defined in the grammar remains open, or rather itmight be that the mechanism operates both inside and outside the grammar.I suppose that when a syntactic structure (not necessarily the surface structure)conflicts with a semantic one in regard to exactly the same aspect, there arisesa possibility of reorganization (cf. fn. 10).


I have argued so far that the syntactic and the semantic structuresof the tough construction do not match, which induces reorganization.But why do the two structures differ at all? More precisely, why dothe adjective and the infinitival not form a constituent syntacticallyin tough constructions? It seems to me that the answer lies inWilliams's (e. g. 1981) notion of external argument. The externalargument of a lexical item is a distinguished argument of the item thatis located outside of the maximal projection of that item syntactically.NP is assigned the θ-role of the external argument via predication

relation, which roughly corresponds to the subject-predicate relation.Thus, roughly speaking, the external argument is an LF subject lyingoutside the maximal projection of the lexical item. As mentionedabove, the infinitival of the tough construction can be consideredto be the subject, or more precisely, the external argument, of theadjective, for one can measure by easiness not an entity but only anact one takes on the entity. Then it follows that the infinitival mustbe outside the maximal projection of the adjective, i. e. AP. Thereforethe adjective and the infinitival cannot form a constituent.

One might think that this is rather a theory-internal explanation,hence does not make sense. But actually it is not, if we see the pointfrom a traditional point of view. Thus, the following three examplesare apparently related and are essentially the same in cognitive sense:

(25) a. To please John is easy.b. It is easy to please John.c. John is easy to please.

The infinitival of 25a is clearly the subject, and in an earlier analysisof transformational generative grammar, 25b is derived from 25a byextraposition, and 25c from 25b by tough movement. We do not adoptthis transformational analysis, but we should account for the relationamong them in some way. The above argument is such an account.Notice in this connection that the adjective and the infinitival do notform a constituent in 25b, as Oehrle (1979) shows:

(26) a. How hard it is to solve this problem!b. *How hard to solve this problem it is!

Thus it will be natural if the same fact is found in 25c.The account might appear inconsistent because previously I said

that the infinitival is semantically a complement of the adjective, andnow I am claiming that it is the subject. But that is only seeminglyso. Thus I suppose that the semantic structure of the tough construction


is "twisted". The NP occurring in the matrix subject position is actuallya topic and easiness of a certain act is stated about the topic, whilethe predicate has the internal structure of predicate-external argument.Hence the adjective and the infinitival form a single unit in the sensethat the entirety of them functions as the predicate of the NP in thematrix subject position, but in another respect they are separated inthat the infinitival is the external argument of the adjective.

To summarize, the discrepancy between the semantic and-the syn-tactic structures of the tough construction causes the differences of the

judgments among speakers because of the reorganization of either ofthe two structures. So far we have seen the semantic reorganizationand one way of syntactic reorganization in detail. In the next section,we will closely examine the other way of syntactic reorganization.

4.2. VIOLATION OF THE Wh-ISLAND CONSTRAINT. As mentioned in section4.1, the syntactic reorganization can proceed in such a way that thematrix subject comes to directly bind the gap within the infinitival,without the infinitival being united with the adjective to form a con-stituent. I use the term 'semantic binding' ambiguously to refer eitherto the semantic relation holding between the subject and the gap or tothe syntactic structure resulting from the reorganization to reflect it.In what follows, I will argue that this type of syntactic reorganizationaccounts for the difference in acceptability among speakers withrespect to the violation of the wh-island constraint demonstated insection 3.1.5

Before considering the reorganization, however, let us determinethe D-structure of the tough construction. I assume that the gap is

generated as an empty category for the following reasons. First, asChomsky (1981: 309-10) argues, we cannot adopt an analysis in whicha lexical item is inserted into the gap position and then moved tothe matrix subject position. Second, it is ad hoc to assume that an overtwh-element occurs in the gap position, then is moved into COMP ofthe infinitival, and is finally deleted. I also assume the functionaldefinition of empty categories proposed in Chomsky 1982. Thus, if anempty category is locally bound by an element in a θ-position, then

5 The main body of the analysis of this section was first proposed in Igarashi

1985, but in that paper the proposal stood alone and was not built into a largermechanism of reorganization. Now that it has been built in, it has been reborn and

given a new role in the whole system proposed in this paper.


it is assigned [-pronominal], and otherwise, assigned [+pronominal].An empty category assigned [-pronominal] is assigned [+anaphor] ifthe local binder is in an A-position, and assigned [-anaphor] if thelocal binder is in a A position. There are a number of possibilitiesof assigning [±anaphor] to an empty category with [+pronominal],

and Chomsky gives one way in which the features are assignedarbitrarily and the assignment is checked against other principles.Accordingly, empty categories are divided into four types: [+anaphor,+pronominal] is a PRO, [+anaphor, -pronominal] is an NP trace,

[-anaphor, +pronominal] is a pro, and [-anaphor, -pronominal] is avariable. Assuming the functional definition of empty categories, the D-structure of the tough construction looks like 27:

(27) [NP1 e] is easy for me [s' COMP [s PRO to please [NP2 e]]]NP2 is functionally interpreted either as PRO or pro. Since the bindingtheory applies at S-structure, either interpretation is allowed at D-structure. Note incidentally that the matrix subject position is also empty,following Chomsky's (1981) assumption that it is a θ-position.

Now, let us turn our attention to the S-structure. It is either 28a or28b according to the D-structure interpretation of the gap either asPRO or pro:

(28) a. Johni is easy for me [s' PROi [s PRO to please ti]]b. Johni is easy for me [s' COMP [s PRO to please ei]]

28a is the S-structure for those who interpret the D-structure gap asPRO and move it to COMP since PRO must not be governed, whereas28b is for those who interpret the gap as pro. The index i on John isassigned by free indexing at S-structure. The semantic binding of the

gap by the matrix subject is relevant to either structure, and we willconsider the two structures in turn.6

First, consider 28a. We have four logical possibilities concerningthe binding of the gap: (I) semantic binding by Johni, (II) syntacticbinding by PROi, (III) (I)+(II), and (IV) no binding. In order to make

(I) possible, I tentatively propose an optional rule PRO Deletion at S-structure which deletes PRO if and only if PRO is in a A-position andthe control of it is somehow unnecessary. Thus, PROi can be deletedin case (I) since it is in COMP and the control of it is unnecessarybecause the trace is bound by the matrix subject.

6 The argument about free indexing in fn. 1 also holds for semantic binding. Thus

semantic binding must occur later than D-structure.


In case (I), the judgment observes the wh-island constraint, sincethe infinitival forms a wh-island due to PRO-movement. If the speakerallows a gap within a tensed clause, a subject/object asymmetryemerges, because the subject gap, not properly governed, violatesthe empty category principle (ECP). See 29 for example:

(29) *The mistakesi were hard for me [s' [s PRO to admit [s' [s ti weremine]]]]

In 29, because of PRO deletion independently needed in order forthe matrix subject to locally bind the gap, antecedent government ofthe trace from the nearest COMP is impossible, and moreover, thesubject position is not lexically governed in general. So the subject traceis not properly governed and the sentence is ungrammatical.

Case (II) cannot occur, for the following reason. The matrix subject

position is θ, because there is no (A-) chain to assign a θ-role to

the subject, hence it is expletive. Since PROi is controlled by anexpletive, it is also expletive. But this contradicts the fact that itstrace is in a θ-position, namely the object of please of 28a.

In case (III), the wh-island exists, as in case (I). And if a tensedembedding is allowed, no subject/object asymmetry is observed sincethe subject trace satisfies the ECP due to the antecedent governmentby PROi. Thus, in this case 29 becomes grammatical. The fact thatonly a few speakers make this judgment can be explained by the factthat in case (III), there are two binders of the trace-the matrixsubject and PROi-hence the status of the trace is unstable, whilein other cases, the binder is only one.

Case (IV) does not arise, either. The reason is as follows. Thematrix subject position has no θ-role and is expletive. Thus the

structure would be 30:

(30) It is easy for me [s' PROi [s PRO to please ti]]Now, if we assume that PRO in COMP or the trace of it mustsomehow be controlled, as seems to be the case, judging from theexamples of purpose clauses and infinitival relatives, then there aretwo logical possibilities: (a) control by the matrix subject and (b) bythe for-phrase. In case (a), PROi is expletive since its controller isexpletive, but this contradicts the fact that the trace of PROi is in a θ-

position. In case (b), PROi is coreferential with PRO since PRO isalso controlled by the NP in the for-phrase. As a result, ti and PROis coreferential and so ti is bound by PRO. Then ti must befunctionally determined as PRO since the binder PRO has an


independent θ-role, but ti cannot be PRO, because it is governed by

please. Since both case (a) and (b) cannot occur, 30, hence case (IV),is not allowed.

Next, consider 28b. 28b has two logical possibilities with respect tothe binding of the gap: (V) semantic binding by Johni and (VI) nobinding. In case (V), apparent violation of the wh-island constraintemerges, since, there being no PRO-movement, nothing constitutes awh-island. And if the speaker permits a gap within a tensed clause, heexhibits a subject/object asymmetry due to the ECP-the situationis similar to case (I) of 28a.

Case (VI) is impossible, since the gap is functionally determinedeither as pro or PRO at S-structure, but pro does not occur at S-structurein English due to the local determination requirement proposed inChomsky 1982, and PRO is ruled out because it is governed by please.

The legitimate cases are, therefore, (I), (III), and (V). This predictionis borne out, as the data in section 3.1 show. So my analysis correctlyaccounts for the facts about the wh-island violation in the toughconstruction.

This concludes the account of the data on wh-island violation. The S-structure resulting from the reorganization is roughly as follows:

(31) Johni is easy for me [s' [s PRO to please ei]]In 31 Johni semantically binds ei. But what kind of empty category is ei?To determine this, we have to introduce the notion of multiple analy-sis proposed by Hankamer (1977). Multiple analysis is the situationin which the same linguistic phenomenon can be characterized bymore than one way. The plural characterizations produce the sameresults for the very phenomenon that they are intended to charac-terize. But once the application of them is extended to more peripheralcases, they make different predictions. My claim is that the definitionof empty categories is a case of multiple analysis. Thus, in addition tothe assignment of [±anaphor] to an empty category with [-pronomi-

nal] that Chomsky assumes, there is another way of assigning them:if the relation between an empty category with [-pronominal] andthe binder is bounded, the empty category is assigned [+anaphor],and otherwise, [-anaphor]. These two definitions have the sameeffects in the majority of cases, but one case in which the predictionsdiffer is tough constructions. The semantic binder of the embedded

gap-the matrix subject-is in an A-position, but the relation betweenthem is not bounded, since the infinitival allows embedding, as we


saw in section 3.2. Thus by the multiple definition of empty catego-ries, the status of the gap is indeterminate between an anaphor anda variable.

Now, we have to check the status of the gap in the light of thebinding theory. If the gap is an anaphor, it violates principle (A) ofthe binding theory, since it is not bound in its governing category.Then, what if it is interpreted as a variable? Principle (C) of thebinding theory requires that a variable be A-free, but in the presentcase the gap is A-bound by the matrix subject. But principle (C)has an alternative interpretation noted by Chomsky (1982: 31) in whichit is required that an R-expression be A-free in the domain of theoperator that A-binds it. This can be reinterpreted again as follows:an R-expression must be A-free in the domain of the binder thatensures its status as an R-expression. By this formulation, the gap ofthe tough construction is safely given a status of variable since it isA-free in the domain of its binder the matrix subject. Summarizing, wecan regard the gap as a variable under the new formulation of principle

(C) of the binding theory.As a final topic of this section, I would like to discuss the parasitic

gap. Chomsky (1982) claims that the parasitic gap is licensed by a A-binder, but under that analysis, a parasitic gap could not occur in thetough construction, contrary to 32:

(32) The book is hard to buy el without reading e2I suppose that this, too, is a case of multiple analysis, and I assumethat the parasitic gap is licensed either by a A-binder or by an un-bounded dependency (at least in English). These two licensing con-ditions coincide in most cases, but in periphery parasitic gaps occuron the basis of only one of them. Thus, the tough construction cancreate a parasitic gap based only on the unboundedness condition,since the dependency between the matrix subject and the gap is un-bounded. On the other hand, there is a case in which only the bindercondition is met. That is a parasitic gap occurring with heavy NP shift,as in 33 (Chomsky 1982: 47):

(33) John offended t by not recognizing e immediately, his favor-ite uncle from Cleveland.

Here, t is the trace of his favorite uncle from Cleveland which wasmoved by the rule of heavy NP shift, and e is a parasitic gap. HeavyNP shift is bounded and obeys the subjacency condition; hence theunboundedness condition cannot be satisfied.


4.3. GAPS WITHIN TENSED CLAUSES. As we saw in section 3.2, manyspeakers disallow gaps within tensed clauses in tough constructions.What I suppose to be a key point to account for this is the fact thatthe infinitival of the tough construction does not form a constituentwith the preceding adjective, hence is an adjunct. Hasegawa (1980)

points out that gaps in adjuncts are allowed within infinitivals butnot within tensed clauses. Thus, see the following contrast:

(34) a. What kind of job did he go to Brazil [s to find_]?b. *What kind of job did he go to Brazil [s that he might

find_]?Both Ss are purpose clause adjuncts, but the gap within the infinitivalis grammatical, while that in the tensed clause is not. I suppose thatthe mechanism operative in the contrast of 34 also applies to thetough gaps.

The applicability of Hasegawa's suggestion to tough constructionsis further confirmed by the fact that even in an infinitival adjunct, ifit embeds a tensed clause, the latter cannot contain a gap. Thus seeexamples of the infinitival relative and purpose clause shown in 35and 36:7

(35) *John bought a long knife to show that he can whittlewith_.

(36) *I bought it today to say that I owned_.Contrast these with 37 and 38:

(37) Reuben has a costume for Mary to arrange for her brother todisguise himself in_.

(38) She brought it home to try to get George to fix_.In the grammatical 37 and 38, the minimal clauses containing the

gaps are infinitival. These examples are similar in the status of theinfinitivals as adjuncts and in their internal structures to toughconstructions.

From the above evidence I ascribe the difficulty of gaps withintensed clauses in tough constructions to the restriction on gaps withinadjuncts, though at present it is unclear what the correct formulationof the restriction is.8

7 Examples 35-8 are cited from Ishii 1985.8 I do not know whether Hasegawa's (1980) theory of the Degree of Complexity

is on the right track because the formulation of it is quite complicated. But onething is sure: Chomsky's (1981) bounding theory is too simple to account foractual data.


5. A CONSTRUCTION APPARENTLY SIMILAR BUT ACTUALLY DIFFERENT. There

is a construction apparently very similar in structure to the tough con-struction in which an adjective does not occur:9

(39) a. That is for you to decide_.b. This book is for you to amuse yourself with_while

I am away.

(40) a. A hole is to dig_.b. This book is to read_to the class.c. John is to blame_.

As 40 indicates, the infinitival of this construction is syntactically (andsemantically) a complement to the verb be. Since there is no syntactico-semantic discrepancy, reorganization does not arise. So we expect thatthe gap behaves in the same way as ones in unmarked constructions.This expectation is borne out, as the following two kinds of data show.

First, my informant who allows the wh-island violation in tough

constructions rejects the corresponding sentence of this construction.Thus, see the constrast between 41 and 42:

(41) Which violin is this sonata easy to play_on_?(42) *Which violin is this sonata for the participants to play_

on_? (<This sonata is for the participants to play_on the violin.)

42 shows that the infinitival of this construction forms a wh-islandlike ordinary infinitivals with gaps.

Second, concerning a gap within a tensed embedded clause, theinformant disallows one in a tough construction, but the correspondingsentence is much better:

(43) *This book is hard for me to announce that Carter read_.(44) ?This book is for me to announce that Carter read_.

Hence the construction which does not have a syntactico-semanticdiscrepancy behaves in the same way as ordinary constructions with

gaps. Therefore, the analysis of this paper based on syntactico-semanticdiscrepancy has been confirmed.

6. CONCLUSION. I have argued that idiolectal acceptability differ-ences in tough constructions originate basically from their syntactico-semantic discrepancy, which induces reorganization. The syntactico-semantic discrepancy in the case of tough constructions is the conflict

9 Examples in 39 are cited from Uchida 1982, and 40a-b from Bach 1982.


in constituent structure (i. e. which elements constitute a unit andwhich do not) between syntax and semantics. Moreover, the conflict isoccurring in a fundamental relation, namely the head-complementrelation (in syntactic terms) or the predicate-argument relation (insemantic terms). Thus, in general, if a syntactic property and thecorresponding semantic one conflict, a possibility emerges of adjustment

(reorganization). Due to the reason stated in section 4.1, syntacticreorganizations would be more prevalent than semantic ones.10

I have also argued that the so-called multiple analysis is operative.When a multiple analysis is made within a single grammar-the caseof the functional definition of empty categories-he phenomena canbe extended, based only on one of the plural analyses. When it isintergrammatical, i. e. when each grammar of different individualsadopts a different analysis, idiolectal differences in acceptabilityemerge.

Another theoretical consequence is that when the semantic structurediffers from the syntactic one, the former may affect the latter. Oneinstance of this is what I call semantic binding.

10 One might think that existence of semantic units that are not syntactic unitsand/or syntactic units that are not semantic units is common, so that there mustbe much more reorganizations than there actually are. But this claim does nothold, because most such cases are actually structure preserving in a sense. Thus, inthe case of QR, for example, the original position of a quantifier phrase is retainedas a variable and only a minor change of S-adjunction is made. Moreover, thephrase has a dual status, one corresponding to its syntactic status and the otheradded by a semantic rule. In (ib), the LF representation of (ia), for instance, every manand some woman are interpreted as the subject and the object of love respectively,corresponding to their syntactic positions, although in addition they have a scopeinteraction in their S-adjoined positions.

(i) a. Every man loves some woman.b. [s every mani [s some woman] [s Xi loves Xj]

Since the phrases have statuses corresponding to their syntactic ones (the subjectand the object of the verb) and what has happened in semantics is a mere additionof new information to them (the scope marking by QR), there is no actual conflictbetween syntax and semantics with respect to exactly the same property. Thusreorganization would not be invoked.


REFERENCES

BACH, EMMON. 1982. Purpose clauses and control. The nature of syntacticrepresentation, ed. by Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 35-57.Dordrecht: Reidel.

CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Peter W.Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. New York:Academic Press.

_. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

_. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and

binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.GAZDAR, GERALD, EWAN KLEIN, GEOFFREY K. PULLUM, and IVAN A. SAG. 1984.

Generalized phrase structure grammar.HANKAMER, JORGE. 1977. Multiple analyses. Mechanisms of syntactic change,

ed. by Charles N. Li, 583-607. Austin: University of Texas Press.HASEGAWA, KINSUKE. 1980. Henkei-tekiyoo eno ippanteki seiyaku. The Rising

Generation 126.274-9.IGARASHI, YOSHIYUKI. 1985. Idiolectal difference in judgment of tough construc-

tions. [To appear in Sophia Linguistica.]ISHII, YASUO. 1985. Purpose clauses: a dynamic approach. Studies in English

Literature, English number 71-87.KAJITA, MASARU. 1977. Towards a dynamic model of syntax. Studies in English

Linguistics 5.44-76.LASNIK, HOWARD, and ROBERT FIENGO. 1974. Complement object deletion. LI

5.535-71.MONTALBETTI, MARIO, and MAMORU SAITO. 1983. Tough constructions and the θ-

criterion. Proceedings of the XIIIth international congress of linguists,August 29-September 4, 1982, Tokyo, ed. by Shiro Hattori and KazukoInoue, 469-72. Tokyo: ICL 1982 Office.

NANNI, DEBORAH. 1978. The easy class of adjectives in English. Amherst:University of Massachusetts dissertation.

_. 1980. On the surface syntax of constructions with easy-type adjectives.Lg. 56.568-81.

OEHRLE, R. T. 1979. A theoretical consequence of constituent structure in

tough movement. LI 10.583-93.

SCHACHTER, PAUL. 1981. Lovely to look at. LA 8.431-48.

UCHIDA, TAIRA. 1982. Revised predication theory. Studies in English Linguistics

10.58-80.

WILLIAMS, EDWIN. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic

Review 1.81-114.

_. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy

6.423-46.

DISCREPANCIES IN TOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS* YOSHIYUKI …

Documents

Transcript of DISCREPANCIES IN TOUGH CONSTRUCTIONS* YOSHIYUKI …