@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00027884, author = {斉藤, 美紀 and Saito, Miki}, journal = {IVY}, month = {Oct}, note = {The purpose of this paper is to make clear why the nominalization of tough-­constructions is impossible as in (1 a), whereas the gerundive nominalization of tough-constructions is possible as in (1 b). (1) a. *John's easiness to please, b. John's being easiness to please As for this problem, some explanations have given. Thus, Chomsky (1972) deals with the problem under the analysis of tough-constructions based on tough-­movement. Kayne (1984) also explains the ill-formedness of the nominalization of tough-constructions, but under the analysis proposed by Chomsky (1977) where the derivation of tough-constructions includes the movement of an overt wh-word and the deletion of the moved wh-word. Under the analysis of tough-constructions in Chomsky (1986a), however, the above two accounts are no more available. According to Chomsky's (1986a) analysis, as in (2), the derivation of tough­-constructions includes the movement of O, which is an empty operator, and in the analysis tough-movement and the movement of an overt wh-word are never concerned with the derivation. (2) John is easy [O [to please e]] As the analysis including the movement of O can be considered as adequate in some respects, another explanation based on the analysis must be offered to the ill-formedness of (1 a) and the well-formedness of (1 b). In this paper, first, focusing on the movement of O as in (2), I propose a condition imposed on an empty operator. This condition can also be applied to other cases including the movement of an empty operator, that is, parasitic gap construcitons etc. Next, based on Grimshaw's (1990) argument structure theory, I show that the noun phrase (1 a) and the gerund (1 b) have the different structures. Then, I conclude that in the structure given to (1 a), the empty operator included in (1 a) cannot meet the above condition and the nominalization of tough-constructions is taken as ill-formed, whereas in the structure given to (1 b), the empty operator included in (1 b) can meet the condition and therefore the gerundive nominalization of tough-constructions is well-formed.}, pages = {103--120}, title = {tough 構文の名詞化および動名詞化}, volume = {26}, year = {1993} }