- On the Absence of Scope Reconstruction in Tough-Subject A-Chains
In work on the tough-construction (TC), Hicks (2003, 2009) has advocated an analysis in which the TC matrix subject originates within the embedded infinitival clause and then moves to the matrix clause, recasting in Minimalist terms the early transformational analyses of Rosenbaum (1967) and Postal (1971) and rejecting that of Chomsky (1977), in which the TC subject is base-generated in the matrix clause and coindexed with an embedded null operator. In particular, Hicks proposes that the TC matrix subject undergoes A-movement, which he explicitly likens to raising, as its final step en route from the embedded clause to matrix subject position.
I show here that this proposed A-movement of TC matrix subjects parts ways with raising (and passive) with respect to scope reconstruction. It has long been observed that the TC matrix subject is unable to take scope below the tough-predicate (Postal 1974, Epstein 1989), a fact that Hicks (2009:553) attributes to a ban on reconstruction of D heads in A-chains, citing Boeckx 2001. Boeckx's ban has exceptions, however, and in cases where scope reconstruction in raising and passive A-chains is in fact possible, it remains unavailable for TC matrix subjects. These facts can be explained if we analyze the TC matrix subject as base-generated in the matrix clause, as on the copy-raising analysis of Rezac (2004, 2006). Alternatively, the unwanted readings [End Page 321] might be ruled out as weak island violations on a Hicks-style raising analysis, an option that Hicks's phrase structure makes available but that he does not discuss.
1 A-Movement and Scope of Tough-Construction Subjects
The TC derivation proposed by Hicks (2009) is sketched in (1) for the example John is tough to love. I have simplified certain details that are irrelevant for present purposes; the key points are that (a) the matrix subject is base-generated as the complement of a null operator within a complex DP that originates in embedded object position, (b) this complex DP undergoes Ā-movement to the embedded Spec,CP, and (c) the null operator's DP complement then undergoes A-movement to matrix subject position.
-
1. [TP Johni is [AP tough [CP[DP Op ti]j to love tj]]]
Hicks overcomes the central syntactic dilemma of the TC—namely, how to account simultaneously for the fact that there is evidence of Ā-movement in the embedded clause and for the fact that the understood filler of the embedded gap ends up in a Case position—by making the Ā- and A-chains in the TC distinct syntactic objects.
By proposing a movement derivation of the TC subject, however, Hicks opens the door to the possibility that TC matrix subjects might exhibit scope reconstruction, given the grammatical availability of scope reconstruction in A-chains (see, e.g., Fox 2000, Boeckx 2001, Lebeaux 2009, Iatridou and Sichel 2011). But TC matrix subjects have long been known not to take scope below the tough-predicate, as shown in (2).
2.
a. Few girls would be difficult for Jim to talk to.
≠ It would be difficult for Jim to talk to few girls.(Postal 1974:224)
b. Many people are easy to talk to.
≠ It is easy to talk to many people.(Epstein 1989:651)
c. Nothing is hard for Melvin to lift.
≠ It is hard for Melvin to lift nothing.(Postal 1974:356)
-
d. How many students are easy to teach?
≠ What number n is such that it is easy to teach n-many students?
In order to avoid making the erroneous prediction that TC matrix subjects should exhibit scope reconstruction, Hicks (2009:553) proposes that "an NP constituent of an A-moved DP may optionally reconstruct, whereas the D head cannot," adding that "[t]he D head is what determines scope relations." In this, Hicks invokes Boeckx (2001), who argues that D heads in A-chains must be interpreted in the position where they check Case. Boeckx's proposal is designed to [End Page 322] account for raising and passive A-chains, and Hicks (2009:554, 560) is elsewhere at pains to emphasize...