 So, we will continue looking at cases. So, what have we seen so far as far as case is concerned that case is a property of a sentence that is we talk about case only when we are talking about a sentence in a sentence there could be different noun phrases at least one in the subject position may be two one in the subject position and one in the object position and may be more. So, when we have a situation where we have three or more n p's in a sentence here is how it works n p number one in the subject position if possible n p number two in the object position that is object of a transitive verb which happens to be the compliment position of the head of a v p clear. That if we have or forth or may be more could be in the compliment position of a p that is head of p being head of a p p may have some n p's in the compliment position. So, these are the these are some of the probable positions where we may have some n p's right. The point is each one of these n p's get case only when they are in some or the other position in a sentence. Then the question comes up is if cases are realized in realized on n p sometimes we see some sort of change in the form of the n p particularly when the n p is a pronoun and we do not see many changes when the n p is a lexical noun like a proper name or something. If we see a change in the noun or noun phrase then we call it morphological case marking if we do not see anything then we call it abstract case on it. But even the bigger point is when it is a property of a sentence and cases get realized on n p's whether morphologically or in abstract form only when they are part of a sentence then the question conceptually motivated question for us to understand if there must be something happening in the sentence only then they get cases. So, what is so specific about an n p being in a sentence that they receive cases that is the crucial question for anyone to understand. So, we take examples of accusative case and nominative case we talked about them yesterday that nominative cases are mostly realized in subject positions and accusative cases are realized in object positions and therefore sometimes they are also called objective case. And we have many more cases we have seen a list of them yesterday, but right now I want to revisit and talk to you about the conceptual issue what does what do these n p's go through in a sentence what happens to a noun phrase in a sentence that they receive cases. And in response to that we have seen yesterday and to repeat that again that when n p's are part of a phrase the head of that phrase assigns case to those n p's for example in a sentence like this where we have John plays football in the playground we have 3 n p's John football and playground we are saying the n p football is in the compliment position of the head v therefore head v assigns accusative case to this n p and the n p the playground is in the compliment position of the p p of the head of the p p therefore the head p assigns accusative case to its compliment the football I am sorry the playground therefore these n p's are case marked and marking of case is an essential essential aspect of a sentence because if n p's are not properly case marked then they are not going to be allowed in a sentence and therefore the sentence may be ungrammatical you have seen some examples yesterday if we see if we say John likes she instead of John likes her the reason why sentence John likes she is not grammatical is because she has a nominative is a form of a nominative case and being in the accusative case position it should take the form of accusative case and therefore the sentence is ungrammatical the point is if n p's are not case marked then they will lead the sentence to ungrammaticality therefore cases appears to be an essential aspect of a sentence then we looked at 2 more concepts when we when we say heads assign accusative case we added something more and we said heads assign cases when they govern their compliments and we defined how they govern their compliments the what was the what was the notion of government we will talk about that they must govern and they must c command at the same time where c command means constituent command and we we again to repeat verbs and post positions for the accusative case marking are governors because they are they could be heads this is what we have been discussing so far that there are 3 these n p's we didn't talk about John John being the subject of this sentence n p being in the subject position gets nominative case so we have John in nominative case football and playground with accusative cases and we are saying we n p assign accusative cases to these n p's right we have already discussed this thing all right are we okay so far not saying what do you want on previous slide nominative case is always realized in subject position subject and first for object it is always actually accusative for objects mostly it is accusative okay and accusative cases will be assigned also by p to its compliment in a pp like in the playground the preposition n in assigns accusative case to its compliment the playground okay I am coming to government and c command again in a moment we have discussed that yesterday but we do want to look at it once more before we discuss things further but or for that matter let's look at that for a moment I have it in a different order so a govern the process of government means a governs b if a is a governor that is a head and a c commands b whereas c command state that a c commands b if and only if a does not dominate b if a node is dominating something low then that's not c commanding the lower domain lower lower node in order for any element to c command the other one it must not be in dominance relation okay and the first branching node dominating a must also dominate b this restriction and I want you to understand this in this context the only reason why first branching node the idea of first branching node is being brought in is because we do not want we want c command relation to be local okay we want c command relation to be local I have discussed this with you but let me talk about this once again all we are saying is we have these things already I am sure you understand these things now very well okay clear for everybody okay so what we are saying is in this kind of a situation b as a head assigns accusative case to this and b okay and we want to say it assigns accusative case because it governs its its compliment now add add the idea that we have had we have seen before what we want to say in generic terms with the idea of government is the presence or absence of this NP is contingent upon this head okay it is the nature of this head which will or will not allow an NP in this position understand this thing what do I mean when I say nature of the nature of this head we mean if it is a transitive verb then it will allow if it is not a transitive verb then it will not allow anything in this position okay both both are equally important please understand allowing an NP here or not allowing an NP here both are equally important because when this head is in transitive it will force this position to be empty but it will not allow anything else here therefore it's conceptually the nature of a head is equally important in both whether it's whether an NP is present or absent therefore in a in a slightly more fashionable and technical term we are saying this head governs this position and what we are saying what we are talking about is this position and it so happens that in this kind of a position we have an NP okay clear then we do we also want to say that okay fine it governs because it's a head but we want to put more restriction on that in the sense that this head must also C command this and we are trying to restrict C command locally we are saying AC commands B if A does not dominate B does this node dominate this one if you remember I don't have that slide with me if you remember the dominance relationship this one dominates this one this one dominates this one and every other node dominates this NP but not this one not this one alright now so we said fine this node does not C command this one alright clear therefore we want to add the first branching node first branching node dominating A must also dominate B so the first branching node that dominates this one also dominates this one therefore the all we want to say is this relationship has to be very local when we are talking about C command we are not talking about everything else alright therefore this therefore under the notion of government and C command we talk about assignment of accusative case to the NP in the compliment positions are we okay so far it is C command is kind of like precedence but under the same node C commanding is like precedence yes so this node this element has to proceed the element that it C commands but locally because it they must they both must be dominated by first branching node that dominates this one must also dominate this one so see it is possible to say okay that part I will discuss later is that clear so far I do not want to mix too many things here it is important for us to understand this much with clarity because what I am going to say now is going to distort this picture little bit and then you have to face that turbulence to see that even though it is distorting the picture it is not actually distorting the picture so it is this much clear now good now hear me out carefully because I do not want to play any tricks let us look at the notion of principles and parameters as theory what we have always been saying that once something becomes theoretical right we are talking about assignment of cases it should work same way for everything right if if assignment of accusative case works in a particular way then the assignment of nominative case should also work in the same way only then we are talking about theory of case assignment understand this so a principled way of looking at a theoretical point is when a rule applies across the board in the same fashion no no disagreement here right so what we would want is we would we would want the same constraints to apply for nominative case assignment also right there is there is no no point changing much or anything when we as a head assigns accusative case right to its compliment something must assign nominative case to this position right and we are saying see look at the look at the points this NP is the subject of the sentence okay this NP is not the compliment of anything is this compliment of anything no this is the this is the a specifier of what of IP right therefore as given the structure it is not the compliment of anything right but it has to get nominative case do you see the contradiction we have said heads assign cases right we do not want to change anything if we change then we are going to make the point weaker so in order to keep theoretical strength in a principled way we want to retain the idea that some head assigns case to this thing right so we are we are going to say I as the head of IP assigns nominative case to this position this is what I meant when I said we are going to see a little bit of turbulence so hold on and see this magic we are going to say I assigns nominative case to the subject NP in the specifier position of the IP looks okay so far if we are saying so we are retaining one part at least we are saying we are what are we retaining we are saying heads assign cases retained heads we are also retaining the heads are governors right heads govern the NP that it assigns cases okay what is it that is not working here it doesn't seem to be C commanding it doesn't seem to be governing you are you are right there seems to be some problem with the C command so we want to say it does not seem to be governing the NP when we say it we mean the head I does not seem to be governing the NP in the specifier position in the sense that I does not appear to be C commanding the NP because for the idea of C command what did we say the first branching node dominating I right must also dominate the NP if that was taken care of then we are not violating anything but here the first branching node dominating I does not dominate the NP in their specifier position clear I I know you understand and you can see these things through but I still want to take you at a minimal speed limit right clear see this is one of the weaknesses of this theory that we are talking about this is one of the weaknesses of this theory that is whatever patch we are going to add to make this theory work is adding sort of weakness understand this thing it it's like it's like fixing some bugs in a robust programming the more more patches you add the weaker it becomes therefore it's one of the one of the patches which is going to make it bigger nonetheless it's still going to preserve the larger concept okay the larger idea so I am I am giving you the patch in the beginning as admitted fact for the theory but see how it works so we are so so one I one way did there are there first of all I must tell you without going much into details that this problem do you see this does everybody see the problem that the problem is we are unable to account for this case assignment under the notion of under the existing notion of C command that's the problem anytime a problem comes up in a theory that gives birth to many different proposals many different people would try to solve the problem with different kinds of proposals so this is what we are trying to avoid right now that we don't have to go to that level of discussing every single proposal right now but we are what I want to say that all those proposals are in the direction to solve this problem one of the proposals which came up way too early when I say way too early what I mean is at the time when this was not expanded remember I it has so many things in it like tense agreement and aspect when we separate them the story becomes little bit different we will try to see how far we go in the next few days because because all that proposal all those proposals are not really relevant for us to go into their details however what's important for us to understand that given this structure one of the proposals that was given to solve this problem is the following what do you think one can do here you definitely have to add something in the notion of C command right only we we don't want to change we don't want to change that we don't want to change anything with heads assigning cases we don't want to change much about heads being governor we only want to change little bit about C command that we want to add something so that it is still C commands the NP but that will be little bit too much right so what people did they said no we want to we want to add we we will leave the C command the way it is because it will be too much of too much of manipulations we want to say something more than C command which is we want to bring in the notion of M command okay so they brought in the idea of M command and look at that you have already seen the you have already seen the seen how C command works right now look at M command on the same screen in contrast so M command says doesn't there isn't much of a change it simply says a does not dominate b and every a that is every x dominating every x that dominates a also dominates b okay and x where x is a maximal projection let's be let's let's take this thing slowly what do we call a maximal projection in this structure what do you see what is a maximal projection maximal projections are the phrasal levels okay look at this when we when we started looking at a phrase I told you that here is a v which is a lexical level then we have intermediate level right v bar and then we had vp are we familiar with these three levels vp v bar and v same way it works for every other phrase np n bar and n so this is the level of this is a lexical level okay and this is maximal level maximal projection a phrase does not project beyond this a phrase doesn't go anywhere beyond this this is why this level is called maximal level or maximal projection okay so in this structure what are maximal projections ip vp mp now we want we want to say we want to talk about this right we are saying this itself is a maximal projection right but for this which maximal projection dominates this ip right look at look at that part of the definition a does not dominate b right we want to say that this does not dominate this one but we do want to say that every maximal projection that dominates this one also dominates this one is that the case the maximal projection dominating its head is going to be ip then the maximal projection the same maximal projection dominates this one as well therefore this patch is called the notion of m command which you can guess means maximal command okay now in in the know under the notion of m command we preserve the idea that this head assigns nominative case to its to this mp right and then we say government works this way we're just adding one more step to the government without changing much we are saying the this this node must be a governor right which must be a governor and this node must a comma must m command this thing right and the maximal projections are barrier for the governments I do want you to understand this part as well because what I am going to say further will have implications for this what what what does this point mean maximal projections are barrier to governments what it means is this head okay look at look at the screen on the board together everybody this head maximally commands this np right because they are all part of this they are all part of the same maximal projection okay we do want to retain the notion of locality also that we don't want to say things go beyond local area if that if we leave that open then we would end up saying that this node m commands this one okay so we want to say because see this now II will end up m commanding V or anything below because the maximal projection that dominates I also dominates V see the point maximal projection that dominates I is what I pay and maximal projection dominating I also dominates V so under that notion I would end up m commanding everything else sorry no no no before before we go to the yeah the first maximal projection dominating this one should dominate this one the first maximal projection dominating this one is IP then the IP also dominates this one so we want to we want to put one more barrier to that saying that the maximal projections are barrier to government which means if there is a maximal projection intervening somewhere such as VP then this maximal projection will not allow this I to intervene itself okay VP is a maximal projection this kind of barrier that maximal projections are barrier to government says I does not govern anything inside this VP therefore this this patch and heads are governors that we are not changing anything this this much okay now do you do you see the trick do you see the patch this is to save a particular theoretical point for the assignment of case by adding this much we are going to we are going to save the notion of save the process of case assignment okay that is true but what is the cost the cost is it is something a bit more expensive that we are bringing the whole one new notion which is the notion of m command which takes care of just one little problem which is assignment of cases to subjects see this thing we are bringing in a very expensive thing when we say expensive we mean theoretically expensive thing to save or to deal with to save the structure and to deal with assignment of cases to subjects assignment of nominative case to subject we have to bring this notion because if we do not then we will end up end up bringing conflicting things end up saying conflicting conflicting things which will which will be we will have to say accusative case assignment works in a different way nominative case assignment works in a different way so if you compare the cost if you do the cost analysis it seems like bringing in a patch is less expensive than keeping two different processes in place okay therefore is still less expensive but no denial that this is a patch and is making the theory weak understand everybody really yes good sorry in louder louder in the definition of m command we are saying that the x is the first maximal projection is it is it or is it any maximum you want me to previous slide yeah x is the maximal projection we are not saying x is the first maximal projection if we if you put it as the first maximum prediction then wouldn't that solve the problem no that won't solve the problem because even when we say first maximal projection I I think you are still confused about that I was trying to tell you see why are we be why are we bringing the notion of m command we are bringing in the notion of m command to take care of assignment of case to the subject position subject position happens to be the specifier position of ip okay so even if we say first branching first maximal projection dominating I okay dominates this one we are still going to the implication of that will be the first maximal projection dominating spec of ip is going to dominate everything anyway because there is nothing nothing about this see if we are if we are if we had a problem here and we said maximal projection first maximal projection dominating v okay then we are trying to say we are excluding I but if we are bringing in the notion of first maximal projection here then we are not solving anything it doesn't matter whether we say first or not exactly okay that doesn't help us so we are going to so so they leave it just like x is a maximal projection but by saying that we are still if we don't add this head point that the maximal projections are barrier to government if we don't add that then we are going to say I is C commanding this NP also sorry I is m commanding this NP also why because the first maximal projection dominating this I also dominates this NP so then the then the point is then how are you saying that this we this head assigns accusative case to this why not this this head also assigns accusative case to this okay to to to put a restriction on that because one head can only assign case to one end okay so we we we can add that all that also but that doesn't that doesn't save the structure to save this structure we are adding this that maximal projections are barrier therefore for this one to govern this one or this one is not going going to be possible therefore we add that this kind of thing is a barrier so the governing domain for I remains only IP the governing domain for we remains only VP if this is called locality constraint like like I have been telling you without underestimating your capabilities or anything I am only trying to put things simpler so that we we we don't lose the focus of what we are doing what do we mean by government in actual how it works in a see we are definitely saying we we are definitely saying that I governs BP also okay we are only saying that by putting in the constraint that maximal projections are barriers I does not govern in the in the sense of assignment of cases to any of the components of VP okay but we do want to say that I governs VP because I VP is the complement of I okay in case of case assignment it will have no I will have no role to do anything within VP but VP is the complement of I we do I governing NP yes that is because I is a head right I is a head and I M commands this NP look at the notion of M command it's a it's a head right because it's a head it's a governor also right and the first maximal projection dominating I it it governs this NP that is a spec IP under the notion of M command what does M command tell us the first maximal projection dominating this one also dominates this one I assigns case to the subject and that is visible no that that's never good nominated cases are never visible his car give give me his car is red in color fine see what what we what we really what you're saying in that we have an NP we have an IP okay what what I am what I am going to show you that will not work but let me show you that okay why and how this is I right this is is or present or anything which we simply say this is a finite I remember finiteness from yesterday this is a finite I his car is red is the sentence that we are working on what is the what is the NP NP here his car right his car look at this this is the aspect of NP right then we have N and then you have car okay DC this NP this is a specifier position and this is the this is your N right and this is here is your his and here is car see this thing now since I haven't discussed with you the a spec head agreement and a spec head relationship so far okay it will be difficult for me to say more here but under what what I have discussed with you I want to say that for this I okay to assign possessive case to this aspect position is not possible why I am saying for this I to assign accusative case is not possible so can you can you explain looking at this thing why because this I does not M command this thing you see this thing that this NP this maximal projection is going to be the barrier for for M commanding this I so this patch that the maximal projections are going to be barrier is only going to work for nominative cases which are not visible okay and I I have been telling you since yesterday that lexical NPs like John Mary are not going to show up or for that matter in Hindi put any name or anything like computer kursi these are not going to show morphologically a nominative case but conceptually I M commands the spec of spec of IP that's all all right go go ahead if you have any any further difficulty I can I can talk about that but I as a subject yes so the whole clause gets nominative case like this whole NP gets nominative case his car the whole NP is the nominative case has the nominative case abstract in a abstract way but how does his get generative case or possessive case is a different story that is the story within this within this domain within the domain of NP and which comes under the notion of a spec head agreement it's a it's a different story altogether so you are I see the point it's not that I I don't see the point my limitation is I haven't talked to you so much to to address that you are absolutely right when I gave you the example that for John to go to Delhi is not possible or is possible in that sentence for John to go to Delhi the whole clause is a sentence right is a non-finite sentence but is the subject of the bigger finite clause the whole clause gets a nominative case but then the then the question is how does for if if we have the same sentence okay then do you want me do you want me to take you to that sentence okay let me let me show you yeah this was a sentence for him to go to Delhi right the whole clause is non-finite clause we are saying how did him get accusative case here right him we we will we will need little bit more time to come to that how how did it get in short what I said yesterday the for gives it accusative case therefore the presence of far is important in that clause so we cannot have the clause like him to go to Delhi is impossible we cannot have that we must have for because we need to assure we need to guarantee that there is a governor there is a head which assigns accusative case to him okay but all this story of assigning accusative case is within the this but in that case the m command thing it's not like how it's nominative is an abstract case nominate they see there are two things construct a new notion like m command because anyway there's no change when anything happens to absolutely right in this case we have for which is a head okay which is a head it's a clear head lexical head which assigns accusative case what you are asking is how does this eye assigns nominative case it's just a science it conceptually it it doesn't show up in a in a physical form it doesn't show up I'm coming to that I'm coming to that also so I once once I finished the I finished the point of exception I once I finished the point of government and m command I was going to come to that what I am going to say for that and this was the exact point where I was going to go before your question see the the point is now that you know understand that there is a weakness in this theory right and my my position is not to hide that weakness from you my in fact my my job is to show you that position very clearly right that show you the position that there is a weakness in the theory and just now I told you that the moment the weakness comes up and moment a problem comes up there are so many proposals right to solve that weakness and problem the expansion of eye is also originating from that number one and the idea that subject probably does not really originate in the position of spec ip because if we allow subjects to originate in the position of a spec ip then we have to add a patch and if we allow it to originate in the spec position of vp probably things are going to be different so there has to be a compelling motivating reason for anyone to say that we that subjects do not originate in a spec ip okay and the reasons are first reason is anything beyond this eye particularly with the expansion of this this thing is a functional layer how does a lexical item like john or anything in the subject position becomes part of a functional layer it should be part of lexical layer the second thing is there is a problem with the nominative case assignment okay keeping these things in mind probably eye spec of ip does not have the subject position this is a theoretical point it now if we don't have any physical evidence to show that it's just a theoretical point that one has to understand that on the basis of these things the proposal was given that probably subject originates here but saying that one has to show how does that point solve the problem of this case assignment without adding any patch you see the point and to go to that is little bit too much for you at this time which is not understanding your capacity to understand this you can definitely understand this but that takes us right now I have just added one notion of barrier I have only discussed with you in a in a very I know we are running out of time we will stop in a we will stop in a minute minute I have only discussed with you that the idea of locality have you heard this word locality when I was discussing that right that we want to keep things local I have added the idea of barrier then to to understand this thing beyond beyond the the process of case assignment that I have shown you so far we will have to go to something called minimality keeping the three things intact locality minimality and barrier we will be able to understand how alternative method of case assignment works but right up front without going into that I must tell you that they also have patches which again means that these things have not been worked out in such a way that we can show these things as a as a principled method okay this is what is called science this is what is called that these things are still under process under renovation under renovation let us put a put a generic terminology okay now we did we I have shown you one patch right but I want you to I wanted you to show I wanted you to see one more patch in this thing I just want you to take a sentence today think about it the idea idea was to look at that right away today but we won't be able to do it I want you to think about these sentences if you think you understand what we have discussed so far you I want you to look at two sentences one you already have for him to go to Delhi is not possible for him to go to Delhi is not possible I want you to draw the structure and see how the assignment of cases work to different enemies and how do we save whatever we have said so far same kind of thing in a different sentence first two sentences I want John to go I want him to go this kind of sentence is a problem for what we have discussed so far okay and therefore this is the you see the heading exceptional case marking therefore a a new thing has to be said about it so please draw the structure of these two sentences and see how it works okay I'll show you this thing tomorrow thank you