Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 34, Issue 2 (Oct 2017)

Issues

Intervention in tough-constructions revisited

Stefan Keine / Ethan Poole
Published Online: 2017-10-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0003

Abstract

In this paper, we subject to closer scrutiny one particularly influential recent argument in favour of the long-movement analysis of tough-constructions. Hartman (2011, 2012a, 2012b) discovered that experiencer PPs lead to ungrammaticality in tough-constructions, but not in expletive constructions. He attributes this ungrammaticality to defective intervention of A-movement, a movement step crucially postulated only in the long-movement analysis. He takes this as evidence that tough-constructions are derived via long movement. We make the novel observation that a PP intervention effect analogous to that in tough-constructions also arises in constructions that do not involve A-movement, namely pretty-predicate constructions and gapped degree phrases. Consequently, the intervention effect does not provide an argument for an A-movement step in tough-constructions or for the long-movement analysis, but rather for the base-generation analysis. We develop a uniform account of the intervention effects as a semantic-type mismatch. In particular, we propose that what unifies tough-constructions, pretty-predicate constructions, and gapped degree phrases is that they all have an embedded clause that is a null-operator structure. Introducing an experiencer PP into these constructions creates an irresolvable semantic-type mismatch. As such, we argue for a reassessment of what appears to be a syntactic locality constraint as an incompatibility in the semantic composition.

Keywords: tough-constructions; predication; defective intervention; null-operator constructions; gapped degree phrases

References

  • Akmajian, Adrian. 1972. Getting tough. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 373–377.Google Scholar

  • Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Izvorski. 1997. Genericity, implicit arguments and control. Paper presented at Student Conference in Linguistics 7 (SCIL 7).Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Implicit arguments. In Martin Everaert & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume 2, 554–584. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2016. Building meaning in Navajo. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Brillman, Ruth. 2014. Gapped degree phrases are improper movement constructions. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ms.Google Scholar

  • Brody, Michael. 1993. θ-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 1–23.Google Scholar

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Defects of defective intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 707–719.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel. 1984. Quantifier-pro and the LF representation of PROarb. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 499–505.Google Scholar

  • Faraci, Robert. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Fleisher, Nicholas. 2013. On the absence of scope reconstruction in tough-subject A-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 321–332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fleisher, Nicholas. 2015. Rare-class adjectives in the tough-construction. Language 91. 73–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geach, Peter. 1972. A program for syntax. Synthese 22. 3–17.Google Scholar

  • Gluckman, John. 2016. Taking time with tough-movement. Handout of talk presented at the Linguistic Society of America 2016 Annual Meeting.

  • Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. Intervention in tough-constructions. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39), 387–397. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Hartman, Jeremy. 2012a. (Non-)Intervention in A-movement: Some cross-constructional and cross-linguistic consequences. Linguistic Variation 11. 121–148.Google Scholar

  • Hartman, Jeremy. 2012b. Varieties of clausal complementation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 535–566.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 117–184.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2013. Two sources of subjectivity: Qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry 56. 258–277.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk given in honour of Anita Mittwoch. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.Google Scholar

  • Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643–686.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard & Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 535–571.Google Scholar

  • Lebeaux, David. 1984. Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO. In Charles Jones & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 14), 253–274. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Lees, Robert B. 1960. A multiply ambiguous adjectival construction in English. Language 36. 207–221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2015. Difficult movement. Handout from talk presented at the 46th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 46).

  • McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 305–342.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Nissenbaum, Jon & Bernhard Schwarz. 2011. Parasitic degree phrases. Natural Language Semantics 19. 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Partee, Barbara. 1977. John is easy to please. In Antonio Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic structures progressing, 281–312. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

  • Poole, Ethan. 2015. An argument for implicit arguments. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ms.Google Scholar

  • Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Postal, Paul & John R. Ross. 1971. ¡Tough movement si, tough deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2. 544–546.Google Scholar

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, Milan. 2006. On tough-movement. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist essays, 288–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Towards a theory of subjective meaning. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics 27. 409–436.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2009. Judgment ascriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32. 327–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Torrego, Esther. 1996. Experience and raising verbs. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Current issues in comparative grammar, 101–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 423–446.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-10-03

Published in Print: 2017-10-26


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0003.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in