This article examines the constraints on depictive predicates and their interpretation within the Aspectual Structure (AS) theory of the structural representation of aspect (Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport 1997). This model allows a simple expression of the relation between the depictive adjunct predicate and its host by means of a parallel-structures analysis. The depictive is contrasted with the resultative predicate and the similar but distinct modified result adjunct. AS structure type and aspectual focus account for the interpretations of the three types of secondary predicates. Their acceptability is shown to depend on interpretation rather than on grammaticality.

Vowels in stressed syllables in the West Germanic languages—e.g. Middle English, Middle Dutch and Middle High German—were lengthened under certain circumstances. There have been two different explanations for this change. The traditional assumption is that a process of open syllable lengthening (OSL) was introduced to standardize the quantity of stressed syllables (Prokosch 1939, among others). The second, quite different, approach assumes that the lengthening process (at least in Middle English) is not OSL but some sort of compensatory lengthening caused by the loss of a final schwa (Minkova 1982, 1985, Lass 1985, Hayes 1989, Kim 1993). We attempt to show that OSL was part of the grammar of all three languages, but that the motivation depended on the local contexts. We claim that all three languages endeavored to maintain and maximize the Germanic foot (Dresher & Lahiri 1991), and OSL contributed in different ways to do so.

We tested two hypotheses about how English-speaking children learn to avoid making argument structure errors such as Don't giggle me. The first is that children base their usage of verbs on membership in narrow-range semantic classes (Pinker 1989). The second is that children make use of indirect negative evidence in the form of alternative expressions that preempt tendencies to overgeneralize. Ninety-six children (32 each at 2.5, 4.5, and 6/7 years of age) were introduced to two nonce verbs, one as a transitive verb and one as an intransitive verb. One verb was from a semantic class that can be used both transitively and intransitively while the other was from a fixed transitivity class. Half of the children were given preempting alternatives with both verbs; for example, they heard a verb in a simple transitive construction (as in Ernie's meeking the car) and then they also heard it in a passive construction—which enabled them to answer the question 'What's happening with the car?' with It's getting meeked (rather than generalizing to the intransitive construction with It's meeking). We found empirical support for the constraining role of verb classes and of preemption, but only for children 4.5 years of age and older. Results are discussed in terms of a model of syntactic development in which children begin with lexically specific linguistic constructions and only gradually learn to differentiate verbs as lexical items from argument structure constructions as abstract linguistic entities.

This article presents a new set of experimental data from brain-damaged aphasic patients as well as from normals on the processing of two nominal suffixes in Japanese, i.e. -sa and -mi. Their difference with respect to productivity, as confirmed by the experiment on normal adults, provides evidence for the existence of a productive rule-like process in derivational morphology and supports the validity of the dual-mechanism model by integrating derivational morphology in its scope. The experiment on aphasic patients revealed a dissociation, which demonstrates that the two suffixation processes involve two different neurological mechanisms, and provides crucial evidence for the claim that the difference in the productivity of these two suffixes is of a qualitative nature and not a matter of degree.

In this article we consider the relationship between phonetic possibility and phonological permissibility of segment types. We ask (i) are any phonetically impossible segments phonologically permissible? and (ii) are any phonetically possible segments phonologically impermissible? Our main focus is on answering (ii). We analyze the implications of the only relevant case we can find, which is in Cohn's (1990, 1993a) examination of nasality spreading in Sundanese, and relates to the description of glottal nasals (produced with glottal place of articulation and lowered velum). Cohn tentatively proposes that nasalized [h] and [?] occur phonetically but not phonologically. We show that a persuasive theory of nasality spreading suggests otherwise, and it is supported by evidence from several languages. Our conclusion is that no sound argument exists for excluding any pronounceable segment from phonology on theoretical grounds. The relation between the phonetically possible and the phonologically possible accordingly becomes somewhat more straightforward.

Focusing on one textbook, F. Katamba's Morphology, this review article examines basic desiderata and pitfalls of textbook-writing for the neophyte in morphology and in linguistics in general. A number of fundamental issues are addressed: coverage, tenninology, readability, consistency, referencing, and accuracy. A few hazards in writing introductory textbooks are highlighted, such as the presentation of a number of alternative theories before a single theoretical approach has been finnly established, as well as the inclination to be comprehensive at the expense of cohesion and coherence, a practice which often leads to a proliferation of tenninology and detracts from major insights.