Pesetsky (1991) proposes that there are two types of C, that and null C, and that the null C is an affix that must move up to the matrix V. This proposal is revived in the minimalist context by Bošković and Lasnik (2003). While assuming that the C-as-an-affix approach is on the right track, I suggest a drastic modification of previous versions of this approach: namely, that (a) there is just one type of C in the lexicon, affixal null C; (b) it can both hop down onto the embedded V and move up to the matrix V; and (c) that/for is inserted at PF as a last resort if affixation is structurally prohibited. This amounts to saying that the English tense and complementizer systems display the same paradigm: both T[+finite] and C[±finite] are affixes, and do and that/for are inserted as a last resort when syntactic affixation is impossible. This approach, especially the C-hopping approach, allows a uniform, principled account for the distribution of that and for, including that-trace effects, ameliorating effects of subject extraction, anti-that-trace effects, For-To Filter effects, and the distribution of that in relative clauses.
Internet Monitoring Research on Derivative Public Opinions of Emergencies Oriented with Subject Extraction —Take the Case of Nanny Arson in Hangzhou on “June 22”
