 So, last time we were looking at reasons for displacement right and we looked at two to three two to three particular instances, particular issues which tells us that they are definitely appears to be some sort of displacement of certain elements from one place to the other. So far the reasons that we have seen for example, we saw that the first reason was they are looking at x bar schema, there appears to be a clear distinction between functional layer and lexical layer. And if we go ahead with the subject n p in the specifier position of i p or with the expansion of the head i which breaks into agreement tense and aspect and may be few more the spec position of a g r p seems to have seems to host subject n p. So, if we go ahead with that idea then we are running into difficulty that how come a lexical item originates in functional layer there appears to be no motivation for that. So, the point is it originates in the lexical layer, but we cannot let it be in the lexical layer because that is the n p which has to take care of agreement features with the agreement features on the verb which is part of the predicate. So, they are looking at the scheme so far there appears to be a contradiction that subject n p cannot be in the functional layer it must originate within spec v p. Once it originates in the spec v p it cannot stay in the spec v p it must be in the functional layer to take care of the agreement. So, to resolve that issue we need to look at we need to allow some sort of displacement in other words such a such an example shows us that there is definitely some sort of displacement. That is that is one very strong motivation for displacement. So, we saw some of the things and particular in particular evidence for motivation and then we are continuing with the motivation and instances further instances of movement. And we are going to see that with example of with example from C p and what we call w h movement. So, we saw that the element appears to dislocate from its original position to the other there is a there is a compelling reason for us to believe for such an operation. This is how a sentence looks like in a normal situation right for which the idea was we can we we should not there does not seem to be a compelling reason for us to allow agreement tense an aspect under one bundle. So, the split was allowed in this particular way where I p was not allowed was was we got rid of I p and then the story that I have told you there appears to be two categorical layers of functional layer and lexical layer. And these are the things that we have see. So, this is how a sentence looks like in a canonical order right. Then which is which is whether we look at I p or A g R p this is how a sentence looks like while looking at another module which was case theory we looked at several other aspects. For example, in particular we looked at the relationship between abstract relationship between heads and their complements that is a head V or a head P appears to assign cases to their complements in a particular configuration that they seem to govern their complements and thus assign cases to them. So, then we introduce the notion of a government and C command with the assignment of case two we saw a difficulty and the difficulty was there does not seem to be a clear theoretical straight line answering the question of case assignment that is whether it is a assignment of accusative cases assignment of nominative cases there does not seem to be a straight answer to that. We have different patches to take care of accusative case assignment and nominative case assignment on the top of that even couple of patches do not seem to solve all the problems. The problem is when we run into complement clauses which is when we have a whole sentence a whole clause as the complement of some head then we see some difficulty with assignment of case. So, assignment of cases is also one particular motivation motivating factor for split of functional layers and then the idea is the case of the case assignment must work in a different way in a more systematic and unified fashion the earlier some earlier theoretical apparatus does not seem to take care of case assignment properly. Since we have we have not looked at the interactions of case assignment and then the split of functional head we are I am going to drop that for the time being and go ahead with the examples of movement in particular. However, difficulties in taking care of assignment of cases in the theoretical apparatus that we have been discussing so far is definitely one of the factors for such kind of abstract displacement. Then we bring in a notion of CP which is a complementizer phrase and we have looked at the composition of CP that is what does a CP what is a CP look like and then we see it is the sometimes a head C takes the whole IP as its complement and then the recursiveness of language also allows sometimes CP appearing in the subject position or in the object positions. So, how does a CP look like when it appears in a subject position and how does a CP look like when it appears in an object position is what we want to look at and this will also give us one more chance to look at assignment of cases particularly the assignment of except assignment of cases in exceptional way that is we have to allow a new patch remember exceptional case marking. So, this is going to show us one more example of exceptional case marking. So, is this sentence for her to laugh is difficult is that sentence good now the whole sentence is in the bigger sentence for her to laugh does it appear like a subject to you this sentence is just like John is running right or John is tall do you understand when I say this sentence is just like John is tall what I am saying is in place of the chunk in the red that you see on the screen which appears to be a clause we can also replace the whole clause with a simple NP and we can say John is tall and the sentence is the two sentences are similar in their composition the point is we find a CP in place of specifier position of an NP of an IP do we see that does everyone see that what you might be wondering about why is that a CP why not an IP right for her to laugh could also be an IP is that the question which is bothering you or there is something else it is non-finite IP for sure whether it is a CP or an IP it is definitely non-finite right. So, because there is no no there does not appear to be any tense in that right so let us go ahead and look at that I am coming to that sentence in a minute let me first show you a CP in the object position I think we had we had talked about that but let us refresh this thing John knew that Mary did not drink the word no in the main clause has a complement which is a CP the whole thing that Mary did not drink is a full CP this clear right and in this CP in this CP in the red that you see C is the head that and then the complement is the whole IP Mary did not drink Mary in the in that little IP which is the which is the head of which is the complement of C let me let me show you little bit to make my point clear what I am trying to trying to show here to you is we have an IP I am going I am going to put it in short we have a V and a CP here all right this C this is the CP in the red that we are talking about that so we have a C bar C and then an IP right here is we have our that and then we have this this is the structure that we are dealing with this is what we have on the screen right I am talking about in particular this CP this V as a head which is no takes the whole CP as a complement and it needs to assign its accusative case which it does through the notion of C command and it assigns accusative case to the CP it is done okay now or let us let us drop this thing the point is case assignment is satisfied there is no issue here when we look at the bigger sentence which we are calling CP do we have enough reason to believe that that is not an IP that is more than an IP in a that is a CP right so the first point is a CP can be an can be a complement of V that is clear now in the CP when we look at this complementizer phrase a complementizer takes the whole IP as a complement is that also clear and you see the recursiveness of sentences how one sentence is inbuilt in another okay now let us look at this sentence this IP it is a good kind of IP where we have Mary in this position right and this I is a plus finite I clear this is a plus finite I so Mary gets a nominative case from here and this is taken care of it is a good good sentence see this thing now why I wanted you to see these things that we need to we need to make sure that in the grammaticality of this sentence the fact that case assignment is taken care of is an important idea important issue okay now let us look at the sentence that we were looking at before a fresh where a CP is in the subject position the our argument is a CP is in the subject position and when we expand that CP and we look at it carefully what do we see what is there in the position of C the post position for right the reason why we now you may have a question in your mind so far every time we have been talking about a preposition we are we are saying this is a PP right why are we saying here that the preposition can be in this in the C position which is a complementizer we are essentially saying that this post preposition is a complementizer and which we are saying categorically because we are saying that this preposition is not a preposition is this a preposition this is not a preposition it looks like a preposition but it has a complementizer function that that is that the point number one therefore it is not a PP it is in the position of C and there are a couple of other other aspects that we are going to look at hang on for a moment then we see in the comp in the complement position of the C we see a sentence right and the sentence is her to laugh right and then her is in the aspect position of that IP we see that I want everybody's attention here on the screen her is in the aspect position of that IP what is the problem with that her it gets an accusative case and our problem is how does it get an accusative case particularly when the I is non finite see in this case I is a finite I right therefore it assigns nominative case under whatever modifications and patches that we have discussed so this is okay this configuration is okay no problem but in the in this in this one we have her which is clearly an accusative case marked NP and the I below is a non finite I right so the problem is this a spec IP should not have had any case and that will also be a problem right we cannot say for she to laugh is difficult the sentence is n grammatical so this there is no a signer of case that is accusative case to this NP at the same time if it does not get a case the sentence is not allowed do we do we see the paradox therefore what we are going to say again as an as a new example of exceptional case marking is the C for assigns accusative case to that to that NP under the notion of government that we have seen the modified government for exceptional case marking which is we are allowing this C to C command the NP her with the with clarity that maximal projection IP could be a barrier right but because this IP is a non finite IP we can allow that non finite IPs are probably not barriers okay therefore we have this kind of sentence which is allowed and this is the reason why we must have we must have as a complementizer for in this sentence other if we do not have the for in this kind of a sentence then the sentence is not not good can we say her to go her to laugh is difficult we can say this kind of sentence because and now I hope you can see the point with clarity that the reason why we are not we are unable to say her to laugh is difficult or she to laugh is difficult these sentences are not allowed because there is no case a signer okay and these kinds of sentences are difficult for the theoretical apparatus and they need to be taken care of within CP with the barrier within non non finite IP and these are the critical terms okay when you when you saw the last this last point about this issue when you saw the last example of exceptional case marking how did what what was the case a signer in that case in that in that example when we were looking at the last example of exceptional case marking which had assigned accusative case to the spec of IP which is non-finite what was the sentence I want him to go right so in that case we do not need anything like a CP or a for because we already have a case a signer which is the work and it can assign case crossing the barrier which is which we are saying is not a barrier because it is a non-finite IP and assign accusative case to the spec position of non-finite IP now when we have a non-finite sentences as this in the subject position of a sentence then there is no V for this to assign a case right so we need a case a signer therefore a complementizer is allowed in that that place and without a complementizer the sentence is not good okay. So to to wrap it up again the reason why I wanted to bring in the the notion of exceptional case marking there were two two reasons for that one I briefly wanted to go through case marking particularly exceptional case marking again then I also wanted you to see that the idea of exceptional case marking is important it is not just one particular instance that we need to take care of we can see sometimes non-finite clauses in the subject position which needs to be taken care of and then the existence of CP that the the whole notion of CP is not just a just a small small modification which we have which theoreticians have just brought in it is it is an important device which helps us take care of exceptional case marking also it is it is definitely taking care of complement positions where sometimes we do see that the complement of a V is more than an IP then we say it is a CP we run into difficulties when we have a CP in the subject position or or a bigger clause in the subject position we do not know how to take care of that then the CP comes in for rescue all right clear okay so let us keep the idea of CP active okay and then see how there how does this CP work for displacement from where we started how does it help us take care of displacement and this is where I want you to I want to want your attention hold on what did you want this one yeah in the example I want him to go we wrap it up at VP right VP is to go yeah so here also VP is to go sorry to laugh yes the because I had a space so I expanded that VP right you see that we have spec head and compliment and what is that in the head position comes to laugh so there is nothing in the spec position of VP and nothing in the complement position of VP I just wanted you to see that the whole expanded structure of CP and an IP within it sorry CP as a non-phrase is also possible which non-phrase the non-phrase that we that's at the last anything is possible see what the only problem is we don't have any NP because the verb is non-finite so the question of that verb being transitive or intransitive doesn't arise okay oh definitely then there will be a compliment to that transitive verb there and that that compliment could be anything and this is what I am trying to show you that the compliment of a V could be an NP could be a IP or could be a CP to similarly in the subject position we can have an NP we can have we can have an IP and we can have a CP to so there is the paradox that I want you to see that which one is heavier IP is heavier or CP is heavier it depends on what we what we are looking at sometimes a CP could be heavy because a CP takes an IP as a compliment right so so it's a it's it's and clearly clearly I hope and not only I hope I believe that the point should be clear to you that we are not talking about circularity we are talking about example of recursiveness you know and this these are the things which make people conclude that sentences could be infinitely long it's not just a slogan it's not just a nice idea this is what tells you that a sentence could be infinitely long okay alright can we look at these sentences now I do want to retain retain this thing and then we will come to another structure in a moment but for the time being I want you to look at these sentences this these sentences very carefully first of all do you agree that these are pretty simple English sentences we use these sentences several times a day right but if I if I ask you if I ask you a couple of questions then along with me you will be able to see the complexity of these sentences okay so let me let me put the theoretical apparatus aside for a moment and let us look at some empirical facts of English okay very briefly and then we need to come back to this point what are the empirical facts of English by empirical facts we mean things that we can see in a sentence the the the theoretical device could be abstract for which we need to understand x bar or case assignment and all kinds of things but empirically and let me give you one example and then I'll ask you other things so if I if I am to if someone asked me what's in what's a question word in English what would be my answer what is a question word in English there though you are saying how you are answering the question how many types of questions are there in English and then the answer could be two which is not a correct answer I'll tell you why it's not a correct answer and what is a correct answer also but right now my question is what is a question word in English can you give some examples of question words in English what why how where when right who what's the common among all these words what's common among all these words can we say that all of them begin with WH okay see you are right there is a problem with this do you see there is a WH in how also it's just in a scrambled order now that jokes apart with the exception of how okay which is not in the right order question words of English are called WH words okay question words of English are called WH word because most of them begin with WH and if we are to argue in a little bit funny way we can say this also has WH but it's just a problematic we can go ahead and argue this is not a serious technical argument we can also say the reason why this is scrambled because the moment we try to put it in right order it becomes something else okay that's that's not a serious thing the serious point is question words of English are called WH words if I am asking you to look at your own question like question words in your own language what's the question word in in Hindi if we call them WH words then what do we what are we what what do we have to call Hindi question words cowards right you will be surprised that most of the languages of Indo-Aryan family have question words beginning with Hindi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Punjabi, Odia almost all of them likewise if you look at Dravidian languages Tamil, Telugu, Canada, Malayalam and few more what's the question word in Malayalam what does it begin with A or A right how about Tamil A there are going to be some discrepancies like we have seen WH but they they do have the sound A in common and that's that common thing is available in Telugu, Tamil, Canada and Malayalam see there with the help of this point I want to emphasize and I want you to understand that these reasons these languages are called the Dravidian family of languages they are put in one group and that's not for no reason there are underlying reasons behind it and this is just one example we the the goal of our discussion was something else and continues to be something else so we didn't go into the classification similarities and differences of specific languages like different language families and and and so on therefore we haven't looked at such aspects but but if you are taking example of question words you can see the classification of languages categorically with that example moving ahead we can say question words in English are called WH words I'm coming to that I'm coming to that so now we say there are two types of questions at least two types of questions do you see that the first one and the last one are two different types of questions first one needs a different kind of answer and the last one needs a different kind of answer so what could be a possible answer to the last one can only be yes or no right I mean you can say something beyond that but you must say either yes or no first so if someone asks you did you buy a phone you can say yes I did or you can say no I did not but you must have you must say yes or no therefore that kind of a question is called yes no type of question right what is the answer of the first center first question what did you buy you must answer with a content right you in the answer to the first question we cannot use yes or no can we use yes or no no so that's a different kind of a question you must answer that question with a content someone asks you what is your name we cannot say yes right we cannot say no in other words that type of question is a content content question that that type of question is called content question because you must answer such questions with a content contentful word okay now these are two types of questions in response to one of the questions I just said English or for that matter any other language will have more than two types of questions so such questions are called let us say rhetorical questions sometimes they are called echo questions sometimes there are questions like question tags when we say you bought a phone didn't you okay I I didn't you buy a phone did you buy a phone no no no you didn't buy a phone did you right so such such small questions that you see at the end of the end of a sentence is called question tags which is to confirm something okay they are not really a question they are called question tags my point is I I don't mean to go into the whole inventory and typology of questions available in natural languages these are the two prominent types of questions available in any language yes no question and content questions I I don't think we will have time to look at other languages for the purpose of understanding theoretical apparatus which which works under principles and parameters so let me focus on English and if if we have time we'll take up some questions from India or some other languages what kind of similarity do you see in the two questions of English two types of questions of English do you see any similarity or what kind of differences do you observe between two sentences loudly verb is verb is for verb is same by verb is same all right well that's not really the same but okay go ahead what else do you see sorry did you buy article is what what is the article where do you where do you see the article in that did you buy a phone that article is with the NP right so the point is if if you have an NP in the sentence that's a different story if you don't have an NP then the A is out tell me about the question part what's the similarity in both the questions and what are the differences that you see so why are the dashes there what is well let's let's forget that for the time being the dashes mean there there was something there which is not there anymore okay yeah that's a perfectly fine question without the dash also so forget the dash for the time being I'll come back to that that means that I need to talk about that so I come back to that later so that's perfectly fine question okay so just look at sentence number one and sentence number three I have put sentence number two in between just for reference okay that sentence number two could be an answer to sentence number one right and sentence number three could be a question made out of sentence number two I bought a phone someone can ask me a question what did you buy someone could ask me a question did you buy a phone did you buy a phone right so both the question could originate from sentence number two therefore I have put that for reference and I'm not discussing sentence number two because that kind of sentence we have already discussed clear declarative nice looking sentence everything is fine a transitive verb a compliment case assignment is done everything is clear in that type of a sentence good so you are not telling me anything about the one and three the differences and similarity between two types of questions okay which is phone in the second case did you buy a phone you see the object and in the first case you don't see the object very nice that that's an important thing but let's talk about more basic stuff more basic very nice so we don't have what first thing is we don't have what very nice did this do you see that very clearly that in a content question we need a question word and in a yes no question we don't need a question over that clear very nice what is this replaced by phone and it moves to the end of the sentence but the phrase did you buy remains same yeah so what is like a placeholder for the unknown object no you're you're right all of you are saying things that are making sense my job is only to to to expand what you are saying in such a way that the same thing makes sense for everybody you're i i think you're getting the getting there and also the the point is probably i'm looking for more basic things and you are talking about advanced stuff okay what as a content question word is is only for content type of question and it's not there for the second time how that's the difference between the two two types of questions the similarity between two types of questions is did you see that if i tell you in a summary that english listen to this carefully english questions are made by fronting tenses the role of tense is very prominent in making a question in english is this making sense i will i want you to see that carefully on the screen on the board that's that's not on the screen look at the look at the question number look at the sentence number two everybody the sentence is bought a phone what's the tense on that sentence past right so everybody agrees that when we say a word like bought right this this is buy plus past agrees right now if you remember earlier discussions where i have also told you that sometimes tenses are visible and sometimes tenses are not visible right and we left our discussions right there in this case we have tense and the word buy in it with the with the question sentences we can see that the past tense which was mixed completely with the word it's like the it's the this verb is like the dough i know we need to stop in a couple of minutes but you understand when i say what i mean when i say dough have you seen the dough made for making roti right the water and flour are mixed with proper proportion in such a way that it's it's going to be almost impossible to remove water from that dough you can throw them throw everything apart but you can't really extract water and leave the floor exactly the way it was before if you look at the word buy bought the tense and the verb is mixed in such a way like water and dough but in a language in a language it's possible to extract tense and leave the verb apart that is what happens in a question sentence is when we say did you buy a phone the the verb is never going to have any send any tense on it after that the then therefore we leave the verb as buy we can never say did you bought a phone so the the point is the did in the beginning of the sentence that you see is actually removing tense from the verb and extracting that to the front the tense is an invisible category it cannot stand on its own so it needs support of a lexical word so when we put do do is a word which comes in support of a word in support of tense now do means what if i ask you the question do what does the word do mean in hindi how will you translate that in hindi right and tamil sorry no how do we say how do you say how do you say do work okay we'll i'll i'll give you more example i i think there is another word for that in tamil i'll i'll come back to that we are we are not why we are not finishing up this discussion today we'll come back with this tomorrow and then i'll i'll bring the other word for that but hold on before i wind it up do you see so in english the word is do okay and this do is not the verb this again is a functional word now it doesn't remain a lexical word so do plus past becomes did okay and when there is no when there is no past tense there's just present tense then it remains just do so in a way what we are saying is this word is carrying tense so the common thing between both types of question words in english is fronting of tense all right so let me let me stop here and i want you to think more about the question words and then we come to question words and movement tomorrow all right okay think about equivalent of do in tamil more words for that in tamil okay all right let me stop here and we'll continue this discussion