Starting from the well-known difference between I ‵thought he was married (which he is) – where the complement is given a factual interpretation – and I thought he was ‵married (but he isn’t) – which is counterfactual – this article examines the syntactic, semantic, contextual and prosodic conditions under which factual and counterfactual interpretations can emerge. Factuality is distinguished from factivity, and concerns a person’s (usually the speaker’s) subjective assessment of whether the propositional content of a sentence or sentence fragment conforms or conflicts with his perception of reality. The modal nature of factuality is stressed, as is the contribution of tense and intonation to the emergence of factuality interpretations.

The feature [lateral] has a very limited morphophonemic or classificatory role which makes its presence in the universal phonetic feature inventory questionable. A mode of elimination is suggested which involves (i) treating all laterals as [+ distributed]; (ii) limiting [distributed] as a distinctive feature to continuants; (iii) redefining [anterior] in terms of [labial], [apical] and [dental]; (iv) analysing approximant rhotics as glides (Kahn, 1976); (v) adopting Halle and Stevens' re-analysis of [coronal]. This also provides a natural characterization of retroflex sounds and of sibilants. A conceptual problem in child phonology is discussed in the light of the above proposals.

Defining the constraints on the use of the modals will and would in futurate if-clauses in English poses problems to both descriptive and theoretical linguists. One ‘rule’ often referred to is that while future will and counter- factual would do not normally occur in conditional sub-clauses with if, volitional and dispositional will and would can be used in that context.

This paper attempts to account for this general rule and for the so-called exceptions to it in terms of two different syntactic positions of if-clauses in the sentence. It is suggested that the contrast can be formalized within current versions of -theory.

The history of generative accounts of vowel harmony in Classical Manchu is discouraging. The early treatments (Vago, 1973; Odden, 1978; Finer, 1979) assumed the wrong type of vowel harmony (front vs. back rather than relative height harmony). Hayata (1980) proposed the correct type, but was unable to justify it adequately within the generative framework. These shortcomings are due to deficiencies in the practice of generative phonologists. To demonstrate the correct type of vowel harmony in Classical Manchu requires considerations of (1) the actual surface representation and/or (2) facts in related dialects and languages. Neither type of evidence is frequently used in the practice of generative phonologists, although the former is almost always valued in theory. An implication is that attempts to improve phonology must weigh practice as well as theory.

Diachronic change emerges from the construction of grammars by successive generations of learners by exposure to primary data. Learners receive little information concerning what is ungrammatical in their language. To propose learnable systems, linguists should use positive data and not depend on negative information (the learnability criterion). Learnability is relevant to historical linguistics under the view that links diachronic change to grammar construction by the learner. This perspective is used to establish the system of two types of free relatives in thirteenth-century Spanish (quanto que vs. quanto-constructions), and the changes that led to the disappearance of the first type in later centuries.

It is well known that a cleft whose focal item functions as predicate nominal in the WH/that-clause is often unacceptable, or at least questionable:

(I) (a) *It's a genius that he is. (Leech & Svartvik, 1975: 181)

(b) *It's a conductor that John is. (Stockwell et al. 1977:107)

(c) *It's the football coach that John is. (Emonds, 1976:140) In this article I will investigate different types of clefts highlighting predicate nominals. I will point out five different restrictions that may lead to partial or complete unacceptability and develop a theory that can account for them.