In formal syntax, tough movement refers to sentences in which the syntactic subject of the main verb is logically the object of an embedded non-finite verb. Because the object of the lower verb is absent, such sentences are also sometimes called "missing object constructions". The term tough movement reflects the fact that the prototypical example sentences in English involve the word tough.
In (1) and (2), the (a) examples illustrate tough movement in English. In (1a) this problem is logically the object of solve, and (1a) can be paraphrased as (1b) or (1c). In (2a) Chris is logically the object of please, and (2a) can be paraphrased as (2b) or (2c).
(1) a. This problem is tough to solve. b. It is tough to solve this problem c. To solve this problem is tough.
(2) a. Chris is easy to please. b. It is easy to please Chris. c. To please Chris is easy.
Adjectives that allow this type of construction include:
This type of movement also occurs with noun phrases [1] like a delight, a pleasure, a breeze, or a cinch, as well as with the complex verb take a long time:
(3) a. Nureyev is adelight to watch. b. It is a delight to watch Nureyev. c. To watch Nureyev is a delight
(4) a. This document will take a long time to process. b. It will take a long time to process this document. c. To process this document will take a long time.
Tough movement occurs in Dutch, as in (5a), which can be rephrased without tough movement as in (5b): : [2]
Dit boek
this book
is
is
moeilijk
difficult
[ ____ ]
te
to
verkrijgen.
get
'This book is difficult to get.'
Het
it
is
is
moeilijk
difficult
[ dit boek ]
this book
te
to
verkrijgen.
get
'It is difficult to get this book.'
As observed by van der Auwera and Noël (2011), [2] Dutch appears to have a much more limited range of predicates which trigger tough movement than English does:
Unlike English, Dutch raising predicates do not include noun phrases.
Tough movement occurs in Spanish, as in (6a) and (7a). [3] Equivalent sentences without tough movement also occur, as in (6b) and (7b).
El
'The
libro
book
es
is
fácil
easy
de
to
leer.
read.'
Es
'It is
fácil
easy
leer
to read
el
the
libro.
book.'
El
'The
problema
problem
es
is
imposible
impossible
de
to
resolver.
solve.'
Es
'It is
imposible
impossible
resolver
to solve
el
the
problema.
problem'.
The class of words that can trigger tough-movement in Spanish is smaller than in English; in Spanish only adjectives can do so, not noun phrases like in English. According to Sauer (1972), [4] Spanish tough-movement adjectives must in general express some degree of difficulty. However, in certain dialects adjectives like interesante 'interesting' also participate in tough-movement: thus, the sentence in (8) was accepted as grammatical by 7 out of 16 native Spanish speakers: [3]
?
Esa
'That
película
film
es
is
interesante
interesting
de
to
ver.
see.'
Reider (1993) [3] conducted a survey where 16 native speakers of Spanish (eight European and eight Latin American) answered whether they thought 27 sentences showing tough movement with different adjectives were grammatical, and found that Latin American Spanish speakers tended to accept tough movement with more adjectives, but there was considerable variability between speakers; no two speakers had the exact same response for all 27 sentences. This led Reider to propose that rather than a semantic reason for why certain adjectives can trigger tough movement and others cannot, instead it may be encoded separately for each word in a speaker's mental lexicon.
Example of a tough construction in Japanese is given in (9a).
ケーキ-が
keeki-ga
cake-NOM
この
kono
this
ナイフ-で
naifu-de
knife-INS
切り-やすい。
kiri-yasui
cut-easy to
'The cake is easy to cut with this knife.'
この
kono
This
ナイフ-で
naifu-de
knife-INS
ケーキ-が
keeki-ga
cake-NOM
切り-やすい。
kiri-yasui
cut-easy to
'With this knife the cake is easy to cut.'
Tough constructions in Japanese are formed by combining verb stems such as 'yomi' to read, and one of the adjectives 'yasui' meaning easy to, or 'nikui' meaning difficult to, resulting in a form like 'yomiyasui' easy to read, or 'yominikui' difficult to read. According to Inoue there are 4 types of tough constructions in Japanese [5] simply labelled as Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV an example of each of these is shown below. Inoue remarked that the difference between these types depended on the verb and broadly categorized Types I and II as containing verbs where the action is controlled by the agent of the sentence, and the verbs in Types III and IV as containing verbs where the action is not controlled by the agent.
この
Kono
This
本-が
hon-ga
book-NOM
ジョン-に
Jon-ni
John-DAT
読み-やすい。
yomi-yasui.
read-easy to
"This book is easy for John to read."
最近
Saikin
Recently
ジョン-は
Jon-wa
John-TOP
とても
totemo
very
寝付き-にくい。
netsuki-nikui.
sleep-difficult to
"Recently John has had a lot of difficulty getting to sleep."
木綿もの-が
Momenmono-ga
Cotton textile-NOM
乾き-やすい。
kawaki-yasui.
dry-easy to
"Cotton textiles dry easily."
エリート-が
Eriito-ga
Elites-NOM
つよい
tsuyoi
strong
挫折感-を
zasetsukan-o
frustration-ACC
味わい-やすい。
ajiwai-yasui.
feel-easy to
"Elites easily feel a strong sense of frustration."
In a 1993 doctoral thesis Ohkado proposed that Japanese has three types of tough constructions, according to whether the sentence begins with a Theme argument, a Location argument, or a Goal argument . [6] An example of each of these types of constructions can be seen below:
この
Kono
This
本-が
hon-ga
book-NOM
太郎-にとって
Taroo-nitotte
Taroo-for
図書館-で
toshokan-de
library-LOC
読み-やすい。
yomi-yasui
read-easy to
"This book is easy for Taroo to read at the library."
この
Kono
This
図書館-が
toshokan-ga
library-NOM
太郎-にとって
Taroo-nittote
Taroo-for
本-を
hon-o
book-ACC
読み-やすい。
yomi-yasui
read-easy to
"At this library, it is easy for Taroo to read the book."
花子-が
Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM
太郎-にとって
Taroo-nittote
Taroo-for
本-を
hon-o
book-ACC
貸し-やすい。
kashi-yasui
lend-easy to
"To Hanako, it is easy for Taroo to lend a book."
Ohkado suggested that the theme construction is a result of NP movement, while the location and goal constructions are a result of wh-movement. This suggests that while both location and goal constructions contain a wh-island, the theme construction does not and therefore allows for clause internal scrambling.
Noam Chomsky noted the existence of such constructions (though not by name) in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964), giving the example 'John is easy to please' and noting that John is the direct object of the verb please. He contrasted it with the sentence 'John is eager to please,' where instead John is the logical subject of please, in order to illustrate that a single static phrase structure tree is inadequate to explain the underlying phenomenon. [7]
In a thesis supervised by Chomsky, Peter Rosenbaum addressed the construction, identifying "the class of adjectives including "difficult," "easy," and several others." Rosenbaum introduced a transformation analysis, in which the object of the verb phrase moves out of the complement sentence and is raised to the main subject position: [8]
(t stands for trace and indicates the gap left in the constituent's original position; the subscript i is an index to show that the subject originated from the trace position.)
In classical government and binding theory it is no longer assumed that the object is moved directly to the subject position. Rather, Chomsky (1977) [9] proposed that the subject NP is base-generated in the main clause, and a null operator raises within in the embedded clause:
In clauses without an explicit subject, the subject is assumed to be a null/covert (unpronounced) pronoun, designated PRO, which Chomsky called "arbitrary in reference," [10] although the referent(s) may be assumed from context. The evidence for the subject being PRO is that it can participate in partial control, for example: [11] : 292–293
In these two examples, the null PRO is understood to refer to both i and j (both Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the first example; both Finn and Hengest in the second), distinct from the tough movement subject k; partial control is when a controller or antecedent of the subject of an embedded clause is a subset of the understood subject of the embedded clause. [12]
Furthermore Chomsky suggested that instead of separate rules for tough movement, comparative deletion, topicalization, clefting, object-deletion, adjective and adjective-qualifier complements, etc., all might be explained by a more general wh-movement analysis. [9] : 110
An alternative explanation for tough constructions involves no movement, relying instead on "Tough Deletion," wherein the subject appears twice in the underlying form, both in the main subject and embedded object positions, and the latter is then deleted, like so:
Postal and Ross argued against this proposal, saying that an additional deletion rule would be required to explain the absence of a subject within the clausal subject in sentences like the following:
Getting herself arrested is said without a subject, and yet herself is understood to refer to Betsy. Due to the need for an extra rule to account for this under "Tough Deletion," a movement analysis is preferred. [13]
The tough movement construction in English is similar to but distinct from pretty constructions and adjectives modified by too or enough: [14]
For one, these latter constructions do not allow an alternate form with an unraised object:
or fronted infinitive:
A passive voice construction is a grammatical voice construction that is found in many languages. In a clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that undergoes the action or has its state changed. This contrasts with active voice, in which the subject has the agent role. For example, in the passive sentence "The tree was pulled down", the subject denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences "Someone pulled down the tree" and "The tree is down" are active sentences.
In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.
In grammar, an intransitive verb is a verb, aside from an auxiliary verb, whose context does not entail a transitive object. That lack of an object distinguishes intransitive verbs from transitive verbs, which entail one or more objects. Additionally, intransitive verbs are typically considered within a class apart from modal verbs and defective verbs.
Japanese is an agglutinative, synthetic, mora-timed language with simple phonotactics, a pure vowel system, phonemic vowel and consonant length, and a lexically significant pitch-accent. Word order is normally subject–object–verb with particles marking the grammatical function of words, and sentence structure is topic–comment. Its phrases are exclusively head-final and compound sentences are exclusively left-branching. Sentence-final particles are used to add emotional or emphatic impact, or make questions. Nouns have no grammatical number or gender, and there are no articles. Verbs are conjugated, primarily for tense and voice, but not person. Japanese adjectives are also conjugated. Japanese has a complex system of honorifics with verb forms and vocabulary to indicate the relative status of the speaker, the listener, and persons mentioned.
In linguistics, X-bar theory is a model of phrase-structure grammar and a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1970 reformulating the ideas of Zellig Harris (1951), and further developed by Ray Jackendoff, along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Chomsky. It attempts to capture the structure of phrasal categories with a single uniform structure called the X-bar schema, basing itself on the assumption that any phrase in natural language is an XP that is headed by a given syntactic category X. It played a significant role in resolving issues that phrase structure rules had, representative of which is the proliferation of grammatical rules, which is against the thesis of generative grammar.
Animacy is a grammatical and semantic feature, existing in some languages, expressing how sentient or alive the referent of a noun is. Widely expressed, animacy is one of the most elementary principles in languages around the globe and is a distinction acquired as early as six months of age.
In general linguistics, a labile verb is a verb that undergoes causative alternation; that is, it can be used both transitively and intransitively, with the requirement that the direct object of its transitive use corresponds to the subject of its intransitive use, as in "I ring the bell" and "The bell rings." Labile verbs are a prominent feature of English, and also occur in many other languages. When causatively alternating verbs are used transitively they are called causatives since, in the transitive use of the verb, the subject is causing the action denoted by the intransitive version. When causatively alternating verbs are used intransitively, they are referred to as anticausatives or inchoatives because the intransitive variant describes a situation in which the theme participant undergoes a change of state, becoming, for example, "rung".
A synthetic language is a language that is statistically characterized by a higher morpheme-to-word ratio. Rule-wise, a synthetic language is characterized by denoting syntactic relationship between the words via inflection and agglutination, dividing them into fusional or agglutinating subtypes of word synthesis. Further divisions include polysynthetic languages and oligosynthetic languages. In contrast, rule-wise, the analytic languages rely more on auxiliary verbs and word order to denote syntactic relationship between the words.
A relative clause is a clause that modifies a noun or noun phrase and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments in the relative clause refers to the noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't too sure of himself, the subordinate clause who wasn't too sure of himself is a relative clause since it modifies the noun man and uses the pronoun who to indicate that the same "man" is referred to in the subordinate clause.
In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages. Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.
In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation, also known as nouning, is the use of a word that is not a noun as a noun, or as the head of a noun phrase. This change in functional category can occur through morphological transformation, but it does not always. Nominalization can refer, for instance, to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech by adding a derivational affix, but it can also refer to the complex noun that is formed as a result.
Japanese particles, joshi (助詞) or tenioha (てにをは), are suffixes or short words in Japanese grammar that immediately follow the modified noun, verb, adjective, or sentence. Their grammatical range can indicate various meanings and functions, such as speaker affect and assertiveness.
In linguistics, head directionality is a proposed parameter that classifies languages according to whether they are head-initial or head-final. The head is the element that determines the category of a phrase: for example, in a verb phrase, the head is a verb. Therefore, head initial would be "VO" languages and head final would be "OV" languages.
In linguistic typology, a subject–object–verb (SOV) language is one in which the subject, object, and verb of a sentence always or usually appear in that order. If English were SOV, "Sam oranges ate" would be an ordinary sentence, as opposed to the actual Standard English "Sam ate oranges" which is subject–verb–object (SVO).
In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator, e.g. and, or, but. The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination. It is also one of the many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.
The Japanese language has different ways of expressing the possessive relation. There are several "verbal possessive" forms based on verbs with the sense of "to possess" or "to have" or "to own". An alternative is the use of the particle no (の) between two nouns or noun phrases.
In linguistics, a resultative is a form that expresses that something or someone has undergone a change in state as the result of the completion of an event. Resultatives appear as predicates of sentences, and are generally composed of a verb, a post-verbal noun phrase and a so-called resultative phrase which may be represented by an adjective, a prepositional phrase, or a particle, among others. For example, in the English sentence The man wiped the table clean, the adjective clean denotes the state achieved by the table as a result of the event described as the man wiped.
An attributive verb is a verb that modifies a noun in the manner of an attributive adjective, rather than express an independent idea as a predicate.
In grammar, the voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments. When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice. When the subject both performs and receives the action expressed by the verb, the verb is in the middle voice.
The Hachijō language shares much of its grammar with its sister language of Japanese—having both descended from varieties of Old Japanese—as well as with its more distant relatives in the Ryukyuan language family. However, Hachijō grammar includes a substantial number of distinguishing features from modern Standard Japanese, both innovative and archaic.
{{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help)