This article deals in outline with two interrelated aspects of the history of English phonology: aspects that are argued here to involve the loss of contrastive linearization for /h/ and of consonantal status for /w/ and /j/. It is suggested that these histories are clarified if proper attention is paid to contrastivity: it is necessary to identify those aspects of phonological representation which are contrastive, both segmentally and sequentially. Contrastive status can change. In this case, it is proposed here that the position of /h/ in a word has come to be noncontrastive, and that [w] and [j] are no longer contrastively consonantal, but sequential variants of their full-vowel congeners. The characterization of these restructurings involves the recognition of changing patterns of contrastivity. And, crucially, contrastivity involves not just paradigmatic distinctions between segments but also syntagmatic relations between them.

This article integrates aspects of synchronic and diachronic phonological theory with points relevant to the study of a nonreference accent in order to investigate the patterns of consonantal lenition found in the variety of English spoken in Liverpool, England. Points of contact with variationist approaches are addressed, partly because the lenitions are variable processes. An implicational understanding of lenition is developed, thanks to which it is possible to describe the prosodic and melodic environments which inhibit the lenitions. New data from a small corpus investigation into Liverpool English are presented and a theoretical and practical methodology is proposed, which enables the data to be investigated. The descriptive focus is on the segments /t/ and /k/, which are typically realized as affricates or fricatives unless the lenition is inhibited. A notion of ‘melodic lenition inhibition’ is developed to account for some of the inhibitory patterns, whereby the sharing of autosegmental phonological elements gives a segment ‘strength’ in certain environments.

It is generally agreed that the English ‘present tense’ is not appropriately analyzed as indicating present time: present-time events often cannot be expressed in the present tense; conversely, the present tense is often used for nonpresent occurrences. I will argue, however, that these problems are only apparent, arising from a failure to appreciate the numerous conceptual factors that are crucially involved. When these are properly elucidated, using notions available in cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar, the characterization ‘coincidence with the time of speaking’ proves remarkably adequate in accounting for present-tense usage.

A commonly held view of English definite articles is that they signal that the referent of an NP is familiar to the addressee. However, it is well known that not all definite article phrases meet this familiarity requirement. To account for such nonfamiliar uses, Heim (1982) invokes the mechanism of ‘accommodation’, which enables an addressee to remedy a violation of the familiarity requirement by adding assumptions to the ‘common ground’. In this article we argue that the Givenness Hierarchy framework provides an insightful account of all uses of definite article phrases without requiring an appeal to accommodation. Such an account provides a unified treatment of definite article phrases, including demonstrative phrases and personal pronouns, while at the same time distinguishing among them in a principled way. This proposal is supported by results of a corpus-based examination of the use of definite articles and by an examination of cleft presuppositions.

In this article, I examine the ‘modal’ or ‘empathetic’ (Lyons, 1977: 677) use of the distal (or ‘nonproximal’) determiner/pronoun that: namely, where the intended referent may have just been evoked in the immediately prior discourse, but where the distal pronoun that, not the ‘in-focus’ it or the ‘activated’, proximal this is used. The rationale behind the choice of this particular type of indexical seems to be that the speaker is distancing him/herself from the referent, not wishing to ascribe actuality to it in the way that would be the case if either it or this were used instead. Examination of this particular value of that leads to the hypothesis that the principles underlying the choice of that as opposed to this or it generally are not derived ‘objectively’, as it were, from their situational use in terms of degrees of proximity of a referent or demonstratum to the speaker or hearer, nor primarily in terms of attention focus. They are, rather, social and cognitive, and play an important interactional role in the construction of discourse.