In his target article, ‘Autism, constructionism, and nativism’, Kissine (2021) argues that data from autism should be taken into consideration in the debate about L1 acquisition. This paper responds to Kissine's piece by pointing out several of its underlying assumptions and suggesting directions for future research on the topic. Traditional framings of autism as a deficit have recently been challenged in favor of an identity-based approach, the neurodiversity paradigm, which suggests that autistic speech should not be measured in terms of its resemblance to nonautistic speech and that literature on intercultural miscommunication may offer insights into autistic communication. There are some indications that distinct autistic discourse practices may be identifiable in communities of practice, and studies on autistic literacy could benefit from considering the theoretical perspectives found in literature on multimodality and translanguaging. Finally, research on language acquisition might be strengthened by the incorporation of holistic neurocognitive theories about autistic minds.

Case assignment and argument licensing in process nominals, that is, nouns such as destruction that are morphologically related to verbs, are assumed to operate in a verblike manner both within government-and-binding theory and, more recently, within the distributed morphology framework. The data from Russian challenge this approach and reveal that there is an important difference between the verbal and the nominal domains: case assignment in verbs is sensitive to the underlying argument structure, but in nominals to surface structure, that is, the collection of overt arguments. We propose a hierarchy of case-assignment rules that applies in the nominal domain. Moreover, within the nominal domain, case assignment is uniform: the same rules apply to different types of nominals, including prototypical process nominals and relational nouns. The main theoretical advantage of our lexicalist, constraint-based approach is that it can capture similarities between the verbal and the nominal domains, seen in the assignment of inherent and lexical cases, but also in their fundamental differences.

The mechanisms underlying linguistic change are well documented for adolescent and adult speech, but much less is known about how such change emerges in the childhood years. In this article we address this gap by conducting a real-time analysis of the acquisition of a rapidly expanding variable in young speakers, first in preschool and later in preadolescence. By tracking a variable undergoing change at two key stages of sociolinguistic development, transmission and incrementation, we observe directly the processes operating on individual and community grammars as children shift to the leading edge of change.

There has been a recent spate of work on recursion as a central design feature of language. This short report points out that there is little evidence that unlimited recursion, understood as center-embedding, is typical of natural language syntax. Nevertheless, embedded pragmatic construals seem available in every language. Further, much deeper center-embedding can be found in dialogue or conversation structure than can be found in syntax. Existing accounts for the ‘performance’ limitations on center-embedding are thus thrown into doubt. Dialogue materials suggest that center-embedding is perhaps a core part of the human interaction system, and is for some reason much more highly restricted in syntax than in other aspects of cognition.

Phonetic realization is highly variable and highly structured within and across talkers. We examine three constraints that could structure the phonetic space of related speech sounds: target, contrast, and pattern uniformity. Target uniformity requires a uniform mapping from distinctive features to their corresponding phonetic targets within a talker, contrast uniformity requires a consistent difference in the phonetic targets that realize featural contrasts across talkers, and pattern uniformity requires a uniform template of phonetic targets across talkers. Focusing on American English sibilant fricatives, we measure and compare each constraint's influence on the phonetic targets corresponding to place of articulation. We find that target uniformity is the strongest constraint: each talker realizes a given distinctive feature value in highly similar ways across related sounds. Together with similar findings for other sound classes, this result reveals fine-grained systematicity in the mapping from phonology to phonetics and has implications for theories of speech production and speech perception.

Lexical tone melodies of words and word strings in Dogon languages are overridden by syntactically conditioned word-level or broader tone overlays. In Ben Tey and other Dogon languages, certain NP-internal elements—possessors, adjectives, relative clauses, demonstratives—are controllers, imposing overlays such as {L} and {HL} on adjacent words or word strings (the targets). Other elements (nonsingular quantifiers, discourse-functional morphemes) do not control overlays. The semantic generalization is that reference restrictors are controllers, while non-reference restrictors are not. Tonosyntactic processes have access to input stem-class categories and semantic/pragmatic groupings thereof, input phonological features (tone of the adjacent edge of the controllers), prosodic weight of the target, and, with possible minor exceptions, linear adjacency. Such operations can only be accounted for in a model of grammar with an enriched syntax-phonology interface.

The postulation of segmental units as real components of phonological competence is controversial, despite their widespread acceptance. One aspect of the controversy concerns the similarities between the units of segmental phonology and those of alphabetic writing: the historically and culturally contingent fact that Western society uses alphabetic writing may explain the primacy of segments in modern phonology. The ancient Indian tradition of phonological analysis has been claimed to exemplify a nonsegmental approach, reflecting their lack of influence from alphabetic writing. I show that the ancient Indian phonological tradition was fundamentally segmental, despite lacking any alphabetic influence. In ancient India, segmental units were identified as the basic units of analysis on the basis of purely linguistic considerations.