1

How to Take the A-A’-A Property of

Tough-Constructions

― Some Basic Observations and Problems ―

Norio SUZUKI

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University

Abstract

The central observation in our discussion of tough-constructions (TCs), such as John is

easy to please, may be one according to which “the set of grammatical TCs is a ‘subset’

of that of other grammatical wh-movement constructions, such as wh-questions and

restrictive relative constructions” (based on Chomsky’s 1977 influential wh-movement

analysis of TCs). And their unique and recalcitrant property, which must be a major

problem with TCs and has resisted neat analysis for a number of years, may be the fact

that they contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain as their major structural ingredient

(Lasnik 2012). Focusing on the latter A-A’-A property of TCs, the present article

explores a possible way of making sense of the property’s “impropriety,” along with

discussion on some remedying resources proposed here for the purpose of saving at

least “some TCs” from ungrammaticality. I also explore possible reasons for

grammaticality/acceptability of at least some TCs with an improper A-A’-A-chain in

their narrow-syntactic (NS-) structure, largely in terms of efficient computation

considerations pertaining to LF/the semantic componentΣ (see Lasnik 2012 for some

suggestion and discussion of what to do with the “illegitimate” A’-link in TCs).

Keywords: tough-constructions, an improper A-A’-A-chain, non-movement chain,

efficient computation at LF

2

1 Introduction

In view of the observation that tough-construction counterparts in such languages as

German and Romance languages do not contain an “A’-portion,” as opposed to English

TCs, I keep to TCs in English. (See Wurmbrand 2001: 28-29 for the observation that

‘while the English easy-to-please construction has been argued to involve some form of

A’-movement, the corresponding construction in German involves an instance of

A-movement.’ Also Chomsky 1982: 56 notes that ‘the examples corresponding to (77a:

The book is hard to buy without reading; example insertion ― NS) seem less

acceptable in the Romance languages, and constructions such as (77b: The book is hard

to convince people to buy; example insertion ― NS) are also unacceptable. It may be,

then, that the internal movement-to-COMP analysis that is well motivated for English

constructions of this type is wrong for the Romance languages…’) First let us

consider the following involving a TC, with the parenthesized portions as the copies of

the matrix subjects:

(1) a. John is easy to please (John). (a TC)

(Cf. *John is easy to be (John) happy, with no Case for John downstairs; see

also Messick’s 2013 discussion below with more relevant examples)

b. John seems to be (John) happy. (a seem-raising construction)

(Cf. *John seems to please (John), with John Case-valued downstairs: see

relevant discussion below for more on this)

c. *John seems that/φ (John) is happy.

(an ungrammatical seem-raising construction with a finite complement clause,

with either the complementizer that present or absent; DERIVABLE if it

could contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain)

The parenthesized, unpronounced positions in (1a-c) for John are either theta- or

Case-related, or both. Following the more or less standard assumption that TCs

contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain (Lasnik 2012) for the purpose of narrow-

syntactically (NS-) deriving the matrix TC-subject (John, in (1a)) and assuming,

moreover, that the improper chain in question is a “(virtually) movement” chain,1 I take

(with respect to the TC example (1a) above) the Case property of the embedded v

(associated with read) and the embedded V’s EPP/EF (edge-feature) to be responsible

for the embedded A-movement, topicalization (a species of wh-movement a la

Chomsky 1977; with the [topic]-feature assigned by the ‘pragmatics’-interface; López

2003, Suzuki 2007) to be responsible for the intermediate A’-movement,2 and the matrix

3

T’s Case property & EF to be responsible for the matrix A-movement. As for the

ungrammatical (1c), note that it is not a case of so-called “super-raising.” Ura (2001)

gives an example of super-raising, such as the following: *John seems that it was told

(John) that Mary is a genius (p.359: (39)). Notice that the matrix subject John is not

Case-valued downstairs in Ura’s supper-raising case, while in TCs the TC-subject must

be Case-valued downstairs, as shown by Messick (2013; based on Postal 1990 Some

unexpected English restrictions. In Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical

perspective, ed. by K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, and E. Mejias-Bikandi, 365-385. Stanford:

Stanford Linguistic Association) with the ungrammatical examples where there is no

downstairs Case-valuator for the TC-subject: *He was easy to be arrested/*He was easy

to arrive (p. 183: (44a, b)).

Let us then see how the ungrammatical (1c; *John seems that/φ (John) is happy)

could be NS-derived if it was allowed to contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain. I take

the Case property of the embedded C and the embedded T’s EPP/EF (edge-feature) to

be responsible for the embedded A-movement of John to the embedded [Spec, T],

topicalization (a species of wh-movement a la Chomsky 1977; with the [topic]-feature

assigned by the ‘pragmatics’-interface; López 2003, Suzuki 2007) to be responsible for

the intermediate A’-movement from the embedded [Spec, T] to the embedded [Spec, C],

and the matrix T’s Case property (inherited from the matrix C) & EF to be responsible

for the matrix A-movement. Note that the way (1c) is NS-derived above is structurally

exactly the same as the way the grammatical TC (1a) above is obtained. Then we are

immediately faced with the difficult problem of how to account for the difference in

grammaticality between the grammatical TC (1a) and ungrammatical non-TC (1c).

Notice that the most salient difference between them may be that the intermediate

A’-movement portion is headed by an infinitival to in (1a), while it is headed by a finite

C (that/φ) in (1c). Then if the grammaticality distinction between (1a, c) is as noted,

the ungrammatical example given for reference in (1b; *John seems to please (John),

with John Case-valued downstairs) should be OK (abstracting away for the moment

from seem’s categorial selectional property, that is, from the problem of whether seem’s

complement infinitival to is “defective” or not).

Given the possibility of NS-deriving via an A-A’-A-chain *John seems that/φ (John) is happy

((1c)) and perhaps also *John seems to please (John) (in (1b)) and their ungrammaticality, it should be

surprising that there exist some grammatical TCs thus derived. The present article explores a possible

way of making sense of the surprising properties of TCs given the general ban on “improper” A-

A’-A-chains as NS-derivation, along with discussion on some remedying resources proposed here for

the purpose of saving at least “some TCs” from ungrammaticality. We will see that such remedying

4

resources instrumental in saving some TCs may take the form of efficient computation conditions

applying in LF/the semantic componentΣ, i.e., the mapping mechanism from NS to the CI-interface

(part of the FLN/the faculty of language in the narrow sense; Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002, Fitch,

Hauser, and Chomsky 2005, Chomsky 2004, Suzuki 2007).

2 Some Details of the NS-Derivation of Tough-Constructions

Recall that we have seen in section 1 above the more or less standard assumption that

TCs contain an “improper” A-A’-A-chain for the purpose of narrow-syntactically (NS-)

deriving the matrix TC-subject (Lasnik 2012), assuming further (see note 1 below) that

the improper chain in question is a “(virtually) movement” chain, containing “(possibly)

non-movement” connection between the head of the embedded A-movement-chain and

the tail of the intermediate A’-movement-chain (see below). For the purpose of

concretely deriving a TC, we have taken the Case property of the embedded v and the

embedded V’s EPP/EF to be responsible for the embedded A-movement, topicalization

(a species of wh-movement a la Chomsky 1977; with the [topic]-feature assigned by the

‘pragmatics’-interface; López 2003, Suzuki 2007) to be responsible for the intermediate

A’-movement, and the matrix T’s Case property & EF to be responsible for the matrix

A-movement. As for the Two-Case problem, which points to the unique situation in

which a single element, that is, a TC-subject, is doubly Case-valued, both in the

embedded and matrix clauses, a copy of the TC-Subj is made in its original position as a

case of “syntactic object (SO)” construction,3 stored as an SO in the WorkBench (Stroik

2009, Stroik and Putnam 2013), and brought back via Remerge/Copy to a [Spec, v], the

trigger being Interface-Driven Merge (to which I return immediately; somewhat in the

fashion of Selection-Driven Movement of Donati and Cecchetto 2011) and the copy

being assigned a [topic]-feature. (See Hicks 2009 and Takahashi 2011 for ‘complex-

DP’ approaches to cope with the Two-Case problem, according to which both the whole

DP and the DP-internal DP/both the N-portion and D-portion constituting a complex DP

are separately Case-valued in a different position.)4 I here propose a species of Merge

that I call Interface-Driven Merge (see above), such that the pragmatics-interface, for

example, with a linguistic, interface-feature such as a [topic]-feature at its disposal,

or the [topic]-feature itself, searches for as a probe and finds a prospective goal

such as an n, nP in the WorkBench, and then Remerges/Copies that goal in the

initial position of the current strong phase and assigns the [topic]-feature to it (see

Stroik 2009, Stroik and Putnam 2013). I take the concept of Interface-Driven Merge

to be completely compatible with the SMT.

5

2.1 Why Topicalization? Why Not just Wh-/Null-Operator-Movement?

Notice that Messick (2013), which is another argument for TCs involving A’-movement

by showing that they are governed by the constraint MaxElide (Merchant 2008),

observes that “These facts lead us to conclude that the TCs involve two-step movement;

however, (…) I argue the second step of movement is not A-movement, but instead a

movement similar to the one found in head-raising relative clauses (…) the mechanism

behind TCs is the same as the one that underlies the derivation of relative clauses” (pp.

173-174). Albeit differing in a number of theoretical and analytical details, I also

assume that TCs and head-raising restrictive relatives are NS-derived roughly in the

same fashion. Specifically, I make a claim that both constructions involve

topicalization, a species of wh-movement/A’-movement as part of their structural

properties. I have assumed in Suzuki (2012: 325-327) that the raising relative-head is

assigned a [topic]-feature (as a trigger for the purpose of raising the relative-head) on its

way to the construction-initial position by the “pragmatics”-interface via the “invasive”

approach to the FLN-interfaces connection (López 2003, Suzuki 2007).

Recall that Obata and Epstein (2012:381) assume that the intermediate A’-

movement in TCs is mediated by an “[Op]-feature” (i.e., a species of ‘(null-) operator

feature’). Let me then elaborate on some empirical evidence pointing to the relevant

feature being a [topic]-feature, but not just an [Op]-feature.

First, my assumption is that the TC-subject retains the [topic]-feature assigned to

it during the NS-derivation. Then what about the following simplest TC:

(2) John is easy to please (John). (= (1a))

Very simply following Diesing’s (1992; basically, devoted to the analysis of

‘indefinites’) general “syntax-LF connection” framework, I take VP and IP/TP to

roughly correspond to the NS-loci for existential and generic readings, respectively.

Notice that in (2) the TC-subject John with the [topic]-feature assigned to it must

reconstruct as far down as the embedded [Spec, V] for the purposes of Case-Visibility

Requirement on Theta-Assignment (Case-Visibility; Suzuki 2012), which requires “an

n(P) to sit in a structural Case-position ([Spec, V], [Spec, T]) at LF” (see below for the

locality condition between the TC-Subj’s Ө -assigner and structural Case-position

provider, an efficient computation condition applying at LF in TCs, which is responsible

for the TC-Subj, which is already in [Spec, T], a structural Case-position,

reconstructing downward to another such structural Case-position local to its Ө -

6

assigner). Notice that in (2) the TC-subject John seems to reside both in a generic

position (i.e., in the matrix subject-position) and an existential position (i.e., in the

embedded [Spec, V]), albeit at different levels of representation. As you note, the

concepts of existentiality and genericity/genericness are interpretationally incompatible

with each other. But recall that names such as John do not take part in changing scope

interpretation possibilities depending on their positions; that is, they are not subject to

Scope Economy in the sense of Fox (2000), which leads to the standard assumption that

names are interpretationally constant across existential and generic domains (in the

sense of Diesing 1992). Nor does the [topic]-feature added to the TC-subject seem to

do any interpretational harm to it in either position. Let us then consider the

following:

(3) a. Beavers are/a beaver is hard to kill (beavers/a beaver).

(beavers, a beaver: ‘generic’; = Rezac’s 2006: 302 (36a), taken from Lasnik

and Fiengo 1974 On complement object deletion Linguistic Inquiry 5: 546)

b. The man was hard for Mary to find (the man) attractive/*sick.

(attractive: an individual-level predicate in the sense of Diesing 1992/sick: a

stage-level predicate; = Rezac’s 2006: 303: (39a), taken from Dalrymple and

King 2000 Missing-object constructions: Lexical and constructional variation

In On-line Proceedings of the LFG2000 Conference ed. by M. Butt and T.H.

King)

Roughly, the following two observations may be obtained from above: (i) TC indefinite

subjects are only generic; & (ii) Individual-level predicates, but not stage-level

predicates, can appear in the embedded A-portion of TCs. As for interpretive

compatibility/coherence in (3a), I take the TC-subject with topicality and genericity on

it in its surface position to reconstruct for Case-Visibility down to the embedded [Spec,

V], a position with (potential) existentiality, with no interpretive harm ensuing thanks to

topicality and existentiality not being interpretively incompatible. (Or perhaps, lack of

the TC-subject’s existential reading in (3a) might be accounted for by an “economy”

condition requiring the amount of reconstructed material for Case-Visibility purposes

to be minimal, i.e., usually, only the relevant ‘n’ (i.e., just a n-feature, without a

topicality-feature), unless forced otherwise (see below for more discussion; see also the

concept of Merging Economy (ME) of Suzuki 2012: 328, which states that “a. An n/N

cannot have a larger amount of uninterpretable features than is needed for the purposes

of the current operation of Merge/b. An n/N cannot have a larger amount of its

7

uninterpretable features checked/ deleted than is needed for the purposes of the current

operation of Merge”).)

Then turning to the individual-level and stage-level contrast in (3b), and following

basically Diesing’s (1992) “syntax-LF connection” framework (for indefinites), which

takes VP and IP/TP to roughly correspond to the NS-loci for existential and generic

readings respectively, I restrict the bounds of LF-operation for the TC-subject to

Case-Visibility, which diminishing situation may derive from what I call the Principle of

TC-Freezing, which states that “Unless forced for reasons of requisite, sematic

interpretation, all other semantic operations on the part of the TC-subject in the TC

embedded clause are frozen apart from Case-Visibility-related reconstruction” (see

below for more discussion and the TC-general situation diminishing the set of

grammatical TCs). Then, in The man was hard for Mary to find (the man) attractive

((3b) above; grammatical with the ‘individual-level’ predicate attractive), the

TC-subject reconstructs for Case-Visibility as far down as the embedded [Spec, V]

(associated with the verb find), with no further LF-operation on the part of the

TC-subject due to TC-Freezing and yet with the “generic” interpretation for the

TC-subject already in place. Now what about *The man was hard for Mary to find (the

man) sick ((3b) above; ungrammatical with the ‘stage-level’ predicate sick)? Taking

the LF-locus for existentiality in (3b, with sick) to at least be some [Spec, sick], further

operation needed on the part of the TC-subject for the purposes of existentiality

interpretation should be further reconstruction down to [Spec, sick], which should be

blocked by TC-Freezing.

Although we have so far been discussing some theoretically important points of

TCs, there does not seem to be anything decisive for the purpose of describing the

intermediate A'-portion in choosing between my topicalization approach to TCs and the

family of wh-/null-operator-movement approaches to them (e.g., Obata and Epstein

2012). Let us then take a look at the following scope-related examples:

(4) a. I know what he gave to everyone. (a wh-question; what > everyone,

everyone > what; from Aoun and Li 1993)

b. What is tough to give to everyone?

(a TC; what > everyone, *everyone > what; from Aoun and Li 1993)

As for the indirect wh-question in (4a), we obtain the surface scope interpretation (i.e.,

what > everyone) from the surface order (i.e., … what he gave to everyone), while the

other scope possibility (i.e., everyone > what) may be obtained by reconstructing what

8

to the direct object position of gave and QRing everyone to the VP-adjunction site

associated with the verb gave, as in the following: “… (what) he [everyone [gave what

to (everyone)].” Turning then to the TC (4b), which is unambiguous, we first get the

scope interpretation (i.e., what > everyone) from the surface order of the sentence.

Why, then, is the other scope possibility (i.e., *everyone > what) unavailable in (4b)?

We could reconstruct what to the direct object position of gave and QR everyone to the

VP-adjunction site associated with the verb gave, obtaining thus “(What) is tough to

[everyone [give what to (everyone)],” which would give the *everyone > what

interpretation. Notice that TC-Freezing (see above for discussion), which bars

unneeded semantic operations on the part of the TC-subject apart from Case-Visibility,

may not be responsible for the absence of the *everyone > what scope interpretation of

the TC (4b). I would assume that the impossibility of the *everyone > what

interpretation of (4b) may derive from a possible “feature” incompatibility between

“topicality and distributivity.” Notice that the TC-subject what retains the

[topic]-feature assigned to it in the course of the NS-derivation of the sentence and that

it should be the [topic]-feature on what that interferes with deriving its distributive

interpretation under everyone. Generally, there is no problem with the distributive

interpretation of wh-words, such as what, in the c-command domain of a universal

quantifier, such as every(one), as you note in the interpretation of (4a). Notice further

that an approach to TCs just via wh-/null-operator-movement (e.g., Obata and Epstein

2012) may have a hard time accounting for the interpretive contrast between (4a, b).

Take a look at the following from Lasnik (2012: 27):

2.2 Recapitulating Some Important Assumptions

First, it is the non-movement connection between the head of the embedded A-

movement-chain and the tail of the intermediate A’-movement-chain that makes opaque

various associations between the higher and lower A-movement-domains. For example,

since the lower structural Case-position is opaque, locality of some sort has to be

resorted to for the purposes of the TC-subject’s Case-Visibility between the theta-

position and its associated structural Case-position. And it may be due to the

intervening A’-portion that Case-Visibility cannot possibly be implemented via the

matrix [Spec, T] position, the ensuing opacity (due to the intervening A’-portion)

making it necessary for the TC-subject to implement its Case-Visibility downstairs,

where further restriction in the form of locality between the theta-assigner and structural

Case-position derives from the non-movement connection between the lower A-portion

and intermediate A’-portion (see Lechner 2013 and Truswell 2013 for differences in

9

“reconstruction possibilities” involving movement, control, binding, and scope).

Let us then see how the TC John is easy to please ((2)/(1a) above) may be NS-

derived in concrete terms, with the gist of the derivation being “one launching site (i.e.,

object position of please) with two landing sites (i.e., [Spec, V] of please and an outer

[Spec, v] associated with please; for some intermediate stages).” We first Merge

please and John, an n, for theta-theoretic purposes, as in the following: ‘[VP please

John[iϕ,uCase,θ]].’ Then we make a copy of John[iϕ,uCase,θ] as an instance of syntactic

object (SO) construction and store it as an SO in the WorkBench (WB; Stroik and

Putnam 2013), which I assume is needed to roughly accommodate two sets of prolific

domains in the sense of Grohmann 2003 consisting of the θ-domain, the

Case/agreement-domain, and the discourse-domain, with one unique property TCs

residing in the fact that the TC-subject does not receive a Ө-role outside the

embedded clause, which θ-assigning situation is quite different from the case of that of

a restrictive relative construction, where the raising head assigned a θ-role within the

relative clause may receive another θ-role outside, and which reminds us of the

interesting discussion on the validity of and rationale for the concept of D-structure as a

possible linguistic level in the early 1980s (see Bošković and Lasnik, eds., 2007: 18).

We then see that v values the Case of John and John raises to [Spec, V] due to V’s EF,

that please raises to v and the external argument PRO merges in [Spec, v], and that

Remerge/Copy brings back John[iϕ,uCase,θ], the SO constructed before and stored in WB,

to an outer [Spec, v], i.e., the initial position of the current, on-line strong phase in

NS-derivation, the triggering force of this operation being Interface-Driven Merge (see

above for some discussion) and John being assigned a [topic]-feature. I assume that

the infinitival T, to, values the null Case of PRO and that PRO does not raise to a [Spec,

to] due to Economy. We have thus far constructed the NS-structure, as follows: ‘[TP to

[vP John[iϕ,uCase,θ,topic][v’ PRO please+v [VP (John[iϕ,θ]) [V’ (please) (John[iϕ,uCase,θ]→[iϕ,θ])]]]]].’

We see here that John, originally in the direct object position of please, has raised

to two different positions, one position being [Spec, V] for Case/EF reasons via ordinary

NS-derivation/movement, and the other an outer [Spec, v] for discourse-related reasons

via Interface-Driven Merge. Note that John in the embedded [Spec, V] is the head of

the lower A-movement-chain, while John in the embedded outer [Spec, v] is the tail of

the intermediate A’-movement-chain. While the two positions are related in some way

due to the fact that the relevant elements in the two positions are constructed out of the

same entity, John in its original position, the fact seems to remain that the relation

between the two may not be one of movement, which situation may in some way

interfere with reconstruction needed specifically for the TC-subject’s A-interpretive

10

purposes (see Lechner 2013 and Truswell 2013 for differences in “reconstruction

possibilities” involving movement, control, binding, and scope).

Continuing with our NS-derivation of the TC John is easy to please, John raises to

the embedded TP-adjoined position (i.e., an instance of pair-Merge), a possible

designated TOPIC-position, where it and TP can be interpreted as a “topic-comment

structure” due to the mutual c-command combination of the two elements, and C

Merges, completing the derivation of the TC embedded -clause: ‘[CP C

[TP John[iϕ,uCase,θ,(topic)] [TP to [vP (John[iϕ,uCase,θ,topic]) [v’ PRO please+v [VP e]]]].’ The TP-

adjoined position does not count as (part of) the domain of C, which should indeed be

the rationale for the topicalization analysis of tough-constructions. Easy takes CP as

its complement and I postulate ‘little a,’ to which A raises, in the fashion of v, n (also

see Hicks 2009: 550-551): ‘[aP easy+a [AP (easy) [CP C [TP John[iϕ,uCase,θ,(topic)] [TP e]]]]]].’

Then, T values the structural Case of John in the TP-adjoined position and John raises

up to the matrix [Spec, T] due to T’s EF, and for the purposes of Case-Visibility for John

it may be enough for John in the embedded outer [Spec, v] to reconstruct to the

embedded [Spec, V], a structural Case-position: ‘[TP John[iϕ,θ,(topic)] [T’ is+T [aP easy+a

[AP (easy) [CP C [TP (John[iϕ,uCase,θ,(topic)]→[iϕ,θ,(topic)]) [TP e]]]]]].’

3 More on the A-A’-A Property

Let us reconsider the seem-raising construction, given the assumptions in this article for

the purpose of accounting for a bizarre construction, such as the tough-construction,

which contains an “improper” A-A’-A(-movement) chain, among others, in it (see

Lasnik 2012: 26-28). My tack here is to allow the syntax to generate the construction

itself with an A-A’-A(-movement) chain in it, and to impose a set of LF-representational

conditions mostly related to efficient computation/locality to rule out ungrammatical

cases. Then, the following, “ungrammatical” seem-raising cases (6a-d) in connection

with the grammatical (5) are all generable as far as their NS-derivation is concerned,

with the new problem of how to rule them out at issue:

(5) John seems to be smart.

(6) a. *John seems (for Mary) to believe to be smart.

b. *John seems for Mary to love.

c. *John seems (that) Mary loves.

d. *John seems (that) won.

11

While the matrix subject in the grammatical (5) containing two prolific domains in the

sense of Grohmann (2003) receives a Ө-role from smart in the embedded clause and has

its Case valued as nominative in the matrix clause, it appears that the matrix subjects in

the ungrammatical (6a-d) all receive two Cases upstairs and downstairs and only one Ө-

role from the embedded clause, which situation is quite the same as that with such

tough-constructions as John is tough to please. I assume that the ungrammatical

(6a-d) are all generable in NS-derivation terms, given such resources (see above) as

Copy operation as “syntactic object”(SO) construction (see Stroik and Putnam 2013),

the concept of WorkBench (WB; Stroik and Putnam 2013), Interface-Driven Merge

(see above), among others. They all contain an “improper” A-A’-A(-movement) chain,

with the lower Case-related A-portion corresponding to the part from the embedded

[Spec, V/T] downward, the [topic]-related A’-portion to the part from the embedded

[Spec, v/T] up to the embedded TP-adjoined position/[Spec, C] (see above), and the

upper Case-related A-portion to the part from the embedded TP-adjoined

position/[Spec, C] up to the matrix [Spec, T]. I assume that there are no problems with

these A-A’-A instances of NS-derivations.

Let us see the reasons one by one for the ungrammatical status of the seem-raising

constructions in (6a-d), all with the properties identical with those of the tough-

construction. So I take the non-tough-examples in (6a-d) to be subject to the same set

of mostly LF-constraints as tough-constructions (see above for relevant discussion).

Now, as for *John seems (for Mary) to believe to be smart (6a), it may be ruled out

either by Case-Visibility-related Locality on the connection between the TC-subject’s

Ө-assigner and structural Case-position provider (see Suzuki 2014) due to the presence

of to, a defective Case-valuator, between John’s Ө-assigner, smart, and its structural

Case-position provider, believe, or (in case for Mary is present) by the Subject-in-Situ

Generalization (SSG) in the sense of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2007) as an

LF-Condition on Tough-Constructions (a ‘representational’ condition at LF; see Suzuki

2014) to the effect that “vP can contain no more than one “pronounced” n(P) argument

at LF: *[vP … n(P) … n(P) …]”: the relevant, believe-related vP contains two

“pronounced” nPs, as in *[vP Mary … John]. Then, as for *John seems for Mary to

love (6b), it may be ruled out by the SSG as an LF-Condition on Tough-Constructions,

due to its love-related vP: *[vP Mary … John]. As for *John seems (that) Mary loves

(6c), it is also ruled out by the SSG as an LF-Condition on Tough-Constructions, due to

its loves-related vP-structure: *[vP Mary … John]. And lastly, as for *John seems

(that) won (6d), the SSG-based LF-condition does not rule it out, the relevant

won-related vP-structure being [vP John won+v… ]. It is ruled out by Case-Visibility-

12

related Locality on the connection between the TC-subject’s Ө-assigner and structural

Case-position provider (see Suzuki 2014 and above), specifically by the phase-based

locality clause (see Suzuki 2014) that prohibits a strong-phase boundary from

intervening between the TC-subject’s Ө-assigner and structural Case-position provider;

that is, *[CP (that) [TP T [vP John won+v… ]]], with a strong vP-phase boundary

intervening between won as John’s Ө-assigner and T as its structural Case-position

provider, for the purposes of (6d) above. Lastly, consider the grammaticality

distinction between the grammatical tough-construction (7a) and the ungrammatical

seem-raising construction (7b):

(7) a. John is tough to love.

b. *John seems to love.

As for the typical tough-construction in (7a), see section 2 above for standard treatment

and discussion. Let us look at (7b), under the assumption that love takes two

arguments and that to love is a CP (see It seems that John is smart), with John

interpreted as the object of love, for the sake of discussion. Then, (7b) may mean

something like It seems that someone loves John.

Recall that given the discussion above, we basically have two modes of

structure-building for the ungrammatical seem-raising construction *John seems to love

(7b): (i) The standard A-movement-based approach, according to which (7b) is just not

generable due to the frozen status of John, which is accusative-Case valued as the direct

object of love in the embedded clause, given the Case-driven (actually,

Agree/Case/EF-driven, on the standard approach) nature of A-movement; and (ii) The

A-A’-A(-movement)-based approach primarily for the purposes of the

tough-construction, according to which (7b) is as generable as the tough-construction

(7a), with no subsequent LF-constraints to rule it out. Our task is then how to

interpret the presence of ungrammatical, non-tough, A-A’-A(-movement)-created

constructions, such as the seem-raising construction *John seems to love (7b). It

seems to me that roughly the same can be said of other “subject-to-subject”-raising

predicates, such as appear, happen, certain, likely, sure.

Notice that we have at least one other A-A’-A(-movement)-created construction in

a sense. That construction is the “raising” restrictive relative one, an example of which

is a sentence such as I don’t like the book that John bought yesterday, in which the

relative head book is associated with two Cases, accusative Case in connection with the

embedded verb bought and the accusative Case again with the matrix verb like, along

13

with the two Ө-roles corresponding to these two verbs. And the derivation of the book

that John bought yesterday is A-A’-A(-movement)-created, in that the lower

Case-related A-portion corresponds to the part from the embedded [Spec, V] downward,

the [topic]-related A’-portion to the part from the embedded [Spec, v] up to the

embedded TP-adjoined position/[Spec, C] (see Suzuki 2012 for an argument for a

‘restrictive relative as reprojected topicalization’), and the upper Case-related A-portion

to the part from the embedded TP-adjoined position/[Spec, C] upward (see I don’t like

the book that John bought yesterday). But of course, this is not a pure instance of

A-A’-A(-movement) chain, leaving the tough-construction as the only pure case of

A-A’-A(-movement) chain.

Note that the most remarkable aspect of a construction being A-A’-A(-movement)-

created should be that many sentences generable in terms of the syntax are ruled out

mostly by efficient-computation-related LF-constraints, pointing to the difficulty in

reconstructing down into the structure thus created. So it seems that the (theory of)

grammar has somehow been moving in the direction of eliminating this kind of

difficulty either by restricting the variety of movement-chains roughly to the A-A-(A-

…) type (e.g., John was hit/John appears to be likely to win) and A’-(A’- …)-A-(A- …)

type (e.g., What did you buy?/Who do you think that John visited yesterday?/English, I

believe to have been learned by many people), that is, to the “proper”-movement chains,

or by treating the lower A’-A-portion as the upper A-portion (e.g., by taking the lower

A’-A-portion the book that John bought yesterday as the upper A-portion, which is to be

Case-related to the matrix verb like, in the case of ‘raising’ restrictive relatives, such as I

don’t like the book that John bought yesterday), which may somehow have the effect of

getting rid of the recalcitrant A’-portion from the viewpoint of further A-operation, thus

keeping somehow to the realm of proper-movement chains. (Note that treating the

lower A’-A-portion as the upper A-portion seems to precisely constitute the empirical

contents of ‘raising’ restrictive relatives as reprojected topicalization in the sense of

Suzuki 2012.) And as for the ungrammatical seem-sentences in (6a-d) above, the

standard A-movement-based approach rules them out for Case-related reasons during

the course of NS-derivation, whereas the A-A’-A(-movement)-based approach may rule

them out at LF mostly for reasons of efficient computation in interpretation. Then,

from the viewpoint of economy, the former, standard A-movement-based approach

should be preferred.

Still, our grammar is equipped in principle with two modes of NS-structure-

building for the empirical domain under discussion. Turning then to John is tough to

love (7a) vs. *John seems to love (7b) above, note first that tough-constructions are

14

derived only in the manner of an A-A’-A(-movement) chain, while the seem-raising

construction can be created either via A-movement or via A-A’-A-movement. Note

further that all the ungrammatical examples can be ruled out by the A-movement

grammar, while there is one example of the *John seems to love type that the

A-A’-A-movement grammar cannot properly deal with, that is, it cannot rule (7b) out as

ungrammatical. Yet, the example (7b) is judged by native speakers to be

ungrammatical. It is in any case ruled out by the A-movement grammar. What does

this mean? What does it mean for the A-A’-A-movement grammar to not be able to

judge (7b) to be ungrammatical? Suppose that these two grammars are in competition

in the sense of Yang (2002). Then, economy considerations point to the A-movement

grammar being preferred. It then follows that the judgment made by the economy-

preferred, A-movement grammar is adopted, so that (7b) is actually ruled out. As for

the grammatical tough-construction (7a), it is judged to be grammatical by the only

grammar available to the construction, that is, by the A-A’-A-movement grammar.

Then, what remains and continues to be “improper” is the tough-construction in the

sense that it needs an A-A’-A(-movement) chain (economy-incompatible, as opposed to

an A-movement chain) for its construction. Let us tentatively interpret this kind of

“impropriety” residing in the derivation of the tough-construction as a “historical

incident,” further taking the tough-construction itself as a fossil.

Notes

1 See section 2 for some details of the NS-derivation of TCs, specifically for the

“(possibly) non-movement” connection between the head of the embedded A-

movement-chain and the tail of the intermediate A’-movement-chain. We will see

that the gist of the discussion in the paper mainly consists of the observation that it

may be this “non-movement” connection that is responsible for a number of peculiar

properties of TCs.

2 Notice that the head of the embedded-movement-chain and the tail of the

intermediate A’-movement-chain may not be “movement-related.” See section 2 and

note 1. See Obata and Epstein 2012:381 for the view that the intermediate A’-

movement is mediated by an “[Op]-feature” (i.e., a species of ‘operator feature’).

3 You could couch the discussion in terms of Nunes’s 2004 Copy + Merge theory of

movement, according to which you would need to make two copies of the original

John for the purpose of NS-deriving John is easy to please in the fashion proposed

15

in the present article, with the usual movement case being one in which you make

one copy of the relevant element. I presume that something like the WorkBench in

the sense of Stroik and Putnam 2013 may in any case be needed to at least store one

of the two copies until it is Merged later in the derivation in Nunes’s 2004 system as

well.

4 Keeping to tough-constructions, there are roughly basically two families of

approaches to this problem in connection with those frameworks which adopt the

“raising” analysis of T C-subjects : (i) To let both D(P)s of the complex DP, the

whole DP and DP-internal DP, bear an [uCase]-feature (Hicks 2009: 547)/To let D

and N of the whole DP bear an [uCase]-feature (Takahashi 2011: 1; based on

Takahashi and Hulsey 2009); and (ii) To make a copy of the TC-subject’s original

copy bearing an [uCase]-feature, store it in the WorkBench for the derivation, and

Remerge it into the derivation via Interface-Driven Merge to assign a [topic]-

feature to it at the completion of the embedded strong vP-phase (Suzuki This

Paper). While it may be somewhat embarrassing to be forced to choose between

options (i) and (ii) above for the purpose of circumventing the Two-Case problem, I

just point out a family of problems inherent in Hicks’ (2009) and Takahashi’s (2011)

frameworks. First, the following is the internal structure of a typical complex DP

appearing in Hicks’ (2009: 547) exposition of tough-constructions: [DP[iϕ,uCase,iQ,uWH]

D [NP [N Op] [DP[iϕ,uCase] John]]], out of which only John raises up to the matrix

subject position as the TC-subject. Notice that according to Hicks (2009), it is the

larger DP that receives the Ө-role of `pleasee’ in such tough-sentences as John is

tough to please, while it somehow seems (Hicks 2009: 555-556) that it is the null

operator Op that assigns a ‘theme’ Ө-role to its DP complement John, which seems

to me to be unsurmountably semantically counterintuitive, despite Hicks’ (2009:

555-556) ingenious interpretational argument.

Then, what about Takahashi’s (2011) strategy for obtaining ‘two’ Cases, based on

the earlier idea of Takahashi and Hulsey (2009) that “both Ds and Ns need Case”?

This may be the case, but in such tough-sentences as The man is tough to please

(Takahashi 2011: 1 (1a,b), (5a,b)), where it should be the case that the Case of

first-Merged the is valued as accusative by the v associated with the embedded verb

please while the Case of late-Merged man is valued as nominative by the matrix T,

which is again grossly counterintuitive, given the DP structure “[DP D [Acc Case]

[NP N [Nom Case]]].

Lastly, a remark may be in order on a recalcitrant aspect of my own analysis. This

concerns the first merger of a verb and an n/N in accordance with Merging

16

Economy (Suzuki 2012, 2013). So, in a sentence like The book is easy to read,

assuming the standard ‘bottom-up’ NS-derivation, I take the first merger to be one

between the embedded verb read and its object, i.e., the n/N book. One might object

that the theme complement of the verb should be an ‘individual,’ which the n/N

book cannot be, given the basic status of (English) bare singular nouns as

‘predicates.’ I do not take this problem to be very serious, first because this is only

an innocuous, derivationally-intermediate epiphenomenon, which is surely to be

overcome by the end of the derivation, including semantic/pragmatic interpretation.

One might still argue that a selectional restriction requirement, such as one blocking

an ‘ungrammatical’ sentence like *Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, may rule

the combination read book out, given the `predicate’ status of the n/N book. In the

absence of a ‘theory’ of selectional restriction, which indeed plays a certain role in

sentence construction and processing, I defer the relevant discussion until future

research, given the necessity of our grammar accommodating poetic and metaphoric

language as well, and some intriguing, acquisitional and crosslinguistic data, such as

the following, acquisitional “order” on the part of children: I like dog => I like a

dog => I like the dog, all with the meaning “I like a certain/definite dog,” and the

Japanese sentence Boku-ha inu-ga suki-da (I like dogs; generic), where the only

nominal form inu may stand for dog, dogs, a dog, the dog, the dogs, etc., depending

on circumstances.

References

Albertini, Silvia, Marco Tettamanti, and Andrea Moro. 2013. The impossible chaos:

When the mind cannot eliminate language structure. In GLOW Newsletter #70, ed.

by Marc Richards.

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2007. The subject-in-situ

generalization revisited. In Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s

minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland and

Hans-Martin Gärtner, 31-59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Bošković, Željko, and Howard Lasnik, eds., 2007. Minimalist syntax: The essential

readings. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. by Peter W. Culicover, Thomas

Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. New York: Academic Press.

17

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of

syntactic structures Vol.3, ed. by A. Belletti, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Donati, Caterina, and Carlo Cecchetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for

relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519-560.

Fitch, W. T., M. D. Hauser, and N. Chomsky. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty:

Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97: 179-210.

Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grohmann, K. K. 2003. Successive cyclicity under (anti-)local considerations. Syntax 6: 260-312.

Hauser, M. D., N. Chomsky, and W. T. Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it,

and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569-1579.

Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40:

535-566.

Hinzen, Wolfram, and Michelle Sheehan. 2013. The philosophy of universal grammar.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lasnik, Howard. 2012. Single cycle syntax and a constraint on quantifier lowering. In

Towards a biolinguistic understanding of grammar: Essays on interfaces, ed. by

Anna Maria Di Sciullo, 13-30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Moveα: Conditions on its application and output.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lechner, Winfried. 2013. Harmonic derivationalism. In Syntax and its limits, ed. by Raffaella Folli,

Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell, 19-43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

López, L. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57: 193-231.

Merchant, J. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. by Kyle

Johnson, 132-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Messick, Troy, G. 2013. Ellipsis and reconstruction in tough infinitives. In Proceedings

of GLOW in Asia IX 2012: The main session, ed. by Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki,

Atsushi Sato, and Kensuke Takita, 173-185. Tsu, Mie: Center for Multicultural

Studies, Mie University.

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Lnearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2011. Feature-splitting Internal Merge:

Improper movement, intervention, and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax 14: 122-147.

Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2012. Feature-splitting Internal Merge: The

case of tough-constructions. In Ways of structure building, ed. by Myriam Uribe-

18

Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala, 366-384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pesetsky, David. 2013. Phrasal movement and its discontents: Diseases and diagnoses.

In Diagnosing syntax, ed. by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 123-157.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stroik, Thomas S., and Michael T. Putnam. 2013. The structural design of language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suzuki, Norio. 2007. Reflections on Chomsky’s strong minimalist thesis: Evolution, UG

residues, and Helen Keller. Yokohama: Shumpusha Publishing.

Suzuki, Norio. 2012. Modification as reprojection. JELS 29: 325-331.

Suzuki, Norio. 2013. Derivations via interface invasion & Merging Economy as a

syntactic basis for LF scope phenomena. In Bulletin of Research Center for

Higher Education 9: 17-32. Research Center for Higher Education, Kobe

Shinwa Women’s University.

Suzuki, Norio. 2014. Accounting for some peculiar properties of tough-constructions.

Abstract for SICOGG 16, held at Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea, on August

6W-9Sa/2014.

Takahashi, Shoichi. 2011. The composition and interpretation of tough movement.

Unpublished abstract.

Takahashi, Shoichi, and Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the

A/A-bar distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 387-426.

Truswell, Robert. 2013. Reconstruction, control, and movement. In Syntax and its limits, ed. by

Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell, 44-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ura, Hiroyuki. 2001. Case. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by

Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 334-373. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.