| This dissertation investigates the argument structure of tough-constructions, their properties, and the relationship between pleonastic/sentential subject constructions and tough-constructions, based on the lexical semantics of the predicates that participate in tough-constructions (henceforce, tough-predicates).; I propose that tough-predicates are causatives which assign two {dollar}theta{dollar}-roles: Cause and Experiencer. The Cause {dollar}theta{dollar}-role is realized in the subject position, and the Experiencer in the complement position of the for-phrase immediately following the tough-predicate. Tough-constructions and pleonastic/sentential subject constructions share the same argument structure.; I propose that tough-predicates are lexically generic predicates. They express a generalization over situations. As causatives, tough-predicates have a situation variable which is bound by the generic operator present in their lexical representation. The infinitive with an object gap in tough-constructions is an adjunct which predicates on the situation variable of the tough-predicate.; The proposal that tough-predicates are causatives explains the meaning difference between pleonastic/sentential subject constructions and tough-constructions. In addition to the meaning of the pleonastic/sentential subject constructions, the tough-construction has an additional meaning component that the matrix subject referent is responsible for the property expressed by the tough-predicate. This responsibility reading of the matrix subject in the tough-construction is explained by the Cause {dollar}theta{dollar}-role that the matrix subject bears.; The proposed argument structure also explains the relationship between pleonastic/sentential subject constructions and tough-constructions, I argue that the two constructions are cognitively related. The two constructions differ in the entity that bears the Cause {dollar}theta{dollar}-role. This difference manifests a cognitive process in which information is stored. I discuss several other constructions which reflect the same cognitive process as tough-constructions, including middle constructions and several types of property factoring constructions, i.e., PsychPF, ChangePF, and Inalienable Possessor constructions.; I explain the construal relation between the matrix subject and the embedded object gap based on the causative meaning of the tough-predicates, adopting the lexical entailment theory of Control. The impossibility of the factual reading of the infinitive with an object gap in tough-constructions is explained by the proposal that this infinitive semantically functions as a predicate. |
