Linguistic phonetic aspects of languages can be described in terms of about 17 articulatory parameters, and/or a similar number of acoustic parameters. Descriptions of phonological patterns in languages involve features that are not in a one-to-one relationship with these phonetic parameters, and that cannot account for some linguistic phonetic differences among languages. Speakers and listeners producing and interpreting linguistic events probably use something like the proposed phonetic parameters. There is no necessity for most phonological features to be part of mental representations.

Supposed evidence for acoustic assimilations attributable to the feature [grave], presented in Hyman 1973 and Vago 1976, is shown to be evidence merely of deficient modeling of articulation in the SPE articulatory-feature system—rather than, as Hyman and Vago assume, proof for the acoustic basis of the processes they cite. Straightforward articulatory explanations are available for all the evidence adduced, but they are not expressible in the SPE framework. The necessary refinements of such a system of articulatory description are shown to require more than adjustments of the feature inventory.

Although linguistic signs in isolation are symbolic, the system or grammar which relates them may be diagrammatically iconic in two ways: (a) by isomorphism, a bi-unique correspondence tends to be established between signans and signatum; (b) by motivation, the structure of language directly reflects some aspect of the structure of reality. Isomorphism is so nearly universal that deviations from it require explanation. Motivation, although widespread, establishes a typology of languages, as indicated in Saussure's Cours. The evidence of artificial taboo languages suggests that degree of motivation co-varies inversely with the number of ‘prima onomata’ in the lexicon.

The customary disjunctive marking of lexical entries for English nouns as [± countable] does not match the fact that the majority can be used both countably and uncountably in different NP environments: this binary opposition is characteristic not of the nouns, but of the NP's which they head. Nevertheless, nouns do have countability preferences; some enter countable environments more readily than others. And not all nouns occur in all kinds of countability environments. A noun's countability preference can be computed by checking its potential for occurrence in a definitive set of countability environments. In the dialect examined here, well-formedness conditions on NP must consider eight levels of countability among English nouns—not, as custom has it, only two.

The syntactic behavior of sequences like easy to please and hard to read contrasts sharply with that of sequences like easy for us to please and hard to try to please. Only the former may occur prenominally, and only they participate in certain lexical transformations. Moreover, only those strings which consist of an easy-type adjective followed by a single infinitive may freely undergo movement. This behavior is explained if such sequences are analysed as being structurally ambiguous, having lexical as well as syntactic derivations.

This paper discusses the usage of some constructions which display non-canonical word order, despite having grammatical counterparts with canonical order—S V (O) (ADV)—whose truth conditions are identical: (1a) Outside stood a little angel vs. (1b) A little angel stood outside. It is claimed here that non-canonical constructions like 1a allow language users to exploit alternative word orders for multiple purposes, ranging from the facilitation of encoding to the creation of many specific rhetorical effects. A large number of syntactic constructions may be transformed into inverted structures of two target types, and these may be exploited to serve a variety of pragmatic functions.

A distinctive feature of Finnish morphology is the possessive suffixes, which are found not only on possessed nouns, but also on adjectives, postpositions, and untensed verbs. Traditional grammars have taken the view that these suffixes arise through a rule of agreement with a genitive specifier, which may be subject to subsequent deletion rules. This paper shows that they are not agreement markers, but rather clitic allomorphs of the reflexive pronoun. X-bar theory is used to formulate rules governing their distribution.

Some Polynesian languages have accusative case systems, while others have ergative systems. Chung 1978 has argued that the Proto-Polynesian case system was accusative, and that the case systems of the ergative languages are the result of a PASSIVE-TO-ERGATIVE re-analysis, which re-interpreted passive structures as superficially active and transitive. We argue here that the passive-to-ergative re-analysis accounts historically for the unexpected properties of two syntactic rules found in ergative Polynesian languages: (a) the Raising rule of Niuean, and (b) the Relativization rule of Tongan and many Samoic-Outlier languages. Such an account is desirable since these rules are typologically rather unusual. Niuean Raising counter-exemplifies Postal's (1974) suggestion that Raising is universally restricted to complement subjects, while Relativization in Tongan and many Samoic-Outlier languages violates Keenan & Comrie's (1977) Accessibility Hierarchy. We conclude by arguing that certain differences in the histories of Raising and Relativization in Polynesian follow from the different characterizations of the two rules in universal grammar.