Defective Clauses :

>All canonical clauses (normal) clauses are CPs .

>Unlike CPs , whose « accusative subject » is contained with its accusative case

assigner « C : For » within the same clause with one TP , Defective clause accusative

subject is contained in another clause apart from it’s case assigner verb .

CP [ C for [TP [ PRN them [T’ [ T to [VP [ V see] [DP [D a ] [N specialist]

Defective C [ Null C[TP 1 [PRN They [T’ [T Tns [VP [ V believe [ TP 2 [PRN him[ T’[ T to[V be]

>In CPs : case assigners and accusative subjects are within the same clause. And the accusative

case assigner to the specifier of the complement infinitive clause is the non-finite complementiser

(for).

>In defective clauses : they are in different clauses. the accusative case assigner to the

specifier of the complement infinitive clause is (the ECM verb) . No CP layer .

>They are exceptional case-marking clauses = ECM

>Verbs like « believe » use in ECM clauses are known as ECM verbs .

>ECM clauses lack CPs layer . Chomsky calls them (Defective Clauses) .

>ECM clauses cannot be coordinated with canonical ones .

>ECM clauses cannot be pseudo-clefted :

*What we didn’t intend was [ you to get hurt]

(This is my addition . My observation is that CPs are headed by case assigner and its assigned

case , or non of the two : (the case of null pro and null c) , but in ECM clauses we have the case

assigned as a PRN and the assigner as a Verb in different TPs) .

>Therefore ECM clauses are TPs not CPs , since only CPs can be pseudo-clefted (focused).

>CPs are not ECM because CPs subject cannot be passivised but ECM’s can :

They believed [him to be innocent] = He is believed to be innocent .

We didn’t intend [ for you to get hurt] = * you weren’t intended for to get hurt .

>There are verbs that select :

1)Bare infinitive complement (ECM verb) : believe

2)For infinitive complement : want (for deletion verb) / arrange

3)both of them : intend for / intend

>An infinitive TP can have its « to» nullified if its complement is the complement of a perfect

participle verb :

1)I have never known him (to) be rude to anyone . = I have never known him __ be rude to

anyone.

>It cannot be nullified , if « TP » is the complement of a passive participle :

2)He has never been known (to be rude to any one).

>>>[ My addition to this conclusion would be that « to » can be nullified if Spec-TP is moved to

the spec position of the matrix clause]

But it cannot be nullified when the Spect-TP is a null variant like in (2) .]

ECM predicates :

They select a TP complement headed by an infinitival T

This T has an overt spellout in passive structures like in (2), and null spellout in active

structures like in (1).

There is an exception for the verb « let » which selects infinitival TP complement in active use

only :

a)You shouldn’t let [him upset you]

b)*He shouldn’t be let [to upset you] = it’s not commonly said in English

c)The prisoners were let [out of prison]

>The passive participle of « let » selects a PP rather than a TP in (b) .

>We cannot explain this idiosyncrasy by saying that « let » is a defective verb / ECM verb

without a passive participle form , because according to example (b) is has one .

So let’s suppose that « let » selects a CP complement with a null C and this null C selects a

null T in infinitival TP = This explains why we can’t passivize « him » , because only ECM

clauses can have their Spec-TP passivized , whereas CPs cannot ( Impenetranability principle)

= a constituent in the domain which is c-commanded by a head complementiser is impenetrable

to a higher head in the tree, which is c-commanding the head complementiser.

« Let » is therefore a C-deletion verb , like want which is a for-deletion verb

So , (a) is all the way an ECM , as its verb selects a bare infinitive complement , and this

latter has a specifier in the accusative form by the ECM verb , however, this ECM clause

starts having a CP feature (impenetration) as its specifier cannot be passivised .