This paper critically reviews S. J. Keyser and Paul Kiparsky's “Syllable Structure in Finnish Phonology” (1984). We also treat Finnish morphophonemics using a CV-tier analysis, but account for forms that their method fails on. We posit six stem types in the verbal lexicon and derive the forms of all inflections of all types with just twelve morphophonemic rules. After the stems are modified and suffixes (and person/number endings) are attached, a single, general, phonological rule of Consonant Gradation applies postlexically. To develop a general theory from our analysis, we consider restrictions on rules which may alter stems: lexical rules apply to stems before affixation and only to the final segments of stems; only post-lexical phonological rules apply to affixes. We eliminate all morphological conditions on individual rules and extrinsic ordering conditions.

This paper deals with the syntax of the so-called ‘complex passive’ and, more generally, with investigating the range, effects, and interaction of certain reanalysis processes that have been claimed to be operative in this and other syntactic constructions.

This paper reports work in progress. It concerns the relationship in Germanic languages between the sentence initial constituent XP, and the rest of the sentence S, assuming a rule S → XP S. An informal proposal is presented, according to which that relationship is better characterized in terms of the notion of unification than that of predication. The author is currently working with Elisabet Engdahl on producing a precise grammar of some long distance dependency constructions which should be able to embody the ideas sketched here.

It is proposed that nominative and accusative Case are both assigned by structural positions at surface structure. From this it follows that Case-absorption is not and cannot be part of the definition of passive. It is shown that a definition of passive without Case-absorption captures the data of personal and impersonal passives in Norwegian with minimal machinery. It also accounts for Case-assignment in impersonal constructions with active verbs without any additional statements. The difference between English and Norwegian with respect to the “forced movement” in English passive is accounted for by appealing to a difference between the two languages in their permissibility of expletive subjects.