A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations

山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

ArticleA labeling analysis of tough -movement operations*
Naoto TOMIZAWA
1. Introduction
It is sometimes observed that unlike the subject of genuine raising constructions, the subject DP of
the tough-movement construction allows only partial reconstruction in the sense that the complement of
D can reconstruct but its edge cannot (cf. Kim 1998, Sportiche 2002, 2006, Hicks 2009). One plausible
explanation of this fact (which I will adopt in this paper) is an introduction of the D and its edge at astage of the derivation that is later than the stage when the D’s nominal complement is introduced. The
implementations of such a “late merger” operation in Sportiche (2006) and Tomizawa (2020), however,violate the Extension Condition (Chomsky 1993) and the No Tampering Condition (Chomsky 2008).
This paper proposes a revision of such a late merger analysis of the edge material of D that does
respect the Extension Condition and the No Tampering Condition. The crucial component of the analysis tobe presented in this paper is the labeling option in terms of direct selectional features. Specifically, (1d) is
adopted, along with the traditional labeling options (1a-c) for the Labeling Algorithm (Chomsky 2013).
(1) Labeling Algorithm
Given a syntactic object (SO) {α, β},a. if α is a head and β is not a head, then α is selected as the label of SO,
b. if both α and β are identical in a certain prominent feature, the prominent feature is taken to be
the label of SO,
c. if α is a copy and β is not a copy, then α is the label of SO,
d. if the head of α directly selects β, then α is selected as the label of SO.
The “direct selection” relation in (1d) is typically found in a head-complement configuration. Thus, if
such a complement phrase (= β) re-merges with a projection (= αP) of its selecting head (= α), then (1d)ensures that the resulting syntactic object {β, αP} can be labeled as α.1 This is illustrated in (2) below.
＊

I would like to thank Stephen Ryan for discussions of empirical data and an anonymous reviewer of this journal for
valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. Responsibility for inadequacies that remain is my own.
This work is supported in part by Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 21K00565 from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science.
1 The assumption that this re-merging operation is permitted is not compatible with Abels’ (2003) Anti-locality Constraint,－1 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

For expository purposes, the notation “x/y→y” is employed to represent that given the syntactic object
consisting of x and y, the Labeling Algorithm selects y as the label of {x, y}.
(2)β/αP→αβαP…α…β…

It will be shown that this additional labeling option in (1d), combined with some auxiliary assumptions on
relabeling within a phase-based labeling system, generates the tough-movement construction.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 starts with the derivational analysis of restrictive
relative clauses and motivates the labeling option (1d) above. Section 3 turns to the analysis of the toughmovement construction and shows that the option (1d) provides us with the derivation of the constructionthat (i) respects the Extension Condition and No Tampering Condition and (ii) explains the partial
reconstruction properties that the construction has. Section 4 reviews how this analysis deals with a varietyof reconstruction phenomena and gives some further speculations. Section 5 is a brief conclusion.
2. Nominalization of restrictive relative clauses in the labeling theory
In this section, we will review Donati and Cecchetto’s (2011) analysis of restrictive relative clauseformation within the labeling system framework and motivate an additional labeling option that hinges ona head’s direct selectional property.
2.1. Problems with Donati and Cecchetto’s (2011) nominalization procedure
A restrictive relative clause merges with a nominal projection to yield a noun phrase. An interesting
analysis of this syntactic procedure within the labeling system framework is presented by Donati andCecchetto (2011) (see also Cecchetto and Donati 2006). They claim that this nominalization procedure ismade possible when the term that a restrictive relative clause merges with is N. Being a lexical item, N isby definition a probe (with an edge feature) and, hence, can provide a label.
To take an example, consider the underlying structure (3a) below, where De is a null D that selects anominal complement. This nominal complement internally merges with CP, yielding (3b). (For expository
convenience, a “lower” copy of the element that has undergone internal merge operation is marked bystrike-through.) Since manN is a lexical item, it can provide a label for the whole structure as shown in (3c).
which this paper does not adopt. I’d like to thank an anonymous reviewer of this journal for bringing this point to myattention.

－2 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

The whole structure, then, merges with D, projecting DP as in (3d).
(3)

a. [CP that [TP we will never forget [DP De manN]]]b. manN [CP that we will never forget [De man]]c. [NP manN [CP that we will never forget [De man]]]d. [DP theD [NP manN that we will never forget [De man]]]This analysis of the nominalizing phenomenon in restrictive relative clause formation is insightful inseveral respects but it faces both theoretical and empirical problems that are difficult to overcome.
One crucial feature of their labeling system is that it can never allow nominalization of a relative
clause construction when NP (rather than N) internally merges with a relative clause. For example, thestructure (4) below can never be labeled, since the internally merged NP is not a lexical item.
(4)[NP book on her desk] [CP that every professor liked [DP De book on her desk]]

However, some device is needed to nominalize the relative clause because the sentence (5) is grammatical.
(5)[The book on her desk that every professor liked __ best] concerned model theory.
(Sauerland 1998)



To deal with this sort of restrictive relative clause formation where the relative clause modifies a phrasal
constituent such as book on her desk, Donati and Cecchetto (2011) appeal to late merger operations. They
claim that the underlying structure for the relative clause in (5) should be (6a) below, where on her desk is
not present yet. The noun book undergoes internal merge with CP, as in (6b), and projects as in (6c). It is at
this stage of the derivation that on her desk is introduced by a late merger operation, as in (6d).
(6)

a. [CP that every professor liked [DP De bookN] best]
b. bookN [CP that every professor liked [De book] best]c. [NP bookN [CP that every professor liked [De book] best]]
d. [NP bookN [on her desk] [CP that every professor liked [De book] best]]
It might be obvious from this illustration that late merger is an indispensable part of Donati andCecchetto’s (2011) theory. But late merger is a device that lacks theoretical foundations and, hence, carries “aburden of proof” (Chomsky 2015: 6) if it is to be adopted. In addition, the well-formedness of the example(5) poses an empirical problem, as well. In (5), the pronoun her can be bound to every professor. This fact
rejects the late introduction of on her desk in terms of the late merger operation outlined in (6); rather, it
supports the derivation laid out in (4), where the copy of her that appears within the complement of liked is
successfully c-commanded by its quantificational antecedent every professor.
Similarly, the ill-formedness of the idiomatic interpretation of make headway in the example (7) below
provides additional evidence against a late merger of on Mary’s project, since the late merger analysis
predicts wrongly that Mary can be an antecedent of she.
(7)*[The headway on Maryi’s project [shei had made __]] pleased the boss.

(Sauerland 1998)－3 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

Rather, the ill-formedness of (7) strongly supports an analysis that introduces headway on Mary’s project
within the complement position of made, since it correctly predicts that such coreference of Mary and she
violates the Binding Condition (C).2
What can be drawn from these considerations is that the merger of a relative clause with a nominal
phrasal constituent such as book on her desk and headway on Mary’s project should yield a labeledconstituent. In the next subsection, a new labeling option in terms of direct selectional features is
introduced.
2.2. A labeling option in terms of direct selectional features
Before going into details, let us adopt the hypothesis that what undergoes internal merge in relative
clause formation is not DP but nP. That the element undergoing internal merge is a nominal fragment that
excludes D is a widely adopted part of the analysis of restrictive relative clause formation (see Kayne 1994,
for example) and Donati and Cecchetto (2011) argue that the D that selects the nominal fragment is stranded
in situ in relativization. This stranding of D is presupposed in my earlier work (2020), where drawing on
but revising Sportiche’s (2006) analysis of the tough-movement construction, predicative-NP movement
is argued to be involved in both restrictive relative clause formation and tough-movement. The hypothesisthat this nominal fragment is nP rather than NP does not seem to affect the essential parts of the arguments
presented in these works.
Another assumption I will adopt here is that this internal merger of nP with CP does not involve any
operator feature that is similar to wh-features in interrogative wh-movement phenomena. nP can merge
with CP simply because (internal) merge applies freely (Chomsky 2015).
In addition, let us adopt the hypothesis that labeling of a given constituent is carried out on a phasebasis: labeling is not instantaneous but carried out at a phase level. This means that the existence of a nonlabeled constituent is never an inherent blocker of further application of a syntactic operation to such a

2 The arguments presented here on the basis of the examples in (5) and (7) have shown that strict-cyclic introduction of suchdependent elements as on her desk and on Mary’s project is forced in the environment where reconstruction of some material
related to such a dependent element is needed for an independent reason (such as bound pronoun interpretation in (5) andidiomatic interpretation in (7)). In this respect, an anonymous reviewer raised an interesting question of whether strict-cyclic
introduction of dependent elements is also forced in non-reconstruction environments as well. If dependent elements arealways introduced strict-cyclically (in other words, if they are never introduced by late merger), this will constitute a stronger
argument against Donati and Cecchetto’s (2011) analysis, which is built on the availability of late merger.
It is, however, quite difficult to construct an argument along these lines for the following reason. First of all, the merger ofa restrictive relative clause and its “antecedent” nominal expression is carried out either by internal merge, as discussed here,
or by external merge: the former is conventionally referred to as a raising/promotion analysis, and the latter as a matching
analysis. Thus, the grammatical status of the sentence (i) under the coreference interpretation of John and he does not reject
the raising/promotion analysis, because the sentence is successfully generated under the matching analysis. Nor does it
support the raising/promotion analysis, simply because the analysis does not generate this sentence in a strict-cyclic fashion.
(i) Mary looked at every picture of Johni that hei sent.
(Hackl and Nissenbaum 2012)
What is needed here is an environment where a matching analysis is unavailable for an independent reason. To the best of
my knowledge, however, such an environment is typically provided by reconstruction requirements.

－4 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

constituent.
Bearing these assumptions in mind, consider the structure generated by the internal merger of book on
her desk and that every professor liked best, as shown in (8) below. (Notice that “nP/CP” is not a label: it
represents a syntactic constituent that has to be labeled.)
(8)

nP/CP
nP
n

CP
NP

thatC

book on her deskTP

every professor liked [DP De book on her desk] bestHere, {nP, CP} is not labeled under Donati & Cecchetto’s (2011) framework; nor is it in the original
formulation of the Labeling Algorithm by Chomsky (2013) in (9a-c).
(9)

Labeling Algorithm (Chomsky 2013)

Given a syntactic object (SO) {α, β},a. if α is a head and β is not a head, then α is selected as the label of SO,
b. if both α and β are identical in a certain prominent feature, the prominent feature is taken to be
the label of SO,
c. if α is a copy and β is not a copy, then α is the label of SO,
In (8), neither nP nor CP is a lexical element; nor do they share a prominent feature. 3
As discussed in Chomsky (2013, 2015) and others, a labeling problem can sometimes be resolved if
one of the terms involved undergoes “movement.” This option is formulated in (9c). Let us then consider
what happens when a term of a term undergoes “movement.” In (8), since the head n of the nP constituentof {nP, CP} is not a phase-head, nothing precludes application of “movement” to [NP book on her desk] tointernally merge it with the non-labeled {nP, CP}, as illustrated in (10).

3 Both nP and CP serve as predicates (see for example Heim and Kratzer 1998), which Tomizawa (2020) employs inthe determination of the label of {nP, CP}. However, the predicate nature of these elements is semantic and relevant in thesemantic component but not in narrow syntax.

－5 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA(10)

NP/nP/CP
NP/nP/CP
nP/CP
nP/CP

NP
NP
book onon herher desk
desk nP
nP
book
n
n

CP
CP

NP
NP

thatC
that
C

book
book onon herher desk
desk

TP
TP

every
De book on her desk] best
every professor
professor liked
liked [[DPDP De book on her desk] best

This internal merger of [NP book on her desk] has a series of consequences. First of all, the complement
NP of n becomes a copy (as indicated by strike-through), so that the label of {n, NP} becomes n. Thanks
to this relabeling of nP as n, the constituent dominating it, which used to be the non-labeled {nP, CP}, issuccessfully assigned the label nP. Now that the formerly non-labeled constituent {nP, CP} has the label nP,
the topmost constituent in (10) is recast as an element consisting of NP and nP. The result of these changes
is shown in (11).
NP/nP/CP→NP/nP
NP/nP/CP→NP/nP

(11)
NP
NP

nP/CP→nP
nP/CP→nP

book onon herher desk
desk nP→n
nP→n
book
n
n

NP
NP

CP
CP
thatC
that
C

book onon herher desk
desk
book

TP
TP

every professor
professor liked
liked [[DP De book on her desk] best
every
DP De book on her desk] best

The original labeling problem of {nP, CP} has now been resolved but we have a new labeling problem
at the topmost {NP, nP} in (11). Looking at {NP, nP}, we will notice immediately that NP and nP are not so
distinct in the sense that NP is actually the direct complement of the n head of nP. Given this consideration,
it would be more natural to expect that the label of the topmost {NP, nP} will be n rather than some otherelement if it ever has a label.
This labeling option for the topmost {NP, nP} can be made possible by the adoption of the additionallabeling device in (9d) below.
(9)

Given a syntactic object (SO) {α, β},d. if the head of α directly selects β, then α is selected as the label of SO.

Going back to the topmost {NP, nP} in (11), since NP is (originally) directly selected by the n head of nP, {NP,－6 －

山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19nP} is successfully labeled as nP. At a later stage of the derivation, this nP can be merged with D, giving
rise to the DP structure in (12).
(12)

DP
DP
theD
theD

NP/nP/CP→NP/nP→nP
NP/nP/CP→NP/nP→nP
nP/CP→nP
nP/CP→nP

NP
NP

book on her desk nP→nbook on her desk nP→n
n
n

CP
CP

NP
NP

TP
TP

thatC
thatC

book on her deskbook on her desk

every professor liked [DP De book on her desk] best
every professor liked [DP De book on her desk] best

To summarize, the nominalization of the relative clause construction is possible in the labeling systemin this paper when NP is re-merged with the nP whose head originally directly selects it.
Let me note in passing that when the labeling problem of the topmost {nP, CP} in (8), reproduced
below, needs to be resolved, application of internal merge to TP (rather than to NP) is an unsuccessful
option.

nP/CP
nP/CP

(8)
nP
nP
n
n

CP
CP
NP
NP

thatC
thatC

book on her deskbook on her deskTPTP

every professor liked [DP De book on her desk] best
every professor liked [DP De book on her desk] best

This is due to the phase-head status of thatC. By the time the labeling problem of {nP, CP} emerges, CP has
been constructed and the TP complement of the phase-head C has been transferred, so that this TP is nolonger accessible.
3. A revised analysis of the tough-movement construction
Section 3.1 briefly reviews earlier works on the tough-movement construction in Sportiche (2006)
and Tomizawa (2020) and presents two problems. Section 3.2 is a solution in terms of the labeling option
introduced in section 2.2.

－7 －

A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

3.1. The nP-movement analysis
The tough-movement construction shares some of the derivational steps that are employed in
restrictive relative clause formation outlined above. Thus, the derivation of the example sentence in (13)
has intermediate steps in (14a, b).
(13) These pictures of himself will be difficult to tell Bill about. (Pesetsky 1987)(14) a. [CP C PRO to tell Bill about [DP De [nP pictures of himself]]]b. [nP pictures of himself] [CP C PRO to tell Bill about [De pictures of himself]]
In Tomizawa’s (2020) analysis of tough-movement operations, the {nP, CP} constituent in (14b) is notlabelable in the light of the labeling options in (9a, b). (Note that Tomizawa’s 2020 analysis actually adopts
NP instead of nP as the complement constituent of De in (14) but this review adopts nP in accordance withthe categorical hypothesis adopted throughout this paper.) The labeling problem that the {nP, CP} in (14b)poses is argued to be resolved by “extraction” of nP, in the light of the labeling option (9c). Then, thederivation continues roughly as follows: the “extracted” nP merges with the matrix TP, as in (14c) below,
and it further undergoes late merger with D, as in (14d).
(14) c. [TP [nP pictures of himself] will be difficult [CP [pictures of himself] [PRO to tell Bill about [Depictures of himself]]]]d. [TP [DP theseD [nP pictures of himself]] will be difficult [CP [pictures of himself] [PRO to tell Bill
about [De pictures of himself]]]]This late merger analysis of D is originally proposed by Sportiche (2006) and adopted in Tomizawa’s work.
It correctly predicts that the edge of D does not reconstruct but its interior material can, because only theinterior has reconstruction sites. One example of the relevant contrast that follows from this difference isgiven in (15a, b). (For similar contrasts see Kim 1998 , Sportiche 2002, 2006, Hicks 2009.)(15) a. Pictures of hisi friends will be hard to convince [any artist]i to sell. 
b. *Heri work is hard to convince [every woman in the group]i to share. (Longenbaugh (2017)(Rezac 2006)

The matrix subjects in (15a, b) have the following structures.
(16) a. [DP D [nP pictures of hisi friends]]
b. [DP heri D [nP work]]
In (16b), the pronominal specifier (her) is introduced after the nP material has merged with the matrix
clause. Therefore, it does not have a copy of its own within the complement position of share, giving rise
to a familiar weak crossover effect. In (16a), on the other hand, pictures of his friends has a copy within thecomplement position of sell, which guarantees that his can be bound to its quantificational antecedent any
artist.
Although illuminating in the treatment of the edge/interior contrast in reconstruction, this analysis hasa couple of problems. Two such problems, I would like to pay special attention to here: (i) the late merger－8 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

of D and its specifier and (ii) the nature of “movement” from the position “adjoined to CP” to the matrix
subject position. As mentioned in section 2.1 in the review of Donati and Cecchetto’s (2011) analysis ofrestrictive relative clause formation, late merger lacks theoretical foundations. Even Sportiche (2016, 2019)
embarks on a project to dispense with late merger operations. The nature of “movement” from the position“adjoined to CP” to the matrix subject position is also questionable. In the traditional dichotomy of A/A’movement, it is categorized as an instance of movement from A’-position to A-position, which is improperand rejected.
3.2. An alternative resolution of the labeling problem
Returning to the derivational stage in (14b), where nP merges with CP, let us reconsider how {nP, CP}
is labeled. For expository purposes, the relevant tree diagram is produced below.
(17)

nP/CP
nP
n

CP
NP

C

pictures of himself

TP
PRO to tell Bill about [DP De pictures of himself]

Notice that it is in principle possible to continue subsequent derivational processes without identifying thelabel of {nP, CP}. Let us suppose that this non-labeled {nP, CP} is externally merged with a new D (these).
The choice of D is not made at random; rather, it is motivated by the direct selection property of D: D
directly selects n. Just because {nP, CP} in (17) does not have a label in the light of the Labeling Algorithm
does not mean the {nP, CP} constituent’s label(s) is invisible. The Labeling Algorithm does find two
candidates for the label (namely, n and C) but cannot select one over the other. What is occurring here isindeterminacy, not invisibility. The categorical features of the terms of the non-labeled constituent {nP, CP}
are visible. The external merger of D yields the structure in (18) below, where the new topmost constituent,consisting of theseD and {nP, CP}, does not have a label yet.

D/nP/CPnP/CPtheseD
nP
n

CP
NP

C

TP
－9 －

pictures of himself

PRO to tell Bill about [DP De pictures of himself]A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA(18)

D/nP/CPnP/CPtheseDnPn

CP
NP

pictures of himself

C

TP
PRO to tell Bill about [DP De pictures of himself]

Whether D is a phase-head or not is a controversial question in the literature. Here, I will take the position
that D is not a phase-head and look at some consequences.
Since theseD in (18) is not a phase-head, it is possible to continue further derivational processes
before identifying the labels of {nP, CP} and {theseD, {nP, CP}}. Since merge is free, let us suppose thatthe topmost constituent in (18) is externally merged with DIFFICULTR, the root lexical entry of difficult.
Here, the choice of DIFFICULTR is not arbitrary. Tough-movement predicates select two arguments that are
categorically realized as (i) an infinitival CP and (ii) a for-PP containing an experiencer of some sort. The
experiencer for-PP is not always spelled out, which suggests that what tough predicates directly select is
the infinitival CP.
Let me characterize the lexical properties of tough-movement predicates here:(19) A tough-movement predicate:i.

takes an infinitival CP and an experiencer for-PP,

ii. directly selects the infinitival CP,
iii.	is an obligatory-control predicate, with experiencer controlling the PRO subject of theinfinitival CP.
For the property (19iii) see Epstein (1984), Pesetsky (1987), Rezac (2006), among others.4
The external merger of DIFFICULTR and the topmost constituent in (18) barely satisfies this direct
selectional property; “barely,” because DIFFICULTR does not merge with a syntactically genuine CP but
does merge with a constituent whose categorical property of CP is syntactically visible. For clarity, let us
assume the following projection rule for direct selectional features.5

４ The obligatory-control property in (19iii) provides straightforward answers to why the tough-movement construction does
not have a tensed clause variant as in (i) and why the subject of the infinitival complement cannot “move” into the matrix
subject position as in (ii).
(i) *John is easy [CP that anyone likes __](Browning 1987)(ii) *John is difficult [CP __ to solve these problems]
(Browning 1987)
5 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for encouraging me to clarify the mechanism behind this syntactic visibility.

－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19(20) Given that α directly selects β, α must merge with a constituent whose possible label is that of β.
When DIFFICULTR merges with the constituent (18), the latter has not its label specified yet and has threepossible labels: D, n (of nP) and C (of CP). Since C (of CP) is visible in this sense, the direct selectional
relation between DIFFICULTR and the CP complement is met in the relevant structure.
The following structure is yielded.
(21)

R/D/nP/CP
R/D/nP/CP
D/nP/CP
D/nP/CPDIFFICULTR
DIFFICULTR

nP/CP
nP/CP

theseDtheseD
nP
nP
n
n

CP
CP
NP
NP

C
C

TP
TP

pictures of himself
PRO to tell Bill about [DP De pictures of himself]
pictures of himself
PRO to tell Bill about [DP De pictures of himself]
Here, DIFFICULTR is not a phase-head. It is then possible to internally merge CP to the topmost constituent,which generates the following structure.
CP/R/D/nP/CP
CP/R/D/nP/CP
(22)

CP
CP

R/D/nP/CP
R/D/nP/CPC PRO to tell Bill DIFFICULTRC PRODtopictures
tell Bill DIFFICULTR
about
e

about
De picturesofhimself
of himself

D/nP/CP
D/nP/CP
nP/CP
nP/CP

theseDtheseD
nP
nP

n
n

CP
CP
NP
NP

C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures of himself
C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures of himself

pictures of himself
pictures of himself－11 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

This internal merger of CP has a number of labeling consequences. First of all, the lower copy of CP
becomes invisible to the Labeling Algorithm, so that the constituent {nP, CP} is successfully labeled asnP. The constituent consisting of this nP and theseD is now labeled as DP. (Let me note in passing that
we are now in an interesting situation. DIFFICULTR directly selects CP (though “barely,” as noted above)
but the directly selected complement is now relabeled as DP.) The constituent consisting of this DP and
DIFFICULTR will also be successfully labeled, perhaps with the aid of an adjectivizing functional element.

If we follow the idea pursued in Chomsky’s (2015) discussion of verbal roots and verbalizing functional
elements, the label of {DIFFICULTR, DP} would be <ø, ø>. However, I will leave open the extension of theverbal considerations to the adjectival domain here and assume instead that {DIFFICULTR, DP} selects R as
the label. These changes are reflected in (23).
(23)

CP/R/D/nP/CP→CP/RP
CP

R/D/nP/CP→RP

C PRO to tell Bill DIFFICULTR

D/nP/CP→DP

about De picturesof himself

nP/CP→nP

theseDnPnCPNP

C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures of himself

pictures of himself
Let us turn to the label of the topmost constituent in (23). The label might appear to be indeterminate
between CP and RP. The new labeling option that is introduced in section 2.2, namely (9d), selects RP as
the label of {CP, RP}. This is because CP and the head R of RP are originally in a direct selectional relation(though “barely,” as noted above). To sum up, with the internal merger of CP in (22/23), every non-labeledconstituent is successfully labeled.
The constituent fully labeled in this way undergoes further derivational operations. An adjectivizing
functional element (notated as a in the following illustrations) is externally merged and then DIFFICULTR“moves” to adjoin to it. (Thus, the tough-predicate precedes the infinitival CP complement when they are
spelled out.) Then, matrix be and T are introduced. Crucially, at the next stage of the derivation, the DP
complement of DIFFICULTR, namely [DP these n pictures of himself [C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures ofhimself]], internally merges with the matrix clause. This “movement” of DP is legitimate in the light of thePhase Impenetrability Condition since neither DIFFICULTR nor the adjectivizing functional element (a) is－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

a phase-head. That they are not phase-heads are natural to the extent that neither SEEMR nor its verbalizing
functional category (v) is a phase-head in the raising construction like These pictures of his friends v SEEMR
to be nice. With the completion of these operations, the following structure is generated.
(24)	[ DP these n pictures of himself [C PRO to tell Bill about D e pictures of himself]] T be
DIFFICULTR+a [[CP C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures of himself] DIFFICULTR [DP these n picturesof himself [C PRO to tell Bill about De pictures of himself]]
The new analysis of the tough-movement operation presented in this subsection resorts to neither acounter-cyclic late merger of D nor an obscure “movement” operation from the position “adjoined to CP”
to the matrix position. What “moves” into the matrix subject position is a DP that contains the infinitival
CP constituent. Thus, the original position from which the DP starts “movement” is not a position “adjoined
to CP”; rather, it is the complement position of the tough-predicate. The head D of the DP (and its edge
element) is introduced after its complement nP merges with the infinitival CP. In this sense, D is introduced
at a later stage of the derivation. However, this D is merged with {nP, CP}, rather than with the nP material
within {nP, CP}. Thus, both the Extension Condition and the No Tampering Condition are respected.
As a closing remark of this section, let us overview the system pursued in this paper. Given a structure(25), where {nP, CP} does not have a label, this labeling problem can be tackled from four approaches.
(25)

nP/CP
nP
n

CP
NP

C

TP

One is to give nP a syntactic status of copy, namely, to “move” nP. The labeling option (9c), then, selects
CP as the label of {nP, CP}. A variant of this approach is abundant at the intermediate step of long-distance“A’-movement” (see Chomsky 2013, 2015). In (25), however, no well-formed linguistic expression would
be produced since the “A’-moved” nP would not be properly interpreted. Another approach to the labelingproblem in (25) is to “move” NP. Subsection 2.2 proposes that this movement is employed in the derivationof the noun phrase that contains a restrictive relative clause. A third approach to the labeling problem is
to “move” CP. Section 3.2 proposes that this movement is involved in the successful tough-movement
operation. A fourth approach to the labeling problem is to “move” TP. This logical possibility is excluded
from phase considerations. C is a phase-head and when CP is constructed its TP material is transferred.
Therefore, at a later stage of the derivation when nP and CP are merged, it is already impossible to accessto TP.

－11 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

4. Further speculations on reconstruction
The analysis of the tough-movement construction presented in this paper takes a new step forward
to construct a computational system devoid of late merger operations. In this section I would like to takeup two points that need further consideration within the present analysis: one is concerned with particularcases of anti-reconstruction phenomena and the other with the general architecture of the system to deal
with reconstruction.
First of all, our analysis of the tough-movement construction is designed to account for reconstruction
contrasts like (15a, b), reproduced below.
(15) a. Pictures of hisi friends will be hard to convince [any artist]i to sell.
b. *Heri work is hard to convince [every woman in the group]i to share.
In these examples, each matrix DP subject has a D head; in addition, the subject in (15b) has her in theedge domain, as well. These instances of D and her are introduced at intermediate stages of the derivationof these sentences after the nP complement parts (pictures of his friends and work) are merged with therespective CP clauses. The relevant structures are shown below.
(26) a. [D [[NP pictures of his friends] [[nP n [NP pictures of his friends]] [CP PRO to convince [any artist]to sell [De [nP n [NP pictures of his friends]]]]]]]b. [her D [[NP work] [[nP n [NP work]] [CP PRO to convince every woman in the group to share [De [nPn [NP work]]]]]]]In (26a), his has a copy within the complement of sell and this copy is c-commanded by its quantificational
antecedent any artist. In (26b), on the other hand, her does not have such a copy within the c-commanddomain of its purported antecedent every woman, giving rise to a familiar weak crossover effect. Thus, thedifference in (26a, b) is attributed to the presence of a reconstruction site in the former and the lack thereofin the latter.
This kind of reconstruction contrast does not arise in the raising construction. This is because no lateintroduction of D is involved. Thus, both (27a, b) are well-formed under the bound pronoun interpretationof his.
(27) a. Someone from hisi class seems to [every professor]i to be a genius.
b. Hisi father seems to [every boy]i to be a genius.

(Fox 1999)

However, the analysis of the contrast between (15a, b) above does not provide a satisfactory accountto the contrast in (28a, b), originally observed by Sportiche (2002).
(28) a. Pictures of hisi friends are hard for [every photographer]i to sell.
b. *Hisi pictures are tough for [every photographer]i to sell.
The reason lies in the position of the quantificational antecedent every photographer. This element is anexperiencer argument of the relevant tough-predicates (HARDR in (28a) and TOUGHR in (28b)). Since these－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

tough-predicates merge with their CP complements first, the merger of every photographer and a series ofsubsequent operations ultimately yield the following structure for the ill-formed sentence (28b).
(29)

TP
DP

…

are

…

aP

hisi D pictures n CP TOUGHR+a
PP

aP
aP

for [every photographer]i CP

RP

PROi to sell [De nP] TOUGHR

DP

hisi

DP
D

nP
NP … n … CP

pictures

PROi to sell [De nP]

Here, his is introduced during the construction of the DP in the sister position of TOUGHR. When every
photographer is merged, it appears that it successfully c-commands his.6 Then, it is predicted that thebound pronoun interpretation is available, contrary to fact.
Thus, the degraded status of (28b), compared with (28a), calls for an account that is different fromthe one given to (15b) above. I would like to suggest here that the degraded status of this sentence comesfrom the interference of his in the establishment of the obligatory-control relation between the experiencer
argument (every photographer) and the PRO subject of the infinitival CP argument. Specifically, let us
adopt the following condition.
(30)	When obligatorily controlled PRO serves as a bound pronoun, it needs to be locally c-commandedby its quantificational controller.
6

The grammatical status of the following sentences suggests that the DPs within the experiencer for-PPs can c-commandoutside the PPs, since given the plausible assumption that the subject DPs in these examples are originally generated at thecomplement positions of difficult and hard, the anaphors within the DPs are c-commanded by the experiencers.
(i) a. Pictures of himself are difficult for John.
b. Each other’s problems, however, were hard for them.
(Pesetsky 1987)－11 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

Going back to the structure (29) above, the obligatorily controlled PRO in the most deeply embedded CP
needs to be locally c-commanded by every photographer since the latter is its quantificational controller.
However, their local c-command relation is disturbed by the presence of his and it leads to the degradation.
Given the analyses for the contrasts in (15a, b) and (28a, b), further contrast as in (31a, b) and (32a, b)
from Sportiche (2006) is also accounted for, along the lines similar to Sportiche’s (2006) original idea but
crucially without resorting to late merger operations.
(31) a. Pictures of hisi friends are hard for [every photographer]i to sell.
b. *Most pictures of hisi friends are hard for [every photographer]i to sell.
(32) a. Pictures of hisi friends are easy to persuade [every photographer]i to see.
b. *Most pictures of hisi friends are easy to persuade [every photographer]i to see.
“Weak” quantifiers (i.e., cardinals) reside within the nP domain, while “strong” (i.e., genuine) quantifiers
occur above D (see Milsark 1974 for the weak/strong distinction). Strong quantifiers do not reconstruct (seeBoeckx 2001 for reconstruction in the raising construction). Since quantifiers require their restriction tostay in their vicinity, the restriction of strong quantifiers does not reconstruct, either. Therefore, his in (31b)and (32b) has to remain within the matrix subject DP and the sentences result in weak crossover violations.
We will now turn our attention to a brief consideration of the general architecture of the system to deal
with reconstruction. Reconstruction is optional. Hence, given two copies, either copy can be interpreted.
The other copy (namely the non-interpreted copy) is simply disregarded in the relevant interpretive
component. This characterization of reconstruction is essential in the analysis presented in this paper. Since
no late merger is permitted and every element is introduced cyclically, anti-reconstruction phenomenarequire (i) some extraneous factors that force interpretation of “upper” copies and (ii) some devices todisregard “lower” copies. “Neglect” in Sportiche (2019, 2016) is one implementation of this disregarding
device. The nature of strong quantifiers in (31b) and (32b) above, on the other hand, represents a caseof extraneous factors that force interpretation of upper copies. Examples that suggest another kind of
extraneous factor are the following, where reconstruction is never permitted.
(33) a. *Hei seems to Johni’s friends to be __nice. (Belletti & Rizzi 1988)

b. ?*Johni seems to [the idiot]i’s parents to be __ a genius.
The matrix subjects he and John are DPs that have the following internal structures, respectively.
(34) a. [DP he+n+D [nP he+n [NP he]]]b. [DP John+n+D [nP John+n [NP John]]]Here, both he and John are attached to D and these Ds do not reconstruct.
Examples in (33a, b) can be contrasted with (26a, b), reproduced here as (35a, b), where his canreconstruct.
(35) a. Someone from hisi class seems to [every professor]i to be a genius.
－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

b. Hisi father seems to [every boy]i to be a genius.
In (35a) his resides within the complement domain of the head D of the surface subject, whereas his in (35b)occupies the edge of the head D. The comparison between (33a, b) and (35a, b) in the light of reconstruction
suggests that the head D may not reconstruct. Since the D head is a labeler in all these structures, I
would like to speculate that the following condition is another instance of extraneous factors that force
interpretation of upper copies.
(36) A labeler does not reconstruct.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper presents an analysis of the tough-movement operation that makes no recourse to countercyclic late merger operations. This provides a new step forward in the efforts to construct a computational
system that is devoid of late merger operations.
One crucial component of the analysis presented is the labeling option (1d) (= 9d), repeated below.
(1)

Given a syntactic object (SO) {α, β},d. if the head of α directly selects β, then α is selected as the label of SO.

This new labeling option ensures nominalization of a relative clause in relative clause formation and it isalso employed in the tough-movement operation. Just as the D head of the noun phrase “modified” by arelative clause is introduced at a later stage of the derivation, so is the D head of the subject noun phrase
in the tough-movement construction. This accounts for the reconstruction asymmetry that is observed in
the tough-movement construction but is missing in the raising construction. In the derivation of the toughmovement construction, the constituent that “moves” into the matrix subject position is not a run-of-themill noun phrase but a DP that contains a copy of the CP complement of the relevant tough-movement
predicate. Since this complex DP comes from the complement position of the tough-movement predicate,
the so-called tough-movement is viewed as a genuine A-movement.

References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
19, 503-548.
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Cecchetto Carlo and Caterina Donati. 2006. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13, 241278.
－11 －A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations―TOMIZAWA

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyereds., The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
eds., Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, andSimona Matteini eds., Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3-16.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Donati, Caterina and Carlo Cecchetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization
structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 519-560.
Epstein, Samuel David. 1984. Quantifier-PRO and the LF representation of PROarb. Linguistic Inquiry 15,499-505.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30,
157-196.
Hackl, Martin and Jon Nissenbaum. 2012. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural
Language Semantics 20, 59-81.
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 535-566..
Kim, Kwang-sup. 1998. (Anti-)Connectivity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2017. Composite A/A’-movement: Evidence from English tough-movement.
Manuscript.
Milsark, Gary Lee. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 126-140.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. On tough-movement. In Cedric Boeckx ed., Minimalist essays, 288-325.
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT..
Sportiche, Dominique. 2002. Movement types and triggers. GLOW Newsletter 48, 116-117.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. NP movement: How to merge and move in tough-constructions. LingBuzz.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2016. Neglect. LingBuzz.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2019. Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry 50, 416-424.
Tomizawa, Naoto. 2020.

Predicate NP movement in tough-constructions,” Yamagata University Facultyof Humanities and Social Sciences Annual Research Report 17, 19-43.

－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第20号（2023．３）1－19

A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations

Naoto TOMIZAWA
This paper presents an analysis of the tough-movement operation in terms of the Labeling Algorithm.
The analysis introduces a new type of labeling option that hinges on the direct selectional features in thehead-complement configuration. This new labeling option ensures nominalization of a relative clausein relative clause formation and is also employed in the tough-movement operation. In both the relative
clause formation and the tough-movement operation, the head D is introduced at a later stage of therelevant derivation. This is shown to be the source of the contrast in the reconstruction that is found in
the tough-movement construction but is missing in the raising construction. In this analysis, the matrix
subject of the tough-movement construction is not a run-of-the-mill noun phrase but a DP that contains aninvisible copy of the infinitival CP complement of the tough-predicate. Since this complex DP comes fromthe complement position of the tough-predicate, the so-called tough-movement is viewed as a genuine
A-movement. The analysis of the tough-movement operation in this paper makes no recourse to a countercyclic late merger and provides a new step forward in the efforts to construct a computational system that is
devoid of late merger operations.

－11 －