 We will continue with phrase structure and then we will look at how those nodes are related to one another and what else we need. We understand through phrase structure, how that whole understanding of this internal structure of language becomes helpful in understanding further relationship between several components. What have we seen so far with the help of phrase structure, anybody? If we look at the distinction between subject and predicate with respect to phrase structure, what do we get? What do we see? What is the distinction between a subject and a predicate with respect to phrase structure? So, we understand the constraints or requirements of proximity or distance between components of a sentence. Phrase structure clearly tells us that subject is completely outside and the whole notion of subject becomes clearer looking at phrase structure. So, far we can say a subject is the noun that occurs in the specified position of an IP, but that does not define subject properly. The question still remains, what is the NP? What is the noun that goes in the specifier of the subject position? How do we know about it? The current discussion on structural relations and their cases is going to help us understand the notion of subject and the components of predicates in a better way. Before that, I want you to understand agreement patterns. There are two types of agreement patterns and both the types become our understanding of relationship between a head and it is a specifier and the relationship between a head and its complement help us understand two different types of agreement patterns. So, let me show you what I mean by that. See here is the structure of a phrase. By now we have seen that this is the head position. This is in a specifier position and this is a complement position. Depending upon the nature of a phrase, different kinds of element go in the specifier position or in the complement position. However, what remains in the head position is the head lexical category of this phrase in this case a noun. There is a specific relationship between these two. This is called spec head relation that is what you see on the screen. It describes one type of agreement patterns and then the second one is called head complement relations. One is hierarchical that is a spec head is hierarchical whereas spec is higher than the head and head and comp is parallel at equal level. These are with this differences they capture certain kind of agreement patterns. For example, look at the first one as a noun phrase and I do not think it is important to draw or please let me know if you think it is important to draw, I will draw this and show it to you. When we say this book, we see that the demonstrative pronoun this is here and then we have a head book. There is a relationship between these two. When we need to say these books, we do not say these books or we do not say this books. Now, the two elements this and these they occur in their specifier pages and then they control the relationship between, they have a special relationship with its head that is they are governed, they are totally in accordance with its head. This kind of relationship can only be captured through some sort of understanding between spec and its head and then we need to figure out. So, one way is to describe this is what we see. In understanding linguistic structure, description is something that we see, explanation is something that we do not see which in this case it would mean that this is visible we see that, but are there constraints on this? How do we capture those constraints? What are the underlying principles governing such constraints is what I am going to discuss with you. Then you see another type of agreement pattern in languages which is about comp and head. If we have a phrase like in this case, we have a choti gadi, it is a Hindi word which means small car. What type of a phrase is this? Adjective phrase and what will be in the head position of that adjective phrase? Choti, the adjective in this phrase is choti or in the other phrase is bada or something. I hope everybody understands this much of Hindi and you can see the point that I am trying to make. The adjective choti agrees with the noun and then likewise the adjective bada agrees with the noun as well. How do they agree? What do we mean here when we say they agree with each other? In this case choti is feminine, the car is also feminine. So, they should be in agreement. So, the choti and car agree, we cannot say chota car, so they agree with one another in terms of gender and then the second one, number and gender both. So, this kind of agreement if you see we have a head position and a calm position, this agreement is called head and compliment relationship. Because both are at different levels, one is hierarchical and the other is not, there has to be something going on in how these agreements are maintained. Also one of the differences that I want to draw your attention to is when we say this book about linguistics that is when a specifier is in agreement with its head, it is in agreement with its head. It is in agreement with the head but then at the same time a specifier is related to the entire phrase that is the rest of the phrase is in domain of that specifier. However, with the compliment head relationship, only head makes sure that the compliment and the relationship that is agreement with the calm is taken care of and then it does not spill over other kinds of elements. So, these are the two patterns that I wanted you to keep in mind before we discuss more things. Now, there are couple of terms that I want you to know before we talk about more terms. The first is dominance. What do you see here? The definition of dominance. Can somebody read this loudly? If there is a line tracing A to B going downward. So you understand this definition? Node A dominates node B if and only if these two conditions meet. Now, given that definition, what are the nodes which are dominating nodes in this phrase? A small one. Specifier dominates what? Noun and compliment both. No, it does not. It is higher up. The tree it is higher. It dominates only book. Look at this. Look at the definition and the structure carefully. I understand that the word dominance is not a difficult thing to understand, but still I am putting up this definition and structure both for you to see. There is a reason behind this. Noun phrase, this node dominates this one. Does it dominate this one too? How about these ones? Does this one dominate this? There is a line joining. There is a line joining them. So NP being the highest node dominates everything else because there is a line joining everything. Even this one is dominated by NP. Of course there are other elements dominating them. So the way we describe this is NP is going to be dominating a spec and N bar and it is also going to be dominating N and its compliment. However, N bar is, if we are talking about nodes dominating N, are you with me? Nodes dominating N, what are the nodes that are dominating N? N bar and NP. So it is fair only that we say NP dominates N. However, N bar immediately dominates N. Yes, that is one of the things we want to capture through this definition of dominance. Spec does not dominate N bar or N. N, it is more than obvious that N does not dominate a spec at all. That is even intuitive. But so being higher up in the structure or a structural hierarchy means that the node that is lower is not going to be dominating the other. And there is a meaning of, there is a meaning associated with this dominance when a node dominates the other one. The generic or intuitive meaning is that everything else is in the scope of that node. Everything else is under influence of that node. I am using generic terminology before I reach to the technical ones. However, they do not work the other way around. If we are looking at a flatter structure of a sentence and if I just write to you this book of linguistics, it is hard to explain how this and book are in hierarchical relationships. How this takes both book and linguistics, book and off linguistics in its scope. So, hierarchical structure describing relationship between different nodes and different components help us understand these things. Now, precedence should be simple again. Is it clear, intuitive? Please tell me which one, which one precedes, does this spec precede anything? This precedes n, n bar. Can we say a spec precedes n to, even this definition? It does. Clearly, if we are talking about a spec, let us say a and this is b. a is to the left, this is to the left of b and a does not dominate b and b does not dominate a at all. Therefore, a precedes b and a clear canonical example of precedence is this one. None of the two a and b dominate each other and a is on the other side, on the left side of b. Any difficulty? Complement is also preceded by specifier. Spec precedes comp, can we say that? Tell me. Now, yes, yes, a spec except n b, yes, which is the relationship between a spec of a phrase and the phrase itself cannot be of precedence. It, it has to be defined only with dominance. Where, go ahead. If the relationship is not of dominance, then it is precedential. If the relationship is not of dominance, then it has to be described in terms of precedence. Yes. Now, the whole, the terms of dominance and precedence, how are they going to be relevant in capturing further details? Let us look at some of them. But before that, I guess I have something else to tell you, which is now we are getting into an understanding of case. It is a, it is an abstract term. It is an abstract entity case. Not it, we do not understand much. If we just mention case, we understand case relationship better when we describe these things in their structural configurations. And we also see the significance of why we need to understand case relationship among nouns, only when we look at a structure. See, to give you, there could be two types of cases in natural languages. One could be morphological and the other abstract. Does this make sense, morphological case and abstract case? If they do not, hold on. Let us look at the examples and they will make sense. They are, they are simple terms. And I have tried to put the relevant term, relevant parts in color. When we say John is from Germany, does this word show you any case? Do you realize that there is any case on that? Do you see anything on this? No. When we say his coat is big, this word is different, his. Mary is his friend. This is the word Mary. You do not see anything happening to Mary, but you see something happening to his. When I am saying something happening to his, what I mean is it is not he anymore. He likes her. Can we say Mary is his friend? No? Why not? Why do we need to say Mary is his friend? Why do we need to say Mary is his friend? Something goes wrong when we say Mary is he friend. Can we say instead of he likes her, can we say he likes she? No. Something wrong with that, with that sentence. Of course, that wrong is the sentence becomes ungrammatical. We need to know when we say he likes she, what causes that ungrammaticality? She is a good word in English. He is a good word in English otherwise, but when they appear in a particular position in a sentence, they are forcing this, forcing ungrammaticality on sentences. So, for now, the point that I am trying to tell you here is words like Mary, John, he, she. In these words, you do not see any change in the word. Even though they carry certain cases, they are examples of abstract cases. And when you see an obvious change in the word, then they are because of some kind of prefix, suffix or something. When a change becomes visible, we call that morphological change. Therefore, if you see a change in the word because of case, that is because that is an example of realization of a morphological case. And when we do not see, then it is an example of abstract case. Whether morphological or abstract a noun once used in a sentence must have a case. The better way to put it will be a noun phrase once used in a sentence must have a case. A noun phrase which does not receive a case yields ungrammaticality. And case is relevant not to noun phrases. Case is relevant to the place, to the position in the sentence. When we put certain nouns which do not confirm to that position, then the sentence become ungrammatical. In this, like I gave you the example, we cannot say he likes she because that is the position in which you get a different case. And she has a different case. Therefore, mismatch of cases results into ungrammaticality. It is making sense about morphological and abstract case. That is all we need to understand from here. We are going to look at some of the things again. Let us look at this visible. I think it is self-explanatory. However, what I want to tell you is we do not see any kind of morphological markers on lexical NPs. That is words denoting names like John or Mary or anything. So, at least in terms of nominative and accusative cases, I am going to be talking about in particular two cases nominative and accusative. I have mentioned genitive because it is easy to see and you will be able to understand. Genitive is not the case which I will be discussing when we look at structural configurations. And I have also not put first person, second person or anything. When we look at phenomenal NPs, then cases become visible and they are more of morphological type. They change the shape of the NPs. Morphological cases change the shape of those NPs. So, when words like me, him, her, them, us, these are loaded with cases. And they appear in places where we have accusative cases. Places which are relevant for accusative cases and in such cases they cannot appear in their nominative forms. Very briefly here, if I talk about number and person, I everybody knows that is first person, you, you, second person and he, she, third person. I singular, plural will be we, you singular or plural? Both. And in the plural form, what you are saying by both is in the plural form also we do not see anything changing. That is little bit tricky. Hold on, let me, let me come to that in a moment. We singular or plural, we plural, they plural. Now, very briefly about you, if, so say it again, you is singular or plural? Both. So, when we say both, then we are saying it could be singular as well. Give me an example of a sentence where we use this pronoun you with a singular verb. So, what is the verb in this case? Everybody paying attention to this? What is the verb in this case? What is indicating agreement or is that singular or plural? So, then how is it singular? Can we, can we ever say you is my friend? No, meaning singular. And when I say you are my friend, how do I not, how am I not referring to more than one person? That is all right. But there could be more than one person, my friend. If I say you are my friend, how am I not referring to more than one person? I only want you to see the complexity, that is it. You do not have to have an answer and this is not your fault or my fault. This is how English is structured. So, can we say you is singular? One single example where this pronoun, simple pronoun that we all know since long time, kindergarten, you can show me in agreement with anything else in terms of singular. And I can show you grammar books after grammar books indicating you both as singular and plural. I am doing the same thing here too. Just because I am copying it from some place to show you that I is singular and V is plural and you in one case is singular and in the other case is plural. However, it is important to keep in mind that you is never ever singular. What it does is the whole plural agreement is ambiguous in terms of their numbers. Sometimes they do refer to one person only and that this is where cognitive computation of human mind comes into human. The computation of human mind makes no mistakes. You say you are my friend. The listener's mind or the speaker's mind makes no mistake in the interpretation whether it is being referred to as singular or plural without us overtly knowing that you can never be singular. So, that is an issue for some other time. With this picture what you see is demonstration of morphological cases becoming visible only when we are talking about pronominal NPs. In lexical NPs the distinction between nominative case and accusative case is not morphological. It is abstract. Now, two more terms that I am going to be using. One is finiteness and the other is infiniteness or nonfiniteness. They simply refer to tenses. When we say finite sentence or a finite clause we mean a sentence with which has got tense and when we say nonfinite we mean when there is no tense. And where does the tense occur in the structure? Where does the tense occur in the structure of a sentence? Difficult? If we are talking about a sentence and the structure of a whole sentence where does the tense occur in that? Where do we put tense? Compliment? Hold on. I want to talk about a very simple sentence. Again where do we put the tense in this structure? So, here what is the tense in this sentence? John likes Mary present. The name is present but it is plus tense. So, that is what makes this whole sentence finite and there are going to be sentences where we do not have tenses. I will discuss that with you in a moment. Now, if you look at these two sentences, first two sentences John likes Mary and John likes her. In both the sentences John is the subject of the sentence. It comes from the understanding of a structure of a sentence that subject is going to occur in the specifier position of a sentence. However, the other important point describing or explaining subject is it must have nominative case all the time. An NP in a nominative case can only be the subject of a sentence. When we are talking about two cases, nominative and accusative cases, an NP in anything other than nominative case cannot be the subject. Therefore, a nominative NP occurs only in a finite sentence. However, accusative cases are for objects of verbs and for the objects of prepositions that I am going to show you. Is the distinction between finiteness and non-finiteness clear to you? People from this side. Now, I want to talk about one example of non-finite clause. You see the example that I have given you here, for him to go to Delhi is not possible. Is the whole sentence is not non-finite? The whole sentence is a finite thing. That is finite clause, a finite sentence. What is the tense in that sentence? For him to go to Delhi is not possible. What is the tense of this sentence? Present tense. How do we know that? Is. Now, for him to go to Delhi, what is that whole chunk of this sentence? What is the role of that whole chunk in this sentence? These are simple sentences we speak, these kinds of sentences every day. We write these sentences every day. Do you see this? Now, before you tell me anything about that, this whole chunk by itself looks like a sentence. Does it have a verb in it? Does it have a verb in it? The verb is go. Now, the difference between a finite sentence and this one is there is a verb, but that verb is non-finite. That verb in this small clause that you see in red on the screen does not have a tense in it, does not have a tense in it. Therefore, this clause is called non-finite clause. Now, for this non-finite clause, there is a NP in this before go. What is the NP? Which is the pronominal NP? Which is him, but that is not in the nominative case because nominative case marked NPs cannot be part of a non-finite clause. That is the point I am trying to show you. Nominative case marked NPs cannot be part of a non-finite clause and non-finite clause, there is another restriction on non-finite clauses is non-finite clauses are not independent clauses. Let me give you one more example of a non-finite and a finite clause. By now, you must have developed a fairly good understanding that every sentence must have a subject. Every sentence must have a subject. I am giving you a very simple sentence. I want to go. Is this a simple sentence? How many verbs are there in this sentence? How many verbs are there in this sentence? When I look at you, it feels to me like I am asking very complicated questions. Two verbs, they are want and go. Which verb do you think is finite and which is non-finite? Want is finite and to go is non-finite. Now the moment we are talking about a non-finite clause, non-finite clause may not have a tense. This is what after all makes it non-finite. But the moment we talk about a clause, it must have a subject. Do you see any subject here? In the sentence, we have a sentence, I want to go. In this sentence, we have a small non-finite clause, which is to go. Do you see any subject of that clause? I will be the subject of that clause. I think just little bit harder. They are very simple sentences, but actually they are not. If we are talking about I being the subject of that non-finite clause, then how is that sentence supposed to sound? Nobody says it that way, but tell me how is that sentence supposed to sound? I want, that is fine. This is how we say, but if I becomes the subject of the non-finite clause also, then how is that sentence supposed to sound? Which nobody says, but can you say that for me? I want I to go. Get this, I want I to go. Now, what does the second I refer to? Same person. Therefore, this is deleted. Now look at this. Therefore, this is deleted. An identical item in the sentence gets deleted, because languages tend to follow principle of economy. Anything that becomes redundant, language does not tolerate it, which becomes the characteristics of human mind as well, that human mind would not allow redundancies. Now, however, even though deleted, this empty position remains active. This empty position remains active, because like these you can have different sentences. You can have a different subject in that position. Can I say I want you to go? I can also say I want him to go, her to go, them to go. Get this thing? That position is active. However, it gets deleted only in the cases when there is an identical subject of the main clause. See this thing? Now, I am not only trying to show you magic or some of the simple, some of the facts about simple sentences that are not usually visible or we do not pay much attention to those when we are speaking the language or when we have learned the language. The things that I want to draw your attention to is every sentence, whether finite or non-finite must have a subject. When we say must have a subject, this requirement may not show up, may not force a noun phrase to occur overtly. They can remain covert as well, which means the position remains active. Now, second part is non-finite clauses do not occur independently, which becomes a huge restriction on the sentence that when we want to have a sentence, that sentence may have five other non-finite clauses, but must have at least one finite clause. And the moment we have one finite clause, that defines the whole sentence. We may have more than one non-finite clause, we may have more than one finite clause also within a sentence, but there must be at least one finite clause to define a sentence. And then we may have more than one non-finite clauses as well. Finiteness or non-finiteness irrespective of that there must be a subject. And when we have subjects in different positions, subjects and objects in different positions, they must have cases. Subjects are always going to have nominative cases and objects will have accusative case or some people call the same thing as accusative case or objective case. It really does not change anything, get it? Any questions so far? Anything which is not clear from what I have said so far? Clear? Then let us move to the next thing. Now, we are getting into the areas where we want to know how do these NPs get subjects, get cases. Now, let us look at this for the first first. This is the, is this the object position in this sentence? Is this the object position? This is a, this is an NP which is at the compliment position, but what is the relationship of this NP with the verb? This verb, this NP is the, is of course the compliment of this verb which is a transitive verb, but this is also the object of this verb. In other words, this is one argument of this, this verb. This position is accusative position, that is objective position. Now, NPs when they are independent of this sentence, do not have any cases of their own. Please note this distinction. NPs in independent world as a vocabulary list do not have cases of their own. When we are talking about nominative and accusative, we are talking about these two cases in a structural relationship. They receive accusative case when they land in this position. So, Mary receives accusative case in this position and in this case, because it is a lexical NP, it is not visible and therefore, it is an, it is an example of an abstract case. However, if you put a pronominal NP here, then it is going to be visible, which will be her and we cannot put she, because she is an example of nominative case marked pronominal NP and that cannot appear in this position. That much we have seen. The way, the way structure dominance precedence and other things that we have seen helps us understand. When the case is related to a position, it is said that this is a head position. Remember this and heads in link, in phrase structure, heads in phrase structures have cases to dispense with. That is heads assign cases to their compliments. In other words, I mean we can say the same thing in different, different words. For a compliment to be warranted with the head, it must have a relationship. That is, this head assigns accusative case to this NP. What will be the condition for this assignment? Verbs and post positions are clear heads. I am not talking about nominative case right now. We are running out of time. We will talk about nominative case assignment tomorrow, but I do want to conclude it with the accusative case assignment. There are two things that you will see always. Verbs, let me put it this way. Every phrase has a head. Even NP has a head which is N, but N is not a case assigner. The case assigning heads in phrase structure are V and P. That is, verbs and prepositions only and they are called, because they are heads, because they assign cases, they are also called governors. It is said that this assignment of accusative case works under the notion of what we know as C command. This is a simple definition of a C command. Can somebody read this for me? In this case, what is the, if we are talking about A, if we are talking about A and B, right? So, does A dominate B? Does B dominate A? No. What is the first branching node dominating both? V, P. This is a simple definition of C command, which means A, we can say A, C commands B. Can we say that? A, C commands B, this definition has a problem. B, C commands node A, we can also say that. That is the problem. With this definition, what we, the problem that we get into is B, C commands A, 2. Why will that be a problem for us? Because if we say A assigns case to B, because A, C commands B, then we land into difficulty. Why would B not C command, why would B not assign anything to A? Because B, C commands A, 2. So, this definition has to be little bit more restrictive. Now, if you look at the notion of government, of course heads are governor, governors, but again we have the similar kind of a problem with this. Get the problem? Understand the problem that it is creating for us? Now, a more restrictive definition of a C command will be, what are we trying to do before we understand this? When we say more restrictive definition of C command, what are we trying to do? That the governor can only C command B, that is only A should C command B, not B. B should be in a position to C command A and that we need to restrict. Please tell me if this restricts that? Look at this and see if they get restricted. A C commands B if and only if, A does not dominate B and every x that dominates A also dominates B. X is, where x is the first branching node. Get it? Now, there is one more thing about this that I need to tell you because with this definition we need to define first branching node. What do we mean by first branching node? A, one more thing we want to restrict is we do not want to say, according to the previous definition that I gave you, this one C commands these two. This one C commands these two, but we do not want to say that this assigns case to this or does something to this NP. So, we need to define first branching node in terms of a maximal projection and the examples of maximal projections are NP, VP, PP, AP. So, when we say x is the first branching node, we need to define first we want to define x branch x as the maximal projection, where x is the maximal projection and then we will be able to restrict the fact that only A should be C commanding B and then we can say A C commands B, A governs B therefore, A assigns accusative case to NP, to the NP that is in its domain. I see some, no not clear. So, what is the problem part? In the previous, A by B in this case and B by A. So, again there is no difference. Look at the look at the further one M command. If it does not show you the difference let me tell you the idea at least. This shows the difference. I will talk about this again. Let me show you the idea. The main point is we want to devise a mechanism through which we can only the system should only allow A to C command B and not B to C command A. Think about this thing little bit. Do you have an access to books now? The PDF copies of the books, did you get a copy of that? All these things are explained with good examples in great details. Please take a look at this and I will try to clarify this C command and M command business little bit more when we are talking about assignment of nominative cases to the NP. Hold on. Can I get your attention for another 30 seconds? We are saying in this case that we as a governor assigns accusative case to its compliment NP. What will be the governor? You know now where the subject NP occurs. Subject NP occurs in which position? Subject NP occurs in which position? Spec position of IP. What will assign nominative case? What will be the head that will give nominative case to the spec NP? Spec of IP. Is the question that we will discuss? Then you will be able to see the relevance of C command and M command in more details.