This paper addresses three key observations relating to crosslinguistic patterns of metathesis. First, the order of sounds resulting from metathesis can differ from language to language such that a similar combination of sounds can be realized in one order in one language, but in the reverse order in another language. Second, for some sound combinations, only one order is commonly attested as the result of metathesis, while for other combinations, either order can be observed. Third, the acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the sequence resulting from metathesis are often better than those of the expected, yet nonoccurring, order. These patterns receive a straightforward explanation when we consider the phonetic nature of the sounds involved as well as the speaker/hearer's knowledge of native sound patterns and their frequency of occurrence. Neither factor alone is sufficient to provide a predictive account of metathesis. This study shows, however, that by taking into account both factors, we are able to understand why certain sound combinations tend to undergo metathesis, why others are common results of metathesis, why patterns of metathesis differ across languages, and, importantly, why metathesis occurs in the first place.

The placement of the particle before or after an object in the English verb-particle construction is influenced by a variety of factors. We argue that many of them can be subsumed under a single simple principle, motivated by considerations of processing efficiency: to the extent that the domains of syntactic and semantic dependencies can be minimized, processing is facilitated. We use a more precise formulation of this idea to make several predictions about the distribution of particles based on the size of the object NP and the semantic dependencies among the verb, the particle, and the object. Corpus studies confirm the predictions, providing evidence for the principle of domain minimization.

Stager and Werker (1997) show that fourteen-month-olds engaged in a word-learning task fail to respond to a switch between the minimal pair [bI] and [dI], though they do respond to a switch between [IIf] and [nim] in the same task. In this article we show that the [bI]/[dI] results extend to stimuli that respect English phonotactics ([bIn] vs. [dIn]), to a voicing contrast ([pIn] vs. [bIn]), and to voicing and place combined ([pIn] vs. [dIn]). Our interpretation of these results is that when a phonological contrast like place or voicing is first acquired, it remains only partially integrated and can be lost under the processing demands of word learning. We formalize partial integration in terms of unranked optimality-theoretic constraints and discuss the predictions of this account for further research.

This article reports on results from a broad crosslinguistic study based on data from thirty-five signed languages around the world. The study is the first of its kind, and the typological generalizations presented here cover the domain of interrogative structures as they appear across a wide range of geographically and genetically distinct signed languages. Manual and nonmanual ways of marking basic types of questions in signed languages are investigated. As a result, it becomes clear that the range of crosslinguistic variation is extensive for some subparameters, such as the structure of question-word paradigms, while other parameters, such as the use of nonmanual expressions in questions, show more similarities across signed languages. Finally, it is instructive to compare the findings from signed language typology to relevant data from spoken languages at a more abstract, crossmodality level.

Previous accounts of DEFERRED REFERENCE (e.g. Nunberg 1995) have argued that all (nonostensive) deferred reference is the result of MEANING TRANSFER, a shift in the sense of a nominal or predicate expression. An analysis of deferred equatives (I'm the pad thai) suggests an alternative account based on the notion of PRAGMATIC MAPPING: a contextually licensed mapping operation between (sets of) discourse entities, neither of which undergoes a transfer of meaning. Moreover, the use of a deferred equative requires the presence of a contextually licensed OPEN PROPOSITION whose instantiation encodes the particular mapping between entities, both of which remain accessible to varying degrees within the discourse model. Finally, it is shown how a complete account of deferred reference must provide for transfers of reference as well as sense.

This article investigates coordination of verbal adjuncts and complements in English, considering coordinations of adjunct with adjunct, complement with complement, and adjunct with complement, for both non-wH and WH elements, using the conjunctions or, and, and but. Previous analyses have never to my knowledge covered all of these cases. It is shown that syntactic or (compositional) semantic constraints on coordination fail to cover all the facts, as do ambiguity-based explanations. Better (though still incomplete) coverage is provided by an analysis based on event semantics and neo-Gricean conversational implicature.

This article focuses on the relatively neglected grammar of names, including their morphosyntax, which has not aroused the kind of interest and controversy associated with the (putative) semantics of names. It also focuses on a few Indo-European languages (French, Greek, and particularly English), but refers to a wider range of language types. While not an exhaustive account of the variations in name syntax and morphology, significant variation is nevertheless encountered and analyzed. The suggested universal aspects have some plausibility. I propose that names belong universally, with pronouns and determiners, to a category of determinative. The behavior of names as vocatives and in predications of nomination suggests that they are, unlike pronouns and determiners, inherently neither definite nor indefinite. Moreover, in such circumstances names do not function as regular arguments of the predicator; they do not bear a specified semantic relation to the predicator: they are either EXTRASENTENTIAL or appositive. In order to figure as arguments in other types of predication, and be assigned a specified semantic relation, names must acquire definiteness. Languages differ in whether definiteness is signaled overtly or not: in English, for instance, definite names are not distinguished in form from nondefinite, whereas in Greek definite use of a name is marked by an accompanying article. Other languages vary.

I observe that in an early stage of child Catalan and Spanish, no overt subjects are used. At this same age and MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCE (MLU), child speakers of overt subject languages such as French, German, Dutch, and English use at least some overt subjects optionally. I explain this crosslinguistic variation by suggesting that the adult target grammars vary with respect to the position in which overt subjects are realized. In the overt subject languages, subjects are realized in the canonical specifier-of-IP position, whereas in the null subject languages (such as Catalan and Spanish), subjects are located in a topic/focus position, which becomes accessible only later in development. As evidence for this, I show that overt subjects, fronted objects, and WH-questions begin to be used at the same point in development in child Catalan and Spanish. I also argue that subject agreement constitutes an incorporated pronominal subject in Catalan and Spanish and that children converge on this parametric option very early. The inability of child Spanish- and Catalan-speakers to use discourse-pragmatic information is explained as a delay in the development of the interface between grammar and discourse-pragmatics.

The psychological reality of English phonaesthemes is demonstrated through a priming experiment with native speakers of American English. Phonaesthemes are well-represented sound-meaning pairings, such as English gl-, which occurs in numerous words with meanings relating to light and vision. In the experiment, phonaesthemes, despite being noncompositional in nature, displayed priming effects much like those that have been reported for compositional morphemes. These effects could not be explained as the result of semantic or phonological priming, either alone or in combination. The results support a view of the lexicon in which shared form and meaning across words is a key factor in their relatedness, and in which morphological composition is not required for internal word structure to play a role in language processing.

This article presents a typology of consonant harmony or LONG DISTANCE CONSONANT AGREEMENT that is analyzed as arising through correspondence relations between consonants rather than feature spreading. The model covers a range of agreement patterns (nasal, laryngeal, liquid, coronal, dorsal) and offers several advantages. Similarity of agreeing consonants is central to the typology and is incorporated directly into the constraints driving correspondence. Agreement by correspondence without feature spreading captures the neutrality of intervening segments, which neither block nor undergo. Case studies of laryngeal agreement and nasal agreement are presented, demonstrating the model's capacity to capture varying degrees of similarity crosslinguistically.

In Lezgian, a Nakh-Daghestanian language, final and preconsonantal ejectives and voiceless unaspirated obstruents are voiced in certain monosyllabic nouns. This article offers acoustic evidence confirming that the two coda-voicing series are indeed voiced in final position. Based on comparative evidence, it is demonstrated that this phonetically aberrant neutralization pattern is the result of a series of phonetically natural sound changes. Such ‘crazy rules’ (Bach & Harms 1972) undermine any direct phonetic licensing approach to phonology, such as LICENSING BY CUE (Steriade 1997).

English resultative expressions have been a major focus of research on the syntax-semantics interface. We argue in this article that a family of related constructions is required to account for their distribution. We demonstrate that a number of generalizations follow from the semantics of the constructions we posit: the syntactic argument structure of the sentence is predicted by general principles of argument linking; and the aspectual structure of the sentence is determined by the aspectual structure of the constructional subevent, which is in turn predictable from general principles correlating event structure with change, extension, motion, and paths. Finally, the semantics and syntax of resultatives explain the possibilities for temporal relations between the two sub-events. While these generalizations clearly exist, there is also a great deal of idiosyncrasy involved in resultatives. Many idiosyncratic instances and small subclasses of the construction must be learned and stored individually. This account serves to justify aspects of what we share in our overall vision of grammar, what we might call the CONSTRUCTIONAL view. To the extent that our treatment of the resultative can be stated only within the constructional view, it serves as evidence for this view as a whole.