Levinson (1985, 1987a & b, 1991) and Ariel (1985a & b, 1987, 1988a & b, 1990a, 1991) have each proposed to anchor discourse and sentential anaphora within a more general theory of communication. Levinson chose a general, extra-linguistic pragmatic theory. He uses Grice's Quantity maxim to account for the distribution of zeros, reflexives, pronouns and lexical NPs, claiming that coreferent readings are preferred, unless a disjoint reading is implicated (by the revised Gricean maxims he offers). I have proposed a specifically linguistic, cognitive theory, whereby speakers guide addressees' retrievals of mental representations corresponding to all definite NPs (coreferent as well as disjoint) by signalling to them the degree of Accessibility associated with the intended mental entity in their memory. An examination of actual data reveals that Levinson's predictions regarding definite NP interpretations are often not borne out. In addition, his proposals cannot account for many anaphoric patterns actually found in natural discourse. Accessibility theory, it is argued, can account for both types of problematic data.

This paper presents a monoclausal, multipredicate analysis of Japanese causatives, adopting the fundamental assumptions of Relational Grammar. Evidence is provided for the existence of two distinct classes of causatives, distinguished on the basis of the agentivity of the matrix subject. It is also demonstrated that the surface case marking of the causee is constrained by its relative status to the matrix subject with respect to a set of Proto-Agent entailments (as proposed in Dowty 1991).

This article considers a range of evidence relevant to the determination of the configurational/non-configurational character of clause structure in Modern Greek (an issue that has led to some recent controversy, see Catsimali (1991) versus Tsimpli (1990, 1992)), and also re-examines the status of preverbal subjects in that language; some linguists (e.g. Tsimpli 1992; Philippaki-Warburton 1985, 1987, 1990) have argued that these are invariably topicalized, while others (e.g. Horrocks 1983, 1984) have maintained that they may, just like postverbal subjects, function simply as subjects. The overall conclusion supports that of Woolford (1991), who has queried the current fashion for universally configurational analyses, but at the same time new evidence is offered in favour of the view that preverbal subjects in Greek may indeed simply be subjects, lacking formal topic status.

This study examines grammatical and discourse-pragmatic reflexes of the existential and resultative readings of the English present perfect. I present both negative and positive arguments in favor of the claim that the present perfect is ambiguous (rather than vague) with respect to these readings. In particular, I argue that the resultative present-perfect represents a formal idiom: a morphosyntactic form characterized by idiosyncratic constraints upon grammar, meaning and use. Certain constraints upon the resultative present-perfect, in particular that which prevents it from denoting a pragmatically presupposed event proposition, can be MOTIVATED with respect to a discourse-pragmatic opposition involving the preterite. However, such constraints cannot be PREDICTED from functional oppositions or any general semantic principles. Finally, I suggest that mastery of aspectual grammar crucially entails knowledge of such idiomatic form-meaning pairings.

This paper grounds a novel typology yielding three major types of English (L(eft)-extraction, defined by their relation to resumptive pronouns (RPs): (1) B-extractions, which require RPs in their extraction sites, (2) A1-extractions, which allow RPs in their extraction sites, and (3) A2-extractions, which forbid RPs in their extraction sites. Type B is represented by topicalization; type A1 by most instances of question extraction. The A/B distinction is supported by correlations with restrictions on definite pronouns. A2-extractions, e.g. free relative extraction, are insensitive to such and unlike A1/B-extractions are incompatible with what I call selective islands, which is explained.

This paper aims to demonstrate that there is no adequate treatment of adjectives in NP in English, and attempts to remedy this. The central problem is to account for the syntactic and semantic differences between prenominal and postnominal adjectival constructions as in (i)–(iv):

(i) the navigable river

(ii) the rivers navigable

(iii) *the navigable by boat rivers

(iv) the rivers navigable by boat

Existing treatments are reviewed, and a novel analysis proposed whereby the structures in (ii) and (iv) are normal syntactic N-AP structures, but prenominally, adjectives form what we call ‘small’ syntactic constructions (X° constructions, with X° daughters) which have some properties in common with lexical/morphological constructions. If the analysis is right, it poses a serious challenge to the view that there is a strict separation of lexical and syntactic aspects of grammar: grammatical theory should recognize a kind of construction which is neither fully syntactic nor fully lexical, but has properties of both.

A serious and widely recognized problem of the standard Binding Theory is that it has no non-circular definition of the crucial notions ‘anaphor’, ‘pronoun’ and ‘R-expression’. Burzio (1991) proposes a significant new characterization of these notions, based on their absolute and relative morphological content. Specifically, he proposes that different NP types can be distinguished by their Θ-feature content: anaphors lack Θ-features altogether, pronouns have Θ-features and no other features, and R-expressions have Θ-features plus referential information, as in (1). The Binding Theory can then be regarded as a single principle, stated in (2).

It has become commonplace in the anti-generative literature to portray Chomsky as denying that any systematic relationship exists between linguistic form on the one hand and meaning and function on the other and, in particular, that the latter might exert any direct influence on the former. The purpose of this note is to challenge such portrayals by making reference to some of Chomsky's relevant published statements over the past three and one half decades.