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.

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.

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.