This article reexamines a controversial construction in Acehnese (Lawler 1977 versus Durie 1988). I demonstrate that the construction is a passive, even though a verbal prefix bears the features of the agent rather than the surface subject. I analyze the prefix as a morphological realization of the functional head that introduces the external argument; the features borne by this head are not agreement, but rather interpretable features that restrict the external argument position. Important consequences are that Acehnese does not counterexemplify the universality of grammatical relations (contra Durie 1988 and subsequent), and that Acehnese provides clear morphological evidence for the presence in passives of the functional head that introduces the external argument.

On the naive account of scalar modifiers like more than and at least, At least three girls snored is synonymous with More than two girls snored, and both sentences mean that the number of snoring girls exceeded two (the same, mutatis mutandis, for sentences with at most and less/fewer than). We show that this is false and propose an alternative theory, according to which superlative modifiers (at least/most) are quite different from comparative ones (more/less/fewer than). Whereas the naive theory is basically right about comparative modifiers, it is wrong about superlative modifiers, which we claim have a MODAL meaning: an utterance of At least three girls snored conveys two things: first, that it is CERTAIN that there was a group of three snoring girls, and second, that more than four girls MAY have snored. We argue that this analysis explains various facts that are problematic for the naive view, which have to do with specificity, distributional differences between superlative and comparative modifiers, differential patterns of inference licensed by these expressions, and the way they interact with various operators, like modals and negation.

This article offers a detailed analysis of a Kachchhi-Gujarati manuscript chart of the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden dating probably from the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries and held at the Royal Geographical Society–Institute of British Geographers in London (mr Asia S.4.). The origins and possible dating of the manuscript are examined. Astronomical data inscribed on the chart, establishing latitude and providing sailing directions, are identified, interpreted, and projected. Its Devanagari toponyms are transcribed and identified with real-world locations. Coastal profiles and unnamed features representing significant navigational landmarks are individuated. Islamic buildings depicted on the chart are identified as specific regional mosque-shrines. The presence of Ottoman and other regional polities are inferred. The place of the chart within an early modern tradition of western-Indian navigational manuscripts and a wider Indian Ocean tradition is explored. Our analysis establishes the chart as a detailed and highly practical navigational work—countering earlier scholarly denigrations of its accuracy. In contrast, we show it to be one of the most detailed surviving indigenous navigational charts produced in an Indian Ocean tradition.

Research in prosodic phonology, as well as experiments on adult speech production, suggest that segmental and suprasegmental processes in language are not governed directly by syntactic structure. Rather these processes reflect an independent prosodic structure, which includes prosodic categories such as metrical foot, prosodic word, and phonological phrase. Five experiments examined English-speaking two-year-olds' omissions of object articles in different prosodic structures. The data indicate that children omit unfooted syllables and that foot boundaries, in turn, are influenced by prosodic word and phonological phrase boundaries. Thus, it appears that children create prosodic structures remarkably similar to those proposed in theories of prosodic phonology.

This article is a reply to Kuno et al. 1999, which claims that a structural approach to scope should be replaced by an expert system. But the alleged theoretical and empirical problems faced by the structural accounts for scope are based on assumptions or interpretations that are not adopted in the structural accounts. Further, there are problems with the characterization and execution of the expert system, causing difficulty in the understanding and application of the system intra- and interlinguistically; the expert system is not empirically adequate and does not accommodate idiolectal variations. Finally, the expert system misses important correlations between scope and other properties in the grammar, such as binding, that follow straightforwardly from a structural approach. A structural approach to scope should not be abandoned in favor of an expert system.