 So, we have looked at movement. What does movement mean? Physical displacement of some elements from one place to the other in the conceptual framework at a certain, in a framework at a certain conceptual level. I am sure by now you are able to see the underlying abstraction in that conceptual framework when we say movement. And when we say evidence for movement then you are able to see abstraction at the level of conceptual framework. Hardly a microscope can really reveal that kind of abstraction, but not but. So, I hope you are able to see that abstraction and appreciate that. So, now we are going to look at having seen evidence and motivation for movement. I want to show you some of the places where there are restrictions on movement that certain things are not allowed in the whole operation of movement. And I just want to give you four quick examples. I had a plan to talk about some of the elements of cultural significance in the structure of language. You know that we are talking about structure of language a lot. And when we have also said and established that the study of the structure of language meaning study of the structure of sentence is the primary goal of syntax. And therefore, a sentence is the basic unit for the study. And then we have devoted large chunk of our theoretical discussions on I language. And therefore, we were able to go all the way back to the levels of abstract abstractions that you have seen. However, while studying theoretically motivated conceptual framework for the study of language, there are some of the elements of cultural significance. And the moment we say elements of cultural significance, you can immediately relate them to I language. They are not going to be related to I language. So, such elements can find space in the structure of language. And I wanted to show you a couple of examples of that, but we will have to push it for some other day. So, let us go through the restrictions which are called constraints on movement. So, here are some of the things that I want you to see. Constraints are put together in form of islands. So, the moment we are talking about constraints, we have an island in mind. And island, you know what we mean by island. Island is a place which is not connected with the rest of the land. So, that forms a small territory by itself. And some parts do not allow movement out of them. That is within whatever we define as island, within form that island, movement of elements are not allowed. So, in other words, we are making the islands also or we are conceptualizing the islands on the basis of what is not allowed out of that. So, it is both ways. It is working both ways. And in short, an island is any constituent that you cannot move a WH phrase out of. So, mostly we will be talking about WH phrases. We do not have structures here today, but I invite you to keep the structure in mind how we get IP, CP or CP, IP and VP structure. If there is any need of that, I will draw it on the board, but we will see if we need it or not. So, these are the five things that I have planned for to show you. They are called WH constraint, complex NP constraint, coordinated NP constraint, subject NP constraint and adjunct NP constraint. You have heard these names, WH phrase, subject or adjunct, you have heard these names. What you have not heard so far is the term complex NP. And I will show you, then it is not very difficult. You will figure out that it is not very difficult. And then coordinated NP, that is two NP's put together. And then I will show you that too and you will see that these are just terms. So, let us first look at WH constraints. What is it that we are saying? A WH phrase cannot be extracted out of a clause that begins with a WH phrase itself. Here is what we mean. Let me show you the expansion of that. Do you remember when we were talking about some of the lexical properties of verbs? We talked about the verb wonder. One of the features of the verb wonder was, this verb takes a WH clause as a compliment, as an interrogative sentence as a compliment. So, in this sentence number one, why Rahman composed the song is the compliment of the verb wonder. I wonder why Rahman composed the song. See this thing? Now, this clause begins with a WH element itself. See this thing? Therefore, an extraction of another element out of this clause is not allowed. And here specifically, we are talking about English. These constraints are derived by looking at English data alone. So, please keep that in mind. However, the claim is that these constraints to a great extent are universals, which means we need to verify these things with the data from other languages. However, what has happened so far is the research on these constraints have made these constraints parametric. Therefore, they did not remain universals. To great extent it works, but people have found examples, empirical evidence from different languages where some of these constraints are universal and some of these constraints retain their universal nature. However, some of them become parametric. Is that making sense to you? That clear? That the argument was these constraints are universal, but that argument was simply based on some languages that are of English type and English in particular. Since we are only talking about the introduction to these constraints, therefore, I am giving you only English examples. Now, so is this first sentence clear? So, the sentence 2 is ungrammatical because we end up extracting something from that WS clause. So, which song do I wonder why Rahman composed is not a good sentence. Now, I invite your attention again to some of the points that I made way too early. When I told you, you give this sentence to a native speaker of English and ask them is this sentence good in your English? Anybody will tell you, any native speaker of English will tell you this is not the right sentence. Now, it is not the second question that may come in your mind why is this not good? What is wrong with this and further question will be what is wrong with this sentence? That these two questions are not for native speakers. You cannot expect a native speaker to tell you an answer why is this sentence wrong? What is wrong with this sentence? At the point because native speakers intuitive judgment only native speakers intuitive judgment is only responsible for grammaticality or ungrammaticality. Any speaker will tell you within no time that the sentence 2 is not good. Why is not the valid question for native speakers? You do you remember these things still? Okay great and that that part is universal. Native's intuition is the strongest tool for eliciting linguistic data checking data but explanation of the data is the job of the people who are looking at this structure not we can't expect this answer from speakers of the language. Now, so we can say why this sentence is not good. The reason this sentence is not good is there seems to be certain islands certain elements appear to be working like islands in languages and when we try to extract anything out of that island the sentences result in grammaticality and in this case we are trying to extract it from an island which is called WH Island we can we can call that WH Island. Therefore any any extraction out of this clause why Rahman composed the song is not good. Get get the point if if you just had a sentence why Rahman composed the song that's a question by itself that's a different story but in the context of the sentence I wonder why Rahman composed the song. In that bigger sentence why Rahman composed the song is a compliment clause and that acts as an island. This is what is stated in the in the first statement a WH phrase cannot be and WH element cannot be extracted out of a clause that begins with a WH phrase itself. Clear? The second one should be simple is it can we move making sense. Now, look at a complex NP. So, we will look at example in one is is is giving you a complex NP and the idea here is also we cannot move a WH phrase from such a from a clause to a position outside the noun phrase that is from the complex NP. There is an error in presenting the constraint itself. So, here is here is the complex NP. He likes the idea that space travelers will reach Mars. What's the what's the verb in this sentence in the main sentence like transitive verb and the compliment of transitive verb is the whole thing after that is the compliment right. The idea that a space travelers will reach Mars that's the whole thing as a compliment. Now, what is it? What is the status of this thing? That is an NP but it is not an ordinary type of NP. It is a it is an NP and it has a clause following it which is which is in a in a in a generic term this kind of clause is called a relative clause. The purpose of that clause is to modify the NP and all the relative clauses are technically like adjectives because what do adjectives do in a language in a sentence? What do adjectives do? Adjectives qualify what nouns and what do we mean by qualify describe that is adjectives give us some additional information about noun right when we say a tall boy we are putting some qualification on the noun boy meaning we are talking about the height. In that sense a relative clause is like an adjective because the whole clause modifies the noun. So, this NP the idea with the clause is called complex NP that is the meaning of complex NP and the idea is extraction out of this complex NP is not going to be possible. So, if you say look at the look at the second sentence and why the second sentence is not good is because we are trying extraction out of complex NP. Can you see that? Do you agree that second sentence is not good? What planet does he like the idea that a space traveler will reach right does not look like a good type of sentence right. It may be little bit difficult for us to process because we are not we are not native speakers of English, but with little bit difficulty once we start looking at it carefully we reach the conclusion very fast that there seems to be some problem with the sentence. Even out of the context if I gave you this sentence in a minute or less than a minute you will be able to say the sentence that is not really not really very good that agreeable thing. So, if we are told to explain this sentence why this sentence not good then we can say the sentence is not good because we are trying to extract from the NP complex NP the idea that this space traveler will reach Mars. From that we are trying to question the planet. So, we are saying which planet does he like the idea that a space travelers will reach get it can you can you see the see the point with the bracketing is that clear right. You can see the same thing in the structure too, but I hope you have the structure in mind and then you can see the extraction is not working out clearly clear any issue questions. All right let us look at the second one next one this is coordinated constraint that is we cannot move out of a coordinated clause. So, what do we mean by coordinated clause let us look at this first example in one John gave a flower to Mary and Bill a chocolate to Nancy what is the coordinated clause in this sentence what is the verb in the in the sentence gave right and then what is the coordinated clause a flower to Mary and a chocolate to Nancy. The it basically it is like it is to it is two sentences coordinated with and the sentence is John gave a flower to Mary and Bill gave a chocolate to Nancy that is that these are the two sentences when we coordinate the two because the the the verb is the same in both the sentences. So, we take the verb and put the coordinated sentences without the verb. So, the sentence becomes John gave this is the verb this is the this is this far we have the verb a flower to Mary and Bill a chocolate to Nancy. So, we do not need to repeat the verb give in the second sentence and the sentence is okay there is another name for this in earlier versions of phrase structure grammar and things like that but that is not important for us to discuss. So, you understand the coordinated structure now the point is we cannot question we cannot question we cannot extract a WH phrase out of it meaning we cannot question another element in this this coordinated structure which is if we try to question what did John give to Mary and Bill a chocolate to Nancy the sentence does not look good because we are extracting out of coordinated structure. Therefore, the generalization says extraction out of coordinated structure is not possible and therefore we say coordinated structures are like islands at the point. Okay, I just put the point below for for generic reference we are we are done with our point but we can say and this is called across the boat movement that movement out of both coordinated clauses at once is allowed. Okay, so we can say something like what did John give to Mary and Peter to Nancy this sentence is all right okay that is the extraction is out of the two at a time just like we extracted verb and left the two coordinated clause we can question from both at a time and that will be fine but can't question one and leave the other that results in and grammaticality. Okay, we use these kinds of sentences and day to day life is just that somebody put somebody has looked at it more carefully. Okay, we use these kinds of sentences all the time can I move yeah or okay I am sorry I should have a mentioned I should have talked about that it's not it's not a very complicated thing see first of all a these are two different things a is working like index what we used yesterday with I okay so that's the index T is trace so T is showing you that from here something has been extracted so once we extract something then we leave the trace so earlier I have been showing you this trace with the dot dot dot or the blank space this time I just put the T as putting it as trace okay all right now what I want okay so this thing was available in the other slides too so in other places also T means trace and then what the reason why we are using index is we are trying to say look at for a for example look at sentence number three John gave T an index we are trying to show that this is the trace from here something has moved out and therefore the question word what is co-indexed with this trace and question word what is also co-indexed with the trace in the other sentence is the is what we are trying to show with this trace and index all right okay I am really sorry I should have talked about that notation okay another point subject NP constraint we cannot move out of a subject NP so if we have something like reading science fix and irritates me it is this not a real sentence okay reading science fix and irritates me what is the come what is the what is the subject of the sentence reading science fix okay that is a that is a subject NP if we have just an NP at John or Mary then that is that is one singular lexical item so there is no question of extracting anything out of that so when we say extracting out of subject NP we we we mean only when the subject NP is bigger so for to test that we have to make the subject NP bigger okay and here is the subject NP reading science fix so if I try to question anything out of that what kind of books does reading irritate you or irritate me the sentence is not good what kind of books so sorry I am I am trying to question science fix and I am not reading so means I am saying what kind of books does reading irritate you is not giving us a good sentence because we cannot question part of the NP that is part of the subject NP therefore the sentence is not good you can question the whole thing what irritates you reading science fix and irritates me so if you question the whole thing fine but can't question this and if you want to use this tool to show it to someone that reading science fix and is one NP we can use this diagnostic tool of WH question also to show that this whole thing is one NP you can say look you can question the whole NP with what give the point so in a variety of ways these tools are designed and used in natural languages to talk about different points so the generalization is movement out of a subject is bad results in and grammaticality just one more point before we stop adjuncts NP constraint again moving out of adjunct NP is not allowed we can question just like we have seen subject NP we can question the entire adjunct but we cannot question this part of adjunct so we have a sentence I laugh while reading science fiction while reading science fiction is an adjunct why is an adjunct how do we know it is an adjunct because the verb is intransitive very nice very nice the verb laugh is intransitive and anything that comes after this is going to be adjunct so I laugh while reading science fiction now if I want to question science fiction again out of this NP then this is going to result in and grammaticality what kind of books do you laugh while reading is not good however we can question the whole phrase again why do you laugh right or when do you laugh I am sorry when do you laugh I can say I laugh while reading science fiction there could be many reasons for me laughing but we can say I laugh while reading science fiction so movement out of an adjunct is bad this clear so there are these five six five six types of constraints that we we observe is that people working on English observed when they were looking at these types of NPs and movements together and therefore these are called you can you can use these names adjunct NP subject NP or WH island or a complex NP or as a whole together sometimes these are called island constraints point is very simple from certain kinds of elements extraction is not allowed extraction meaning the extraction is used only when we have WH phrases so this this is not the story of NP movement this is the story of WH movement we stop here thank you