A general typology of number systems has to confront the problem of variation both in the number values in different languages and in the inventories of nominals involved. We start from the Smith-Stark Hierarchy and extend this approach to additional numbers (such as dual and paucal). Associative plurals appear to undermine this typology, if we treat them as a third number. Either the associative plural or the ordinary plural proves to be exceptional.

Taking a cognitive perspective, and concentrating on instances of exophora (or so-called ‘antecedentless’ anaphora), where by definition there is no co-occurring expression in terms of which a given anaphor might be interpreted (i.e. a potential ‘antecedent’), I aim to show, firstly, that so-called exophora falls within the category of anaphora proper and not deixis; secondly, that it is in terms of a conceptual representation of the situation being evoked, and not in terms of the physical situation itself, that the anaphor is interpreted; and finally, that exophora is in reality a more central manifestation of anaphora than the ‘endophoric’ type, where the ‘antecedent’ expression co-occurs with the anaphor.

I will base the discussion on naturally occurring data from French and English, and will consider the contributions of gender- and number-marking within pronominal anaphors, as well as of such features of the anaphoric segment as the argument and referent-order statuses assigned to an anaphor by the governing predicator and its modifiers, and the stress and pitch characteristics of the anaphor. All these features play an important role in the assignment of a full interpretation to so-called ‘endophoric’ anaphors just as much as ‘exophoric’ ones, thereby weakening the theoretical basis for the distinction between the two types.

It is commonly thought that (1) the description of English auxiliary inversions requires a feature with a default value, (2) that non-default values must be stipulated and learned as exceptions and (3) that when languages exhibit different values for a feature in different contexts, learning theory requires grammars to stipulate a default value. Distinguishing two perniciously confused uses of the term DEFAULT enables a demonstration that the first and third assumptions are incorrect. Conseqently, any argument that depends on them is invalid, and the absence in a theory of a mechanism for default-value declarations is not a deficiency. It is then shown that a comprehensive account of inverted structures has to encompass considerably more diversity of structural types than is generally recognized, but is entirely possible in a constraint-based grammar with monotonic multiple-inheritance and no overridable default specifications.

This paper is about the licensing conditions on empty categories in DP, dealing in particular with the distribution of the null noun pro in adjectival contexts. I will show that N-pro is submitted to requirements of formal licensing and identification, in which inflexional morphology plays a crucial role. Under this scenario, the contrast between English and other languages with respect to N-pro can be attributed to the absence versus presence of inflexional morphology within the nominal domain.

In the present article the problem of the position of the adjectives in the noun phrase in Modern Greek is addressed. Rather than starting from their alleged ‘asymmetrical’ distribution, according to which postnominal adjectives are only allowed in indefinite DPs, I concentrate on the possible interpretations that the adjective can have relative to the noun. The differences between prenominal and apparently postnominal adjectives in indefinite DPs suggest a predicative reading of the latter. This semantic account motivates a corresponding syntactic one, according to which the noun moving upwards to a head DEF, formally distinct from D, enters a predicative relationship with the AP generated uniquely prenominally. Such a movement is precluded in definite DPs, because the DEF position is occupied by the definite article. In this way, a number of differences observed between definite and indefinite NPs, as far as ‘postnominal’ adjectives are concerned, are seen as consequences of their predicative nature and the way this interacts with the definiteness/indefiniteness of what serves as their subject.

This paper addresses the relationship between phonology and morphology, using the vowel alternations of Standard German Umlaut and Ablaut as relevant examples. Umlaut is analysed as a completely unified process of vowel fronting which can be found in a wide variety of morphologically derived environments. A number of non-linear phonological analyses of Umlaut, involving a floating feature, are presented and compared. While Umlaut is interpreted, in current analyses, as a morphological rule, the present paper argues for its status as a lexical phonological rule.

Ablaut, on the other hand, is, synchronically, a totally unpredictable vowel change found mostly in the paradigms of so-called strong verbs. On the grounds of its internal and external behaviour, it is argued that this phenomenon must receive a completely different description by means of additional specifications for lexical entries.