山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

ArticleA Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of theTough-Movement Construction
Naoto Tomizawa
1. Introduction
A clausal type of internal argument that appears superficially at a left edge of a sentence (as in raisingand topicalization constructions) has been reported to show two apparently conflicting syntactic properties.
In some cases, the lowest copy of the clausal argument needs to be a syntactic constituent of a nominal(rather than clausal) type in categorial terms; in others, the lowest copy needs to contain a CP structurethat is identical to its antecedent at the left-edge position. The first property is well documented in theliterature (see Koster 1978 and Alrenga 2005, among many others), while the latter is extensively exploredin Takahashi (2010) on the basis of the reconstruction effects of bound pronouns. In the present paper I will
engage in a similar argument in the domain of the tough-movement construction. I will present empiricalevidence in favor of the existence (in the original gap position) of a CP constituent that is identical to theclausal element serving superficially as the matrix subject of the relevant tough-movement construction,
explore the movement processes involved in the derivation from the viewpoint of the “predicate-nP
movement” analysis of the tough-movement construction laid out in Tomizawa (2023), and attempt tounify the “CP movement” analysis and the “predicate-nP movement” analysis.
It will be proposed that a clausal argument is an inherently unlabelable {PRN, CP} constituent, where
PRN = pronoun. The Labeling Algorithm forces either of the terms to dislocate. This dislocation interacts
with other syntactic constraints and lexical properties and determines the superficial distribution of theclausal argument and an optional appearance of expletive it. It will be claimed that the dislocation of CP
out of the unlabelable {PRN, CP} is a central element of the so-called tough-movement operation that
ultimately yields the tough-movement construction where the CP serves as the matrix subject.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, new empirical data will be presented that strongly
suggests that the clausal subject of the tough-movement construction has its CP copy in its original＊ During the preparation of this paper I benefited from the discussions with Shin-Ichi Kitada, Stephen Ryan, and Jerry
Miller, to whom I am very grateful. Thanks also go to an anonymous reviewer and the editorial board of this journal for
their helpful comments. All errors and inadequacies are of course of my own responsibility. This work is supported in partby Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 21K00565 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

－33 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

position within the infinitival complement to the tough-predicate. The rest of the paper is not the defenseof this observation but is devoted to the question how this “movement” from the original gap position
to the matrix subject position is made possible. Before going into the details of the movement process,the distribution of clausal arguments will be discussed in section 3, where it will be proposed that aclausal argument is generated as an inherently unlabelable {PRN, CP} constituent. Section 4 will present
the syntactic processes involved in the derivation of the tough-movement examples in section 2 while
maintaining the basic tenet adopted in the analysis of the tough-movement construction in Tomizawa (2023)(namely, neither improper movement nor late merger is permissible). Section 5 will attempt to unify the
proposal on the “clausal” tough-movement cases presented in this paper and the analysis of the standard
tough-movement cases in Tomizawa (2023) and present some consequences, which include the accountsof the lack of resumptive pronouns and some anti-pronominal effects observed in the tough-movement
construction. Section 6 is a summary of the paper.

2. Reconstruction of the clausal subject in the tough-movement construction
When a clausal type of internal argument to a given predicate appears superficially at a left edge ofthe sentence as in raising and topicalization constructions, the original gap position sometimes shows anominal property rather than a clausal one. Typical examples are provided by the internal argument of
the verb hope. Hope is lexically specified as taking a clausal complement but not a nominal complement,
which explains the contrast in grammaticality between (1a) and (1b) below. Notice that when the clausal
complement to hope is passivized or topicalized as in (2a, b), the resulting sentences are degraded. (These
examples are taken from Alrenga 2005.)(1) a.
b.
(2) a.

Most baseball fans hoped that the Giants would win the World Series.
*Most baseball fans hoped that.
*That the Giants would win the World Series was hoped.

b.

*That the Giants would win the World Series, their fans have never stopped hoping.

c.

It was hoped (by most baseball fans) that the Giants would win the World Series.

These facts have led researchers to hypothesize that the clausal elements in the left edges of the sentencesin (2a, b) are actually base-generated there and some kind of nominal element has undergone movementfrom the complement position of hope to the vicinity of the clausal antecedents in the left-edge positions.
The nominal status of the null copy in the complement position of hope, then, violates the categorial
selectional feature of the verb, just as in (1b).
Takahashi (2010), on the other hand, presents data that shows that when a clausal type of internalargument to a given predicate appears superficially at a left edge of a sentence in raising and topicalization－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

constructions, a pronoun within this left-edge clausal element may be bound to a quantificational
expression that c-commands the clausal argument’s original, thematic position. Thus, both (3a) and (3b),taken from his paper, allow the pronoun his to be bound to every professor.
(3) a.

T hat some student from his class cheated on the exam seems to every professor to be believed(in) by Mary.

b.

That some student from his class cheated on the exam, I think (that) every professor raised.

Since this bound pronoun interpretation requires him to be A-bound by every professor, it follows that theoriginal gap positions to the right of believed (in) in (3a) and raised in (3b), respectively, contain a clausal
constituent identical to the clausal argument in the left-edge position.
Bearing these apparently conflicting phenomena in mind, let us turn our attention to the tough-movement
construction, where we will observe similar apparently conflicting phenomena. First of all, when a clausal
type of constituent serves as the subject of the tough-movement construction, the grammaticality status of
the construction varies, as shown by (4a, b) below, taken from Alrenga (2005).
(4) a.
b.

*That the Giants would win the World Series was difficult to hope.
That these consonants behave exceptionally eventually proved impossible to attribute to theirstatus as coronals.

The source of the variation in grammaticality most likely lies in the lexical properties of the verbs
that license the original gaps corresponding to the clausal subjects. Suppose that just as in raising andtopicalization, the clausal type of subject in the tough-movement construction also has a nominal (but nota clausal) element in its original gap position. Then, the sentence (4a) violates the lexical specificationof hope, which needs a clausal type of complement in categorial terms. In the sentence (4b), by contrast,
the verb attribute takes a nominal complement and this categorial lexical specification gives rise to nocategorial mismatch with the categorial property of the null element occupying this gap position.
When it comes to reconstruction effects with regard to bound pronoun interpretation, however, therelevant data strongly suggests that the original gap in the tough-movement construction contains a clausal
constituent that is identical to the clausal element in the matrix subject position. Thus, not only (5a) but
also (5b) allows the pronoun his to be bound to every professor.1(5) a.

It’s easy for [every professor]i to assert that someone from hisi class is a genius.

b. That someone from hisi class is a genius is easy for [every professor]i to assert.
That his is bound to every professor is trivial in the expletive tough construction (5a).2 In the tough１
２

I owe the observation to my informants.
In reality, it may not be, because every professor in (5a, b) is contained within the PP headed by for and, hence, fails
to c-command his. However, the antecedent-variable relation between every professor and his is established through themediation of the PRO subject controlled by the quantified antecedent in this construction: every professor controls PRO andthis bound variable PRO, in turn, c-commands his, as illustrated in (i) below. This configuration ensures that his is bound to－44 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

movement construction (5b), on the other hand, the formal licensing of the bound pronoun in terms of the
c-command relation with every professor requires a postulation of a copy of his within the c-commanddomain of this quantificational antecedent. Given this observation, the simplest and hence the mostplausible approach worth pursuing is that a copy of that someone from his class is a genius is present
within the complement position of assert.
What we have witnessed in this section is that just as in raising and topicalization constructions, theclausal type of subject in the tough-movement construction has an apparently conflicting properties in thatits original gap is required to be of a nominal type in some cases and, in other cases, to contain a clausal
constituent identical to the clausal element that serves as the matrix subject. The latter property, whichcomes from the consideration of the reconstruction effects with regard to bound pronoun interpretation,suggests strongly that the matrix clausal subject somehow originates in the original gap position. The
derivational processes involved here are the main topic of the paper and will be tackled in section 4, after
we present an outline of the analysis of the distribution of clausal arguments in section 3. An attempt will
be made to unify this “clause movement” analysis of the tough-movement construction that has a clausal
subject, on one hand, and the “predicate-nP movement” analysis of the tough-movement construction in
general laid out by Tomizawa (2023), on the other, in section 5.

3. General distribution of clausal arguments
Here I will resurrect the old argument entertained around the 1960s about the internal structure of clausal
arguments and present a variant of this argument compatible with the current minimalist assumptions.
3.1. Clausal argument = inherently unlabelable {pronoun, CP}In his analysis of the structure of clausal arguments, Rosenbaum (1967) proposes that a noun phrase canbe optionally expanded into [Det N[+PRO] S], where [+PRO] stands for a pronominal feature. The sentencesin (6a, b) below share the underlying structure roughly represented as in (7).
(6) a.

That the doctor came at all surprises me.

b.

It surprises me that the doctor came at all.

(7) [NP Det N[+PRO] S] surprises me.
every professor.
(i) … easy [PP for [every professori]] [CP PROi to assert [that someone from hisi class is a genius]]
I will assume throughout the paper that “for + DP” in both the expletive tough construction as in (5a) and the toughmovement construction as in (5b) is a PP that expresses the evaluator/judge/experiencer of the event denoted by the relevant
tough-predicate. See on this view, Chomsky (1973, 1977), Nanni (1978), Heycock (1994), Longenbaugh (n.d.), Saltzmann(2023), in particular. On a different view, see Hartman (2011) and Brillman (2017), among others, where for can be acomplementizer.

－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

When N[+PRO] is deleted by a pronoun deletion transformation, (6a) is yielded. When an extrapositiontransformation applies to S, (6b) is generated. For similar ideas about the internal structure of clausal
arguments I will refer the reader to Ross (1967), Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) just to name a few.
The idea that is materialized by the configurational structure in (7) can be fleshed out in other ways
within the current minimalist framework. As one implementation along these lines, I would like to proposethat a clausal argument is a {pronoun, CP} complex with no label, as in (8).
(8) A clausal argument is an inherently unlabelable {PRN, CP} constituent, where PRN = pronoun.
This proposal has two immediate consequences. First, the correlation between a clausal argument (CP)and its expletive associate (PRN) is established at the beginning of the derivation.3 Second, since the{PRN, CP} constituent lacks a label, one of the two terms is forced to dislocate in the light of the Labeling
Algorithm.
(9) Labeling Algorithm(Chomsky 2013, 2015)

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.
Let me note here that, being a pronoun, PRN in (8) can be a head but it cannot provide a label to {PRN,
CP} in the light of the clause (9a). This is supported empirically by the simple fact that a pronoun generally
does not project any further: it generally rejects a complement, a specifier, and a modifier.
Returning to the labeling issue, when PRN is dislocated, the structure (10a) below is yielded, where{PRN, CP} obtains the CP label in the light of the clause (9c). The antecedent PRN has to have its Casefeature checked at some stage of the derivation. When CP is dislocated, on the other hand, the structure (10b)below is generated, where {PRN, CP} obtains the label PRN. Now that {PRN, CP} is a constituent withthe label PRN, it needs to have its Case-feature checked at some point of the derivation.
(10) a. … PRN … {PRN, CP} …
b.

… CP … {PRN, CP} …

There are two other (logically) possible derivations for an inherently unlabelable {PRN, CP} constituent.
One is illustrated in (11a) below, where the unlabeled {PRN, CP} undergoes Internal Merge for reasons
independent of the Labeling Algorithm. The other possibility is illustrated in (11b), where PRN and CP are
dislocated by separate applications of Internal Merge. (Note that the linear order of PRN and CP in (11b) isirrelevant for the current discussion.)

3 This idea can be viewed as an implementation of the earliness principle (Pesetsky 1989).

－44 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa(11) a.
b.

… {PRN, CP} … {PRN, CP} …
*… PRN … CP … {PRN, CP} …

I will assume, following Chomsky (2013), that a lower member (copy) of a chain is invisible for labelingof a constituent that consists of itself and other overt material. However, this does not mean that the lower
member is well-formed without a label. Let us assume that lower members (copies) of a chain also needlabels. Then, in (11b) above, for example, the lower copies PRN and CP each receive the labels of PRN
and CP, respectively. Then, the labels of PRN and CP cause a trouble in specifying the label of {PRN, CP}in (11b) because PRN and CP lack a shared label. Thus, we have the following generalization.
(12) *{α, β}, where α and β are dislocated for labeling by separate applications of Internal Merge.
Returning to (11a) above, the lower copy {PRN, CP} also needs to receive a label from its antecedent.
Since the dislocation of {PRN, CP} illustrated in (11a) can be successive-cyclic, crossing multiple phases
as in the cases of topicalization, the inheritance of a label from chain members should not be constrainedby the Phase Impenetrability Condition. On the basis of this consideration I will stipulate that the unlabeledlower member (copy) of a chain can receive a label from the upper member in the semantic component:(13) Chain members share a label in the semantic component.
A final remark is in order. PRN in the unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent can be overt (= it) or covert (=pro). I will assume that English has a certain preference on the choice of PRN as specified in (14).
(14) A covert PRN (= pro) is generally preferred over an overt PRN (= it) in the configuration where theexistence of the former is “recoverable.”
The formulation (14) is still not sophisticated but the idea behind it is that PRN is covert in English
in certain limited configurations that license its appearance and in other configurations it is overt.
Configurations that require an overt PRN include the subject position that is not c-commanded by its CP
associate (e.g., it is clear that-clause), the complement position of prepositions (e.g., see to it that-clause),
and the “predication” position in the sense of Moro (1997) and Den Dikken (2018) (see also Kiparsky andKiparsky 1970).
Bearing these considerations in mind, let us overview the superficial distribution of clausal argumentsin the cases of verbs hope and contemplate in the following subsections. In so doing, I will introduce
additional auxiliary assumptions about lexical specifications of these verbs and syntactic operations.
3.2. Hope class of verbs
As noted in section 2, hope is lexically specified as taking a clausal complement but not a nominal one,
whereas as we will review in section 3.3, the verb contemplate is lexically specified as taking a nominal(rather than clausal) complement. As for these categorial selectional specifications, let us adopt thefollowing assumption.
－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61(15) Categorial selectional specifications of predicates are satisfied in the semantic component.
Even in cases where the complement of a predicate is dislocated in narrow syntax before obtaining its label,the “trace” needs to receive a label from its antecedent and satisfy the categorial selectional specification of
the relevant predicate in the semantic component.
Now consider the verb hope. Hope has the following complementation paradigm.
(16) a.

Most baseball fans hoped that the Giants would win the World Series.

(= 1a)b.

*Most baseball fans hoped that.

(= 1b)

c.

It was hoped (by most baseball fans) that the Giants would win the World Series.

(= 2c)d.

*That the Giants would win the World Series was hoped.

(= 2a)e.

*That the Giants would win the World Series, their fans have never stopped hoping.

(= 2b)

The active sentence (16a) has the underlying structure in (17a) below, where EA = external argument.
In (17a), the unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent may undergo dislocation of PRN, as shown in (17b). As aconsequence of this dislocation, {PRN, CP} obtains the label CP. The label CP allows hope to satisfy its
categorial selectional specification. In addition, the dislocation of PRN to adjoin to HOPE is a case of Noun
Incorporation. Noun Incorporation is one mode of Case-checking (see Baker 1985) and hence the Casefeature of PRN is checked off. Thus, when PRN is covert (= pro), (17b) yields the sentence (16a).
(17) a.

EA v HOPE {PRN, CP}b.

EA v HOPE+PRN {PRN, CP}c.

*EA v HOPE {PRN, CP} … CPIn the meantime, let us suppose that in (17a), dislocation applies to CP rather than PRN. Then a structure
like (17c) above is generated, where for expository purposes the antecedent of CP is extraposed. This
structure is illegitimate because the {PRN, CP} constituent obtains a label (i.e., PRN) that is incompatible
with the categorial selectional specification of hope, which is clausal rather than nominal.
In the passive cases (16c, d), their underlying structures are identical to (18a) below, where PASS is alight verb devoid of an external argument. In (18a), if dislocation applies to PRN in {PRN, CP} and PRNinternally merges with the projection of T, then the structure (18b) is created. An overt PRN (= it) canstrengthen T and the constituent consisting of PRN and the projection of T has a label. This derivation
yields the passive sentence (16c) with an expletive subject.
(18) a.

T PASS HOPE {PRN, CP}b.

PRN T PASS HOPE {PRN, CP}c.

*CP T PASS HOPE {PRN, CP}d.

*CP {PRN, CP} T PASS HOPE {PRN, CP}

If, on the other hand, dislocation applies to CP and the latter internally merges with the projection of Tin (18a), then we have the structure (18c) above. The treatment of the structure (18c) hinges crucially on－44 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

the treatment of clausal subjects in general. I will adopt the conventional treatment of clausal subjects, bywhich I mean that clausal subjects cannot stay in Spec-TP, as evidenced by the fact that they do not involvein Subject Aux Inversion. The most plausible reason why clausal arguments cannot stay in Spec-TP isthat they do not have formal features that agree with T. Put simply, CP does not strengthen T. Thus, theconstituent formed by the merger of CP and the projection of T in (18c) does not have a label, which leads
to an ungrammaticality.
To exhaust logical possibilities, we will examine another derivation that is illustrated in (18d) above. In(18d), the unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent itself undergoes movement to the subject position, followedby dislocation of CP from within the subject {PRN, CP}. The dislocation of CP from the subject {PRN,
CP} has two consequences. First, the subject {PRN, CP} obtains the label PRN, which strengthens T
and determines the label of the constituent consisting of {PRN, CP} and the projection of T. Second, theoriginal copy of {PRN, CP} in the complement position of hope, which has been unlabeled, receives thelabel (i.e. PRN) from its antecedent in the subject position. Now that {PRN, CP} has the label PRN, itviolates the categorial selectional specification of the verb.
To recap, the ungrammatical sentence (16d) has two possible derivations as illustrated in (18c, d) but
neither derivation terminates.
The topicalization sentence (16e) has the underlying structure (19a) below. Dislocation of CP generates
the structure (19b), which violates the categorial selectional specification of hope since {PRN, CP} has thelabel PRN.
(19) a.
b.

EA v HOPE {PRN, CP}(= 17a)*CP EA v HOPE {PRN, CP}

c-i. EA v HOPE+PRN {PRN, CP}c-ii. *EA {PRN, CP} v HOPE+PRN {PRN, CP}d.

*EA CP v HOPE+PRN {PRN, CP}

Let us suppose, then, that instead of the CP dislocation, PRN is dislocated first by Noun Incorporation asshown in (19c-i) above, followed by topicalization of the residual {PRN, CP}, by which {PRN, CP} drops
at the edge of vP phase, as illustrated in (19c-ii), on its way to the matrix Spec-CP (or Spec-TopicP). Now
that the original {PRN, CP} in the complement position of hope has the label CP, it satisfies the categorial
selectional specification of the verb. However, the derivation (19c-ii) has an inadequacy in that it is nodifferent from the ungrammatical derivation illustrated in (19d) above, where PRN and CP are separately
dislocated in violation of the generalization (12). Since the generalization (12) is a notion that directly
follows from the Labeling Algorithm and hence is worth maintaining, the existence of the derivation thatwould cancel the effects that the generalization (12) captures should be excluded in one way or another.
Although the details are still unclear, I will conclude here that the derivation along the lines of (19c-i) and－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61(19c-ii) should be unavailable.
In sum, the topicalization example in (16e) does not have a convergent derivation.
3.3. Contemplate class of verbs
The verb contemplate is lexically specified as taking a nominal (rather than clausal) complement.
Contemplate has the following complementation paradigm. (The examples in 20a-d and 20f are drawn
from Alrenga 2005.)(20) a.

*Even Aristotle contemplated that the moon is made of cheese.

b.

Even Aristotle contemplated the possibility that the moon is made of cheese.

c.

*It was even contemplated (by Aristotle) that the moon is made of cheese.

d.

That the moon is made of cheese was even contemplated by Aristotle.

e.

The idea was contemplated earlier.

f.

That the moon is made of cheese, Aristotle never should have contemplated.

First of all, if CONTEMPLATE is externally merged with a DP complement as in (21a) below, asimple active sentence like (20b) is generated. If the structure is passivized as in (21b) below, a simple
passive sentence like (20e) is obtained. In both examples, the categorial selectional specification of
CONTEMPLATE is satisfied by the DP complement.
(21) a.
b.

EA v CONTEMPLATE DP
DP T PASS CONTEMPLATE DP

Let us now turn to the derivation where CONTEMPLATE is externally merged with a clausal typeof complement as in (22a) below. In order to specify the label of the unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent,dislocation applies to either PRN or CP. When PRN is dislocated by Noun Incorporation, (22b) below isyielded; when CP is dislocated by, say, extraposition, (22c) is generated.
(22) a.

EA v CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}b.

*EA v CONTEMPLATE+PRN {PRN, CP}c.

*EA v CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP} … CP

The derivation (22b) is not permissible because the label of {PRN, CP}, which is CP, is incompatible
with the categorial selectional specification of CONTEMPLATE, which is nominal. By contrast, thelabel of {PRN, CP} in the derivation (22c) gives rise to no similar categorial mismatch, but the structure
is illegitimate in the sense that the CP dislocation is “vacuous.” Thus, the active sentence with a clausal
complement as in (20a) cannot be generated.
The passive sentences in (20c, d) share the underlying structure illustrated in (23a) below. If PRN is
dislocated to externally merge with the projection of T, the structure (23b) is generated, where the {PRN,
CP} constituent obtains the label CP, which is incompatible with the categorial selectional specification of－44 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

CONTEMPLATE. Thus, the passive sentence (20c) is ungrammatical.
(23) a.

T PASS CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}b.

*PRN T PASS CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}c.

*CP T PASS CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}d.

CP {PRN, CP} T PASS CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}

If CP is dislocated, instead of PRN, then the structure (23c) above is yielded, where the raised CP cannot
engage in the strengthening of T because of the lack of formal features. Thus, the structure (23c) does
not terminate. If the unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent is dislocated (i.e. passivized) first, followed bydislocation (topicalization) of CP out of the raised {PRN, CP}, then we have the structure (23d) above.
In (23d), the dislocation of CP allows the {PRN, CP} constituent in the subject position to have the label
PRN, which strengthens T and determines the label of the constituent consisting of {PRN, CP}, on the
one hand, and the projection of T, on the other. In addition, the label of the {PRN, CP} constituent isshared with the other member of the chain it heads, so that the original copy in the complement position of
CONTEMPLATE comes to have the label PRN, which matches the categorial selectional specification of
the verb. Thus, the sentence (20d) is legitimate with the derivation illustrated in (23d).
Let us examine the derivation of the topicalization example in (20f). The derivation of the sentencestarts with the active structure (24a) below. If dislocation (topicalization) applies directly to CP, we havethe derivation illustrated in (24b) below, where CP drops at the edge of the vP phase on its way to Spec-CP(or Spec-TopicP). Thanks to the CP dislocation the {PRN, CP} constituent in the complement position of
CONTMEPLATE obtains the label PRN, satisfying the categorial selectional specification of the verb.
(24) a.

EA v CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}(= 22a)b.

CP EA CP v CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}c.

CP EA {PRN, CP} v CONTEMPLATE {PRN, CP}

Another derivational possibility for (20f) is illustrated in (24c) above, where dislocation applies first to theunlabeled constituent {PRN, CP} and the latter moves to the edge of the vP phase, from where CP alone
is topicalized. By the dislocation of CP, the {PRN, CP} constituent at the edge of vP obtains the label
PRN, which is shared by the originally unlabeled {PRN, CP} constituent in the complement position of
CONTMEPLATE, satisfying the categorial selectional specification of the verb. In sum, either of (24b, c)
is available for the derivation of the grammatical topicalization example like (20f).
To summarize section 3, a clausal argument is introduced to the derivation as an inherently unlabelable
constituent and its superficial distribution is determined by the interaction of the Labeling Algorithm, Caseand formal features of the associate pronoun (PRN), categorial selectional features of the predicate that
selects the clausal argument.

－44 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

4. The derivation of the clausal subject in the tough-movement construction
In this section I will present an account of the derivation of the tough-movement construction given
in section 2 that shows reconstruction effects with respect to a bound pronoun in the clausal constituent
that serves as the subject. In section 4.1 I will briefly review Tomizawa’s (2023) analysis of the toughmovement construction so as to set the stage for the discussion that follows. In section 4.2 I will show how
the clausal subject is derived in the tough-movement construction.
4.1. Tomizawa’s (2023) analysis
Tomizawa (2023) proposes that the tough-movement construction involves the following importantderivational steps: (i) A’-movement of a predicate-nP, (ii) introduction of D, (iii) extraction of CP out the
DP projection, and (iv) A-movement of the residual DP to the subject position. To take an example, thederivation of the sentence (25), taken from Longenbaugh (2017), proceeds along the derivational steps in(26a-g), where De = a null D.
(25) Pictures of hisi friends will be hard to convince [any artist]i to sell.
(26) a.

… to convince any artist to sell [DP De [nP pictures of his friends]]b.

[ [nP pictures of his friends] [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]c.

[DP D [ [nP pictures of his friends] [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]]d.

[AP HARD [DP D [ [nP pictures of his friends] [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his
friends]]]]e.

[AP [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends] [AP HARD [DP D [ [nP pictures of
his friends] to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]]]f.

[aP a+HARD [AP [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends][AP HARD [DP D [ [nPpictures of his friends] to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]]]]g.

[TP [DP D [ [nP pictures of his friends] to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]
will be [aP a+HARD [AP [CP to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends] [AP HARD [DP
D pictures of his friends to convince any artist to sell De pictures of his friends]]]]]h.

pictures of his friends to convince any artist to sell pictures of his friends will be HARD toconvince any artist to sell pictures of his friends HARD pictures of his friends to convince any
artist to sell pictures of his friends

The nP within the complement DP of sell in (26a) undergoes A’-movement to merge with the infinitival
CP, as in (26b). This nP projects and merges with another D, as in (26c). (Notice that this is the process
shared with the formation of a complex DP construction with a restrictive relative clause.) The resulting
constituent merges with the tough-predicate HARD, as in (26d). Then, the infinitival CP is extracted and－44 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

internally merged with the AP, as in (26e). Next, HARD is raised to adjoin to the adjectivizer a, as in(26f). Then, at a later stage of the derivation, the DP sister of HARD undergoes A-movement to the matrix
subject position, as in (26g), yielding the sequence given in (26h). This derivation can be schematically
represented as a tree diagram as in (27), where raising of HARD to a is omitted.
(27)

TP
DP

will
be
CP

AP
HARD

DP
D

β
nP

pictures of his friends

CP
PRO to convince any artist to sell De nP

This analysis holds four pieces of significance. First, it does not hinge on the so-called improper
movement of the subject. What occupies the matrix subject of the tough-movement construction is not a
simple DP (pictures of his friends) but a complex DP (pictures of his friends to convince any artist to sell)that is a sister constituent of the tough-predicate. This movement is a typical instance of A-movement.
Second, the simple nominal expression pictures of his friends has its ultimate derivational roots within
the complement DP of sell, where his is formally licensed as a bound pronoun by the c-commanding
quantificational antecedent any artist.
Third, the determiner of the matrix subject DP is introduced only after nP is internally merged with theinfinitival CP. Thus, this D does not have a copy within the infinitival CP. This means that the edge of thematrix subject DP does not have a reconstruction position within the infinitival CP. This explains the edge/
interior contrast in reconstruction originally observed by Sportiche (2002) and others. Compare (25) above,
which permits the bound pronoun interpretation of his, with the example (28) below, taken from Rezac(2006), where a bound pronoun interpretation of her is unavailable.
(28) *Heri work is hard to convince [every woman in the group]i to share.
－55 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

Fourth, and finally, no counter-cyclic late merger is necessary to account for the derivation of the toughmovement construction.
Keeping these pieces of significance as the basic tenet of the framework adopted in this paper, let us
proceed to the reconstruction effects of the clausal subjects observed in section 2.
4.2. The clausal subject of the tough-movement construction
The examples (5a, b) are reproduced below as (29a, b), where his can be interpreted as a pronoun boundto every professor.
(29) a.

It’s easy for [every professor]i to assert that someone from hisi class is a genius.

b.

That someone from hisi class is a genius is easy for [every professor]i to assert.

In both examples, every professor in PPs control the PRO subjects in the infinitival clauses. It is this PRO
that binds the bound pronoun his in the expletive tough construction (29a). Exactly the same holds in thecase of the tough-movement construction (29b). Thus, the discussion in the rest of this section is devoted
to how, in (29b), the clausal argument generated in the complement position of assert finds its way into thesubject position of the matrix sentence.
The verb assert is lexically specified as taking either a clausal complement or a nominal one. Since ittakes a clausal complement in both (29a, b), the underlying structures of the relevant verbal domains are
the one given in (30a) below, where CP1 = [that someone from his class is a genius]. Turning to the toughpredicates in (29a, b), EASY takes an infinitival complement, which is also clausal, so that its underlying
structure is as in (30b) below, where CP2 = [PRO to assert {PRN1, CP1}].
(30) a.
b.

… ASSERT {PRN1, CP1}
… EASY {PRN2, CP2}

Let us first consider the derivation for the expletive tough construction (29a). PRN1 in (30a) dislocates (=incorporates) to ASSERT, as shown in (31a) below, and has its Case-features checked through this process;the residual {PRN1, CP1} obtains the label CP, which matches with the categorial selectional specificationof ASSERT, and stays there. At a later stage of the derivation, the infinitival complement clause [PRO to
assert that someone from his class is a genius] is constructed successfully. This clause, which is represented
as CP2 in the present discussion, forms an unlabelable constituent with PRN2 and externally merges with
EASY, as shown in (31b) below. Since {PRN2, CP2} in (31b) lacks a label, dislocation applies to either
PRN2 or CP2. If PRN2 is dislocated to the matrix subject position, we have the structure (31c) below. Thisis the derivation responsible for the grammatical expletive tough construction (29a).
(31) a.

… ASSERT+PRN1 {PRN1, CP1}b.

… EASY {PRN2, CP2}c.

PRN2 is EASY {PRN2, CP2}
－55 －

A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

d-i. *CP2 is EASY {PRN2, CP2}d-ii. *CP2 PRN2 is EASY {PRN2, CP2}
By contrast, application of dislocation to CP2 in (30b), as illustrated in (30d-i) above, does not have alegitimate derivation for a couple of reasons. If, in (30d-i), CP2 occupies the specifier position of T, it is too“weak” to strengthen T, so that the constituent consisting of CP2 and the projection of T remains unlabeled.
If, on the other hand, CP2 is dislocated to a topic position rather than to Spec-TP, then the specifier position
of T must be filled by PRN2, as shown in (30d-ii) above. This derivation is in violation of the generalization(12), which prohibits separate applications of dislocation to both terms of an inherently unlabeledconstituent. In sum, the labeling issue of the {PRN2, CP2} constituent in the configuration (30b) can be
resolved by dislocation of PRN2, but not by dislocation of CP2.4
Next consider how the tough-movement construction (29b) is derived. The derivation is more complex
than the one we just saw for the expletive tough construction because of the dislocation of the clausal
complement of ASSERT. Our interest is therefore focused on the syntactic processes that contribute to
the licensing of this clausal complement. To anticipate the conclusion, there are four logically possible
derivations, depending on the choice of the term that undergoes dislocation and the choice of the position
that this term “moves” to. Of the four, two are excluded for principled reasons; one of the remaining
two seems to be illegitimate. In what follows, I will look at the legitimate derivation first, the seemingly
illegitimate one follows, and the two excluded derivations are taken up last.
The legitimate derivation involves A’-movement of CP1 to the dominating CP2, followed by formationof an argumental “PRN2-CP2” pair. For expository purposes, let us start with the infinitival structure CP2
as shown in (32a) below, where [α PRN1 CP1] is a tree-structure representation of the unlabeled constituent
made up of PRN1 and CP1 (namely, {PRN1, CP1}) and CP1 is [that someone from his class is a genius].
(Hereafter, Greek letters are used to indicate that the relevant constituents are unlabeled.)(32) a. [CP2 PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]]
CP1 in (32a) dislocates (i.e., undergoes A’-movement) to merge with the dominating CP2, as shown in(32b) below. By this dislocation, α in the complement position of ASSERT obtains the label CP, which iscompatible with the categorial selectional specification of the verb.

４ Let me note that the labeling issue of the type found in (30b) can also be resolved by dislocation (= raising) of {PRN2, CP2},
followed by topicalization of CP2, as illustrated below. This type of derivation seems to be responsible for the generation ofsentences like (ii).
(i) a.		 … easy {PRN2, CP2}			(= 31a)		 b.		 CP2 {PRN2, CP2} is easy {PRN2, CP2}(ii)			 To please John is easy.

－55 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報(32) b.

第21号（2024．３）39－61

β
CP2

CP1

PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]

Notice here that CP2 is an argument of EASY and has to be coupled with PRN2. Thus, PRN2 is paired with β.
When the resulting constituent (= γ) is externally merged with EASY, we get the structure (32c) below.
(32) c.

AP
EASY

γ
β

PRN2

CP2

CP1

PRO to ASSERT [CP PRN1 CP1]

Next, CP2 in (32c) is dislocated and adjoins to AP, as shown in (32d) below. Thanks to this dislocation ofCP2, β obtains the label CP1.
(32) d.

AP
CP2

AP

PRO to ASSERT [CP PRN1 CP1]

EASY

γ
PRN2

β (→ CP1)
CP2

CP1

Next, EASY in (32d) raises to adjoin to an adjectivizer a, as shown in (32e) below.
(32) e.

aP
AP

a+EASYCP2

AP

PRO to ASSERT [CP PRN1 CP1]

EASY

γ
PRN2

CP1
CP1

CP2

At a later stage of the derivation where both be and T have been introduced, γ moves to adjoin to theprojection of T, as shown in (32f).

－55 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa(32) f.

δ
γ
CP1

PRN2

T is a+EASY

CP1

CP2

AP

CP2
PRO to ASSERT [CP PRN1 CP1] EASYγ

Now, the CP1 within the left edge of δ in (32f) above undergoes topicalization, yielding the structure (32g)
below.
(32) g.

δ (→ <φ,φ>)

CP1
CP1

CP2

γ (→PRN)
PRN2

CP1

T is a+EASY [CP2 PRO to ASSERT [CP PRN1 CP1] EASY γ

As a consequence of this topicalization, γ in the subject position obtains the label PRN, which strengthens
T and labels δ as <φ,φ>. In this way, this derivation terminates. Note that since CP1 is a constituent [thatsomeone from his class is a genius], the structure (32g) very roughly has the following sequences ofstrings.
(32) h.

[that someone from his class is a genius to assert that someone from his class is a genius] [toassert that someone from his class is a genius] is EASY (for every professor) [to assert thatsomeone from his class is a genius] EASY [that someone from his class is a genius] [to assertthat someone from his class is a genius]

The second logically possible derivation for the sentence (29b), which seems to be illegitimate, isdifferent from the derivation outlined in (32a-g) in the order of the A’-movement of CP1 and the formationof an argumental “PRN2-CP2” pair. Starting with the CP2 structure in (33a) below, {PRN2, CP2} is formed
first as in (33b), followed by A’-movement of CP1 to adjoin to the {PRN2, CP2} as in (33c).
(33) a. [CP2 PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]]b.

(= 32a)[β PRN2 [CP2 PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]]]

γ

c.

β

CP1
PRN2

CP2
PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]

Although this derivation is successful in labeling α as PRN, it is nonetheless questionable in that CP1
extracts out of CP2 in one fell swoop. This is because CP2 is a phase and extraction out of CP2 needs to－55 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

use the edge of CP2. When CP1 stops at the edge of CP2, the structure is identical to (32b) above. Thus, thederivational step from (33b) to (33c) is nothing but illusory and, in addition, there is no need for the CP1
at the edge of CP2 to move to internally merge with the constituent consisting of CP2 and PRN2 (namely, βin 33c). I conclude therefore that the derivation outlined in (33a-c) is excluded in favor of the derivation in(32a-d) above.
Let us turn to the remaining two logically possible derivations for the sentence (29b) and confirm thatthey are excluded for principled reasons. These two derivations start with the underlying structure (34a)below and are to undergo A’-movement of the unlabeled [α PRN1, CP1], rather than CP1. What distinguishes
the two derivations under consideration is the order of the A’-movement of α and the formation of anargumental “PRN2-CP2” pair, which apply separately at later stages of their derivations.
(34) a.

[CP2 PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]](= 32a/33a)

Suppose that A’-movement of α precedes the argumental “PRN2-CP2” formation. Then the resulting
structure is (34b):γ(34) b.

β

PRN2
α

CP2

PRN1 CP1

PRO to ASSERT α

Next, γ externally merges with EASY as in (34c) below.
(34) c.

AP
EASY

γ
β

PRN2
α
PRN1 CP1

CP2
PRO to ASSERT α

It would be expected that in the derivational steps that follow, CP2 dislocates to adjoin to AP, an adjectivizer
a is introduced and attracts EASY, and be and T are separately introduced. After these operations, thefollowing structure is generated.
(34) d.

T is a+EASY

CP2

AP

PRO to ASSERT α EASY

γ
PRN2

β
α

PRN1

CP2
CP1

－55 －

A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

We now arrive at the derivational step to fill the specifier position of the matrix T. Three possibilities may
emerge. One is to raise α in (34d). This is in violation of the generalization (12). Another possibility is toraise β in (34d) to Spec-TP, followed by topicalization of CP1. Thanks to this CP1 topicalization, α obtains
the label PRN1, which in turn labels β as PRN1 as well. Now that β in Spec-TP has the label PRN1, it
successfully strengthens T. However, this label specification causes an inadequacy at the original copy of βin (34d). As a chain member, the original copy of β in (34d) shares the label PRN1, so that the dominating γ
now consists of PRN2 and PRN1. Thus, the label of γ remains unspecified. The third possibility to fill SpecTP is to raise γ in (34d), followed by topicalization of CP1. This derivation has a similar labeling problem.
Thanks to the topicalization of CP1 out of γ in Spec-TP, α within γ obtains the label PRN1 and β, in turn,obtains the same label. Then, γ comes to have PRN2 and PRN1 and its label remains unspecified. In sum, all
the three possibilities are excluded and the derivation along (34a-d) are unavailable.
The fourth and last logically possible derivation for the sentence (29b) is the one in which the A’movement of [α PRN1 CP1] follows the formation of the argumental “PRN2-CP2” pair, as illustrated in (35b).
(35) a. [CP2 PRO to ASSERT [α PRN1 CP1]](= 32a/33a/34a)

γ

b.

α
PRN1

β
CP1

PRN2

CP2
PRO to ASSERT αThis order of the applications of the two operations is questionable in the first place, given the consideration
presented above in the discussion of the second logically possible derivation for (29b): α needs to dropat the edge of CP2 before adjoining to β. In addition, even in the situation where the structure (35b) weresomehow generated successfully, it would not terminate. Just as in the third case outlined in (34a-d),
extractions of CP1 and CP2 do not result in successful labeling of α, β, and γ. Thus, this fourth possible
derivation for the sentence (29b) is excluded.
To summarize the discussion in section 4.2, the derivation of the tough-movement construction witha clausal subject always involves the derivational steps outlined in (32a-g); namely, dislocation (A’movement) of CP1 to adjoin to the dominating CP2 takes place first, followed by formation of argumental[PRN2, CP2] pair.

5. Remarks on unification
The analysis of the tough-movement construction with a nominal subject reviewed in section 4.1 and the
proposal on the tough-movement construction with a clausal subject presented in section 4.2 are not one－55 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

and the same.
However, their similarities might be obvious. First of all, in the “nominal” tough-movement cases, nP1“moves” out of {D1, nP1} to adjoin to CP2, followed by introduction of another D2, as illustrated in (36)
below. In the case of “clausal” tough-movement cases, CP1 “moves” out of {PRN1, CP1} to adjoin to CP2,
followed by introduction of PRN2, as in (37) below.
(36)… EASY [γ D2 [β nP1 [CP2 PRO to please {D1, nP1} ]]](37)… EASY [γ PRN2 [β CP1 [CP2 PRO to assert {PRN1, CP1} ]]]As far as configurational structures are concerned, these derivations are very similar to each other.
In addition, D1 in (36) and PRN1 in (37) are similar categorially. Let us pursue this similarity further.
Since we have empirical evidence to the effect that, in general, PRN is sometimes realized overtly as a
genuine pronoun (i.e., it), PRN1 in (37) is maintained and D1 in “nominal” tough-movement cases as in (36)is recast as D of the type that is similar to PRN. That is to say, this D1 is a pronoun-like element that rejects
a complement, a specifier, and a modifier.
This view of D1 in (36) has three consequences. First, every tough-movement construction now has aninherently unlabelable constituent of the type {D1, nP1} or {PRN1, CP1}. This inherent unlabelability, in
effect, forces dislocation of nP1 or CP1. (Dislocation of D1 or PRN1 is logically possible but the resulting
derivation does not terminate for independent reasons.) This is a unique property that characterizes thetough-movement construction.
This fills in the missing piece of Tomizawa’s (2020, 2023) analyses of the tough-movement construction,
where the motivation for the extraction of nP1 from {D1, nP1} is not fully established.
Second, the label of the inherently unlabeled {D1, nP1} and {PRN1, CP1} is uniformly specified as D1or PRN1, thanks to dislocation of nP1 and CP1. Both D1 and PRN1 are nominal, and as far as the Casefeature checking is successful, they do not have to be spelled out overtly because of the general preference
for a covert element over an overt counterpart. Thus, the original gap of the tough-movement construction
cannot be filled by an overt resumptive type of pronoun, as shown in (38a-d), taken from Lasnik & Fiengo(1974).
(38) a.

*Johni is easy to please himi.

b.

*Johni is easy to please Mary and himi.

c.

*Johni is easy to please a woman who likes himi.

d.

*[Prime numbers]i are easy to prove (Euclid’s) theorems about themi.

That resumptive pronouns are impossible even in island contexts as in (38b-d) is a striking property of theoriginal gap of the tough-movement construction. This property can be predicted by the analysis in thispaper because the gap occurs in the position where Case-feature checking is successful and, hence, a nullpronominal-type D is preferred over an overt counterpart.
－55 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawa

Third and lastly, the analysis of the original gap as an inherently unlabelable {D1, nP1} accounts forsome anti-pronominal effects in the tough-movement construction, as exemplified in (39a) and (40a). (These
examples are drawn from Stanton 2016.)(39) a.

*Mondays are tough to go to class on.

(“Interval” referring DP)b.

John’s talk will be easy to leave after.

(“Event” referring DP)*10,000 feet is tough to fly to.

(“Location” referring DP)

Cardboards are easy for cats to hide in.

(“Entity” referring DP)(40) a.
b.

In (39a, b), both on Mondays and after John’s talk are temporal expressions, but the functions of the DPs
Mondays and John’s talk are different from each other semantically. Stanton (2016) characterizes the DP
complement of on as “referring to points or spans in time” (p. 91), whereas the DP complement of after ischaracterized as “referring to events that occupy certain portions of time” (ibid.). Locational prepositions
can be distinguished similarly. Thus, the DP complement of to as in (40a) is characterized as referring “topoints or regions of space” (p. 95), while the DP complement of in as in (40b) is characterized as “referring
to physical entities that occupy certain portions of space” (p. 96).
Stanton proposes that both the “Interval”-taking temporal preposition (like on in 39a) and the“Location”-taking locative preposition (like to in 40a) need to take a DP that always consists of a D and
an NP denoting “Interval” or “Location.” Put simply, the D and the NP cannot be separated. However,nP1 must be separated (= dislocated) in order for (39a) and (40a) to be generated, under the inherently
unlabelable {D1, nP1} analysis pursued in this section. Thus, the ungrammatical tough-movement examples
in (39a) and (40a) are illegitimate.

5.

SummaryThis paper has claimed that an inherently unlabelable constituent of the form {pronoun, CP} or {D, nP}

is the crucial element that ultimately yields the tough-movement construction. The analysis and discussion
have started with the presentation of new empirical data that supports the reconstruction effects of thematrix clausal subject into the original gap position in the tough-movement construction in the light of
the availability of bound pronoun interpretation and have preceded to provide an account of the syntactic
processes involved in the derivation within the theoretical framework (pursued in Tomizawa 2020, 2023)
which is devoid of late merger and improper movement. The account has been built on the proposal thata clausal argument is an inherently unlabelable {pronoun, CP} constituent and this idea of inherently
unlabelable syntactic constituent has been attempted to be extended to the {D, nP} constituent in the toughmovement construction that has a nominal subject, with some favorable consequences in the accounts of
the absence of resumptive pronouns and some anti-pronominal effects.
－55 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

References
Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement
selection. Syntax 8, 175-207.
Baker, Mark Cleland. 1985. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing, Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Brillman, Ruth. 2017. Tough constructions in the context of English infinitives, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky eds., A
festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian
eds., Formal syntax, 71-132. New York: Academic 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.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2018. Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. Intervention in tough constructions. NELS 39, 387-397.
Heycock, Caroline B. 1994. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. New York: Garland.
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph eds.,
Progress in linguistics: A collection papers, 143-173. The Hague: Mouton.
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In S. Jay Keyser ed., Recent transformational studies
in European languages, 53-64. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 535-571.
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2017. Composite A/A’-movement: Evidence from English tough-movement. MS.
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. n.d. The two predicates tough. MS.
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nanni, Deborah L. 1978. The easy class of adjectives in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language-particular processes and the earliness principle, MS, MIT.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. On tough-movement. In Cedric Boeckx ed., Minimalist essays, 288-325.
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saltzmann, Martin. 2023. Experiencer intervention in English tough movement: Evidence from extraction－55 －A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough -Movement Construction―Tomizawaof the tough adjective against syntactic- and semantic-intervention accounts. Syntax 26, 223-249.
https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12250.
Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Lete merger in A’-movement: Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry
47, 89-126.
Takahashi, Shoichi. 2010. The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 28, 343-380.
Tomizawa, Naoto. 2020. Predicate NP movement in tough-constructions. Yamagata University Faculty of
Humanities & Social Sciences Annual Research Report 17, 19-43.
Tomizawa, Naoto. 2023. A labeling analysis of tough-movement operations. Yamagata University Facultyof Humanities & Social Sciences Annual Research Report 20, 1-19.

－66 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）39－61

A Case for Movement of the Clausal Subject of the Tough-Movement
Construction

Naoto Tomizawa
The paper claims that an inherently unlabelable constituent of the form {pronoun, CP} or {D, nP} isthe element that makes a crucial contribution to the derivation of the tough-movement construction. The
analysis and discussion start with the presentation of new empirical data that supports the reconstruction
effects of a bound pronoun that is contained in the clausal element serving as the subject of the toughmovement construction. The clausal element in question is introduced into the derivation as an inherently
unlabelable {pronoun, CP} constituent forcing its CP term to dislocate. Since the syntactic processes
proposed here to account for the derivation of the tough-movement construction with a clausal subject
are similar to the processes for the derivation of the tough construction that has a nominal subject (putforth in Tomizawa 2023), it is proposed that the {D, nP} constituent in Tomizawa’s (2023) analysis isalso an inherently unlabelable constituent in the sense that this D is a pronoun-like element that rejects acomplement, a specifier and a modifier. It is shown that the pronoun-like nature of this D is responsible
for the unavailability of resumptive pronouns and some anti-pronominal effects observed in the toughmovement construction.

－66 －