 So, let us look at case marking once again, particularly for exceptional case marking. What we are going to discuss today is called exceptional case marking, but before we understand what is exceptional about the new type of case marking that we are going to talk about it is very important to be clear about the actual the real case markings that we have known so far. So, briefly once again case is a property of sentence that is we talk about case when we are talking about sentences, the case is only realized on NPs and there are two types of them sometimes they are visible on the word with modifications in the word. So, we call them morphological case that is they appear in a morphological form and sometimes there is no change on the lexical or pronominal NP then we call them abstract cases. We have seen that heads are largely case assigners that is whether we are talking about V, P or I all of them are case markers rest of what we have seen which is how do these heads assign cases to their compliments and to the NPs that are in their C commanding domain though that phenomena is called structural case marking that is we captured the notion of case transfer from head to the NP in terms of a structural configuration with the help of x bar scheme therefore it is called a structural case marking. And then we have seen two terms we first started looking at structural relation in terms of dominance and precedence and we clarified what is the relationship of dominance and what do we mean when we say a particular element precedes the other one and how do we capture this dominance and precedence in the x bar scheme. Soon after while looking at cases we saw two more which is it is not enough to say that heads assign cases we wanted it more restrictive in the sense that we went ahead and said heads assign cases because heads govern their compliments. heads govern NPs that they assign cases to and they govern the NPs in a particular way which is the notion of C command so V and P assigns accusative cases to their compliments because V and P govern their compliments and they C command their compliments however when we started looking at nominative case marking there was a problem and the problem is existing definition existing notion of C command was not giving us enough of space for the head I to be able to assign C command to be able to assign nominative case under the existing notion of C command to the specified position of I P which where we usually find subjects then as a part of modification in the existing definition and for that matter existing apparatus in theory we made a modification we saw a modification and that modification comes up in terms of M command which is little bit in which is in its nature more accommodative and it expands in such a way that we want the spec of I P that is the subject position under the M command domain of the head I that is what we wanted to do at the same time we wanted to restrict it under the local domain of I P therefore we added one more restriction so that so that we can say I M commands spec I P but I does not M command anything beyond its own scope that is anything within V P or further down this is what we saw yesterday alright now with that we we don't have all our problems taken care of even with the idea of case marking we see some problems okay when we took care of accusative cases we were very happy and we saw structurally it's working very nice heads government C command very nice alright then we saw a problem with nominative cases and we we needed to expand existing apparatus and then we were still able to accommodate all of that see what we are doing is we are trying to accommodate things in the theory as a matter of fact as a matter as a consequence of that we are weakening the theory the more the patches weaker the theory but that patch also did not solve all the problems we still run in problems so I am going to show you problems and then we are going to talk about how those problems are taken care of and such problems and the way we take care of that is called an exceptional way of taking care of case assignment therefore they are called exceptional case marking alright so we will we will look at that one more point before we discussed exceptional case marking we saw nominative case assignment and difficulty with that please keep in mind that the bringing in notion of M command to take care of nominative case marking was accepted within the existing parameters at that time but people were not completely comfortable with this as you can as I can tell you we we don't have enough time to go into every single step to see what we mean or to understand what we mean when we say researchers were not comfortable with this this patch they wanted more comprehensive account of it actually and the reason why I am mentioning this thing is because I want you to connect what we have discussed little earlier with this as well that the patch in the theory and the problems of nominative case assignment was also one of the motivations for expanding IP sorry the expanding I in terms of AGRP tense phrase and aspect phrase and getting rid of IP completely which in a way created problem and if if we get rid of IP then where does subject go to and then under that dismissal of IP how do we account dismissal of IP how do we account how do we take care of cases that was a new paradigm in the theory which we are not discussing right now after looking at except no case marking we will again briefly go around that problem to go to a different module which we have to look at which we which I start later but am I making sense to you when I say that the problems of nominative case assignment was one of the motivating factor for expansion of I in terms of AGRP TPE and all other which did not solve the problem rather raised more problems and then people kept working on those things but as long as you see the expansion the motivation for for separating several bundle several features under one bundle of I we are we are okay with that that okay all right now let us come back look at look at this particular aspect and then we will talk about such things little later so we are done we are done with this thing yeah any reason for highlighting place s not highlighted s is not highlighted yes yes there is a clear reason for that the clear reason for that is s is is a morphological unit okay which is representing something else on the word play and it is representing something which is part of infill no not in this context in this context I though the reason why we will I left s is because I wanted to tell you that I has nothing to do with case assignment of accusatives only play the word play as a head assigns accusative case anything else that comes up on I on surface structure okay has nothing to do with accusative case assignment yes that was the the reason why I left that we have looked at these things and we saw until this yesterday right that I assigns nominative case to the to the subject and be all right clear we have discussed all of this and here are the two things government and C command which are responsible for assignment of cases but this existing definition of C command was not enough to take care of nominative case assignment therefore we talked about M command and then when we look at the difference between C command and M command afresh we need to modify the notion of government and this is how finally the notion of government looks like and thus under this notion of government we can say both I and V govern the NPs that the case assign okay all right. Now these are the two sentences which I wanted you to look at very simple sentences I think one of I have discussed one of them or I have briefly mentioned it to you but now is the time to look at them carefully simple sentences everybody is clear about these sentences it this these sentences are similar to the sentences we can also we also say I want to go right so when we say I want to go at the same time I just want to make one additional point when we say I want to go what we actually say is I want I to go okay I want I to go okay I want I to go and the fact that both I are co-indexed with one another therefore the second one is dropped following the principle of economy there is no need to retain the second one all right that that is just one example you may ask why are we talking about first bringing in I into that sentence that is I want I to go and then we are talking about deleting it the only reason why I am talking about that is because I want you to see that is one of the examples which clearly shows us operating principle of economy okay so there would be there would be nothing wrong if we said I want I to go but we do not want to say because the principle of economy operates very categorically now let us look at these things and there is one more reason why I mentioned I want I to go I will discuss about that when I come to these sentences so in a in a traditional fashion slowly the way we have looked at every other sentence let us look at this thing the do you see that these sentences have two sentences in them if yes okay if not still okay no all right fine what is the what is the verb in this sentence want clear do you see another verb here go and which is to go right please bring in your mind what we discussed about finiteness and non-finiteness what did we say about finiteness finiteness equals to tense which is we say a sentence is a finite sentence when a sentence has tense right and also agreement and things like that a sentence is non-finite when we do not have tense in the sentence all right please keep that also in mind so want is the verb in the sentence main verb in the sentence by main verb we mean when we are talking about the sentence we are talking about want and with want the sentence is finite right I want so which tense is here I want you to go I want him to go what sentence what tense is there present tense right very nice want is a transitive verb or intransitive verb transitive verb right so it is going to have an object what is the object of this verb work John or something else the complement or the object of the word want is John to go that is the question is what do I want I do not want John I want John to go or him to go right now look at that part him to go while I am waiting and I will draw this thing here if you get time please draw the structure for this thing as well so far you see IP right and VP right let me draw this thing for you here is here is our good old IP so here is our I NP right here is a I which is present tense right present tense which means plus finite right here is our good that is the presence of the present tense makes the sentence finite sentence alright so then we have a VP and since we have been retaining the specified positions so far so let me retain it once again and see we have a V which is want clear right now the question is what is the complement of this verb want John to go or him to go is the whole thing as the complement now if I say John to go right is a sentence what is missing from that sentence is that is that a real good looking sentence no that is not a real good looking sentence that is there are features of there are ingredients of a sentence in this where it seems like it has a subject John and it has a predicate to go but there is there are things missing in it which is there is no tense because the moment we had tense we will not be able to use infinitive verbs to go will not be used alright so this is an example of non-finite type of a sentence which is not possible independently as an independent sentence which is outside the domain of this main bigger sentence independently this type of sentence is not possible we never say I to go right you to eat we do not say these types of sentences right so your friend is laughing about this but that type of sentence is looks perfectly alright here we see that so there must be a reason why that type of sentence is allowed under the larger domain of a bigger sentence and it is not independently okay answer is very simple there is no mystery here the reason why this is not independently okay is that is an infinite sentence and being infinite also that sentence does not have is missing agreement is missing all sorts of connecting features between subject and predicate okay therefore that is not as that is not a good sentence but nonetheless that is a sentence okay so here we are going to say it is an IP it is not a full looking good looking IP but this is an IP alright but so the again the problem is let us draw this thing and then you will see further problem so here is your him or John I am putting him for a specific reason that I want you to see that this NP in the subject position of the lower clause okay is not getting a nominative case it is getting an accusative case you see this thing so hold on so now we have I here is our I and here is our VP and for the simplicity I am going to put it as to go where there is no compliment of this verb to go it is an intransitive verb and we can put them together actually it is in the we head position of we go or to go but this is there is no compliment we are just putting them together interesting thing is this happens to be non-finite sentence right now we are saying I assigns nominative case to the subject right see this thing we have just discussed this thing here we have another IP where we do not do not have nominative case can we say I want he to go I want he to go no now please notice the ungrammaticality of the sentence I want he to go is located in he which means he is located in he means he has nominative case and therefore it is not allowed him has accusative case and still it is allowed okay what I am trying to hit at is if this is if this is can if if this I can assign nominative case to this what is the problem of this I assigning nominative case to this MP does everybody see the problem see the see the problem but so this one is assigning nominative case this one is not assigning nominative case that is the conclusion how do we explain this problem and how do we how do we resolve this problem this is what is called explanatory capacity of this framework that we can say I want him to go is a good sentence and I want he to go is not a good sentence but beyond this giving a judgment or description we need to explain why so the earlier methods earlier models earlier theoretical approaches did not have the capacity to explain him this theory case theory with the help of x bar a scheme not only explains the problem clearly but it also provides solutions of course with patches but solution to the problems that it comes up it does not try to brush the problems aside it does not put the problems under the rug okay it lets you see the problem clearly and therefore if you can see the problem clearly you can try to solve them in a clearer fashion here is what happens once we are clear that this I does not assign nominative case to this NP then we know what is about I that assigns nominative case it is not just the I which assigns nominative case what assigns nominative case actually is the finiteness is tense and other features which is bundled under it is what is responsible for nominative case this I lower I being non-finite having no tense is the limiting factor for this I not assigning nominative case to the subject NP of the lower class is this much clear we explained the problem also so now we know finiteness and tense and agreement which were very important in a sentence has more things to do it is important not just because of agreement and now you can see clearly why it becomes features like tense and agreement becomes head of a sentence okay so it has one more function that is assigning nominative case alright we do not have a nominative case here that is one we explain this far but we do not we have not resolved the problem you see what is the problem now the problem is it may not have nominative case but it does have a case and what case do you see here accusative case then the problem is if it did not get case from its canonical assigner canonical head which is responsible for giving it case where did it get case from particularly accusative case see the problem where did that get where did this NP get case from see this thing we can say or one can say look this is not a big surprise probably it is getting case from V right because this V as a head must discharge its case okay it is a V it has its complement and it is a head it has capacity to assign accusative case so where is it assigning its accusative case if it has an object remember we have said the complement of this V is whatever comes here right NP or not not just the N but NP the whole NP so to resolve that argument where does this verb this head discharge its case one can say it assigns its case to IP great that is also that looks okay but we have just defined that and if we say this assigns accusative case because it assigns accusative case to the IP right therefore it assigns accusative case to the spec of IP also okay this is the solution that has been proposed but do you see a problem with the solution what is the problem not I am commanding clear right not I am commanding and what is why is it not am commanding there is a barrier in it it is am commanding to the to the extent that first maximal projection dominating V also dominates this NP to this extent it is okay first maximal projection dominating V is VP right and VP also dominates this V is V is V is V is V this one to this extent it is okay but what is not okay is maximal projections are barrier see that there is another maximal projection here which is IP following this definition of government V should not be able to assign its nominative case it V should not be able to assign accusative case to this NP see this thing very nice but we see something beyond this happening which is V actually does not care for this kind of a barrier and violating the barrier it is still assigns accusative case to this that is the only way we can explain this problem so we say if we still say we are not making any change to this notion of government but if we still say that this type of sentence ends up violating this definition and still V happens to assign accusative case to the NP the reason why we need to say that is because we need to explain accusative case on this it is also true that this has accusative case what is true is this is a barrier okay but it is also true that this has accusative case so we would we would we are the theoreticians ended up saying that this and this V assigns accusative case to the NP in the subject position disregarding barrier okay do you see another weakness of this theory that it it defines something but soon after it violates that problem that that theoretical module in order to explain the sentence we are not violating it because we we are offenders right well we allow this kind of violation because we need explanation for this kind of a sentence and we clearly see that in the subject position that is spec IP lower IP we see accusative case and now an NP with the nominative case is not even allowed there which we can explain that because this is non finite IP I a nominative NP is not allowed but when we see an accusative NP we do not know what what to do so we again go ahead with the cost that we allow this kind of violation which is a weakness a patch in the theory that do you see the do you see the problem do we see the solution do we understand the problem we see the solution to the problem and we also see the with with that we see weakness of the theory sorry the accusative what we are trying to say with with that with with these two sentences is John also has accusative case the fact that it is a lexical NP the case accusative case on John is abstract we do not see that and if we explain this problem with just with John it will not be very convincing so we take another sentence where we clearly see an NP with an accusative case therefore I took another sentence so no one has any difficulty with the other sentence but so after discussing the second sentence if I tell you John also has accusative case on it it is convincing but if I start with the with the first sentence it will be further abstract and probably not so convincing so John as an NP will also have accusative case because we do not want to get into another difficulty where we say him has accusative case but John has nominative case and how could same position have two different cases therefore structural case marking gets into difficulty all the notion of C command and M command and government they keep running into difficulties therefore this kind of allowing case thing to happen is called exceptional case marking this is the reason why we call it exceptional case marking so some people some people suggested couple of more modification couple of more things which is they said look because they knew this is an this is a barrier okay they said look there is one way to say that non-finite accusative IPs please pay attention to that non-finite IPs are probably not barriers right but again again it sounds okay right it solves the problem for the time being but you can see that it is still a manipulation if we are saying maximal projections are barrier whether it is non-finite or finite what difference does it make after all it is a maximal projection and it should be barrier but again you know it is like life we need compromises in life so they ended up saying probably non-finite IPs are not barriers we need more evidence to see such a thing whether they are really barriers or not barriers see the problem okay alright so John and him have accusative cases being in IP spec IP of the compliment clause how do they get accusative cases did we solve this question we understand so instead of the the main point is instead of saying instead of revising the notion of government once again or in a way we end up revising the notion of government we are saying maximal projections are barriers but not non-finite IPs everything else will be still barrier but not non-finite IPs makes it weaker nonetheless yet sounds like a convincing solution for the time being this is yet another reason why people were getting impatient day by day and felt compelled to look at the whole theoretical apparatus of fresh that probably we are running into difficulty with nominative cases we are running into difficulty with these kinds of sentences where we have I want him to go type of sentences are we really looking at the whole idea of case assignment in a proper way maybe there is a problem in the way we are looking at it is there an alternative way of looking at it the alternative way was proposed and that is called what is the what have we what have we been calling this whole framework so far sorry that is exceptional case marking it is part of principles and parameters approach of language right principles and parameters approach of language because of these problems when they revise the whole theoretical apparatus they called it minimalist program ok so minimalist program is yet another revised version of theoretical apparatus to look at language so we will not go too far into minimalist program because our domain is to look into principles and parameters and we are looking at principles we are looking at parameters we are also looking at it at their limitations we are looking at the problems that they have they run into and we are looking at the solutions that existing paradigm existing framework provides even in the weaker but that is in a that is a solution see this thing just to underline and not leave what I said as mystery when we see separation of the bundle of features into a g r p t p an aspect phrase right they are going to have more implications in the theoretical apparatus and those implications and the separation all of them are part of minimalist program so anyway I have given you a flavor of that that minimalistic approach of looking at it what they mean by minimalistic approach is let us go deeper into the into features and then probably we will have a new way of talking about cases because case is such an important aspect of sentence we cannot leave it unexplained right now principles and parameters approach explains case assignment but with lot of patches there are there are there are many languages where we have this problem English definitely run into this problem to very very nice question just for English again will be a weaker argument but also keep in mind even if it is available in one language the problem remains in the theory keep keep in mind that for a theoretical understanding of language we do not really need a quantitative ways of numbering in terms of more than 50 percent of languages have this problem that is not that is not really important but to answer your question in short I do not have the examples from top of my head right now but this problem was in other languages too I mean I for the simplicity of theory and for the simplest for for retaining our attention with the abstraction of these discussions I am not bringing in examples from Hindi and other languages absolutely not see the this model developed in 80s we are not talking about old English period we are not talking about Shakespeare in English this model of description the explaining language came up in 80s and the minimalist program that I am telling you about was developed in 95 so it is a it is a very recent phenomena it is not about old English or Shakespeare in English or English had a different form or things like that at the same time what I have not told you keeping keeping keeping a abstraction in mind is things like erratic cases remember we have seen agreements like Raju Neh Chai Banai right Raj Neh was an ergative ergative is a case ergative Neh as the marker was an ergative case marker so how does case assignment take place in Hindi and when what is the reason we looked at agreement in that sentence right we said for the purpose of agreement Chai agrees with the verb and not Raju right so that is another reason another motivating factor to separate features of agreement and tense okay so we are not going into too much of details I wanted you to look at thematic relations cases particularly nominative and accusative with clarity and exist and within existing paradigm then I then I further wanted you to see the problem with the existing paradigm I hope with a with a microscopic view we have seen the problems right so we we already looked at this thing him to go is an IP it is a it is not a full-fledged IP it is a non-finite IP and this is what saved the theory for the time being this is how it looks like and this is what I have been trying to show you on the board we needed a diagram on the board but this is how it looks like alright at the end of it I want you to know that these are the terms with clarity you should keep in mind what we mean by morphological case and what we mean by abstract case okay so look at this sentence John in sentence number one I want John to go is an John is an example of abstract case that is accusative case appears on John in an abstract way I want him to go him is an example of morphological case it appears accusative case appears on him in a morphological way in the sense that we are not saying I want he to go okay he is a nominative form him is a morphology is a morphologically modified accusative form and therefore we can see with see the difference with clarity so that is about morphological and abstract case and then we wanted to I wanted you to understand the difference between structural case marking and exceptional case marking exceptional case marking is also part of except part of a structural case marking because we are looking at an exceptional way of marking case to a particular NP also within a structural notions so keeping the differences and similarity in mind try and understand exceptional case marking and a structural case marking this clear to you if that is clear then before I ask you anything else we will look at we will stop and then we will stop okay