Whom they think

Question

"Investigators have not given indications of whom they think might be responsible."

The AP.

Is "whom" both the direct object of "think" and implied subject in the clause "[subject] might be responsible"?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

anonymousInvestigators have not given indications of [ ~~whom~~ who (they think) might be responsible ].
Is "whom" both the direct object of "think" and implied subject in the clause "[subject] might be responsible"?

No.

The whole (interrogative content) clause 'who might be responsible' is the complement of 'think'. 'who' is the subject of that clause.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

anonymous
"Investigators have not given indications of whom they think might be responsible."
The AP.
Is "whom" both the direct object of "think" and implied subject in the clause "[subject] might be responsible"?

No: the pronoun is the subject of the embedded “might” content clause.

Investigators have not given indications of [who(m)_ithey think [____i might be responsible]].

The whole bracketed element is best analysed as an NP (noun phrase) in a ‘fused relative construction’. The outer brackets enclose the NP itself, while the inner brackets enclose the embedded content clause. The subject of the embedded clause (represented by gap ___ ) is linked to the fused relative phrase “who(m)” in prenuclear position

It’s called ‘fused’ because the head of the NP, “who(m), fuses with the relativised element in the relative clause. In your example, “who(m)” is thus simultaneously head of the NP, and the relativised element functioning as subject of the embedded “might” clause.

As far as pronoun case is concerned, it is debatable whether the pronoun should be “who” or “whom”.

Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: the pronoun must be nominative “who” because it's the subject of "might", but it must be accusative “whom” because it's the head of the NP who(m) they think might be responsible which is object of the preposition “of”, and it can't be both, so you have a quandary. There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!

Whom they think

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions