Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 25:1 (2025) ► pp.83–121

English tough-constructions and their analogues in French and Russian

A parallel corpus investigation

ORCID logo | University of Lille, France | STL lab – Savoirs, Textes, Langage – UMR 8163, France
ORCID logo | University of Lille, France | STL lab – Savoirs, Textes, Langage – UMR 8163, France
ORCID logo | University of Lille, France | STL lab – Savoirs, Textes, Langage – UMR 8163, France
Evaluative constructions involving tough-predicates (e.g., This hill is difficult to climb) present atypical structure-to-meaning mappings and vary across languages: in some languages (e.g., English/French), speakers typically use so-called tough-constructions (TCs) in which the syntactic subject of the matrix sentence is logically the missing object of the infinitive; in others (e.g., Russian), speakers opt for a variety of functional analogues (e.g., passive, impersonal constructions). The aim of this paper is to explore English TCs involving difficult and easy adjectives, compare them to French and Russian analogues based on a parallel-corpus, and investigate how specific semantic properties (animacy, transitivity, adjective scope) relate to specific (more or less compact) configurations. The results show that French and Russian have similar functional analogues and only partially share the structural properties of English TCs. The findings support a multidimensional account based on the inherent semantic properties of evaluative constructions and their degree of compactness.
Keywords: tough-constructions, functional analogues, crosslinguistic variation, semantics-syntax interface, parallel corpus English/French/Russian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1 Tough-constructions and their structural characteristics
    • 1.2 Tough-constructions and their semantic properties
    • 1.3 Tough-constructions, variants, and functional analogues
  • 2.Scope and aims of the study
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The data set
    • 3.2Data annotation
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1TCs and their analogues in French and Russian
    • 4.2TC semantic components in English and contrastive analysis
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1General remarks
    • 5.2Towards a classification
    • 5.3Limitations and future perspectives
    • 5.4Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00041.tsi
References (58)
References
Akmajian, A. 1972. Getting Tough. Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 373–377.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. 2020. A comparative study of English and Greek tough-movement constructions. Langages, 218(2): 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, J. 2003. Does Russian scrambling exist? Paper presented at the International Conference on Word order and Scrambling, Tucson AZ, April 2000. DOI logo
Becker, M. 2014. The acquisition of syntactic structure: Animacy and thematic alignment (Vol. 1411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Animacy and the acquisition of tough adjectives. Language Acquisition, 22(1): 68–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, M., Estigarribia, B. and Gylfadottir, D. 2012. Tough-adjectives are easy to learn. Supplemental Proceedings of BUCLD, 361: 1–12.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. and Quirk, R. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 21). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. and Takahashi, D. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic inquiry, 29(3): 347–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boutault, J. 2011. A Tough Nut to Crack: A Semantico-Syntactic Analysis of Tough-Constructions in Contemporary English. Syntaxe et sémantique, 1(1): 95–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. A Hard Nut to Crack, Mouvements syntaxiques et motivation sémantique en anglais contemporain : les constructions « tough » et moyennes. PhD Thesis, University of Poitiers.
2020. Vers une définition des constructions « tough » en anglais: les adjectifs et leur complément infinitif. Anglophonia. Available at [URL] [last accessed 29 September 2022]. DOI logo
Chomsky, C. 1969. The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds), 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chung, Y. S. 2001. Tough construction in English: a construction grammar approach. PhD Thesis, University of California.
Cinque, G. 1990. Ergative Adjectives and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1997. Tough-movement and its analogues in Germanic languages. In Language and its ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, W. Winter (ed.), 303–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. and Matthews, S. 1990. Prolegomena to a typology of tough movement. Studies in typology and diachrony: papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2009. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 20), R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds), 161–205. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Danckaert, L. and Tayalati, F. 2023. The syntax and semantics of indirect predication in French. In Formal Perspectives on Secondary Predication, M. den Dikken and H. Kishimoto (eds), 17–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. 2002. Lexical biases in aphasic sentence comprehension: An experimental and corpus linguistic study. Aphasiology, 16(12): 1173–1198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., and Roland, D. 2004. Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36(3): 432–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giurgea, I. and Soare, E. 2010. Predication and the nature of non-finite relatives in Romance. In Edges, Heads, and Projections. Interface Properties, A. DiSciullo and H. Virginia (eds), 191–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guérin, V. 2006. On tough constructions in French. Manoa Working Papers in Linguistics 37(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Hicks, G. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation, Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 535–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Tough-movement. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 1–27. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Khalifa, J. C. 2004. Syntaxe de l’anglais : théories et pratique de l’énoncé complexe aux concours. Paris: Editions OPHRYS.Google Scholar
Kim, K. 2014. Unveiling linguistic competence by facilitating performance. PhD Thesis, University of Hawaii.
Kim, K. and Schwartz, B. D. 2022. Learnability in the acquisition of the English tough construction by L1-Korean adult and child L2 learners. Second Language Research, 38(2): 259–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 21. Stanford: Stanford university press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Fiengo, R. 1974. Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 51: 535–572.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, A. B. 2017. Predikativ. Materialy dlja proekta korpusnogo opisanija russkoj grammatiki. Na pravah rukopisi. Moskva. Available at [URL] [last accessed 7 September 2022]
Lison, P., Tiedemann, J. and Kouylekov, M. 2018. OpenSubtitles2018: Statistical rescoring of sentence alignments in large, noisy parallel corpora. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, May 7–12 2018Google Scholar
Mair, C. 1987. Tough-movement in present-day british English: a corpus-based study. Studia Linguistica 411: 59–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paykin, K. and Van Peteghem, M. 2020. Des adjectifs tough dans des langues sans construction Tough ? Le cas du russe. Langages, 218(2): 75–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekelis, O. E. 2018. Expletives, referential pronouns and pro-drop: The Russian extraposition pronoun èto in light of the English it and the German es. Lingua, 2031: 66–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y. and Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3): 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popelíková, J. 2015. Tough-constructions and the issue of thematicity: A study of the word easy in 17th and 18th century English. Linguistica Pragensia, 251: 37–48.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1971. Cross-over Phenomena, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Quyen, N. T. 2018. Various Factors in the Acquisition of English Tough-Construction by Vietnamese EFL Learners. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4): 227–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. 2006. On Tough-Movement. In Minimalist Essays, C. Boeckx (ed.), 288–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Russo, K. D., Peach, R. K. and Shapiro, L. P. 1998. Verb preference effects in the sentence comprehension of fluent aphasic individuals. Aphasiology, 12(7–8): 537–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ŝerba, L. V. 2004. Jazykovaja i rečevaja dejatelʹnostʹ. Moscow: URSS Editorial.Google Scholar
Serdobolʹskaja, N. V. and Toldova, S. J. 2014. Konstrukcii s ocenočnymi predikativami v russkom jazyke: učastniki situacii ocenki i semantika ocenočnogo predikata. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Trudy instituta lingvističeskih issledovanij, 10(2): 443–477.Google Scholar
Tayalati, F. and Mostrov, V. 2020. La construction Tough en arabe standard et en bulgare : une sémantique commune. Langages, 218(2): 125–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tayalati, F., Mostrov, V. and Van de Velde, D. 2020. Les constructions Tough : syntaxe, sémantique et interfaces. Langages, 218(2): 7–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. 2012. The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1): 91–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiedemann, J. and Thottingal, S. 2020. OPUS-MT–Building open translation services for the World. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 479–480, Lisboa, Portugal, 3–5 November 2020Google Scholar
Tsikulina, A. and Soroli, E. 2023. English tough constructions and their analogues in Russian. In Botinis, A. (ed.) 14th International Conference of Experimental Linguistics (Exling-23), 113–114. Athens: ExLing Society Electronic edition, Greece, 20 October 2023.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, D. 2020. Les adjectifs tough du français comme prédicats dispositionnels. Langages, 218(2): 107–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. 2015. The Problems of Transitivity Studies and Its Solution. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 31: 170–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrli, E. 1979. Constructions infinitives : complements VP et leurs implications théoriques. PhD. Thesis, McGill University.
Williams, E. 1983. Syntactic vs. Semantic Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy, 61: 423–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar