"So easy to look at, so hard to define”: tough movement in the minimalist framework

Hicks, Glyn (2003) "So easy to look at, so hard to define”: tough movement in the minimalist framework University of York, Department of Language and Linguistic Science, Masters Thesis , 90pp.


[img] PDF MA_Dissertation.pdf - Other
Download (494kB)


This dissertation addresses the syntactic analysis of the (English) tough construction (TC), a syntactic construction in which (typically) adjectival predicates in the semantic class of 'tough' and 'easy' may participate:
(i) John is tough/easy/impossible/a cinch to please e
In this construction, the matrix subject is coreferent with the understood (nonovert) object of the embedded infinitival, as the non-TC paraphrase in (ii) shows:
(ii) It is tough/easy/impossible/a cinch to please John
A theoretically and empirically adequate analysis of such constructions has long proved elusive in generative syntactic frameworks: on the one hand due to apparent incompatibility with the theoretical principles of Case-theory, theta-theory, and movement constraints, on the other due to a range of largely contradictory empirical facts suggesting that TCs involve both NP-movement (‘A-movement’) and wh-movement (‘A-bar-movement’). The very fact that within previous Principles and Parameters models TCs have proved “in principle unexplainable” (Holmberg, 2001:839) appears detrimental to the credibility of such syntactic frameworks. I attempt to fill this previously conspicuous ‘gap’ in the empirical adequacy of Principles and Parameters syntax, arguing that recent revisions to the minimalist framework (particularly Chomsky 2000; 2001a) should inspire a rethinking of TCs, thus lending further support to the current minimalist framework and the manner in which core theoretical principles are reworked therein.
Chapter 2 provides a range of evidence to support the claim that the lexical argument structure of 'tough'-class predicates is identical in both TC and non-TC configurations. Chapter 3 briefly introduces crucial additions to the recent minimalist framework concerning agreement, movement and feature-checking. Chapter 4 details the various problems encountered by the most common analyses of TCs within generative syntax, and the reasons why each is incompatible with a specific set of basic theoretical assumptions. Drawing on this, chapter 5 outlines an analysis of TCs consistent with these assumptions as stated in the current framework, based on an innovative approach to the syntax of null wh-operators. Chapter 6 explores some consequences of extending this analysis to provide an account for a set of constructions apparently related to TCs.

Item Type: Thesis (Masters)
Additional Information: The core of this MA dissertation is due to be published in shortened form in 'Linguistic Inquiry', Autumn 2009. The analysis is modified slightly in that version (available at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64785/), though more detail is provided in this dissertation
Keywords: tough constructions, minimalism, null operators, movement
ePrint ID: 65390
Date :
Date Event
September 2003Published
Date Deposited: 27 Feb 2009
Last Modified: 18 Apr 2017 21:59
Further Information:Google Scholar
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/65390

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item