Abstract
where t is the ‘trace’ of the (wh) object and where wh becomes obligatorily null (cf. 23) in the ‘infinitival relative’ (and the ‘complementizer’ for as well if the infinitive has no subject, such as you in this instance)Among the numerous constructions, disparate on the face of it, that Chomsky insightfully brings together in this paper is ‘that of the infinitival complements of easy, etc.’ (47) which he sees as having ‘an embedded S … with an obligatory PRO subject’ (48). I do not wish to comment1 on the merits or otherwise of such an analysis but only to question ‘the assumption that the complement clause’ in
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
