Why there is no object after "make"?
As you can see, we're in the reception area, which we try to make attractive and welcoming to visitors.
In this nonrestrictive attributive clause, 'area' could be the role of antecedent, but can I add 'it' after 'make'? Why or why not? Thank you.
In that sentence, "which" is the direct object of "make", so no, you cannot add "it" after "make" because then it would have two direct objects, which English grammar does not allow.
The deeper structure looks like this:
We're in the reception area. We try to make [the reception area] attractive and welcoming to visitors.
The phrase in brackets [] is the direct object of "make". To turn the second sentence into a relative clause, we first replace the repeated phrase "the reception are" with "which":
We're in the reception area. We try to make [which] attractive and welcoming to visitors.
"Which" is now the direct object of "make", and represents "the reception area". The last step is fronting "which", leaving a blank behind, which isn't pronounced nor marked in any way:
We're in the reception area, which we try to make _________ attractive and welcoming to visitors.
English speakers understand that "which" is the object of "make" because in that clause it has to be either the subject or an object, and there's already a subject, but "make" is missing its object.
You could add an "it", by splitting it into two sentences:
As you can see, we're in the reception area.
We try to make it attractive and welcoming to visitors.
But in the single sentence form, the "which" forms the direct object of the "make":
As you can see, we're in the reception area,
which we try to make attractive and welcoming to visitors.
Compare with:
Where do you want to go to? ⇒ You do want to go to where.
Whom are you going with? ⇒ You are going with whom.
where "where" and "whom" are the direct objects of "to" and "with".
