NULL C IN INFINITIVE CLAUSES

REVISION ECM and control 1. a. She wanted [TP him to [VP apologize]] = ECM construction b. She wanted [CP [TP PRO to [VP apologize]]] = control clause c. She will arrange [for him to see a doctor] = CP? PP? Lets do some tests. She made an arrangement [for him]. She arranged [for him to see a doctor]. *She arranged [CP for him to see a doctor] and [PP for herself]. The bracketed constructions cannot be co-ordinated therefore we can conclude that [1.c.] seemingly a PP, is in fact a CP introduced by the infinitival complementiser for. In a constructions such as [1.c.], we assume that the complementiser for is an accusative case assigner and therefore the infinitive subject him will be assigned accusative case by the C for.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ECM Seemingly this clause [1.a] cannot possibly be a CP because it is not introduced by a complementiser for. However, the following test suggests otherwise: She wanted [him to apologize] and [for him to really mean it] The construction [him to apologize], previously established as a TP can be co-ordinated with [for him to really mean it], which is, as proven above, a CP. This suggests that the infinitive complement of want is always a CP, and the head C of the relevant CP sometimes has an overt spellout (for) and sometimes has a null spellout (for). What does this mean? If the complementiser for is an accusative case assigner in complement clauses such as: [CP [C for] [TP acc NP [T to] VP VP]], we can say that in [CP [C for] [TP acc NP [T to] VP VP]], the variant of for which ultimately receives a null spellout (for) is an accusative case assigner as well.

FOR-DELETION OBLIGATORY VS. OPTIONAL 2. Insertion of adverbial expressions a. *More than anything, she wanted for him to apologize. b. More than anything, she wanted him to apologize. c. She wanted more than anything for him to apologize. d. *She wanted more than anything him to apologize. 3. Pseudo-clefting a. What she wanted was for him to apologize. b. *What she wanted was him to apologize. 4. Expletive subject a. Sue is believed to be intelligent. b. *It is believed Sue to be intelligent. c. It is believed for Sue to be intelligent. Lets take a look at control infinitive clauses with a null PRO subject such as: 5. a) She wanted [CP [TP PRO to [VP apologize]]] The main argument here is that control clauses which have a null PRO subject are introduced by a null infinitival complementiser inherently null. Parallelism between a for-infinitive clause and a control infinitive clause they are both CPs and have a parallel internal structure, as shown below.

Evidence in support of claiming that a control clause with a null PRO subject is introduced by a null complementiser comes from co-ordination data: a. She arranged [to see a doctor] and [for her friend to see one at the same time]. The fact that the control infinitive can be co-ordinated with the CP headed by for suggests that control infinitives must be CPs. Further evidence comes from the fact that they can be focused in pseudo-cleft sentences. b. What Ill try and arrange is [for you to see a specialist] c. *What Ill try and arrange for is [you to see a specialist] d. What Ill try and arrange is [PRO to see a specialist]