Defects of Defective Intervention

1 Introduction

A phenomenon that has received much attention in the recent Minimalist literature is what Chomsky has dubbed “defective intervention” (Chomsky 2000). This is a phenomenon in which some head (usually finite T) seeks a matching NP to agree with or attract, but some other NP intervenes. In simple intervention cases, this other NP is itself eligible for agreement or movement. In cases of defective intervention, in contrast, the intervening NP is not itself eligible for agreement or movement, since it has already had its features checked by some other element, typically a preposition. The result is ungrammaticality: the lower NP is unable to check its features with the head, because the other NP is in the way. A small sample of the numerous publications discussing defective intervention includes McGinnis 1998, Boeckx 1999, 2008, Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir 2003, and Hartman 2012. The pattern was first identified for Italian by Rizzi (1986), for Spanish by Torrego (1996), and for Icelandic by Sigurðsson (1996).

The paradigm case of defective intervention is subject-to-subject raising constructions in Romance languages. However, recent work by Hartman (2009, 2012) has also identified much more robust defective intervention in tough-movement in Romance languages and in English, and so I begin with that phenomenon. Consider the following triplet (from Hartman 2012:125, (16a-b), (20)):

1. (1).

   1. a. It is important (to Mary) to avoid cholesterol.

   2. b. Cholesterol is important (*to Mary) to avoid.

   3. c. To Mary, cholesterol is important to avoid.

In (1a), an experiencer PP can follow the tough-predicate and precede the nonfinite clause, if the surface subject of the tough-predicate is an expletive. If an argument NP occupies this position instead in an instance of tough-movement, as in (1b), the PP is not allowed in this same position. According to Hartman (2009, 2012), the NP in the PP is a defective intervener and blocks A-movement of cholesterol from a lower position (for Hartman, tough-movement involves improper movement: a step of Ā-movement to the edge of the nonfinite clause, followed by A-movement to the surface subject position). Finally, in (1c), the PP is allowed if it appears in a position where it does not interfere with the putative A-movement. Here it is not in a position between the surface position of the raised NP and the position it is hypothesized to have raised from.

This squib points out two problems for defective intervention as it has been characterized in the literature. First, placing the PP in a slightly different position, but where it should still interfere with A-movement or agreement, is grammatical. Second, adjunct phrases, even ones that demonstrably do not interfere with A-movement (as in the passive), are ungrammatical in the same position as experiencer PPs. I illustrate these problems in sections 2 and 3, and then show in section 4 that the same problems arise in subject-to-subject raising in French and Italian.

2 First Problem: Placement

The following examples (from Hartman 2012:125, (16), (18), (19)) illustrate his claimed defective intervention with tough-movement:

1. (2).

   1. a. It is important (to Mary) to avoid cholesterol.

   2. b. Cholesterol is important (*to Mary) to avoid.

2. (3).

   1. a. It is annoying (to those boys) to talk to John.

   2. b. John is annoying (*to those boys) to talk to.

3. (4).

   1. a. It was very hard (on me) to give up sugar.

   2. b. Sugar was very hard (*on me) to give up.

Again, the PP may not follow the tough-predicate just when tough-movement takes place.

The problem is that experiencer PPs can occur between the copula and the tough-predicate with complete acceptability (and without the pauses that characterize parentheticals).

1. (5).

   1. a. Cholesterol levels are for most people difficult to lower.

   2. b. Sugar is for many people difficult to give up.

   3. c. The president is to many people annoying to listen to.

The PP still comes between the surface position of the subject and its putative base position (for Hartman, the edge of the nonfinite clause). As a result, it should still count as a defective intervener, and block A...