I provide a syntactic analysis of the take-time construction (It took an hour to complete the test). The investigation provides insight into well-known issues concerning the related tough-construction. Using a battery of standard syntactic diagnostics, I conclude that the take-time construction and the tough-construction require a predication analysis of the antecedent-gap chain, not a movement analysis. I also conclude that the nonfinite clause is in a modificational relationship with the main clause predicate, not a selectional relationship. Broadly, this study expands the class of tough-constructions, illustrating crucial variation among predicates, and pointing the way to a unified analysis. The investigation also reveals undiscussed aspects of English syntax, including the fact that English has a high applicative position.

This is a book written by a philosopher for philosophers; it needs a philosopher to review it properly. A review by a non-philosopher in the pages of a linguistics journal is justified, however, by the fact that the core of the book consists of a series of proposals concerning one of the fundamental questions of lexical semantics: what are we to make of the apparent variability in the meaning of a word from context to context? (This fact is not immediately inferrable from the title.) The present review focuses exclusively on this topic; it should be borne in mind, however, that the author's exposition of his views on word-meaning occurs as part of a more general discussion concerning the nature of analogy, and its role in literary, religious and legal discourse.

Langendoen and Bever (1973) contended that both expressions in (1) are ungrammatical in English, despite the acceptability of the first to native speakers of English.

(1) (a) a not unhappy person

(b) a not sad person

We came to this conclusion because we believed, first, that all grammars of natural languages should be subject to a constraint ‘M’ that no syntactic rule is able to make use of the morphological structure of lexemes (1973:402); and, second, that we had shown that no grammar that satisfies M can distinguish the grammaticality of(1a) from that of (1b). Our exact wording of M was as follows: ‘no syntactic transformational rule is permitted to make use of the internal morphological structure of lexical items’. Since the only syntactic rules of the standard theory, within which we were operating that are not transformations are base-categorial rules, which by definition make no use of the internal morphological structure of lexical items, the word ‘transformational’ in our formulation of M is unnecessary.

The syntax of Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) has been widely debated due to its mixed properties, which in some cases indicate movement (e.g. island sensitivity, certain connectivity effects) and in other cases base generation of the CLLD-ed phrase (wide scope, lack of weak crossover). In this paper we discuss scope facts with CLLD in Greek, revealing a contrast depending on the type of quantifier. We present experimental evidence that whereas CLLD-ed plain indefinites take wide scope, CLLD-ed numerals can get a low scope interpretation. We argue that the inverse scope interpretation with CLLD-ed numerals is only apparent, presenting, in fact, an instance of split scope between the degree quantifier and the existential operator. This analysis presents evidence in favor of a movement analysis for CLLD, thus patterning with the observation that binding reconstruction is possible. At the same time, the non-availability of scope reconstruction with CLLD is attributed to stricter locality constraints which have been discussed for quantifier raising as opposed to other types of movement and dependencies.