 So, what we have seen so far, so let me let me put that in perspective, we are we are trying to see how cases are assigned to different NPs in a sentence. There are two types of cases, one is two types of cases at an empirical grounds, one is abstract type of case and the other is morphological type of case that is in terms of their appearance in on a noun phrase. Most of the time except genitive cases on nominal NPs, cases are abstract and on pronominal NPs they surface in some kind of morphological some with with some kind of morphological change that that is about empirical part of case. What becomes more interesting with respect to phrases structure and x bar theory, how do these NPs get cases? We raise a very interesting question, this theory raises an interesting question which is do noun phrases or nouns come with cases as a lexical item or are they getting case in a sentence? There is plenty of evidence available that nouns or noun phrases do not come case assigned already, they receive cases when they become part of a sentence. When we move beyond that acceptable idea then we we want to understand how do they get it after all and we have been looking at so far the structural configuration responsible for assignment of case and we know that this assignment works in a structural configuration. We looked at accusative or objective case being assigned by verb and then we yesterday we looked at nominative cases being assigned to subjects and we we tried to look at both in terms of uniformity of a structural behavior and we we said heads are responsible for for assigning cases and heads such as verb preposition or depending upon languages post positions and infinitival sorry finite eyes finite infill assign cases to be precise verbs assign accusative case to its compliment prepositions assign accusative case to its compliment and infill tensed infill not not non-finite ones but finite infills assign accusative assign nominative cases to subject IP. For this assignment we tried to restrict the domain in terms of the following that heads which become governors assign cases under certain structural configuration and that is heads must see command the the case assigning a noun phrase and it must also govern it unless these two conditions meet the case assignment does not does not work. You see the examples on the screen the reason why these two sentences are ungrammatical because because why is the first sentence not good I am not asking for a good sentence I am asking for why is the first sentence not good go ahead anybody sorry the subject the noun phrase in the subject position does not have nominative case it has an accusative case that is the that is one possible answer which also tells us that so somebody can raise a question so what is the problem after all it has a case the all case case theory tells us that a noun phrase must have a case it has a case so what is the problem the problem is in a particular structural position in a sentence remember we have been looking at organization of words in a sentence and relationship among elements of a sentence in terms of a structural configuration and how they are represented in human mind and what are those things what are the components that lead sentences to ungrammaticality out of which we see in a particular structural position an NP must have a particular type of behavior that is the first noun phrase in this in these two sentences must have nominative case not accusative cases the second point that is clear to us accusative cases are assigned by verbs and post positions and what we see here is verbs if these two sentences are to be taken as grammatical then we see verbs assigning cases to the NPs that they are not supposed to be assigning cases that because verbs do not verb found find and verb love in these two sentences do not see command or govern their subject NPs therefore these two sentences are ungrammatical finally verbs do not assign case to NPs outside their domain therefore the domain is important and that domain is governing domain and the government is largely assigned through C command if a head C commands the NP that it assigns case to then it governs that NP as well if the NP is not able to C command the head backward then it does not govern the head as well through which we establish that only heads govern NPs and not NPs govern heads does that answer the question of a government anything else before I move to exceptional case marking and few more examples of case assigned NPs or heads assigning cases we let us also keep in mind that only finite clauses assign nominative cases we do not see non-finite I assigning nominative cases to the subject NPs and we are going to look at that today. Moving on we have seen these things look at this definition of government some people were asking me about government yesterday look at this definition of government A is A governs B if and only if A is a governor A M commands B or C commands B depending upon our need and there is no barrier intervening A and B where maximal projections serve as barriers to the government and heads are government I will I will I will I will let me let me talk about this thing in a moment when we say something like the example that I have given you another simple example John love this I is finite I that is plus 10s now we are saying this V C commands this NP and this V governs the head backward this NP get it at the same time we need to restrict that this N does not C command this head backward. So we we we redefined the notion of C command in which reverse C command does not work and we said that the first we need to define first branching node carefully the first branching node dominating B should not be dominating A however if the first branching node dominate first branching node dominating A is going to dominate B anyway we do not need to invoke the notion of maximal projection here because the first branching node dominating B is not going to be dominating A anyway. However if we say the first branching node this if we allow this to govern this one then we land into trouble therefore we do not want to say this governs the head at all. So we need to say it is not first branching node is not enough if there is a maximal projection in between then B is not going to be able to govern A. However A is going to govern B by the virtue of A C command. Therefore this notion of maximal projection where we say see this you see the last but one point here maximal projections are barrier to government in the sense that it is not going to be governing A. I want to show you some examples where we where the theory find some difficulties. We are governing the NP this is governing the NP whereas this is going to so for this one for V to govern this this this N is part of this NP. So V for the for the government by V there is no problem. This NP creates a barrier for government backward. It is a very important question and that needs to be understood clearly. What you are saying is if we try to if we try to look at government this side also there is an NP does this serve as a barrier for V to govern N that is your question. It does not because in order to govern N eventually this needs to govern this NP and remember we are talking about assignment of case to NP. So this does not serve as a governor it just what we say bleeds case eventually to N. So this NP is not a barrier for government by V whereas this NP is a barrier for government by N to V. It is just a simple technicality to stop case assigned now to govern the head backward. See if we if if we say A dominates B and B dominates C then that is an equal relationship. Then how can we say that A assigns case and B does nothing to A. This is not how it works. This is not how things work in general. So this is just a technicality technical manipulations to control things and I have I have shown you the differences between C command and M command and how that even leads to little bit of weakness in the theory that we need to invoke the notion of M command with a minimal distinction between the two to account for nominative cases in a particular way. Is this clear clear making sense to everybody? It is an a stipulation but I do not want to run it as an stipulation to you. I want you to understand even this stipulation in a clear way. Now we want to look at these cases. Let me first look at the cases with exceptional features sentences which require exceptional manipulations to work with case. All these assignment all all these things that you see so far on the screen is part of a structural case marking. That is we ensure accusative case to the complement of V and nominative case to this NP by this head in a structural fashion. That because this is higher because V C commands NP because V governs NP therefore V assigns case. This is called a structural case assignment. Because I M commands the subject NP because I is a potential governor therefore I finite I assigns nominative case to the subject NP. This is called a structural case because structure of a sentence ensures two different kinds of cases to them. We run into some issues and some problems when we look at some other examples like there is no issue when we look at John believes this story. This is taken care of by the same structure that you see on the board believe is the head and the story is the complement of that head and receives accusative case no problem. It is a finite class assigns easily assigns nominative case to the subject NP absolutely no problem. The problem starts from when with the examples when we look at John believes him to be a liar. What is the problem with this sentence? Let us look at the structure of this sentence. We have an IP and then we see a VP. We have a subject NP here and this V has here believe what is the complement of this V in this sentence to John believes him to be a liar. What is the complement of this V? Him to be a liar which is an IP by itself. Is this a clause? Does this have a compliment have a verb in it? Him to be a liar does this have a verb in it? That means that is a clause larger than a phrase. It is a clause and therefore it receives the status of an IP. Now if this is a clause do we have a tense here or not? No tense. This is a non-finite clause. We understand finiteness and non-finiteness of a clause in terms of presence or absence of tense which become evident when we look at the structure. It is the simple thing for that representation of finiteness or non-finiteness is going to be I. When we see a finite clause here this is a finite I which is plus tense. What is the tense here? Present. When we are talking about a non-finite clause all we are going to see is no tense here. That is the structural difference between a finite clause and a non-finite clause. The important issue is this is the subject NP and which becomes him. Then we have a VP of this sentence which I am just going to put as a bundle. Now the issue here is there are two-fold problem. Problem is this NP is in the subject position of this non-finite clause. Subject positions are not supposed to get accusative cases. The work has to be finite to have the nominative case. So, now then we have a much bigger problem. The first requirement is the subject NP should get a nominative case. That is the requirement number one. But like you mentioned that nominative comes through finite NP, finiteness of the clause. The fact that this is not finite this NP should not get a case. Finiteness of a clause assigns nominative case to the subject which is true. Non-finiteness of a clause will assign some other case is not the condition. Non-finiteness will just not assign a case at least a nominative case. Then how does this get an accusative case? This is an accusative NP. There is nothing in the VP or at least any head of the V will not be able to govern this NP higher up in this IP to assign it any kind of accusative case because there is a head here. Remember when we were looking at the definition of government, I am trying to keep it simple at the elementary level. There are lots of discussions on barriers. Heads become barrier too. So, a head here remember all the way down in VP if we have a head. This head under no circumestances is going to govern any NP higher up for a variety of reasons and out of such reasons one is if there is another head intervening that then there is no question. A head from outside is going to govern this NP out of question. This head is potentially defunct. It is a non-finite head not going to take part in assignment of case at all. The problem is how does this get a case through this V? But this V is supposed to assign cases only to its complement. The whole IP is complement but this is not just whole IP. You see the maximal projections here? There are two of them. Now what I am trying to point it out to you that there is a problem here. According to normal and general definitions that we have seen, subjects are supposed to get nominative cases. The first problem is an NP in a non-nominative case in subject position. That is problem number one. Even if we accept that if there was an look, there is one more part of the story which I have not been able to talk to you. IPs are full domain by itself. If we allow a head to intervene this IP, then it is a big time of intervention. You see the problem. IPs are domains by itself. We can have when this head is governing this NP, it is still the story within IP. When V is assigning a case to its complement, it is still within its own domain. But when we are letting a head intervene into another IP, then that becomes a big cost for a theory. So, these are the issues which X bar theory has not been able to answer. However, we still need to give a solution to this problem. Definitely, that solution is with heavy heart, we allow to say that this verb in an exceptional way assigns accusative case to this NP. This is true that this verb assigns accusative case, but in an exceptional way. This is why we call such cases as examples of exceptional case marking. It is not normal accusative case assignment through C command. Of course, this C command, this is in a C commanding domain because the first branching node dominating this V dominates this NP as well, but then there are potential issues here. This is a nominative case position and then there are IP is a big time barrier for accusative case assignment. Usually, an head will not be able to intervene IP to assign a case outside its domain. But such cases are called exceptional case marking because these are grammatical sentences and if a sentence is grammatical, then it needs to be accounted for. The patch is this is called exceptional case marking. What kind of a clause is that? Finite clause or a non-finite clause? Him to learn English is this a finite clause or a non-finite clause? Do we have a tense there? No, not tense. It is still a non-finite clause. The story is the same and non-finite clause will not be able to assign nominative case to its subject. There is no nominative subject in the subject position either. What we find in a strange way is an accusative subject in that position. The question for us to wonder is how does this subject position get an accusative case? The only way to account for this is it is probably receiving accusative case from the V in the higher domain. Remember, the case filter also says that a verb must discharge its case. This verb has not, it is a potential assigner, has not discharged its case. It has potential to assign accusative case to NNP. With that potential, it intervenes the domains that it is not supposed to assign accusative case even to the position, where usually we do not find accusative case assigned NPs. If we had this as a finite clause, there is no way this verb will be able to do it. It has to remain unsatisfied, but it will not be able to intervene there. I do not have an example on the screen for you. Let me give you an example. Can you give me an example of a finite clause? Finite subordinate clause. Understand my question? An example of a subordinate clause which is finite. Can you come up with an example? We have a complex sentence where the subordinate clause, which is the complement of the V is a finite clause. It should not be a difficult question. We are asking a too difficult thing from you. A sentence where the subordinate clause is a finite one. Is this not clear? Clear. Give me an example. You can do much better than that. John says that the test was tough. John says that the test was tough. That is a good example. What is the bigger sentence is? John says that the test was tough. First clause, main clause, does this have a finite? Does this have a tense? John says, what is tense is that? Present tense. What is the subordinate clause? That the test was tough. Is this a finite clause? What is the verb in here? What is the tense here? Was. John says that the test was tough. So what is the subject of the subordinate clause? The test. The finiteness of the second subordinate clause is a signing nominative case to this NP. Let us try putting an accusative case marker. Let me write this. John says that this is the sentence. We are talking about without giving it a structure, we are talking about this clause where we are talking about, actually this is the test was tough, this NP which gets nominative case from this. Now, let us try a sentence where we are putting a non-nominative NP here. Say is a signing. Say has to a sign an accusative case. That is right. I am coming to that question in a moment and that will be kind of answered with the question that I am asking you. Is it a sign here or accusative case in this case? Why would it be accusative case? Because it has to a sign accusative case. Yes that is right. What he is saying is, say as a verb is a potential case a signer. It has to a sign accusative case to its compliment. This question is which NP does it a sign the case to? Am I right? We come to that in a moment and you are answering this question that it is a signing the accusative case to the entire clause. That takes care of the answer to, but I want to go into little bit more details of that. First we want to look at this sentence with respect to this. Let us try putting a pronominal here which is morphologically accusative case marked to clearly show that an accusative case marked NP would not occur here. So we will need a different kind of a sentence. So we say, let us say John, I will give you my type of sentences. At a friend who is studying physics then a friend who is studying physics would be the finite clause and you would replace it with John met him. John met, give me a clause John met, hold on, you are right, the effort that you are making is giving us the sentence, but let us give a clear example of where we can have, where we cannot have an accusative case marked. When we say John met him, him is an accusative case marked NP and then the sentence is good. We are trying to put him as the subject of a finite clause leading it to a grammaticality. John says that he is hungry, yes, this is a much simpler example. Can we say John says that him is hungry? Why? Why can we not say John says that him is hungry? Is everybody with me here? Do we understand what we are doing? That answers the question which we are raising here. Why an accusative case marked NP is allowed here and why an accusative case marked NP is not allowed here? Hold on, talk to me for a moment please and then you can discuss with each other. This is an accusative case marked morphologically accusative case marked pronominal NP and this cannot occur here in this sentence because it is a finite clause and the finiteness of this clause assigns nominative case to the NP. The sentence is fully satisfied, it will not allow an NP which has any case other than nominative to occur in this position and if you try to put this, then the sentence results into a grammaticality. However, if the subordinate clause is not finite, like the examples that you see here, John believes him to be a liar, him to be a liar is not a finite clause, wants him to learn English, him to learn English is not a finite clause. In such cases, you find an NP, accusative case marked pronominal NP being the subject of those finite clauses, those non-finite clauses. A finite clause will not allow, the point that I am trying to abstract with these examples and contrast these examples with what you have on the board is a finite clause will not allow a nominative case marked, will not allow an accusative case marked NP in the subject position. However, a non-finite clause will have to allow an accusative case marked NP, get it? If we understand this much, then what we also understand is an IP or a CP, an IP or a CP is a domain because every single configurational requirement is satisfied within it. It does not need help from outside, it can become a subordinate clause because it is an object of the main verb, but it does not need any kind of a structural intervention from outside. Therefore, it is a domain by itself. Therefore, we say even in these cases something from outside is not supposed to intervene this. However, in exceptional situations where there is no case a signer and this is a potential case a signer, V is a potential case a signer and I is incapable of assigning nominative case to its subject, it has external intervention and such things are called exceptional case mark. Get this thing? Now, the question was, another question was how does this, how does this V assign its accusative case? If I ask you to order two things, V must assign its accusative case and the second condition is a domain does not allow intervention from outside. Which requirement do you think is stronger? The dignity of the domain, the integrity of the domain. So, in those cases it has to even if it remains without discharging its case that is acceptable for the theory, but integrity of the domain is more important. That is theoretical point number one. However, when it comes to assign accusative case, it assigns a accusative case to the entire clause, it satisfies its requirement. However, it does not get to satisfies requirement in the terms of sentence number one, John believes this story where it gets a clear NP and assigns accusative case to it. That is a clear example no intervention in any other domain, everything gets remain satisfied, integrity of the clause is good, everything fine. Integrity of the clause is violated when there is no potential assigner within the clause. When there is a potential assigner within the clause, it does not allow anything from outside. Get this thing? These are the examples of, sorry, this structure explains you the example of exceptional case marking and this talks about, the sentence talks about integrity of a clause. Get it? So, you should be able to answer these questions if people ask you, in sentences like I want him to learn English, him is a subject of a clause and subject of a clause is supposed to get a nominative case. How do you explain this clause not having a nominative NP? You will be able to explain this thing, defend this thing. Now, let us look at the sentence that is before this. For John to attack bill would be surprising. You can draw the structure of this sentence, can you please quickly draw the structure of this sentence in your notebook and then we see how case marking works in this sentence. For John to attack bill is a particular type of clause, what type of clause is this? Again, no, no, not CP or anything. I am talking about finiteness or non-finiteness, non-finite clause and what is the position in which this clause occurs? Subject position of the main clause. So far you have seen examples of subject positions being filled by an NP. The grammaticality of this sentence tells us that in the subject position of a sentence we can have heavier elements than NP's. We can have heavier elements than NP's and the heavier element will be, by heavy we mean bigger than the NP chunk. Bigger than the NP chunk is IP, still bigger will be CP. So, we can have bigger than NP, bigger than chunks bigger than NP's, elements bigger than NP's, phrases bigger than NP's in both object positions and subject positions. Do you see the significance of subjects and object positions in a sentence? Now, the reason why we are, other reason why we are looking at this example is subjects are supposed to get nominated cases through the finiteness of its clause. So, the whole clause, is the whole clause finite or non-finite? Whole clause, for John to attack Bill would be surprising. Is this a finite clause? The whole, whole thing, that is a finite clause. Because remember, while discussing C command, case and all these things, we should not forget certain basic things. We cannot have a sentence that is not finite. Independently, every sentence must be a finite clause. Non-finite clauses could only be subordinate clauses in the subject positions or in the object positions. We do not get independent non-finite clauses. That is why not subjects, not objects, not predicates, what defines a sentence is finiteness. This is why we call sentences as IP's because what heads a sentence is an I. Are you, are you getting my point? What defines a sentence is finiteness. It is tense because there cannot be a tense in any language of the world. There cannot be a sentence in any language of the world, which does not have a tense, which rules out the possibility of an independent in finite, non-finite clause. With that significance of finiteness in a sentence, people started calling a sentence as IP. It is not a fashionable term alone. It is an IP because the head of this IP is tense. This is eventually a tense. If we translate it in simple terms, the most significant element of a sentence is not either subject or object or its verb. It is tense. I hope at this stage I am able to show you that part. Now very quickly, I know you have, we are running out of this. Very quickly, just give me two minutes. The NP John, so the finiteness of the large clause assigns nominative case to its subject. Done. Just like this verb assigns accusative case to the entire clause. Done. But within that IP, this is just for John to attack Bill is going to be a CP in that. Now within that CP, this NP John needs a case. What is going to assign case to that NP is also a crucial question. The reason why we have for in this CP is because for as a preposition becomes a head and assigns accusative case to that NP. That NP what we have here as John is actually getting an accusative case. Are you with me? Change the sentence to a put a pronominal NP here. Can we say for he to attack Bill will be surprising or do we need to say for him to attack Bill will be surprising. For him to attack Bill will be surprising or would be surprising. What we are saying is in the situation where you see John here this is an accusative case marked NP. What assigns accusative case? Inside this subject CP is this head prepositions assigns accusative case to the subject NP to the NP John here. Therefore, we cannot simply say John to attack Bill, he to attack Bill would be surprising. These sentences are ungrammatical and in a language like English at least we have to say for him to attack Bill would be surprising. I hope this is making sense to you. In the interest of time I would like to stop here. Like I said we will be meeting next time in the regular classrooms. Professor Chaudhary will come for the next class and I hope that some of the elements of how sentences are organized and how we discuss elements of sentences with respect to its case marking, its relationship among various elements and how the whole notion of X bar captures these relationships in a particular way is making some sense to you. Thank you.