tough construction in Pollard and Sag 1994

Tue Nov 5 01:41:34 UTC 2002

Dear Incheol (if I may),

I think the most recent published discussion of this is Bob Levine's (2000)
paper:

'Tough' complementation and the extraclausal propagation of argument
descriptions',

which is available online at:

http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/1/hpsg00-toc.html

Cheers,
Ivan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan A. Sag
Professor of Linguistics and Symbolic Systems
Stanford University. Stanford, CA  94305  USA
On leave: 2002-2003

Email: sag at csli.stanford.edu
WWW: http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~sag/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dear list members,
>
> In Pollard and Sag (1994; p 167, footnote 8), it is assumed that the =
> syntactic subject of the tough construction is assigned a semantic role =
> by the adjective. Although they gave some pieces of evidence, I am not =
> sure that those are sufficient for the argument that the subject of the =
> tough construction is the semantic argument of the tough (easy) class =
> verbs. Intuitively, it seems to me that the subject does not get any =
> role from the tough class verbs. In addition, in Korean, tough movement =
> is optional when the subject of the embedded VP is raised into the =
> matrix subject position. I want to get some references to current work =
> on tough constructions. I would appreciate any information on this =
> topic.=20
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Incheol Choi
>
> ___________________________________________
>
>     Incheol Choi
>
>    incheol at mail.utexas.edu
> ------=_NextPart_000_01BC_01C2842D.A58448E0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear list members,</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In Pollard and Sag (1994; p 167, =
> footnote 8), it is=20
> assumed that the syntactic subject of the tough construction is =
> assigned=20
> a semantic role by the adjective. Although they gave some pieces of =
>
> evidence, I am not sure that those are sufficient for the argument =
> that the=20
> subject of the tough construction is the semantic argument of the tough =
> (easy)=20
> class verbs. Intuitively, it seems to me that the subject does not get =
> any role=20
> from the tough class verbs. In addition, in Korean, tough movement=20
> is optional when the subject of the embedded VP is raised =
> into=20
> the matrix subject position. I want to get some references to =
> current=20
> work on tough constructions. I would appreciate any information on this =
> topic.=20
> </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks in advance,</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Incheol Choi</FONT></DIV><FONT =
> face=3DArial size=3D2>
> <DIV><BR>___________________________________________</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>    Incheol Choi</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>   <A=20
> href=3D"mailto:incheol at mail.utexas.edu">incheol at mail.utexas.edu</A></FONT=
> ></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_01BC_01C2842D.A58448E0--
>