So, last time we were looking at reasons for displacement right and we looked at two to three two to three particular instances, particular issues which tells us that they are definitely appears to be some sort of displacement of certain elements from one place to the other. So far the reasons that we have seen for example, we saw that the first reason was they are looking at x bar schema, there appears to be a clear distinction between functional layer and lexical layer. And if we go ahead with the subject n p in the specifier position of i p or with the expansion of the head i which breaks into agreement tense and aspect and may be few more the spec position of a g r p seems to have seems to host subject n p. So, if we go ahead with that idea then we are running into difficulty that how come a lexical item originates in functional layer there appears to be no motivation for that. So, the point is it originates in the lexical layer, but we cannot let it be in the lexical layer because that is the n p which has to take care of agreement features with the agreement features on the verb which is part of the predicate. So, they are looking at the scheme so far there appears to be a contradiction that subject n p cannot be in the functional layer it must originate within spec v p. Once it originates in the spec v p it cannot stay in the spec v p it must be in the functional layer to take care of the agreement. So, to resolve that issue we need to look at we need to allow some sort of displacement in other words such a such an example shows us that there is definitely some sort of displacement. That is that is one very strong motivation for displacement. So, we saw some of the things and particular in particular evidence for motivation and then we are continuing with the motivation and instances further instances of movement. And we are going to see that with example of with example from C p and what we call w h movement. So, we saw that the element appears to dislocate from its original position to the other there is a there is a compelling reason for us to believe for such an operation. This is how a sentence looks like in a normal situation right for which the idea was we can we we should not there does not seem to be a compelling reason for us to allow agreement tense an aspect under one bundle. So, the split was allowed in this particular way where I p was not allowed was was we got rid of I p and then the story that I have told you there appears to be two categorical layers of functional layer and lexical layer. And these are the things that we have see. So, this is how a sentence looks like in a canonical order right. Then which is which is whether we look at I p or A g R p this is how a sentence looks like while looking at another module which was case theory we looked at several other aspects. For example, in particular we looked at the relationship between abstract relationship between heads and their complements that is a head V or a head P appears to assign cases to their complements in a particular configuration that they seem to govern their complements and thus assign cases to them. So, then we introduce the notion of a government and C command with the assignment of case two we saw a difficulty and the difficulty was there does not seem to be a clear theoretical straight line answering the question of case assignment that is whether it is a assignment of accusative cases assignment of nominative cases there does not seem to be a straight answer to that. We have different patches to take care of accusative case assignment and nominative case assignment on the top of that even couple of patches do not seem to solve all the problems. The problem is when we run into complement clauses which is when we have a whole sentence a whole clause as the complement of some head then we see some difficulty with assignment of case. So, assignment of cases is also one particular motivation motivating factor for split of functional layers and then the idea is the case of the case assignment must work in a different way in a more systematic and unified fashion the earlier some earlier theoretical apparatus does not seem to take care of case assignment properly. Since we have we have not looked at the interactions of case assignment and then the split of functional head we are I am going to drop that for the time being and go ahead with the examples of movement in particular. However, difficulties in taking care of assignment of cases in the theoretical apparatus that we have been discussing so far is definitely one of the factors for such kind of abstract displacement. Then we bring in a notion of CP which is a complementizer phrase and we have looked at the composition of CP that is what does a CP what is a CP look like and then we see it is the sometimes a head C takes the whole IP as its complement and then the recursiveness of language also allows sometimes CP appearing in the subject position or in the object positions. So, how does a CP look like when it appears in a subject position and how does a CP look like when it appears in an object position is what we want to look at and this will also give us one more chance to look at assignment of cases particularly the assignment of except assignment of cases in exceptional way that is we have to allow a new patch remember exceptional case marking. So, this is going to show us one more example of exceptional case marking. So, is this sentence for her to laugh is difficult is that sentence good now the whole sentence is in the bigger sentence for her to laugh does it appear like a subject to you this sentence is just like John is running right or John is tall do you understand when I say this sentence is just like John is tall what I am saying is in place of the chunk in the red that you see on the screen which appears to be a clause we can also replace the whole clause with a simple NP and we can say John is tall and the sentence is the two sentences are similar in their composition the point is we find a CP in place of specifier position of an NP of an IP do we see that does everyone see that what you might be wondering about why is that a CP why not an IP right for her to laugh could also be an IP is that the question which is bothering you or there is something else it is non-finite IP for sure whether it is a CP or an IP it is definitely non-finite right. So, because there is no no there does not appear to be any tense in that right so let us go ahead and look at that I am coming to that sentence in a minute let me first show you a CP in the object position I think we had we had talked about that but let us refresh this thing John knew that Mary did not drink the word no in the main clause has a complement which is a CP the whole thing that Mary did not drink is a full CP this clear right and in this CP in this CP in the red that you see C is the head that and then the complement is the whole IP Mary did not drink Mary in the in that little IP which is the which is the head of which is the complement of C let me let me show you little bit to make my point clear what I am trying to trying to show here to you is we have an IP I am going I am going to put it in short we have a V and a CP here all right this C this is the CP in the red that we are talking about that so we have a C bar C and then an IP right here is we have our that and then we have this this is the structure that we are dealing with this is what we have on the screen right I am talking about in particular this CP this V as a head which is no takes the whole CP as a complement and it needs to assign its accusative case which it does through the notion of C command and it assigns accusative case to the CP it is done okay now or let us let us drop this thing the point is case assignment is satisfied there is no issue here when we look at the bigger sentence which we are calling CP do we have enough reason to believe that that is not an IP that is more than an IP in a that is a CP right so the first point is a CP can be an can be a complement of V that is clear now in the CP when we look at this complementizer phrase a complementizer takes the whole IP as a complement is that also clear and you see the recursiveness of sentences how one sentence is inbuilt in another okay now let us look at this sentence this IP it is a good kind of IP where we have Mary in this position right and this I is a plus finite I clear this is a plus finite I so Mary gets a nominative case from here and this is taken care of it is a good good sentence see this thing now why I wanted you to see these things that we need to we need to make sure that in the grammaticality of this sentence the fact that case assignment is taken care of is an important idea important issue okay now let us look at the sentence that we were looking at before a fresh where a CP is in the subject position the our argument is a CP is in the subject position and when we expand that CP and we look at it carefully what do we see what is there in the position of C the post position for right the reason why we now you may have a question in your mind so far every time we have been talking about a preposition we are we are saying this is a PP right why are we saying here that the preposition can be in this in the C position which is a complementizer we are essentially saying that this post preposition is a complementizer and which we are saying categorically because we are saying that this preposition is not a preposition is this a preposition this is not a preposition it looks like a preposition but it has a complementizer function that that is that the point number one therefore it is not a PP it is in the position of C and there are a couple of other other aspects that we are going to look at hang on for a moment then we see in the comp in the complement position of the C we see a sentence right and the sentence is her to laugh right and then her is in the aspect position of that IP we see that I want everybody's attention here on the screen her is in the aspect position of that IP what is the problem with that her it gets an accusative case and our problem is how does it get an accusative case particularly when the I is non finite see in this case I is a finite I right therefore it assigns nominative case under whatever modifications and patches that we have discussed so this is okay this configuration is okay no problem but in the in this in this one we have her which is clearly an accusative case marked NP and the I below is a non finite I right so the problem is this a spec IP should not have had any case and that will also be a problem right we cannot say for she to laugh is difficult the sentence is n grammatical so this there is no a signer of case that is accusative case to this NP at the same time if it does not get a case the sentence is not allowed do we do we see the paradox therefore what we are going to say again as an as a new example of exceptional case marking is the C for assigns accusative case to that to that NP under the notion of government that we have seen the modified government for exceptional case marking which is we are allowing this C to C command the NP her with the with clarity that maximal projection IP could be a barrier right but because this IP is a non finite IP we can allow that non finite IPs are probably not barriers okay therefore we have this kind of sentence which is allowed and this is the reason why we must have we must have as a complementizer for in this sentence other if we do not have the for in this kind of a sentence then the sentence is not not good can we say her to go her to laugh is difficult we can say this kind of sentence because and now I hope you can see the point with clarity that the reason why we are not we are unable to say her to laugh is difficult or she to laugh is difficult these sentences are not allowed because there is no case a signer okay and these kinds of sentences are difficult for the theoretical apparatus and they need to be taken care of within CP with the barrier within non non finite IP and these are the critical terms okay when you when you saw the last this last point about this issue when you saw the last example of exceptional case marking how did what what was the case a signer in that case in that in that example when we were looking at the last example of exceptional case marking which had assigned accusative case to the spec of IP which is non-finite what was the sentence I want him to go right so in that case we do not need anything like a CP or a for because we already have a case a signer which is the work and it can assign case crossing the barrier which is which we are saying is not a barrier because it is a non-finite IP and assign accusative case to the spec position of non-finite IP now when we have a non-finite sentences as this in the subject position of a sentence then there is no V for this to assign a case right so we need a case a signer therefore a complementizer is allowed in that that place and without a complementizer the sentence is not good okay. So to to wrap it up again the reason why I wanted to bring in the the notion of exceptional case marking there were two two reasons for that one I briefly wanted to go through case marking particularly exceptional case marking again then I also wanted you to see that the idea of exceptional case marking is important it is not just one particular instance that we need to take care of we can see sometimes non-finite clauses in the subject position which needs to be taken care of and then the existence of CP that the the whole notion of CP is not just a just a small small modification which we have which theoreticians have just brought in it is it is an important device which helps us take care of exceptional case marking also it is it is definitely taking care of complement positions where sometimes we do see that the complement of a V is more than an IP then we say it is a CP we run into difficulties when we have a CP in the subject position or or a bigger clause in the subject position we do not know how to take care of that then the CP comes in for rescue all right clear okay so let us keep the idea of CP active okay and then see how there how does this CP work for displacement from where we started how does it help us take care of displacement and this is where I want you to I want to want your attention hold on what did you want this one yeah in the example I want him to go we wrap it up at VP right VP is to go yeah so here also VP is to go sorry to laugh yes the because I had a space so I expanded that VP right you see that we have spec head and compliment and what is that in the head position comes to laugh so there is nothing in the spec position of VP and nothing in the complement position of VP I just wanted you to see that the whole expanded structure of CP and an IP within it sorry CP as a non-phrase is also possible which non-phrase the non-phrase that we that's at the last anything is possible see what the only problem is we don't have any NP because the verb is non-finite so the question of that verb being transitive or intransitive doesn't arise okay oh definitely then there will be a compliment to that transitive verb there and that that compliment could be anything and this is what I am trying to show you that the compliment of a V could be an NP could be a IP or could be a CP to similarly in the subject position we can have an NP we can have we can have an IP and we can have a CP to so there is the paradox that I want you to see that which one is heavier IP is heavier or CP is heavier it depends on what we what we are looking at sometimes a CP could be heavy because a CP takes an IP as a compliment right so so it's a it's it's and clearly clearly I hope and not only I hope I believe that the point should be clear to you that we are not talking about circularity we are talking about example of recursiveness you know and this these are the things which make people conclude that sentences could be infinitely long it's not just a slogan it's not just a nice idea this is what tells you that a sentence could be infinitely long okay alright can we look at these sentences now I do want to retain retain this thing and then we will come to another structure in a moment but for the time being I want you to look at these sentences this these sentences very carefully first of all do you agree that these are pretty simple English sentences we use these sentences several times a day right but if I if I ask you if I ask you a couple of questions then along with me you will be able to see the complexity of these sentences okay so let me let me put the theoretical apparatus aside for a moment and let us look at some empirical facts of English okay very briefly and then we need to come back to this point what are the empirical facts of English by empirical facts we mean things that we can see in a sentence the the the theoretical device could be abstract for which we need to understand x bar or case assignment and all kinds of things but empirically and let me give you one example and then I'll ask you other things so if I if I am to if someone asked me what's in what's a question word in English what would be my answer what is a question word in English there though you are saying how you are answering the question how many types of questions are there in English and then the answer could be two which is not a correct answer I'll tell you why it's not a correct answer and what is a correct answer also but right now my question is what is a question word in English can you give some examples of question words in English what why how where when right who what's the common among all these words what's common among all these words can we say that all of them begin with WH okay see you are right there is a problem with this do you see there is a WH in how also it's just in a scrambled order now that jokes apart with the exception of how okay which is not in the right order question words of English are called WH words okay question words of English are called WH word because most of them begin with WH and if we are to argue in a little bit funny way we can say this also has WH but it's just a problematic we can go ahead and argue this is not a serious technical argument we can also say the reason why this is scrambled because the moment we try to put it in right order it becomes something else okay that's that's not a serious thing the serious point is question words of English are called WH words if I am asking you to look at your own question like question words in your own language what's the question word in in Hindi if we call them WH words then what do we what are we what what do we have to call Hindi question words cowards right you will be surprised that most of the languages of Indo-Aryan family have question words beginning with Hindi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Punjabi, Odia almost all of them likewise if you look at Dravidian languages Tamil, Telugu, Canada, Malayalam and few more what's the question word in Malayalam what does it begin with A or A right how about Tamil A there are going to be some discrepancies like we have seen WH but they they do have the sound A in common and that's that common thing is available in Telugu, Tamil, Canada and Malayalam see there with the help of this point I want to emphasize and I want you to understand that these reasons these languages are called the Dravidian family of languages they are put in one group and that's not for no reason there are underlying reasons behind it and this is just one example we the the goal of our discussion was something else and continues to be something else so we didn't go into the classification similarities and differences of specific languages like different language families and and and so on therefore we haven't looked at such aspects but but if you are taking example of question words you can see the classification of languages categorically with that example moving ahead we can say question words in English are called WH words I'm coming to that I'm coming to that so now we say there are two types of questions at least two types of questions do you see that the first one and the last one are two different types of questions first one needs a different kind of answer and the last one needs a different kind of answer so what could be a possible answer to the last one can only be yes or no right I mean you can say something beyond that but you must say either yes or no first so if someone asks you did you buy a phone you can say yes I did or you can say no I did not but you must have you must say yes or no therefore that kind of a question is called yes no type of question right what is the answer of the first center first question what did you buy you must answer with a content right you in the answer to the first question we cannot use yes or no can we use yes or no no so that's a different kind of a question you must answer that question with a content someone asks you what is your name we cannot say yes right we cannot say no in other words that type of question is a content content question that that type of question is called content question because you must answer such questions with a content contentful word okay now these are two types of questions in response to one of the questions I just said English or for that matter any other language will have more than two types of questions so such questions are called let us say rhetorical questions sometimes they are called echo questions sometimes there are questions like question tags when we say you bought a phone didn't you okay I I didn't you buy a phone did you buy a phone no no no you didn't buy a phone did you right so such such small questions that you see at the end of the end of a sentence is called question tags which is to confirm something okay they are not really a question they are called question tags my point is I I don't mean to go into the whole inventory and typology of questions available in natural languages these are the two prominent types of questions available in any language yes no question and content questions I I don't think we will have time to look at other languages for the purpose of understanding theoretical apparatus which which works under principles and parameters so let me focus on English and if if we have time we'll take up some questions from India or some other languages what kind of similarity do you see in the two questions of English two types of questions of English do you see any similarity or what kind of differences do you observe between two sentences loudly verb is verb is for verb is same by verb is same all right well that's not really the same but okay go ahead what else do you see sorry did you buy article is what what is the article where do you where do you see the article in that did you buy a phone that article is with the NP right so the point is if if you have an NP in the sentence that's a different story if you don't have an NP then the A is out tell me about the question part what's the similarity in both the questions and what are the differences that you see so why are the dashes there what is well let's let's forget that for the time being the dashes mean there there was something there which is not there anymore okay yeah that's a perfectly fine question without the dash also so forget the dash for the time being I'll come back to that that means that I need to talk about that so I come back to that later so that's perfectly fine question okay so just look at sentence number one and sentence number three I have put sentence number two in between just for reference okay that sentence number two could be an answer to sentence number one right and sentence number three could be a question made out of sentence number two I bought a phone someone can ask me a question what did you buy someone could ask me a question did you buy a phone did you buy a phone right so both the question could originate from sentence number two therefore I have put that for reference and I'm not discussing sentence number two because that kind of sentence we have already discussed clear declarative nice looking sentence everything is fine a transitive verb a compliment case assignment is done everything is clear in that type of a sentence good so you are not telling me anything about the one and three the differences and similarity between two types of questions okay which is phone in the second case did you buy a phone you see the object and in the first case you don't see the object very nice that that's an important thing but let's talk about more basic stuff more basic very nice so we don't have what first thing is we don't have what very nice did this do you see that very clearly that in a content question we need a question word and in a yes no question we don't need a question over that clear very nice what is this replaced by phone and it moves to the end of the sentence but the phrase did you buy remains same yeah so what is like a placeholder for the unknown object no you're you're right all of you are saying things that are making sense my job is only to to to expand what you are saying in such a way that the same thing makes sense for everybody you're i i think you're getting the getting there and also the the point is probably i'm looking for more basic things and you are talking about advanced stuff okay what as a content question word is is only for content type of question and it's not there for the second time how that's the difference between the two two types of questions the similarity between two types of questions is did you see that if i tell you in a summary that english listen to this carefully english questions are made by fronting tenses the role of tense is very prominent in making a question in english is this making sense i will i want you to see that carefully on the screen on the board that's that's not on the screen look at the look at the question number look at the sentence number two everybody the sentence is bought a phone what's the tense on that sentence past right so everybody agrees that when we say a word like bought right this this is buy plus past agrees right now if you remember earlier discussions where i have also told you that sometimes tenses are visible and sometimes tenses are not visible right and we left our discussions right there in this case we have tense and the word buy in it with the with the question sentences we can see that the past tense which was mixed completely with the word it's like the it's the this verb is like the dough i know we need to stop in a couple of minutes but you understand when i say what i mean when i say dough have you seen the dough made for making roti right the water and flour are mixed with proper proportion in such a way that it's it's going to be almost impossible to remove water from that dough you can throw them throw everything apart but you can't really extract water and leave the floor exactly the way it was before if you look at the word buy bought the tense and the verb is mixed in such a way like water and dough but in a language in a language it's possible to extract tense and leave the verb apart that is what happens in a question sentence is when we say did you buy a phone the the verb is never going to have any send any tense on it after that the then therefore we leave the verb as buy we can never say did you bought a phone so the the point is the did in the beginning of the sentence that you see is actually removing tense from the verb and extracting that to the front the tense is an invisible category it cannot stand on its own so it needs support of a lexical word so when we put do do is a word which comes in support of a word in support of tense now do means what if i ask you the question do what does the word do mean in hindi how will you translate that in hindi right and tamil sorry no how do we say how do you say how do you say do work okay we'll i'll i'll give you more example i i think there is another word for that in tamil i'll i'll come back to that we are we are not why we are not finishing up this discussion today we'll come back with this tomorrow and then i'll i'll bring the other word for that but hold on before i wind it up do you see so in english the word is do okay and this do is not the verb this again is a functional word now it doesn't remain a lexical word so do plus past becomes did okay and when there is no when there is no past tense there's just present tense then it remains just do so in a way what we are saying is this word is carrying tense so the common thing between both types of question words in english is fronting of tense all right so let me let me stop here and i want you to think more about the question words and then we come to question words and movement tomorrow all right okay think about equivalent of do in tamil more words for that in tamil okay all right let me stop here and we'll continue this discussion


Jerry, out of the circus. Here's where it was digging last, Jerry. Well, there's nothing here, Rags. Then he's sure making a lot of fuss about nothing. Hey, what's all the excitement going on here? Rags is looking for something under the wagon box. He's been carrying on some fierce.  Well, you didn't tell him, Jerry. Let us in on the joke. I've never in my life saw anything so funny before. Well, come on, what is it? Come on, Jerry, out with it. The joke is you're on Rags. What joke? And here I've been thinking all along how smart he is. And then he pulls us down like this. Oh, I knew you, smart Jerry, as smart as dogs I'd ever seen. Oh, yeah? Well, do you know why he's been digging that big hole under the wagon? Well, my guess is that he's looking for a bone. He always buried them under the wagon. That's just it. But he hasn't buried any under the wagon since we've been playing this town. He did bury a great big one under the wagon. In the last town we played, though. Don't you remember bombshell? Come to think of it, I do. He threw dirt all over us when he was covering it up. Yeah, when we were sitting on the steps here. Well, what's the joke? Tell us, Jerry. Well, he buried the bone under the wagon like he always does when he gets a nice big one. Now he's looking for it and it makes him mad because he can't find it. Oh, I'll bet you're right, Jerry. Rags forgot that we moved on to another town and he can't understand why the bone isn't where he buried it. Well, you might as well give up, Rags. That bone is over a hundred miles from here, back in the last town we played. It's a good thing you found it when you did. He might have dug such a big hole, the wagon would have rolled into it. Now what, Rags? There's somebody coming over there. Rags, stop it. Well, for the... I do declare. Who is it, bombs? Be quiet, Rags. I can't believe my own eyes, Jerry. Well, who is it? Who's that man that's coming over this way? It's Colonel Charlie Alger. Hello, Charlie. The man Leo said was coming. Yeah, the advanced man for the circus. Yeah, see, this surely is a treat. Oh, gosh, it's good to see you. Yeah, it's mighty good to see you, Bump. Yeah, put it there. Same old bump. Well, well, well. Charlie, this is my pal, Jerry. Jerry, glad to know you, young fella. Glad to know you. I'm glad to meet you, too. I've heard a lot about you. That's all folks have been talking about me again, have they? Now, soon put a stop to that. But they only said nice things about you. Oh, well, that's different. Yeah, that's different, sure, yes. That's different. This is Jerry's pal, Tom. Shake hands with Colonel Alger, Tom. I'm sure glad to meet you. Yeah, the play is all mine, all mine, young man. You got a few minutes, Charlie? Yes, siri, yes, siri. Well then, come on into the wagon here where we can sit down and talk a little bit. Come on, boys. Well, you going to be with us long, Charlie? No, I'm not, no, I'm not, bumps. I'm getting back on the head of the show right away. Figured to leave tonight, yes. Say, if you've got a little drinking water, bumps, I'm a bit thirsty, yes, just a wee bit thirsty. Why, sure, Charlie. Oh, Jerry, pour Colonel Alger a glass of water out of that cooler there. You bet. See, do you recognize that boy, Charlie? No, I can't say that I do. Can't say that I do, bumps. Well, why, that's Jerry Dugan, Tim Dugan's boy. Don't say. Well, well, what do you know about that? Here's your water, Colonel. Ah, thank you, thank you, Jerry. You're Tim Dugan's boy. Yes, sir. Yes, I knew your dad well, Jerry, yes. We were great pals in the olden days, yes, sir. Great, how about you, young man? You have a set of words. He's just going to be with us until we play Fordham. He's working his way home. Oh, Fordham, huh? I just came back from Fordham. Yes, fact of the matter is, I made a special trip back there to see Mr. Randall about a stunt we want to pull off there. Oh, yeah, what's that, Charlie? Why, they're running a fair there, bumps. Yes, running a fair. Same day that we play there. Oh, say, that's bad. That'll be pretty stiff competition for us. Yes, that's why I had to see Sam about a stunt that'll help out quite a little. There's nothing like cooperating with those things. Yes, better than fighting them. Yes, sir, every time. Yes, you bet, sir. Now, what's the stunt you're going to pull, Charlie? Well, it isn't really very much bumps. Nothing much at all. They're having horse racing at the fair, and I thought we could get a lot of notice and some good publicity if we took those Cossack riders out and put on an exhibition of their riding. Oh, gee, that'd be good, Charlie. Yes, it might turn out to be a good stunt. After they left the fairgrounds, folks would probably come right to our show. Uh, excuse me, Colonel Alger. Yes, oh, yes, son, yes, yes. What is it? Uh, did you meet any people while you were in Fordham? Did I meet any people? Did I meet? Ha, ha, ha, did I meet any people? Well, now that's a good one, yes. Well, that's a good one, a good one, yes. Yes, well, I met people wherever I go. Lots of people, lots of them. What do you mean, Tom? Well, I thought maybe Colonel Alger would know where my father was or if he's in Fordham. Yes, yes, what's your father's name, Tom? I never forget a name or a face either. My dad's name is Jack. Hey, no, no, his last name, his last name, his last name. What's the fella's name, Jack? Oh, Rogers, Jack Rogers. Jack Rogers, yes. Oh, Jack Rogers, Jack Rogers. No, no, no, I didn't meet him, Tom, no. I heard some of the men at the fairgrounds talking about a Jack Rogers. Now, what were they saying about him? Now, let me see, let me see. Oh, yes. Seems like he entered some old horse in a big race at the fair. Oh, that couldn't be Dad. I don't think he'd have a horse. He's just bought one, got him cheap, and that's the reason the boys were getting a laugh out of it, because the horse is old. Yes, he just doesn't figure it all in a race with a lot of high-class horses. See, what's the matter, Charlie? Are you warm? Yes, yes, I am, Bumps. A little warm? Yes, yes, I am a little warm. It's not warm in the wagon here. I'm comfortable with my sweater on. You're sure you're feeling all right. Feeling all right? Oh, sure, sure, yes. I'm fine, very fine, yes. But I would like another glass of water, Jerry, if you please. Sure, I'll get it. I don't like your color, Charlie.  Oh, I just been out the sun too much, Bumps. Yes, out the sun too much, that's all. Here you are, Colonel. Thank you, thank you, my boy, thank you. You look feverish to me, Charlie. Nonsense. Then you didn't see my father, or I mean this man that has the horse. Oh, yes, I saw him. The boy pointed him out to me when he was out on the track with his horse, yes. But what I said was, I didn't meet him. Was he sort of tall and thin, and did he have a mustache? Well, now let me think a minute. Did he have a mustache? Did he have a... Yes, he had a mustache. He was kind of tall and wiry. I'll bet that's your dad, all right, Tom. That's what he looks like, all right. Well, Tom, if that's the right name and the right description, it must be the right man. Yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir. It must be the right man. Well, now at least you know your dad is still in Fordham.  Golly, it sure does.  Oh, it's one of my stories. Sure, I have one. Well, tell one that I haven't heard before. That's right, Bumps. You've heard most all of my stories. Oh, I'll bet there's a couple of hundred that I haven't heard, though. Don't recall that one, Charlie. Good. Then you'll enjoy hearing it. Yes, sir, you'll really, really enjoy it. A circus story, Colonel Alger? Yes, Jerry. A circus story from way back. Long about 40 years ago. I guess it was, yes, about 40 years, 40 years. Just about 40 years ago. Were you in the circus that long ago? Yes, and before that, young man. Now to get on, it was a small outfit that we had a very fine collection of animals. And in those days as it is now, folks care just as much about seeing the animals as they did the show itself. Among other things, we had... Oh, Bumps. Oh, excuse me, Charlie. Uh, yeah? Is Charlie Alger in there with you? Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, he is. Doc, come on in. It's Doc Williams, Charlie. All right, good. God, God. Who's he, Jerry? He's a circus doctor. He's got charged in the hospital, Tom. Then lookin' all over for you, Charlie. Well, well, well, well, well. Oh, Doc Williams himself. I'm glad to see you, Doc. Glad, glad, glad to see you. Sit down here and make yourself at home. What's the idea of passin' me up, Charlie? How come you didn't come by the hospital car and say hello? Boy, I was just gonna come over and see you now. Yes, you don't think for a minute that I wasn't gonna visit with you? Say, Jerry, Jerry, would you be so kind as to get me another glass of water? Sure. Well, say, that's the third glass in the last five minutes.  Say, what's the matter with him, Doc? Well, you do look kind of flush, Charlie. Let me feel your head. Here you are, Colonel Alger. Oh, yes, yes, yes. My boy, you brought it there. Well, thank you, Jerry. See, you've got a fever, Charlie. Isn't that what I thought, Doc? I'm sure you have, Charlie. Let me see your tongue. Let me see my tongue. Oh, nonsense, nonsense. I said, I'm all right. Come on now. It won't hurt to have a look. Well, all right. All things. What's the matter, Doc? Yes, sir. I'm right. You're right. Well, what's the matter? I suppose you're going to tell me that I won't live till morning. No. This is no joke, Charlie. You've got the measles. Measles? What? Sureest thing you know. Now, you boys clear out of here right away.  What do you mean, Doc? I'm putting Charlie to bed right here in this wagon, and I'm locking him in. You'll have to stay in quarantine, please, over the measles. Why? Well, you can't do this to me. I've got to leave tonight. I've got to get back ahead of the show. Yes, I've got work to do. I'm sorry, Charlie. But you're going to be quarantined in this wagon until you're well. And send a nurse over right away to make you comfortable. Yes, but you can't. You can't, you can't.  Measles are catching, and we can't afford to let the whole circus get them.


Well, welcome back to the last session of the afternoon, which in some ways is, I suspect maybe slightly different from some of the things that we've heard before. Anu Joge, she's a doctoral researcher at the London School of Economics in the Department of Geography and Environment and her research is really at the junction and intersection of domestic finance, community vulnerability and climate adaptation in India. She's been a climate adaptation practitioner and researcher for 15 years, looking at multi-level governance and climate change in South East Asia. And she's going to talk to us today, and this is a title I put together rather than she did, and what I think is going to be the effects of climate change on the vulnerable in India. Thank you so much, Adrian. Hi, everyone. I know it's the last session, but I promise I'm going to keep this very, very interactive and hopefully question some assumptions we have around vulnerability generally. So, as Adrian said, I work on trying to keep adaptation, both as a practitioner, as a researcher for most of South Asia, but particularly in India. Now, some of you may have participated in the climate strikes. Some of you may be part of Fridays for the Future. Some of you may be considering getting into the science, the climate science, being physicists, maybe even adaptation and social science or maybe working in Asia or South Asia in a broader economic or development context. But what I'm going to try and do is I'm going to start at the planetary scale and then end at the village and household level in India. And I think this sort of multi-scale perspective is valuable no matter what you go out and do. The topic is climate change and examining vulnerability, but I'm going to contextualise vulnerability across other nations as well. Just to give you some idea about why we should question what vulnerability is and how it's actually being addressed. So, like I said, I'm going to keep this interactive. I'm going to present four statements to you. The statements you'll often hear connected to climate change.  Tell me if you agree with these statements, if you disagree. Why? If you have to build on it or refute it, let me know. And then I'll talk about them. So the very first statement is this. We are locked into 30 years of worsening climate impacts, no matter what the world does. I've written copy pasted this from the headline of a New York Times article from 2001. Yeah, I'd like to know. Do you agree? Do you disagree? What do you think? Just raise your hand and tell me. Go ahead, please. Yes, anybody else? You're absolutely right. We are locked in to worsening climate impacts and the caveat, you know, being no matter what the world does in the immediate term, in terms of what we can do in terms of climate impacts. So as headline grabbing statements tend to be from the news articles, that was what it was. But the fact is this was borrowed from the intergovernmental panel on climate changes. Six assessment report, which essentially said that warming will continue until the middle of the century, even if nations take immediate steps to cut emissions.  It's in the atmosphere anywhere between 300 to 1,000 years, which means we're warming the planet right now. Humankind has put enough carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. It's so much so that we have already raised average surface temperatures by 1.1 degree Celsius since the 19th century. And this warming trend, we're locked into it until the mid-century. And so a lot of sort of push for action is to try and curb runaway climate change and impacts post that. So we have lost a lot of that, but I think what's important and slightly problematic for you to then focus on is saying that beyond what we're locked into, where are we at in terms of pledges and very sort of conditional promises versus what's actually happening? And this is one of the latest pieces of work from colleagues at Grantham at the Imperial. It's a busy graph. Don't focus on all of it. Just look at the aquamarine and the blue train line. The first is essentially what globally nations have committed to in terms of immediate policies. What are they actually doing, rather? And the aquamarine line is what we pledged in some distant future. India says night zero by 2070, some countries have said night zero by 2050. There's a huge gap in terms of what we've promised and what actions we're actually taking in terms of the emissions trajectory that we're at. And so I do want to preface before I continue that there is a very important role that many organisations, youth groups, students are doing and holding businesses, international agencies, governments to account. Often scientists, academics at their own peril are taking the cost in activism with a huge levels of pushback. This was at the American Geographical Union last year, and these two scientists faced a lot of pushback within their own university. And they were, of course, they were escorted out of the conference as well. But this is important. And I want to preface that before I sort of move down from the planetary to now the nation state scale. And this is my next statement.  What do you think? Yes. Anybody else? Yeah, you're both correct. You're both absolutely correct. Physical climate impacts are very much impacting countries in the global north and the global south. You talked about it, forest fires in Canada, west coast of the US, huge heat wave, heat wave related deaths in the EU. And of course, floods inundation and disruption wherever you go, right? So essentially, it's bad. But the fact is, and this is another IPCC graph that talks about country-wise vulnerability with the darkest being the more vulnerable, with the huge caveat that vulnerability differs both between and within countries. And I think that's the critical thing to think about. And I think why it's so critical to think about, because, of course, developing, least developing countries or LDCs, this is the climate language used for these blocks, some of them are far worse off. Example, some of the small island developing nations. So Dominica, which is a small island in the Caribbean, and a report noted that after Hurricane Maria in 2017 lost equivalent of 250 times its GDP, essentially. That's a huge amount, right? But equally, there is vulnerability within countries. So after Hurricane Sandy, New York City had one of the most sophisticated climate change policies, climate adaptation policies, they massively climate-proofed infrastructure. But essentially, what we note is that after the 2021 floods, and New York City's been being inundated quite often, 12 out of all 11 out of the 12 people who actually died in these floods lived in basement apartments, typically rented to low income tenants, right? So you are seeing that there is vulnerability within country as well. Same for wildfires, a lot of people live in large estates near forested regions, same for across the coast in areas like Florida, but essentially what is their propensity to be able to take out large insurance products, rebuild after, and recover from economic losses. This is a recent Lancet study that notes that Paris has one of the highest risks of heat-related deaths in the EU, but what it actually misses is that there are a temperature disparity even between neighbourhoods, people who live in more industrialized areas, more comfortisation, less green cover, those areas suffer from a higher heat island effect, which means they are a few degrees higher at any given point. And of course, the vulnerable and the poor have lower access to health care services and access to cooling spaces as well. So, but there is differential vulnerability. So when we talk about the need for money for adaptation and the sort of urgency of where it needs to go, the urgency of the fact that it does need to go to developing economies, it's also worth thinking about the money that's already being spent in better endowed countries. Where's the money actually going? Where should it be going? But here's another thing I actually want you to consider. This is really the crux of my talk.  And that's something really to keep in mind as I proceed. Think about it. And then I come to my third statement. India is particularly vulnerable to climate change. I mean, it's a no-grid. I'm not really going to wait for an answer here because actually all of South Asia is. We are seeing massive increases in temperature. By the way, if you ever get into the space where you're working with global circulation models, you'll note that it's actually very easy to model, and with a lot of certainty you do realise that heat is something that's easy to predict. The rains, precipitation, the monsoons, much, much, much harder. This is part of the whole global gearing phenomenon. So South Asia, very vulnerable, vulnerable because of course large coastline, so increased incidences of cyclones, huge heat waves, already we're seeing heat waves, increased massive floods in Inundation, but of course we are also crowned by the Hindu Kush Himalayas, which essentially are headwaters for some of the largest rivers. We're seeing glacier melt at very degrees. This is going to impact again inundation but also food security. One of the things when you do a vulnerability and risk calcination, one of the factors indicators of vulnerability is population. It's one of the reasons this is very dense and therefore shows up as very vulnerable in a lot of our climate and disaster indices and indicators. The story is the same for India. I won't get into the numbers, but essentially more heat, more intense erratic rainfall, but less quantum amount of water availability. There's a lot of runoff, essentially, but also huge levels of inundation, increased incidences of cyclones, and of course sea water incursions as well. And then when you look at these, and this is actually collated from a study that did a meta-analysis of all of the climate risk studies published over the last 10 years for India. The thing we note is that of course heat, total and low income and marginalised residents work outdoors, living crowded, poorly ventilated homes, and don't have easy access to cooling systems and drinking water is often a constraint. Same for rainfall and flooding. One study noted that a billion people in India face water scarcity for at least a month a year, and of course we already know the kind of damage that flooding is already doing. By clothes as well. Hosted communities in low-lying areas often the poor, and this is not just in India. In many countries you live in more low-lying urban spaces and face far more inundation. So then the natural logic here is then climate change is a driver of social and ecological transformation. And I love your thoughts on this. And when I think social and ecological transformation, it could be floods, biodiversity loss, migration, agriculture, productivity. What do you think? Please. This is very much the framing that is being used that contemporary climate change is very much constructed as a series of external shocks and stressors that impact existing social and ecological systems. This is a very famous diagram that you see that located a lot. If you get into the climate space, again by the IPCC and a lot of water availability and risk assessments do this. They look at the hazard, they look at the extent of exposure so you can have a huge flash flood if no one lives there then there's just no exposure. So you look at hazard, you look at exposure, you look at existing water availability and that's how you calculate risk. And therefore what's ended up happening because we use this frame is that climate change is framed as a causal driver for flooding, biodiversity loss, migration, worsening agricultural productivity, rising poverty, urbanisation and in some cases domestic violence, geopolitical tensions, even polygamy. So climate change is essentially being connected very causally to socio-economic phenomena. This is actually an interesting report that came out I think in 2019 and this is from Maharashtra where they recorded that men are marrying more women because they just need more available hands to collect water. And they had to go further and further to actually get the water. Climate change has also been linked to farmer suicides in India. But what I would like to argue is that you cannot understand climate change without the historical and existing power relation that mediate these changes. Essentially if you isolate climate change from its social and political and historical context, you end up with unintended consequences on how it's addressed and we've already seen this in terms of what's happening on the ground. And the best way to sort of show this to you is through an example and this is when I come down to the village in the household level. There's a fantastic study done by political ecologist Marcus Taylor with a colleague Suhas Bhasme in India. They looked at this large adaptation project in India called National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture. It started in 2011. The idea was to put money into these model villages, 150 villages that would become resilient through all of these interventions, technological interventions, practice based interventions, governance based interventions that they would put in place essentially. The idea that your climate change is affecting you externally and will bring in experts will try and fix the problem. So what they try and do essentially the entire program focused on improving crop productivity, improving livestock and fisheries. They thought about technical innovations as well in terms of how governance is managed. They focused on a very specific place, a region called Naginhali in Karnataka. Karnataka is in the south of India. Compared to most states in India amongst the states, Karnataka does better in many development indicators. And it's worth sort of thinking about that in terms of context. So they figured out that what were the climate risks. Decrease in rainy days, high incidence of dry spells, more intense rainfall, damage to crops flooding. So essentially water comes damages but water doesn't stay. It just goes off and it comes out of season so it's not really helping the crops. So what were the interventions they thought about? The interventions were watershed management, improve water capacity, build a lot of storage infrastructure, improve cropping practices, try and move farmers from subsistence agriculture, get them to have higher value horticultural crops like tomatoes. So grow things that have higher margin in the market so they earn more money. And so the government said let's give them subsidies so that they can buy these and also grow them. And of course improve biodiversity so let's have androecology. Let's try and help them plant timber crops alongside stable crops, more money but also better for the environment you're growing, you're greening the space as well. So this plan was adaptation at a village level but what's a village level? Is it really a homogenous unit? It's not. The entire project questions or rather ignored questions of power within and between households to understand how the project would shape livelihoods. A village is not a uniform structure. Poverty and vulnerability especially in agriculture are dependent on a number of things. Differential access to key resources nothing to do with climate change, unequal relationships between farmers and traders, nothing to do with climate change, indebtedness, which is pervasive to informal lenders, access to non agricultural employment which has become a huge recourse for a lot of farmers in India having access to non agricultural employment being circular migrants essentially going out into the cities driving taxis driving rickshaws coming back working on land or the men going away and the women staying back and working on the land essentially. Of course, community, class, caste, gender and age greatly shape crews essentially more vulnerable. So we will have a situation where in years of project that said let's just build more water structures, let's build check dams, let's have these ponds, let's decent existing ponds and we will fix the problem. The interventions were externally driven the ideas that are not climate expert I know exactly what's happening in this village and I'm going to come and fix it. And so what ended up happening. There was a huge elite capture of water structures. They built these structures on private land. That was only the space that was the only space available so you're building public infrastructure, the richer farmers essentially started trading in water. And the less resourced farmers did not have access to it. The government recognized this and said okay, we will offer you subsidies to build something. But if you own land that is so small, it's really a trade off for you to think about giving some of that land away to have a small check dam versus earning an income by sort of harvesting on the entire land. So a lot of the poor farmers simply didn't do it. Poor farmers also did not have enough land to plant trees at the required spacing to give them intercropping benefits. So they simply didn't do it. And the most important thing about adaptation projects, your project intermediaries, locals, who you can co-opt, because they have political cloud, they can get things done. It ends up happening. They happen to be for more advantaged socioeconomic classes, but they end up being prime beneficiaries of project outcomes. Often, villages were chosen because they found these people who were powerful and were actually the only ones who actually benefit it. And smaller farmers, as I noted, were already indebted. So even when governments said we will offer differential subsidies, so if your government oppressed costs, you would get almost 90% subsidy to do something. But you simply didn't have the means to take out cheaper loans and remortgage your land or whatever else you possessed because the money would only come later. So essentially what ended up happening in an adaptation project like this, it helped a few privileged consolidate their wealth and push the poor into further dependency and vulnerability. So what I'm trying to essentially argue here is that if you're going to look at climate change in isolation, especially on the ground, especially when you think about adaptation, what you're ending up doing is looking at how it reconfigured existing structures in a way that privileges people who already have some amount of privilege, leaving the poor even more squeezed. And if I was to really recap, what I'm trying to say here is that, of course, we have a biophysical phenomenon like climate change. It is a huge threat. Governments are not doing enough. There's a very, very important role for scientists, for activists, for social scientists to get out there to do the research that's needed to hold governments and operates and fossil fuel companies to account. But equally, if you want to fight for a more just future, we need to rethink what we call climate imaginaries. This idea that climate is this external thing that comes destroys everything and really think about what are existing social structures, some even colonial existing social financial and economic structures that persist and actually deepen inequality. And this is an example of India, but this is likely happening in places across the globe. On a more or less somber note, I'm going to leave you with this. This is one of my favorite examples I use when I talk about differential adaptations. It's the movie clips from the movie from Parasite by Bujangoon. He won many Oscars as you know in 2019 for this movie. I won't give any spoilers if you haven't seen it. But the entire movie centers around this large flooding event in Seoul in South Korea. And it's a fantastic example of this sort of phrase that was coined by Neil Smith. There's no such thing as a natural disaster. Essentially, you have a huge flood event. It completely lets inundates and displaces the poorer family that lives in a low lying area in Seoul. And it's basically just another day for the very rich family to just look out in the garden. They even, they just have to stop camping and come back from where they were travelling. This is very important to know. So this is the question. The point really being natural events happen, but what makes them a disaster is very much. How cities are built, how they're governed, how even rural structures are built in government and existing social economic processes. I will review that. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Anu. Now I know people have some people got to go because we sadly overran at lunch. But for those not dashing off any questions. No. Oh, it was one of the back. Did a question there? Yes. In terms of adaptation actions, they've been happening for a while. So one of the most important pieces of work that's happened recently is a number of adaptation scholars from across the globe. US, UK, India, Australia essentially got together, looked at externally funded adaptation projects. So money coming from the green planet, money coming through bilateral aid to developing economies, and essentially showed how many of these projects were maladaptive. Maladaptation essentially being they either retained vulnerability, they passed it on along the value chain or another village or actually worse. Maladaptation has become such a pervasive problem that's now being incorporated for the first time in IPCC, in conversations about loss and damage, because this has essentially always been happening. But there's finally conversations around it. Any other questions? Sorry. Please. I think it was the second statement that you were putting on the board, which was that when you were putting a statement, stage number two was that entries, so HIC and LIC panels are affected equally by climate change. But surely countries with, for example, newly emerging economy, where there are many factories, creating their equalities are going to be affected at a quicker rate and at a larger scale. So what can be done about this because clearly these factories have a lot of economic influence for the Western economy, but also for the economy of the newly emerging economy. So what can be done about these factories that are so helpful to the environment, but beneficial to the economy? That's absolutely true. That's something that India essentially contains. At one hand, we are essentially saying that we are being extremely aggressive with our renewable investments, but we are fighting to ask for the carbon budget to grow, which means that we will continue using coal up to a point. While we're signalling, we're going to do something by 2017. And you're right, a lot of these factories are causing local air pollution. But remember, there are a lot of people invested in looking at coal. This is what we talk about when we talk about transition risk and just transition. Can you just approach entire factories and expect that people will somehow just switch into renewable jobs? It doesn't work like that. We are right. It is a huge scenario. This is what a lot of emerging economies like China, like India are essentially contending with. The fact is they are also vulnerable. So for a lot of countries like India, they have realised up to a point that we can only push this point if we're looking up to a point. We'll have to also be doing it. And we need to be investing enough because the impacts are also being felt here. So it's almost, yes, we need the carbon budget to grow, but we are going to be impacted. So we actually need to put the money in and try and fix a few things. The problem is when they try and fix it and don't really manage to end vulnerability. Please. I think it's a big company of point about the need to meet the obvious geophysical mainstream of climate research in order to actually tackle it in policy terms. I think you mentioned, for example, even the need to go beyond contemporary issues in every phase into historically, and so for example, there seems to be podiumism. And I think there's lots of people that are so as to recall who will know. I think that the forces on things like podiumism are not necessarily substantive debates in the sense that they are very contested. And the meanings and the responsibilities around those particular processes are not verifiable by scientific experience or research. So in that context, given that we are leading with this phenomenon that is 5G driven by social and economic processes is in a climate analysis geophysical problem. How could we actually be such narratives in this sort of inequality outcome given that there is a agreement on the basic terms and basic interest played amongst the same vertical place? That's a very, very good question. I can break that into two parts. The first is the fact that colonial legacy actually are very much, are very much entrenched in global conversations when we talk about something called common but differentiated responsibilities, right? It is a geophysical phenomenon, it's a lender, but the fact that the UNFCCC has very much talked about how it is differential for what they call annex one and annex two countries, right? Sorry, or rather annex and non-annux countries, right? So this is very much the case. The fact that the industrialization happened in certain countries, they industrialized very quickly, developed economy had to have taken time. Some countries are still not quite there and therefore need that budget as I was talking to grow, right? And so since Kyoto protocol, or even before that, since the 1990s, this conversation on differential responsibility and the work on burden sharing, right? But you're right, it is very contestant. You can come up to a point, even things like loss and damage. Loss and damage is very much predicated on what was the legacy of growing, right? And people are even questioning the word Anthropocene, because the word Anthropocene assumes that every human essentially, we have reached an epoch where every human essentially is causing a lot of planetary changes and people will say, no, wait a minute, it's not the entire world. It is the global norm. And let's talk about that. So it is baked in. It's baked in a way where it's just rhetoric. When it comes to actually legally binding, what can we say, what can we actually commit to? That's where it gets contested. But you're right, it is, it's hard to point. But there's some fantastic folks doing work, for instance, on climate finance and financialization and talking about the historical legacies, for example, in Ghana, in terms of how colognally in Ghana, money was lent out, how it was essentially managed, who had benefited, and how that practice is essentially continued even now in terms of formal credit, from informal to formal credit. So there is a handful of pieces that are largely quantitatively driven. Are these solutionist? They're not. And that's where we have the essential gap. But when we talk about carbon, it is very political because of this. In fact, whatever the IPCC presents is very much the lowest common denominator. I have 48,000 scientists do this amazing amount of what entry work, but then it has to go through all of the country representatives and be agreed line by line. And so much of what we are saying is a bit undersold because a lot of scientists are not able to say everything because countries don't want to have it all set. Well, Andrew, thank you very much indeed. I think we probably better call it a day.