Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:56:11.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking time with the tough-construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2021

JOHN GLUCKMAN Open the ORCID record for JOHN GLUCKMAN [Opens in a new window]
JOHN GLUCKMAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas 1541 Lilac Lane Blake Hall, Room 423 Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, United Statesjohnglu@ku.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I provide a syntactic analysis of the take-time construction (It took an hour to complete the test). The investigation provides insight into well-known issues concerning the related tough-construction. Using a battery of standard syntactic diagnostics, I conclude that the take-time construction and the tough-construction require a predication analysis of the antecedent-gap chain, not a movement analysis. I also conclude that the nonfinite clause is in a modificational relationship with the main clause predicate, not a selectional relationship. Broadly, this study expands the class of tough-constructions, illustrating crucial variation among predicates, and pointing the way to a unified analysis. The investigation also reveals undiscussed aspects of English syntax, including the fact that English has a high applicative position.

Keywords

applicativesmodificationnonfinite clausespredicationsyntaxtough-construction
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 233 - 268
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I sincerely thank Dominique Sportiche and Tim Stowell for generous feedback on earlier drafts of this work. I also thank audience members at LSA in Washington DC in 2016. Finally, I thank the three anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Linguistics, whose invaluable comments have made this a better piece of research.

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Samuel. 1990. Tough movement as function composition. In Halpern, Aaron L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 9), 29–42. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2004. Unergative adjectives and psych-verbs. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 84–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1973. A constraint on tough-movement. In Chicago Linguistic Society 9, 34–43.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events . Vol. 2 : Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosse, Solveig Jana. 2011. The syntax and semantics of applicative arguments in German and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bosse, Solveig Jana, Bruening, Benjamin & Yamada, Masahiro. 2012. Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 1185–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. On sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complemention in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1993. Theta-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16.1, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Defects of defective intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45.4, 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Tom & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 77–133. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1993. On null operator structures. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11.1, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. Missing-object constructions: Lexical and constructional variation. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG ’00 Conference, 82–103. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.1, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David. 1989. Quantification in null operator constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 647–658.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert Angelo. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga & Rigau, Gemma. 2009. On certain light verbs in Spanish: The case of temporal tener and llevar . Syntax 12.2, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, Nick. 2008. Adjectives and infinitives in composition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nick. 2013. On the absence of scope reconstruction in tough-subject A-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 44.2, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, Nick. 2015. Rare-class adjectives in the tough-construction. Language 91.1, 73–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 553–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluckman, John. 2018. Perspectives on syntactic dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gluckman, John. 2019. The natural class of tough-predicates, and non-finite clauses. In Stockwell, Richard, O’Leary, Maura, Xu, Zhongshi & Zhou, Z. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 149–158. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goh, Gwang-Yoon. 2000. Pragmatics of the English tough construction. In Hirotani, Masako, Coetzee, Andries, Hall, Nancy & Kim, Ji Yung (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 30, 219–230. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2012. Control and restructuring at the syntax-semantics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grover, Claire. 1995. Rethinking some empty categories: Missing objects and parasitic gaps in HPSG. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. (Non-)intervention in A-movement. Linguistic Variation 11.2, 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2012. Varieties of clausal complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1991. Layers of predication: The non-lexical status of clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1994. Layers of predication: The non-lexical status of clauses. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40.4, 535–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1992. The lexical entailment theory of control and the tough construction. In Sag, Ivan & Szabolsci, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Extraction out of tough. Snippets 1.Google Scholar
Jerro, Kyle Joseph. 2016. The syntax and semantics of applicative morphology in Bantu. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1991. Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Poole, Ethan. 2017. Intervention in tough-constructions revisited. The Linguistic Review 34.2, 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2012. Argument structure licensing and English have. Journal of Linguistics 48.1, 71–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingvall, Eva. 2018. Agreement and reconstruction correlate in Swedish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36.4, 1165–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33), 109–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. Saturation and reification in adjectival diathesis. Journal of Linguistics 45.2, 315–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 29.3, 779–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5.4, 535–571.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1960. A multiple ambiguous adjectival constuctions in English. Language 30, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert & Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1986. Syntactic constraints on VP ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2015. Difficult movement. Handout from Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS) 46.Google Scholar
Longenbaugh, Nicholas. 2016. Rethinking the A/A’-distinction: Evidence from English tough-movement. Handout from Generative Linguistics of the Old World (GLOW) 29.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jonathan Eric. 2006. The syntax of inner aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1991. In defence of Vendler’s achievements. Belgian Journal of Linguistic 6, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Mihaela Marchis & Petersen, Carolina. 2016. In defense of defective intervention. In Carrilho, Ernestina, Fiéis, Alexandra, Lobo, Maria & Pereira, Sandra (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28 Lisbon, 171–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Mihaela Marchis & Petersen, Carolina. 2017. Is there any defective intervention in the syntax. In Kaplan, Aaron, Kaplan, Abby, McCarvel, Miranda K. & Rubin, Edward J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 355–363. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alex. 1978. Events, processes and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, René & den Dikken, Marcel. 1992. Tough parasitic gaps. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 22, 303–317.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1994. A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 24, 397–410.Google Scholar
Nanni, Deborah. 1978. The easy class of adjectives in English . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Nanni, Deborah. 1980. On the surface syntax of constructions with easy-type adjectives. Language 56.3, 568–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jonathan. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jonathan & Schwarz, Bernhard. 2011. Parasitic degree phrases. Natural Language Semantics 19, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18.1, 126–140.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Poole, Ethan, Keine, Stefan & Mendia, Jon Ander. 2017. More on (the lack of) reconstruction in tough-constructions. lingbuzz/003702.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul & Ross, John. 1971. ¡Tough movement si, tough deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2.4, 544–546.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1996. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2006. On tough-movement. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Minimalist essays, 288–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1997. The function of have . Lingua 101, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2017. Reconstrution and resumption in indirect A $ ^{\prime } $ -dependencies: On the syntax of prolepsis and relativization in (Swiss) German and beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. NP movement: How to merge and move in tough-constructions. lingbuzz/000258.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1991. The alignment of arguments in adjectives phrases. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25), 105–138. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whelpton, Matthew. 1995. The syntax and semantics of infinitives of result in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilder, Christopher. 1991. Tough movement constructions. Linguistische Berichte 132, 115–132.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6.3, 423–446.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1988. Verb phrase syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar