山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

Article第17号（2020．３）19－43

Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions＊

Naoto TOMIZAWA
A new analysis of the derivation of tough-constructions in English is proposed in terms of what I
will call “predicate NP movement” and an additional A-movement, supplemented by the late merger of
D. The idea that the NP part of the subject DP of tough-constructions has its origin in the “gap” positionin the infinitival complement clauses of tough-predicates is not a new one: Sportiche (2006) and Messick(2012). The proposal to be pursued here is different from Sportiche’s in that the extraction of an NP out ofa DP occurs basically in the original gap position. This enables us to give a parallel and systematic analysis
to the formation of infinitival relative constructions and tough-constructions. It is also shown that the
restricted distribution of gaps in subject positions in these constructions observed and analyzed by Postal(1974), Nakamura (1976), Stowell (1987), Takahashi (1997), Maruta (2013), among many others, aresystematically accounted for.

1. Introduction
This paper proposes a new analysis of the derivation of tough-constructions in English as in (1a, b) interms of what I will call “predicate NP movement” and an additional A-movement of a predicate NP to thesubject position of the constructions, with a supplementary late merger of D, as outlined in the schematic
derivation in (2a-c) for the sentence (1a).
(1) a. The book is easy to put on the tableb. The assignment is an absolute pain to do(2) Derivation for sentence (1a)a. [vP* PRO put [DP D [NP book]] on the table]↓ A’-movement of “predicate NP” to Spec,C＊At earlier stages of this work I benefited from the information provided by Tadao Maruta and Masaru Nakamura, to whom
I have been very grateful. Thanks also go to Stephen Ryan and Kotoe Onodera for discussions of empirical data and to an
anonymous reviewer of this journal for valuable comment and suggestions. Any defects remaining are of course my own. This
work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (16K02755) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science.

－11 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

b. [α [NP book] [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]↓ A-movement of NP to the matrix Spec,Tc. [NP book] is easy [α tNP [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]↓ Late merger of D (= the) to the raised NP
d. [DP the [NP book]] is easy [α tNP [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]
The idea of this A’-movement of a predicate NP stems from the promotion/raising analysis of relative
clause structures and quite similar analyses have been entertained by Sportiche (2006) and Messick (2012).
They, however, suggest that the extraction of NP out of DP occurs not in the original gap position (typically,
object positions) but in the Spec,C position created by A’-movement of the relevant DP operator.
The paper shows that our analysis of NP extraction from within the original gap in toughconstructions has interesting consequences for the account of the restricted distribution of gaps in subject
positions observed and/or analyzed by many researchers (see Postal (1974), Nakamura (1976), Stowell(1987), Takahashi (1997), Maruta (2013) and references therein). Specifically, our analysis accounts for theunavailability of subject gaps in (3a), just on a par with the account offered by Takahashi (1997), and forthe contrast between ungrammatical (3b) and grammatical (3c).
(3) a. ?*John is easy to believe __ to have kissed Mary(Takahashi 1997)

b. *John is difficult __ to solve these problems		

(Browning 1987)c.

(Nakamura 1976)

The room is easy __ to be heated			In what follows, I will motivate in section 2 the derivation of tough-constructions in terms of an
A’-movement of a predicate NP and its subsequent A-movement to the matrix Spec,T, followed by asupplementary late merger of D. Section 3 examines consequences of this analysis with respect to therestricted distribution of subject gaps in the constructions. Section 4 is a conclusion.

2. Predicate NP movement in relative clauses and tough-constructions
This section motivates the derivation of tough-constructions in English in terms of predicate NP
movement as outlined in (2a-d) above. Section 2.1 is concerned with the categorical status of the obligatory“gap” in the constructions. Section 2.2 turns to an A-movement of predicate NPs into the matrix Spec,Tand gives a couple of pieces of evidence in favor of this analysis, which include new ones not provided inSportiche (2006).

－22 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

2.1. DP/NP inconsistency in relative clause formation
As noted in section 1, our analysis is motivated by the promotion/raising analysis of relative
clause formation. This subsection aims to introduce a “direct” promotion/raising analysis of infinitival
relative clause constructions so as to provide the foundation for the proposal of the derivation of toughconstructions. Infinitival relative clauses share some important properties with tough-complement clauses:
they are infinitival, do not allow overt wh-operator of nominal type (who, which), show Subject Condition
effects (see Browning 1987). The unavailability of overt wh-operator of nominal type in infinitival relative
clauses strongly suggests a “direct” raising/promotion analysis of the head/antecedent of the relevant
relative clauses (without the mediation of null operators), which I will adopt in this paper. Since this direct
promotion/raising analysis was proposed by Schachter (1973) for finite relative clauses, I will start with thediscussion of finite relative clauses under the “direct” promotion/raising analysis.
Analyses of relative clause structures are always tied with an issue of the apparent categoricalmismatch between the original gap and the head/antecedent of the relevant relative clause.
Given the DP/NP dichotomy in the DP analysis of noun phrases (see e.g. Abney 1987), it is a common
practice to treat a DP as an element denoting an individual and an NP as one denoting a property (i.e.,
predicate). In this tradition it is quite natural to assume that the gap (__) in the relative construction in (4)is a DP rather than an NP because the verb put semantically selects an individual rather than a property/
predicate.
(4) the book that John put __ on the table
When we turn out attention to the syntactic category of the head/antecedent of the restrictive relative
clause, on the other hand, we have good reason to assume that it is an NP rather than a DP. The structurefor (4) should be (5).
(5) [DP theD [NP [NP book] [CP that John put __ on the table]]]Discussions of syntactic differences between restrictive relatives and non-restrictive (appositive) relatives
in Jackendoff (1977) favor this analysis strongly. In the tradition of semantics as well, the treatment of thehead/antecedent of the restrictive relative clause as a predicate (namely, type <e,t>, rather than type e for anindividual) is common. Thus, Heim & Kratzer (1998) assign to (6a) the structure in (6b) and state that both
[NP house] and relative clause [which is empty] are <e,t> (namely, predicates) and they are combined by－22 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

their rule of Predicate Modification (p. 88).1 The NP part house which is empty, thus, denotes the function(6c), where De = set of individuals.
(6) a. the house which is empty
b. [DP theD [NP [NP house] [CP which is empty]]]c. λx ∊ De . x is a house and x is empty
This NP analysis of the head/antecedent of restrictive relative clauses provides a straightforward
account for the ungrammatical status of sentences like (7a): proper nouns are superficially Ds and hence
have no ability to serve as the head/antecedent of relative clauses due to categorical mismatch (NP vs DP)
and/or semantic mismatch (<e,t> vs e). When a proper noun is converted to a common noun, henceforth,
it can serve as a legitimate head/antecedent both syntactically and semantically, as shown by (7b), where itmeans “person by the name of Sue Jones.”(7) a. *John that came to dinner		

(Jackendoff 1977)

b. She is obviously not the Sue Jones they are looking for.
					

(Huddleston & Pullum 2002 (hererafter, H&P 2002))

Similarly, the contrast between (8a) and (8b) follows from this NP analysis. John’s book in (8a) is a fullfledged DP denoting an individual and, hence, inappropriate as a head/antecedent, whereas book of John’sis an NP serving as a predicate of the semantic type <e,t>, legitimate as the relevant head/antecedent.
(8) a. *John’s book that you readb. the book of John’s that you read.		

(Both examples from Chomsky 1986) 2

These considerations strongly suggest that the head/antecedent of relative clauses are NPs rather than DPs.
Returning to the syntactic analysis of the internal structure of the relative construction (4), we now
have a DP/NP inconsistency: while the gap (__) is best analyzed as a DP from the viewpoint of semantic
selection, syntactic and semantic evidence points to an NP status of its purported antecedent occupying the

1 The rule of Predicate Modification is given in (i), where ‖δ‖ = denotation of δ, D<e,t> = set of all functions from De to Dt, 1= “true.”(i) Predicate Modification (Heim & Kratzer 1998, p. 65)　　　If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s daughters, and ‖β‖ and ‖γ‖ are both in D<e,t>,　　　then ‖α‖ = λx ∊ De . ‖β‖ (x) = ‖γ‖ (x) = 1.
2 See also Jackendoff (1977, p. 181) for a similar contrast.

－22 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

head/antecedent position.
A simple solution we pursue here is a variant of the direct promotion/raising analysis whereby an
NP is extracted out of a DP and undergoes an A’-movement to adjoin to CP, as illustrated in the structuralchange from (9a) to (9b) (see Schachter 1973).3(9) a. [CP that [TP John put [DP D [NP book] on the table]]b. [α [NP book] [CP that [TP John put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]c. [DP theD [α [NP book] [CP that [TP John put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]In (9b), α, with an <NP, CP> structure, is somehow permitted in the light of the labeling algorithm(LA) (Chomsky 2013). 4 One possibility worth pursuing is that C in relative clauses is endowed with a[Predicate]-feature, which is checked by a predicate of an appropriate type: namely NP (but not VP or
adverb, for example). The <NP, CP> under consideration, then, could be labeled as <Pred, Pred> by meansof feature sharing.
Let us suppose this is the case and proceed to the examination of the next stage of the derivation
illustrated in (9c) above, where theD is merged with α. In the tradition of the semantic treatment of definite
descriptions it is a common practice to treat the as a function that maps the set of <e,t> denoted by therelevant NP to exactly one individual e. Thus, if the is applied to president of the US, it yields Donald
Trump (at the time of writing) (see Heim & Kratzer 1998, p. 74). A similar analysis is applied to theinterpretation of (9c), where the set of denotations of type <e,t> corresponding to book that John put on thetable is defined (narrowly) by the discourse/world of the relevant speaker/hearer. Therefore, it is natural
to assume that D has a function to map a predicate (<e,t>) to an individual (e), insofar as the resulting DP

3For analyses of relative clause formation, see also Kayne (1994), Sauerland (1998), Hulsey & Sauerland (2006), among
many others.
4 Throughout the paper I will assume that raised nominals such as book in (9b) are actually phrasal rather than heads with theconsequence that they cannot provide the label of the dominating constituent (e.g. α in (9b)) in the light of LA, unlike theanalysis of that-relative clauses proposed by Donati & Cecchetto (2011), as correctly observed by an anonymous reviewer.
   The assumption that book in (9b) is phrasal is not implausible at all, given that what we have been referring to as an NP
here is actually a combination of a nominalizer n and its complement N. “NP-movement,” then, is actually nP-movement.
However, I will continue to use the simplified representation [NP bookN] as a shorthand for the formal [nP n bookN].
   Since the head/antecedent of relative clauses is uniformly phrasal, our analysis departs from Donati & Cecchetto’s (2011),
where bookN in (i) is a head (rather than a phrase) and transmits its label to α.
(i) theD2 [α(→NP) bookN [CP that you saw [DP1 D1 tN]]]   The head status of the head/antecedent of relative clauses is quintessential for their labeling purposes. Notice that if the head/antecedent is phrasal, as in (iib), it is unable to label α. In cases like this, they appeal to a late merge of of John to picture after
the latter transmits its label to α as depicted in (iic).
(ii) a. the picture of John that I prefer __ is on the top
b. [α [NP picture of John] [CP that I prefer [DP1 D1 tN]]]c. [α(→NP) [N picture] [CP that I prefer [DP1 D1 tN]]]
They argue that the analysis predicts that constituents “late merged” in this way cannot reconstruct and that this prediction isborne out correctly. The lack of reconstruction effects is, however, empirically incorrect; for related phenomena see footnote
11.

－22 －

Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

denotes an individual (or put differently, insofar as it is referential). In the case of nominal expressions
appearing in the complement position of be, things are a little complicated. Consider the following
examples.
(10) a. She’s secretary of the bushwalking club.
b. She’s the secretary of the bushwalking club. (Both examples from H&P 2002, p. 271)
In (10a), secretary of the bushwalking club denotes a property (namely, serves as a predicate) and does
not accompany an overt determiner. It could be said that syntax and semantics coincide in a sense:
property/predicate reading ↔ absence of D. This correlation is not bijective, however. This is explicitly
demonstrated by (10b), which has an occurrence of the and can still retain the same property/predicate
meaning as (10a). 5 We will understand this in the following way.
(11) a. Every NP is merged with D, projecting DP.
b. D has two variants from a semantic point of view:		(i) a function that maps <e,t> to e,		(ii) a semantically vacuous element that maps <e,t> to <e,t>. 6

Both (10a) and (10b) have a DP as the complement of be; in the former the empty D is semanticallyvacuous and expresses a property that the complement NP originally has (namely, serves as a predicate),
whereas in the latter the D could be understood either as a semantically vacuous element or as a functionthat maps <e,t> to an individual e. This semantic-vacuity option is available in the complement position of
be but is strictly prohibited in the object position of, say, put, where an individual e (rather than a predicate<e,t>) is required for semantic reasons.
An additional comment is now in order on the status of the D that merges with the relative clause ([αNP CP]) constructed by A’-movement of a predicate NP. We are assuming that this D is a different elementfrom the empty D stranded by the predicate NP movement. To put it differently, the numeration for thebook that John put on the table contains four different Ds: (i) empty D that takes book, (ii) the that takes
table, (iii) empty D that takes John, and (iv) the that takes book that John put on the table. 7
5

H&P (2002, p. 271) observe that (10b) is ambiguous between a predicative interpretation of the secretary of the bushwalking
club just as in (10a) and its specifying interpretation. No comparable ambiguity holds for the NP without an overt D in (10a).
6 As examples of semantically vacuous elements, Heim & Kratzer (1998, pp. 61f) give be in predicative sentences, of in “proudof John,” and an indefinite article a(n).
7 The fourth instance of D here, which introduces [α NP CP], has two variants in the sense of (11b), too. (11bi) is instantiatedby common referential restrictive relative constructions as well as the example in (ia) below, where [NP scholar] comes fromthe predicate complement of the predicative verb be and the whole DP denotes an individual. (ib) can be seen as an example－22 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

This supposition of the presence of the fourth D in this list is inevitable in the predicate NP promotion/
raising analysis and is shared by Schachter. From a semantic point of view, the function of this D is to turn<e,t> to e. This would mean that the presence of this D is required by the presence of the <e,t> that needs
to be turned into e. Since the <e,t> that needs to be turned into e is the relative clause itself, I will conclude
here that this D is somehow introduced into the relevant numeration by the [Predicate]-feature on C.
Let us summarize our direct promotion/raising analysis of relative clauses.
(12) Restrictive relative clause formation
Syntactic operations		

Semantic processes

i. A’-movement of NP out of DP

Variable introduction (λ-abstraction)

ii. NP-CP merger; Labeling		Predicate Modification (see fn. 1)

iii. D-NP merger; Labeling		

Mapping from <e,t> to e 8

An essentially similar analysis is extended to infinitival relative clause formation. Take (13a) as an
example. It is derived through the steps in (13b-d). As noted at the outset of this subsection, infinitival
relative clauses of (13a) type do not tolerate overt wh-operators. In this light, the direct promotion/raising
analysis is the simplest and most appropriate approach.
(13) a. the book to put on the tableb. [vP* PRO put [DP D [NP book]] on the table]↓ A’-movement of NP to Spec,C; Variable introduction (λ-abstraction)c. [α [NP book] [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]↓ Merger of D; Mapping from <e,t> to ed. [DP the [α [NP book] [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]]For the discussion that follows, the stage (13c) is important because it is shared by the derivation thatyields tough-constructions.

of (11bii) since the whole DP denotes a (non-)property attributed to the interview.
(i) a. Her book displays the fine skeptical intelligence of [DP the scholar she is]b. The interview turned out not to be [DP the ordeal that I had thought it would be] (Both examples from H&P 2002)
8 This is achieved in Heim & Kratzer (1998) by the rule of Functional Application (p. 44).
(i) Functional Application
 If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s daughters, and ‖β‖ is a function whose domain contains ‖γ‖ , then‖α‖ = ‖β‖ (‖γ‖).

－22 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

2.2. The derivation of tough-constructions
Suppose that we have arrived at the stage (13c) above, where [NP book] has merged with CP to satisfy
the [Predicate]-feature on C. In the preceding section we assumed that this [α NP CP] structure is labeledthanks to the shared feature [Predicate].
Let us now hypothesize that this labeling in terms of the [Predicate]-feature sharing is optional. If thisfeature-sharing option is not taken, then [α NP CP] is unlabelable as it is. This type of labeling problem istypically avoided by movement operations (see Moro 2000, Chomsky 2013, Tomizawa 2016, among manyother implementations of this idea). In our present case, NP is moved out of α, with the consequence that α
is labeled as CP.
(14)

We now have two points to make clear: (i) the destination of the movement of the extracted NP and(ii) the treatment of a D that remains in the numeration. Remember that we have a D in the relevant
numeration, which would have merged with α if <Pred, Pred> feature-sharing had occurred as outlined in
the preceding subsection for the derivation of relative clause structures. It is quite plausible to expect that,in the derivation involving (14), this D is ultimately merged with the extracted NP; otherwise, the relevant
derivation either would not terminate (because the D remains unmerged) or would yield an unintelligibleinterpretation (e.g., the D is directly merged with CP in (14): the to put on the table).
How is this merger of D and the extracted NP made possible, then? Drawing upon the suggestions
by Sportiche (2006) and Messick (2012), I will pursue the possibility that the D is “late” merged with theextracted NP after the latter moves into Spec,T of the matrix clause whose predicate consists of a toughpredicate such as easy, an absolute pain. This derivation is illustrated in (15), which corresponds to thesentence the book is easy to put on the table.
(15) a. [α [NP book] [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]] (=13c)↓ A-movement of [NP book] to the matrix Spec,Tb. [β [NP book] [TP T is easy [α(=CP) tNP [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on the table]]]]]]↓ Late merger of D to NP in the matrix Spec,Tc. [β [DP theD [NP book]] [TP T is easy [α(=CP) tNP [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO put [DP D tNP] on thetable]]]]]]－22 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

This analysis of tough-constructions has a number of direct consequences. First, the extracted NP canlive a “DP” life independently of the DP life of the NP in original gap position, just as the promoted/raised
NP does in relative clause formation. Overt quantifiers like no, being D, can be added to the extracted/
promoted/raised NP, so that both instances of nothing in (16a, b) can never be understood in the original
gap positions (= no scope reconstructions).
(16) a. Nothing is hard for Melvin to lift __		b. nothing that I eat __			(Postal 1974)(Schachter 1973)(16a) does not mean that it is hard for Melvin not to lift anything; nor does (16b) imply that I do not eat
anything.
Second, just because the NP in tough-constructions is extracted from [α NP CP], it can lead a more
independent “DP” life than does the NP that stays within α in relative clauses. Given an NP of the formbook of John’s, the possessor cannot raise to Spec,D in a relative clause structure as seen in (8a, b), repeatedhere as (17a, b), presumably due to some form of an inactivity condition stemming from the <Pred, Pred>feature-sharing.
(17) a. *John’s book that you readb. the book of John’s that you read.
c.

In the case of an NP moved into the matrix Spec,T of tough-constructions as in (18a), on the other
hand, no such obstruction to possessor raising exists, so that we can derive (18b). 9(18) a. [TP [NP book of John’s] is an absolute pain [CP tNP [CP to read [DP D tNP]]]]
9

For the need of a similar possessor raising operation, see Takahashi & Hulsey (2009, fn. 10).

－22 －

Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

b. [TP [DP John’s D [NP book __]] is an absolute pain [CP tNP [CP to read [DP D tNP]]]]
The distributional differences of proper nouns and pronouns can be accounted for in a similar fashion:(19) a. *John/he that came to dinnerb. John/he is easy to please
Let us assume that both proper nouns and pronouns are inherently Ns and they are obligatorily combinedwith Ds. In relative clause formation, [N John/he] merges with CP with a resulting label <Pred, Pred>, justas in (17c) above. Movement of N to D, which is required for proper interpretation of proper nouns andpronouns, is blocked in this structure, again due to some inactivity condition derivative from this feature
sharing. In the matrix Spec,T in tough-constructions, no comparable constraint is imposed on the raising of
N to D.
The unique behavior of the elements in the edge of D in the Spec,T of tough-constructions is thehighlight of Sportiche’s (2006) analysis: in DP, the edge does not exhibit reconstruction effects (as glimpsed
above with respect to quantifier no and possessors), whereas the interior shows reconstructions. Therefore,
we will list the following reconstruction effects as the third immediate consequence of our analysis.
(20) a. Pictures of hisi friends are easy to persuade [every photographer]i to sell __		b. Pictures of [each other]i would be easy to persuade themi to sell __						

(Both examples from Sportiche 2006)

Since his and each other occur in the interior of NP, they have copies of their own within the original gaps(__). Therefore, his in (20a) can be understood as a variable bound to every photographer; each other in(20b) refers to them. 10, 11
A fourth immediate consequence of predicate NP movement is the suppression of weak crossover
10 As an anonymous reviewer correctly observes, addition of quantifiers to the subjects in (20a, b) results in ill-formedness.
Thus, Sportiche (2006) reports:(i) a. *Most pictures of hisi friends are easy to persuade [every photographer]i to sell __b. *Most pictures of [each other]i would be easy to persuade themi to sell __The matrix subject DPs cannot satisfy two conflicting requirements simultaneously. Bound pronoun interpretation andBinding Condition (A), on the one hand, require the subject DPs to reconstruct; the quantifier most, on the other, requires theDPs to remain in the matrix clauses because it has no reconstruction site within the gap positions in the embedded clauses.
11 A similar reconstruction effect is observed in restrictive relative clauses. The following example from Hulsey & Sauerland(2006, p. 121) contains a reflexive variable bound to the quantifier everybody.
(i) The picture of himself that everybody sent in __ annoyed the teacher
For himself to serve as a bound pronoun, reconstruction is needed. Therefore, Donati & Cecchetto’s (2011) late merge
analysis of PPs like of himself is untenable and their claim that the head/antecedent of relative clauses are uniformly heads isweakened.

－22 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

effects as observed by Lasnik & Stowell (1991):(21) a. Johni should be easy for hisi wife to love __b. Johni was hard to persuade hisi boss to vouch for __The element that moves over the pronouns in our analysis is not [DP John] but [NP John], which is notreferential by definition. Binding is a relation holding between referential expressions and, hence, thestructures in (21a, b) do not fall under the genuine weak crossover configurations. The same analysis could
be applied to the lack of weak crossover effects in restrictive relative constructions as in (22), though thejudgement is not uniform among speakers (see Lasnik and Stowell 1991, p. 698).
(22) the man who his mother loved best		

(Chomsky 1982, p. 91)

A fifth immediate consequence of predicate NP movement is concerned with the A-movement of an
NP that comes from within a predicative complement to be, become. It is often claimed that such examples
do not make well-formed tough-constructions. Thus, H&P (2002, p. 1245) state that (23a) is marginal at
best.
(23) a. ?An ideal husband is not easy to be __		b. *The best doctor in Boston isn’t easy to become __(H&P 2002)(Longenbaugh 2017)

c. *The strongest woman in the universe is not easy to become __d. *The world’s cheapest full professor is difficult to turn into __(c/d from Postal 1990)

However, it does not seem to be right to conclude that these are uniformly ungrammatical, because we haveacceptable examples as shown in (24):(24) a. What is the hardest type of doctor to be __b. A neurosurgeon is the hardest type of doctor to become __c. What type of doctor is much easier to become __d. The chancellor of that university is (the) most difficult to become __The example in (24c) is very suggestive about the sematic property of the subject expressions in theseexamples: it denotes the type/kind of a doctor rather than the identity of a particular doctor. This semantic
characterization of the subject expression is extended to other examples. Thus, for (24d), let us suppose－22 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

that the chancellor of that university is John Smith. Then, what is being talked about in (24d) is not theidentity of the chancellor of that university (= John Smith) but the type/kind/character of the social position(= chancellor) occupied by John Smith at that university.
The type/kind that the subject expressions denote in (24) is not the denotation type of <e,t>; rather,it can be viewed as a subcase of individuals (e). Hence, this type/kind reading of the subject expressions
is a good solution to accommodate apparently conflicting semantic requirements imposed on the two DPs
involved. Since the original gaps are predicative complements of be/become, they are <e,t>; the subject
DPs, on the other hand, are e by definition.
Insofar as this line of reasoning holds, it lends additional support for the promotion/raising analysis ofa predicate NP supplemented by late merger of D.
Returning to the examples in (23), consider source(s) of their ungrammaticality. One is the difficulty
to imagine a context appropriate for a type/kind interpretation of the subject DPs. Given an ideal husbandin (23a) and the strongest woman in the universe in (23c), it seems that we are more inclined to seek for theindividuals that satisfy the descriptions. Similar considerations seem to apply to the best doctor in Bostonin (23b) and the world’s cheapest full professor in (23d). Because of the superlative forms, we tend to seek
for the individuals appropriate for the descriptions.
Let me add here that an infinitival relative clause is also possible with a gap in the predicativecomplement of be, as observed by H&P (2002, p. 1067).
(25) A systems analyst wouldn’t be such a bad thing to be __ 12
The following (more or less idiomatic) examples can be viewed as further instances of infinitival relative
clauses with an original gap in the predicative complement of be.
(23) a. a mother to beb. a new owner soon to bec. a feeble James Dean wannabe
This concludes the motivation for A-movement of a predicate NP into Spec,T and a subsequent latemerger of D for the derivation of tough-constructions.
Before turning to consequences for the restricted distribution of subject gaps in tough-constructions, I
would like to make a short, critical comment on Hicks’ (2009) “smuggling” analysis of the constructions.
12 Although H&P treat this example as an infinitival relative construction, it could be analyzed as an instance of toughconstructions insofar as the type/kind reading of a systems analyst is available.

－33 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

He proposes that null operator is a DP consisting of a D head and its N complement, which has a null
operator feature and obligatorily selects a DP that serves as the antecedent. In the case of the book is easy
to put __ on the table, the empty object position of put is originally occupied by the DP2 in (24a).
(24) a.

b. [CP [DP2 D2 N2 [DP1 the book]] [TP to put tDP2 on the table]]c. [TP [DP1 the book] is easy [CP [DP2 D2 N2 tDP1] [TP to put tDP2 on the table]]]This DP2 undergoes operator movement to Spec,C as illustrated in (24b); at a later stage of the derivation,
DP1 is extracted out of DP2 and moves into the matrix Spec,T, as shown in (24c). This smuggling analysis
has both a control-related problem and a “look-ahead”-type problem. Look at the following example. 13(25) Among them, John is quite difficult for us to persuade to be easy to please.
In order to generate this “double” tough-construction, we have, first of all, to prepare two instancesof complex null operators in (26ai) and (26aii). The null operator (26ai) is inserted in the complement
positon of please as indicated in (26b). The whole DP2 undergoes operator movement to adjoin to Spec,Cof to please and, later, DP1 moves out of DP2 to become the subject of to be easy to please, as in (26c).
The resulting structure is combined with persuade, whose direct object position is filled by the second
null operator in (26aii), as indicated in (26d). DP4 in (26d) undergoes operator movement to Spec,C of
to persuade to be easy to please and, at the next stage of the derivation, DP3 is extracted out of DP4 andmoves into the matrix Spec,T, as in (26e).
(26) a. i. [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 [DP1 PRO]]]ii. [DP4 D4 [NP4 N4 [DP3 John]]]b. to please [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 [DP1 PRO]]]c. [DP1 PRO] to be easy [CP1 [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 tDP1]] to please tDP2 ]13

Examples of this sort came to my attention during the discussions exchanged with Kotoe Onodera in 2012.

－33 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

d. persuade [DP4 D4 [NP4 N4 [DP3 Johni]]] [[DP1 PRO] to be easy [CP1 [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 tDP1]] to please tDP2 ]]e. [DP3 Johni] is difficult [CP2 [DP4 D4 [NP4 N4 tDP3]] to persuade tDP4 [[DP1 PRO] to be easy [CP1 [DP2 D2 [NP2N2 tDP1]] to please tDP2 ]]In this sentence PRO should be understood as John; however, this control is not expected, since the direct
object of persuade is not John but [DP4 D4 [NP4 N4 [DP3 Johni]]]. In addition, a “look-ahead”-type problem
will arise, if a single element can undergo tough-movement twice, for example. In this case, we have toprepare a null operator that selects another null operator such as: [DP3 D3 N3 [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 [DP1 John]]]]. If asingle element can undergo tough-movement three times, then we have to prepare a null operator like [DP4D4 N4 [DP3 D3 N3 [DP2 D2 [NP2 N2 [DP1 John]]]]]. These considerations show that the smuggling analysis is nota solution but a restatement of the problem to be solved.

3. Restricted distribution of subject gaps in tough-constructions
This section shows that the predicate NP movement analysis proposed here provides a neat accountfor the restricted distribution of subject gaps in tough-constructions. In section 3.1, the present analysis isshown to accommodate the distributional facts of gaps in ECM subject positions discussed in Takahashi(1997). In the discussion, we make a speculation about a possible parameterization of Chomsky’s (2008)
generalized inactivity condition. Section 3.2 shows that the availability/unavailability of “local” subject
gaps follows essentially from our analysis.
3.1. Gaps in ECM subject positions
Takahashi (1997) discusses two interesting phenomena found in tough-constructions. First, when a
gap appears in the ECM subject position, the resulting tough-constructions are degraded (see e.g. Postal
1974, Browning 1987, Stowell 1987, among many others). Takahashi (1997) takes the degradation as
an indication of a Subjacency Condition violation (Subject Condition effects) and pursues a feature
movement analysis of null operator movement, according to which the traditional null operator movement
is reformulated as a movement of a [null operator]-feature out of the feature bundle that makes up a null
operator. The account is very simple and elegant. The degraded status of the tough-construction in (27a)below, where [F1,…, __,…,Fn] is a null operator and __ is the trace of the [null operator]-feature (= [FNO])
adjoined to the infinitival CP, is attributed to the general prohibition of extraction from within nominal
phrases in subject position (namely, Subject Condition effects) and is argued to be comparable to thedegradation of regular wh-extraction in (27b).

－33 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43(27) a. ?*John is easy [FNO] to believe [F1,…, __,…,Fn] to have kissed Maryb. ?*Who did you believe [a picture of __] to be on sale					(Both examples from Takahashi 1997)

Our predicate NP movement analysis accounts for the same range of phenomena, since an NP is
extracted from within a larger DP. Thus, (27a) has the structure in (28), where extraction of [NP John] fromwithin DP1 (which is a subject) yields a Subject Condition effect.
(28) [DP2 D2 [NP John]] is easy [α tNP [CP to believe [DP1 D1 tNP] to have kissed Mary]]
This account carries over to the degraded status of the gaps in ECM subject positions in infinitival relative
clauses as in (29a, b), cited from Browning (1987, p. 235).
(29) a. *He is not [a man (for us) to expect __ to succeed]b. ??They found [a man to believe __ to be the Messiah]
I will take this successful account of the degraded status of these examples as a welcome consequenceof the predicate NP movement analysis proposed here. However, the grammatical status of extraction fromwithin ECM subjects is not invariant among researchers. Thus, Chomsky (2008) observes an obviation of
Subject Condition effects in the wh-extraction in (30).
(30) Of which car did they believe [the driver __] to have caused a scandal
Since the analysis that Chomsky offers to extractability of elements out of DPs bears a close connection to
the second phenomenon Takahashi (1997) discusses, to which we turn later, let us review his analysis andconsider a possible way out from the (presumably) dialectal variation we now have in front of us: a Subject
Condition effect in (27b) and its obviation in (30).
Chomsky (2008) claims that the paradigm in (31a-d) below follows from his phase theory on the basisof the two restrictions in (32) and (33).
(31) a. *[Of which car] did [the driver] cause a scandal
b. [Of which car] was [the driver] awarded a prizec. [Of which car] is [the driver] likely to cause a scandal
d. [Of which car] did they believe [the driver] to have caused a scandal (= 30)－33 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA(32) Anti-deep-search 14 			

(p. 154)

Search that goes too deeply into a phase already passed is disfavored.
(33) Generalized inactivity condition(p. 154)

Extraction from matrix Spec,T is barred.
The contrast between (31a) and (31b) reminds us of Stowell’s (1987) ECP-based account, on which
Takahashi’s analysis is constructed, but Chomsky’s phase-based analysis makes a different prediction about(31c, d). Anti-deep-search (31) disfavors extraction from within a phase edge. The structures for (31a-d)
are given in (34a-d), respectively, where both tα and tβ mark the original or intermediate positions that thedriver drops at on the way to its ultimate destination.
(34) a. *[CP [of which car] did [TP [γ the driver] T [vP* tα cause a scandal]]]b. [CP [of which car] was [TP [γ the driver] T [vP awarded tβ a prize]]]c. [CP [of which car] is [TP2 [γ the driver] T2 [vP likely [TP1 tβ to [vP* tα cause a scandal]]]]]d. [CP [of which car] did [TP2 they T2 [vP2* tδ [vP2* believe [TP1 [γ the driver] to have [vP1* tα caused ascandal]]]]]In these examples, Anti-deep-search disfavors extraction of of which car from the containing DP at thestage of the derivation where the latter occupies the positions marked by tα, since tα is an edge of therelevant phase head (v*). In (34a), γ is not the right place from which of which car can be successfully
extracted, because it violates the inactivity condition (33). As a result, (34a) is an inappropriate expression.
In (34b), on the other hand, wh-extraction out of the containing DP is legitimately carried out at the stage ofthe derivation where the latter occupies tβ because tβ and its (immediate) destination (Spec,C) reside in thesame phase domain of C, giving rise to no violation of Anti-deep-search. In a similar fashion, wh-extraction
is permitted in (34c) from within the containing DP that occupies tβ. In (34d), of which car can be extracted
from γ, without inducing an Anti-deep-search violation, because γ and its immediate destination (= tδ)are in the same phase domain of the matrix v*. This wh-extraction from γ in (34d) does not violate theinactivity condition (33) because γ is an embedded Spec,T.
Chomsky’s analysis in terms of Anti-deep-search and the generalized inactivity condition has thefollowing generalization: Extraction from within a subject DP is possible if the DP occupies a non-matrix
Spec,T. This generalization, however, is easily falsified by the lack of an improvement of acceptability
14 This falls under the general conditions of economy. When a phase head α searches for a goal, it can access a term thatoccupies the edge of another phase head β insofar as the Phase Impenetrability Condition is respected. Exactly in thisenvironment, α can in principle access a term within the edge of β, which is a typical instance of extraction from within
subject we are concerned here. However, this “deep” search is more costly than a regular search targeting the edge of β itself.

－33 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

expected of the embedded version (35b) as compared to the non-embedded one in (35a), both from Huang(1982).
(35) a. *Who did pictures of please you			(p. 486)b. *Who do you think pictures of would please John

(p. 497)

Given this inadequacy, it seems to be plausible to drop the reference to “matrix clauses” in thedefinition of the inactivity condition (33) and seek for a more appropriate notion. An idea that might cometo mind is to replace “matrix Spec,T” with “finite Spec,T,” with the consequence that both (35b) and (35a)/(34a) are excluded but not (34d)/(34c). However, I will adopt a different reformulation: replacement of“matrix Spec,T” with “the Specifier of T selected by C”:(36) Generalized inactivity condition (revised)
Extraction from the Specifier of T selected by C is barred.
This revised version singles out the subject of the infinitival complement to ECM/raising predicates as alegitimate extraction site, with the consequence that (34c)/(34d) are good whereas (34a)/(35a)/(35b) arenot.
Let us now return to the (presumably) dialectal variation concerning the Subject Condition effectin (27b) and its absence in (30). On the basis of the shared infinitival ECM complement to believe inthese examples, let me speculate that the revised inactivity condition (36) has a parameter in the choiceof the restriction [selected by C]. For those speakers who choose the value [selected by C], the subject of
the infinitival complement to ECM verbs (and raising predicates) is a legitimate extraction site, with an
absence of Subject Condition effects as in (30). On the other hand, those who do not choose the value treat
every instance of extraction from Spec,T as degraded, as in (27b).
With this in mind, we will proceed to the second phenomenon discussed by Takahashi (1997).
Referring to Stowell (1987) and Browning (1987), he reports that there are speakers who judge (37a, b) tobe better than (37c) (= 27a).
(37) a.
b.

John is easy to believe __ was arrested by the police
John is easy to believe __ to have been arrested by the policec. ?*John is easy to believe __ to have kissed Mary		(= 27a)The contrast now follows directly from the combination of Anti-deep-search (32) and the revised inactivity－33 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

condition (36), irrespectively of the parameter value to be chosen for the latter condition. The derivationsfor (37a) and (37b) are represented schematically in (38a, b), respectively, where the position marked t δmust be filled by a predicate NP. Therefore, the predicate NP must be extracted at tα or tβ or tγ.
(38) a. [DP D [NP John]] is easy [CP2 tδ [ C2 PRO to [vP* tγ [vP* believe [CP1 tγ C1 [TP1 tα was arrested tβ by…]]]]]]b. [DP D [NP John]] is easy [CP2 tδ [ C2 PRO to [vP* tγ [vP* believe [TP tα to have been arrested tβ by …]]]]]For those who do not choose the parameter value [selected by C], the inactivity condition prohibits NP
extraction at tα; Anti-deep-search disfavors extraction from within tγ. Neither the inactivity condition nor
Anti-deep-search, however, prohibits extraction from within tβ. For those who do choose the parametervalue [selected by C], not only tβ but also tα in (38b) (but not in (38a)) is a legitimate extraction site for a
predicate NP. Therefore, both (38a) and (38b) are predicted to be acceptable, irrespectively of the parametervalue for the inactivity condition. 15
3.2. Gaps in “local” subject positions
It seems to be a general consensus that the subject of tough-constructions does not have its
derivational root in the subject of the infinitival clauses selected by the relevant tough-predicates. Various
ungrammatical examples are reported as in (39a-d).
(39) a. *John is hard __ to laugh				(Longenbaugh 2017, fn. 17)

b. *Bob is hard __ to come				(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1229)

c. *John is difficult __ to solve these problems		

(Browning 1987, p. 66)

d. *John is easy __ to like Mary			(Chomsky 1981, p. 314)

This prohibition of “local” subject gaps in tough-constructions is not an inviolable one, however.
Grammatical examples are also reported:(40) a. The room is easy __ to be heated			(Nakamura 1976, p. 231)b. Short love poems are easy __ to be read and understood		(Maruta 2013)This subsection shows that the contrast we now have essentially follows from the analysis proposed in this
15 A question, however, remains about the restricted acceptability of these examples as noted by Takahashi (1997), which willbe left untouched here.

－33 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

paper, along with general semantic properties imposed on the constructions. In addition, a small breakdown
in expected parallelism between tough-constructions and infinitival relative clauses occurs, which is to be
dealt with by appealing to a matching version of infinitival relative clause formation.
Let us start with the ungrammatical example with an unergative verb in (39a), which has a schematic
structure in (41).
(41) *[DP D [NP John]] is hard [CP [NP John] [CP C [TP tα to [vP* tγ laugh]]]]Since tγ is an edge of v*, extraction of the predicate NP (= [NP John]) from within it is disfavored by Antideep-search (32); tα, on the other hand, is in the Specifier of T selected by C and, hence, extraction fromwithin it is prohibited by the inactivity condition (36) irrespectively of the parameter value chosen. Hence,(41) is illegitimate.
An essentially similar analysis applies to the examples with transitive verbs in (39c) and (39d), whose
schematic structures are given in (42a, b), respectively.
(42) a. *[DP D [NP John]] is difficult [CP [NP John] [CP C [TP tα to [vP* tγ solve …]]]]b. *[DP D [NP John]] is easy [CP [NP John] [CP C [TP tα to [vP* tγ like …]]]]
Extraction from within tγ is disfavored by Anti-deep-search; extraction from tα is barred by the inactivity
condition.
It is predicted, therefore, that when the relevant verb is passivized, a legitimate extraction froman (apparent) subject position is possible. This is embodied by the examples in (40a, b). (40a) has thefollowing structure.
(43) [DP theD [NP room]] is easy [CP [NP room] [CP C [TP tα to be [vP heated tβ ]]]]
Here, extraction of [NP room] from within tβ is neither disfavored by Anti-deep-search nor blocked by theinactivity condition. Extraction from within tα is barred by the latter condition, but we have a legitimate
extraction site at tβ. Therefore, grammatical tough-constructions with “local” subject gaps can beconstructed, insofar as the apparent subject originates from an object position. We will return to the reduced
productivity of this type of examples later.
It is also expected that an unaccusative verb provides another environment for a legitimate extractionof a predicate NP. This prediction, however, is not borne out, as the ungrammatical status of the example in(37b) shows. This sentence has the following structure.
－33 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA(44) *[DP D [NP Bob]] is hard [CP [NP Bob] [CP C [TP tα to [vP [VP come tβ ]]]]]
Here, Bob originates within tβ, extraction from which is neither disfavored by Anti-deep-search nor
barred by the inactivity condition. Since this reasoning seems to be sound, the inability of the sentence
corresponding to (44) should come from some semantic factor.
As stated in Lasnik & Fiengo (1974, pp. 553f), “controllable actions” are the relevant semantic notion.
Just as try and convince require their infinitival complements to denote actions that are controllable by
the subject and object, respectively, as shown by the incompatibility of stative events (= uncontrollable
actions) denoted by to resemble Harry in (45a, b), the infinitival complement in tough-constructions mustalso denote an action that can be controlled by the experiencer of the tough-predicates, as shown by theunavailability of to resemble in (45a), where the relevant experience is implicit.
(45) a. *John tried to resemble Harryb. *Mary convinced John to resemble Harryc. *Harry is easy to resemble		(All examples from Lasnik & Fiengo 1974)

Returning to the ungrammatical sentence in (37b) *Bob is hard to come, the event denoted by Bob to comeis usually quite difficult to interpret as an event to be controlled by a person other than Bob. This accounts
for the illegitimacy of (37b).
In relation to the controllability of actions denoted by infinitival complement clauses of try andconvince, Lasnik & Fiengo also note that passive complement clauses are less compatible with these verbs.
This is because passive clauses generally denote states, which are usually uncontrollable. Thus, (46a, b) areungrammatical.
(46) a. *John tried to be arrested by the police.
b. *Mary convinced John to be arrested by the police.
However, similar examples are not always judged to be ungrammatical. Insofar as the reading for acontrollable action is contextually established, passive complement clauses can appear, as in (47).
(47) The patient tried to be examined by the doctor.
It seems to be natural to extend this consideration to tough-constructions. Thus, in order for a passive－33 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

infinitival complement to appear in tough-constructions, establishment of a context that enables the“controllable action” reading of the event denoted by the passive infinitival complement is necessary. This
will account for the reduced productivity of sentences like (40a, b).
As a last topic, let us turn our attention to infinitival relative constructions with gaps in “local” subject
positions, as in (48a-c) cited from Quirk et al. (1985, pp. 1267ff). The verb in (48a) is ambiguous between
unergative and transitive.
(48) a. He is the last man to choose(ambiguous)b. He is the best man to be chosenc. They were the last guest to arrived. the man to fix the sinkLet us suppose that (48d) has the structure below.
(49) [ [NP man] [CP C [TP tα to [vP* tγ fix the sink]]]]Extraction of [NP man] from within tγ is disfavored by Anti-deep-search; extraction from tα is barred by
the inactivity condition. Therefore, we have a problem in the case of subject gaps of transitive verbs. A
similar problem arises with the subject gaps of unergatives as in (48a). The rest, namely passive (48b) andunaccusative (48c), could be predicted correctly if the object positions of the relevant verbs are chosen as
the extraction sites for predicate NPs.
The problems presented by transitives and unergatives as in (48d) and (48a) are not readily
accommodated within the present analysis. As a speculation, let me suggest that these examples are formedby what is called “matching operation” for relative clause formation, where no promotion/raising of apredicate NP is involved:(50) [ [NP man] [CP C [TP PRO to [vP* tPRO fix the sink]]]]To summarize, this section shows that the restricted distribution of gaps in tough-constructions
and infinitival relative clauses are basically derived systematically from our proposal of predicate NP
movement along with a modified (parameterized) version of Chomsky’s (2008) inactivity condition, Antideep-search, and a sematic requirement of controllability in the case of tough-constructions.

－33 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

4. Conclusion
This paper has proposed that in both tough-constructions and infinitival relative construction, apredicate NP is extracted from the containing DP at an arbitrary stage of its derivation, insofar as thisextraction is not disfavored/blocked by Anti-deep-search and the revised inactivity condition originallyproposed by Chomsky (2008).
The infinitival complement clauses in tough-constructions and infinitival relative constructions areanalyzed as sharing the same numeration, with the difference lying in the optionality of the <Pred, Pred>feature-sharing. If the features are shared, the resulting structure is merged with a D, projecting a DP. If thefeatures remain unshared, LA forces further movement of the NP, which (with a subsequent late merger of D)leads ultimately to the formation of tough-constructions.
The contrast between the unavailability of scope reconstruction (due to the edge property of D) andthe availability of bound pronoun interpretation and anaphoric reconstruction effects (due to the interiorof NP) is shown to follow just as in Sportiche’s original analysis. In addition, the lack of weak crossover
effects and the availability of a kind/type reading of the subject stemming from the predicate complement
to be are shown to follow from this proposal.
The degraded status of gaps in the subject position of the infinitival clausal complements to ECM
verbs and the availability of “local” gaps in the case of passive clauses and their unavailability in transitive
and unergative clauses are also shown to derive from this proposal.

－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Kluwer.
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.
Donati, Caterina and Carlo Cecchetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization
structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 519-560.
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.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulsey, Sarah and Uli Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14, 111137.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 535-571.
Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687-720.
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2017. Composite A/A’-movement: Evidence from English tough-movement.
Manuscript.
Maruta, Tadao. 2013. “Short love poems are easy to be read and understood.” Manuscript presented at
MLF 2013 at Keio University.
Messick, Troy G. 2012. Ellipsis and reconstruction in tough infinitives. In Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki,
Atsushi Sato, and Kensuke Takita eds., Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012.
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Nakamura, Masaru. 1976. Keiyoushi [Adjectives], Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
－44 －Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions―TOMIZAWA

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1990. Some unexpected English restrictions. In Kataqrzyna Dwiwirek, Patrick Farrell,and Errapel Mejías-Bikandi eds., Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 365-385,
Stanford: The Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammarof the English language. London: Longman.
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49, 19-46.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. NP movement: How to merge and move in tough-constructions. LingBuzz.
Stowell, Tim. 1987. As so, not so as. Ms, UCLA.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1997. Move-F and null operator movement. The Linguistic Review 14, 181-196.
Takahashi, Shoichi and Sarah Hulsey. 2006. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A-bar distinction.
Linguistic Inquiry 40, 387-426.
Tomizawa, Naoto. 2016. Alleged-rui keiyoushi-teki ukemi-kei-no tougo-hasei [Syntactic derivations ofadjectival passives of alleged-type]. In Akira Kikuchi, Takamichi Aki, Toru Suzuki, Naoto Tomizawa,
Tatsuya Yamagishi, and Shin-ichi Kitada eds., Gengogaku-no ima-o shiru- 26-kou [26 essays incurrent linguistic research], 277-288. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）19－43

Predicate NP Movement in Tough-Constructions

Naoto TOMIZAWA
Abstract

A new analysis of the derivation of tough-constructions in English is proposed in terms of what I
will call “predicate NP movement” and an additional A-movement, supplemented by the late merger of
D. The idea that the NP part of the subject DP of tough-constructions has its origin in the “gap” positionin the infinitival complement clauses of tough-predicates is not a new one: Sportiche (2006) and Messick(2012). The proposal to be pursued here is different from Sportiche’s in that the extraction of an NP out ofa DP occurs basically in the original gap position. This enables us to give a parallel and systematic analysis
to the formation of infinitival relative constructions and tough-constructions. It is also shown that the
restricted distribution of gaps in subject positions in these constructions observed and analyzed by Postal(1974), Nakamura (1976), Stowell (1987), Takahashi (1997), Maruta (2013), among many others, aresystematically accounted for.

－44 －