Okay let us look at J's assignment I will
talk a little bit more about a accusative
case assignment and then we go to nominative
case assignment and we will see the relevance
of a structural relations of c command that
we were discussing is that we were discussing
yesterday so a couple of preliminaries to
repeat to you nominative cases are for subjects
accusative cases are for objects any configurational
structure head positions assign cases and
they assign cases to their complements which
entails that heads are case assigners .
They are governors and also cases are assigned
to a particular position and NPs by virtue
of being in that position receives such cases
making sense NPs do not come with cases loaded
on them inherently however some theoretical
approach talks about such possibility as well
but we will restrict ourselves to the position
that NPs do not come with cases assigned already
to them what we can accept or as far as we
can accept that probably there are all kinds
of cases in NPs on only a particular kind
of case gets activated in particularly reason.
And what activates such case for example accusative
in the complements of work that is objects
and nominative in subjects is simply because
they happen to be in these positions okay
and then I will talk about then how this assignment
works so let me help you draw this tree for
this sentence can you also do this in your
note book please with what you understand
now how to get the structure of a sentence
please draw this structure . And then we see
their configurational relation try to try
to draw the structure of this sentence in
as much details as you think is possible because
that helps us understand the notion of c-command
where I think there were some issues yesterday
okay so let us look at that.
So we have and this is the structure of the
sentence this is the subject NP here and this
is I and then we get specifier of VP v bar
and we have v this sentence is this happens
to be the subject of this sentence and this
is the word play now the oh wait a minute
wait a minute we have an adjunct in this sentence
which is what is the adjunct in this sentence
in the playground is the agent is the is an
adjunct in this sentence so we need this structure
and this becomes the complement and this becomes
the adjunct . So we have play and what we
have as the complement is again 
and this is the compliment right are we good
so far with this structure okay now we have
a adjunct here which is specifier okay do
we have this structure yes everybody more
than that do we understand this structure
do you see anything contradicting anything
else that you have learned so far from this
structure no does it maintain it is a simple
sentence we have not gone to a relatively
complex sentence so far this is a very simple
sentence this retains integrity of every phrase
that you have learnt so far does it okay.
When I say integrity of a phrase what I mean
is every phrase has spec head and its complement
and they are related to one another by virtue
of being complement to a head and then we
still maintain the distinction between the
complement and an adjunct of the predicate
and then we maintain recursiveness non-recursiveness
and all kinds of distinctions that we have
seen no we want to look at this structure
today with another specific structural understanding
which is we are trying to say. That this head
V happens to assign accusative case to this
NP football okay we have looked at the distinction
between morphological case and abstract case
yesterday I want to drop from there that the
case assigned to this happens to be abstract
case that is we do not see any morphological
marker on this NP if we had a pronominal NP
in this position then we see some changes
however this is an abstract case now as a
foot note here please remember that we see
more examples of abstract cases and very few
examples of morphological cases. That is also
because we are talking about English maybe
other languages demonstrate a different pattern
in some other language we may have more examples
of morphological cases and very little examples
of abstract cases nonetheless that does not
change our which is okay so we are saying
this assigns accusative case to this NP we
looked at two configurational relations yesterday
they were about dominance and precedence right.
Now based on your understanding please tell
me does this V at head precede this football
this NP football what we mean by precedence
is structural precedence not on the linear
order does it precede the NP yes does it dominate
that NP it is crucial for us to understand
does it dominate that NP no what do we need
to know when we say dominate.
Let me put that slide again for you to see
for a node to dominate another node it has
to be higher up in the tree than the other
node right maybe this is higher up right if
this is node A and this is node B this is
higher up but the second condition is there
should be a line tracing A going downward
to B there is no line tracing this one going
downward to B in fact if you want to go from
here to B you have to go up and then down
therefore it is not dominating the simple
reason for this definition is just to be clear
that there is no dominance relationship between
this one and this one it is only precedence
. Is this clear to everybody what dominates
this now this one whatever okay let us now
talk about N what are the nodes that you think
dominate this N this one is dominating this
what else NP V bar another we V bar VP and
I clear this does not end up dominating this
one this is why these two configurational
relations are significant. Now on the basis
of this.
This one let us look at so we so now we want
to say not only V precedes N we want to say
V c commands N okay where C commands simply
means a constituent command you know that
these two terms V play and N football these
are two constituents of this sentence are
you with me these are the two constituents
of this sentence yes sure word sorry the V
play and football N football are the two constituents
of this sentence to be more precise these
are the two constituents of the predicate
predicated structure is that clear these are
the two constituents independent constituents
in that sentence c commands stands for constituent
command. And it helps us trade relationship
between one and the other so what we are saying
now is if V assigns activity of case to this
N it assigns through the notion of C command
that is V c commands N football does this
definition work in sync that V c commands
football good thing is this John plays football
so you only play no not that no I am saying
, I first of all we have not finished the
whole thing to understand that C command means
constituent command right there are like , I
have like I told you there are the V and N
are two constituents are in this sentence.
There are more constituents in the sentences
we are we are only giving you I am only giving
the examples of two of them each constituent
of a sentence is in some or the other relationship
with the other constituent okay the constituent
that assigns case to another one that assignment
takes place through the notion of C command
okay the constituent that assigns case to
another one this assignment takes place through
the notion of C command . What is the restrictions
in node A c commanding node B through the
definition that you see here of C command
do you think the node V commands N sorry that
is see what I am saying is this is A let us
say this is A and this one is B this. A c
command B through this definition does it
we have we saw this one yesterday okay where
that the definition says A does not dominate
B and B does not dominate A both the conditions
are met are we meeting these two conditions
does A dominate B no B does not dominate A
now we just talked about that . But in for
A to dominate B you should have a line tracing
directly to that so IP dominates N I bar dominates
N VP dominates N V Bar dominates N this V
bar dominates N this NP dominates N this N
bar dominate N but not this V right get this
so the first condition is met what is the
second condition the first branching node
dominating A also dominates B what is the
first branching node dominating A, B what
does it nominate B does it dominate B yes
it does so this condition is met. Therefore
we can say A c commands B now if we look at
the look at the virtue of A being a governor
for B do we meet that condition A governs
,A is a governor and A c commands B and B
c commands A this B also c command A here
simply be too difficult for you to figure
this out it does not why first branching node
dominating B does not dominate A see this
thing we will see I saw there were some confusions
yesterday and that confusion was because when
we look at a simplified structure okay . We
simplify any structure some simplify a structure
for the purpose of not leaving too many empty
nodes everywhere but that does not mean those
nodes are not available like if we are looking
at just let me give you another one and try
to remove this confusion from yesterday because
I saw some people approaching me with that
confusion .
We have a VP and we have V and NP okay and
then we have play and football see this thing
when we are talking about this NP being football
actually this NP this football is not football
is eventually an NP but it is a constituent
of NP which is at zero level category which
is a head of this NP that that is N if we
leave this structure here then it seems like
in the larger V c commands NP and this c commands
this one. I am helping remove the confusion
or am I confusing it further because the other
reason is this three people who were talking
about this confusion I do not see them here
it is it is helping you understand this the
confusion was when , I say V c commands NP
okay. If you leave this structure this way
then it also says NP c commands me because
the first branching node dominating V also
dominates and NP whereas actually this needs
to be further elaborated and then . You see
that the first branching node dominating A
dominates B but the first branching node dominating
B does not dominate A therefore A c commands
B but B does not c command A right and then
thus this government relationship is also
met and then we see A in this structure of
IP we see A assigning case to B with this
notion of with the help of this notion of
c command .
If this is clear then we can move little further
yes people from this side okay now we can
we can make we can restrict this definition
a little further yeah A governs B yes that
means yeah this is why I said we need to restrict
this further.
What you are saying is according to the definition
of c-command it is okay but in order to say
A governs B right the both the conditions
are not meeting that is what your question
is for that we need to redefine c command
redefine the notion of government .And this
is why I am giving you this one and have one
more restricted definition of government.
And then the idea is not just to take you
through these definitions the idea is for
you to understand that A c commands be A case
assign B and A also governs B without A being
a governor this assignment of case does not
work and the reason why we want to restrict
it so much is because we do not want to end
up saying that any element that c-commands
another one also assigns case to that no now
we want to look at so it will be really very
helpful to understand the assignment of nominative
case if this much is clear to you so far right
. Now let us look at nominative cases what
which constituent in a sentence gets nominative
case which constituent of a sentence gets
nominative case we just talked about that
subjects get nominative case and if hence
are governors right and if case is assigned
through the notion of c-command right then
we need to apply the same definition to define
to assign nominative case to the subject .
Now look at the subject here right we have
this being subject and now I am putting A
here or I should put something else let me
put C and then for the time being let me only
put C so this is the subject and we are saying
this gets nominative case there is a problem
applying the same rule for the assignment
of nominative case do you see that problem
there is a problem saying that the same principle
of case assignment assigns nominative case
to the subject do you see the problem go ahead
John being the sentence John being the subject
. So if we say a sentence like John's pen
subjected on rate depends on what I s the
full sentence its 
genitive case that okay genitive case but
which there are two NPS in that that whole
thing John and Pen John is definitely genitive
case and then Pen is something else now there
are two different NPs as part of one bigger
NP okay so depending upon what how you are
going to construct the whole sentence the
assignment of case works so if you say John's
pen is good right John's pen is green what
is the subject of the sentence . What comes
in the it is little bit difficult type of
a question but not a difficult one from the
rational point of view it is this sentence
is just like John is a doctor what is the
sentence of this what is the subject of the
sentence no hold on John is a doctor what
is the subject of the sentence John John's
pen is green what is the subject of this sentence
John's pen the whole thing becomes the subject
know which one gets nominative case which
one should get nominative case whole phrase
gets nominative case . And then within that
whole phrase you have two NPS one genetic
one with the genitive case so that further
substantiates our point that nominative case
is related to instructional position nominative
case is not necessarily related to an element
point number one point number two nominating
cases are not assigned or for that matter
any case is not assigned to elements it is
assigned there to the whole phrase get this
thing you can very well ask this question
why do we need to draw this whole structure
when we are only talking about one element
football. You will see the I am glad you gave
this example now you see the Johns pen the
whole NP has got nominative case this whole
NP gets accusative case okay so how this structure
of that kind of sentence works in fact that
reminds me to ask you this question did you
get a chance to look at Lillian Hangman's
book the case theory describing these things
in Lillian Hangman's book talks about examples
like what you are asking okay, now let me
go back to nominative case assignment at least
we should be able to finish that up. How does
this one get nominative case what is the head
that assigns nominative case to this and how
does that head assigns nominative case is
the question that we need to address and only
then we can see we can talk about case assignment
being a theoretical thing in languages because
you understand this point that, I am saying
the assignment of case as a theoretical aspect
of language can only be seen when assignment
of two cases are identical the identical process
is taking care of two cases. If we have if
we have components a different module for
accusative case and a different module for
nominative case then we are not really talking
about theory we are talking about patterns
then it becomes a theory only when several
case assignments become part of one one theoretical
aspect so how do you look at look at this
now NP and tell me how which head will which
head is C commanding this NP do you see any
C commanding this NP no any head C governing
this NP no anything C commanding this one
forget about head any element C commanding
this one.
No right and we are saying this gets nominative
case for this definitely we need to do something
now if I say this is the head which assigns
nominative case to this one okay actually
what happens is I as a head and the particular
feature of I which is being tensed remember
this part that this host stems the tense feature
of I when I has tense what is it called we
talked about it yesterday it becomes it when
I has tense it becomes a finite clause right
so the finiteness element of this head assigns
nominative case to John . The inference of
that is a subject of a non-finite clause will
not have nominative case and I am going to
show you some examples of that but let us
very quickly look at how this works does if
now if I am saying this head I assigns nominative
case to this I is definitely not c commanding
this spec does it no given the definition
and given the definition of c command that
you have on a screen it does not. However
if we modify this definition of c command
little bit then we end up saying that I M
commands this NP subject NP and this M command
is in modification of C command does it help
what is there on the screen or we need to
go through there too stepwise 
I bar dominates I sorry this I bar dominates
I but I bar does not dominate NP and that
is true so therefore it is not in C command
relationship okay now we are saying these
are in M command relations with one another
where we are trying to say that X that dominates
A should dominate B provided that X is the
maximal projects that is a phrasal category.
What is the first this all the phrasal categories
like IP V P NP are maximal projections so
they remember there are three levels one is
a zero level X intermediate level X bar and
then phrasal level which is XP all the phrasal
level categories are called maximal projections
so in the trick that is being played here
to convert C command into M command the trick
is the first maximal projection must incorporate
both of them so we are saying the first branching
node of course we are talking about the first
branching node . But that first branching
node should be the first maximal projection
so this modification this tweaking of this
definition helps us say that this element
of course does not c command I does not c
command NP but I M commands this NP because
the first maximal projection dominating I
also dominates spec of this NP get this thing
first maximal projection dominating this eye
dominates this NP therefore I under the notion
of M command being the finite head assigns
nominative case to its subject. And we are
doing this modification because we do not
want to retain the idea that heads assign
cases hence our governor and hence assign
cases under certain structural configuration
hence do not assign case to an element arbitrarily
under no relationship 
with one another I bar c-commands John no
because the first branching oh sorry I bar
c-commands John yes John but I does not c
command John what we are the reason why we
are saying that X is the first branching node
because we want to keep it open to define
the first branching node. In this case what
is the first branching node and what and we
want to define the first branching node in
terms of m command as the maximal projection
this is the difference between C command and
m command in the M command the X is a maximal
projection we just want to keep that open
to account for nominative case assignment
otherwise we will have no way to account for
nominative case assignments . When we say
we will have no way we will have to say something
else and then the theory falls apart so in
order to maintain theoretical integrity of
heads being assigning cases and hence being
assigning heads being a position to assign
case under certain configures configurational
relationship is the reason why we do this
trick this NP m commands I and vice-versa
no you cannot say that because the first max
first maximal projection dominating this NP
is no this NP this is also a maximal projection
so only this one M commands. This because
the first maximal projection dominating this
I is which one everybody please look at this
configuration the first maximal projection
dominating I is what first maximal projection
dominating IP and there is nothing ever that
IP so this is going to M command this one
but if we want to say this M commands this
one then the first maximal projection dominating
this NP is this MP let her finish that is
because again I did not elaborate this one.
If you expand this thing John it becomes just
like football 
that sounded that M so let me show you this
thing and this is important thing for us to
understand do you see this NP we just established
that John's pen can also be the subject we
can have much bigger things in subject positions
sometimes not only NP sometimes IPs can be
subjects okay those examples little later
okay but look at this example first this is
a spec this is n bar and this is N and it
is complement and John is here. Now does this
John M command this I am I still trying to
answer your question you are saying do they
m command and one another in a reciprocal
fashion the answer is no I am commands John
but John doesn't M command I and we need to
keep this restriction otherwise we won't be
able to say that the head governs the case
assignor sorry head is a case a signer and
it governs the element that it assigns case
two this is all mathematical or rational gymnastics
we only want to say heads are assignor heads
are governors . And they govern they govern
their case assignees and they assign cases
under certain configuration configurational
notion therefore this tree I am hoping that
things are clear okay so this these are the
two things through which this assignment works
linguistic theorists would have been happier
or this theory would have looked even better
if we did not have to devise the notion of
Sigma sorry no sign of m command. If both
assignment of nominative cases an assignment
of a accusative cases both worked through
the notion of C command the theory would have
been stronger the fact that for the assignment
of nominative case theoreticians working with
this model had to devise a new term called
M command is a little bit weakness of the
theory do you understand this aspect because
we are trying to devise something some trick
just to account for one single phenomena in
the sentence and if you understand things
about theory any modification to account for
one or two phenomena's makes theory weaker
. Okay nonetheless it retains the components
of case assignment it takes care of this however
it does become weak now very quickly so this
becomes an assigner this becomes a governor
this is a governor and this is a preposition
assign nominative cases sorry prepositions
assign accusative case to its complement to
because this NP otherwise this NP will remain
non case assigned NP which NP this NP needs
a case and assigner of case to this NP is
this head and this preposition assigns accusative
case to this NP .Under the notion of c command
and get it now.
So far we have seen just two things c command,
M command and how these two notions take care
of nominative cases and accusative case we
will we were supposed to have covered couple
of other things as well by now but nonetheless
it is more important for us to understand
how it how it works then to cover more topics
again tomorrow we have the last class here
okay I want you to talk about something else
some new topic tomorrow but I want to I do
not want to bring in a new topic new topic
in syntax for tomorrow I want you to be able
to apply this these two structural notions
to account for more type of sentences. Do
you see the sentence on the screen right now
for John to attack bill would be surprising
do you see the sentence what is the subject
of the sentence 
subject of the sentences is John to attack
bill right now is this a finite sentence or
non-finite sentence finite sentence non-finite
finite or not finite this happens to be a
sentence right so the first thing that I will
talk about these things later I just want
to draw your attention to what we are going
to be discussing tomorrow and what you should
keep in mind . So the first thing is this
NP does not need to be NP alone that is in
subject position we do not have only NPs we
can also have if we are saying this is sentence
then I P in the subject position we can have
IP and once this is an IP we have can we say
John to attack bill would be surprising no
we need to say for John to attack bill would
be surprising why do we need this for I mean
even a native speaker of English would not
be able to answer this question because and
more. So because native speakers are not supposed
to answer these questions people is studying
this need to answer such questions why do
we need far in this sentence we will look
at it tomorrow one more question do you see
sentences like the three sentences that you
have below John believes the story good sentence
John believes him to be a liar what is the
object of the sentence him to be a liar right
is that an IP is it a finite clause or a non-finite
clause him to be a liar non-finite clause
right which means that is an IP right. What
is the subject of that IP him and him is what
nominative case or accusative case accusative
case so can an accusative case marked NP be
the subject of a sentence no that is what
we have seen so far and it is true but no
structures should allow a subject as anything
other than nominative case get it so there
seems to be some problem with the sentence
then the similar kind of problem with the
third sentence I want him to learn English
same thing him to learn English is a non finite
clause IP the subject of that IP is him which
happens to have accusative case from what
we know so far accusative case margin NPs
cannot be subjects of IPs. The reason why
I am raising these issues to you is there
are two reasons it will be too much for me
to expect that you will come up with these
examples to counter what we have seen so far
number one at the same time I want to assure
that when you talk about nominative and accusative
cases and you and there happens to be a situation
when people figure out that you know how case
assignment works .
Someone who knows it just little bit better
than you should not be able to give you this
question and tell you don't know it completely
so you are telling me as a parrot which has
memorized something that subjects get only
nominative cases, I can give you an example
of a subject which does not have a nominative
case how will you account for this I do not
want you to be answerless therefore. I am
not bringing a new topic tomorrow I will talk
about little bit of these topics tomorrow
so that we can wind up this whole session
knowing that we understand structural relations
and case theory in a way so that we understand
X-bar and introductory syntax properly okay
see you tomorrow. Thank you.
