Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pp. xviii + 1842. Hardback, ISBN 0 521 43146 8. £120.

This article reviews Huddleston & Pullum (2002) from the viewpoint of a co-author of Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985). (This author, however, makes no claim whatsoever to represent the views of the other authors of Quirk et al.) Particular attention is paid to some of the more controversial aspects of Huddleston & Pullum's analysis. It is argued that the two grammars, although similar in their comprehensively wide coverage of English, are not strictly comparable, in that Huddleston & Pullum's grammar is more theory-oriented and Quirk et al.'s grammar is more observation-oriented. These different orientations go with different strengths and weaknesses. In some areas Huddleston & Pullum's more up-to-date account has manifest advantages over that of Quirk et al., but there are also arguably areas where Huddleston & Pullum have not moved with the times.

In this article we investigate the role of semantic relations in grammatical alternations. The specific alternation we look at is that between the proper name modifier construction, e.g. the Obama government, and the determiner genitive, e.g. Obama's government. Through the use of an experimental study in which participants were asked to rate the naturalness of the two constructions in 20 attested natural language contexts and provide paraphrases of the semantic relations in question, we tested when the two constructions alternate and whether either construction expresses semantic relations that block alternation. Our initial finding is that none of the relations we studied is categorically associated with only one of the constructions, but that certain relations – notably possession and name – are far more preferentially associated with determiner genitives and proper name modifiers respectively. Despite these ‘default’ associations, participants nevertheless identified a range of possible interpretations for many of the examples, meaning that our study simultaneously supports the opposing theoretical views of default relations and semantic underspecification. Further, our study validates the inclusion of semantic relations in genitive alternation studies as a major factor despite the notorious difficulties in their operationalisation. Animacy distinctions, although more straightforward to codify, appear to be of lesser importance. Methodologically, our study shows the value of an experimental approach as a corrective to researcher intuitions about the identification of semantic relations in context.

The translation of Lindley Murray's English Grammar (1795) into many different languages is often taken as a starting point for the spread of English as a world language. This article places the developing European interest in English much earlier than that, and it does so by analysing a series of letters in the library of the University of Leiden written by Englishmen from the Late Modern English period to men of letters in the Netherlands. The letters show that English as a medium of communication was not as a rule an issue, even though Dutch letter writers were rarely exposed to English and often lacked the tools – or the teachers – to acquire the language, a situation which would change drastically during the nineteenth century. The article also analyses the earliest attempts at writing in English by Johannes Stinstra, the Dutch translator of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa.

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.

The aim of this article is to establish whether the structure of morphologically complex words in English is flat or hierarchical and, in case of the latter possibility, whether it is left- or right-branching, and whether the branching direction is consistent throughout the lexicon. Six criteria (three phonological, one morphological, one lexical, and one semantic) are introduced as arguments bearing on the internal structure of words. These criteria are applied to the complete set of prefix-stem-derivational suffix sequences in English. The overall evidence clearly weighs in favour of the hierarchical right-branching model. Right-branching is argued to be a concomitant of translating meaning into form. No branching-direction preference emerges on the semantic criterion. Right-branching is relatively weak on the lexical criterion, stronger on the morphological criterion, and strongest on the phonological criteria. Left-branching is observed to play a certain role in words with unproductive prefixes and is understood as a symptom of demorphologization. The branching direction is found to be largely, though not entirely, consistent. The six criteria generate a low percentage of conflicting outcomes, suggesting that branching paradoxes are a rather uncommon phenomenon. The reason for hierarchical right-branching structure in English is claimed to lie in the processing advantage that it incurs. This explanation applies not only to the morphological but also to the syntactic and phonological levels. Processing ease thus leads to crosslevel harmony in the English language.

Weinert & Miller (1996) suggest that English wh-clefts are a heterogeneous class in that they can have varied degrees of structural integration. Many such constructions depart structurally from the canonical wh-cleft which consists of a wh-clause, the copula and a focus constituent, and in which all the three elements are brought together into a fully integrated utterance. In the types of wh-clefts displaying looser structure, their lack of syntactic integration has so far been related to such linguistic features as (a) omission of the copula, (b) non-canonical copular complementation, e.g. independent main clauses instead of standard infinitival phrases appearing in the focus constituent, (c) lack of a clearly identifiable copular complement, (d) the focusing effect of the wh-clause extending over several clauses (Weinert & Miller 1996; Koops & Ross-Hagebaum 2008; Hopper & Thompson 2008; Callies 2012). Although the disintegrating effect of these features has been observed, the extent of the phenomenon in modern English has not been properly established and other non-integration features have not been investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use corpus data to identify and examine such non-integration features and to investigate the extent – expressed quantitatively – to which these features are found in wh-clefts with the verb do in the wh-clause. The article also points out the formulaic status of those wh-clauses which become disconnected from their focus phrases.

Our etymological understanding of PDE bread has been influenced, to a considerable extent, by Otto Jespersen's comment that ‘An Englishman cannot thrive or be ill or die without Scandinavian words; they are to the language what bread and eggs are to the daily fare.’ This article analyses the evidence behind the possibility that PDE bread might represent a Norse-derived semantic loan, i.e. that OE brēad acquired the meaning ‘bread’, which was more frequently expressed by OE hlāf, because of the influence of its Viking Age Norse cognate (cp. OIc brauð ‘bread’). On the basis of an in-depth study of the attestations of OE brēad and hlāf and their early Middle English reflexes, as well as the use of their cognates in various Germanic languages, the article challenges the traditional view that OE brēad originally meant ‘piece, morsel of bread’ and concludes that Norse influence is not needed in order to account for the semantic history of PDE bread.

The category of the noun phrase in English has received much attention in the literature. This article discusses the main defining features of the category from different theoretical angles. Issues such as its structural status, the determination and characterisation of its (morphosyntactic, semantic, cognitive) head, the structural slots which are available in the phrase, and the different possibilities as far as word order is concerned will be approached from structural, syntactic, functional and cognitive perspectives. In the second half of the article, after a review of recent literature on the English noun phrase, we offer a summary of the research included in this issue.

It is a generally accepted fact that the use of long-s, or <ſ>, was discontinued in English printing at the close of the eighteenth century and that by the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century this allograph had all but disappeared. This demise of <ſ> in printing has been fairly well documented, but there is virtually no literature on what happened to it in handwritten documents. The disappearance of <ſ> and <ſs> (as in ʃeems and buʃineʃs) in favour of <s> and <ss> is generally ascribed to the printers’ wishes to simplify their type-settings. But at what point and to what extent did this simplifying process influence private writing of the period? In this article we have documented the rules, as observed by printers, for the use of long-s in the Late Modern English period, and we illustrate how printing practice during this period compared to the usage of this particular grapheme in letters written by two well-known codifiers of the English language, the grammarians Joseph Priestley and Lindley Murray.

This article attempts to repair the neglect of the qualitative uses of some and to suggest an explanation which could cover the full range of usage with this determiner – both quantitative and qualitative – showing how a single underlying meaning, modulated by contextual and pragmatic factors, can give rise to the wide variety of messages expressed by some in actual usage. Both the treatment of some as an existential quantifier and the scalar model which views some as evoking a less-than-expected quantity on a pragmatic scale are shown to be incapable of handling the qualitative uses of this determiner. An original analysis of some and the interaction of its meaning with the defining features of the qualitative uses is proposed, extending the discussion as well to the role of focus and the adverbial modifier quite. The crucial semantic feature of some for the explanation of its capacity to express qualitative readings is argued to be non-identification of a referent assumed to be particular. Under the appropriate conditions, this notion can give rise to qualitative denigration (implying it is not even worth the bother to identify the referent) or qualitative appreciation (implying the referent to be so outstanding that it defies identification). The explanation put forward is also shown to cover some's use as an approximator, thereby enhancing its plausibility even further.

This article seeks to identify the phonetic correspondence(s) of the digraph <cg> in Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME), assessing a range of sources: the etyma in early Germanic (Gmc) languages, the various spellings in OE and the spelling evidence in the Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English. Almost all the textbooks on OE claim that <cg> was pronounced /dʒ/, i.e. as a phonemic affricate, in OE. Evidence is thin on the ground, and the argument rests on certain back spellings <cg> for words with etymological <d+g>, e.g. midgern <micgern>. Words with <cg> in OE go back to Gmc *g(g)j, which subsequently underwent palatalisation, and eventually assibilation and affrication. This article argues that the value [ɟj] is more likely for OE and early ME, and that such an interpretation agrees with the available spelling evidence for both OE and ME, in that there is not one <d>-type spelling in the entire historical corpus until late ME. It is also argued that the development of the voiced (pre-)affricate was later than that of its voiceless counterpart, as voiced fricative phonemes are a late, and infrequent, development in Gmc. Moreover, it is likely that the development of /dʒ/ was affected by the high number of French loans with /dʒ/ which entered the English lexicon after 1066. Thus, the English system of consonant phonemes may not have acquired /dʒ/ until the thirteenth century at the earliest.

In most theoretical and descriptive treatments of English proforms it seems to be accepted that proforms replace constituents in underlying structure (i.e. phrases or clauses). The aim of the present article is to challenge this assumption. It will be demonstrated that a great many fully acceptable uses of proforms turn out to be quite problematic for the view of proforms as corresponding either to constituents or to semantic and/or syntactic units in underlying representation; nor, it turns out, do proforms necessarily refer to or denote a single (identifiable, retrievable or inferrable) entity. After a brief summary of the relevant literature, the article presents a detailed examination of the actual function and use of English proforms, focusing on a number of frequently used proforms: (i) the indefinite pronoun one, (ii) the predicative proform do so, (iii) the demonstrative pronouns that and those and (iv) certain uses of the personal pronouns we/us and you. On the basis of attested examples, it is argued that these proforms do not necessarily express a unit at any level of underlying representation. Instead an alternative account of the use of proforms is suggested, using the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar, which, with its four different levels of analysis (representing pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological information), possesses the kind of flexibility needed to deal with English proforms in a consistent and unified manner. Finally, an attempt is made to explain some of the constraints on the flexible system proposed.

This article reports on the use of double modals, a non-standard syntactic feature, in the contemporary speech of the UK and Ireland. Most data on the geographic extent of the feature and its combinatorial types come from surveys or acceptability ratings or from older attestations focused on northern England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, with relatively few attestations in naturalistic data and from England and Wales. Manual verification of double modals in a large corpus of geolocated Automatic Speech Recognition transcripts from YouTube videos of local government channels from the UK and Ireland shows that the feature exhibits a larger inventory of combinatorial types than has previously been found and is attested in speech from throughout the UK and Ireland. The development may be related to ongoing changes in the semantic space occupied by modal auxiliaries in English.

In English, the position of the AP in the nominal phrase is determined by its form: only structurally simpler phrases are said to be licit in prenominal position, more complex ones have to follow the noun. Recent studies have reported an increasing use of nominal premodifiers in English, so the question arises whether this trend affects only simpler phrases or whether a new structural option emerges – complex APs in prenominal position. Drawing on data from COHA, this article investigates which types of AP occur prenominally. The data show that certain types of complex APs are gaining ground in the prenominal position. Most of these can be analyzed as complex words rather than complex phrases and hence do not indicate major syntactic changes in the English NP. However, some of the attestations, such as easy-predicates with a to-infinitival clause, are complex phrases. It is argued that it is the dependency relation between their rightmost element, a lexical verb, and the noun they modify which makes them occur in prenominal position.

This article reports on the use of the Eighteenth-Century English Phonology Database (ECEP) as a teaching resource in historical sociolinguistics and historical linguistics courses at the University of Sheffield. Pronouncing dictionaries are an invaluable resource for students learning about processes of standardisation and language attitudes during the Late Modern English period (1700–1900), however they are not easy to use in their original format. Each author uses their own notation system to indicate their recommended pronunciation, while the terminology used to describe the quality of the vowels and consonants differs from that used today, and provides an additional obstacle to the student wishing to interrogate such sources. ECEP thus provides a valuable intermediary between the students and the source material, as it includes IPA equivalents for the recommended pronunciations, as well as any metalinguistic commentary offered by the authors about a particular pronunciation. This article demonstrates a teaching approach that not only uses ECEP as a tool in its own right, but also explores how it can be usefully combined with other materials covering language change in the Late Modern English period to enable students to undertake their own investigations in research-led courses.

The pronunciation of the bath vowel is a salient feature of English varieties of the southwest of England, yet neither the status of the trap–bath split in traditional dialects nor ongoing change today is well understood. After reviewing the existing literature, we investigate the quality and length of low unrounded vowels in Bristol English on the basis of sociolinguistic interviews with twenty-five speakers. The picture suggested by these data is complex: there is evidence for a traditional length-only trap–bath split, for a length and backness split diffusing from the east and for a merger diffusing from the north. Some of these changes involve lexical diffusion, especially with loanwords and other distinctive lexical groups. Overall, the rich and contradictory data speak to the contested sociolinguistic status of these variables and to the need to examine individual patterns of variation closely to gain a full understanding of them.

This article discusses the peculiar use of the simple present/past in full-verb inversion (i.e. locative inversion, directional inversion, quotative inversion, presentational there), and the corresponding scarcity of progressive aspect in these contexts. While it is normally ungrammatical in English to use the simplex tenses to report events that are ongoing at reference time, inversion seems to defy this restriction. Building on a combination of insights from analyses of aspect and of full-verb inversion in English, this study presents a cognitive-functional explanation for this exceptional characteristic of inversion that has gone largely unnoticed in previous accounts. I argue that there exists a canonical relationship between the preposed ground and the postposed figure in full-verb inversion and that this meaning of canonicity ties in perfectly with the perfective value that I deem constitutive of the English simple tenses. In addition, some cases of directional inversion involve a ‘deictic effect’ (Drubig 1988): in these instances, the conceptualizer's vantage point is anchored within the ground and the denoted (dis)appearance of the figure is construed as inevitable. On the basis of a large sample of corpus data and native-speaker elicitations, I demonstrate that the use of the progressive is disallowed in inverted contexts that involve a deictic effect, while its use is dispreferred but not excluded in other cases of inversion. This study thus brings together insights from the domains of information structure and aspect in English, and merges these into a comprehensive cognitive account.

From Old English to Middle English inflection is gradually lost. It is assumed that this is mainly due to phonological and syntactic changes. This article, however, argues that the loss of inflection is not a linear process but new systems can emerge, and that morphological changes play an important role. The nominal inflection of the Lambeth Homilies – an Early Middle English manuscript from the southwest Midlands and dated around 1200 – is investigated in detail. It will be shown that analogical changes within and across inflection classes do not simply lead towards a reduction of inflection. The increase in syncretism and decrease in allomorphy result in a new inflectional system. This new system distinguishes singular from plural, feminine from non-feminine (in the singular and plural), and possessive from non-possessive (in the singular and plural). Additionally, the original inflection classes related to different stems are almost lost, except the weak inflection classes. The inflection classes are instead related to gender; that is, gender is the information that best predicts how a noun is inflected.