 Let me begin. Anybody got a chance to look at total number of aspects in language, in natural language? I mean, all the languages that we speak is natural language. Answer my question, have you looked at that? Yes, sir. Yes. So, then tell me. I check just the Wikipedia page. It was not very, the arguments were not very convincing. In English, they have identified four aspects for two tenses, past and present tenses. What are they? Simple present, present progressive, present perfect and present perfect progressive for present tense and the same for the past. Sure. See, aspect is the reason why I want you to look at that part. The primary thing for you to understand is, aspect is something different from tense. This is number one. In the sense that aspects add, aspects add something else to sentence. Tense tells us about time of the action. Aspect talks about more particular, particular manner in which action was done at a particular point in time. That is the reason why these two things are different. Now, when we say simple or continuous or perfect or what was the fourth one you said, perfect, progressive, all we need to know, there are terminological differences in that. What we say progressive is exactly what is continuous. We just need to understand the differences between these two terms. However, we also need to look at examples of what we mean when we say perfect continuous. I am planning for little bit more discussion on that at some other time. So, I give you some more time to look at that particular aspect of aspects. Let us move ahead with what we have to discuss. We were looking at this structure of sentence yesterday and we now know that we now understand about endocentricity of a phrase that is if we are talking about an NP, then only nouns are going to be head of that phrase. When we look at smaller sentences, straight forward nice looking sentences, this is what I have mentioned probably several times nice looking sentences. This is what I mean by well behaved nice looking sentences where you have a clear verb, clear subject and a clear predicate and two parts of predicate that is a verb and its compliment. That is what we mean by nice looking sentences. Sentences are called inflectional phrases that is because what hosts a sentence and the head of the sentence is not a lexical word either subject or the verb. The head of the sentence or what plays the most significant role in a sentence is inflection. Right now we are considering inflection as the bundle of features which is both tense and aspect together. And then we know that sentences must have a subject which is outside of the predicate. It naturally follows from that that the sentences must have predicates too. In the absence of either one of the two we do not have a sentence, verbs however may have or may not have their compliments. Any sentence? Yes. Like yesterday we saw a sentence within a sentence. So, is the, I mean is the smaller sentence also inflectional? Yes. Also inflectional? Yes. The only thing we need to know is how do they get represented in X bar scheme. Should not be very difficult. It is a logical thing to look at to X bar itself is a logically designed mechanism where remember about the categorical rules. The verb no subcategorizes for the whole sentence. So, where is the, where is the second sentence going to be? Should not be difficult for us to understand. That is if the second sentence like in the sentence number 2 on the screen, if the S 2 is subcategorized by the verb no, then we know it is the complement of that verb. And then this sentence is going to be exactly in the same place where compliments occur. And then we go ahead with the another sentence. So, here is how it works. Any question about sentence number 1? No questions about sentence number 1 here? That is the first sentence. Let us look at 2. It is a sentence which is an IP. It follows all its endocentricity and other components of a phrase and then we have here I as its head and then we have a VB as the complement of this head, where we have a subject NP here, where what is the subject here? John. And then this, the structure of the VP is again this is where we have no. This is the main sentence. Do we understand that this sentence John knows that Bill loves Mary? It is one sentence or two separate sentences? This one sentence or two separate sentences. Connected by that. John knows will be incomplete. Will be incomplete. Very true. It cannot be two sentences. There is a sentence in it, which by itself could be an independent sentence like Bill loves Mary. By itself that could be an independent sentence, but when we are talking about this whole sentence, this whole thing is one sentence and the second sentence that you see is part of the first one in the sense that that is the part of the, that is the part of the verb, which is that is part of the predicate no. In the sense that this S2 is complement of the verb no. Get it? The by nature of the verb is this predicate can take an NP as its complement or it can take more than an NP, which could be an IP. Please know, I am going to change this thing in a few moments, but right now I am going to put another IP here. Why I will change this to anything else? I will discuss that with you too. Now you know that we have John knows and then this S2 comes here. You can draw the structure of this IP again and I leave it for you to draw this. Again the subject of this IP is going to be what? We will have a subject here and the subject of the second sentence what you see on this screen is going to come here. Then it has its own tense and then it has its own VP and that VP has its own verb and the complement of that verb. This is why I said I am going to change that in a moment. I am coming to that. Which means and it is a good thing that you are asking, it simply means that we cannot ignore a single component in the sentence because every part of a sentence has consequence for its presence and that refers to something. I am coming to that, but for the time being what I want you to know is how the predicate know takes a whole IP, whole sentence as its complement and then it stays in such a place that it is non recursive structure, it stays here and then it works as an independent sentence. Since we are working on this, what comes here in the head of this main sentence? What is the tense of the main sentence? We will settle down with this much for the time being and we are not working on the role of aspect in this sentence right now. If there is any, we put this as bundle here, bundle of features. This is really truly a part of advanced syntax thing where splitting these things and their consequences have been worked out, but I am not saying that it is difficult for you to understand that. All I am saying is the discussion on this does not have too serious a consequence on trying to understand what we are doing right now. This is how this structure works. The question is what is that doing in this sentence? It connects, is it really only connecting or is it doing something else? What is the meaning of this that in this sentence or is it little bit different from conjunction? See the reason why I am raising this question really is when we have, when we use actual conjunct words that is why I asked you, are they two separate sentences, they are not right. Like when we say John and Mary, we cannot drop the conjunct word from there. However it is likely to, it is possible to drop this word from here. We can say John knows, well not in this sentence, but in some sentences we can drop this that understand that. So therefore it is not really a conjunct word alone and then conjunct word weighs two parts equally. These are not two equal parts of the same sentence. What is it? Before we answer that, answer this question, there is one more thing which I want to ask you. This is not the first time you hear this word that. Do you know that there are at least two types of that in English? Tell me the, what is the literal meaning of this that? So it does not have a meaning, that is just a pointer, but if I say give me that, give me that book. Do we have a meaning of that that? That is a demonstrative pronoun. One of the, one of that is a demonstrative pronoun which has a meaning. This one does not have a meaning of its own. There are two types of that in English at least. If we look at this part S2, it is clearly more than IP. This part S2, it is clearly more than IP. It is more than IP. An IP is a simple sentence like the first one John loves Mary or Bill loves Mary or for something. It is a very pretty simple sentence. That John loves Mary is not just an IP. It is something more than an IP. What I want to introduce to you with the help of this is something called a phrase complementizer phrase, which is CP. This is, you understand the structure of the phrase. The head of this CP is going to be C, which stands for complementizer. Complimentizer and then you get an IP. IP has its own subject. So the way it works is, this is where we have that Bill present. We say Bill loves Mary. What I wanted to change here is going to depend on your answer. In the main sentence where we have the predicate no, does this predicate no subcategorize for an IP or for a CP? That is the S2 that you see in this sentence. Is it an IP or a CP? CP. So this verb when we say it subcategorizes for another sentence or it could subcategorize for another sentence as its complement, what we actually mean is this is a CP. This is how in simple example a complex sentence works. Now you need to combine the two structures together and that will be one X bar representation of the sentence to John knows that Bill loves Mary. In order to understand X bar you need to look at just not just, but couple of things very carefully. First endocentricity of phrases. Second components of a phrase in terms of the fact that every sentence every phrase will have similar structure. That is in a specifier it will have a head and it will have a complement. The intermediate category that is not the terminal one N or V and not the phrasal one N P or V P, but the intermediate ones N bar or V bar is going to work as recursiveness is going to provide recursiveness in the structure. Once you know these things and then what you need to keep in mind is categorical selection rules. Once you figure out what is the complement of the predicate and once and when you know that the subject is outside the predicate which becomes the specifier of the sentence. Then the structure of the sentence structure of the predicate and the complement to structure the complement placement all of them become clear to you and you can come up with a structure. We are doing it the other way around. The main idea, the main reason why these things were proposed and studied was the claim is this is how generative mechanism of sentence production works in human mind when we learn a language. When we acquire a language for the first time when we say we can speak infinitely long sentences. How does generative mechanism allow an infinitely long sentence? How do we know that a sentence is ungrammatical? A sentence is ungrammatical. Where do things go wrong in the sentence? This is the way to capture such predictions in sentences. I have to talk about one more type of sentence and then I move on but do we have any question about the two types of sentences we have seen? Simple sentence and this type of a complex sentence where we have a complex predicate in terms that the predicate takes a heavier complement which is a CP not just an NP. Now if that is so need to make some more space or I will leave it for some more time. We have a sentence the third one who likes Mary? This is a question sentence. Let me put it this way. In this sentence the word who is not really part of an IP? It is not really part of an IP because it is not the subject of the sentence. It is a question word which questions the subject not a subject itself. Do you see this part? This word is not a question not a subject by itself which will become little bit clearer when you look at the second sentence. What did John eat? What is this question word question in this sentence? What is this word question? What is the word what? Questions in the last sentence. This is a difficult question to answer. It what? It is something that is part of predicate technically speaking it is an object and this sentence last sentence already had its own subject which is John. It is a language internal restriction that is it is part of the parameters of universal grammar that English questions always get fronted. Unlike other languages the way question works in other languages is not in all the languages question words are fronted that is they occur in the beginning of the sentence. It is a language internal restriction in English that all the question words are going to occur in the beginning of a sentence that is all the questions irrespective of which component is being questioned gets fronted. How does it work in our languages? Do they really get fronted or not? How do we say the sentence? What did John eat? Let us say many of you know Hindi. How do we say the sentence in Hindi? What did John eat? John ne kya kaya. Is this word kya which is a question word I am assuming that you know is this occurring in the beginning of the sentence? Please know that question formation is part of universal principles that is all the languages of the world will have a mechanism to form questions. How is parametric? In some languages question words will come in the beginning of the sentence in others they will not and both a set of principles and set of parameters form universal grammar. So, coming back to this sentence the last one you see that what is not really a subject with the help of these two sentences we can conclude that question words are really not part of IP. They are not within inflectional phrase they are somewhere else. If they are what we need to know where do they really go? Where do they really go to? That is word where they go to the complementizer phrase. The purpose of positing a CP is not just to discuss complex structure alone and again I want you to know this in very clear terms that when we are talking about something like innate principle something like universal grammar which is part of innate principle of natural language. If one component of grammar explains just one thing then that is too heavy a process for human mind. Mechanism should be explaining rules for example I will delete it right away. You know this mechanism in mathematics. Does it explain just one thing? That is what I am saying is if I just put these two things here this simplest possible mechanism of mathematics does not work only for adding two and two. What this really works for is anything that you put on the two sides of this you are going to get a sum of that here. This is called underlying rule. This is one single instance of this underlying rule. What I am trying to say is if a rule like this gives you just one explains you just one phenomena then that is too heavy an operation for something like human mind to operate. What human mind likes is something like generative mechanism which should be able to explain anything as long as we are talking about sentences. So, the structure of an IP is going to take care of any sentence whatsoever. You come up with any type of sentence and once you know how to split these things then you can fit not just fit on purpose then you know how the sentence works. So, X bar system inside generative mechanism is something like this rule. You can make this rule as complex as you can. I do not know mathematics that well therefore I am not giving you many rules. The problem of learning system I need to come back to something. The problem of learning system is we learn this but we do not know the we do not learn the underlying rules. I can give you my example. I still do not understand the application of this thing because I was never explained this thing. I know how to compose and decompose and all those things but I do not know how and why should I learn it. What do I do with this? At least this much was easy to figure out that when you go to the market you need to do some of the things. This I did not figure out. That is my limitation. What I am trying to say here for our purpose is this mechanism is like the underlying rules. It is not just one explaining just one single instance. Therefore, if we project something like CP and if it just helps us explain a subordinate clause then that is not a very economical process. I think I have mentioned sometimes to you in the first few weeks that languages like to follow principle of economy. This is one example of principle of economy that same structure should be able to explain other phenomena as well. CP helps us explain question sentences in the following sense and it helps us understand one more aspect of it which I just want you to know. A simple structure, simple sentence like this is the structure of CP is such that the complementizer, the IP the main sentence becomes the complement of C and then we have IP where we have a subject, an inflection and then VP. VP has its own, I am trying to make it put it in short because there is no specifier of VP here. There is a huge debate about these things which is not really relevant right now. Let us come back to this. We have a sentence like, what is the sentence that we have? Who likes Mary? Here is the word like. We have a presentence and then we have now the question is this subject NP has been questioned. So this is an empty place in the sentence and there is a role of empty places as well in the sense that we cannot say this sentence does not have a subject. It is just empty. It has been questioned. So what happens actually is this NP moves out of this and then it needs to land somewhere. It needs to stay in the entire structure and then what happens is it moves to the specifier position of the CP. Then we say who likes Mary? There is one more language internal rule in English which says when we make a question, what moves is not just the question word, not the element which has been questioned. What moves is also tense. So this I, this tense moves to another one. Now this may not be making much sense to you right now, but it will make more sense when I am talking about the second sentence that you see on this screen. It is a complementizer phrase which is in simple term more than an IP. What we are saying is question sentences are more than an IP. IP is a normal sentence. We do not want to say these are abnormal sentences, but these are more than an IP. So all interrogative sentences are CP's. Who is not a complementizer? It goes in the specifier position. It just requires a place to land. Now remember who is an NP? It is a phrasal category. It is in the specifier position of the sentence. The place where it can land can only be in a specifier position of another phrase. Again what we see a system in place an NP which is not, which is a phrasal category cannot move to a complementizer position. It has to move to another position which can host an NP. When this thing moves out of its original place, what is this? The category of this is a head. This is in the tense is in the head position of this IP. So a head needs to move to another head position. C happens to be one such available head position in this structure. It moves there and then it explains the whole sentence how interrogative sentences work. We have to do the RO's. Is that how the X, Y is drawn? RO? The RO's. RO's. Yes, yes. That is how. To explain interrogative sentences and this is called this phenomena when we are doing the arrow, this is called movement or displacement. These are examples of actual displacements of elements from one position to the other position. In earlier terms, in earlier grammars this was called transformation rules. How we transform a declarative sentences into an interrogative sentence? Which is the two sentences, one is declarative, the other is interrogative. We know that this interrogative sentence has been formed out of a declarative sentence. The later development of X-bar theory and developments in generative linguistics which we know as generative mechanism help us understand that actually there is no transformation. We do not have a new sentence. What we have is elements within the sentence have been displaced and this is an actual physical demonstration of displacement of elements in a sentence. Now please look at sentence number 4 that is last sentence on the screen and then you will see what I mean by the displacement of tense. When the tense moves out of this thing, when subjects are questioned, we do not visibly see the displacement of tense. But when objects are questioned, we see the displacement of tense as well. Can we say what John ate? Is that a good sentence of English? What John ate? What is a good sentence of English is what you see here. The sentence is what did John eat? What did John eat? Now let me use this space. The word eat is actually eat plus past which we get to see as the way this exists. It sounds little bit too much to separate them into two but sometimes actually human mental computation works on this and separates this element out of this. Therefore you see the sentence like this. You have a sentence John ate an apple and then you get when you have a question what did John eat? What we are actually doing is while questioning the object, because of the language internal requirements of English we also need to displace tense. Not the predicate, not the predicate. We need to displace tense alone. Only tense, verb is stage in its original position. We only separate out verb, separate tense out of the verb and then that moves. This is a physical real example of displacement and separation of tense from the predicate. In English question words, can I use the same structure to discuss the last sentence here? You see to delete some of the things from here. This is how it works. We have the tense here past and we have an NP which is an object is questioned. What happens is in this case this NP moves to respect position. What also happens is verb stage here and its tense moves to this position and then we get because this is past tense what comes here is this. Now, tense is an invisible category. It does not have its own manifestation which you can see with the example of this verb 8. If I just gave you the word 8 and ask you to show me past tense, it is not possible to see the tense when it is associated with the verb. We really get to see that when we dissociate it from there. As an invisible category, as an inflection category the tense cannot stand on its own. Therefore, it needs the help of a fictitious element like do which does not mean anything of its own in this case and then do becomes an example of a present tense and did becomes an example of past tense in the sense that do hosts present tense and did hosts past tense and then they come here. When this is separated out of the verb then what we are left with is a bare verb. Therefore, even in the past tense we say what did John eat? Now, I want you to understand one more underlying fact out of this CP, out of this structure which is the following. I am assuming that it is clear to you that question sentences are more than IP. Question sentences require in or involve actual physical displacement of elements from their original places to some other place at least in English. Now, the reason why I mention this at least in English is this has been predicted or this has been the structure for all the languages. In a language like Hindi when you do not see things moving there are more things to be discussed which is people posit that at a logical form level, at a deeper structure level they move but at surface structure level they show up in the right places. Those involve complicated computation. We do not want to go there. In order to understand the phenomena of X bar what we need to know is there is an involvement of actual displacement of elements which the theory of X bar clearly demonstrates. The different categories, different phrases of phrases which is part of X bar X bar theory help us understand several types of sentences. Finally, I want you to understand to draw your attention here that when we said the head is the power, head is the, inflection is the head of the sentence. What we mean is there is an association between this tense and verb. This association is not inherent. They get together which is which becomes evident that at times they can be separated from one another too. If they were inseparable then we will not be able to do this and probably in those, if they were not separable probably to say something like John 8 would have been perfectly alright a sentence in English. The fact that we, John what did John what John 8 is not a good sentence of English tells us that it is possible to separate tense out of verb. Therefore, sentence, tenses must be out of the verb to begin with in the logical representation of sentences. If tenses need to be out of the verb then there are more things that have gone into this. What was positive is actually the head of the sentence is this inflectional complex and then everything else is built around this. This making sense? There is one more type of question which I have not put here. Some of the yes no type questions which is let us say if we have a question like is this a pencil? I am assuming that you should be able to do it. In yes no type questions in English, in a language like English we do not have content word who, what, when. In that case what happens is nothing goes to a specified position of CP. What only moves is tense from the head to another head which remains the, which keeps the integrity of question sentences that all the question sentences are CP's. We still need a place for tense to land which and that place is the head position of a CP. Get it? So in yes no questions the only thing that moves is tense. Now think about one more situation. When it comes to the movement of elements what is more fundamental? Which element is more fundamental to move? That is which element must move? Tense. Therefore inflectional categories are of prime importance in the construction of a sentence. They determine the nature and structure of a sentence. Get it? And thus both the types of sentences structure wise both the types of questions WH questions which are also called content questions and yes no questions in which we do not have a WH word. Both are CP's and both require physical displacement of inflectional elements and lexical elements. Lexical elements are the categories like subjects like NPs in subject position or object position or it there could be more positions and we can question any NP or any PP. All of them will move to respect position of CP. The reason why we are calling questions CP not the reason. One of the reasons why we call them CP is this helps us predict that we cannot question two elements in the same sentence. We cannot say who, what, 8 because there are no two respect positions in the CP. So these are not just artificial designs. These are not just fancy stuff to see how fancifully we work around different elements of sentences. They have serious theoretical predictions of how language really gets projected in human mind. Now for someone to believe this thing or not believe it is like religion, what we do with this whether this has any application or not. I personally believe the application stuff of linguistics to machine learning and computer applications is too far away from this place. We are still working with sounds. We are still trying to understand sounds and how machines should be able to understand sounds. Sentences and then displacement of elements in sentences and their semantic correlations are too far away. Which is not to say that things are not working in computer science. We have moved to, we have made a landmark progress and we see the products around us with such things. But to come back to what I am discussing, we may not be able to see the direct application of these things and how to design an intelligent machine. But once these things get modeled properly with proper algorithm in whichever way they are done, I do not know how to model these things with algorithms. But then you see the application of these things in other domains. At least so far these things help us understand in categorical terms what several new things about functioning of human mind. How human mind follows simplicity, principle of economy and projection of sentences is pretty clear through understanding of generative mechanism of sentence production. I had a couple of other things to discuss with you, which is thematic relations. I know we have to, by we I mean professor Chaudhary needs to come in for his classes, but I need two to three more classes here to wind up things in a particular way so that we can say we have a fairly good understanding of two, three components of syntax, how they work. So tomorrow I work with thematic relations and C command. Thank you.