Magorzata Warzecha Sentence: I hope you will promise to buy the tickets.

The presence of covert complementiser that: An argument for the presence of this complementiser in the sentence comes from the co-ordination rule. We know that only constituents of the same type can be co-ordinated. We can co-ordinate the sentence in the following way: I hope [you will promise to buy the tickets] and [that you will come with us] The bare clause [you will promise to buy the tickets] has been co-ordinated with the clause [that you will come with us], which is a CP introduced by overt complementiser that. Therefore we assume that the first clause is also a CP, containing a covert complementiser that. We also know that both overt and null complementisers carry force features meaning that they assign force of the whole clause. Therefore [that you will promise to buy tickets] is assigned declarative force by covert complementiser that. The presence of inherently null C in the main clause: The null C analysis can be extended from embedded clauses to the main clause. The sentence I hope you will promise to buy the tickets is declarative in force by virtue of being a statement. We know that the force of a clause is marked by a complementiser carrying force feature. Therefore we assume that this declarative main clause is introduced by an inherently null (it cannot surface as an overt form) complementiser (symbolized ) carrying the declarative force. The presence of PRO subject: I hope you will promise [PRO to buy the tickets] One reason for positioning PRO in this clause comes from the paraphrasing this nonfinite clause with a finite clause like: I hope you will promise that you will buy the tickets. Here we can observe that the null PRO subject became an overt subject in the finite clause. Its plausible to suppose that the nonfinite bracketed clause also has a subject- but a nonrealized one. Another argument for the silent PRO subject analysis follows from the EPP feature. We can postulate a generalized conclusion that all T constituents have an EPP feature requiring them to have a subject, hence the nonfinite T to must likewise project a subject.

The presence of inherently null C in the subordinate clause: I hope you will promise [C PRO to buy the tickets] An argument for the clause [C PRO to buy the tickets] to have a null C comes from the fact that it can be focused in a pseudo-cleft sentence. We know that only CPs can be focused in these types of sentences e.g.: What you will promise is [PRO to buy the tickets] We couldnt focus a TP like: *What you will promise to is [you to buy the tickets] Thats why we can consider the clause [PRO to buy the tickets] as a CP containing an inherently null C (it can never surface as an overt form).

Case assignment: We know that the main clause is a CP introduced by a finite, inherently null complementiser. We also know that all finite complementisers in English are intransitive. Therefore, following the Nominative Case Assignment Condition, we know that an intransitive finite complementiser assigns nominative case to a noun or pronoun expression which it c-commands. This means that the null complementiser in the main clause assigns nominative case to the pronoun I [ I hope you will promise to buy the tickets]. The null complementiser in the subordinate clause is different [I hope you will promise PRO to buy the tickets]. We assume that all pronouns carry case, and therefore PRO also have to have a case; more precisely: null case. The morphological role of the null case is to make sure that a pronoun is unpronounced. PRO is assigned its null case by the null intransitive non-finite complementiser (according to the Null Case Assignment Condition). The covert that [I hope that you will promise to buy the tickets] assigns the nominative case for the pronoun you (which it c-commands). This follows from the Nominative Case Assignment Condition (same as the null complementiser in the main clause).