Borrowing, or diffusion, of grammatical categories in language contact is not a unitary process. In the linguistic area of the Vaupés in northwest Amazonia, several different mechanisms help create new contact-induced morphology. Languages which are in continuous contact belong to the genetically unrelated East-Tucanoan and Arawak families. There is a strong cultural inhibition against borrowing forms of any sort (grammatical or lexical). Language contact in the multilingual Vaupés linguistic area has resulted in the development of similar – though far from identical – grammatical structures. In Tariana, an Arawak language spoken in the area, reanalysis and reinterpretation of existing categories takes place when diffusion involves restructuring a pre-existing category for which there is a slot in the structure, such as case. A new grammatical category with no pre-existing slots may evolve via grammaticalization of a free morpheme – this is how aspect and aktionsart marking was developed. The development of a five-term tense-evidentiality paradigm involves a combination of strategies: reanalysis with reinterpretation accounts for the obligatory tense marking, and the history of visual, inferred and reported evidentials. The nonvisual evidential evolved via grammaticalization of a lexical verb while the most recent, assumed, evidential involves reanalysis and reinterpretation of an aspect marker and grammatical accommodation.

We demonstrate the logical necessity of assuming innate knowledge for language acquisition using toy grammars. The implications are applied to reconceptualizing the Subset Principle in terms of features, rather than, say, segments. Both syntactic and phonological issues are discussed, but the focus is on the acquisition of phonological inventories. We point out that our logical arguments converge with recent empirical results.

This paper contributes to an ongoing debate on the syntactic status of oblique subject-like NPs in the ‘impersonal’ construction (of the type me-thinks) in Old Germanic. The debate is caused by the lack of canonical subject case marking in such NPs. It has been argued that these NPs are syntactic objects, but we provide evidence for their subject status, as in Modern Icelandic and Faroese. Thus, we argue that the syntactic status of the oblique subject-like NPs has not changed at all from object status to subject status, contra standard claims in the literature. Our evidence stems from Old Icelandic, but the analysis has implications for the other old Germanic languages as well. However, a change from non-canonical to canonical subject case marking (‘Nominative Sickness’) has affected all the Germanic languages to a varying degree.

It is well known that Semitic languages restrict the co-occurrence of identical and homorganic consonants in the root. The IDENTITY HYPOTHESIS attributes this pattern to distinct constraints on identical and nonidentical homorganic consonants (e.g. McCarthy 1986, 1994). Conversely, the SIMILARITY HYPOTHESIS captures these restrictions in terms of a single monotonic ban on perceived similarity (Pierrehumbert 1993; Frisch, Broe & Pierrehumbert 1997). We compare these accounts by examining the acceptability of roots with identical and homorganic consonants at their end. If well-formedness is an inverse, monotonic function of similarity, then roots with identical (fully similar) consonants should be less acceptable than roots with homorganic (partially similar) consonants. Contrary to this prediction, Hebrew speakers prefer root final identity to homorganicity. Our results suggest that speakers encode long-distance identity among root radicals in a manner that is distinct from feature similarity.

This paper argues that the term ‘passive’ has been systematically misapplied to a class of impersonal constructions that suppress the realization of a syntactic subject. The reclassification of these constructions highlights a typological contrast between two types of verbal diathesis and clarifies the status of putative ‘passives of unaccusatives’ and ‘transitive passives’ in Balto-Finnic and Balto-Slavic. Impersonal verb forms differ from passives in two key respects: they are insensitive to the argument structure of a verb and can be formed from unergatives or unaccusatives, and they may retain direct objects. As with other subjectless forms of personal verbs, there is a strong tendency to interpret the suppressed subject of an impersonal as an indefinite human agent. Hence impersonalization is often felicitous only for verbs that select human subjects.

Jackendoff (1997), whose analysis of idioms is based, in part, on work by Nunberg, Sag & Wasow (1994), discusses VP idioms and addresses the question of mobility. Both works identify fixed idioms, such as kick the bucket, and mobile idioms, such as spill the beans and take advantage of. Fixed idioms are ones whose NP objects are impervious to syntactic operations, as illustrated by the unacceptability, in their idiomatic sense, of sentences like *The bucket was kicked by Bill; while mobile idioms occur in sentences like The beans were spilled by Fred and Advantage was taken of Bill. Jackendoff correlates the mobility of VP idioms with a property that he refers to as metaphorical semantic composition. However, he observes that this property is not a sufficient condition for mobility.

I will argue that the property of metaphorical semantic composition be replaced by a property of thematic composition, and that this property is a sufficient condition for mobility. A closer inspection of mobile idioms that have thematic composition reveals that they fall into two subtypes: expressions that have a property of ‘transparency of interpretation’, and ones that do not have this property. I refer to members of the first subtype as METAPHORS. I will demonstrate that there are no idiosyncratic constraints on their syntactic mobility, and will conclude that they need not be encoded in lexical entries as phrasal idioms. In these respects, they are distinct from members of the second subtype, whose degree of mobility is more limited, and which must be encoded in lexical entries as phrasal idioms. Finally, I will address the question of the necessity of thematic composition for mobility. Throughout the paper, I will assume that phrasal idioms are appropriately encoded in lexical entries of the types proposed by Jackendoff for fixed and mobile expressions.

The main purpose of this paper is to provide experimental evidence that two syntactic reflexes of split intransitivity in German – the selection of perfective auxiliaries and the impersonal passive construction – are sensitive to an aspectual/thematic hierarchy of verb classes. We show that there is a split between ‘core’ verbs that elicit categorical intuitions from native speakers, and ‘intermediate’ verbs that exhibit gradience. Furthermore, crossdialectal differences between northern and southern German with respect to auxiliary selection tend to occur only with intermediate verbs. We argue that these findings lend support to the view that the unaccusative/unergative distinction is considerably more unstable than often assumed, and suggest that projectionist theories of the lexicon-syntax interface such as those directly derived from the Unaccusative Hypothesis may not be able to account for the systematic variation exhibited by the data.

This article first outlines the theory of the predicative and enunciative operations (TOPE) developed by Antoine Culioli and his associates. It then shows how this theory enables one to analyse such linguistic units as the verbal prefix z- in Ikwere, spoken in Nigeria, and, more precisely, the way they operate in the language. We find that behind the various uses of z- is an invariant meaning element which consists of introducing a ranking between p and p′, i.e., two constituent values of a given unorganized notional domain, such that the domain is finally organized. It is further argued that the TAM (Tense-Aspect-Modality) category, which z- is related to, is constructed by the utterance in which z- occurs.

Inflectional affixes are sensitive to morphological properties of the stems of the verbs they attach to. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the inflectional material is combined with both the verbal stem of simplex verbs and the verbal stem of particle verbs. It has been argued that this leads to a bracketing paradox in the case of particle verbs since the semantic contribution of the inflectional information scopes over the complete particle verb. I will discuss nominalizations and adjective derivation, which are also problematic because of various bracketing paradoxes. I will suggest a solution to these paradoxes that assumes that inflectional and derivational prefixes and suffixes always attach to a form of a stem that already contains the information about a possible particle, but without containing a phonological realization of the particle. As is motivated by syntactic properties of particle verbs, the particle is treated as a dependent of the verb. The particle is combined with its head after inflection and derivation. With such an approach no special mechanisms for the analysis of particle verbs are necessary.

Addressing current generative concerns over the Left Periphery of clause structure, this paper proposes a categorial distinction, based on the choice of value for the feature [±FINITE], between two functional heads, C° and Top°, which project into CP and TopP, respectively. The choice is responsible for a principled distinction between structural (TopP) and rhetorical (CP) topicalization. Primary data are Det-clefts, Hv-clefts and so-called sikke-expressions in Danish. The latter are peripheral to the core of Danish grammar, but are nevertheless – or perhaps therefore – a mine of evidence for the distinction argued for. Criterial evidence is a conjunction of three diagnostics: lack of V2 word order, so-called ‘pleonastic’ complementizers and the syntactic behaviour of expletive der. It is argued that normal (left) movement principles cannot account for the sharing of information between the Specifier and the Complement of Top°. Instead, two possibilities for interpretation are tentatively explored, involving various kinds of Right Periphery phenomena. Since the Specifier and the Complement of Top° each provides the structural basis for independent, clause-like utterances, TopPs are seen as clear cases of BREAKSTRUCTURES.

This paper focuses on the role of modality in determining certain properties of grammaticalization processes in signed vs. spoken languages. The process examined here is the evolution of a case-marked pronoun in the pronominal system of Israeli Sign Language. This pronoun is shown to have evolved from the homophonous noun PERSON. The grammaticalization path leading to the evolution of a case distinction is compared to the evolution of case markers in spoken languages. This comparison reveals that languages in different modalities target different words as sources for grammaticalization. Case markers in spoken languages usually evolve from certain nouns or verbs denoting spatial relations, while in sign languages this is not the case. It is suggested that this difference might be attributed to the scarcity of prepositions in sign languages, and to the iconicity of spatial predicates, which may restrict the possible grammaticalization processes in which they may participate.

Pre-aspirated stops, known to be quite rare in the world's languages, are shown herein to be significantly rarer still. Their aspiration component is typically reinforced by an oral gesture that is influenced by the following stop and/or the preceding vowel. Alternatively, the aspiration component weakens to zero and is replaced by vowel length. In this typological study I document the phonetic details of so-called pre-aspirates and offer phonetic explanations for their rarity and their diachronic instability.

SETTING: The University of Arizona's idyllic desert campus. As in many colleges across the United States, ‘formalist’ linguistics is implicitly understood to be at cross-purposes with ‘functionalist’ linguistics. The Linguistics Department's only course on non-minimalist syntax is famously nicknamed ‘Bad Guys’. Although the linguistics department forms a unified front, malcontent quietly simmers across campus as functionalist sociolinguists, discourse analysts, grammaticalization specialists and linguistic anthropologists outnumber formalists, though they roam within their own language-department fiefdoms. Politeness and cooperation reign among senior faculty linguists, who have realized that antagonism only hurts students and programs in all the language sciences. The junior faculty are more brash: they work hard, publish a lot, and speak loudly to get tenure as respected form/functionalists. They socialize together and joke about each other's positions, but don't talk very much serious shoptalk. Until now …

One often reads today (see below) that certain properties of natural language (NL) or certain methods of describing NLs are (VIRTUALLY) CONCEPTUALLY NECESSARY. I take the negative view that such usages are an illegitimate, purely rhetorical way of seeking to justify assumptions which cannot be supported on genuine factual or theoretical grounds. Put differently, such claims are a way of suggesting that specific and actually highly controversial assumptions more or less follow from some very general and uncontroversial features of NL. The problem is that the suggestion is not, and, I claim, could not be, backed up with genuine evidence or argument showing that it is true.

My aim here is to clarify some misinterpretations in Aikhenvald's (2002) review of my book (Campbell 1997). It is an unusual review, written four years after the book appeared, and not so much a book review as a critique of one chapter, on South American languages; even here it concentrates only on languages of Amazonia.

This article reviews two important recent contributions to the theory of morphology, which take significantly different approaches to the subject. Both are centrally concerned with questions of morphotactics. Rice argues that morpheme order in Athapaskan is largely the consequence of universal principles of semantic scope (coded as syntactic structure). Stump argues for a conception of inflection based on the paradigm. There is virtually no overlap between the two books, yet each raises questions that are of great significance for the other. In this review I briefly evaluate each book and then sketch the possibility of a synthesis.

It is the mark of a true scholar to recognise when they have strayed beyond their own area of expertise, and to acknowledge errors.