The ‘Total Transformation Alternation’ (Levin, 1993: 57) has been attested in Modern English only with the Turn Verbs, verbs such as CHANGE, CONVERT, TRANSFORM, and TURN. This paper presents data showing the alternation also to be attested for some of the Middle English Cooking Verbs, including SĒTHEN ‘to simmer’. Since the alternation is not found with all the ME Cooking Verbs, this appears to be evidence against the correlation of lexical semantics with syntax. However, the paper goes on to demonstrate that this alternation is also available to ‘Reduction Verbs’, including Modern English REDUCE. Before REDUCE was used in this sense, Middle English verbs such as SĒTHEN could denote reduction in volume. When they were so used, they could appear in any of the syntactic constructions of this alternation. The paper concludes by reiterating the importance of investigating semantic components, rather than concentrating exclusively on verb classes.

Although else is recognized as a cohesive device (e.g. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 76), it has received relatively little attention in the literature. To help remedy the situation, this article investigates how native speakers use else in both written and spoken discourse. We first review the literature for a description of the meaning(s) of else, then identify its most common meaning as reflected in its frequency of use in American English native-speaker discourse. More specifically, we undertake a quantitative analysis of the frequency and distribution of different types of else constructions, as well as a qualitative analysis of how else functions as a referential and cohesive marker. The unique referential role of else is then highlighted by contrasting it with its closest synonym, namely other. It is shown that these two referential and cohesive markers complement each other, with else playing a less specified semantic role than other.

Although the argument structure of preposition–verb (P–V) compounds in Old English (OE) is jointly determined by the head V and the nonhead P, the contribution of the nonhead is limited, often resulting in a seemingly peculiar case-government pattern for a given P–V compound. This paper shows that a new understanding of the case-assigning properties of the head in OE P–V compounds, which is built on the relative obliqueness among OE NP arguments, with accusative NPs less oblique than dative or genitive NPs and verbal arguments less oblique than prepositional arguments, enables us not only to explain the contribution of the nonhead without weakening the traditional priority of the head but also to improve upon the argument attraction process as an account of subcategorization inheritance, demonstrating how the mechanism of argument attraction can be constrained in a principled way.

The article discusses the distribution and meaning of ‘locally free reflexives’ (‘untriggered reflexives’, ‘viewpoint reflexives’, ‘perspective logophors’) in English. After a thorough assessment of the contextual constraints on the use of such locally free self-forms, three analyses are discussed and compared: (a) the view that such self-forms are bound by a minimal subject of consciousness within their discourse (Zribi-Hertz, 1989); (b) the view that the relevant forms exhibit essentially the same distribution as pronouns and that the choice between the two is motivated by discourse considerations (Reinhart & Reuland, 1993); and (c) the view that locally free self-forms are intensifiers without pronominal heads (Baker, 1995). It is shown that the third analysis is by far the most adequate one, and that both the distribution and the meaning of such expressions can be explained on the basis of this analysis if it is combined with a suitable semantic analysis of intensifiers.

This paper deals with the metrical behavior of a class of verbs in Old English whose descendants became the syntactically distinct auxiliaries of the modern period (have, be, may, will, shall, and associated forms). Contrasting two poems from the Old English period (Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon), I show that while the verbs in question show consistently stressed metrical placement in Beowulf, in Maldon they show a pronounced tendency to be placed in unstressed metrical positions, while verbs outside the eventual class of auxiliaries differ indiscriminately. In this way, the poetry suggests a phonological difference between pre-auxiliaries and other verbs perhaps centuries before corresponding morphological and syntactic differences fully emerged in the Middle and early Modern English periods.

In this article the authors examine six different analyses of the meaning of unless that have been argued in the literature, and present a new analysis in which a careful distinction is made between the semantic meaning and the pragmatic interpretations of unless. Contrary to the common belief that unless cannot be used in irrealis conditionals, it is shown that unless can actually be used in two different senses there, one in which it alternates with except if, but not if . . . not (e.g. He wouldn't have done it {unless I had / except if I had / *if I hadn't} asked him to, and I didn't) and one in which it alternates with if . . . not but not with except if (e.g. You did do well, but you wouldn't have succeeded {unless I had / if I hadn't / *except if I had} helped you). It is shown, finally, how the various interpretations of unless can be reconciled with a common semantic meaning and how the different constraints on the use of unless, except if and if . . . not can be accounted for.

This paper presents an account of sociolinguistic–syntactic variation in Indian English. It focuses on the differences between Standard Indian English (SIE) and Indian Vernacular English (IVE), restricting the discussion to the syntax of wh-questions, Focus constructions, null subjects and objects (pro drop), and null expletive subjects. The major claim of this paper is that the differences between the observed patterns of generalization in SIE and IVE are best accounted for in a conceptualization of grammar that is based on a general notion of priority of syntactic constraints on well-formedness. This optimality-theoretic (OT) conceptualization (Grimshaw, 1997; Prince & Smolensky, 1993) is able to capture the following generalizations: (a) IVE is just as systematic and logical as SIE; (b) the grammars of IVE and SIE are bound by the same set of grammatical constraints; and (c) the differences between the two varieties is a function of how each grammar prioritizes these constraints. This paper thus also presents a strong argument for using OT as a framework for research on language variation and use.

Actually and in fact have been generally regarded as interchangeable without leading to any significant differences in the meaning of the containing utterances: as a result, no serious attempt has been made to discover potential differences between the two. The present study focuses on the differences as well as the similarities between actually and in fact in their distribution and use in spoken and written American English. Based upon an analysis of tokens from the Switchboard Corpus and the Brown Corpus, I propose that `unexpectedness’ is the core meaning shared by actually and in fact, and that the difference between the two lies in the typical association of each with one or the other way of signalling ‘unexpectedness’. The study also shows that in real discourse contexts, actually and in fact develop a number of different uses that are more or less remote from this core meaning.

This paper tries to reveal the constraints on the use of the present perfect progressive (PPP) in combination with numerical object NPs. Existing accounts tend to take situation type classes as a basis for the description of the PPP. It is shown that such an approach does not yield adequate results. (Un)boundedness (Declerck, 1991; Depraetere, 1995) plays an equally important role as (a)telicity in determining whether the progressive can be used or not. (Un)boundedness, as opposed to (a)telicity, is concerned with actual terminal points (of situations referred to) rather than potential (inherent) endpoints. It will be shown in this paper that, in some cases, the conflict between the unboundedness inherent in the progressive form and the boundedness often brought about by numerical object NPs that are used in nonstative sentences results in unacceptability. Considerable attention is first paid to the constraints on the use of the past progressive with numerical object NPs. The second part of the paper focuses on the PPP: apart from (un)boundedness and (a)telicity, the type of perfect and our knowledge of the world also play their part in determining whether or not the PPP is acceptable in sentences with a numerical object NP.

Previous work in syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and psycholinguistics has shown adjectives to take an intermediate position between nouns and verbs. This claim is made more specific in this article through a phonological (and to a lesser extent, morphological) test of the ‘equidistance hypothesis’. On seven criteria, English adjectives are found to exhibit a much greater affinity with nouns than with verbs. This pattern of results is brought about by the syntagmatic context in which the three word classes typically occur. The rhythmic context in which adjectives are embedded is similar to that of nouns but dissimilar to that of verbs. This bias gives rise to suprasegmental differences which in turn lead to segmental differences. The proposed account rests upon the assumption, independently verified, that nouns and verbs differ in length, a disparity that might have a syntactic cause. A tentative case is made for a cross-level harmony constraint according to which the similarity between adjectives and nouns is not particular to the phonological level but characterizes the linguistic system more generally.

Review of Tony Bex & Richard J. Watts (eds), Standard English: the widening debate. London: Routledge. 1999. Pp. xi + 312. Hardback £50, ISBN 0 415 191629; paperback £15.99, ISBN 0 415 191637.

According to D'Souza (1999) the question of standard English ‘is one of the great, unresolved problems that we are carrying into the twenty-first century’ (p. 271). Why should this question be so important and why so unresolved? And what does the book under review here add to our possible understanding of this issue? There are a number of significant issues here. First, there is the question of definition: what is a standard language? From this follows the ontological question as to whether they actually exist or are merely convenient (or inconvenient) fictions. Are we talking about spoken or written language? And in the global context, there are questions such as whether a global standard of international English exists or is emerging? Or is international intelligibility always a negotiation of possibilities with no obvious standard? And how do the new standard Englishes of Singapore, India, or Hong Kong relate both to all the other forms of English within those countries and to the other regionalized standards as well as the possible international standard? From definitional questions we move on to more political and pedagogical ones: Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be opposed? Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be acquired? Does access to standard language give people greater social and economic mobility, or is this another myth associated with standard languages?

In the course of their history, English wh-relatives are known to have undergone a syntactic change in their prepositional usage: having originally occurred only with pied-piped prepositions, they came to admit preposition stranding as an alternative pattern. The present article presents an overview of this process, showing a modest beginning of stranding in Late Middle English, an increase in Early Modern English, and then a clear decrease in the written language of today, against a more liberal use in spoken English, standard as well as nonstandard. The drop in the incidence of stranding is thus not an expression of a genuine grammatical change but due to notions of correctness derived from the grammar of Latin and affecting written usage. The general trend of the development outlined is mirrored by relative that, with which the pied piping attested in Middle English completely disappeared from the language.