Question

With reference to the tree diagram for the sentence \emph{'John wants him to be a doctor', which of the following statements are CORRECT?}

• A. \textbf{T of TP\textsuperscript{1} assigns case to NP\textsuperscript{1} in the Specifier position of TP\textsuperscript{1}}
• B. \textbf{T of TP\textsuperscript{2} assigns case to NP\textsuperscript{2} in the Specifier position of TP\textsuperscript{2}}
• C. \textbf{V of VP\textsuperscript{1} assigns case to NP\textsuperscript{2} in the Specifier position of TP\textsuperscript{2}}
• D. \textbf{V of VP\textsuperscript{2} assigns case to NP\textsuperscript{2} in the Specifier position of TP\textsuperscript{2}}

Hint:

Finite \textbf{T} assigns nominative to Spec–TP. Non-finite \textbf{T} ([INF]) does \emph{not} assign case; ECM verbs (e.g., \textit{want}, \textit{believe}) assign accusative to the subject of the embedded infinitival TP.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A, C

Step 1: Matrix clause (TP\textsuperscript{1}). In finite clauses, T (here marked [PRES]) assigns nominative case to the DP in Spec–TP. Thus John (NP\textsuperscript{1}) gets nominative from T\textsuperscript{1}. \(\Rightarrow\) (A) Correct. Step 2: Embedded non-finite clause (TP\textsuperscript{2}). The embedded T is [INF] (non-finite), which does not assign case. Therefore T\textsuperscript{2} cannot case-mark NP\textsuperscript{2} (him). \(\Rightarrow\) (B) Incorrect. Step 3: Exceptional Case Marking (ECM). The matrix verb want (V of VP\textsuperscript{1}) is an ECM verb; it assigns accusative case across the clause boundary to NP\textsuperscript{2} in Spec–TP\textsuperscript{2}. \(\Rightarrow\) (C) Correct. Step 4: Copular VP\textsuperscript{2.} The embedded verb be (V of VP\textsuperscript{2}) is a copula and does not assign case to NP\textsuperscript{2}; the DP complement (NP\textsuperscript{3} 'a doctor') typically receives case from T or via predication, not from the copula to the subject position. \(\Rightarrow\) (D) Incorrect. \[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (A) and (C)} \]